On Nov 17, 4:25 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:

Mr. Kingston,

As I have said before, I believe that all of the published authors in
this discussion know more about the Keres-Botvinnik controversy than I
do. On this topic I am happy to accept my role as a member of the
various author's audiences. So as a 'fan' let me pose a few questions...

1) Do any of you consider the topic played out? Or is there more to be
considered?

The topic of Soviet coercion, collusion, and other chicanery? It is
by no means played out, in my opinion. I still hold out some hope,
however slim, that more evidence on the treatment of Keres will
surface. I still don't think we know the full facts of the three
Karpov-Korchnoi world championship matches (1974, 1978, 1981) or of
the first Karpov-Kasparov match (1984-85). Going back further, I still
have questions about Flohr-Botvinnik 1933 (a non-title match in which,
Bronstein alleges, Flohr was bribed), Botvinnik-Bronstein 1951, and
the 1953 Candidates Tournament. It's well established that there was
collusion by three Soviet players (Petrosian, Geller, Keres) in the
1962 Candidates; other instances would not surprise me.
Another related and interesting topic is title fabrication, i.e. the
faking of tournament and/or match results to earn phony norms for FIDE
IM and GM titles

2) Are any of you considering or engaged in new work(s) based on or
related to it?

I am not, at the present time, and I probably will not be in the
future. I wrote my two articles on the Keres-Botvinnik case in 1998
and 2001. Not long after I was offered the chance to write a book on
the subject, by McFarland & Co., a very prestigious publisher of books
on chess history, but I declined because I don't consider my research
at all comprehensive. To take it further would require delving into
Soviet archives, interviewing Russian and Estonian sources, tracking
down the few people still living who might know something relevant (if
there are any - it's been 59 years now), etc. Those things are beyond
my means and abilities.

3) How about the counter proposal of Russian GMs about the materialistic
influence of the West on chess? It seems it would require a different
approach. I doubt that the FBI has much on chess players with the
exception of Fischer. How could an author tackle this topic?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "the materialistic
influence of the West on chess." Do you mean the larger prizes that
began with the Fischer era? Until 1972, the financial impact was all
in the other direction. The Soviet GMs were paid professionals,
servants of the state enlisted for one purpose, to play chess, while
almost all Western chess players had to earn a living away from the
game (Fischer and Reshevsky being some of the very rare exceptions).
And the Soviets totally undercut the market by pricing themselves low
- playing practically for nothing. When the Soviets played abroad,
they asked no appearance fees from tournament organizers. So naturally
organizers would jump at the chance to get a top Soviet GM for free,
rather than pay an American or other non-Soviet player.
As Dutch GM Jan Hein Donner wrote in 1972:

"The Russian hegemony had an appalling effect on prices in chess
world. The Russians were the best and they were cheap. They were sent
by their federation and required no starting fee, as they weren't
allowed to ask for one - to the extreme delight of chess organizers
all over the world."

So to my mind, the Soviet chess machine had two very negative
impacts on chess: one ethical, the other financial.

warning, tangent with speculation ahead...

Rev, I will pass on your next topics. What expertise I have lies in
chess history, mainly from Morphy down to around 30-50 years ago.

I suspect that if an author tried to seriously investigate the impact of
American culture on chess they would walk a precarious path through a
mine field between the Left and the Right. To my mind, from a American
perspective, scholastic chess has made great strides in proving its
worth to the mental development of young minds. I also think that chess
makes an excellent hobby.

Beyond that -- what segments of American chess have proven worth that a
Yankee capitalist would recognize? What is the value of a high quality
grandmaster game on Wall Street? What is the rationale for professional
chess in a capitalist society? What is the value of a USCF bureaucrat?

Well, feel free to tune out the previous two paragraphs if you must, but
I do wonder about these things, and invite comments -- in another thread
if need be.
--

Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.

