On Aug 28, 7:29 pm, help bot wrote:
On Aug 28, 4:24 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

Interesting how the nearly-an-IM sees others as
"abuseniks" while at the same time being blinded
to his own antics, such as in that very post.
A bit vague! eh!? let's see corn-bot's examples...

Okay, how about this one (draws arrow pointing
to the text directly above). [Note that because of
extreme laziness, I did not research the millions
of other handy examples which may be found in
google archives, etc.]

In the old days I or Louis Blair would post these examples. All that
happened is that Innes would come up with new twists on his old
positions - such as the alleged Orwell "quotation" for which Innes has
never provided a source.

And how he quickly changes the subject when his
bluffs are called! A good poker player he would never
make.

A very good bridge player. Sometimes a very daring false lead... you
understand such things, corn-bot?

Bridge? Um, no. All I know about bridge is that
it is a card game and a team game, as opposed to
chess which is only a team game when you are a
kid playing "bughouse".

Don't be cute. Be accurate

Ah, you must have seen my picture in the pages
of Lard Ass magazine! Not quite a real contender,
I am nevertheless considered to be on parr with
another famous poster here when it comes to
looks. But I don't like to brag, because after all,
beauty is as beauty does (deep wisdom acquired
from watching the Mickey Mouse show on TV).

~ be on topic, though, brother, there is plenty
of corruption - and you and I only argue on what is paramount or foremost
crap at any one time, eh?

No. That would seem to require perspective,
reflection. What you and I mainly do here is
*react* to what we find others have posted --
a mediocre job at best.

This entails messaging by others - I just played it in a few versions, both
seemed prospective. Hardly any strong players write here any more, and after
all, this is a chess newsgroup, so chess itself might dominate our views,
otherwise you get the Brennanization of chess, which you don't need a grey
beard and come from Vienna to analyse - I hope!

What exactly is the Brennanization of chess?

Beats me. It appears to mean "a person who criticizes His I-ness, One
and Only Self-determined God-appointed Protector of the Royal Game."

I mean, surely he has not attempted to bring
chess down to his (or Rob Mitchell's) own level?
You probably need to define your term, since it is
unlikely to appear at Wikipedia or dictionary.com.

Is it Old English, or Andean?

On Aug 28, 12:59 pm, "David Kane" wrote:
I'm not sure what you are talking about so you'll have to fill in the details
for me (as well as explain their relevance, if any). Were the chessplayers
warned by the state department prior to going to Cuba?

Yes, but that was long time ago in 1964. You may not remember it but
the State Department issued an order to ban all travels to Cuba.

It was during the 1964 Capablanca Memorial that American chessplayers
defied the ban anyway, went to Cuba and played chess. If memory serves
me right GM Evans was one of the chessplayers.

On Aug 29, 8:18 am, LiamToo wrote:
On Aug 28, 12:59 pm, "David Kane" wrote:

I'm not sure what you are talking about so you'll have to fill in the details
for me (as well as explain their relevance, if any). Were the chessplayers
warned by the state department prior to going to Cuba?

Yes, but that was long time ago in 1964. You may not remember it but
the State Department issued an order to ban all travels to Cuba.

It was during the 1964 Capablanca Memorial that American chessplayers
defied the ban anyway, went to Cuba and played chess. If memory serves
me right GM Evans was one of the chessplayers.

Didn't fischer telegraph his moves in this tournament or was it
another?

On Aug 29, 8:47 am, Rob wrote:
On Aug 29, 8:18 am, LiamToo wrote:

On Aug 28, 12:59 pm, "David Kane" wrote:

I'm not sure what you are talking about so you'll have to fill in the details
for me (as well as explain their relevance, if any). Were the chessplayers
warned by the state department prior to going to Cuba?

Yes, but that was long time ago in 1964. You may not remember it but
the State Department issued an order to ban all travels to Cuba.

It was during the 1964 Capablanca Memorial that American chessplayers
defied the ban anyway, went to Cuba and played chess. If memory serves
me right GM Evans was one of the chessplayers.

