On Aug 24, 12:28 pm, Taylor Kingston wrote:

Personally, I find Kasparov to be reasonable (in contrast to Fischer),
but as a foreigner my views don't count.

It's not hard to find people more reasonable than Fischer, who among
other things has said that Jews kill Christian children and use their
blood to make matzoh bread. Kasparov, to my knowledge, has never said
anything at all so offensive, but he does entertain a few strange
views (e.g. on history). In chess politics, the main kind he's been
involved with until recently, his record has not been very impressive,
IMO. He has started up various organizations (the GMA, PCA, WCC, etc.)
that seem to start strong, but quickly fizzle when he loses interest.
I would think more persistence will be required of anyone serious
about opposing Putin.


It's not that GK has failed in his persistence; it is
that he wants to control and dominate these new
organizations, and when he doesn't get his way he
acts like a spoiled child and then without his support,
the orgs. weaken and fail. I seem to recall that after
being headed by GK for a while, one election has the
result of putting Jan Timman in charge, whereupon
GK balked. The man (child, really) wants to be the
COB, CEO, CFO, and Dictator-for-life -- all or nothing.

Because these problems are so severe, I can't help
bot wonder when I see pictures of GK being arrested
by Russian police, if he isn't doing it all just to get
attention. You know, like Sam Sloan, or any other
overgrown child.

-- help bot

"Rob" wrote in message
oups.com...

Phil,
WHat you say below is most true!

Rob, it is usenet protocol to say 'almost-true'.

Fischer's crime, as the government see it, is a complex of non-tax
payments
for income it claims he owes it following the 'war-zone' playing of the
second Spassky match, combined with, as I understand it, risibly and
contentious comments on terroritst actions. The last of these are less
explicit, but post 9/11 it is not exactly a 'nothing' consideration
today.

Fischer has expressed no desire to be affiliated with USCF as el Sloan
proposes, nor to return to the US. What el Sloan thinks he is up to is
thereby naught to do with Fischer, but a last-grandstand by el Sloan
while
he still has the public eye.

The "public eye" he thinks he has is probably the equilivant to 1
tenth of one percent of the USCF membership. I dare say he gets a
larger audience while urinating at the restroom of Union Station.

Recently, on the speculation of a mush-money match, [more thanb any amount
ever before] he wanted to know the ethnicity of everyone, including the film
crew and the post-production folks.

His chess is unquestionable the most fascinating of the whole C20th.

---

I hope he gets out of chess now. I hope he stops sacrificing himself to a
public image of himself, and the complexity of what that entails - much as
any public figure experiences. What better place to do so than in
egalitarian Iceland?


I doubt few could have gone through that cold-war encounter without injury
to self, and this boy had no father: No man to buoy him up, and be candid,
frank and straight with him, without aggression. That is an entirely other
battle, which arguably is as great as defeating the Russian's at chess.


Fischer served as an icon for US interests while it served them to represent
him as such - the man personally is as distorted by this as others have
been, no more no less, in my opinion.

In himself I think he is brave in emotional and intellectual pursuit of what
he admits true, and now requires the space to assess his life and times, and
then we will, at length, see the man himself, if he should chose to make
that public. It is a quintessentially American thing to either do so, or
not, without compulsion.


But nothing is owed to other people on that basis, though I think much could
be understood thereby!


You too are a Celt, and we do not treat 'Greats' with especial respect. It
is as if someone had endured a trial to achieve a difficult goal, and we
never suspect them to have done so without personal damage, no?


This, in my philosophy, allows the trial, and also its reception by a
public, since lest we too are tested to the same degree, and to cite an
admonition in the Bible, do we judge?


Cordially, Phil Innes






Rob( WHich-Mitch) Earl of Mustard

On 2007-08-23 12:02 Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Aug 23, 11:50 am, samsloan wrote:
On Aug 23, 11:25 am, Taylor Kingston wrote:





On Aug 23, 8:26 am, samsloan wrote:
On Aug 23, 4:34 am, Eustace wrote:
From an interview of Senator Gravel's spokesperson Shawn Alexander
Colvin to the the newspaper Pravda.ru.
(http://english.pravda.ru/world/ameri...0-senator_mike...)
Second question from the bottom:
PRAVDA.RU: Can you imagine the former chess champion Bobby Fisher as the
leader of an opposition movement in the USA? Please substantiate your
answer.
The interviewer must be amazingly ignorant of Fischer's political
and social opinions, or those of most Americans, to ask such an absurd
question.
I disagree. The interviewer seems quite aware of Fischer's views.

