ANTHONY SAIDY CALLS LARRY EVANS "BEST CHESS COLUMNIST EVER"

In a message dated 4/15/2007 3:13:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
writes:

I just went to www.worldchessnetwork.com and caught up with many
columns by Larry Evans. No one has written a livelier column for
amateurs, chockful of human interest. Specifically his treatments of
Bronstein, Botvinnik, and Soviet chess history disclose facts I didn't
know or forgot -- fixing of results and political pressures.

He quotes eyewitness Golombek to buttress his claim that Keres threw
games to
Botvinnik in 1948. I have called for research into NKVD archives on
this matter. (They'll open it up for a nice money payment.) I myself
did not ask Keres about it when he invited me to dinner in 1971 but I
did ask him about politics. I shall write about that evening in my
forthcoming memoirs and am preparing a Chess Life article based on my
day-long interview of Bronstein in 1990, revisiting his match with
Botvinnik. Also posted are the complete texts of American plays about
Alekhine and Morphy.

-AFS





samsloan wrote:
On Apr 15, 7:42 pm, "flamestar" wrote:
Thank God he's back. When I get Chess Life the first thing I read is
Larry Evans' column and most of my friends tell me they do the same.
He is one of the most popular chess writers in the country because he
is one of the few chess writers who has a nationally syndicated chess
column. Most people gain status by writing for Chess Life but Chess
Life gains status by having Larry write for them.

His popularity gives him the power to expose corruption and increases
his credibility. He revealed Karpov dark side before others gained the
courage to speak. Not only is Larry a wonderful writer he is in the
forefront in exposing corruption.

Bad people hate him and good people love him. Long live Larry Evans.

Wrong. Larry Evans is not back. His regular column has not been
restored. What was returned several months ago is his "What's the Best
Move?" section of four problems none of which contain the political
commentary for which he is known.

Sam Sloan

1. His popularity gives him the power to expose corruption Non
sequitur. One does not require popularity in order to do that.

You expose you self to ridicule when you use terms you don't
understand. The claim one must be popular to expose is a statement of
fact not a logical proposition. A factual assertion may be true or
false. The term non sequitur does not apply to such statements.

Non sequitur is Latin for "it does not follow." In formal logic, an
argument is a non sequitur if the conclusion does not follow from the
premise. In a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or
false, but the argument is a fallacy because the conclusion does not
follow from the premise. All logical fallacies are specific types of
non sequitur. The term has special applicability in law, having a
formal legal definition.

2. His popularity gives him the power to expose corruption. One does
not require popularity in order to do that.

Your argument is backwards. The claim popularity gives a certain
power. You say one does not require popularity in order to do that
only means that there are other ways to gain the power to expose. The
fact that there are other ways to gain this power is not relevant to
the claim.

3. My guess is you were trying to say in your own inarticulate way
anyone can expose. My point is one only has the power to expose if one
is listened to and one's claims are taken seriously. Popularity
increases the chances one will be listened to. The statement like most
statements of fact is probabilistic in nature. If you think about
language you might get the point.

4. Fifty years after the fact is "in the forefront"? How about
exposing some current corruption, before the principals have all grown
old or died? I want to know who is doing
evil things *right now*. (Not really; I'm just saying... .)

You are dishonest. Your claim that Evens criticized only Karpov 50
years after Fisher resigned the title is false.

On Apr 17, 9:18 pm, flamestar wrote:

You expose you self to ridicule when you use terms you don't
understand.

My friend, if you are afraid of ridicule then you will
never get anywhere. Try to be brave! Face your fears.


The claim one must be popular to expose is a statement of
fact not a logical proposition.

No, it isn't. A "fact" would be something based on
incontrovertible evidence; GM Evans' "cases" tend
to based mainly upon his emotions -- his desperate
need to attack certain persons *regardless* of the
evidence. One (humorous) example was when he
went berserk after his erroneous dates were pointed
out by those he feels are vastly inferior (a term which
seems to apply to almost everyone in GM Evans'
case).


A factual assertion may be true or false.

What you undoubtedly meant to say here was that
an assertion can be true or false; including the term
"factual" only serves to cloud the issue. This need
to cloud what is really a simple matter is revealing.


The term non sequitur does not apply to such statements.

*Arguments*, not statements. The post clearly
argued that popularity is what allows GM Evans
to do what he does -- a non sequitur.


Non sequitur is Latin for "it does not follow."

Your first non-blunder. LOL

Try to consider this from a distant, unemotional
perspective; what exactly is happening? It seems
that GM Evans is being praised -- in 2007 -- for
"exposing" cheating back in the middle of the prior
century, and on top of this, his obsession with
bashing certain players via such accusations is
being touted as though he were covering breaking
news in the chess world.

IMO, what GM Evans is doing is evidence of *his*
obsession with the now-distant past, which may
well be of less interest now than if it had been done,
say, when the accused were alive, actively playing,
and still in posession of the world championship title.
It reminds me of the many times postings have
appeared here -- such as on this April Fool's Day --
talking of GM Fischer's return.

I must admit that I personally find very little of
interest in discussing why GM Kramnik comes out
ahead of the other current talents, but this only
tells about me, not everyone else. I happen to be
unimpressed with that particular style, yet this is a
far cry from being obsessed -- as GM Evans is --
with the far distant past. To make matters worse,
he also seems obsessed with besmirching the
names of those he dislikes via highly questionable
antics, such as accusations of cheating without
any real evidence to back them up.

OTOH, I have to admit, it (sometimes) makes for a
good story!

-- help bot