Chess Life rehires GM Evans!
parrt...@cs.com
due to popular demand What's The Best Move? will resume
in the October issue of Chess Life.
Apparently there will no longer be a Q&A column in the
printed version of the magazine.
For the record, this is the fourth time that the 5-time U.S.
champion has been fired and rehired by Chess Life.
Chess One
<parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1155145635.7...@n13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
well well well :)
ante victotiam ne canas triumphum,
instar omnium, docendo discimus
phil
Taylor Kingston
If true, this still does not seem like much of a vindication for
Evans, at least not in the terms advanced in this forum. His supporters
here have repeatedly said that his most important contributions were
historical reminscences, and his critical attitude toward USCF and
FIDE, the latter supposedly being the reason his column was cancelled.
If all he's doing are puzzles, he's in no position to do either.
Politically he's still out in the cold.
Unless this is a prelude to a full restoration of Evans' column, I
don't see that it gives his supporters much cause for rejoicing. He'll
just be performing a minor instructional task that any other competent
player could do.
jr
It's a victory for readers of Chess Life. What's The
Best Move? was the first thing I turned to in his
column and I shall now renew my membership.
His weekly column at worldchessnetwork.com
still provides an opportunity to consult his views
about the past and present of chess.
parrt...@cs.com
Date: 8/9/2006 12:17:53 PM
From: RDK...@aol.com
Ratpacker prediction predictable.
They must be gnawing at themselves over this news.
Taylor Kingston
jr wrote:
> Kingston is still gracious, as always.
Actually I'm trying to look at this from Evans' point of view. It's
been claimed here that the most important role Evans played in Chess
Life was as a political gadfly, a thorn in the side of the USCF and
FIDE. If I were in Evans' shoes, or I were a pro-Evans zealot, and this
political role were important to me, I'd feel downright insulted at
being handed back just this mere sop, this consolation prize. Evans
used to have a whole loaf. They took it away from him, and now it seems
they're saying "Here, you can have one slice of bread."
But, Evans' attitude may be differnt, and who knows how this will
ultimately play out. Any judgement at this point (including mine) is
probably premature.
Chess One
"Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1155148110....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> parrt...@cs.com wrote:
>> Word has seeped out from the U.S. Open in Chicago that
>> due to popular demand What's The Best Move? will resume
>> in the October issue of Chess Life.
>>
>> Apparently there will no longer be a Q&A column in the
>> printed version of the magazine.
>>
>> For the record, this is the fourth time that the 5-time U.S.
>> champion has been fired and rehired by Chess Life.
>
> If true, this still does not seem like much of a vindication for
> Evans,
Since Evans can not respectably be awarded a soviet style honary GM-ness,
nor attain a seat ion the House of Lords, one wonders what sort of
vindication would be 'much', if not this volte-face on the part of USCF's
board - who of course had nothing to do with the original decision, and
Lucas is thrown under the bus.
> at least not in the terms advanced in this forum. His supporters
> here have repeatedly said that his most important contributions were
> historical reminscences,
LOL! Kingston reverses what 'supporters' have said, and rather than an admit
that it is a CURRENT contribution to urbis et orbis, as mentioned by
supporters here - and also by the delegates, and not incidentally by the
chess public who have bent the delegates ears flat aside their heads...
well, how does he continue his 're-telling'?
> and his critical attitude toward USCF and
> FIDE, the latter supposedly being the reason his column was cancelled.
Beatriz did it? I should like to hear more from Kingston's sources of
information!
> If all he's doing are puzzles, he's in no position to do either.
? Kingston states he can't talk chess and can't talk chess politics. Maybe
Evans will do to Kingston what Keene did to Kingston, eviscerate him in
public. That would be proof of still having some teeth, no?
> Politically he's still out in the cold.
Politically he is front and center every decent chess fan in the western
democracy - those who did anything to help Kok, and resent Kirsan. Where
does Kingston get off saying that Americans and Western Europeans do not
hold these opinions. Their is massive disgust - even shock - over what has
happened.
Now we need a few voices who can authoritaritively speak up to re-orient
world chess affairs.
> Unless this is a prelude to a full restoration of Evans' column, I
> don't see that it gives his supporters much cause for rejoicing. He'll
> just be performing a minor instructional task that any other competent
> player could do.
If that is indeed what has been offered to him, he should throw it in their
faces. What a disgusting idea! To celebrate it, worse than disgusting,
despicable!
Phil Innes
Taylor Kingston
Chess One wrote:
> If that is indeed what has been offered to him, he should throw it in their
> faces. What a disgusting idea! To celebrate it, worse than disgusting,
> despicable!
Exactly my point, Phil. For once we seem to agree, although the rest
of your post indicates incomprehension of what I said and unfamiliarity
with the content of "What's the Best Move?". It's just a set of 4
puzzle positions, with a choice of three moves given for each. On the
back page it's explained which move is best, and why. It's just an
instructional feature, with no scope for comment on chess political
issues, FIDE, USCF, etc.
Louis Blair
7 ... what Keene did to Kingston, eviscerate him in public. ...
_
To me, it looked like a sequence of GM Keene retreats (with
no apologies for previous mistakes).
_
"i found, more or less by random selection, a
review on chess cafe by taylor kingston ... what
i found simply confirms my view that many of
these so called reviewers are simply too weak
as chessplayers to do a proper job.and the
people who employ them dont recognise this
fact-because they lack chess strength as well.
_
one of the games from the soltis book taylor
kingston focussed on was duras v teichmann
ostend 1906 ..., the game which probably
contains the authors worst blunder in the
entire book. and what does the reviewer say
about this? nothing!
_
... of course, its not fair to expect a reviewer
to find all the analytical mistakes in a book,
but when that reviewer decides to concentrate
on a particular game, picks it out by name
and then a) fails to understand that one side
has an overwhelming positional plus and b)
could have utterly refuted the opponents
desperation attack by taking a rook, then
something is wrong somewhere! perhaps
the reviewer just wasnt up to the job."
- GM Keene quote reported by Phil Innes
(Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:50:08 GMT)
_
_
"GM Keene [tried] to make a point by indicating
that Taylor Kingston had decided 'to concentrate
on' that 'particular game'. However, an
inspection of the actual review revealed that this
supposed concentration was no more than a brief
reference to the inadequacy of the introductory
material included with the game by Soltis."
- Louis Blair (23 Apr 2006 17:17:04 -0700)
_
_
"Anyone who knows anything real about
chess would know that this Duras rook
sac has been busted for ages."
- GM Keene quote reported by Larry Parr
(26 Apr 2006 23:23:33 -0700)
_
_
"Does GM Keene claim that GM Soltis does
not know anything real about chess?"
- Louis Blair (27 Apr 2006 16:42:46 -0700)
_
_
"i think it fair to say that taylor kingstons
review would have been improved had he
pointed out the unsoundness of the rook
sac" - GM Keene quote reported by Phil
Innes (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
Louis Blair
7 Word has seeped out from the U.S. Open in Chicago
7 that due to popular demand What's The Best Move?
7 will resume in the October issue of Chess Life.
7
7 Apparently there will no longer be a Q&A column in
7 the printed version of the magazine. ...
_
Larry Parr wrote (9 Aug 2006 12:22:16 -0700):
7 GM RAY KEENE COMMENTS
7
7 Date: 8/9/2006 12:17:53 PM
7 From: RDK...@aol.com
7
7 Ratpacker prediction predictable.
7
7 They must be gnawing at themselves over this news.
_
Where was there any objection when Larry Parr mentioned
the "POSSIBLE COMPROMI9E", about six days earlier?
_
"... why not inquire if GM Larry is interested in
continuing What's The Best Move? ..." - Larry
Parr (3 Aug 2006 01:37:49 -0700)
parrt...@cs.com
Subj: Lieberman out, Evans in!!!
Date: 8/9/2006 4:28:02 PM
From: jameswe...@comcast.net
parrt...@cs.com
NMnot Taylor Kingston, the man who lied on this
forum that he was 2300+ ELO and got outed as a
class A-rated player by Sam Sloan, now argues that the
offer to GM Evans to return for "What's the Best Move?"
is not really a vindication.
His concern is touching.
NMnot suggests that GM Evans should have turned
down the invitation to return, even though such a snub may
have hurt the USCF. We note that NMnot does not mention
USCF President Bill Goichberg's frank admission that the
Federation had shot itself in the foot with the firing of GM
Evans, calling it a self-inflicted wound.
The powers that be want GM Evans' NAME in Chess
Life but not his opinions. They want this big name
back whom the readers enjoy and who will keep
them renewing their regular memberships.
But the politicos also want control of "their" magazine
-- as former USCF Treasurer Gary Sperling once put it. GM
Evans has been hired back in part -- for the time being --
by people who wanted him out in the worst possible way.
Members were not renewing, and there was an
enormous amount of unorganized heat. No campaign
was launched on behalf of GM Evans; the uprising
within the membership was largely spontaneous.
We know that GM Evans has scored at or near the
top in popularity in every single readers' survey ever
taken. We now have a new kind of survey: the very
people who wanted him out of the magazine have made
an offer for him to return due to popular demand. Numerous
outraged readers threatened to terminate their memberships.
We note that this new survey has been conducted
by GM Evans' ENEMIES who fear for the bottom line of
the USCF. No, not by ratpackers of the Blair, Brennen
and Kingston stripe, who are also foes.
One recalls that NMnot Kingston wrote a letter to
New In Chess begging them to restore his hero Edward
Winter to its pages. In vain.
How the ratpackers hate what has happened!
NMnot drips with envy at what he has never
accomplished -- though he has perhaps convinced
others of his 2300+ non-rating.
This is the right time, one thinks, for Xylothist, Paulie Graf,
Niemand and other false names invented by our NMnot to
appear and pronounce NMnot Kingston's body of work
vastly superior to GM Larry Evans whose Hall of Fame status
and two dozen books on chess have been generally well received.
We may surmise that NMnot at some ego-level
wishes that such were true,. And if he wishes it were
true, why then Xylothist, Paulie Graf and/or Niemand
may soon be telling us it is true.
When dealing with NMnot Kingston, one always
keeps an ironic smile. You know that he will tell us
perfervidly that he is a man with, as he once put it,
"standards," even as he writes in praise of himself
and attacks his critics under bogus screen names.
Some man. Some standards.
And so it goes.
Ray Gordon
>
> It's a victory for readers of Chess Life. What's The
> Best Move? was the first thing I turned to in his
> column and I shall now renew my membership.
>
> His weekly column at worldchessnetwork.com
> still provides an opportunity to consult his views
> about the past and present of chess.
It would be good if they mention his website in the article.
--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
"appointment of counsel was unwarranted given Parker's abilities as a writer
and presenter of arguments"
From Page 6 of the ruling in Parker v. University of Pennsylvania, #04-3688,
Third Circuit Court Of Appeals.
help bot
parrt...@cs.com wrote:
What exactly is the difference between Evans' Q&A format
and his "What's the Best Move" column? Does it consist
of only chess diagrams, with solutions? If he needs any
"new" material, not culled from Grandmaster games, Sanny
has devised a program which generates innumerable tactical
possibilities -- some of which have possibly never been seen
before. OTOH, if readers are stuck-up about the titles of the
players involved, this would be of no use.
Until now, I had no idea that Evans had more than one chess
column to choose from.
-- help bot
help bot
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> jr wrote:
> > Kingston is still gracious, as always.
>
> Actually I'm trying to look at this from Evans' point of view. It's
> been claimed here that the most important role Evans played in Chess
> Life was as a political gadfly, a thorn in the side of the USCF and
> FIDE. If I were in Evans' shoes, or I were a pro-Evans zealot, and this
> political role were important to me, I'd feel downright insulted at
> being handed back just this mere sop, this consolation prize. Evans
> used to have a whole loaf. They took it away from him, and now it seems
> they're saying "Here, you can have one slice of bread."
> But, Evans' attitude may be differnt, and who knows how this will
> ultimately play out. Any judgement at this point (including mine) is
> probably premature.
I think Evans could still get in some shots, for instance,
by including a few tactical combinations where Campomanes
lost brilliantly. There must be hundreds of such positions
involving Karpov on the losing side, and even Steven Doyle must
have lost a few games. That's the one weakness all these
chess politicians have in common: they at one time played
chess.
-- help bot
help bot
Louis Blair wrote:
> Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 09 Aug 2006 20:26:59 GMT):
>
> 7 ... what Keene did to Kingston, eviscerate him in public. ...
>
> _
> To me, it looked like a sequence of GM Keene retreats (with
> no apologies for previous mistakes).
DUMB AND DUMBERER
Another possibility is that Keene was simply too dimwitted to
understand Kingston's point, without confounding himself by
mistakenly tossing in some irrelevant chess analysis. This is
the same sort of error that other Parr ratpackers made, and the
one thing these guys all seem to share is a lack of mental clarity.
For example, the correct target for any attacks on poor analysis
would seem to be the author who created the book, here Soltis.
Yet these imbeciles consistently attack a reviewer for not being
a "strong enough player" to root out one particular analytical mistake
made by *GM* Soltis! At the same time, they, or at least Larry
Parr, will willingly concede that what Keene does is unreasonable,
because it is not reasonable to expect any reviewer (that would
seem to include even Taylor Kingston) to spot such an error. This
lunacy would be funny if it weren't so sad.
-- help bot
Ray Gordon
Perhaps Evans can add political commentary with the answers, such as:
"After 19...Bd2! White finds himself in a bind worse than that created by
the USCF move to Crossville," etc.
g4
"Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1155148110....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
parrt...@cs.com
Ray Gordon wrote:
>Perhaps Evans can add political commentary with the answers, such as:
"After 19...Bd2! White finds himself in a bind worse than that created
by
the USCF move to Crossville," etc.>
As if this had any chance of getting by the thought police!
Chess One
"help bot" <nomor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155185310.7...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Louis Blair wrote:
>> Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 09 Aug 2006 20:26:59 GMT):
>>
>> 7 ... what Keene did to Kingston, eviscerate him in public. ...
>>
>> _
>> To me, it looked like a sequence of GM Keene retreats (with
>> no apologies for previous mistakes).
>
>
> DUMB AND DUMBERER
>
> Another possibility is that Keene was simply too dimwitted to
> understand Kingston's point, without confounding himself by
> mistakenly tossing in some irrelevant chess analysis.
To many people the chess analysis is the main event, rather than
irrelevancy... but how do you continue?
> This is
> the same sort of error that other Parr ratpackers made, and the
> one thing these guys all seem to share is a lack of mental clarity.
>
> For example, the correct target for any attacks on poor analysis
> would seem to be the author who created the book, here Soltis.
> Yet these imbeciles consistently attack a reviewer for not being
> a "strong enough player" to root out one particular analytical mistake
> made by *GM* Soltis!
A one-mover?
Seems to me that Soltis and Kingston commited the same heinous crime - they
didn't play through the games they reported on, and all this fuss is
jutification for whatever else they thought fit to write about - writing
which did not include knowledge of the game in question.
> At the same time, they, or at least Larry
> Parr, will willingly concede that what Keene does is unreasonable,
> because it is not reasonable to expect any reviewer (that would
> seem to include even Taylor Kingston) to spot such an error.
Greg Kennedy states how unreasonable it is for bothe writer and reviewer to
miss a one-move solution, that was widely reported, and in a collection of
brilliancies - one would suppose Soltis had not realised why his game choice
was 'brilliant', and suppose less for Kingston who prefereed to talk about
the bloke's wife.
> This
> lunacy would be funny if it weren't so sad.
On the contrary, it is sad that its not seen as funny.
Perhaps TK is workign on "A 100 great Chess Wives" a comparsion volume to
"Alekhine's Socks, and what went in 'em"?
Phil Innes
> -- help bot
>
Larry Tapper
Chess One wrote:
> "help bot" <nomor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1155185310.7...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > would seem to be the author who created the book, here Soltis.
> > Yet these imbeciles consistently attack a reviewer for not being
> > a "strong enough player" to root out one particular analytical mistake
> > made by *GM* Soltis!
>
> A one-mover?
>
> Seems to me that Soltis and Kingston commited the same heinous crime - they
> didn't play through the games they reported on, and all this fuss is
> jutification for whatever else they thought fit to write about - writing
> which did not include knowledge of the game in question.
>
> > At the same time, they, or at least Larry
> > Parr, will willingly concede that what Keene does is unreasonable,
> > because it is not reasonable to expect any reviewer (that would
> > seem to include even Taylor Kingston) to spot such an error.
