On Apr 30, 5:28 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

These are no doubt phrases understood where you are. But my question to you
is what you want? Not what some people want. Maybe you get to it in this
message?


You keep tossing out assertions, and when I
point out that you are mistaken, giving specific
examples in support, you always change the
subject so you can pretend that you were not
debunked. Where does that get *you*?


As for *me*, here are my requests:

1) Organizer to provide PB&J sandwiches either before,
after, or during play.

2) Mr. Sloan must bathe, wear deodorant, that sort of
thing. I will do the same; in fact, if I lose to SS, I may
react by taking cold showers and slapping myself
repeatedly.

3) First to win six, draws not counting. If the score
is tied at 5-5, both players get a free bag of Doritos.



I pass on something so vague and anodyne I don't know what it is.


Blah, blah, blah! If you have nothing to say, why
don't you go somewhere else and play chess or
something?

Nobody here in rgc writes more vague jabber than
you do. Sometimes I wonder if you are being paid
*by the word*... .


Still no chessic subject matter...


I didn't want to go beyond your depth. Why don't
you consider getting a *real* job? All this following
LP around like a lost puppy, then having RM tag
along behind you-- that's not what real men do; it's
for kiddies.

I already gave you a challenge: write an op/ed
piece in which you express your own thinking, not
parrot LE, RK, LP or anybody else. Unchain your
mind from *their* agendas.


-- help bot

PUT UP OR SHUT UP, MR. KANE!

Of course, when CL made it mandatory for every article to have a
red-
baiting angle, Evans complied with his wild, fact-free allegations --
David
Kane

The opposite of rabid anti-Soviet bias evidently is pro-Soviet bias,
largely exhibited here by bothf Jurgen and David Kane who lied
outright because no such directive was ever issued by me or
any other editor of Chess Life to any writer in this magazine..
In fact, the opposite was true. GM Evans was asked to tone down
his criticism of FIDE on several occasions..

If David Kane has any proof of his ludicrous charge, let him present
it here.


wrote:
PRO-SOVIET BIAS

I suppose the opposite of 'rabid' anti-soviet bias is... ?
If you know the game is rigged, do you report what goes
on as if you don't know? That would be deceptive, no?
That would be a form of lying. And there is no doubt that
Sovietism was pulling Fide's strings. -- Phil Innes

Phil asks a good question.

Of course, when CL made it mandatory for every article to have a red-
baiting
angle, Evans complied with his wild, fact-free allegations -- David
Kane

The opposite of rabid anti-Soviet bias evidently is pro-Soviet bias,
largely exhibited here by bothf Jurgen and David Kane who lied
outright because no such directive was ever issued by me or
or any other editor of Chess Life to any writher in this magazine..
In fact, the opposite was true. GM Evans was asked to tone down
his criticism of FIDE on several occasions..

If David Kane has any proof of his ludicrous charge, let him present
it here.

HEARSAY?

The point is that you don't know what Korchnoi's
motives were [for defecting] nor about the evil deeds
of the Soviet Chess functionaries. You are repeating
hearsay that nobody can confirm. -- Jurgen

These FACTS have been amply confirmed by Soviet players of that era,
including but not limited to Averbakh, Bronstein, Taimanov, Spassky,
etc., etc., etc.

Some volumes worth consultingare RUSSIANS VS. FISCHER by Dmitri
Plisetsky
and Sergey Vorinkov (Chess World Ltd. 1994) CHESS SCANDALS by Ed
Edmondson (Pergamon 1981) and PERSONA NON GRATA by Viktor Korchnoi
with Lenny Cavallaro (Thinkers' Press 1981). Even ACHIEVING THE AIM by
Mikhail Botvinnik exposes some of these dirty deeds.

Ample evidence of Sovietism pulling the strings in FIDE is also cited
in THIS CRAXY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans. His research is beyond
dispute.









Chess One wrote:
"help bot" wrote in message
...
On Apr 29, 4:52 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

Of course, that detail has little to do with anything,
and does not resurrect the Evans mythology (of
someone bravely takes on a corrupt establishment) that
Parr has been assigned with promulgating.

