A statement of this sort does not establish
much without verifiable sources.

Don't worry about it. I got it from a reliable source. Besides all
that Fischer was still a jerk.

EZoto

Lance Smith wrote (to me)
(2003-09-18 07:02:36 PST):

You did not respond to what I said about
GM Larry Evans' article in the October
Chess Life about the Fischer - Karpov
match.

_
I do not feel a need to respond to
everything that Lance Smith says.

(Louis Blair) wrote in message . com...
Lance Smith wrote (to me)
(2003-09-18 07:02:36 PST):

You did not respond to what I said about
GM Larry Evans' article in the October
Chess Life about the Fischer - Karpov
match.

_
I do not feel a need to respond to
everything that Lance Smith says.

Dr. Blair,

Then Lance Smith wins again! My imposition for you
to read the article was a continuation of our
open-ended debate on the Fischer - Karpov match,
which incidentally, involves GM Larry Evans' opinion.

Lance Smith

Lance Smith wrote (to me)
(2003-09-18 07:02:36 PST):
You did not respond to what I said about
GM Larry Evans' article in the October
Chess Life about the Fischer - Karpov
match.

I wrote (2003-09-19 16:08:51 PST):
I do not feel a need to respond to
everything that Lance Smith says.


Lance Smith now writes (2003-09-20 08:31:21 PST):

Dr. Blair,

Then Lance Smith wins again! My imposition
for you to read the article was a continuation
of our open-ended debate on the Fischer -
Karpov match, which incidentally, involves
GM Larry Evans' opinion.

_
Of course, Lance Smith does not identify any
specific statement of mine that he feels has
been demonstrated to be incorrect.

SMITH LANCES BLAIR, KIND OF

By Larry Parr

Of course, Lance Smith does not identify any specific statement of mine that
he feels has been demonstrated to be incorrect. -- Louis Blair

One Louis Blair ploy, which he employs often, is to ask a question
or make a statement, and when he is queried why he did not ask relevant
questions of others or address relevant issues, he announces that there is no
obligation or felt-need for such question-asking or statement-making in this or
that instance.

The next Blair ploy is to state that this writer or another have
shown no examples of him stating that he is under no obligation or feels no
need to ask this question or make that statement.

Lance Smith is right to claim victory, kind of.

I say "kind of" because to claim victory is to say that the game is
over. However, Mr. Blair may return and address Mr. Smith's point without
suffering penalty; and so the game starts all over again.

There are no victories here until the other guy concedes the point or
suffers some hideous electronic nervous breakdown. Or hangs himself from a
ceiling strap on a subway train.

Meanwhile, we await Louis Blair taking up Tim Hanke's business offer,
which would make Mr. Blair a ton, based on his ludicrous business analysis.

What a snorter!

Hold the presses, the Blair reply has just come off the wi "I
feel no need to take up every business deal proposed by Mr. Hanke."

An intellectually honest chap would instead write: "When attempting
to criticize the Kopec-Terrie book buyback, I added up some numbers like a
mathematician who knows nothing about business. I made a fool of myself. Tim
Hanke called me on it. What are holding costs anyway?"

Hold the presses, the Blair reply, containing both ploys, has just
come in off the wi "I feel no need to state I made a fool of myself. No
one has shown instances of my stating I made a fool of myself."

True enough.

Lance Smith wrote (2003-09-16 08:42:38 PST):
Dr. Blair,
...
BTW, journalists are still talking about
the Fischer - Karpov match. Look at your
October Chess Life and see what GM Larry
Evans has to say about them Russians.

Lance Smith wrote (2003-09-18 07:02:36 PST):
You did not respond to what I said about
GM Larry Evans' article in the October
Chess Life about the Fischer - Karpov
match.

I wrote (2003-09-19 16:08:51 PST):
I do not feel a need to respond to
everything that Lance Smith says.

Lance Smith wrote (2003-09-20 08:31:21 PST):
Then Lance Smith wins again! My imposition
for you to read the article was a continuation
of our open-ended debate on the Fischer -
Karpov match, which incidentally, involves
GM Larry Evans' opinion.

I wrote (2003-09-20 15:29:42 PST):
Of course, Lance Smith does not identify any
specific statement of mine that he feels has
been demonstrated to be incorrect.


Larry Parr wrote (2003-09-20 19:44:24 PST):

One Louis Blair ploy, which he employs often,
is to ask a question or make a statement, and
when he is queried why he did not ask relevant
questions of others or address relevant issues,
he announces that there is no obligation or
felt-need for such question-asking or
statement-making in this or that instance.

The next Blair ploy is to state that this
writer or another have shown no examples of
him stating that he is under no obligation or
feels no need to ask this question or make
that statement.

Lance Smith is right to claim victory, kind of.

I say "kind of" because to claim victory is
to say that the game is over. However, Mr.
Blair may return and address Mr. Smith's point
without suffering penalty; and so the game
starts all over again.

There are no victories here until the other
guy concedes the point or suffers some hideous
electronic nervous breakdown. Or hangs himself
from a ceiling strap on a subway train.

_
Larry Parr, of course, shrinks from actually
identifying the specific "point" of Lance Smith's
that I am supposed to conceed.


Larry Parr wrote (2003-09-20 19:44:24 PST):

Meanwhile, we await Louis Blair taking up Tim
Hanke's business offer, ...

