"KARPOV'S OPPONENT"

The Russian players Smyslov, Petrosian, Tal, Geller and Gulko and
the Russian crowd of seconds and functionaries heard of
the defection on the day it happened. Considering how efficiently
information spread by word of mouth in those days in the USSR,
every Russian chess player will have known about it the day
after all these people returned from Biel. -- Jurgen

THIS CRAZY WORLD O F 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."

Chess always was regarded as an extension of Soviet diplomacy. After
World War II, their chess masters were sent on goodwill tours of
neighboring states where Russia planned to increase her sphere of
influence. Team matches with Hungary and Czechoslovakia preceded the
actual takeovers of those nations. Where chess went, tanks followed.



Jürgen R. wrote:
[...]
Fischer sent him a cable congratulating
him on his defection in 1976.

And Korchnoi sent Fischer a cable congratulating him on
his defection in 1992.


In a statement to the press shortly after his defection, Korchnoi
expressed his pleasure in knowing the predicament Soviet authorities
will face when forced to report his results in the Candidates Matches
next year. That is the time, he noted, when the millions of Russian
chess players will learn of his defection."

Nonsense. Korchnoi's defection occurred while the Interzonal in Biel
was going on. I was there, playing in a side tournament, and
remember hearing the news, which spread like wild fire before it ever
hit the newspapers.
The Russian players Smyslov, Petrosian, Tal, Geller and Gulko and
the Russian crowd of seconds and functionaries heard of
the defection on the day it happened. Considering how efficiently
information spread by word of mouth in those days in the USSR,
every Russian chess player will have known about it the day
after all these people returned from Biel.

On May 5, 7:54 am, " wrote:

Then the Soviet Union refused to release Korchnoi’s family

I have always had questions about this point.

Korchnoi's adopted non-biological son was drafted into the Army and
sent to Siberia. It seems doubtful that Korchnoi had a valid claim.
How did Korchnoi come to adopt this son? Do you know?

Korchnoi's wife sued him as soon as she was allowed to immigrate and
arrived in Switzerland. Do you know what happened to that case?

Sam Sloan

On May 5, 6:07 am, Jürgen R. wrote:

Fischer sent him a cable congratulating
him on his defection in 1976.

And Korchnoi sent Fischer a cable congratulating him on
his defection in 1992.

While Bobby Fischer may well have ranted and
raved about other issues -- including his treatment
at the hands of the Pasadena police department,
an agency of the state of California -- his real beef
in 1992 was over money. The IRS would have
eaten a big chunk of his winnings, and so too
would his state of residence within the USA. I
don't think that is exactly comparable to whatever
reasons Victor Kortchnoi may have had for
defecting.


In a statement to the press shortly after his defection, Korchnoi
expressed his pleasure in knowing the predicament Soviet authorities
will face when forced to report his results in the Candidates Matches
next year. That is the time, he noted, when the millions of Russian
chess players will learn of his defection."

Nonsense. Korchnoi's defection occurred while the Interzonal in Biel
was going on. I was there, playing in a side tournament, and
remember hearing the news, which spread like wild fire before it ever
hit the newspapers.
The Russian players Smyslov, Petrosian, Tal, Geller and Gulko and
the Russian crowd of seconds and functionaries heard of
the defection on the day it happened. Considering how efficiently
information spread by word of mouth in those days in the USSR,
every Russian chess player will have known about it the day
after all these people returned from Biel.

Perhaps it was the readers of Chess Lies magazine
who did not find out until the following year? That
would hardly surprise me... .


-- help bot

On May 5, 8:15 am, "Chess One" wrote:

But the effect of other players on Karpov, who can be said to have an
artistic temperament to chess, was that he said he could never really get
excited [artistically] at the prospect of playing Kasparov - but Korchnoi
provided him a huge stimulus - and he quantified that, by saying something
like 85% of his creative energies.

He then continued on this theme, in Karpov on Karpov, to state that Fischer
would have been his greatest challenge, in the 90th percentiles.

That is an artistic tribute and a sincere one to Fischer-the-player.

It seems likely that this particular blather was a
response to the innumerable attacks "on Karpov",
but by others. One of these others was of course,
Gary Kasparov, who continued to belittle his
adversary until he signed a contract forbidding it,
not very long ago.