>
> Greg Kennedy states how unreasonable it is for bothe writer and reviewer to
> miss a one-move solution, that was widely reported, and in a collection of
> brilliancies - one would suppose Soltis had not realised why his game choice
> was 'brilliant', and suppose less for Kingston who prefereed to talk about
> the bloke's wife.
Now Phil Innes imagines that Soltis and Kingston missed a "one-mover",
presumably in the game Duras-Teichmann. Not that this would be relevant
to the main point that nobody reasonably expects a reviewer to check
all the analysis.
There is no "one-mover" involved in this bogus controversy.
Larry T.
Chess One
"Larry Tapper" <larry_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1155223016.8...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> Greg Kennedy states how unreasonable it is for bothe writer and reviewer
>> to
>> miss a one-move solution, that was widely reported, and in a collection
>> of
>> brilliancies - one would suppose Soltis had not realised why his game
>> choice
>> was 'brilliant', and suppose less for Kingston who prefereed to talk
>> about
>> the bloke's wife.
>
> Now Phil Innes imagines that Soltis and Kingston missed a "one-mover",
> presumably in the game Duras-Teichmann. Not that this would be relevant
> to the main point that nobody reasonably expects a reviewer to check
> all the analysis.
Or even the handy diagrams attentive readers have remarked are often
provided in chess books.
Since Mr Kennobody and Tarry Later have taken up cudgels, what they would
expect a reviewer to check isn't mentioned - though we are left to surmise
its not the games themselves.
When I asked the reviewer why he wrote here in these newsgroups that he
thought Soltis should provide more annotations, only Louis Blair replied, to
the effect that he asked me to claim if I still asked - and so we don't know
if the reviewer actually read more than the games he did note, and ignored,
what ? 94% of them, or why he called for more annotations. I suppose we will
never know.
If the author does not check his game selection, perhaps we should also feel
that that is also an unreasonable requirement these days for a reviewer to
bother. Its not as if the games were being reviewed!
In some sort of sympathy with the author's attitude, reviewers of the
author's lapsus should do even less, unless the author's name is Keene or
Evans, when, it is well known, even typos are mentioned, often for years on
end.
I have discovered the reason for this is that typographical errors outrage
lybraryuns, but actual chess players don't get out of their prams about
them, having a much greater interest in the actual chess, if I may use the
term.
> There is no "one-mover" involved in this bogus controversy.
A point: How would anyone know, since they never played through the game?
Lest there be too much excitement about this, I didn't say one-move mate.
Now back to your usual socks and who's in 'em. And may the best snipper win!
PI
> Larry T.
>
Tom Martinak
> presumably in the game Duras-Teichmann. Not that this would be relevant
> to the main point that nobody reasonably expects a reviewer to check
> all the analysis.
>
> There is no "one-mover" involved in this bogus controversy.
And even stronger players missed this "one-mover" - Duras and Teichmann
in the game, Mieses in analysis. How can any reviewer be expected to
check/correct the analysis when all these GMs missed the correct line?
- Tom Martinak
Larry Tapper
Chess One wrote:
> "Larry Tapper" <larry_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1155223016.8...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > There is no "one-mover" involved in this bogus controversy.
>
> A point: How would anyone know, since they never played through the game?
> Lest there be too much excitement about this, I didn't say one-move mate.
Phil,
Like many other curious readers, I suppose, I have played through the
game and looked at Lasker's refutation of Duras's unsound combination.
Have you done this yourself? If so, what is your basis for referring to
it as a "one-mover"? It simply isn't.
Larry T.
Louis Blair
7 ... How the ratpackers hate what has happened! ...
_
Where has there been any objection to the "COMPROMI9E"
since Larry Parr mentioned it about seven days ago?
Chess One
"Tom Martinak" <martina...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155225151....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Unfortunately it is not in my power to publish the opinion of Adorjan on the
review of chess books - since he wrote a considerable correspondance with
me, sometimes citing opinion of other notables such as Timman.
One reason the material could not appear in public is that it contains some
'expletives' which would not entirely accord with your own expectations of
book reviewing, even by GMs, and as such, are not in sympathy with your
point of view.
Timman's views are even more extreme, if you wish, and thinks the great
majority of chess books regretable, and the implication being that a
reviewer not saying so is hyping something not understood in a qualitative
sense.
There is an opinion I could find which he sent his publisher with
substantial evidence attached, of people who did so little in their reviews
they seemed not to have cracked the covers. I do not accuse TK of this - in
fact his coverage of chess books has been remarkably uniform, and better
than much other reviews in this country.
I should also not like to argue with you of what /I/ intended by using the
phrase 'one mover' since (a) you would dispute it without any curiosity at
all to what I meant, and (b) that the 'move' obviously iniates the wrong
sequence of moves.
I also do not wish to regurgitate for you or Sr Tapper [who comes late to
the party] what I wrote quite adequately some months ago. Should you assume
the worst by this stance, then that is your decision, and is the one you
write above - that you also have a poor expectaction of GM analysis.
If that truly is your attitude, then I would understand your objection to my
comments on Kingston, since you would expect even less from him, no?
Phil Innes
> - Tom Martinak
>
jr
parrt...@cs.com wrote:
>One recalls that NMnot Kingston wrote a letter to
New In Chess begging them to restore his hero Edward
Edward Winter to its pages. In vain. How the ratpackers
hate what has happened! NMnot drips with envy at what
he has never accomplished -- though he has perhaps
convinced others of his 2300+ non-rating.>
Point well taken.
<In some sort of sympathy with the author's attitude,
reviewers of the author's lapsus should do even less,
unless the author's name is Keene or Evans, when,
it is well known, even typos are mentioned, often for
years on end. I have discovered the reason for this is
that typographical errors outrage lybraryuns, but actual
chess players don't get out of their prams about them,
having a much greater interest in the actual chess,
if I may use the term.> (Innes)
The reason Edward Winter, for example, keeps
regurgitating these errors for years on end is that there
is so little of substance to complain about in the vast
body of work by grandmasters on his "enemy list."
His envy of real real chess stars shines through his
work like a beacon.
Nobody is above criticism, of course. No chess book
is perfect. But Winter's venom is inexcusable.
Even after errors are corrected in subsequent
editions or columns by his pet targets, Winter still
cites the original error throughout all eternity. His
ugly motive is to belittle his betters, which is possibly
why he was fired from every major chess magazine
he ever worked for (ChessCafe too?).
My favorite smear is Winter's discovery that
someone committed the unforgiveable sin of
wrongly citing the title The Oxford Companion OF
Chess instead of The Oxford Companion TO Chess.
Nitpickers of the world, unite! You have nothing
to lose but your hero.
Louis Blair
7 ... Another possibility is that Keene was simply too
7 dimwitted to understand Kingston's point, without
7 confounding himself by mistakenly tossing in some
7 irrelevant chess analysis. ...
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 10 Aug 2006 14:06:57 GMT):
7 To many people the chess analysis is the main event,
7 rather than irrelevancy ...
_
Details about specific moves of specific games WERE
discussed in the part of the Taylor Kingston review that
dealt with the annotations.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 10 Aug 2006 14:06:57 GMT):
7 ... Seems to me that Soltis and Kingston commited the
7 same heinous crime - they didn't play through the games
7 they reported on, ...
_
Taylor Kingston did not "report" "on" Duras-Teichman
(Ostend, 1906). He "reported on" the Soltis introduction to
the game.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 10 Aug 2006 14:06:57 GMT):
7 ... solution, that was widely reported, ...
_
"Larry Parr has mentioned a 2000 GM Soltis book,
a 1989 GM Keene (and Divinsky) book, and a few
other books that were written three or more decades
ago. Of the lot, Warriors of the Mind is the only book
that is claimed by Larry Parr/GM Keene to mention
the problem with move 43.." - Louis Blair (5 Jun 2006
06:53:55 -0700)
_
Can Phil Innes name any book, other than Warriors of the
Mind, that discusses this "widely reported" matter?
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 10 Aug 2006 14:06:57 GMT):
7 ... Kingston who prefereed to talk about the bloke's wife. ...
_
It was GM Soltis who decided to comment on a player's wife.
Taylor Kingston was simply pointing out that GM Soltis
presented this sort of information instead of such information
as the round in which the game was played.
_
"there is ... a literary and historical problem:
a lack of context and setting for many of these
games. ... Occasionally, ... [Soltis] provides
good scene-setting, but in other cases, we
must content ourselves with the thumbnail
biographies.
_
... It's interesting that Oldrich Duras gave up
chess in 1914 after marrying a wealthy
woman, but this has no relevance to his win
over Teichmann at Ostende 1906. I am
surprised and amused that Veselin Topalov
once tried bullfighting, but ...
In short, too often we don't learn ... THE
STORY OF THE PARTICULAR GAME.
_
A contrasting approach is found in Ludek
Pachman's Decisive Games in Chess
History (1975). ...
...
... Pachman sets the stage, puts us on the
scene." - Taylor Kingston
_
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review246.pdf
Louis Blair
7 ... When I asked the reviewer why he wrote here in these
7 newsgroups that he thought Soltis should provide more
7 annotations, only Louis Blair replied, to the effect that he
7 asked me to claim if I still asked ...
_
In reality, my reaction has been this sort of thing:
_
"When is Phil Innes going to show some concern
about whether or not this supposed 'criticism' actually
exists?" - Louis Blair (5 Jun 2006 05:11:36 -0700)
_
Since I still have not seen Phil Innes produce a quote, I
have, from time to time, asked if he stands by his claim
that Taylor Kingston wrote that Soltis should provide more
annotations.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:51:56 GMT):
7 ... why he called for more annotations. I suppose we will
7 never know. ...
_
Will we ever know why Phil Innes believes that there was
a call for more annotations?
Louis Blair
7 ... I should also not like to argue with you of what /I/
7 intended by using the phrase 'one mover' since (a) you
7 would dispute it without any curiosity at all to what I
7 meant, and (b) that the 'move' obviously iniates the
7 wrong sequence of moves. ...
_
"... here is the position soltis diagrams
from duras v teichmann
_
white: kg1 qf2 rf1 rf5 ng3 bb1 pawns a3
b3 c4 d5 e4 g2
_
black: kg7 qe5 re7 rh6 be8 nc5 pawns a5
b6 c7 d6 f7 g6
_
duras as white --in a desperate effort to
smash the black dark square blockade has
just played 43rf5-soltis gives exclam-
_
teichmann now chickened out with 43---qc3
and lost.
_
correct was 43--gxf5 44 nxf5+ kh7 45nxh6
kxh6 46 qh4+ kg7 47 rf3 soltis gives exclam
and states "and wins."
_
... this is all a smoke and a delusion since
with 47---f6!! black brings his bishop to the
rescue and wins himself ..." - GM Keene
quote reported by Phil Innes (Mon,
24 Apr 2006 14:31:46 GMT)
Louis Blair
7 ... Winter's discovery that someone committed the
7 unforgiveable sin of wrongly citing the title The
7 Oxford Companion OF Chess instead of The Oxford
7 Companion TO Chess. ...
_
Edward Winter also once discussed something
GM Evans wrote for the March 1986 issue of Chess
Life.
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
[Karpov] will go down in history as the man who
avoided a match with Bobby Fischer and then eluded
him for the next ten years.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
_
Previously, GM Evans had written:
_
"Fischer refused to negotiate or compromise and his
stubbornness is what killed the match - nothing or nobody
else." - GM Evans (1975)
Larry Tapper
Yes, so what Phil Innes has described as a "one mover" apparently
refers to a defensive resource eight half-moves deep in an unplayed
variation, a resource which Marco and others had overlooked and which
Keene chose to give two exclamation points. Actually when this came up,
help bot and I were puzzled by Keene's double exclam, since 47...f6
activating the e8 bishop seems like a fairly obvious try.
Phil, in any event, hints that he had a special sense of "one mover" in
mind which inveterate carpers like us could hardly be expected to
appreciate.
Here's the original context. Help bot had written:
HB> Yet these imbeciles consistently attack a reviewer for not being
> a "strong enough player" to root out one particular analytical mistake
> made by *GM* Soltis!
And Phil Innes had replied:
PI> A one-mover?
LT
Taylor Kingston
jr wrote:
> parrt...@cs.com wrote:
>
> >One recalls that NMnot Kingston wrote a letter to
> New In Chess begging them to restore his hero Edward
> Edward Winter to its pages. >
>
In view of the fact that I never wrote a letter fitting that
description, the point is not well taken at all.
Chess One
"jr" <jul...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1155235253.3...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> parrt...@cs.com wrote:
>
>>One recalls that NMnot Kingston wrote a letter to
> New In Chess begging them to restore his hero Edward
> Edward Winter to its pages. In vain. How the ratpackers
> hate what has happened! NMnot drips with envy at what
> he has never accomplished -- though he has perhaps
> convinced others of his 2300+ non-rating.>
>
> Point well taken.
>
> <In some sort of sympathy with the author's attitude,
> reviewers of the author's lapsus should do even less,
> unless the author's name is Keene or Evans, when,
> it is well known, even typos are mentioned, often for
> years on end. I have discovered the reason for this is
> that typographical errors outrage lybraryuns, but actual
> chess players don't get out of their prams about them,
> having a much greater interest in the actual chess,
> if I may use the term.> (Innes)
>
> The reason Edward Winter, for example, keeps
> regurgitating these errors for years on end is that there
> is so little of substance to complain about in the vast
> body of work by grandmasters on his "enemy list."
> His envy of real real chess stars shines through his
> work like a beacon.
he accidentally copied me in response to 'a hunting expedition' in some
writing with Adorjan - I will spare you the sordid details, except to say
that you are on the money
it is difficult for me to write what others commit in private, though it is
sorely tempting when we get this two faced public goody-two-shoe shit,
compared to utterly vile private stuff
> Nobody is above criticism, of course. No chess book
> is perfect. But Winter's venom is inexcusable.
>
> Even after errors are corrected in subsequent
> editions or columns by his pet targets, Winter still
> cites the original error throughout all eternity. His
> ugly motive is to belittle his betters, which is possibly
> why he was fired from every major chess magazine
> he ever worked for (ChessCafe too?).
i may yet decide to write on how evans and parr were evicted from chesscafe,
and why, and who told me about it - for the moment, like others involved in
chess, it is just a drudge to drag up this stuff, then suffer denials and
interpretations
the really bad stuff would get someone sued for sure!
it is just a game, no? can it be played honorably? are we in an age where
people not only cheat at it with electronic earpieces, but for all its minor
status in the public affection, pretend that writing scrufulous materials is
okay - to rubbish its players, is cool; to concentrate on who can say things
instead of what is addressed, as if some ministry should preside?
i hope evans gives em a full broadside when he returns, not as a single
discharge, but as a deliberated, rolling fire - then i hope he boards em in
the smoke ;)
> My favorite smear is Winter's discovery that
> someone committed the unforgiveable sin of
> wrongly citing the title The Oxford Companion OF
> Chess instead of The Oxford Companion TO Chess.
>
> Nitpickers of the world, unite! You have nothing
> to lose but your hero.
Lybraryuns contra mundum! What an awful joke - almost too bad to discuss,
no?
Cordially, Phil
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (wlod)
> parrt...@cs.com wrote:
> > Word has seeped out from the U.S. Open in Chicago that
> > due to popular demand What's The Best Move? will resume
> > in the October issue of Chess Life.
> If true, this still does not seem like much
> of a vindication for Evans,
GM Larry Evans does not need any "vindication".
> His supporters here have repeatedly said that
> his most important contributions were historical
> reminscences, and his critical attitude toward
> USCF and FIDE, the latter supposedly being
> the reason his column was cancelled.
GM Evans had his place at Chess Life because
(1) he was a successful granmaster, one of
the strongest in the USA, and (2) he was and is
am interesting, entertaining writer, arguably the
most popular with the readership and simply
the best among the regular contributors to Chess
Life. If I had to identify Chess Life with just one
author, it'd be Larry Evans.
Thus these were the actual two reasons behind
the Evans' relation with Chess Life.
It also happened that GM Evans was independent,
and had integrity, which is a rare commodity
among the USCF top activists. And either this
or simply the corrupted USCF structures, which
GM Evans refused to belong to, seems the reason
for GM Evans recurring difficulties to keep his
appointment at Chess Life.
> If all he's doing are puzzles, he's in no position
> to do either. Politically he's still out in the cold.
USCF does not count anymore, not in a long
time. Thus the statement "out cold" in the context
of USCF political situation is pretty meaningless
(who cares? OK, some do, but nobody should).