Who else has bravely done so? There are few truly independent voices. The
inverse of Larry Evans is Jerry Hanken, eg.


Larry Parr has indeed promulgated the fiction that
Larry Evans is an "independent" voice. Well, while
he may well be independent of the folks who run
the show at the USCF, he is far from a truly
independent thinker. Many of the stories I've seen
were merely parroted or borrowed from others, with
apparently zero critical examination on LE's part.

This may or may not have significance; after all, is Evans writing for
people who already know some things so that he records his own comments
along with theirs in order to substantiate an issue? Being 'independent' is
no virtue if what you are describing is common to other observers, in fact,
it detracts from the issue to become a personality point of view.

Or is Evans writing for people who know nothing at all, and who want to
start from the beginning? I don't think so. I think the former is true, and
if Evans has a fault in this, then it is his presumption that the chess
public actually know very much at all about the goings on of chess
politicians.

One of these was examined in an article by Taylor
Kingston (I think), who noted that even the original
source was unreliable.

That's very vague.

Other "ideas" of Larry Evans
originated from Raymond Keene, a notorious hack
whose antics have long annoyed pedants like Ed
Winter.

It must be particularly galling for Winter to have to deal with 'hack'
Keene, since Winter has only tittle-tattle from those who feed it to him,
while Keene actually was behind the Wall and smuggling out stuff on what it
was really like from first hand knowledge, and also the samizdat of other
personal witness to the /systemic/ corruption of the SU.

Larry Evans also engaged the Soviet chess machine, and therefore is guilty
of the same crime as Keene; essentially neither of them bought into any
propaganda whether it was issued from East or West, and preferred what they
knew as fact to some filtered gloss on it.

But my favorite are the "stories" which Mr.
Evans has borrowed from Gary Kasparov, known
liar and cheater but one of the finest chess players
who ever lived.

I know it is your favorite. But the elephant in your viewing room is you! It
is this obsessional general opinions that you then fix onto individual
circumstance - and therefore an honest though very real mistake or error by
Kasparov is sufficient for you to condemn the man's entire character.

My personal understanding of the issue is that he apologised to Judit, who
emphasis accepted that apology. Why then is this still an issue for Greg
Kennedy?

Not that such compacted cynicism can be answered in anything less than an
essay, but in terms of collaborations and discussions, many strong players
talk with each other about the organisational side of chess, and it is much
less a matter of who spoke what first, as that strong players witness a
common set of facts - then report matters in their own ways.

GM Evans, a player I admire and an author of chess
works of which I am a satisfied customer (believe it
or not, he actually wrote about chess at one time!),


It seems the further back in time you go, the
better were Larry Evans' writings! He's aging
backwards, like Merlin.

Criticism is always welcome, but this isn't criticism, its bitching. The
reader will note that there is no suggested /subject/ that critics mention
that they thought better then rather than now - and they don't even bother
to say what they personally would like to read about. shrug That's no
critique, and it doesn't even indicate if the critics want to read
anything... So is this 'complaint' on behalf of other people? [lol]

Of course, when CL made it mandatory for
every article to have a red-baiting angle, Evans
complied with his wild, fact-free allegations - often
contradicting his own prior writings.


I somehow doubt that the honchos at the USCF
"forced" Mr. Evans to contradict himself or to
adopt a rabid anti-Soviet bias. I think he did that
largely on his own.

I suppose the opposite of 'rabid' anti-soviet bias is... ?

If you know the game is rigged, do you report what goes on as if you don't
know? That would be deceptive, no? That would be a form of lying. And there
is no doubt that Sovietism was pulling Fide's strings.

Are there ex-Soviets chess players in the West who actually contest this
as
a basis?


Hmm. It seems that nearly-IMnes is afraid to
consider what people who live further East might
have to say; I wonder what he is afraid of learning?

I see that response is not an answer. But the fatuous chess-lout Kennedy
ignores the fact that I interviewed Taimanov who spoke of the systemic
aspect of soviet life - it was into everything!

