On Apr 28, 8:03 pm, "David Kane" wrote:

I will just repeat that you seem unaware of the actual facts
surrounding the match. You cannot rely on Evans for
unbiased information. Evans is the classic USCF
apparatchik. When the Chess Life "bosses" demand
cold war rhetoric - he complies. Say or write anything
to maintain lifetime employment, that's the ticket.

I'm not nominating Karpov for sainthood -
the Soviets displayed horrendous sportsmanship
(as did Korchnoi) and he was certainly part of it.

What you refer to as "cold war rhetoric" I view as the simple facts.

Even today, evil bullies like Kim Jong Il in North Korea, Hu Jintao in
Red China, or Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, continue to stunt the lives
of millions. It isn't dishonest to say that where these people belong
is behind bars, so that the people of their countries could be happy
and free like Americans are.

Posting from Google Groups, ironically, I have for the past few weeks
seen as a "related link" a news item about Karpov choosing to visit
Cuba to help promote chess there.

From September 1, 1939 to June 4, 1989 was nearly 50 years. This is a
very large hole in the lifetime of a human individual, so even those
people in Poland who did not perish as a result of World War II and
the Communist tyranny that followed Hitler's defeat, even those people
who did not die from natural causes during this long time, would not
really be able to simply proceed from the point at which Poland
regained its freedom to make up for all the missed opportunities they
suffered during this long time when Poland didn't enjoy peace,
prosperity, and freedom.

This shows how much human tragedy dictatorship can cause, so
dictatorship should not be allowed to exist. Virtually all the
problems in Poland during those 50 years can be traced to a few evil
men.

A few evil men, whether or not they live or lived in Indonesia,
presumably are also responsible for stirring up the popular sentiment
that has led to the evil, wicked, and abominable attack by a mob on an
Ahmadiyya mosque in Indonesia that I heard of in yesterday's news.
Muslims who think that they are justified in raising their hands in
force against peaceful people simply because those people have beliefs
different from theirs - clearly are travelling down the same road of
insanity that led to the events of September 11, 2001.

It is true, therefore, that sometimes there are people who are not
ready for democracy, since they would not freely choose to fully
respect minority rights.

If we are to avoid both dictatorships on the one hand, and mob rule
that disrespects minority rights on the other hand, then we have two
admissible forms of government. Where the people are prosperous and
educated enough to respect minority rights, democracy. Where they are
not, colonial rule from a democracy, until the necessary cultural and
educational level is achieved.

Of course, this won't solve all the world's problems, just the
unnecessary ones artificially created by a few evil men, and added to
the big problems we unavoidably face.

How do we guarantee that every child has enough to eat?

How do we guarantee that every little boy, of normal or greater
intelligence, who is willing to pay attention in school, will be able,
when he grows up, to find a job that pays well enough to allow him to
marry and start a family?

How do we guarantee that every child will be able, if his or her
intelligence is sufficient, to attend college, without the necessity
of learning a second language if it would not be directly relevant to
his or her chosen field of study?

While it is true that dictators and terrorists make these problems
worse, even without this exacerbation, these are problems the solution
of which is dependent on available resources.

For someone to become a particle physicist or electronics engineer who
can't hold a conversation in any language other than English is
perfectly commonplace these days. But for the principle of universal
equality of all individuals, regardless of their ethnic background, to
apply, this must become equally possible if one substitutes "Hawaiian"
or "Basque" or "Inuktitut" or "Yi" or "Tibetan" or "Arunta" or even
"Malayalam" or "Armenian" for English above.

This would require the relevant linguistic communities to expand in
size, so that they could support the necessary infrastructure for a
diverse economy which could, within itself, without excessive levels
of dependency on external sources, provide every kind of employment
opportunity, particularly including those at the highest levels.

So, if in the English-speaking world, you can join Intel, and help
design the next generation of the Streaming SIMD extensions for use in
x86 processors, in the Armenian-speaking world, you could join another
company that designed from scratch the architecture of the equally
powerful microprocessors used there. Or you could work for the company
that wrote the most popular commercial operating system for computers
using these microprocessors.

How do we have the smallest ethnic groups grow to be big enough so
their communities have parity with the United States, so that each of
them can have their own Sibelius and their own Verdi and their own
George Lucas... and also ensure that the world can grow enough food so
that everyone has enough to eat, even with them all eating as well as
Americans do?

