A Kasparov Adorjan Correspondence

Q. If yes, what was the reason behind it? Fischer? The explosion of
globally available information? (Informator, ECO, bulletins), a new wave of
revolutionary players?

A. Can you see, Garry - this is how an in-disciplined person's inquiry
looks?

I never read anything quite like it - it's now up as an article at
www.chessville.com, and if you are interested in chess history or
creativity, here are 4,000 words of feedback to GK from AA - very highly
recommended reading.

Andras Adorjan kindly shares his reply to Garry with the chess public - and
puts Kasparov in his place, which is way at the top, 'As long as Garry is
able to move the pieces, nobody comes close to his throne.' Neither is he
shy on discussing Fischer's contribution to world chess.

There are so many possible pull-quotes to this material, applicable to
almost every arena of chess, I'll resist writing more.

\Phil Innes

-=-
PS: 2 regular writers in these Ngs now have their MAMS reviews on show.

On May 28, 8:35 am, "Chess One" wrote:
A Kasparov Adorjan Correspondence

Q. If yes, what was the reason behind it? Fischer? The explosion of
globally available information? (Informator, ECO, bulletins), a new wave of
revolutionary players?

A. Can you see, Garry - this is how an in-disciplined person's inquiry
looks?

I never read anything quite like it -

I have; in past postings to this newsgroup by PI, I
have more than once run across "ramblings" by GM
Adorjan which closely resemble these new ones in
tone and exhibited bias.

it's now up as an article atwww.chessville.com,

I did learn something new by visiting this Web site:
what "MAMS" stands for; before now, I was a bit
perplexed since it is often included as if everyone
is assumed to automatically know.


and if you are interested in chess history or
creativity, here are 4,000 words of feedback to GK from AA - very highly
recommended reading.

Much of the text is difficult to comprehend without
mental "interpretation" into intelligible English. What
is crystal clear is that GM Adorjan is a bit obsessed
with GM Fischer and the now-distant past. He quite
frequently leaps into a discussion of some opening
variation without first specifying what he is thinking
about. In general, I got the impression that he was
down on modern players, and regarded many of his
own generation to be, let's say, more creative. It
reminds me a lot of "the greatest generation" hoopla.


Andras Adorjan kindly shares his reply to Garry with the chess public - and
puts Kasparov in his place, which is way at the top, 'As long as Garry is
able to move the pieces, nobody comes close to his throne.'

This is a perfect example; what "throne"? Does he mean
GM Kasparov's overall performance record, or maybe his
lifetime contribution to chess in general? Your guess is as
good as mine.


Neither is he
shy on discussing Fischer's contribution to world chess.

Indeed, he appears to worship the ground GM
Fischer walked on. But why? Does he credit the
man for the whole Cold War scenario which led to
the massive commercial success of one world
championship match series, which happened to
not be "between two Russians"?

Oddly enough, an old book by a Mr. Levy seems to
have put things into a very contrary perspective; as I
can now barely recall, he thought that GM Fischer's
contributions to openings theory, for example, were
relatively insignificant; and precisely this is one of
GM Adorjan's means of deprecating modern players
relative to his own favorites, like GMs Fischer and
Kasparov! Odd.


There are so many possible pull-quotes to this material, applicable to
almost every arena of chess, I'll resist writing more.

Most of these quotes would come off better if the
material were first "translated" or edited into proper
English, but this would require interpreting *precisely*
what one thinks GM Adorjan actually meant -- no easy
task.

PS: 2 regular writers in these Ngs now have their MAMS reviews on show.

"Ngs" are, of course, newsgroups; and MAMS are
(not married women, but) man against machine studies.

One of the unexpected things I discovered in this rant
was someone who apparently is in agreement with my
own opinion regarding why many modern GMs are so
willing to agree to grandmaster draws. It's not merely a
matter of prize money or even ego, nor just fear of losing;
on the contrary, there is a strong desire by some players
to "protect" their chess ratings, just as I have witnessed
firsthand at the much lower levels of play.

-- help bot

"help bot" wrote in message
ups.com...
On May 28, 8:35 am, "Chess One" wrote:
A Kasparov Adorjan Correspondence

Q. If yes, what was the reason behind it? Fischer? The explosion of
globally available information? (Informator, ECO, bulletins), a new wave
of
revolutionary players?