So in reading all these 'questions' from Kennedy I have yet to find one
which is not about himself - since anyone who has applied themselves to the
subject could answer his 'questions' the same as me.

But vague and abstracted criticisms are useless to any understanding of what
goes on - and the usual projection takes place in this speil, which the
reader will remember began with the phrase

with apparently zero critical examination

Phil Innes



But I will grant that
Parr does have a point in that the USCF
does not speak with a single voice and
at times he's been at odds with certain factions
within the organization. Perhaps the wily politician
is a more apt image than apparatchik, which
emphasizes conformity above all else.


Well, when Taylor Kingston goofed, he refused
to admit it was really a mistake, saying he ought
to have phrased what he said a bit differently.
Now we have this fuss over appa-rat chicks,
and -- surprise -- somebody again refuses to
admit error. My pattern-recognition detector is
going wild; could it be that chess players (?) are
unable to admit error? (Preposterous.)

Why can't we all just grant that Larry Parr is
right about LE being a thorny-chick to the honchos
at the USCF? After all, that was not the real issue.
(Remember, the ploy was to divert attention from
LP's *gaffe* regarding Mr. Kane insisting that LE
needed the USCF's money. Appa-ratta-chick or
thorny-pointy-chick, it makes no real difference.)


-- help bot

wrote in message
...
PUT UP OR SHUT UP, MR. KANE!

Of course, when CL made it mandatory for every article to have a
red-
baiting angle, Evans complied with his wild, fact-free allegations --
David
Kane

The opposite of rabid anti-Soviet bias evidently is pro-Soviet bias,
largely exhibited here by bothf Jurgen and David Kane who lied
outright because no such directive was ever issued by me or
any other editor of Chess Life to any writer in this magazine..
In fact, the opposite was true. GM Evans was asked to tone down
his criticism of FIDE on several occasions..

If David Kane has any proof of his ludicrous charge, let him present
it here.

Parr continues to astound with his ridiculous arguments. First,
he raised the technicality that GM Evans' was an independent
contractor rather than a salaried employee as proof of something.
His new line is that only a written directive can establish policy.
The man is surely confused. If you are going to shoot down
strawmen, at least build up something worth shooting at.

During the period that Chess Life was filled cover to cover
with sophomoric polemic, do you think that GM Evans
was too stupid to notice? Of course not. And it was at
this time that his own writing moved away from its somewhat
more responsible approach earlier in his life.

There are more inconsistencies in Evans' output than
any one man can document. Many of them have been
posted here repeatedly (such as his approach to
Fischer, at first reasonable, later blaming the Soviets
for Fischer's own behavior) and I'll not bother
repeating it.

A particular favorite of mine is approach to playing
in Cuba. He portrays himself as a fearless maverick -
defying the embargo as a matter of principle. But
isn't that just aiding the same evil communists responsible
for all of the worlds ills in his other posts? Not only
that, but he brings out this particular little story as a
reason for why it was wrong to get upset at
Fischer for defying the worldwide embargo
on Serbia - a country, let us not forget, that
was actively engaged in genocidal repression.

Consistency is not highly valued in Parr's crowd.

For the record, I do not hold Karpov responsible
for the USSR's wrongdoing any more than I
hold Keres' responsible for the Nazis' for playing
in Nazi-organized tournaments. How they
behaved politically is frankly of little interest to
me. How they behaved as chessplaying sportsmen
has a lot more to do with my view of them.
And Karpov does deserve condemnation on
that count - there was abominable sportsmanship
on both sides and Karpov certainly does deserve
some of the blame for the behavior of his side.

But the truth is that for both Karpov and
Korchnoi it was always about the chess -
the political controversy was a manufactured
sideshow. And they did give the chess world a
memorable match.

On Apr 30, 10:32 pm, "David Kane" wrote:

Parr continues to astound with his ridiculous arguments. First,
he raised the technicality that GM Evans' was an independent
contractor rather than a salaried employee as proof of something.
His new line is that only a written directive can establish policy.
The man is surely confused. If you are going to shoot down
strawmen, at least build up something worth shooting at.