Didn't fischer telegraph his moves in this tournament or was it
another?

It was in the 4th Capablanca Memorial in August 1965. Fischer played
through a teletype machine at the Marshall Chess Club.

"LiamToo" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Aug 28, 12:59 pm, "David Kane" wrote:
I'm not sure what you are talking about so you'll have to fill in the details
for me (as well as explain their relevance, if any). Were the chessplayers
warned by the state department prior to going to Cuba?

Yes, but that was long time ago in 1964. You may not remember it but
the State Department issued an order to ban all travels to Cuba.

It was during the 1964 Capablanca Memorial that American chessplayers
defied the ban anyway, went to Cuba and played chess. If memory serves
me right GM Evans was one of the chessplayers.


I thought you might have been referring to that, but also wondered if you
had a more pertinent example. Back to the issue at hand,
prior to Fischer-Spassky II, Fischer received a communication from
the Treasury (not State, sorry) Department informing him that his activities
were in violation of the sanctions (thereby removing any uncertainty as
to whether the sanctions covered things such as chess matches, and removing
the " he was only playing chess" defense.) Fischer spat on the communication
and played the match, in knowing defiance of US (and international) law. Out
of curiosity, what possible legal theory could the US have applied if they
had decided *NOT* to indict him. Recall that the indictment occurred long
before his pro-9/11 comments, so the idea that this was politically motivated
is completely false.

I don't know much about the details of the Cuba case, but obviously they
are not comparable. Besides, isn't that the one where Fischer did *not* travel
to
Cuba, but played remotely? Obviously, the issue with Serbia was a pressing
one in the midst of a bloody conflict. For the Cuba case, this would have been
early
in the embargo and perhaps the US was still feeling out how exactly to
implement it. It seems quite in character for Larry Evans to exaggerate the
degree of defiance. I suspect the monetary amounts were nothing comparable
to Fischer-Spassky II, either.

You still have not established that there was anything irregular in the
US treatment of Fischer. As far as I can tell, the only main parties
guilty of acting in a grossly unprincipled fashion are Iceland and, of course,
Fischer himself.

Brennan proves himself incapable of doing anything more than he has done for
5 years - he can't address a topic without abuse and extensive lies, and he
can't talk chess. He has proved himself incapable of doing anything else,
and as usual, does what he does is the only way to get attention.

End of story! PI


"The Historian" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Aug 28, 7:29 pm, help bot wrote:
On Aug 28, 4:24 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

Interesting how the nearly-an-IM sees others as
"abuseniks" while at the same time being blinded
to his own antics, such as in that very post.
A bit vague! eh!? let's see corn-bot's examples...

Okay, how about this one (draws arrow pointing
to the text directly above). [Note that because of
extreme laziness, I did not research the millions
of other handy examples which may be found in
google archives, etc.]

In the old days I or Louis Blair would post these examples. All that
happened is that Innes would come up with new twists on his old
positions - such as the alleged Orwell "quotation" for which Innes has
never provided a source.

And how he quickly changes the subject when his
bluffs are called! A good poker player he would never
make.

A very good bridge player. Sometimes a very daring false lead... you
understand such things, corn-bot?

Bridge? Um, no. All I know about bridge is that
it is a card game and a team game, as opposed to
chess which is only a team game when you are a
kid playing "bughouse".

Don't be cute. Be accurate

Ah, you must have seen my picture in the pages
of Lard Ass magazine! Not quite a real contender,
I am nevertheless considered to be on parr with
another famous poster here when it comes to
looks. But I don't like to brag, because after all,
beauty is as beauty does (deep wisdom acquired
from watching the Mickey Mouse show on TV).

~ be on topic, though, brother, there is plenty
of corruption - and you and I only argue on what is paramount or
foremost
crap at any one time, eh?

No. That would seem to require perspective,
reflection. What you and I mainly do here is
*react* to what we find others have posted --
a mediocre job at best.