> Unless this is a prelude to a full restoration
> of Evans' column, I don't see that it gives his
> supporters much cause for rejoicing.
You are right. USCF is such a nothing
that there is nothing to get excited about.
I am glad that GM Evans got his minor piece
of action. End of story.
***
Now, is anybody going to start the chess
centers of the XXI century? Still much better,
start the EdRooms.
***
Regards,
Wlod
Taylor Kingston
Wlod, I suspect you are unfamiliar with some nuances of idiomatic
English. "Out in the cold" and "out cold" have entirely different
meanings. The former means one is excluded, ostracized, while the
latter means one is unconcious.
> (who cares?
Good question.
jr
been claimed here that the most important role Evans played in Chess
Life was as a political gadfly, a thorn in the side of the USCF and
FIDE. If I were in Evans' shoes, or I were a pro-Evans zealot, and this
political role were important to me, I'd feel downright insulted at
being handed back just this mere sop, this consolation prize. Evans
used to have a whole loaf. They took it away from him, and now it seems
they're saying "Here, you can have one slice of bread."> (Kingston)
The last thing Evans needs is advice
from the likes of a Taylor Kingston, who
by his own admission doesn't even belong
to the USCF or get Chess Life. Most of us,
with the exception of Winter clones, are
very glad he's back.
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (wlod) wrote:
parrt...@cs.com wrote:
>Word has seeped out from the U.S. Open in Chicago that
due to popular demand What's The Best Move? will resume
in the October issue of Chess Life.>
"If true, this still does not seem like much
of a vindication for Evans." (Kingston)
>GM Larry Evans does not need any "vindication".> (Wlod)
Amen.
parrt...@cs.com
What strikes me forcefully is the sheer spite in
NMnot Taylor Kingston's attacks on Larry Evans.
Now, then, we all know what has happened.
USCF President Bill Goichberg stated that the
Federation had shot itself in the foot by firing GM
Evans, calling it a self-inflicted wound. Next, GM
was rehired to take off some of the pressure.
Every reader survey ever taken has ranked Soltis
and Evans at the top; the rest follow. These surveys
have involved thousands of readers, though they have
never been scientific. The surveys still represent,
along with letters to the editor, input received by
the office and plenty of anecdotal evidence, the only
source we have to gauge reader views.
After the fourth firing of GM Evans we had a NEW
KIND OF SURVEY taken by his political ENEMIES.
They discovered that readers were going to leave the
Federation, and they did not like that. Hence a new
offer to resume What's The Best Move? a sop which
GM Evans probably accepted because he did not want
to injure the USCF by refusing.
The supporters and the political enemies of GM
Evans are agreed that he is VERY popular with
readers. The Winterian ratpackers figure that, too.
But where a ratpacker like NMnot Kingston differs from
the traditional political enemy of Evans is the sheer
level of spite and personal animosity. He's a spite-brimmer.
Astonishing, really.
P.S. I just received a message from playwright Richard Laurie
about the August Chess Life.
Date: 8/10/2006 6:05:37 PM
From: RThel...@aol.com
My current Chess Life arrived today and I continue to be disappointed.
It looks like one of my wife's catalogs and I miss it when I go through
the bundle quickly. The blue on white diagrams are hard to see and I am
tired of reading about transplanted Russians of mediocre strength. The
American chess scene is being depleted. We had a situation a number of
years ago where the regional trouneys (Cleveland in particular) were
being topped by Russian transplants who may or may not have been
helping each other in the time tested manner and many local players
quit entering.
Chess Life seems to be catering to this crowd. Then to the emphasis on
"Kiddie chess" and "women's chess." Those who pay the bills are getting
left out.
Oh well...
Chess Freak
verified this?
<parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1155145635.7...@n13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Word has seeped out from the U.S. Open in Chicago that
> due to popular demand What's The Best Move? will resume
> in the October issue of Chess Life.
>
help bot
The "combination", PxR, *is* a one-mover.
Much hullaballoo has been made over this "brilliant"
game, yet when you erase the big names, Duras and
Teichman, and just *objectively* consider the moves of
the game, it seems to indicate two patzers shuffling
wood. The patzer with the White pieces miscalculates
and offers up a free Rook, whereupon his equally inept
opponent is convinced he cannot safely take it. Suffice
it to say that, precisely because of the big names, this
blunder has been accepted unquestioningly even by
GMs. Big names don't just hang Rooks, do they? Of
course not! Silly question.
IMO, the attempt to salvage some dignity for the two
"patzers" involved by plastering two exclams on a fairly
obvious defensive move tells us more than a little about
GM Keene's "objectivity". It is quite simply irrational to
argue that book reviewers and their publishers are not
strong enough to spot these errors, and yet "forgive"
GM Soltis and many others for the same crime. If
anything could be argued here, it might be that GM
Soltis (among many others) is not strong enough to
compile books on brilliant chess, and this sort of
thing should be left to the very best of the best, to the
real pros, like Keene and Fischer. :)
-- help bot
Greg Wren
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (wlod)
> Wlod, I suspect you are unfamiliar with some nuances of idiomatic
> English. "Out in the cold" and "out cold" have entirely different
> meanings. The former means one is excluded, ostracized, while the
> latter means one is unconcious.
I don't want to defend my English overall
but this particular two idioms I know. My
so to speak shorthand was accidental.
Thank you for trying to educate me all the same :-)
When it comes to the evaluation of the
"Chess Life and GM Evans" soap opera,
I think that we agree that it is not any
exciting show. I would just avoid paying
attention and stressing the views on this
board (they're in this case quite irrelevant).
It is a nice accent, say for the readers of
Chess Life, that GM Evans made it back,
even if it is a modest comeback. There just
must be more important and exciting
options than Chess Life. Chess Life is history.
***
Frankly, I am sorry to say it, but
I was never impressed with Chess Life.
I liked an article now and then, I did
like the GM Evans' contributions, and
that's almost all. Of course articles by
Kasparov, despite a dose of egotistic BS,
were superb. That lasted only a short time.
Oh, well...
Regards,
Wlod
Mike Murray
wrote:
>Edward Winter also once discussed something
>GM Evans wrote for the March 1986 issue of Chess
>Life.
>[Karpov] will go down in history as the man who
>avoided a match with Bobby Fischer and then eluded
>him for the next ten years.
>Previously, GM Evans had written:
> "Fischer refused to negotiate or compromise and his
> stubbornness is what killed the match - nothing or nobody
> else." - GM Evans (1975)
There's no inherent contradiction in these statements. History's
judgments aren't based on fine print, and aren't completely fair. What
do you think would have happened to Spassky's reputation had he used
the forfeit to get out of the Iceland match (even though technically,
he would have been within his rights to do so) ?
Eo
still in elementary school?
Louis Blair
7 ... GM Evans wrote for the March 1986 issue of Chess
7 Life:
7
7 "... [Karpov] will go down in history as the man
7 who avoided a match with Bobby Fischer and
7 then eluded him for the next ten years. ..."
7
7 Previously, GM Evans had written:
7
7 "Fischer refused to negotiate or compromise and his
7 stubbornness is what killed the match - nothing or
7 nobody else." - GM Evans (1975)
_
Mike Murray wrote (Fri, 11 Aug 2006 10:34:57 -0700):
7 There's no inherent contradiction in these statements.
7 History's judgments aren't based on fine print, and aren't
7 completely fair.
_
If GM Evans, in March 1986, was writing about the unfairness
of chess history, he should have indicated that in the article.
_
Mike Murray wrote (Fri, 11 Aug 2006 10:34:57 -0700):
7 What do you think would have happened to Spassky's
7 reputation had he used the forfeit to get out of the Iceland
7 match (even though technically, he would have been within
7 his rights to do so) ?
_
In 1972, Fischer was not insisting on a requirement that
his opponent finish at least two points ahead in order to
be champion.
_
This, by the way, is the sort of thing that I have seen in the
books that discuss history:
_
"Robert Fischer ... retired from competitive chess.
... In the summer of 1974 a dispute arose between
Bobby and FIDE. ... Bobby insisted that his
conditions were 'not negotiable,' remaining adamant
to all pleas to change his mind. Although Euwe gave
him every chance to be conciliatory, Bobby could
not be shaken. Accordingly the title was awarded
to Karpov ... Bobby's ... conditions for the match
with Karpov seem motivated more by inner fantasies
than anything else. ... Karpov has already shown
himself to be a worthy titleholder." - Reuben Fine (1976)
_
"Fischer ceded the title by default to Anatoly Karpov
in 1975." - Raymond Keene (1999)
Mike Murray
wrote:
>> There's no inherent contradiction in these statements.
>> History's judgments aren't based on fine print, and aren't
>> completely fair.
>If GM Evans, in March 1986, was writing about the unfairness
>of chess history, he should have indicated that in the article.
Evans probably felt no obligation to address topics chosen by Louis
Blair. Heh, heh, heh.
>> What do you think would have happened to Spassky's
>> reputation had he used the forfeit to get out of the Iceland
>> match (even though technically, he would have been within
>> his rights to do so) ?
>In 1972, Fischer was not insisting on a requirement that
>his opponent finish at least two points ahead in order to
>be champion.
Hardly surprising, since Fischer was the challenger, and he founded
his rationalizations for the two point edge on his interpretation of
championship match tradition.
>This, by the way, is the sort of thing that I have seen in the
>books that discuss history:
> "Robert Fischer ... retired from competitive chess.
> ... In the summer of 1974 a dispute arose between
> Bobby and FIDE. ... Bobby insisted that his
> conditions were 'not negotiable,' remaining adamant
> to all pleas to change his mind. Although Euwe gave
> him every chance to be conciliatory, Bobby could
> not be shaken. Accordingly the title was awarded
> to Karpov ... Bobby's ... conditions for the match
> with Karpov seem motivated more by inner fantasies
> than anything else. ... Karpov has already shown
> himself to be a worthy titleholder." - Reuben Fine (1976)
> "Fischer ceded the title by default to Anatoly Karpov
> in 1975." - Raymond Keene (1999)
Fischer was every bit as unreasonable in 72, but Spassky found a way
to play the match.
help bot
It almost sounds as if Mike Murray were trying to argue
here that throwing a match is better than taking a forfeit
win, on account of what might happen to one's "reputation"
after winning by forfeit. While I expect Spassky may have
joined other Russians as handy scapegoats in the American
press, I do not agree that such a decision should be based
upon trying to *look good*. Being unprincipled and just
trying to "look good" didn't work for John Kerry, and even if it
did work, it still is wrongheaded. Of course, for some, this is
incomprehensible. For instance, J.R. on the TV series Dallas,
who once said: "Once you give up integrity, the rest is like
being a Queen up." (Or something like that)
IMO Blair is right: Evans was *not* trying to objectively
predict what he thought would happen; on the contrary, it
looks as though GM Evans was projecting what he hoped
would happen upon "history". If Evans and his ratpackers
honestly believe that all their propaganda is going to end up
filling the pages of history, they are even more deluded than
I had thought. Here, by history I am talking mainly about
things like encyclopedias, and brief accounts in chess books.
For the more detailed discussions, it is quite possible that
some of their propaganda will leak into some biased accounts.
There may even be more than a few who are fooled by the
preponderance of this slop in rags like Chess Life, and who
mistakenly leap to the conclusion that everybody must have
believed this way, back when all this propaganda filled nearly
evey page. There will always be fools and imbeciles in the
world. :>D
As The Nutty Professor has pointed out repeatedly, at one
time Larry Evans came firmly down against Fischer for asking
for conditions which were unfair.
Time passed, and it would seem that the mind of Evans has
lost its sharpness, it clarity. He now (and for the last many
years) has "forgotten" what he knew earlier. He now wants to
shift the blame somewhere else. Both Evans and Larry Parr
now want to play "Let's Shift the Blame!" every weeknight at
ten o'clock sharp. Three guesses as to where the blame gets
shifted.
-- help bot
parrt...@cs.com
<There's no inherent contradiction in these statements.
History's judgments aren't based on fine print, and aren't
completely fair. What do you think would have happened
to Spassky's reputation had he used the forfeit to get out
of the Iceland match (even though technically, he would
have been within his rights to do so)?> -- Mike Murray
Of course, there is no necessary contradiction
between noting Bobby's preposterous stubborness and
the verdict that possibly will be accorded to Karpov in the
history books. Bobby's mental problems will figure in
any future chess histories; Karpov's vicious rattiness
will also be recorded.
Louie Blair is generally ignorant of history and he
does not much comprehend its nuanced judgments.
One bad sign for Karpov's future reputation is
that the old rap that Bobby was afraid to play him
looks pretty threadbare these days. He wanted to
play under his terms, which were in the main not
unreasonable. Apparently more liberal than what
Lasker granted opponents and possibly more liberal
than what may have been the requirement in 1927
that Alekhine had to beat Capablanca by 6-4.
Another nail in Karpov's coffin is the book RUSSIANS
VERSUS FISCHER (1994) by Plisetsky and Voronkov.
Chess One
<parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1155367499.6...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> NO INHERENT CONTRADICTION
>
> <There's no inherent contradiction in these statements.
> History's judgments aren't based on fine print, and aren't
> completely fair. What do you think would have happened
> to Spassky's reputation had he used the forfeit to get out
> of the Iceland match (even though technically, he would
> have been within his rights to do so)?> -- Mike Murray
Spassky was the 'bad-boy' of Russian chess already. Tolerated because he was
brilliant and the only remaining Hope of the East against this ridiculous
and to collectivists - unthinkable intellectual outlaw of the west who was
destroying top flite players 6-0.
Spassky avoided Taimanov's fate by being able to buy his way out of trouble,
then out of the country - and was as apolitical as Alekhine. Far from being
innocent of politics, he was simply sick of its manipulations.
Whereas Taimanov got caught with a copy of a Solzhenitsn title while
re-entering Russia, at an airport inspection and was clobbered for this
token and symbolic 'error', and 'betrayal', though 'everybody openly read
Solzhenitsyn' according to MT, in his Fischer book.
This may be something of a generation issue, since Vermont's most
illustrious citizen chose to return to his native Black Earth, while neither
of his children did, and remain here. They had no organic connection to it.
> Of course, there is no necessary contradiction
> between noting Bobby's preposterous stubborness and
> the verdict that possibly will be accorded to Karpov in the
> history books. Bobby's mental problems will figure in
> any future chess histories; Karpov's vicious rattiness
> will also be recorded.
While Larry Parr is harsh on Karpov's actions or inactions, there is more
honesty in Karpov's reporting of his misdeads in the 1991 title Karpov on
Karpov, than anything I read elsewhere - and he admitted quite frankly that
as World Champion he was less than fair to others. This does not exculpate
his deeds, but does admit them to a certain extent.
The impact Fischer had on the Russians was profound, though not on the
surface since the size and momentum of such a huge chess machine took some
checking, so to speak. Yet he did cause some crack - a fisure!- in its
foundations which proved irreparable.
> Louie Blair is generally ignorant of history and he
> does not much comprehend its nuanced judgments.
>
> One bad sign for Karpov's future reputation is
> that the old rap that Bobby was afraid to play him
> looks pretty threadbare these days. He wanted to
> play under his terms, which were in the main not
> unreasonable.
Though, as you know, and cannot be said here, ignotum per ignotius ;)
> Apparently more liberal than what
> Lasker granted opponents and possibly more liberal
> than what may have been the requirement in 1927
> that Alekhine had to beat Capablanca by 6-4.
>
> Another nail in Karpov's coffin is the book RUSSIANS
> VERSUS FISCHER (1994) by Plisetsky and Voronkov.
I shall be interested to read anon, of Fischer's meeting with the man with
red hands - as our friend will write it.
Phil Innes
Mike Murray
wrote:
> It almost sounds as if Mike Murray were trying to argue
>here that throwing a match is better than taking a forfeit
>win, on account of what might happen to one's "reputation"
>after winning by forfeit. While I expect Spassky may have
>joined other Russians as handy scapegoats in the American
>press, I do not agree that such a decision should be based
>upon trying to *look good*. Being unprincipled and just
>trying to "look good" didn't work for John Kerry, and even if it
>did work, it still is wrongheaded.
I suspect Spassky went the extra mile for artistic reasons in
preserving the match, not because he wanted to look good in History,
but, then, I don't have a degree in Mind-Reading.
> There will always be fools and imbeciles in the
>world. :>D
Their collected works to be found in Google.
> As The Nutty Professor has pointed out repeatedly, at one
>time Larry Evans came firmly down against Fischer for asking
>for conditions which were unfair.
