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

What actually happened is that GM Evans' was
dropped by the new editor -- not "kept feeding at
the trough". Only AFTER the ramifications of this
action were made clear, that is, only after the
"cult" members attacked in mass, did they decide
to cave and reinstate one of his columns.

The 'cult' of chess players, and another point, David Kanbe is correct,
and
his column was not reinstated, its orientation was changed. Apart from
these
2 observations...

If the nearly-an-IM could learn to write in a known
language, his alleged "points" might then become
known. (I would suggest English, since it has become
very popular the world over.)

I thought I'd drop in on a help-bot post to see if he was understanding what
other people were writing about, or making his miscomprehension the subject.

David Kane simply points out that the column he was offered was different
than the one Evan's was deposed from. I am saying that the use of language
in the above is an illustration that using the word 'cult' to indicate
active and enthusiastic readership, is hardly honest!


The Evans cult being some presumedsynonym for chess players...

The longest word may be either "contrantidisestablishmentarianism"
or else "supercalifragilisticexpealidocious". Your concoction falls
short, besides which, it isn't even a real word!

The bot, having noticed that a space doesn't exist where it aughta, skips
the topic entirely. As usual with the bot's writing on strong players,
comprehension gaps appear... which at least excuse him from discussions,
since he quite literally doesn't know what he is talking about.


The crime was not needlessly feeding the
dying; it was caving under pressure, from what in
Washington, D.C. would be known as a "special
interest group".

Chess players do have special interests. Chess.

Denial. IM Innes seems to be in denial in that he
wants to believe that by and large, all chess players
are fans of GM Evans.

I think we can all agree that that is exactly what I wrote - Not! No, its
such a massive distortion hung on that 'seems to be saying' - but seems to
whom?

I said the chess public wanted to read the Evans column as-was. The chess
public is not 'a cult' and if great numbers of the public [who pay for this
magazine!] want the Evans column as-was, then this is precisely NOT like a
"Washington, D.C. as a "special interest group".]


The truth is, there are many
who like his cold war rehash, and there are many
who hate it. My guess is that the hangers-on are
a dying breed, much like KKK members.

Let me pass over the no doubt unintended pun and association between dying
and KKK, to simple note the extremity of this commentary.

Let me skip ahead a bit-

'Political' meaning chess management critique...

I used that word to indicate that the primary focus
of GM Evans' attacks is on two political organizations:
the USCF and FIDE, not withstanding his frequent
attacks on certain chess players like Karpov and
Botvinnik, for instance.

I think his primary focus is very similar to many other strong players who
attained the world stage. I don't think its anti-organisational, but anti
self-dealing. While we have read these same comments from Kasparov, Keene,
Short, over the years, I read the same thing at Su Polgar's blog site a few
weeks ago. The point is simple: the health of chess in the country is not a
synonym with supporting chess organisations - and it is a comment which
successfully seperates the entity from the behavior of the entity.

Our Greg-Bot has nbot been able to understand the difference, or that it
matters. He might look up the word 'polity' and see that it is not the same
as 'politics'. In any case, if we understand Evans call it is not to attack
USCF and FIDE, but their [bad] behavior, and those who would champion such
bad behavior.

The only difference between Evans and other comments by strong players is
not that others make different points, but that Evans has made these points
consistently over the years. I think in fact that he is now joined by a
chorus of GMs who echo just the same sort of sentiments. The only difference
among them is whether they thing they should start-over, or conduct strong
reforms.


snip

And we playersOWN the game, contrary to all other opinion.

This is the beginning of the end of chess as we now
know it. Soon computers will RULE the game. My advice
is to sell all your shares now, before it's too late! Take
the proceeds and invest in China; here are a few ideas:
SNP, CTRP, HMIN, ACH. To recap: sell CHESS and
buy China stocks. See you on board one at the next
Olympics.

I said /players/ own the game. Is the bot a player? It doesn't seem evident
to me that help bot enjoys the playing of it, and once more, it is fruitless
to conduct conversation with people who do not understand the topic.

Phil Innes


-- help bot

SUSAN POLGAR VS. FIDE

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


Also see The Great Debate
http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules....rder=0&thold=0


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. -- Phil
Innes

On Apr 19, 10:19 pm, " wrote:

The main criterion for judging whether a column is up to snuff
is whether the readers enjoy it.

This applies after the fact; reader enjoyment can only
be estimated or measured *after* the writer publishes his
work, at which point it is too late to give him the job (again).

