"help bot" wrote in message
ups.com...
PI has sometimes claimed that he hails from a planet known as "Scot",
or perhaps "Celt". What I find amazing is that these Scots, or
Celtoids,

Ring Wraiths?

can even comprehend our inferior culture well enough to
communicate with us at all.

Sometimes its hard to know what inferior cultures mean when they use ideas
such as 'fair', and you have to remind them that it has a meaning.

Standing 6'3" and sporting flame-red hair,
an average Celtoid speaks over 600 languages,

600 words would be enuf for ani ng, no?

though none of them
fluently.

fluidly,

As an alien species, their brains are "wired" differently
from ours, so is it any wonder that we have trouble communicating? And
while the average human reputedly uses less than 1% of his brain,

I thought it was 10%, but maybe that's my lack of thinking? Actually it was
the unreadable [sober] Celt, Rbt. Burns who said "a man's a man for a'
that", which is an entirely egalitarian sentiment.

a
Celtoid uses anywhere between zero and 24%, depending on circumstances.


The only culture which is difficult to understand are atavistic ones, living
on the perceived merits of some hoary [no pun intended] past, who are still
invested in the Age of Heroes, rather than groking that no energy remains in
that trip, and the only way forward is by us Hobbits acting ensemble.

There are a least 2 strange lies currently circulating; and people shouting
'liar', but who themselves refuse to define their terms. When these pale
faced people are asked to define 'fair' they fly off, or off the handle. But
this is typical of the newsnet mirror to reality and honesty in reporting. I
was always fascinated that of some 1,000 articles people have written about
Fischer, I can't remember any which talked about the man, and all were stuck
on Fischer-the-Hero.

These days, this qualifies what any person /is able/ to write sensibly
about.

Phil

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...

Without knowing the full story, it is impossible for anyone to judge
this fairly.

What is in question is Taylor Kingston's use of the word 'fair', especially
his own 'judgement', as he puts it.

Kingston thought that the Oxford's statement that Gulko 'was away from
chess' was a fair entry, when the guy was being beaten up by KGB and denied
playing opportunities. Perhaps if he really holds to that opinion then what
he means by Winter being fair can be viewed in the same light?

Kingston continues to use these terms, but won't define what he understands
about them, as if they had a secret meaning. On a previous occassion he
interviewed someone responsible for supressing refuseniks, and though he had
asked me, 'forgot' to raise the subject in his interview, then 'forgot' he
asked me.

That, by his demonstrated behavior, in his own definition of 'fair', and if
you can be that obscure, what does it matter what some even more obscure
critic has said?

Fair is foul! I say.

Kingston asks for more information below, but as in the Averbakh interview,
there seems no point in providing information to someone who then ignores
it, talks about fairness and his judgement, but continues to represent a
very one-sided perspective.

Phil Innes

What we have here is only Parr's version of Saidy's side.
In any event, Larry, the topic here is Winter's writings on the
termination of the K-K match, and whether, as you have alleged, they
constitute a claim that (A) the termination was a good thing, and (B)
Campomanes handled it well. There being no such thing in what Winter
actually wrote, you've been reduced to arguing that:

(A) Anyone who criticizes Keene and Kasparov supports Campomanes, and
(B) Winter once was rude to Anthony Saidy.

Not, to use your phrase, Larry, "utterly convincing." Rather
laughable, in fact.

On 12 Mar 2006 07:51:01 -0800, "Taylor Kingston"
wrote:


help bot wrote:
No, EW's article does not do the purported issue, that is, the
stopping of the match, justice. EW focuses too narowly on what Keene
and Kasparov have written, while skirting the issue of what really
happenned with self-proclaimed agnosticism. EW finds weaknesses and
errors in the various accounts given by these two with regard to the
match, and revels in recounting them.

You point out what is both a strength and weakness in Winter's
approach to this subject. Most journalists have tended to give Kasparov
a free pass -- even when he's plainly wrong, or contradicts himself, or
makes baseless accusations, it often goes unquestioned. Winter, on the
other hand, is not afraid to call it bull when GK speaks bull, and so
sometimes catches things other writers miss.
On the other hand, Winter, as far as I know, has confined his
research mostly to published sources, e.g. Kasparov's book, Keene's
columns, Campomanes' press statements, etc. That is not enough to get
to the heart of an affair where so much went on behind closed doors.
For that you need inside sources and contacts. I don't think Winter has
those -- at least not to the extent required to get to the bottom of
the Termination. His approach would be about the only feasible one if
the subject was an event from 100 years ago, but not when all the
principal parties are still alive.
Still, I think Winter's article serves a useful purpose. Best case,
it would inspire some ambitious investigator who *does* have the
necessary contacts to pursue the matter in real depth.

Taylor Kingston speaks bull, as usual.

There is no incident in the entire history of chess that has more
written about it than the stopping of the first Karpov - Kasparov
Match.

AP Reporter David Goodman alone wrote dozens of articles about this,
which were pub;lished in the world press.

Nobody gives Kasparov a "free pass". Kasparov is the most criticized
personality in the world of chess.