I don't believe Evans ever retracted this. Fairness is on thing; the
match is another.
parrt...@cs.com
MIKE IS RIGHT
Mike Murray wrote:
>As The Nutty Professor has pointed out repeatedly, at one
time Larry Evans came firmly down against Fischer for asking
for conditions which were unfair.> -- Greg Kennedy (help bot)
I don't believe Evans ever retracted this. Fairness is on thing; the
match is another.
WILL FISCHER WIN THE ENDGAME OF HIS LIFE?
July 30, 2004
Parr: In 1975 Bobby Fischer forfeited FIDE's version of the world chess
title to Anatoly Karpov. Nearly 30 years have passed. At the time of
the forfeit you wrote, "It makes no difference whether Bobby obeyed his
conscience or was afraid of losing. He shirked his duty by not
defending his title under fair conditions. He refused to negotiate or
compromise and his obstinacy killed the match -- nothing or nobody
else." But there were other factors that you felt should be taken into
account. What are your views today?
GM Evans: A very involved question. Before Bobby won the title, he
demanded that the challenger (himself) should have absolutely fair
conditions, and he objected to Spassky having draws odds in 24 games.
In this he was right. His later behavior was outrageous and nobody
knows whether he would have played even if FIDE had given him
everything he wanted. I agree with what Kasparov wrote recently in The
Wall Street Journal: "Fischer demolished the Soviet chess machine but
could build nothing in its place. He was an ideal challenger - but a
disastrous champion.
"I tried to persuade Bobby to set a shining example by renouncing any
advantage. "But 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.
He promised not to seek any edge in future matches if he got his way
just this once. Reasoning with him was futile. I don't think he ever
quite forgave me for trying to get him to do the right thing.
Parr: After winning the FIDE title, Bobby would go the next 20 years
without playing another official game. Did you expect that?
GM Evans: In Reykjavik my wife, who knew him pretty well, predicted
he'd never make another move after beating Spassky!I In the recently
published 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 it. In 1975
Filipino dictator Ferdinand Marcos offered $5 million to hold the FIDE
title match with Karpov in the Philippines, but Bobby wouldn't budge as
a so-called "matter of principle." Karpov was probably eager to play
but was pressured by the Kremlin to make no concessions. FIDE gave
Bobby most of what he wanted - but not all - and he was prepared to
destroy his career by resigning his FIDE title instead of accepting a
36-game limit. But FIDE eventually caved on this issue.
The funny thing is that the FIDE rules still favored Bobby because he
would have kept the crown in case of an 18 - 18 tie. But he insisted
only 10 wins should count - not draws - which might take forever by
turning into a marathon. What stuck in everyone's craw and what did
lead to his forfeiting the FIDE title was his demand to stop the match
at a 9 - 9 tie with the purse divided evenly and the champion keeping
the title. This provision meant Karpov had to win by at least two
points (10 - 8). Korchnoi said that if he had been the challenger, he
would have jumped at the deal.
Parr: Cowardice on Bobby's part?
GM Evans: Some fans thought so, but I think that's too simplistic.
Suddenly he discovered girls and other things he had never noticed or
had time for. Pal Benko alleged that Bobby feared the Russians would
have him killed if he played Karpov. Whatever the reason - real or
imagined - not defending his title was a tragedy for Bobby and a
tragedy for chess. Sadly, his selfmate handed the title back to the
Soviets without a fight.
Parr: What do you think about FIDE's role in all this?
GM Evans: At Caracas in 1977, FIDE accepted Bobby's principle that
only wins should count and decreed the title went to the player who
first won six games in an open-ended match. But they gave Karpov a
rematch clause, a bigger edge than Bobby ever sought. Bobby was
furious. He vowed to get even and finally imposed his rules in the $5
million duel with Spassky in 1992. This match was played outside of
FIDE's jurisdiction and billed as "The Return Match of the Century
Between the Never Defeated Champion of the World and His Challenger
Boris Spassky."
jacers
more!!!!! The rapid rise of an UNCENSORED JENNIFER SHAHADE LED CHESS
LIFE ONLINE COLUMN IS A totally UNEXPECTED, marvelous DEVELOPMENT. In
my opinion Mr Evans is guaranteed a safe and ideal world CHESS FLASH
column instantly IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE BY CHESS LIFE/US CHESS WHICH
IS GOING TO BE THE TOTAL FUTURE OF US CHESS /CHESS LIFE
REGARDLESS....I.E. NO POSTAGE OR PRINTING COSTS AND SO MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS MORE TO COMMISSION SHAHADE/EVANS AND CREW...the central
question is whether Jennifer is contract protected from horrendous
policy board Nazism/CENSORSHIP . I do not know.....If Evans goes into
chess life online it will add millions of hits to Jennifer Shahade's
editorial pasture. Jude Acers PS do not forget the Shahade's editorship
can start monster archives of US chess history: i.e instant access to
all Evans columns ever written (!!!!!) with a search for content
feature (!!!) and Jennifers bio of M. Duschamp which left everyone
stunned. aS A BONUS----- YOU GET THE WHOLE HISTORY OF CHESS LIFE FOR AN
ANNUAL US CHESS MEMBERSHIP...ALL SEARCHABLE EVEN ONE THOUSAND YEARS
FROM NOW! Jude Acers
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> jr wrote:
> > Kingston is still gracious, as always.
>
> Actually I'm trying to look at this from Evans' point of view. It's
> been claimed here that the most important role Evans played in Chess
> Life was as a political gadfly, a thorn in the side of the USCF and
> FIDE. If I were in Evans' shoes, or I were a pro-Evans zealot, and this
> political role were important to me, I'd feel downright insulted at
> being handed back just this mere sop, this consolation prize. Evans
> used to have a whole loaf. They took it away from him, and now it seems
> they're saying "Here, you can have one slice of bread."
> ultimately play out. Any judgement at this point (including mine) is
> probably premature.
>
> > It's a victory for readers of Chess Life. What's The
> > Best Move? was the first thing I turned to in his
> > column and I shall now renew my membership.
> >
> > His weekly column at worldchessnetwork.com
> > still provides an opportunity to consult his views
> > about the past and present of chess.
> > > > due to popular demand What's The Best Move? will resume
> > > > in the October issue of Chess Life.
> > > >
> > > > Apparently there will no longer be a Q&A column in the
> > > > printed version of the magazine.
> > > >
> > > > For the record, this is the fourth time that the 5-time U.S.
> > > > champion has been fired and rehired by Chess Life.
> > >
> > > here have repeatedly said that his most important contributions were
> > > historical reminscences, and his critical attitude toward USCF and
> > > FIDE, the latter supposedly being the reason his column was cancelled.
> > > Politically he's still out in the cold.
> > > just be performing a minor instructional task that any other competent
> > > player could do.
help bot
Mike Murray wrote:
> On 11 Aug 2006 22:10:38 -0700, "help bot" <nomor...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> > It almost sounds as if Mike Murray were trying to argue
> >here that throwing a match is better than taking a forfeit
> >win, on account of what might happen to one's "reputation"
> >after winning by forfeit. While I expect Spassky may have
> >joined other Russians as handy scapegoats in the American
> >press, I do not agree that such a decision should be based
> >upon trying to *look good*. Being unprincipled and just
> >trying to "look good" didn't work for John Kerry, and even if it
> >did work, it still is wrongheaded.
>
> I suspect Spassky went the extra mile for artistic reasons in
> preserving the match, not because he wanted to look good in History,
> but, then, I don't have a degree in Mind-Reading.
For artistic reasons? (Hey, I thought the guy actually
believed that he -- and virtually no one else -- could still
beat Fischer! Look at the games where Bobby went 6-0.
It is easy to imagine Spassky going over these games
and thinking, "I would not have made this error. Here, I
would certainly not have left my Rook en prise. I don't
even play this garbage opening."
> > There will always be fools and imbeciles in the
> >world. :>D
>
> Their collected works to be found in Google.
>
> > As The Nutty Professor has pointed out repeatedly, at one
> >time Larry Evans came firmly down against Fischer for asking
> >for conditions which were unfair.
>
> I don't believe Evans ever retracted this. Fairness is on thing; the
> match is another.
Evans is not exactly in the habit of admitting when he is
wrong on such issues. In fact, he "went off" when readers
(patzers, no doubt) kept writing in to correct his faulty
analysis, which they had *dared* to double-check using
computers. His reaction? He quit altogether -- a retaliation
of sorts, which demonstrates his psychological problems
with admitting his mistakes.
As for issues which do not relate to chess analysis, we
can see in Larry Parr's recent postings the preferred method
of these clowns: backpeddling. Mr. Parr not-so-cleverly
inserted the word "possibly" to insulate himself from an
outright endorsement, just in case. It goes without saying
that those who make a habit of shifting ground have little
need of apologies for their missteps, since only the sharpest
of readers will spot that they ever changed position. These
are so few in number that the Evans ratpackers reasonably
believe they can just get away with it.
No, I say the lack of a retraction proves nothing in this
case. What counts is the fact that these Evans ratpackers
repeat their mantra, over and over, and this new mantra
does not include any of Evans' old stance on Fischer
being the one responsible for his own failure. The old
mantra, if you recall, did not even mention Karpov, yet
the new Evans/Parr mantra *obsesses* about him. The
old labeled Bobby "a stubborn boy"; the new admonishes
Karpov and FIDE. This is a shift of ground, like it or not.
Check your mental GPS.
-- buy Garmin
help bot
parrt...@cs.com wrote:
> Of course, there is no necessary contradiction
> between noting Bobby's preposterous stubborness and
> the verdict that possibly
Weasel word, "possibly", noted.
> Louie Blair is generally ignorant of history and he
> does not much comprehend its nuanced judgments.
These smears are always more effective when acompanied
by supposed *examples* to back them up. Here Mr. Parr
just tosses out the smear, plain. I prefer ketchup, mustard,
relish -- the works. Leaving out the condiments gives the
impression that, well, you just ran out of mustard.
> Another nail in Karpov's coffin is the book RUSSIANS
> VERSUS FISCHER (1994) by Plisetsky and Voronkov.
Has anybody bought this book? I never see it mentioned,
except by Evans ratpackers like Mr. Parr. Maybe there is
a decent market for westerners who are looking to ease the
pain of no longer having Fischer assert our "cultural
superiority"? Me, I just accept the cold, hard facts:
1.computers
2.Russians (incl. former satellite countries)
3.rest of world (that's us, guys!)
4.China (moving up a rank every few years until reaching #2)
> > >In 1972, Fischer was not insisting on a requirement that
> > >his opponent finish at least two points ahead in order to
> > >be champion.
But then, he wasn't playing *me*!
> > > "Fischer ceded the title by default to Anatoly Karpov
> > > in 1975." - Raymond Keene (1999)
Keene? What does he know? I get my chess history
direct from Wikipedia or The Oxford Companion for Chess.
> > Fischer was every bit as unreasonable in 72, but Spassky found a way
> > to play the match.
Odd how Spassky gets all the blame here. I seem to
recall that the organisers and Fischer had a hand in this,
too. Oh yes, and the arbiter as well.
IMO, Fischer -- just like many others -- got an even
bigger head *after* he won the title. He then became even
more unreasonable (yes, that *is* possible), and the process
has continued to this day.
One difference I can think of offhand is that the match in
1972 was one where Spassky was scheduled -- and expected
to -- defend his title. Yet the situation with Karpov was such
that Karpov was competing in several matches, and the
situation between FIDE and Fischer was an ongoing
dispute only involving him indirectly, if he won through to
become the challenger. It is a sad reflection of the state of
things where a challenger's wishes are never even considered,
yet the title holder can hold everyone hostage, because of
money and political clout. Yet this is how things were
pre-FIDE, and it is still how things are now. This is one
reason I don't easily comprehend the strong objection to
including chess in the Olympics, where things might be
far from perfect -- for example, the drug testing's inherent
invasion of privacy -- yet at least the politicians at FIDE
would no longer "own" the (only) title.
-- help bot
--
help bot
parrt...@cs.com wrote:
> GM Evans: At Caracas in 1977, FIDE accepted Bobby's principle that
> only wins should count and decreed the title went to the player who
> first won six games in an open-ended match. But they gave Karpov a
> rematch clause, a bigger edge than Bobby ever sought. Bobby was
> furious. He vowed to get even and finally imposed his rules in the $5
> million duel with Spassky in 1992. This match was played outside of
> FIDE's jurisdiction and billed as "The Return Match of the Century
> Between the Never Defeated Champion of the World and His Challenger
> Boris Spassky."
GM Evans seems to have missed (or at least failed to point
out) a small subtlety:
At the time of the 1992 rematch, Boris Spassky was no
longer a resident of Russia/the USSR. Hence, it is silly to
even consider imposing unfair rules on Spassky in 1992 as
in any way "getting even" with Russia or with FIDE. On top
of this, Fischer's whole idea of two-wrongs-make-a-right, of
getting even by commiting yet another wrong, is precisely
where Evans took the moral high ground over Fischer in 1972;
Evans "checkmated" Bobby off the board by pinpointing his
moral-math blunder. Evans 1, Fischer 0
-- help bot
Louis Blair
7 ... GM Evans wrote for the March 1986 issue of Chess
7 Life:
7
7 "... [Karpov] will go down in history as the man
7 who avoided a match with Bobby Fischer and
7 then eluded him for the next ten years. ..."
7
7 Previously, GM Evans had written:
7
7 "Fischer refused to negotiate or compromise and his
7 stubbornness is what killed the match - nothing or
7 nobody else." - GM Evans (1975)
_
Mike Murray wrote (Fri, 11 Aug 2006 10:34:57 -0700):
7 History's judgments aren't based on fine print, and aren't
7 completely fair. What do you think would have happened
7 to Spassky's reputation had he used the forfeit to get out
7 of the Iceland match (even though technically, he would
7 have been within his rights to do so) ?
_
I wrote (11 Aug 2006 16:25:52 -0700):
7 If GM Evans, in March 1986, was writing about the
7 unfairness of chess history, he should have indicated
7 that in the article.
7
7 In 1972, Fischer was not insisting on a requirement that
7 his opponent finish at least two points ahead in order to
7 be champion.
_
Mike Murray wrote (Fri, 11 Aug 2006 17:30:56 -0700):
7 Evans probably felt no obligation to address topics chosen
7 by Louis Blair. Heh, heh, heh.
_
It was GM Evans who chose to write about history and
Karpov.
_
Mike Murray wrote (Fri, 11 Aug 2006 17:30:56 -0700):
7 Hardly surprising [that, in 1972, Fischer was not insisting
7 on a requirement that his opponent finish at least two
7 points ahead in order to be champion], since Fischer was
7 the challenger, and he founded his rationalizations for the
7 two point edge on his interpretation of championship
7 match tradition.
_
I did not claim that it was "surprising".
_
Mike Murray wrote (Fri, 11 Aug 2006 17:30:56 -0700):
7 Fischer was every bit as unreasonable in 72,
_
Assertions are not true just because Mike Murray makes
them.
_
Mike Murray wrote (Fri, 11 Aug 2006 17:30:56 -0700):
7 but Spassky found a way to play the match.
_
Is Mike Murray saying that Karpov should have agreed to
the requirement that he had to finish two points ahead of
Fischer in order to become champion? If so, can he bring
himself to say this directly?
_
"... Robert Fischer ... retired from competitive chess.
... In the summer of 1974 a dispute arose between
Bobby and FIDE. ... Bobby insisted that his
conditions were 'not negotiable,' remaining adamant
to all pleas to change his mind. Although Euwe gave
him every chance to be conciliatory, Bobby could
not be shaken. Accordingly the title was awarded
to Karpov ... Bobby's ... conditions for the match
with Karpov seem motivated more by inner fantasies
than anything else. ... Karpov has already shown
himself to be a worthy titleholder. ..." - Reuben Fine
(1976)
_
"... Fischer ceded the title by default to Anatoly
Karpov in 1975. ..." - Raymond Keene (1999)
_
"... Fischer refused to negotiate or compromise and
his stubbornness is what killed the match - nothing
or nobody else. ..." - GM Evans (1975)
Louis Blair
7 ... GM Evans wrote for the March 1986 issue of Chess
7 Life:
7
7 "... [Karpov] will go down in history as the man
7 who avoided a match with Bobby Fischer and
7 then eluded him for the next ten years. ..."
