Over the last few days a rancorous discussion has been going on
between Helpbot (aka Greg Kennedy), GM Mihai Suba, and Larry Parr on
the subject of telephone conversations between Bobby Fischer and Henry
Kissinger (then National Security Advisor) pertaining to Fischer's
1972 world title match with Spassky. There is obviously strong
disagreement, between Helpbot on one side, and Suba and Parr on the
other. However, I'm having trouble making out exactly what is the real
point at issue, partly because it involves a Chess Life article I
haven't seen.
Perhaps a reader, or one of the principals in the dispute, can
clarify matters?

It may be that both sides here are partly right and partly wrong. A
search for the word "Kissinger" among these three posters brings up
these recent quotes:

Helpbot, 6 March 2007:

"It remains an undisputed fact that none other than Henry Kissinger
telephoned GM Fischer before the match in question, pleading him to
uphold the honor of his country, etc."

Mihai Suba, 4 October 2007:

"You wanted to proof Fischer was 'after money' and nothing of
'patriotism.' Your 'proof' consisted in time mismatching the Slater
offer with a Kissinger plead. The Slater offer, to double the prize
fund, was BEFORE the start of the match in Rejkjavik, while the
alledged phone call of Kissinger was AFTER the second game, when
Fischer intended to leave. Without your acronia, the two things proof
the contrary of what you said."

Larry Parr, 5 October 2007:

"The word here [in Reykjavik -- not New York] is that Bobby Fischer
received an 11th-hour phone call from Henry Kissinger persuading him
to play the third game of his match with Boris Spassky. America's
honor was at stake as well as political relations with Iceland."

Helpbot, 10 October 2007:

"Speaking of gutless wonders, anybody notice what happened to Mr.
Parr when it was pointed out that the phone call described in the
recent pages of Chess Life was made from New York (not Iceland)?
That's right: he groaned and then ran away!
"The quote from an old article by GM Evans mentioned a call made to
Iceland during the match, but of course logic dictates that it is to
convince our hero to fly to a place when he is there playing already.
Mr. Parr seems to have grave difficulties with logic, but his research
skills are commendable in that he managed to dredge up /something/."

Parr in reply, 10 October 2007:

"Once again, the call from Kissinger to Fischer was not made to
convince Bobby to fly to Iceland. It was made by Kissinger while Bobby
was already in Iceland to convince him to continue the match after
losing the first two games to Spassky.
"Sheesh."

(end quotes from rgc posts)

I wonder if part of the confusion here stems from the fact that
Kissinger made more than one call to Fischer. Checking the well-
researched book "Bobby Fischer Goes to War" (2004), the chronology
seems to be about like this:

1 July 1972: Opening ceremony in Reykjavik, Iceland. Fischer not in
attendance -- still in New York.
1 or 2 July 1972: Theodore Tremblay, US Ambassador to Iceland,
telegraphs Kissinger and Secretary of State Wiiliam Rogers, detailing
his concerns about Fischer's refusal to play.
1 or 2 July 1972: Kissinger (probably in Washington DC?),
telephones Fischer in Douglaston, NY, saying among other things
"America wants you to go over there and beat the Russians."

3 July 1972: Wealthy British businessman James Slater adds £50,000
to the prize fund, saying "If [Fischer] isn't afraid of Spassky, then
I have removed the element of money."

3 July 1972, 10:04 PM: Fischer takes off from JFK airport, arriving
early July 4 in Iceland.

14 July 1972: After losing the first game of the match, and
forfeiting the second, Fischer is threatening to walk out, objecting
to the presence of cameras filming the match. Kissinger calls from San
Clemente, California, encouraging Fischer to continue playing.

So it seems well-established that there were TWO calls by Kissinger
to Fischer, one *_before_* the match while Fischer was still in New
York, and one to Reykjavik *_after_* game 2 but before game 3. If Suba
and/or Parr insist there was only the one call on July 14, and if
Helpbot insists there was only a call before the match, then neither
side is completely correct.
I welcome comments from the three principals, as well as informed
readers, in hopes of clarifying what this dispute is about.