This entails messaging by others - I just played it in a few versions,
both
seemed prospective. Hardly any strong players write here any more, and
after
all, this is a chess newsgroup, so chess itself might dominate our
views,
otherwise you get the Brennanization of chess, which you don't need a
grey
beard and come from Vienna to analyse - I hope!

What exactly is the Brennanization of chess?

Beats me. It appears to mean "a person who criticizes His I-ness, One
and Only Self-determined God-appointed Protector of the Royal Game."

I mean, surely he has not attempted to bring
chess down to his (or Rob Mitchell's) own level?
You probably need to define your term, since it is
unlikely to appear at Wikipedia or dictionary.com.

Is it Old English, or Andean?

On Aug 29, 10:17 am, "David Kane" wrote:
"LiamToo" wrote in message

ups.com...

On Aug 28, 12:59 pm, "David Kane" wrote:
I'm not sure what you are talking about so you'll have to fill in the details
for me (as well as explain their relevance, if any). Were the chessplayers
warned by the state department prior to going to Cuba?

Yes, but that was long time ago in 1964. You may not remember it but
the State Department issued an order to ban all travels to Cuba.

It was during the 1964 Capablanca Memorial that American chessplayers
defied the ban anyway, went to Cuba and played chess. If memory serves
me right GM Evans was one of the chessplayers.

I thought you might have been referring to that, but also wondered if you
had a more pertinent example. Back to the issue at hand,
prior to Fischer-Spassky II, Fischer received a communication from
the Treasury (not State, sorry) Department informing him that his activities
were in violation of the sanctions (thereby removing any uncertainty as
to whether the sanctions covered things such as chess matches, and removing
the " he was only playing chess" defense.) Fischer spat on the communication
and played the match, in knowing defiance of US (and international) law. Out
of curiosity, what possible legal theory could the US have applied if they
had decided *NOT* to indict him. Recall that the indictment occurred long
before his pro-9/11 comments, so the idea that this was politically motivated
is completely false.

I don't know much about the details of the Cuba case, but obviously they
are not comparable. Besides, isn't that the one where Fischer did *not* travel
to
Cuba, but played remotely? Obviously, the issue with Serbia was a pressing
one in the midst of a bloody conflict. For the Cuba case, this would have been
early
in the embargo and perhaps the US was still feeling out how exactly to
implement it. It seems quite in character for Larry Evans to exaggerate the
degree of defiance. I suspect the monetary amounts were nothing comparable
to Fischer-Spassky II, either.

You still have not established that there was anything irregular in the
US treatment of Fischer. As far as I can tell, the only main parties
guilty of acting in a grossly unprincipled fashion are Iceland and, of course,
Fischer himself.

There's nothing to establish as the US Treasury Dept never had a case.
Executive Orders are tantamount to nothing. Have you ever heard anyone
going to jail in defiance of an EO?

It the Treasury Dept had a case, they would have initiated an
injunction to extradite Fischer when they had him in Tokyo. They
didn't, all they had was a measly expiration of a passport, which was
done on purpose, just to aggravate Fischer.

"LiamToo" wrote in message
oups.com...

There's nothing to establish as the US Treasury Dept never had a case.
Executive Orders are tantamount to nothing. Have you ever heard anyone
going to jail in defiance of an EO?

It the Treasury Dept had a case, they would have initiated an
injunction to extradite Fischer when they had him in Tokyo. They
didn't, all they had was a measly expiration of a passport, which was
done on purpose, just to aggravate Fischer.

That is much to the point of what I asked Senator Gravel's press secretary
yesterday, to wit: what is the Senator's understanding of the exact charges
extant against Fischer? I only assume the EO to be contentious in terms of
process, but have no special legal knowledge of them.

I asked the Senator if he would like to go on the record in an interview to
directly state his own understanding of (a) what the charges are
specifically, and (b) his assessment of such charges within US law [if
'charges' are the same as indictments, or if indeed such charges if unmet
would automatically make Fischer a fugitive from justice, as seemed to be
the real issue in Japan] - therefore, of Fischer's status as a free citizen.

