On May 3, 1:36 pm, " wrote:

Several readers said they understood "selfmate" to mean only that
Fischer mated himself by handing the title to Karpov without a
fight..

This nonsense about Bobby Fischer handing "his"
title off to Anatoly Karpov is wrongheaded.

In fact, Mr. Fischer resigned the FIDE title, and it
was only later given to the winner of the final playoff
match, by FIDE (not BF). Mr. Fischer's battles
were with or against the FIDE assembly, not AK.
And I wouldn't say that BF did not put up a fight; it
is perhaps more accurate to say that he lost by
TKO, after winning nearly every round but the last.


-- help bot

help bot wrote:
On May 3, 1:36 pm, " wrote:

Several readers said they understood "selfmate" to mean only that
Fischer mated himself by handing the title to Karpov without a
fight..

This nonsense about Bobby Fischer handing "his"
title off to Anatoly Karpov is wrongheaded.

In fact, Mr. Fischer resigned the FIDE title, and it
was only later given to the winner of the final playoff
match, by FIDE (not BF). Mr. Fischer's battles
were with or against the FIDE assembly, not AK.
And I wouldn't say that BF did not put up a fight; it
is perhaps more accurate to say that he lost by
TKO, after winning nearly every round but the last.


-- help bot


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.

GREG IS ALWAYS GOOD FOR A LAUGH

This nonsense about Bobby Fischer handing "his" title off to Anatoly
Karpov is wrongheaded. -- Greg Kennedy

Evans's account is fairly accurate -- by declining to play, Fischer
"gave" the title to his (known) opponent." -- John Hillery

As I recall, Korchnoi said he'd accept all Fischer's conditions if he
became the next challenger. Fischer sent him a cable congratulating
him on his defection in 1976.

In September 1976 (page 506) Chess Life & Review reported: "Viktor
Korchnoi, officially the world's second ranked player (having lost to
Anatoly Karpov in a match that turned out to have been for the world
championship title), became the latest in a growing list of
intellectuals and sports figures to have left the Soviet Union
permanently. Following his tie for first place (with Anthony Miles) at
the 1976 IBM tournament in Amsterdam, Korchnoi failed to show up at
the airport for his flight home. Instead he reported to police
headquarters in Amsterdam and asked for political asylum. The Dutch
government granted him a six-month permit to remain in Holland while
his request is being considered....

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."

wrote:
help bot wrote:
On May 3, 1:36 pm, " wrote:

Several readers said they understood "selfmate" to mean only that
Fischer mated himself by handing the title to Karpov without a
fight..

This nonsense about Bobby Fischer handing "his"
title off to Anatoly Karpov is wrongheaded.

In fact, Mr. Fischer resigned the FIDE title, and it
was only later given to the winner of the final playoff
match, by FIDE (not BF). Mr. Fischer's battles
were with or against the FIDE assembly, not AK.
And I wouldn't say that BF did not put up a fight; it
is perhaps more accurate to say that he lost by
TKO, after winning nearly every round but the last.


-- help bot


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.

FISCHER'S SELFMATE

The reason why several readers caught the
evident point of selfmate is the common use of
sui-mate, with the "sui" meaning in many minds
"suicide." One therefore creates a referential pun.

As for the FIDE world title, it was Bobby's to give
away which he finally did AFTER resigning it.

Yours, Larry Parr


wrote:
FISCHER'S SELFMATE

Several readers said they understood "selfmate" to mean only that
Fischer mated himself by handing the title to Karpov without a
fight..


On May 2, 1:05?pm, Mike Murray wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:43:39 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:





On May 2, 8:39?am, David Richerby
wrote:
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

The version I heard was "This is the sort of nonsense up with which I
shall not put."

John Savard

A grammar text? ?Why do you bring that book I don't want to be
preached to out of up for ?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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:
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


FIDE apparently didn't think so. In June of 1975, they asked Fischer
to play Karpov _as World Champion_. Fischer's refusal to play that
match -- as he and everyone else knew -- had the _effect_ of making
Karpov World Champion. There are plenty of reasons for criticizing
Evans, but harping on this semantic quibble is just making you look
silly. Well, sillier.