On Oct 11, 11:35 am, Taylor Kingston wrote:
Over the last few days a rancorous discussion has been going on
between Helpbot (aka Greg Kennedy), GM Mihai Suba, and Larry Parr on
the subject of telephone conversations between Bobby Fischer and Henry
Kissinger (then National Security Advisor) pertaining to Fischer's
1972 world title match with Spassky. There is obviously strong
disagreement, between Helpbot on one side, and Suba and Parr on the
other. However, I'm having trouble making out exactly what is the real
point at issue, partly because it involves a Chess Life article I
haven't seen.
Perhaps a reader, or one of the principals in the dispute, can
clarify matters?

It may be that both sides here are partly right and partly wrong. A
search for the word "Kissinger" among these three posters brings up
these recent quotes:

Helpbot, 6 March 2007:

"It remains an undisputed fact that none other than Henry Kissinger
telephoned GM Fischer before the match in question, pleading him to
uphold the honor of his country, etc."

Mihai Suba, 4 October 2007:

"You wanted to proof Fischer was 'after money' and nothing of
'patriotism.' Your 'proof' consisted in time mismatching the Slater
offer with a Kissinger plead. The Slater offer, to double the prize
fund, was BEFORE the start of the match in Rejkjavik, while the
alledged phone call of Kissinger was AFTER the second game, when
Fischer intended to leave. Without your acronia, the two things proof
the contrary of what you said."

Larry Parr, 5 October 2007:

"The word here [in Reykjavik -- not New York] is that Bobby Fischer
received an 11th-hour phone call from Henry Kissinger persuading him
to play the third game of his match with Boris Spassky. America's
honor was at stake as well as political relations with Iceland."

Helpbot, 10 October 2007:

"Speaking of gutless wonders, anybody notice what happened to Mr.
Parr when it was pointed out that the phone call described in the
recent pages of Chess Life was made from New York (not Iceland)?
That's right: he groaned and then ran away!
"The quote from an old article by GM Evans mentioned a call made to
Iceland during the match, but of course logic dictates that it is to
convince our hero to fly to a place when he is there playing already.
Mr. Parr seems to have grave difficulties with logic, but his research
skills are commendable in that he managed to dredge up /something/."

Parr in reply, 10 October 2007:

"Once again, the call from Kissinger to Fischer was not made to
convince Bobby to fly to Iceland. It was made by Kissinger while Bobby
was already in Iceland to convince him to continue the match after
losing the first two games to Spassky.
"Sheesh."

(end quotes from rgc posts)

I wonder if part of the confusion here stems from the fact that
Kissinger made more than one call to Fischer. Checking the well-
researched book "Bobby Fischer Goes to War" (2004), the chronology
seems to be about like this:

1 July 1972: Opening ceremony in Reykjavik, Iceland. Fischer not in
attendance -- still in New York.
1 or 2 July 1972: Theodore Tremblay, US Ambassador to Iceland,
telegraphs Kissinger and Secretary of State Wiiliam Rogers, detailing
his concerns about Fischer's refusal to play.
1 or 2 July 1972: Kissinger (probably in Washington DC?),
telephones Fischer in Douglaston, NY, saying among other things
"America wants you to go over there and beat the Russians."

3 July 1972: Wealthy British businessman James Slater adds £50,000
to the prize fund, saying "If [Fischer] isn't afraid of Spassky, then
I have removed the element of money."

3 July 1972, 10:04 PM: Fischer takes off from JFK airport, arriving
early July 4 in Iceland.

14 July 1972: After losing the first game of the match, and
forfeiting the second, Fischer is threatening to walk out, objecting
to the presence of cameras filming the match. Kissinger calls from San
Clemente, California, encouraging Fischer to continue playing.

So it seems well-established that there were TWO calls by Kissinger
to Fischer, one *_before_* the match while Fischer was still in New
York, and one to Reykjavik *_after_* game 2 but before game 3. If Suba
and/or Parr insist there was only the one call on July 14, and if
Helpbot insists there was only a call before the match, then neither
side is completely correct.
I welcome comments from the three principals, as well as informed
readers, in hopes of clarifying what this dispute is about.