KINGSTON AGREES WITH EVANS

The Russian hegemony had an appalling effect on prices in chess
world. The Russians were the best and they were cheap. They were sent
by their federation and required no starting fee, as they weren't
allowed to ask for one - to the extreme delight of chess organizers
all over the world." So to my mind, the Soviet chess machine had two
very negative
impacts on chess: one ethical, the other financial. -- Taylor
Kingston

In addition to finally agreeing with GM Evans' theory that Keres was
coerced into throwing his first four games to Botvinnik in the 1948
world championship ("the Commies did it") Tayor Kingston also concurs
with the following assessment:

THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 99)

To most of us chess is only a game. But to the Soviet Union it
showcased the glories of communism.

Chess is still as popular in Russia as baseball is in America. This
tradition extends from the czars to Lenin, an avid player whose
brother composed chess problems. Revolutionary leaders used the game
as a political pawn to divert and educate the masses. For the first
time in history, chess pros were subsidized by the state and Soviet
stars were treated like royalty. But prize money was kept low to
discourage competition from outsiders, mostly amateurs who had to earn
a living from real jobs.

When the American team visited Russia in 1955 our interpreter quipped:
"When we have troubles we play chess to forget our troubles. When we
have no troubles, we play chess because there's nothing better to do."

While I was there, a dissident told me Russia was only good for two
things: chess and ballet. In 1972, after Bobby Fischer trounced Boris
Spassky in Reykjavik, a
Soviet grandmaster told me: "At home they don't understand. They think
it
means there's something wrong with our culture." You can just imagine
the
shock waves.

Max Lerner wrote in the New York Post: "The Russians are in despair,
as they should be. There were suspicions that Spassky might defect to
the corrupt monied
West. Their run of champions has been broken. Worst of all, it was
done by a flamboyant, neurotic, authentic individual, against all the
collective balderdash which says the individual is a cipher."

Also see: Did the Soviets Collude?: A Statistical Analysis of
Championship Chess 1940-64

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=905612




Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Nov 17, 4:25 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:

Mr. Kingston,

As I have said before, I believe that all of the published authors in
this discussion know more about the Keres-Botvinnik controversy than I
do. On this topic I am happy to accept my role as a member of the
various author's audiences. So as a 'fan' let me pose a few questions...

1) Do any of you consider the topic played out? Or is there more to be
considered?

The topic of Soviet coercion, collusion, and other chicanery? It is
by no means played out, in my opinion. I still hold out some hope,
however slim, that more evidence on the treatment of Keres will
surface. I still don't think we know the full facts of the three
Karpov-Korchnoi world championship matches (1974, 1978, 1981) or of
the first Karpov-Kasparov match (1984-85). Going back further, I still
have questions about Flohr-Botvinnik 1933 (a non-title match in which,
Bronstein alleges, Flohr was bribed), Botvinnik-Bronstein 1951, and
the 1953 Candidates Tournament. It's well established that there was
collusion by three Soviet players (Petrosian, Geller, Keres) in the
1962 Candidates; other instances would not surprise me.
Another related and interesting topic is title fabrication, i.e. the
faking of tournament and/or match results to earn phony norms for FIDE
IM and GM titles

2) Are any of you considering or engaged in new work(s) based on or
related to it?

I am not, at the present time, and I probably will not be in the
future. I wrote my two articles on the Keres-Botvinnik case in 1998
and 2001. Not long after I was offered the chance to write a book on
the subject, by McFarland & Co., a very prestigious publisher of books
on chess history, but I declined because I don't consider my research
at all comprehensive. To take it further would require delving into
Soviet archives, interviewing Russian and Estonian sources, tracking
down the few people still living who might know something relevant (if
there are any - it's been 59 years now), etc. Those things are beyond
my means and abilities.

