Another Murder In Russia

7 views
Skip to first unread message

Larry Parr

unread,
Mar 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/1/99
to
THE ISSUE OF KHAN KIRSAN

"I like dictatorship -- like the one I created in Kalmykia.
Nobody is interested in politics. There is no elected parliament,
since it voluntarily dissolved itself. I bought the deputies;
there are no more parties; there is not even a constitution, as
it was abolished when we declared our sovereignty." -- FIDE
President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov (from an interview in Inside Chess)

"There is only one person here who can make policy: the president.
The rest of the men need to work; the women need to have babies
[he advocates polygamy]; and the children need to play chess and
to be friends." -- FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov (from an
interview in Inside Chess)

The spectre of lawlessness has haunted the chess world for about a
decade and a lustrum. Much of the business class has deserted the
precincts of chess sponsorship for fear of becoming identified, first,
with the pranks and embarrassments of Florencio Campomanes and now with
a self-described dictator and evident megalomaniac named Kirsan
Ilyumzhinov, who as FIDE president is the titular leader of world chess.

There have been those on this forum who have employed every ploy
and offered every excuse on behalf of Khan Kirsan. First, there was the
Mussolini-makes-the-trains-run-on-time excuse. This line was based on
the idea that a lawless dictator, who rules without a constitution, is a
builder rather than a destroyer. Next came outright support for the
idea of a one-party state without a parliament, which was predicated on
the same idea that the Khan is a modernizing dictator rather than a
destroyer armed with modern weapons. Next came the snip-trick. One
participant on this forum was so at a loss to explain away the Khan's
own words describing himself as a lawless dictator that on at least six
occasions he snipped all quotations from the Khan when defending the
Kalmykian dictator. Finally, there came the last-chance defense:
Accuse GM Yasser Seirawan or this writer of having doctored the
interviews that appeared in Inside Chess. When it became known that the
interviews in question had been conducted by a Spanish journalist and
were generally friendly to the Khan, there was simply blank denial
that one could take the Khan at his own word.

Interspersed in the above debate were sexual innuendoes, including
a beastly lulu about sex with children and multiple orgasms. Of course,
there was plenty of name-calling, including inventing alternative
spellings of this writer's first name, Larry.

The object of the above exercise was to disrupt discussion of the
main issue: do we chess people know enough about how Khan Kirsan runs
his regime in Kalmykia to make a political decision to seek his removal
as FIDE president -- a job that is not, after all, his by right.

What, then, do we know about the Khan in his own words?

We know that he "like[s] dictatorship." We know that he likes the
one "[he] created in Kalmykia." We know that Kalmykia has "no elected
parliament" because -- get this -- "it voluntarily dissolved itself."

We know that he "bought the deputies." We know that "there are no more
parties." We know that "there is not even a constitution." We know
that "there is only one person here who can make policy: the
president." We know, if Khan Kirsan's nauseating braggadocio is to be
accorded credence, that he is a dictator.

What, then, do we know about the Khan based on reports in the
mainstream press or appeals from highly respected human rights organizations?

We know that the Khan ran unopposed for president. With all due
respect to Eugene Thompson, it really is tidier to fix political
arrangements so as not to have an opponent. We know that the Khan
forcibly confiscated child welfare allowances to help finance the
Olympiad in Elista. We know that he proudly shows pictures of himself
together with his pal Saddam Hussein. We know human rights groups have
collected testimony from dissidents who were held prisoner in the
Khan's Soviet-era mental asylums. We know he repeatedly harassed
the late Larisa Yudina and that his thugs forced her to publish her
newspaper in an adjoining territory and then to smuggle it into
Kalmykia. We know two of his former aides confessed to her murder. We
know Russian newspapers have repeatedly linked the Khan to white
slavery, drug running and massive corruption.

The question is whether the Khan damns himself out of his own mouth
and whether his voluntary testimony (in conjunction with widespread
confirmation in the world press) allows us to reach the POLITICAL
conclusion that we must oppose this man as FIDE president? My answer is
that no honest observer will deny what the Khan himself brags about and
what mainstream journalists report by way of confirmation.

Beyond the sexual innuendo and name-calling, the only argument thus
far advanced has been an attempt to confound the above POLITICAL
judgment of seeking the Khan's removal as FIDE president with making a
juridical finding about whether the Khan had his main opponent in
Kalmykia -- not, in truth, "some journalist"murdered. The ploy is to
confuse the standards of evidence necessary in a criminal trial with the
standards necessary when making a POLITICAL decision. If the two were
the same, there could be no normal political life. One could not, for
example, have condemned Hitler for the Night of the Long Knives or
Stalin for the purges that built to the crescendo of the Yezhovshchina.

Florencio Campomanes brought FIDE into disrepute and destroyed the
legitimacy of its world title. Khan Kirsan is in the process of
discrediting the game of chess as a clean and decent sport. We are now
mixed up with an awful dictator and an organization that cannot even
produce an acceptable semi-annual ratings list.

My solution is for the United States to take the lead in organizing
a caucus of nations within FIDE dedicated to the restoration of a strict
rule of law. If this exercise proves unsuccessful, then the United
States should take the lead in forming a new world chess federation.
There is no other solution. There is no other way to restore the
reputation of organized international chess.


--
Larry Parr

Gilbert Palmer

unread,
Mar 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/1/99
to

Larry Parr <75227...@CompuServe.COM> wrote in message ...

> THE ISSUE OF KHAN KIRSAN


[Post snipped...]


> The spectre of lawlessness has haunted the chess world
for about a
>decade and a lustrum.

This is melo-dramatic.

>Much of the business class has deserted the
>precincts of chess sponsorship for fear of becoming
identified, first,
>with the pranks and embarrassments of Florencio Campomanes
and now with
>a self-described dictator and evident megalomaniac named
Kirsan
>Ilyumzhinov, who as FIDE president is the titular leader of
world chess.

I have read your posts on this for months and generally
enjoy them. Is this the real beef you have - "Much of the


business class has deserted the
precincts of chess sponsorship for fear of becoming

identified etc." ?

I do not honestly understand what you are worrying about.
Chess is our game, as far as we are concerned (as far as I
am
concerned - better), I really do not give a lot of thought
or lose a lot of sleep over whether the business class wants
to be identified with chess or not.

It is a game, a pastime, a hobby. Chess is BOOMING, like
never before.

>We know that he proudly shows pictures of himself
>together with his pal Saddam Hussein.

So?

We all need friends. And just because you don't happen to
have a high opinion of someone's friends doesn't mean that
they should be condemned.

It might make good sense for Kirstan to make friends with
SH. The late King Hussein was on speaking terms with SH was
he not? And the King was held in great respect. Don't
judge or condemn a man on the basis of his friends.

> The question is whether the Khan damns himself out of
his own mouth
>and whether his voluntary testimony (in conjunction with
widespread
>confirmation in the world press) allows us to reach the
POLITICAL
>conclusion that we must oppose this man as FIDE president?

I know what your answer is, and speak for yourself by all
means.

Work towards your goal certainly if that is what motivates
you.

But don't throw the bathwater out with the baby, we need
FIDE. I say we in the sense of the world of chess - not the
professional elite, world chess needs an international
organisation, it might not be perfect (they seldom are -look
at the Olympic committee or FIFA or EUEFA)

FIDE has done sterling work in promoting the game on all
five continents over the last fifty years or so, the game
has never been more popular. Chess is BOOMING.


>My answer is
>that no honest observer will deny what the Khan himself
brags about and
>what mainstream journalists report by way of confirmation.


It does not make any difference other than it may annoy you.

> Florencio Campomanes brought FIDE into disrepute and
destroyed the
>legitimacy of its world title. Khan Kirsan is in the
process of
>discrediting the game of chess as a clean and decent sport.

Nonsense.

I consider myself to be an honest observer, I make no
judgement on his internal political methods but as far
as chess is concerned you are wrong Larry.

You would acknowledge would you not that within chess, those
who love the game and have followed the game for decades
there is no consensus on your statement? If there were it
might be a different matter.

It pays to keep a sense of proportion in these matters, and
I fear that you have become blind to all but the most
negative aspects of FIDE and indeed of the status and
popularity of our wonderful board game.

>We are now
>mixed up with an awful dictator and an organisation that


cannot even
>produce an acceptable semi-annual ratings list.

There have been problems with the rating lists for years -
long before the Khan.

There are problems with almost every rating list ever
produced, you can't seriously expect this to sway the chess
world now can you?

> My solution is for the United States to take the lead
in organizing
>a caucus of nations within FIDE dedicated to the
restoration of a strict
>rule of law.

The United States (with all due respect) is at present a
very (very) minor player in international chess. Both in
organisation and in terms of player strength and internal
popularity.

You have neither the stature or influence to be taken
seriously even if things really were as bleak as you paint
them.

>If this exercise proves unsuccessful, then the United
>States should take the lead in forming a new world chess
federation.

I refer the right honourable gentleman to the answer I gave
some lines above.

>There is no other solution.

There is no problem as you appear to see it, I acknowledge
of course that you are eminently more knowledgeable about
the ins and outs of current FIDE set-up than I could ever
hope to be, however the way you set-out your case it gives
me the impression that you base it on the following:

1. You don't like dictators. (which is all very well but has
nothing to do with chess.)
2. You don't like people who are friends with dictators
(which is all very well but once again has nothing to do
with chess.)
3. Can't seem to accept that the USA is only one player of
hundreds in the world chess scene, and one where chess is
not held in great respect and with a national federation
currently riddled with its own problems. (Slightly
off-topic but I would also say that the plethora of BF
related material on this newsgroup gives me the impression
that much of the US Chess community is living very much in
the past - chess has moved on - it really has - to me BF is
a major historical figure much like Botvinnik or Spassky
there is a US obsession with this yesterday's man.)
4. You do not appear to concede that FIDE has widened the
popularity of chess throughout the world.
5. By espousing a policy of rebellion (and if that does not
work of break-away), you are unwilling to accept the rule of
FIDE law yourself by encouraging people to unilaterally cede
from FIDE based on your prejudices.

This I believe leaves you open to a charge of
irresponsibility.

>There is no other way to restore the
>reputation of organized international chess.


While I do not accept your contention that the reputation of
Chess is going through choppy waters, your proposals are
ludicrous.

If you strongly feel there is problem (and I know that you
do) why not work within the framework of world chess? Why
such a revolutionary / anarchistic approach?

Gentle persuasion? Co-operation? Negotiation? Never heard
of these?

I urge every reader of this thread to think for himself when
it comes to the matter and not swallow Larry's propaganda
without a good deal of reflection.

Larry Parr is knowledgeable, (there is no doubt about that
what-so-ever), he is also hard working in the furtherance of
a cause he appears to believe in passionately.

However his knowledge, energy and zeal do not make him
infallible or necessarily correct.

My own view is that FIDE is in a 'little' trouble. But I do
not think we should consider even for a second the break-up
of this organisation or any attempt at some sort of coup -
based on the evidence Larry Parr has presented us with in
his Newsgroup postings.

Gilbert Palmer.
A chess fan.

anti...@spam.demon.co.uk

unread,
Mar 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/1/99
to rec.games.chess.misc
In article <7beea4$9d3$1...@nclient5-gui.server.virgin.net>, Gilbert
Palmer wrote:

Gilbert me old son, those bulletins will be with you shortly. I have
been rather busy of late, and now have been strucken by some pesky
viral infection which caused me to me my County Match on Sunday.
Thankfully the team won handsomely, and we are still on schedule for a
3-in-a-row of County titles.

Also a little busy because the NW U11 Championships are these weekend
and as manager I have to arrive for the lovely angels to be picked up.

Anyone notice the performance of Craig Hanley in the Jersey Open (did
you get a chance to look in on it?).

Not bad of a 14year old, I wish I cold play at his level mind :-)

His younger brother James (8) is top board for my U11 team, so you
can imagine our excitement at bringing along another good youngster for
the future, he is already ahead of his brother in terms for development
at this age. Still unsure whether Craig or James will make it to GM,
but I think Craig will hit IM in the next year or so.

Still reading Bodarevsky - some of those positions are pure genuis - it
I could only get to such a position on the board I will be content @=)

--
Adios Amigo

Carl Tillotson

Lancashire Chess Association
homepage: http://www.lancashirechess.demon.co.uk/

Virtual Access 4.50 build 266 (32-bit)
Using Win98

Rahvinsong

unread,
Mar 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/1/99
to
I have heard a little about this Khan Kirsan, and it doesn't sound good for
chess. I really don't know the true state of things, but my "gut instinct" is
that there are very bad things coming for chess. Where online can one find
information concerning this? I hear many arguments citing many sources, but
the average guy (me) does not know where to access this information.

True enough about Bobby and America. We Americans all dwell on the past
entirely too much and that is very unfortunate.

I have no real argument for against either side, as I have no real information.
I think that mabye Mr. Palmer is getting his Hussiens mixed up. Saddam
Hussien is a dictator who is probably not good for his country (or chess, for
that matter), but the late King Hussien of Jordan was a good and decent man,
who did much to improve the world he lived in. I doubt that Saddam will
recieve very many Heads of State, and Leaders of Men at _his_ funeral.

David Carter
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Cavern/6551/index.html
(Just waiting for Greg Kennedy to post :-)

Gilbert Palmer

unread,
Mar 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/1/99
to
Carl,

Hey, great to hear from a true chess lover.


anti...@spam.demon.co.uk wrote in message ...


>In article <7beea4$9d3$1...@nclient5-gui.server.virgin.net>,
Gilbert
>Palmer wrote:
>
>Gilbert me old son, those bulletins will be with you
shortly. I have
>been rather busy of late, and now have been strucken by
some pesky
>viral infection which caused me to me my County Match on
Sunday.

Shit, this sounds serious. I've meed a few matches in my
time as well.

Anyway - the bulletins - hold fire on them I am not at home
at the mo, and they might not be accepted (if I am not
there). I've been to yer site and that'll keep me going for
a while.

>Thankfully the team won handsomely, and we are still on
schedule for a
>3-in-a-row of County titles.