An addendum to the above. Searching further, I noticed this post by
Helpbot, from September 2007:

"Once again, there is simply a stunning lack of objectivity regarding
this matter, or any matter involving GM Fischer, from what I have
seen. Even a separate article in this same issue, by another author,
*deliberately* misconstrued the facts to favor the American hero; Al
Lawrence recounted the events leading up to the 1972 match in detail,
but one detail was not- so-cleverly omitted: the fact that GM Fischer
did not go and would not go based on Henry Kissenger's "patriotic"
plea; to the contrary, accounts by others state clearly that he only
changed his mind after a British financier intervened, offering to
*double the prize money*. Money, not patriotism, was the prime
motivator; Al Lawrence is not *that* stupid as to have simply
forgotten this crucial detail."

Helpbot's view is contradicted on page 144 of "Bobby Fischer Goes to
War," which describes the report of American attorneys who were
present when Fischer (in Douglaston, NY) received the first call from
Kissinger, on (I believe) 1 or 2 July 1972:

"They were in the room with Fischer when Kissinger phoned. Kissinger
had said to Fischer, 'America wants you to go over there and beat the
Russians.' And Fischer changed, becoming like a young soldier going to
war. When they asked him later, why did you change your mind, he said
something like 'I have decided that the interests of my nation are
greater than my own.'"

On Oct 11, 10:35 am, Taylor Kingston wrote:

However, I'm having trouble making out exactly what is the real
point at issue, partly because it involves a Chess Life article I
haven't seen.
Perhaps a reader, or one of the principals in the dispute, can
clarify matters?


The article in question appears in Chess Life's September
2007 issue, page 25, lower right-had side. The author is Al
Lawrence, who wrote:

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

Even the Nixon White House helped. When Fischer wouldn't
get on a plane to Reykjavik, his friends and advisors implored
him to no avail. Finally, it was a phone call from President
Nixon's National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger, that brought
Fischer to attention. "Dr. Kissinger told Bobby that he must
beat the Russians for America," Dubeck said. "Fischer's face
suddenly took on a determined look, like he was going into
combat." Bobby went on his mission.

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

It is clear from the above quote that the intervention of a
British finacier and his boosting the pot by 50,000 British
pounds was deliberately omitted here. Other accounts
pointed to this event, and especially the challenge which
noted fear of Boris Spassky as a possible key obstacle,
as the cattle-prod which sent GM Fischer hopping to his
plane.


As I pointed out before, it is insane to try and point to
any phone calls from Mr. Kissinger, or anyone else for
that matter, made to BF after he was already in Iceland
as the proof of his going there in a heroic gesture. One
cannot go *to* Iceland, if one is already *in* Iceland.


It may be that both sides here are partly right and partly wrong.


No, this is mistaken. The attack by GM Suba was
simply wrongheaded; he failed to comprehend the facts,
and was grasping at straws out of desperation. This is
obvious if you read the posts carefully.


GM Suba:

"You wanted to proof Fischer was 'after money' and nothing of
'patriotism.' Your 'proof' consisted in time mismatching the Slater
offer with a Kissinger plead. The Slater offer, to double the prize
fund, was BEFORE the start of the match in Rejkjavik, while the
alledged phone call of Kissinger was AFTER the second game, when
Fischer intended to leave. Without your acronia, the two things proof
the contrary of what you said."


As can be seen, GM Suba has no clue what he is talking
about; the article in Chess Life clearly referred to a phone
call taken (or not, depending on source) in *New York*, not
Iceland. Some accounts state that GM Fischer refused
this call. Even if true, this reinforces my complaint that
the facts were misconstrued or deliberately omitted in order
to lend the impression of a selfless, heroic act. If the call
was taken, as the account in Chess Life indicates, the
failure to mention the doubling of the prize fund is obviously
dishonest.


Larry Parr chimes in:

"Once again, the call from Kissinger to Fischer was not made to
convince Bobby to fly to Iceland. It was made by Kissinger while Bobby
was already in Iceland to convince him to continue the match after
losing the first two games to Spassky.
"Sheesh."


