wrote in message
...
PUT UP OR SHUT UP, MR. KANE!

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
any other editor of Chess Life to any writer 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.

Parr continues to astound with his ridiculous arguments. First,
he raised the technicality that GM Evans' was an independent
contractor rather than a salaried employee as proof of something.
His new line is that only a written directive can establish policy.
The man is surely confused. If you are going to shoot down
strawmen, at least build up something worth shooting at.

During the period that Chess Life was filled cover to cover
with sophomoric polemic, do you think that GM Evans
was too stupid to notice? Of course not. And it was at
this time that his own writing moved away from its somewhat
more responsible approach earlier in his life.

There are more inconsistencies in Evans' output than
any one man can document. Many of them have been
posted here repeatedly (such as his approach to
Fischer, at first reasonable, later blaming the Soviets
for Fischer's own behavior) and I'll not bother
repeating it.

A particular favorite of mine is approach to playing
in Cuba. He portrays himself as a fearless maverick -
defying the embargo as a matter of principle. But
isn't that just aiding the same evil communists responsible
for all of the worlds ills in his other posts? Not only
that, but he brings out this particular little story as a
reason for why it was wrong to get upset at
Fischer for defying the worldwide embargo
on Serbia - a country, let us not forget, that
was actively engaged in genocidal repression.

Consistency is not highly valued in Parr's crowd.

For the record, I do not hold Karpov responsible
for the USSR's wrongdoing any more than I
hold Keres' responsible for the Nazis' for playing
in Nazi-organized tournaments. How they
behaved politically is frankly of little interest to
me. How they behaved as chessplaying sportsmen
has a lot more to do with my view of them.
And Karpov does deserve condemnation on
that count - there was abominable sportsmanship
on both sides and Karpov certainly does deserve
some of the blame for the behavior of his side.

But the truth is that for both Karpov and
Korchnoi it was always about the chess -
the political controversy was a manufactured
sideshow. And they did give the chess world a
memorable match.

On Apr 30, 10:32 pm, "David Kane" wrote:

Parr continues to astound with his ridiculous arguments. First,
he raised the technicality that GM Evans' was an independent
contractor rather than a salaried employee as proof of something.
His new line is that only a written directive can establish policy.
The man is surely confused. If you are going to shoot down
strawmen, at least build up something worth shooting at.

During the period that Chess Life was filled cover to cover
with sophomoric polemic, do you think that GM Evans
was too stupid to notice? Of course not. And it was at
this time that his own writing moved away from its somewhat
more responsible approach earlier in his life.


This observation demonstrates coincidence, but
not causation. (If you fart and at the same time
World War III breaks out, does that prove that
*your flatulence* is responsible for it?)


There are more inconsistencies in Evans' output than
any one man can document. Many of them have been
posted here repeatedly (such as his approach to
Fischer, at first reasonable, later blaming the Soviets
for Fischer's own behavior) and I'll not bother
repeating it.


This problem with inconsistency is the hallmark
of a very confused mind. In Larry Evans' case,
his "huge bias" (John Watson, et al) frequently
blinds him to the objective facts which don't
neatly "fit" into his many preconceived, biased
opinions.


A particular favorite of mine is approach to playing
in Cuba. He portrays himself as a fearless maverick -
defying the embargo as a matter of principle. But
isn't that just aiding the same evil communists responsible
for all of the worlds ills in his other posts? Not only
that, but he brings out this particular little story as a
reason for why it was wrong to get upset at
Fischer for defying the worldwide embargo
on Serbia - a country, let us not forget, that
was actively engaged in genocidal repression.


One anecdote which always puzzled me was
the one where a young Bobby Fischer went to
see about getting some "free" money. Upon
arrival, he was informed that in return for lots of
financial support in his quest for the title, the
financier wanted just one thing: recognition of
his financial help, *if* BF somehow managed
to win. Larry Evans presented this as an
example of BF having "principles", which has
always puzzled me. What principles, exactly?
Selfishness? Naivety? Greed? It seemed
more an example of those, and of a general
the-world-revolves-around-me mentality. Yet
Mr. Evans was somehow /impressed/ when
BF walked out.


Consistency is not highly valued in Parr's crowd.


