David Kane wrote:

You don't need to go the Parr/Innes/Brennan
route of distortion and misdirection. Just
admit you blew it (it happens - we'll forgive
you) - then get back on track by savaging
Evans et al. for something they really deserve.


IMO, it is you who are trying (but not succeeding)
to go that route. Some advice: 1) create more anon
identities so you can play their game 2) regarding
misdirection, a task sometimes handled by Mr. Parr
himself, but more often delegated to his lapdog, Innes:
you aren't cutting the mustard; clearly, you have
focused mainly on setting out strawmen, and this
is not working due to being "caught" right out of the
gate.

As for "savaging" Evans and associates, that is
something which only his enemies wish to do. I
consider myself a "friend", the same sort of friend that
Evans was to Fischer, when he attempted to guide
Bobby down the straight and narrow path (but in
vain). *Constructive* criticism is our friend. Our
enemies are ignorance, bias, abd hatred.

I would suggest you put down your textbook on
invalid argument, and stop "testing" us. We easily see
through these things quite easily. A better idea would
be to brush aside the "dead drawn" and "attempting to
win" diversions, and focus in on the real facts. One of
these is the fact that until Spassky agrees to the draw,
he has every right to play on, hoping for a blunder just
like Bxh2. In that single position (right before Bxh2),
there were many variations which might well have caught
any ordinary player for a loss. Fischer was no ordinary
player, yet even so, he erred in his calculations. NOT
agreeing to draws in these kinds of positions is one of
the many reasons Spassky made it to the very top,
while so many others became 2600 also-rans. The
same thing can be said of many of the other world
champs, including Fischer.


"It ain't over, 'till it's over."


-- Vince



















Lombardy :D

"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...

David Kane wrote:

Just for the record, do you, like helpbot, also believe
that Evans was lying when describing the position
as dead drawn?


Poor, poor David Kane. He keeps getting confused, even
on the simplest of issues. SpamScone has not attacked
Evans in this thread, Mr. Kane;

I've already owned up to mischaracterizing The Historian's
mindless defense of your attacks.

nor was it GM Evans who
introduced the term "dead drawn" here -- that was Larry Parr.

OK.

snipped.

Your statement that I take issue with now (and shortly
after you posted it) is:

"One example of an Evans lie is where he claimed that
White had no advantage (not even the vestige of one) in the
position where Fischer made his most famous blunder."

Technically, Evans' claim is weaker than Parr's.
Neither side can have an "advantage" in any
"dead drawn" position, but it is possible for a
position to not be "dead drawn" yet still equal.
The statements are close in meaning in the
context of this particular position. (Even you can't
think so little of Evans to believe that he was
claiming that the position had a dynamic equality
where both sides had equal winning chances.)

So is it your new position that Evans was "lying"
because he didn't go as far as Parr???
That's a far cry from your earlier post when you
were listing all of these meaningless "advantages"
Spassky had.

Or are you just engaging in some irrelevant
chatter to change the subject?


I knew when I wrote that Evans had lied that this could be
nitpicked. Even so, it was a handy example for the moment.

Trueness as well as handiness should be considered in
examples, Mr. bot.

What all too often happens is, say, a broad claim that Evans
has lied is challenged, and then the first such example given
is picked apart, ignoring that there are numerous others to
take its place.

You've actually stumbled on a very important point.
It's important to give *good* examples. Giving
false and bad examples undercuts the credibility
of all your evidence and arguments.

Louis Blair, for instance, has documented a
substantial number of such lies here, and because Evans
and Parr (another such liar) are reluctant to admit mistakes,
these cannot be ignored as mere flubs.

So your excuse for making a clearly false
claim is that there might be similar claims that are true?

How persuasive.

