BILE-LACED ENVY (continued)

HOW AMERICA IS BETRAYED IN WORLD CHESS
http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules....=News&file=art...

DECONSTRUCTING KANE

Mr. Kane's screed contains a number of outrageous claims. I disagree
with every single point he made, nor do I find GM Evans' tone
"contemptuous" as he alleges. I also find every single answer within
the allotted space of the April CL For Kids to be instructive and
right on the money.

********************


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.

FACT: What Mr. Kane fails to grasp is that what happened then in the
USCF and FIDE isn't much diferent than what's happening now. Tbose who
fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

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.

FACT: The first question is what do do when someone doesn't play a
line that the book doesn't mention. Part of the answer stated: "a true
test of skill is being able to find the right move in a position you
never saw before." It then went on to quote Botvinnik to this effect
and concluded: "A book that I found helpful whend first starting was
Ideas Behind The Chess Openings by Reuben Fine."


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.

FACT: This deals with hoping for a mistake. After 1 f4 e5 2 fxe5 Qh4+
3 g3 Be7 4 Nf3 the best reply given was 4...Qh5 "losing more time
because the queen must retreat." After critiquing Black's opening, the
answer concludes: "Always assume your opponent will find the best move
and plan your reply in advance instead of hoping for a cheap mistake."


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.

FACT: Evans answered the question by quoting the pertinent rule. Not
much space for much else.


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.

FACT: Perhaps Mr. Kane has better credentials to conduct a column for
children. Readers can judge this for themselves.




David Kane wrote:
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.

wrote in message
oups.com...
BILE-LACED ENVY (continued)

HOW AMERICA IS BETRAYED IN WORLD CHESS
http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules....=News&file=art...

DECONSTRUCTING KANE

Mr. Kane's screed contains a number of outrageous claims. I disagree
with every single point he made, nor do I find GM Evans' tone
"contemptuous" as he alleges. I also find every single answer within
the allotted space of the April CL For Kids to be instructive and
right on the money.

********************


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.

FACT: What Mr. Kane fails to grasp is that what happened then in the
USCF and FIDE isn't much diferent than what's happening now. Tbose who
fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

The article you quoted refers to happenings in the 60-80's.

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.

FACT: The first question is what do do when someone doesn't play a
line that the book doesn't mention. Part of the answer stated: "a true
test of skill is being able to find the right move in a position you
never saw before." It then went on to quote Botvinnik to this effect
and concluded: "A book that I found helpful whend first starting was
Ideas Behind The Chess Openings by Reuben Fine."


I didn't comment on the advice. I said that Evans referenced
needlessly ancient players. There is no reason that players today
need use books that Evans used when he was young. There
have been books published since then, and if Evans
wants to write a modern article, he should know about them.


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.

FACT: This deals with hoping for a mistake. After 1 f4 e5 2 fxe5 Qh4+
3 g3 Be7 4 Nf3 the best reply given was 4...Qh5 "losing more time
because the queen must retreat." After critiquing Black's opening, the
answer concludes: "Always assume your opponent will find the best move
and plan your reply in advance instead of hoping for a cheap mistake."

There are many comments that players could offer about this
horrible game. I think most any coach would shoot off on a tangent and
I didn't fault Evans for that. But Evans did not answer the question
asked. Period.


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.

FACT: Evans answered the question by quoting the pertinent rule. Not
much space for much else.

There is half a column devoted to begging for more questions. I
already acknowledged that the question was technically answered
correctly. I also explained why it was answered poorly.


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.

FACT: Perhaps Mr. Kane has better credentials to conduct a column for
children. Readers can judge this for themselves.


Every other contributor to CL for Kids does a better job than Evans.
This month's column does not contain the worst of his gaffes, but it's
bad enough to demonstrate that he is not up to the task.

On Apr 19, 4:37 pm, "David Kane" wrote:

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.

Your ad hom. tendency is duly noted.

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.

Like I said, I don't read the kiddie publication.
What I write is based on such things as *your*
claim that the column has been "continued"
(a direct quote of you) and many comments
by such writers as Larry Parr, who through a
hissy fit when, as he claimed, GM Evans was
dropped or "fired" (not my choice of word).


