Nick wrote:
(a whole bunch snipped. read the thread for context)

I already have written that I regret the way in which
I initially introduced (I was writing too quickly) the
subject of racism, which I did not intend as a personal
criticism of Louis Blair. I can understand that
Louis Blair may have perceived it as a provocation,
which I did not intend. But I prefer not to censor
myself in writing about racism simply because
many other people evidently prefer to have
such writings censored.

Nick,

We've exchanged a note or two before and in general
I've often agreed with things you've said and readily
acknowledge some of the darker (racially related)
actions ongoing in the US. I've also had a tortuous,
very short, exchange with Louis where I gave up after
a handful of posts because of my perception of his
obstinance so I can sympathize with your efforts here.
However, the last sentence you wrote that I quoted
struck me as, well, a bit hypocritical or at least
indicative of insensitivity to Louis's point, one worth
pointing out.

From my outside perspective, this dispute appears
simple, and somewhat unnecessary, and readily
resolvable if intent, not execution, is the guide. Ok,
so Louis says "European Chess" as a differentiator
from other forms which DO have formal names that
don't include the word 'chess' but are more familiarly
known with geographical 'chess' names. You, being
sensitive to racial/racist issues and actions, are
not totally comfortable with this label and express
that opinion. I know from Bibuld's discussions here
(and obviously from thought and experience) that
"names", including spellings, can be a (subtle) form of
racist behavior so a comment has some point to it.
I read your intent to be educational, perhaps beyond
Louis, pointing out perhaps unintended effects of
lazy/imprecise writing.

Louis, on the other hand, appears to me to intend
no insult (and you have acknowledged you did not
mean to suggest he was racist) and is reacting to
the other side of the racial sensitivity coin. As one
who has considered deeply and experienced racism,
surely you recognize that an increased (societal)
sensitivity to racism comes, necessarily, with an
increased sensitivity to being unjustly accused of
being racist. It might be hard to accept but I know
I would feel I was being "censored" if I received
commentary suggesting what I said was unacceptable
when I had no ill intent. In the racial climate our
(not to imply you're from the US) society exists in,
your comments amount to defacto censorship. It
is in this light that I viewed your quoted comments
to be a bit hypocritical.

So, in my mind, we have a clash of two justifiable
sensitivities, something quite likely not to be resolved
cleanly on usenet. Toss in a little hyperbole and a bit
of over analysis, and *bingo*. Here's how I would hope the
conversation would play out in a more congenial,
first person encounter:

L: "....European Chess..."

N: "Louis, I'm sure you meant no ill will but some might
consider "European chess" to be insert appropriate
descriptive term. A more usual, neutral term to use
would be "western"

[(I'll expose my ignorance here--is
"western" an acceptable term to use?) - K.]

L: I'm sorry if I've offended you; be assured none was
intended. I'm comfortable with the term and will
continue to use it. Thanks for the information.


I don't see that much more is needed. A concept that I've
found useful in trying to debate on usenet *honorably* (a
difficult, not universally shared goal) is generosity of intent.
I was upbraided in the past in a political discussion group
(by a good friend) for making a point and preceding it with
the two quotes by which I was justifying it. He wondered
why I was being so aggressive. I realized I was throwing up
a priori, the defense to the [pointless attacks and twistings
of arguments experienced in groups like this one] that are
unnecessary when people debate honestly. He told me
in his discussions he always assumes best intent and
argues to that point, not the one that paints the other
person in the worst light that might be justified by some
tortured linguistic game (yes Larry, this is partly why
I hassle you; I want more honor in this group. Silly me.).
Had that method been in operation for this discussion, it
would have been over long ago.

K

PS Since I have your ear, could you offer me your take on the
printing of the cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad? I
know it will be more sensitive than mine and I'd like to hear it.
I'd also be interested in hearing what you think of the current
response of several western papers reprinting them to establish
(secular/societal) independence. I probably won't respond
much since it would be off topic, but I'm sure you'd give me
something good to think about.

I happen to be quite busy at the moment, and I lack
the time to respond to Louis Blair's disingenuous
and offensive nonsense in this thread in its entirety.

Louis Blair wrote:
Nick wrote (2 Feb 2006 17:38:37 -0800):
Why should I be surprised that Louis Blair has
practised more of his disingenuous snipping?

In contrast to Louis Blair, I have *not* snipped anything
written by Louis Blair in this thread until this time
(when I may do so on account of my lack of time
or my increasing lack of interest in responding to
his disingenuous snipping and distortions).