The ploy was to suggest that GK was unworthy,
or that AK had not necessarily tried his darnedest
to excel against him; a rather obvious cop-out or
lie. To me, this is no different from the multitude
of lies and fabrications told by master story-teller
Gary Kasparov, many of which targeted Anatoly
Karpov, casting him as the main villain in twisted
plots which virtually always contained serious
flaws and self-contradictions, not to mention
casting errors (GK as the hero??!).


Far better if Fischer-the-player had continued to believe in pawns rather
than suffer the fate of the [self] abandoned celebrity.

Another possibility was for Bobby Fischer to
refuse to compete, but at the same time craft
numerous works on the game, which quite
naturally would have been best-sellers. That
would have solved his financial woes, while at
the same time affording him an outlet in which
to critique the play of other grandmasters, and
bash the FIDE, the USCF, and most of all, the
Russians and the Jews who were all "out to get
him". (Hey, if /I Was Beaten in a Pasadena
Jailhouse/ sold, then why not /The World Wide
Plot to Get Bobby Fischer/?)


-- help bot

GREG FINALLY AGREES WITH US

Greg Kennedy has reached dulcet accord with us.
He also now appears to agree with John Hillery.

Namely, if as Greg argued, FIDE's title is that
organization's property to dispense and dispose of,
then Bobby Fischer was indeed still world champion
in 1975. Larry Evans' account and, indeed, his use
of the term "selfmate" was both accurate and
contained a nice referential, low-key pun.

It is fine that Greg is now in agreement with
yours truly and John Hillery. He required a bit of
prodding, and he never knew that FIDE still considered
Bobby champion even after his letter of resignation.
History, which is Greg's much-hated great conspiracy
of knowledge, has stabbed him in the back once again.

Finally, Greg has been going on and on about the
Karpov-Polugaevsky game from Tilburg. Juergen and he
dislike the on-the-scene testimony of Yasser Seirawan.

I warrant that most of you realize that Seirawan
was not discussing a single move made by Polu but
the evident disdain and facial gestures and Karpov's
weasel-like embarrassment during the entire endgame.
In short, Polu was doing his duty but letting everyone
who watched know what was happening.

As for Spassky, he was punished by Soviet
authorities after finishing ahead of Karpov in a
Spanish international tournament. Polugaevsky more
or less acted as ordered; Spassky, whom Fischer beat
badly, finished ahead of Tolya at a time when such a
result was deemed anti-Soviet. He received sanctions
and eventually moved to France and became what
wascalled a one-legged dissident -- one foot inside
Russia and one foot outside..
..
Yours, Larry Parr





help bot wrote:
On May 4, 4:34 am, wrote:

You can argue this one either way. In June of 1974, when FIDE wouldn't
agree to his match conditions, Fischer wrote the letter resigning his
"FIDE title." In September of 1974, Karpov won the final Candidates
Match. In that sense, Kennedy's quibble is correct. However, in May-
June 1975, FIDE held another meeting and agreed to _almost_ all of
Fischer's conditions. They then sent Fischer a request to play, more
or less ignoring the "resignation" letter. When Fischer refused to
rely, Karpov was declared the winner by forfeit. Looked at that way,
Evans's account is fairly accurate -- by declining to play, Fischer
"gave" the title to his (known) opponent.


In 1975, Bobby Fischer was not in possession of
the FIDE title, so he was in no position to do any
such thing. The FIDE title, you see, is controlled
by *FIDE* (go figure), and it is *they* who do the
giving (or not). There is a thing called a "world
championship cycle", and so you see, the old
days wherein a single person gives "his" title or
refuses to defend it, are over and done with.

The real reason the Larry Evans account tries to
involve Anatoly Karpov is self-evident; Mr. Evans
has for decades been bashing AK as a supposed
villain; he seems to know only the mystery-
suspense-thriller genre, and no other. (IMO, this
was more of a Dr. Strangelove style tragi-comedy.)


-- help bot

"help bot" wrote in message
...
On May 5, 8:15 am, "Chess One" wrote:

But the effect of other players on Karpov, who can be said to have an
artistic temperament to chess, was that he said he could never really get
excited [artistically] at the prospect of playing Kasparov - but Korchnoi
provided him a huge stimulus - and he quantified that, by saying
something
like 85% of his creative energies.

