"help bot" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Apr 18, 2:13 pm, "David Kane" wrote:

Wrong. Larry Evans is not back. His regular column has not been
restored. What was returned several months ago is his "What's the Best
Move?" section of four problems none of which contain the political
commentary for which he is known.

Sam Sloan


Sam is not accurate. Larry Evans column "Ask GM Larry Evans!"
column appears in each USCF Chess Life for Kids. In the past
I've given examples showing the sloppy and inaccurate style that
Evans has become famous for.

What is interesting this month is that the editor was unable to fill a whole
page with Evans' answers. Instead, there is a big graphic "Don't be SHY ..
ASK A QUESTION!" along with the offer of a free Evans book courtesy
of USCFSales for the winner of the best question.

Of course, the editor *should* realize that GM Evans has been out of
chess since before the intended readers of the magazine were born.
The Evans cult is made up of oldtimers like Parr and Sloan.
It's truly a sad commentary that the USCF feels that keeping
insiders like Evans feeding at the trough is a higher priority than
providing services relevant to active chessplayers.


Someone seem to have missed the boat on this one.

What actually happened is that GM Evans' was
dropped by the new editor -- not "kept feeding at
the trough". Only AFTER the ramifications of this
action were made clear, that is, only after the
"cult" members attacked in mass, did they decide
to cave and reinstate one of his columns. It is
hard to imagine how one might conclude that
keeping old-timers "feeding at the trough" is the
reason for what happened here.

It's hard to imagine anyone so dense as to believe
that scholastic members would actually want to
read a column by Evans. This leads to the explanation
that the column was continued for the Evans' own
benefit. As Sloan's own post reveals, this doesn't
seem to placate the Evans' clique who are
presumably looking for his commentary
(aka ravings) on some grave injustice that
took place during his first US Championship
victory - in 1951. So doling out something
to the old favorite strikes me as a reasonable
speculation for giving him the column.

Clearly, what
happened was that the powers that be CAVED
under pressure from what was termed the Evans
cult. The crime was not needlessly feeding the
dying; it was caving under pressure, from what in
Washington, D.C. would be known as a "special
interest group".


---

On another matter, the ringleader of the Evans
cult, Larry Parr, once argued that the central idea
of dropping Evans' column was to silence him, to
shut him up so he could no longer "expose" all
the corruption in FIDE and the USCF, for instance.

Here, Sam Sloan is right; bringing back a Q&A
or a column for kids is not the same as bringing
back GM Evans' editorial, political attack column.

I guess one could debate whether Evans' column
does more damage to American chess in Chess
Life or CL for Kids. I'll pass on that debate. I
was just pointing out that his QA column has been
restored - and is so uninteresting that the readers
apparently aren't even sending in questions.



The fact that LP has now ceased fire reveals that
he was just blowing hot air, as usual.

-- help bot

BILE-LACED ENVY

The incoming editor dropped Larry Evans' column
either for his own reasons (he simply lied to GM Evans
over the telephone) or because it was expected of him
by the politicos who have tried to silence the 5-time
U.S. Champion for years

The Evans column scored at or near the top in
every reader survey taken, which involved many
thousands of Chess Life readers sending in often
detailed views to back up their queries.

That a David Kane or a Greg Kennedy hate Evans
is to be taken in stride. That is their contribution
to this forum.

Once we receive Mr. Kennedy's ritualistic denial
of personal motivation, we can return to his absurd
charge that Larry Evans "brainwashed America" into
accepting Bobby Fischer's conditions against Karpov.

The Indiana plant worker, who no longer cares to sign
his real name, has an evident animus. There is a good
deal of material that could stand a repeat at this moment
-- as soon as Greg Kennedy tries to attack his betters
with his next secretion of bile-laced envy.



David Kane wrote:
"help bot" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Apr 18, 2:13 pm, "David Kane" wrote:

Wrong. Larry Evans is not back. His regular column has not been
restored. What was returned several months ago is his "What's the Best
Move?" section of four problems none of which contain the political
commentary for which he is known.

Sam Sloan


Sam is not accurate. Larry Evans column "Ask GM Larry Evans!"
column appears in each USCF Chess Life for Kids. In the past
I've given examples showing the sloppy and inaccurate style that
Evans has become famous for.

