|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Tags: sad, saga, shirovs |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#31
April 30th 08, 08:39 AM
posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
|
|||
|
|||
Shirov's Sad Saga
On Apr 29, 4:52 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
Of course, that detail has little to do with anything, and does not resurrect the Evans mythology (of someone bravely takes on a corrupt establishment) that Parr has been assigned with promulgating. Who else has bravely done so? There are few truly independent voices. The inverse of Larry Evans is Jerry Hanken, eg. Larry Parr has indeed promulgated the fiction that Larry Evans is an "independent" voice. Well, while he may well be independent of the folks who run the show at the USCF, he is far from a truly independent thinker. Many of the stories I've seen were merely parroted or borrowed from others, with apparently zero critical examination on LE's part. One of these was examined in an article by Taylor Kingston (I think), who noted that even the original source was unreliable. Other "ideas" of Larry Evans originated from Raymond Keene, a notorious hack whose antics have long annoyed pedants like Ed Winter. But my favorite are the "stories" which Mr. Evans has borrowed from Gary Kasparov, known liar and cheater but one of the finest chess players who ever lived. GM Evans, a player I admire and an author of chess works of which I am a satisfied customer (believe it or not, he actually wrote about chess at one time!), It seems the further back in time you go, the better were Larry Evans' writings! He's aging backwards, like Merlin. Of course, when CL made it mandatory for every article to have a red-baiting angle, Evans complied with his wild, fact-free allegations - often contradicting his own prior writings. I somehow doubt that the honchos at the USCF "forced" Mr. Evans to contradict himself or to adopt a rabid anti-Soviet bias. I think he did that largely on his own. Are there ex-Soviets chess players in the West who actually contest this as a basis? Hmm. It seems that nearly-IMnes is afraid to consider what people who live further East might have to say; I wonder what he is afraid of learning? But I will grant that Parr does have a point in that the USCF does not speak with a single voice and at times he's been at odds with certain factions within the organization. Perhaps the wily politician is a more apt image than apparatchik, which emphasizes conformity above all else. Well, when Taylor Kingston goofed, he refused to admit it was really a mistake, saying he ought to have phrased what he said a bit differently. Now we have this fuss over appa-rat chicks, and -- surprise -- somebody again refuses to admit error. My pattern-recognition detector is going wild; could it be that chess players (?) are unable to admit error? (Preposterous.) Why can't we all just grant that Larry Parr is right about LE being a thorny-chick to the honchos at the USCF? After all, that was not the real issue. (Remember, the ploy was to divert attention from LP's *gaffe* regarding Mr. Kane insisting that LE needed the USCF's money. Appa-ratta-chick or thorny-pointy-chick, it makes no real difference.) -- help bot 
|
| Ads |
|
#32
April 30th 08, 11:22 AM
posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
|
|||
|
|||
|
Shirov's Sad Saga
schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... THE GOD THAT FAILED It is generally known that he got involved with Petra Leeuwerik very soon after his defection, and that he divorced his wife shortly after she moved to the West in 1982. It is also well known That Korchnoi is a difficult character -- impolite, unsophisticated, paranoid, definitely not somebody easily made into a hero. -- Jurgen Juergen is a throwback to a simpler, more evil time. [etc. etc. pp] None of the blather that follows has anything to do with the subject. The point is that you don't know what Korchnoi's motives were, nor about the evil deeds of the Soviet Chess functionaries. You are repeating hearsay that nobody can confirm. Your horizon seems to be roughly that of a hamster in a cage, the cage being your ludicrous antiquated anti-Soviet bias.