3) How about the counter proposal of Russian GMs about the materialistic
influence of the West on chess? It seems it would require a different
approach. I doubt that the FBI has much on chess players with the
exception of Fischer. How could an author tackle this topic?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "the materialistic
influence of the West on chess." Do you mean the larger prizes that
began with the Fischer era? Until 1972, the financial impact was all
in the other direction. The Soviet GMs were paid professionals,
servants of the state enlisted for one purpose, to play chess, while
almost all Western chess players had to earn a living away from the
game (Fischer and Reshevsky being some of the very rare exceptions).
And the Soviets totally undercut the market by pricing themselves low
- playing practically for nothing. When the Soviets played abroad,
they asked no appearance fees from tournament organizers. So naturally
organizers would jump at the chance to get a top Soviet GM for free,
rather than pay an American or other non-Soviet player.
As Dutch GM Jan Hein Donner wrote in 1972:

"The Russian hegemony had an appalling effect on prices in chess
world. The Russians were the best and they were cheap. They were sent
by their federation and required no starting fee, as they weren't
allowed to ask for one - to the extreme delight of chess organizers
all over the world."

So to my mind, the Soviet chess machine had two very negative
impacts on chess: one ethical, the other financial.

warning, tangent with speculation ahead...

Rev, I will pass on your next topics. What expertise I have lies in
chess history, mainly from Morphy down to around 30-50 years ago.

I suspect that if an author tried to seriously investigate the impact of
American culture on chess they would walk a precarious path through a
mine field between the Left and the Right. To my mind, from a American
perspective, scholastic chess has made great strides in proving its
worth to the mental development of young minds. I also think that chess
makes an excellent hobby.

Beyond that -- what segments of American chess have proven worth that a
Yankee capitalist would recognize? What is the value of a high quality
grandmaster game on Wall Street? What is the rationale for professional
chess in a capitalist society? What is the value of a USCF bureaucrat?

Well, feel free to tune out the previous two paragraphs if you must, but
I do wonder about these things, and invite comments -- in another thread
if need be.
--

Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.

On Nov 18, 5:00 pm, " wrote:
KINGSTON AGREES WITH EVANS

The Russian hegemony had an appalling effect on prices in chess
world. The Russians were the best and they were cheap. They were sent
by their federation and required no starting fee, as they weren't
allowed to ask for one - to the extreme delight of chess organizers
all over the world." So to my mind, the Soviet chess machine had two
very negative
impacts on chess: one ethical, the other financial. -- Taylor
Kingston

In addition to finally agreeing with GM Evans' theory that Keres was
coerced into throwing his first four games to Botvinnik in the 1948
world championship ("the Commies did it") Tayor Kingston also concurs
with the following assessment:

Larry, your "understanding of nuance" seems to be deserting you:
(1) One concurs in, not with.
(2) The correct way to express your idea would be something like
"Kingston came to hold views somewhat like Evans' on certain topics,
despite the botch Evans made of them."


Also see: Did the Soviets Collude?: A Statistical Analysis of
Championship Chess 1940-64

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=905612

Yes, a good article, adding some mathematical support to the
collusion thesis. It was very gratifying to see several ChessCafe.com
writers cited in it. Didn't see the supposedly seminal, scholar-
acclaimed Evans mentioned at all.

On Nov 18, 5:00 pm, " wrote:
KINGSTON AGREES WITH EVANS

The Russian hegemony had an appalling effect on prices in chess
world. The Russians were the best and they were cheap. They were sent
by their federation and required no starting fee, as they weren't
allowed to ask for one - to the extreme delight of chess organizers
all over the world." So to my mind, the Soviet chess machine had two
very negative
impacts on chess: one ethical, the other financial. -- Taylor
Kingston

In addition to finally agreeing with GM Evans' theory that Keres was
coerced into throwing his first four games to Botvinnik in the 1948
world championship ("the Commies did it") Tayor Kingston also concurs
with the following assessment:

THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 99)

To most of us chess is only a game. But to the Soviet Union it
showcased the glories of communism.

Chess is still as popular in Russia as baseball is in America. This
tradition extends from the czars to Lenin, an avid player whose
brother composed chess problems. Revolutionary leaders used the game
as a political pawn to divert and educate the masses. For the first
time in history, chess pros were subsidized by the state and Soviet
stars were treated like royalty. But prize money was kept low to
discourage competition from outsiders, mostly amateurs who had to earn
a living from real jobs.