7
7 Previously, GM Evans had written:
7
7 "Fischer refused to negotiate or compromise and his
7 stubbornness is what killed the match - nothing or
7 nobody else." - GM Evans (1975)
_
Larry Parr wrote (12 Aug 2006 00:24:59 -0700):
7 ... Of course, there is no necessary contradiction
7 between noting Bobby's preposterous stubborness
7 and the verdict that possibly will be accorded to
7 Karpov in the history books. ...
_
GM Evans did not write "possibly". He used the same
tone that one might use if writing about the sun rising
tomorrow or more violence in the Middle East. If
GM Evans, in March 1986, was writing about the
unfairness of chess history, he should have indicated
that in the article.
_
Larry Parr wrote (12 Aug 2006 00:24:59 -0700):
7 ... [Fischer] wanted to play under his terms, which were
7 in the main not unreasonable.
_
FIDE agreed to Fischer's terms "in the main" (although one
would not know this from the warped November 2002 Chess
Life account by GM Evans). FIDE only refused to agree to
his requirement that Karpov had to finish two or more
points ahead of Fischer in order to become champion.
_
Larry Parr wrote (12 Aug 2006 00:24:59 -0700):
7 Apparently more liberal than what Lasker granted
7 opponents
_
Lasker played matches against Steinitz, Marshall, Tarrasch,
Schlechter, Janowski, and Capablanca. Are any of these
matches known to have a requirement that Lasker's
opponent would have to finish two or more points ahead of
Lasker in order to become world champion?
_
Larry Parr wrote (12 Aug 2006 00:24:59 -0700):
7 and possibly more liberal than what may have been the
7 requirement in 1927 that Alekhine had to beat Capablanca
7 by 6-4.
_
"The evidence for this claim [that the 1927
Capa-Alekhine match did have a draw clause
at 5-5] is murky" - Larry Parr (22 May 2004
17:22:56 GMT)
_
Larry Parr wrote (12 Aug 2006 00:24:59 -0700):
7 ... Bobby's mental problems will figure in any future chess
7 histories; Karpov's vicious rattiness will also be recorded.
7 ...
7 One bad sign for Karpov's future reputation is that the old
7 rap that Bobby was afraid to play him looks pretty
7 threadbare these days. ...
7
7 Another nail in Karpov's coffin is the book RUSSIANS
7 VERSUS FISCHER (1994) by Plisetsky and Voronkov.
_
The number of "nail"s "in Karpov's coffin" does not justify
EVERY possible negative claim that one might make about
Karpov, and it does not justify asserting that such negative
claims "will" be in the history books.
_
"... Fischer ceded the title by default to Anatoly
Karpov in 1975. ..." - Raymond Keene (1999)
_
"... Evans ... still holds that Fischer's stubbornness
and nothing else killed the match. ... If Fischer had
not been so stubborn, there would have been a
match. ..." - Larry Parr (28 May 2002 08:11:07 GMT)
_
"... Fischer must be slanged -- as both GM Evans
and I have so slanged in thousands of words -- for
producing asinine conditions. ..." - Larry Parr
(05 Jun 2002 07:12:26 GMT)
Mike Murray
wrote:
>Is Mike Murray saying that Karpov should have agreed to
>the requirement that he had to finish two points ahead of
>Fischer in order to become champion? If so, can he bring
>himself to say this directly?
I'm saying that Karpov would have been regarded as more of a
sportsman, more of an artist, had he agreed to the 9-9 clause. There
would have been no question then of him ducking a match. Plus, he
would have made some good bucks. But, he might also have looked like
a sucker when he could have obtained the title by toeing the FIDE
line, especially if Fischer went on to retain the title with a 9-9
result,
I'm saying nothing about whether he "should" have agreed to such a
clause. It would have been very *rational* not to agree to it if (1)
Karpov were seriously concerned about Soviet pressure to keep the
match from happening, (2) he suspected Fischer was more likely to win
(or at least retain his title), (3) he valued the championship and
attendant money and perks more than possibly fuzzy judgments of
History, (4) he belived his health would not tolerate a match of
indeterminate length.
He was legally within his rights, AFAIK, in *not* bending over
backward to facilitate the match. But, fair or unfair, his title has
this cloud over it.
help bot
Mike Murray wrote:
> On 12 Aug 2006 17:27:47 -0700, "Louis Blair" <lb...@blackburn.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >Is Mike Murray saying that Karpov should have agreed to
> >the requirement that he had to finish two points ahead of
> >Fischer in order to become champion? If so, can he bring
> >himself to say this directly?
>
> I'm saying that Karpov would have been regarded as more of a
> sportsman, more of an artist, had he agreed to the 9-9 clause.
There seems to be some confusion here; Karpov was not
involved in the "negotiations" between FIDE and Fischer;
the decision to reject the 9-9 tie clause -- which would have
given Bobby a fat advantage in the unlikely case of a very
close match -- was taken by *FIDE*, not Karpov. My, how
the passage of time clouds the issues! It was the General
Assembly of the FIDE representatives which decided this
issue, by voting.
> There would have been no question then of him ducking a match.
There will always be fools and imbeciles in the world who
will believe anything Evans/Parr tells them. Better to just
leave them to their silly delusions.
> Plus, he would have made some good bucks.
Ah! This is the real reason Karpov might have been
better off agreeing to play Fischer in spite of his many
"demands". But these comments ignore the political
aspect, focusing solely on money (and who cares
about money?).
> But, he might also have looked like
> a sucker when he could have obtained the title by toeing the FIDE
> line, especially if Fischer went on to retain the title with a 9-9
> result,
Actually, if Fischer had only retained the title due to
his unfair match conditions, this would place Karpov in
the catbird's seat; he would then have the moral high
ground (plus half the prize money! Okay, I care.).
> I'm saying nothing about whether he "should" have agreed to such a
> clause. It would have been very *rational* not to agree to it if (1)
> Karpov were seriously concerned about Soviet pressure to keep the
> match from happening, (2) he suspected Fischer was more likely to win
> (or at least retain his title), (3) he valued the championship and
> attendant money and perks more than possibly fuzzy judgments of
> History, (4) he belived his health would not tolerate a match of
> indeterminate length.
>
> He was legally within his rights, AFAIK, in *not* bending over
> backward to facilitate the match. But, fair or unfair, his title has
> this cloud over it.
The cloud consists mainly in the idea that Fischer was
the superior player, so the #1 ranked player (or non-player)
in the world was not World Champion. This is a basic flaw
in the FIDE system, as there is no such guarantee. It hardly
can be blamed on Karpov, who was not even born when this
fundamental flaw was first introduced. All the FIDE system
really guarantees is that the best players will at least get a
shot at the title, now and then. This is far from ideal, yet it
seems to have one significant advantage over the previous
"sytem", which allowed unscrupulous champions to hang on
to "their property" as they liked.
---
Putting this into some perspective, at the beginning of the
same century, a Champion named Lasker decided to "demand"
that his challenger (Capablanca) win by two points in order to
snatch the title. Capablanca flatly declined, and "history" has
been far kinder to him than to Lasker, even considering Capa
as a victim of sorts of both World Champions, before and after.
Declaring that Fischer will be treated kindly and Karpov made
out to be a villian, entails the assumptions that 1) Cold War
propaganda will still be in play indefinitely, and 2) the Evans/
Parr spin on events will eventually prevail over sounder
judgements, and 3) even historians of the distant future will be
as clueless as the worst historians of the present, or else have
a burning desire to place anti-Karpov topspin on the ball, so that
Fischer can be shown as bravely rushing the net.
-- G. Vilas
David Kane
"Mike Murray" <mikem...@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:sngtd2d1rvro4sfod...@4ax.com...
> On 12 Aug 2006 17:27:47 -0700, "Louis Blair" <lb...@blackburn.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >Is Mike Murray saying that Karpov should have agreed to
> >the requirement that he had to finish two points ahead of
> >Fischer in order to become champion? If so, can he bring
> >himself to say this directly?
>
> I'm saying that Karpov would have been regarded as more of a
> sportsman, more of an artist, had he agreed to the 9-9 clause. There
> would have been no question then of him ducking a match.
This is not true. The apologists for Fischer would have blamed
Karpov when the match didn't take place, for *whatever* reason.
The theory that the match conditions had something to do with
Fischer's decision not to play is naive given Fischer's inactivity
both before and after the proposed match.
parrt...@cs.com
Mike Murray is right again.
Years later Karpov admitted there was a cloud over his
title. One of the reasons he became the most active
world champion in history was to prove that he truly
deserved the crown. Even today Karpov regrets not
having played Fischer and blames it all on pressure
from the Kremlin.
Note that Korchnoi said he would have jumped at
the chance to play under Fischer's conditions.
parrt...@cs.com
<There will always be fools and imbeciles in the world who
will believe anything Evans/Parr tells them. Better to just
leave them to their silly delusions.> -- Greg Kennedy (help bog)
Instead of the endless prattle and mindless ramblings
of know-nothings, see WHY FISCHER FORFEITED
HIS TITLE by his closest aide.
"Bobby Fischer became world champion by beating Boris Spassky in 1972
and then stopped playing. It's still a hot topic and fans keep asking
me why FIDE waited a full three years before stripping Fischer of the
title for refusing to defend it against Anatoly Karpov in 1975." -- GM
Larry Evans
Mike Murray
wrote:
>> I'm saying that Karpov would have been regarded as more of a
>> sportsman, more of an artist, had he agreed to the 9-9 clause.
> There seems to be some confusion here; Karpov was not
>involved in the "negotiations" between FIDE and Fischer;
>the decision to reject the 9-9 tie clause -- which would have
>given Bobby a fat advantage in the unlikely case of a very
>close match -- was taken by *FIDE*, not Karpov. My, how
>the passage of time clouds the issues! It was the General
>Assembly of the FIDE representatives which decided this
>issue, by voting.
Don't kid yourself. If Karpov had announced he intended to play the
match with this clause, with or without FIDE blessing, FIDE would have
found a way to make it happen. What we don't know is whether Fischer
would have found some other reason not to play.
Ian Burton
<parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1155472995.1...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> CLOUD OVER KARPOV'S TITLE
>
> Mike Murray is right again.
>
> Years later Karpov admitted there was a cloud over his
> title. One of the reasons he became the most active
> world champion in history was to prove that he truly
> deserved the crown. Even today Karpov regrets not
> having played Fischer and blames it all on pressure
> from the Kremlin.
>
> Note that Korchnoi said he would have jumped at
> the chance to play under Fischer's conditions.
It was easy for Korchnoi to *say* he'd have jumped at the chance. We don't
know if he would have. As for Karpov's title being under a cloud, I don't
think it was, no matter what Karpov "admitted." Where, in fact, and when
did he "admit" it?
--
Ian Burton
(Please reply to the Newsgroup)
jame...@aol.com
It seems to me, upon further reflection, that there may be truth in
what Larry says - GM Evans' political pontifications might be too much
for US chess politicos.
But I wonder if we should expect differently? As the official
publication of the USCF, should it engage in political controversy?
Aren't things like a web column precisely the best place for such
commentary?
However, then a further point. I read my most recent Chess Life, and
saw an article that condemned FIDE and its president in no uncertain
terms.
I saw where Larry quoted President Goichberg on the "Evans mistake,"
but is there a place where I can find the first-hand quote? Or did I
miss it somewhere?
In the end, I just find myself asking more questions than ever about
Evans. I found it a poorly written, repetitious column that was no more
than a ghost of its former self, but I also wondered why Evans
continued in that vein - after supposedly, a fact I cannot verify,
being asked to change the column.
He continued to write fun feature articles - like the Ray Charles
piece- and I wondered why he didn't do more of those. I remember a
reader asking if he intended to do a book of his career and collected
games, and his answer was something to the effect of "they don't sell
well." And I think this was the year Benko's book came out - a
wonderful piece of work - did that not do well?
I found that disappointing as many today don't know Evans the player,
how really good he was, and some of his wonderful games.
How many, like me, have tried for years to get a copy of his Bronstein
book - supposedly a fantastic work by his young mind - only to be
frustrated! Why not have someone work on that; excerpts could appear in
CL..... Update it!
These are just a few of the thoughts and questions (and dreams!) I have
about Evans and his column. In the end, I doubt I will ever know the
truth or see the Evans of old again. I suppose Evans the political
entity is of no interest to me, whereas Evans the player was and still
is. But it is almost as if he rejects those days entirely.....
Again, just my interpretation as an observer; subject to error and
bias; you don't need to remind me, Larry.... I know I am not in the "in
crowd"....
Louis Blair
7 ... GM Evans wrote for the March 1986 issue of Chess
7 Life:
7
7 "... [Karpov] will go down in history as the man
7 who avoided a match with Bobby Fischer and
7 then eluded him for the next ten years. ..."
7
7 Previously, GM Evans had written:
7
7 "Fischer refused to negotiate or compromise and his
7 stubbornness is what killed the match - nothing or
7 nobody else." - GM Evans (1975)
_
Mike Murray wrote (Sat, 12 Aug 2006 23:29:33 -0700):
7 I'm saying that Karpov would have been regarded as more
7 of a sportsman, more of an artist, had he agreed to the 9-9
7 clause.
_
I do not think that sportsmanship or artistic considerations
oblige anyone to agree to a requirement to finish two or more
points ahead of an opponent in order to be world champion.
_
Mike Murray wrote (Sat, 12 Aug 2006 23:29:33 -0700):
7 There would have been no question then of him ducking
7 a match. ...
_
About the events of 1974-5, where are there such questions
now? Nowhere of any importance as far as I can see.
_
"... Robert Fischer ... retired from competitive chess.
... In the summer of 1974 a dispute arose between
Bobby and FIDE. ... Bobby insisted that his
conditions were 'not negotiable,' remaining adamant
to all pleas to change his mind. Although Euwe gave
him every chance to be conciliatory, Bobby could
not be shaken. Accordingly the title was awarded
to Karpov ... Bobby's ... conditions for the match
with Karpov seem motivated more by inner fantasies
than anything else. ... Karpov has already shown
himself to be a worthy titleholder. ..." - Reuben Fine
(1976)
_
"... Fischer must be slanged -- as both GM Evans
and I have so slanged in thousands of words -- for
producing asinine conditions. ..." - Larry Parr
(05 Jun 2002 07:12:26 GMT)
_
"... Fischer ceded the title by default to Anatoly
Karpov in 1975. ..." - Raymond Keene (1999)
_
"... Evans ... still holds that Fischer's stubbornness
and nothing else killed the match. ... If Fischer had
not been so stubborn, there would have been a
match. ..." - Larry Parr (28 May 2002 08:11:07 GMT)
_
Mike Murray wrote (Sat, 12 Aug 2006 23:29:33 -0700):
7 I'm saying nothing about whether he "should" have agreed
7 to such a clause. It would have been very *rational* not to
7 agree to it if (1) Karpov were seriously concerned about
7 Soviet pressure to keep the match from happening, (2) he
7 suspected Fischer was more likely to win (or at least
7 retain his title), (3) he valued the championship and
7 attendant money and perks more than possibly fuzzy
7 judgments of History, (4) he belived his health would not
7 tolerate a match of indeterminate length.
_
Another reason:
_
"... Fischer [produced] asinine conditions. ..."
- Larry Parr (05 Jun 2002 07:12:26 GMT)
_
Mike Murray wrote (Sat, 12 Aug 2006 23:29:33 -0700):
7 He was legally within his rights, AFAIK, in *not* bending
7 over backward to facilitate the match. But, fair or unfair,
7 his title has this cloud over it.
_
My feeling is that the distinction between fair and unfair is
of some importance. Writers do not have my respect if
they sweep that distinction under the carpet.
David Kane
We do know that for 20 straight years, two of
them *before* the FIDE negotiations, Fischer
didn't play a single game under *any* conditions.
Of course, from what we can now conclude
about Fischer's likelihood of playing, Karpov
probably regrets not making all sorts of bold
challenges at the time. However, things weren't
so clear in 1974, and chessplayers aren't
known for their bravado.
Mike Murray
wrote:
>> I'm saying that Karpov would have been regarded as more
>> of a sportsman, more of an artist, had he agreed to the 9-9
>> clause.
>I do not think that sportsmanship or artistic considerations
>oblige anyone to agree to a requirement to finish two or more
>points ahead of an opponent in order to be world champion.
Nowhere did I mention an *obligation" to play the match under those
conditions. Spassky was under no obligation to agree to the
compromises he made to keep the match going in the face of Fischer's
antics. It was a noble thing he did. And it resulted in a number of
games of great artistic merit.
>7 He was legally within his rights, AFAIK, in *not* bending
>7 over backward to facilitate the match. But, fair or unfair,
>7 his title has this cloud over it.
