On Nov 22, 3:19 pm, Mike Murray wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 09:30:10 -0800 (PST), Rob
wrote:

Why not discuss Lee's campaign in Northern Virginia? Or may be
Cornwall's failure at Yorktown? This discussion never gets anywhere.
It' as productive as listening to Sloan .

I was going to say, "because this is a chess group". But then,,
that's never stopped any of us, myself included, before.

Chess and the American Civil War are not mutually
exclusive topics, so maybe "Lee's campaign" can be
worked in somehow.


-- help bot

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 00:44:36 -0800 (PST), help bot
wrote:

On Nov 22, 3:19 pm, Mike Murray wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 09:30:10 -0800 (PST), Rob
wrote:

Why not discuss Lee's campaign in Northern Virginia? Or may be
Cornwall's failure at Yorktown? This discussion never gets anywhere.
It' as productive as listening to Sloan .

I was going to say, "because this is a chess group". But then,,
that's never stopped any of us, myself included, before.

Chess and the American Civil War are not mutually
exclusive topics, so maybe "Lee's campaign" can be
worked in somehow.

So, whadya think of Francis Parkinson Keyes' "The Chess Players"?

On Nov 23, 10:53 am, Mike Murray wrote:

Why not discuss Lee's campaign in Northern Virginia? Or may be
Cornwall's failure at Yorktown? This discussion never gets anywhere.
It' as productive as listening to Sloan .
I was going to say, "because this is a chess group". But then,,
that's never stopped any of us, myself included, before.
Chess and the American Civil War are not mutually
exclusive topics, so maybe "Lee's campaign" can be
worked in somehow.

So, whadya think of Francis Parkinson Keyes' "The Chess Players"?

A bit dated (for example, in the line 1. h4 a5, 2. g3 Na6, Keyes
failed to even consider 3. Bh3!?!, giving only the orthodox 3. Nh3
move -- equal, per a hit in the Innes/Hyatt middlegame tablebases).

Seriously, I have so many chess books that I can hardly locate
them all; this title sounds vaguely familiar, but I was primarily
referring to an incident where one fellow supposedly delayed a
crucial action, due to his involvement in a chess game at the time.
One writer claimed this may have swayed the outcome of an
important battle.


-- help bot

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 17:30:46 -0800 (PST), help bot
wrote:

On Nov 23, 10:53 am, Mike Murray wrote:

So, whadya think of Francis Parkinson Keyes' "The Chess Players"?

Seriously, I have so many chess books that I can hardly locate
them all; this title sounds vaguely familiar,

Not a chess book per se. It's a fictional treatment of Morphy's life
-- so it has some Civil War stuff. I read it in high school.

On Nov 22, 10:06 am, EZoto wrote:

Isn't it pretty clear-cut what really happened.

No; a large number of writers have somehow managed
to confuse the facts relating to this issue.


Many russian
chessplayers who lived at that time and then came to america seem to
say the same thing

Commonality: all disliked the status quo, and thus
all can be expected to write badly of it. But one needs
to consider other perspectives to achieve any balance.


or have had similiar stories. Bronsteins book "
The Sorcerer's Apprentice " takes a jab at Botvinnik when they took
the group photo before the WC match saying all good communists on the
right of Folke Rogard.

Mr. Bronstien has admitted his own complicity in the
fixing of games, so why he is afforded the status of
soothsayer escapes me. The same can be said of
Mr. Botvinnik, for he too has admitted complicity in
the fixing of games (casting himself as the victim).


Make it plain and simple: Botvinnik was not a
nice guy at all, but as some russian chessplayers
told me you did what you had to do to live.

The real issue is not who was a "nice guy", and who
was not. A (very) few have attempted to research the
facts, in order to determine if games were thrown and
if therefore, the world championship title was not
properly earned. Quite a few have jumbled their facts,
or even invented "facts" to suit an agenda, while
deliberately ignoring -- and omitting -- facts and
interpretations which don't suit a whim. And then
there are those whose work overlaps, falling short of
objectivity yet at least making some effort in that
direction.

Apart from any interpretations of the evidence, there
remains the problem that no matter how poorly any
of the other contenders may have played in a given
game or event, the standard of GM Botvinnik's own
play was exceedingly high. (In fact, I am reminded
of the games of Bobby Fischer /after/ he already had
published his MSMG book but before 1992). The
Commie-conspiracy theorists have no rational
explanation for this peculiar fact, which is carefully
avoided at all cost.


-- help bot

On Nov 24, 12:34 am, Mike Murray wrote:

So, whadya think of Francis Parkinson Keyes' "The Chess Players"?
Seriously, I have so many chess books that I can hardly locate
them all; this title sounds vaguely familiar,

Not a chess book per se. It's a fictional treatment of Morphy's life
-- so it has some Civil War stuff.

Ah, fiction. Does it include the story about "women's
shoes", or any of the modern suspense thrillers by Larry
Evans? Recently, I was asked to go see a movie titled
"Love in the Time of Cholera", and had a quick look at
that disease at Wikipedia; I learned that were it not for
the pandemic spread of that disease, many things would
not be as they are today. The same idea could be
considered as to the Civil War, if some important battle
or other was lost due to a chess addiction.


I read it in high school.


That was then, this is now.


-- help bot

Apart from any interpretations of the evidence, there
remains the problem that no matter how poorly any
of the other contenders may have played in a given
game or event, the standard of GM Botvinnik's own
play was exceedingly high. (In fact, I am reminded
of the games of Bobby Fischer /after/ he already had
published his MSMG book but before 1992). The
Commie-conspiracy theorists have no rational
explanation for this peculiar fact, which is carefully
avoided at all cost.