_
My response to Timothy Hanke's business offer
was posted on 2003-09-11 23:12:35 PST.


Larry Parr wrote (2003-09-20 19:44:24 PST):

which would make Mr. Blair a ton, based on his
ludicrous business analysis.

_
I have made no business analysis indicating that
Timothy Hanke's business offer would have made
me a ton of money.


Larry Parr wrote (2003-09-20 19:44:24 PST):

What a snorter!

Hold the presses, the Blair reply has just
come off the wi "I feel no need to take
up every business deal proposed by Mr. Hanke."

An intellectually honest chap would instead
write: "When attempting to criticize the
Kopec-Terrie book buyback, I added up some
numbers like a mathematician who knows
nothing about business. I made a fool of
myself. Tim Hanke called me on it. What are
holding costs anyway?"

Hold the presses, the Blair reply, containing
both ploys, has just come in off the wi
"I feel no need to state I made a fool of
myself. No one has shown instances of my
stating I made a fool of myself."

True enough.

_
As most have, no doubt, realized, Larry Parr's
hold-the-presses quotes are fictitious.

"Liam Too" wrote in message
om...
(Louis Blair) wrote in message
. com...
Lance Smith wrote (to me)
(2003-09-18 07:02:36 PST):

You did not respond to what I said about
GM Larry Evans' article in the October
Chess Life about the Fischer - Karpov
match.

_
I do not feel a need to respond to
everything that Lance Smith says.

Dr. Blair,

Then Lance Smith wins again! My imposition for you
to read the article was a continuation of our
open-ended debate on the Fischer - Karpov match,
which incidentally, involves GM Larry Evans' opinion.

Lance Smith

Lance,
I looked at what Evans said, and don't see anything significant about it.
Evans thought Fischer's conditions were unfair.
"Ben"

"Liam Too" wrote in message
om...
(Louis Blair) wrote in message
. com...
Lance Smith wrote (to me)
(2003-09-18 07:02:36 PST):

You did not respond to what I said about
GM Larry Evans' article in the October
Chess Life about the Fischer - Karpov
match.

_
I do not feel a need to respond to
everything that Lance Smith says.

Dr. Blair,

Then Lance Smith wins again! My imposition for you
to read the article was a continuation of our
open-ended debate on the Fischer - Karpov match,
which incidentally, involves GM Larry Evans' opinion.

Lance Smith

Lance,
I looked at what Evans said, and don't see anything significant about it.
Evans thought Fischer's conditions were unfair.
"Ben"

Lance Smith wrote (2003-09-16 08:42:38 PST):
Dr. Blair,
...
BTW, journalists are still talking about
the Fischer - Karpov match. Look at your
October Chess Life and see what GM Larry
Evans has to say about them Russians.

Lance Smith wrote (2003-09-18 07:02:36 PST):
You did not respond to what I said about
GM Larry Evans' article in the October
Chess Life about the Fischer - Karpov
match.

I wrote (2003-09-19 16:08:51 PST):
I do not feel a need to respond to
everything that Lance Smith says.

Lance Smith wrote (2003-09-20 08:31:21 PST):
Then Lance Smith wins again! My imposition
for you to read the article was a continuation
of our open-ended debate on the Fischer -
Karpov match, which incidentally, involves
GM Larry Evans' opinion.

I wrote (2003-09-20 15:29:42 PST):
Of course, Lance Smith does not identify any
specific statement of mine that he feels has
been demonstrated to be incorrect.

Larry Parr wrote (2003-09-20 19:44:24 PST):
One Louis Blair ploy, which he employs often,
is to ask a question or make a statement, and
when he is queried why he did not ask relevant
questions of others or address relevant issues,
he announces that there is no obligation or
felt-need for such question-asking or
statement-making in this or that instance.

The next Blair ploy is to state that this
writer or another have shown no examples of
him stating that he is under no obligation or
feels no need to ask this question or make
that statement.

Lance Smith is right to claim victory, kind of.

I say "kind of" because to claim victory is
to say that the game is over. However, Mr.
Blair may return and address Mr. Smith's point
without suffering penalty; and so the game
starts all over again.

There are no victories here until the other
guy concedes the point or suffers some hideous
electronic nervous breakdown. Or hangs himself
from a ceiling strap on a subway train.

I wrote (2003-09-21 11:34:21 PST):
Larry Parr, of course, shrinks from actually
identifying the specific "point" of Lance Smith's
that I am supposed to conceed.

_
What I should have written was:

"Larry Parr, of course, shrinks from actually
identifying the specific 'point' over which
Lance Smith is supposedly entitled to 'claim
victory, kind of'."

Apologies for any confusion.

Lance, I looked at what Evans said, and don't see anything significant about
it. Evans thought Fischer's conditions were unfair. -- "Ben"

It's obvious these conditions were unfair. But not when compared to what FIDE
routinely granted Soviet world champions.

The point is GM Evans in 1974 was virtually alone in expressing this unpopular
opinion in Chess Life. In fact, the topic was so controversial that editor Burt
Hochberg declared a "Fischer Moratorium" in which all discussion was excised
from Chess Life for several months until the matter was settled at a FIDE
congress.

Imagine: Fischer's conditions could not be criticized in Chess Life!

At the time GM Evans noted in one of his newspaper columns that if officials in
the USA and the USSR chess federations were to change places, nobody would
notice the difference.