It is plainly evident that neither GM Suba nor his
"temporary friend", Larry Parr, has even the slightest
clue what they are talking about. My complaint was
in regard to the omission of vital facts from an article
in the September 2007 issue of Chess Life, which I
suspect neither has ever laid eyes upon. That leaves
only their innate abilities to read and comprehend my
postings. (In short, utterly hopeless.)


I wonder if part of the confusion here stems from the fact that
Kissinger made more than one call to Fischer.


What Taylor Kingston has mistaken for confusion,
is a desperate need to attack my person. These are
two very different things.


Checking the well-
researched book "Bobby Fischer Goes to War"


Some critics have pointed out that this work is not
so well-researched as indicated above, suggesting
that the Russian aspects contained therein may be
more reliably reported than the American ones, which
are flawed. The fellow who claims to have been
personally responsible for getting GM Fischer from
Los Angeles to New York spotted some errors, for
instance; this is the same fellow at whose house
the call from Mr. Kissinger came in -- and that, as I
seem to recall, was just one of the factual errors he
spotted.


3 July 1972: Wealthy British businessman James Slater adds £50,000
to the prize fund, saying "If [Fischer] isn't afraid of Spassky, then
I have removed the element of money."


I can just imagine GM Fischer reading this headline in
the New York Times as he sat down to eat his breakfast.


So it seems well-established that there were TWO calls by Kissinger
to Fischer, one *_before_* the match while Fischer was still in New
York, and one to Reykjavik *_after_* game 2 but before game 3. If Suba
and/or Parr insist there was only the one call on July 14


No, they will not do that. You need to understand how
ad hominem works; it is not about the facts; it is about
the person you "need" to attack.



and if Helpbot insists there was only a call before the match, then neither
side is completely correct.


"Taylor Kingston has no quote of me ever doing that",
as Dr.Blair would say. Obviously, any phone calls
made *after the fact* are immaterial here.


I welcome comments from the three principals, as well as informed
readers, in hopes of clarifying what this dispute is about.


You need to get a clue, as they say. There is no
dispute over the facts; ad hominists are not interested
in facts, except when they may be of some use in their
"work".

My complaints about the contents of Chess Life are
quite separate from any such ad hominist "work"; one
focus of mine has been the quality of game annotations
in CL, which I find disappointing. But this last was in
regard to a propaganda piece which was all editorial
rehash of the Fischer phenomenon. Some of what was
not "deliberately left out" I found interesting, such as
discussion of the financial risks involved in betting on
GM Fischer playing for the world title, accounts of just
how difficult that was to push through, and of course
the aftermath.


-- help bot

On Oct 11, 12:59 pm, help bot wrote:
On Oct 11, 10:35 am, Taylor Kingston wrote:

However, I'm having trouble making out exactly what is the real
point at issue, partly because it involves a Chess Life article I
haven't seen.
Perhaps a reader, or one of the principals in the dispute, can
clarify matters?

The article in question appears in Chess Life's September
2007 issue, page 25, lower right-had side. The author is Al

Lawrence, who wrote:

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

Even the Nixon White House helped. When Fischer wouldn't
get on a plane to Reykjavik, his friends and advisors implored
him to no avail. Finally, it was a phone call from President
Nixon's National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger, that brought
Fischer to attention. "Dr. Kissinger told Bobby that he must
beat the Russians for America," Dubeck said. "Fischer's face
suddenly took on a determined look, like he was going into
combat." Bobby went on his mission.

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

It is clear from the above quote that the intervention of a
British finacier and his boosting the pot by 50,000 British
pounds was deliberately omitted here. Other accounts
pointed to this event, and especially the challenge which
noted fear of Boris Spassky as a possible key obstacle,
as the cattle-prod which sent GM Fischer hopping to his
plane.

As I pointed out before, it is insane to try and point to
any phone calls from Mr. Kissinger, or anyone else for
that matter, made to BF after he was already in Iceland
as the proof of his going there in a heroic gesture. One
cannot go *to* Iceland, if one is already *in* Iceland.

It may be that both sides here are partly right and partly wrong.

