wrote in message
oups.com...

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.

As far as I can determine from Mr. Nolan, its true, less than half /adult/
members play even one rated game per year, not just no tournaments, but no
club or other rated chess either. Of those who do play, half of those are
provisional ratings, with less than 10 games/yr.

Which is to say, yes - evidently the subscription pays for the magazine.

Although I have asked I can't determine how many of the 7,500 adults with
10+ games actually play them in tournament chess rather than club chess. I
can't tell because USCF don't know.

A mere aside is to note that Don Schultz noted an unwanted side effect of
introducing ELO ratings to USA, that players fled clubs and played most of
their rated chess at typically, weekend Swiss events.

Whereas in England, where the norm for club players was in my league, about
35 rated games year, that was all at club level, mostly interclub
engagements.

Oddly the USA with 5x pop, seems to play less rated chess, not pro-rata, but
in abolute numbers than UK.

I suppose these figures make the magazine in US actually more popular than
playing rated games - and hence, justifies its importance.

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.

I think it is at understandable to hold such resentment, and animus against
strong players, since in effect if you don't play much, or at all, you have
to read about those who do. Then I suppose you could be stimulated by their
greater involvement and get back into playing, or become a passive and
envious commentator, nit picking away for the rest of your time, just like
the gnome in the Winter palace.

The odd thing about the UK system [courtesy Wade] is that hardly anyone at
our club read BCF's magazine, or better said, subscribed to it, and we
perhaps received one official copy to Secretary which was dutifully handed
round week to week, and maybe you read 6 months later.

Now, this is interesting since it was so typical - players did not read for
novelty, everything topical in the magazine was long past, and instead there
were essays on chess and its play - these we devoured, since these were the
only ones available.

So what you got to read were about players in the West, mostly in Europe,
and of Americans; Reschevsky, Evans, maybe citing Marshall and Capablanca in
the notes - though not Morphy-the-romantic [we were too sophisticated in
those days]. I think there was still some resentment over Alekhine's
collaborationist stance, and Keres too!

Botvinnik showed up sometimes, and Taimanov. But not much. Sometimes you
could ask Peter Clarke who this was? Holding up a picture of Bronstein from
64, and, of course, appalled, he would tell you.

But the big excitement was about the duo Tal and Larsen who were expected to
contest the world championship. Even when Fischer's sudden, event meteoric
rise to prominence became evident to us, he was still equated with
particularly Larsen as the great Hopes of the West, and probably second to
Larsen - and though Fischer played in Europe we rather felt as though the US
scene was too soft for him, and his successes therefore qualified ones, but
against Russians they would collectively wear him down and break his spirit.

In some corres. with Taimanov I asked who /he/ studied in the Western chess
press, while he noted the principle contenders in the US, he thought of
contemporary challengers there were only two, Evans having passed the US
baton to Fischer, so to speak, and Larsen the strongest European.

To answer, 'who were you afraid of', he replied, not Larsen.

And that was a corporate reply. RJF gave them the woolies! They just didn't
understand how to think of a man without corporate support, who was a highly
technical player, and better at attacking than Tal [who of course, was
resented for not being really-Russian]. I still think in 1970 they thought
they could deal with him in the usual way - which was not cheating exactly,
but you know, not exhausting each as much as saving all their energy for
Fischer.

At that time I think Fischer was so misunderstood in the UK, he was a sort
of cipher, and before you knew it he achieved those 6-0 results and then the
cataclysmic encounter in Iceland really brought it home to us the true
stature of the player.

Now - while there is usual criticism of having to hear more and more about
Fischer, especially aimed at Evans, who after all can incontestable, from
friendship, from high chess art, and also from an experience of top level
pressure, an Evans column in the UK in 1968-1975 would have been a
sensation!

If I were to critizise Larry Evans it would be to the effect that he has
written so little about Fischer, or rather, about Fischer's Art, and indeed,
his own. Though so much /has/ been written, how much of it is much
understood? Even the context of the times is less than appreciated.

Of course in any interview I would ask LE about the daunting atmosphere of
the times - you know, you are playing Taimanov with Che and Castro looking
on, while back in DC, in just the preceding period the hawks, are urging a
first-strike from Ike. And like Fischer, you too are playing chess against
the enemy [let's not kid ourselves!]. When this was politically expedient
then you got Evans/Taimanov games, and Fischer/Spassky games, and Taimanov
can leave Russia to play chess in Liverpool with a permit signed by Stalin
himself, and when it was not, though the players didn't do aught else, you
got the Feds on your tail for a decade.