|
|
#34
April 30th 08, 01:40 PM
posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
|
|||
|
|||
|
Shirov's Sad Saga
"help bot" wrote in message ... On Apr 29, 4:52 pm, "Chess One" wrote: Of course, that detail has little to do with anything, and does not resurrect the Evans mythology (of someone bravely takes on a corrupt establishment) that Parr has been assigned with promulgating. Who else has bravely done so? There are few truly independent voices. The inverse of Larry Evans is Jerry Hanken, eg. Larry Parr has indeed promulgated the fiction that Larry Evans is an "independent" voice. Well, while he may well be independent of the folks who run the show at the USCF, he is far from a truly independent thinker. Many of the stories I've seen were merely parroted or borrowed from others, with apparently zero critical examination on LE's part. This may or may not have significance; after all, is Evans writing for people who already know some things so that he records his own comments along with theirs in order to substantiate an issue? Being 'independent' is no virtue if what you are describing is common to other observers, in fact, it detracts from the issue to become a personality point of view. Or is Evans writing for people who know nothing at all, and who want to start from the beginning? I don't think so. I think the former is true, and if Evans has a fault in this, then it is his presumption that the chess public actually know very much at all about the goings on of chess politicians. One of these was examined in an article by Taylor Kingston (I think), who noted that even the original source was unreliable. That's very vague. Other "ideas" of Larry Evans originated from Raymond Keene, a notorious hack whose antics have long annoyed pedants like Ed Winter. It must be particularly galling for Winter to have to deal with 'hack' Keene, since Winter has only tittle-tattle from those who feed it to him, while Keene actually was behind the Wall and smuggling out stuff on what it was really like from first hand knowledge, and also the samizdat of other personal witness to the /systemic/ corruption of the SU. Larry Evans also engaged the Soviet chess machine, and therefore is guilty of the same crime as Keene; essentially neither of them bought into any propaganda whether it was issued from East or West, and preferred what they knew as fact to some filtered gloss on it. But my favorite are the "stories" which Mr. Evans has borrowed from Gary Kasparov, known liar and cheater but one of the finest chess players who ever lived. I know it is your favorite. But the elephant in your viewing room is you! It is this obsessional general opinions that you then fix onto individual circumstance - and therefore an honest though very real mistake or error by Kasparov is sufficient for you to condemn the man's entire character. My personal understanding of the issue is that he apologised to Judit, who emphasis accepted that apology. Why then is this still an issue for Greg Kennedy? Not that such compacted cynicism can be answered in anything less than an essay, but in terms of collaborations and discussions, many strong players talk with each other about the organisational side of chess, and it is much less a matter of who spoke what first, as that strong players witness a common set of facts - then report matters in their own ways. GM Evans, a player I admire and an author of chess works of which I am a satisfied customer (believe it or not, he actually wrote about chess at one time!), It seems the further back in time you go, the better were Larry Evans' writings! He's aging backwards, like Merlin. Criticism is always welcome, but this isn't criticism, its bitching. The reader will note that there is no suggested /subject/ that critics mention that they thought better then rather than now - and they don't even bother to say what they personally would like to read about. shrug That's no critique, and it doesn't even indicate if the critics want to read anything... So is this 'complaint' on behalf of other people? [lol] Of course, when CL made it mandatory for every article to have a red-baiting angle, Evans complied with his wild, fact-free allegations - often contradicting his own prior writings. I somehow doubt that the honchos at the USCF "forced" Mr. Evans to contradict himself or to adopt a rabid anti-Soviet bias. I think he did that largely on his own. I suppose the opposite of 'rabid' anti-soviet bias is... ? If you know the game is rigged, do you report what goes on as if you don't know? That would be deceptive, no? That would be a form of lying. And there is no doubt that Sovietism was pulling Fide's strings. Are there ex-Soviets chess players in the West who actually contest this as a basis? Hmm. It seems that nearly-IMnes is afraid to consider what people who live further East might have to say; I wonder what he is afraid of learning? I see that response is not an answer. But the fatuous chess-lout Kennedy ignores the fact that I interviewed Taimanov who spoke of the systemic aspect of soviet life - it was into everything! So in reading all these 'questions' from Kennedy I have yet to find one which is not about himself - since anyone who has applied themselves to the subject could answer his 'questions' the same as me. But vague