The worst of the lot, IMO, were a few of the younger
GMs, who undoubtedly "earned" their columns by two
criteria: being American chess players, and having the
FIDE title of GM. IMO, their "work" was such as to
make even the worst column ever written by GM Evans
look good in comparison. I mention this to clarify that
the criticisms toward GM Evans' work is not intended
as an attack on "old timers" writing about chess, in
general.


David Kane and Greg Kennedy have
begun one of their periodic attacks on GM Evans for his ...
excellence.

I expect they will need to dig *deep* for this project!


As Tony Saidy put the matter accurately, no one has written a
better newspaper column than GM Evans;

Meaningless fluff. I imagine a side-by-side comparison
of a random, recent column by GM Evans would fall well
short if measured against one of GM Keres' old columns.

OTOH, if the only competition (using the word loosely)
consists in the other writers for CL then hey, he has a
good shot. All I can say is that Mr. Saidy should get
out more; for instance, he ought to read something by
GM Seirawan, John Watson, and other high-class
writers before embarrassing himself by such comments.


and few have ever topped his
magazine columns for Chess Life, Boy's Life, etc.

Actually, Mark Twain... . :D


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.

As I recall, for years there were only two columnists
whose work was given such prominence as to allow
them to be fairly compared to one another: GM Evans
and GM Soltis. Trying to use this kind of survey to
compare lesser writers is hardly fair to them. For
instance: many chess players despise the endgame
to such a degree that they might very well skip over
GM Benko's column, rating him low regardless of the
true merit of his work. Another "forgettable" writer
was the other Evans, whose work often appeared near
the back of the magazine, where one would likely be
too tired to even fool with it. I know that I often read
the first column first, then the other (Soltis/Evans or
Evans/Soltis), then had a quick look at others, working
from front to back. By the time I got halfway through,
I would, often as not, jump to the very back, to check
what tournaments were coming up soon. The IM
level writers generally wrote about boring stuff, or
perhaps I was just too tired to properly appreciate
their work.


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.

Interesting. Larry Parr seems unable to make up
his muddled mind as to whether or not GM Evans
can stand on his own, or if he is merely an
"extension" of GM Fischer. My view is that the
emergence of Fischer quashed GM Evans' chess
career to a large degree. It was not that GM Evans
could not stand on his own, but rather, that GM
Fischer cast a very long shadow. Standing next to
such a towering figure has its drawbacks, as well as
its rewards.


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.

Larry Parr is obviously mistaken here; GM
Kaidanov lives in Kentucky, and has no need of any
"day job" other than playing and teaching chess.
As for being a contender, that is only a pipe-dream.

Our best contender was (and may still be) Gata
Kamsky, who has in common with these other
pretenders the obvious issue of ego-inflation from
having moved from somewhere in the USSR to
America, where their sudden success seems to
have gone to their heads.

And for the lunatic fringe, there is always the hope
that GM Fischer will return again... .

-- help bot

MORE KENNEDY RAMBLING

At least Greg Kennedy does not deny his earlier
nonsense about being a contendah were it not for his
factory job in Indiana as well as his posited picture
of Indiana as a cultural wasteland. Nor does he wish
to address his bogus charge that Larry Evans
"brainwashed America" into accepting Fischer's
match conditions vs. Karpov in 1975.

Now, then, Greg simply lies when arguing that GM
Evans scored well because his column was up front in
Chess Life. Lie. Lie. Lie.

Indeed, Andy Soltis' column came first. If
one searches the pages of Chess Life, one will find
that GM Evans' column generally appeared after the
feature section during the many years when he scored
well in repeated reader surveys. Indeed, on
occasions, he appeared last in the magazine or well
buried in the second half of the magazine. Yet he
repeatedly scored first or second in all surveys.

Greg's next attempt to attack Evans is that --
well, okay -- the veteran GM may have scored well in
reader surveys,but there were columns that readers
did not care for, especially those devoted to a
subject such as, say, the endgame. Such as, for
example, Pal Benko's work.

How low can this guy go! The fact is that Benko
not only wrote a great column filled with analysis
that merited praise from Tal, Geller and others, he
often scored well in these surveys, including if
memory serves, a third place finish in the largest of
all the surveys ever taken.

Greg's next attempt to belittle Evans is to argue
that Anthony Saidy's comment on GM Evans' newspaper
column embarrasses our Greg because Keres wrote a
better one. To my knowledge, Keres was never a
newspaper columnist. More sheer nonsense.