Brown-nosing seems to be the key for new
members to get accepted. I suppose that in
that respect, /consistency/ would have some
small value.


For the record, I do not hold Karpov responsible
for the USSR's wrongdoing any more than I
hold Keres' responsible for the Nazis' for playing
in Nazi-organized tournaments.


This brings up yet another problem for the Evans
ratpack: the fact that Paul Keres is one of those
fellows they like to "use" to bash Mr. Botvinnik.
Yet even the widely-liked PK has skeletons in his
closet, just as MB does.


How they
behaved politically is frankly of little interest to
me. How they behaved as chessplaying sportsmen
has a lot more to do with my view of them.
And Karpov does deserve condemnation on
that count - there was abominable sportsmanship
on both sides and Karpov certainly does deserve
some of the blame for the behavior of his side.


Mr. Karpov is a classic case of "wrong place,
wrong time". Nobody (here) liked it when Bobby
Fischer quit playing chess, and guess who just
happened to be "handy" as a scapegoat? The
folks at Chess Lies magazine had a field day at
his expense.


But the truth is that for both Karpov and
Korchnoi it was always about the chess -
the political controversy was a manufactured
sideshow. And they did give the chess world a
memorable match.


The sad thing is, it seems not enough to just
determine who is the strongest chess player in
the world, oh no! It always has to entail politics
and pet peeves of the press. I "can't hardly wait"
until the Chinese produce a number of serious
contenders; that will no doubt be /deja vu/, all
over again.


-- help bot

ATTACK IS THE BEST DEFENSE

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 both Jurgen and David Kane who lied
outright because no such directive was ever issued by me or
any other editor of Chess Life to any writer in this magazine..
In fact, the opposite was true. GM Evans was asked to tone down
his criticism of FIDE on several occasions..

IIf David Kane has any proof of his ludicrous charge, let him
present it here.

Unable to offer a scintilla of proof -- as expected -- the Kanestar
typically launches new smears and the old Ad Hom Attack.



David Kane wrote:
wrote in message
...
PUT UP OR SHUT UP, MR. KANE!

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
any other editor of Chess Life to any writer 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.

Parr continues to astound with his ridiculous arguments. First,
he raised the technicality that GM Evans' was an independent
contractor rather than a salaried employee as proof of something.
His new line is that only a written directive can establish policy.
The man is surely confused. If you are going to shoot down
strawmen, at least build up something worth shooting at.

During the period that Chess Life was filled cover to cover
with sophomoric polemic, do you think that GM Evans
was too stupid to notice? Of course not. And it was at
this time that his own writing moved away from its somewhat
more responsible approach earlier in his life.

There are more inconsistencies in Evans' output than
any one man can document. Many of them have been
posted here repeatedly (such as his approach to
Fischer, at first reasonable, later blaming the Soviets
for Fischer's own behavior) and I'll not bother
repeating it.

A particular favorite of mine is approach to playing
in Cuba. He portrays himself as a fearless maverick -
defying the embargo as a matter of principle. But
isn't that just aiding the same evil communists responsible
for all of the worlds ills in his other posts? Not only
that, but he brings out this particular little story as a
reason for why it was wrong to get upset at
Fischer for defying the worldwide embargo
on Serbia - a country, let us not forget, that
was actively engaged in genocidal repression.

Consistency is not highly valued in Parr's crowd.

For the record, I do not hold Karpov responsible
for the USSR's wrongdoing any more than I
hold Keres' responsible for the Nazis' for playing
in Nazi-organized tournaments. How they
behaved politically is frankly of little interest to
me. How they behaved as chessplaying sportsmen
has a lot more to do with my view of them.
And Karpov does deserve condemnation on
that count - there was abominable sportsmanship
on both sides and Karpov certainly does deserve
some of the blame for the behavior of his side.

But the truth is that for both Karpov and
Korchnoi it was always about the chess -
the political controversy was a manufactured
sideshow. And they did give the chess world a
memorable match.

"David Kane" wrote in message
. ..

wrote in message
...
PUT UP OR SHUT UP, MR. KANE!

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
any other editor of Chess Life to any writer 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.

Parr continues to astound with his ridiculous arguments. First,
he raised the technicality that GM Evans' was an independent
contractor rather than a salaried employee as proof of something.