On May 5, 1:06 am, wrote:

FIDE apparently didn't think so.
In June of 1975, they asked Fischer
to play Karpov _as World Champion_.

Losing the thread; we all agree that the winner of
the previous FIDE world championship cycle was
Bobby Fischer, and that if he had played, he
would have been given pretty nearly anything he
wanted, just as in 1972.


Fischer's refusal to play that
match -- as he and everyone else knew -- had the _effect_ of making
Karpov World Champion.

Indeed. So, what is your point?


There are plenty of reasons for criticizing
Evans, but harping on this semantic quibble is just making you look
silly. Well, sillier.

In my view, you look rather daft in that you
can't get past this freaky ratpacker bias thing.

It's 2008 AD, and yet some folks are akin to
frozen cadavers from the Cold War era; hence
the observation by Jurgen that their biases are
"antiquated"; the fact is, we have moved well
beyond the old biases and are now bashing
Russia's Mr. Putin, Venezuela's Mr. Chavez
and *China*. Life goes on, with or without the
frozen cadaver mindset.

Calling me "silly" is well, just plain silly; it's
name-calling, and most folks will conclude --
rightly or wrongly -- that you abandoned
reason in favor of /ad hominem/ because you
must have not had any other choice.

The organization known as FIDE controlled
the FIDE title-- whether the Evans ratpackers
like it or not. Nothing can change that-- not
even stubbornness and denial (regardless of
quantity). In much the same way, the USCF
controlled Chess Lies magazine; it may be
unpalatable, but it remains a fact of life.

As for criticizing Larry Evans, it appears
that others have beaten me to it; when the
old man "had a cow" over some pedantic
corrections to a couple of his gaffes, he
poured gasoline on the flames, spurring Mr.
Winter to do a write-up in which numerous
such errors were laid out, side by side. I can
not even hope to compete with such work as
that, since it would require too much time
and effort. Besides, I only have a few of all
the issues of Chess Lies magazine, so it
would be a piecemeal job.

Saying that Larry Evans' account is accurate,
is akin to saying that Sanny's program plays
according to the rules. You can't put lipstick
on a pig.


-- help bot

[...]
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.

THE WORLD ACCORDING TO GREG

Harping on this semantic quibble is just making you look
silly. Well, sillier. -- John Hillery

Calling me "silly" is well, just plain silly; it's name-calling...
Saying that Larry Evans' account is accurate, is akin to
saying that Sanny's program plays according to the rules.
You can't put lipstick on a pig. -- Greg Kennedy.

Greg can dish it out but he can't take it.

The Indiana Kid frequently calls other people names.
He called Kasparov a "cheater" (which Guy Macon
refuted by quoting the pertinent rule) and falsely attributed
to "Evans ratpackers" an eyewitness account by Seirawan
(who played at Tilburg 1983) that Karpov induced Polugaievsky
to throw an easily drawn ending to him AFTER adjournment.
It was just "an ordinary mistake" claims Greg who, like Jurgen,
seems to think Karpov can do no wrong. Greg's enemies list
is headed by Evans, Kasparov and Keene who, according to
him, can do no right.

John Hillery accurately notes that FIDE asked Fischer
to defend that organization's world title as the reigning
champion in 1975, so FIDE itself evidently still regarded
Fischer as its champion. Even FIDE's own records list
him as its official titleholder from 1972-1975, but facts
seldom interfere with Greg's distortion of history.

Given Greg Kennedy's logic that FIDE's title is
its to dispense and dispose as that organization so
deems, then our Greg proves Hillery's case that Evans
got it right that Fischer, in effect, defaulted the world title
to Karpov. For Bobby still possessed it IF, as Greg says,
the title resides with the person FIDE so deems.