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

That's silly. If the editor wanted to keep GM
Evans happy, he would never have "fired" him
in the first place! Clearly, anything along the
lines of what you are suggesting would have
been motivated, not by any desire to make LE
happy, but to get the Evans "cult" to cease
fire. This is precisely the caving I talked about
before.


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)

Perhaps they are deluded into equating having
a FIDE GM title with being an instructive writer.
This would also explain why they gave similar jobs
to some of the worthless younger GMs in CL.


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.

Well, it seems to be a tradition of sorts for big
magazines like CL to hand out columns to big
names with big titles, regardless of merit. In order
for this to change, it would take a tsunami in terms
of intellectual thinking, a switchover from fame-
ocracy to meritocracy. It may well never happen.

One answer (well, sort of) is to accept the status
quo and search elsewhere for quality chess writing.
Another option is to get inside the USCF, and blow
it up, so to speak. This may be what Sam Sloan
has in mind.

-- help bot

On Apr 19, 4:44 pm, " wrote:

Mr. Kane's screed contains a number of outrageous claims. I disagree
with every single point he made, nor do I find GM Evans' tone
"contemptuous" as he alleges.

My view is that GM Evans is contemptuous
toward his critics, not necessarily toward every
reader who writes in. Non-critical readers are
more often treated dismissively, not with
contempt.


I also find every single answer within
the allotted space of the April CL For Kids to be instructive and
right on the money.

It would seem that I am virtually alone in the age
group where you are sent the Chess Life magazine,
instead of the version for kids. Who knew?


FACT: What Mr. Kane fails to grasp is that what happened then in the
USCF and FIDE isn't much diferent than what's happening now. Tbose who
fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Destined, actually. But while this may be true, it
dodges the point regarding GM Evans' stuff being
horribly dated. (A valuable lesson could be learned
here about what readers want by simply opening
ones daft ears.) And for crying out loud, get a
spell-checker already!


FACT: The first question is what do do when someone doesn't play a
line that the book doesn't mention.

Kids sure know how to get things mucked up,
don't they? Why not ask about what to do when
the opponent plays a line *not* mentioned in the
book? It is obvious that if the opponent plays
a line mentioned the book, the thing to do is
refer to the book. :D

I strongly suspect all these gaffes by Mr. Parr
are the result of him getting a bit hot under the
collar. He starts typing rapidly, and forgets to
utilize his spell-check program to save him from
a multitude of embarrassing mistakes.


Part of the answer stated: "a true
test of skill is being able to find the right move in a position you
never saw before."

Uh-oh. This means that we are all patzers, then?


It then went on to quote Botvinnik to this effect
and concluded: "A book that I found helpful whend first starting was
Ideas Behind The Chess Openings by Reuben Fine."

Good point. But badly dated. That book will
undoubtedly focus on such openings and variations
as were popular a long time ago, while ignoring far
more relevant things. Plus it's in descriptive notation,
which, again, is badly dated.


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.

FACT: This deals with hoping for a mistake. After 1 f4 e5 2 fxe5 Qh4+
3 g3 Be7 4 Nf3 the best reply given was 4...Qh5 "losing more time
because the queen must retreat." After critiquing Black's opening, the
answer concludes: "Always assume your opponent will find the best move
and plan your reply in advance instead of hoping for a cheap mistake."

I think GM Evans made things clear a good
while back: he is no longer regarded as the
ultimate authority on best moves due to all
the weakies writing in with corrections they
found using Fritz or Chessmaster, so in
retaliation he reserves the right to ignore such
questions altogether in his usual, dismissive
manner. Get a computer already!


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.

FACT: Evans answered the question by quoting the pertinent rule. Not
much space for much else.

Perhaps he could have made space enough to
mention that this primarily happens in scholastic
events, and thus, things can get a bit messy for
the error may only be discovered well into the
game, if at all.


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.

FACT: Perhaps Mr. Kane has better credentials to conduct a column for
children.

Larry Parr's decided tendency to resort to blatant
ad hominem reveals the fact that he is simply not
qualified to defend GM Evans properly. A decent PR
man would find some way to address issues without
attacking the critics personally.

My view is that whether or not DK can write a
superior chess column is not the real issue here, if
for no other reason than there are plenty of alternative
writers available. So if, say, the worst writer in the
whole universe were DK, it would be quite irrelevant.
This sort of thing requires logical-thinking skills,
which is no doubt why LP keeps coming up short,
time and again.