Well David, that is not entirely candid, is it? He was an independent both
as a contractor and also financially, from any need to earn a buck. To ask
if that is 'proof of something' it to ask for what every other reader
already understands - LE doesn't need to toe the line in order to pay the
mortgage. I would say that being a millionairre is not exactly 'a
technicality'.

As I understand the point; it allows a columnist an independent point of
view from whatever board pressures are put on the editor of CL.

Is that resume of the issue to this point a fair synopsis?

His new line is that only a written directive can establish policy.
The man is surely confused. If you are going to shoot down
strawmen, at least build up something worth shooting at.

I understand your point to be that on being challenged, you cannot produce
any written evidence - since there is none, and directives need not be
written. Also fair?

During the period that Chess Life was filled cover to cover
with sophomoric polemic, do you think that GM Evans
was too stupid to notice? Of course not. And it was at
this time that his own writing moved away from its somewhat
more responsible approach earlier in his life.

There is a small danger that your own writing illustrates the same fault;
any polemic is a verbal campaign about a /system/, it is a process of
activities, not a topic of itself. The level of polemic can be sophomoric,
or merely pertaining to sophomores! but that is to append an adjective to it
which is your own point of view.

But what is the subject matter? Isn't that the /system/ of Soviet-era chess?
To regularly comment on it is to necessarily engage in polemics, and the
level of public reception of such material, since it is novel to them, may
indeed be sophomoric in understanding.

Therefore you will understand the difference between the means and the
topical matter, as well as the reception by a public of material new to
them.

There are more inconsistencies in Evans' output than
any one man can document. Many of them have been
posted here repeatedly (such as his approach to
Fischer, at first reasonable, later blaming the Soviets
for Fischer's own behavior) and I'll not bother
repeating it.

But this is to gloss far a complex subject with 'sophomoric' attention, no?
Surely two things are possible here, that over time different factors were
in play in respect of Fischer and the Russians, and also the awareness of
the writer changed over time.

To speak of changing circumstances and understand as 'inconsistent' is
tautalogical, since by that definition the past is always inconsistent with
any present. As the grape becomes the wine, so does understanding mature.

The thing to remember is that there was almost no reporting on the subject
of Soviet manipulations in chess. It was literally secretive stuff, and it
took Taimanov some 10 years after the Wall came down, and the great
unfreezing of what was a vry real War, to obtain his own KGB file.

A particular favorite of mine is approach to playing
in Cuba. He portrays himself as a fearless maverick -
defying the embargo as a matter of principle. But
isn't that just aiding the same evil communists responsible
for all of the worlds ills in his other posts?

That is an open question. Is it better to engage people with antithetical
political orientations than your own, or to shun them? I see that the US
embargo and isolation of Cuba did absolutely nothing to change its system.
Whereas what brought the Wall down in Europe was not politics, but washing
machines, television, vacuum cleaners, cars... the exposure of Bloc citizens
to materials freely available in the West, which even poor people could own.

As to playing chess in a war-zone, that relies upon a philosophical
orientation. Some people are quite content with war - but war is also
described as a failure of the peace - it is the result of a process, of a
failed process. Some people understand that to be the case and do not chose
to honor the failed process in the sense of declaring it 'right' as in 'our
country right or wrong'.

Last week I reported on a guy in Somalia which has suffered horrible and
long-time civil war, introducing chess to schools and the culture, because
instead of conflict, it is a /ritual/ conflict, and an acceptable way to
express aggression.

Sports and games have always formed this function between regions, and
different peoples. For sure, Fischer didn't believe in politics, he believed
in pawns - and maybe he genuinely thought that where the politicians had
failed, he could do better as an individual? You don't have to agree with
that in order to understand the sense of what individuals may attempt.

Not only
that, but he brings out this particular little story as a
reason for why it was wrong to get upset at
Fischer for defying the worldwide embargo
on Serbia - a country, let us not forget, that
was actively engaged in genocidal repression.

I don't think the Russians were practicing an embargo. But the main point is
what to do when things are failing, and Serbians only know what their
leaders tell them? You can dislike Americans and Western values, but can you
dislike Fischer, an actual American with Western values? Doesn't the very
fact of Fischer's presence put a doubt into people's minds on how evil the
enemy actually is?