A. Can you see, Garry - this is how an in-disciplined person's inquiry
looks?

I never read anything quite like it -

I have; in past postings to this newsgroup by PI, I
have more than once run across "ramblings" by GM
Adorjan which closely resemble these new ones in
tone and exhibited bias.

By liking Fischer, Miles Larsen, etc, he is biased towards creativity rather
than the modern draw-culture?

it's now up as an article atwww.chessville.com,

I did learn something new by visiting this Web site:
what "MAMS" stands for; before now, I was a bit
perplexed since it is often included as if everyone
is assumed to automatically know.

I remember you asking before, and me answering. Look - when you start
forgetting the names of the objects its maybe time to hang up the keyboard
or you'll wind up vaguer than Lord Flatlander.

and if you are interested in chess history or
creativity, here are 4,000 words of feedback to GK from AA - very highly
recommended reading.

Much of the text is difficult to comprehend without
mental "interpretation" into intelligible English.

That's right! Its written in chess, not English. I note it is sufficiently
comprehensible to disagree with...

What
is crystal clear is that GM Adorjan is a bit obsessed
with GM Fischer and the now-distant past. He quite
frequently leaps into a discussion of some opening
variation without first specifying what he is thinking
about.

He is not writing for patzers. In fact he is writing to Garry Kasparov, who
doesn't need as much lead-in as, say, an international corn-bot.

In general, I got the impression that he was
down on modern players, and regarded many of his
own generation to be, let's say, more creative.

Yes - he mentions a couple dozen players from his pre-computer generation
that he definitely thinks were more creative.

It
reminds me a lot of "the greatest generation" hoopla.


Andras Adorjan kindly shares his reply to Garry with the chess public -
and
puts Kasparov in his place, which is way at the top, 'As long as Garry is
able to move the pieces, nobody comes close to his throne.'

This is a perfect example; what "throne"? Does he mean
GM Kasparov's overall performance record, or maybe his
lifetime contribution to chess in general? Your guess is as
good as mine.

Actually not. Its much better than yours, which is a quibble akin to
dribbling.

Neither is he
shy on discussing Fischer's contribution to world chess.

Indeed, he appears to worship the ground GM
Fischer walked on.

Not exactly! he cites Fischer's /play/ as being central to a group of
players at the time. Fischer being first among equals, perhaps, but quite
evidently respects the spirit of that time by citing all sorts of other
players.

But why? Does he credit the
man for the whole Cold War scenario which led to
the massive commercial success of one world
championship match series, which happened to
not be "between two Russians"?

Since he doesn't mention that at all, let us assume he does not.

Oddly enough, an old book by a Mr. Levy seems to
have put things into a very contrary perspective; as I
can now barely recall, he thought that GM Fischer's
contributions to openings theory, for example, were
relatively insignificant; and precisely this is one of
GM Adorjan's means of deprecating modern players
relative to his own favorites, like GMs Fischer and
Kasparov! Odd.

With great respect to Mr. Levy, he is /not/ like Fischer and Kasparov!

In chessic terms what Kasparov did for the tired old Grunfeld and King's
Indian were to revitalise them into renewed and potent weapons. Whereas
Fischer played to win with black, including accepting 'inferior' positions
by always grabbing the poisoned pawn, eg, and sneering at theory.

There are so many possible pull-quotes to this material, applicable to
almost every arena of chess, I'll resist writing more.

Most of these quotes would come off better if the
material were first "translated" or edited into proper
English, but this would require interpreting *precisely*
what one thinks GM Adorjan actually meant -- no easy
task.

Well, not without effort, but understanding this level of chess is a bit
different than reading Chess Life - you do have to work at it, and its not
the English, but the chessic understanding which requires work. It also
assumes that the reader /can/ understand precisely 'what one thinks' without
taking too much trouble - a dubious proposition.

PS: 2 regular writers in these Ngs now have their MAMS reviews on show.

"Ngs" are, of course, newsgroups; and MAMS are
(not married women, but) man against machine studies.

One of the unexpected things I discovered in this rant
was someone who apparently is in agreement with my
own opinion regarding why many modern GMs are so
willing to agree to grandmaster draws.

So in fact you agree with Adorjan?

It's not merely a
matter of prize money or even ego, nor just fear of losing;
on the contrary, there is a strong desire by some players
to "protect" their chess ratings, just as I have witnessed
firsthand at the much lower levels of play.