Good stuff good stuff. Do you have a pretty strong nucleus
and one which has stuck together...or do you operate on the
Man U principle - huge squad?

>Also a little busy because the NW U11 Championships are
these weekend
>and as manager I have to arrive for the lovely angels to be
picked up.
>
>Anyone notice the performance of Craig Hanley in the Jersey
Open (did
>you get a chance to look in on it?).


Didn't I'm afraid. Lazy you understand. I've also got this
(wonderful beautiful, caring, oh so understanding) thing
called a wife who practises rugby tackles every time I
propose popping off and visiting a chess tournament.

>Not bad of a 14year old, I wish I cold play at his level
mind :-)

You could always kneel down.

>
>His younger brother James (8) is top board for my U11 team,
so you
>can imagine our excitement at bringing along another good
youngster for
>the future, he is already ahead of his brother in terms for
development
>at this age. Still unsure whether Craig or James will make
it to GM,
>but I think Craig will hit IM in the next year or so.


Amazing. They scare the shit out of me these kids.
Clinical some of them. They make it look so easy.

>Still reading Bodarevsky - some of those positions are pure
genuis - it
>I could only get to such a position on the board I will be
content @=)


Think open lines and piece activity... magic things happen
when you have a superiority of pieces and lots of open
lines. (That's the theory anyway...I LOVE that kinda
chess...)

>--
>Adios Amigo


De nada hombre.

Gilbert Palmer


Phil Innes

unread,
Mar 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/1/99
to
PLOYS PLOYS ME

There have been those on this forum who have employed every ploy
and offered every excuse on behalf of Khan Kirsan.

I haven't read anyone excusing Kirsan. On the other hand,
there have been numerous attempts to insinuate, ploy-on-ploy,
all sorts of possible behaviors to his person. But I have not
seen anyone write anything particularly persuasive, to
exonerate or condemn him. I have seen various other opinions
expressed on what constitutes actionable evidence.

So I do not see that this group, or rgcp, has pulled some
hobbledy-hoy attitude of indifference.

there was plenty of name-calling, including inventing alternative
spellings of this writer's first name, Larry.

You mean Kirsan's first name isn't Khan?

The object of the above exercise was to disrupt discussion of the
main issue: do we chess people know enough about how Khan Kirsan runs
his regime in Kalmykia to make a political decision to seek his removal
as FIDE president -- a job that is not, after all, his by right.

No - the object was to discuss if there was any basis in
trying to decide if there were even a crime attributable to
Kirsan.

In doing so we visited the cold war, but did not have anything
other than more political ideas to speak in a freezing square.

Oh no. You were doing pretty well to this point - simply
leaving out some liberal trash about the right of individual
states to determine their own fates.

Where do you live Larry? What political system is it? Can you
write to the newspaper and suggest the removal of the
government?

Florencio Campomanes brought FIDE into disrepute and destroyed the
legitimacy of its world title. Khan Kirsan is in the process of
discrediting the game of chess as a clean and decent sport. We are now
mixed up with an awful dictator and an organization that cannot even
produce an acceptable semi-annual ratings list.

My solution is for the United States to take the lead in organizing

a caucus of nations within FIDE dedicated to the restoration of a strict

rule of law. If this exercise proves unsuccessful, then the United
States should take the lead in forming a new world chess federation.
There is no other solution. There is no other way to restore the
reputation of organized international chess.

Restore it to what? Or to whom?

Lets go the whole hog and insist that the State department
have China withdraw from Tibet. At least this would be
directly about individual sovereignty, and not about rescuing
the image of some game.

But I have recently shared some ideas with Mr. Kennedy on
chess management which almost any nation could administer.
What's wrong? That the process is too political? (under any
leadership).

Look at the US Olympic committee - have they done better than
what you accuse of this republic?

Would you like to suggest a few things that would free chess
form the negative-grip of politicians?

This is what we must all be thinking. Better to light a candle
than curse the darkness - now come on Larry, stop preaching to
us, talk with us, (we are not all wrong - well, not all the
time, anyway) and use your writing skills to make the subject
of sufficient interest that a broad category of the chess
playing world will adopt it.

Phil Innes

--
Larry Parr


Larry Parr

unread,
Mar 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/2/99
to
RESPONSE TO HYDE AND PALMER

Briefly, then, concerning Mr. Hyde's posting of March 1. He
speaks about expecting a response from this writer by the end of the
week. Mr. Hyde: as you well know, I requested in a private e-mail to
see two apparently lengthy comments that you made on Charles Kalmes'
work, noting that they do not appear over here on my bulletin board. I
have not received them and cannot comment on your points until I see them.

Concerning the alternatives that existed in 1975, you seem to
dispute my view that the existential choices were either Fischer's
match condition or the status quo. You opine -- quite correctly --
that FIDE would have approved a six-win match with a limit of 36
games. Placing a limit on the number of games, however, negates the
fact that draws don't count and allows whoever is in the lead to play
for draws.

So what? I am talking about the bottom line political battle that
would or would not have led to a match. Fischer had his stubborn and
unfair demands, and the Soviet bloc had its desideratum to prevent a
match from occurring. If Fischer had shown any signs of compromising,
it is my judgment that the ground would have melted from beneath the
counter-offers to Fischer. The Soviets were under orders to prevent a
match, and the status quo or something close to it versus Fischer's
demands would have been the final barricade on which the battle would
have been fought.

Documents, including orders directly from Suslov, are emerging from
Russian archives. In the coming years this dispute will be settled --
just as many of the great espionage cases which divided party loyalties
in the West during the 1940s and 1950s are being settled in recent
scholarship. (For what its worth, Walter and Miriam Schneer, the
final major defenders of the Rosenbergs, have tearfully tossed in
the intellectual towel.) We will probably soon be getting a convincing
answer one way or the other as to whether the FIDE title was rotten from
its root in 1948, which is to say, whether Paul Keres was forced to
throw four consecutive games to Mikhail Botvinnik and whether Vassily
Smyslov was under orders to toss in additional games if Keres sacrificial
attack proved inadequate for the purpose of making Botvinnik king.

Gilbert Palmer checks in with a posting dated March 1, which
contained some nice grace notes. Thank you, Gilbert.

Mr. Palmer finds the following statement to be "melo-dramatic":


"The spectre of lawlessness has haunted the chess world for about a

decade and a lustrum." And, sigh, I had hoped to be dramatic. We aim
for pathos and only achieve bathos.

Mr. Palmer states: "I really do not give a lot of thought or lose


a lot of sleep over whether the business class wants to be identified

with chess or not." I do. We live on different chess planets. He
continues: "Chess is BOOMING, like never before." I disagree, unless
one talks about chess playing on the Internet, which has nothing to do
with FIDE. (Out of genuine curiosity, does anyone here imagine that it
does? Does anyone here imagine that the coming Internet chess

revolution would be helped rather than hindered by FIDE and its
bureaucrats? Just curious.)

Mr. Palmer snipped all of Kirsan Ilyumzhinov's statements about how
he runs Kalmykia, though he did note that while I would condemn Khan
Kirsan for keeping company with Saddam Hussein and for openly admiring
the man, he would not. "We all need friends," he writes disingenuously.
"Don't judge or condemn a man on the basis of his friends." We
disagree again. I have no time for men who hang around and admire
mass murderers, unless affairs of state force it -- as they did in the
case of Jordan's King Hussein.

Mr. Palmer states "we need FIDE." Wrongo. We need what FIDE
ought to be doing. However, Mr. Palmer is correct to say that I do not
believe FIDE has had much of a role in popularizing chess. The role of
national federations and individual organizers has been incomparably
more important, and these entities are being injured by FIDE today.

Mr. Palmer writes, "The United States (with all due respect) is at
present a very (very) minor player in international chess." Therefore,
he argues that the USA could not plausibly establish a major caucus of
countries within FIDE that is seeking a rule of law. Mr. Palmer
labels such efforts as, variously, a policy of "rebellion" or a "coup"
-- evidently unaware that the two are very different things. I
would label such a policy as exuberant reform that would almost
certainly succeed for the betterment of chess and FIDE.

Mr. Palmer probably doesn't much care for the United States tossing
its considerable weight around this planet. It can get ugly -- what with
our endless bombing of Iraq and threats to do the same to Yugoslavia
while stationing troops in such unlikely Balkan heck holes as Bosnia and
Macedonia. And, of course, together with the Israelis, we are helping
Turkey to prevent the Kurds from achieving self-determination. Still
worse, the American government appears fixated on universalizing NATO
instead of scuttling the Pact now that it has served its lofty purpose.
The ultimate idea is for a new generation of proconsuls to lead efforts
at pouring ever-larger sums of American wealth into pestiferous African
and Asian swamps. Soon there will be American troops in Kashmir if the
Clinton Administration could have its way.

Having said all of the above, FIDE will not long exist without
American membership to provide the Khan legitimacy. Indeed, the Khan
would soon lose interest in being president of FIDE if the United States
and other Western nations demanded reforms in lieu of a pullout. The
single time in recent years that the United States forcefully pursued a
goal in FIDE was at Paris in 1995, which led to the overthrow of
Campomanes. That same year, if memory serves, FIDE candidates trouped
off some 8,000 miles to Arizona to attend a meeting of the USCF Policy
Board and to seek American support amid rumors that the United States
was seriously considering a move away from FIDE.

As an American who firmly believes in bellowing loudly while
carrying a small stick, I think international chess politics is a
field in which change for the better can be implemented by inveighing
loudly against dictators and by undertaking energetic reform efforts

centered around a caucus of chess nations seeking a rule of law.

Mr. Palmer describes Bobby Fischer as "yesterday's man" and even
suggests that we Americans are living in the past. Frankly, I find
this attitude puzzling for someone who avers a love of chess. For
this writer, blabbing about Bobby and Boris, Capa and Lasker, Reshevsky
and Botvinnik (the match that never was) even Zukertort and Steinitz
-- well, talking about the moves of chess people IS the great thing
about our tiny world. The game itself is the foundation upon which an
extraordinary edifice of personality and scholarship has been constructed.

Rolf Tueschen adds the following: "There is only place for exactly
one Pope in chess. As you might be informed, it's me, the *Pope*, so
Kirsan Ilyumzhinov is the President of Kalmykia, the President of FIDE
("GENS UNA SUMUS"), perhaps much more, but he's not the *Pope*."

There will be those who will find more succulent irony, wit or
sarcasm in the above. I find unfunny puerility.

The issue before us is whether we know enough about how Khan Kirsan
runs his country to make a POLITICAL decision to seek his removal as
FIDE president. A corollary issue is whether prudent men ought to
accept the idea that a self-described dictator will ever build anything
for chess. My view is that dictators are destroyers rather than
builders. My view is that rank lawlessness and buffoonery -- can anyone
forget Campomanes hilarious press conference cancelling KK-I? -- can
never serve our best interests.


--
Larry Parr

Larry Parr

unread,
Mar 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/2/99
to
PHIL INNES RETURNS

"I havent read anyone excusing Kirsan. On the other hand, there

have been numerous attempts to insinuate, ploy-on-ploy, all sorts

of possible behaviors to his person." -- Phil Innes, March 1

"President [Ilyumzhinov] who tried to lead his country into
modernity." -- Rolf Tueschen, January 11

"Another point of Larry's defamation campaign against the foreigner
Rolf Tueschen was the unbelievably trivial statement that Ilyumzhinov
-- by creating a marvellous chess palace in Elista -- tried to bring
his (rather poor) country into modernity." -- Rolf Tueschen, February 6

"I fully support Kirsan's opinion. Because 15 political parties
in a country smaller than Manhattan, that stinks! I can only
give my professional warnings." -- Rolf Tueschen, February 11,
supporting Kirsan Ilyumzhinov's imposition of a one-party state

Yet Phil Innes falsely claims, "I havent read anyone excusing Kirsan
[Ilyumzhinov]." On January 11, Rolf Tueschen stated without any of
Mr. Innes posited irony or sarcasm that Khan Kirsan was endeavoring to
bring his country into "modernity." On February 6, he defended this
statement by offering the ludicrous example of a chess palace --
perhaps a claim that even Mr. Innes might find difficult to stomach.
Then on February 11 Mr. Tueschen offered an across-the-board apologia
for the Khan, including an outright defense of a one-party state in Kalmykia.

Frankly, it is exceedingly difficult for me to imagine that Mr.
Innes conveniently forgot all of the above. Yet as always, I will play
the advocacy game and treat Mr. Innes as a disinterested and deeply honest
third party.

As for statements about the Khan by this writer, Mr. Innes notes,


"On the other hand, there have been numerous attempts to insinuate,
ploy-on-ploy, all sorts of possible behaviors to his person."

Here, then, is what we know about the Khan based on his own words.


We know that he "like[s] dictatorship." We know that he likes the one
"[he] created in Kalmykia." We know that Kalmykia has "no elected

parliament" becauseget this"it voluntarily dissolved itself." We know


that he "bought the deputies." We know that "there are no more
parties." We know that "there is not even a constitution." We know
that "there is only one person here who can make policy: the president."
We know, if Khan Kirsan's nauseating braggadocio is to be accorded
credence, that he is a dictator.

Mr. Innes talk about what others "insinuate" about the Khan is
pure double-think. The ploy will not work. We have a public record of
the Khan's own advocacy, and we have the testimony of dissidents, and we
have the appeals of respected human rights organizations.

Mr. Innes has seen nothing "particularly persuasive, to exonerate
or condemn" the Khan. Virtually the entire Russian human rights
community disagrees. Readers of this forum must judge for themselves.


On the issue of name-calling, Mr. Innes continues his stony silence
about the prurient sexual imagery of Rolf Tueschen, though before Mr.
Tueschen started blathering about sex with children and multiple orgasms
and at the time that the man was asking questions about adultery and all
of the rest of the filth, he was excusing this bemerding exercise as an
example of the gent's irony, wit or sarcasm.

Mr. Innes' first comment on name-calling is to chide this writer
for referring to Kirsan Ilyumzhinov as the Khan or Khan Kirsan. For the
record, just as in the case of Eric "FIDE All the Way" Johnson, the name
is one that the subject has suggested for himself! The Khan believes
he is the reincarnation of one of history's greatest murderers, and it
seems perfectly fair to attach a term to the man that he himself
courts. Perfectly fair.