-- help bot

BILE-LACED ENVY (continued)

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

Well, it seems to be a tradition of sorts for big
magazines like CL to hand out columns to big
names with big titles, regardless of merit.. -- Help Bot

There you have it, the delicious, succulent
envy. Greg Kennedy imagines that big names get the
big columns based on something other than merit.

Well, yes, that may happen now and then.

The main criterion for judging whether a column is up to snuff
is whether the readers enjoy it. David Kane and Greg Kennedy have
begun one of their periodic attacks on GM Evans for his ...
excellence.

As Tony Saidy put the matter accurately, no one has written a
better newspaper column than GM Evans; and few have ever topped his
magazine columns for Chess Life, Boy's Life, etc.

Do the readers agree? Over the past three decades several Chess
Life
surveys were circulated. One such survey, if memory served, attracted
over
3,000 responses. The results in every survey: Larry Evans was ranked
first or second among columnists.

Now, our Greg hates GM Evans' success. The envy fairly drips.
At times, over the years, it has come in gobs. How he HATES people
who -- unlike him --have been successful in chess -- most especially,
Bobby Fischer but also
by extension his former friend GM Evans.

In earlier messages, Greg told us that he coulda been a
contendah, too, if he were not stuck in some factory job in the middle
of Indiana. He, too, coulda
read Terence or Tacitus rather than Batman or Spaceman or Chessman
comic books in the 1960s if he had had the advantages -- and so on and
on and on.

Greg has told us that he is a pone boy because Indiana is a
cultural wasteland. Pitiful stuff. As with any American state,
including probably even Alaska, there are large, readily available
bookstores, and there are libraries filledwith collections large
enough to occupy a lifetime of intellection. Indiana is the home of
several universities with libraries holding literally millions of
books.

Our Greg failed intellectually -- remember his putzing around
looking for a spellchecker, of all things? -- not because he was stuck
in Indiana but
because he made ill choices based on velleities in his nature.

P.S. Note that our Greg has nothing to say about his earlier
absurd charge that GM Evans "brainwashed America" into accepting
Fischer's conditions vs. Karpov when, in fact, GM Evans was the
leading authority opposing these conditions.

And so it goes.



help bot wrote:
On Apr 19, 4:37 pm, "David Kane" wrote:

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.

Your ad hom. tendency is duly noted.

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.

Like I said, I don't read the kiddie publication.
What I write is based on such things as *your*
claim that the column has been "continued"
(a direct quote of you) and many comments
by such writers as Larry Parr, who through a
hissy fit when, as he claimed, GM Evans was
dropped or "fired" (not my choice of word).


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

That's silly. If the editor wanted to keep GM
Evans happy, he would never have "fired" him
in the first place! Clearly, anything along the
lines of what you are suggesting would have
been motivated, not by any desire to make LE
happy, but to get the Evans "cult" to cease
fire. This is precisely the caving I talked about
before.


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)

Perhaps they are deluded into equating having
a FIDE GM title with being an instructive writer.
This would also explain why they gave similar jobs
to some of the worthless younger GMs in CL.


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.

Well, it seems to be a tradition of sorts for big
magazines like CL to hand out columns to big
names with big titles, regardless of merit. In order
for this to change, it would take a tsunami in terms
of intellectual thinking, a switchover from fame-
ocracy to meritocracy. It may well never happen.

One answer (well, sort of) is to accept the status
quo and search elsewhere for quality chess writing.
Another option is to get inside the USCF, and blow
it up, so to speak. This may be what Sam Sloan
has in mind.

-- help bot

wrote in message
oups.com...
BILE-LACED ENVY (continued)

HOW AMERICA IS BETRAYED IN WORLD CHESS
http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules....=News&file=art...

DECONSTRUCTING KANE

Mr. Kane's screed contains a number of outrageous claims. I disagree
with every single point he made, nor do I find GM Evans' tone
"contemptuous" as he alleges. I also find every single answer within
the allotted space of the April CL For Kids to be instructive and
right on the money.

I seem to have a parrallel instance at present, where the combinative
factors of 'journalism' are mixed with paid [and undisclosed] consultancies,
under-studied rules changes, and, politics! I think Jerry Hanken just made
chess poltiics very clear as well.

To make just a minor point of the relevance of the original Evan's article,
the same underlying factors still seem present - and therefore, are aas much
in force as they ever were.