What is interesting this month is that the editor was unable to fill a whole
page with Evans' answers. Instead, there is a big graphic "Don't be SHY ..
ASK A QUESTION!" along with the offer of a free Evans book courtesy
of USCFSales for the winner of the best question.

Of course, the editor *should* realize that GM Evans has been out of
chess since before the intended readers of the magazine were born.
The Evans cult is made up of oldtimers like Parr and Sloan.
It's truly a sad commentary that the USCF feels that keeping
insiders like Evans feeding at the trough is a higher priority than
providing services relevant to active chessplayers.


Someone seem to have missed the boat on this one.

What actually happened is that GM Evans' was
dropped by the new editor -- not "kept feeding at
the trough". Only AFTER the ramifications of this
action were made clear, that is, only after the
"cult" members attacked in mass, did they decide
to cave and reinstate one of his columns. It is
hard to imagine how one might conclude that
keeping old-timers "feeding at the trough" is the
reason for what happened here.

It's hard to imagine anyone so dense as to believe
that scholastic members would actually want to
read a column by Evans. This leads to the explanation
that the column was continued for the Evans' own
benefit. As Sloan's own post reveals, this doesn't
seem to placate the Evans' clique who are
presumably looking for his commentary
(aka ravings) on some grave injustice that
took place during his first US Championship
victory - in 1951. So doling out something
to the old favorite strikes me as a reasonable
speculation for giving him the column.

Clearly, what
happened was that the powers that be CAVED
under pressure from what was termed the Evans
cult. The crime was not needlessly feeding the
dying; it was caving under pressure, from what in
Washington, D.C. would be known as a "special
interest group".


---

On another matter, the ringleader of the Evans
cult, Larry Parr, once argued that the central idea
of dropping Evans' column was to silence him, to
shut him up so he could no longer "expose" all
the corruption in FIDE and the USCF, for instance.

Here, Sam Sloan is right; bringing back a Q&A
or a column for kids is not the same as bringing
back GM Evans' editorial, political attack column.

I guess one could debate whether Evans' column
does more damage to American chess in Chess
Life or CL for Kids. I'll pass on that debate. I
was just pointing out that his QA column has been
restored - and is so uninteresting that the readers
apparently aren't even sending in questions.



The fact that LP has now ceased fire reveals that
he was just blowing hot air, as usual.

-- help bot

I do not in any respect hate GM Evans.
I find it sad that Evans lacked the insight
to voluntarily give up the column 20 years
ago. He could have done so with his head held
high and the broad esteem of the American
chess community. It would have been a
great time, had he wanted to, to move
on to more meaningful projects in the
chess world. In his place, somebody
with connections to contemporary
players could have breathed new life into
the column.

Instead (at Parr's urging no doubt) he clung
to his government post with the tenacity
of a Kremlin apparatchik. His output
became that of an irate old man, botching
questions left and right - out of touch not
only with his earlier positions, but with
reality itself.

His Q&A column in its current form reveals
him to be someone who has zero connection
with the scholastic audience for which the
magazine is written. [to the point that the
editor is begging and bribing people to send
questions] Evans comes across as scarcely
interested in chess and contemptuous
of his readers - traits one also associates
with Larry Parr. GM Evans' is as much a
casualty of his being given lifetime employment
as the rest of us are.

HOW AMERICA IS BETRAYED IN WORLD CHESS

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

wrote in message
ups.com...
HOW AMERICA IS BETRAYED IN WORLD CHESS

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


What you fail to grasp is that people
don't want to read 19-year-old articles
covering "scandals" 40 or more years
old - not in Chess Life, not anywhere.
You should consult with your pal Sloan.
While his habit of fabricating scandals
from thin air (or an active, semi-
delusional imagination) cannot be
recommended, at least he knows
enough to invent stuff that's mildly
interesting.

Evans' first answer in this month's
"Ask GM Larry Evans!" column quotes
Botvinnik and refers to a book by Reuben
Fine- two players about as far away from
the modern chess world as one can imagine.
Not to say that "old" equates to "bad",
but in this case it is needlessly old, and
the points could be made in a more
entertaining fashion with modern players.