We note that Mr. Innes has nothing whatsoever to say about the
childish misspellings of this writer and GM Larry Evans first names.
Or any of the many vicious names tossed in my direction. I will assume
from this point forward that he condones such tactics unless he states
otherwise. Heavens knows, he actively defended Rolf Tueschen for weeks,
and when the gent began spilling over with every kind of filth and
childish name-calling, Mr. Innes suddenly said nothing.

That, at least, is how I view Mr. Innes' advocacy.

Mr. Innes equates a political decision by chess people to oust the
Khan as FIDE president with "the removal of a government." Nonsense.
FIDE is a games organization with a governing structure. We have a
perfect right to seek the ouster of its officials via outside pressure.

Mr. Innes speaks of some "liberal trash" about "the right of
individual states to determine their own fates." He is sarcastically
chiding me for criticizing the regime in Kalmykia so relentlessly.

Virtually everything is wrong with his statement. First, no
liberal -- or at least Jeffersonian liberal -- imagines that "states"
have rights. Individuals have rights. Period. Mr. Innes' comment is an
implied excuse for a dictator elected without opposition, to impose
his will upon a small, faraway people.

I favor free elections for the people of Kalmykia. I favor a free
press for the people of Kalmykia. I say that we will know what they
want when newspapers can criticize the Khan and when he has to face
opponents in elections. When the people of Kalmykia have free elections
and a free press, then one can speak about self-determination. Without
them, such talk is a warrant for a cruel dictator, who is also president
of FIDE, to repress his people.

As for Mr. Innes' statement about interfering with Chinese
sovereignty in Tibet, he is assuming that the Han Chinese have some kind
of justified claim to Tibet. I would dispute that vigorously. If you
believe that, then you believe that the Nazis had a sovereign claim to
the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943. Tibetans are not Chinese any more than the
Poles are Germans.


The issue is whether we chess people know enough about how the Khan
rules his people to make a POLITICAL decision to seek his removal as the
titular leader of international chess.


--
Larry Parr

Gilbert Palmer

unread,
Mar 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/2/99
to
[Genuinely interesting part about reply to HYDE snipped. ]

> Gilbert Palmer checks in with a posting dated March 1,


Motivated to post on this Mother of all threads yesterday I
was surprised to read Larry Parr's response.

I feel moved to thank him for having taken the considerable
trouble to consider at least what, oh, must have been about
20% or there-abouts of my post. Progress.

We may one day enter a dialogue.

>Mr. Palmer states: "I really do not give a lot of thought
or lose
>a lot of sleep over whether the business class wants to be
identified
>with chess or not." I do. We live on different chess
planets.

Okay I bite, give me a few pertinent examples.

>He continues: "Chess is BOOMING, like never before." I
disagree,

What do you mean you disagree? How can you possibly
disagree?
(This is a serious question.)

Chess in Europe has never been stronger, Africa is coming of
age, the Chinese are taking the game to heart, in South
America some pretty amazing progress has been made etc...

More books are published, we have more impoverished
International Masters than ever before, we have more
teaching courses, chess is (almost) at he cutting edge of
technology. It's BOOMING.

>unless one talks about chess playing on the Internet, which
has nothing to >do with FIDE.

Proviso city. So chess playing on the internet is not
chess? And I would have thought that the tone of my post
suggested that FIDE should get even more involved. (They
are involved already)

One compliant - I do not like the idea of this Advanced
chess - I simply do not like it. Period.

Advanced chess gives me the willies. If anyone wishes to
start a thread on this I should LOVE to contribute. I think
it is bad for chess, bad for the aspiring player, bad for
the image of chess and frankly it makes folk lazy and makes
it extremely difficult for even player's such as myself to
use the tricks we have learned. "Jim, this is not chess as
we know it." I am NOT anti-computer just anti using then in
any way shape or form during a game.

I suppose you read Carl Tillotson's reference to U11
Championships in his post on this thread - brilliant eh?
There are people like Carl all over the world giving their
time and energy to enthuse a new generation over our
wonderful game - I love that I really do. I mean to get
into this U-11 Championship you would have to have been born
before 1987 - that's amazing isn't it? Chess is in safe
hands with the likes of Carl.


>(Out of genuine curiosity, does anyone here imagine that it
>does? Does anyone here imagine that the coming Internet
chess
>
>revolution would be helped rather than hindered by FIDE and
its
>bureaucrats? Just curious.)


It should be!

> Mr. Palmer snipped all of Kirsan Ilyumzhinov's
statements about how
>he runs Kalmykia,

Mr.Palmer makes no comment on a subject he knows nowt about
and which has nothing to do with chess. If it wasn't for
his love of chess Mr.Palmer would never have heard of the
place.

though he did note that while I would condemn Khan
>Kirsan for keeping company with Saddam Hussein and for
openly admiring
>the man, he would not. "We all need friends," he writes
disingenuously.

Mr.Parr, please, disingenuous?

This surprises me. Would you agree that there are simple
open people? That there are those who exhibit a readiness
to measure and sum up many things from a limited personal
experience, largely enshrined in traditional 'wisdom'?

I am aware that I may be considered as such, I have been
told so in no uncertain terms on this newsgroup. I know my
spewings may be naive and plain wrong in the eyes of some of
the more urbane members of this group (who shall remain
nameless). But disingenuous? Never ! And I ask you to
reconsider.

I genuinely do believe that "We all need friends."


> Mr. Palmer writes, "The United States (with all due
respect) is at
>present a very (very) minor player in international chess."
Therefore,
>he argues that the USA could not plausibly establish a
major caucus of
>countries within FIDE that is seeking a rule of law. Mr.
Palmer
>labels such efforts as, variously, a policy of "rebellion"
or a "coup"

>-- evidently unaware that the two are very different
things.

If you cared to read my words you will find that I am aware
of the difference, I was commenting upon your approach, how
you argue your case and the strategy you appear to be
promoting.

I'll write this is international standard English and maybe
we shall understand one another:

I approve of you working towards your goal if that is what
you wish to do.
I approve of you doing this within the structure of FIDE.
I do not approve of you saying "BUT if we do not succeed
then we will destroy FIDE and form our own International
Chess Organisation"

It is the element of the anarchist I disapprove of, if we
win fine - but if we lose then let's not accept the majority
view and destroy FIDE.

Capishe?

>Mr. Palmer probably doesn't much care for the United States
tossing
>its considerable weight around this planet.

Mr.Palmer doesn't much care for Larry Parr putting words
into his mouth.

I did not and will not make any comment about the United
States tossing anything. I would like a closer look at a
stealth bomber however, they look cool.

>I think international chess politics is a
>field in which change for the better can be implemented by
inveighing
>loudly against dictators and by undertaking energetic
reform efforts
>centered around a caucus of chess nations seeking a rule of
law.


Yeah and if this does not work - LET'S go it alone.
Comprendo?

>Mr. Palmer describes Bobby Fischer as "yesterday's man" and
even
>suggests that we Americans are living in the past. Frankly,
I find
>this attitude puzzling for someone who avers a love of
chess.

I thought this might have got your goat up. It wasn't meant
to (really).

The point was that there seems to be an inordinate amount of
BF related material on the newsgroup these last few weeks.
I simply do not understand why everything even remotely
chessic has to be related back to BF.

Play a bishop to c4 and there is a collective sigh of
"Ah.......... Bobby's move." There are totally BORING
threads about whether he was a nice person, is insane, is
Jewish, is like Hitler, is the strongest player ever, has
had moles removed, has been circumcised, has fillings, even
a copy of a warrant for his arrest, Jeezus...the list goes
on and on and I for one was only making he observation that
chess has moved on.

Maybe I can explain it in another way, because I do not want
to offend any chess lover:

It seems to me:

It's like people who still listen to practically nothing but
the band they idolised in High School. I mean, I still like
Led Zeppelin, I might even still think them the greatest
ever, I even listen to them still, but I sure as hell
acknowledge that music has moved on in the last twenty five
years.

Or it's like people who still idolise the same football team
they were into in High School. I mean the Green Bay Packers
might have been the greatest ever, but I hope they
acknowledge that football has moved on.

Or it's like people who still idolise the same basketball
team they were into in High School. I mean the Boston
Celtics might have been the greatest ever, but I hope they
acknowledge that basketball has moved on.

Drift-You-Get? (apologies to anyone too young to have heard
of Led Zeppelin, or the successes of 'Ye Olde Green Bay
Packers' or the Boston Celtics).

For
>this writer, blabbing about Bobby and Boris, Capa and
Lasker, Reshevsky
>and Botvinnik (the match that never was) even Zukertort and
Steinitz
>-- well, talking about the moves of chess people IS the
great thing
>about our tiny world.

I agree, but not dozens and dozens of threads all about BF.
It's too much, far too much.

The game itself is the foundation upon which an
>extraordinary edifice of personality and scholarship has
been constructed.


Hallelujah! This is the most beautiful thing you have ever
written that I have seen. Yeah, and it did not stop in
1972.

> The issue before us is whether we know enough about
how Khan Kirsan
>runs his country to make a POLITICAL decision to seek his
removal as
>FIDE president.

By all means go ahead, work toward this but please Larry do
not expect all of his to tag along on your coat tails
without thinking for ourselves.

I really do not like this idea if you can't do it within
FIDE then let's form our own club. I don't.

Gilbert Palmer
A chess fan

William Hyde

unread,
Mar 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/2/99
to
In article <OZVWM2HZ#GA....@nih2naae.prod2.compuserve.com>,

Larry Parr <75227...@CompuServe.COM> writes:
> RESPONSE TO HYDE AND PALMER
>

>

> Concerning the alternatives that existed in 1975, you seem to
> dispute my view that the existential choices were either Fischer's
> match condition or the status quo. You opine -- quite correctly --
> that FIDE would have approved a six-win match with a limit of 36
> games. Placing a limit on the number of games, however, negates the
> fact that draws don't count and allows whoever is in the lead to play
> for draws.

A 36 game match, even with draws, would be fairer than
any match held since 1927 (assuming that the stories of
Capa wanting a 5-5 draw rule are false, as I think they are).
That's not too bad. And as a longer match favours the
stronger player, and Fischer was clearly stronger than
Karpov, by agreeing to this the soviets would be reducing
their chances to win back the WC.

Four matches have been played under this system, and only
one trangressed the 36 game limit - and one could argue that
a 36 game limit would have improved that match.

In only three of the ten FIDE matches from 1951-72 did the
winner fail to win six games, so it probably seemed
rather unlikely that the 36 game limit would often be
a problem. And the advantage to the organizers is
immense.

The Soviets were under orders to prevent a
> match,

As the archives have not yet been opened I don't
see how you can state this as fact. I'm afraid
the onus is on you to prove that the soviets would
not have allowed a match had Fischer been reasonable.

The soviets repeatedly gave in to Fischer's demands
before 1975, so why should they suddenly prevent him
from playing? Surely the time to do that was in
1970, when they could have vetoed his questionably
legal participation in the interzonal, or in 1965,
when FIDE changed the entire candidates system to suit him.


William Hyde
Dept of Oceanography
Texas A&M University

William Hyde

unread,
Mar 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/2/99
to
In article <OZVWM2HZ#GA....@nih2naae.prod2.compuserve.com>,
Larry Parr <75227...@CompuServe.COM> writes:
> RESPONSE TO HYDE AND PALMER
>
> Briefly, then, concerning Mr. Hyde's posting of March 1. He
> speaks about expecting a response from this writer by the end of the
> week. Mr. Hyde: as you well know, I requested in a private e-mail

Sorry, Mr Parr, but I received no such email. However,
as the two postings are rather wordy, I will instead
try to combine them here.

I wrote a program to simulate the expected results of
matches in both the FIDE (24 game, draw goes to the
champion) and Fischer style (first to win 10 games,
9-9 tie, no limit).

There are several ways to consider the fairness of such
a match. Kalme chose to ask the question in the following
way:

"How superior does the challenger need to be to have a
50% chance to win the match?",

where he chose to express superiority as the percentge
of decisive games won by the challenger.

Given this, he found that in the Fischer style match the
challenger needed a 53-47 superiority in decisive games
to have a 50%+ chance to win the match. My calculations
give the same result (I will restrict myself to two
significant figures, as that is all he gave in Chess Life,
Oct 1975).

With regard to the FIDE matches the above calculation
depends on the number of draws. Kalme finds that for
a match with 60% draws, the challenger needs the same
edge to win a FIDE match as to win a Fischer match,
i.e. 53-47, and that with 70% draws he needs a bigger
edge to win a FIDE style match, 54-46. Again, these are
also the numbers I have computed.

So far all is well with Kalme's work. However, the
logical next step is to see just how many draws actually
did occur in FIDE matches. If that number is 60% or over,
the Fischer matches are equally or more fair, if under,
the FIDE matches are fairer.

But this is not what Kalme does, rather, he cites the
only FIDE match with a draw percentage over 70%
(Spassky Petrosian I +3 -4 =15) and the recent Karpov-
Kortchnoi candidates event.

This is clearly taking a biased sample. Why chose only
one WC event from many, why choose a candidates event
of any kind, let alone this one? Given that these
are the two most drawish long matchs of the early FIDE
era, the choice is hardly reasonable.

A fair sample would be to take every FIDE world championship
match, and compute the drawing percentage, which from 1951-72
(the sample Kalme had available) was a mere 55%. So
the Fischer conditions are shown to be, on average,
less fair than the FIDE conditions.

Furthermore, there is another way of looking at the
problem, one chosen initially both by CGM Berry and
myself. In a fair system a challenger ought to have
the better odds if he is even slightly stronger than
the champion, so one wants to know the answer to
the following question:

"What chance does a champion have of holding the title
against an equally strong challenger under both match systems?"

At least in the article available to me, Kalme does not
seem to have considered this aspect of the question.

For the Fischer system, both Berry and I find the champion's
edge to be 59%. Under the FIDE system, even with 70% draws,
the champion's edge is smaller, at 57%. So in this way of
phrasing the question the Fischer system is incontrovertably
less fair.

