On May 1, 6:44 am, " wrote:

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..


Mr. Parr always seems to manage to get himself
confused. Above, we see that he has confounded
the FIDE with the Soviet Union, and in addition, he
misrepresented the facts regarding David Kane's
error and Mr. Jurgen's position.

The text above contains several points, most of
which Larry Parr was careful to avoid, for obvious
reasons:

1) the "red-baiting angle" or slant of CL magazine;

2) Larry Evans' wild, "fact-free" allegations;

3) the part about CL making it "mandatory;

4) Larry Evans' criticism of FIDE.


Apparently, Mr. Parr can only tackle the error
regarding Chess Lies allegedly making it
"mandatory" that articles have a "red-baiting"
angle.

Obviously, the narrow position that no
Chess Lies /editor/ ever gave such an order,
evades facing the real complaints he the
"red-baiting" slant, Mr. Evans' fact-freeness,
and so forth. Mr. Parr has singled out one
fabrication, and has somehow convinced
himself that it is all that really matters, for the
"game" he wants to play is the ad hominem
game. If Mr. Kane makes one mistake, he is
eliminated, according to Mr. Parr's strategy.
It's something akin to The Weakest Link, with
the notable exception that if any of the Evans
ratpackers makes a mistake, it doesn't count.
LOL!


Mr. Jurgen seems to feel that the rats have
a rabidly anti-Soviet bias, which he called
"antiquated". In response, Mr. Parr -- one of
the higher-up rats -- tells us that Mr. Jurgen is
pro-Soviet, which is "reasonable" position for
a rabidly anti-Soviet rat to take, even if he did
fail to give any support for the accusation. I
suppose most readers have duly noted the
dishonest ploy of always placing Mr. Jurgen's
name in the same part of the sentence as the
phrase "David Kane who lied". Long-time
observers of the ratpack will likely yawn and
note that this is just the sort of fundamental
dishonesty which is endemic to them.

What Mr. Jurgen may not know, is that even
today, "Russia" is perceived as a threat, and all
the mass media outlets here in the USA pound
away on a regular basis at Mr. Putin, cast as an
evil villain; sort of like Count Dracula, or Snidely
Whiplash. But it is true that the Evans clan is
stuck in the past; stuck in the Cold War era.

As for Mr. Kane, he messed up; there was no
"mandatory" order that Mr. Evans switch to
pounding away at the Soviet Union. Suffice it
to say that the overall slant of the magazine
was rabidly pro-Fischer, rabidly anti-Soviet, and
that there was a problem with being a member
of the FIDE, while at the same time bashing it
to smithereens in the pages of Chess Lies.


-- help bot

On May 1, 8:52 am, " wrote:

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.


One of these "Soviets" was named Victor Kortchnoi.
GM Kortchnoi later debunked some accusations, and
others debunked the asinine theory that it was a vast
conspiracy to "stop BF" from winning.

However, there was collusion between three of the
/top contenders/; they did not "throw" their games,
but agreed to uncontested draws.


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.


I went to chessgames.com and replayed this game.

It seemed to me that GM Polugaevsky gave GM
Karpov a very difficult time-- forcing him onto defense
for much of the game. However, at the very, very
finish, it is not clear how or why the "1-0" score was
achieved, since the position is drawn. Was there a
flag fall? Did some idiot *resign*, where even the
GetClub program might have held the draw?


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."


Mr. Spassky was a real annoyance. I recall that
at one time he, and he alone, had a nice plus
score against fave Bobby Fischer-- even with the
King's Gambit! In retaliation, BF wrote an article
"refuting" the whole shebang.


-- help bot

FISCHER & KASPAROV ON THE USCF (some 20-odd years ago)

“As far as the U.S. Chess Federation goes, I have nothing to do with
them, I consider them to be a pro-Soviet, criminal organization,
terrible people. I would like...I would appreciate it if all my fans
canceled their subscriptions to their horrible magazine Chess Life. I
call it Chess Lies -- and withdrew from membership of this
organization.” -- Bobby Fischer

“The small minded leaders of the Unites States Chess Federation try to
keep it an amateur game and must be purged like entrenched Communist
Bureaucrats.” -- Garry Kasparov

P.S. 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 cannot prove his ludicrous charge because there was never
any
such policy -- either verbal or written. In fact, the powers-that-be
largely tried to squelch exposure of
either FIDE's dirty deeds or Soviet cheating.