Greg's next attempt to attack Evans is that --
well, okay -- the 5-time U.S. champion may score
well in these surveys but he had little competition.
You see, the readers had so little to choose from that
GM Evans kinda does well by forfeit. Every reader survey
taken involving many thousands of responses show a high
level of overall satisfaction with Chess Life among
the subscribership. Indeed, when one considers that
only half of the members play in tournaments and many
of that half play only once or twice a year, it's obvious
that the magazine is the main attraction for shelling
out 40 or so bucks a year.

Greg's next attempt to attack Evans is to bring
in Mark Twain when comparing any newspaper columns the
latter might have written on American social mores and
other subjects with GM Evans' chess column. Pitiful.

Greg spent years telling us that his failings
were the result of living in Indiana and being stuck
in a piecework job in some factory. He promised
repeatedly to find a spellchecker to hide some of his
weaknesses, though he certainly failed in that quest.
He used to speak about Fischer as a guy who made it
because of the accidental advantages of living in NYC.
By extension, he went after Fischer's friend, GM
Evans, also a product of the remarkable NYC chess
scene of the 1940s and 1950s.

Our Greg can't hide envy of his better. He is one of the
victims of chess -- the would-be contendah who got
kayoed within the first minute of the first round when
trying to move up in weight and class.

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...

Greg's next attempt to attack Evans is that --
well, okay -- the 5-time U.S. champion may score
well in these surveys but he had little competition.
You see, the readers had so little to choose from that
GM Evans kinda does well by forfeit. Every reader survey
taken involving many thousands of responses show a high
level of overall satisfaction with Chess Life among
the subscribership. Indeed, when one considers that
only half of the members play in tournaments and many
of that half play only once or twice a year, it's obvious
that the magazine is the main attraction for shelling
out 40 or so bucks a year.

As far as I can determine from Mr. Nolan, its true, less than half /adult/
members play even one rated game per year, not just no tournaments, but no
club or other rated chess either. Of those who do play, half of those are
provisional ratings, with less than 10 games/yr.

Which is to say, yes - evidently the subscription pays for the magazine.

Although I have asked I can't determine how many of the 7,500 adults with
10+ games actually play them in tournament chess rather than club chess. I
can't tell because USCF don't know.

A mere aside is to note that Don Schultz noted an unwanted side effect of
introducing ELO ratings to USA, that players fled clubs and played most of
their rated chess at typically, weekend Swiss events.

Whereas in England, where the norm for club players was in my league, about
35 rated games year, that was all at club level, mostly interclub
engagements.

Oddly the USA with 5x pop, seems to play less rated chess, not pro-rata, but
in abolute numbers than UK.

I suppose these figures make the magazine in US actually more popular than
playing rated games - and hence, justifies its importance.

Our Greg can't hide envy of his better. He is one of the
victims of chess -- the would-be contendah who got
kayoed within the first minute of the first round when
trying to move up in weight and class.

And so it goes.

I think it is at understandable to hold such resentment, and animus against
strong players, since in effect if you don't play much, or at all, you have
to read about those who do. Then I suppose you could be stimulated by their
greater involvement and get back into playing, or become a passive and
envious commentator, nit picking away for the rest of your time, just like
the gnome in the Winter palace.

The odd thing about the UK system [courtesy Wade] is that hardly anyone at
our club read BCF's magazine, or better said, subscribed to it, and we
perhaps received one official copy to Secretary which was dutifully handed
round week to week, and maybe you read 6 months later.

Now, this is interesting since it was so typical - players did not read for
novelty, everything topical in the magazine was long past, and instead there
were essays on chess and its play - these we devoured, since these were the
only ones available.

So what you got to read were about players in the West, mostly in Europe,
and of Americans; Reschevsky, Evans, maybe citing Marshall and Capablanca in
the notes - though not Morphy-the-romantic [we were too sophisticated in
those days]. I think there was still some resentment over Alekhine's
collaborationist stance, and Keres too!

Botvinnik showed up sometimes, and Taimanov. But not much. Sometimes you
could ask Peter Clarke who this was? Holding up a picture of Bronstein from
64, and, of course, appalled, he would tell you.