He then continued on this theme, in Karpov on Karpov, to state that
Fischer
would have been his greatest challenge, in the 90th percentiles.

That is an artistic tribute and a sincere one to Fischer-the-player.

It seems likely that this particular blather was a
response to the innumerable attacks "on Karpov",
but by others.

Sorry, that sentence doesn't parse.

One of these others was of course,
Gary Kasparov, who continued to belittle his
adversary until he signed a contract forbidding it,
not very long ago.

'these others'? Did you announce your own topic yet?

What I wrote is that Karpov fessed up to things he did as world champion,
that he later was not proud of, and that he is the first I know to have done
this in writing.

He also admitted a personal element about his own creativity in respect of
specific opponents. I do not understand from greg Kennedy who can't even
admit his own name, what the hell he knows or thinks or speculates upon - or
even what his opinion is, never mind how informed it is.


The ploy was to suggest that GK was unworthy,
or that AK had not necessarily tried his darnedest
to excel against him; a rather obvious cop-out or
lie.

In what way, even in a general sense, are people who like Bach but not
Beethoven deploying cop-out tactics or lying?

To me, this is no different from the multitude
of lies and fabrications told by master story-teller
Gary Kasparov, many of which targeted Anatoly
Karpov, casting him as the main villain in twisted
plots which virtually always contained serious
flaws and self-contradictions, not to mention
casting errors (GK as the hero??!).

These strong players are all of a muchness to Greg Kennedy, who BTW, had not
admitted reading the chess bio I quote from, or anything else to inform his
opinions. Maybe all GMs look and act the same to him?

Far better if Fischer-the-player had continued to believe in pawns rather
than suffer the fate of the [self] abandoned celebrity.

Another possibility was for Bobby Fischer to
refuse to compete, but at the same time craft
numerous works on the game, which quite
naturally would have been best-sellers. That
would have solved his financial woes, while at

Fischer had no especial financial woes [laugh]

the same time affording him an outlet in which
to critique the play of other grandmasters, and
bash the FIDE, the USCF, and most of all, the
Russians and the Jews who were all "out to get
him". (Hey, if /I Was Beaten in a Pasadena
Jailhouse/ sold, then why not /The World Wide
Plot to Get Bobby Fischer/?)

Because that would be a completely trite response to the issues in his life,
and address issues as if written by a persona created by the public, not an
actual person.

As far as the public was concerned there was no Fischer-the-person, there
was only the chess hero. And when heroes don't compete any more for us, we
the public resent the fact, and want to punnish the Hero.

The fate of abandoned-celebrity is to be treated just as you have done here
with Karpov and Kasparov. You can no longer fantasize yourself into their
situations, neither can you get there by you own efforts - intolerable
situation! - [for fantacists] so you 'kill' him still, even though Fischer
is dead.

This is why Taimanov said that he pitied all these Russian kids whose only
route out of their drab regional futures was their chess, and that he
thought was too brittle a base to withstand much of life.

Phil Innes


-- help bot

On May 9, 2:02 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

It seems likely that this particular blather was a
response to the innumerable attacks "on Karpov",
but by others.

Sorry, that sentence doesn't parse.

One of these others was of course,
Gary Kasparov, who continued to belittle his
adversary until he signed a contract forbidding it,
not very long ago.

'these others'? Did you announce your own topic yet?

Got issues with not always being parroted or
your speculations not just being swallowed whole,
every time? Then this is not the place for you, my
friend; why not go to the USCF forum, and hire
"moderators" to shield your speculations from
sunlight?


What I wrote is that Karpov fessed up to things he did as world champion,
that he later was not proud of, and that he is the first I know to have done
this in writing.

Indeed. And what I wrote is that I believe he
wrote that /in response to/ the innumerable
attacks on him. In sum, I don't buy it, any
more than I "buy" the lies and fabrications of
Mr. Karpov's nemesis, Gary "I never touched it"
Kasparov. (At least, I don't think I touched it.
Somebody else must have moved it! You can't
prove anything. Top of the world, Ma!)


Fischer had no especial financial woes [laugh]

Alas, the nearly-an-IM legend-in-his-own-mind
Phil Innes has forgotten that Mr. Fischer -- who
one poster asserted was likely a fine investor
and manager of money -- was swindled out of
much of his 1972 winnings... like a child.