Evans' second answer in this month's
column is totally non-responsive. A player
asks for Black's best move in a position,
which Evans simply ignores, and instead
points out that Black made two mistakes
on the way to the queried position.

The third question is about what happens
when a game is started with the wrong
color. Evans quotes the rule. Yet, his
only color is the brilliant (?) lead-in
sentence "This happens occasionally."
In fact, I suspect it happens very,
very rarely at the level Evans himself
played, but it's not at all uncommon in huge
scholastic tournaments. But Evans
doesn't know that, or have anything
interesting to say about that, because
he has no contact with that part of
the chess world.

Evans has certainly earned the right
to regurgitate his dated columns on wcn
if that's what floats his boat. But he
should be ashamed of himself for
feigning an ability to write an article
for scholastic chess players.

On Apr 18, 5:04 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

Wrong. Larry Evans is not back. His regular column has not been
restored. What was returned several months ago is his "What's the Best
Move?" section of four problems none of which contain the political
commentary for which he is known.

The Evans cult is made up of oldtimers like Parr and Sloan.
It's truly a sad commentary that the USCF feels that keeping
insiders like Evans feeding at the trough is a higher priority than
providing services relevant to active chessplayers.

Someone seem to have missed the boat on this one.

What actually happened is that GM Evans' was
dropped by the new editor -- not "kept feeding at
the trough". Only AFTER the ramifications of this
action were made clear, that is, only after the
"cult" members attacked in mass, did they decide
to cave and reinstate one of his columns.

The 'cult' of chess players, and another point, David Kanbe is correct, and
his column was not reinstated, its orientation was changed. Apart from these
2 observations...

If the nearly-an-IM could learn to write in a known
language, his alleged "points" might then become
known. (I would suggest English, since it has become
very popular the world over.)


The Evans cult being some presumedsynonym for chess players...

The longest word may be either "contrantidisestablishmentarianism"
or else "supercalifragilisticexpealidocious". Your concoction falls
short, besides which, it isn't even a real word!


The crime was not needlessly feeding the
dying; it was caving under pressure, from what in
Washington, D.C. would be known as a "special
interest group".

Chess players do have special interests. Chess.

Denial. IM Innes seems to be in denial in that he
wants to believe that by and large, all chess players
are fans of GM Evans. The truth is, there are many
who like his cold war rehash, and there are many
who hate it. My guess is that the hangers-on are
a dying breed, much like KKK members. In fact,
were it not for the efforts of such persons as LP, I
seriously doubt that the editor would have caved.


On another matter, the ringleader of the Evans
cult, Larry Parr, once argued that the central idea
of dropping Evans' column was to silence him, to
shut him up so he could no longer "expose" all
the corruption in FIDE and the USCF, for instance.

Here, Sam Sloan is right; bringing back a Q&A
or a column for kids is not the same as bringing
back GM Evans' editorial, political attack column.

'Political' meaning chess management critique...

I used that word to indicate that the primary focus
of GM Evans' attacks is on two political organizations:
the USCF and FIDE, not withstanding his frequent
attacks on certain chess players like Karpov and
Botvinnik, for instance.

The fact that LP has now ceased fire reveals that
he was just blowing hot air, as usual.

The fact that LP has ceased fire means there was nothing to further contend
with anyone who cared for the Evans cult, which is to say, we real chess
players.

Idiot. There is nothing to suggest that "real chess players"
are those who actually like GM Evans' stale rehash. Real
chess players may go either way (sort of like your friend,
Skippy Repa).


And we playersOWN the game, contrary to all other opinion.

This is the beginning of the end of chess as we now
know it. Soon computers will RULE the game. My advice
is to sell all your shares now, before it's too late! Take
the proceeds and invest in China; here are a few ideas:
SNP, CTRP, HMIN, ACH. To recap: sell CHESS and
buy China stocks. See you on board one at the next
Olympics.

-- help bot

On Apr 18, 6:56 pm, "David Kane" wr "help
bot" wrote in message

It's hard to imagine anyone so dense as to believe
that scholastic members would actually want to
read a column by Evans.