GREG CAN'T ADMIT HE BLEW IT

Just admit you blew it (it happens - we'll forgive
you) - then get back on track by savaging Evans et al
for something they really deserve....You don't need to
go the Parr/Innes/Brennan route of distortion and
misdirection. -- David Kane to Greg Kennedy (help bot)

One always enjoys those rare moments when the
stinkers fall out. Despite a mountain of words, friend
Greg Kennedy won't retract his bogus charge that GM
Evans "lied" about Spassky-Fischer, game 1, 1972.

For the record, Spassky himself later said he
would have simply offered a draw or accepted an offer
if Fischer had not played ... Bxh2, a move that shows
the reason for, if not an example of, Bobby's strength.

As for Fischer's behavior at the board -- and
Greg Kennedy truly hates Bobby for his greatness --
Spassky himself considered it impeccable. He stated
that Bobby won normally, convincingly, because he was
stronger. He stated repeatedly -- over and over -- that
Bobby's demands were never directed against him,
but against the authorities.


David Kane wrote:
"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...

David Kane wrote:

Just for the record, do you, like helpbot, also believe
that Evans was lying when describing the position
as dead drawn?


Poor, poor David Kane. He keeps getting confused, even
on the simplest of issues. SpamScone has not attacked
Evans in this thread, Mr. Kane;

I've already owned up to mischaracterizing The Historian's
mindless defense of your attacks.

nor was it GM Evans who
introduced the term "dead drawn" here -- that was Larry Parr.

OK.

snipped.

Your statement that I take issue with now (and shortly
after you posted it) is:

"One example of an Evans lie is where he claimed that
White had no advantage (not even the vestige of one) in the
position where Fischer made his most famous blunder."

Technically, Evans' claim is weaker than Parr's.
Neither side can have an "advantage" in any
"dead drawn" position, but it is possible for a
position to not be "dead drawn" yet still equal.
The statements are close in meaning in the
context of this particular position. (Even you can't
think so little of Evans to believe that he was
claiming that the position had a dynamic equality
where both sides had equal winning chances.)

So is it your new position that Evans was "lying"
because he didn't go as far as Parr???
That's a far cry from your earlier post when you
were listing all of these meaningless "advantages"
Spassky had.

Or are you just engaging in some irrelevant
chatter to change the subject?


I knew when I wrote that Evans had lied that this could be
nitpicked. Even so, it was a handy example for the moment.

Trueness as well as handiness should be considered in
examples, Mr. bot.

What all too often happens is, say, a broad claim that Evans
has lied is challenged, and then the first such example given
is picked apart, ignoring that there are numerous others to
take its place.

You've actually stumbled on a very important point.
It's important to give *good* examples. Giving
false and bad examples undercuts the credibility
of all your evidence and arguments.

Louis Blair, for instance, has documented a
substantial number of such lies here, and because Evans
and Parr (another such liar) are reluctant to admit mistakes,
these cannot be ignored as mere flubs.

So your excuse for making a clearly false
claim is that there might be similar claims that are true?

How persuasive.

David Kane wrote:

Poor, poor David Kane. He keeps getting confused, even
on the simplest of issues. SpamScone has not attacked
Evans in this thread, Mr. Kane;

I've already owned up to mischaracterizing The Historian's
mindless defense of your attacks.


And this has what to do with your having gotten confused,
just as I said? Admitting an error is a good thing, yet it is
far from having not made the error in the first place. Example:
I admitted I made many calculation errors at GetClub, yet
all those games have yet to be *erased* by Sanny. Why
are not my rating points restored to me? :D




Your statement that I take issue with now (and shortly
after you posted it) is:

"One example of an Evans lie is where he claimed that
White had no advantage (not even the vestige of one) in the
position where Fischer made his most famous blunder."

Technically, Evans' claim is weaker than Parr's.
Neither side can have an "advantage" in any
"dead drawn" position


How about a nice cup of coffee? You need to wake
up your mind, clear out the fog.

Another poster has *already* provided a crystal-clear
example of just such an advantage, in a theoretically
drawn endgame position. A piece ahead gives the
superior side a big advantage, yet he cannot win
without some defensive mistake by his opponent.