And Adorjan is not the first to say so - Khalifman wrote the self-same thing
when he was W Ch, and this opinion seems common umong 2700 players.

Phil Innes

-- help bot

On May 30, 6:32 am, "Chess One" wrote:

Well, not without effort, but understanding this level of chess is a bit
different than reading Chess Life - you do have to work at it, and its not
the English, but the chessic understanding which requires work. It also
assumes that the reader /can/ understand precisely 'what one thinks' without
taking too much trouble - a dubious proposition.

I'll resent the use of "CL" but agree with the point in general as
regards any general interest chess magazine - Adorjan must be chewed
thoroughly to be digested. It could be made an easier read, but just
imagine trying to work with this very stubborn GM on edits!!!! It's
too bad, because an *easier* read - not necessarily an *easy* one-
would be quite beneficial to many. He has as much to say as Watson,
but simply can't express it well - and I don't know about you, but
even with his facile use of English, I still had to read Watson 3
times before I really got the point.


One of the unexpected things I discovered in this rant
was someone who apparently is in agreement with my
own opinion regarding why many modern GMs are so
willing to agree to grandmaster draws.

So in fact you agree with Adorjan?

It's not merely a
matter of prize money or even ego, nor just fear of losing;
on the contrary, there is a strong desire by some players
to "protect" their chess ratings, just as I have witnessed
firsthand at the much lower levels of play.

And Adorjan is not the first to say so - Khalifman wrote the self-same thing
when he was W Ch, and this opinion seems common umong 2700 players.


But "protecting one's rating" is not always the same thing. For a
1500, it might mean staying in class. For a GM, it might mean
tournament invites etc - not prize money exactly, but still payment of
a kind.

To me the protection of ratings at lower levels is more ego. At higher
levels, it is "Ego+".

Actually I am more upset that the Whitaker thread went dead when I
showed that indeed, he was right 40 years ago about the fortress set-
up. I expected *some* kind of commentary from help-bot.... laugh......

"SBD" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 30, 6:32 am, "Chess One" wrote:

Well, not without effort, but understanding this level of chess is a bit
different than reading Chess Life - you do have to work at it, and its
not
the English, but the chessic understanding which requires work. It also
assumes that the reader /can/ understand precisely 'what one thinks'
without
taking too much trouble - a dubious proposition.

I'll resent the use of "CL" but agree with the point in general as
regards any general interest chess magazine - Adorjan must be chewed
thoroughly to be digested. It could be made an easier read, but just
imagine trying to work with this very stubborn GM on edits!!!!

He is actually not difficult to work with - and previously for his mamoth
interview at Chessville, we were able to negotiate very much, although some
warm terms were exchanged on occassion.

The trouble is for any non-native English speaker a tendency to know more
words than they can write - and typically, their articles approximate
speech, with sundry ad hoc and peculiar terms included, very often from
pop-music sources [you noted the same from Alberts].

If you edit this too much then it removes the flavor entirely. In this
instance I could understand his commentary readily enough to let it ride,
merely correcting some typos. When he wrote to Garry in earlier times, I
think Adorjan wrote in German and Garry replied in English [ROFL].

Its harder if you have to work through a translator, since then the phrases
are perfectly understandable, but completely boring and wooden prose hoisted
out of tourist phrase books. These might be good enough to get you to the
trian station, but inadequate to discuss dynamic aspects of a 'performance
art' such as chess.

I got stuck with Taimanov once, and we resolved an issue in the only common
language we had, Latin! Nolens Volens! since he precisely didn't like
'neverthless' and prefered 'notwithstanding'.

In that case I kept as many of Taimanov's verbs and nouns as I could, but
used different and rather more adjectives!

It's
too bad, because an *easier* read - not necessarily an *easy* one-
would be quite beneficial to many. He has as much to say as Watson,
but simply can't express it well - and I don't know about you, but
even with his facile use of English, I still had to read Watson 3
times before I really got the point.

[lol] the most colourful if obscure sentence coming from a Russian source
was

"the rooks broke through into black's position like rutting pigs"

which i felt obliged to re-write.

---

What I really think is that Garry will understand Adorjan perfectly, since
while he may not agree, he will understand the artistic approach to
playing - and this is the gap I feel corn-bot experiences - these guys dont
need to dot the t's and cross the i's, they will intuit each other's sense
almost completely.

