Thanks to TK for providing the link.

Unfortunately, this "screed" is precisely what LP was
mischaracterising as "justifying" Campomanes' stopping of the match.
It *is* the missing "quote" demanded by LP's critics -- NOT fabricated
at all, but merely mischaracterised due to LP's peculiar worldview.
My point here is that LP was (wrongly, IMO) accused of *fabrication*,
when he was only guilty of being deluded (and it's simply not fair to
attack delusionals for crimes they cannot help committing).


Dictionary.com -- Fabrication: to concoct, in order to deceive.


For Larry Parr to have "concocted" this story in order to deceive us,
it would require that Edward Winter never wrote any such thing. In
fact, he wrote something which LP always has and always will interpret
as a "justification" of the match being halted.

LP did not "concoct" a story about what EW wrote in order to deceive
anyone; on the contrary, it is LP himself who is deceived, for he
misinterprets any criticism of certain allies as *support* for the
evil-axis powers -- even when no such support exists. You see, there
is a war going on, and Ray Keene and Garry Kasparov are fighting
(alongside Larry Evans and LP) the enemy, tooth and nail. If you are
not with us, you are against us! And anyone caught sitting on the
fence is fair game. War is Hell, you know.

There are sources which are not so biased and self-contradictory.
There were other accounts of what happenned. The very strange focus
upon Keene speaks for itself.

"Nomorechess" you are biased against Keene, Parr etc.

Uzytkownik "help bot" napisal w wiadomosci
ups.com...
Jerzy wrote:
"No matter if the cancelletaion of the match was right or wrong.

The truth should be revealed who is really responsible for the
cancellation
of the match. As I can see E.Winter has sunk in details as usual ;-) "



I think the responsibility belongs to Campomanes; He had (and used)
the power, and along with power, goes (no, not greed!) responsibility.
Campomanes is accountable for having intervened, and yet the specific
match rules -- which allowed the possibility of a problematic, endless
series of draws -- were probably not his bungling, but someone else's.
At the time, who would have imagined that GK would or even could be a
party to such draws? Even so, there is no excuse for not including
some provision in the rules to limit the duration of the event (just in
case).

Of course Campo has direct responsibility of the cancellation as the FIDE
president but look at the guys behind the curtain who steered him.


It's really all Karpov's fault; If only he had crushed GK like a bug,
splattering his guts onto the chessboard with brutal, punishing moves,
there would have been no problem with draws. (If only I had been
there, I would have shown how it is done. Twenty moves, Garry. That's
all I need and you are *history*!)


OK now answer why Karpov had his nervous breakdown ?

Phil Innes routinely "grills" TK whenever the latter harries LP for
his many gaffes; It reminds me of a line from Star Wars (paraphrased):

"I should have known it would be you holding Vader's leash."

Well, except that Dearth Vader was a whole lot *scarier* than PI.


LP accuses EW of leaving things out (i.e. of being biased/dishonest);
And I couldn't help but notice the things LP is leaving out, himself.
Like mentioning transcripts, but leaving out details therein which
might not fully support LP's position. LP mentions the time, but fails
to mention the *content* of an announcement by the press! LOL. Clever?
I think not. LP tosses out a quote of Campomanes "whispering" to
Karpov, but fails to note that Karpov was very unhappy -- he wanted the
match to continue, with his hard-earned lead *intact*. Campomanes
declared the match drawn, which completely ignored the match score!
However, this did allow Karpov to keep the title of World Champion for
a while longer.

To put things into better perspective, we should remember that
looking backward through time, we all know that GK went on to become
the highest-rated player of all time, at one point establishing a 100
Elo-point gap between himself and the rest of the field. Knowing this,
we might be prone to believe that GK was somehow "robbed" by
Campomanes' intervention.
However, *at the time*, it was not at all clear which of these two
players -- I am speaking of Kasparov and *Karpov*, not Campomanes --
was to emerge as the king of the ring. At the time, Karpov
(mistakenly) believed he could retain his title, if only they could
have an intermission in the match. At the time, Kasparov had no idea
that he was going to (eventually) distance himself from Karpov and all
the other top players in the world by half a class! GK only began
crying "foul!" after the fact, and this is not to be overlooked.


LP quotes Larry Evans:
"Ironically, Campo's attempt to save his friend's title backfired.
Kasparov won the next bout and then infuriated the Kremlin by
offering a title shot to Bobby Fischer, who unfortunately declined..."


In other postings, LP generally refers to this sort of thing as a
"smear". LE clearly implies that Campomanes' prime motive for stopping
the match was to save Karpov's title, yet he provides zero evidence,
only an empty accusation.