When the American team visited Russia in 1955 our interpreter quipped:
"When we have troubles we play chess to forget our troubles. When we
have no troubles, we play chess because there's nothing better to do."

While I was there, a dissident told me Russia was only good for two
things: chess and ballet. In 1972, after Bobby Fischer trounced Boris
Spassky in Reykjavik, a
Soviet grandmaster told me: "At home they don't understand. They think
it
means there's something wrong with our culture." You can just imagine
the
shock waves.

Max Lerner wrote in the New York Post: "The Russians are in despair,
as they should be. There were suspicions that Spassky might defect to
the corrupt monied
West. Their run of champions has been broken. Worst of all, it was
done by a flamboyant, neurotic, authentic individual, against all the
collective balderdash which says the individual is a cipher."

Also see: Did the Soviets Collude?: A Statistical Analysis of
Championship Chess 1940-64

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=905612

Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Nov 17, 4:25 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:

Mr. Kingston,

As I have said before, I believe that all of the published authors in
this discussion know more about the Keres-Botvinnik controversy than I
do. On this topic I am happy to accept my role as a member of the
various author's audiences. So as a 'fan' let me pose a few questions...

1) Do any of you consider the topic played out? Or is there more to be
considered?

The topic of Soviet coercion, collusion, and other chicanery? It is
by no means played out, in my opinion. I still hold out some hope,
however slim, that more evidence on the treatment of Keres will
surface. I still don't think we know the full facts of the three
Karpov-Korchnoi world championship matches (1974, 1978, 1981) or of
the first Karpov-Kasparov match (1984-85). Going back further, I still
have questions about Flohr-Botvinnik 1933 (a non-title match in which,
Bronstein alleges, Flohr was bribed), Botvinnik-Bronstein 1951, and
the 1953 Candidates Tournament. It's well established that there was
collusion by three Soviet players (Petrosian, Geller, Keres) in the
1962 Candidates; other instances would not surprise me.
Another related and interesting topic is title fabrication, i.e. the
faking of tournament and/or match results to earn phony norms for FIDE
IM and GM titles

2) Are any of you considering or engaged in new work(s) based on or
related to it?

I am not, at the present time, and I probably will not be in the
future. I wrote my two articles on the Keres-Botvinnik case in 1998
and 2001. Not long after I was offered the chance to write a book on
the subject, by McFarland & Co., a very prestigious publisher of books
on chess history, but I declined because I don't consider my research
at all comprehensive. To take it further would require delving into
Soviet archives, interviewing Russian and Estonian sources, tracking
down the few people still living who might know something relevant (if
there are any - it's been 59 years now), etc. Those things are beyond
my means and abilities.

3) How about the counter proposal of Russian GMs about the materialistic
influence of the West on chess? It seems it would require a different
approach. I doubt that the FBI has much on chess players with the
exception of Fischer. How could an author tackle this topic?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "the materialistic
influence of the West on chess." Do you mean the larger prizes that
began with the Fischer era? Until 1972, the financial impact was all
in the other direction. The Soviet GMs were paid professionals,
servants of the state enlisted for one purpose, to play chess, while
almost all Western chess players had to earn a living away from the
game (Fischer and Reshevsky being some of the very rare exceptions).
And the Soviets totally undercut the market by pricing themselves low
- playing practically for nothing. When the Soviets played abroad,
they asked no appearance fees from tournament organizers. So naturally
organizers would jump at the chance to get a top Soviet GM for free,
rather than pay an American or other non-Soviet player.
As Dutch GM Jan Hein Donner wrote in 1972:

"The Russian hegemony had an appalling effect on prices in chess
world. The Russians were the best and they were cheap. They were sent
by their federation and required no starting fee, as they weren't
allowed to ask for one - to the extreme delight of chess organizers
all over the world."

