I wrote (9 Jun 2006 06:51:10 -0700):
While looking at that old Innes-Hart-Kane-Kingston-Brennen
discussion, I came across part that deserves separate
attention:
_
"... I am not interested in the cut and deplore routine.
If you have something to say to standards of public
decency to children and women, David, write them.
Otherwise, you may do the other thing." - Phil Innes
(Mon, 03 Apr 2006 19:40:30 GMT)
_
_
_
"...
I am not interested in the cut and deplore
routine.
If you have something to say to standards of
public
decency to children and women, David, write
them.
Otherwise, you may do the other thing.
_
I have nothing to say, in a chess newsgroup,
about 'standards of public decency to children
and women'. ..." - David Kane (Mon, 3 Apr 2006
16:43:33 -0700)
_
_
_
"...
I am not interested in the cut and deplore
routine.
If you have something to say to standards of
public
decency to children and women, David, write
them.
_
I am not your boy! I already wrote a basis for an
approach - but no one seems actually interested
enough in the subject to engage it. ..." - Phil Innes
(Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:06:06 GMT)
_
_
_
"It appears Mr. Innes is talking to himself again.
And what's more, he's taking offense at his own
words. How long until he accuses himself of
self-stalking?" - Neil Brennen (4 Apr 2006
16:53:19 -0700)
_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 09 Jun 2006 21:28:04 GMT):
... what sort of person are you with thesemindless repetitions? ...
_
I wrote (9 Jun 2006 20:24:02 -0700):
The sort who thinks that it is worthwhile to remember some
incidents and describe them accurately.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 10 Jun 2006 13:08:18 GMT):

Don't just repeat it Louis, see if you can understand what it
means ...

_
On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:06:06 GMT, did Phil Innes understand
the meaning of what he quoted?

I wrote (6 Jun 2006 19:28:19 -0700):
On 18 Apr 2003 13:30:13 GMT, Larry Parr called our attention to
a November 2002 contribution to Chess Life by GM Evans:
_
_
"WHY FISCHER QUIT
_
Scott Sensiba
Cape Girardeau, Missouri
_
Q. Can you tell me again why Bobby Fischer didn't
defend his title against Anatoly Karpov in 1975? I think Bobby
could have won.
_
A. This question has been covered here at length over the
years, but I'll try again because so many people keep asking.
_
I believed then as now that Fischer's obstinacy killed the
deal. 'Finally America produces its greatest chess genius, and
he turns out to be just a stubborn boy,' lamented Hans Kmoch.
_
Bobby resigned his title after FIDE rejected a key demand
-- that the match consist of an unlimited number of games, draws
not counting, until one player won 10 games (with the champion
retaining his title on a 9-9 tie). Instead FIDE restricted it to 36
games, counting draws, which they knew he would reject.
_
Whether he would have defended his title even if FIDE
capitulated to all of his demands is debatable, but the political
nature of the close vote was obvious. The Soviets and their allies
voted as a bloc against Fischer's key demand. Western nations
split. In general they supported his position but a notable
exception was England.
_
Lev Alburt said that Soviet grandmasters privately scoffed
at Karpov's chances in 1975. Most pundits believed he would
lose -- and badly. By quitting, Fischer not only turned down a
multi-million dollar purse -- he set back the cause of chess
in America and tragically destroyed his own career.
_
After seizing the title by default, Karpov became the most
active champion in history to try and prove it was no fluke. In
1977 a Soviet-dominated FIDE routinely granted him a rematch
clause, a bigger mathematical edge than anything Fischer ever
sought. This incident soured me and many others on FIDE."
_
_
Some of the subsequent discussion:
_
"the GM Evans quote is seriously flawed. He fails to
mention that FIDE eventually offered to agree to the
unlimited number of games and that what finally
terminated the Fischer-FIDE negotiations was
Fischer's demand that he keep his title unless the
challenger finished two or more points ahead of the
champion." - Louis Blair (Fri, 18 Apr 2003
14:40:42 -0500)
_
_
"Notice the weasel word 'eventually.' FIDE did
not agree to give an unlimited number of games
to Fischer vs. Karpov in 1975 -- they restricted
it to 36 games" - Larry Parr (19 Apr 2003
14:51:14 GMT)
_
_
"what reason is there to call ['eventually'] a 'weasel
word'? Why does Larry Parr tell us that 'FIDE did
not agree to give an unlimited number of games to
Fischer vs. Karpov in 1975'? According to
Golombek:
_
'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 ...'"
- Louis Blair (Sat, 19 Apr 2003 19:51:01 -0500)
_
_
"Also, does Larry Parr have an explanation for how
GM Evans could authoritatively write that FIDE 'knew'
Fischer would reject the 36 game limit? Was
GM Evans trying to suggest that FIDE, as a group,
deliberately sought to avoid a match in 1975?"
- Louis Blair (17 Apr 2006 00:00:38 -0700)

