Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old June 20th 06, 03:04 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 3,026
Default So for their first move the get rid of Evens????????

FOUR COLUMNS PAID FOR AND QUASHED

The issue is not whether there is some explosive
information in the four columns that were quashed; the
issue, as I wrote and Tom Martinek quoted, is whether
the sort of questions answered by GM Evans will continue.

The issue, as I wrote, was to get rid of GM Evans
NOW, well before the next Delegates meeting.

Keeping GM Evans around another four months after
the magazine redesign might mean keeping him around
for another several years.

The Executive Board wanted to quash independence
when the quashing was good.

As for the quality of GM Evans' articles, they were
judged as outstanding in every single reader survey
ever conducted, involving many thousands of responses.
Anecdotal evidence also confirms that people enjoyed
reading Evans, often before anything else in Chess Life,
and he still draws packed rooms when he lectures.

There is every reason to believe that the quashed
articles would have been enjoyed by the readership;
there is no reason to think otherwise, other than the
vicious spite and envy of a Martinak and his ilk.

Why pay for something and not use it? Because
the new editor's single concern was to get the
expected job DONE.

He did.

wrote:
What a blunder. I would get rid of anything before I dumped Evens. How
about getting rid of ABS of chess and Chess Solitaire anyway? When I
get the magazine, he is the first thing that I read. Even if he weren't
so popular, the fact that he is their most famous writer makes this a
blunder. They have tried this before. They don't like Larry because he
his honest, cares about the players and isn't leftwing.


  #2   Report Post  
Old June 20th 06, 03:10 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 3,026
Default So for their first move the get rid of Evens????????

BRENNEN HAS A POINT

NM Schroeder could never invent himself as 2300+

Elo. No, he merely offered to play the entire membership
of the Correspondence Chess League of America to
determine their chess strength, using his play as the
measuring stick. -- Neil Brennen

Neil Brennan makes a crucial implied distinction,
and we note it.

NM Jim Schroeder openly issues foolish
challenges for a silly purpose. NM NOT Taylor
Kingston invents what he is not and does it slyly
if not cleverly by speaking in praise of himself,
employing bogus screen names such as Xylothist,
Paulie Graf, Niemand, etc.

Jim Schroeder, warts and all, remains a real
man of chess when compared with the manqueman

  #3   Report Post  
Old June 20th 06, 06:55 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 9,302
Default So for their first move the get rid of Evens????????


wrote:


NM NOT Taylor Kingston invents what he is not and does it slyly
if not cleverly by speaking in praise of himself, employing bogus
screen names such as Xylothist, Paulie Graf, Niemand, etc.



What sort of nonsense is this? If Larry Parr has proof that TK
has been posting under other handles "in praise of himself", he
should give relevant examples, like the great Louis Blair always
does. Without such specific examples, these repeated attacks
appear as empty rhetorical smears -- the sort of slop we have
come to expect from LP. I especially liked the "etc." part, as if
LP had not the time to type out all the other names on his list.

The truth is, LP has demonstrated a serious ineptitude in the
past when it comes to "identifying" those posters who he
imagines are out to get him. If I recall, after my first "encounter"
with LP in this newsgroup, he decided I was definitely Vince
Hart; unfortunately for "us", "we" never managed to collect "our"
winnings for this imbecilic error. It's memories like that which
cause the bot to snicker whenever LP makes one of his famous
"attacks" on TK; AFAIK, LP certainly is stupid enough to repeat
this kind of error indefinitely.

Obviously, these many attacks on Taylor Kingston's person
by Larry Parr amount to mere ad hominem -- the habitual
knee-jerk response of a weak mind, when confronted with
constructive criticism.


As far as I can see, it works something like this:

1) Larry Evans publishes some faulty material, with a wrong
date, a couple of minor spelling errors, and so forth.

2) Nitpicker Extroardinare Ed Winter writes a letter of
correction to either LE himself, or to the editor of Chess Life.

3) Larry Evans dismisses any and all such corrections as
immaterial/harrasment by his "vast inferiors".

4) The nitpicker steadfastly refuses to rest until a correction
is actually published in CL.

5) Enter Larry Parr, club in hand, who automatically and
mindlessly harries the critic(s) untill doomsday for daring to
differ with Lord Larry Evans, OBE, IGM, etc., etc.

6) LP's poodle, Phil, leaps into the fracas.

7) From out of the woodwork jumps old enemies of PI,
such as Neil Brennen, piling on.

8) Secondly, Chess Life *has* no standards.

Larry Parr creates in his own little mind a strange yet
wonderful world in which there are two sides, black and white,
right and wrong; in this world all who do not blindly follow LE
and LP *without question*, are henceforth labeled as
"ratpackers", and imagined to be under the mind-control of
the most-hated of all -- Edward Winter. Why is he hated
more than others? Simply because his criticisms are
published; they are widely distributed; they are *correct*, even
if not presented fairly. Winter is the antithesis of Evans.