But the big excitement was about the duo Tal and Larsen who were expected to
contest the world championship. Even when Fischer's sudden, event meteoric
rise to prominence became evident to us, he was still equated with
particularly Larsen as the great Hopes of the West, and probably second to
Larsen - and though Fischer played in Europe we rather felt as though the US
scene was too soft for him, and his successes therefore qualified ones, but
against Russians they would collectively wear him down and break his spirit.

In some corres. with Taimanov I asked who /he/ studied in the Western chess
press, while he noted the principle contenders in the US, he thought of
contemporary challengers there were only two, Evans having passed the US
baton to Fischer, so to speak, and Larsen the strongest European.

To answer, 'who were you afraid of', he replied, not Larsen.

And that was a corporate reply. RJF gave them the woolies! They just didn't
understand how to think of a man without corporate support, who was a highly
technical player, and better at attacking than Tal [who of course, was
resented for not being really-Russian]. I still think in 1970 they thought
they could deal with him in the usual way - which was not cheating exactly,
but you know, not exhausting each as much as saving all their energy for
Fischer.

At that time I think Fischer was so misunderstood in the UK, he was a sort
of cipher, and before you knew it he achieved those 6-0 results and then the
cataclysmic encounter in Iceland really brought it home to us the true
stature of the player.

Now - while there is usual criticism of having to hear more and more about
Fischer, especially aimed at Evans, who after all can incontestable, from
friendship, from high chess art, and also from an experience of top level
pressure, an Evans column in the UK in 1968-1975 would have been a
sensation!

If I were to critizise Larry Evans it would be to the effect that he has
written so little about Fischer, or rather, about Fischer's Art, and indeed,
his own. Though so much /has/ been written, how much of it is much
understood? Even the context of the times is less than appreciated.

Of course in any interview I would ask LE about the daunting atmosphere of
the times - you know, you are playing Taimanov with Che and Castro looking
on, while back in DC, in just the preceding period the hawks, are urging a
first-strike from Ike. And like Fischer, you too are playing chess against
the enemy [let's not kid ourselves!]. When this was politically expedient
then you got Evans/Taimanov games, and Fischer/Spassky games, and Taimanov
can leave Russia to play chess in Liverpool with a permit signed by Stalin
himself, and when it was not, though the players didn't do aught else, you
got the Feds on your tail for a decade.

And I should also wonder about his [Evans'] own artistic stimulation since I
once read from Karpov that playing Korchnoi could motivate him to great
effort, that Kasparov did not, but -a great compliment I think- Fischer
would do so more than any other player. I believe him.

I think Evans was perhaps like Reschevsky, not lazy, but insufficiently
challenged, and without support system such as Russians had from the State,
which was economic for sure, but in terms of high chess art was a strong
psychological factor.

So, I think LE has yet much to write, and I even agree with some critics who
say that they don't like his current column - though not because someone
else could maybe write it better, but because sure to god Evans could write
on these deeper subjects where no one else can. But I, alas, am not his
editor.

Neither is CL the likely best vehicle for these appreciations, but a new
work on the chess art, inclusive of these artistic appreciations above, is,
IMO, strongly indicated, and would certainly be well received - even within
the same market of scholastics, since the crucial thing about chess is
nothing theoretical at all, but about being at the board, and whatever
preparations you made to get there, and how you perform in the next hour or
two.

Where is that sort of publication, which has this superadded factors of
politics or other pressures, and where the games that really inspired an
entire generation were born? In closing, I think I also faithfully echo the
sentiments of strong players around the world, specifically of Timman and
Adorjan, who saw themselves in this ur-group of modern chess, as its
continued potency into our times, and Fischer, a rare flowering example of
its highest potential.

Cordially, Phil Innes
Vermont

BOTVINNIK'S LEGACY

http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules....cle&sid= 1267

"Botvinnik passed the baton to two pupils, Anatoly Karpov and Gary
Kasparov,who went on to capture the crown. "I am sure that the five
years I spent at Botvinnik's school (1973-1978) played a decisive role
in my formation as a chess player and determined the path of my
subsequent improvement," said Kasparov. After looking at some of
Karpov's early games, however, Botvinnik told an assistant, "The boy
doesn't have a clue about chess, and there's no future at all for him
in this profession."