Thus I conclude that either way the results are measured,
the Fischer system gives the champion a bigger edge. But
at first I was surprised at how close the result was. The
reason for this is not hard to find - the Fischer matches
are much longer, and in general the longer the match the
fairer it is. Assuming 70% draws, the FIDE matches have
only 7 or so decisive games, as against an average of 16 or 17
for the Fischer system. It is easier to make up a two point
advantage from 16 games than it is to make a one point
edge from 7. But if we have 50% draws it is easier to
make a one point edge from 10-12 decisive games than it
is to gain two from 16.

So in summary, the only reason the Fischer match was even
close to the FIDE match in fairness was its length.

In summary:

(1) One can no longer honestly say that Fischer's
terms were fairer to the challenger than the old
FIDE format.

(2) One can certainly not say that "every statistical
analysis" supports (1). Mine does not, Berry's does not,
and even Kalme's does not unless one assumes a higher
than historical draw rate. Elo himself was unconvinced of
it, despite my erronious claim in an earlier post. I have
never seen any evidence that Euwe was convinced.

(3) In view of (1) and (2) it is absurd to claim that
"FIDE knew" Fischer's terms were more fair in 1974/75.

(4) The Fischer terms were generally less fair than
the FIDE terms, but the gap in fairness was less than
one might expect because of the greater length of
the Fischer match. If fairness was the issue a FIDE
type match of 30 games length would have been fairer
than either.

Chesspride

unread,
Mar 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/2/99
to

William Hyde summarizes thusly:


>
> In summary:
>
> (1) One can no longer honestly say that Fischer's
> terms were fairer to the challenger than the old
> FIDE format.
>
> (2) One can certainly not say that "every statistical
> analysis" supports (1). Mine does not, Berry's does not,
> and even Kalme's does not unless one assumes a higher
> than historical draw rate. Elo himself was unconvinced of
> it, despite my erronious claim in an earlier post. I have
> never seen any evidence that Euwe was convinced.
>
> (3) In view of (1) and (2) it is absurd to claim that
> "FIDE knew" Fischer's terms were more fair in 1974/75.
>
> (4) The Fischer terms were generally less fair than
> the FIDE terms, but the gap in fairness was less than
> one might expect because of the greater length of
> the Fischer match. If fairness was the issue a FIDE
> type match of 30 games length would have been fairer
> than either.
>
>William Hyde
>Dept of Oceanography
>Texas A&M University
>

></PRE></HTML>

Bravo Mr. Hyde!

Thank you for your diligent work in sharing this analysis.

Hmmm...maybe after all this...folks can feel safe now to shout "FIDE all the
way!" without fear of rebuke.

Excellent work.

Eric C. Johnson
USCF Assistant Director

Larry Parr

unread,
Mar 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/2/99
to
While I digest Mr. Hyde's statistics, here are some quotations from RUSSIANS VS. FISCHER by Plisetsky & Voronkov. I would only dissent from Korchnoi's view that 10-8 is okay, if not totally fair. My belief is that six wins with unlimited games is best. By Plisetsky & Voronkov p. 364-5 Naturally, Soviet propaganda put all the blame for the breakdown of the match negotiations on the intransigent American. All the more interesting, in this context, are the dissenting opinions. KORCHNOI: "Was Fischer right in demanding that the world title be protected by a two-point handicap -- that the challenger would be considered the winner with a 10-8 score and that the champion would retain his title in the event of a 9-9 draw? Yes, this was quite natural: the champion deserves this, not to mention the fact that further play to the first win in the event of an even score would be nothing short of a lottery -- the winner in that case could not claim to have won a convincing victory. "The genius Fischer was not given the chance to defend his title by this rejection of a two-point handicap. What followed was that the Soviets later adopted Fischer's idea of an open- ended match instead of a match of 24 games. But instead of the two-point handicap, they protected Karpov far more reliably and far more ruthlessly with respect to the challenger -- by insisting on a return match!" ALBURT: "Karpov always took a sober view of what he was capable of. He knew he could hardly draw a game with Fischer, never mind winning one or two games. His only chance was to disrupt the match. So a whole arsenal of tricks was worked out, designed to upset the sensitive American, unaccustomed to such methods. As Karpov himself said, 'This match cannot end normally. Either I'll be taken to a hospital or else he'll be taken to the insane asylum.' "In the end, the USSR (and Karpov) received the coveted title....It is interesting that Karpov, on becoming champion, secured much greater privileges for himself. p. 366 "At the press conference that followed [April 24, 1975] the new World Champion replied to a question about the possibility of a contest with Fischer; 'Since the right of an ex- world-champion to a return match has long been abolished, I cannot play a world title match with Fischer.' But he added that he was prepared to play Fischer unofficially..." p. 367 (secret letter No. 3403c, October 20, 1976) "The USSR Sports Committee continues to consider it inexpedient in principle for such a match to be held...Should Fischer and his associates propose specific conditions, we regard it as expedient to drag out the talks and, jointly with A. Karpov, work out counter-proposals that would create a preferable situation for the World Champion and be unacceptable to R. Fischer." This decision bore the signature of Politburo Member M. Suslov, the country's chief ideologue. Larry Parr

Chessphoto

unread,
Mar 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/3/99
to
Dear Eric,

>Hmmm...maybe after all this...folks can feel safe now to shout "FIDE all the
>way!" without fear of rebuke.
>

Forgive me (and this is addressed to many others who frequent rgc.misc) if I
move off the point, BUT, as long as we have people like the two Liarries --
whose whole lives reflect the anti-human postion of Lombardi that "Winning
isn't everything, it's the only thing -- we'll NEVER be able to shout "FIDE all
the way!" without "fear" of their I-am-the-only-one-alive rebukes.

Dr. Hyde's exposition will appeal to humans, not to the great god "editor"
Liarry.

Fraternally,

Jerome Bibuld

Mig

unread,
Mar 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/3/99
to
On 2 Mar 1999 22:43:48 GMT, chess...@aol.com (Chesspride) wrote:

>Hmmm...maybe after all this...folks can feel safe now to shout "FIDE all the
>way!" without fear of rebuke.
>

>Excellent work.
>
>Eric C. Johnson
>USCF Assistant Director

You mean they could have felt safe shouting it 25 years ago. I don't
think this helps us much with all sides concerned having their heads
firmly stuck up their posteriors in 1999!

Mig

Greg Kennedy

unread,
Mar 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/3/99
to


Note that in Kalme's "calculations", he tossed out
the Fischer/Spassky WC match arbitrarily, and
inexplicably included the candidates final between
Karpov and Kortchnoi. Manipulating the sample
in this way is clear evidence of Kalme's bias.

> This is clearly taking a biased sample. Why chose only
> one WC event from many, why choose a candidates event
> of any kind, let alone this one? Given that these
> are the two most drawish long matchs of the early FIDE
> era, the choice is hardly reasonable.


Reason was not Kalme's goal- persuasion was. By any
means, including the lowest of them all- statistics.

> A fair sample would be to take every FIDE world championship
> match, and compute the drawing percentage, which from 1951-72
> (the sample Kalme had available) was a mere 55%. So
> the Fischer conditions are shown to be, on average,
> less fair than the FIDE conditions.


It is impossible to know what the real drawing
percentage would have been between Fischer
and Karpov, but your estimate is unbiased, unlike
Kalme's.

> Furthermore, there is another way of looking at the
> problem, one chosen initially both by CGM Berry and
> myself. In a fair system a challenger ought to have
> the better odds if he is even slightly stronger than
> the champion, so one wants to know the answer to
> the following question:
>
> "What chance does a champion have of holding the title
> against an equally strong challenger under both match systems?"
>
> At least in the article available to me, Kalme does not
> seem to have considered this aspect of the question.


Interestingly, there were many issues Kalme failed to
address in his lengthy article, although he found room
to repeat himself many times, propaganda style.

> For the Fischer system, both Berry and I find the champion's
> edge to be 59%. Under the FIDE system, even with 70% draws,
> the champion's edge is smaller, at 57%. So in this way of
> phrasing the question the Fischer system is incontrovertably
> less fair.
>
> Thus I conclude that either way the results are measured,
> the Fischer system gives the champion a bigger edge. But
> at first I was surprised at how close the result was. The
> reason for this is not hard to find - the Fischer matches
> are much longer, and in general the longer the match the
> fairer it is. Assuming 70% draws, the FIDE matches have
> only 7 or so decisive games, as against an average of 16 or 17
> for the Fischer system. It is easier to make up a two point
> advantage from 16 games than it is to make a one point
> edge from 7. But if we have 50% draws it is easier to
> make a one point edge from 10-12 decisive games than it
> is to gain two from 16.
>
> So in summary, the only reason the Fischer match was even
> close to the FIDE match in fairness was its length.


And is it not then strange that Karpov objected to
precisely this, the possibility of an exhaustingly
long (and therefore fairer) match!

> In summary:
>
> (1) One can no longer honestly say that Fischer's
> terms were fairer to the challenger than the old
> FIDE format.


I still maintain that one could never have honestly
stated thusly. It is and was a boldfaced lie.

> (2) One can certainly not say that "every statistical
> analysis" supports (1). Mine does not, Berry's does not,
> and even Kalme's does not unless one assumes a higher
> than historical draw rate. Elo himself was unconvinced of
> it, despite my erronious claim in an earlier post. I have
> never seen any evidence that Euwe was convinced.


I asked an unknown poster to the newsgroup in which
issue a refutation he stated was published in "Chess
Life" appeared. He had no idea but this is not the
first such attempt to refute Kalme's biased work.

> (3) In view of (1) and (2) it is absurd to claim that
> "FIDE knew" Fischer's terms were more fair in 1974/75.
>
> (4) The Fischer terms were generally less fair than
> the FIDE terms, but the gap in fairness was less than
> one might expect because of the greater length of
> the Fischer match. If fairness was the issue a FIDE
> type match of 30 games length would have been fairer
> than either.
>
>William Hyde
>Dept of Oceanography
>Texas A&M University

Thank you for clearing this up. Good luck
with you know who.

- Greg Kennedy


Greg Kennedy

unread,
Mar 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/3/99
to
>Soviet propaganda put all the blame for the
>breakdown of the match negotiations on the intransigent American.
>All the more interesting, in this context, are the dissenting
>opinions.


Karpov took out the defector, Kortchnoi, in the
candidates finals, who hated his guts as a result.

>KORCHNOI: "Was Fischer right in demanding that the world title be
>protected by a two-point handicap -- that the challenger would be
>considered the winner with a 10-8 score and that the champion
>would retain his title in the event of a 9-9 draw? Yes, this was
>quite natural: the champion deserves this, not to mention the
>fact that further play to the first win in the event of an even
>score would be nothing short of a lottery -- the winner in that
>case could not claim to have won a convincing victory.


To put this in context, try turning it around on its head:
Would the champion have won _convincingly_ by tying
to "hold" the title? Not hardly. In fact, if the score were
8-7 in favor of the challenger, the match would become
a lottery since the tie clause would screw everything up
when it comes to a "convincing victory." Kortchnoi
is all mixed up.

> "The genius Fischer was not given the chance to defend his
>title by this rejection of a two-point handicap. What followed
>was that the Soviets later adopted Fischer's idea of an open-
>ended match instead of a match of 24 games. But instead of the
>two-point handicap, they protected Karpov far more reliably and
>far more ruthlessly with respect to the challenger -- by
>insisting on a return match!"


Yet this "reliable protection" failed. Kasparov took the
title from the "reliably protected" Karpov. A poor
joke perhaps?

>ALBURT: "Karpov always took a sober view of what he was capable
>of. He knew he could hardly draw a game with Fischer, never mind
>winning one or two games.

A sick man, this Alburt. Karpov would have drawn
as many as Spassky, maybe more. The defectors
seem to oppose Karpov by lies and weak arguments
which cannot stand up to scrutiny.

>"The USSR Sports Committee continues to consider it inexpedient
>in principle for such a match to be held...Should Fischer and his
>associates propose specific conditions, we regard it as expedient
>to drag out the talks and, jointly with A. Karpov, work out
>counter-proposals that would create a preferable situation for
>the World Champion and be unacceptable to R. Fischer."


Turn about is fair play?!!

Capablanca was right when he pointed out that
no matter what the official conditions of his match
with Lasker were, the PUBLIC would consider
the victor to be the one who won the most games,
not the winner or holder by a technicality such as
two game odds. Had Fischer finally agreed to play
Karpov unofficially, the PUBLIC would regard it as
a championship match, even if the match rules
specifically stated otherwise. Hence, Karpov
would have risked his title for money, without
the possibility of any gain (but money). Compare
this to Fischer's position, who stood to gain both
money AND the unofficial title in such a match.
Oddly enough, Karpov has apparently rejected
money making opportunities quite often, as in
his selection for the 1975 match where he
rejected the Philippines $5 million bid in favor
of a MUCH smaller one.


- Greg Kennedy


Larry Parr

unread,
Mar 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/3/99
to
HYDE, JOHNSON, BIBULD, PALMER

In a posting of March 2 William Hyde takes me to task for writing,
"The Soviet were under orders to prevent a match."

Responds Mr. Hyde: "As the archives have not yet been opened


I don't see how you can state this as fact. I'm afraid the onus is on
you to prove that the soviets would not have allowed a match had
Fischer been reasonable."

Mr. Hyde has a partial point, and we will inevitably learn far
more in the coming years. Still, he is wrong to imply that there is
no documentation for my claim. Here is an order signed by Mikhail
Suslov, arguably the second most powerful man in the Brezhnev era, as
reprinted by Plisetsky and Voronkov in their book RUSSIANS VS. FISCHER.

"The USSR Sports Committee continues to consider it
inexpedient in principle for such a match to be held.

Should Fischer and his associates propose specific
conditions, we regard it as expedient to drag out the
talks and, jointly with A. Karpov, work out counter-proposals
that would create a preferable situation for the World Champion
and be unacceptable to R. Fischer."


