GREG KENNEDY'S BIG LIE

GK's handling of his private world title had selected
GM Shirov as challenger, but instead of, say, giving
GK a rematch clause, Mr. Shirov was simply cheated
out of his shot at the title altogether! ....Instead of arguing
that Gary Kasparov was a champion of "justice", perhaps
Larry Evans should take a good, hard look at what justice
is -- like he did when Bobby Fischer was barking "demands"
at FIDE. -- help bot

GM Larry Evans has been an objective observer of the chess scene for
decades, yet Greg Kennedy's big lie is that the 5-time U.S. champion
is in Kasparov's pocket -- even though he has been critical of
Kasparov on numerous occasions. I realize that setting the record
straight won't do much good when it comes to the "bots" of this world
because they will just continue inventing new lies

EVANS ON CHESS (Best Question, September 1999)

Answer to a reader who said he was "absolutely disgusted" with the way
"Alexei Shirov got shafted after he was promised a title match."

GM EVANS RESPONDED

I couldn't agree with you more. In my syndicated column (A Debt Of
Honor) I noted: A planned match with Shirov collapsed because backers
got cold feet, fearing the contest might be too one-sided.
Nonetheless, many critics feel that Kasparov is honor-bound to give
Shirov a shot at the title first.

1. In 1998 Kasparov organized a match between Shirov and Kramnik,
pledging to play the winner for $2 million.

2. Shirov won -- but only Kramnik got paid.

3. Kasparov has a debt of sporting honor to see that Shirov is fully
compensated and to face him under terms initially paraded by his
defunct World Chess Countil." Kasparov's retaining draw odds is unfair
to Anand and horribly distorted their 1995 tilt which began with eight
straight draws.

In a match of limited duration, each draw inches the champion closer
to victory. Do fans really want that?







As a follow-up, here is SHIROV'S SAD SAGA (Chess Life, April 2000,
page 16).

EVANS ON CHESS

From: Owen Williams (Worldwide Agent for Garry Kasparov, Palm Beach,
Florida)

Q. I decided it was time to answer your oft-repeated line about
"Kasparov's shabby treatment of challenger Alexei Shirov."

The World Chess Council (WCC) under its Chairman and Founder, Luis
Rentero, agreed to put up $2.1 million for a title match plus another
$100,000 for the loser in Kramnik vs. Shirov after Anand withdrew in
1998. Rentero then arbitrarily announced this $100,000 would have to
be deducted from the $2.1 million. In retrospect, it was an early
indication as to how things would be run! The glue began to come
unstuck and as soon as we heard rumors and questioned Rentero, he told
all of us "my word is my bond" and "if necessary I pay the prize money
myself." Coupled with this was a continuous "Trust Me" and another
constant refrain was "the Government will approve the signing this
week."

Garry and I discussed going public but you can imagine the hullabaloo
that would have ensued with him blamed for pulling the plug
prematurely. We started to scramble. I personally made half a dozen
transatlantic trips and spent enough time and dollars to make my case.
Rentero finally ran out of ideas and we were left with no
alternatives. The match backing disappeared and soon thereafter
tragedy struck in the form of a life-threatening auto accident for
Rentero. Garry retains a healthy respect for what he did for chess in
Linares over the years, but Rentero's foray into bigger things was an
unmitigated disaster of his own making.

Eventually a businessman in California agreed to put up $600,000 in
cash plus full airfares and hotel for each player at a value of
$50,000 each. We went to Shirov and he refused. Dr. William Wirth (a
notable chess sponsor and patron himself) agreed to top up the prize
with a further $200,000 of his own money. Shirov said "no." He
repeated to me that there was an offer from Tarrasa near Barcelona,
where he was living at the time for 225 million pesetas (about $1.6
million). The hope of the Catalonian offer was, I believe, the real
reason why Shirov turned down our $800,000 offer. He has since tried
to say that it was not in writing, but the truth is he said "no" so
firmly that we never had time to confirm it in writing.

Meanwhile we kept going from Southern Africa to the Far East without
success while waiting for Tarrasa. My file is full of many Shirov e-
mails saying, "there is a very important meeting next week, and you
will get an offer right away." It never happened. By Christmas of '98
we received no answers and I discovered Shirov had moved from that
area. That, from my viewpoint, was the end of the Tarrasa non-offer.

