On Apr 29, 4:52 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

Of course, that detail has little to do with anything,
and does not resurrect the Evans mythology (of
someone bravely takes on a corrupt establishment) that
Parr has been assigned with promulgating.

Who else has bravely done so? There are few truly independent voices. The
inverse of Larry Evans is Jerry Hanken, eg.


Larry Parr has indeed promulgated the fiction that
Larry Evans is an "independent" voice. Well, while
he may well be independent of the folks who run
the show at the USCF, he is far from a truly
independent thinker. Many of the stories I've seen
were merely parroted or borrowed from others, with
apparently zero critical examination on LE's part.

One of these was examined in an article by Taylor
Kingston (I think), who noted that even the original
source was unreliable. Other "ideas" of Larry Evans
originated from Raymond Keene, a notorious hack
whose antics have long annoyed pedants like Ed
Winter. But my favorite are the "stories" which Mr.
Evans has borrowed from Gary Kasparov, known
liar and cheater but one of the finest chess players
who ever lived.


GM Evans, a player I admire and an author of chess
works of which I am a satisfied customer (believe it
or not, he actually wrote about chess at one time!),


It seems the further back in time you go, the
better were Larry Evans' writings! He's aging
backwards, like Merlin.


Of course, when CL made it mandatory for
every article to have a red-baiting angle, Evans
complied with his wild, fact-free allegations - often
contradicting his own prior writings.


I somehow doubt that the honchos at the USCF
"forced" Mr. Evans to contradict himself or to
adopt a rabid anti-Soviet bias. I think he did that
largely on his own.


Are there ex-Soviets chess players in the West who actually contest this as
a basis?


Hmm. It seems that nearly-IMnes is afraid to
consider what people who live further East might
have to say; I wonder what he is afraid of learning?


But I will grant that
Parr does have a point in that the USCF
does not speak with a single voice and
at times he's been at odds with certain factions
within the organization. Perhaps the wily politician
is a more apt image than apparatchik, which
emphasizes conformity above all else.


Well, when Taylor Kingston goofed, he refused
to admit it was really a mistake, saying he ought
to have phrased what he said a bit differently.
Now we have this fuss over appa-rat chicks,
and -- surprise -- somebody again refuses to
admit error. My pattern-recognition detector is
going wild; could it be that chess players (?) are
unable to admit error? (Preposterous.)

Why can't we all just grant that Larry Parr is
right about LE being a thorny-chick to the honchos
at the USCF? After all, that was not the real issue.
(Remember, the ploy was to divert attention from
LP's *gaffe* regarding Mr. Kane insisting that LE
needed the USCF's money. Appa-ratta-chick or
thorny-pointy-chick, it makes no real difference.)


-- help bot