"Parrthenon" wrote in message
...
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.

Larry,
That was me posting as "Ben." Just trying to find a work-around for this
Swen worm problem that is plaguing the internet.

I know the history. What is your point? Louis was being criticized for his
failure to respond to something Lance posted. All Lance said was "Larry
Evans has something to say about Fischer-Karpov." What is there to respond
to? What debating point has Lance "won"?
Bob

"Ben" wrote in message .net...
"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"

Bob,

Here is what I posted:

"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 09-16-03

You forgot to post what GM Larry Evans had to say about the Soviets,
that's what's significant in my continuing debate with Dr. Blair.

Lance

Dear Larry,

Heil Dubya!

Except in museums -- if they exist -- junkyards, if any contain old
subway-elevated train cars, or private collections, there are no ceiling straps
on subway trains. I can't remember seeing any of them in several (many?)
decades.

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.


(Much snipped.)

Heute Uhmuhrikkka, Afghanistan und Irak. Morgen die ganze Welt!

Uhmuhrikkka, Uhmuhrikkka uber Alles!

(Was 11 September 2001 Kristalnacht or the night of the Reichstag fire?)

Fraternally,

Jerry Bibuld
gens una sumus

Dear Larry,

Heil Dubya!

I grant that to your friend. (Please forgive me, I still have toruble with his
given name and I know he is your friend.)

He was far ahead of me in that respect. I did nopt learn THAT almost-truth
until nearly a decade later, when I got deeply involved with FIDE politically
over the issue of the representation of the apartheid South African Chess
Federation, as opposed to what became the Chess Association for the People of
South Africa.

Of course, I boast that I see beyond your friend, who STILL hasn't made the
connection concerning the two governments.

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.


(Much snipped.)

Heute Uhmuhrikkka, Afghanistan und Irak. Morgen die ganze Welt!

Uhmuhrikkka, Uhmuhrikkka uber Alles.

(Was 11 September 2001 Kristalnacht or the night of the Reichstag fire?)

Fraternally,

Jerry Bibuld
gens una sumus

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.

Bob Musicant wrote (2003-09-21 15:13:03 PST):
Lance,
I looked at what Evans said, and don't see
anything significant about it.
Evans thought Fischer's conditions were
unfair.


Lance Smith wrote (2003-09-22 06:45:37 PST):

Bob,
...
You forgot to post what GM Larry Evans had
to say about the Soviets, ...

_
I see no reason why Bob Musicant should be
obliged to post any of what GM Evans had to
say. Lance Smith himself did not quote any
of it in his 2003-09-16 08:42:38 PST note.
If Lance Smith wants some of it to be posted
here, he should do so himself instead of
pestering others to do the posting for him.


Lance Smith wrote (2003-09-22 06:45:37 PST):

that's what's significant in my continuing
debate with Dr. Blair.

_
Lance Smith can call it signigicant from now
until doomsday if he likes. Until he indicates
some specific statement of mine that he is
challenging, I see no reason for me to
comment. Lance Smith can claim victory if
he likes, but I think that looks pretty
silly if Lance Smith does not identify anything
specific that he claims to have victoriously
established.

"Louis was being criticized for his
failure to respond to something Lance
posted. ... What is there to respond
to? What debating point has Lance
'won'?" - Bob Musicant (2003-09-22
01:49:36 PST)

Larry Parr wrote (2003-09-21 21:34:41 PST):

It's obvious [Fischer's 1974] conditions
were unfair. But not when compared to what
FIDE routinely granted Soviet world champions.

_
Is there any reason to doubt that Fischer
could have had (if he wanted) the same
conditions that Spassky had in 1972 and
Petrosian had in 1966 and 1969?

In case anyone is new to this discussion,
Fischer wanted a rule that would have
required a challenger to finish two
or more points ahead of Fischer in
order to cause Fischer to lose the
title.