Again, you need not agree with that perspective to be able to understand it.

Consistency is not highly valued in Parr's crowd.

For the record, I do not hold Karpov responsible
for the USSR's wrongdoing any more than I
hold Keres' responsible for the Nazis' for playing
in Nazi-organized tournaments. How they
behaved politically is frankly of little interest to
me.

They are of course playing different roles. Keres and Alekhine were
propaganda pawns for the regime, but in Russia GM Karpov was part of the
regime. That is a rather different positioning.

But actually, I think as with my idea above on a maturation of GM Evans'
point of view, so I see a change in GM Karpov's orientation to chess in the
world - a factor which had to do with /exposure/ to the greater picture,
rather than official unengaged isolationism.

How they behaved as chessplaying sportsmen
has a lot more to do with my view of them.
And Karpov does deserve condemnation on
that count - there was abominable sportsmanship
on both sides and Karpov certainly does deserve
some of the blame for the behavior of his side.

But the truth is that for both Karpov and
Korchnoi it was always about the chess -
the political controversy was a manufactured
sideshow. And they did give the chess world a
memorable match.

I happen to be friends with Korchnoi's Russian publisher, have an inscribed
copy of his book, and have exchanged several thousand e-mails with him, and
those around him, on the subject of chess in the Russias.

I would add from that knowledge that the 'picture' was much more complicated
than your paragraph above presents. It is not a matter of absolutes, but of
relative differences East and West in the system of living, not in chess.
That context is the inescapable one.

Korchnoi after all, in his press conference in Holland, spoke about Soviet
corruption in chess, but he also spoke about Western corruption in chess,
which he said was not about power and positions, but about money. These days
we would say we are differently corrupted. Whether the degree of that
corruption was anything on the scale of Soviet invigilation is unlikely,
though not much investigated [!], but the principle of corruption being
present is established in both East and West; that it is systemic, and
lorded over by real politicians and chess politicians.

If individuals acted outside the scope of that corruption, then there was
real danger, East and West, of them being ostracised. If you want to know
what happened at USCF when the issue was raised of Western cheaters, then
you already write with someone here who can tell you, since he was editor of
USCF's magazine. That is a measure of how honest CL was, and how interested
people were in doing anything at all to discuss corrupted chess burocrats at
home or abroad. That's the background context which GM Evans borached.

What happened 40 years ago was indeed a crude polemic, often with no shades
in it, few gradations of thought, as is often the case in a war. Those who
broached the gap may not have written or acted as we would now like, but
neither are any pioneers the most sophisticated of people, otherwise they
would never get out the door and find out what its really like. Neither
would people interred in close societies ever discover what anything else
was like.

Phil Innes

KARPOV'S SPORTING ETHICS (continued)

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

Fischer once accused Soviets of throwing key games to each other in
international tourneys.

GM Yasser Seirawan, when asked if he ever saw any evidence of this in
his own experience, said: "His charge is absolutely true! I've seen it
happen. Soviet stars were expected to finish behind Karpov and I saw
Polugaevsky throw away an easy draw against him in this simple
endgame. When Spassky committed the crime of finishing first ahead of
Karpov in Spain, they
cut off his interzonal funding -- which is why Spassky left Russia and
went to play for France in the Olympiads."

Karpov,A (2710) - Polugaevsky,L (2620)
Tilburg 1983
[D32]