and abstracted criticisms are useless to any understanding of what goes on - and the usual projection takes place in this speil, which the reader will remember began with the phrase with apparently zero critical examination Phil Innes But I will grant that Parr does have a point in that the USCF does not speak with a single voice and at times he's been at odds with certain factions within the organization. Perhaps the wily politician is a more apt image than apparatchik, which emphasizes conformity above all else. Well, when Taylor Kingston goofed, he refused to admit it was really a mistake, saying he ought to have phrased what he said a bit differently. Now we have this fuss over appa-rat chicks, and -- surprise -- somebody again refuses to admit error. My pattern-recognition detector is going wild; could it be that chess players (?) are unable to admit error? (Preposterous.) Why can't we all just grant that Larry Parr is right about LE being a thorny-chick to the honchos at the USCF? After all, that was not the real issue. (Remember, the ploy was to divert attention from LP's *gaffe* regarding Mr. Kane insisting that LE needed the USCF's money. Appa-ratta-chick or thorny-pointy-chick, it makes no real difference.) -- help bot
|
|
#35
April 30th 08, 03:26 PM
posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
|
|||
|
|||
|
Shirov's Sad Saga
PRO-SOVIET BIAS
I suppose the opposite of 'rabid' anti-soviet bias is... ? If you know the game is rigged, do you report what goes on as if you don't know? That would be deceptive, no? That would be a form of lying. And there is no doubt that Sovietism was pulling Fide's strings. -- Phil Innes Phil asks a good question. Of course, when CL made it mandatory for every article to have a red- baiting angle, Evans complied with his wild, fact-free allegations -- David Kane The opposite of rabid anti-Soviet bias evidently is pro-Soviet bias, largely exhibited here by bothf Jurgen and David Kane who lied outright because no such directive was ever issued by me or or any other editor of Chess Life to any writher in this magazine.. In fact, the opposite was true. GM Evans was asked to tone down his criticism of FIDE on several occasions.. If David Kane has any proof of his ludicrous charge, let him present it here. HEARSAY? The point is that you don't know what Korchnoi's motives were [for defecting] nor about the evil deeds of the Soviet Chess functionaries. You are repeating hearsay that nobody can confirm. -- Jurgen These FACTS have been amply confirmed by Soviet players of that era, including but not limited to Averbakh, Bronstein, Taimanov, Spassky, etc., etc., etc. Some volumes worth consultingare RUSSIANS VS. FISCHER by Dmitri Plisetsky and Sergey Vorinkov (Chess World Ltd. 1994) CHESS SCANDALS by Ed Edmondson (Pergamon 1981) and PERSONA NON GRATA by Viktor Korchnoi with Lenny Cavallaro (Thinkers' Press 1981). Even ACHIEVING THE AIM by Mikhail Botvinnik exposes some of these dirty deeds. Ample evidence of Sovietism pulling the strings in FIDE is also cited in THIS CRAXY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans. His research is beyond dispute. Chess One wrote: "help bot" wrote in message ... On Apr 29, 4:52 pm, "Chess One" wrote: Of course, that detail has little to do with anything, and does not resurrect the Evans mythology (of someone bravely takes on a corrupt establishment) that Parr has been assigned with promulgating. Who else has bravely done so? There are few truly independent voices. The inverse of Larry Evans is Jerry Hanken, eg. Larry Parr has indeed promulgated the fiction that Larry Evans is an "independent" voice. Well, while he may well be independent of the folks who run the show at the USCF, he is far from a truly independent thinker. Many of the stories I've seen were merely parroted or borrowed from others, with apparently zero critical examination on LE's part. This may or may not have significance; after all, is Evans writing for people who already know some things so that he records his own comments along with theirs in order to substantiate an issue? Being 'independent' is no virtue if what you are describing is common to other observers, in fact, it detracts from the issue to become a personality point of view. Or is Evans writing for people who know nothing at all, and who want to start from the beginning? I don't think so. I think the former is true, and if Evans has a fault in this, then it is his presumption that the chess public actually know very much at all about the goings on of chess politicians. One of these was examined in an article by Taylor Kingston (I think), who noted that even the original source was unreliable. That's very vague. Other "ideas" of Larry Evans originated from Raymond Keene, a notorious hack whose antics have long annoyed pedants like Ed Winter. It must be particularly galling for Winter to have to deal with 'hack' Keene, since Winter has only tittle-tattle from those who feed it to him, while Keene actually was behind the Wall and smuggling out stuff on what it was really like from first hand knowledge, and also the samizdat of other personal witness to the /systemic/ corruption of the SU. Larry Evans also engaged the Soviet chess machine, and therefore is guilty of the same crime as Keene; essentially neither of