FISCHER & KASPAROV ON THE USCF (some 20-odd years ago)

“As far as the U.S. Chess Federation goes, I have nothing to do with
them, I consider them to be a pro-Soviet, criminal organization,
terrible people. I would like...I would appreciate it if all my fans
canceled their subscriptions to their horrible magazine Chess Life. I
call it Chess Lies -- and withdrew from membership of this
organization.” -- Bobby Fischer

“The small minded leaders of the Unites States Chess Federation try to
keep it an amateur game and must be purged like entrenched Communist
Bureaucrats.” -- Garry Kasparov

P.S. Of course, when CL made it mandatory for every article to have a
red-baiting angle, Evans complied with his wild, fact-free
allegations --

David Kane cannot prove his ludicrous charge because there was never
any
such policy -- either verbal or written. In fact, the powers-that-be
largely tried to squelch exposure of
either FIDE's dirty deeds or Soviet cheating.

And so it goes.



wrote:
ATTACK IS THE BEST DEFENSE

Of course, when CL made it mandatory for every article to have a
red- baiting angle, Evans complied with his wild, fact-free
allegations --
David Kane

The opposite of rabid anti-Soviet bias evidently is pro-Soviet bias,
largely exhibited here by both Jurgen and David Kane who lied
outright because no such directive was ever issued by me or
any other editor of Chess Life to any writer in this magazine..
In fact, the opposite was true. GM Evans was asked to tone down
his criticism of FIDE on several occasions..

IIf David Kane has any proof of his ludicrous charge, let him
present it here.

Unable to offer a scintilla of proof -- as expected -- the Kanestar
typically launches new smears and the old Ad Hom Attack.



David Kane wrote:
wrote in message
....
PUT UP OR SHUT UP, MR. KANE!

Of course, when CL made it mandatory for every article to have a
red-
baiting angle, Evans complied with his wild, fact-free allegations --
David
Kane

The opposite of rabid anti-Soviet bias evidently is pro-Soviet bias,
largely exhibited here by bothf Jurgen and David Kane who lied
outright because no such directive was ever issued by me or
any other editor of Chess Life to any writer in this magazine..
In fact, the opposite was true. GM Evans was asked to tone down
his criticism of FIDE on several occasions..

If David Kane has any proof of his ludicrous charge, let him present
it here.

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.

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.

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.

Consistency is not highly valued in Parr's crowd.

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. 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.

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.