Please note: the above secret letter (no. 3403c, dated October 20,
1976) states that the USSR Sports Committee "continues" to consider a
Fischer-Karpov match to be inexpedient. Which means that this statement
of policy had been in existence for a prior period. Further, it states
that the Soviets, using Karpov as a tool, will "drag out" any talks with
the object of offering counter-proposals that would create a "preferable
situation" for Karpov, thereby proving "unacceptable" to Fischer.

I read the above as a deliberate, dishonest plan to prevent any
match between Karpov and a player whom the Soviets clearly regarded as
his superior. (We know from numerous testimonies that Karpov himself
regarded a match against Fischer as a forlorn hope.)

To be sure, the above paragraph is referring to a match between
"World Champion" Karpov and challenger Fischer, but it also notes that
the policy had been in existence for a given period in the past, and the
phrase "such match" refers to a world title match.

My view is that unless one argues that subordinate officials would
disobey the order of a frightful Stalinist such as Suslov or unless one
argues that the Soviets were nicer chaps in 1975 than in 1976, it makes
no sense to imagine that the bosses of the aptly named Evil Empire ever
intended Karpov to play a match with Fischer.

I will stick by my assertion that the two existential options in
1975 were Fischer's unfair proposals or whatever the Soviets would have
cooked up. All of the counter-proposals -- some of them mentioned by
Greg Kennedy -- would have melted away the moment Fischer appeared
more reasonable. The Soviets counted on Fischer's instability.


As for Anatoly Karpov stating in April 1975 that he could not play
a match with Fischer because "the right of an ex-world-champion to a
return match has long been abolished" and his later working to procure a
rematch for himself -- well, I trust Mr. Hyde has the same opinion as
I do about such sporting ethics.

Later in his first posting of March 2, Mr. Hyde states that the
tournament system was changed to a match system to suit Bobby Fischer.
That strikes me as a strangely skewed observation. I would rather say
that a match system suited the interests of chess after the disaster at
Curacao in 1962 did so much to undermine the legitimacy of the FIDE title.
The Soviets openly colluded against Fischer by playing non-games among
themselves in the expectation that Fischer was not yet so superior that
he could sweep them from the board. They were right. But after
Curacao, the writing was on the wall for the old candidates system.
FIDE changed the system foremost because it could not afford a second
Curacao when Fischer wrote an article for SPORTS ILLUSTRATED entitled
"The Russians Cheat At Chess."

MR. HYDE'S SECOND POSTING

"I told them exactly what you told me to tell them." -- ex-FIDE
President Florencio Campomanes caught on a CNN tape whispering to
Anatoly Karpov at the press conference of February 15, 1985,
upon stopping KK-I

"At this very moment, I do not know what I intend to do." -- ex-
FIDE President Florencio Campomanes speaking at the above press
conference, moments before stopping KK-I and several minutes
after the Soviet new agency Tass announced precisely what the
FIDE president would do

"Hmmm. maybe after all this folks can feel safe now to shout
*FIDE all the way!* without fear of rebuke." -- Eric Johnson in a
posting of March 2


In support of William Hydes second posting on March 2, Eric
Johnson shouts "FIDE All the Way!" without any qualification of any
kind. Earlier, in a similar fit of exuberance, he signed a message as
"Eric *FIDE All the Way* Johnson." So we must take the man at his
word. He is prepared to accept any FIDE outrage, no matter how
despicable. He will go "all the way."

Nothing that FIDE has done seems to disturb Mr. Johnson, who signed
his posting in his capacity as a member of the USCF staff. "FIDE All
the Way" written without any qualification, including the open bribery
in Dubai bragged about in the local Arab press; including the "persons
non grata" resolution against Ricardo Calvo for writing an article
exposing this corruption; including the stopping of KK-I at a disastrous
press conference on February 15, 1985, in which the president of FIDE
appeared as a total, lying buffoon in front of the entire world;
including in 1993 the president of FIDE stopping Karpov-Timman in mid-
match because he lied about having a prize fund intact; including the
attempt by Campomanes to impose the infamous FIDE Code of Ethics in

which truth would no longer have been a defense for critical press
reporting; including physical threats in Yerevan against Singapore's
Ignatius Leong; including Campo appropriating 60% of the FIDE treasury
as his retirement fund; including Campo earlier transferring FIDE
funds to a building society account in Sheffield, England, in his own
name; including the current FIDE president, who rules ruthlessly in a
one-party state.

Mr. Johnson's slogan is mindless. It is loathsome. One further
notes that he is joined in his sentiment by Jerry Bibuld, who speaks of
"the two Liarries" (an infantile misspelling of the first name of GM
Larry Evans and this writer) "whose whole lives reflect that anti-human
position." As for William Hyde's work, he writes, "Dr. Hyde's exposition
will appeal to humans, not to the great god *editor* Liarry."

Mr. Hyde: I would counsel you never to write something that deeply
offends Jerry Bibuld. He learned his habits of nomenclature in the
Daily Worker school of journalism. He could just as easily turn them on
you. Or, for that matter, you may find yourself being bemerded by the
likes of Rolf Tueschen, who will wonder in the name of irony, satire and
Billy Wilderish wit, how many sexual relationships you have had outside
your marriage or whether you have slapped your grandmother or, if Mr.
Tueschen is in a more academic mood, you will hear about sex with
children producing, perhaps, multiple orgasms.

The advocacy of the Messrs. Johnson and Bibuld on behalf of Mr.
Hyde's posting is unfortunate, for the man makes an excellent case that
we must take a second look at what Charles Kalme wrote back in 1975. I
know that I shall do so as soon as I can get a copy of the long article.

For the moment I have a few questions for Mr. Hyde: 1. Do you
believe that the run of play in previous FIDE matches had been deeply
affected by the draw-odds advantage to the champion in a format with a
limited number of games? 2. Do you argue that in a 24-game match, the
FIDE status quo, that the mathematics indicate a smaller advantage for
the champion than under Fischer's format of an UNLIMITED NUMBER of games
until the challenger achieves 10 wins?; 3. Under Fischer's proposal is
it possible, as Greg Kennedy claims in a posting of March 2, that we
could have "a match with Karpov *losing* a point ahead of Fischer" (I
find his statement to be weakminded because if the challenger achieves
nine wins, he cannot "lose" the match unless the champion achieves nine
wins. What say you about Mr. Kennedy's claim?); 4. If we accept your
premise that challenger and champion are fairly evenly matched, then did
the rematch clause provide Karpov with approximately a 75% chance of
retaining the title over a three-year cycle?; 5. If we accept the
idea that the FIDE delegates knew of this advantage, then can we safely
dispense with the idea that many of those opposing Fischer's much lesser
demands did so out of any sense of outraged sportsmanship?

In the meantime I shall take Mr. Hyde's advice and cease to claim
that Fischer's conditions were mathematically more favorable to the
challenger than the FIDE format from 1966 to 1972. However, I believe
that the factor of draw odds unnaturally affected play in the earlier
matches (especially the 1966 affair) suggesting that given the human
factor, Fischer's proposal to count only wins constituted a de facto

improvement on the status quo. What think you, Mr. Hyde?

THE PALMER RESPONSE

In a posting of March 2 Gilbert Palmer claims to have been "surprised
to read Larry Parr's response." After all, I "answered 20% or thereabouts
of [his] post." In an earlier exchange with Mr. Palmer, I answered every
point that he made except one, which he then announced was not good
enough. So, once again, I find Mr. Palmer's surprise to be disingenuous.

Once again, Mr. Palmer: I don't know you from Adam. Your person
is a cipher to me. I address what you write -- not what you are. Unlike
such gents as Rolf Tueschen, Greg Kennedy, Steve Doyle, Shaun "1. F-ck
2. You" Graham, Jerry Bibuld and the like, I do not offer demented
misspellings of the names of other people, and I do not talk about sex
with children, multiple orgasms, slapping grandmothers, adulterous
relationships and such like. That is, largely, for the FIDE crowd.

Contrary to Mr. Palmer's claims, I answered his relevant points,
which his long response would seem to indicate.

First, two points that he made, which elude my comprehension. When
Mr. Palmer claimed not to pay much attention to businessmen sponsoring
chess and I stated that I did pay attention and therein lay the
difference, he responded, "Okay, I bite, give me a few pertinent
examples." Examples of what? Of business sponsorship? Of my giving a
heck about it? If the latter, I would refer him to several articles
that I wrote in Chess Life. If not, then what does he mean?

The second unclear point: In an earlier posting I wrote, "Does
anyone here imagine that the coming Internet chess revolution could be


helped rather than hindered by FIDE and its bureaucrats? Just

curious." Mr. Palmer responded, "It should be!" It should be what? Is
the man saying that FIDE actually will help the Internet revolution, or
is he saying that it's kind of nice to think that FIDE could help
out -- even if no one believes that it can?

The above was by way of discussing Mr. Palmer's claim that chess is
booming. I responded that I noticed very little in the way of a boom,
except on the Internet, which has nothing whatsoever to do with FIDE.
Since the subject was what FIDE was and is doing for chess, it seems
relevant that the single greatest advance is completely divorced from FIDE.

Mr. Palmer prattles about chess in Africa of all places. Except
for the northern tier, the continent is one large chess hole. Chess has
come to China because of government sponsorship -- not because of FIDE.
Still, chess is very much a western gloss in China. Where is the great
boom in South America?

Concerning Mr. Palmer's evident distress that so many people are
still discussing Bobby Fischer, I wrote, "Frankly, I find this attitude
puzzling for someone who avers a love of chess." Replied Mr. Palmer, "I
thought this might have got your goat up." I'm baffled. I can only ask
Mr. Palmer the following question: If I seem angry when expressing
puzzlement with your attitude, then how would you describe the animal

language of Rolf Tueschen, the "body oder" [sic] rhetoric of Steve
Doyle, the four-letter language of Shaun "1. F-ck 2. You" Graham, the
ludicrous name-calling of the entire FIDE claque and deliberate
misspelling of first names? Are you part of the Phil Innes brigade
which maints that it's all just good joshing, it's all just nice irony
and wit? I mean to say, Gilbert, I'd like to know.

Mr. Palmer writes, "I genuinely do believe that *We all need
friends.*" He is explaining his earlier statement that we ought not to
judge people, including Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, on the basis of their
friends. If Khan Kirsan is proud to be a friend of a mass murderer such
as Saddam Hussein and if the Khan brags about his friendship with the
man, then we ought to remember that "We all need friends."

At this juncture, the readers of this forum will have to judge for
themselves. I believe that people who voluntarily keep company with the
likes of, say, a Pol Pot, a Himmler, a Beria, and so on can be judged on
the basis of their friends -- if those friendships are voluntary. Mr.
Palmer would have us believe that the Khan has a real human need for
friendship and that his choice of a bloody butcher ought not to affect
our view of the man. I say nuts to that.

Mr. Palmer claims that the way the Khan runs Kalmykia "has nothing
to do with chess." Hence his decision to snip all quotations from the
Khan himself about his dictatorship in Kalmykia. We disagree again. I
think the way the Khan runs his country is a good indication about
what the ultimate result will be for chess. I believe that dictators
are destroyers, not builders.

The issue, once again, is whether we know enough about how the Khan
runs Kalmykia to make a POLITICAL decision to seek his removal as FIDE
president. My assumption is that a ruthless dictator will ultimately
prove very bad for chess. Mr. Palmer says that what the gent does
within Kalmykia "has nothing to do with chess." We could not disagree
more. Mr. Palmers' claim assumes that a dictator is a precisely neutral
factor. I say that dictators are always destroyers.

Mr. Palmer does not like the idea of the United States and other
countries leaving FIDE if they are unable to make desired changes. He
finds such an intention to contain an "element of the anarchist." The
issue is whether the United States ought to establish a caucus within
FIDE of nations seeking a rule of law -- and if such a quest proves
impossible, leaving the organixation to form a new federation.

Is such a proposal anarchy? Far from it. The anarchist would be
opposed in principle to making any initial effort at reform because he
would oppose the organization as a matter of political conviction. In
social organizations throughout the world, people attempt to make
changes, and if the chain of abuses stretch back far enough, they start
new organizations.

The process is called reform and change within or without given
organizations. It has nothing to do with anarchy. It has to do with
making a prudent decision to chart a new course if it is impossible to
alter the current course. The world of chess would not suffer if a new

world federation were formed that adhered to a rule of law. Quite the
contrary.

One final point: Mr. Palmer finds the endless discussions about
Fischer to be boring. The problem is that much of the chess world --
as he himself documents by mentioning numerous sites devoted to
Fischermania -- disagrees with him. Bobby still sells. Mr. Palmer may not
like this fact, but people such as this writer and GM Larry Evans, who
know ever so much more about the events we are discussing than Mr.Palmer
himself, find Bobby Fischer to be a subject of endless fascination.
So do many others.


--
Larry Parr

Phil Innes

unread,
Mar 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/3/99
to
Mr. Innes has seen nothing "particularly persuasive, to exonerate
or condemn" the Khan. Virtually the entire Russian human rights
community disagrees. Readers of this forum must judge for themselves.

Steady-on Larry. Now you mix up two subjects as usual.
And when you make this long statements without replying to
other's posts, point by point - it is difficult to see the
twist.

What, for example, do you think that virtually all
civil-rights organizations think about the deliberate torture
and murder of a man - because he is black - as a deliberate
attempt to intimidate a black community?

What does this say about President Clinton?

On the issue of name-calling, Mr. Innes continues his stony silence
about the prurient sexual imagery of Rolf Tueschen,

You prefer that I apologise for him, or not?

though before Mr.
Tueschen started blathering about sex with children and multiple orgasms

and at the time that the man was asking questions about adultery and all

of the rest of the filth, he was excusing this bemerding exercise as an
example of the gent's irony, wit or sarcasm.

You are saying that he was previously ironically, then made
these sexual-suggestions to you, and I have not commented on
them?

Mr. Innes' first comment on name-calling is to chide this writer
for referring to Kirsan Ilyumzhinov as the Khan or Khan Kirsan. For the

record, just as in the case of Eric "FIDE All the Way" Johnson, the name

is one that the subject has suggested for himself!

