On Apr 18, 6:56 pm, "David Kane" wr "help
bot" wrote in message

It's hard to imagine anyone so dense as to believe
that scholastic members would actually want to
read a column by Evans.

What a silly comment! Scholastic players will
hardly be able to tell the difference between a
column by GM Evans and one by any other
random GM, for the content is focused upon
basic chess, not politics or any of the other
areas in which GM Evans frequently stumbles.
(Please tell me if I'm wrong, and his kiddie
column is filled with attacks on Botvinnik, etc.)

One of the things I liked about GM Evans was
his insistence upon grabbing material when you
cannot "see" the reason not to; this not only
leads to winning when the sac was unsound --
it also leads to quickly learning about tactics
when it *was* sound, and the loss of a single
game is well worth the valuable lesson learned.


This leads to the explanation
that the column was continued for the Evans' own
benefit.

No, it doesn't. If you would learn to think, you
would be able to see that if the column was in
fact "continued", as you say, then all that means
is that the editors were either not redoing the
children's mag. at that time, or else they saw no
reason to replace GM Evans column, as it was
not flawed in the same way or to the same extent
as his political ranting column in CL. There may
also be a difference in supply/demand of authors
in the two different mags. I seriously doubt that
kids were writing in complaining about GM Evans,
the way adults would do.


As Sloan's own post reveals, this doesn't
seem to placate the Evans' clique who are
presumably looking for his commentary
(aka ravings) on some grave injustice that
took place during his first US Championship
victory - in 1951.

Although it probably has happened at some
point, I don't think it is fair to attack GM Evans
as though his ranting were on his own behalf.
On the contrary, his biggest issue seems to
be anything and everything relating to GM
Fischer -- issues which in fact are a tad more
current than your figure (1951). Valid criticism
of GM Evans and his ratpack in no way requires
*any* exaggeration or invention.


So doling out something
to the old favorite strikes me as a reasonable
speculation for giving him the column.

Me too. But speculation is merely that; one of
the things which plagues GM Evans' own work is
too much in the way of speculation, and too little
in the way of facts and reason.


I guess one could debate whether Evans' column
does more damage to American chess in Chess
Life or CL for Kids. I'll pass on that debate.

I haven't seen GM Evans' column for kids, but if
I had to guess, I would assume that his ranting
and raving in CL is *in a class by itself*. :D


I was just pointing out that his QA column has been
restored - and is so uninteresting that the readers
apparently aren't even sending in questions.

This may or may not be GM Evans' fault. It is quite
possible that children simply aren't inclined to write
letters anymore. Send emails, yes. Carry cell phones,
yes. Play video games, yes. But write with pen and
paper? So five minutes ago... .

-- help bot

On Apr 19, 12:37 am, "David Kane" wrote:

I do not in any respect hate GM Evans.
I find it sad that Evans lacked the insight
to voluntarily give up the column 20 years
ago. He could have done so with his head held
high and the broad esteem of the American
chess community. It would have been a
great time, had he wanted to, to move
on to more meaningful projects in the
chess world. In his place, somebody
with connections to contemporary
players could have breathed new life into
the column.

Instead (at Parr's urging no doubt) he clung
to his government post with the tenacity
of a Kremlin apparatchik. His output
became that of an irate old man, botching
questions left and right - out of touch not
only with his earlier positions, but with
reality itself.

There is a very real possibility that GM Evans has,
like GM Fischer, had a sort of parting of the ways
with reality not merely regarding chess, but in a
more general manner. His knee-jerk attacks on
critics for pointing out date errors, for instance, is
indicative of a mind which quite simply is deranged in
believing itself incapable of even the smallest mistake.
This raises the question: can such a deranged mind
be held accountable, as if it were operating on all
cylinders? Or do we treat the man just as though he
were completely insane? Murky waters.



His Q&A column in its current form reveals
him to be someone who has zero connection
with the scholastic audience for which the
magazine is written. [to the point that the
editor is begging and bribing people to send
questions]

How about an example, for those of us who are not
still young enough to get this mag., like yourself?

IMO, one of the better ways to keep an old-timer
around is to give him the endgame column. Many
younger GMs would not want this job anyway, and
the endgame is a realm in which experience often
plays a large role. However, there are problems
here, too, as we have seen with GM Benko.


Evans comes across as scarcely
interested in chess and contemptuous
of his readers - traits one also associates
with Larry Parr. GM Evans' is as much a
casualty of his being given lifetime employment
as the rest of us are.