And I should also wonder about his [Evans'] own artistic stimulation since I
once read from Karpov that playing Korchnoi could motivate him to great
effort, that Kasparov did not, but -a great compliment I think- Fischer
would do so more than any other player. I believe him.

I think Evans was perhaps like Reschevsky, not lazy, but insufficiently
challenged, and without support system such as Russians had from the State,
which was economic for sure, but in terms of high chess art was a strong
psychological factor.

So, I think LE has yet much to write, and I even agree with some critics who
say that they don't like his current column - though not because someone
else could maybe write it better, but because sure to god Evans could write
on these deeper subjects where no one else can. But I, alas, am not his
editor.

Neither is CL the likely best vehicle for these appreciations, but a new
work on the chess art, inclusive of these artistic appreciations above, is,
IMO, strongly indicated, and would certainly be well received - even within
the same market of scholastics, since the crucial thing about chess is
nothing theoretical at all, but about being at the board, and whatever
preparations you made to get there, and how you perform in the next hour or
two.

Where is that sort of publication, which has this superadded factors of
politics or other pressures, and where the games that really inspired an
entire generation were born? In closing, I think I also faithfully echo the
sentiments of strong players around the world, specifically of Timman and
Adorjan, who saw themselves in this ur-group of modern chess, as its
continued potency into our times, and Fischer, a rare flowering example of
its highest potential.

Cordially, Phil Innes
Vermont

BOTVINNIK'S LEGACY

http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules....cle&sid= 1267

"Botvinnik passed the baton to two pupils, Anatoly Karpov and Gary
Kasparov,who went on to capture the crown. "I am sure that the five
years I spent at Botvinnik's school (1973-1978) played a decisive role
in my formation as a chess player and determined the path of my
subsequent improvement," said Kasparov. After looking at some of
Karpov's early games, however, Botvinnik told an assistant, "The boy
doesn't have a clue about chess, and there's no future at all for him
in this profession."

I think Evans was perhaps like Reschevsky, not lazy, but
insufficiently
challenged, and without support system such as Russians had from the
State,
which was economic for sure, but in terms of high chess art was a
strong
psychological factor. -- Phil Innes







Chess One wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

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.

As far as I can determine from Mr. Nolan, its true, less than half /adult/
members play even one rated game per year, not just no tournaments, but no
club or other rated chess either. Of those who do play, half of those are
provisional ratings, with less than 10 games/yr.

Which is to say, yes - evidently the subscription pays for the magazine.

Although I have asked I can't determine how many of the 7,500 adults with
10+ games actually play them in tournament chess rather than club chess. I
can't tell because USCF don't know.

A mere aside is to note that Don Schultz noted an unwanted side effect of
introducing ELO ratings to USA, that players fled clubs and played most of
their rated chess at typically, weekend Swiss events.

Whereas in England, where the norm for club players was in my league, about
35 rated games year, that was all at club level, mostly interclub
engagements.

Oddly the USA with 5x pop, seems to play less rated chess, not pro-rata, but
in abolute numbers than UK.

I suppose these figures make the magazine in US actually more popular than
playing rated games - and hence, justifies its importance.

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.

I think it is at understandable to hold such resentment, and animus against
strong players, since in effect if you don't play much, or at all, you have
to read about those who do. Then I suppose you could be stimulated by their
greater involvement and get back into playing, or become a passive and
envious commentator, nit picking away for the rest of your time, just like
the gnome in the Winter palace.

The odd thing about the UK system [courtesy Wade] is that hardly anyone at
our club read BCF's magazine, or better said, subscribed to it, and we
perhaps received one official copy to Secretary which was dutifully handed
round week to week, and maybe you read 6 months later.

Now, this is interesting since it was so typical - players did not read for
novelty, everything topical in the magazine was long past, and instead there
were essays on chess and its play - these we devoured, since these were the
only ones available.

So what you got to read were about players in the West, mostly in Europe,
and of Americans; Reschevsky, Evans, maybe citing Marshall and Capablanca in
the notes - though not Morphy-the-romantic [we were too sophisticated in
those days]. I think there was still some resentment over Alekhine's
collaborationist stance, and Keres too!

Botvinnik showed up sometimes, and Taimanov. But not much. Sometimes you
could ask Peter Clarke who this was? Holding up a picture of Bronstein from
64, and, of course, appalled, he would tell you.

But the big excitement was about the duo Tal and Larsen who were expected to
contest the world championship. Even when Fischer's sudden, event meteoric
rise to prominence became evident to us, he was still equated with
particularly Larsen as the great Hopes of the West, and probably second to
Larsen - and though Fischer played in Europe we rather felt as though the US
scene was too soft for him, and his successes therefore qualified ones, but
against Russians they would collectively wear him down and break his spirit.