...
[Louis Blair's version of what I wrote:]
"the inappropriate nature of ...
'European chess'."
...
I wrote: "... the inappropriate nature of
*Louis Blair's preferred term* 'European
chess' ".
_
By deliberately snipping that part of what
I wrote, Louis Blair has distorted my meaning.

In what way?

A reader may construe these phrases differently

1) "the inappropriate nature of ... 'European chess'"
(Louis Blair's snipping of what I wrote).

2) "the inappropriate nature of Louis Blair's preferred
term 'European chess' " (what I wrote).

In (2) I hope that I have made it clear enough that
what I regard as inappropriate is *Louis Blair's usage
term 'European chess'*. This is a semantic issue,
with some cultural or political implications.

In (1) a reader might assume--wrongly--that I find
something inappropriate in 'European chess' (chess)
itself, for instance, as pertaining to the rules of
'European chess' (chess). I am *not* claiming,
for instance, that the rules of xiangqi are any
'better' than the rules of chess (or 'European
chess' as Louis Blair calls it).

Does Nick deny that he regards "European
chess" as an inappropriate term?

On the contrary, I have emphasized that I regard
'European chess' as an inappropriate term as used
by Louis Blair. I regard Louis Blair's continuing
vehement advocacy of the term 'European chess'
as inappropriate. In contrast, evidently, Louis
Blair regards the term 'European chess' as
fully appropriate.

As far as I can tell, the only thing that I did
was remove Nick's obviously false claim that
"European chess" is my preferred term.

That's *not* an 'obviously false claim'.

Louis Blair *chose* to use the term 'European chess'.
Louis Blair *could* have used *another term*, such as,
simply, 'chess', as I have suggested.

I doubt that any reader in rec.games.CHESS.*,
*not* rec.games.EUROPEAN_CHESS,* would
have misunderstood what was meant by 'chess'.

Did anyone *force* Louis Blair to use the term
'European chess'? *Only Louis Blair* has
used the term 'European chess' in this thread.

In my view, Louis Blair's *choice* expresses
a *preference in this context in this thread*.
That's what I meant when I wrote of "Louis Blair's
preferred term 'European chess'".

I did this without comment in the hope that
he would reconsider his nonsense without
it being necessary for me to bluntly point
it out to him publicly. I should have known
better.

I should know better than to expect Louis Blair
to read carefully what I write and to consider
honestly what I mean.

So let me now bluntly suggest that he do a
google search and discover for himself
how often I write "chess" and how often
I write "European chess".

Louis Blair has dishonestly distorted my context.

I have written no claim that Louis Blair has used
the term 'European chess' more frequently than
the term 'chess' during *all of Louis Blair's writing*
in rec.games.chess.* Can Louis Blair cite any
evidence where I have written such a claim?

Again, my comment about "Louis Blair's preferred
term 'European chess'" was meant to refer only
to *Louis Blair's choice* to use the term 'European
chess' in this context in this thread.

If, in the future, Nick dishonestly persists in this
nonsense, I shall certainly feel free to continue
to refrain from reproducing every repetition by
Nick of his nonsense.

Louis Blair chooses to practise name-calling.

A less prejudiced reader than Louis Blair may
have noticed that I have been careful enough to
express regret and to write corrections when I
have believed that I had not expressed myself
with sufficient clarity or factual accuracy.

(I have snipped what Louis Blair wrote from here,
though I may respond to it later if I have more time.)

Here are a few of my thoughts (written quickly):

Louis Blair introduced the term 'European chess'
into this thread. I doubt that any other writer in this
thread would have used the term 'European chess'
*if* Louis Blair had not introduced it. I have been
using the term 'European chess' *only in the context
of responding to Louis Blair's usage of it*.

As far as I know, the term 'European chess'
is *not* a standard term of chess discussion.
Is there an entry for 'European chess' in the
"Oxford Companion to Chess'? I doubt it.

Louis Blair has not given any convincing reason
to show that his term 'European chess', which is
*not* a standard term of chess discussion, is
appropriate.

As far as I can tell, Louis Blair apparently has argued
that his usage of 'European chess' was necessary to
avoid confusion with, say, 'Chinese chess' (xiangqi).

Again, I doubt that any reader in rec.games.CHESS.*
would misunderstand what is meant by 'chess'
(written without any adjectives). Also, I have read
articles about *chess* in Chinese publications, and
I cannot recall ever reading it described as 'European
chess'. Indeed, some scholars have claimed that
'European chess' had its ultimate origins in China.

Unfortunately, 'European chess' may be perceived as
having the connotation that Europeans (or people of
European ancestry) claim 'ownership' of chess.

Unfortunately, chess is *not* free of racism.
There's evidence that some chess club(s) at some
time(s) have excluded some players from membership
simply on account of they being *not* of white European
ancestry.

