On Apr 29, 1:36 am, " wrote:

The Kanester calls GM Larry Evans (a millionaire)
an apparatchik" who needs lifetime employment by


As usual, Mr. Parr changes the subject from one
he cannot handle to something else entirely; here,
the poor fellow slaves away at building a straw man
--Larry Evans' imagined "need for money" ( a need
which Mr. Kane never even mentioned).


[Larry Evans] angered chess politicians when he
attacked Bobby's match conditions


I expect he also angered a lot of fans-- not just
evil politicians.



So, then, one says to Mr. Savard that Evans'
long-time political enemies hated him and wanted to
destroy his career in chess precisely because he was
NO apparatchik. They wanted him to write as they
pleased, but he never would.


Well then, if this is true, why the need to slave
away at building straw men? (Perhaps Mr. Parr
enjoys it, and that is reason enough for him.)


No American writer has
been more critical of the USCF as attested by chapter 31
("How America Was Betrayed") in his new book
THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS.


It's not spam! It's called "free advertising".

Even though Mr. Kane often seems a lot smarter
than Larry Parr when it comes to thinking skills,
he sometimes falls flat on his face, as here. Just
about everybody knows that Mr. Evans has his
own agenda, and it's not the USCF's-- not even
close.


Mr. Savard also needs to know that in the debates
over Karpov, Evans was NOT spouting the USCF line.
Far from it. The USCF political class, quietly led by
Ed Edmonson at Caracas, helped Karpov get back the
rematch clause for title matches, a far bigger edge
than any advantage ever sought by Bobby Fischer.


Mr. Parr seems to have -- temporarily -- corrected
his usual mistake, that of carelessly tossing in the
term "mathematical" as an adjective for "advantage".

This goes back to an old article in Chess Lies-- an
article which purported to demonstrate how the
rematch clause somehow nullified a challenger's
winning the title, by pretending he didn't win it
unless he later held onto it. The whole idea was
wrongheaded, and it is a simple matter to come up
with a superior approach to criticizing the rematch
clause; simple that is, for those who can reason
and think.


Most lies have an element of truth and are not
diametrical inversions of what was or is the case.
Most liars have enough respect for their audience to
know that lies must contain elements of truth.


It's good to know that Mr. Parr is so um, well-
informed about his chief occupation. But consider
how much /work/ and /effort/ could be saved if a
different approach were to be tried. Liars, as you
must know, need to keep careful track of all their
fibs, and just whom they were told to. Compare
and contrast to the easy, laid-back life of an
honest person, who doesn't have to remember
anything at all! Sometimes, I feel kind of sorry for
the liars... .


-- help bot