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.e3 e6 5.d4 d5 6.cxd5 exd5 7.Be2 cxd4
8.Nxd4 Bd6 9.0-0 0-0 10.Bf3 Be5 11.Qd3 Nb4 12.Qd2 Bxd4 13.exd4 Bf5
14.Bd1 Re8 15.Na4 Nc6 16.f3 Qa5 17.Qxa5 Nxa5 18.Kf2 Nc6 19.Be3 Nb4
20.Bg5 Nd7 21.g4 Bg6 22.Bb3 Bc2 23.Bxc2 Nxc2 24.Rad1 f6 25.Bf4 Nf8
26.Rd2 Ne6 27.Bg3 Ncxd4 28.Rfd1 Nc6 29.Rxd5 Rad8 30.Rxd8 Rxd8 31.Rxd8+
Ncxd8 32.Ke3 Kf7 33.f4 g6 34.f5 gxf5 35.gxf5 Ng7 36.Ke4 Nc6 37.Bd6 Ne7
38.Nc5 b6 39.Na6 Ngxf5 40.Bb8 Ke6 41.Bxa7 Nd6+ 42.Kd3 Nd5 43.a4 f5
44.b4 f4 45.a5 bxa5 46.bxa5 Kd7 47.Nc5+ Kc6 48.Nb3 Nb4+ 49.Ke2 Kb5
50.Kf3 Nc6 51.Bb6 Nc4 52.Bc7 N4xa5?? 53.Nxa5 Nxa5 54.Bxa5 Kxa5 55.Kxf4
Kb5 56.Kg5 Kc5 57.Kh6 1-0

On Apr 29, 12:12*pm, samsloan wrote:

The prize fund being offered Shirov was generous in spite of these
problems. I believe that the amount offered was $250,000. This is more
than the amount initially offered for the Kamsky Tapolov Match more
than ten years later. Shirov was a fool not to take the $250,000.

Sam, what is your source for this claim of $250,000? I have not been
able to find any report of a prize fund, whatever the amount,
definitely being offered to Shirov after Rentero reneged on the $2M
Seville deal. To hear Shirov himself tell it, he never turned down
anything:

http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/twic283.html

THE WEEK IN CHESS 283 10th April 2000 by Mark Crowther

Open Letter from Alexei Shirov

This is just a short note to remind the chess World that Kasparov's
statement that I turned down the offer from California untrue. I never
got any serious offer on paper and while I was negotiating the offer
disappeared by itself. This was back in October 1998. It was already
in 1999 that I was informed by reliable sources that the California
offer was in fact turned down by Kasparov himself since he found the
prize fund too low and tried to negotiate a better deal with the
California organizers. This still may be the wrong information but
it's completely clear to me that Kasparov just made me a scapegoat in
order to avoid the match.

**** And once again: I did not have any serious offer at all, so there
was nothing to turn down. ***** [emphasis added -- TK]

I do believe that the Kasparov-Kramnik match can not have anything to
do with any kind of World Championship, be it official, historical,
brain or whatsoever. I am legitimate candidate for it since 1998 and
the speculations about the California offer can not change it.

Sincerely Alexei Shirov

Fischer once accused Soviets of throwing key games to each other in
international tourneys.

GM Yasser Seirawan, when asked if he ever saw any evidence of this in
his own experience, said: "His charge is absolutely true! I've seen it
happen. Soviet stars were expected to finish behind Karpov and I saw
Polugaevsky throw away an easy draw against him in this simple
endgame. When Spassky committed the crime of finishing first ahead of
Karpov in Spain, they
cut off his interzonal funding -- which is why Spassky left Russia and
went to play for France in the Olympiads."


I suppose you expect everyone to take your word for the accuracy
of this quote from Seirawan - but what if somebody wanted to
confirm that this statement was made?

You don't need Seirawan to tell you that Polugayevsky made a crude
error in the game quoted - anybody can see that, and it obviously
doesn't prove that there was collusion among the players.

Since when is Seirawan an authority on prearranged results between
Soviet players?

Any kind of serious journalist would be ashamed to base such
an accusation on such weak evidence.

wrote in message
...
ATTACK IS THE BEST DEFENSE

Larry - When your argument boils down to Larry Evans' tax status as a CL writer,
and the absence of
a written directive to politicize chess, you should be grateful for any response
whatsoever.

You obviously take yourself very seriously, but you take your role as defender
of GM Evans'
honor way too seriously. So his positions changed over the years, he
misremembers things in
a way favorable to his present beliefs, and he has a tendency to exaggerate his
own
accomplishments? Really that describes just about everybody.

The irony is that the comic book story of Evans that you peddle incessantly
doesn't
really make him look that good.

And I can lament the fact that his association with low-lifes like yourself has
cheated the chess world out of some good work, the truth is that he doesn't
owe me or the chess world anything.