_
Larry Parr wrote (10 Jun 2006 06:58:48 -0700):

One of Louie Blair's persistent gripes repeated ad nauseum ...

_
Would Larry Parr deny that he "repeat"s some "gripes" "ad
nauseum"?

_
Larry Parr wrote (10 Jun 2006 06:58:48 -0700):

is that GM Evans didn't mention in Chess Life that FIDE finally
agreed to his unlimited match but there was a second meeting
where FIDE granted this demand but denied his 9-9 tie clause.
GM noted this fact at worldchessnetwork.com but ...

_
Is Larry Parr at last acknowledging that the November 2002 account
was seriously flawed?
_
Is he acknowledging that his 19 Apr 2003 14:51:14 GMT "weasel
word" attack was inappropriate? If so, where is the apology?
_
Is Larry Parr at last admitting that he was wrong to tell us that "FIDE
did not agree to give an unlimited number of games to Fischer vs.
Karpov in 1975 ... draws not counting was refused for Fischer."?
_
In connection with this incident, there is another matter where an
apology from Larry Parr is long overdue. He told us:
_
"[FIDE] restricted it to 36 games, a fact Mr. Blair
curiously omits." - Larry Parr (19 Apr 2003
14:51:14 GMT)
_
I prompty (Sat, 19 Apr 2003 19:51:01 -0500) pointed out that my
Fri, 18 Apr 2003 14:40:42 -0500 note had contained:
_
"From the November 2002 Chess Life:
... FIDE restricted it to 36 games, counting
draws, ..."
_
I saw nothing further from Larry Parr about my supposed omission.
Silence, however, is not a substitute for an apology.
_
"When I am dead wrong, I say so." - Larry
Parr (24 Apr 2006 00:17:45 -0700)
_
I do not remember Larry Parr indicating how much time may go
by before Larry Parr says so.
_
Larry Parr also avoids the issue of how GM Evans could authoritatively
write that FIDE 'knew' Fischer would reject the 36 game limit.
_
It is worthwhile to give our attention to one other aspect of the
19 Apr 2003 14:51:14 GMT Larry Parr note:
_
"Nor was Mr. Blair initially aware that the
Capablanca-Alekhine match (which required
six wins instead of 10) also had a clause that
the defending champion would keep the title
if the score reached 5-5, requiring the
challenger also to win by at least two points
(6-4)." - Larry Parr (19 Apr 2003 14:51:14 GMT)
_
Much later, Larry Parr himself became aware that:
_
"The evidence for this claim [that the 1927
Capa-Alekhine match did have a draw clause
at 5-5] is murky" - Larry Parr (22 May 2004
17:22:56 GMT)
_
Larry Parr even tried to tell us:
_
"It was [Fischer] who made this claim, neither
Parr nor Evans" - Larry Parr (26 May 2004
03:57:19 GMT)

_
Larry Parr wrote (10 Jun 2006 06:58:48 -0700):

... [GM Evans] noted [that there was a second meeting where FIDE
granted the unlimited match demand] at worldchessnetwork.com ...

_
It is nice to know that GM Evans wrote a world chess network
account that did not duplicate the serious flaw in his November
2002 Chess Life account, but did he ever tell Chess Life readers
about the serious flaw?

_
Larry Parr wrote (10 Jun 2006 06:58:48 -0700):

... but that won't stop the parser from regurgitating his drivel. No way.
No how. ...