No, this is mistaken. The attack by GM Suba was
simply wrongheaded; he failed to comprehend the facts,
and was grasping at straws out of desperation. This is
obvious if you read the posts carefully.

GM Suba:

"You wanted to proof Fischer was 'after money' and nothing of
'patriotism.' Your 'proof' consisted in time mismatching the Slater
offer with a Kissinger plead. The Slater offer, to double the prize
fund, was BEFORE the start of the match in Rejkjavik, while the
alledged phone call of Kissinger was AFTER the second game, when
Fischer intended to leave. Without your acronia, the two things proof
the contrary of what you said."

As can be seen, GM Suba has no clue what he is talking
about; the article in Chess Life clearly referred to a phone
call taken (or not, depending on source) in *New York*, not
Iceland. Some accounts state that GM Fischer refused
this call. Even if true, this reinforces my complaint that
the facts were misconstrued or deliberately omitted in order
to lend the impression of a selfless, heroic act. If the call
was taken, as the account in Chess Life indicates, the
failure to mention the doubling of the prize fund is obviously
dishonest.

Larry Parr chimes in:

"Once again, the call from Kissinger to Fischer was not made to
convince Bobby to fly to Iceland. It was made by Kissinger while Bobby
was already in Iceland to convince him to continue the match after
losing the first two games to Spassky.
"Sheesh."

It is plainly evident that neither GM Suba nor his
"temporary friend", Larry Parr, has even the slightest
clue what they are talking about. My complaint was
in regard to the omission of vital facts from an article
in the September 2007 issue of Chess Life, which I
suspect neither has ever laid eyes upon. That leaves
only their innate abilities to read and comprehend my
postings. (In short, utterly hopeless.)

I wonder if part of the confusion here stems from the fact that
Kissinger made more than one call to Fischer.

What Taylor Kingston has mistaken for confusion,
is a desperate need to attack my person. These are
two very different things.

Checking the well-
researched book "Bobby Fischer Goes to War"

Some critics have pointed out that this work is not
so well-researched as indicated above, suggesting
that the Russian aspects contained therein may be
more reliably reported than the American ones, which
are flawed. The fellow who claims to have been
personally responsible for getting GM Fischer from
Los Angeles to New York spotted some errors, for
instance; this is the same fellow at whose house
the call from Mr. Kissinger came in -- and that, as I
seem to recall, was just one of the factual errors he
spotted.

3 July 1972: Wealthy British businessman James Slater adds £50,000
to the prize fund, saying "If [Fischer] isn't afraid of Spassky, then
I have removed the element of money."

I can just imagine GM Fischer reading this headline in
the New York Times as he sat down to eat his breakfast.

So it seems well-established that there were TWO calls by Kissinger
to Fischer, one *_before_* the match while Fischer was still in New
York, and one to Reykjavik *_after_* game 2 but before game 3. If Suba
and/or Parr insist there was only the one call on July 14

No, they will not do that. You need to understand how
ad hominem works; it is not about the facts; it is about
the person you "need" to attack.

and if Helpbot insists there was only a call before the match, then neither
side is completely correct.

"Taylor Kingston has no quote of me ever doing that",
as Dr.Blair would say. Obviously, any phone calls
made *after the fact* are immaterial here.

I welcome comments from the three principals, as well as informed
readers, in hopes of clarifying what this dispute is about.

You need to get a clue, as they say. There is no
dispute over the facts; ad hominists are not interested
in facts, except when they may be of some use in their
"work".

My complaints about the contents of Chess Life are
quite separate from any such ad hominist "work"; one
focus of mine has been the quality of game annotations
in CL, which I find disappointing. But this last was in
regard to a propaganda piece which was all editorial
rehash of the Fischer phenomenon. Some of what was
not "deliberately left out" I found interesting, such as
discussion of the financial risks involved in betting on
GM Fischer playing for the world title, accounts of just
how difficult that was to push through, and of course
the aftermath.

-- help bot

So, Bot, concerning the first Kissinger call, the one on July 1st or
2nd, while Fischer was still in New York -- are you saying it did or
did not actually take place?
BTW, I'm not trying to attack you, Parr, or anyone in this thread.
Just trying to understand the point(s) under dispute and contribute
some relevant information.