I think Evans was perhaps like Reschevsky, not lazy, but
insufficiently
challenged, and without support system such as Russians had from the
State,
which was economic for sure, but in terms of high chess art was a
strong
psychological factor. -- Phil Innes







Chess One wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Greg's next attempt to attack Evans is that --
well, okay -- the 5-time U.S. champion may score
well in these surveys but he had little competition.
You see, the readers had so little to choose from that
GM Evans kinda does well by forfeit. Every reader survey
taken involving many thousands of responses show a high
level of overall satisfaction with Chess Life among
the subscribership. Indeed, when one considers that
only half of the members play in tournaments and many
of that half play only once or twice a year, it's obvious
that the magazine is the main attraction for shelling
out 40 or so bucks a year.

As far as I can determine from Mr. Nolan, its true, less than half /adult/
members play even one rated game per year, not just no tournaments, but no
club or other rated chess either. Of those who do play, half of those are
provisional ratings, with less than 10 games/yr.

Which is to say, yes - evidently the subscription pays for the magazine.

Although I have asked I can't determine how many of the 7,500 adults with
10+ games actually play them in tournament chess rather than club chess. I
can't tell because USCF don't know.

A mere aside is to note that Don Schultz noted an unwanted side effect of
introducing ELO ratings to USA, that players fled clubs and played most of
their rated chess at typically, weekend Swiss events.

Whereas in England, where the norm for club players was in my league, about
35 rated games year, that was all at club level, mostly interclub
engagements.

Oddly the USA with 5x pop, seems to play less rated chess, not pro-rata, but
in abolute numbers than UK.

I suppose these figures make the magazine in US actually more popular than
playing rated games - and hence, justifies its importance.

Our Greg can't hide envy of his better. He is one of the
victims of chess -- the would-be contendah who got
kayoed within the first minute of the first round when
trying to move up in weight and class.

And so it goes.

I think it is at understandable to hold such resentment, and animus against
strong players, since in effect if you don't play much, or at all, you have
to read about those who do. Then I suppose you could be stimulated by their
greater involvement and get back into playing, or become a passive and
envious commentator, nit picking away for the rest of your time, just like
the gnome in the Winter palace.

The odd thing about the UK system [courtesy Wade] is that hardly anyone at
our club read BCF's magazine, or better said, subscribed to it, and we
perhaps received one official copy to Secretary which was dutifully handed
round week to week, and maybe you read 6 months later.

Now, this is interesting since it was so typical - players did not read for
novelty, everything topical in the magazine was long past, and instead there
were essays on chess and its play - these we devoured, since these were the
only ones available.

So what you got to read were about players in the West, mostly in Europe,
and of Americans; Reschevsky, Evans, maybe citing Marshall and Capablanca in
the notes - though not Morphy-the-romantic [we were too sophisticated in
those days]. I think there was still some resentment over Alekhine's
collaborationist stance, and Keres too!

Botvinnik showed up sometimes, and Taimanov. But not much. Sometimes you
could ask Peter Clarke who this was? Holding up a picture of Bronstein from
64, and, of course, appalled, he would tell you.

But the big excitement was about the duo Tal and Larsen who were expected to
contest the world championship. Even when Fischer's sudden, event meteoric
rise to prominence became evident to us, he was still equated with
particularly Larsen as the great Hopes of the West, and probably second to
Larsen - and though Fischer played in Europe we rather felt as though the US
scene was too soft for him, and his successes therefore qualified ones, but
against Russians they would collectively wear him down and break his spirit.

In some corres. with Taimanov I asked who /he/ studied in the Western chess
press, while he noted the principle contenders in the US, he thought of
contemporary challengers there were only two, Evans having passed the US
baton to Fischer, so to speak, and Larsen the strongest European.

To answer, 'who were you afraid of', he replied, not Larsen.

And that was a corporate reply. RJF gave them the woolies! They just didn't
understand how to think of a man without corporate support, who was a highly
technical player, and better at attacking than Tal [who of course, was
resented for not being really-Russian]. I still think in 1970 they thought
they could deal with him in the usual way - which was not cheating exactly,
but you know, not exhausting each as much as saving all their energy for
Fischer.

At that time I think Fischer was so misunderstood in the UK, he was a sort
of cipher, and before you knew it he achieved those 6-0 results and then the
cataclysmic encounter in Iceland really brought it home to us the true
stature of the player.

Now - while there is usual criticism of having to hear more and more about
Fischer, especially aimed at Evans, who after all can incontestable, from
friendship, from high chess art, and also from an experience of top level
pressure, an Evans column in the UK in 1968-1975 would have been a
sensation!