Well, even if the CL columns were taken away
altogether, GM Evans would have other outlets
for his rants. I expect the point is to be able to
retain this on his "resume" for prestige, and of
course the sheer number of people who can be
influenced through CL.

To be fair, some of the *youngest* players I have
seen given a column in CL were ****-poor writers,
churning out slop fit for hogs, not people.

-- help bot

On Apr 19, 12:25 pm, "David Kane" wrote:

Evans' first answer in this month's
"Ask GM Larry Evans!" column quotes
Botvinnik and refers to a book by Reuben
Fine- two players about as far away from
the modern chess world as one can imagine.
Not to say that "old" equates to "bad",
but in this case it is needlessly old, and
the points could be made in a more
entertaining fashion with modern players.

Evans' second answer in this month's
column is totally non-responsive. A player
asks for Black's best move in a position,
which Evans simply ignores, and instead
points out that Black made two mistakes
on the way to the queried position.

The third question is about what happens
when a game is started with the wrong
color. Evans quotes the rule. Yet, his
only color is the brilliant (?) lead-in
sentence "This happens occasionally."
In fact, I suspect it happens very,
very rarely at the level Evans himself
played, but it's not at all uncommon in huge
scholastic tournaments. But Evans
doesn't know that, or have anything
interesting to say about that, because
he has no contact with that part of
the chess world.

These are precisely the examples I was looking for.
(See an earlier post.)


Evans has certainly earned the right
to regurgitate his dated columns on wcn
if that's what floats his boat. But he
should be ashamed of himself for
feigning an ability to write an article
for scholastic chess players.

I recall a time when I was one of the coaches for
a scholastic team, and the head honcho kept trying
to recruit every strong player in the city, equating
strength with teaching ability. The good part is that
only one of the players he recruited taught the kids
poor strategy (he was quickly booted out), but the
bad part was that the best players were not
necessarily any good at teaching kids, and this
of course was the key!

IMO, it should not require a GM to write a column
for a scholastic publication, nor even an IM for that
matter. What we really need is a meritocracy, not
a GM-ocracy. :D

-- help bot

"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 18, 6:56 pm, "David Kane" wr "help
bot" wrote in message

It's hard to imagine anyone so dense as to believe
that scholastic members would actually want to
read a column by Evans.

What a silly comment! Scholastic players will
hardly be able to tell the difference between a
column by GM Evans and one by any other
random GM, for the content is focused upon
basic chess, not politics or any of the other
areas in which GM Evans frequently stumbles.
(Please tell me if I'm wrong, and his kiddie
column is filled with attacks on Botvinnik, etc.)


You're not. But if your definition of a good scholastic
ariticle is the absence of political ranting and raving,
you are part of the problem.

snipped

This leads to the explanation
that the column was continued for the Evans' own
benefit.

No, it doesn't. If you would learn to think, you
would be able to see that if the column was in
fact "continued", as you say, then all that means
is that the editors were either not redoing the
children's mag. at that time, or else they saw no
reason to replace GM Evans column, as it was
not flawed in the same way or to the same extent
as his political ranting column in CL. There may
also be a difference in supply/demand of authors
in the two different mags. I seriously doubt that
kids were writing in complaining about GM Evans,
the way adults would do.

His column has not always been in
CL for Kids. It was not in Aug 2006 but
has appeared in each CL for Kids since
Oct 2006. Compare to the chronology
for his CL column, and it appears to me
that the USCF's motivation for putting
his column in CL for Kids was to keep
Evans happy after his column was
removed from CL (That it demonstrates
utter contempt for scholastic chess
probably doesn't trouble the USCF insider
gang in the least)


snipped

I was just pointing out that his QA column has been
restored - and is so uninteresting that the readers
apparently aren't even sending in questions.

This may or may not be GM Evans' fault. It is quite
possible that children simply aren't inclined to write
letters anymore. Send emails, yes. Carry cell phones,
yes. Play video games, yes. But write with pen and
paper? So five minutes ago... .


Email questions are accepted. You are perhaps correct
that it would be hard to do well, but certainly none
could do worse. And I am not aware of any laws
requiring columns in the Q&A format.

BILE-LACED ENVY (continued)

HOW AMERICA IS BETRAYED IN WORLD CHESS
http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules....=News&file=art...

DECONSTRUCTING KANE

Mr. Kane's screed contains a number of outrageous claims. I disagree
with every single point he made, nor do I find GM Evans' tone
"contemptuous" as he alleges. I also find every single answer within
the allotted space of the April CL For Kids to be instructive and
right on the money.