Now let's come to the interesting question -- why is it so fashionable
to blame Kasparov? He has been World Champion since 1985. He has been
Number 1 on all ratings systems for a decade and more. There is a
general perception that he pulls every string in every deal from start
to finish and he has made the sort of enemies who will make up
stories if they can't find evidence of wrongdoing. LET'S FACE IT.
GARRY WAS THE MOST HARMED PLAYER IN THIS WHOLE FIASCO AND HERE'S WHY:

[The next five points made by Owen Williams are snipped but can be
read by anyone with access to back issues of Chess Life who is
interested in the subject.]

LARRY EVANS' RESPONSE

Mr. Williams, you know where I stand on the major issues swirling
around Kasparov. I believe he is the "real" champion. I believe he is
the strongest player in the world. I believe he is NOT trying to duck
anyone.

I already know the hard facts you outlined about l'affaire Shirov,
though not the lengths to which you endeavored to arrange such a
match. From what you wrote, it is obvious Kasparov felt either a moral
or legal responsibility (perhaps both) to make enormous good-faith
efforts to arrange a match with Shirov under a sanctioning
organization that was clearly his vehicle. Fine. I have no problem
with this because, if nothing else, it was less corrupt than FIDE.

Now we come to the crux of the matter. Despite good-faith efforts and
even the challenger's apparent folly, Kasparov is not absolved from
his pledge to give Shirov a title shot for $2 million as announced to
the world at Linares in 1998. Kasparov put his trust in a person who
proved unreliable, but he also put his credibility and prestige behind
the WCC (which went the way of his GMA and PCA). These facts can't be
evaded. It turned out, perhaps, that he unwittingly treated himself
more shabbily than he did Shirov.

I still believe Kasparov has a debt of sporting honor to play Shirov.
If he should do so, you can rely on me to celebrate in bold type and
capital letters. As it stands, however, Shirov never got paid for
beating Kramnik or a title shot -- both are Kasparov's obligation.

I accept your account, though Shirov might take issue with it. After
all, if I had beaten someone eight times and drawn seven out of a
total of 15 games (recent results over a short period) and if I could
arrange a match against the same opponent for big bucks, I would
certainly do so.

Until that happens I will continue to write that Kasparov has treated
Shirov shabbily, just as I will continue to opine that Kasparov
remains the only true champion who is NOT cosseted by playing in elite
events against very strong opponents. (Also see my Best Question in
September 1999).

wrote:

GM Larry Evans has been an objective observer of the chess scene for
decades

In fact, Larry Evans is the most biased "observer"
I know; his spin-zone reminds me of the "fair and
balanced" Fox News channel on TV.


EVANS ON CHESS (Best Question, September 1999)

Answer to a reader who said he was "absolutely disgusted" with the way
"Alexei Shirov got shafted after he was promised a title match."

GM EVANS RESPONDED

I couldn't agree with you more. In my syndicated column (A Debt Of
Honor) I noted: A planned match with Shirov collapsed because backers
got cold feet, fearing the contest might be too one-sided.
Nonetheless, many critics feel that Kasparov is honor-bound to give
Shirov a shot at the title first.

1. In 1998 Kasparov organized a match between Shirov and Kramnik,
pledging to play the winner for $2 million.

2. Shirov won -- but only Kramnik got paid.

3. Kasparov has a debt of sporting honor to see that Shirov is fully
compensated and to face him under terms initially paraded by his
defunct World Chess Countil." Kasparov's retaining draw odds is unfair
to Anand and horribly distorted their 1995 tilt which began with eight
straight draws.


I was a subscriber to Chess Lies at the time that
article appeared. Having become well accustomed to
the "huge bias" (IM John Watson, et al) of Mr. Evans,
I took the article as a token puff-piece-- not anything
like what one would expect if, say, FIDE or Anatoly
Karpov or any of the other, usual whipping boys had
done precisely the same thing.