"Bobby Fischer had sent in a number of demands ... Some
of these were conceded ... But two demands were rejected.
... Numerous telegrams had been sent to the Congress by
Fischer via his spokesman, Fred Cramer. The last one said
that, in the light of FIDE's decisions, he was resigning his
FIDE world-championship title. ... Another attempt was
made to bring the FIDE and Fischer into complete accord,
when Colonel Edmondson (U.S. Chess Federation) asked
for the summoning of an extraordinary meeting of the FIDE
Congress. There being a sufficient number of countries in
agreement, it duly assembled at Bergen-aan-Zee in the
Netherlands from 18 to 20 March, 1975. It was an
extraordinary congress in every sense of the word, and
eventually, after much heated discussion, one of Fischer's
demands was conceded: the match was to have a limitless
number of games. But Fischer's other demand - that a
draw be declared when the situation reached nine to nine
- was rejected by a majority of three. Fischer's words on
hearing this were, 'It's all over then.' No match took place.
Fischer ignored the request to say by 2 April whether or not
he would play, and Karpov became the new world champion"
- Golombek (1976)

Incidently, in 1978, 1981, and 1984, FIDE did
decide to hold world championships where there
was "a limitless number of games", but there
was no rule that required the challenger to
finish two or more points ahead of the champion
in order to cause the champion to lose the title.
On the other hand, there WAS the rematch rule
that would have required a new champion to
play another championship match with the defeated
champion after one year.

(Louis Blair) wrote in message . com...
I see no reason why Bob Musicant should be
obliged to post any of what GM Evans had to
say. Lance Smith himself did not quote any
of it in his 2003-09-16 08:42:38 PST note.
If Lance Smith wants some of it to be posted
here, he should do so himself instead of
pestering others to do the posting for him.

"Evans thought Fischer's conditions were unfair." --Bob Musicant

Dr. Blair,

Actually, I did not pester Bob on this issue, I just reminded him
to be fair and post the quote in its entirety. To me, that is very
important.

Pestering is stalking someone like Tim Hanke, everybody knows that.

Here are the quotes:

"Q. (2) What was your worst moment as a chess professional?"
--IM Jeremy Silman

"A. Apart from losing games I was clearly winning (vs Kashdan at
Hollywood 1954, for example), endangering my friendship with
Bobby Fischer by opposing on principle some of his demands for
the title match with Anatoly Karpov in 1975. I argued with Bobby
(in vain) to set an example for all time by granting absolutely
fair conditions to his challenger. Alas, the Soviets twisted it
to show that even one of his closest aides was not on his side
in this dispute - neglecting to mention that MOST OF THEIR
CHAMPIONS ENJOYED A GREATER EDGE THAN FISCHER WAS ASKING FOR!"
--GM Larry Evans

The capitalization for emphasis, is mine.

Lance Smith

Bob Musicant wrote (2003-09-21 15:13:03 PST):
Lance,
I looked at what Evans said, and don't see
anything significant about it.
Evans thought Fischer's conditions were
unfair.

Lance Smith wrote (2003-09-22 06:45:37 PST):
Bob,
...
You forgot to post what GM Larry Evans had
to say about the Soviets, ...

I wrote (2003-09-22 15:23:38 PST):
I see no reason why Bob Musicant should be
obliged to post any of what GM Evans had to
say. Lance Smith himself did not quote any
of it in his 2003-09-16 08:42:38 PST note.
If Lance Smith wants some of it to be posted
here, he should do so himself instead of
pestering others to do the posting for him.


Lance Smith now writes (2003-09-23 07:35:24 PST):

"Evans thought Fischer's conditions were
unfair." --Bob Musicant

Dr. Blair,

Actually, I did not pester Bob on this issue,

_
Everyone can look at the 2003-09-22 06:45:37
PST Lance Smith comment (see above) and come
to their own conclusions about that.


Lance Smith now writes (2003-09-23 07:35:24 PST):

I just reminded him to be fair and post the
quote in its entirety. To me, that is very
important.

_
Again, I see no reason why Lance Smith should
be obliged to post the GM Evans quote in its
entirety. Lance Smith himself had not done
so.


Lance Smith now writes (2003-09-23 07:35:24 PST):

Pestering is stalking someone like Tim Hanke,
everybody knows that.

_
Timothy Hanke is a USCF board member advocating
major changes. It is appropriate to subject his
ideas and attitudes to scrutiny.


Lance Smith now writes (2003-09-23 07:35:24 PST):

Here are the quotes:

"... I argued with Bobby (in vain) to set an
example for all time by granting absolutely
fair conditions to his challenger. Alas, the
Soviets twisted it to show that even one of
his closest aides was not on his side in this
dispute - neglecting to mention that MOST OF
THEIR CHAMPIONS ENJOYED A GREATER EDGE THAN
FISCHER WAS ASKING FOR!"--GM Larry Evans

The capitalization for emphasis, is mine.