And so it goes.



wrote:
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.

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.


I went to chessgames.com and replayed this game.

It seemed to me that GM Polugaevsky gave GM
Karpov a very difficult time-- forcing him onto defense
for much of the game. However, at the very, very
finish, it is not clear how or why the "1-0" score was
achieved, since the position is drawn. Was there a
flag fall? Did some idiot *resign*, where even the
GetClub program might have held the draw?

The position is lost for Black after 53. -- Nxa5 but is
drawn after 53. -- Nd4.

LOW-LIFES LIKE PARR

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
{GM Evans]
doesn't owe me or the chess world anything. -- David Kane

So, then, David Kane charged Larry Evans with
being a USCF appaartchik, though he tells us more for
ego than for money or "lifetime employment.".

The truth, as readers here know, is that no
columnist was fired more often and rehired more
often than GM Larry Evans. And if one counts the
behind-the-scenes threats and the censoring of
articles written by Evans, then one is counting
possibly as many as 100 or more battles over the
years. Policy Boards and, no doubt, the current
Executive Board made angry discussion of Evans'
work in Chess Life at a staple at meetings. He revealed
scandalous news they didn't want readers to know.

Kanester's charge was not a lie. It was worse
than that. It was an inversion of truth.

Next came Kanester's charge that Evans wrote
unwarranted (if his charge is to have any meaning)
anti-Soviet material (e.g., mentioning that Viktor Korchnoi's
son was arrested, sent to a labor camp, and beaten on the
eve of his second match with Karpov).

I asked the Kanester for proof. What I received was
a statement that amounted to this: "I, David Kane, a
nobody in the chess world, have no proof that any such
directive was ever handed down. The absence of proof
on my part is proof in itself. I shall not retract any of the
charges and, in one instance, inversion of truth that I wrote
about Larry Evans. The fact that I invert factoids and cannot
addudice proof is proof itself that I speak the truth."

That is the current Kanester position The lovely and rather
succulent thing is that it will continue to be his position.

And so it goes.

Yours, Larry Parr





David Kane wrote:
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.

On May 1, 10:03 pm, " wrote:

Snip latest rant.


I think Mr. Parr is slipping. Some time back, his
prattle could at least be expected to have good
spelling and an anecdote here and there about
"fave" Josef Stalin. Nowadays, he commits nearly
as many spelling errors as Rob Mitchell or Phil
nearly-IMnes. It's quite a drop in standards, even
by his own, ultra-low standards. This sort of thing
needs to be nipped in the bud, before it gets out
of hand.

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

Now here is what I find a bit puzzling: notorious
hack Raymond Keene was quoted here as writing
that both Anatoly Karpov and Victor Kortchnoi
were in "peak form" during their championship
match. I did a little research to see if any purely
objective data backed that observation up, and it
did: both players had an above-normal result, just
looking at the numbers (at chessmetrics.com).

So, if that is true, then GM Kortchnoi somehow
managed to perform *well* in spite of what the evil
Soviets did to his son. And GM Karpov managed
to perform well enough, in spite of supposed
death threats from the Ananda Marga, Helter-
Skelter types. In any case, it is notable that a
hack like Ray Keene -- who can always be count-
ed on to attack Mr. Karpov, would in this case
make such an assessment-- if indeed that was his
overall assessment of the match.


-- help bot

wrote in message
...
LOW-LIFES LIKE PARR

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
{GM Evans]
doesn't owe me or the chess world anything. -- David Kane

I asked the Kanester for proof.

