Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old May 23rd 06, 02:41 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
 
Posts: n/a
Default If Parr were editor....

WHAT WOULD PARR DO?

It would be interesting to see what Larry Parr, former CL

editor and a good one, would have to say about this
exchange. I know that he is confident that Evans would do
well if a scientific survey were to be conducted, and that
scrapping his column is a mistake. But I would not guess
he'd support the general principle of making editorial decisions
about the content of CL by binding plebiscite. -- Larry Tapper

I agree that one does not have a plebiscite to
determine a magazine's contents, but it is looneytoons
stuff not to have reader surveys now and then.

Chess Life has never had a scientific survey,
merely a series of questionnaires that appeared in the
magazine and that readers answered. One survey was
answered by about 4000 readers, a large sampling but
by no means scientific.

In those days there were no organized groups
engaging in voting, and as a practical matter
(matching results against membership lists) it would
have been difficult. So any reasonable editor would
a lot of weight to the opinions of 4,000 readers.

These past surveys uniformly put Soltis and
Evans at the top among the columnists. No ifs,
ands, or buts.

Former Executive Director Al Lawrence noted that
the question and answer format is not, in truth, old hat
and still remains quite popular. One is reasonably certain
there will be a Q & A column at some point in Chess Life --
a must for such a hobbyist organ -- and I am pretty
certain that the politicians have chosen someone to
write it already. I predict it will be Joel Benjamin.

Gary Sperling, a former president and treasurer,
could be relied upon to speak frankly at times. During
one Board meeting he announced that Evans was not
well liked by the politicians. Somone pointed out that
Evans was popular in a recent survey. Sperling did not
deny the fact or, like the ratpackers and rattappers here,
try to invent elaborate and false reasons for the popularity.
He conceded the point and said straightforwardly that
GM Evans' popularity with the readers was not his main
concern. Right, honestly said. His concern was control.

The current Board figures that canning Evans
will injure the USCF but assuage their collective egos.
Evans has made some of these people feel bad
about themselves over the years. They figure the
USCF will survive without Evans, and thus the last
independent voice in Chess Life will be gone.

Politicians of any stripe only understand force
majeure -- be it political force, social force, physical
force. GM Evans will return if the necessary force
can be exerted by readers who appreciate his work.
Otherwise, he is finished by political fiat at Chess Life.

Frankly, I can't think of anyone who is more qualified
to write Evans On Chess. But whether he would return
after the shoddy treatment he received after devoting his
life to chess is anyone's guess.

  #2   Report Post  
Old May 23rd 06, 03:22 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
jr
 
Posts: n/a
Default If Parr were editor....

Thanks, Larry, for telling it like it is.

Once again you have hit the nail on the head.

  #3   Report Post  
Old May 23rd 06, 05:17 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
help bot
 
Posts: n/a
Default If Parr were editor....

Not bad. Perhaps the empty rhetoric could have been *disguised*
better, though.

Take this part, for example:

"The current Board figures that canning Evans will injure the
USCF...".

The fact that Larry Parr is no mind-reader is too obvious for this to
pass muster, except with the dimmest of readers.

"...and thus the last independent voice in Chess Life will be gone."

Here one cannot help but wonder how it is that all the other
collumnists are assummed to have no voice, or at least no independent
voice.
One moment, Soltis and Evans are like twins, both being equally
favored by a host of reader surveys; the next moment, Soltis is -- in
effect -- dubbed a mindless crony of the powers that be, having no
independent voice. Likewise with all the other Chess Life collumnists
-- except Evans, of course. It goes without saying that Larry Parr
gives absolutely nothing in the way of support for such claims, but in
order for propaganda -- and I am trying to be kind in my choice of
words -- to work, the logical flaws need to be better disguised than
this. Keep trying though -- you show a definite talent for this sort
of work.

-- help bot

  #4   Report Post  
Old May 23rd 06, 09:59 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
 
Posts: n/a
Default If Parr were editor....

SIGH

Here one cannot help but wonder how it is that all
the other collumnists are assummed to have no voice, or at
least no independent voice. One moment, Soltis and Evans
are like twins, both being equally favored by a host of reader
surveys; the next moment, Soltis is -- in effect -- dubbed a
mindless crony of the powers that be, having no independent
voice. Likewise with all the other Chess Life collumnists
-- except Evans, of course. It goes without saying that Larry Parr
gives absolutely nothing in the way of support for such claims, but
in order for propaganda -- and I am trying to be kind in my choice of
words -- to work, the logical flaws need to be better disguised than
this. Keep trying though -- you show a definite talent for this sort
of work. -- Help Bot

Greg Kennedy never could think. He tries to argue that calling GM
Evans the only independent voice in Chess Life is theequivalent of
saying that Andy Soltis or, mayhaps, problemist Bob Lincoln or
chess basics instructor Lev Alburt are cronies.