I don't know, maybe you just aren't equipped to play
ball with the big boys. Maybe your thinking skills
are such that no matter how clearly a concept is
explained, and no matter how clear an example is
given to refute your mistaken ideas, you just can't
see anything but your preconceived falsehoods.

At any rate, that is one possible explanation of your
clinging to your pet straw men. The introduction of
the phrase "dead drawn" is telling; not only was that
particular game *not* drawn, but both world champions
erred, converting a draw to a win to a draw to a win.
Just how many times must such a conversion take
place before Fischer apologists will admit the game
was hardly "dead"? A thousand, perhaps? Or ten
thousand? Nay -- even then, these imbeciles would
stay dug into their mental trenches, firing off rounds
consisting of straw men and other schrapnel!

It boils down to an inability to admit Fischer's
human weakness, his fallibility, and what followed is
a plethora of "alternative explanations" for a simple
blunder, such as Evans' "Fischer trying too hard to win"
idiocy. Strange that even Fischer has admitted his
miscalculation, yet his staunch apologists reject the
truth in favor of their fictional stories, partly out of
ignorance, and partly out of long-standing habit.

--------------

My own "projection" of what Fischer most likely
was thinking when he reached this endgame is:

"Spassky was lucky to draw White in the first game,
but now he has wasted it and will face me -- the
greatest player who ever lived -- as Black! I've flat
busted his King's Gambit, so he was forced to try
this stupid QG line which netted him nothing more
than a draw -- Bwhahahaha!"


-- Fischer bot

"help bot" wrote in message
ups.com...

David Kane wrote:



Your statement that I take issue with now (and shortly
after you posted it) is:

"One example of an Evans lie is where he claimed that
White had no advantage (not even the vestige of one) in the
position where Fischer made his most famous blunder."

Technically, Evans' claim is weaker than Parr's.
Neither side can have an "advantage" in any
"dead drawn" position


How about a nice cup of coffee? You need to wake
up your mind, clear out the fog.

Another poster has *already* provided a crystal-clear
example of just such an advantage, in a theoretically
drawn endgame position. A piece ahead gives the
superior side a big advantage, yet he cannot win
without some defensive mistake by his opponent.

That red-herring had nothing to do with the point.
Though the "other poster" could not recall arguments
made a few minutes prior which made the debate
rather pointless, we actually *agreed* that there
could be winning chances in a theoretically
drawn game. The point is that a "dead drawn"
position gives neither side winning chances.
Neither side has an advantage.

At any rate, that is one possible explanation of your
clinging to your pet straw men. The introduction of
the phrase "dead drawn" is telling; not only was that
particular game *not* drawn, but both world champions
erred, converting a draw to a win to a draw to a win.
Just how many times must such a conversion take
place before Fischer apologists will admit the game
was hardly "dead"? A thousand, perhaps? Or ten
thousand? Nay -- even then, these imbeciles would
stay dug into their mental trenches, firing off rounds
consisting of straw men and other schrapnel!

1. You are talking about the position *after* Bxh2, which
I have not referred to as dead drawn. At issue is
your claim that Evans lied about the position *before*
Bxh2. Think, man, think!

2. I am not by any stretch of the imagination
a Fischer apologist. I think he's human scum.
But I suspect that Fischer (and many other GMs
for that matter) played chess well enough
to draw the position before Bxh2 blindfolded.


It boils down to an inability to admit Fischer's
human weakness, his fallibility, and what followed is
a plethora of "alternative explanations" for a simple
blunder, such as Evans' "Fischer trying too hard to win"
idiocy. Strange that even Fischer has admitted his
miscalculation, yet his staunch apologists reject the
truth in favor of their fictional stories, partly out of
ignorance, and partly out of long-standing habit.

--------------

There is no harm in making speculations, just
as you have. I don't place much stock in them,
including my own "pronking gazelle" theory.
Fischer's own statements aren't worth
much as evidence either - anything he says can be
expected to be self serving. Evans' speculations
about Fischer have been proven wrong time and
time again - they are as worthless as anybody's.