>My feeling is that the distinction between fair and unfair is
>of some importance. Writers do not have my respect if
>they sweep that distinction under the carpet.
Fair and Unfair are of utmost importance to children. As we mature,
most of us realize other things also count.
help bot
parrt...@cs.com wrote:
> Note that Korchnoi said he would have jumped at
> the chance to play under Fischer's conditions.
There is a huge difference here, in that Karpov -- unlike
Kortchnoi -- had just *earned* the right to play for the title.
Sheesh.
Like Kortchnoi, I would also have jumped at the chance
to play Fischer for say, a million bucks.* Unlike Kortchnoi,
however, the odds makers in Vegas would have been in a
tight spot with me playing, since no matter what the odds,
everyone would want to bet on Fischer. OTOH, they could
always create a betting pool surrounding the exact number
of moves before I would be checkmated in the opening.
-- help bot
* If for any reason whatsoever, Fischer fails to show up
or to play, I win by forfeit. In this case, all the prize money
is to be awarded to me, including TV and movie rights. I
also own the exclusive rights to use of the moves of the
games. If I happen to lose, there will be an appearance
fee of $100,000 plus all expenses. Oh, and I like to listen
to loud rock music during play, with a disco style of lighting
in the playing room (flashing lights, semi-darkness, etc.)
If Fischer backs out, I am willing to face Kortchnoi under
these same conditions (sans world championship title, of
course).
help bot
It seems to me that the one "kidding himself" here is Mike
Murray. There is no way to know what FIDE would or would
not have done if Karpov had made such a ficticious
announcement.
IMO, the likeliest scenario would be that FIDE would have
stood its ground, Fischer his, and *insincere* negotiations
between the two players might have ensued. In favor of a
successful agreement is the fact that Fischer could always
use more money, but against this must be weighed the fact
that he feared soiling his reputation, while Karpov would
have had the exact same problem. In other words, with the
World Championship title, Karpov would have had everything
to lose reputation-wise, and only (a lot of) money to gain --
a tough decision, assumming he was free to make his own.
The comment that Karpov would have somehow been more
of an artist, had he agreed to play Fischer, makes zero sense.
What has this to do with art? Nothing. However, the comment
regarding "sportsman" at least has some meaning. Of course,
those who make such comments are quite unable to turn them
backwards, for the acid test; was Fischer less of a sportsman
for demanding odds? Was he less of a sportsman for quitting
while still in his prime? Would he not have been the ultimate
sportsman had he taken the course suggested by Larry Evans?
The answers are too painful for most Fischer fans to bear.
-- help bot
help bot
jame...@aol.com wrote:
> piece- and I wondered why he didn't do more of those. I remember a
> reader asking if he intended to do a book of his career and collected
> games, and his answer was something to the effect of "they don't sell
> well."
I have never seen a book of Evans' games. Even the brief
mention of his games in articles usually leaves out the moves
and instead begins with a diagrammed position, with a single,
brilliant move. For example, Evans' own column left out the
moves of his famous game with Reshevsky, giving readers
only the brilliant saving move. This sort of thing gives the
impression that his games were generally not particularly
impressive overall, but contained sparks of tactical brilliance.
OTOH, Evans' results were impressive. As I have mentioned
before, were it not for the unfortunate timing of Fischer's arrival,
Evans' chess career would likely have been far different. Bobby
cast a long shadow.
-- help bot
Louis Blair
7 ... GM Evans wrote for the March 1986 issue of Chess
7 Life:
7
7 "... [Karpov] will go down in history as the man
7 who avoided a match with Bobby Fischer and
7 then eluded him for the next ten years. ..."
7
7 Previously, GM Evans had written:
7
7 "Fischer refused to negotiate or compromise and his
7 stubbornness is what killed the match - nothing or
7 nobody else." - GM Evans (1975)
_
7 it.
_
Larry Parr wrote (13 Aug 2006 05:43:15 -0700):
7 CLOUD OVER KARPOV'S TITLE
7
7 Mike Murray is right again.
_
My feeling is that the distinction between fair and unfair
is of some importance. At least Mike Murray clearly
indicated that he was setting that distinction aside in
his sentence. In that respect, the above MM quote
was different from what GM Evans wrote in March 1986.
_
Larry Parr wrote (13 Aug 2006 05:43:15 -0700):
7 Years later Karpov admitted there was a cloud over his
7 title. One of the reasons he became the most active
7 world champion in history was to prove that he truly
7 deserved the crown. Even today Karpov regrets not
7 having played Fischer and blames it all on pressure
7 from the Kremlin.
7
7 Note that Korchnoi said he would have jumped at
7 the chance to play under Fischer's conditions.
_
Larry Parr produces no actual quotes. Does he claim
that Karpov and/or Korchnoi indicated that it would be
fair to describe Karpov as avoiding a match with
Fischer in 1974-5?
_
"... What was Karpov supposed to do in
1974-5? ..." - Louis Blair (Sat, 08 Jun 2002
03:17:28 -0500)
_
"... Is it the opinion of Larry Parr that
Karpov should have proclaimed his
willingness to play under Fischer's
'asinine' conditions? Does Larry Parr
claim that there was anything unethical or
unreasonable about Karpov's decision to
not make such a proclamation? ..."
- Louis Blair (Thu, 13 Jun 2002
22:16:03 -0500)
_
"... Karpov could have been a sportsman
and played Fischer ..." - Larry Parr
(14 Jun 2002 06:34:56 GMT)
_
"... I did not ask what Karpov COULD
have done. I asked what Karpov was
SUPPOSED to do. Is Larry Parr willing
to assert that Karpov SHOULD have
proclaimed his consent to 'asinine'
conditions? Is Larry Parr willing to
assert that it was unreasonable or
unethical for Karpov to refrain from
proclaiming his consent? ..." - Louis
Blair (Tue, 18 Jun 2002 02:34:15 -0500)
Ian Burton
"help bot" <nomor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155533557....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Well said. Were it not for Fischer's arrival I feel certain the player we
would now most admire would be William Lombardy. Bobby's shadow was cast
long indeed.
--
Ian Burton
(Please reply to the Newsgroup)
>
>
> -- help bot
>
Louis Blair
7 ... GM Evans wrote for the March 1986 issue of Chess
7 Life:
7
7 "... [Karpov] will go down in history as the man
7 who avoided a match with Bobby Fischer and
7 then eluded him for the next ten years. ..."
7
7 Previously, GM Evans had written:
7
7 "Fischer refused to negotiate or compromise and his
7 stubbornness is what killed the match - nothing or
7 nobody else." - GM Evans (1975)
_
Mike Murray wrote (Sat, 12 Aug 2006 23:29:33 -0700):
7 of a sportsman, more of an artist, had he agreed to the 9-9
7 clause.
_
I wrote (13 Aug 2006 19:25:21 -0700):
7 I do not think that sportsmanship or artistic considerations
7 oblige anyone to agree to a requirement to finish two or
7 more points ahead of an opponent in order to be world
7 champion.
_
Mike Murray wrote (Sun, 13 Aug 2006 21:35:26 -0700):
7 Nowhere did I mention an *obligation" to play the match
7 under those conditions.
_
I reproduced Mike Murray's comments about sportsmanship
and artistry so that people could see exactly what he did
write about those subjects.
_
Mike Murray wrote (Sun, 13 Aug 2006 21:35:26 -0700):
7 Spassky was under no obligation to agree to the
7 compromises he made to keep the match going in the
7 face of Fischer's antics. It was a noble thing he did.
7 And it resulted in a number of games of great artistic
7 merit.
_
"In 1972, Fischer was not insisting on a
requirement that his opponent finish at least
two points ahead in order to be champion."
- Louis Blair (11 Aug 2006 16:25:52 -0700)
_
Mike Murray wrote (Sat, 12 Aug 2006 23:29:33 -0700):
7 He was legally within his rights, AFAIK, in *not* bending
7 over backward to facilitate the match. But, fair or unfair,
7 his title has this cloud over it.
_
I wrote (13 Aug 2006 19:25:21 -0700):
7 My feeling is that the distinction between fair and unfair is
7 of some importance. Writers do not have my respect if
7 they sweep that distinction under the carpet.
_
Mike Murray wrote (Sun, 13 Aug 2006 21:35:26 -0700):
7 Fair and Unfair are of utmost importance to children. As
7 we mature, most of us realize other things also count.
_
I suggest that Mike Murray read my two sentences again
and see for himself that there is nothing in them to indicate
that "other things" do not "also count".
_
"My feeling is that the distinction between fair
and unfair is of some importance. Writers do
not have my respect if they sweep that
distinction under the carpet." - Louis Blair
(13 Aug 2006 19:25:21 -0700)
parrt...@cs.com
Ian Burton wrote:
<Were it not for Fischer's arrival I feel certain the player we
would now most admire would be William Lombardy.
Bobby's shadow was cast long indeed.>
In 1962, after he won the U.S. Championship again,
Evans defeated Lombardy 5.5-4.5 in a match.
In his book CHESS CATECHISM (chapter 25) GM Evans
analyzes the ending of their third match game at some
length, noting: "It was contested when I was trailing in
our ten-game match and I consider this end game the
psychological turning point. Winning it enabled me to
pull even, and I finally snatched the match out of the fire
after a bitter struggle."
Mike Murray
wrote:
> In favor of a
>successful agreement is the fact that Fischer could always
>use more money, but against this must be weighed the fact
>that he feared soiling his reputation, while Karpov would
>have had the exact same problem. In other words, with the
>World Championship title, Karpov would have had everything
>to lose reputation-wise, and only (a lot of) money to gain --
>a tough decision, assuming he was free to make his own.
Unless he thought he could beat Fischer. Then, he could have had the
best of everything: money, respect, the title. The fact that he let
the match fall through ...?
> The comment that Karpov would have somehow been more
>of an artist, had he agreed to play Fischer, makes zero sense.
>What has this to do with art? Nothing.
Nothing? How about the games that would have been created? Games
that could be replayed, analyzed, enjoyed by chessplayers everywhere?
Fischer and Karpov were analogous to a couple of artists who refused
to create because they were arguing over studio rates and terms of the
lease.
> However, the comment
>regarding "sportsman" at least has some meaning. Of course,
>those who make such comments are quite unable to turn them
>backwards, for the acid test; was Fischer less of a sportsman
>for demanding odds? Was he less of a sportsman for quitting
>while still in his prime? Would he not have been the ultimate
>sportsman had he taken the course suggested by Larry Evans?
>The answers are too painful for most Fischer fans to bear.
I have no problem saying Fischer was less of a sportsman for his
behavior in these negotiations. And one could certainly argue that
behind Fischer's iintransigence was the fear he might lose to Karpov.
The tacit assumption in all of this discussion is that Karpov was the
more rational of the two. We also know Fischer, over the course of
his career, made many decisions that were contrary to what most others
would consider his self-interest (Principle or madness? You pick.).
Mike Murray
wrote:
>EVANS VS. LOMBARDY 1962
>Ian Burton wrote:
Quit it with these facts, wouldja? They confuse the issue. Heh, heh.
Taylor Kingston
parrt...@cs.com wrote:
> NO INHERENT CONTRADICTION
> Of course, there is no necessary contradiction
> the verdict that possibly will be accorded to Karpov in the
> history books. Bobby's mental problems will figure in
> any future chess histories; Karpov's vicious rattiness
> will also be recorded.
>
> One bad sign for Karpov's future reputation is
> looks pretty threadbare these days. He wanted to
> play under his terms, which were in the main not
> unreasonable. Apparently more liberal than what
> Lasker granted opponents
To what terms do you refer? IIRC, no Lasker title match had a
two-point-win requirement for the challenger. He tried to put one in
while negotiating with Capablanca circa 1912-1914, but it was rejected.
No such clause applied when they actually did play in 1921.
> and possibly more liberal
> than what may have been the requirement in 1927
> that Alekhine had to beat Capablanca by 6-4.
It is well established that no such requirement existed in the 1927
match.
> Another nail in Karpov's coffin is the book RUSSIANS
> VERSUS FISCHER (1994) by Plisetsky and Voronkov.
On the issue of whether Karpov himself (as opposed to Soviet
officialdom) did or did not try to scuttle the match, that book strikes
me as inconclusive. The greatly expanded 2nd edition of "Russians
versus Fischer" (Everyman, 2005), which has much more on the
Fischer-Karpov negotiations than the 1994 edition, is likewise
inconclusive, but has some indications that Karpov sincerely did want
to play. My review (http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review505.pdf) noted:
"It's not entirely clear whether Karpov himself favored the
immoveable hard-line stance the Soviets took in 1975, which along with
Fischer's intransigence scuttled the match. However, indications in
RvF are that he sincerely wanted to play. Karpov kept hopes for a match
as late as 1979; when it was clear there would be none, his reaction
was almost poignant:
"'It is hard to describe the feeling I experienced, when I realised
there would be no match with Fischer ... Some kind of vacuum opened up
... I realised that the most vivid thing that could have happened in my
life would not take place.'"
Maybe Karpov was dissembling there, but my own (admittedly only
partly informed) guess is that he would have played, if Fischer, FIDE,
and the Soviet officials handling Karpov's side of the negotiations had
somehow managed to agree.
jr
about their best games.
Lombardy was very strong but despite many tries
I don't think he ever won the U.S. Championship.
Evans won it five times starting at age 19 ahead
of Reshevsky, yet he wisely decided there was
no money in chess and (like Denker) continued
playing but sought his fortune in other fields.
Taylor Kingston
jr wrote:
> Lombardy was very strong but despite many tries
> I don't think he ever won the U.S. Championship.
That is correct. Checking Soltis' book on the US Ch, it looks like
Lombardy played in it 8 times but never won. His record:
1957-8: 4th
1958-9: =4-7th
1960-1: 2nd
1968: =5-6th
1969: 4th
1972: =6-7th
1975: =6-9th
1978: =9-10th
1960-61 was the closest Lombardy came, scoring 7-4 (+5 -2 =4), two
points behind Fischer but ahead of Weinstein, Bisguier, Reshevsky,
Sherwin, Kalme, Benko, Berliner, R. Byrne, Saidy and Seidman.
> Evans won it five times starting at age 19 ahead
> of Reshevsky,
Basically correct, though a nit-picker might say he won it 3 times
(1951, 1961-2, 1968), co-won it once (1980), and retained it once
(match with Steiner, 1952). I personally have no problem with calling
Evans a 5-time US champ.
jr
Taylor Kingston wrote:
>Basically correct, though a nit-picker might say he won it 3 times
(1951, 1961-2, 1968), co-won it once (1980), and retained it once
(match with Steiner, 1952). I personally have no problem with calling
Evans a 5-time US champ.>
Gee, that's big of you!
Taylor Kingston
jr wrote:
> Gee, that's big of you!
You bet your sweet bippy!
Louis Blair
7 ... GM Evans wrote for the March 1986 issue of Chess
7 Life:
7
7 "... [Karpov] will go down in history as the man
7 who avoided a match with Bobby Fischer and
7 then eluded him for the next ten years. ..."
7
7 Previously, GM Evans had written:
7
7 "Fischer refused to negotiate or compromise and his
7 stubbornness is what killed the match - nothing or
7 nobody else." - GM Evans (1975)
_
7 There will always be fools and imbeciles in the world
7 who will believe anything Evans/Parr tells them. Better
7 to just leave them to their silly delusions.
_
Larry Parr wrote (13 Aug 2006 08:11:15 -0700):
7 Instead of the endless prattle and mindless ramblings
7 of know-nothings, see WHY FISCHER FORFEITED
7 HIS TITLE by his closest aide.
7
7
http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=497&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
_
The subject that has been raised is what GM Evans chose
to write for the March 1986 issue of Chess Life. Of course,
Larry Parr is free to try to stear the discussion away from
that subject if he chooses.
_
_
_
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Path:
archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!cyclone1.gnilink.net!ngpeer.news.aol.com!audrey04.news.cs.com!not-for-mail
Lines: 71
X-Admin: ne...@cs.com
From: parrt...@cs.com (Parrthenon)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
Date: 04 Jun 2002 23:08:24 GMT
References: <3CFD2AD7...@mrs.umn.edu>
Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/)
Subject: Re: Fischer & Karpov
Message-ID: <20020604190824...@mb-ck.news.cs.com>
...
EVANS ON KARPOV (in 1986)
Anatoly Karpov won games but never the hearts of fans. He will go down
in
history as the man who avoided a match with Bobby Fischer and then
eluded him
for the next ten years. [Clearly a prediction.]