them bought into any propaganda whether it was issued from East or West, and preferred what they knew as fact to some filtered gloss on it. But my favorite are the "stories" which Mr. Evans has borrowed from Gary Kasparov, known liar and cheater but one of the finest chess players who ever lived. I know it is your favorite. But the elephant in your viewing room is you! It is this obsessional general opinions that you then fix onto individual circumstance - and therefore an honest though very real mistake or error by Kasparov is sufficient for you to condemn the man's entire character. My personal understanding of the issue is that he apologised to Judit, who emphasis accepted that apology. Why then is this still an issue for Greg Kennedy? Not that such compacted cynicism can be answered in anything less than an essay, but in terms of collaborations and discussions, many strong players talk with each other about the organisational side of chess, and it is much less a matter of who spoke what first, as that strong players witness a common set of facts - then report matters in their own ways. GM Evans, a player I admire and an author of chess works of which I am a satisfied customer (believe it or not, he actually wrote about chess at one time!), It seems the further back in time you go, the better were Larry Evans' writings! He's aging backwards, like Merlin. Criticism is always welcome, but this isn't criticism, its bitching. The reader will note that there is no suggested /subject/ that critics mention that they thought better then rather than now - and they don't even bother to say what they personally would like to read about. shrug That's no critique, and it doesn't even indicate if the critics want to read anything... So is this 'complaint' on behalf of other people? [lol] Of course, when CL made it mandatory for every article to have a red-baiting angle, Evans complied with his wild, fact-free allegations - often contradicting his own prior writings. I somehow doubt that the honchos at the USCF "forced" Mr. Evans to contradict himself or to adopt a rabid anti-Soviet bias. I think he did that largely on his own. I suppose the opposite of 'rabid' anti-soviet bias is... ? If you know the game is rigged, do you report what goes on as if you don't know? That would be deceptive, no? That would be a form of lying. And there is no doubt that Sovietism was pulling Fide's strings. Are there ex-Soviets chess players in the West who actually contest this as a basis? Hmm. It seems that nearly-IMnes is afraid to consider what people who live further East might have to say; I wonder what he is afraid of learning? I see that response is not an answer. But the fatuous chess-lout Kennedy ignores the fact that I interviewed Taimanov who spoke of the systemic aspect of soviet life - it was into everything! So in reading all these 'questions' from Kennedy I have yet to find one which is not about himself - since anyone who has applied themselves to the subject could answer his 'questions' the same as me. But vague and abstracted criticisms are useless to any understanding of what goes on - and the usual projection takes place in this speil, which the reader will remember began with the phrase with apparently zero critical examination Phil Innes But I will grant that Parr does have a point in that the USCF does not speak with a single voice and at times he's been at odds with certain factions within the organization. Perhaps the wily politician is a more apt image than apparatchik, which emphasizes conformity above all else. Well, when Taylor Kingston goofed, he refused to admit it was really a mistake, saying he ought to have phrased what he said a bit differently. Now we have this fuss over appa-rat chicks, and -- surprise -- somebody again refuses to admit error. My pattern-recognition detector is going wild; could it be that chess players (?) are unable to admit error? (Preposterous.) Why can't we all just grant that Larry Parr is right about LE being a thorny-chick to the honchos at the USCF? After all, that was not the real issue. (Remember, the ploy was to divert attention from LP's *gaffe* regarding Mr. Kane insisting that LE needed the USCF's money. Appa-ratta-chick or thorny-pointy-chick, it makes no real difference.) -- help bot
|
|
#36
April 30th 08, 10:54 PM
posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
|
|||
|
|||
|
Shirov's Sad Saga
On Apr 30, 7:40 am, "Chess One" wrote:
Of course, that detail has little to do with anything, and does not resurrect the Evans mythology (of someone bravely takes on a corrupt establishment) that Parr has been assigned with promulgating. Who else has bravely done so? There are few truly independent voices. The inverse of Larry Evans is Jerry Hanken, eg. Larry Parr has indeed promulgated the fiction that Larry Evans is an "independent" voice. Well, while he may well be independent of the folks who run the show at the USCF, he is far from a truly independent thinker. Many of the stories I've seen were merely parroted or borrowed from others, with apparently zero critical examination on LE's part. This may or may not have significance; after all, is Evans writing for people who already know some things so that he records his own comments along with theirs in order to substantiate an