"Rob Hill" wrote in message om...
All of your musings aside, if Kasparov's chess ability is not to be
considered, then why did I read this post on rec.games.chess.misc?

I think his chess ability IS to be considered. Being a world chess
champion, all other things being the same, can only help one's
intellectual reputation. But I am not sure the article was published
because its author is stated to have been Garry Kasparov. Having a
chess grandmaster posited as the author of an article published in the
States does not, to my knowledge, increase the total number of persons
who read the article, mass readerhip being the goal of the news
publication: that Kasparov is listed as the author may increase the
number of chess players who read the article, and decrease the number
of non-chess players who read the article. Kasparov may not even be
the author: how good is his King's English? was it translated from
Russian? did an assistant write the article based on an outline of his
"ideas"?

But the main point, as I have said, is that so far you have not
identified one sentence from the entire editorial with which you
disagree. This results in most persons' assuming that you do
apparently agree with the contents of the editorial. As you have been
made aware that this is the effect, and we can only assume that you
act with knowledge of the effect you intend to achieve, then one must
conclude you wish for others to believe that you are in full, 100%
agreement with the editorial.


Regards,
Michael Sayers