You see, when FIDE messes up -- and it quite often
does -- Mr. Evans has a cow. He will rant and rave
about the "injustice" or whatever until the day he dies,
guaranteed. Yet when one of his faves -- here, Gary
Kasparov -- blunders, all we can expect from the
hugely biased five-time U.S. Champ is a scolding,
and then silence. It is a double-standard to be sure,
but then, that seems to be the only kind of standard
Mr. Evans knows.

So you see, the fact that Mr. Evans wanted "to be
seen" as having come out in support of Mr. Shirov
does not impress. LE's scolding had no effect, and I
don't mean just on the cheating of Mr. Shirov, but on
his overall favoritism with regard to Mr. Kasparov.

The reason is obvious: supporting GK is conducive
to Larry Evan's FIDE-bashing agenda. That agenda
is so important to LE that he cannot afford to side
with "justice", no matter what it might happen to be.

I couldn't help bot notice that Mr. Parr felt it might
help his ad hominem "cause" to switch threads; so
then, what was it that he was so worried about in
the original thread? I think I know: it was probably
the post in which LP presented Gary Kasparov as
a champion of "justice", who, much like Superman,
fights a never-ending battle for Truth, Justice, and
the Kasparov way.

The ploy /could have/ worked, but for making such
a titanic blunder in the area of casting. I cannot say
who is right for the role of champion of justice, but it
is painfully obvious that Gary Kasparov ain't it.


-- help bot

GREG'S BILE

Most of you probably noticed that among the
reasons Greg Kennedy attacked Larry Evans was that
the 5-time U.S. champion's "scolding" of Kasparov
for doublecrossing Shirov "had no effect."

Key-razy stuff from a very bitter man in Indiana.
That would also be a reason for attacking GM Evans
for pointing out Anatoly Karpov's depredations which
also "had no effect."

A few of you also likely caught the reference to
Evans' "puff piece." Greg has a tin ear. Evans was
answering a question from readers in his column,
including Kasparov's manager who took umbrage at
referring to his client's "shabby behavior."
..
That is not a "piece," as the term is commonly used in
journalism. It is an answer from a Q&A column.

Greg is right that GM Evans screamed louder over
several of Karpov's outrages, but that is because
GM Evans could and can distinguish among differing
wrongs, unlike the coulda-been-a-contendah guy who
is a nobody in chess and rarely has a good word to
say about anyone..

Kasparov cheated Shirov outrageously; Karpov played
matches against Korchnoi with the latter's family held
prisoner inside the USSR. On the eve of the second match
in 1981, Korchnoi's son was beaten in a Soviet slave camp --
an event that had a disastrous,though anticipated effect on
Korchnoi's morale.

Kasparov cheated and swerved and tergiversated; Karpov
was, and may remain, a prime Grade AAA bonded rat,
though in sheep's clothing these days.

GM Evans' answer in his Q&A column was strongly
worded and to the point, which is the way he always
answered questions when his views were definite.

In a separate posting I will present a long
COPYRIGHTED article I wrote at the World Chess
Network.It takes note of every sickening curve in
Kasparov's swerving on the Shirov match. It is rather
long and may seem a bit unrelenting to those of you
outside the "coulda been a contendah" bitterness of
our Greg, but it got the issue right -- an issue that
had permutations of which our detail-shy Greg is
blissfully unaware.

Including, I might add, a refutation of a
famous comment by Leo Durocher.

Yours, Larry Parr




help bot wrote:
wrote:

GM Larry Evans has been an objective observer of the chess scene for
decades

In fact, Larry Evans is the most biased "observer"
I know; his spin-zone reminds me of the "fair and
balanced" Fox News channel on TV.


EVANS ON CHESS (Best Question, September 1999)

Answer to a reader who said he was "absolutely disgusted" with the way
"Alexei Shirov got shafted after he was promised a title match."

GM EVANS RESPONDED

I couldn't agree with you more. In my syndicated column (A Debt Of
Honor) I noted: A planned match with Shirov collapsed because backers
got cold feet, fearing the contest might be too one-sided.
Nonetheless, many critics feel that Kasparov is honor-bound to give
Shirov a shot at the title first.