********************


What you fail to grasp is that people don't want to read 19-year-old
articles
covering "scandals" 40 or more years old - not in Chess Life, not
anywhere.
You should consult with your pal Sloan. While his habit of
fabricating scandals
from thin air (or an active, semi- delusional imagination) cannot
be recommended, at least he knows enough to invent stuff that's
mildly interesting.

FACT: What Mr. Kane fails to grasp is that what happened then in the
USCF and FIDE isn't much diferent than what's happening now. Tbose who
fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Evans' first answer in this month's "Ask GM Larry Evans!" column
quotes
Botvinnik and refers to a book by Reuben Fine- two players about as
far away from
the modern chess world as one can imagine. Not to say that "old"
equates to "bad", but in this case it is needlessly old, and the
points could be made in a more
entertaining fashion with modern players.

FACT: The first question is what do do when someone doesn't play a
line that the book doesn't mention. Part of the answer stated: "a true
test of skill is being able to find the right move in a position you
never saw before." It then went on to quote Botvinnik to this effect
and concluded: "A book that I found helpful whend first starting was
Ideas Behind The Chess Openings by Reuben Fine."


Evans' second answer in this month's column is totally non-
responsive. A player
asks for Black's best move in a position, which Evans simply
ignores, and instead
points out that Black made two mistakes on the way to the queried
position.

FACT: This deals with hoping for a mistake. After 1 f4 e5 2 fxe5 Qh4+
3 g3 Be7 4 Nf3 the best reply given was 4...Qh5 "losing more time
because the queen must retreat." After critiquing Black's opening, the
answer concludes: "Always assume your opponent will find the best move
and plan your reply in advance instead of hoping for a cheap mistake."


The third question is about what happens when a game is started with
the wrong
color. Evans quotes the rule. Yet, his only color is the brilliant
(?) lead-in sentence "This happens occasionally." In fact, I suspect
it happens very, very rarely at the level Evans himself played, but
it's not at all uncommon in huge scholastic tournaments. But Evans
doesn't know that, or have anything interesting to say about that,
because he has no contact with that part of the chess world.

FACT: Evans answered the question by quoting the pertinent rule. Not
much space for much else.


Evans has certainly earned the right to regurgitate his dated columns
on wcn
if that's what floats his boat. But he should be ashamed of himself
for
feigning an ability to write an article for scholastic chess
players.

FACT: Perhaps Mr. Kane has better credentials to conduct a column for
children. Readers can judge this for themselves.




David Kane wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
HOW AMERICA IS BETRAYED IN WORLD CHESS

http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules....rder=0&thold=0


What you fail to grasp is that people
don't want to read 19-year-old articles
covering "scandals" 40 or more years
old - not in Chess Life, not anywhere.
You should consult with your pal Sloan.
While his habit of fabricating scandals
from thin air (or an active, semi-
delusional imagination) cannot be
recommended, at least he knows
enough to invent stuff that's mildly
interesting.

Evans' first answer in this month's
"Ask GM Larry Evans!" column quotes
Botvinnik and refers to a book by Reuben
Fine- two players about as far away from
the modern chess world as one can imagine.
Not to say that "old" equates to "bad",
but in this case it is needlessly old, and
the points could be made in a more
entertaining fashion with modern players.

Evans' second answer in this month's
column is totally non-responsive. A player
asks for Black's best move in a position,
which Evans simply ignores, and instead
points out that Black made two mistakes
on the way to the queried position.

The third question is about what happens
when a game is started with the wrong
color. Evans quotes the rule. Yet, his
only color is the brilliant (?) lead-in
sentence "This happens occasionally."
In fact, I suspect it happens very,
very rarely at the level Evans himself
played, but it's not at all uncommon in huge
scholastic tournaments. But Evans
doesn't know that, or have anything
interesting to say about that, because
he has no contact with that part of
the chess world.

Evans has certainly earned the right
to regurgitate his dated columns on wcn
if that's what floats his boat. But he
should be ashamed of himself for
feigning an ability to write an article
for scholastic chess players.

wrote in message
oups.com...
BILE-LACED ENVY (continued)

HOW AMERICA IS BETRAYED IN WORLD CHESS
http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules....=News&file=art...