In some corres. with Taimanov I asked who /he/ studied in the Western chess
press, while he noted the principle contenders in the US, he thought of
contemporary challengers there were only two, Evans having passed the US
baton to Fischer, so to speak, and Larsen the strongest European.

To answer, 'who were you afraid of', he replied, not Larsen.

And that was a corporate reply. RJF gave them the woolies! They just didn't
understand how to think of a man without corporate support, who was a highly
technical player, and better at attacking than Tal [who of course, was
resented for not being really-Russian]. I still think in 1970 they thought
they could deal with him in the usual way - which was not cheating exactly,
but you know, not exhausting each as much as saving all their energy for
Fischer.

At that time I think Fischer was so misunderstood in the UK, he was a sort
of cipher, and before you knew it he achieved those 6-0 results and then the
cataclysmic encounter in Iceland really brought it home to us the true
stature of the player.

Now - while there is usual criticism of having to hear more and more about
Fischer, especially aimed at Evans, who after all can incontestable, from
friendship, from high chess art, and also from an experience of top level
pressure, an Evans column in the UK in 1968-1975 would have been a
sensation!

If I were to critizise Larry Evans it would be to the effect that he has
written so little about Fischer, or rather, about Fischer's Art, and indeed,
his own. Though so much /has/ been written, how much of it is much
understood? Even the context of the times is less than appreciated.

Of course in any interview I would ask LE about the daunting atmosphere of
the times - you know, you are playing Taimanov with Che and Castro looking
on, while back in DC, in just the preceding period the hawks, are urging a
first-strike from Ike. And like Fischer, you too are playing chess against
the enemy [let's not kid ourselves!]. When this was politically expedient
then you got Evans/Taimanov games, and Fischer/Spassky games, and Taimanov
can leave Russia to play chess in Liverpool with a permit signed by Stalin
himself, and when it was not, though the players didn't do aught else, you
got the Feds on your tail for a decade.

And I should also wonder about his [Evans'] own artistic stimulation since I
once read from Karpov that playing Korchnoi could motivate him to great
effort, that Kasparov did not, but -a great compliment I think- Fischer
would do so more than any other player. I believe him.

I think Evans was perhaps like Reschevsky, not lazy, but insufficiently
challenged, and without support system such as Russians had from the State,
which was economic for sure, but in terms of high chess art was a strong
psychological factor.

So, I think LE has yet much to write, and I even agree with some critics who
say that they don't like his current column - though not because someone
else could maybe write it better, but because sure to god Evans could write
on these deeper subjects where no one else can. But I, alas, am not his
editor.

Neither is CL the likely best vehicle for these appreciations, but a new
work on the chess art, inclusive of these artistic appreciations above, is,
IMO, strongly indicated, and would certainly be well received - even within
the same market of scholastics, since the crucial thing about chess is
nothing theoretical at all, but about being at the board, and whatever
preparations you made to get there, and how you perform in the next hour or
two.

Where is that sort of publication, which has this superadded factors of
politics or other pressures, and where the games that really inspired an
entire generation were born? In closing, I think I also faithfully echo the
sentiments of strong players around the world, specifically of Timman and
Adorjan, who saw themselves in this ur-group of modern chess, as its
continued potency into our times, and Fischer, a rare flowering example of
its highest potential.

Cordially, Phil Innes
Vermont

wrote in message
ups.com...
BOTVINNIK'S LEGACY

http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules....cle&sid= 1267

"Botvinnik passed the baton to two pupils, Anatoly Karpov and Gary
Kasparov,who went on to capture the crown. "I am sure that the five
years I spent at Botvinnik's school (1973-1978) played a decisive role
in my formation as a chess player and determined the path of my
subsequent improvement," said Kasparov.

Even though Botvinnik also tried to dismiss Kasparov from /competing/ too
hard, and besides, he was Jewish and had no /blat/, no pull at political
levels, nor any liklihood of any. What did they say to him? 'go home boy, we
already got a world champion' ? That's Fide, Russian style.

After looking at some of
Karpov's early games, however, Botvinnik told an assistant, "The boy
doesn't have a clue about chess, and there's no future at all for him
in this profession."

See - he wrote the same anecdote himself in the 1991, Karpov on Karpov,
which I think I am the only reader thereof on the entire planet.

Karpov said he would restore his own confidence by playing the whole
Botvinnik school at blitz chess, and staying up late, getting better and
better, until he was suffering no loses for hours, and everyone gave up.

What conclusion can we make? That Botvinnik was a great player, utterly
without insight into others?