During the period that Chess Life was filled cover to cover
with sophomoric polemic, do you think that GM Evans
was too stupid to notice? Of course not. And it was at
this time that his own writing moved away from its somewhat
more responsible approach earlier in his life.


This observation demonstrates coincidence, but
not causation. (If you fart and at the same time
World War III breaks out, does that prove that
*your flatulence* is responsible for it?)


There are more inconsistencies in Evans' output than
any one man can document. Many of them have been
posted here repeatedly (such as his approach to
Fischer, at first reasonable, later blaming the Soviets
for Fischer's own behavior) and I'll not bother
repeating it.


This problem with inconsistency is the hallmark
of a very confused mind. In Larry Evans' case,
his "huge bias" (John Watson, et al) frequently
blinds him to the objective facts which don't
neatly "fit" into his many preconceived, biased
opinions.


A particular favorite of mine is approach to playing
in Cuba. He portrays himself as a fearless maverick -
defying the embargo as a matter of principle. But
isn't that just aiding the same evil communists responsible
for all of the worlds ills in his other posts? Not only
that, but he brings out this particular little story as a
reason for why it was wrong to get upset at
Fischer for defying the worldwide embargo
on Serbia - a country, let us not forget, that
was actively engaged in genocidal repression.


One anecdote which always puzzled me was
the one where a young Bobby Fischer went to
see about getting some "free" money. Upon
arrival, he was informed that in return for lots of
financial support in his quest for the title, the
financier wanted just one thing: recognition of
his financial help, *if* BF somehow managed
to win. Larry Evans presented this as an
example of BF having "principles", which has
always puzzled me. What principles, exactly?
Selfishness? Naivety? Greed? It seemed
more an example of those, and of a general
the-world-revolves-around-me mentality. Yet
Mr. Evans was somehow /impressed/ when
BF walked out.


Consistency is not highly valued in Parr's crowd.


Brown-nosing seems to be the key for new
members to get accepted. I suppose that in
that respect, /consistency/ would have some
small value.


For the record, I do not hold Karpov responsible
for the USSR's wrongdoing any more than I
hold Keres' responsible for the Nazis' for playing
in Nazi-organized tournaments.


This brings up yet another problem for the Evans
ratpack: the fact that Paul Keres is one of those
fellows they like to "use" to bash Mr. Botvinnik.
Yet even the widely-liked PK has skeletons in his
closet, just as MB does.


How they
behaved politically is frankly of little interest to
me. How they behaved as chessplaying sportsmen
has a lot more to do with my view of them.
And Karpov does deserve condemnation on
that count - there was abominable sportsmanship
on both sides and Karpov certainly does deserve
some of the blame for the behavior of his side.


Mr. Karpov is a classic case of "wrong place,
wrong time". Nobody (here) liked it when Bobby
Fischer quit playing chess, and guess who just
happened to be "handy" as a scapegoat? The
folks at Chess Lies magazine had a field day at
his expense.


But the truth is that for both Karpov and
Korchnoi it was always about the chess -
the political controversy was a manufactured
sideshow. And they did give the chess world a
memorable match.


The sad thing is, it seems not enough to just
determine who is the strongest chess player in
the world, oh no! It always has to entail politics
and pet peeves of the press. I "can't hardly wait"
until the Chinese produce a number of serious
contenders; that will no doubt be /deja vu/, all
over again.


-- help bot

ATTACK IS THE BEST DEFENSE

Of course, when CL made it mandatory for every article to have a
red- baiting angle, Evans complied with his wild, fact-free
allegations --
David Kane

The opposite of rabid anti-Soviet bias evidently is pro-Soviet bias,
largely exhibited here by both Jurgen and David Kane who lied
outright because no such directive was ever issued by me or
any other editor of Chess Life to any writer in this magazine..
In fact, the opposite was true. GM Evans was asked to tone down
his criticism of FIDE on several occasions..

