"help bot" wrote in message
...
On Apr 30, 7:40 am, "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?


No. Mr. Evans rarely "substantiates". In fact, the
main reason people are aware that he is merely
*parroting* is that there is nothing added, nothing
considered, nothing but a parrot and his cracker.

These are no doubt phrases understood where you are. But my question to you
is what you want? Not what some people want. Maybe you get to it in this
message?

We noticed this at least as early as 1974-5, back
when a certain Chess Lies article was swallowed
whole, ants and all. The poor fellow did not even
bother with thinking about a ludicrous claim; he
seemed almost /eager/ to be a parrot.

I pass on something so vague and anodyne I don't know what it is. If the
current writer intends to engage another, rather than, er, 'parrot'
opinions, he might mention what it is...

An article by Taylor Kingston happened upon
one instance of this *uncritical* parroting of what
Mr. Evans thinks may "fit" into his biased fantasy
world. But no doubt it would be easier to locate
the stuff by EW, who stumbles upon such things
whilst correcting misspellings, as all good pedants
must, by their very nature.

Still no chessic subject matter... for how long will I engage such a
conversation? For sure, we already see attitude, what about what?

Being 'independent' is
no virtue if what you are describing is common to other observers


My point had nothing to do with the *virtues* of
independent thinking; I merely observed the fact
that a parrot is certainly not truly independent. If
Mr. Evans carefully considered before he parroted,
that would be acceptable, though even here, "his"
ideas are not emerging independently of others
inside his small circle of alike-thinkers.

Just to break into this abstract criticism a moment, has the topic yet been
declared? Or is abstract critical material intellectually sufficient to
those who I must not need any?

This
think-alike business is what allows wrong-headed
thinking to go unchecked.

Did I say that it is not think-alike, as in go along with, but independently
verify, from own experience?

It reminds me of the
dregs who surrounded Bobby Fischer, while he
was ranting and raving about Jews and Russian
cheaters and how he was a, if not the, chess god.

Does it indeed? What reminds you of it? I made an entirely differnent point,
but which still 'reminds you' - and I wonder if what you respond to has any
external reference at all? Sorry to be so shrink-ish, but any ful would say
same, after yoru response.

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.


Systemic corruption of the SU, you say?

Yes, systemic corruption is what I say and what they say. I suffer from
receiving some 2,000 exchanges with Russian chess players and organisers in
order to ask you to suffer this opinion.

I keep
reading about such things, and nowadays the
focus has turned to /China/. What I find interesting
is the "familiar" feel these stories... the way they
remind me of home.

I am afraid that such internal referencing is your business alone, and none
of mind. It matters not to me that you see your own country the same, but
that you aver that such things are at all odd in the world, and should so
continuously shock you.

Yeah, that's right my boy,
right here in the good old U.S. of A. I am often
reminded of a certain FBI chief, who told all his
fellow Americans that there was "no such thing
as organized crime"-- things like that. Not that
anyone needs to travel so far back in time, oh no!
I just happen to like that example.

So, is this some equation of false Russians with false Americans?

I would say that this is a rather extraordianry means to come about the
subject that Korchnoi represented, that corruption in the West in chess was
for money. But I do not assume I understand Kennedy's comment here, except
it is so gerneral as to equate any form of government [corruption] with any
other.

Please take off that holier-than-thou cape-- it's
not even your color!

The meaning of this sentence is obscure. No doubt the questioner would like
to be asked what he means, though, given what goes before, I don't need to
ask.


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


Wrong.

And when people make such declarations they might as well be Ken Sloan
defending ratings at USCF, this person who can attest that politically
rigging of ratings [eg. Tanner's] is 'Not' or some monosyllablic rejoinder,
despite all evidence.

I leave the rest of this message and its analogies to another day, maybe.
But note the abandonement of even the seemingness of detailed content
discussion by someone absolutely intent on rubbishing other people for what
he cannot do himself.

Phil Innes



My personal understanding of the issue is that he apologised to Judit,
who
emphasis accepted that apology.


It is not enough. The entire chess world was
humiliated by this. Cheating is bad for chess,
just as it is bad for baseball, for instance. It is
also bad for chess when faves are allowed to
cheat, and afterward protected by apologists
who spin the facts.

If there is one thing you take away from this
post, let it be this: a writer who throws his
integrity out the window in favor of personal
bias, is just a hack. You can't allow these
agendas to take over and run your whole life!

So, when a camera reports that the pitches are
moving at 96 mph, if you hear the commentator
ranting that there is something "wrong" with the
camera because Nolan Ryan is really a 110 mph
pitcher, you can safely assume he is a nutter.
Especially when the same camera reports the
same numbers for several other pitchers, in the
same game, and the hack commentator says
it is working correctly /for them/.


-- help bot