And rather than this being some sort of show-piece for Adorjan's ideas, I
think the man himself wants instead to demonstrate a level of correspondance
among themselves. If its not clear from the brief leader, Kasparov was doing
the asking here, and while Adorjan is certainly very opinionated, it seems
to me that that was exactly what Kasparov was looking for. So one level of
appreciation for the exchange is if Adorjan gave it back to Kasparov in full
measure?

...

And Adorjan is not the first to say so - Khalifman wrote the self-same
thing
when he was W Ch, and this opinion seems common umong 2700 players.


But "protecting one's rating" is not always the same thing. For a
1500, it might mean staying in class. For a GM, it might mean
tournament invites etc - not prize money exactly, but still payment of
a kind.

Khalifman said that was a difference without a distinction. But I take your
point, and Adorjan is saying the almighty rating is, for him, not by any
means the only measure, certainly not in respect of the creativity of modern
players in the computer era.

To me the protection of ratings at lower levels is more ego. At higher
levels, it is "Ego+".

Actually I am more upset that the Whitaker thread went dead when I
showed that indeed, he was right 40 years ago about the fortress set-
up. I expected *some* kind of commentary from help-bot.... laugh......

As elsewhere, maybe that subject needs a more formal appraisal? and is in
hand

Cordially, Phil Innes

help bot wrote:
On May 28, 8:35 am, "Chess One" wrote:
Andras Adorjan kindly shares his reply to Garry with the chess
public - and puts Kasparov in his place, which is way at the top,
'As long as Garry is able to move the pieces, nobody comes close to
his throne.'

This is a perfect example; what "throne"? Does he mean GM
Kasparov's overall performance record, or maybe his lifetime
contribution to chess in general?

I think he refers to Kasparov's lavatory. I doubt that many chess
players have come close to Kasparov's lavatory so this interpretation
seems to be consistent.


Your guess is as good as mine.

Au contraire. I think my guess is much better than yours. :-P


Dave.

--
David Richerby Devil Windows (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ graphical user interface that's
possessed by Satan!

On May 30, 8:23 am, "Chess One" wrote:

Khalifman said that was a difference without a distinction. But I take your
point, and Adorjan is saying the almighty rating is, for him, not by any
means the only measure, certainly not in respect of the creativity of modern
players in the computer era.


I would say that Khalifman does not understand the distinction between
certain differences.

You can place it *all* under ego integrity, I suppose, but the 1500 is
still going to have his day job at Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe, while the
GM who goes under 2700 loses a lot of income, and in fact, may not be
able to live on chessplaying anymore....

Just think of the problem that chess composition has: to earn a title,
one's problems must be included in a sufficient number of FIDE Albums,
earning points for each problem. Who is rewarded? The innovator or the
one who can develop problems that fit the thematic devices of the time
(our "flavors of the month"). It's clear - in THE area of chess that
should recognize creativity, a system is used that discourages same
even more so than in chessplaying! - or at least that's the argument
some will make (I don't want to offend any FIDE judges.......). In
chessplaying, a win is a win...

Chess One wrote:
Khalifman said that was a difference without a distinction.

The phrase is `distinction without a difference', i.e., trying to use
different terms to refer to things that are functionally identical.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Moistened Apple (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ tasty fruit but it's moist!

"SBD" wrote in message
ups.com...
On May 30, 8:23 am, "Chess One" wrote:

Khalifman said that was a difference without a distinction. But I take
your
point, and Adorjan is saying the almighty rating is, for him, not by any
means the only measure, certainly not in respect of the creativity of
modern
players in the computer era.


I would say that Khalifman does not understand the distinction between
certain differences.

O

You can place it *all* under ego integrity, I suppose, but the 1500 is
still going to have his day job at Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe, while the
GM who goes under 2700 loses a lot of income, and in fact, may not be
able to live on chessplaying anymore....

Well, I think he understands this. The thing of it is, if you are a 'mere'
2600, how do you get to be a 2725? Those players rarely contest with you, so
you must a la Morozevich, go back to the provinces and bash the hell out of
2500 players, to boost you to 2700 again... and then maybe you get an
invite, maybe no. But if you fail your big chance, then you are in the
[ratings and monetary] boonies again.

