THE BOBBY FISCHER THAT WE LOVED by GM Larry Evans (Chess Life, March
2008)

During the time when bogus rationales were discussed
at length in a vain attempt to "justify" the multitude of
Fischer demands, Larry Evans wrote a nice piece
pointing out that they were not fair, and Chess Lies
published it. That was too much "sunlight" for Mr.
Fischer to handle. -- Greg Kennedy

Needless to say, our Greg has changed his tune but consistencey was
never his strong suit. In his first incarnation on this forum (when he
signed his real name) Greg repeatedly alleged that GM Evans had
"brainwashed" America into accepting Bobby's conditions vs. Karpov in
1975. Over the years, as new information emerged, GM Evans did place
some of the blame, GM Evans did place some of the blame on the USSR.
But he never changed his basic thesis that the main fault rested with
Bobby himself, as he noted once again after Bobby's death in a recent
issue of Chess Life.

Bobby finally wrested the title at age 29, but his refusal to defend
it against Anatoly Karpov in 1975 was utterly disastrous. Most fans
expected him to crush the darling of the Kremlin and they wondered if
he was crazy for spurning millions to play him in the Philippines.
Everyone was disappointed. His colleagues were bitter because he did
nothing to promote chess during his self-imposed exile in the
California sun.
A mathematician claimed that Bobby's demands against Karpov -- 10 wins
but he keeps the title on a 9-9 tie -- gave his challenger a better
break than a 24-game tilt where the champion had draw odds.

A French playwright depicted our hero as "a persecuted poet who
defends human dignity." A psychiatrist pontificated: "A paramount
theme is his refusal to compromise his principles." Diehards blamed it
all on a Commie plot. Benko claimed, "Bobby was afraid that if he
defeated Karpov the Russians would kill him."

This claptrap only encouraged Bobby to dig his own grave. I tried to
persuade him to set a shining example by not seeking any advantage,
yet reasoning with him was absolutely futile.

"You didn't think the champ should have any edge when you were the
challenger," I argued.

"That's besides the point! The Russkies always made the rules and got
away with it. Let's give 'em a dose of their own medicine," he
replied.

Bobby promised not to seek any edge in future matches if he got his
way just this once. I DON'T THINK HE EVER QUITE FORGAVE ME FOR TRYING
TO GET HIM TO DO THE RIGHT THING [emphasis mine].

Why he didn’t play again for 20 years until his rematch with Spassky
in 1992 is a mystery. He blamed it all on a Jewish conspiracy. In his
later years he even claimed in a radio rant that Jews were telling me
what to write about him. I told friends that paranoia is the state
with the prettiest name.

In Bobby Fischer Goes to War (2004) Edmonds and Eidenow note: "[In
1972] Fischer stated that he would not shrink from defending his
title; on the contrary, he would regularly take on challengers. Few
expected him to be knocked off his throne for a decade or more. One
exception was his former second, Larry Evans, who explained to The New
York Times , 'I probably have more influence on him than anybody else,
and that's exactly zero. I just had the feeling he would never play
competitive chess again.’"

In 1973 or '74 Bobby asked me to compose a challenge on his behalf,
offering a match against anyone in the world who was willing to put up
a million dollar purse in gold. But he never released this document.
In 1975 Marcos offered $5 million to host the title match with Karpov
in Manila, but Bobby wouldn't budge until FIDE agreed to every last
one of his demands. KARPOV WAS PROBABLY EAGER TO PLAY BUT WAS
PRESSURED BY THE KREMLIN TO MAKE NO CONCESSIONS [my emphasis].

Some fans called Bobby’s refusal to defend his title cowardice, but I
think that's too simplistic. He sacrificed his youth for chess and now
was discovering girls and all the things he had missed along the way.
Whatever the reason – real or imagined – abdication was a tragedy for
him as well as a tragedy for chess. Alas, his selfmate returned the
title to the Soviets without a fight.

On May 2, 8:03 am, " wrote:

. Alas, his selfmate returned the
title to the Soviets without a fight.

That is not a selfmate, it is a helpmate. Doesn't Evans at least know
how to use chess language properly?

On May 2, 8:15 am, SBD wrote:
On May 2, 8:03 am, " wrote:

. Alas, his selfmate returned the
title to the Soviets without a fight.

That is not a selfmate, it is a helpmate. Doesn't Evans at least know
how to use chess language properly?

I believe Evans is using "selfmate" as a word-play on "suicide", the
old name for such problems. He means Fischer killed himself as
Champion through his actions. I think it's hair-splitting to argue
over the subtleties of the term as used here. But you appear to be
correct. Technically a self-mate requires White to force Black to mate
him against Black's will - the moves are forced. I don't think the
Soviets were unwilling to take the Championship title.

STEN DOWD'S PETTINESS

SBD wrote:

. Alas, his selfmate returned the
title to the Soviets without a fight.

That is not a selfmate, it is a helpmate. Doesn't Evans at least know
how to use chess language properly?

Dr. Dowd's once forged my name on a university website. His criticism
is reminiscent of a cable that Winston Churchill once sent ending a
sentence with "of." When a subordinate reminded him that it was wrong
to end a sentence with a preposition, Churchill replied: "Do you see
the kind of idiocy up which I have to put.”