The Senator was out-of-State when I called, but if he wishes to amplify what
he has already said, I assume he will accept the invitation, and I will keep
the issue as simple as possible by limiting the issue to much as Liam has
written above.

Personally, I don't know the answers, and much like any legislation, I don't
know if by an EO the contention of a crime committed must need be
established before a court, whereas I presume Fischer /would/ need to
contest it as a litigant in his own defence in order to maintain an
unencumbered citizenship. I assume that if Fischer actually wished to do so,
he can argue by proxy [via an attorney].

In terms of other views expressed on this subject - does anyone know more
about EOs than Liam has stated, ie, they are special and anomalous [since
they are, de facto, not part of the normal law of the land] and what any
process is to challenge them?

I suppose an additional question to the Senator will be; on whose part lies
the burden of proof? Fischer or the Attorney General, who I further assume,
would be the prosecutor.

Phil Innes

IS BOBBY FISCHER A CRIMINAL?

In an prize-winning article for the Ft. Lauderdale News in 1992 GM
Larry Evans and Larry Parr discussed the indictment of Bobby Fischer,
raising the issue of whether it was a criminal act for an American
citizen to play chess for money in Yugoslavia. "Did Bobby commit a
criminal act when he pushed his king's pawn two squares against Boris
Spassky (who is not being prosecuted by France)?" ask the authors.
"Did Bobby become a gangster when he played 7.b4 in game 11? Arguably,
he acted illegally when he violated an executive order signed by
President Bush. An executive order? Not a law passed by Congress?
That's right. The American Leviathan state now has provisions for
locking up people who won't obey the stroke of a president's pen and,
perhaps even worse, who injure the egos of Washington bigwigs by
spitting on their orders."

In 1964 GM Evans enraged the right wing by defying a State Department
ban on Cuba and competing in the Capablanca Memorial. In 1981 Evans
enraged the left wing by lecturing on chess in South Africa. There are
always people who would allow the government to stifle our basic right
to travel anywhere in peacetime.

In the 1950s conservative senator John Bricker (R. Ohio) introduced an
amendment to make the US Constitution the supreme law of the land in
all instances. The amendment failed by one vote, defeated by a
coalition of "moderate" Republicans and liberal Democrats.

So isn't the Constitution now the supreme law of the land? "No," reply
Evans and Parr, "the Supreme Court ruled that U.S. obligations under
international treaties take precedence over rights guaranteed to
citizens in the Bill of Rights. Bobby Fischer won 10 games, lost 5,
drew 15, and got paid a little over $100,000 for each of those games.
Now we are suddenly told that he is a criminal even though his actions
produced no direct victim. He killed no one and injured no
identifiable individual; he just played chess. Except in the most
compelling circumstances, the authors do not believe in punishing
people for victimless crimes."

"Where and how to play chess should be left to the individual
conscience. Our conscience would not permit us to play chess in the
Yugoslavia of ethnic cleansers; Bobby's conscience, assuming that he
has one, permits him to take money from evil men who do evil things.
Bobby may not be a man whose hand you would shake. But he is not a
criminal."






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

There's nothing to establish as the US Treasury Dept never had a case.
Executive Orders are tantamount to nothing. Have you ever heard anyone
going to jail in defiance of an EO?

It the Treasury Dept had a case, they would have initiated an
injunction to extradite Fischer when they had him in Tokyo. They
didn't, all they had was a measly expiration of a passport, which was
done on purpose, just to aggravate Fischer.

That is much to the point of what I asked Senator Gravel's press secretary
yesterday, to wit: what is the Senator's understanding of the exact charges
extant against Fischer? I only assume the EO to be contentious in terms of
process, but have no special legal knowledge of them.

I asked the Senator if he would like to go on the record in an interview to
directly state his own understanding of (a) what the charges are
specifically, and (b) his assessment of such charges within US law [if
'charges' are the same as indictments, or if indeed such charges if unmet
would automatically make Fischer a fugitive from justice, as seemed to be
the real issue in Japan] - therefore, of Fischer's status as a free citizen.