DECONSTRUCTING KANE

Mr. Kane's screed contains a number of outrageous claims. I disagree
with every single point he made, nor do I find GM Evans' tone
"contemptuous" as he alleges. I also find every single answer within
the allotted space of the April CL For Kids to be instructive and
right on the money.

********************


What you fail to grasp is that people don't want to read 19-year-old
articles
covering "scandals" 40 or more years old - not in Chess Life, not
anywhere.
You should consult with your pal Sloan. While his habit of
fabricating scandals
from thin air (or an active, semi- delusional imagination) cannot
be recommended, at least he knows enough to invent stuff that's
mildly interesting.

FACT: What Mr. Kane fails to grasp is that what happened then in the
USCF and FIDE isn't much diferent than what's happening now. Tbose who
fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

The article you quoted refers to happenings in the 60-80's.

Evans' first answer in this month's "Ask GM Larry Evans!" column
quotes
Botvinnik and refers to a book by Reuben Fine- two players about as
far away from
the modern chess world as one can imagine. Not to say that "old"
equates to "bad", but in this case it is needlessly old, and the
points could be made in a more
entertaining fashion with modern players.

FACT: The first question is what do do when someone doesn't play a
line that the book doesn't mention. Part of the answer stated: "a true
test of skill is being able to find the right move in a position you
never saw before." It then went on to quote Botvinnik to this effect
and concluded: "A book that I found helpful whend first starting was
Ideas Behind The Chess Openings by Reuben Fine."


I didn't comment on the advice. I said that Evans referenced
needlessly ancient players. There is no reason that players today
need use books that Evans used when he was young. There
have been books published since then, and if Evans
wants to write a modern article, he should know about them.


Evans' second answer in this month's column is totally non-
responsive. A player
asks for Black's best move in a position, which Evans simply
ignores, and instead
points out that Black made two mistakes on the way to the queried
position.

FACT: This deals with hoping for a mistake. After 1 f4 e5 2 fxe5 Qh4+
3 g3 Be7 4 Nf3 the best reply given was 4...Qh5 "losing more time
because the queen must retreat." After critiquing Black's opening, the
answer concludes: "Always assume your opponent will find the best move
and plan your reply in advance instead of hoping for a cheap mistake."

There are many comments that players could offer about this
horrible game. I think most any coach would shoot off on a tangent and
I didn't fault Evans for that. But Evans did not answer the question
asked. Period.


The third question is about what happens when a game is started with
the wrong
color. Evans quotes the rule. Yet, his only color is the brilliant
(?) lead-in sentence "This happens occasionally." In fact, I suspect
it happens very, very rarely at the level Evans himself played, but
it's not at all uncommon in huge scholastic tournaments. But Evans
doesn't know that, or have anything interesting to say about that,
because he has no contact with that part of the chess world.

FACT: Evans answered the question by quoting the pertinent rule. Not
much space for much else.

There is half a column devoted to begging for more questions. I
already acknowledged that the question was technically answered
correctly. I also explained why it was answered poorly.


Evans has certainly earned the right to regurgitate his dated columns
on wcn
if that's what floats his boat. But he should be ashamed of himself
for
feigning an ability to write an article for scholastic chess
players.

FACT: Perhaps Mr. Kane has better credentials to conduct a column for
children. Readers can judge this for themselves.


Every other contributor to CL for Kids does a better job than Evans.
This month's column does not contain the worst of his gaffes, but it's
bad enough to demonstrate that he is not up to the task.

On Apr 19, 4:37 pm, "David Kane" wrote:

It's hard to imagine anyone so dense as to believe
that scholastic members would actually want to
read a column by Evans.

What a silly comment! Scholastic players will
hardly be able to tell the difference between a
column by GM Evans and one by any other
random GM, for the content is focused upon
basic chess, not politics or any of the other
areas in which GM Evans frequently stumbles.
(Please tell me if I'm wrong, and his kiddie
column is filled with attacks on Botvinnik, etc.)

You're not. But if your definition of a good scholastic
ariticle is the absence of political ranting and raving,
you are part of the problem.

Your ad hom. tendency is duly noted.

This leads to the explanation
that the column was continued for the Evans' own
benefit.

No, it doesn't. If you would learn to think, you
would be able to see that if the column was in
fact "continued", as you say, then all that means
is that the editors were either not redoing the
children's mag. at that time, or else they saw no
reason to replace GM Evans column, as it was
not flawed in the same way or to the same extent
as his political ranting column in CL. There may
also be a difference in supply/demand of authors
in the two different mags. I seriously doubt that
kids were writing in complaining about GM Evans,
the way adults would do.