Just think of the problem that chess composition has: to earn a title,
one's problems must be included in a sufficient number of FIDE Albums,
earning points for each problem. Who is rewarded? The innovator or the
one who can develop problems that fit the thematic devices of the time
(our "flavors of the month"). It's clear - in THE area of chess that
should recognize creativity, a system is used that discourages same
even more so than in chessplaying! - or at least that's the argument
some will make (I don't want to offend any FIDE judges.......). In
chessplaying, a win is a win...

In a wide open competition among the top 50 players, says Adorjan, we will
see rather strange results, unpredicted by ELO. Maybe we are in agreement?

Phil

On May 30, 7:32 am, "Chess One" wrote:

By liking Fischer, Miles Larsen, etc, he is biased towards creativity rather
than the modern draw-culture?

Not at all; those players were no more creative than
many others. I think it may be more accurate to
characterize these three as independent thinkers,
who didn't just follow the herd.

And as for the modernity of the the grandmaster
draw culture, I believe its roots can be traced back
at least to the era of some of these players. Witness,
for example, the finish of the 1972 Spassky/Fischer
match, which featured a wave of draws to clinch
the title. (Unfortunately, I am not in a good position
to judge the draw records of the other two named
above.)


it's now up as an article atwww.chessville.com,

I did learn something new by visiting this Web site:
what "MAMS" stands for; before now, I was a bit
perplexed since it is often included as if everyone
is assumed to automatically know.

I remember you asking before, and me answering. Look - when you start
forgetting the names of the objects its maybe time to hang up the keyboard
or you'll wind up vaguer than Lord Flatlander.

That's a rather "personalized" answer. I think that
when you use something like this you ought to take
into consideration whether or not the vast majority
of readers are going to comprehend what you are
talking about. I noticed others who posted about
this as well, so I am hardly alone in not having
read whatever threads in which "MAMS" was
fleshed out.

On a similar tack, in the rant by GM Adorjan, he
not infrequently rambled on about some opening
line without specifying the moves leading up to the
position in question; this is rather like saying I am
thinking of a number between one and ten, and if
you multiply it by 12 and then divide by it's double,
you get a number I like very much. In other words,
senseless blather! Of course, it is very possible
that GK would understand what he meant, and
bully for him; but then, the proper subject for his
pathetic chess-worship would seem to be GK,
not BF; that would be akin to *goading* GK (as I
sometimes do with Skippy Repa).


Much of the text is difficult to comprehend without
mental "interpretation" into intelligible English.

That's right! Its written in chess, not English. I note it is sufficiently
comprehensible to disagree with...


My complaint is not that *I* could not comprehend
it. On the contrary, I had little trouble except when
the wording was such as to render a thousand
different possible "translations"; hence blather.

The idea is that not everyone here (where the link
was posted) can be expected to fare as well. (Heck,
judging by what I see, many posters here can
barely write comprehensible English themselves,
let alone attempt to translate pigeon English into
something that makes sense.) But even if we only
consider GK, how is he supposed to *guess* the
right translation when there could be dozens that
fit the words equally well? My guess is that these
two could probably communicate more effectively
in some other language, like maybe Russian.


He is not writing for patzers.

Oh yeah? Then why on earth would you post
a link *here*? Do you thing we are all GMs and
nearly-IMs or something?


In fact he is writing to Garry Kasparov,

Hmm... Perhaps we are in agreement on this
one point then. GK is fair to middling, not a patzer.


who doesn't need as much lead-in as, say, an international corn-bot.

Clarification: it was not I, corn-bot, who laid
claim to international title; that was Sir IM Innes,
a 2450 I've read. (Or was that his claimed IQ...?)

Going by the actual record, my claim amounts to
merely being the highest-rated player of all time...
on GetClub, that is.


In general, I got the impression that he was
down on modern players, and regarded many of his
own generation to be, let's say, more creative.

Yes - he mentions a couple dozen players from his pre-computer generation
that he definitely thinks were more creative.

Wait a second. They definitely had chess computers
in GM Fischer's heyday. I know that he obliterated
the Greenblatt program, for instance. For all we know,
the CIA may have signaled him the move Bxh2 by
placing a certain, predetermined number of dead flies
in the lighting. (Of course, the Greenblatt program was
much stronger by then.)