IIf David Kane has any proof of his ludicrous charge, let him
present it here.

Unable to offer a scintilla of proof -- as expected -- the Kanestar
typically launches new smears and the old Ad Hom Attack.



David Kane wrote:
wrote in message
...
PUT UP OR SHUT UP, MR. KANE!

Of course, when CL made it mandatory for every article to have a
red-
baiting angle, Evans complied with his wild, fact-free allegations --
David
Kane

The opposite of rabid anti-Soviet bias evidently is pro-Soviet bias,
largely exhibited here by bothf Jurgen and David Kane who lied
outright because no such directive was ever issued by me or
any other editor of Chess Life to any writer in this magazine..
In fact, the opposite was true. GM Evans was asked to tone down
his criticism of FIDE on several occasions..

If David Kane has any proof of his ludicrous charge, let him present
it here.

Parr continues to astound with his ridiculous arguments. First,
he raised the technicality that GM Evans' was an independent
contractor rather than a salaried employee as proof of something.
His new line is that only a written directive can establish policy.
The man is surely confused. If you are going to shoot down
strawmen, at least build up something worth shooting at.

During the period that Chess Life was filled cover to cover
with sophomoric polemic, do you think that GM Evans
was too stupid to notice? Of course not. And it was at
this time that his own writing moved away from its somewhat
more responsible approach earlier in his life.

There are more inconsistencies in Evans' output than
any one man can document. Many of them have been
posted here repeatedly (such as his approach to
Fischer, at first reasonable, later blaming the Soviets
for Fischer's own behavior) and I'll not bother
repeating it.

A particular favorite of mine is approach to playing
in Cuba. He portrays himself as a fearless maverick -
defying the embargo as a matter of principle. But
isn't that just aiding the same evil communists responsible
for all of the worlds ills in his other posts? Not only
that, but he brings out this particular little story as a
reason for why it was wrong to get upset at
Fischer for defying the worldwide embargo
on Serbia - a country, let us not forget, that
was actively engaged in genocidal repression.

Consistency is not highly valued in Parr's crowd.

For the record, I do not hold Karpov responsible
for the USSR's wrongdoing any more than I
hold Keres' responsible for the Nazis' for playing
in Nazi-organized tournaments. How they
behaved politically is frankly of little interest to
me. How they behaved as chessplaying sportsmen
has a lot more to do with my view of them.
And Karpov does deserve condemnation on
that count - there was abominable sportsmanship
on both sides and Karpov certainly does deserve
some of the blame for the behavior of his side.

But the truth is that for both Karpov and
Korchnoi it was always about the chess -
the political controversy was a manufactured
sideshow. And they did give the chess world a
memorable match.

"David Kane" wrote in message
. ..

wrote in message
...
PUT UP OR SHUT UP, MR. KANE!

Of course, when CL made it mandatory for every article to have a
red-
baiting angle, Evans complied with his wild, fact-free allegations --
David
Kane

The opposite of rabid anti-Soviet bias evidently is pro-Soviet bias,
largely exhibited here by bothf Jurgen and David Kane who lied
outright because no such directive was ever issued by me or
any other editor of Chess Life to any writer in this magazine..
In fact, the opposite was true. GM Evans was asked to tone down
his criticism of FIDE on several occasions..

If David Kane has any proof of his ludicrous charge, let him present
it here.

Parr continues to astound with his ridiculous arguments. First,
he raised the technicality that GM Evans' was an independent
contractor rather than a salaried employee as proof of something.

Well David, that is not entirely candid, is it? He was an independent both
as a contractor and also financially, from any need to earn a buck. To ask
if that is 'proof of something' it to ask for what every other reader
already understands - LE doesn't need to toe the line in order to pay the
mortgage. I would say that being a millionairre is not exactly 'a
technicality'.

As I understand the point; it allows a columnist an independent point of
view from whatever board pressures are put on the editor of CL.

Is that resume of the issue to this point a fair synopsis?

His new line is that only a written directive can establish policy.
The man is surely confused. If you are going to shoot down
strawmen, at least build up something worth shooting at.

