Chess One wrote:

Dear IM Innes, the concept of ad hominem requires no
mention of names.

You have become an auto-didactical obsessive?

Name-calling. Well, it beats the same old ad hom.
routine, day in and day out.

Or are you trying to ensure
that you are ignored by anyone who knows what they are talking about.

I didn't even read the rest.


You can lie to yourself, but I see right through you.
:D

-- help bot

PS: I liked your rant in another thread, where you
scolded another poster for what you yourself have
done in this one, and *admitted* your familiarity with
the concepts on which I have frequently lectured you.
I especially enjoyed the part where you insist this
method of yours relates primarily to your own ego.
At first I rejected this hypothesis, but then I realized
that Larry Parr shows almost exactly the same
chronic symptoms, and his ego is enormous.

wrote:

Readers spontaneously complained about the omission
of Evans On Chess, as Bill Goichberg himself verified when
members approached him at tournaments..


I believe that. At the same time, I wonder whether there's ever been a
case of a long-time columnist being canned by any publication, and the
editor getting more letters of commendation than letters of complaint.
Maybe it happens once in a while when the writer in question has
plainly gone off the deep end, but it's hard for me to picture it
happening under normal circumstances. Over a period of many years, any
half-decent columnist will have built up a substantial number of loyal
readers.

I for one don't miss Evans' column very much, but I wouldn't dream of
writing to the Chess Life editor to commend him on his decision. That
would be mean-spirited and rather pointless. But I might consider
writing if the editor dismissed some columnist I like, such as Benko.


Larry T.

GREG KENNEDY'S LIE

The editor received numerous letters blasting his decision to fire GM
Evans.

The lie Greg Kennedy ("help bog") refuses to address is his suggestion
that
I organized a letter-writing campaign on behalf of the 5-time U.S.
champion.

On the contrary, I noted that the new editor had every right to fire
anyo columnist
in Chess Life. But readers also have a right to question his faulty
judgment.

Larry Tapper wrote:
wrote:

Readers spontaneously complained about the omission
of Evans On Chess, as Bill Goichberg himself verified when
members approached him at tournaments..


I believe that. At the same time, I wonder whether there's ever been a
case of a long-time columnist being canned by any publication, and the
editor getting more letters of commendation than letters of complaint.
Maybe it happens once in a while when the writer in question has
plainly gone off the deep end, but it's hard for me to picture it
happening under normal circumstances. Over a period of many years, any
half-decent columnist will have built up a substantial number of loyal
readers.

I for one don't miss Evans' column very much, but I wouldn't dream of
writing to the Chess Life editor to commend him on his decision. That
would be mean-spirited and rather pointless. But I might consider
writing if the editor dismissed some columnist I like, such as Benko.


Larry T.

wrote in message
ups.com...
GREG KENNEDY'S LIE

The editor received numerous letters blasting his decision to fire GM
Evans.

Parr continues to repeat this lie. GM Larry Evans continues
to write for the USCF, only now his boring and factually
inaccurate answers appear in Chess Life for Kids. The
crime is the same - only the victims have changed.

"David Kane" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...
GREG KENNEDY'S LIE

The editor received numerous letters blasting his decision to fire GM
Evans.

Parr continues to repeat this lie. GM Larry Evans continues
to write for the USCF, only now his boring and factually
inaccurate answers appear in Chess Life for Kids. The
crime is the same - only the victims have changed.



Here is some of the recent output of GM Evans writing
for the USCF: (Questions are from the readers. Answers are from
GM Evans himself. Source: Chess Life for Kids Dec. 2006)

"Q. I have never been rated. How can I get a rating?

A. [Evans]You must compete in an official USCF tournament
to be assigned a number of based on your performance..."

This is, of course, false. There are half a dozen ratings that
would likely answer a reader's questions about how
good he is, some of which he could obtain more easily
than the method Evans suggests. Moreover, the
target reader for the magazine, scholastic
players, might be 7 years old. Possibly the very worst
advice for such a player would be to seek out a non
kid-friendly USCF tournament where everyone will
outrate him by 1000 points. Not only would he *not*
learn much about his strength, he'd likely
have a horrible time in the process.

Later in the answer, Evans plugs one of his Cardoza books
and repeats a paragraph from it.

"Q. I'm an avid player but not very good. I've long been
interested in signficantly improving my ability, but how
does one go about finding a reputable instructor? They
aren't exactly listed in the Yellow Pages. What's the going
rate for chess lessons?

A. [Evans] Good teachers charge anywhere from $25
to $100 for a lesson. The best way to find one is at
your local chess club. Or phone the USCF and ask
if they know of someone in your area. ..."

Another barrage of innacurracy and bad advice.
Possibly the scholastic player's "local chess club"
(which he attends at school) consists of his fellow
1st graders and one instructor - who might not be
counted on to give impartial answers being himself
an instructor. The suggestion to call an office
worker 2000 miles away to learn about local
chess coaches, most with little or no connection
to Tennessee, is not helpful.

"Q. We know that White has the advantage of the first move.
Just how big of an advantage is it?