So to my mind, the Soviet chess machine had two very negative
impacts on chess: one ethical, the other financial.

warning, tangent with speculation ahead...

Rev, I will pass on your next topics. What expertise I have lies in
chess history, mainly from Morphy down to around 30-50 years ago.

I suspect that if an author tried to seriously investigate the impact of
American culture on chess they would walk a precarious path through a
mine field between the Left and the Right. To my mind, from a American
perspective, scholastic chess has made great strides in proving its
worth to the mental development of young minds. I also think that chess
makes an excellent hobby.

Beyond that -- what segments of American chess have proven worth that a
Yankee capitalist would recognize? What is the value of a high quality
grandmaster game on Wall Street? What is the rationale for professional
chess in a capitalist society? What is the value of a USCF bureaucrat?

Well, feel free to tune out the previous two paragraphs if you must, but
I do wonder about these things, and invite comments -- in another thread
if need be.
--

Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.

The paper is interesting but not conclusive. It says that if Soviets
colluded their clean sweep was a 75% probably event but if they did
not collude it was a 25% probably event. That isn't proof beyond a
reasonable doubt.

To me, common understanding of corporate and political behavior is
stronger proof than that!

Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Nov 17, 4:25 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:

Mr. Kingston,

As I have said before, I believe that all of the published authors in
this discussion know more about the Keres-Botvinnik controversy than I
do. On this topic I am happy to accept my role as a member of the
various author's audiences. So as a 'fan' let me pose a few questions...

1) Do any of you consider the topic played out? Or is there more to be
considered?

The topic of Soviet coercion, collusion, and other chicanery? It is
by no means played out, in my opinion. I still hold out some hope,
however slim, that more evidence on the treatment of Keres will
surface. I still don't think we know the full facts of the three
Karpov-Korchnoi world championship matches (1974, 1978, 1981) or of
the first Karpov-Kasparov match (1984-85). Going back further, I still
have questions about Flohr-Botvinnik 1933 (a non-title match in which,
Bronstein alleges, Flohr was bribed), Botvinnik-Bronstein 1951, and
the 1953 Candidates Tournament. It's well established that there was
collusion by three Soviet players (Petrosian, Geller, Keres) in the
1962 Candidates; other instances would not surprise me.
Another related and interesting topic is title fabrication, i.e. the
faking of tournament and/or match results to earn phony norms for FIDE
IM and GM titles

2) Are any of you considering or engaged in new work(s) based on or
related to it?

I am not, at the present time, and I probably will not be in the
future. I wrote my two articles on the Keres-Botvinnik case in 1998
and 2001. Not long after I was offered the chance to write a book on
the subject, by McFarland & Co., a very prestigious publisher of books
on chess history, but I declined because I don't consider my research
at all comprehensive. To take it further would require delving into
Soviet archives, interviewing Russian and Estonian sources, tracking
down the few people still living who might know something relevant (if
there are any - it's been 59 years now), etc. Those things are beyond
my means and abilities.

3) How about the counter proposal of Russian GMs about the materialistic
influence of the West on chess? It seems it would require a different
approach. I doubt that the FBI has much on chess players with the
exception of Fischer. How could an author tackle this topic?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "the materialistic
influence of the West on chess." Do you mean the larger prizes that
began with the Fischer era? Until 1972, the financial impact was all
in the other direction. The Soviet GMs were paid professionals,
servants of the state enlisted for one purpose, to play chess, while
almost all Western chess players had to earn a living away from the
game (Fischer and Reshevsky being some of the very rare exceptions).
And the Soviets totally undercut the market by pricing themselves low
- playing practically for nothing. When the Soviets played abroad,
they asked no appearance fees from tournament organizers. So naturally
organizers would jump at the chance to get a top Soviet GM for free,
rather than pay an American or other non-Soviet player.
As Dutch GM Jan Hein Donner wrote in 1972:

"The Russian hegemony had an appalling effect on prices in chess
world. The Russians were the best and they were cheap. They were sent
by their federation and required no starting fee, as they weren't
allowed to ask for one - to the extreme delight of chess organizers
all over the world."