There's another good reason for getting rid of dictators and
terrorists. To increase material production so vastly, without
destroying the world, we will need to use sources of energy that don't
spew vast amounts of greenhouse gases, particulates, and poisons into
the air. And they will have to provide unconstrained quantities of
energy, so warm and fuzzy solar, geothermal, and wind power, even if
they can help, aren't going to be enough by themselves. With current
technology, this means nuclear power.

Also, we will need to send a few people into space to establish
colonies there, so that habitats can be built from the asteroids and
fertilizer obtained from the comets of the Kuiper Belt

John Savard

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...
On Apr 28, 8:03 pm, "David Kane" wrote:

I will just repeat that you seem unaware of the actual facts
surrounding the match. You cannot rely on Evans for
unbiased information. Evans is the classic USCF
apparatchik. When the Chess Life "bosses" demand
cold war rhetoric - he complies. Say or write anything
to maintain lifetime employment, that's the ticket.

I'm not nominating Karpov for sainthood -
the Soviets displayed horrendous sportsmanship
(as did Korchnoi) and he was certainly part of it.

What you refer to as "cold war rhetoric" I view as the simple facts.

That's your mistake right there. Judgements derived from false
premises will also be false.

In article ,
wrote:
As I recall from Achieving the Aim (though I don't have it on hand
to be sure), Botvinnik did want the rematch clause as early as 1948,
but he did not get it until the mid-1950s. There is also the matter of
the regulation adopted in the late 1950s, limiting the number of
qualifiers from the Interzonal to the Candidates, for any one country.
This seemingly impartial rule really applied in fact only to Soviet
players (e.g. Stein), thus limiting the number of serious challengers
Botvinnik might face.

Most of us thought it was an attempt to limit the amount of
collusion that could take place. It seems hard to argue that a
player who is not [based on results in the previous Candidates and
Interzonal] among the top six [WC, top 2 from prev Candidates, 3
qualifiers from IZ] in his own country could have been a more
serious challenger to Botvinnik than Petrosian [or Keres, Geller,
Tal (when fit), Korchnoi, Spassky, ...]. It's at least as arguable
that the effect was to give high-level opportunities to players of
other countries, thus reducing Soviet dominance.

Of course, one feels sorry at the personal level for
[Bron]Stein, who were deprived of CT places by the rule, but I
don't think there's a serious claim that either was likely to
become WC in 1963 or 1966.

[...] Until 1971, I think there was still a
respectable point of view that Larsen had done more to break the
Soviet hegemony than anyone else,
I would agree that a good case could be made for Larsen as "#1
Western Player" (to use Chess Review's phrase) circa 1965-1970. But I
would not say that Larsen had done anything to "break the Soviet
hegemony." He never beat any Soviet player in any Candidates Match, as
far as I can find in my references.

Having lost narrowly to Tal [+2 -3 =5] in 1965, he beat Geller
[+3 -2 =4] in the 3rd-place play-off. In 1968-69, he was smashed by
Spassky [on his way to the WC], but then equally smashed Tal, again
in the 3rd-place play-off. That's not a *bad* record! Better than
Fischer prior to 1971 .... He had a decent record in tournaments
in that time, too.

In making my point, I was defining "serious challenger" as
qualifying for the FIDE Candidates stage.

OK, but I specifically made it clear that I was referring
rather to competing on equal terms with the top Soviet players.
Fischer was *expecting* to do so in 1962, but was badly beaten by
Benko and Geller early on and never recovered.

I never have been able to buy the argument that Soviet cheating was
OK because they would have won anyway without it. Surely you're not
saying that?
"Soviet cheating" is a rather provocative way of describing
things!
No, just recognizing the facts.

Seems to me to be pre-judging your claims. The actions that
you describe as "cheating" seem to be normal tournament practice to
others [eg Benko]. If it's merely a matter of "holier than thou",
then "cheating" is too strong a word. It's also provocative to
describe actions as *Soviet* cheating when indulged in by individuals
rather than by the state; it would be a surprise if any country has
a monopoly in players who manipulate or bribe to secure titles or
ratings, or who solicit help during play, or whatever.