Edward Winter (aka Taylor Kingston) gives his attention to Kasparov's
book and Keene's columns for one simple reason. Winter is obsessed
with Keene. Almost everything Winter writes is either a direct or an
indirect attack on Keene. It is true that Keene was a central
character in the Kasparov-Karpov match and any discussion of the match
would have to include a mention of Keene but to write an entire book
about Keene is ridiculous.

Also, nothing about the match went on behind closed doors. The much
disputed events of the match were neveretheless not secret. I know
things about the stopping of the match which have never been
published, and I was not even there. For that matter, Keene was not
there either. He was in London.

Sam Sloan

On 10 Mar 2006 06:53:12 -0800, "
wrote:

The memoir TAN CHIN NAM, NEVER SAY I ASSUME
should be available at Amazon next week. Those
interested can also access www.mph.com.my

TAN CHIN NAM: NEVER SAY I ASSUME!
by Tan Chin Nam; Larry Parr

The story of a Malaysian life. The author, Dato' Tan
Chin Nam
businessman, sportsman, raconteur, and writer --
hopes that if
he "does nothing else" it is to help readers "enjoy
the same
successes rather than make the same errors that I
did."

I'm afraid that I am very busy at the moment promoting
the book
in newspapers and magazines. It will be appearing also in Australia,
London,
Hong Kong, China, Singapore, etc. I will try to post something soon,
but I may
again be disappearing from these precincts.

Great! I have just added your new book to my Wikipedia biography of
you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Parr#Books

Please Note: "Rook_wave", who posts here as Ralf Callenberg has a
history of following me around and deleting almost everything I post
on Wikipedia. Therefore, you and others will have to watch this site
to see if Callenberg tries to vandalize it again.

Sam Sloan

MORE LATER

Taylor Kingston speaks bull, as usual. There is no incident in the
entire history of chess that has more written about it than the
stopping of the first Karpov - Kasparov
Match. AP Reporter David Goodman alone wrote dozens of articles about
this,
which were pub;lished in the world press. -- Sam Sloan

In addition to all his other virtues, Edward Winter launched
letter writing campaigns to get IM Goodman fired from the AP, GM Keene
fired from the Times of London, and GM Evans fired from Chess Life.

Needless to add, all three of these journalists were highly
critical of Campo.

Gotta run.

Sam Sloan wrote:
On 12 Mar 2006 07:51:01 -0800, "Taylor Kingston"
wrote:
Still, I think Winter's article serves a useful purpose. Best case,
it would inspire some ambitious investigator who *does* have the
necessary contacts to pursue the matter in real depth.

Taylor Kingston speaks bull, as usual.

There is no incident in the entire history of chess that has more
written about it than the stopping of the first Karpov - Kasparov
Match.

AP Reporter David Goodman alone wrote dozens of articles about this,
which were pub;lished in the world press.

Nobody gives Kasparov a "free pass". Kasparov is the most criticized
personality in the world of chess.

Edward Winter (aka Taylor Kingston) gives his attention to Kasparov's
book and Keene's columns for one simple reason. Winter is obsessed
with Keene. Almost everything Winter writes is either a direct or an
indirect attack on Keene. It is true that Keene was a central
character in the Kasparov-Karpov match and any discussion of the match
would have to include a mention of Keene but to write an entire book
about Keene is ridiculous.

Also, nothing about the match went on behind closed doors. The much
disputed events of the match were neveretheless not secret. I know
things about the stopping of the match which have never been
published, and I was not even there. For that matter, Keene was not
there either. He was in London.

Sam Sloan

Hey, I think we've found our man to investigate this case -- chess
journalism's answer to Jack Anderson, Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein, and
Hedda Hopper -- our own Slammin' Sammy Sloan.
Sam, you write up a detailed account of The Termination, using all
your vast collection of chess literature, your carefully organized body
of journalists' accounts, your legendary analytical powers, your
high-level FIDE and Politburo contacts, all your secret knowledge, and
I'll see to it that you get paid ten times the usual ChessCafe Skittles
Room rate for it -- twenty times if it's good enough, with all sources
carefully documented and such. I'm sure anything you write about it
will be worth that much.

Taylor Kingston quotes Edward Winter:

We believe that
few readers will disagree with the following summation:

* The truth about the Termination has not been established, and may
never be, and thus the only reasonable attitude is agnosticism;
[...]

Actually, the controversy is not about "the Termination"
as such but about the its interpretation: whom did it serve?
who gained? Who was victimized? Who was wrong and
who was right? Who is the moral victor?

That's what the emotions are about. When it comes to
the main facts, there is no mystery:

(1) Karpov's camp had approached Campo
about postponement of the match, meaning
that after a few months the match will be
resumed with the 5:3 score intact (so that
one win by Karpov would end the match in
Karpov's victory);

(2) Against the rules of the match the match
was stopped for the sake of caring the
postponement procedure. The correct and
fair way would be to continue the match and
to have postponement (or whatever) negotiations
conducted in parallel, if Kasparov allowed them.
But Kasparov was not asked about such things,
he was told about such things.