As I recall, Mr. Fischer desired a big house,
built in the shape of a Rook. He wanted to be
paid big money, like Muhammed Ali was. But
he was too scared to write books, on account
of everyone being out to get him, see?


As far as the public was concerned there was no Fischer-the-person, there
was only the chess hero.

You are talking about the mindless fans here
in the USA. But there are others who read
English... who were not so obsessed, or
deluded about BF. In fact, David Levy wrote
a book about Mr. Fischer, which, far from
going over the top, was as they say on the
Fox TV channel, /fair and balanced/.

Some subjects upon which BF might have
"safely" written were the Sicilian Defense, the
"Roy" Lopez, and the endgame. None of
these entail /personal/ issues, nor even hero
worship. People would buy them because
they believed BF to be a very strong chess
analyst (think of GM Huebner or Fritz-- two
powerful analysts who never made it to the
pinnacle).


And when heroes don't compete any more for us, we
the public resent the fact, and want to punnish the Hero.

Even so, it is possible for the "hero" to help
promote chess -- and make lots of money from
it -- by writing books and such without having
to compete. (Think of how many Raymond
Keene hack-jobs the world could have been
saved! Eric Schiller could have been a taxi
driver or something, and we would all have
/real/ chess books to pore over.)


The fate of abandoned-celebrity is to be treated just as you have done here
with Karpov and Kasparov. You can no longer fantasize yourself into their
situations

I keep getting the feeling that some of the hacks
here in rgc are a tad frustrated; that they feel a
need to /project/ upon me their hearts' greatest
unfulfilled desires of greatness in chess. (Why
me, I wonder? Is it my innumerable wins at
GetClub? My good looks, or amazing charm or
wit? Who knows... .)


neither can you get there by you own efforts - intolerable
situation! - [for fantacists] so you 'kill' him still, even though Fischer
is dead.

More ad hom. stuff, as always.

Note to imbecilic "projectionists": my view is
that chess is a horrible *waste* of the human
intellect. As such, the weaker you may be
(and I expect you are mediocre, at best), the
better off you are, for you will be less likely to
get sucked in and waste your pitiful lives away
on a silly board game.

Now then, what constitutes something more
worthwhile? The easy answer is the field of
medicine, or science, or even sharpening
pencils for that matter. What might be worse
than wasting one's life away on chess? Well,
there is politics, lawyering, the advertising
business, and the /ad hominem/ trade.

Now, I hope you learned something from all
this. Stop your puerile projections, and face
your "issues" head-on, like men. (Well, just
*pretend* to be men then.)


-- help bot

HE COULDA BEEN A CONTENDAH

Note to imbecilic "projectionists": my view is
that chess is a horrible *waste* of the human
intellect. As such, the weaker you may be
(and I expect you are mediocre, at best), the
better off you are, for you will be less likely to
get sucked in and waste your pitiful lives away
on a silly board game. -- Greg Kennedy

When you can't excel at something, put it down. By his own admission
the Indiana Kid coulda been a contendah if only he had lived in
Brooklyn like Bobby.

THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 292)

"Chess is as elaborate a waste of human intelligence as you can find
outside of an advertising agency," sneered novelist Raymond Chandler.





help bot wrote:
On May 9, 2:02 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

It seems likely that this particular blather was a
response to the innumerable attacks "on Karpov",
but by others.

Sorry, that sentence doesn't parse.

One of these others was of course,
Gary Kasparov, who continued to belittle his
adversary until he signed a contract forbidding it,
not very long ago.

'these others'? Did you announce your own topic yet?

Got issues with not always being parroted or
your speculations not just being swallowed whole,
every time? Then this is not the place for you, my
friend; why not go to the USCF forum, and hire
"moderators" to shield your speculations from
sunlight?


What I wrote is that Karpov fessed up to things he did as world champion,
that he later was not proud of, and that he is the first I know to have done
this in writing.

Indeed. And what I wrote is that I believe he
wrote that /in response to/ the innumerable
attacks on him. In sum, I don't buy it, any
more than I "buy" the lies and fabrications of
Mr. Karpov's nemesis, Gary "I never touched it"
Kasparov. (At least, I don't think I touched it.
Somebody else must have moved it! You can't
prove anything. Top of the world, Ma!)