_
In several notes, Taylor Kingston has clearly indicated that he was
referring to a postal rating in his 5 Jun 2005 11:46:16 -0700 note.
Is that likely to cause Larry Parr to stop "regurgitating" on the
subject?
_
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Path:
archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.sta nford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.e du!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!205.188.226.97!ngpeer .news.aol.com!audrey-m1.news.cs.com!not-for-mail
Lines: 71
X-Admin:
From: (Parrthenon)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
Date: 19 Apr 2003 14:51:14 GMT
Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/)
Subject: Parser Blair
Message-ID:

SERIOUSLY FLAWED?

By Larry Parr

Louis Blair claims that the answer to Why Fischer Quit that appeared in
Larry
Evans On Chess (see below) is "seriously flawed" because GM Evans fails
to
mention "that FIDE eventually offered to agree to the unlimited number
of
games."

Notice the weasel word "eventually." FIDE did not agree to give an
unlimited
number of games to Fischer vs. Karpov in 1975 -- they restricted it to
36
games, a fact Mr. Blair curiously omits. Nor was Mr. Blair initially
aware that
the Capablanca-Alekhine match (which required six wins instead of 10)
also had
a clause that the defending champion would keep the title if the score
reached
5-5, requiring the challenger also to win by at least two points (6-4).


During the FIDE era, until the Fischer reforms, each Soviet champion
had two
big advantages: DRAW ODDS PLUS A REMATCH CLAUSE. The rematch clause was
restored for Karpov but draws not counting was refused for Fischer.

Mr. Blair, with his usual perspicacity, writes: "I might add that,
despite
these sensible observations, the GM Evans quote is seriously flawed.
He fails
to mention that FIDE eventually offered to agree to the unlimited
number of
games and that what finally terminated the Fischer-FIDE negotiations
was
Fischer's demand that he keep his title unless the challenger finished
two or
more points ahead of the champion."


From the November 2002 Chess Life:

WHY FISCHER QUIT

Scott Sensiba
Cape Girardeau, Missouri

Q. Can you tell me again why Bobby Fischer didn't
defend his title against Anatoly Karpov in 1975? I think Bobby
could have won.

A. This question has been covered here at length over the
years, but I'll try again because so many people keep asking.
I believed then as now that Fischer's obstinacy killed the
deal. "Finally America produces its greatest chess genius, and
he turns out to be just a stubborn boy," lamented Hans Kmoch.

Bobby resigned his title after FIDE rejected a key demand
-- that the match consist of an unlimited number of games, draws
not counting, until one player won 10 games (with the champion
retaining his title on a 9-9 tie). Instead FIDE restricted it to 36
games, counting draws, which they knew he would reject.

Whether he would have defended his title even if FIDE
capitulated to all of his demands is debatable, but the political
nature of the close vote was obvious. The Soviets and their allies
voted as a bloc against Fischer's key demand. Western nations
split. In general they supported his position but a notable
exception was England.

Lev Alburt said that Soviet grandmasters privately scoffed
at Karpov's chances in 1975. Most pundits believed he would
lose -- and badly. By quitting, Fischer not only turned down a
multi-million dollar purse -- he set back the cause of chess
in America and tragically destroyed his own career.

After seizing the title by default, Karpov became the most
active champion in history to try and prove it was no fluke. In
1977 a Soviet-dominated FIDE routinely granted him a rematch
clause, a bigger mathematical edge than anything Fischer ever
sought. This incident soured me and many others on FIDE.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Path:
controlnews3.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glor b.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!ngpeer.news .aol.com!audrey-m1.news.cs.com!not-for-mail
Lines: 21
X-Admin:
From: (Parrthenon)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Date: 22 May 2004 17:22:56 GMT
References:
Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/)
Subject: Fischer's tie clause
Message-ID:

If it appeared in numerous Russian books, a chess encyclopeadia,
Gazza's book, chess magazines, and adopted by well known chess
journalists like Larry Parr and GM Larry Evans, isn't that good enough
to become reasonable? What about the opposition, do they have proof
that there
never was a 5-5 Capa-Alehkine clause?