(3) Campomanes, unexpectedly to the Karpov's
camp, cancelled the match, instead of postponing
it conveniently to Karpov.

*****

As we see, there is no big black hole.
We may still learn some details, but
they will not change the picture. Like
in a painiting of a tree, we have the trunk
and the main branches. More detailed
view of the leaves might be interesting
but it will not change anything. Kasparov
was in no position of starting any negotiations.
It would be laughable and pathetic for
a challenger who is losing the match to say:
I would like it cancelled.

*******

Kasparov does not understand the
laws of human communication. He
always feels that he has to provide
even the simplest logic and arguments
to the poor public which does not
possess his genius and his huge brain.
This kind of wrong perception has cost
him over the years quite dearly in terms
of public relations. He was never mature
in this respect.

In the given case he was preoccupied with
explaining to the public that it was not him
who **wanted** the match cancellation.
The truth is that it was not him who acted
toward the cancellation, which indeed he
couldn't. But Kasparov was blurring the
line between "did" and "wanted". He was
muddy about that point. Despite winning
the last two games of the match he was
clearly relieved that the threat hanging over
his head, of losing the match, was over or
about to be over:

during the big meeting, with the participation
of Campo, Karpov, Kasparov and everybody
who counted, Karpov hearing the news about
cancellation of his 5:3 advantage suddenly
spoke like a soldier: I am a chess player
and I want to play. Something like this.
It was a very straightforward statement,
even if everything else about Karpov actions
was not (he wanted to obtain time to rest--
against the rules). In response, Kasparov
didn't say: I am a chessplayer too, let's
stop this meeting and let's continue the
match--I don't want the cancellation,
I don't want the Karpov's 2 point advantage
to be erased. And who knows, possibly the
match would go on. Instead, Kasparov shouted
something more complicated and less
straightforward: IF we both want to play, then
why are we here?! -- something like this.
(I seem to remember reading that he shouted
this a few times, more than once).

Objectively, Kasparov was saying that it was
not him who caused the situation and the meeting,
and the whole procedure of the cancellation.
And that much was perfectly true.

But in Kasparov's mind, he also thought that he
will fool the chess public (which in his opinion
had to have poor brainy, inferior to his) into thinking
that his statement meant also that he, Kasparov
was against the cancellation. But it is clear from
his shouting at the meeting that actually he was
quite careful not to insist on the continuation
of the match. During the meeting he was talking
about the cancellation like it was already decided
and done, but it was not. There was still a minor
chance of simply continuing the match. Perhaps
they would end up cancelling it anyway but
Kasparov didn't dare to take a chance, didn't say
"ok, v poriadkie, let's play". He was only saying
"IF...THEN...".

****

All this is childish. Karpov had to be in bad shape,
if he agreed to cancellation. Otherwise there was
no way for it to happen, he would never allow it.
Kasparov felt relieved too. The cancellation
was done in a wrong way, but for all practical
purposes it worked fine. A priori both players
were gaining and losing about the same. Let's
remember that Karpov got draw odds and the right
to the rematch.

******

Wlod

Please Note: "Rook_wave", who posts here as Ralf Callenberg has a
history of following me around and deleting almost everything I post
on Wikipedia. Therefore, you and others will have to watch this site
to see if Callenberg tries to vandalize it again.


Sam, some guys here and there are just obssessive stalkers ;-)

Sam Sloan wrote:

Please Note: "Rook_wave", who posts here as Ralf Callenberg has a
history of following me around and deleting almost everything I post
on Wikipedia. Therefore, you and others will have to watch this site
to see if Callenberg tries to vandalize it again.


Sam, Sam, lying again. First: I did not vandalize. Second: I did not
delete "almost everything", only parts of articles. Third: My changes -
with one exception - were limited to chess related topics, which means I
left alone all your political and other articles. Last: the Winter
article has shown, that others are doing this job now.

Greetings,
Ralf

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 00:18:00 +0100, Ralf Callenberg
wrote:

Sam Sloan wrote:

Please Note: "Rook_wave", who posts here as Ralf Callenberg has a
history of following me around and deleting almost everything I post
on Wikipedia. Therefore, you and others will have to watch this site
to see if Callenberg tries to vandalize it again.


Sam, Sam, lying again. First: I did not vandalize. Second: I did not
delete "almost everything", only parts of articles. Third: My changes -
with one exception - were limited to chess related topics, which means I
left alone all your political and other articles. Last: the Winter
article has shown, that others are doing this job now.

Greetings,
Ralf

As it turns out, this time it was not Ralf Callenberg who vandalized
the article, but rather Louis Blair, who posts as 137.216.208.82 ,
which is in Brookings, South Dakota.

Louis Blair was a bit more civilized about it, not bulldozing the
entire article as Ralf Callenberg does, but just deleting a few lines
of my Larry Parr article.

Louis Blair also deleted content from my Eric Schiller article,
deleting among other things the foillowing unquestionably true
statement:

"Schiller was for many years the right-hand man of World Chess
Champion Garry Kasparov."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Schiller

Sam Sloan