On May 1, 6:44 am, " wrote:

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 both Jurgen and David Kane who lied
outright because no such directive was ever issued by me or
any other editor of Chess Life to any writer in this magazine..
In fact, the opposite was true. GM Evans was asked to tone down
his criticism of FIDE on several occasions..


Mr. Parr always seems to manage to get himself
confused. Above, we see that he has confounded
the FIDE with the Soviet Union, and in addition, he
misrepresented the facts regarding David Kane's
error and Mr. Jurgen's position.

The text above contains several points, most of
which Larry Parr was careful to avoid, for obvious
reasons:

1) the "red-baiting angle" or slant of CL magazine;

2) Larry Evans' wild, "fact-free" allegations;

3) the part about CL making it "mandatory;

4) Larry Evans' criticism of FIDE.


Apparently, Mr. Parr can only tackle the error
regarding Chess Lies allegedly making it
"mandatory" that articles have a "red-baiting"
angle.

Obviously, the narrow position that no
Chess Lies /editor/ ever gave such an order,
evades facing the real complaints he the
"red-baiting" slant, Mr. Evans' fact-freeness,
and so forth. Mr. Parr has singled out one
fabrication, and has somehow convinced
himself that it is all that really matters, for the
"game" he wants to play is the ad hominem
game. If Mr. Kane makes one mistake, he is
eliminated, according to Mr. Parr's strategy.
It's something akin to The Weakest Link, with
the notable exception that if any of the Evans
ratpackers makes a mistake, it doesn't count.
LOL!


Mr. Jurgen seems to feel that the rats have
a rabidly anti-Soviet bias, which he called
"antiquated". In response, Mr. Parr -- one of
the higher-up rats -- tells us that Mr. Jurgen is
pro-Soviet, which is "reasonable" position for
a rabidly anti-Soviet rat to take, even if he did
fail to give any support for the accusation. I
suppose most readers have duly noted the
dishonest ploy of always placing Mr. Jurgen's
name in the same part of the sentence as the
phrase "David Kane who lied". Long-time
observers of the ratpack will likely yawn and
note that this is just the sort of fundamental
dishonesty which is endemic to them.

What Mr. Jurgen may not know, is that even
today, "Russia" is perceived as a threat, and all
the mass media outlets here in the USA pound
away on a regular basis at Mr. Putin, cast as an
evil villain; sort of like Count Dracula, or Snidely
Whiplash. But it is true that the Evans clan is
stuck in the past; stuck in the Cold War era.

As for Mr. Kane, he messed up; there was no
"mandatory" order that Mr. Evans switch to
pounding away at the Soviet Union. Suffice it
to say that the overall slant of the magazine
was rabidly pro-Fischer, rabidly anti-Soviet, and
that there was a problem with being a member
of the FIDE, while at the same time bashing it
to smithereens in the pages of Chess Lies.


-- help bot

On May 1, 8:52 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

Fischer once accused Soviets of throwing key games to each other in
international tourneys.


One of these "Soviets" was named Victor Kortchnoi.
GM Kortchnoi later debunked some accusations, and
others debunked the asinine theory that it was a vast
conspiracy to "stop BF" from winning.

However, there was collusion between three of the
/top contenders/; they did not "throw" their games,
but agreed to uncontested draws.


GM Yasser Seirawan, when asked if he ever saw any evidence of this in
his own experience, said: "His charge is absolutely true! I've seen it
happen. Soviet stars were expected to finish behind Karpov and I saw
Polugaevsky throw away an easy draw against him in this simple
endgame.


I went to chessgames.com and replayed this game.

It seemed to me that GM Polugaevsky gave GM
Karpov a very difficult time-- forcing him onto defense
for much of the game. However, at the very, very
finish, it is not clear how or why the "1-0" score was
achieved, since the position is drawn. Was there a
flag fall? Did some idiot *resign*, where even the
GetClub program might have held the draw?


When Spassky committed the crime of finishing first ahead of
Karpov in Spain, they cut off his interzonal funding -- which is
why Spassky left Russia and went to play for France in the
Olympiads."


Mr. Spassky was a real annoyance. I recall that
at one time he, and he alone, had a nice plus
score against fave Bobby Fischer-- even with the
King's Gambit! In retaliation, BF wrote an article
"refuting" the whole shebang.


-- help bot