From Larry Evans On Chess, Chess Life, October 2003, page 43:

THOUGHT FOR THE MONTH: "The Capa-Alekhine ma ch [in 1927] did have a
draw
clause at 5-5. Yes, Alekhine had to win by 6-4 to take the title just
the same
as my match proposal [requiring 10 wins with a 9-9 tie clause vs.
Karpov in
1975]." -- Bobby Fischer in Chess Life, November 1974, page 715.

The evidence for this claim is murky, which is why GM Evans tacked on
the word
APPARENTLY at the end of his reply to a reader's question:

How many people realize that Lasker evaded Capa before WW1 by
requiring his
challenger to win by a margin of two points in a 30-game match? The
"fair"
London rules of 1922 required six wins yet Capa apparently tacked on a
5-5 tie
clause vs. Alekhine in 1927, in effect forcing his challenger also to
win by
two points.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
_
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Path: controlnews3.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: (Goran Fischer)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Fischer's tie clause
Date: 25 May 2004 09:55:59 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 64
Message-ID:
References:


NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.12.116.134
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1085504159 24508 127.0.0.1 (25 May 2004
16:55:59 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 16:55:59 +0000 (UTC)

Hey buddy! You are entitled to your opinion and so do I. As far as I'm
concerned, here's the score on the 5-5 issue:

Edward Winter and Louis Blair = 1
Gazza Kasparov, Larry Parr and GM Larry Evans = 0

GF

(Liam Too) wrote in message
. com...
I can't blame Larry Parr for saying that 5-5 clause that he's been
fighting against Dr. Blair is now MURKY. He must have seen the
abrasive post of Goran Fischer, whoever he is, regarding the writings
of Larry Parr and GM Evans.

illspam (NoMoreChess) wrote in message ...
.
IMO, a "journalist" should not simply make guesses, and then slyly
tack-on
weaselwords in case he is eventually caught. Instead, he should try
to be
reasonable objective, and every now and then, do just a little bit of
research,
no matter how much it hurts! :-)

What are you saying NoMoreChess, journalists shouldn't flip-flop their
opinions especially in their writings when they change political
affiliations?


That is not quite what I was saying in that post.
GM Evans "apparently" made a rather careless guess as to the facts, without
bothering to do any research as to what the real facts were. His insertion of
that weasel-word essentially transfered the burden of determining these facts
to others -- a very lazy approach for someone who is being well paid to write
about chess matters.
Imagine, if you will, a chess column by "IM Anonymous" in which the writer
analyses thus:

1.e4 (been tried before, or so I've been told)
...e5 (copies White?)
2.Nf3 (develops a piece, I suppose)
...Nf6 (copies White again)
3. Nc3 (check the books, it's probably in there)
...Nc6 (Fritz might find something better -- I didn't bother to check)
4. d3 (seems okay)
...d6 (are we there yet?)

etc., and White eventually blundered.
0-1

Please send my $500 check for this to:

Fatboy Anonymous
Hotel Central
Miami, FL



PS: I just started on the next one -- should be done in ten minutes or less.
Will fax ASAP.

Regards,

Fatboy (sipping pinacollatas by the pool)
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
_
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Path:
controlnews3.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glor b.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews. com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!audrey-m1.news.cs.com!not-for-mail
Lines: 18
X-Admin:
From: (Parrthenon)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Date: 26 May 2004 03:57:19 GMT
References:
Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/)
Subject: Fischer's tie clause
Message-ID:

Hey buddy! You are entitled to your opinion and so do I. As far as
I'm
concerned, here's the score on the 5-5 issue. -- Goran Fischer

Hey, buddy! It was your namesake who made this claim, neither Parr nor
Evans --
he was virtually the only writer in Chess Life who opposed Fischer's
9-9 tie
clause.

All the evidence about 1927 is still murky but Capa wrote a letter
about the
possibility of a drawn match, which would not be possible if the title
went to
the first player who won five games. So something is obviously fishy
here. Even
Louis Blair and Edward Winter are baffled.

