"help bot" wrote in message
...
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.

This may or may not have significance; after all, is Evans writing for
people who already know some things so that he records his own comments
along with theirs in order to substantiate an issue? Being 'independent' is
no virtue if what you are describing is common to other observers, in fact,
it detracts from the issue to become a personality point of view.

Or is Evans writing for people who know nothing at all, and who want to
start from the beginning? I don't think so. I think the former is true, and
if Evans has a fault in this, then it is his presumption that the chess
public actually know very much at all about the goings on of chess
politicians.

One of these was examined in an article by Taylor
Kingston (I think), who noted that even the original
source was unreliable.

That's very vague.

Other "ideas" of Larry Evans
originated from Raymond Keene, a notorious hack
whose antics have long annoyed pedants like Ed
Winter.

It must be particularly galling for Winter to have to deal with 'hack'
Keene, since Winter has only tittle-tattle from those who feed it to him,
while Keene actually was behind the Wall and smuggling out stuff on what it
was really like from first hand knowledge, and also the samizdat of other
personal witness to the /systemic/ corruption of the SU.

Larry Evans also engaged the Soviet chess machine, and therefore is guilty
of the same crime as Keene; essentially neither of them bought into any
propaganda whether it was issued from East or West, and preferred what they
knew as fact to some filtered gloss on it.

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.

I know it is your favorite. But the elephant in your viewing room is you! It
is this obsessional general opinions that you then fix onto individual
circumstance - and therefore an honest though very real mistake or error by
Kasparov is sufficient for you to condemn the man's entire character.

My personal understanding of the issue is that he apologised to Judit, who
emphasis accepted that apology. Why then is this still an issue for Greg
Kennedy?

Not that such compacted cynicism can be answered in anything less than an
essay, but in terms of collaborations and discussions, many strong players
talk with each other about the organisational side of chess, and it is much
less a matter of who spoke what first, as that strong players witness a
common set of facts - then report matters in their own ways.

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.

Criticism is always welcome, but this isn't criticism, its bitching. The
reader will note that there is no suggested /subject/ that critics mention
that they thought better then rather than now - and they don't even bother
to say what they personally would like to read about. shrug That's no
critique, and it doesn't even indicate if the critics want to read
anything... So is this 'complaint' on behalf of other people? [lol]

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.

I suppose the opposite of 'rabid' anti-soviet bias is... ?

If you know the game is rigged, do you report what goes on as if you don't
know? That would be deceptive, no? That would be a form of lying. And there
is no doubt that Sovietism was pulling Fide's strings.

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?

I see that response is not an answer. But the fatuous chess-lout Kennedy
ignores the fact that I interviewed Taimanov who spoke of the systemic
aspect of soviet life - it was into everything!

So in reading all these 'questions' from Kennedy I have yet to find one
which is not about himself - since anyone who has applied themselves to the
subject could answer his 'questions' the same as me.

But vague and abstracted criticisms are useless to any understanding of what
goes on - and the usual projection takes place in this speil, which the
reader will remember began with the phrase

with apparently zero critical examination

Phil Innes



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