I understand your point to be that on being challenged, you cannot produce
any written evidence - since there is none, and directives need not be
written. Also fair?

During the period that Chess Life was filled cover to cover
with sophomoric polemic, do you think that GM Evans
was too stupid to notice? Of course not. And it was at
this time that his own writing moved away from its somewhat
more responsible approach earlier in his life.

There is a small danger that your own writing illustrates the same fault;
any polemic is a verbal campaign about a /system/, it is a process of
activities, not a topic of itself. The level of polemic can be sophomoric,
or merely pertaining to sophomores! but that is to append an adjective to it
which is your own point of view.

But what is the subject matter? Isn't that the /system/ of Soviet-era chess?
To regularly comment on it is to necessarily engage in polemics, and the
level of public reception of such material, since it is novel to them, may
indeed be sophomoric in understanding.

Therefore you will understand the difference between the means and the
topical matter, as well as the reception by a public of material new to
them.

There are more inconsistencies in Evans' output than
any one man can document. Many of them have been
posted here repeatedly (such as his approach to
Fischer, at first reasonable, later blaming the Soviets
for Fischer's own behavior) and I'll not bother
repeating it.

But this is to gloss far a complex subject with 'sophomoric' attention, no?
Surely two things are possible here, that over time different factors were
in play in respect of Fischer and the Russians, and also the awareness of
the writer changed over time.

To speak of changing circumstances and understand as 'inconsistent' is
tautalogical, since by that definition the past is always inconsistent with
any present. As the grape becomes the wine, so does understanding mature.

The thing to remember is that there was almost no reporting on the subject
of Soviet manipulations in chess. It was literally secretive stuff, and it
took Taimanov some 10 years after the Wall came down, and the great
unfreezing of what was a vry real War, to obtain his own KGB file.

A particular favorite of mine is approach to playing
in Cuba. He portrays himself as a fearless maverick -
defying the embargo as a matter of principle. But
isn't that just aiding the same evil communists responsible
for all of the worlds ills in his other posts?

That is an open question. Is it better to engage people with antithetical
political orientations than your own, or to shun them? I see that the US
embargo and isolation of Cuba did absolutely nothing to change its system.
Whereas what brought the Wall down in Europe was not politics, but washing
machines, television, vacuum cleaners, cars... the exposure of Bloc citizens
to materials freely available in the West, which even poor people could own.

As to playing chess in a war-zone, that relies upon a philosophical
orientation. Some people are quite content with war - but war is also
described as a failure of the peace - it is the result of a process, of a
failed process. Some people understand that to be the case and do not chose
to honor the failed process in the sense of declaring it 'right' as in 'our
country right or wrong'.

Last week I reported on a guy in Somalia which has suffered horrible and
long-time civil war, introducing chess to schools and the culture, because
instead of conflict, it is a /ritual/ conflict, and an acceptable way to
express aggression.

Sports and games have always formed this function between regions, and
different peoples. For sure, Fischer didn't believe in politics, he believed
in pawns - and maybe he genuinely thought that where the politicians had
failed, he could do better as an individual? You don't have to agree with
that in order to understand the sense of what individuals may attempt.

Not only
that, but he brings out this particular little story as a
reason for why it was wrong to get upset at
Fischer for defying the worldwide embargo
on Serbia - a country, let us not forget, that
was actively engaged in genocidal repression.

I don't think the Russians were practicing an embargo. But the main point is
what to do when things are failing, and Serbians only know what their
leaders tell them? You can dislike Americans and Western values, but can you
dislike Fischer, an actual American with Western values? Doesn't the very
fact of Fischer's presence put a doubt into people's minds on how evil the
enemy actually is?

Again, you need not agree with that perspective to be able to understand it.

Consistency is not highly valued in Parr's crowd.

For the record, I do not hold Karpov responsible
for the USSR's wrongdoing any more than I
hold Keres' responsible for the Nazis' for playing
in Nazi-organized tournaments. How they
behaved politically is frankly of little interest to
me.