Fischer had no especial financial woes [laugh]

Alas, the nearly-an-IM legend-in-his-own-mind
Phil Innes has forgotten that Mr. Fischer -- who
one poster asserted was likely a fine investor
and manager of money -- was swindled out of
much of his 1972 winnings... like a child.

As I recall, Mr. Fischer desired a big house,
built in the shape of a Rook. He wanted to be
paid big money, like Muhammed Ali was. But
he was too scared to write books, on account
of everyone being out to get him, see?


As far as the public was concerned there was no Fischer-the-person, there
was only the chess hero.

You are talking about the mindless fans here
in the USA. But there are others who read
English... who were not so obsessed, or
deluded about BF. In fact, David Levy wrote
a book about Mr. Fischer, which, far from
going over the top, was as they say on the
Fox TV channel, /fair and balanced/.

Some subjects upon which BF might have
"safely" written were the Sicilian Defense, the
"Roy" Lopez, and the endgame. None of
these entail /personal/ issues, nor even hero
worship. People would buy them because
they believed BF to be a very strong chess
analyst (think of GM Huebner or Fritz-- two
powerful analysts who never made it to the
pinnacle).


And when heroes don't compete any more for us, we
the public resent the fact, and want to punnish the Hero.

Even so, it is possible for the "hero" to help
promote chess -- and make lots of money from
it -- by writing books and such without having
to compete. (Think of how many Raymond
Keene hack-jobs the world could have been
saved! Eric Schiller could have been a taxi
driver or something, and we would all have
/real/ chess books to pore over.)


The fate of abandoned-celebrity is to be treated just as you have done here
with Karpov and Kasparov. You can no longer fantasize yourself into their
situations

I keep getting the feeling that some of the hacks
here in rgc are a tad frustrated; that they feel a
need to /project/ upon me their hearts' greatest
unfulfilled desires of greatness in chess. (Why
me, I wonder? Is it my innumerable wins at
GetClub? My good looks, or amazing charm or
wit? Who knows... .)


neither can you get there by you own efforts - intolerable
situation! - [for fantacists] so you 'kill' him still, even though Fischer
is dead.

More ad hom. stuff, as always.

Note to imbecilic "projectionists": my view is
that chess is a horrible *waste* of the human
intellect. As such, the weaker you may be
(and I expect you are mediocre, at best), the
better off you are, for you will be less likely to
get sucked in and waste your pitiful lives away
on a silly board game.

Now then, what constitutes something more
worthwhile? The easy answer is the field of
medicine, or science, or even sharpening
pencils for that matter. What might be worse
than wasting one's life away on chess? Well,
there is politics, lawyering, the advertising
business, and the /ad hominem/ trade.

Now, I hope you learned something from all
this. Stop your puerile projections, and face
your "issues" head-on, like men. (Well, just
*pretend* to be men then.)


-- help bot

On May 9, 8:30 pm, " wrote:

Note to imbecilic "projectionists": my view is
that chess is a horrible *waste* of the human
intellect. As such, the weaker you may be

When you can't excel at something, put it down. By his own admission
the Indiana Kid coulda been a contendah if only he had lived in
Brooklyn like Bobby.


It must have been the term "imbecilic" that drew
Mr. Parr in, like a fly to rotting flesh. One might
just as well have called the man by name, so
fitting is this term.


"Chess is as elaborate a waste of human intelligence as you can find
outside of an advertising agency," sneered novelist Raymond Chandler.


Indeed, while I read /every day/ about the many
virtues of capitalism and the evils of disliked
Commie dictators, the sad truth is that there are
evils among us, among capitalists. I noted long
ago the fact of needless duplications, such as
two "struggling" gas stations on nearby corners,
each of them splitting the limited business, half
and half. Here in the Midwest, nearly every
corner "drugstore" has a copycat rival situated
kitty-corner, again splitting the business such
that each store may struggle to make a decent
profit, their respective employees, naturally being
less productive in this situation, are paid less to
suit.

But what really galls is the way that our federal
government is set up. Nearly everything seems
to revolve more around the two-party war that is
ongoing, than about any other issues which may
pertain. It reminds me a little of the Hatfields and
the McCoys -- two clans who fought for years
over the right way to face one's Knights on the
chess board (or some other "crucial" issue).