I think Mr. Kane might consider that this is not even a benevolent
dictatorship - and its hard to find how balkanising the chess world has
worked in favor of the chess public.

It is easy to understand how ostensible 'good works' become corrupted, as
with the MonRoi examples - but these are not different in nature than the
misrepresentation of Arpad Elo's recommendations to Fide, which slighted
Susan Polgar alone for 100 points - a factor Evans points out by following
up with Dr. Elo to be greatly distorting of Elo's initiative.

In that instance, the action was seen to be political, since it promoted a
Russian player over Su Polar.

I should not like to intercede here on what should be in any column since I
make too many side or meta~ points, and since I don't read it.

My comments more address the unchanged nature of chess in the USA by Evans,
which I think are as EVIDENTLY still in force now, as when he wrote
originally - indeed, entropy rules! And without injecting very strong
players into the mix on a frequent basis, we will EVIDENTLY wind up with
very strong burocrats, who seem to attend to each other's well-being, rather
more than they attend to what we, the chess public, should like.

Phil Innes



********************


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.

FACT: What Mr. Kane fails to grasp is that what happened then in the
USCF and FIDE isn't much diferent than what's happening now. Tbose who
fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

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.

FACT: The first question is what do do when someone doesn't play a
line that the book doesn't mention. Part of the answer stated: "a true
test of skill is being able to find the right move in a position you
never saw before." It then went on to quote Botvinnik to this effect
and concluded: "A book that I found helpful whend first starting was
Ideas Behind The Chess Openings by Reuben Fine."


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.

FACT: This deals with hoping for a mistake. After 1 f4 e5 2 fxe5 Qh4+
3 g3 Be7 4 Nf3 the best reply given was 4...Qh5 "losing more time
because the queen must retreat." After critiquing Black's opening, the
answer concludes: "Always assume your opponent will find the best move
and plan your reply in advance instead of hoping for a cheap mistake."


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.

FACT: Evans answered the question by quoting the pertinent rule. Not
much space for much else.


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.

FACT: Perhaps Mr. Kane has better credentials to conduct a column for
children. Readers can judge this for themselves.




David Kane wrote:
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.

"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...

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.)

I thought I'd drop in on a help-bot post to see if he was understanding what
other people were writing about, or making his miscomprehension the subject.

David Kane simply points out that the column he was offered was different
than the one Evan's was deposed from. I am saying that the use of language
in the above is an illustration that using the word 'cult' to indicate
active and enthusiastic readership, is hardly honest!


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 bot, having noticed that a space doesn't exist where it aughta, skips
the topic entirely. As usual with the bot's writing on strong players,
comprehension gaps appear... which at least excuse him from discussions,
since he quite literally doesn't know what he is talking about.


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.

I think we can all agree that that is exactly what I wrote - Not! No, its
such a massive distortion hung on that 'seems to be saying' - but seems to
whom?

I said the chess public wanted to read the Evans column as-was. The chess
public is not 'a cult' and if great numbers of the public [who pay for this
magazine!] want the Evans column as-was, then this is precisely NOT like a
"Washington, D.C. as a "special interest group".]


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.

Let me pass over the no doubt unintended pun and association between dying
and KKK, to simple note the extremity of this commentary.

Let me skip ahead a bit-

'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.

I think his primary focus is very similar to many other strong players who
attained the world stage. I don't think its anti-organisational, but anti
self-dealing. While we have read these same comments from Kasparov, Keene,
Short, over the years, I read the same thing at Su Polgar's blog site a few
weeks ago. The point is simple: the health of chess in the country is not a
synonym with supporting chess organisations - and it is a comment which
successfully seperates the entity from the behavior of the entity.

Our Greg-Bot has nbot been able to understand the difference, or that it
matters. He might look up the word 'polity' and see that it is not the same
as 'politics'. In any case, if we understand Evans call it is not to attack
USCF and FIDE, but their [bad] behavior, and those who would champion such
bad behavior.

The only difference between Evans and other comments by strong players is
not that others make different points, but that Evans has made these points
consistently over the years. I think in fact that he is now joined by a
chorus of GMs who echo just the same sort of sentiments. The only difference
among them is whether they thing they should start-over, or conduct strong
reforms.


snip

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.