On Oct 11, 12:06 pm, Taylor Kingston wrote:


You need to get a clue, as they say. There is no
dispute over the facts; ad hominists are not interested
in facts, except when they may be of some use in their
"work".

My complaints about the contents of Chess Life are
quite separate from any such ad hominist "work"; one
focus of mine has been the quality of game annotations
in CL, which I find disappointing. But this last was in
regard to a propaganda piece which was all editorial
rehash of the Fischer phenomenon. Some of what was
not "deliberately left out" I found interesting, such as
discussion of the financial risks involved in betting on
GM Fischer playing for the world title, accounts of just
how difficult that was to push through, and of course
the aftermath.

-- help bot

So, Bot, concerning the first Kissinger call, the one on July 1st or
2nd, while Fischer was still in New York -- are you saying it did or
did not actually take place?

Neither. I was not in New York; I did not take the
call, nor was I on the other end. It is the author of
the article, *Al Lawrence*, who wrote that the call
took place. Just how much simpler can I make this?


Just trying to understand the point(s) under dispute and contribute
some relevant information.


How about reading the original thread, in
chronological order then? You will find that GM
Suba does not take kindly to any disagreement
with his official pronouncements from up there in
the sky, and this is just a tempest in a teapot
stemming from his (and LP's) desperate need to
attack me in retaliation. Going deeper, if you
wish, you may find that some purported game
annotations on some Web site do not exist, or
you may agree or disagree with MS that all
chess programs are beginners in the endgame.
My criticisms were really very minor, yet as so
often happens with those who have giant egos,
serious offense was taken just the same.

In any case, when looked at objectively, this
attack on me personally is nothing more than a
cheap attempt at retaliation for my critical remarks
regarding entirely separate issues. It is what
might best be described as opportunism gone
wrong, in the sense that the two attackers very
carelessly picked an issue they know nothing
about, by which to try and silence criticism of
their own ineptitude. They slipped up (yes, again).

My weak spot is my chess play, so GM Suba
(not LP, for God's sake) ought to have gone there,
challenged me, and then come here to report the
miniature, heavily annotated as one might a
world championship match game.


-- help bot

On Oct 11, 3:23 pm, help bot wrote:
On Oct 11, 12:06 pm, Taylor Kingston wrote:

So, Bot, concerning the first Kissinger call, the one on July 1st or
2nd, while Fischer was still in New York -- are you saying it did or
did not actually take place?

Neither. I was not in New York; I did not take the
call, nor was I on the other end. It is the author of
the article, *Al Lawrence*, who wrote that the call
took place. Just how much simpler can I make this?

So now you profess agnosticism about this first call? Then have you
changed your mind since March 6, 2007? That's when you wrote "It
remains an undisputed fact that none other than Henry Kissinger
telephoned GM Fischer before the match in question, pleading him to
uphold the honor of his country, etc."

Good post by Taylor Kingston!

I have been trying for 2 years to get Larry Evans into a 20 question session
with Chessville. The realm of possible questions is so great I would invite
others to contribute [as I did with Mark Taimanov - in fact I personally
have several specific question on Evans-Taimanov, with Che Guevara looking
on]

Larry Evans has that attribute of having lived in what Adorjan says was the
creative period of chess, and of knowing, contra mundam! the context and
personalities of historic chess circumstances. Strong players emphasis
context as being important. In much chess writing it doesn;t appear at all,
just some bland, if fantastical chess score.

We might all encourage the gent to get on the record - and Mihai, you
agree?!

I even have a question from Taimanov for Larry

Phil Innes

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
ps.com...

Over the last few days a rancorous discussion has been going on
between Helpbot (aka Greg Kennedy), GM Mihai Suba, and Larry Parr on
the subject of telephone conversations between Bobby Fischer and Henry
Kissinger (then National Security Advisor) pertaining to Fischer's
1972 world title match with Spassky. There is obviously strong
disagreement, between Helpbot on one side, and Suba and Parr on the
other. However, I'm having trouble making out exactly what is the real
point at issue, partly because it involves a Chess Life article I
haven't seen.
Perhaps a reader, or one of the principals in the dispute, can
clarify matters?