His column has not always been in
CL for Kids.

Like I said, I don't read the kiddie publication.
What I write is based on such things as *your*
claim that the column has been "continued"
(a direct quote of you) and many comments
by such writers as Larry Parr, who through a
hissy fit when, as he claimed, GM Evans was
dropped or "fired" (not my choice of word).


It was not in Aug 2006 but
has appeared in each CL for Kids since
Oct 2006. Compare to the chronology
for his CL column, and it appears to me
that the USCF's motivation for putting
his column in CL for Kids was to keep
Evans happy

That's silly. If the editor wanted to keep GM
Evans happy, he would never have "fired" him
in the first place! Clearly, anything along the
lines of what you are suggesting would have
been motivated, not by any desire to make LE
happy, but to get the Evans "cult" to cease
fire. This is precisely the caving I talked about
before.


after his column was
removed from CL (That it demonstrates
utter contempt for scholastic chess
probably doesn't trouble the USCF insider
gang in the least)

Perhaps they are deluded into equating having
a FIDE GM title with being an instructive writer.
This would also explain why they gave similar jobs
to some of the worthless younger GMs in CL.


I was just pointing out that his QA column has been
restored - and is so uninteresting that the readers
apparently aren't even sending in questions.

This may or may not be GM Evans' fault. It is quite
possible that children simply aren't inclined to write
letters anymore. Send emails, yes. Carry cell phones,
yes. Play video games, yes. But write with pen and
paper? So five minutes ago... .

Email questions are accepted. You are perhaps correct
that it would be hard to do well, but certainly none
could do worse. And I am not aware of any laws
requiring columns in the Q&A format.

Well, it seems to be a tradition of sorts for big
magazines like CL to hand out columns to big
names with big titles, regardless of merit. In order
for this to change, it would take a tsunami in terms
of intellectual thinking, a switchover from fame-
ocracy to meritocracy. It may well never happen.

One answer (well, sort of) is to accept the status
quo and search elsewhere for quality chess writing.
Another option is to get inside the USCF, and blow
it up, so to speak. This may be what Sam Sloan
has in mind.

-- help bot

On Apr 19, 4:44 pm, " wrote:

Mr. Kane's screed contains a number of outrageous claims. I disagree
with every single point he made, nor do I find GM Evans' tone
"contemptuous" as he alleges.

My view is that GM Evans is contemptuous
toward his critics, not necessarily toward every
reader who writes in. Non-critical readers are
more often treated dismissively, not with
contempt.


I also find every single answer within
the allotted space of the April CL For Kids to be instructive and
right on the money.

It would seem that I am virtually alone in the age
group where you are sent the Chess Life magazine,
instead of the version for kids. Who knew?


FACT: What Mr. Kane fails to grasp is that what happened then in the
USCF and FIDE isn't much diferent than what's happening now. Tbose who
fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Destined, actually. But while this may be true, it
dodges the point regarding GM Evans' stuff being
horribly dated. (A valuable lesson could be learned
here about what readers want by simply opening
ones daft ears.) And for crying out loud, get a
spell-checker already!


FACT: The first question is what do do when someone doesn't play a
line that the book doesn't mention.

Kids sure know how to get things mucked up,
don't they? Why not ask about what to do when
the opponent plays a line *not* mentioned in the
book? It is obvious that if the opponent plays
a line mentioned the book, the thing to do is
refer to the book. :D

I strongly suspect all these gaffes by Mr. Parr
are the result of him getting a bit hot under the
collar. He starts typing rapidly, and forgets to
utilize his spell-check program to save him from
a multitude of embarrassing mistakes.


Part of the answer stated: "a true
test of skill is being able to find the right move in a position you
never saw before."

Uh-oh. This means that we are all patzers, then?


It then went on to quote Botvinnik to this effect
and concluded: "A book that I found helpful whend first starting was
Ideas Behind The Chess Openings by Reuben Fine."

Good point. But badly dated. That book will
undoubtedly focus on such openings and variations
as were popular a long time ago, while ignoring far
more relevant things. Plus it's in descriptive notation,
which, again, is badly dated.


Evans' second answer in this month's column is totally non-
responsive. A player
asks for Black's best move in a position, which Evans simply
ignores, and instead
points out that Black made two mistakes on the way to the queried
position.