"The Capa-Alekhine match [in 1927] did have a draw clause at 5-5. Yes,
Alekhine
had to win by 6-4 to take the title just the same as my match proposal
[requiring 10 wins with a 9-9 tie clause vs. Karpov in 1975]." -- Bobby
Fischer
in Chess Life, November 1974, page 715.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
_
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
X-Abuse-Report:
Message-ID: t.com
Path:
controlnews3.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glor b.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews. com!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!news.secureusen et.com!not-for-mail
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 06:15:08 GMT
Lines: 56
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Fischer's tie clause
From: Louis Blair
References:

Organization: Your Company
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25

Goran Fischer wrote (2004-05-25 09:55:59 PST):
As far as I'm concerned, here's the score on the
5-5 issue:

Edward Winter and Louis Blair = 1
Gazza Kasparov, Larry Parr and GM Larry Evans = 0


Larry Parr replied to Goran Fischer:

It was your namesake who made this claim, neither
Parr nor Evans -- he was virtually the only writer
in Chess Life who opposed Fischer's 9-9 tie clause.

_
It seems to me that Larry Parr DID make the 5-5
claim. For example:

"If Alekhine were leading 5-4 in games won
and Capa won a fifth game, then Capa would
have kept the title." - Larry Parr (2002-06-13
23:35:29 PST)


Larry Parr wrote:

All the evidence about 1927 is still murky but
Capa wrote a letter about the possibility of a
drawn match, which would not be possible if
the title went to the first player who won five
games.

_
A draw would be completely possible if the
participants had agreed to halt the match.


Larry Parr wrote:

So something is obviously fishy here. Even
Louis Blair and Edward Winter are baffled.

_
I can not imagine why Larry Parr thinks that I
am baffled. My position on this matter has
not changed:

"the players could agree to a drawn
match just as players can agree to a
drawn game." - Louis Blair (2003-05-05
19:19:48 PST)

Looking at the last paragraph of Edward Winter's
Chess Notes #3253, I do not get the impression
that his opinion is very different from mine
on the matter.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

wrote:
WHY FISCHER FORFEITED HIS TITLE

One of Louie Blair's persistent gripes repeated ad nauseum
is that GM Evans didn't mention in Chess Life that FIDE finally
agreed to his unlimited match but there was a second meeting
where FIDE granted this demand but denied his 9-9 tie clause.
GM noted this fact at worldchessnetwork.com but that won't
stop the parser from regurgitating his drivel. No way. No how.

http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules....rder=0&thold=0

"Even if all his demands were met, would Fischer have played Karpov?
Nobody knows. When FIDE voted to restrict their tilt to 36 games, in
effect nullifying his open-ended match of ten wins with draws not
counting, Fischer vowed never again to play under FIDE jurisdiction.
This meant spurning a purse of $5 million offered by president Marcos
in the Philippines. FIDE relented and finally agreed to an unlimited
match, but this time around they balked at his 9-9 tie clause."

"Thus Fischer relinquished his crown and joined Howard Hughes and JD
Salinger in the great American void of absent legends.," noted THE
GUARDIAN.


This newer version is better; not only does Evans sidestep the
several
careless, factual errors of his previous version, he apparently omits
his
ridiculous innuendo regarding FIDE favoring Karpov by granting him ice
cream and cookies after spitting at Fischer.

Best of all, Evans, in his newer version of how things were, does not

repeat his mistake of speculating wildly as to what he "thinks" would
have happenned or as to what an organisation like FIDE might have
"known" -- as if organisations think or "know" anything.


Of course, posting a better version at TenTonHammer in no way
reverses the "damage" already done elsewhere. These careless and
heavily biased rants may very well be part of the reason that Evans
was eventually dropped from Chess Life. Let's not forget what
happenned after Bobby Fischer himself embarassed much of the
chess world with reckless verbal attacks: the USCF in response
tried to disassociate itself from him -- something almost inconceive-
-able up to that time.

The truth is, Louis Blair's persistent gripe was not that Evans
merely
failed to mention something; he complained that Evans made false or
at least very misleading statements of "fact". Rather than wait until
someone like Louis Blair points out such obvious errors and only then
shift one's position, it would be better if Evans weren't so
irresponsible
in the first place. His off-the-cuff, biased style of writing is a
magnet
for such criticism. They say you can't teach an old dog new tricks,
and so it goes.


-- help bot