So to my mind, the Soviet chess machine had two very negative
impacts on chess: one ethical, the other financial.

warning, tangent with speculation ahead...

Rev, I will pass on your next topics. What expertise I have lies in
chess history, mainly from Morphy down to around 30-50 years ago.


I am sorry Taylor. I completely missed this message as I usually read
from the rec.games.chess.politics newsgroup. Thank you for the answers.
Tis appreciated. Now, let me catch up with the other responses.

Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
--
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick
society."

-- Jiddu Krishnamurti

wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Nov 17, 4:25 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:

Another related and interesting topic is title fabrication, i.e. the
faking of tournament and/or match results to earn phony norms for FIDE
IM and GM titles

As a fan, I would love to see someone take on the V. Afromeev phenomena
in a well researched article or book! With regard to the mass
production of FIDE titles, I personally think it is extremely
embarrassing for chess.

Since I have returned to the chess world after a 25 year absence (a
chessic Rip van Winkle) I have learned about ratings floors instituted
by the USCF. Apparently the idea is that after players spend a bunch of
money to travel and play in lots of tournaments that they should be
rewarded with a false sense of stability even if their current standard
of play is abysmal. IMHO the ratings and the titles have all been
corrupted under the stewardship of the USCF and FIDE.

I won't get into the self-appointed arbiters of "title purity" at this
point.

3) How about the counter proposal of Russian GMs about the materialistic
influence of the West on chess? It seems it would require a different
approach. I doubt that the FBI has much on chess players with the
exception of Fischer. How could an author tackle this topic?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "the materialistic
influence of the West on chess."

I do not have the quotes ready at hand as to precisely what the Russian
GMs said. Moreover, I do not know what was really on their minds behind
the comments. That could be a subject for interviews.

... Do you mean the larger prizes that
began with the Fischer era?

No, I am trying to get at something more fundamental. I will try to
explain below. I wonder if the Fischer "bubble" was more like the hula
hoop craze amplified by Cold War tensions...

snip of interesting material to make room

So to my mind, the Soviet chess machine had two very negative
impacts on chess: one ethical, the other financial.

warning, tangent with speculation ahead...
Rev, I will pass on your next topics. What expertise I have lies in
chess history, mainly from Morphy down to around 30-50 years ago.

I suspect that to tackle the questions I have in mind would require an
author with expertise in sociology, economics, and chess history. The
most basic question I pose is: Does the professional chess player
produce anything of worthy substance by the harsh standards of American
capitalism?

It is a fundamental question.

We see a number of chess fans asking about sponsorship, asking about
televising chess, comparing chess to poker etc, etc...

To my mind, seeking sponsorship resembles the feudal practice of seeking
patronage from the lords in power. It is not a sign of inherent
economic worth. State support, on the other hand, is likely to be
dismissed as socialism. In todays climate it might be possible to get
funding as a faith based initiative! :^) But these options are all
forms of beggary.

On the television scene, I see no way that chess as it is currently
practiced can become popular entertainment. Television poker on the
other hand is quite watchable. The rules are simple. The practice is
complex. One can see the hole cards in the popular Texas Hold'em
variant, thus knowing more about the circumstances than the players.
Chess cannot compete with poker as general entertainment.

If sponsorship beggary and entertainment are not sufficient then what
else is there? If the product of the work is considered we see that
GM's do not own the game scores. If they did, perhaps some few of them
could generate enough income to survive by selling them. Many others
would fall by the wayside and the field of competition would shrink.

I will leave it there for now. Summarizing: where is the economic
legitimacy of professional chess in a capitalist society?

I suspect that if an author tried to seriously investigate the impact of
American culture on chess they would walk a precarious path through a
mine field between the Left and the Right. To my mind, from a American
perspective, scholastic chess has made great strides in proving its
worth to the mental development of young minds. I also think that chess
makes an excellent hobby.