issue? No. Mr. Evans rarely "substantiates". In fact, the main reason people are aware that he is merely *parroting* is that there is nothing added, nothing considered, nothing but a parrot and his cracker. We noticed this at least as early as 1974-5, back when a certain Chess Lies article was swallowed whole, ants and all. The poor fellow did not even bother with thinking about a ludicrous claim; he seemed almost /eager/ to be a parrot. An article by Taylor Kingston happened upon one instance of this *uncritical* parroting of what Mr. Evans thinks may "fit" into his biased fantasy world. But no doubt it would be easier to locate the stuff by EW, who stumbles upon such things whilst correcting misspellings, as all good pedants must, by their very nature. Being 'independent' is no virtue if what you are describing is common to other observers My point had nothing to do with the *virtues* of independent thinking; I merely observed the fact that a parrot is certainly not truly independent. If Mr. Evans carefully considered before he parroted, that would be acceptable, though even here, "his" ideas are not emerging independently of others inside his small circle of alike-thinkers. This think-alike business is what allows wrong-headed thinking to go unchecked. It reminds me of the dregs who surrounded Bobby Fischer, while he was ranting and raving about Jews and Russian cheaters and how he was a, if not the, chess god. It must be particularly galling for Winter to have to deal with 'hack' Keene, since Winter has only tittle-tattle from those who feed it to him, while Keene actually was behind the Wall and smuggling out stuff on what it was really like from first hand knowledge, and also the samizdat of other personal witness to the /systemic/ corruption of the SU. Systemic corruption of the SU, you say? I keep reading about such things, and nowadays the focus has turned to /China/. What I find interesting is the "familiar" feel these stories... the way they remind me of home. Yeah, that's right my boy, right here in the good old U.S. of A. I am often reminded of a certain FBI chief, who told all his fellow Americans that there was "no such thing as organized crime"-- things like that. Not that anyone needs to travel so far back in time, oh no! I just happen to like that example. Please take off that holier-than-thou cape-- it's not even your color! Larry Evans also engaged the Soviet chess machine, and therefore is guilty of the same crime as Keene; essentially neither of them bought into any propaganda whether it was issued from East or West Wrong. My personal understanding of the issue is that he apologised to Judit, who emphasis accepted that apology. It is not enough. The entire chess world was humiliated by this. Cheating is bad for chess, just as it is bad for baseball, for instance. It is also bad for chess when faves are allowed to cheat, and afterward protected by apologists who spin the facts. If there is one thing you take away from this post, let it be this: a writer who throws his integrity out the window in favor of personal bias, is just a hack. You can't allow these agendas to take over and run your whole life! So, when a camera reports that the pitches are moving at 96 mph, if you hear the commentator ranting that there is something "wrong" with the camera because Nolan Ryan is really a 110 mph pitcher, you can safely assume he is a nutter. Especially when the same camera reports the same numbers for several other pitchers, in the same game, and the hack commentator says it is working correctly /for them/. -- help bot
|
|
#37
April 30th 08, 11:28 PM
posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
|
|||
|
|||
|
Shirov's Sad Saga
"help bot" wrote in message ... On Apr 30, 7:40 am, "Chess One" wrote: Of course, that detail has little to do with anything, and does not resurrect the Evans mythology (of someone bravely takes on a corrupt establishment) that Parr has been assigned with promulgating. Who else has bravely done so? There are few truly independent voices. The inverse of Larry Evans is Jerry Hanken, eg. Larry Parr has indeed promulgated the fiction that Larry Evans is an "independent" voice. Well, while he may well be independent of the folks who run the show at the USCF, he is far from a truly independent thinker. Many of the stories I've seen were merely parroted or borrowed from others, with apparently zero critical examination on LE's part. This may or may not have significance; after all, is Evans writing for people who already know some things so that he records his own comments along with theirs in order to substantiate an issue? No. Mr. Evans rarely "substantiates". In fact, the main reason people are aware that he is merely *parroting* is that there is nothing added, nothing considered, nothing but a parrot and his cracker. These are no doubt phrases understood where you are. But my question to you is what you want? Not what some people want. Maybe you get to it in this message? We noticed this at least as early as 1974-5, back when a certain Chess Lies article was swallowed whole, ants and all. The poor fellow did not even bother with thinking about a ludicrous claim; he seemed almost /eager/ to be a parrot. I pass on something so vague and anodyne I don't know what it is. If the current writer intends