KENNEDY BUSTED AGAIN

The rules of the game are clear, concise, and consistent. If you touch
a piece, you must move it. If your hand quits the piece, the move
stands.
If your hand is still on it, then you can change your mind and move it
elsewhere. But move it you must. Since the rules specify that a
protest
must be lodged during play.... -- Touch Move byGM Larry Evans

Nonsense. The proper thing to do is recognize that
Mr. Kasparov is a low-down good-for-nothing cheater,
and then treat him accordingly. -- Greg Kennedy

You yelling "Nonsense" does not change the rules of chess,
which clearly state:

4.7 A player forfeits his right to a claim against his
opponent`s violation of Article 4.3 or 4.4, once he
deliberately touches a piece.

-- Guy Macon


Source: http://fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE101

Judit Polgar made her next move without making any such
claim. It would have been a violation of the rules if
the arbiter had examined the video tape and ruled against
Kasparov after Polgar made her next move. It would have
been a serious breach of professional ethics if he had
shown any sort of reaction that would indicate that this
was in any way different from any other move. -- Guy Macon

[Unfortunately he posted his reply only on rec.games.chess.misc. For
the rest of
the material he cites check it out.]


wrote:
KENNEDY'S NEW LIE

Not all their stories are of a simple nature, but those two certainly
cannot deal with any facts which don't neatly "fit" into their bizarre
fairyland world. For instance, having long cast Gary Kasparov as a
hero who fights a never-ending battle for Justice, they must painfully
struggle to somehow deal with the man's cheating poor
little Judit Polgar with his infamous take-back. Nutters don't have it
so easy as you might think... . -- Greg Kennedy

As this writer noted when this thread began: I realize that setting
the record straight won't do much good when it comes to the "bots" of
this world because they will just continue inventing new lies.

This thread is about Shirov, but that doesn't stop Greg from
changing the header or the subjet to beat dead horses. As soon as one
charge is refuted (Evans is USCF apparatchik -- then Kane withdrew it
and instead called him a wily politician) a new one pops up. One would
fill a book refuting all of their fabrications.

I will answer David Kane later. Needless to say, contrary to Greg's
new lie, GM Evans did report on the Polgar-Kasparov incident in his
newspaper column as well as in his new book, giving both sides of the
story.

THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 266)

Touch Move!
April 25, 2005

Chess is perfect. People aren?t.

The rules of the game are clear, concise, and consistent. If you touch
a piece, you must move it. If your hand quits the piece, the move
stands. If your hand is still on it, then you can change your mind and
move it elsewhere. But move it you must.

Enforcing touch move in the heat of battle isn?t always easy. A case
in point was the first encounter in 1994 between Judit Polgar, then
17, and world champion Garry Kasparov, then 31, at a major tournament
in Linares, Spain.

After a tough fight Polgar threw in the towel because 47 Kg1 e2 49 Re1
Qd4 49 Kh1 Nf2 50 Kg1 Nh3 51 Kh1 Qg1! 52 Rxg1 Nf2 leads to smothered
mate.

Afterwards she complained that Kasparov took back a move. At first he
played 36...Nc5 but then saw it refuted by 37 Bc6 and instead he
placed the knight on f8.
[Note: As it turns out, his initial 36...Nc5 probably didn't lose --
LP]

Since the rules specify that a protest must be lodged during play,
nothing could be done after the game was over. "I didn?t want to cause
unpleasantness during my first invitation to such an important event,"
she explained. "We were both in severe time pressure. I was also
afraid I would be penalized on the clock if my protest was rejected."

"Kasparov did not take his hand off the knight, so he had a perfect
right to change his move," said the chief arbiter. "My conscience is
clear. I have the feeling my hand was still on it," added Kasparov.

Yet we all know the naked eye can be fooled. A camera crew was filming
the game and a replay revealed that Kasparov removed his hand for
exactly ? of a second! Deliberate foul or did he try to change his
grip in order to reverse direction? Who can say for sure?

His enemies promptly called it cheating. But Robert Solso, a noted
cognitive psychologist, said that a time span of 250 milliseconds
might be too short to make such a conscious decision.

POLGAR vs. KASPAROV
Sicilian Defense, 1994
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 a6 6 f4 e6 7 Be2 Be7 8
0?0 Qc7 9 Qe1 Nbd7 10 a4 b6 11 Bf3 Bb7 12 Kh1 Rd8 13 Be3 0?0 14
Qg3 Nc5 15 f5 e5 16 Bh6 Ne8 17 Nb3 Nd7 18 Rad1 Kh8 19 Be3 Nef6
20 Qf2 Rfe8 21 Rfe1 Bf8 22 Bg5 h6 23 Bh4 Rc8 24 Qf1 Be7 25 Nd2
Qc5 26 Nb3 Qb4 27 Be2 Bxe4 28 Nxe4 Nxe4 29 Bxe7 Rxe7 30 Bf3
Nef6 31 Qxa6 Ree8 32 Qe2 Kg8 33 Bb7 Rc4 34 Qd2 Qxa4 35 Qxd6
Rxc2 36 Nd2 Nf8 37 Ne4 N8d7 38 Nxf6 Nxf6 39 Qxb6 Ng4 40 Rf1 e4
41 Bd5 e3 42 Bb3 Qe4 43 Bxc2 Qxc2 44 Rd8 Rxd8 45 Qxd8 Kh7 46
Qe7 Qc4 White Resigns



help bot wrote:
On Apr 29, 2:32 am, "David Kane" wrote:

Mr. Kane's point was that (he says) the Soviets'
*routine practice* was to deny such emigration
requests as those by family members of defector
Victor Kortchnoi. Now, while I don't know about
such things, I do know that Mr. Parr studiously
avoided addressing that issue, instead doing
another of his ad hominem dances, with both feet
flying this way and that. It must be concluded then
that Mr. Kane struck a nerve.

The bigger point really was that no rational person
could expect a chessplayer to influence the
emigration policies of the Soviet government.


That's true, but what if the government sometimes
makes exceptions to their usual policies? Well, of
course this has a serious drawback in that the
"criminal" is in essence rewarded for having
defected.


The Evans and Parrs of this world are simply
not capable of dealing with facts which get
in the way of their simplistic stories.


Not all their stories are of a simple nature, but
those two certainly cannot deal with any facts
which don't neatly "fit" into their bizarre fairyland
world. For instance, having long cast Gary
Kasparov as a hero who fights a never-ending
battle for Justice, they must painfully struggle
to somehow deal with the man's cheating poor
little Judit Polgar with his infamous take-back.
Nutters don't have it so easy as you might
think... .


-- help bot