I would simply note that Campomanes erased Karpov's two point lead,
and then mercilessly threw him back to the lions, to Kasparov! Is that
any way to help a friend? A better strategy would be to declare the
match over, Karpov the winner, and "seed" Kasparov into the semifinals
of the next cycle. Then strongly advise Karpov to "retire".
Kasparov wins the next cycle with ease, both Fischer and Karpov are
happily undefeated millionaires, and Ivanchuk and Yusupov take turns
getting hammered by GK.
A perfect world.

Chess One wrote:

Feel free, Larry. I'm sure Winter left out various things, and may
well be wrong about some, even many perhaps.

What do TK mean by, "I'm sure"? Does he mean that he doesn't know or he
does? Is the final word 'perhaps' an admission, or is it a supposition?

No, Phil, it's an adverb.

Taylor Kingston doesn't understand the question relates how he uses his
'adverb'.

I think Taylor Kingston understands how to use an adverb. I doubt you
can read without help.

TH wrote:
"I think Taylor Kingston understands how to use an adverb. I doubt you
can read without help."


LOL! I believe PI can read; It's just that his native language is
foreign to all of us Earthlings, and there isn't always a one-to-one
exact translation to English.


Nanu Nanu

I agree with everything in Wlod's last post, but it must be noted
that people like Kasparov are constantly being quoted to demonstrate or
lend support to certain ideas, and rather than dismiss his foibles
lightly, I would suggest noting well that he is very unreliable, and
often self-contradictory.

Hence, when say, Larry Parr or Larry Evans or others quote something
Kasparov has said or written, they are presenting an authority
argument, wherein the "authority" is a chronic liar (substitute
ephemism if preferred).
This happens quite often in the American chess press, and here for
that matter. So it is not so very wise to take the demonstrations of
Kasparov's "inconsistencies" lightly, unless you can also easily
identify (and dismiss) every authority argument as such. Many people
take such arguments quite seriously, never suspecting that the
foundations are constructed upon quicksand. For many, the invocation
of names like Fischer and Kasparov commands great respect -- and this,
the propagandists know all too well.

Before "the big picture" let me address
the "Parr on Winter" issue. In my opinion
Winter did not write anything which would
justify Campo or make any difference to
any chess-political process. If Campo
reproduced Winter's essay in many copies,
it was his-Campo's idea (most likely
a rotten idea), but Winter is not responsible
for the state of mind of someone as
unpredictable and dishonest as Campo
(who was simply a crook and criminalist).
Objectively speaking, whatever Campo did,
it cannot reflect on Winter. People tend
to make backward logical connections
(due to their statistical positiver correlations?)
but it's neither logical nor nice. That's how
I see it.

*************
THE BIG PICTURE

Once Euwe and Fine were, for all
pracxtical purposes, out of the
championship competition, the SU
dominated chess almost completely.
Some chessplayer could make it
exciting on isolated occasions, like
Gligorich, but truly only Reshevsky
was a serious non-Soviet world champion
candidate.

It's quite nice to dominate, but
to get significant propaganda
advwntage from chess it was
necessary for Soviets to have
international chess opponents
and international interest ini chess.
For this reason they were quite nice
toward the Western grandmasters
(less so toward the ones from
the communist block) and to the
people like GMs Machgielis Euwe and
Fridrik Olafson--the respected FIDE
presidents during 1970-1978 and 1978-1982
years. Soviets even allowed for FIDE
regulations which had discriminated
against the Soviet grandmasters.

Thus one would think that it was in the
Soviet interest to make sure that
the next FIDE president would be as
worthy of respect as the erarlier ones.
Well, there is no such thing like "Soviet",
it is only a convenient abbreviation, a notion.
There are only people. And in the case
of a corrupted system like the Soviet
system, it's only natural that they allowed
for a FIDE president someone as low
as Campomanes. Somehow Campo had
a good insight into the soul of a Soviet
apparatchik, and soviet apparatchiks
found Campo to their liking, they had
to like him more than people who deserved
respect. Possibly, they took Campo easy,
they perhaps thought that they can easily
manipulate Campo, and perhaps they
did, but it was a two-way street, Campo--
the criminalist was able to manipulate the
Soviets to his personal advantage.

If an historian would like a true challenge,
here it is: describe the Campomanes-Soviet
appartatchiks relations. Too bad that Kushnir,
Korchnoy, Pachman, Sosonko, Gulko, Akhsharumova
and others were the victims of the CampoSoviet
FIDE (and of the USCF politicians too).

*****

Another diffirence between the abstract chess
"Soviet interests" and the real interest
of the people who were constituting what
amounted to the real "Soviet chess inistitution"
could be seen on the example of the story
of the candidate matches Kasparov-Korchnoi
and Smyslov-Ribli, 1983. They were almost
aborted, which would be to the detriment of
Chess but also AGAINST the abstract
"Soviet interest". However, it was in the
interest of Karpov. In those years there was
more or less an equality within the domain
of chess between the "Soviet interest" and
the "Karpov interest".