The fact remains that from where I stand, the
very idea that one's chess rating is indicative of
self-worth tells a very revealing tale about these
imbecilic projectionists; about how they think
(or rather, are simply unable to think). From my
perspective, getting roped into an obsession with
the game of chess reveals a character flaw; it
shows an inability to put life into its proper
perspective. It reminds me of the poor fellow
whose last act in life was to warn viewers, on
camera, to not dare try what he and he alone
had done and was capable of doing: filming
grizzlies with no protection from being mauled
and eaten. That was his last act because, well,
you can probably guess. To such imbeciles I
have but one word: bear mace. Okay, that's
two words... .


-- help bot

CAPITALIST WASTE

Greg Kennedy's objections to business
competition recalls the argument made by the two
British Fabians, Beatrice and Sidney Webb, during the
1930s. They assailed the number of different fountain
pen brands and called it capitalist waste. Under
socialism, there would be only one brand of fountain
pen. The "savings" would go to the people, etc, etc.

And so, the Soviets had fountain pens and only
adopted ball-points in the final years of their imperium.

Of course, one had all of those fountain-pen ink
makers and the factories that produced bottles for the
fountain-pen ink and the companies that provided the
rubber sacs for the ink in the fountain pens, and the
factories that produced the various penpoints for the
fountain pens and the foundries that provided the
metal levers for the fountain pens and the corporations
that produced ink removers for spills on paper while writing.

Ai, yah. There will always be types like our
Greg who will decry the marketplace and imagine
that a benevolent regime will make decisions that
are more rational.

I will post an article that I wrote a year or so
before the collapse of the Soviet Union that appeared
in the old NY City Tribune as well as Glasnost News
& Review dealing with the single-brand-fountain-pen-no-
capitalist-waste type of economic logic. After all, the
Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Khmer Rouge Cambodia
(its leaders eliminated capitalist waste nearly in toto)
and current North Korea were and, in the case of the
latter country, are still run on that logic.

Our Greg: always looking to blame someone other
than himself for the life he has led in that Indiana factory.

Yours, Larry Parr



help bot wrote:
On May 9, 8:30 pm, " wrote:

Note to imbecilic "projectionists": my view is
that chess is a horrible *waste* of the human
intellect. As such, the weaker you may be

When you can't excel at something, put it down. By his own admission
the Indiana Kid coulda been a contendah if only he had lived in
Brooklyn like Bobby.


It must have been the term "imbecilic" that drew
Mr. Parr in, like a fly to rotting flesh. One might
just as well have called the man by name, so
fitting is this term.


"Chess is as elaborate a waste of human intelligence as you can find
outside of an advertising agency," sneered novelist Raymond Chandler.


Indeed, while I read /every day/ about the many
virtues of capitalism and the evils of disliked
Commie dictators, the sad truth is that there are
evils among us, among capitalists. I noted long
ago the fact of needless duplications, such as
two "struggling" gas stations on nearby corners,
each of them splitting the limited business, half
and half. Here in the Midwest, nearly every
corner "drugstore" has a copycat rival situated
kitty-corner, again splitting the business such
that each store may struggle to make a decent
profit, their respective employees, naturally being
less productive in this situation, are paid less to
suit.

But what really galls is the way that our federal
government is set up. Nearly everything seems
to revolve more around the two-party war that is
ongoing, than about any other issues which may
pertain. It reminds me a little of the Hatfields and
the McCoys -- two clans who fought for years
over the right way to face one's Knights on the
chess board (or some other "crucial" issue).

The fact remains that from where I stand, the
very idea that one's chess rating is indicative of
self-worth tells a very revealing tale about these
imbecilic projectionists; about how they think
(or rather, are simply unable to think). From my
perspective, getting roped into an obsession with
the game of chess reveals a character flaw; it
shows an inability to put life into its proper
perspective. It reminds me of the poor fellow
whose last act in life was to warn viewers, on
camera, to not dare try what he and he alone
had done and was capable of doing: filming
grizzlies with no protection from being mauled
and eaten. That was his last act because, well,
you can probably guess. To such imbeciles I
have but one word: bear mace. Okay, that's
two words... .


-- help bot