Disclaimer: I am not an author, sociologist, nor economist. My opinions
are my own, and I make no claim to have a special channel to absolute
truth.

I am making an attempt to kick start a topic for discussion that I am
interested in. If one of our worthy authors decided to take this on, I
would be quite pleased.
--

Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

On Nov 18, 7:09 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:

Since I have returned to the chess world after a 25 year absence (a
chessic Rip van Winkle) I have learned about ratings floors instituted
by the USCF. Apparently the idea is that after players spend a bunch of
money to travel and play in lots of tournaments that they should be
rewarded with a false sense of stability even if their current standard
of play is abysmal. IMHO the ratings and the titles have all been
corrupted under the stewardship of the USCF and FIDE.

The idea behind rating floors is rather different. There are players
who "sandbag," that is they value money over Elo rating, and purposely
lose games they would normally win so that their ratings will dip to a
lower class. Their aim is to enter a lower class section in a big-
money tournament such as the New York Open, and win a hefty cash prize
against players actually well below their real strength. The idea
behind the rating floors was to deter sandbagging. A player with, say,
a 1900 floor, would not be allowed to enter a Class C section
(sub-1600) even if he'd lost 100 games in a row by sandbagging.

I won't get into the self-appointed arbiters of "title purity" at this
point.

3) How about the counter proposal of Russian GMs about the materialistic
influence of the West on chess? It seems it would require a different
approach. I doubt that the FBI has much on chess players with the
exception of Fischer. How could an author tackle this topic?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "the materialistic
influence of the West on chess."

I do not have the quotes ready at hand as to precisely what the Russian
GMs said. Moreover, I do not know what was really on their minds behind
the comments. That could be a subject for interviews.

... Do you mean the larger prizes that
began with the Fischer era?

No, I am trying to get at something more fundamental. I will try to
explain below. I wonder if the Fischer "bubble" was more like the hula
hoop craze amplified by Cold War tensions...

snip of interesting material to make room

So to my mind, the Soviet chess machine had two very negative
impacts on chess: one ethical, the other financial.

warning, tangent with speculation ahead...
Rev, I will pass on your next topics. What expertise I have lies in
chess history, mainly from Morphy down to around 30-50 years ago.

I suspect that to tackle the questions I have in mind would require an
author with expertise in sociology, economics, and chess history. The
most basic question I pose is: Does the professional chess player
produce anything of worthy substance by the harsh standards of American
capitalism?

It is a fundamental question.

Indeed it is. Well, I know a thing or two about chess history, I
work in the banking business, and I have a degree in sociology, but
I'm afraid this is way beyond me. It sounds like you need a
combination of Talcott Parsons, John Kenneth Galbraith, and (take your
pick) H.J.R. Murray, Ken Whyld, David Hooper, Edward Winter, Jeremy
Gaige, D.J. Richards, Andrew Soltis and/or I-don'tknow-who.

We see a number of chess fans asking about sponsorship, asking about
televising chess, comparing chess to poker etc, etc...

To my mind, seeking sponsorship resembles the feudal practice of seeking
patronage from the lords in power. It is not a sign of inherent
economic worth. State support, on the other hand, is likely to be
dismissed as socialism. In todays climate it might be possible to get
funding as a faith based initiative! :^) But these options are all
forms of beggary.

On the television scene, I see no way that chess as it is currently
practiced can become popular entertainment. Television poker on the
other hand is quite watchable. The rules are simple. The practice is
complex. One can see the hole cards in the popular Texas Hold'em
variant, thus knowing more about the circumstances than the players.
Chess cannot compete with poker as general entertainment.

If sponsorship beggary and entertainment are not sufficient then what
else is there? If the product of the work is considered we see that
GM's do not own the game scores. If they did, perhaps some few of them
could generate enough income to survive by selling them. Many others
would fall by the wayside and the field of competition would shrink.

I will leave it there for now. Summarizing: where is the economic
legitimacy of professional chess in a capitalist society?