1. In 1998 Kasparov organized a match between Shirov and Kramnik,
pledging to play the winner for $2 million.

2. Shirov won -- but only Kramnik got paid.

3. Kasparov has a debt of sporting honor to see that Shirov is fully
compensated and to face him under terms initially paraded by his
defunct World Chess Countil." Kasparov's retaining draw odds is unfair
to Anand and horribly distorted their 1995 tilt which began with eight
straight draws.


I was a subscriber to Chess Lies at the time that
article appeared. Having become well accustomed to
the "huge bias" (IM John Watson, et al) of Mr. Evans,
I took the article as a token puff-piece-- not anything
like what one would expect if, say, FIDE or Anatoly
Karpov or any of the other, usual whipping boys had
done precisely the same thing.

You see, when FIDE messes up -- and it quite often
does -- Mr. Evans has a cow. He will rant and rave
about the "injustice" or whatever until the day he dies,
guaranteed. Yet when one of his faves -- here, Gary
Kasparov -- blunders, all we can expect from the
hugely biased five-time U.S. Champ is a scolding,
and then silence. It is a double-standard to be sure,
but then, that seems to be the only kind of standard
Mr. Evans knows.

So you see, the fact that Mr. Evans wanted "to be
seen" as having come out in support of Mr. Shirov
does not impress. LE's scolding had no effect, and I
don't mean just on the cheating of Mr. Shirov, but on
his overall favoritism with regard to Mr. Kasparov.

The reason is obvious: supporting GK is conducive
to Larry Evan's FIDE-bashing agenda. That agenda
is so important to LE that he cannot afford to side
with "justice", no matter what it might happen to be.

I couldn't help bot notice that Mr. Parr felt it might
help his ad hominem "cause" to switch threads; so
then, what was it that he was so worried about in
the original thread? I think I know: it was probably
the post in which LP presented Gary Kasparov as
a champion of "justice", who, much like Superman,
fights a never-ending battle for Truth, Justice, and
the Kasparov way.

The ploy /could have/ worked, but for making such
a titanic blunder in the area of casting. I cannot say
who is right for the role of champion of justice, but it
is painfully obvious that Gary Kasparov ain't it.


-- help bot

KARPOV'S SPORTING ETHICS

As far as I can tell, Karpov is the only World Champion
in the FIDE era to play a title defense with *no* advantage
(twice with Korchnoi, once vs. Kasparov) -- David Kane

How quickly we forget!

THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 100)

Korchnoi became the target of Soviet wrath when he defected in 1976.
First they tried to disqualify him from a title shot on the grounds
that he was stateless, but FIDE had the courage to declare that
challengers represented themselves as individuals, not their nations.
FIDE nonetheless bowed to Soviet pressure by forcing Korchnoi to
accept a rematch clause that FIDE had stricken in 1963.

Then the Soviet Union refused to release Korchnoi’s family and
objected to his playing under the flag of his new country,
Switzerland. During his 1978 title match, the Soviet press never
mentioned his name, referring to him only as "the challenger" or
"Karpov’s opponent."

Korchnoi squawked that the deck was stacked against him even in a
neutral country like the Philippines. Two members of his delegation
were denied entry to the auditorium, but a parapsychologist with
Karpov’s entourage was allowed to roam freely in the audience while
trying to hypnotize and unnerve Korchnoi. Try as he might, Korchnoi
could not get Dr. Zukhar removed. When Korchnoi appealed his loss in
the final game of the match on the grounds that the hypnotist had
broken an agreement by moving from the rear of the auditorium to the
fourth row while play was in progress, FIDE not only turned down the
appeal but went on to condemn the challenger for not conforming to
"the sporting ethics of chess and general social obligations."

The matter did not stop there. The Soviet Union suddenly pulled out
two of her players from the Nineteenth Lone Pine Open in America after
learning Korchnoi was competing. Other tournament organizers were
notified that if Korchnoi were invited, no Russians would come. His
name was conspicuously absent from the list of the world’s top ten
grandmasters in 1979 competing at the $110,000 Challenge Cup in
Montreal. Anatoly Karpov, who tied for first there with ex-titleholder
Mikhail Tal, had been able to wield his influence as world champion in
support of the party line,
cabling the organizers, "If I could not refuse to face Korchnoi at
Baguio, I am now entitled to expect organizers to respect certain
conditions. Either they invite Korchnoi or me."