FACT: This deals with hoping for a mistake. After 1 f4 e5 2 fxe5 Qh4+
3 g3 Be7 4 Nf3 the best reply given was 4...Qh5 "losing more time
because the queen must retreat." After critiquing Black's opening, the
answer concludes: "Always assume your opponent will find the best move
and plan your reply in advance instead of hoping for a cheap mistake."

I think GM Evans made things clear a good
while back: he is no longer regarded as the
ultimate authority on best moves due to all
the weakies writing in with corrections they
found using Fritz or Chessmaster, so in
retaliation he reserves the right to ignore such
questions altogether in his usual, dismissive
manner. Get a computer already!


The third question is about what happens when a game is started with
the wrong
color. Evans quotes the rule. Yet, his only color is the brilliant
(?) lead-in sentence "This happens occasionally." In fact, I suspect
it happens very, very rarely at the level Evans himself played, but
it's not at all uncommon in huge scholastic tournaments. But Evans
doesn't know that, or have anything interesting to say about that,
because he has no contact with that part of the chess world.

FACT: Evans answered the question by quoting the pertinent rule. Not
much space for much else.

Perhaps he could have made space enough to
mention that this primarily happens in scholastic
events, and thus, things can get a bit messy for
the error may only be discovered well into the
game, if at all.


Evans has certainly earned the right to regurgitate his dated columns
on wcn
if that's what floats his boat. But he should be ashamed of himself
for
feigning an ability to write an article for scholastic chess
players.

FACT: Perhaps Mr. Kane has better credentials to conduct a column for
children.

Larry Parr's decided tendency to resort to blatant
ad hominem reveals the fact that he is simply not
qualified to defend GM Evans properly. A decent PR
man would find some way to address issues without
attacking the critics personally.

My view is that whether or not DK can write a
superior chess column is not the real issue here, if
for no other reason than there are plenty of alternative
writers available. So if, say, the worst writer in the
whole universe were DK, it would be quite irrelevant.
This sort of thing requires logical-thinking skills,
which is no doubt why LP keeps coming up short,
time and again.

-- help bot

BILE-LACED ENVY (continued)

It's hard to imagine anyone so dense as to believe that scholastic
members would actually want to read a column by Evans. -- David Kane

Well, it seems to be a tradition of sorts for big
magazines like CL to hand out columns to big
names with big titles, regardless of merit.. -- Help Bot

There you have it, the delicious, succulent
envy. Greg Kennedy imagines that big names get the
big columns based on something other than merit.

Well, yes, that may happen now and then.

The main criterion for judging whether a column is up to snuff
is whether the readers enjoy it. David Kane and Greg Kennedy have
begun one of their periodic attacks on GM Evans for his ...
excellence.

As Tony Saidy put the matter accurately, no one has written a
better newspaper column than GM Evans; and few have ever topped his
magazine columns for Chess Life, Boy's Life, etc.

Do the readers agree? Over the past three decades several Chess
Life
surveys were circulated. One such survey, if memory served, attracted
over
3,000 responses. The results in every survey: Larry Evans was ranked
first or second among columnists.

Now, our Greg hates GM Evans' success. The envy fairly drips.
At times, over the years, it has come in gobs. How he HATES people
who -- unlike him --have been successful in chess -- most especially,
Bobby Fischer but also
by extension his former friend GM Evans.

In earlier messages, Greg told us that he coulda been a
contendah, too, if he were not stuck in some factory job in the middle
of Indiana. He, too, coulda
read Terence or Tacitus rather than Batman or Spaceman or Chessman
comic books in the 1960s if he had had the advantages -- and so on and
on and on.

Greg has told us that he is a pone boy because Indiana is a
cultural wasteland. Pitiful stuff. As with any American state,
including probably even Alaska, there are large, readily available
bookstores, and there are libraries filledwith collections large
enough to occupy a lifetime of intellection. Indiana is the home of
several universities with libraries holding literally millions of
books.

Our Greg failed intellectually -- remember his putzing around
looking for a spellchecker, of all things? -- not because he was stuck
in Indiana but
because he made ill choices based on velleities in his nature.

P.S. Note that our Greg has nothing to say about his earlier
absurd charge that GM Evans "brainwashed America" into accepting
Fischer's conditions vs. Karpov when, in fact, GM Evans was the
leading authority opposing these conditions.

And so it goes.



help bot wrote:
On Apr 19, 4:37 pm, "David Kane" wrote:

It's hard to imagine anyone so dense as to believe
that scholastic members would actually want to
read a column by Evans.