The proof is the magazine itself. As far as Parr's "points",
I've already recanted use of the term "apparatchik"
for GM Evans which has too strong a connotation
of conformity that does not apply in this case where
the USCF has no official voice. When CL did pass
through its USSR obsession, Evans *was* first in line.
However, as help bot has pointed out, that could be
mere coincidence. The more appropriate description
of Evans is that of the consummate bureaucratic
insider, using his connections and alliances to
guarantee his personal survival, even as the
federation's own fortunes (not coincidentally)
suffered.

Parr's obsession with "written directives" is
rather ironic given his journalistically inappropriate
reliance on rumor, hearsay, etc. But of course
policies can be effected without such directives,
so it is the classic red-herring.

On May 1, 6:26 pm, Jürgen R. wrote:

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.

I went to chessgames.com and replayed this game.

It seemed to me that GM Polugaevsky gave GM
Karpov a very difficult time-- forcing him onto defense
for much of the game. However, at the very, very
finish, it is not clear how or why the "1-0" score was
achieved, since the position is drawn. Was there a
flag fall? Did some idiot *resign*, where even the
GetClub program might have held the draw?

The position is lost for Black after 53. -- Nxa5 but is
drawn after 53. -- Nd4.


That is an ordinary mistake. What I was looking
for was an "obvious", game-throwing blunder in an
"easily drawn" position.

I erred in thinking it was a draw at the very finish;
White wins by force, and this explains GM
Polugaevsky's resignation.

Back to 53. ... Nd4+ though: I've seen far worse
oversights by grandmasters; one fairly recent
example was then-world champion Kramnik
overlooking a mate-in-one which many weak
players might well have seen. It is ludicrous to
assert intentions where such things exist, as in
fact they do. It is simply arrogance to maintain
that grandmasters are error-free chess machines.
In the real world (not Evans ratpacker La-la land),
everyone makes such mistakes-- even the world
champions.


-- help bot

"help bot" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
On May 1, 6:26 pm, Jürgen R. wrote:

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.

I went to chessgames.com and replayed this game.

It seemed to me that GM Polugaevsky gave GM
Karpov a very difficult time-- forcing him onto defense
for much of the game. However, at the very, very
finish, it is not clear how or why the "1-0" score was
achieved, since the position is drawn. Was there a
flag fall? Did some idiot *resign*, where even the
GetClub program might have held the draw?

The position is lost for Black after 53. -- Nxa5 but is
drawn after 53. -- Nd4.


That is an ordinary mistake. What I was looking
for was an "obvious", game-throwing blunder in an
"easily drawn" position.

I erred in thinking it was a draw at the very finish;
White wins by force, and this explains GM
Polugaevsky's resignation.

Back to 53. ... Nd4+ though: I've seen far worse
oversights by grandmasters; one fairly recent
example was then-world champion Kramnik
overlooking a mate-in-one which many weak
players might well have seen. It is ludicrous to
assert intentions where such things exist, as in
fact they do. It is simply arrogance to maintain
that grandmasters are error-free chess machines.
In the real world (not Evans ratpacker La-la land),
everyone makes such mistakes-- even the world
champions.


-- help bot

_________________________________________

Yes, of course: The mistake is most likely due to loss
of concentration, since the endgame is easily drawn and
the game finished.

All these conspiracy theories are absurd: Chess
players sometimes make mistakes, and occasionally
grand masters make mistakes that beginners would
avoid.

The idea that there wasn't enormous competition
among the Soviet players is just as silly as to believe that the
top players don't often agree to quick and easy
draws.

Idiots like Parr will randomly choose arguments that
suit their momentary purpose, e.g. one moment the Soviets
are discriminating against Jewish players, the next
moment they favor a Jewish player over an ethnic
Russian. Most likely the political potentates didn't
pay any more attention to the silly squabbles among
chess players in the USSR than they did in the USA
or elsewhere.

An extreme example of chess blindness is the game
Huebner-Petrosian in the Biel Interzonal 1976. I
actually watched this game live. Petrosian was
totally lost when he makes a completely unexpected
attacking move, after which H. has a simple mate
in 3 or 4. But instead H. defends and makes an
unbelievable sequence of blunders until he loses...