Not all the Russians joined the offensive against the expatriate.
Spassky was one of three (but only three) Soviet grandmasters who
refused to sign a letter of censure against Korchnoi. (Botvinnik and
Bronstein were the other two holdouts.) Korchnoi’s son was imprisoned
in the USSR and beaten on the eve of his next title match with Karpov
in 1981. After Korchnoi lost, his family finally was released.





wrote:
GREG'S BILE

Most of you probably noticed that among the
reasons Greg Kennedy attacked Larry Evans was that
the 5-time U.S. champion's "scolding" of Kasparov
for doublecrossing Shirov "had no effect."

Key-razy stuff from a very bitter man in Indiana.
That would also be a reason for attacking GM Evans
for pointing out Anatoly Karpov's depredations which
also "had no effect."

A few of you also likely caught the reference to
Evans' "puff piece." Greg has a tin ear. Evans was
answering a question from readers in his column,
including Kasparov's manager who took umbrage at
referring to his client's "shabby behavior."
.
That is not a "piece," as the term is commonly used in
journalism. It is an answer from a Q&A column.

Greg is right that GM Evans screamed louder over
several of Karpov's outrages, but that is because
GM Evans could and can distinguish among differing
wrongs, unlike the coulda-been-a-contendah guy who
is a nobody in chess and rarely has a good word to
say about anyone..

Kasparov cheated Shirov outrageously; Karpov played
matches against Korchnoi with the latter's family held
prisoner inside the USSR. On the eve of the second match
in 1981, Korchnoi's son was beaten in a Soviet slave camp --
an event that had a disastrous,though anticipated effect on
Korchnoi's morale.

Kasparov cheated and swerved and tergiversated; Karpov
was, and may remain, a prime Grade AAA bonded rat,
though in sheep's clothing these days.

GM Evans' answer in his Q&A column was strongly
worded and to the point, which is the way he always
answered questions when his views were definite.

In a separate posting I will present a long
COPYRIGHTED article I wrote at the World Chess
Network.It takes note of every sickening curve in
Kasparov's swerving on the Shirov match. It is rather
long and may seem a bit unrelenting to those of you
outside the "coulda been a contendah" bitterness of
our Greg, but it got the issue right -- an issue that
had permutations of which our detail-shy Greg is
blissfully unaware.

Including, I might add, a refutation of a
famous comment by Leo Durocher.

Yours, Larry Parr




help bot wrote:
wrote:

GM Larry Evans has been an objective observer of the chess scene for
decades

In fact, Larry Evans is the most biased "observer"
I know; his spin-zone reminds me of the "fair and
balanced" Fox News channel on TV.


EVANS ON CHESS (Best Question, September 1999)

Answer to a reader who said he was "absolutely disgusted" with the way
"Alexei Shirov got shafted after he was promised a title match."

GM EVANS RESPONDED

I couldn't agree with you more. In my syndicated column (A Debt Of
Honor) I noted: A planned match with Shirov collapsed because backers
got cold feet, fearing the contest might be too one-sided.
Nonetheless, many critics feel that Kasparov is honor-bound to give
Shirov a shot at the title first.

1. In 1998 Kasparov organized a match between Shirov and Kramnik,
pledging to play the winner for $2 million.

2. Shirov won -- but only Kramnik got paid.

3. Kasparov has a debt of sporting honor to see that Shirov is fully
compensated and to face him under terms initially paraded by his
defunct World Chess Countil." Kasparov's retaining draw odds is unfair
to Anand and horribly distorted their 1995 tilt which began with eight
straight draws.


I was a subscriber to Chess Lies at the time that
article appeared. Having become well accustomed to
the "huge bias" (IM John Watson, et al) of Mr. Evans,
I took the article as a token puff-piece-- not anything
like what one would expect if, say, FIDE or Anatoly
Karpov or any of the other, usual whipping boys had
done precisely the same thing.