to engage another, rather than, er, 'parrot' opinions, he might mention what it is... An article by Taylor Kingston happened upon one instance of this *uncritical* parroting of what Mr. Evans thinks may "fit" into his biased fantasy world. But no doubt it would be easier to locate the stuff by EW, who stumbles upon such things whilst correcting misspellings, as all good pedants must, by their very nature. Still no chessic subject matter... for how long will I engage such a conversation? For sure, we already see attitude, what about what? Being 'independent' is no virtue if what you are describing is common to other observers My point had nothing to do with the *virtues* of independent thinking; I merely observed the fact that a parrot is certainly not truly independent. If Mr. Evans carefully considered before he parroted, that would be acceptable, though even here, "his" ideas are not emerging independently of others inside his small circle of alike-thinkers. Just to break into this abstract criticism a moment, has the topic yet been declared? Or is abstract critical material intellectually sufficient to those who I must not need any? This think-alike business is what allows wrong-headed thinking to go unchecked. Did I say that it is not think-alike, as in go along with, but independently verify, from own experience? It reminds me of the dregs who surrounded Bobby Fischer, while he was ranting and raving about Jews and Russian cheaters and how he was a, if not the, chess god. Does it indeed? What reminds you of it? I made an entirely differnent point, but which still 'reminds you' - and I wonder if what you respond to has any external reference at all? Sorry to be so shrink-ish, but any ful would say same, after yoru response. It must be particularly galling for Winter to have to deal with 'hack' Keene, since Winter has only tittle-tattle from those who feed it to him, while Keene actually was behind the Wall and smuggling out stuff on what it was really like from first hand knowledge, and also the samizdat of other personal witness to the /systemic/ corruption of the SU. Systemic corruption of the SU, you say? Yes, systemic corruption is what I say and what they say. I suffer from receiving some 2,000 exchanges with Russian chess players and organisers in order to ask you to suffer this opinion. I keep reading about such things, and nowadays the focus has turned to /China/. What I find interesting is the "familiar" feel these stories... the way they remind me of home. I am afraid that such internal referencing is your business alone, and none of mind. It matters not to me that you see your own country the same, but that you aver that such things are at all odd in the world, and should so continuously shock you. Yeah, that's right my boy, right here in the good old U.S. of A. I am often reminded of a certain FBI chief, who told all his fellow Americans that there was "no such thing as organized crime"-- things like that. Not that anyone needs to travel so far back in time, oh no! I just happen to like that example. So, is this some equation of false Russians with false Americans? I would say that this is a rather extraordianry means to come about the subject that Korchnoi represented, that corruption in the West in chess was for money. But I do not assume I understand Kennedy's comment here, except it is so gerneral as to equate any form of government [corruption] with any other. Please take off that holier-than-thou cape-- it's not even your color! The meaning of this sentence is obscure. No doubt the questioner would like to be asked what he means, though, given what goes before, I don't need to ask. Larry Evans also engaged the Soviet chess machine, and therefore is guilty of the same crime as Keene; essentially neither of them bought into any propaganda whether it was issued from East or West Wrong. And when people make such declarations they might as well be Ken Sloan defending ratings at USCF, this person who can attest that politically rigging of ratings [eg. Tanner's] is 'Not' or some monosyllablic rejoinder, despite all evidence. I leave the rest of this message and its analogies to another day, maybe. But note the abandonement of even the seemingness of detailed content discussion by someone absolutely intent on rubbishing other people for what he cannot do himself. Phil Innes My personal understanding of the issue is that he apologised to Judit, who emphasis accepted that apology. It is not enough. The entire chess world was humiliated by this. Cheating is bad for chess, just as it is bad for baseball, for instance. It is also bad for chess when faves are allowed to cheat, and afterward protected by apologists who spin the facts. If there is one thing you take away from this post, let it be this: a writer who throws his integrity out the window in favor of personal bias, is just a hack. You can't allow these agendas to take over and run your whole life! So, when a camera reports that the pitches are moving at 96 mph, if you hear the commentator ranting that there is something "wrong" with the camera because Nolan Ryan is really a 110 mph pitcher, you can safely assume he is a nutter. Especially when the same camera reports the same numbers for several other pitchers, in the same game, and the hack commentator says it is working correctly /for them/. -- help bot