It may be that both sides here are partly right and partly wrong. A
search for the word "Kissinger" among these three posters brings up
these recent quotes:

Helpbot, 6 March 2007:

"It remains an undisputed fact that none other than Henry Kissinger
telephoned GM Fischer before the match in question, pleading him to
uphold the honor of his country, etc."

Mihai Suba, 4 October 2007:

"You wanted to proof Fischer was 'after money' and nothing of
'patriotism.' Your 'proof' consisted in time mismatching the Slater
offer with a Kissinger plead. The Slater offer, to double the prize
fund, was BEFORE the start of the match in Rejkjavik, while the
alledged phone call of Kissinger was AFTER the second game, when
Fischer intended to leave. Without your acronia, the two things proof
the contrary of what you said."

Larry Parr, 5 October 2007:

"The word here [in Reykjavik -- not New York] is that Bobby Fischer
received an 11th-hour phone call from Henry Kissinger persuading him
to play the third game of his match with Boris Spassky. America's
honor was at stake as well as political relations with Iceland."

Helpbot, 10 October 2007:

"Speaking of gutless wonders, anybody notice what happened to Mr.
Parr when it was pointed out that the phone call described in the
recent pages of Chess Life was made from New York (not Iceland)?
That's right: he groaned and then ran away!
"The quote from an old article by GM Evans mentioned a call made to
Iceland during the match, but of course logic dictates that it is to
convince our hero to fly to a place when he is there playing already.
Mr. Parr seems to have grave difficulties with logic, but his research
skills are commendable in that he managed to dredge up /something/."

Parr in reply, 10 October 2007:

"Once again, the call from Kissinger to Fischer was not made to
convince Bobby to fly to Iceland. It was made by Kissinger while Bobby
was already in Iceland to convince him to continue the match after
losing the first two games to Spassky.
"Sheesh."

(end quotes from rgc posts)

I wonder if part of the confusion here stems from the fact that
Kissinger made more than one call to Fischer. Checking the well-
researched book "Bobby Fischer Goes to War" (2004), the chronology
seems to be about like this:

1 July 1972: Opening ceremony in Reykjavik, Iceland. Fischer not in
attendance -- still in New York.
1 or 2 July 1972: Theodore Tremblay, US Ambassador to Iceland,
telegraphs Kissinger and Secretary of State Wiiliam Rogers, detailing
his concerns about Fischer's refusal to play.
1 or 2 July 1972: Kissinger (probably in Washington DC?),
telephones Fischer in Douglaston, NY, saying among other things
"America wants you to go over there and beat the Russians."

3 July 1972: Wealthy British businessman James Slater adds £50,000
to the prize fund, saying "If [Fischer] isn't afraid of Spassky, then
I have removed the element of money."

3 July 1972, 10:04 PM: Fischer takes off from JFK airport, arriving
early July 4 in Iceland.

14 July 1972: After losing the first game of the match, and
forfeiting the second, Fischer is threatening to walk out, objecting
to the presence of cameras filming the match. Kissinger calls from San
Clemente, California, encouraging Fischer to continue playing.

So it seems well-established that there were TWO calls by Kissinger
to Fischer, one *_before_* the match while Fischer was still in New
York, and one to Reykjavik *_after_* game 2 but before game 3. If Suba
and/or Parr insist there was only the one call on July 14, and if
Helpbot insists there was only a call before the match, then neither
side is completely correct.
I welcome comments from the three principals, as well as informed
readers, in hopes of clarifying what this dispute is about.

On Oct 11, 3:13 pm, Taylor Kingston wrote:

So now you profess agnosticism about this first call?


No. What I profess is that I was not a witness to
the facts which have been reported by others, so if
you want to know what the facts are, you are asking
the wrong person, a *second-hand* reporter.

Some accounts of one of the Kissinger calls state
that GM Fischer "refused the call", while others
*quote* HK. In either case, and no matter which
phone call was or was not refused, the fact remains
that the doubling of the prize fund was *omitted* in
that part of the Chess Life article, which of course
was my point and the basis of my criticism.