You see, when FIDE messes up -- and it quite often
does -- Mr. Evans has a cow. He will rant and rave
about the "injustice" or whatever until the day he dies,
guaranteed. Yet when one of his faves -- here, Gary
Kasparov -- blunders, all we can expect from the
hugely biased five-time U.S. Champ is a scolding,
and then silence. It is a double-standard to be sure,
but then, that seems to be the only kind of standard
Mr. Evans knows.

So you see, the fact that Mr. Evans wanted "to be
seen" as having come out in support of Mr. Shirov
does not impress. LE's scolding had no effect, and I
don't mean just on the cheating of Mr. Shirov, but on
his overall favoritism with regard to Mr. Kasparov.

The reason is obvious: supporting GK is conducive
to Larry Evan's FIDE-bashing agenda. That agenda
is so important to LE that he cannot afford to side
with "justice", no matter what it might happen to be.

I couldn't help bot notice that Mr. Parr felt it might
help his ad hominem "cause" to switch threads; so
then, what was it that he was so worried about in
the original thread? I think I know: it was probably
the post in which LP presented Gary Kasparov as
a champion of "justice", who, much like Superman,
fights a never-ending battle for Truth, Justice, and
the Kasparov way.

The ploy /could have/ worked, but for making such
a titanic blunder in the area of casting. I cannot say
who is right for the role of champion of justice, but it
is painfully obvious that Gary Kasparov ain't it.


-- help bot

On Apr 28, 10:08*am, " wrote:

THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 100)

The matter did not stop there. The Soviet Union suddenly pulled out
two of her players from the Nineteenth Lone Pine Open in America after
learning Korchnoi was competing.

Either Larry Parr did not copy this correctly from Evans' book, or
Evans made a small mistake.There never was a "Nineteenth Lone Pine
Open." There were only 11, running annually 1971-1981 (see for
example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_Pine_International). Evans
is correct that two Soviet players, Tseshkovsky and Romanishin, who
planned to play in 1979, did indeed pull out (or were ordered to pull
out) when it was learned that Korchnoi would play. That was the 9th
Lone Pine Open, so perhaps "nineteenth" is just an inadvertent typo.
At Lone Pine 1981, Korchnoi arrived only at the last minute,
catching the two Soviet GMs Yusupov and Romanishin by suprise. This
time they went ahead and played, and Korchnoi rubbed salt in their
wounds by winning the tournament.

[...]

Korchnoi became the target of Soviet wrath when he defected in 1976.
First they tried to disqualify him from a title shot on the grounds
that he was stateless, but FIDE had the courage to declare that
challengers represented themselves as individuals, not their nations.
FIDE nonetheless bowed to Soviet pressure by forcing Korchnoi to
accept a rematch clause that FIDE had stricken in 1963.

The clock will soon have stricken 12 for chess journalists
without a command of the irregular verb forms.

Then the Soviet Union refused to release Korchnoi’s family

How many families do you think Korchnoi wanted? Why do you think
he ditched his family in the first place?

[...]

On Apr 28, 1:10*pm, Jürgen R. wrote:
[...]

Korchnoi became the target of Soviet wrath when he defected in 1976.
First they tried to disqualify him from a title shot on the grounds
that he was stateless, but FIDE had the courage to declare that
challengers represented themselves as individuals, not their nations.
FIDE nonetheless bowed to Soviet pressure by forcing Korchnoi to
accept a rematch clause that FIDE had stricken in 1963.

The clock will soon have stricken 12 for chess journalists
without a command of the irregular verb forms.

I believe "stricken" is quite proper here. I've seen hundreds of TV
and movie courtroom scenes where an attorney says "I move that
statement be stricken from the record." By the same token, a rule may
be stricken from the books.

On Apr 28, 10:08 am, " wrote:

As far as I can tell, Karpov is the only World Champion
in the FIDE era to play a title defense with *no* advantage
(twice with Korchnoi, once vs. Kasparov) -- David Kane

How quickly we forget!

THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 100)

Korchnoi became the target of Soviet wrath when he defected in 1976.


Larry Parr has a disturbing habit of taking other
posters' words out of context to distort their
meaning. It is a strange ploy, and one which
reveals the sort of fundamental dishonesty that is
endemic in him.