As I understand it, the USCF aims to promote diversity
by encouraging more participation in chess by people
in minority communities. I would submit that terms
such as 'European chess' are not helpful to this aim.

I have suggested (at first, quite politely) to Louis Blair
that the term 'European chess' not be used any more.
As far as I can tell, Louis Blair seems to take exception
to my view that the term 'European chess' is inappropriate.

--Nick

Nick wrote (2 Feb 2006 17:38:37 -0800):
Why should I be surprised that Louis Blair has
practised more of his disingenuous snipping?
...
[Louis Blair's version of what I wrote:]
"the inappropriate nature of ...
'European chess'."
...
I wrote: "... the inappropriate nature of
*Louis Blair's preferred term* 'European
chess' ".
_
By deliberately snipping that part of what
I wrote, Louis Blair has distorted my meaning.
_
I wrote (2 Feb 2006 19:10:12 -0800):
In what way? Does Nick deny that he
regards "European chess" as an inappropriate
term? As far as I can tell, the only thing that
I did was remove Nick's obviously false claim
that "European chess" is my preferred term.
I did this without comment in the hope that
he would reconsider his nonsense without
it being necessary for me to bluntly point
it out to him publicly. I should have known
better. So let me now bluntly suggest that
he do a google search and discover for himself
how often I write "chess" and how often I
write "European chess". If, in the future,
Nick dishonestly persists in this nonsense,
I shall certainly feel free to continue to refrain
from reproducing every repetition by Nick of his
nonsense.

_
Nick wrote (3 Feb 2006 14:58:57 -0800):

In [Louis Blair's snipped version of what I wrote]
a reader might assume--wrongly--that I find
something inappropriate in 'European chess'
(chess) itself, for instance, as pertaining to
the rules of 'European chess' (chess).

_
In this exchange between me and Nick, there
has been no discussion of the merits of the
rules of the various versions of chess, and I
doubt very much that anyone has taken my
note as indicating that Nick made a comment
of that sort. Nevertheless, since Nick seems
concerned about the possibility, I shall, in
the future, endeavor to make sure that no
such misunderstanding takes place. Nick
is very much deluded if he imagines that I
had any intent to deceive people into believing
that he finds something inappropriate in any
one version of chess itself.

_
Nick wrote (3 Feb 2006 14:58:57 -0800):

... Louis Blair's continuing vehement advocacy
of the term 'European chess' ...

_
What is actually happening is that I am taking
the time to tell Nick what I think of some of
his arguments.

_
Nick wrote (3 Feb 2006 14:58:57 -0800):

evidently, Louis Blair regards the term
'European chess' as fully appropriate.

_
Nick uses "evidently" when he should really be
including a clause, "I have nothing resembling
a rational argument to justify ..."

_
Nick wrote (3 Feb 2006 14:58:57 -0800):

I have written no claim that Louis Blair has
used the term 'European chess' more
frequently than the term 'chess' during
*all of Louis Blair's writing* in
rec.games.chess.* Can Louis Blair cite
any evidence where I have written such
a claim?

_
When Nick produces a quote of me indicating
that Nick wrote such a claim, I shall be happy
to answer his question.

_
Nick wrote (3 Feb 2006 14:58:57 -0800):

Again, my comment about "Louis Blair's
preferred term 'European chess'" was
meant to refer only to *Louis Blair's
choice* to use the term 'European
chess' in this context in this thread.

_
Instead of
_
"Louis Blair's preferred term"
_
Nick could have written
_
"the term Louis Blair chose to use
in one note"
_
in order to refer to that choice. In this thread,
Nick has referred to usage outside of this
thread.
_
"When will the USCF change its
magazine's name to 'European
Chess Life'?" - Nick (2 Feb 2006
17:38:37 -0800)
_
I see no way that a reader could know that
when Nick wrote, "Louis Blair's preferred term",
he was only referring to a choice that I made
in one note in this thread.

_
Starting with a quote of me,
Nick wrote (3 Feb 2006 14:58:57 -0800):

If, in the future, Nick dishonestly persists in this
nonsense, I shall certainly feel free to continue
to refrain from reproducing every repetition by
Nick of his nonsense.

Louis Blair chooses to practise name-calling.

_
"... disingenuous ... disingenuous
... disingenuous ..." - Nick (2 Feb 2006
18:55:54 -0800)

_
Nick wrote (3 Feb 2006 14:58:57 -0800):

A less prejudiced reader than Louis Blair may
have noticed that I have been careful enough to
express regret and to write corrections when I
have believed that I had not expressed myself
with sufficient clarity or factual accuracy.