This is a perfect example; what "throne"? Does he mean
GM Kasparov's overall performance record, or maybe his
lifetime contribution to chess in general? Your guess is as
good as mine.

Actually not. Its much better than yours,

A ****ing contest, is it?


Neither is he
shy on discussing Fischer's contribution to world chess.

Indeed, he appears to worship the ground GM
Fischer walked on.

Not exactly! he cites Fischer's /play/ as being central to a group of
players at the time. Fischer being first among equals, perhaps, but quite
evidently respects the spirit of that time by citing all sorts of other
players.

See what I mean? Even a nearly-an-IM can read GM
Adorjan's rant and come up with a randomized
"translation" bearing no particular resemblance to what
he actually wrote! Were the rant in plain English, I
could quote and reply, but it's not, so this would be a
pointless exercise in futility.


But why? Does he credit the
man for the whole Cold War scenario which led to
the massive commercial success of one world
championship match series, which happened to
not be "between two Russians"?

Since he doesn't mention that at all, let us assume he does not.

Did you even bother to read the rant?


Oddly enough, an old book by a Mr. Levy seems to
have put things into a very contrary perspective; as I
can now barely recall, he thought that GM Fischer's
contributions to openings theory, for example, were
relatively insignificant; and precisely this is one of
GM Adorjan's means of deprecating modern players
relative to his own favorites, like GMs Fischer and
Kasparov! Odd.

With great respect to Mr. Levy, he is /not/ like Fischer and Kasparov!

"Change the subject" ploy noted. Moving on... .


In chessic terms what Kasparov did for the tired old Grunfeld and King's
Indian were to revitalise them into renewed and potent weapons.


I see. So we have already forgotten about GM
Fischer, or else his contribution was very short-lived.


Whereas
Fischer played to win with black, including accepting 'inferior' positions
by always grabbing the poisoned pawn, eg, and sneering at theory.

Actually, I think one can play for the win as
Black with or without going after pawns and
sneering at theory. For instance, GM Lasker
played to win as Black and he is not remembered
as a petty pawn-snatching materialist. Another
example would be Paul Morphy, who basically
wrote the theory by winning his games.

My theory is that BF sometimes obtained inferior
positions, not as a means to win as Black, but with
both colors, and as the result of having failed to find
the best moves. In fact, I would be so bold as to
apply this to everyone, not just GM Fischer.


Most of these quotes would come off better if the
material were first "translated" or edited into proper
English, but this would require interpreting *precisely*
what one thinks GM Adorjan actually meant -- no easy
task.

Well, not without effort, but understanding this level of chess is a bit
different than reading Chess Life - you do have to work at it, and its not
the English, but the chessic understanding which requires work. It also
assumes that the reader /can/ understand precisely 'what one thinks' without
taking too much trouble - a dubious proposition.

In fact, the rant assumes that one (GK) can read
GM Adorjan's mind to some degree, and this is
precisely why I used the term "rant", although it
is also necessary that it be long-winded and very
opinionated.


PS: 2 regular writers in these Ngs now have their MAMS reviews on show.

"Ngs" are, of course, newsgroups; and MAMS are
(not married women, but) man against machine studies.

One of the unexpected things I discovered in this rant
was someone who apparently is in agreement with my
own opinion regarding why many modern GMs are so
willing to agree to grandmaster draws.

So in fact you agree with Adorjan?

No. It is he who agrees with *me*. (Take note: I am
the bright center of the universe, and everything revolves
around me. As of right now, I have taken over this job
for RJF, who is too important to continue being tied
down by such unimportant work).


It's not merely a
matter of prize money or even ego, nor just fear of losing;
on the contrary, there is a strong desire by some players
to "protect" their chess ratings, just as I have witnessed
firsthand at the much lower levels of play.

And Adorjan is not the first to say so - Khalifman wrote the self-same thing
when he was W Ch, and this opinion seems common umong 2700 players.


Well, down here in Middle Earth if one writes this
sort of thing in a chess newsgroup, it is common
to have people dismiss this and instead place all
the focus upon some other factor, like say, the
idea of draws being the "natural result' of the way in
which game results are scored (i.e. 1/.5/0). In yet
another context, the importance of chess ratings
has been summarily dismissed in favor of all
credit (a full 100%) going to BF; here, a few
Blair style quotes would seem to argue for such
a narrow view as being overly myopic.

-- help bot