David Kane was, of course, discussing the rematch
clause. Mr. Parr quite dishonestly reported on how
ratpacker whipping boys like Anatoly Karpov and
Mikhail Botvinnik had supposedly benefited
immensely from the rematch clause at the expense
of some ratpacker faves, and Mr. Kane jumped in to
point out some contrary facts which Mr Parr had
deliberately omitted.


First they tried to disqualify him from a title shot on the grounds
that he was stateless, but FIDE had the courage to declare that
challengers represented themselves as individuals, not their nations.


It is interesting to note how the FIDE is said to have
had "courage", when they happen to have voted the
way the Evans ratpack prefers.


FIDE nonetheless bowed to Soviet pressure by forcing Korchnoi to
accept a rematch clause that FIDE had stricken in 1963.

Then the Soviet Union refused to release Korchnoi’s family and
objected to his playing under the flag of his new country,
Switzerland. During his 1978 title match, the Soviet press never
mentioned his name, referring to him only as "the challenger" or
"Karpov’s opponent."

The term "never" seems rather reckless here; ah,
but then, the ratpackers never were ones to use
care or thoughtfulness.


Korchnoi squawked that the deck was stacked against him even in a
neutral country like the Philippines. Two members of his delegation
were denied entry to the auditorium


Here is yet another example of the "huge bias" (John Watson,
et al) of these Evans ratpackers. Even the American magazine
Chess Lies was not so bold as to attempt such a ploy as this
one. The two members were known criminals, who perhaps
should have been locked up along with the Helter Skelter crew.
Charles Manson could have used some "quality" company, I
expect, and the whole lot would have about the same genuine
interest in watching a chess match.


but a parapsychologist with
Karpov’s entourage was allowed to roam freely in the audience while
trying to hypnotize and unnerve Korchnoi.

Oh bother. Was it not enough to have held the man's
entire family hostage at Mr. Karpov's estate outside
Moscow? Apparently not, if you buy into all these
stories.


Try as he might, Korchnoi could not get Dr. Zukhar removed.

Ah, but then Dr. Zukhar was not the problem. The
real problem was that the blueberry yogurt contained
significant quantities of anti-oxidants, which are known
to combat free radicals-- like Mr. Kortchnoi.


-- help bot

YUSUPOV BROKE THE BOYCOTT

Taylor Kingston is right about the number. It
was the ninth Lone Pine Open. On the other side of
the coin, Korchnoi rubbed no salt in any posited wound
that Artur Yusupov supposedly suffered. Korchnoi beat
him in a very good game, but Yusupov did a big, brave
thing when playing Korchnoi and breaking the boycott.

Yusupov was and is no Karprov. Indeed, Yusupov
detested the boycott against Korchnoi and was
delighted to be the man who broke it.

KANE'S VERSION OF HISTORY

Don't get your history from Larry Parr. Refusing
emigration requests for families of defectors has little
do with chess and less to do with Karpov. It was
routine Soviet practice.
Karpov and Korchnoi have
been cordial in later years - hardly
what one would
expect if Karpov had been behind some evil plot. -- David Kane

And so,we have the Kane vein of sporting understanding.

A government that supports one of two
participants in a world title chess match holds
hostage the family of the opponent of their
standardbearer. Nothing unusual about that -- in
Kanethink. More or less acceptable sporting behavior,
and we are not to imagine that Anatoly Karpov, who
toadied and toadied and toadied beyond the call of
even Soviet duty of that period, is to be blamed.

Karpov worked hard for his Order of Lenin,
tendered countless interviews that helped earn
this careerist his privileges, and he finally got his
dinner with Leonid Brezhnev and other bigwigs. We
don't see photos these days of Lenin's visage hanging
on Karpov's chest because those who held power in the
name of one of history's greatest mass murderers fell
from power themselves.

In the second match in 1981, the acceptable
sporting arrangements -- in our Kane's version --
included arresting Korchnoi's son, sending him to a
slave labor camp and announcing on the eve of the
match that the boy had been badly beaten by,
presumably, outraged pro-Soviet slaves.

Yasser Seirawan, who was Korchnoi's aide,
later said that the news
crushed Korchnoi, whose
fighting spirit waned.