I suspect that cannot be completely true, and instead I think in both cases,
with Kasparov and Karpov, he was just a little bit afraid of them, no?

Anyway, between reading your comment above, re Evans and the baton, which
term I maybe subconsciously used myself about Evans and Fischer, I took a
walk, and thought - who really could challenge Kasparov today? Albeit, such
things are infamously difficult to evaluate - who, for example, would think
that after 100 games Kasparov would only be one point better than Karpov?

I think no one in UK could challenge him in a match; Short does not play in
events of sufficient strength, and while Adams does, not enough of them.

In the US there are 2 [maybe 3] candidates, but Kamsky plays not enough, and
not against sufficient strength, and the new #1 Nakamura would surely clip
Kasparov a couple of times, but also he would lose too many by trying.

In the World, then, we have Toppy, who is an idiot at match-play - far too
temperamental, or susceptible to 'friends'.

Vishy Anand who I think is the best all round player now, but at match play?
Perhaps because he doesn't do it, he knows he cant?

Petr Svidler is an all-round tough player of considerablke resource but
lacks the Nakamura punch to score enough wins, and the other Russo
alternative is Kramnik, who might indeed suceed in boring Kasparov into a
trance, but I think he too, wouldn't win enough, and Garry alone seems to
have that extra half-gear of the truly big guys to deal with that scene.

So guys are out! Instead, and this is highly speculative, of course and
fun!~, emotion and psychology are very important to Kasparov, and could
Judit take him in stress a match? If anything, her play is most similar to
his, and this can be a psychological blind on his part.

Then there is Szuszu, who, it is little known, actually has a better record
than Judit when they have played serious OTB chess against each other. Susan
has a small opening repetoire, and this might be too great a disadvantage -
though in any even middle game, it would be a tough call, especially if
Kasparov was possessed of a little too much need to prove himself and
overstretched. I watched even Khalifman back off in that challenge, and she
is certainly level with Karpov in their games.

Finally there is the sleeper candidate, Sophia, who after all scored the 5th
highest performance rating of all time, [and someone thereby who also has
that extra half-gear] and who Susan says, frankly is the best of the 3. BUT,
Susan also says she is lazy...

Maybe we will get a word out of her since she is currently in NY City, and
may yet respond to a few questions.

Do I digress, Larry?

Adorjan, when himself a bright young thing, well... with a solid beard,
first encountered Kasparov at a tournament and at the time could hardly
believe how strong and intent he was. I think he knew then that this player
was going to be better than anyone else for a long long time.

At the moment this guy who must have got bored by chess [as Fischer did
early, GK did late - imagine giving up the #1 spot in the world!] is playing
quite another game in Russia. I don't think any party there is playing for a
draw - and Garry has succeeded to the particularly dangerous sport of being
the #1 opposition candidate to Putin.

What were you saying about Larry Evans, again?

Cordially, Phil Innes
The Winter P[a]lace, Vermontsky

I think Evans was perhaps like Reschevsky, not lazy, but
insufficiently
challenged, and without support system such as Russians had from the
State,
which was economic for sure, but in terms of high chess art was a
strong
psychological factor. -- Phil Innes







Chess One wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

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.

As far as I can determine from Mr. Nolan, its true, less than half
/adult/
members play even one rated game per year, not just no tournaments, but
no
club or other rated chess either. Of those who do play, half of those are
provisional ratings, with less than 10 games/yr.

Which is to say, yes - evidently the subscription pays for the magazine.

Although I have asked I can't determine how many of the 7,500 adults with
10+ games actually play them in tournament chess rather than club chess.
I
can't tell because USCF don't know.

A mere aside is to note that Don Schultz noted an unwanted side effect of
introducing ELO ratings to USA, that players fled clubs and played most
of
their rated chess at typically, weekend Swiss events.

Whereas in England, where the norm for club players was in my league,
about
35 rated games year, that was all at club level, mostly interclub
engagements.

Oddly the USA with 5x pop, seems to play less rated chess, not pro-rata,
but
in abolute numbers than UK.

I suppose these figures make the magazine in US actually more popular
than
playing rated games - and hence, justifies its importance.

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.

I think it is at understandable to hold such resentment, and animus
against
strong players, since in effect if you don't play much, or at all, you
have
to read about those who do. Then I suppose you could be stimulated by
their
greater involvement and get back into playing, or become a passive and
envious commentator, nit picking away for the rest of your time, just
like
the gnome in the Winter palace.

The odd thing about the UK system [courtesy Wade] is that hardly anyone
at
our club read BCF's magazine, or better said, subscribed to it, and we
perhaps received one official copy to Secretary which was dutifully
handed
round week to week, and maybe you read 6 months later.