SBD wrote:
On May 2, 8:03 am, " wrote:

. Alas, his selfmate returned the
title to the Soviets without a fight.

That is not a selfmate, it is a helpmate. Doesn't Evans at least know
how to use chess language properly?

On May 2, 9:37*am, " wrote:
STEN DOWD'S PETTINESS

SBD wrote:
. Alas, his selfmate returned the
title to the Soviets without a fight.
That is not a selfmate, it is a helpmate. Doesn't Evans at least know
how to use chess language properly?

Dr. Dowd's once forged my name on a university website. His criticism
is reminiscent of a cable that Winston Churchill once sent ending a
sentence with "of." When a subordinate reminded him that it was wrong
to end a sentence with a preposition, Churchill replied: "Do you see
the kind of idiocy up which I have to put.”

As I recall, the exact quote was "Do you see the kind of idiocy up
*_with_* which I have to put.”

SELFMATE IS THE RIGHT WORD

Doesn't Evans at least know how to use chess language properly? --
SBD

Despite Steven Dowd's malicious hair-splitting, most readers
understand that Fischer's selfmate means suicide. Manyplayers don't
even know what a helpmate is.

Here's what Larry Evans wrote in THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS in an
article called Help, Mates! (page 38).

Benko no longer competes very often. Today he is a major problem
composer whose specialty is "helpmates" where both sides collaborate
to find the shortest way to mate. In other words, Black must help
White to checkmate the Black king.

These unusual exercises are ingenious and infuriating. Solving them
forces us to think backwards to envisage a mating pattern and then
reach it the shortest possible way.

Here’s how Benko explains this strange art form:

"The helpmate does not conflict with existing rules of play. The
solver must find the only variation leading to mate — which should be
cleverly hidden by the composer! — and do this with the cooperation of
both sides. Black always moves first and must
cooperate in finding the only sequence leading to checkmate."

P.S. Thanks to Mr. Kingston for the correctionl. As I recall, the
exact quote was "Do you see the kind of idiocy up
*_with_* which I have to put.? --


wrote:
On May 2, 9:37?am, " wrote:
STEN DOWD'S PETTINESS

SBD wrote:
. Alas, his selfmate returned the
title to the Soviets without a fight.
That is not a selfmate, it is a helpmate. Doesn't Evans at least know
how to use chess language properly?

Dr. Dowd's once forged my name on a university website. His criticism
is reminiscent of a cable that Winston Churchill once sent ending a
sentence with "of." When a subordinate reminded him that it was wrong
to end a sentence with a preposition, Churchill replied: "Do you see
the kind of idiocy up which I have to put.?

As I recall, the exact quote was "Do you see the kind of idiocy up
*_with_* which I have to put.?

On May 2, 9:37*am, " wrote:

Dr. Dowd's once forged my name on a university website. His criticism
is reminiscent of a cable that Winston Churchill once sent ending a
sentence with "of." When a subordinate reminded him that it was wrong
to end a sentence with a preposition, Churchill replied: "Do you see
the kind of idiocy up which I have to put.”

The best example of I've ever seen of ending a sentence with a
preposition, in this case five of them, yet being perfectly
comprehensible, involved a little boy whose father brought a book the
boy didn't like for his bedtime story. The boy said "Daddy, what did
you bring that book I didn't want to be read to out of up for?"

wrote:
" wrote:
Dr. Dowd's once forged my name on a university website. His criticism
is reminiscent of a cable that Winston Churchill once sent ending a
sentence with "of." When a subordinate reminded him that it was wrong
to end a sentence with a preposition, Churchill replied: "Do you see
the kind of idiocy up which I have to put.=94

As I recall, the exact quote was "Do you see the kind of idiocy up
*_with_* which I have to put.=94

Clearly the `with' is necessary. But it's not, in fact, clear that
Churchill ever said or wrote anything of the sort.

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/churchill.html


Dave.

--
David Richerby Broken Chocolate Hat (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a hat that's made of chocolate but it
doesn't work!

wrote:
The best example of I've ever seen of ending a sentence with a
preposition, in this case five of them, yet being perfectly
comprehensible, involved a little boy whose father brought a book
the boy didn't like for his bedtime story. The boy said "Daddy, what
did you bring that book I didn't want to be read to out of up for?"

The boy didn't like it because it contained stories from all the
countries of the world but dad liked the boring Australian ones the
best. ``Daddy, what did you bring that book I didn't want to be read
to out of about Down Under up for?''


Dave.

--
David Richerby Aquatic Devil Umbrella (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ an umbrella that's possessed by Satan
but it lives in the sea!

On May 2, 8:37 am, " wrote:
STEN DOWD'S PETTINESS

Who is this Sten? He sounds like a pretty bright guy and worthy of the
Dowd name.

Actually, Larry, if most players don't know the difference, maybe the
analogy is imperfect.... Doesn't GM Evans believe in using chess
language correctly? No matter what you say, it is not the correct use
of the word. The Soviets were not forced to take the title, it was
given to them.

Neil, just as you were a bit of a stickler with "Rookhouse" (and with
good reason) I believe that chess problem terms are not just to be
thrown around... they should be used correctly.

PS - Steven Dowd never forged Parr's name on any university website,
despite Parr's assertions to the contrary. It's really sad he has to
lie about this in order to try to smear me. But it is his usual mode
of operation.