I said /players/ own the game. Is the bot a player? It doesn't seem evident
to me that help bot enjoys the playing of it, and once more, it is fruitless
to conduct conversation with people who do not understand the topic.

Phil Innes


-- help bot

SUSAN POLGAR VS. FIDE

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


Also see The Great Debate
http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules....rder=0&thold=0


It is easy to understand how ostensible 'good works' become
corrupted, as with the MonRoi examples - but these are not different
in nature than the misrepresentation of Arpad Elo's recommendations to
Fide, which slighted Susan Polgar alone for 100 points -- a factor
Evans points out by following up with Dr. Elo to be greatly distorting
of Elo's initiative. In that instance, the action was seen to be
political, since it promoted a Russian player over Su Polar. -- Phil
Innes

On Apr 19, 10:19 pm, " wrote:

The main criterion for judging whether a column is up to snuff
is whether the readers enjoy it.

This applies after the fact; reader enjoyment can only
be estimated or measured *after* the writer publishes his
work, at which point it is too late to give him the job (again).

The worst of the lot, IMO, were a few of the younger
GMs, who undoubtedly "earned" their columns by two
criteria: being American chess players, and having the
FIDE title of GM. IMO, their "work" was such as to
make even the worst column ever written by GM Evans
look good in comparison. I mention this to clarify that
the criticisms toward GM Evans' work is not intended
as an attack on "old timers" writing about chess, in
general.


David Kane and Greg Kennedy have
begun one of their periodic attacks on GM Evans for his ...
excellence.

I expect they will need to dig *deep* for this project!


As Tony Saidy put the matter accurately, no one has written a
better newspaper column than GM Evans;

Meaningless fluff. I imagine a side-by-side comparison
of a random, recent column by GM Evans would fall well
short if measured against one of GM Keres' old columns.

OTOH, if the only competition (using the word loosely)
consists in the other writers for CL then hey, he has a
good shot. All I can say is that Mr. Saidy should get
out more; for instance, he ought to read something by
GM Seirawan, John Watson, and other high-class
writers before embarrassing himself by such comments.


and few have ever topped his
magazine columns for Chess Life, Boy's Life, etc.

Actually, Mark Twain... . :D


Do the readers agree? Over the past three decades several Chess
Life
surveys were circulated. One such survey, if memory served, attracted
over
3,000 responses. The results in every survey: Larry Evans was ranked
first or second among columnists.

As I recall, for years there were only two columnists
whose work was given such prominence as to allow
them to be fairly compared to one another: GM Evans
and GM Soltis. Trying to use this kind of survey to
compare lesser writers is hardly fair to them. For
instance: many chess players despise the endgame
to such a degree that they might very well skip over
GM Benko's column, rating him low regardless of the
true merit of his work. Another "forgettable" writer
was the other Evans, whose work often appeared near
the back of the magazine, where one would likely be
too tired to even fool with it. I know that I often read
the first column first, then the other (Soltis/Evans or
Evans/Soltis), then had a quick look at others, working
from front to back. By the time I got halfway through,
I would, often as not, jump to the very back, to check
what tournaments were coming up soon. The IM
level writers generally wrote about boring stuff, or
perhaps I was just too tired to properly appreciate
their work.


Now, our Greg hates GM Evans' success. The envy fairly drips.
At times, over the years, it has come in gobs. How he HATES people
who -- unlike him --have been successful in chess -- most especially,
Bobby Fischer but also by extension his former friend GM Evans.

Interesting. Larry Parr seems unable to make up
his muddled mind as to whether or not GM Evans
can stand on his own, or if he is merely an
"extension" of GM Fischer. My view is that the
emergence of Fischer quashed GM Evans' chess
career to a large degree. It was not that GM Evans
could not stand on his own, but rather, that GM
Fischer cast a very long shadow. Standing next to
such a towering figure has its drawbacks, as well as
its rewards.


In earlier messages, Greg told us that he coulda been a
contendah, too, if he were not stuck in some factory job in the middle
of Indiana.

Larry Parr is obviously mistaken here; GM
Kaidanov lives in Kentucky, and has no need of any
"day job" other than playing and teaching chess.
As for being a contender, that is only a pipe-dream.

Our best contender was (and may still be) Gata
Kamsky, who has in common with these other
pretenders the obvious issue of ego-inflation from
having moved from somewhere in the USSR to
America, where their sudden success seems to
have gone to their heads.