-- help bot

  #4   Report Post  
Old June 20th 06, 02:38 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2005
Posts: 173
Default So for their first move the get rid of Evens????????

The issue is not whether there is some explosive
information in the four columns that were quashed; the
issue, as I wrote and Tom Martinek quoted, is whether
the sort of questions answered by GM Evans will continue.


But that isn't a real issue. you just posted:

"Fortunately neither the new editor of Chess Life nor
the chess politicians and bureaucrats can silence the
lively weekly articles by GM Larry Evans on the Net.
Here is a direct link to Evans On Chess archives."

So, the question isn't whether questions answered by GM Evans will
continue, but instead only whether they will continue in Chess Life.
Whether they are the best use of the space in the magazine and best use
of money for contributors. Or maybe the real question is whether an
editor can choose what columns he thinks are best or whether he is
stuck to using the same old columns forever because the columnists
believe they have a permanent sinecure.

There is every reason to believe that the quashed
articles would have been enjoyed by the readership;
there is no reason to think otherwise, other than the
vicious spite and envy of a Martinak and his ilk.


Why do you assume that someone who disagrees with you do so out of
"spite and envy". Could it be projection by someone who has had to move
to some third-world country to get a job, and then has to swallow his
own beliefs by working for someone who openly supported Ilyumzhinov for
a FIDE office?

I don't feel spite and envy for GM Evans, but I just don't think that
his column has been very good for the last 5 to 10 years. I read it 20
to 30 years ago when it actually answered questions about chess. But
that changed when GM Evans no longer wanted to answer those kinds of
questions. And when he makes mistakes about tournament rules, it is
certainly an inconvenience for tournament directors, who have to
explain that they are correct and the Chess Life columnist is wrong.
And the endless repetitions of Fischer and Keres discussions is in my
opinion a waste of space. As you noted yourself, sometimes these space
considerations didn't even allow GM Evans to be completely accurate. It
seems that these issues would be better discussed on the internet
rather than in a magazine.

Why pay for something and not use it?


Because a previous editor contracted for it and now the current editor
doesn't feel it is worth printing? Isn't that exactly what most of the
posters to this newsgroup said the USCF should have done with Tim
Taylor's article?

Because the new editor's single concern was to get the
expected job DONE.


Yes, and that job is to improve the quality of the magazine so that it
will help retain members and bring in new members. In my opinion, the
June issue was a huge improvement over the Chess Life of the last few
years. Hopefully it will continue to improve in the future.

- Tom Martinak

  #5   Report Post  
Old June 20th 06, 02:50 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 5,003
Default So for their first move the get rid of Evens????????


"Tom Martinak" wrote in message
oups.com...

SNIPS

Why pay for something and not use it?


Because a previous editor contracted for it and now the current editor
doesn't feel it is worth printing? Isn't that exactly what most of the
posters to this newsgroup said the USCF should have done with Tim
Taylor's article?


Deflating all this lather, here is the crux of it.

Evans is here compared with whoring in Budapest, which rested on a matter of
public decency.


What is Martiniak's sense of why the USCF editor published that, and
rejected the Evans articles? Too much chess in them? Too hard to understand?
Was there political content not relevant to current chessic conditions?
What, what, what?

Surely to God, they can't possibly have been as vague as the 'criticism'
attending them.

Even Kasparov in the recent NiC said that perforce half his column had to be
about chess politics because it plays such a heavy hand it becomes as much
the context for playing as the moves themselves.

Phil Innes

- Tom Martinak





  #6   Report Post  
Old June 20th 06, 03:08 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2005
Posts: 173
Default So for their first move the get rid of Evens????????

Why pay for something and not use it?

Because a previous editor contracted for it and now the current editor
doesn't feel it is worth printing? Isn't that exactly what most of the
posters to this newsgroup said the USCF should have done with Tim
Taylor's article?


Deflating all this lather, here is the crux of it.

Evans is here compared with whoring in Budapest, which rested on a matter of
public decency.


That is certainly not the crux of the matter. Larry Parr asked why
something would be paid for and then not used and I gave an example
where most here argued that exact thing should be done. The specific
material isn't relevant, the principle is what is important.

What is Martiniak's sense of why the USCF editor published that, and
rejected the Evans articles?


First of all, Philsy they were different editors.

Secondly, in my own opinion, Taylor's article was much more interesting
than GM Evan's columns. If it could have been edited somewhat (probably
only needing about a dozen words and several sentences changed or
removed), then it would have been one of the best articles of the last
few years. One of the few comparable to material appearing in New In
Chess.

- Tom Martinak

  #7   Report Post  
Old June 20th 06, 04:39 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 5,003
Default So for their first move the get rid of Evens????????