This isn't exacly the context - is it Larry?

The Khan believes
he is the reincarnation of one of history's greatest murderers, and it
seems perfectly fair to attach a term to the man that he himself
courts. Perfectly fair.

Talking of courts and fairness - are you content to make your
points, adress other's points - and let them decide for
themselves what is valuable in the conversation?

We note that Mr. Innes has nothing whatsoever to say about the
childish misspellings of this writer and GM Larry Evans first names.

We note that also.

Or any of the many vicious names tossed in my direction.

Pauvre Lélian! Je regret. Toujour sympathétique.
Its because you over-write people Larry, old chap - you
deliberately use language to intimidate your correspondent,
then they call you a bad name.

When you do this with speakers of English as a second
language, then what can you expect as a response.

In essense the only difference is that you and I are insulting
each other in relatively grammatical English, without resort
to perfectly good saxon terms of considered abuse. But I think
the underlying feeling of frustration that the other idiot
does not immediately agree with our fine flow of sentiment and
ideas is the same for all parties.

I will assume
from this point forward that he condones such tactics unless he states
otherwise.

You may assume as you wish. I grant you no authority to
interpret or anticipate, however.

Heavens knows, he actively defended Rolf Tueschen for weeks,
and when the gent began spilling over with every kind of filth and
childish name-calling, Mr. Innes suddenly said nothing.

That, at least, is how I view Mr. Innes' advocacy.

Would you like to talk further on this - want to put it to a
vote here on the ng - about who has the more offensive
word-games, me, Rolf, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Parr ?

Mr. Innes equates a political decision by chess people to oust the
Khan as FIDE president with "the removal of a government." Nonsense.
FIDE is a games organization with a governing structure. We have a
perfect right to seek the ouster of its officials via outside pressure.

"perfect" right?

Mr. Innes speaks of some "liberal trash" about "the right of
individual states to determine their own fates." He is sarcastically
chiding me for criticizing the regime in Kalmykia so relentlessly.

Virtually everything is wrong with his statement. First, no
liberal -- or at least Jeffersonian liberal -- imagines that "states"
have rights. Individuals have rights. Period. Mr. Innes' comment is an
implied excuse for a dictator elected without opposition, to impose
his will upon a small, faraway people.

too much to answer too quickly.

I favor free elections for the people of Kalmykia. I favor a free
press for the people of Kalmykia. I say that we will know what they
want when newspapers can criticize the Khan and when he has to face
opponents in elections. When the people of Kalmykia have free elections

and a free press, then one can speak about self-determination. Without
them, such talk is a warrant for a cruel dictator, who is also president

of FIDE, to repress his people.

As for Mr. Innes' statement about interfering with Chinese
sovereignty in Tibet, he is assuming that the Han Chinese have some kind

of justified claim to Tibet.

what?

I would dispute that vigorously. If you
believe that, then you believe that the Nazis had a sovereign claim to
the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943. Tibetans are not Chinese any more than the
Poles are Germans.

Agree.

The issue is whether we chess people know enough about how the Khan
rules his people to make a POLITICAL decision to seek his removal as the

titular leader of international chess.

I note that you do not comment on the place where you are.
Didn't I ask if you could write this in your local newspaper -
suggest the removal of the government for malfeasance?

Cordially, Phil Innes.


--
Larry Parr


Gilbert Palmer

unread,
Mar 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/3/99
to
Thanks for your reply Larry, I enjoyed it. However I will
keep this brief because you seem to be opening up quite a
few fronts.


>So, once again, I find Mr. Palmer's surprise to be
disingenuous.

>relationships and such like. That is, largely, for the
FIDE crowd.


If you genuinely wish to debate, debate. You do however,
for all your skill, knowledge, energy and zeal appear to
have
more than a little trouble with definitions and keeping to
the point.

May I remind you of the relevant passage?

You wrote in your posting of 01.03.98 :>

>"Khan Kirsan is in the process of
discrediting the game of chess as a clean and decent sport."

I said you were wrong. You have provided absolutely no
convincing argument for this what-so-ever.

I further said:

"I urge every reader of this thread to think for himself
when
it comes to the matter and not swallow Larry's propaganda
without a good deal of reflection."

You have also repeatedly been urged to present your argument
in a form which may convince the chess world. This you
steadfastly refuse to even attempt.

You prefer rather to recycle your well worn repertoire of
soundbites and second rate one-liners about dictators,
dictators friends and unconvincing claims about Khan Kirsan
being in the process of discrediting the game of chess as a
clean and decent sport.

Your solution to your imagined problem?

You urge the United States to take the lead in an attempt to
oust the current FIDE president and if this does not work
you propose the ludicrous idea that the United States should
break away and form a new World Chess Federation.

I would like to debate your concerns. I really would, but
you won't.

I'll now turn (again briefly) to your kind reply to my
posting:


> First, two points that he made, which elude my
comprehension. When
>Mr. Palmer claimed not to pay much attention to businessmen
sponsoring
>chess and I stated that I did pay attention and therein lay
the
>difference, he responded, "Okay, I bite, give me a few
pertinent
>examples." Examples of what? Of business sponsorship? Of
my giving a
>heck about it? If the latter, I would refer him to several
articles
>that I wrote in Chess Life.


Referring me to several articles in Chess Life is like my
referring you to several lines I made in a letter to my
granny. I live in Guernsey and I do not have access to
Chess Life on a regular basis. Please, give me the benefit
of your research. These might just be relevant in your


"Khan
Kirsan is in the process of discrediting the game of chess
as a clean and decent sport".

> The second unclear point: In an earlier posting I


wrote, "Does
>anyone here imagine that the coming Internet chess
revolution could be
>helped rather than hindered by FIDE and its bureaucrats?
Just
>curious." Mr. Palmer responded, "It should be!" It should
be what?

It should be helped rather than hindered. The 'should' and
'be' correspond to the 'could' and 'be' of your line. I was
forgetting you were American.

Is
>the man saying that FIDE actually will help the Internet
revolution, or
>is he saying that it's kind of nice to think that FIDE
could help
>out -- even if no one believes that it can?


It is up and running. If you care to visit the web sites of
many national federations you will see that much information
is present on these web sites pointing the prospective chess
player to where he may play chess. Start with England,
Scotland, France, Spain, Switzerland etc... and just keep on
going and going. The details of every last National Chess
federation affiliated to Fide are available on line,
complete with contact names. I just looked.


> The above was by way of discussing Mr. Palmer's claim
that chess is
>booming. I responded that I noticed very little in the way
of a boom,
>except on the Internet, which has nothing whatsoever to do
with FIDE.


Chess is booming. You may find it hard to believe however
the national federations of small nations take great pride
in being members of FIDE. They are proud, and that is great
news for chess, word-wide. This is what you wish to do away
with at a stroke if you and the United States does not get
your way.


>Since the subject was what FIDE was and is doing for chess,
it seems
>relevant that the single greatest advance is completely
divorced from FIDE.


Excuse me the subject was whether chess is booming.

> Mr. Palmer prattles about chess in Africa of all
places. Except
>for the northern tier, the continent is one large chess
hole.

Larry, sorry but you are quite wrong here.
Also quite unnecessarily offensive.
I happen to be in contact with chess
players from South Africa and new clubs are springing up all
the time. And were you not aware that political prisoners
on Roben Island played chess regularly? This is well
documented but you've never heard of it? I am surprised.
Check out FIDE's web site and then browse through the
African nations. Wonderful things are being done in Africa.


Chess has
>come to China because of government sponsorship -- not
because of FIDE.


What has that to do with chess is BOOMING? China is
affiliated to FIDE, they have already produced one world
champion and over the next twenty years or so they fully
expect to produce a huge harvest of talent. Good luck to
them.


>Still, chess is very much a western gloss in China. Where
is the great
>boom in South America?


I said great progress. Witness the government sponsorship
of chess programmes in Venezuela, the visits of Kasparov to
Argentina, the inspiration of Peruvian Zuniga.

However this is not the point, chess is more widely played
now than at any time in the past. Perhaps you don't like
that?

I do and I think it is good for chess and I also
think it is good for chess that we have a FIDE and every
last
one of the smallest affiliated nations can send a team to
the Olympiad or potentially get aid through networking with
other FIDE affiliated nations.

Do you know that for some years chess was totally BANNED in
Iran? It's not now. I would be interested in knowing your
opinion on chess in Islamic countries - have you any
thoughts? Any possibility that this may have relevance to
your claim that " Khan Kirsan is in the process of


discrediting the game of chess as a clean and decent sport."

?

>
> Concerning Mr. Palmer's evident distress that so many
people are
>still discussing Bobby Fischer, I wrote, "Frankly, I find
this attitude
>puzzling for someone who avers a love of chess."

I don't have anything against the Fischer cult. And perhaps
I was wrong to even comment on what admittedly is a
newsgroup
where anything goes.

Replied Mr. Palmer, "I
>thought this might have got your goat up." I'm baffled. I
can only ask
>Mr. Palmer the following question: If I seem angry when
expressing
>puzzlement with your attitude,

I did not say you were angry. We've had problems in the
past with you being unable to distinguish tone in a written
passage, 'might have got your goat up' can and indeed in
this case does mean simply to make you react - but it does
not necessarily indicate anything but very mild irritation,
certainly not out and out anger. If I had written "thought
this would succeed in getting your goat up" it would have
been a different matter.

then how would you describe the animal
>
>language of Rolf Tueschen, the "body oder" [sic] rhetoric
of Steve
>Doyle, the four-letter language of Shaun "1. F-ck 2. You"
Graham, the
>ludicrous name-calling of the entire FIDE claque and
deliberate
>misspelling of first names?

I am not a traffic warden. I am a linguist. Language is a
very personal thing. Your choice of words and style depend
on many factors, who you are addressing, what you wish to
say (and often what you do not want to say openly). I would
not get too worked up about it Larry, and while I hope you
do
not mind me saying this, you do appear to take things just a
tad literally.


Are you part of the Phil Innes brigade
>which maints that it's all just good joshing, it's all just
nice irony
>and wit? I mean to say, Gilbert, I'd like to know.

I have no connection with any brigade. I am not just
joshing. I genuinely wish to debate this point about "Khan


Kirsan is in the process of
discrediting the game of chess as a clean and decent

sport.". DO YOU?

> At this juncture, the readers of this forum will have
to judge for
>themselves. I believe that people who voluntarily keep
company with the
>likes of, say, a Pol Pot, a Himmler, a Beria, and so on can
be judged on
>the basis of their friends -- if those friendships are
voluntary. Mr.
>Palmer would have us believe that the Khan has a real human
need for
>friendship and that his choice of a bloody butcher ought
not to affect
>our view of the man. I say nuts to that.


Irrelevant.

> Mr. Palmer claims that the way the Khan runs Kalmykia
"has nothing
>to do with chess." Hence his decision to snip all
quotations from the
>Khan himself about his dictatorship in Kalmykia. We
disagree again.

And we'll keep on disagreeing until you actually start using
that intellect of yours in a fashion which persuades rather
than pontificates. "Khan Kirsan is in the process of


discrediting the game of chess as a clean and decent sport"

Debate this and we may agree after all it is this point you
feel more passionately about is it not? Even if he were not
a dictator? Or is because he is a dictator?

I
>think the way the Khan runs his country is a good
indication about
>what the ultimate result will be for chess. I believe that
dictators
>are destroyers, not builders.

Another soundbite.

>Mr. Palmers' claim assumes that a dictator is a precisely
neutral
>factor.

Absolute nonsense and unworthy of you Larry. It may be a
factor if you can associate it with your "Khan Kirsan is in


the process of discrediting the game of chess as a clean and
decent sport"

But not before you do.

>I say that dictators are always destroyers.

Another soundbite / one-liner. I've heard this one before.
I am beginning to think I have heard them all before.
Substance please.

> One final point: Mr. Palmer finds the endless
discussions about
>Fischer to be boring. The problem is that much of the
chess world --
>as he himself documents by mentioning numerous sites
devoted to
>Fischermania -- disagrees with him. Bobby still sells.
Mr. Palmer may not
>like this fact, but people such as this writer and GM Larry
Evans, who
>know ever so much more about the events we are discussing
than Mr.Palmer
>himself, find Bobby Fischer to be a subject of endless
fascination.
>So do many others.


Go ahead, as I said above I was perhaps wrong to even
comment.

William Hyde

unread,
Mar 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/3/99
to
In article <#visRHXZ#GA....@nih2naaf.prod2.compuserve.com>,

Larry Parr <75227...@CompuServe.COM> writes:
>
> In a posting of March 2 William Hyde takes me to task for writing,
> "The Soviet were under orders to prevent a match."
>
> Mr. Hyde has a partial point, and we will inevitably learn far
> more in the coming years. Still, he is wrong to imply that there is
> no documentation for my claim. Here is an order signed by Mikhail
> Suslov, arguably the second most powerful man in the Brezhnev era, as
> reprinted by Plisetsky and Voronkov in their book RUSSIANS VS. FISCHER.
>
> "The USSR Sports Committee continues to consider it
> inexpedient in principle for such a match to be held.
> Should Fischer and his associates propose specific
> conditions, we regard it as expedient to drag out the
> talks and, jointly with A. Karpov, work out counter-proposals
> that would create a preferable situation for the World Champion
> and be unacceptable to R. Fischer."
>
>
> Please note: the above secret letter (no. 3403c, dated October 20,
> 1976)

Mr Parr, given the date this document obviously cannot
refer to the 1975 championship, can it? Thus it
is irrelevant to the non-appearance of Fischer in
that year. Thus I think my claim still stands, and
there is no documentation for your claim about the
1975 negotiations. I don't think your attempts to
show that this policy was in place in 1974 are
at all convincing. It might have been, but we have
no evidence for it.

Even so it is rather clear evidence of a dishonest
approach to a Karpov - Fischer "rematch". They should
simply have said "No match, qualify like any other player"
or negotiated honestly. But really, once Fischer handed
them the title on a platter do you really think they would
hand it back to him before they absolutely had to? Fischer,
after all, didn't give Spassky the rematch in 1973 or
74 that he talked about in 1972.