And for the lunatic fringe, there is always the hope
that GM Fischer will return again... .

-- help bot

MORE KENNEDY RAMBLING

At least Greg Kennedy does not deny his earlier
nonsense about being a contendah were it not for his
factory job in Indiana as well as his posited picture
of Indiana as a cultural wasteland. Nor does he wish
to address his bogus charge that Larry Evans
"brainwashed America" into accepting Fischer's
match conditions vs. Karpov in 1975.

Now, then, Greg simply lies when arguing that GM
Evans scored well because his column was up front in
Chess Life. Lie. Lie. Lie.

Indeed, Andy Soltis' column came first. If
one searches the pages of Chess Life, one will find
that GM Evans' column generally appeared after the
feature section during the many years when he scored
well in repeated reader surveys. Indeed, on
occasions, he appeared last in the magazine or well
buried in the second half of the magazine. Yet he
repeatedly scored first or second in all surveys.

Greg's next attempt to attack Evans is that --
well, okay -- the veteran GM may have scored well in
reader surveys,but there were columns that readers
did not care for, especially those devoted to a
subject such as, say, the endgame. Such as, for
example, Pal Benko's work.

How low can this guy go! The fact is that Benko
not only wrote a great column filled with analysis
that merited praise from Tal, Geller and others, he
often scored well in these surveys, including if
memory serves, a third place finish in the largest of
all the surveys ever taken.

Greg's next attempt to belittle Evans is to argue
that Anthony Saidy's comment on GM Evans' newspaper
column embarrasses our Greg because Keres wrote a
better one. To my knowledge, Keres was never a
newspaper columnist. More sheer nonsense.

Greg's next attempt to attack Evans is that --
well, okay -- the 5-time U.S. champion may score
well in these surveys but he had little competition.
You see, the readers had so little to choose from that
GM Evans kinda does well by forfeit. Every reader survey
taken involving many thousands of responses show a high
level of overall satisfaction with Chess Life among
the subscribership. Indeed, when one considers that
only half of the members play in tournaments and many
of that half play only once or twice a year, it's obvious
that the magazine is the main attraction for shelling
out 40 or so bucks a year.

Greg's next attempt to attack Evans is to bring
in Mark Twain when comparing any newspaper columns the
latter might have written on American social mores and
other subjects with GM Evans' chess column. Pitiful.

Greg spent years telling us that his failings
were the result of living in Indiana and being stuck
in a piecework job in some factory. He promised
repeatedly to find a spellchecker to hide some of his
weaknesses, though he certainly failed in that quest.
He used to speak about Fischer as a guy who made it
because of the accidental advantages of living in NYC.
By extension, he went after Fischer's friend, GM
Evans, also a product of the remarkable NYC chess
scene of the 1940s and 1950s.

Our Greg can't hide envy of his better. He is one of the
victims of chess -- the would-be contendah who got
kayoed within the first minute of the first round when
trying to move up in weight and class.

And so it goes.




help bot wrote:
On Apr 19, 4:37 pm, "David Kane" wrote:

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.

Your ad hom. tendency is duly noted.

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.

Like I said, I don't read the kiddie publication.
What I write is based on such things as *your*
claim that the column has been "continued"
(a direct quote of you) and many comments
by such writers as Larry Parr, who through a
hissy fit when, as he claimed, GM Evans was
dropped or "fired" (not my choice of word).


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

That's silly. If the editor wanted to keep GM
Evans happy, he would never have "fired" him
in the first place! Clearly, anything along the
lines of what you are suggesting would have
been motivated, not by any desire to make LE
happy, but to get the Evans "cult" to cease
fire. This is precisely the caving I talked about
before.


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)

Perhaps they are deluded into equating having
a FIDE GM title with being an instructive writer.
This would also explain why they gave similar jobs
to some of the worthless younger GMs in CL.


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.

Well, it seems to be a tradition of sorts for big
magazines like CL to hand out columns to big
names with big titles, regardless of merit. In order
for this to change, it would take a tsunami in terms
of intellectual thinking, a switchover from fame-
ocracy to meritocracy. It may well never happen.

One answer (well, sort of) is to accept the status
quo and search elsewhere for quality chess writing.
Another option is to get inside the USCF, and blow
it up, so to speak. This may be what Sam Sloan
has in mind.

-- help bot