But Evans' assessment of the position before Bxh2?
Well, he's an experienced GM, commenting on
a chess position, giving an assessment that seems
to be universally shared except for someone calling
himself help bot and who is seemingly incapable of
arguing the contrary position. And Evans'
assessment is consistent with what little I know
about the game. Conclusion: he's not lying, you are.

But I'm open to being proved wrong. To
make your case you have to provide
evidence that players of Fischer's calibre
would have had trouble drawing the position.
Whenever you're ready!

David Kane wrote:
"help bot" wrote in message
ups.com...

David Kane wrote:



Your statement that I take issue with now (and shortly
after you posted it) is:

"One example of an Evans lie is where he claimed that
White had no advantage (not even the vestige of one) in the
position where Fischer made his most famous blunder."

Technically, Evans' claim is weaker than Parr's.
Neither side can have an "advantage" in any
"dead drawn" position


How about a nice cup of coffee? You need to wake
up your mind, clear out the fog.

Another poster has *already* provided a crystal-clear
example of just such an advantage, in a theoretically
drawn endgame position. A piece ahead gives the
superior side a big advantage, yet he cannot win
without some defensive mistake by his opponent.

That red-herring had nothing to do with the point.
Though the "other poster" could not recall arguments
made a few minutes prior

"Yes, I did, and found it a poor example." But this is a great example
of a David Foster Kane falsehood.

which made the debate
rather pointless, we actually *agreed* that there
could be winning chances in a theoretically
drawn game.

What I agreed to was: "Of course there are plenty of harder positions
in which GMs might have difficulty achieving the theoretical result." I
don't think this is exactly the same meaning as David Foster Kane is
citing.

The point is that a "dead drawn"
position gives neither side winning chances.
Neither side has an advantage.

As I pointed out previously, this is then an analytical dispute among
helpbot, Evans, and Kane. I'm sure both helpbot and Evans know what an
advantage is.

At any rate, that is one possible explanation of your
clinging to your pet straw men. The introduction of
the phrase "dead drawn" is telling; not only was that
particular game *not* drawn, but both world champions
erred, converting a draw to a win to a draw to a win.
Just how many times must such a conversion take
place before Fischer apologists will admit the game
was hardly "dead"? A thousand, perhaps? Or ten
thousand? Nay -- even then, these imbeciles would
stay dug into their mental trenches, firing off rounds
consisting of straw men and other schrapnel!

1. You are talking about the position *after* Bxh2, which
I have not referred to as dead drawn. At issue is
your claim that Evans lied about the position *before*
Bxh2. Think, man, think!

2. I am not by any stretch of the imagination
a Fischer apologist. I think he's human scum.
But I suspect that Fischer (and many other GMs
for that matter) played chess well enough
to draw the position before Bxh2 blindfolded.


It boils down to an inability to admit Fischer's
human weakness, his fallibility, and what followed is
a plethora of "alternative explanations" for a simple
blunder, such as Evans' "Fischer trying too hard to win"
idiocy. Strange that even Fischer has admitted his
miscalculation, yet his staunch apologists reject the
truth in favor of their fictional stories, partly out of
ignorance, and partly out of long-standing habit.

--------------

There is no harm in making speculations, just
as you have. I don't place much stock in them,
including my own "pronking gazelle" theory.
Fischer's own statements aren't worth
much as evidence either - anything he says can be
expected to be self serving. Evans' speculations
about Fischer have been proven wrong time and
time again - they are as worthless as anybody's.

But Evans' assessment of the position before Bxh2?
Well, he's an experienced GM, commenting on
a chess position, giving an assessment that seems
to be universally shared except for someone calling
himself help bot and who is seemingly incapable of
arguing the contrary position. And Evans'
assessment is consistent with what little I know
about the game. Conclusion: he's not lying, you are.