--
Andy Walker
Nottingham

On Apr 29, 9:48 pm, (Andy Walker) wrote:

wrote:

As I recall from Achieving the Aim (though I don't have it on hand
to be sure), Botvinnik did want the rematch clause as early as 1948,
but he did not get it until the mid-1950s. There is also the matter of
the regulation adopted in the late 1950s, limiting the number of
qualifiers from the Interzonal to the Candidates, for any one country.
This seemingly impartial rule really applied in fact only to Soviet
players (e.g. Stein), thus limiting the number of serious challengers
Botvinnik might face.


It appears that Mr. Kingston is straining to somehow
vilify Mr. Botvinnik. In reality, a reigning champion is
faced by a relative few (one?), regardless of such
special rules. The people most likely to benefit could
very well be the lucky candidates-- those who slip past
the special rule's limitation and continue on normally;
or is it the non-Soviet contenders, who will no longer
need to worry about those players who were thereby
eliminated? Each powerful player thus eliminated
improves the odds of every other contender for the
crown.


Most of us thought it was an attempt to limit the amount of
collusion that could take place.


That would be the switch from candidates tourneys
to candidates *matches*.


In making my point, I was defining "serious challenger" as
qualifying for the FIDE Candidates stage.

OK, but I specifically made it clear that I was referring
rather to competing on equal terms with the top Soviet players.
Fischer was *expecting* to do so in 1962, but was badly beaten by
Benko and Geller early on and never recovered.


Observant readers will note that whenever it suits his
fancy, Mr. Kingston will artificially restrict his "research"
to a small portion of the available data-- that portion
which appears to support his wobbly opinions.


Seems to me to be pre-judging your claims. The actions that
you describe as "cheating" seem to be normal tournament practice to
others [eg Benko]. If it's merely a matter of "holier than thou",
then "cheating" is too strong a word. It's also provocative to
describe actions as *Soviet* cheating when indulged in by individuals
rather than by the state; it would be a surprise if any country has
a monopoly in players who manipulate or bribe to secure titles or
ratings, or who solicit help during play, or whatever.


This was and still is all part and parcel of the Cold
War propaganda machine. The ploy is to associate
cheating with "Soviets" or "Russians", ignoring any
and all cases of cheating by everyone else.

Where I see a real problem regarding cheating by
by Russians, is that nobody can understand what
they are saying to one another in *American*
tourneys. They could be saying: "after I crush this
American patzer, let's go to Taco Bell; I love their
burritos". Or, they could be saying: "After I sac'
on h3, I will have King, Bishop and Knight-- an
elementary win I learned back in Moscow when I
was seven or eight".


-- help bot

On Apr 29, 9:41*pm, help bot wrote:

* Where I see a real problem regarding cheating by
by Russians, is that nobody can understand what
they are saying to one another in *American*
tourneys.

Fortunately, the United States of America is a diverse country, and
some of the Americans attending chess events in the U.S. might well be
of Russian ancestry, and understand the language, but have no love for
the Soviet system.

John Savard

On Apr 30, 4:20 pm, Quadibloc wrote:

Where I see a real problem regarding cheating by
by Russians, is that nobody can understand what
they are saying to one another in *American*
tourneys.

Fortunately, the United States of America is a diverse country, and
some of the Americans attending chess events in the U.S. might well be
of Russian ancestry, and understand the language, but have no love for
the Soviet system.


I think you are imagining one of those huge
tourneys out East, like say, the World Open.
In that case, rampant cheating or talking
amongst players is just a part of the way BG
mis-organizes his tourneys.

I was thinking of tourneys I have attended
more-or-less locally, where there might be
just two Russian-speaking players, who, if
conditions allowed, could talk with one
another during play, just as everyone else
does, but in English.

In my scenario, the fact that there are two
Russian players already signals trouble for
the locals, who may well not be as strong at
chess. If you add in the possibility to speak
about the game right in front of eye-witnesses,
this could give certain folks an even bigger
edge, since unlike our "normal" cheaters,
they don't have to conspicuously leave the
playing hall each time.

Unlike the Cold War propagandists here in
rgc, I don't pretend that cheating is just a
"Russian" phenomenon. As far as I know, I
have never been cheated by a Russian-
speaking player, but I certainly have -- many
times -- by English-speaking Americans. A
few examples:

1) Tweaked chess clock

2) Changing the position on the board

3) Consulting other players

4) Distraction and annoyance

5) Changing the rules to suit



-- help bot