What a silly comment! Scholastic players will
hardly be able to tell the difference between a
column by GM Evans and one by any other
random GM, for the content is focused upon
basic chess, not politics or any of the other
areas in which GM Evans frequently stumbles.
(Please tell me if I'm wrong, and his kiddie
column is filled with attacks on Botvinnik, etc.)

You're not. But if your definition of a good scholastic
ariticle is the absence of political ranting and raving,
you are part of the problem.

Your ad hom. tendency is duly noted.

This leads to the explanation
that the column was continued for the Evans' own
benefit.

No, it doesn't. If you would learn to think, you
would be able to see that if the column was in
fact "continued", as you say, then all that means
is that the editors were either not redoing the
children's mag. at that time, or else they saw no
reason to replace GM Evans column, as it was
not flawed in the same way or to the same extent
as his political ranting column in CL. There may
also be a difference in supply/demand of authors
in the two different mags. I seriously doubt that
kids were writing in complaining about GM Evans,
the way adults would do.

His column has not always been in
CL for Kids.

Like I said, I don't read the kiddie publication.
What I write is based on such things as *your*
claim that the column has been "continued"
(a direct quote of you) and many comments
by such writers as Larry Parr, who through a
hissy fit when, as he claimed, GM Evans was
dropped or "fired" (not my choice of word).


It was not in Aug 2006 but
has appeared in each CL for Kids since
Oct 2006. Compare to the chronology
for his CL column, and it appears to me
that the USCF's motivation for putting
his column in CL for Kids was to keep
Evans happy

That's silly. If the editor wanted to keep GM
Evans happy, he would never have "fired" him
in the first place! Clearly, anything along the
lines of what you are suggesting would have
been motivated, not by any desire to make LE
happy, but to get the Evans "cult" to cease
fire. This is precisely the caving I talked about
before.


after his column was
removed from CL (That it demonstrates
utter contempt for scholastic chess
probably doesn't trouble the USCF insider
gang in the least)

Perhaps they are deluded into equating having
a FIDE GM title with being an instructive writer.
This would also explain why they gave similar jobs
to some of the worthless younger GMs in CL.


I was just pointing out that his QA column has been
restored - and is so uninteresting that the readers
apparently aren't even sending in questions.

This may or may not be GM Evans' fault. It is quite
possible that children simply aren't inclined to write
letters anymore. Send emails, yes. Carry cell phones,
yes. Play video games, yes. But write with pen and
paper? So five minutes ago... .

Email questions are accepted. You are perhaps correct
that it would be hard to do well, but certainly none
could do worse. And I am not aware of any laws
requiring columns in the Q&A format.

Well, it seems to be a tradition of sorts for big
magazines like CL to hand out columns to big
names with big titles, regardless of merit. In order
for this to change, it would take a tsunami in terms
of intellectual thinking, a switchover from fame-
ocracy to meritocracy. It may well never happen.

One answer (well, sort of) is to accept the status
quo and search elsewhere for quality chess writing.
Another option is to get inside the USCF, and blow
it up, so to speak. This may be what Sam Sloan
has in mind.

-- help bot

wrote in message
oups.com...
BILE-LACED ENVY (continued)

HOW AMERICA IS BETRAYED IN WORLD CHESS
http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules....=News&file=art...

DECONSTRUCTING KANE

Mr. Kane's screed contains a number of outrageous claims. I disagree
with every single point he made, nor do I find GM Evans' tone
"contemptuous" as he alleges. I also find every single answer within
the allotted space of the April CL For Kids to be instructive and
right on the money.

I seem to have a parrallel instance at present, where the combinative
factors of 'journalism' are mixed with paid [and undisclosed] consultancies,
under-studied rules changes, and, politics! I think Jerry Hanken just made
chess poltiics very clear as well.

To make just a minor point of the relevance of the original Evan's article,
the same underlying factors still seem present - and therefore, are aas much
in force as they ever were.

I think Mr. Kane might consider that this is not even a benevolent
dictatorship - and its hard to find how balkanising the chess world has
worked in favor of the chess public.

It is easy to understand how ostensible 'good works' become corrupted, as
with the MonRoi examples - but these are not different in nature than the
misrepresentation of Arpad Elo's recommendations to Fide, which slighted
Susan Polgar alone for 100 points - a factor Evans points out by following
up with Dr. Elo to be greatly distorting of Elo's initiative.

In that instance, the action was seen to be political, since it promoted a
Russian player over Su Polar.

I should not like to intercede here on what should be in any column since I
make too many side or meta~ points, and since I don't read it.