_
I have no way of knowing what Nick believes.
I can only note a failure on Nick's part to express
regret over a lot of things that he should, in
my opinion, be regretting. (Many of his "seems"
and "evidently" statements, for example.)

_
Nick wrote (3 Feb 2006 14:58:57 -0800):

As far as I can tell, Louis Blair apparently
has argued that his usage of 'European
chess' was necessary to avoid confusion
with, say, 'Chinese chess' (xiangqi).

_
Nick uses "apparently" when he should really be
including a clause, "I have nothing resembling
a rational argument to justify ..."

_
Nick wrote (3 Feb 2006 14:58:57 -0800):

'European chess' may be perceived as having
the connotation that Europeans (or people of
European ancestry) claim 'ownership' of chess.

_
Nick may rest assured that if I ever choose to
use the term, "European chess" again, I shall
be sure to include a note indicating that the
usage is not intended to indicate that Europeans
have any right to claim ownership of chess.

_
Nick wrote (3 Feb 2006 14:58:57 -0800):

As I understand it, the USCF aims to promote
diversity by encouraging more participation in
chess by people in minority communities. I
would submit that terms such as 'European
chess' are not helpful to this aim.

_
I would submit that we have nothing to indicate
that my note did any damage to this aim.

_
Nick wrote (3 Feb 2006 14:58:57 -0800):

As far as I can tell, Louis Blair seems to take
exception to my view that the term 'European
chess' is inappropriate.

_
What is actually happening is that I am taking
the time to tell Nick what I think of some of
his arguments.

Because we have child molestor like Sloan running for the EB every few
years.

Nick wrote (2 Feb 2006 17:38:37 -0800):
Why should I be surprised that Louis Blair has
practised more of his disingenuous snipping?
...
[Louis Blair's version of what I wrote:]
"the inappropriate nature of ...
'European chess'."
...
I wrote: "... the inappropriate nature of
*Louis Blair's preferred term* 'European
chess' ".
_
By deliberately snipping that part of what
I wrote, Louis Blair has distorted my meaning.
_
I wrote (2 Feb 2006 19:10:12 -0800):
In what way? Does Nick deny that he
regards "European chess" as an inappropriate
term? As far as I can tell, the only thing that
I did was remove Nick's obviously false claim
that "European chess" is my preferred term.
I did this without comment in the hope that
he would reconsider his nonsense without
it being necessary for me to bluntly point
it out to him publicly. I should have known
better. So let me now bluntly suggest that
he do a google search and discover for himself
how often I write "chess" and how often I
write "European chess". If, in the future,
Nick dishonestly persists in this nonsense,
I shall certainly feel free to continue to refrain
from reproducing every repetition by Nick of his
nonsense.

_
Nick wrote (3 Feb 2006 14:58:57 -0800):

In [Louis Blair's snipped version of what I wrote]
a reader might assume--wrongly--that I find
something inappropriate in 'European chess'
(chess) itself, for instance, as pertaining to
the rules of 'European chess' (chess).

_
In this exchange between me and Nick, there
has been no discussion of the merits of the
rules of the various versions of chess, and I
doubt very much that anyone has taken my
note as indicating that Nick made a comment
of that sort. Nevertheless, since Nick seems
concerned about the possibility, I shall, in
the future, endeavor to make sure that no
such misunderstanding takes place. Nick
is very much deluded if he imagines that I
had any intent to deceive people into believing
that he finds something inappropriate in any
one version of chess itself.

_
Nick wrote (3 Feb 2006 14:58:57 -0800):

... Louis Blair's continuing vehement advocacy
of the term 'European chess' ...

_
What is actually happening is that I am taking
the time to tell Nick what I think of some of
his arguments.

_
Nick wrote (3 Feb 2006 14:58:57 -0800):

evidently, Louis Blair regards the term
'European chess' as fully appropriate.

_
Nick uses "evidently" when he should really be
including a clause, "I have nothing resembling
a rational argument to justify ..."

_
Nick wrote (3 Feb 2006 14:58:57 -0800):

I have written no claim that Louis Blair has
used the term 'European chess' more
frequently than the term 'chess' during
*all of Louis Blair's writing* in
rec.games.chess.* Can Louis Blair cite
any evidence where I have written such
a claim?

_
When Nick produces a quote of me indicating
that Nick wrote such a claim, I shall be happy
to answer his question.

_
Nick wrote (3 Feb 2006 14:58:57 -0800):

Again, my comment about "Louis Blair's
preferred term 'European chess'" was
meant to refer only to *Louis Blair's
choice* to use the term 'European
chess' in this context in this thread.