But I am always wary of quotes out of context, and here also
I'd like to see a translation from another source. The meaning of
"such a match" is open to dispute - it may well not mean
*any* Fischer-Karpov match, but we cannot tell without
context. It may simply mean, any Karpov-Fischer match
outside of FIDE, in other words, let Fischer win the
1978 candidates (can anyone doubt that he could have?)
if he wants a match.

Don't get the impression that I think the Soviet system
was a good or honest thing. Soviet history was a bit of a
hobby of mine for a while and I've read a great deal. One
would have to be astoundingly trusting to reject the
possibility of corruption in soviet chess. But to make
specific accusations against real people I require more
than the generally corrupt nature of the soviet system.

There is nothing to be gained by taking an already evil
system and making false accusations against it. If a
third party detects the false accusations, he or she may
then tend to doubt the accusations which are true.

You have posted a perfect example of this in the thread
in which Alburt claimed that "Karpov knew he could not
even draw a game against Fischer". This claim is so
ludicrous that as far as I am concerned Alburt's
credibility in this area is zero. As a former
Soviet, no doubt he knows a great deal that I would like
to find out, but how can I trust him now?

> Later in his first posting of March 2, Mr. Hyde states that the
> tournament system was changed to a match system to suit Bobby Fischer.
> That strikes me as a strangely skewed observation.

Not at all. Without Fischer's article it would never have happened.
AFAIK no other western player was demanding a change of format.
Reshevsky did not do so after 1953.

>
> MR. HYDE'S SECOND POSTING
>

I do not care to get into the Parr/Bilbud/Johnson
mud slinging match. I have had worthwhile discussions
with all three of you and hope to keep things that
way. I did once write a rather sharply critical email to
Mr Bilbud and received a gracious response. I don't
accept your characterization of him, or his of you.
Fair enough?

> For the moment I have a few questions for Mr. Hyde: 1. Do you
> believe that the run of play in previous FIDE matches had been deeply
> affected by the draw-odds advantage to the champion in a format with a
> limited number of games?

Historically, in the 1951-1972 era there were only
three successful title defenses as against seven
successful challenges. The sample size may be too
small for the champion's 57-43 edge to show up,
but I think the infamous rematch clause has somewhat
biased the statistics (see below).

Two of Botvinnik's matches were drawn. Some maintain that
he never tried as hard s he could in the first match, knowing
that there was always a second, and using the first match to
discover his opponent's weaknesses while not revealing all of his
strengths. "Deeply affected?" Probably not.

2. Do you argue that in a 24-game match, the
> FIDE status quo, that the mathematics indicate a smaller advantage for
> the champion than under Fischer's format of an UNLIMITED NUMBER of games
> until the challenger achieves 10 wins?;

Yes, and Kalme agrees, if the players are likely to draw
less than 60-70% of the time. The length that matters is
the number of decisive games. A hundred game Fischer match
is no more fair than a fifty game one, if played to the
same number of wins. But FIDE style matches get fairer with
length (so that Kasparov-Anand was the least fair match
in decades).

3. Under Fischer's proposal is
> it possible, as Greg Kennedy claims in a posting of March 2, that we
> could have "a match with Karpov *losing* a point ahead of Fischer" (I
> find his statement to be weakminded because if the challenger achieves
> nine wins, he cannot "lose" the match unless the champion achieves nine
> wins. What say you about Mr. Kennedy's claim?);

I think he is talking about a 10-9 score for the
challenger.

For this we may need a word other than win/lose. With a
10-9 score the challenger "wins" the match, and takes home
the bulk of the prize money, but doesn't get the title.
Given that the title is the real prize, I'd say that
Mr Kennedy's choice of words, while not strictly accurate,
does reflect the essential injustice of the clause.

4. If we accept your
> premise that challenger and champion are fairly evenly matched, then did
> the rematch clause provide Karpov with approximately a 75% chance of
> retaining the title over a three-year cycle?;

I said this long ago in a reply to you.

5. If we accept the
> idea that the FIDE delegates knew of this advantage, then can we safely
> dispense with the idea that many of those opposing Fischer's much lesser
> demands did so out of any sense of outraged sportsmanship?

The rematch clause has deep roots in history. Unfair
as it is, the new champion was for a long time expected
to give the old champion another chance, as in Lasker-
Steinitz and Alekhine-Euwe. This feeling made the clause
easier to impose in 1950 and 197?, despite its manifest
unfairness. Remember how Alekhine was condemned for
not giving Capa a rematch.

I agree that some of those opposing Fischer's demands
in 1974 were taking advantage of the unfairness of his
demands to gain a benefit they could never have rationally
expected. But they were right to oppose him, anyway.
Had he moderated his demands I don't think they had the
political clout to prevent the match.



> However, I believe
> that the factor of draw odds unnaturally affected play in the earlier
> matches (especially the 1966 affair) suggesting that given the human
> factor, Fischer's proposal to count only wins constituted a de facto
> improvement on the status quo. What think you, Mr. Hyde?

"First to win `n' games" was the standard match format
for a long time. Most of Steinitz' WC matches were for
the first ten wins, Lasker's the first eight (obviously
not the Schlecter match) and Alekhine-Capa the first
six. The decreasing number reflects the greater number of
draws in modern play, I suppose. Given Karpov-Kasparov
I, I think we can say that even this format "unnaturally"
affects play, and also that such matches are now quite
impractical. A pity, in my opinion.

Given the overwhelming success of the challengers
in 1951-72 I don't think that particular system was
broken, and hence did not need fixing. With cold war
politics taken out it could work quite well. If an
improvement is desired an extension to 30 games would
reduce the champion's edge somewhat. That was the length
of the two Alekhine-Euwe matches.

William Hyde

unread,
Mar 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/3/99
to
In article <19990302205638...@ng64.aol.com>,

chess...@aol.com (Chessphoto) writes:
> Dear Eric,
>
>>Hmmm...maybe after all this...folks can feel safe now to shout "FIDE all the
>>way!" without fear of rebuke.
>>
>
> Forgive me (and this is addressed to many others who frequent rgc.misc) if I
> move off the point, BUT, as long as we have people like the two Liarries --
> whose whole lives reflect the anti-human postion of Lombardi that "Winning
> isn't everything, it's the only thing -- we'll NEVER be able to shout "FIDE all
> the way!" without "fear" of their I-am-the-only-one-alive rebukes.
>
> Dr. Hyde's exposition will appeal to humans, not to the great god "editor"
> Liarry.
>
I thank you for your compliments, gentlemen, but hasten to
add that I was only addressing the narrow question of
which match format was more fair. I admit I did intend
to refute one accusation made against FIDE, but that was
not intended to be a blanket endorsement of the organization.

I don't hate FIDE, nor am I at all happy with its current
state. For all its flaws, and even dealing with cold
war pressures, I think FIDE has done a great deal of good
as well as harm to chess - and I think the same of Kasparov,
though in recent years I think his actions have been far more
destructive than constructive, as I said in recent posts.

I am also aware that a huge amount of unpaid or underpaid
organizational work has been contributed through FIDE
to chess over the decades. Having done a little of that
myself on a local level, I know how much we owe to those
who did that work. Nothing I say should be taken as a
slur on them.

I've stayed away from the "reform/destroy FIDE" threads
because I have not the slightest idea how to handle the
mess we are in. I wish I did.

I also note that Mr Parr's preliminary response to
my argument is to cease for now making this particular
accusation. I'd call that reasonable, wouldn't you?

A final note: email does not always get through to me,
(e.g. mail sent to me by Mr Parr and others on this group)
so if I have failed to answer any you have sent me in
the past, please do not attribute it to indifference
on my part. I almost always answer my mail, as it is
so much easier than working.

William Hyde
Dept of Oceanography
Texas A&M University

hy...@rossby.tamu.edu

Phil Innes

unread,
Mar 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/3/99
to
As for Anatoly Karpov stating in April 1975 that he could not play
a match with Fischer because "the right of an ex-world-champion to a
return match has long been abolished" and his later working to procure a

rematch for himself -- well, I trust Mr. Hyde has the same opinion as
I do about such sporting ethics.

As indeed does Karpov, writing about his own attitudes in
1991.

Similarly, he wrote about the Fischer negotiations in a very
forthright way - not sparing the blushes of any Sovier
appartchiks - and less sparingly than even Mr. Parr or Mr.
Evans!

"these clerks, wanting power, as much as a GM."

This is the sort of crook I could vote for.
Phil Innes.

or even a man who does not correct his own honorific
(these days, how pleasant)
I rarely use my own titles myself


anti...@spam.demon.co.uk

unread,
Mar 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/3/99
to rec.games.chess.misc
In article <7bgsj6$o22$1...@nclient5-gui.server.virgin.net>, Gilbert
Palmer wrote:

> before 1987 - that's amazing isn't it? Chess is in safe
> hands with the likes of Carl.

I wouldn't say that - you haven't been to one of my coaching sessions
<vbg>

Larry Parr

unread,
Mar 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/4/99
to
BACK TO THE KHAN

"I like dictatorship -- like the one I created in Kalmykia.
Nobody is interested in politics. There is no elected parliament,
since it voluntarily dissolved itself. I bought the deputies;
there are no more parties; there is not even a constitution, as
it was abolished when we declared our sovereignty." -- FIDE
President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov (from an interview in Inside Chess)


"There is only one person here who can make policy: the president.
The rest of the men need to work; the women need to have babies

and the children need to play chess and to be friends." -- FIDE
President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov (from an interview in Inside Chess)

One advantage of quoting Kirsan Ilyumzhinov's own words about the
regime he runs in Kalmykia is that it permits FIDE's defenders on this
forum to snip said words when making replies to this writer. On at
least six occasions, Rolf Tueschen decided that he could not permit
these to survive in his responses. Others are not far behind in this
exercise of argumentum ad snip-em.

Every kind of device has been used to prevent discussion of the key
question: do we chess people know enough about how Khan Kirsan runs
Kalmykia to make a POLITICAL decision to seek his removal as FIDE president?

The main defense of the Khan has been a barrage of toilet language
accompanied by puerile name-calling from Rolf Tueschen and others.
Among the subjects raised by Mr. Tueschen has been the possibility of
having multiple orgasms with children, the number of adulterous liaisons
this writer has had, the number of times this writer has slapped his
late grandmother, the burning issue of public farting in buildings and
so on. Phil Innes defends this kind of thing as either irony and wit
or, most recently, an understandable reaction to my advocacy. Mr.
Tueschen lowers the bar, and Mr. Innes obediently jumps over.

Concerning the Khan himself, Mr. Tueschen admitted on one occasion
that it was psychologically difficult to reprint the Khan's own words,
and on another occasion he accused this writer or GM Yasser Seirawan of
doctoring an interview conducted by a third party, Leontxo Garcia of
Spain. In a later friendly interview with Garcia, the Khan confirmed
his opposition to multi-party democracy and his intention to reduce
policy to the human pinpoint of himself.

At which point, the name-calling and toilet rhetoric from Mr.
Tueschen increased dramatically. He started attacking GM Seirawan.

WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE KHAN

What, then, do we know about the Khan in his own words?

We know that he "likes dictatorship." We know he likes the one
he "created in Kalmykia." We know Kalmykia has "no elected parliament"
because -- get this -- "it voluntarily dissolved itself." We know he
"bought the deputies." We know "there are no more parties." We know

"there is not even a constitution." We know "there is only one person
here who can make policy: the president."

Mr. Tueschen has entered explicit defenses of the Khan running a
one-party state and of being the human pinpoint around which all
policy must revolve. Mr. Tueschen has described the Khan as a man
trying to bring his country into "modernity." In a recent posting Phil
Innes simply denied anyone on this forum had been defending the Khan!

One striking fact is that the Khan's description of his
dictatorship tallies remarkably well with the picture painted by his
critics. That's because he is a frank advocate of dictatorship.

In an appeal to the chess players of the world, which appeared
shortly before the Elista Olympiad, leading members of the Russian human
rights community spoke out about the Khan's repression in Kalmykia. If
Mr. Tueschen adduced Chess City as an example of the Khan attempting to
modernize Kalmykia -- a hideously callous and moronic claim -- then
such noted human rights leaders as Larisa Bogoraz and Sergei Kovalev,
veterans of the slave labor camps, think differently:

"Chess City where you will stay and play has been constructed on
money obtained by violations of all conceivable state and human
laws. We have reasons to believe that the construction project
has been carried out on money withdrawn from different state
credits provided for Kalmykia's industrial and agricultural
development. Money was given for this construction by the Kalmyk
women and children who were robbed twice -- they allegedly
voluntarily rejected their state child allowances for this purpose.
You will eat and drink on money received by a 'racket' President
Ilyumzhinov's private fund which is funded by an unlawful tribute
by all the companies being registered in Kalmykia's offshore zone."

There will be those on this forum who will swallow the FIDE line
that destitute parents in fourth-world Kalmykia voluntarily surrendered
state payments meant to purchase food and clothing for their children.
Back in the 1930s the Stalinists in the United States used to argue
that Russians voluntarily contributed to the forced state loans exacted
from their savings.

Here is more from Alexei Simonov of the Glasnost Defense Foundaton
and Ludmila Alekseeva of the well-known Moscow Helsinki Group:

"While looking through Chess City's windows at the adjacent Amber
Pond you should know that several months ago a mutilated woman's
body was found in this very pond -- the body of the only Kalmyk
opposition newspaper's editor-in-chief [Mr. Tueschen referred to
her as "some journalist" and an "alleged critic]. She regularly
published materials revealing the ways in which this unjust money
was obtained. Probably during the Chess Olympic Games her murderers
will be put on trial [an incorrect prediction]. The court would
hardly manage to find out the person who had hired the murderers
because he has so many protectors among high ranking Russian officials."

One ought to note that among members of the Russian human rights

community there is little moral doubt that Khan Kirsan had Larisa Yudina
murdered. Still, readers will be happy to know that these democrats
would also require to see courtoom-level proof before convicting him.