My comment still stands. In that case, the interviewer must be
amazingly ignorant of how most Americans would view Fischer's rabidly
racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-American views. Not to mention
Fischer's lifelong preference for being an isolated loner, rather than
a group leader. There is no possibility of Fischer ever becoming any
sort of leader of any substantial political movement in the USA.


IMO, the interviewer's point was not how "substantial" (!) a political
movement Fischer might lead (or even if he would find any followers),
BUT WHETHER HE WOULD EVER BE ABLE TO EXERCISE HIS RIGHTS AS A FREE
CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, which of course implied that he
would be able to return without being arrested and put to jail. And to
this question the answer was that he should be pardoned, be given an
apology, and hence be welcome home and, if he decided to do so, be able
to reclaim his U.S. citizenship and all the rights contained in it,
including the right to found his own party.

Eustace

--
It ain't THAT, babe! - A radical reinterpretation
http://www.geocities.com/itaintme_babe/itaintme.html

The Western countries should have said "Alekhine did what he had to do to
survive during the war -- we invite him to our tournaments."

From THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans

Arnold Denker's greatest regret was turning against world champion Alexander
Alekhine because of some anti-Semitic articles he wrote under pressure
from the Nazis while trapped in war-torn Europe. Arnie said:

"I knew both German and his handwriting. He wrote those
infamous articles. I endorsed a world wide ban of Alekhine, a
grave error. Alekhine had been my friend. You do not desert a
friend. I should have stuck with him as he was dying in Lisbon
and try to find the facts, the pressures of war on him. Nowadays
I agree with Larry Evans who wrote in Chess Life that you have
to be awfully careful about banning people in chess...people
change, have horrendous mental problems sometimes.war
time duress. We are all sinners and you can take that to the bank.
Holier than thou does not work!"
-----

Larry, Arnold wrote me a bit directly - I think he made comments here too.

Nevermind Alekhine being ostracised as a deliberate policy by Britain - He
was there just after the war, and witnessed the struggle to survive. Chess
players were so far from being a priority they didn't even appear on the
social radar - meanwhile all Eastern Europe was being gobbled up by the
Soviets. He thought, as I did, that concern about the fate of a chessplayer
riding out the war in a neutral country was grotesque at a time when English
people were sharing their bread ration with German people.

Rather than Tartakower, it was Max Euwe who eventually prevailed in
re-admitting Alekhine to what was left of any European social scene,
famously saying, 'Humanity is the best revenge.'

As for Fischer, the idea of 're-instating' him to USCF is obscene. He
plainly does not want to be associated with it, and actively /resents/ that
association. Unless anyone can assert a difference since last winter when I
made a few calls to Saemi in Iceland.

BUT! If, and only if, he wanted to play chess in the USA, then the conundrum
of 'membership' exists. What are people pledging as members that is clearly
distinct than paying for ratings? Therefore, it is a self-made problem for
USCF since 'membership' suggests some joint pledge to a collective goal, no?
Otherwise membership is a daft requirement, since I am no more a member of
the IRS because they count the buttons I owe them every year as their
clerical function in taxing my income,

The other problem is citizenship, and in that instance, to play in the USA
as a citizen, would require him to take a pledge - and this is an even less
certain prospect!

To return to the chessis question: What Fischer still resents [according to
my understanding] is that USCF used his name against his wishes, and to
their own benefit. That is the business before us here, raised by Sam Sloan,
who, as usual does not deign to notice this fact.

---

After the war there all sorts of attempts to ressurect the prospects of
collaborators. Famously Eric Blair [George Orwell] successfully pleaded for
the life of that great British Twit, P. G. Woodhouse, in an essay which
plainly described him as a hapless and naive fool. He also had a hand in
saving the American poet Ezra Pound who had broadcast Italian propaganda for
Mussolini.