_
Instead of
_
"Louis Blair's preferred term"
_
Nick could have written
_
"the term Louis Blair chose to use
in one note"
_
in order to refer to that choice. In this thread,
Nick has referred to usage outside of this
thread.
_
"When will the USCF change its
magazine's name to 'European
Chess Life'?" - Nick (2 Feb 2006
17:38:37 -0800)
_
I see no way that a reader could know that
when Nick wrote, "Louis Blair's preferred term",
he was only referring to a choice that I made
in one note in this thread.

_
Starting with a quote of me,
Nick wrote (3 Feb 2006 14:58:57 -0800):

If, in the future, Nick dishonestly persists in this
nonsense, I shall certainly feel free to continue
to refrain from reproducing every repetition by
Nick of his nonsense.

Louis Blair chooses to practise name-calling.

_
"... disingenuous ... disingenuous
... disingenuous ..." - Nick (2 Feb 2006
18:55:54 -0800)

_
Nick wrote (3 Feb 2006 14:58:57 -0800):

A less prejudiced reader than Louis Blair may
have noticed that I have been careful enough to
express regret and to write corrections when I
have believed that I had not expressed myself
with sufficient clarity or factual accuracy.

_
I have no way of knowing what Nick believes.
I can only note a failure on Nick's part to express
regret over a lot of things that he should, in
my opinion, be regretting. (Many of his "seems"
and "evidently" statements, for example.)

_
Nick wrote (3 Feb 2006 14:58:57 -0800):

As far as I can tell, Louis Blair apparently
has argued that his usage of 'European
chess' was necessary to avoid confusion
with, say, 'Chinese chess' (xiangqi).

_
Nick uses "apparently" when he should really be
including a clause, "I have nothing resembling
a rational argument to justify ..."

_
Nick wrote (3 Feb 2006 14:58:57 -0800):

'European chess' may be perceived as having
the connotation that Europeans (or people of
European ancestry) claim 'ownership' of chess.

_
Nick may rest assured that if I ever choose to
use the term, "European chess" again, I shall
be sure to include a note indicating that the
usage is not intended to indicate that Europeans
have any right to claim ownership of chess.

_
Nick wrote (3 Feb 2006 14:58:57 -0800):

As I understand it, the USCF aims to promote
diversity by encouraging more participation in
chess by people in minority communities. I
would submit that terms such as 'European
chess' are not helpful to this aim.

_
I would submit that we have nothing to indicate
that my note did any damage to this aim.

_
Nick wrote (3 Feb 2006 14:58:57 -0800):

As far as I can tell, Louis Blair seems to take
exception to my view that the term 'European
chess' is inappropriate.

_
What is actually happening is that I am taking
the time to tell Nick what I think of some of
his arguments.

The reason is -----MONEY-----

Another reason is a lot of people think poker is easy to play and it
is riding this wave of people who all think they can play poker.
However once you start playing the big boys then you realize poker
isn't easy to master.

EZoto

This dude EZoto makes a lot of sense. Maybe he should be running for
the EB. We need smart dudes on the EB, not the corrupt ones.

If you want to know why poker is dynamic and exciting, and why chess is
perceived as not being either, just read through a few of the posts in this
newsgroup.

"Alberich" wrote in message
. ..
Explain this to me...poker matches are NEVER shown live...games are
EDITED for maximum effect to show only the "exciting" hands played. Now
games of poker can last for hours on end...yet with editing...these
games can be shortened down for managable bit sized one hour "events"
shown on cable.

Now turn to chess. Here's a game that can ALSO last for hours and hours.
But I don't see the kind of "excitement" that one associates with this
game...yet the chess format can accomodate TV by shortening the time
controls drastically to allow for "exciting" chess and therefore get the
chance to even be seen live on cable. But I've never seen this done. And
yet...even if chess events are held...you don't get TV producers
salivating at the chance to "edit" chess matches for maximum effect and
air these events on TV.

What is it about poker that's so attractive to the sponsors? Is it the
"gambling" aspect of the game that gets the attention? The fect that
players are not only displaying their skills at the table..but also
willing to put their money where their mouths are..and risk it all? This
is not seen in chess. Is there anything that can be done for chess to
"liven" up the game to the same level that poker is getting?

Like maybe allow "gambling" in high stakes chess where say...someone
like GM Peter Leko pushing in his chips during a critical juncture at a
chess match against World Champion Veselin Topalov...and Topalov would
be forced to either call the bet or decline and lose the game? Can
something like this be done to show that chess can be as "exciting" to
watch as poker on TV? Any thoughts on this? Thanks.

Yes, it is also known as '13'.