What a silly comment! Scholastic players will
hardly be able to tell the difference between a
column by GM Evans and one by any other
random GM, for the content is focused upon
basic chess, not politics or any of the other
areas in which GM Evans frequently stumbles.
(Please tell me if I'm wrong, and his kiddie
column is filled with attacks on Botvinnik, etc.)

One of the things I liked about GM Evans was
his insistence upon grabbing material when you
cannot "see" the reason not to; this not only
leads to winning when the sac was unsound --
it also leads to quickly learning about tactics
when it *was* sound, and the loss of a single
game is well worth the valuable lesson learned.


This leads to the explanation
that the column was continued for the Evans' own
benefit.

No, it doesn't. If you would learn to think, you
would be able to see that if the column was in
fact "continued", as you say, then all that means
is that the editors were either not redoing the
children's mag. at that time, or else they saw no
reason to replace GM Evans column, as it was
not flawed in the same way or to the same extent
as his political ranting column in CL. There may
also be a difference in supply/demand of authors
in the two different mags. I seriously doubt that
kids were writing in complaining about GM Evans,
the way adults would do.


As Sloan's own post reveals, this doesn't
seem to placate the Evans' clique who are
presumably looking for his commentary
(aka ravings) on some grave injustice that
took place during his first US Championship
victory - in 1951.

Although it probably has happened at some
point, I don't think it is fair to attack GM Evans
as though his ranting were on his own behalf.
On the contrary, his biggest issue seems to
be anything and everything relating to GM
Fischer -- issues which in fact are a tad more
current than your figure (1951). Valid criticism
of GM Evans and his ratpack in no way requires
*any* exaggeration or invention.


So doling out something
to the old favorite strikes me as a reasonable
speculation for giving him the column.

Me too. But speculation is merely that; one of
the things which plagues GM Evans' own work is
too much in the way of speculation, and too little
in the way of facts and reason.


I guess one could debate whether Evans' column
does more damage to American chess in Chess
Life or CL for Kids. I'll pass on that debate.

I haven't seen GM Evans' column for kids, but if
I had to guess, I would assume that his ranting
and raving in CL is *in a class by itself*. :D


I was just pointing out that his QA column has been
restored - and is so uninteresting that the readers
apparently aren't even sending in questions.

This may or may not be GM Evans' fault. It is quite
possible that children simply aren't inclined to write
letters anymore. Send emails, yes. Carry cell phones,
yes. Play video games, yes. But write with pen and
paper? So five minutes ago... .

-- help bot

On Apr 19, 12:37 am, "David Kane" wrote:

I do not in any respect hate GM Evans.
I find it sad that Evans lacked the insight
to voluntarily give up the column 20 years
ago. He could have done so with his head held
high and the broad esteem of the American
chess community. It would have been a
great time, had he wanted to, to move
on to more meaningful projects in the
chess world. In his place, somebody
with connections to contemporary
players could have breathed new life into
the column.

Instead (at Parr's urging no doubt) he clung
to his government post with the tenacity
of a Kremlin apparatchik. His output
became that of an irate old man, botching
questions left and right - out of touch not
only with his earlier positions, but with
reality itself.

There is a very real possibility that GM Evans has,
like GM Fischer, had a sort of parting of the ways
with reality not merely regarding chess, but in a
more general manner. His knee-jerk attacks on
critics for pointing out date errors, for instance, is
indicative of a mind which quite simply is deranged in
believing itself incapable of even the smallest mistake.
This raises the question: can such a deranged mind
be held accountable, as if it were operating on all
cylinders? Or do we treat the man just as though he
were completely insane? Murky waters.



His Q&A column in its current form reveals
him to be someone who has zero connection
with the scholastic audience for which the
magazine is written. [to the point that the
editor is begging and bribing people to send
questions]

How about an example, for those of us who are not
still young enough to get this mag., like yourself?

IMO, one of the better ways to keep an old-timer
around is to give him the endgame column. Many
younger GMs would not want this job anyway, and
the endgame is a realm in which experience often
plays a large role. However, there are problems
here, too, as we have seen with GM Benko.


Evans comes across as scarcely
interested in chess and contemptuous
of his readers - traits one also associates
with Larry Parr. GM Evans' is as much a
casualty of his being given lifetime employment
as the rest of us are.