_
With regard to this, I would ask:

Is there any reason to doubt that Fischer
could have had (if he had wanted) the same
conditions that Spassky had in 1972,
Petrosian had in 1966 and 1969, and
Botvinnik had in 1963?

In case anyone is new to the discussion,
I would also add that Fischer wanted a
rule that would have required a challenger
to finish two or more points ahead of
Fischer in order to cause Fischer to lose
the title.

"Bobby Fischer had sent in a number of demands ... Some
of these were conceded ... But two demands were rejected.
... Numerous telegrams had been sent to the Congress by
Fischer via his spokesman, Fred Cramer. The last one said
that, in the light of FIDE's decisions, he was resigning his
FIDE world-championship title. ... Another attempt was
made to bring the FIDE and Fischer into complete accord,
when Colonel Edmondson (U.S. Chess Federation) asked
for the summoning of an extraordinary meeting of the FIDE
Congress. There being a sufficient number of countries in
agreement, it duly assembled at Bergen-aan-Zee in the
Netherlands from 18 to 20 March, 1975. It was an
extraordinary congress in every sense of the word, and
eventually, after much heated discussion, one of Fischer's
demands was conceded: the match was to have a limitless
number of games. But Fischer's other demand - that a
draw be declared when the situation reached nine to nine
- was rejected by a majority of three. Fischer's words on
hearing this were, 'It's all over then.' No match took place.
Fischer ignored the request to say by 2 April whether or not
he would play, and Karpov became the new world champion"
- Golombek (1976)

Incidentally, in 1978, 1981, and 1984, FIDE did
decide to hold world championships where there
was "a limitless number of games", but there
was no rule that required the challenger to
finish two or more points ahead of the champion
in order to cause the champion to lose the title.
On the other hand, there WAS the rematch rule
that would have required a new champion to
play another championship match with the defeated
champion after one year.

Does GM Evans currently feel that he made a
mistake with his 1975 statements?

"Fischer refused to negotiate or compromise and his
stubbornness is what killed the match - nothing or nobody
else." - GM Evans (1975)

"Karpov deserves to be world champion" - GM Evans (1975)

I wrote (2003-09-23 11:02:05 PST):

Again, I see no reason why Lance Smith should
be obliged to post the GM Evans quote in its
entirety. Lance Smith himself had not done
so.

_
Of course, what I meant was:

Again, I see no reason why Bob Musicant should
be obliged to post the GM Evans quote in its
entirety. Lance Smith himself had not done
so.

"Liam Too" wrote in message
om...
snip
Actually, I did not pester Bob on this issue, I just reminded him
to be fair and post the quote in its entirety. To me, that is very
important.

Pestering is stalking someone like Tim Hanke, everybody knows that.

Here are the quotes:

"Q. (2) What was your worst moment as a chess professional?"
--IM Jeremy Silman

"A. Apart from losing games I was clearly winning (vs Kashdan at
Hollywood 1954, for example), endangering my friendship with
Bobby Fischer by opposing on principle some of his demands for
the title match with Anatoly Karpov in 1975. I argued with Bobby
(in vain) to set an example for all time by granting absolutely
fair conditions to his challenger. Alas, the Soviets twisted it
to show that even one of his closest aides was not on his side
in this dispute - neglecting to mention that MOST OF THEIR
CHAMPIONS ENJOYED A GREATER EDGE THAN FISCHER WAS ASKING FOR!"
--GM Larry Evans

The capitalization for emphasis, is mine.

Lance Smith

OK, Lance, now I see what you were referring to. I was not mentally doing
the emphasis on that last line. This is an argument that has gone for the
30 years I have been a member of the USCF (with a 2-3 year hiatus while I
was in law school). Larry has long made what I thought to be the specious
claim that, because of the rematch clause, under the system in effect until
Petrosian's win, a challenger was forced to win two matches before he could
be considered the champion. Maybe Larry would say it a little differently,
but that's the gist of it. Take away that aspect of the "advantage" and you
have a system that is neither significantly worse or better than the Fischer
match terms. FWIW, while I was once stupefied by Fischer's conditions, I
have come around to the point of view that those conditions were not nearly
so bad as its detractors claim, but also not the essence of purity claimed
for it by Fischer.

Bob