As for Korchnoi and Karpov proving to be
friendly in later years, Korchnoi himself said that he
made an enormous mistake ever sitting at a table with
that worm to play a game of bridge.

In Kane world, if the Cuban military kidnaps
Lasker's beloved Martha Lasker on the eve of his match
with Capablanca and lets it be known that she has,
shall we say, been attended to by outraged pro-Cuban
workers, then we have a sporting situation that is
more or less normal. And if Capa later gives
interviews and toadies beyond the call of duty to
those who attended to Martha, then he is later to be
suppported as a normal sportsman. Indeed, it is
Lasker who is to be held in some disrepute for daring
to question Martha's treatment.

Kanester tells us that holding families hostage
was normal practice in Soviet times, so what's the big
deal anyway? Shooting families and sending those not
shot to slave camps was also a common practice, since
under Soviet law families members were responsible for
the actions of other members.

For the Kanester, then, we had essentially a
normal sporting event, and Karpov who toadied
heroically (Spassky never lowered himself as Karpov
did) is to be looked upon as at worst a neutral figure
in terms of sportsmen and, given the canker in the
souls of the likes of Greg and Kane, an admirable
figure in important ways.

Yours, Larry Parr



wrote:
On Apr 28, 10:08?am, " wrote:

THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 100)

The matter did not stop there. The Soviet Union suddenly pulled out
two of her players from the Nineteenth Lone Pine Open in America after
learning Korchnoi was competing.

Either Larry Parr did not copy this correctly from Evans' book, or
Evans made a small mistake.There never was a "Nineteenth Lone Pine
Open." There were only 11, running annually 1971-1981 (see for
example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_Pine_International). Evans
is correct that two Soviet players, Tseshkovsky and Romanishin, who
planned to play in 1979, did indeed pull out (or were ordered to pull
out) when it was learned that Korchnoi would play. That was the 9th
Lone Pine Open, so perhaps "nineteenth" is just an inadvertent typo.
At Lone Pine 1981, Korchnoi arrived only at the last minute,
catching the two Soviet GMs Yusupov and Romanishin by suprise. This
time they went ahead and played, and Korchnoi rubbed salt in their
wounds by winning the tournament.

BLAMING THE DEFECTORS

How many families do you think Korchnoi wanted? Why do
you think he ditched his family in the first place? -- Jurgen

Jurgen checks in. Defectors are now those who
"ditch" their families. And it is true: those who
escape totalitarian regimes, another would be GM Lev
Alburt, often make the choice of seeking freedom at
the expense of slaves left behind.

Karpov becomes at worst a neutral figure --
though some here like David Kane admire him --
as he toadied to a regime that murdered, if one
accepts the figures of noted demographer Murray
Feshbach, 100 million of its own citizens.

Korchnoi? He becomes a guy who ditches his family.

When Igor and Anna Gouzenko defected, they had
to know that their families likely would be eliminated by
Stalin. Those who spoke up in the great literature of
honor -- Jerzy Gliksman in "Tell the West;"Vladimir
Tchernavin in "I Speak for the Silent" Elizaveta
Lermolo in "Face of a Victim" and so many others --
sentenced relatives to death in the concentration camp
regime they left behind.

In the case of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, he smuggled a
manuscript of The Gulag Archipelago to a woman who
was arrested, tortured, revealed the location of the
manuscript she was hiding, and then committed suicide.
In a sense Solzhenitsyn had some responsibility for
her sad end.

But some of us are aware who the bad guys were
-- the Cheka, OGPU, KGB torturers and bosses, not
those who "ditched" their families.

Yours, Larry Parr



Jürgen R. wrote:
[...]

Korchnoi became the target of Soviet wrath when he defected in 1976.
First they tried to disqualify him from a title shot on the grounds
that he was stateless, but FIDE had the courage to declare that
challengers represented themselves as individuals, not their nations.
FIDE nonetheless bowed to Soviet pressure by forcing Korchnoi to
accept a rematch clause that FIDE had stricken in 1963.

The clock will soon have stricken 12 for chess journalists
without a command of the irregular verb forms.

Then the Soviet Union refused to release Korchnoi?s family

How many families do you think Korchnoi wanted? Why do you think
he ditched his family in the first place?

[...]