Greg was obviously unaware of FIDE's position.
The universal experience with Greg is that history is
to him terra incognita -- whether the subject under
discussion is the political borders of Europe
("Bismarck who or Poland what?" as he might ask) or
the number of American world chess champions. (In his
innocence, Greg did not even know that Steinitz was an
American world chess champion.)

In the current discussion Greg did not realize that
FIDE continued to recognize Bobby Fischer as its
champion after he wrote his resignation letter in 1974.

Greg is not just silly. He's obtuse.

Yours, Larry Parr



help bot wrote:
On May 5, 1:06 am, wrote:

FIDE apparently didn't think so.
In June of 1975, they asked Fischer
to play Karpov _as World Champion_.

Losing the thread; we all agree that the winner of
the previous FIDE world championship cycle was
Bobby Fischer, and that if he had played, he
would have been given pretty nearly anything he
wanted, just as in 1972.


Fischer's refusal to play that
match -- as he and everyone else knew -- had the _effect_ of making
Karpov World Champion.

Indeed. So, what is your point?


There are plenty of reasons for criticizing
Evans, but harping on this semantic quibble is just making you look
silly. Well, sillier.

In my view, you look rather daft in that you
can't get past this freaky ratpacker bias thing.

It's 2008 AD, and yet some folks are akin to
frozen cadavers from the Cold War era; hence
the observation by Jurgen that their biases are
"antiquated"; the fact is, we have moved well
beyond the old biases and are now bashing
Russia's Mr. Putin, Venezuela's Mr. Chavez
and *China*. Life goes on, with or without the
frozen cadaver mindset.

Calling me "silly" is well, just plain silly; it's
name-calling, and most folks will conclude --
rightly or wrongly -- that you abandoned
reason in favor of /ad hominem/ because you
must have not had any other choice.

The organization known as FIDE controlled
the FIDE title-- whether the Evans ratpackers
like it or not. Nothing can change that-- not
even stubbornness and denial (regardless of
quantity). In much the same way, the USCF
controlled Chess Lies magazine; it may be
unpalatable, but it remains a fact of life.

As for criticizing Larry Evans, it appears
that others have beaten me to it; when the
old man "had a cow" over some pedantic
corrections to a couple of his gaffes, he
poured gasoline on the flames, spurring Mr.
Winter to do a write-up in which numerous
such errors were laid out, side by side. I can
not even hope to compete with such work as
that, since it would require too much time
and effort. Besides, I only have a few of all
the issues of Chess Lies magazine, so it
would be a piecemeal job.

Saying that Larry Evans' account is accurate,
is akin to saying that Sanny's program plays
according to the rules. You can't put lipstick
on a pig.


-- help bot

wrote in message
...


FIDE apparently didn't think so. In June of 1975, they asked Fischer
to play Karpov _as World Champion_. Fischer's refusal to play that
match -- as he and everyone else knew -- had the _effect_ of making
Karpov World Champion. There are plenty of reasons for criticizing
Evans, but harping on this semantic quibble is just making you look
silly. Well, sillier.

In 1991 we saw a new Karpov.

Some clouds had lifted from the scene, and there he was in his own words
talking not very differently on things that Western journalists, including
Evans, had mentioned. Perhaps he is the first W Ch to spontaneously admit
that he did things wrong as champion - stuff he was not proud of.

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.

Sure enough, after following Fischer round the world, the fateful moment
came when Fischer actually held the pen to sign the match agreement, but
fatally added one more issue to the array, that the title be called the
professional world chess championship. Apparently all else had been agreed
between the players - but Karpov said right then that they were never going
to buy that back in Moscow, and he knew the effort was doomed.

Why the Moscow/Fide would have baulked at adding one word to the title is
perhaps explained by the 40 years of pretence that Soviet GMs were not
state-supported professionals. Indeed, consciously admitted or not, I think
Fischer knew his condition would be the deal-breaker, and by then he was
sick of talking chess with anyone, East or West.

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

Phil Innes