But those are national concerns, not chessic ones - and the charges brought
against Fischer need be clarified in terms of them, since they are an
uncertain mix of tax-evasion, playing chess in a war-zone against the direct
wishes of the government, and whatever the Japanese holding-cell charges
actually contained. I think government cannot /pardon/ 'charges', since
there is still a presumption of innocence in USA, and AFAIK, no court has
demonstrated a felony. The issue may be for Fischer, that if he returns
here, then the government made legitamately try to do so.

If it does, then it can then also pardon Fischer.

Phil Innes
Vemont

russian newsgroup x-snipped-x

To return to the chessis question: What Fischer still resents [according
to my understanding] is that USCF used his name against his wishes, and
to their own benefit. That is the business before us here, raised by Sam
Sloan, who, as usual does not deign to notice this fact.



Which is evidence of his illness, as he would never have even achieved the
first step to the title if not for the organization.


))

So you argue that Fischer /should/ be admitted to USCF /because/ of his
proposed illness )))

That is pure Sovietism - only there, Politicos declared you ill and put you
into a punishment asylum, here in US, its the USCF!

Bravo! Who could now object? I hope Senator Gravel is reading this, since he
will either immediately join USCF himself, or catching which way the wind
blows, renounce his citizenship and try his luck in Iceland.

Phil Innes

ECJ

. He thought, as I did, that concern about the fate of a chessplayer
riding out the war in a neutral country was grotesque at a time when
English people were sharing their bread ration with German people.



It didn't need to be a social concern. All that had to happen was for a
few high-placed chess people (Reuben Fine comes to mind) to not actively
work against him.


Perhaps Senator Gravel needs to understand its not a social concern for the
nation, by virtue of what high placed chess people say, and per the previous
message, USCF is happy to have involuntary members, /especially if/ they are
unable to determine its worth by virtue of their 'illness'?

That's the crime.


I believe in post-WWII Europe that was not exactly the sort of 'crime' that
concerned those conducting the Nuremburg trials. The wall was going up
around Europe enclosing regions far into the west who were always of the
western tradition, not the eastern one. Meanwhile in England people hoped
there wouldn't be a revolution. That, I think, was a concern about admission
of dubious aliens at the time.

Phil Innes

ECJ

On Aug 24, 7:06 pm, Eustace wrote:

IMO, the interviewer's point was not how "substantial" (!) a political
movement Fischer might lead (or even if he would find any followers),
BUT WHETHER HE WOULD EVER BE ABLE TO EXERCISE HIS RIGHTS AS A FREE
CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, which of course implied that he
would be able to return without being arrested and put to jail. And to
this question the answer was that he should be pardoned, be given an
apology, and hence be welcome home and, if he decided to do so, be able
to reclaim his U.S. citizenship and all the rights contained in it,
including the right to found his own party.


There appears to be a complete disconnect from
reality here. Fact: even if Bobby Fischer were to be
pardoned, he would still never come back to the
USA on account of the back taxes, plus penalties
and interest owed to the IRS. All this moaning and
groaning about "rights" makes me want to vomit; a
U.S. citizen has obligations as well as rights, and
one of the most annoying of these is our obligation
to pay taxes; in fact, it is so annoying that it is
difficult to imagine even the die-hard Fischerites
trying to stomach a "pardon" from the IRS, so the
rest of us taxpayers can bear Mr. Fischer's fair
share on his behalf. It's obvious that reality has
been thrown out the window, right along with the
bathwater and the now-busted Damiano's Defense.


-- help bot

On Aug 25, 10:33 am, wrote:

Fischer's crime is spitting SNOT (bugers) on a US order not to play in
a chess tournament in a war zone. That snot will give him 10 years in
the pokey. His choices were to RENOUNCE his US Citizenship, or not
play. Fischer wanted a US passport, and be able to play the law.
Therefore, he is like Scotter Libby.


Nah, spitting on the document is protected by free
speech. What is not protected is actually getting
paid millions of dollars to play in a war zone (or
what have you) in direct violation of some sanction
or other.

Secondly, you have attempted to blur the lines
between what constitutes bugers, snot, and spit;
these are all known to be distinctly different things,
as even a child can tell you. Nearly as bad, you
tried to toss in the passport affair, as if deliberately
trying to confuse the issue. I expect you must be
one of the insane Fischerites, blinded by hero-
worship of some sort. Get it into your head: he is
never coming back. Ne-vah; not ev-ah.