|
|
#38
May 1st 08, 01:19 AM
posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
|
|||
|
|||
|
Shirov's Sad Saga
On Apr 30, 9:26 am, " wrote:
The opposite of rabid anti-Soviet bias evidently is pro-Soviet bias, largely exhibited here by bothf Jurgen and David Kane who lied outright because no such directive was ever issued by me or or any other editor of Chess Life Whoa there, fella. I don't think David Kane would believe that a Chess Lies editor called the shots at the USCF. So many "stories" have appeared here over the years that surely Mr. Kane must have seen at least one of them; in these stories, editor LP claimed to have been dictated to by higher-ups. So the issue has nothing to do with what "editors" of CL may or may not have done-- that's a red herring. to any writher in this magazine.. The only writhing I recall, was that of those who had the difficult task of attacking the world's best chess player, Anatoly Karpov, during the time when the world's strongest non-player refused to compete altogether. As one famous fellow put it, "I feel your pain" -- the pain of having so difficult a task. Fortunately for the "writhers", Mr. Karpov was a member of the Communist Party, and as such his politics made for easy pickins. It so happened that he also became friends with a big FIDE honcho, which further eased their pain. I still feel sorry for them though, for the writhers that is, because they had virtually no hope of comprehending how Mr. Karpov was winning so many games; his style was too subtle for them. In fact, the opposite was true. GM Evans was asked to tone down his criticism of FIDE on several occasions.. Here's the problem: Chess Lies is the magazine of the USCF, which in turn is a member of the FIDE. It boils down to the fine line between merely bashing the superior organization, and constructive criticism-- if politicos at FIDE can even handle that, which is doubtful. Ample evidence of Sovietism pulling the strings in FIDE is also cited in THIS CRAXY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans. His research is beyond dispute. Oh, I'm sure that Mr. Evans' famed "research" skills are not in dispute here. [Chortle.] But it was not only the Soviet Union which pulled strings with FIDE. In fact, a whole lot of strings were pulled when Bobby Fischer made his assault on the title-- including, but certainly not limited to, qualifying. Perhaps the issue is not the pulling of strings, but a matter of degree-- how many times and to what degree strings were pulled? In that case, the Soviets obviously were involved more often and to a far greater degree, since they had the world's best chess players for so many years. But it is the pretense that "cheating" is limited to or unique to the Soviets that reveals the "huge bias" (John Watson, et al) of the Evans ratpack. A lot of what appears here in rgc is in response to this "huge bias" (John Watson, et al), and as a direct result, Larry Parr and his dregs seem to feel that others are taking a "pro-Soviet" view; in reality, it only /appears that way/, because the many corrections target the bias and factual errors and omissions of the rabidly anti-Soviet Evans ratpack. If instead, we had a rabidly pro- Soviet ratpack posting their lunacies to rgc, it might /appear/ that those who corrected their many gaffes were anti-Soviet. Fortunately for everyone, the Evans ratpack is unique... . -- help bot
|
|
#39
May 1st 08, 01:38 AM
posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
|
|||
|
|||
|
Shirov's Sad Saga
On Apr 30, 5:28 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
These are no doubt phrases understood where you are. But my question to you is what you want? Not what some people want. Maybe you get to it in this message? You keep tossing out assertions, and when I point out that you are mistaken, giving specific examples in support, you always change the subject so you can pretend that you were not debunked. Where does that get *you*? As for *me*, here are my requests: 1) Organizer to provide PB&J sandwiches either before, after, or during play. 2) Mr. Sloan must bathe, wear deodorant, that sort of thing. I will do the same; in fact, if I lose to SS, I may react by taking cold showers and slapping myself repeatedly. 3) First to win six, draws not counting. If the score is tied at 5-5, both players get a free bag of Doritos. I pass on something so vague and anodyne I don't know what it is. Blah, blah, blah! If you have nothing to say, why don't you go somewhere else and play chess or something? Nobody here in rgc writes more vague jabber than you do. Sometimes I wonder if you are being paid *by the word*... . Still no chessic subject matter... I didn't want to go beyond your depth. Why don't you consider getting a *real* job? All this following LP around like a lost puppy, then having RM tag along behind you-- that's not what real men do; it's for kiddies. I already gave you a challenge: write an op/ed piece in which you express your own thinking, not parrot LE, RK, LP or anybody else. Unchain your mind from *their* agendas. -- help bot
|
|
#40
May 1st 08, 02:10 AM
posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
|
|||
|
|||
|
Shirov's Sad Saga
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