True, Karpov was an active champion -- perhaps to prove that he
deserved a
title earned by default. True, his terrific record surpassed that of
any other
titleholder. Yet how reliable are some of those results? There are
reports of
Soviet rivals throwing key games to enable Karpov to win international
events.
Indeed, Boris Spassky finally broke with Russia when his interzonal
funding was
cut for the cardinal sin of placing first ahead of Karpov at Linares,
Spain, in
1983.
Karpov reigned in an era of dirty tricks and Soviet manipulation of
FIDE
flunkies. His title was also clouded by matches against Viktor Korchnoi
with
the defector's family held hostage in the Soviet Union and with his son
beaten
in a labor camp on the eve of their 1981 match. Karpov might have shown
the
world he was truly a champion by asking his masters in the Kremlin to
release
Korchnoi's family beforehand. This contempt for public opinion lasted
for years
as Soviet grandmasters boycotted events in the West whenever Korchnoi
was
invited. Yet Karpov repeateldy denied any official boycott.
To secure his throne Karpov made FIDE restore the infamous rematch
clause which
was stricken in 1963. FIDE lacked the courage to resist this Soviet
ploy, but
Dr. Max Euwe, an honorable president, argued the clause gave Karpov a
larger
mathematical edge than anything Fischer ever sought. Of course, Karpov
is now
exercising this loophole [by forcing Karpov into a rematch].
The frail, exhausted Karpov bent the rules in his aborted match with
Gary
Kasparov by demanding a long postponement after two straight losses, to
protect
his dwindling lead. But this maneuver backfired and led to Karpov's
downfall
when a new match started from scratch. No politicians intervened to
save
Karpov's title the second time around.
Upon assuming the crown, Gary Kasparov paid tribute to his boyhood idol
-- the
American Bobby Fischer. "In a juster world of chess," he said. "we
might be
able to see Fischer at the chessboard again. Fischer not only made
chess more
popular but raised its quality."
This generous spirit was alien to karpov, who did all in his power to
drive an
unstable American genius out of chess. Anatoly Karpov is respected for
cold
technical precision, not for his sportsmanship. Posterity may remember
him as a
sad-faced champion who never won a fair title match.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Louis Blair
7 ... GM Evans wrote for the March 1986 issue of Chess
7 Life:
7
7 "... [Karpov] will go down in history as the man
7 who avoided a match with Bobby Fischer and
7 then eluded him for the next ten years. ..."
Mike Murray wrote (Sat, 12 Aug 2006 23:29:33 -0700):
7 artist, had he agreed to the 9-9 clause. ...
_
helpbot wrote (13 Aug 2006 22:19:31 -0700):
7 ... The comment that Karpov would have somehow been
7 more of an artist, had he agreed to play Fischer, makes
7 zero sense. What has this to do with art? Nothing. ...
_
Mike Murray wrote (Mon, 14 Aug 2006 06:37:01 -0700):
7 ... Nothing? How about the games that would have
7 been created? Games that could be replayed,
7 analyzed, enjoyed by chessplayers everywhere?
7 Fischer and Karpov were analogous to a couple of artists
7 who refused to create because they were arguing over
7 studio rates and terms of the lease. ...
_
"Fischer refused to negotiate or compromise and his
stubbornness is what killed the match - nothing or
nobody else." - GM Evans (1975)
_
Mike Murray wrote (Mon, 14 Aug 2006 06:37:01 -0700):
7 ... I have no problem saying Fischer was less of a
7 sportsman for his behavior in these negotiations. And
7 one could certainly argue that behind Fischer's
7 iintransigence was the fear he might lose to Karpov.
7 The tacit assumption in all of this discussion is that
7 Karpov was the more rational of the two. ...
_
I, at least, am making no such assumption. My concern
is with the fair description of Karpov's 1974-5 ACTIONS
during the attempt to arrange a match.
Mike Murray
wrote:
>Mike Murray wrote (Mon, 14 Aug 2006 06:37:01 -0700):
>> ... I have no problem saying Fischer was less of a
>> sportsman for his behavior in these negotiations. And
>> one could certainly argue that behind Fischer's
>> iintransigence was the fear he might lose to Karpov.
>> The tacit assumption in all of this discussion is that
>> Karpov was the more rational of the two. ...
>I, at least, am making no such assumption. My concern
>is with the fair description of Karpov's 1974-5 ACTIONS
>during the attempt to arrange a match.
You are agnostic, then, about whether Karpov and Fischer are equally
rational?
I don't believe we have much arguments about "Karpov's 1974-5 ACTIONS"
-- where we differ is in how to interpret the *meaning* of those
ACTIONS, and whether it makes sense to speculate about the
*motivation* behind those ACTIONS.
Louis Blair
7 ... GM Evans wrote for the March 1986 issue of Chess
7 Life:
7
7 "... [Karpov] will go down in history as the man
7 who avoided a match with Bobby Fischer and
7 then eluded him for the next ten years. ..."
7 Previously, GM Evans had written:
7
7 stubbornness is what killed the match - nothing or
7 nobody else." - GM Evans (1975)
_
Mike Murray wrote (Mon, 14 Aug 2006 06:37:01 -0700):
7 sportsman for his behavior in these negotiations. And
7 one could certainly argue that behind Fischer's
7 iintransigence was the fear he might lose to Karpov.
7 The tacit assumption in all of this discussion is that
7 Karpov was the more rational of the two. ...
_
I wrote (14 Aug 2006 13:37:28 -0700):
7 I, at least, am making no such assumption. My
7 concern is with the fair description of Karpov's 1974-5
7 ACTIONS during the attempt to arrange a match.
_
Mike Murray wrote (Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:36:48 -0700):
7 You are agnostic, then, about whether Karpov and
7 Fischer are equally rational?
_
That is not what I wrote.
_
Mike Murray wrote (Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:36:48 -0700):
7 I don't believe we have much arguments about
7 "Karpov's 1974-5 ACTIONS" -- where we differ is in
7 how to interpret the *meaning* of those ACTIONS, and
7 whether it makes sense to speculate about the
7 *motivation* behind those ACTIONS.
_
"My concern is with the fair description of
Karpov's 1974-5 ACTIONS during the
attempt to arrange a match." - Louis Blair
(14 Aug 2006 13:37:28 -0700)
_
"My feeling is that the distinction between fair
and unfair is of some importance. Writers do
not have my respect if they sweep that
distinction under the carpet." - Louis Blair
(13 Aug 2006 19:25:21 -0700)
_
I see nothing in the March 1986 GM Evans quote
(above) to indicate that he was speculating about
Karpov's 1974-5 motivations.
_
"GM Evans ... used the same tone that
one might use if writing about the sun
rising tomorrow or more violence in the
Middle East." - Louis Blair (12 Aug 2006
17:48:22 -0700)
Chess One
"Louis Blair" <lb...@blackburn.edu> wrote in message
news:1155545360.3...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> 7 Fair and Unfair are of utmost importance to children. As
> 7 we mature, most of us realize other things also count.
>
> _
> I suggest that Mike Murray read my two sentences again
I did ! - since Louis always posts everything twice.
> and see for himself that there is nothing in them to indicate
> that "other things" do not "also count".
> _
> "My feeling is that the distinction between fair
But when asked to say what consitutes 'fair' Louis refers us to a
dictionary, a [necessary] abstraction, but an abstraction neverthless.
Specifically there would seem to be two issues of how match-games could be
made fair, (1) a purely mathematical metaphysic, and the second (2) fair, as
following the best historical encounter or whatever precedent seems
dominant - pr least skewed towards the incumbent.
> and unfair is of some importance. Writers do
> not have my respect if they sweep that
> distinction under the carpet." - Louis Blair
> (13 Aug 2006 19:25:21 -0700)
And which distinctions shall we discuss therefore? #1 or #2 above, some
combination of them - or is the real problem (3) a tied-match? Since this
column seems to have to do with Larry Evans, perhaps he already wrote of
some (4) other perspectives that are pertinent? It would be interesting to
know if he has changed his opinion over time, given the disaster which
resulted in the W Ch cycle. In this respect I think I already understand one
#4 that he has expressed, which is that FIDE should not be allowed to change
the basis of the championship to advantage their own favorite.
What I do not understand [and who does?] is the extent of this interference
on the current cycle, and while we may all prose away on items like #1 or #2
or #3 above and achieve some equitable solution or at least viable basis for
a championship, is the greatest bug-a-boo #4?
Phil Innes
Louis Blair
7 ... GM Evans wrote for the March 1986 issue of Chess
7 Life:
7
7 "... [Karpov] will go down in history as the man
7 who avoided a match with Bobby Fischer and
7 then eluded him for the next ten years. ..."
7
7 Previously, GM Evans had written:
7
7 "Fischer refused to negotiate or compromise and his
7 stubbornness is what killed the match - nothing or
7 nobody else." - GM Evans (1975)
_
7 There's no inherent contradiction in these statements.
7 History's judgments aren't based on fine print, and aren't
7 completely fair. ...
_
I wrote (11 Aug 2006 16:25:52 -0700):
7 If GM Evans, in March 1986, was writing about the
7 unfairness of chess history, he should have indicated
7 that in the article. ...
_
Mike Murray wrote (Sat, 12 Aug 2006 23:29:33 -0700):
7 *not* bending over backward to facilitate the match.
7 But, fair or unfair, his title has this cloud over it.
_
I wrote (13 Aug 2006 19:25:21 -0700):
7 My feeling is that the distinction between fair and unfair is
7 of some importance. Writers do not have my respect if
7 they sweep that distinction under the carpet.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Tue, 15 Aug 2006 15:11:21 GMT):
7 ... there would seem to be two issues of how match-games
7 could be made fair,
_
"My concern is with the fair description of
Karpov's 1974-5 ACTIONS during the
attempt to arrange a match." - Louis Blair
(14 Aug 2006 13:37:28 -0700)
_
Phil Innes wrote (Tue, 15 Aug 2006 15:11:21 GMT):
7 (1) a purely mathematical metaphysic, and the second (2)
7 fair, as following the best historical encounter or whatever
7 precedent seems dominant - pr least skewed towards the
7 incumbent.
7 ...
7 And which distinctions shall we discuss therefore? #1 or
7 #2 above, ...
_
I am not discussing "precedent" for describing historical
actions. In historical writing there is "precedent" for both
the fair and the unfair, but that is no excuse for choosing
to follow the "precedent" of the unfair.
Chess One
WHEN FAIR IS FOWLED-UP
> Mike Murray wrote (Fri, 11 Aug 2006 10:34:57 -0700):
> 7 There's no inherent contradiction in these statements.
> 7 History's judgments aren't based on fine print, and aren't
> 7 completely fair. ...
> _
> I wrote (11 Aug 2006 16:25:52 -0700):
> 7 If GM Evans, in March 1986, was writing about the
> 7 unfairness of chess history, he should have indicated
> 7 that in the article. ...
> _
> Mike Murray wrote (Sat, 12 Aug 2006 23:29:33 -0700):
> 7 ... [Karpov] was legally within his rights, AFAIK, in
> 7 *not* bending over backward to facilitate the match.
> 7 But, fair or unfair, his title has this cloud over it.
> _
> I wrote (13 Aug 2006 19:25:21 -0700):
> 7 My feeling is that the distinction between fair and unfair is
> 7 of some importance. Writers do not have my respect if
> 7 they sweep that distinction under the carpet.
To this top points, there IS no precedent fair or unfair in modern times for
'assuming' the World Championship. Wasn't the previous instance after WWII
when apres-Alekhine, there was a tournament basis to determinethe champion?
Mile Muraay in the above distinguishes between Karpov's right, and this
unprecedented aquisition of the title. Its true under the rules Karpov had
an entitlement to assume the title, and rather than Karpov's actions being
fair or unfair, the rule of succession itself seemed rather odd - even
unfair - to all other candidates.
IMO, Karpov subsequently proved that he was worthy of the title, but that is
not quite the issue here: to wit, FIDE could have organised a World
Championship series similar to the after-Alekhine scenario, instead of
playing Santa to Karpov. I think THAT's the issue which is contended to be
unfair.
Of course, the post-WWII tournament departed from tradition since there was
no W CH to engage in match play, which leads us to the psot-Fischer scenario
below.
_
> Phil Innes wrote (Tue, 15 Aug 2006 15:11:21 GMT):
>
> 7 ... there would seem to be two issues of how match-games
> 7 could be made fair,
>
> _
> "My concern is with the fair description of
> Karpov's 1974-5 ACTIONS during the
> attempt to arrange a match." - Louis Blair
> (14 Aug 2006 13:37:28 -0700)
>
> _
> Phil Innes wrote (Tue, 15 Aug 2006 15:11:21 GMT):
>
> 7 (1) a purely mathematical metaphysic, and the second (2)
> 7 fair, as following the best historical encounter or whatever
> 7 precedent seems dominant - pr least skewed towards the
> 7 incumbent.
> 7 ...
> 7 And which distinctions shall we discuss therefore? #1 or
> 7 #2 above, ...
>
> _
> I am not discussing "precedent" for describing historical
> actions. In historical writing there is "precedent" for both
> the fair and the unfair, but that is no excuse for choosing
> to follow the "precedent" of the unfair.
I would agree with that point.
My own points (2 of which are repeated above) of what WOULD constitute a
fair world championship?
Phil Innes
Taylor Kingston
Chess One wrote:
> Mile Muraay in the above distinguishes between Karpov's right, and this
> unprecedented aquisition of the title. Its true under the rules Karpov had
> an entitlement to assume the title, and rather than Karpov's actions being
> fair or unfair, the rule of succession itself seemed rather odd - even
> unfair - to all other candidates.
>
> IMO, Karpov subsequently proved that he was worthy of the title, but that is
> not quite the issue here: to wit, FIDE could have organised a World
> Championship series similar to the after-Alekhine scenario, instead of
> playing Santa to Karpov.
This argument overlooks an important difference between 1948 and
1975: the fact that Karpov had _already_ come out on top against all
worthy challengers, through the FIDE Candidates Matches. Rather than
getting a "gift from Santa," Karpov had earned his right to be
considered #2 in the world behind Fischer, ahead of the other
candidates Byrne, Portisch, Mecking, Petrosian, Polugaevsky, Spassky,
and Korchnoi.
Requiring a 1948-style tournament after Fischer's abdication would
have been like saying "We're sorry, but we're changing the rules. If
you really want the title, you have to win it twice."
Chess One
"Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1155821503....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Chess One wrote:
>> Mile Muraay in the above distinguishes between Karpov's right, and this
>> unprecedented aquisition of the title. Its true under the rules Karpov
>> had
>> an entitlement to assume the title, and rather than Karpov's actions
>> being
>> fair or unfair, the rule of succession itself seemed rather odd - even
>> unfair - to all other candidates.
>>
>> IMO, Karpov subsequently proved that he was worthy of the title, but that
>> is
>> not quite the issue here: to wit, FIDE could have organised a World
>> Championship series similar to the after-Alekhine scenario, instead of
>> playing Santa to Karpov.
>
> This argument overlooks an important difference between 1948 and
> 1975: the fact that Karpov had _already_ come out on top against all
> worthy challengers, through the FIDE Candidates Matches.
While Karpov's chessic history is stated truely in the above, it is not as
much overlooked as a novelty - it actually breaks with the '48 issue and has
no precedent.
> Rather than
> getting a "gift from Santa," Karpov had earned his right to be
> considered #2 in the world behind Fischer, ahead of the other
> candidates Byrne, Portisch, Mecking, Petrosian, Polugaevsky, Spassky,
> and Korchnoi.
Plus; Taimanov and Larsen, and anyone else who had improved in the previous
5 years!
> Requiring a 1948-style tournament after Fischer's abdication would
> have been like saying "We're sorry, but we're changing the rules. If
> you really want the title, you have to win it twice."
O dear - an analogy which completely inverts the situation. The truth of it
was that FIDE said, "we've changed the rules, and our chap doesn't have to
play anybody, that's fair!'
I would have thought that requiring a 1948 Avro-esque would be precisely
what would determine if the previous #2 could win the #1 spot. Karpov,
though his style of play is quiet and technical, is one of the most
exceptionally moody players - in an artistic sense - that I know about.
While he said he always had an, again artistic, animus against Korchnoi
which sparked and raised his ches playing capability, he could never summon
the same as Kasparov. [Just in passing, he paid a very high compliment to
Fischer, who he rated highest of all in his interest [[Karpov on Karpov,
1991]] and mentioned something like the "90 percentile."]
