Of course, I always imagine what I would personally ask Fischer if there was
some sort of interview situation. I imagine, Larry, you have done the same.

In chessic matters I asked Taimanov what /he/ would ask, if he had only one
question - and of course that artist asked after game 3. Ha!
During those 70 minutes, what had been going through Fischer's mind, if
Qh3!!?

Later I said MT that to my mind this was the most complex position and
conundrum in chess evolved in the entire C20th of chess - did he think so
too [parenthetically that no super-computer solved it, neither did Garry
Kasparov] - though Taimanov solved it! It took him 20 years, but...

He did not disagree

---

Anyway, to the polity here.

Who among us would take Fischer at his word?
He said famously; nevermind psychology, that he believed in pawns.

Did he think that playing chess was apolitical? More than that, that it was
somehow a constructive idea in the middle of nations engaged in real
conflict, to conduct a ritual conflict, that that was some cultural means to
interdict the slaughter? I wonder no one ever asked him that one.

I would ask him that, Larry.
For sure I would ask him Taimanov's question too.

---

I will say one more thing. That it Fischer mouthed off to me about Jews I
would probably smack him in his big mouth. Its hard for me to think I would
do otherwise, since I had a friend from a camp, and I saw what it had done
to her. Too frightening to say here - really, grown men shrink from really
looking at this sort of material, which is...

okay, I let it go... its not something for newsgroups and 'ideas'

---

Like you, Larry, I doubt I would like R. J. Fischer in his current
manifestation - and though my conceit is to say I understand his confusion
as a 'great' in his role, in contradistinction to his person, I doubt the
strength of my emotion would inhibit me from laying the guy out flat.

Though this discussion has not to do with if I do or would like him, it has
to do with that great American principal of spiritual largesse, that a man
should hold his own views freely, otherwise what happens in society is
merely coercied, not from real consent. Even if the views are juvenile, or
as result of injury, confusion, et cetera, and even if they are abusive of
others.

That is an almost uniquely American proposition, [and only 'almost' since it
is at best periodic elsewhere].

As Max Euwe said about Alekhine; "My humanity is my revenge."

Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas, said Vergil, "happy is he who
has been able to penetrate into the causes of things". And how should we all
be true to ourselves, of our own obiter dictai, should we profess this heart
of religious [not of religions, religious] sentiment, an orbiter scriptum
corda; yet we judge?

The least we may say is if we have been tested. That fact tends to do away
with judgment altogether, since then we are modest of our prowesses, eh?

Perhaps the Muslims say it better, or more directly. As their sage wrote [of
the Koran]:

God is Merciful, the rest is commentary.

Cordially, Phil Innes





wrote in message
oups.com...
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

On Aug 29, 6:20 am, The Historian wrote:

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.

I recently read Josh Waitzkin going on and on about
some Bobby Fischer book, as if it set the gold standard
by which others could be measured. This reminded me
of the infamous IM Innes quote, in that many others are
summarily dismissed in a way that simply boggles the
mind.

Of course, the book in question was rather lightweight,
covering as it did a paltry sixty games and even missing
by far the best part of the man's chess career. Even
GM Botvinnik managed to do a hundred games, and
some surpassed that by a wide margin, with larger
pages and so forth. A few notables are GM Tal's thick
autobiography, GM Alekhine's fat best games, and yes,
even GM Nimzowitch (a stylistically sick man) and his
famous works.



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."

But that relates only to IM Innes himself, and did he
not say the Brennanization of *chess*? It is important
to realize that chess and IM Innes are not one and the
same entity, at least in the real world.



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?

The ignoranti at Wikipedia do not yet recognize the
legitimacy of the Andean language, while they do seem
to understand that old English existed, but not that it
has morphed (not gone extinct, like the do-do bird) into
middle and later, modern English. This reminds me of
how, for years, the dinosaurs were considered to have
suddenly died off entirely, but more recently the self-
described "scientists" changed their minds, wanting
now to believe (religiously?) that birds are their direct
descendants! Now what sort of "science" is this, that
allows whim and fancy to dictate the state of fashion-
able beliefs in its great halls? I thought "science" was
the polar opposite of such a shallow approach.


-- help bot

On Aug 29, 4:38 pm, help bot wrote:

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."

But that relates only to IM Innes himself, and did he
not say the Brennanization of *chess*? It is important
to realize that chess and IM Innes are not one and the
same entity, at least in the real world.

Yes, and those of us who are sane realize this fact. However, His I-
ness is a nutter obsessed with my person.

On Aug 29, 10:30 pm, The Historian
wrote:

But that relates only to IM Innes himself, and did he
not say the Brennanization of *chess*? It is important
to realize that chess and IM Innes are not one and the
same entity, at least in the real world.

Yes, and those of us who are sane realize this fact. However, His I-
ness is a nutter obsessed with my person.


It's too bad you're not one of those media celebrities,
like say Paris Hilton or Gary Kasparov. Being obsessed
with a little-known local chess player just falls short; for
instance, were IM Innes to ever write a book about his
endless stalking of you, nobody would buy it; but had
he stalked a famous celebrity, like say, Bobby Fischer,
it could potentially become a best-seller.

As for being "a nutter", let me just note that on the
Web site ChessWorld.com, if you search for IM Innes
you will find that beside his name there is a flag which
identifies his country, and strangely enough, he seems
to believe that the state of Vermont is somewhere in the
British Isles... .


-- help bot