My comments more address the unchanged nature of chess in the USA by Evans,
which I think are as EVIDENTLY still in force now, as when he wrote
originally - indeed, entropy rules! And without injecting very strong
players into the mix on a frequent basis, we will EVIDENTLY wind up with
very strong burocrats, who seem to attend to each other's well-being, rather
more than they attend to what we, the chess public, should like.

Phil Innes



********************


What you fail to grasp is that people don't want to read 19-year-old
articles
covering "scandals" 40 or more years old - not in Chess Life, not
anywhere.
You should consult with your pal Sloan. While his habit of
fabricating scandals
from thin air (or an active, semi- delusional imagination) cannot
be recommended, at least he knows enough to invent stuff that's
mildly interesting.

FACT: What Mr. Kane fails to grasp is that what happened then in the
USCF and FIDE isn't much diferent than what's happening now. Tbose who
fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Evans' first answer in this month's "Ask GM Larry Evans!" column
quotes
Botvinnik and refers to a book by Reuben Fine- two players about as
far away from
the modern chess world as one can imagine. Not to say that "old"
equates to "bad", but in this case it is needlessly old, and the
points could be made in a more
entertaining fashion with modern players.

FACT: The first question is what do do when someone doesn't play a
line that the book doesn't mention. Part of the answer stated: "a true
test of skill is being able to find the right move in a position you
never saw before." It then went on to quote Botvinnik to this effect
and concluded: "A book that I found helpful whend first starting was
Ideas Behind The Chess Openings by Reuben Fine."


Evans' second answer in this month's column is totally non-
responsive. A player
asks for Black's best move in a position, which Evans simply
ignores, and instead
points out that Black made two mistakes on the way to the queried
position.

FACT: This deals with hoping for a mistake. After 1 f4 e5 2 fxe5 Qh4+
3 g3 Be7 4 Nf3 the best reply given was 4...Qh5 "losing more time
because the queen must retreat." After critiquing Black's opening, the
answer concludes: "Always assume your opponent will find the best move
and plan your reply in advance instead of hoping for a cheap mistake."


The third question is about what happens when a game is started with
the wrong
color. Evans quotes the rule. Yet, his only color is the brilliant
(?) lead-in sentence "This happens occasionally." In fact, I suspect
it happens very, very rarely at the level Evans himself played, but
it's not at all uncommon in huge scholastic tournaments. But Evans
doesn't know that, or have anything interesting to say about that,
because he has no contact with that part of the chess world.

FACT: Evans answered the question by quoting the pertinent rule. Not
much space for much else.


Evans has certainly earned the right to regurgitate his dated columns
on wcn
if that's what floats his boat. But he should be ashamed of himself
for
feigning an ability to write an article for scholastic chess
players.

FACT: Perhaps Mr. Kane has better credentials to conduct a column for
children. Readers can judge this for themselves.




David Kane wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
HOW AMERICA IS BETRAYED IN WORLD CHESS

http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules....rder=0&thold=0


What you fail to grasp is that people
don't want to read 19-year-old articles
covering "scandals" 40 or more years
old - not in Chess Life, not anywhere.
You should consult with your pal Sloan.
While his habit of fabricating scandals
from thin air (or an active, semi-
delusional imagination) cannot be
recommended, at least he knows
enough to invent stuff that's mildly
interesting.

Evans' first answer in this month's
"Ask GM Larry Evans!" column quotes
Botvinnik and refers to a book by Reuben
Fine- two players about as far away from
the modern chess world as one can imagine.
Not to say that "old" equates to "bad",
but in this case it is needlessly old, and
the points could be made in a more
entertaining fashion with modern players.

Evans' second answer in this month's
column is totally non-responsive. A player
asks for Black's best move in a position,
which Evans simply ignores, and instead
points out that Black made two mistakes
on the way to the queried position.

The third question is about what happens
when a game is started with the wrong
color. Evans quotes the rule. Yet, his
only color is the brilliant (?) lead-in
sentence "This happens occasionally."
In fact, I suspect it happens very,
very rarely at the level Evans himself
played, but it's not at all uncommon in huge
scholastic tournaments. But Evans
doesn't know that, or have anything
interesting to say about that, because
he has no contact with that part of
the chess world.

Evans has certainly earned the right
to regurgitate his dated columns on wcn
if that's what floats his boat. But he
should be ashamed of himself for
feigning an ability to write an article
for scholastic chess players.