They are of course playing different roles. Keres and Alekhine were
propaganda pawns for the regime, but in Russia GM Karpov was part of the
regime. That is a rather different positioning.

But actually, I think as with my idea above on a maturation of GM Evans'
point of view, so I see a change in GM Karpov's orientation to chess in the
world - a factor which had to do with /exposure/ to the greater picture,
rather than official unengaged isolationism.

How they behaved as chessplaying sportsmen
has a lot more to do with my view of them.
And Karpov does deserve condemnation on
that count - there was abominable sportsmanship
on both sides and Karpov certainly does deserve
some of the blame for the behavior of his side.

But the truth is that for both Karpov and
Korchnoi it was always about the chess -
the political controversy was a manufactured
sideshow. And they did give the chess world a
memorable match.

I happen to be friends with Korchnoi's Russian publisher, have an inscribed
copy of his book, and have exchanged several thousand e-mails with him, and
those around him, on the subject of chess in the Russias.

I would add from that knowledge that the 'picture' was much more complicated
than your paragraph above presents. It is not a matter of absolutes, but of
relative differences East and West in the system of living, not in chess.
That context is the inescapable one.

Korchnoi after all, in his press conference in Holland, spoke about Soviet
corruption in chess, but he also spoke about Western corruption in chess,
which he said was not about power and positions, but about money. These days
we would say we are differently corrupted. Whether the degree of that
corruption was anything on the scale of Soviet invigilation is unlikely,
though not much investigated [!], but the principle of corruption being
present is established in both East and West; that it is systemic, and
lorded over by real politicians and chess politicians.

If individuals acted outside the scope of that corruption, then there was
real danger, East and West, of them being ostracised. If you want to know
what happened at USCF when the issue was raised of Western cheaters, then
you already write with someone here who can tell you, since he was editor of
USCF's magazine. That is a measure of how honest CL was, and how interested
people were in doing anything at all to discuss corrupted chess burocrats at
home or abroad. That's the background context which GM Evans borached.

What happened 40 years ago was indeed a crude polemic, often with no shades
in it, few gradations of thought, as is often the case in a war. Those who
broached the gap may not have written or acted as we would now like, but
neither are any pioneers the most sophisticated of people, otherwise they
would never get out the door and find out what its really like. Neither
would people interred in close societies ever discover what anything else
was like.

Phil Innes

KARPOV'S SPORTING ETHICS (continued)

As far as I can tell, Karpov is the only World Champion in the FIDE
era to play a title defense with *no* advantage (twice with Korchnoi,
once vs. Kasparov) -- David Kane

Fischer once accused Soviets of throwing key games to each other in
international tourneys.

GM Yasser Seirawan, when asked if he ever saw any evidence of this in
his own experience, said: "His charge is absolutely true! I've seen it
happen. Soviet stars were expected to finish behind Karpov and I saw
Polugaevsky throw away an easy draw against him in this simple
endgame. When Spassky committed the crime of finishing first ahead of
Karpov in Spain, they
cut off his interzonal funding -- which is why Spassky left Russia and
went to play for France in the Olympiads."

Karpov,A (2710) - Polugaevsky,L (2620)
Tilburg 1983
[D32]

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.e3 e6 5.d4 d5 6.cxd5 exd5 7.Be2 cxd4
8.Nxd4 Bd6 9.0-0 0-0 10.Bf3 Be5 11.Qd3 Nb4 12.Qd2 Bxd4 13.exd4 Bf5
14.Bd1 Re8 15.Na4 Nc6 16.f3 Qa5 17.Qxa5 Nxa5 18.Kf2 Nc6 19.Be3 Nb4
20.Bg5 Nd7 21.g4 Bg6 22.Bb3 Bc2 23.Bxc2 Nxc2 24.Rad1 f6 25.Bf4 Nf8
26.Rd2 Ne6 27.Bg3 Ncxd4 28.Rfd1 Nc6 29.Rxd5 Rad8 30.Rxd8 Rxd8 31.Rxd8+
Ncxd8 32.Ke3 Kf7 33.f4 g6 34.f5 gxf5 35.gxf5 Ng7 36.Ke4 Nc6 37.Bd6 Ne7
38.Nc5 b6 39.Na6 Ngxf5 40.Bb8 Ke6 41.Bxa7 Nd6+ 42.Kd3 Nd5 43.a4 f5
44.b4 f4 45.a5 bxa5 46.bxa5 Kd7 47.Nc5+ Kc6 48.Nb3 Nb4+ 49.Ke2 Kb5
50.Kf3 Nc6 51.Bb6 Nc4 52.Bc7 N4xa5?? 53.Nxa5 Nxa5 54.Bxa5 Kxa5 55.Kxf4
Kb5 56.Kg5 Kc5 57.Kh6 1-0