Well, even if the CL columns were taken away
altogether, GM Evans would have other outlets
for his rants. I expect the point is to be able to
retain this on his "resume" for prestige, and of
course the sheer number of people who can be
influenced through CL.

To be fair, some of the *youngest* players I have
seen given a column in CL were ****-poor writers,
churning out slop fit for hogs, not people.

-- help bot

On Apr 19, 12:25 pm, "David Kane" wrote:

Evans' first answer in this month's
"Ask GM Larry Evans!" column quotes
Botvinnik and refers to a book by Reuben
Fine- two players about as far away from
the modern chess world as one can imagine.
Not to say that "old" equates to "bad",
but in this case it is needlessly old, and
the points could be made in a more
entertaining fashion with modern players.

Evans' second answer in this month's
column is totally non-responsive. A player
asks for Black's best move in a position,
which Evans simply ignores, and instead
points out that Black made two mistakes
on the way to the queried position.

The third question is about what happens
when a game is started with the wrong
color. Evans quotes the rule. Yet, his
only color is the brilliant (?) lead-in
sentence "This happens occasionally."
In fact, I suspect it happens very,
very rarely at the level Evans himself
played, but it's not at all uncommon in huge
scholastic tournaments. But Evans
doesn't know that, or have anything
interesting to say about that, because
he has no contact with that part of
the chess world.

These are precisely the examples I was looking for.
(See an earlier post.)


Evans has certainly earned the right
to regurgitate his dated columns on wcn
if that's what floats his boat. But he
should be ashamed of himself for
feigning an ability to write an article
for scholastic chess players.

I recall a time when I was one of the coaches for
a scholastic team, and the head honcho kept trying
to recruit every strong player in the city, equating
strength with teaching ability. The good part is that
only one of the players he recruited taught the kids
poor strategy (he was quickly booted out), but the
bad part was that the best players were not
necessarily any good at teaching kids, and this
of course was the key!

IMO, it should not require a GM to write a column
for a scholastic publication, nor even an IM for that
matter. What we really need is a meritocracy, not
a GM-ocracy. :D

-- help bot

"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 18, 6:56 pm, "David Kane" wr "help
bot" wrote in message

It's hard to imagine anyone so dense as to believe
that scholastic members would actually want to
read a column by Evans.

What a silly comment! Scholastic players will
hardly be able to tell the difference between a
column by GM Evans and one by any other
random GM, for the content is focused upon
basic chess, not politics or any of the other
areas in which GM Evans frequently stumbles.
(Please tell me if I'm wrong, and his kiddie
column is filled with attacks on Botvinnik, etc.)


You're not. But if your definition of a good scholastic
ariticle is the absence of political ranting and raving,
you are part of the problem.

snipped

This leads to the explanation
that the column was continued for the Evans' own
benefit.

No, it doesn't. If you would learn to think, you
would be able to see that if the column was in
fact "continued", as you say, then all that means
is that the editors were either not redoing the
children's mag. at that time, or else they saw no
reason to replace GM Evans column, as it was
not flawed in the same way or to the same extent
as his political ranting column in CL. There may
also be a difference in supply/demand of authors
in the two different mags. I seriously doubt that
kids were writing in complaining about GM Evans,
the way adults would do.

His column has not always been in
CL for Kids. It was not in Aug 2006 but
has appeared in each CL for Kids since
Oct 2006. Compare to the chronology
for his CL column, and it appears to me
that the USCF's motivation for putting
his column in CL for Kids was to keep
Evans happy after his column was
removed from CL (That it demonstrates
utter contempt for scholastic chess
probably doesn't trouble the USCF insider
gang in the least)


snipped

I was just pointing out that his QA column has been
restored - and is so uninteresting that the readers
apparently aren't even sending in questions.

This may or may not be GM Evans' fault. It is quite
possible that children simply aren't inclined to write
letters anymore. Send emails, yes. Carry cell phones,
yes. Play video games, yes. But write with pen and
paper? So five minutes ago... .


Email questions are accepted. You are perhaps correct
that it would be hard to do well, but certainly none
could do worse. And I am not aware of any laws
requiring columns in the Q&A format.