Now, this is interesting since it was so typical - players did not read
for
novelty, everything topical in the magazine was long past, and instead
there
were essays on chess and its play - these we devoured, since these were
the
only ones available.

So what you got to read were about players in the West, mostly in Europe,
and of Americans; Reschevsky, Evans, maybe citing Marshall and Capablanca
in
the notes - though not Morphy-the-romantic [we were too sophisticated in
those days]. I think there was still some resentment over Alekhine's
collaborationist stance, and Keres too!

Botvinnik showed up sometimes, and Taimanov. But not much. Sometimes you
could ask Peter Clarke who this was? Holding up a picture of Bronstein
from
64, and, of course, appalled, he would tell you.

But the big excitement was about the duo Tal and Larsen who were expected
to
contest the world championship. Even when Fischer's sudden, event
meteoric
rise to prominence became evident to us, he was still equated with
particularly Larsen as the great Hopes of the West, and probably second
to
Larsen - and though Fischer played in Europe we rather felt as though the
US
scene was too soft for him, and his successes therefore qualified ones,
but
against Russians they would collectively wear him down and break his
spirit.

In some corres. with Taimanov I asked who /he/ studied in the Western
chess
press, while he noted the principle contenders in the US, he thought of
contemporary challengers there were only two, Evans having passed the US
baton to Fischer, so to speak, and Larsen the strongest European.

To answer, 'who were you afraid of', he replied, not Larsen.

And that was a corporate reply. RJF gave them the woolies! They just
didn't
understand how to think of a man without corporate support, who was a
highly
technical player, and better at attacking than Tal [who of course, was
resented for not being really-Russian]. I still think in 1970 they
thought
they could deal with him in the usual way - which was not cheating
exactly,
but you know, not exhausting each as much as saving all their energy for
Fischer.

At that time I think Fischer was so misunderstood in the UK, he was a
sort
of cipher, and before you knew it he achieved those 6-0 results and then
the
cataclysmic encounter in Iceland really brought it home to us the true
stature of the player.

Now - while there is usual criticism of having to hear more and more
about
Fischer, especially aimed at Evans, who after all can incontestable, from
friendship, from high chess art, and also from an experience of top level
pressure, an Evans column in the UK in 1968-1975 would have been a
sensation!

If I were to critizise Larry Evans it would be to the effect that he has
written so little about Fischer, or rather, about Fischer's Art, and
indeed,
his own. Though so much /has/ been written, how much of it is much
understood? Even the context of the times is less than appreciated.

Of course in any interview I would ask LE about the daunting atmosphere
of
the times - you know, you are playing Taimanov with Che and Castro
looking
on, while back in DC, in just the preceding period the hawks, are urging
a
first-strike from Ike. And like Fischer, you too are playing chess
against
the enemy [let's not kid ourselves!]. When this was politically expedient
then you got Evans/Taimanov games, and Fischer/Spassky games, and
Taimanov
can leave Russia to play chess in Liverpool with a permit signed by
Stalin
himself, and when it was not, though the players didn't do aught else,
you
got the Feds on your tail for a decade.

And I should also wonder about his [Evans'] own artistic stimulation
since I
once read from Karpov that playing Korchnoi could motivate him to great
effort, that Kasparov did not, but -a great compliment I think- Fischer
would do so more than any other player. I believe him.

I think Evans was perhaps like Reschevsky, not lazy, but insufficiently
challenged, and without support system such as Russians had from the
State,
which was economic for sure, but in terms of high chess art was a strong
psychological factor.

So, I think LE has yet much to write, and I even agree with some critics
who
say that they don't like his current column - though not because someone
else could maybe write it better, but because sure to god Evans could
write
on these deeper subjects where no one else can. But I, alas, am not his
editor.

Neither is CL the likely best vehicle for these appreciations, but a new
work on the chess art, inclusive of these artistic appreciations above,
is,
IMO, strongly indicated, and would certainly be well received - even
within
the same market of scholastics, since the crucial thing about chess is
nothing theoretical at all, but about being at the board, and whatever
preparations you made to get there, and how you perform in the next hour
or
two.

Where is that sort of publication, which has this superadded factors of
politics or other pressures, and where the games that really inspired an
entire generation were born? In closing, I think I also faithfully echo
the
sentiments of strong players around the world, specifically of Timman and
Adorjan, who saw themselves in this ur-group of modern chess, as its
continued potency into our times, and Fischer, a rare flowering example
of
its highest potential.

Cordially, Phil Innes
Vermont