-- help bot

I'm not denying the fact that Botvinnik was not a strong player. He
was a tremendously strong player, but he used bullying tactics in
politics to get what he wanted also. Botvinnik reminds me of Karpov
in that sense. In the first K-K match he is up 5-0 and clearly he is
the stronger player but his match strategy backfires on him and Karpov
uses his political strength to get out of the match even though he was
up 5-3. Well it rebounded on him in the second match and the rest is
history. Some of it may never be known exactly but it is obvious that
those who had the power in politics used it for their own means, and
Botvinnik was no exception.

EZoto

On Nov 24, 1:44 am, EZoto wrote:

Botvinnik reminds me of Karpov
in that sense. In the first K-K match he is up 5-0 and clearly he is
the stronger player but his match strategy backfires on him and Karpov
uses his political strength to get out of the match even though he was
up 5-3.

That's been the Kasparov party line for years, but I wouldn't bet
the ranch on it. Cancelling the match may have been more Kasparov's
idea than Karpov's. A more balanced treatment of the matter can be
read he

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/e...rmination.html

Well it rebounded on him in the second match and the rest is
history. Some of it may never be known exactly but it is obvious that
those who had the power in politics used it for their own means, and
Botvinnik was no exception.

I would agree that Botvinnik knew how to use his political
connections, for example in arranging the special 1941 "Absolute
Championship" after he flopped in the 1940 USSR Ch. Also in getting
FIDE to change its rules to limit the number of Soviet Candidates, and
to allow a defeated champion a rematch. Whether he used his clout
against Keres post -WWII or in 1948 is unclear, though he is on record
as denying it.

"Rob" wrote in message
...
Why not discuss Lee's campaign in Northern Virginia?

To be on topic:

Did Secret Agent Morphy provide the political intelligence for it, for which
side!? In fact, while his spying activities seem to me like they were
'smudged' during his brief involvement - do we know very much what he was
engaged in, and was he formally 'finished' with it rather than move to the
back of the stage?

Or may be
Cornwall's failure at Yorktown?

We came unprepared, the Redruth Reds couldn't get used to the (a) humidity
(b) cheerleaders, both of which had a similar effect. Also the Americans
cheated by throwing the ball /forwards/ and the referees were obviously on
the take, since not one of them seemed to notice. The shock weapon of the
rucking scrum did succeed fairly well, since 2,500 lbs of moving forwards
are almost impossible to stop, and 7 tries were scored and converted this
way.

This discussion never gets anywhere.

What the discussion underpins is why USA is isolated in the chess world.

Before WW11 in team play they took 4 golds from 4 tries, re-entering the
scene from about 1950 onwards they faced the concerted effort of an entire
super-power with professional players against whoever had survived the war
and living in NY City.

It' as productive as listening to Sloan .

But Sloan was a board member! And here you got not only a super-state's
involvement at the political level, but a Fide which is forever-East. Sloan
is more a caricature of a politician, since he lacks the wherewithal to
dissemble to very high degree, and makes too much incidental noise around
his main theme. Real chess politicos are more accomplished.

This conversation is only ostensibly about the chess scene half a century
ago, what has changed? Therefore, is there some value in knowing our chess
history, since otherwise we are not only doomed to repeat it, but it may
never have changed!

Phil Innes

THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 292)


The chess scene in New York was vibrant because so many masters
couldn't find jobs. The 1930s were America's glory days, our
international teams won gold
medals four times running. Yet players were penniless and people held
them
in low esteem. "Chess is as elaborate a waste of human intelligence as
you can
find outside of an advertising agency," sneered novelist Raymond
Chandler.

In 1944 Arnie [Denker] captured the USA Championship and gave
exhibitions at military bases. After the war, when the USSR crushed
the USA in a 1945 radio match, he lamented, "Chess requires you full-
time, but it doesn't assure you anywhere near an adequate income. The
sooner we realize this, the sooner America will regain its prestige as
the leading chess nation."

Arnie had to go into business to support his family, then retired to
Florida with a bundle and financed scholastic chess. "Passing the
torch on to the next generation was his great passion. It was his
life, after his family," said one of his sons.



Chess One wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...
Why not discuss Lee's campaign in Northern Virginia?

To be on topic:

Did Secret Agent Morphy provide the political intelligence for it, for which
side!? In fact, while his spying activities seem to me like they were
'smudged' during his brief involvement - do we know very much what he was
engaged in, and was he formally 'finished' with it rather than move to the
back of the stage?

Or may be
Cornwall's failure at Yorktown?

We came unprepared, the Redruth Reds couldn't get used to the (a) humidity
(b) cheerleaders, both of which had a similar effect. Also the Americans
cheated by throwing the ball /forwards/ and the referees were obviously on
the take, since not one of them seemed to notice. The shock weapon of the
rucking scrum did succeed fairly well, since 2,500 lbs of moving forwards
are almost impossible to stop, and 7 tries were scored and converted this
way.

This discussion never gets anywhere.

What the discussion underpins is why USA is isolated in the chess world.

Before WW11 in team play they took 4 golds from 4 tries, re-entering the
scene from about 1950 onwards they faced the concerted effort of an entire
super-power with professional players against whoever had survived the war
and living in NY City.

It' as productive as listening to Sloan .

But Sloan was a board member! And here you got not only a super-state's
involvement at the political level, but a Fide which is forever-East. Sloan
is more a caricature of a politician, since he lacks the wherewithal to
dissemble to very high degree, and makes too much incidental noise around
his main theme. Real chess politicos are more accomplished.

This conversation is only ostensibly about the chess scene half a century
ago, what has changed? Therefore, is there some value in knowing our chess
history, since otherwise we are not only doomed to repeat it, but it may
never have changed!

Phil Innes