A. [Evans]The first move gives White the initiative. It can be compared
to having the serve in tennis. A summary of results by color
of 6000 games in 45 tournaments from 1851 ot 1932 shows that
White won 38%, Black won 31% and 31% were drawn. Over the
years it has been increasingly harder to win with Black, but somewhat
easier to draw.

The better player will win with either color - it just takes longer
with Black. ..."

It is noteworthy that Evans refers to statistics covering
the period 1851-1932, ignoring the last 74 years of chess
and reminding us all of his distance from the modern game.

His claim that the "better player" will win with either color is
not supported by the evidence. Kasparov won 35% of
his games as Black. Who were these "equal-or-better-
than-Kasparov" players in the other 65% of his games?

GREG KENNEDY'S LIE

The editor received numerous letters blasting his decision to fire GM
Evans.

Parr continues to repeat this lie. GM Larry Evans continues
to write for the USCF, only now his boring and factually
inaccurate answers appear in Chess Life for Kids. The
crime is the same - only the victims have changed.

I became interested in this, because despite warnings that we have read it
all before, apparently Kids still ask the same questions, and still need
answers.

Here is some of the recent output of GM Evans writing
for the USCF: (Questions are from the readers. Answers are from
GM Evans himself. Source: Chess Life for Kids Dec. 2006)

"Q. I have never been rated. How can I get a rating?

A. [Evans]You must compete in an official USCF tournament
to be assigned a number of based on your performance..."

This is, of course, false. There are half a dozen ratings that
would likely answer a reader's questions about how
good he is,

Half a dozen services that provide OTB ratings? I know of one alternate.

some of which he could obtain more easily
than the method Evans suggests.

'More easily'? How? I hope the writer isn't mixing up all sorts of ratings,
including on-line ones. I play on a server, eg, where there are dozens of
3000+ 'ratings'.

Moreover, the
target reader for the magazine, scholastic
players, might be 7 years old. Possibly the very worst
advice for such a player would be to seek out a non
kid-friendly USCF tournament where everyone will
outrate him by 1000 points.

A real 7 year old from out club just took part in a USCF rated tournament,
and came second in the under-9 year old section, which was one by a
900-rated player.

Not only would he *not*
learn much about his strength, he'd likely
have a horrible time in the process.

I don't understand this - are USCF tournaments so much more horrible than
others?

Later in the answer, Evans plugs one of his Cardoza books
and repeats a paragraph from it.

"Q. I'm an avid player but not very good. I've long been
interested in signficantly improving my ability, but how
does one go about finding a reputable instructor? They
aren't exactly listed in the Yellow Pages. What's the going
rate for chess lessons?

A. [Evans] Good teachers charge anywhere from $25
to $100 for a lesson. The best way to find one is at
your local chess club. Or phone the USCF and ask
if they know of someone in your area. ..."

Another barrage of innacurracy and bad advice.
Possibly the scholastic player's "local chess club"
(which he attends at school) consists of his fellow
1st graders and one instructor - who might not be
counted on to give impartial answers being himself
an instructor.

Who could be counted on to give impartial advice? I note that Evans himself
didn't use the word impartial, and since some amount of money is involved,
let us credit whoever is spending it with some level of discrimination.

The suggestion to call an office
worker 2000 miles away to learn about local
chess coaches, most with little or no connection
to Tennessee, is not helpful.

Wouldn't the office worker ask where the would-be-student was located, and
try to fit mentor-student together?

"Q. We know that White has the advantage of the first move.
Just how big of an advantage is it?

A. [Evans]The first move gives White the initiative. It can be compared
to having the serve in tennis. A summary of results by color
of 6000 games in 45 tournaments from 1851 ot 1932 shows that
White won 38%, Black won 31% and 31% were drawn. Over the
years it has been increasingly harder to win with Black, but somewhat
easier to draw.

The better player will win with either color - it just takes longer
with Black. ..."

It is noteworthy that Evans refers to statistics covering
the period 1851-1932, ignoring the last 74 years of chess
and reminding us all of his distance from the modern game.

I have some statistics from Adorjan on current play, which is not so very
different than heretofore - and Evans indicates the general percentage rates
then which are as true today. Why is this queried?

His claim that the "better player" will win with either color is
not supported by the evidence. Kasparov won 35% of
his games as Black. Who were these "equal-or-better-
than-Kasparov" players in the other 65% of his games?

This is most misleading. There are several aspects, including the rating
level of the players: the differential between 2099 and 2700 being huge
with white eg, but also substantial with black.

But Adorjan quotes extensive statistics for top players over time, and also
the specific match records of some dozen players, so they can be contrasted
with the background average. Furthermore! Data samples are skewed by
recorded black and win games:

He says that the highest /share/ of recorded Black games is the recently
deceased Bronstein, who scored 50.2%, but in the case of Capablanca and
Alekhine this rate is below 35%

In Kasparov's case: AA gives specifics for scores with both black and white
and also cites the percentages these represent from his data sample; so...