I suspect that if an author tried to seriously investigate the impact of
American culture on chess they would walk a precarious path through a
mine field between the Left and the Right. To my mind, from a American
perspective, scholastic chess has made great strides in proving its
worth to the mental development of young minds. I also think that chess
makes an excellent hobby.

Disclaimer: I am not an author, sociologist, nor economist. My opinions
are my own, and I make no claim to have a special channel to absolute
truth.

I am making an attempt to kick start a topic for discussion that I am
interested in. If one of our worthy authors decided to take this on, I
would be quite pleased.
--

Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Nov 18, 7:09 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
Since I have returned to the chess world after a 25 year absence (a
chessic Rip van Winkle) I have learned about ratings floors instituted
by the USCF. Apparently the idea is that after players spend a bunch of
money to travel and play in lots of tournaments that they should be
rewarded with a false sense of stability even if their current standard
of play is abysmal. IMHO the ratings and the titles have all been
corrupted under the stewardship of the USCF and FIDE.

The idea behind rating floors is rather different. There are players
who "sandbag," that is they value money over Elo rating, and purposely
lose games they would normally win so that their ratings will dip to a
lower class. Their aim is to enter a lower class section in a big-
money tournament such as the New York Open, and win a hefty cash prize
against players actually well below their real strength. The idea
behind the rating floors was to deter sandbagging. A player with, say,
a 1900 floor, would not be allowed to enter a Class C section
(sub-1600) even if he'd lost 100 games in a row by sandbagging.


Thanks for the explanation of the cause of the ratings floors. Given
this, I still maintain that it leads to a corruption of the rating
system. If the primary rationale of rating play is to measure playing
strength for the purposes of tournament pairings, invitations, and the
awarding of titles, then ratings floors, tilt the rating system in a
much different direction and are at cross purposes.

Stepping back a bit, it seems that what caused the ratings floors were
the institution of class prizes. And before that, class prizes were
instituted because it was thought that class players might participate
more and bring their entry fees, and membership dollars if they thought
they had a chance at a prize. So it is about money, not playing
strength. Where can one get an honest game and an honest rating these
days? ICC?

I suspect that to tackle the questions I have in mind would require an
author with expertise in sociology, economics, and chess history. The
most basic question I pose is: Does the professional chess player
produce anything of worthy substance by the harsh standards of American
capitalism?

It is a fundamental question.

Indeed it is. Well, I know a thing or two about chess history, I
work in the banking business, and I have a degree in sociology, but
I'm afraid this is way beyond me. It sounds like you need a
combination of Talcott Parsons, John Kenneth Galbraith, and (take your
pick) H.J.R. Murray, Ken Whyld, David Hooper, Edward Winter, Jeremy
Gaige, D.J. Richards, Andrew Soltis and/or I-don'tknow-who.

Feel free to tackle the subject if you want. It won't be popular with
those that are configured to profit from the current structure. Maybe
we need some star, investigative, chess reporters to rescue US chess
from corruption and fantasy economics...

And again, thanks for sharing your thoughts.
--

Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

J.D. Walker wrote:

Thanks for the explanation of the cause of the ratings floors.


It's not the only motivation for floors, and many deny that it's even
the primary motivation - but, you don't go too far wrong by assuming
that it *is* the major motivation.

Given
this, I still maintain that it leads to a corruption of the rating
system.

Well, duh!

Of course it does. Floors are completely unjustified from a
mathematical point of view. Alas, the mathematicians only get to advise
- the politicians make the decisions.



--
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://KennethRSloan.com/

J.D. Walker wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:
[Rating floors are aimed against sandbagging.]

Thanks for the explanation of the cause of the ratings floors.
Given this, I still maintain that it leads to a corruption of the
rating system.

If preventing sandbagging was the only reason for rating floors, it
would have been much better to just say that nobody can win a class
prize in a class more than 200 below their highest ever rating, or
something similar.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Poisonous Impossible Robot (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a high-tech robot but it can't
exist and it'll kill you in seconds!