ANTI-SOVIET HOLY WATER

Idiots like Parr will randomly choose arguments that
suit their momentary purpose, e.g. one moment the Soviets
are discriminating against Jewish players, the next
moment they favor a Jewish player over an ethnic
Russian. Most likely the political potentates didn't
pay any more attention to the silly squabbles among
chess players in the USSR than they did in the USA
or elsewhere. -- Juergen

Juergen does not like unpleasants truths about the
late, unlamented Soviet Union. He has likely yet to
recover from the mass demonstrations throughout
Russia and Eastern Europe that finally ended communism
east of the Elbe.

We reported what Korchnoi said about chess
players in the Soviet Union learning widely about his
defection when Pravda, Izvestia and other Soviet
propaganda vehicles would be forced to report on
his candidates' matches.

Juergen's response was a lulu. Soviet players on the
scene in Biel, Switzerland heard the news. Hence the
news would spread throughout the USSR like wildfire.

Nonsense. Korchnoi was not talking about limited
chess circles; his reference was evidently to, say,
the 60 or so closed major Soviet cities of that period
to which travel was difficult, if not impossible, for
outsiders. Korchnoi was speaking of chess
players throughout the vast hinterland of the USSR.

We should not take pleasure in provoking a
creature such as our Juergen by tossing anti-soviet
holy water on the man and hearing the hissing as he
burns. Regrettably, we are not totally unamused by
the man's knee-jerk, very old-fashioned pro-Sovietism.

We thought his type had ceased to exist,
especially in the USSR but also throughout most of
Western Europe. Evidently there are still isolated examples.

Juergen est; ergo, Juergen est.

Yours, Larry Parr





Jürgen R. wrote:
"help bot" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
On May 1, 6:26 pm, J?rgen R. wrote:

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.

I went to chessgames.com and replayed this game.

It seemed to me that GM Polugaevsky gave GM
Karpov a very difficult time-- forcing him onto defense
for much of the game. However, at the very, very
finish, it is not clear how or why the "1-0" score was
achieved, since the position is drawn. Was there a
flag fall? Did some idiot *resign*, where even the
GetClub program might have held the draw?

The position is lost for Black after 53. -- Nxa5 but is
drawn after 53. -- Nd4.


That is an ordinary mistake. What I was looking
for was an "obvious", game-throwing blunder in an
"easily drawn" position.

I erred in thinking it was a draw at the very finish;
White wins by force, and this explains GM
Polugaevsky's resignation.

Back to 53. ... Nd4+ though: I've seen far worse
oversights by grandmasters; one fairly recent
example was then-world champion Kramnik
overlooking a mate-in-one which many weak
players might well have seen. It is ludicrous to
assert intentions where such things exist, as in
fact they do. It is simply arrogance to maintain
that grandmasters are error-free chess machines.
In the real world (not Evans ratpacker La-la land),
everyone makes such mistakes-- even the world
champions.


-- help bot

_________________________________________

Yes, of course: The mistake is most likely due to loss
of concentration, since the endgame is easily drawn and
the game finished.

All these conspiracy theories are absurd: Chess
players sometimes make mistakes, and occasionally
grand masters make mistakes that beginners would
avoid.

The idea that there wasn't enormous competition
among the Soviet players is just as silly as to believe that the
top players don't often agree to quick and easy
draws.

Idiots like Parr will randomly choose arguments that
suit their momentary purpose, e.g. one moment the Soviets
are discriminating against Jewish players, the next
moment they favor a Jewish player over an ethnic
Russian. Most likely the political potentates didn't
pay any more attention to the silly squabbles among
chess players in the USSR than they did in the USA
or elsewhere.

An extreme example of chess blindness is the game
Huebner-Petrosian in the Biel Interzonal 1976. I
actually watched this game live. Petrosian was
totally lost when he makes a completely unexpected
attacking move, after which H. has a simple mate
in 3 or 4. But instead H. defends and makes an
unbelievable sequence of blunders until he loses...