If I were to critizise Larry Evans it would be to the effect that he has
written so little about Fischer, or rather, about Fischer's Art, and indeed,
his own. Though so much /has/ been written, how much of it is much
understood? Even the context of the times is less than appreciated.

Of course in any interview I would ask LE about the daunting atmosphere of
the times - you know, you are playing Taimanov with Che and Castro looking
on, while back in DC, in just the preceding period the hawks, are urging a
first-strike from Ike. And like Fischer, you too are playing chess against
the enemy [let's not kid ourselves!]. When this was politically expedient
then you got Evans/Taimanov games, and Fischer/Spassky games, and Taimanov
can leave Russia to play chess in Liverpool with a permit signed by Stalin
himself, and when it was not, though the players didn't do aught else, you
got the Feds on your tail for a decade.

And I should also wonder about his [Evans'] own artistic stimulation since I
once read from Karpov that playing Korchnoi could motivate him to great
effort, that Kasparov did not, but -a great compliment I think- Fischer
would do so more than any other player. I believe him.

I think Evans was perhaps like Reschevsky, not lazy, but insufficiently
challenged, and without support system such as Russians had from the State,
which was economic for sure, but in terms of high chess art was a strong
psychological factor.

So, I think LE has yet much to write, and I even agree with some critics who
say that they don't like his current column - though not because someone
else could maybe write it better, but because sure to god Evans could write
on these deeper subjects where no one else can. But I, alas, am not his
editor.

Neither is CL the likely best vehicle for these appreciations, but a new
work on the chess art, inclusive of these artistic appreciations above, is,
IMO, strongly indicated, and would certainly be well received - even within
the same market of scholastics, since the crucial thing about chess is
nothing theoretical at all, but about being at the board, and whatever
preparations you made to get there, and how you perform in the next hour or
two.

Where is that sort of publication, which has this superadded factors of
politics or other pressures, and where the games that really inspired an
entire generation were born? In closing, I think I also faithfully echo the
sentiments of strong players around the world, specifically of Timman and
Adorjan, who saw themselves in this ur-group of modern chess, as its
continued potency into our times, and Fischer, a rare flowering example of
its highest potential.

Cordially, Phil Innes
Vermont

wrote in message
ups.com...
BOTVINNIK'S LEGACY

http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules....cle&sid= 1267

"Botvinnik passed the baton to two pupils, Anatoly Karpov and Gary
Kasparov,who went on to capture the crown. "I am sure that the five
years I spent at Botvinnik's school (1973-1978) played a decisive role
in my formation as a chess player and determined the path of my
subsequent improvement," said Kasparov.

Even though Botvinnik also tried to dismiss Kasparov from /competing/ too
hard, and besides, he was Jewish and had no /blat/, no pull at political
levels, nor any liklihood of any. What did they say to him? 'go home boy, we
already got a world champion' ? That's Fide, Russian style.

After looking at some of
Karpov's early games, however, Botvinnik told an assistant, "The boy
doesn't have a clue about chess, and there's no future at all for him
in this profession."

See - he wrote the same anecdote himself in the 1991, Karpov on Karpov,
which I think I am the only reader thereof on the entire planet.

Karpov said he would restore his own confidence by playing the whole
Botvinnik school at blitz chess, and staying up late, getting better and
better, until he was suffering no loses for hours, and everyone gave up.

What conclusion can we make? That Botvinnik was a great player, utterly
without insight into others?

I suspect that cannot be completely true, and instead I think in both cases,
with Kasparov and Karpov, he was just a little bit afraid of them, no?

Anyway, between reading your comment above, re Evans and the baton, which
term I maybe subconsciously used myself about Evans and Fischer, I took a
walk, and thought - who really could challenge Kasparov today? Albeit, such
things are infamously difficult to evaluate - who, for example, would think
that after 100 games Kasparov would only be one point better than Karpov?

I think no one in UK could challenge him in a match; Short does not play in
events of sufficient strength, and while Adams does, not enough of them.

In the US there are 2 [maybe 3] candidates, but Kamsky plays not enough, and
not against sufficient strength, and the new #1 Nakamura would surely clip
Kasparov a couple of times, but also he would lose too many by trying.

In the World, then, we have Toppy, who is an idiot at match-play - far too
temperamental, or susceptible to 'friends'.

Vishy Anand who I think is the best all round player now, but at match play?
Perhaps because he doesn't do it, he knows he cant?