On Apr 29, 12:12*pm, samsloan wrote:

The prize fund being offered Shirov was generous in spite of these
problems. I believe that the amount offered was $250,000. This is more
than the amount initially offered for the Kamsky Tapolov Match more
than ten years later. Shirov was a fool not to take the $250,000.

Sam, what is your source for this claim of $250,000? I have not been
able to find any report of a prize fund, whatever the amount,
definitely being offered to Shirov after Rentero reneged on the $2M
Seville deal. To hear Shirov himself tell it, he never turned down
anything:

http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/twic283.html

THE WEEK IN CHESS 283 10th April 2000 by Mark Crowther

Open Letter from Alexei Shirov

This is just a short note to remind the chess World that Kasparov's
statement that I turned down the offer from California untrue. I never
got any serious offer on paper and while I was negotiating the offer
disappeared by itself. This was back in October 1998. It was already
in 1999 that I was informed by reliable sources that the California
offer was in fact turned down by Kasparov himself since he found the
prize fund too low and tried to negotiate a better deal with the
California organizers. This still may be the wrong information but
it's completely clear to me that Kasparov just made me a scapegoat in
order to avoid the match.

**** And once again: I did not have any serious offer at all, so there
was nothing to turn down. ***** [emphasis added -- TK]

I do believe that the Kasparov-Kramnik match can not have anything to
do with any kind of World Championship, be it official, historical,
brain or whatsoever. I am legitimate candidate for it since 1998 and
the speculations about the California offer can not change it.

Sincerely Alexei Shirov

Fischer once accused Soviets of throwing key games to each other in
international tourneys.

GM Yasser Seirawan, when asked if he ever saw any evidence of this in
his own experience, said: "His charge is absolutely true! I've seen it
happen. Soviet stars were expected to finish behind Karpov and I saw
Polugaevsky throw away an easy draw against him in this simple
endgame. When Spassky committed the crime of finishing first ahead of
Karpov in Spain, they
cut off his interzonal funding -- which is why Spassky left Russia and
went to play for France in the Olympiads."


I suppose you expect everyone to take your word for the accuracy
of this quote from Seirawan - but what if somebody wanted to
confirm that this statement was made?

You don't need Seirawan to tell you that Polugayevsky made a crude
error in the game quoted - anybody can see that, and it obviously
doesn't prove that there was collusion among the players.

Since when is Seirawan an authority on prearranged results between
Soviet players?

Any kind of serious journalist would be ashamed to base such
an accusation on such weak evidence.

wrote in message
...
ATTACK IS THE BEST DEFENSE

Larry - When your argument boils down to Larry Evans' tax status as a CL writer,
and the absence of
a written directive to politicize chess, you should be grateful for any response
whatsoever.

You obviously take yourself very seriously, but you take your role as defender
of GM Evans'
honor way too seriously. So his positions changed over the years, he
misremembers things in
a way favorable to his present beliefs, and he has a tendency to exaggerate his
own
accomplishments? Really that describes just about everybody.

The irony is that the comic book story of Evans that you peddle incessantly
doesn't
really make him look that good.

And I can lament the fact that his association with low-lifes like yourself has
cheated the chess world out of some good work, the truth is that he doesn't
owe me or the chess world anything.