On Apr 30, 10:32 pm, "David Kane" wrote:

Parr continues to astound with his ridiculous arguments. First,
he raised the technicality that GM Evans' was an independent
contractor rather than a salaried employee as proof of something.
His new line is that only a written directive can establish policy.
The man is surely confused. If you are going to shoot down
strawmen, at least build up something worth shooting at.

During the period that Chess Life was filled cover to cover
with sophomoric polemic, do you think that GM Evans
was too stupid to notice? Of course not. And it was at
this time that his own writing moved away from its somewhat
more responsible approach earlier in his life.


This observation demonstrates coincidence, but
not causation. (If you fart and at the same time
World War III breaks out, does that prove that
*your flatulence* is responsible for it?)


There are more inconsistencies in Evans' output than
any one man can document. Many of them have been
posted here repeatedly (such as his approach to
Fischer, at first reasonable, later blaming the Soviets
for Fischer's own behavior) and I'll not bother
repeating it.


This problem with inconsistency is the hallmark
of a very confused mind. In Larry Evans' case,
his "huge bias" (John Watson, et al) frequently
blinds him to the objective facts which don't
neatly "fit" into his many preconceived, biased
opinions.


A particular favorite of mine is approach to playing
in Cuba. He portrays himself as a fearless maverick -
defying the embargo as a matter of principle. But
isn't that just aiding the same evil communists responsible
for all of the worlds ills in his other posts? Not only
that, but he brings out this particular little story as a
reason for why it was wrong to get upset at
Fischer for defying the worldwide embargo
on Serbia - a country, let us not forget, that
was actively engaged in genocidal repression.


One anecdote which always puzzled me was
the one where a young Bobby Fischer went to
see about getting some "free" money. Upon
arrival, he was informed that in return for lots of
financial support in his quest for the title, the
financier wanted just one thing: recognition of
his financial help, *if* BF somehow managed
to win. Larry Evans presented this as an
example of BF having "principles", which has
always puzzled me. What principles, exactly?
Selfishness? Naivety? Greed? It seemed
more an example of those, and of a general
the-world-revolves-around-me mentality. Yet
Mr. Evans was somehow /impressed/ when
BF walked out.


Consistency is not highly valued in Parr's crowd.


Brown-nosing seems to be the key for new
members to get accepted. I suppose that in
that respect, /consistency/ would have some
small value.


For the record, I do not hold Karpov responsible
for the USSR's wrongdoing any more than I
hold Keres' responsible for the Nazis' for playing
in Nazi-organized tournaments.


This brings up yet another problem for the Evans
ratpack: the fact that Paul Keres is one of those
fellows they like to "use" to bash Mr. Botvinnik.
Yet even the widely-liked PK has skeletons in his
closet, just as MB does.


How they
behaved politically is frankly of little interest to
me. How they behaved as chessplaying sportsmen
has a lot more to do with my view of them.
And Karpov does deserve condemnation on
that count - there was abominable sportsmanship
on both sides and Karpov certainly does deserve
some of the blame for the behavior of his side.


Mr. Karpov is a classic case of "wrong place,
wrong time". Nobody (here) liked it when Bobby
Fischer quit playing chess, and guess who just
happened to be "handy" as a scapegoat? The
folks at Chess Lies magazine had a field day at
his expense.


But the truth is that for both Karpov and
Korchnoi it was always about the chess -
the political controversy was a manufactured
sideshow. And they did give the chess world a
memorable match.


The sad thing is, it seems not enough to just
determine who is the strongest chess player in
the world, oh no! It always has to entail politics
and pet peeves of the press. I "can't hardly wait"
until the Chinese produce a number of serious
contenders; that will no doubt be /deja vu/, all
over again.


-- help bot