Sigh.

GM Evans' function was to answer readers' concerns,
which often veered into CONTROVERSIAL areas of chess
politics. A Bob Lincoln gives us a discussion of problems;
a Soltis talks about interesting things done by Zukertort at
London 1883 or how GMs are reluctant to reveal their thoughts
in annotations; a Pandolfini gives us a solitaire chess quiz.

It is not so much that these writers are or are not
cronies; it simply makes no sense to put them in the
category one way or the other based on their efforts
in Chess Life.
..
Larry Evans was the single remaining independent voice,
and he employed that voice because it was part of his
function as a columnist to do so. He called the shots as
he saw them and let the chips fly where they may.

An Andy Soltis could make his opinions heard very
loudly indeed were he fulfilling a function in Chess Life
other than the one he does. He does exercise that
voice loud and clear in his New York Post chess column.

I do not often answer Greg Kennedy (Help Bot) because
the fallacies in his rambling are evident. This time
around, though, the opportunity to point them out
was too enticing. Even he realizes that nearly everyone
here understands the distinction between Evans' job and,
say, Soltis' job or Bob Lincoln's job.

Cruel of me, I know.

  #6   Report Post  
Old May 23rd 06, 05:12 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
David Kane
 
Posts: n/a
Default If Parr were editor....


wrote in message
oups.com...


The current Board figures that canning Evans
will injure the USCF but assuage their collective egos.
Evans has made some of these people feel bad
about themselves over the years. They figure the
USCF will survive without Evans, and thus the last
independent voice in Chess Life will be gone.


Parr might be right that Evans is disliked by politicians.
I don't know.

What I do know is that the USCF has been
spectaculary unsuccessful in the "Evans era"
and that is reason enough to end his column.

Common sense suggests that sticking to the
promotion of the game of chess is the way
to increase the effectivness of the USCF - not
identifying itself with any individual's
"independent voice".
























  #7   Report Post  
Old May 23rd 06, 05:48 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default If Parr were editor....

Careful David, next thing you know someone will parrot your words with
a summary like:


On Parr as editor of Chess Life:

DKane wrote: "...is the way to increase the effectivness of the USCF"


K

David Kane wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


The current Board figures that canning Evans
will injure the USCF but assuage their collective egos.
Evans has made some of these people feel bad
about themselves over the years. They figure the
USCF will survive without Evans, and thus the last
independent voice in Chess Life will be gone.


Parr might be right that Evans is disliked by politicians.
I don't know.

What I do know is that the USCF has been
spectaculary unsuccessful in the "Evans era"
and that is reason enough to end his column.

Common sense suggests that sticking to the
promotion of the game of chess is the way
to increase the effectivness of the USCF - not
identifying itself with any individual's
"independent voice".


  #9   Report Post  
Old May 23rd 06, 07:20 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default If Parr were editor....

TK wrote:
wrote:
Careful David, next thing you know someone will parrot your words with
a summary like:


On Parr as editor of Chess Life:


DKane wrote: "...is the way to increase the effectivness of the USCF"


Don't be so unambitious! The Parrot could to much more with this. How
about:


"Parr might be right ... Evans is ... [T]he USCF has been
spectacularly unsuccessful ... end[ing] his column. Common sense
suggests that ... the way to increase the effectivness of the USCF [is]
identifying itself with [his] 'independent voice'."


While I agree some fun could be had with such an exercise--it reminds
me of a contest 'one' offered in this forum last year (horrendous
judging for not recognizing the superiority of my entries, of
course)--I was after similarity and understatement, not potential. g

K

  #10   Report Post  
Old May 24th 06, 02:54 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default If Parr were editor....

BLAME IT ALL ON GM EVANS

What I do know is that the USCF has been
spectaculary unsuccessful in the "Evans era"
and that is reason enough to end his column. -- David Kane

There you have it. Blame the failure of the
USCF on Larry Evans.

Not on the leadership.

Not on the fake expenditures and junkets by
chess politicians over the years.

Not on the no-bid $50,000 contract for the redesign.

Not on the thousands of decisions made by the Policy
Board and now the Executive Board for decades.

By this logic we must also ax Andy Soltis, who
has also been appearing in Chess Life during the years
of failure along with every other writer.

Before Ed Edmondson retired, he publicly thanked
GM Evans and his newspaper column for bringing in more
new USCF members than anyone except for Bobby Fischer.

When these guys hate Evans and independent
voices, they hate with a vengeance!

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
Waiting for Hoffman [email protected] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 38 May 23rd 06 03:09 PM
Waiting for Hoffman [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 38 May 23rd 06 03:09 PM
Breaking USCF News [email protected] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 102 March 8th 06 03:26 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:01 AM.

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