But I'm open to being proved wrong. To
make your case you have to provide
evidence that players of Fischer's calibre
would have had trouble drawing the position.
Whenever you're ready!

help bot wrote:
David Kane wrote:

Poor, poor David Kane. He keeps getting confused, even
on the simplest of issues. SpamScone has not attacked
Evans in this thread, Mr. Kane;

I've already owned up to mischaracterizing The Historian's
mindless defense of your attacks.

And this has what to do with your having gotten confused,
just as I said?

Incidentally, where have I defended anything you've written about the
endgame in question? My only interest in this thread was trying to
explain a basic law of chess to Mr. Kane. It's as fruitless a labor as
trying to correct Innes' Spanish.

Admitting an error is a good thing, yet it is
far from having not made the error in the first place. Example:
I admitted I made many calculation errors at GetClub, yet
all those games have yet to be *erased* by Sanny. Why
are not my rating points restored to me? :D




Your statement that I take issue with now (and shortly
after you posted it) is:

"One example of an Evans lie is where he claimed that
White had no advantage (not even the vestige of one) in the
position where Fischer made his most famous blunder."

Technically, Evans' claim is weaker than Parr's.
Neither side can have an "advantage" in any
"dead drawn" position


How about a nice cup of coffee? You need to wake
up your mind, clear out the fog.

Another poster has *already* provided a crystal-clear
example of just such an advantage, in a theoretically
drawn endgame position.

Thank you.

A piece ahead gives the
superior side a big advantage, yet he cannot win
without some defensive mistake by his opponent.

I don't know, maybe you just aren't equipped to play
ball with the big boys. Maybe your thinking skills
are such that no matter how clearly a concept is
explained, and no matter how clear an example is
given to refute your mistaken ideas, you just can't
see anything but your preconceived falsehoods.

At any rate, that is one possible explanation of your
clinging to your pet straw men. The introduction of
the phrase "dead drawn" is telling; not only was that
particular game *not* drawn, but both world champions
erred, converting a draw to a win to a draw to a win.
Just how many times must such a conversion take
place before Fischer apologists will admit the game
was hardly "dead"? A thousand, perhaps? Or ten
thousand? Nay -- even then, these imbeciles would
stay dug into their mental trenches, firing off rounds
consisting of straw men and other schrapnel!

It boils down to an inability to admit Fischer's
human weakness, his fallibility, and what followed is
a plethora of "alternative explanations" for a simple
blunder, such as Evans' "Fischer trying too hard to win"
idiocy. Strange that even Fischer has admitted his
miscalculation, yet his staunch apologists reject the
truth in favor of their fictional stories, partly out of
ignorance, and partly out of long-standing habit.

--------------

My own "projection" of what Fischer most likely
was thinking when he reached this endgame is:

"Spassky was lucky to draw White in the first game,
but now he has wasted it and will face me -- the
greatest player who ever lived -- as Black! I've flat
busted his King's Gambit, so he was forced to try
this stupid QG line which netted him nothing more
than a draw -- Bwhahahaha!"


-- Fischer bot

The Historian wrote:

And a nice book it is. Have you read Mednis on this endgame? Or Nunn in
his Secrets of Pawnless Endings?

I own every book by Mednis and Nunn. If I have read those little Mednis
endgame books once, I have read them a thousand times.

Nunn has a command of chess few have; to say nothing of his writing
ability. To me he is the anti-Schiller, the guy who painstakingly tries
to make every book as good as possible.

"help bot" wrote in message
ups.com...

IMO, the word "strawman" comes up in these newsgroups
often, not because I am Grey Kennedy or Vnce Hart, but
because of the myriad appearances of men of straw here.

Note: I bet he/they also quite frequently used terms like
"Larry", "Evans", "lie", "Fischer", and "chess". Does this
prove I am Larry Fischer? :D


I know you've heard the following in some form somewhere in your
lifetime, but I'll tell it just in case you've forgotten:

it's not illegal for you to own a mask
its not illegal for you to own a gun (with the proper license)
it's not illegal for you to have a map of the bank's floor layout
it's not illegal for you to park in the bank's lot with the engine running

but, if you do/have all of the above, and that particular bank gets held up
by a lone gunmen within a short period ... guess what? ... you're the
prime suspect.