Petr Svidler is an all-round tough player of considerablke resource but
lacks the Nakamura punch to score enough wins, and the other Russo
alternative is Kramnik, who might indeed suceed in boring Kasparov into a
trance, but I think he too, wouldn't win enough, and Garry alone seems to
have that extra half-gear of the truly big guys to deal with that scene.

So guys are out! Instead, and this is highly speculative, of course and
fun!~, emotion and psychology are very important to Kasparov, and could
Judit take him in stress a match? If anything, her play is most similar to
his, and this can be a psychological blind on his part.

Then there is Szuszu, who, it is little known, actually has a better record
than Judit when they have played serious OTB chess against each other. Susan
has a small opening repetoire, and this might be too great a disadvantage -
though in any even middle game, it would be a tough call, especially if
Kasparov was possessed of a little too much need to prove himself and
overstretched. I watched even Khalifman back off in that challenge, and she
is certainly level with Karpov in their games.

Finally there is the sleeper candidate, Sophia, who after all scored the 5th
highest performance rating of all time, [and someone thereby who also has
that extra half-gear] and who Susan says, frankly is the best of the 3. BUT,
Susan also says she is lazy...

Maybe we will get a word out of her since she is currently in NY City, and
may yet respond to a few questions.

Do I digress, Larry?

Adorjan, when himself a bright young thing, well... with a solid beard,
first encountered Kasparov at a tournament and at the time could hardly
believe how strong and intent he was. I think he knew then that this player
was going to be better than anyone else for a long long time.

At the moment this guy who must have got bored by chess [as Fischer did
early, GK did late - imagine giving up the #1 spot in the world!] is playing
quite another game in Russia. I don't think any party there is playing for a
draw - and Garry has succeeded to the particularly dangerous sport of being
the #1 opposition candidate to Putin.

What were you saying about Larry Evans, again?

Cordially, Phil Innes
The Winter P[a]lace, Vermontsky

I think Evans was perhaps like Reschevsky, not lazy, but
insufficiently
challenged, and without support system such as Russians had from the
State,
which was economic for sure, but in terms of high chess art was a
strong
psychological factor. -- Phil Innes







Chess One wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Greg's next attempt to attack Evans is that --
well, okay -- the 5-time U.S. champion may score
well in these surveys but he had little competition.
You see, the readers had so little to choose from that
GM Evans kinda does well by forfeit. Every reader survey
taken involving many thousands of responses show a high
level of overall satisfaction with Chess Life among
the subscribership. Indeed, when one considers that
only half of the members play in tournaments and many
of that half play only once or twice a year, it's obvious
that the magazine is the main attraction for shelling
out 40 or so bucks a year.

As far as I can determine from Mr. Nolan, its true, less than half
/adult/
members play even one rated game per year, not just no tournaments, but
no
club or other rated chess either. Of those who do play, half of those are
provisional ratings, with less than 10 games/yr.

Which is to say, yes - evidently the subscription pays for the magazine.

Although I have asked I can't determine how many of the 7,500 adults with
10+ games actually play them in tournament chess rather than club chess.
I
can't tell because USCF don't know.

A mere aside is to note that Don Schultz noted an unwanted side effect of
introducing ELO ratings to USA, that players fled clubs and played most
of
their rated chess at typically, weekend Swiss events.

Whereas in England, where the norm for club players was in my league,
about
35 rated games year, that was all at club level, mostly interclub
engagements.

Oddly the USA with 5x pop, seems to play less rated chess, not pro-rata,
but
in abolute numbers than UK.

I suppose these figures make the magazine in US actually more popular
than
playing rated games - and hence, justifies its importance.

Our Greg can't hide envy of his better. He is one of the
victims of chess -- the would-be contendah who got
kayoed within the first minute of the first round when
trying to move up in weight and class.

And so it goes.

I think it is at understandable to hold such resentment, and animus
against
strong players, since in effect if you don't play much, or at all, you
have
to read about those who do. Then I suppose you could be stimulated by
their
greater involvement and get back into playing, or become a passive and
envious commentator, nit picking away for the rest of your time, just
like
the gnome in the Winter palace.

The odd thing about the UK system [courtesy Wade] is that hardly anyone
at
our club read BCF's magazine, or better said, subscribed to it, and we
perhaps received one official copy to Secretary which was dutifully
handed
round week to week, and maybe you read 6 months later.

Now, this is interesting since it was so typical - players did not read
for
novelty, everything topical in the magazine was long past, and instead
there
were essays on chess and its play - these we devoured, since these were
the
only ones available.