-- help bot

wrote in message
ups.com...
Fischer's crime, as the government see it, is a complex of non-tax
payments
for income it claims he owes it following the 'war-zone' playing of the
second Spassky match, combined with, as I understand it, risibly and
contentious comments on terroritst actions. The last of these are less
explicit, but post 9/11 it is not exactly a 'nothing' consideration
today.

Fischer's crime is spitting SNOT (bugers) on a US order not to play in
a chess tournament in a war zone. That snot will give him 10 years in
the pokey. His choices were to RENOUNCE his US Citizenship, or not
play. Fischer wanted a US passport, and be able to play the law.
Therefore, he is like Scotter Libby.

It was not against US law, it was contra an executive order.

Whether, indeed, it is a crime to play a game of ritual conflict, instead of
actually engaging in real flesh-and-blood conflict, is the issue of a little
[constitutional] contention, Marcus.

That is the untested issue in court, otherwise its as if the Presdent ruled
by fiat rather than rule of law proposed by Congress and ultimately defined
by the Supreme Court.

In this instance, by making this personal admonition against Fischer, the
issue would be if emergency and special measures against Fischer from the
most powerful man on earth, is yet constitutionally correct and justified,
and that, Sir, is the issue.

It is an untested one, and I do not mean to say I favour Fischer over the US
Executive. I mean it is an open question to the extent that the government
would need to prove their case before either other arm of government, and
here, before the Supreme Court.

No?

Fischer would have to be shown to be acting in support of an enemy, actively
or passively, rather than, as it seems to me, to being completely
indifferent to the politics surrounding his games of chess with Boris
Spassky.

If it seemed that Fischer had in his own mind, that by playing in a ritual
conflict, instead of engaging in a real one, he thought he was doing
something beneficial to international relations - that would be the tricky
field the US government would have to negotiate, since it does guarantee a
freedom of conscience, and is in fact, why it exists at all.

But whatever I or you think, the actual matter which needs to be addressed
is no clearer than the reasons for his detension in Japan.

Phil Innes

Marcus Roberts

On Aug 25, 12:00 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

Fischer's crime is spitting SNOT (bugers) on a US order not to play in
a chess tournament in a war zone. That snot will give him 10 years in
the pokey. His choices were to RENOUNCE his US Citizenship, or not
play. Fischer wanted a US passport, and be able to play the law.
Therefore, he is like Scotter Libby.

It was not against US law, it was contra an executive order.

Good point. In other words, for violating Ed Edmondson's
executive order Mr. Fischer should lose his job at the USCF,
no more. Were Mr. Edmondson a government official, things
would be different; who does he think he is, a town sheriff or
something?


That is the untested issue in court, otherwise its as if the Presdent ruled
by fiat rather than rule of law proposed by Congress and ultimately defined
by the Supreme Court.

Who do you think *appoints* those guys on the
Supreme Court -- Mickey Mouse? Look, the way it
was explained to me (in junior high school perhaps)
is there are three "equal" branches of the U.S.
government; but some branches are just more
equal than others. Since then, the SC has become
less and less "equal", and the Executive branch has
been grabbing more and more power, like a snowball
rolling downhill.


In this instance, by making this personal admonition against Fischer, the
issue would be if emergency and special measures against Fischer from the
most powerful man on earth

That would have to be Bill Gates, who completely
controls everyone's computers' operating systems
and defies the law virtually at will. Frank Sinatra
used to idolize such people -- especially if they
could get away with having people they disliked
"knocked off", as they used to say.


is yet constitutionally correct and justified,
and that, Sir, is the issue.

Order of the British Empire, or just a licensed,
lance-wielding Knight?


It is an untested one, and I do not mean to say I favour Fischer over the US
Executive. I mean it is an open question to the extent that the government
would need to prove their case before either other arm of government, and
here, before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is not automatically invoked
on account of chess players' obsession with Bobby
Fischer. There is a legal process, and the man (no,
BF is not a god -- sheesh!) needs to go through it
just like anybody else. It's a technical thing, relating
as it were, to reality, not fantasies of "BF returns" or
even chess in general. Believe it or not, it relates
more to the law than to chess.


-- help bot