Let's remember that during the Karpov's
reign it was forbidden for the Soviet players
to beat Karpov in international tournaments.
(If you think about it, this was again very
m,uch against the idealistic Soviet chess
interests, but oce again we are dealing with
the true Soviet chess interests in those years).

Thus one should never make any mechanical
assuptions about the political systems
and the people who live under such systems.
One should not rationalize, one should not
extrapolate, etc. I've seen a lot of such
cheap, false arguments, also here on rgc[mp]
(of the type: "he couldn't do it, because if he
did he'd be killed"; or: "they both were the same,
everybody acted the same way under the terror";
and similar stupid, offending opinions).
The "System" is a consideration and not more.
There are still people behind it and aside of it
and against it. And each person is still doifferent,
some are straightforward, some are tricky, etc.
There are also some general habits, traditions,...
Also, the times change, and sharp dynamic turns
do happen.

*****

Now that we have some background, let's focus
on the match.

Kasparov had no say about match postponement.
He some time earlier found some support withing
the Azerbejdzan communist party but that was
about things which **directly** were related to
Kasparov only. This time it was a question of
a confrontation of Karpov v. Kasparov. Since:

1.Karpov was the world champion;
2.Karpov was winning 5:1 (at one moment);
3.Karpov's chess (and almnmost any) well being
got identified for years with the interests
of the Soviet chess;
4.Kasparov was was but a promising youngster;

It was really not up to Kasparov to
propose any match regulation changes.

Think about it--it is not up to anybody
to propose such changes, and much less
so to enforce them. Even world champion Lasker
only asked for a postponement due to his
very serious health problem during the match.
Capablanka refused and it was the end of the story.

Thus even under different circumstances it is
quite unthinkable that the challenger can change
the regulation to suit himself.

The clear conclusion is that the initiative
of changing the regulation was not Kasparov's.

Winter says that during one of the conversations
Kasparov said something like this "In this
case let's cancel match all together". And that
Kasparov was the first to mouth the idea of
cancelling the match. So what?!!! The youngster
had lively mind, was able to consider during
a conversation all kind of possibilities, and
had a quick and fast mouth. That's all. It doesn't
mean anything. His talking didn't influence anything,
had no weight.

The whole postponement/stopping the match
action had to be initialized by Karpov's camp.
Ot let me put it this way: if Kasparov camp
would do it, it would not matter at all, he was
in no position to demand anything.

Kasparov got his chance to be taken seriously
only when he won those last two games, the
score became 5:3, and Karpov really wanted
a break. Only then Kasparov could shout:
I want the match to go on (actually, he was
less direct than that, he was somewhat tricky
in his shouting). But even then he himself was
still in no position to initiate any changes to the
match regulation. He could voice a loud objection
to a change, but he himself could not install any.

Furthermore, his loud objection still was not
important: Kasparov DID NOT sign the final
agreement, but the semi-agreement (:-) WAS
executed anyway. Nobody cared whether
Kasparov wants to sign it or not. The semi-agreement
took place, and that was it.

So much for Kasparov's weight, importance and
influence at the time.

*****

I've read that supposedly the final match
agreement was the result of a misunderstanding
between the Karpov's camp and Campomanes.
I don't buy it. Supposedly Campomanes--bang!--
came to Moscow and read right away his version:
the annulment of the match. May be that's what
apparatchiks told Karpov. it doesn't matter. One
way or another, Campomanes MEANT what he
did. Otherwise there were plenty of possibilities
to do it Karpov's way. Karpov's camp could
EASILY object against wasting Karpov's two
good point advantage, and if Campo was willing
he would agree to rectify the misunderstanding.
But Campomanes didn't want to. If Campo did,
then Kasparov could scream all he wanted and
the things would go Campo-Karpov way all the
same. Kasparov would not be able to do anything
about it. Sure, it'd be another stain on Karpov,
but qnatoly was already so stained that one more
would make no difference. He would prefer to stay
a stained champ than virgin loser.

*****

We see that even with the limited
knowledge of facts the situation is
\clear, there is no mystery to it,
despite Edward Winter finding b unches
upon bunches of contradictions.

If it is so clear then why all these
contradictory statements from Kasparov?

Simple: it is not enough for Kasparov
to convince the world that the match
was stopped without his initiative and
impact. He wants much more from us--
from the chess audience. Kasparov
wants to look super-good. He wants
to prove that yes, but no, but yes, but
he was so great that the gift of the two
points was not really-really-really important.
Karpov in place of Kasparov would not care,
would say nothing. But Kasparov is so
much more moral oriented, the ethics is
important to Kasparov, and he badly wants
to somehow prove that he didn't gain anything.
He wanted to show himself as the sufferer, as
the victim.