"Tom Martinak" wrote in message
oups.com...
Why pay for something and not use it?

Because a previous editor contracted for it and now the current editor
doesn't feel it is worth printing? Isn't that exactly what most of the
posters to this newsgroup said the USCF should have done with Tim
Taylor's article?


Deflating all this lather, here is the crux of it.

Evans is here compared with whoring in Budapest, which rested on a matter
of
public decency.


That is certainly not the crux of the matter.


What?!! Its YOUR example.

Larry Parr asked why
something would be paid for and then not used and I gave an example
where most here argued that exact thing should be done. The specific
material isn't relevant, the principle is what is important.


??! What does that mean - I saw only vagueries from you - and you continue
to now include an undefined principle.

What is Martiniak's sense of why the USCF editor published that, and
rejected the Evans articles?


First of all, Philsy they were different editors.


Hey! I'm not your boy! And this is the big world where you need to watch
your mouth, unless of course you want to be considered as just another
net-mouth, safe at a distance, like the duck in Peter in the Wolf. [hint:
you should have picked Peter, who won, not the duck.]

Your explanation such as it is, says that TWO editors passed this material
without quashing it. I don't understand if that is an apologia pro vita sua,
or a comment on two half-wits making a hole [sic!]

Secondly, in my own opinion, Taylor's article was much more interesting
than GM Evan's columns.


"More interesting". And is that all you have to say? Not even why more
interesting to you, and if you think that your interests reflect CL's
readership, and therefore is more central to their interest?

The explanation gets vaguer and vaguer.

If it could have been edited somewhat (probably
only needing about a dozen words and several sentences changed or
removed), then it would have been one of the best articles of the last
few years. One of the few comparable to material appearing in New In
Chess.


??
and vaguer.

Phil Innes

- Tom Martinak



  #8   Report Post  
Old June 20th 06, 04:42 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2005
Posts: 173
Default So for their first move the get rid of Evens????????

What is Martiniak's sense of why the USCF editor published that, and
rejected the Evans articles?


First of all, Philsy they were different editors.


Hey! I'm not your boy! And this is the big world where you need to watch
your mouth, unless of course you want to be considered as just another
net-mouth, safe at a distance, like the duck in Peter in the Wolf. [hint:
you should have picked Peter, who won, not the duck.]


If you want people to respect your name, then you should first respect
theirs. If you want to misspell my name, then I will feel free to do
the same to yours.

- Tom Martinak

  #9   Report Post  
Old June 20th 06, 05:16 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 5,003
Default So for their first move the get rid of Evens????????


"Tom Martinak" wrote in message
ups.com...
What is Martiniak's sense of why the USCF editor published that, and
rejected the Evans articles?

First of all, Philsy they were different editors.


Hey! I'm not your boy! And this is the big world where you need to watch
your mouth, unless of course you want to be considered as just another
net-mouth, safe at a distance, like the duck in Peter in the Wolf. [hint:
you should have picked Peter, who won, not the duck.]


If you want people to respect your name, then you should first respect
theirs. If you want to misspell my name, then I will feel free to do
the same to yours.


O - I see. My apologies, Tom! It was no conscious intention of mine to do
so. And in this case, I withdraw suggestion that you are a duck, and you can
be Peter to my Wolf.

Phil

- Tom Martinak



  #10   Report Post  
Old June 20th 06, 07:36 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
jr jr is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 311
Default So for their first move the get rid of Evens????????


Tom Martinak wrote:

I don't feel spite and envy for GM Evans, but I just don't think that
his column has been very good for the last 5 to 10 years. I read it 20
to 30 years ago when it actually answered questions about chess. But
that changed when GM Evans no longer wanted to answer those kinds of
questions. And when he makes mistakes about tournament rules, it is
certainly an inconvenience for tournament directors, who have to
explain that they are correct and the Chess Life columnist is wrong.


I find these views strange because I appreciate being able to read
the column without cracking open a chess set. And I'm much more
interested in hearing what a veteran grandmaster has to say about
controversial issues rather than wasting two pages answering
questions that my computer can solve in a split second.

I have seen Evans blast many stilly and stupid rules, such as
drug testing players in certain FIDE events.

Since you mention "mistakes about tournament rules" could
you substantiate this claim by citing the issue and page
number where this so-called mistake was made?

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
So for their first move the get rid of Evens???????? [email protected] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 214 July 1st 06 12:15 AM
So for their first move the get rid of Evens???????? [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 11 June 21st 06 10:29 AM
Paulsen-Morphy Leopold rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 23 May 30th 06 05:16 AM
Thank God! Sam Sloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 11 August 12th 05 10:43 PM
Reply to Affidavit of Leroy Dubeck Sam Sloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 26 March 29th 05 04:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:36 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017