So what you got to read were about players in the West, mostly in Europe,
and of Americans; Reschevsky, Evans, maybe citing Marshall and Capablanca
in
the notes - though not Morphy-the-romantic [we were too sophisticated in
those days]. I think there was still some resentment over Alekhine's
collaborationist stance, and Keres too!

Botvinnik showed up sometimes, and Taimanov. But not much. Sometimes you
could ask Peter Clarke who this was? Holding up a picture of Bronstein
from
64, and, of course, appalled, he would tell you.

But the big excitement was about the duo Tal and Larsen who were expected
to
contest the world championship. Even when Fischer's sudden, event
meteoric
rise to prominence became evident to us, he was still equated with
particularly Larsen as the great Hopes of the West, and probably second
to
Larsen - and though Fischer played in Europe we rather felt as though the
US
scene was too soft for him, and his successes therefore qualified ones,
but
against Russians they would collectively wear him down and break his
spirit.

In some corres. with Taimanov I asked who /he/ studied in the Western
chess
press, while he noted the principle contenders in the US, he thought of
contemporary challengers there were only two, Evans having passed the US
baton to Fischer, so to speak, and Larsen the strongest European.

To answer, 'who were you afraid of', he replied, not Larsen.

And that was a corporate reply. RJF gave them the woolies! They just
didn't
understand how to think of a man without corporate support, who was a
highly
technical player, and better at attacking than Tal [who of course, was
resented for not being really-Russian]. I still think in 1970 they
thought
they could deal with him in the usual way - which was not cheating
exactly,
but you know, not exhausting each as much as saving all their energy for
Fischer.

At that time I think Fischer was so misunderstood in the UK, he was a
sort
of cipher, and before you knew it he achieved those 6-0 results and then
the
cataclysmic encounter in Iceland really brought it home to us the true
stature of the player.

Now - while there is usual criticism of having to hear more and more
about
Fischer, especially aimed at Evans, who after all can incontestable, from
friendship, from high chess art, and also from an experience of top level
pressure, an Evans column in the UK in 1968-1975 would have been a
sensation!

If I were to critizise Larry Evans it would be to the effect that he has
written so little about Fischer, or rather, about Fischer's Art, and
indeed,
his own. Though so much /has/ been written, how much of it is much
understood? Even the context of the times is less than appreciated.

Of course in any interview I would ask LE about the daunting atmosphere
of
the times - you know, you are playing Taimanov with Che and Castro
looking
on, while back in DC, in just the preceding period the hawks, are urging
a
first-strike from Ike. And like Fischer, you too are playing chess
against
the enemy [let's not kid ourselves!]. When this was politically expedient
then you got Evans/Taimanov games, and Fischer/Spassky games, and
Taimanov
can leave Russia to play chess in Liverpool with a permit signed by
Stalin
himself, and when it was not, though the players didn't do aught else,
you
got the Feds on your tail for a decade.

And I should also wonder about his [Evans'] own artistic stimulation
since I
once read from Karpov that playing Korchnoi could motivate him to great
effort, that Kasparov did not, but -a great compliment I think- Fischer
would do so more than any other player. I believe him.

I think Evans was perhaps like Reschevsky, not lazy, but insufficiently
challenged, and without support system such as Russians had from the
State,
which was economic for sure, but in terms of high chess art was a strong
psychological factor.

So, I think LE has yet much to write, and I even agree with some critics
who
say that they don't like his current column - though not because someone
else could maybe write it better, but because sure to god Evans could
write
on these deeper subjects where no one else can. But I, alas, am not his
editor.

Neither is CL the likely best vehicle for these appreciations, but a new
work on the chess art, inclusive of these artistic appreciations above,
is,
IMO, strongly indicated, and would certainly be well received - even
within
the same market of scholastics, since the crucial thing about chess is
nothing theoretical at all, but about being at the board, and whatever
preparations you made to get there, and how you perform in the next hour
or
two.

Where is that sort of publication, which has this superadded factors of
politics or other pressures, and where the games that really inspired an
entire generation were born? In closing, I think I also faithfully echo
the
sentiments of strong players around the world, specifically of Timman and
Adorjan, who saw themselves in this ur-group of modern chess, as its
continued potency into our times, and Fischer, a rare flowering example
of
its highest potential.

Cordially, Phil Innes
Vermont