Share of Black games: 41.0% W 40.8, D 47.3, L 11.8
Share of White games: 59% W 65.2, D 30.8, L 4.0

The background of white/black WDL over time is much more interesting,
substantiates Evan's comments, though there is some very recent changes -
only at the top of the scale [ie, GMs]

Phil Innes

"David Kane" wrote in message
. ..



His claim that the "better player" will win with either color is
not supported by the evidence. Kasparov won 35% of
his games as Black. Who were these "equal-or-better-
than-Kasparov" players in the other 65% of his games?


Okay - I researched this and listed results below - but note should be taken
that this is from a specific data set, and that Adorjan notes that more
white games are recorded for champions than black games.

Therefore, to answer 'wins with black better than Kasparov' who has the base
number 40.8% in this data-set, we have these percentages:-

Steinitz 50
Lasker 49.7
Capablanca 49.2
Alekhine 56.1
Euwe 41.9
Botvinnik 42.1
Fischer 50.8

from the same data set Kasparov is 1st with white wins at 65.2%. Other
players scoring 60% or better a

Steinitz 62.9
Alekhine 60.0
Fischer 62.1

In this same data set, Kasparov drew 47.3% of his black games, and 30.8% of
his white games.

The danger in looking at only top players needs to be emphasised, and in
this survey of 755 games from 34 W Ch matches, Adorjan [in his Black is
still OK! title] append the note 'the database contains more White than
Black losses of Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine and Fischer.

Phil Innes

David Kane wrote:

The editor received numerous letters blasting his decision to fire GM
Evans.

Parr continues to repeat this lie. GM Larry Evans continues
to write for the USCF, only now his boring and factually
inaccurate answers appear in Chess Life for Kids. The
crime is the same - only the victims have changed.

You're funny.

Here is some of the recent output of GM Evans writing
for the USCF: (Questions are from the readers. Answers are from
GM Evans himself. Source: Chess Life for Kids Dec. 2006)

"Q. I have never been rated. How can I get a rating?

A. [Evans]You must compete in an official USCF tournament
to be assigned a number of based on your performance..."

A number of...what? Rating points?


This is, of course, false. There are half a dozen ratings that
would likely answer a reader's questions about how
good he is, some of which he could obtain more easily
than the method Evans suggests. Moreover, the
target reader for the magazine, scholastic
players, might be 7 years old. Possibly the very worst
advice for such a player would be to seek out a non
kid-friendly USCF tournament where everyone will
outrate him by 1000 points. Not only would he *not*
learn much about his strength, he'd likely
have a horrible time in the process.

True. However, there are USCF-rated tournaments
just for kids.

Later in the answer, Evans plugs one of his Cardoza books
and repeats a paragraph from it.

Hmm. So his royalties may be higher on *Cardoza*
books, eh? :D

"Q. I'm an avid player but not very good. I've long been
interested in signficantly improving my ability, but how
does one go about finding a reputable instructor? They
aren't exactly listed in the Yellow Pages. What's the going
rate for chess lessons?

A. [Evans] Good teachers charge anywhere from $25
to $100 for a lesson. The best way to find one is at
your local chess club. Or phone the USCF and ask
if they know of someone in your area. ..."

Another barrage of innacurracy

*inaccuracy* :D

and bad advice.
Possibly the scholastic player's "local chess club"
(which he attends at school) consists of his fellow
1st graders and one instructor - who might not be
counted on to give impartial answers being himself
an instructor. The suggestion to call an office
worker 2000 miles away to learn about local
chess coaches, most with little or no connection
to Tennessee, is not helpful.

Good point. The folks at the USCF might be able to
steer someone to a local TD, who in turn might be able
to give some useful advice, maybe.

"Q. We know that White has the advantage of the first move.
Just how big of an advantage is it?

A. [Evans]The first move gives White the initiative. It can be compared
to having the serve in tennis. A summary of results by color
of 6000 games in 45 tournaments from 1851 ot 1932 shows that
White won 38%, Black won 31% and 31% were drawn. Over the
years it has been increasingly harder to win with Black, but somewhat
easier to draw.

The better player will win with either color - it just takes longer
with Black. ..."

It is noteworthy that Evans refers to statistics covering
the period 1851-1932, ignoring the last 74 years of chess
and reminding us all of his distance from the modern game.

Oh, baloney. GM Evans is up-to-date all the way up to
about 1972. Then he peters out rather quickly.

His claim that the "better player" will win with either color is
not supported by the evidence. Kasparov won 35% of
his games as Black. Who were these "equal-or-better-
than-Kasparov" players in the other 65% of his games?

What GM Evans meant was that the *much* better player
will likely win, regardless of color. Just as in tennis, where
having the serve will hardly save you from Rod Laver's....
Oops, I'm beginning to show tell-tale signs not unlike those
demonstrated by GM Evans.

IMO, what is really needed is a person who is very patient,
and with a strong desire to be helpful. These are not the
qualities we see in GM Evans -- or most GMs, for that matter.
Yet they are the ones considered most qualified for the job.
I suspect there is another factor at work here; namely, the
desire to "support" chess GMs financially. The very young
ones get grant money, while the older ones who can no
longer compete, get newspaper or magazine columns to
supplement their book royalties. And that's the way it is.

-- help bot