The Senator was out-of-State when I called, but if he wishes to amplify what
he has already said, I assume he will accept the invitation, and I will keep
the issue as simple as possible by limiting the issue to much as Liam has
written above.

Personally, I don't know the answers, and much like any legislation, I don't
know if by an EO the contention of a crime committed must need be
established before a court, whereas I presume Fischer /would/ need to
contest it as a litigant in his own defence in order to maintain an
unencumbered citizenship. I assume that if Fischer actually wished to do so,
he can argue by proxy [via an attorney].

In terms of other views expressed on this subject - does anyone know more
about EOs than Liam has stated, ie, they are special and anomalous [since
they are, de facto, not part of the normal law of the land] and what any
process is to challenge them?

I suppose an additional question to the Senator will be; on whose part lies
the burden of proof? Fischer or the Attorney General, who I further assume,
would be the prosecutor.

Phil Innes

"LiamToo" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Aug 29, 10:17 am, "David Kane" wrote:
"LiamToo" wrote in message

ups.com...

On Aug 28, 12:59 pm, "David Kane" wrote:
I'm not sure what you are talking about so you'll have to fill in the
details
for me (as well as explain their relevance, if any). Were the chessplayers
warned by the state department prior to going to Cuba?

Yes, but that was long time ago in 1964. You may not remember it but
the State Department issued an order to ban all travels to Cuba.

It was during the 1964 Capablanca Memorial that American chessplayers
defied the ban anyway, went to Cuba and played chess. If memory serves
me right GM Evans was one of the chessplayers.

I thought you might have been referring to that, but also wondered if you
had a more pertinent example. Back to the issue at hand,
prior to Fischer-Spassky II, Fischer received a communication from
the Treasury (not State, sorry) Department informing him that his activities
were in violation of the sanctions (thereby removing any uncertainty as
to whether the sanctions covered things such as chess matches, and removing
the " he was only playing chess" defense.) Fischer spat on the communication
and played the match, in knowing defiance of US (and international) law. Out
of curiosity, what possible legal theory could the US have applied if they
had decided *NOT* to indict him. Recall that the indictment occurred long
before his pro-9/11 comments, so the idea that this was politically motivated
is completely false.

I don't know much about the details of the Cuba case, but obviously they
are not comparable. Besides, isn't that the one where Fischer did *not*
travel
to
Cuba, but played remotely? Obviously, the issue with Serbia was a pressing
one in the midst of a bloody conflict. For the Cuba case, this would have
been
early
in the embargo and perhaps the US was still feeling out how exactly to
implement it. It seems quite in character for Larry Evans to exaggerate the
degree of defiance. I suspect the monetary amounts were nothing comparable
to Fischer-Spassky II, either.

You still have not established that there was anything irregular in the
US treatment of Fischer. As far as I can tell, the only main parties
guilty of acting in a grossly unprincipled fashion are Iceland and, of
course,
Fischer himself.

There's nothing to establish as the US Treasury Dept never had a case.
Executive Orders are tantamount to nothing. Have you ever heard anyone
going to jail in defiance of an EO?

Yes. I gave one very famous example in reply to Sam Sloan's
query. John Walker Lindh was in violation of Clinton EO
concerning the Taliban. Lindh had very creative lawyers, but
they did not challenge the legality of the EO. In what way are
laws stemming from Executive Orders any different from
any other laws? As far as I can tell, the majority of economic
sanctions are implemented via EOs. It's perfectly routine.


It the Treasury Dept had a case, they would have initiated an
injunction to extradite Fischer when they had him in Tokyo. They
didn't, all they had was a measly expiration of a passport, which was
done on purpose, just to aggravate Fischer.


No. Fischer's indictment was for a crime not covered in the US-Japan
extradition treaty. Extradition treaties cover specifically-named
offenses and Fischer's was not included.

Rather than shield yourself from the basic facts, why not
take a stab at coming to grips with them?