And why do you ignore the "real evidence", the syntax
proof? For example, both Mr. Hart and Grey Kennedy
put periods at the end of their sentences, exactly as I do.
They even used commas -- a dead giveaway! :D


I noticed the commas and periods ... but I've decided to give
you the benefit of the doubt.


Maybe...maybe every poster in this newsgroup is really
Sam Sloan? Especially that g4 -- there is something
awfully suspicious about his handle, but I can't quite put
my finger on it.


g4 is simply a square on either a chess or bingo board

"The Historian" wrote in message
oups.com...

David Kane wrote:
"help bot" wrote in message
ups.com...

David Kane wrote:



Your statement that I take issue with now (and shortly
after you posted it) is:

"One example of an Evans lie is where he claimed that
White had no advantage (not even the vestige of one) in the
position where Fischer made his most famous blunder."

Technically, Evans' claim is weaker than Parr's.
Neither side can have an "advantage" in any
"dead drawn" position


How about a nice cup of coffee? You need to wake
up your mind, clear out the fog.

Another poster has *already* provided a crystal-clear
example of just such an advantage, in a theoretically
drawn endgame position. A piece ahead gives the
superior side a big advantage, yet he cannot win
without some defensive mistake by his opponent.

That red-herring had nothing to do with the point.
Though the "other poster" could not recall arguments
made a few minutes prior

"Yes, I did, and found it a poor example." But this is a great example
of a David Foster Kane falsehood.

Translation. You wanted to misstate my position,
but my example (which is inconsistent with
your misstatement) made that difficult. So without
comment you snipped it, later describing it
as a "poor" example, again without reason.
But your "brilliant" discovery that R vs. R+B
might be hard to draw in practice, somehow
refutes my arguments. How? Because I've said
that it's "dead drawn". Except ... that I haven't!
So it's a complete straw man, arguing against
a position I've never taken.

To put things simply for the simpletons, if you're
playing a position that you don't have a chance
to win, then you can't claim to have an advantage.

My White King is on a1. Your Black pawn is
on a4, your Black king is on a5.

You have a material advantage! You have a passed
pawn! You have an advanced King! You have,
according to an obscure 1886 Steinitz' treatise,
some other advantage, known only to the erudite
and multilingual!

But ... my King can stay near the corner. All of your
"advantage" can't get it out. You can make me
"prove the draw" and move your pieces around
for 50 moves. But you can't win -
against anyone who knows the drawing method.

Sure, there are people in the world who are so
bad at chess that they *don't* know about
keeping the King in the corner. Those people might
move it away, and in that case you would win
from that position.

So back to the issue of honesty and truthfulness.
(the Historian brags that he "doesn't have a
dog in that fight" Perhaps he should.) Does
Fischer know how to draw the position in
question? If so, Evans is correct. If not,
he's wrong. If he's wrong, he could be
misstaken, or he could be lying.

Well no one can ever really know.
But Larry Evans concluded that the
position was an easy draw (hence not
giving Spassky any advantage) Maybe
he saw the even material, the symmetrical
pawn structure, the fact that Black's
Bishop is good. Maybe he's played
similar positions - lots of times- and knows
that players of Fischer's calibre don't have
any trouble coming up with a drawing method.
Seems reasonable to me, but apparently
not to help bot, who claims that Evans is
not just wrong, he's lying. But here's the
thing - help bot doesn't provide an argument
to support that assertion. Amidst all the
verbiage, and there has been a lot,
his lone piece of supporting evidence
is "there were many variations which
might well have caught any ordinary
player for a loss". Well I suppose
we can concede that fact, but do
we upset him by telling him that that
doesn't make Evans a liar?


..