The final "agreement" was a trade-off. There is
no way around it. And this simple truth was hard
for Kasparov to swallow. He would not contradict
it outright, but he would make all those
unnecessary, pathetic, complicated statements.

Winter finds those Gary's contradictions but
Winter misplaces them on the map of what
had happened.

******

Now, why Campomanes did what he did?
Why did he annihilated Karpov's 2 points?

If anybody knows, please share your knowledge.

I can only speculate. I am sure that these dirty
"friends": Campo and Karpov, didn't like each
other. It was a marriage convenience, not love.

Next, Campo saw during the Karpov-Korchnoy
matches how powerful is the combination of
Karpov+apparatchiks+KGB. Campo preferred
a new world champion who did not developed
yet this kind of close relations with apparatchiks.
Campo was also hoping for Kasparov's gratefulness.

Thus there would be a politically weaker champion
(Kasparov), who was personally grateful to him-to
Campo.

It didn't quite work. Not quite but actually it did,
didn't it? Campo would not be better the other
way. He had more power in the chess world
when Karpov lost.

These are my speculations. If you have better
speculations, let me know. If you have poorer
speculations than I may scold you :-) And if
you have additional FACTs then you're a hero.

*********

Wlod

help bot wrote:


Seriously, where do you see a real connection between the objective
facts, and the writings of Keene or Kasparov?

Many people did so. They are witnesses, they have been involved.

Is Kasparov not biased
in his own favor? Did he not have an ongoing "war" with Campomanes
which "might" affect his objectivity? Did he not personally attack
Karpov, viewing him as "the enemy" not merely from across the
chessboard? Can you trust him to be objective on the matter?

No, but usually there is the benefit of the doubt. So it is not
irrelevant to show, that Kasparov indeed is not trustworthy here.


And is your question not a silly one, in view of Edward Winter's
compilation of evidence that both of them have written lies (i.e.
self-contradictory claptrap) regarding the matter?

They both have written books where they claim to tell the story as it
has been. I don't think that you that one can disregard any testimony
light handedly, just because the author might not be neutral.


I reiterate: when EW "inquires" about Karpov's health, he might look
to Karpov's doctors,

They must not tell anything about this.

and not to Raymond Keene or Peter Pan for that
matter.

Kasparov was sitting over months just a meter away from Karpov. People
from Karpov's group seem to have made remarks. Of course, all this is
not very convincing, but there is no other source. Again: Kasparov as
well as Keene claim, that they had information. And it is worthwhile to
have a look at this.

Having examined Keene's claptrap and finding it wanting, a
true detective would have simply continued his search for the facts --
if indeed, that is what he had set out to do.
There are sources which are not so biased and self-contradictory.
There were other accounts of what happenned. The very strange focus
upon Keene speaks for itself.


Once mo Kasparov and Keene both wrote books where they claim to tell
what happened. They pretend to be authoritive. They both make strong
allegations. Keene plays dirty games, as how he behaved at that time and
what he after that louldy questioned as unjust decisions are two
diferent things. So it is absolutely not strange that Winter focusses on
those two with an extra portion of acid for Keene, they are natural
targets because of what they did. Winter does not pretend, that he is
the one who is able to reveal the truth, but at least he shows, that
those who do pretend to present the truth can not be trusted.

Greetings,
Ralf

"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...
Phil Innes routinely "grills" TK whenever the latter harries LP for
his many gaffes; It reminds me of a line from Star Wars (paraphrased):

"I should have known it would be you holding Vader's leash."

Well, except that Dearth Vader was a whole lot *scarier* than PI.

What's Fair is Foul!

Mr. help bot would "shuffle it off before putting it on," and I don't know
if he will take the test that Kingston refuses.

What is being 'grilled' here are commentators who are so overwhelmingly
biased that they can't define their own terms for fear they will be
detected.

My question seems too scary to answer, so I dispute the point above, I AM
DARTH INNES!

And if you can't answer the question below, if you run and hide from it, but
still use terms like 'fair' while blaghing away for 15 years at specific
targets - then its your own understanding of what's fair which is in
question. I say such fair is foul, MacBot!

So try it on before shuffling it off, Mr. help bot, is the Oxford entry
fair?

----
Then they could also assess if what Winter proposed about the affair was
fair, by the same measure of your logic. This need to be tested:

TESTING, TESTING

Parenthetically: If a chess player is not allowed to play chess because of
his ethnicity or religion, do you personally think that it is fair to report
that the player was 'away from chess'? Now, of course he /was/ away from
chess, but not by his own choosing.

Perhaps if you could answer that question, then your sense of fair reporting
elsewhere could be measured by the same standard?
----

Phil Innes