I note that some people wish to focus on phone
calls, and not on the fact that both GM Suba and
Larry Parr made a boo boo by bringing up the wrong
call, to the wrong country, while pretending that the
call actually mentioned by the author did not exist.
This is telling.

My point had nothing to do with the call; it was the
omission of facts that I targeted. The call was just
a means by which a hero could be fabricated. A
similar example was where Leroy Dubeck portrays
his own life being endangered, except I know not
what may or may not have been omitted from that
story, whereas I do know what was omitted from
Al Lawrence's account.


Then have you changed your mind since March 6, 2007?


No. I still am using the same one I had before.


That's when you wrote "It
remains an undisputed fact that none other than Henry Kissinger
telephoned GM Fischer before the match in question, pleading him to
uphold the honor of his country, etc."


Taken out of any context, I know not what that
referred to; however, I would venture to guess that
it was in the middle of the idiotic attack in which
GM Suba arrogantly proclaimed that "the" call
from Henry Kissinger came after the match was in
progress. Obviously, as the author, AL, had related
that this call was the impetus which put BF on a
plane to Iceland, GM Suba was utterly confused
on the matter. According to Chess Life, the
writers seem to all agree that the call did happen,
and the only issue is which call, if any, was
refused by GM Fischer.

I would have serious doubts as to the intellectual
abilities of some posters here were it not for the
fact that I know their real motives are not to uncover
the truth. In this thread, we all know that there is
an ongoing dispute of sorts between myself and
TK, which skews him toward attacking me, rather
than say, LP, at the moment anyway. This would
explain why there are repeated "questions" about
phone calls, when the crux of the matter is the very
simple logic of a) what Al Lawrence wrote, and
b) what he omitted, and c) what I said he omitted,
d) is there a match?, and e) did the ad hominists
make a boo boo by trying to pretend the Al
Lawrence call never happened?, f) now caught,
where are the ad hominists hiding?, g) when they
finally emerge, will they continue to pretend?


-- help bot

help bot wrote:
It is the author of
the article, *Al Lawrence*, who wrote that the call
took place. Just how much simpler can I make this?



And, Al Lawrence is a former USCF ED. That should answer all questions
about the truth of the statement.

--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

On Oct 11, 3:54 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

Larry Evans has that attribute of having lived in what Adorjan says was the
creative period of chess


To me, this smacks of how old people (other than
me) often talk about the good old days, while always
seeming to be unable or unwilling to accept change.

I personally think that there is a lot of computer-
aided preparation going on right now, and in particular,
a much too heavy focus on openings theory at the
expense of a more balanced approach, but I would
not venture to say that creativity has died.

It really depends on the player; some may well
be computerized robots who use ChessBase to
figure out how to "optimize" results, helped by
Rybka-Fritz, which does all their "thinking" for
them. I wish I could give pertinent examples of
modern players to debunk this idea, but I am too
far out of the loop with regard to top-level chess
these days.

I am reminded of the hype surrounding the book
"The Greatest Generation"; is a generation greater
than all others because it experienced a world war?
I don't believe that. It smacks of self-worship, self
praise -- a foul stench I suspect.

Go back a bit further, to the time when there was
no "theory" on openings, or at least none to speak
of. Were not those players even more "creative",
out of sheer necessity? Did not they play more
original moves and plans than any of their more
modern successors? I imagine it must be so.

I just can't see any reason to single out the old
folks who are past their peaks but still living as
"the" creative generation, or the creative period
in chess, apart from self-idolatry on their part.

So much is hype these days; when I read about
the Hypermoderns, and how they revolutionized
chess, I recall even better games played by their
forerunners in the same style; assuming they
studied at all, more than a few ideas likely were
copied from earlier greats, the credit being doled
out to the wrong players out of writers' ignorance.

I have no doubt that GM Adorjan's generation
or "period" was creative; but it seems self-
delusional to pretend that creativity has now died
out; that his was the last of the great artists, and
henceforth we are relegated to mediocrity. I
think people are just getting old, and somehow
they trap themselves in the distant past. Except
me -- I am immune, of course.


-- help bot