I suppose I could ask him, but already in his own words Karpov explained how
her ran around the world for 3 years trying to make a match against Fischer,
because HE felt that was necessary to justify becoming world champion,
rather unlike what you say above which was FIDE's perspective, and for
Karpov this would be a fair means to be titled World Champion.
I disagree with Larry Parr and maybe Larry Evans too, that Karpov tried to
avoid a match. I see it differently. I think Karpov was quite sincere, but
remarkably naive!
I think that Fischer entertained all these ideas from Karpov, but saw the
shaded crowd behind him, and sensed rightly or wrongly that he was not
dealing with the main negotiator in Karpov, and those people were not nearly
so interested.
Some measure of this was the sheer volume of shit that Russians published
about Fischer's unreasonable conditions, his state of mind, etc.
Anyone watched cold-war Soviet-Russian rhetoric long enough knows exactly
what this indicates! And they were obviously mad as hell at this 'outlaw' of
a nondescript system, who beat their golden boy in 'their own' showcase
sport, and their almighty bloody system.
Phil Innes
Louis Blair
7 ... GM Evans wrote for the March 1986 issue of Chess
7 Life:
7
7 "... [Karpov] will go down in history as the man
7 who avoided a match with Bobby Fischer and
7 then eluded him for the next ten years. ..."
_
Mike Murray wrote (Fri, 11 Aug 2006 10:34:57 -0700):
7 aren't completely fair. ...
_
I wrote (11 Aug 2006 16:25:52 -0700):
7 If GM Evans, in March 1986, was writing about the
7 unfairness of chess history, he should have indicated
7 that in the article. ...
_
Mike Murray wrote (Sat, 12 Aug 2006 23:29:33 -0700):
7 ... [Karpov] was legally within his rights, AFAIK, in
7 *not* bending over backward to facilitate the match.
7 But, fair or unfair, his title has this cloud over it.
_
I wrote (13 Aug 2006 19:25:21 -0700):
7 My feeling is that the distinction between fair and unfair is
7 of some importance. Writers do not have my respect if
7 they sweep that distinction under the carpet.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:54:47 GMT):
7 To this top points, there IS no precedent fair or unfair in
7 modern times for 'assuming' the World Championship.
7 Wasn't the previous instance after WWII when
7 apres-Alekhine, there was a tournament basis to
7 determinethe champion?
7
7 Mile Muraay in the above distinguishes between Karpov's
7 right, and this unprecedented aquisition of the title. Its true
7 under the rules Karpov had an entitlement to assume the
7 title, and rather than Karpov's actions being fair or unfair,
7 the rule of succession itself seemed rather odd - even
7 unfair - to all other candidates.
7
7 IMO, Karpov subsequently proved that he was worthy of the
7 title, but that is not quite the issue here: to wit, FIDE could
7 have organised a World Championship series similar to the
7 after-Alekhine scenario, instead of playing Santa to Karpov.
7 I think THAT's the issue which is contended to be unfair.
7
7 Of course, the post-WWII tournament departed from
7 tradition since there was no W CH to engage in match play,
7 which leads us to the psot-Fischer scenario below.
_
"This argument overlooks an important difference
between 1948 and 1975: the fact that Karpov had
_already_ come out on top against all worthy
challengers, through the FIDE Candidates Matches.
Rather than getting a "gift from Santa," Karpov had
earned his right to be considered #2 in the world
behind Fischer, ahead of the other candidates
Byrne, Portisch, Mecking, Petrosian, Polugaevsky,
Spassky, and Korchnoi.
_
Requiring a 1948-style tournament after Fischer's
abdication would have been like saying 'We're
sorry, but we're changing the rules. If you really
want the title, you have to win it twice.'" - Taylor
Kingston (17 Aug 2006 06:31:43 -0700)
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:54:47 GMT):
7 ... My own points (2 of which are repeated above) of
7 what WOULD constitute a fair world championship?
_
"... Fischer must be slanged -- as both GM Evans
and I have so slanged in thousands of words -- for
producing asinine conditions. ..." - Larry Parr
(05 Jun 2002 07:12:26 GMT)
_
"Fischer refused to negotiate or compromise and his
stubbornness is what killed the match - nothing or
nobody else." - GM Evans (1975)
_
In view of the circumstances, it seems to me that giving
the title to Karpov was the fair thing to do. If Fischer did
not want that to happen, he should have dropped his
requirement that his opponent finish two or more points
ahead in order to be world champion.
Taylor Kingston
Chess One wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
> news:1155821503....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > Chess One wrote:
> >> IMO, Karpov subsequently proved that he was worthy of the title, but that
> >> is
> >> not quite the issue here: to wit, FIDE could have organised a World
> >> Championship series similar to the after-Alekhine scenario, instead of
> >> playing Santa to Karpov.
> >
> > This argument overlooks an important difference between 1948 and
> > 1975: the fact that Karpov had _already_ come out on top against all
> > worthy challengers, through the FIDE Candidates Matches.
>
> While Karpov's chessic history is stated truely in the above, it is not as
> much overlooked as a novelty - it actually breaks with the '48 issue and has
> no precedent.
>
> > Rather than
> > getting a "gift from Santa," Karpov had earned his right to be
> > considered #2 in the world behind Fischer, ahead of the other
> > candidates Byrne, Portisch, Mecking, Petrosian, Polugaevsky, Spassky,
> > and Korchnoi.
>
> Plus; Taimanov and Larsen, and anyone else who had improved in the previous
> 5 years!
Those two did not qualify for the Candidate Matches. I don't have the
1973 Interzonal standings to hand, but I would assume that they did not
finish high enough.
> > Requiring a 1948-style tournament after Fischer's abdication would
> > have been like saying "We're sorry, but we're changing the rules. If
> > you really want the title, you have to win it twice."
>
> O dear - an analogy which completely inverts the situation. The truth of it
> was that FIDE said, "we've changed the rules, and our chap doesn't have to
> play anybody, that's fair!'
I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that awarding the
title to Karpov after Fischer's abdication was completely in accordance
with FIDE rules, rules that had been in effect for some years. Someone
more knowledgeable may be able to correct me, but I believe the same
thing would have happened had any previous FIDE champion declined to
play the official challenger. Thus Bronstein would have been declared
champion had Botvinnik declined to play in 1951, or Fischer would have
become champion by default had Spassky refused in 1972.
I strongly agree with your last two paragraphs.
Louis Blair
7 ... GM Evans wrote for the March 1986 issue of Chess
7 Life:
7
7 "... [Karpov] will go down in history as the man
7 who avoided a match with Bobby Fischer and
7 then eluded him for the next ten years. ..."
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:54:47 GMT):
7 assume the title, and rather than Karpov's actions
7 being fair or unfair, the rule of succession itself seemed
7 rather odd - even unfair - to all other candidates.
7
7 IMO, Karpov subsequently proved that he was worthy of
7 the title, but that is not quite the issue here: to wit, FIDE
7 could have organised a World Championship series similar
7 to the after-Alekhine scenario, instead of playing Santa to
7 Karpov. I think THAT's the issue which is contended to be
7 unfair. ...
_
Taylor Kingston (17 Aug 2006 06:31:43 -0700):
7 This argument overlooks an important difference between
7 1948 and 1975: the fact that Karpov had _already_ come
7 out on top against all worthy challengers, through the
7 FIDE Candidates Matches.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:56:46 GMT):
7 While Karpov's chessic history is stated truely in
7 the above, it is not as much overlooked as a novelty - it
7 actually breaks with the '48 issue and has no precedent.
_
I do not see the problem. Fischer, in effect, resigned
his match with Karpov. That made Karpov, in effect, the
winner.
_
"... Fischer must be slanged -- as both GM Evans
and I have so slanged in thousands of words -- for
producing asinine conditions. ..." - Larry Parr
(05 Jun 2002 07:12:26 GMT)
_
"Fischer refused to negotiate or compromise and his
stubbornness is what killed the match - nothing or
nobody else." - GM Evans (1975)
_
Taylor Kingston (17 Aug 2006 06:31:43 -0700):
7 Rather than getting a "gift from Santa," Karpov had
7 earned his right to be considered #2 in the world
7 behind Fischer, ahead of the other candidates Byrne,
7 Portisch, Mecking, Petrosian, Polugaevsky, Spassky,
7 and Korchnoi.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:56:46 GMT):
7 Plus; Taimanov and Larsen, and anyone else who
7 had improved in the previous 5 years!
_
I do not know why Phil Innes is referring to "5 years".
The challenger selection process took place during
the time from 1972 to 1975. Karpov was the man
selected by that process to be the challenger to
Fischer. Either Fischer or Karpov was going to be
world champion.
_
Taylor Kingston (17 Aug 2006 06:31:43 -0700):
7 Requiring a 1948-style tournament after Fischer's
7 abdication would have been like saying "We're sorry,
7 but we're changing the rules. If you really want the
7 title, you have to win it twice."
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:56:46 GMT):
7 O dear - an analogy which completely inverts the
7 situation. The truth of it was that FIDE said, "we've
7 changed the rules, and our chap doesn't have to
7 play anybody, that's fair!'
_
There was no rule requiring Karpov to play according
to any rules Fischer might dream up.
_
"... Its true under the rules Karpov had an
entitlement to assume the title, ..." - Phil
Innes (Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:54:47 GMT)
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:56:46 GMT):
7 I would have thought that requiring a 1948 Avro-esque
7 would be precisely what would determine if the
7 previous #2 could win the #1 spot. ...
_
This makes no sense to me. The candidate process
was intended to take the place of a candidate
tournament. Karpov had already gone through that
there was no reason to make him go through it again.
The only thing that was left was to play Fischer.
Fischer was not willing to play under non-"asinine"
rules. That made Karpov the winner.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:56:46 GMT):
7 ... already in his own words Karpov explained how her
7 ran around the world for 3 years trying to make a match
7 against Fischer, because HE felt that was necessary
7 to justify becoming world champion, rather unlike what
7 you say above which was FIDE's perspective, and for
7 Karpov this would be a fair means to be titled World
7 Champion. ...
_
There does not seem to be any reason to doubt that
he felt a need to convince the public that he was the
best active player, but that does not mean that Karpov
thought that it was wrong for FIDE to give him the
title in 1975.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:56:46 GMT):
7 I disagree with Larry Parr and maybe Larry Evans too,
7 that Karpov tried to avoid a match. I see it differently.
7 I think Karpov was quite sincere, but remarkably naive!
7
7 I think that Fischer entertained all these ideas from
7 Karpov, but saw the shaded crowd behind him, and
7 sensed rightly or wrongly that he was not dealing with
7 the main negotiator in Karpov, and those people were
7 not nearly so interested.
7
7 Some measure of this was the sheer volume of shit
7 that Russians published about Fischer's unreasonable
7 conditions, his state of mind, etc.
7
7 Anyone watched cold-war Soviet-Russian rhetoric long
7 enough knows exactly what this indicates! And they
7 were obviously mad as hell at this 'outlaw' of a
7 nondescript system, who beat their golden boy in 'their
7 own' showcase sport, and their almighty bloody system.
_
Insisting on "asinine conditions" does not strike me as
an appropriate way to deal with the situation.
mikey
who avoided a match with Bobby Fischer and
So what? I agree with this opinion or prediction.
The verdict of history still isn't in.
Maybe Karpov wanted to play but his handlers
wouldn't let him.
Louis Blair
7 Life:
7
7 "... [Karpov] will go down in history as the man
7 who avoided a match with Bobby Fischer and
7 then eluded him for the next ten years. ..."
7
7 Previously, GM Evans had written:
7
7 stubbornness is what killed the match - nothing or
7 nobody else." - GM Evans (1975)
_
mikey wrote (17 Aug 2006 14:18:35 -0700):
7 So what? I agree with this opinion or prediction.
7 The verdict of history still isn't in.
7
7 Maybe Karpov wanted to play but his handlers
7 wouldn't let him.
_
If GM Evans was writing about a speculation on what
Karpov "wanted" (instead of writing about a description
of what Karpov DID), then GM Evans should have
clearly indicated that in what he wrote.
_
"GM Evans ... used the same tone that
one might use if writing about the sun
rising tomorrow or more violence in the
Middle East." - Louis Blair (12 Aug 2006
17:48:22 -0700)
_
"I see nothing in the March 1986
GM Evans quote (above) to indicate that
he was speculating about Karpov's 1974-5
motivations." - Louis Blair (14 Aug 2006
16:34:13 -0700)
Chess One
Well, are you arguing personalities or principles?
Did you read Gulko's manuscript yet? Your interviewee doesn't come out of it
so well.
Also try "I was Fisher's victim", by Taimanov.
The only difference between East and West is that in my interview with
Taimanov the East expected these behaviors, expected the championship to be
'biased', and the Western press apologised for the Soviets, as they had done
since 1939, and were too shy to mention it at the time.
PI
[A forgotten anecdote from a few days ago is that Zamyatin's 'We', the
stimulus for 1984, was, according to Orwell, initially banned from
publication in the UK and in the US.]
Chess One
> 7 O dear - an analogy which completely inverts the
> 7 situation. The truth of it was that FIDE said, "we've
> 7 changed the rules, and our chap doesn't have to
> 7 play anybody, that's fair!'
>
> _
> There was no rule requiring Karpov to play according
> to any rules Fischer might dream up.
A little attitude in Louis's expression there! Fischer 'dreams up' while we
reasonable non-world champions are completely lucid...?
> "... Its true under the rules Karpov had an
> entitlement to assume the title, ..." - Phil
> Innes (Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:54:47 GMT)
>
> _
> Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:56:46 GMT):
>
> 7 I would have thought that requiring a 1948 Avro-esque
> 7 would be precisely what would determine if the
> 7 previous #2 could win the #1 spot. ...
>
> _
> This makes no sense to me. The candidate process
> was intended to take the place of a candidate
> tournament.
A metaphysical statement.
Was intended /by whom/?
Besides, Luois Bliar seems to be agreeing with me that the new rule of
taking over the championshiop without beating the current batch of players 3
years after qualifying, is not a novel idea. I say it is.
> Karpov had already gone through that
> there was no reason to make him go through it again.
Unless of course a young kasparov happened to be lurking. But the very point
of the AVRO was not to have -who? Botvinnik, or Euwe, assume the mantle of
world champ - you had to play for it!
> The only thing that was left was to play Fischer.
> Fischer was not willing to play under non-"asinine"
> rules. That made Karpov the winner.
So the rules beat Fischer, and the rules were Fide's rules or Karpov's
rules?
> Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:56:46 GMT):
>
> 7 ... already in his own words Karpov explained how her
> 7 ran around the world for 3 years trying to make a match
> 7 against Fischer, because HE felt that was necessary
> 7 to justify becoming world champion, rather unlike what
> 7 you say above which was FIDE's perspective, and for
> 7 Karpov this would be a fair means to be titled World
> 7 Champion. ...
>
> _
> There does not seem to be any reason to doubt that
> he felt a need to convince the public that he was the
> best active player, but that does not mean that Karpov
> thought that it was wrong for FIDE to give him the
> title in 1975.
And there it is - 'give' the title. It must be plain to a goat that Karpov
himself wanted to play Fischer because he was embarassed at being 'given'
the title.
Just think of the sockdologer Fischer pulled off to get it. Those 6-zips,
then chucking a couple games to Spassky before settling down.
That's the difference here.
> Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:56:46 GMT):
>
> 7 I disagree with Larry Parr and maybe Larry Evans too,
> 7 that Karpov tried to avoid a match. I see it differently.
> 7 I think Karpov was quite sincere, but remarkably naive!
> 7
> 7 I think that Fischer entertained all these ideas from
> 7 Karpov, but saw the shaded crowd behind him, and
> 7 sensed rightly or wrongly that he was not dealing with
> 7 the main negotiator in Karpov, and those people were
> 7 not nearly so interested.
> 7
> 7 Some measure of this was the sheer volume of shit
> 7 that Russians published about Fischer's unreasonable
> 7 conditions, his state of mind, etc.
> 7
> 7 Anyone watched cold-war Soviet-Russian rhetoric long
> 7 enough knows exactly what this indicates! And they
> 7 were obviously mad as hell at this 'outlaw' of a
> 7 nondescript system, who beat their golden boy in 'their
> 7 own' showcase sport, and their almighty bloody system.
>
> _
> Insisting on "asinine conditions" does not strike me as
> an appropriate way to deal with the situation.
There are no people speaking in Louis's statement, but it does take some one
to take the world chess championship. Not a committee of word lawyers.
This is not to say that Fischer was not difficult, but Louis fails to
understand that he was negotiating with an agent for far more difficult
people who wished him to no longer exist as a chess player.
PI