Once again, the issue is not about whether a murder charge can be
pinned on the Khan in court, which requires all of the rules of evidence
and safeguards of a jury trial that we expect under Anglo-Saxon justice.
(Of course, Kalmykia does not have the jury system.) The issue is
whether we chess people know enough about how the Khan runs Kalmykia
to make a POLITICAL decision to seek his removal as president of FIDE.

Has the Khan brought prosperity to Kalmykia? Members of the
international press corps are unanimous on this subject. He has brought
misery and still more poverty. Members of the Russian human rights
community agree. Write Oleg Panfilov and Maria Simonova of the Glasnost
Defense Foundation, "The people will be told that your [the players]
arrival is a great Kalmykia breakthrough towards international loans,
investments, world wide active business partnership. But Kalmykia has
nothing for sale, even its famous wool manufacturing has been almost
destroyed by now."

Dictators are destroyers, not builders. What the Khan is doing to
Kalmykia, he will eventually do to chess. It is a cockeyed understanding
of our best interests to hitch our chess star to the authoritarian chariot
the Khan is driving. At any moment he could be overthrown. Unrest is
common in the streets of Elista, and the Khans goons patrol the
streets constantly. It is not a stable country.

THE ISSUE OF REFORM

In recent postings both Phil Innes and Gilbert Palmer have used the
spectres of revolution and anarchy to argue against energetic reform of
FIDE. Mr. Innes has compared FIDE's regime with a government, while Mr.
Palmer believes one is courting anarchy when suggesting possible withdrawal
from FIDE if reform efforts fail.

First, FIDE is not a government -- though its pompous officials speak
in governmentese and have invested it with such trappings of government as
an anthem and, in the case of Elista, a police force. FIDE is a social
organization, and no one is leading a rebellion or a coup by attempting to
reform it radically. Moreover, since FIDE is not a government, one is
not an anarchist for holding out the possibility of forming a new
organization if FIDE proves opaque to the vision of reform.

In normal life different groups of people will attempt to create
and run organizations according to their various visions. My personal
goal for FIDE is to produce an organization that is run under a strict
rule of law in which there is no place for phony titles, rigged ratings,
outright bribery and so on. There is nothing anarchic about stating
that one favors founding a new organization if FIDE cannot be reformed.
Such a course is a normal social option among free men.

Over the last 15 years there has been a skein of outrages. The
FIDE title has been deeply devalued, and the world at large regards
Garry Kasparov as the world champion. Even Jan Timman, who contested

for the FIDE title against Karpov in 1993, stated that he would in no
way think of himself as world champion if he should defeat Karpov. The
grandamsters of the world are, in general, a more honorable bunch than
the bureaucrats in FIDE and their supporters on this forum.


--
Larry Parr

Gilbert Palmer

unread,
Mar 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/4/99
to
BACK TO THE SOUNDBITES AND IRRELEVANCIES

"Khan Kirsan is in the process of
discrediting the game of chess as a

clean and decent sport." - Larry Parr.

I say he is wrong.

I've asked him to debate.

Larry Parr will not debate.

He asks in his most recent posting the
following irrelevancy:

"Every kind of device has been used to
prevent discussion of the key
question: do we chess people know
enough about how Khan Kirsan runs
Kalmykia to make a POLITICAL decision to
seek his removal as FIDE president?"

The answer is no Larry. Absolutely not.

This is NOT the key question. This
question is irrelevant to the good of
chess world-wide.

I am concerned about chess, not about
professional chess, master chess or
necessarily even competent chess, I
cannot say the same for Larry Parr. He
gives the impression that he does not
care for anything but master chess and
above all Western and US master chess.

As far as I am concerned the jury is
still out on Ilyuzhiminov's leadership
of FIDE when it comes to the central
question of the good of the game the
world over. It is completely irrelevant
to me what he gets up to wearing another hat
in his backyard if it has no bearing on the good of the
world wide game.

I hope you may appreciate my chosen
standpoint is in no way meant to reflect
any judgement on any views
others may have on Ilyuzhiminov's
political career or methods.

Larry Parr wants to unsurp the present
FIDE President Ilyuzhiminov from his job and
if he does not succeed in this Larry Parr has
come up with the ludicrous notion that
the United States Chess Federation should,
break away and form a New World Chess
Association.


The United States is a chess-faring
nation. But let's put this in
perspective. It is only one of
hundreds.

Chess is not American property. Thankfully most Americans
realise this.

But Larry Parr's propaganda is anti-chess.

Although he may not realise it.

He won't debate.

Ignore his propaganda until he does and
we find out what (if anything) of
relevance he has to say on the matter.

Gilbert Palmer
A chess fan.


Greg Kennedy

unread,
Mar 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/5/99
to
> Later in his first posting of March 2, Mr. Hyde states that the
>tournament system was changed to a match system to suit Bobby Fischer.
>That strikes me as a strangely skewed observation. I would rather say
>that a match system suited the interests of chess after the disaster at
>Curacao in 1962 did so much to undermine the legitimacy of the FIDE title.
>The Soviets openly colluded against Fischer by playing non-games among
>themselves in the expectation that Fischer was not yet so superior that
>he could sweep them from the board


This striles me as a strangely skewed assessment.


Whining and Collusion
---------------------------------------------------
It is important to note that Kortchnoi also whined about
the collusion, stating that HE, not Fischer, was the
hapless victim. The colluders themselves denied any
wrongdoing, claiming it was expedient to conserve
energy by drawing one another thusly, while thumping
the tail-enders like Fischer and Kortchnoi.

It has become accepted practice here in the USA
for grandmasters (and other "equals") to follow suit,
violating the letter of the law by agreeing to draws
before a real contest has begun, whenever it suits
their purpose. In this case the victims are helpless,
since their oppressors are the illustrious
"grandmasters", whose influence protects them
from such criticisms as Fischer's and Kortchnoi's,
coming from mere "peons".

Considering that both self proclaimed victims'
stories conflicted with each other, and lacking
any confession by the colluders to wrongdoing,
and in the absence of other proof, this comes
across as merely another case of sour grapes.
The losers whined that they personally were
wronged, but Fischer actually accused the
other victim of colluding against him by
throwing games! Paranoia spreads rapidly
when you throw objectivity to the wind. The
fact remains that the leaders, by drawing one
another, allowed the possibility that a tailender
could have caught up and passed them, _if_
he were good enough. These two whiners
weren't at that time.


> The advocacy of the Messrs. Johnson and Bibuld on behalf of Mr.
>Hyde's posting is unfortunate, for the man makes an excellent case that
>we must take a second look at what Charles Kalme wrote back in 1975. I
>know that I shall do so as soon as I can get a copy of the long article.

Larry, I can scan and email you a copy of this article, but
I doubt the quality would be very good- it was 13 densely
packed pages, with very little white space.

> 3. Under Fischer's proposal is
>it possible, as Greg Kennedy claims in a posting of March 2, that we
>could have "a match with Karpov *losing* a point ahead of Fischer" (I
>find his statement to be weakminded

This is because you failed to understand it. Taken at
face value, I asked can you IMAGINE a match where
Karpov LOSES the title while BEATING Fischer by
one game? Answer this and you have at least _tried_
to comprehend what I said.

The actual match conditions allowed for two seperate
battles: one for the title and another for the prize fund.
They also allowed for the match to continue or be
stopped based on the precise score and which player
was in the lead. But this is beside the point. The prize
fund is completely irrelevant to my point above, as are
the minute details. The real point, is the inconsistency
of Bobby's "principles" as stated with his request for
odds, and the fact that Karpov or Capablanca would
not "win" the title by a superior score, but ONLY if
they also overcame the additional odds. Got it now?


The Fine Art of Fudging, by Larry Parr
-----------------------------------------------------

> In the meantime I shall take Mr. Hyde's advice and cease to claim
>that Fischer's conditions were mathematically more favorable to the
>challenger than the FIDE format from 1966 to 1972. However, I believe
>that the factor of draw odds unnaturally affected play in the earlier
>matches (especially the 1966 affair) suggesting that given the human
>factor, Fischer's proposal to count only wins constituted a de facto


Kalme already accounted for this in his calculations.
Trouble was, he biased his sample by arbitrarily
throwing out the Fischer/Spassky match, while
inexplicably including the candidates final match
between Karpov and Kortchnoi. The obvious
intent was to up the average draw percentage to
"help prove" his case. Were it not for his "PhD"
in math, this flawed work would have been taken
far less seriously.

> Once again, Mr. Palmer: I don't know you from Adam. Your person
>is a cipher to me. I address what you write -- not what you are. Unlike
>such gents as Rolf Tueschen, Greg Kennedy, Steve Doyle, Shaun "1. F-ck
>2. You" Graham, Jerry Bibuld and the like, I do not offer demented
>misspellings of the names of other people, and I do not talk about sex
>with children, multiple orgasms, slapping grandmothers, adulterous
>relationships and such like. That is, largely, for the FIDE crowd.

Clueless. (check my spelling)

Rolf and I have absolutely nothing to do with FIDE.
Get a grip, Larry.


big snip


> Is such a proposal anarchy? Far from it. The anarchist would be
>opposed in principle to making any initial effort at reform because he
>would oppose the organization as a matter of political conviction. In
>social organizations throughout the world, people attempt to make
>changes, and if the chain of abuses stretch back far enough, they start
>new organizations.
>
> The process is called reform and change within or without given
>organizations. It has nothing to do with anarchy. It has to do with
>making a prudent decision to chart a new course if it is impossible to
>alter the current course. The world of chess would not suffer if a new
>world federation were formed that adhered to a rule of law. Quite the
>contrary.


Fair enough. But it does seem that your endless attacks
on FIDE make the assumption that it is a waste of time
to reform, rather than destroy or succeed from it. Would
replacing the top man really be sufficient? Many of the
evils you battle were decisions by the FIDE congress or
assemby. What about them? Can all these people
representing countries from around the globe be
"reformed"? If so, how?


> One final point: Mr. Palmer finds the endless discussions about
>Fischer to be boring. The problem is that much of the chess world --
>as he himself documents by mentioning numerous sites devoted to
>Fischermania -- disagrees with him. Bobby still sells. Mr. Palmer may not
>like this fact, but people such as this writer and GM Larry Evans, who
>know ever so much more about the events we are discussing than Mr.Palmer
>himself, find Bobby Fischer to be a subject of endless fascination.
>So do many others.


One should note that even if we TRIED to forget
Fischer, Larry Evans would single-handedly keep
him alive in his "Chess Life" column, by continuing
to publish letters from fans and responding to them.
For us at least, there is no escape. :-(

- Greg Kennedy

Larry Parr

unread,
Mar 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/5/99
to
INNES, PALMER, HYDE

In a posting of March 4 Phil Innes wrote, "Come on Larry -- let
us make up our own minds if Mr. [Greg] Kennedy reminds us of Stalin."

Typical.

Here is what I wrote: "Mr. Kennedy is in the process of trying to
airbrush the image of his personal intellectual history just as the
Stalinists airbrushed inconvenient political figures from numerous
historical photographs."

Once again Mr. Innes has personalized a point I was making about
Mr. Kennedy's advocacy which on the specific issue involved bore a
distinct resemblance -- though a fifth-rate one -- to Stalinist methods.

In a posting of February 7 Mr. Kennedy stated that there had been
a "vast" and "obvious" conspiracy "in the press" designed to "brainwash"
nearly everyone in the United States. He listed GM Larry Evans as one
of the victims.

Then on February 9 when pressed by this writer to substantiate
his preposterous charge of a "vast conspiracy," he listed both GMs
Evans and Yasser Seirawan as two of the conspirators! Never mind that
GM Seirawan was only 15 years old at the time that the posited great
brainwashing occurred; never mind that he did not begin to write on
international issues beyond tournament reports until well into the 1980s.

I mean to say, since Mr. Innes has addressed the Kennedy issue,
cant he suggest to Mr. Kennedy that he scribble a smear that is at
least internally consistent?

Now, back to Mr. Kennedy's methods. The man snipped all mention of
the controversy swirling around his vast and obvious nonsense -- tried to
pretend it did not exist. I call it argumentum ad snip-em. Others via
e-mail privately called it "intellectual dishonesty."

Mr. Innes wishes that I would employ historical parallels other
than so many Soviet ones. Sorry, Mr. Innes, Soviet communism is the
subject about which I have written the most. It is completely natural
for a writer to employ historical analogies that he knows are sound. As
for your suggestion of mentioning Senator McCarthy, I did drag him in
when comparing Mr. Kennedy's rhetorically pallid "vast conspiracy" with
the Senator's more florid and Latinate "a conspiracy so vast." Still, I
am also capable of not confusing McCarthy on the most discreditable day
of his life with, say, Karpov's former delegation head, Viktor Baturinsky,
one of Stalin's executioners, on the most creditable day of his life.
Finally, Marxist-Leninism constituted the greatest challenge to liberal
democracy and its fundamental ideas in this century. Marxism-Leninism
represents the touchstone of 20th century historical comparisons.

Mr. Innes brings in the U.S. Olympic Committee as a way of saying
that were the United States to form a new world chess organization how
would it guarantee the end of corruption? Of course, corruption exists
everywhere. The issue is one of extent. You either believe the West

can do a better job than the crooks and thugs who administered FIDE
since Fridrik Olafsson left office -- or you don't. You either believe
an organization located in, say, New York would perform more creditably
when exposed to easy press scrutiny -- or you don't. The horrors and
whores of the U.S. Olympic Committee can be placed against a backdrop
of literally thousands of sporting programs in the United States that
are run honestly. In the case of Kalmykia's Kirsan Ilyumzhinov
has noted that all policy emanates from a single human pinpoint. Himself.

Mr. Innes is evidently touched by Karpov's self-serving apologia
written years after he seized the title by forfeit from Fischer. I've
talked with numerous Russian emigres, and I've not run across one
who expressed anything but scorn for Karpov as a person and as a
sportsman -- as distinct from his being a truly great chess player.
KARPOV ON KARPOV was written to put behind him his days as a toady for
the Soviet state and as a recipient of the Order of Lenin -- an award
roughly comparable to the medals worn by Reinhard Heydrich.

Karpov's conduct toward Boris Gulko, when he was held against his
will in the Soviet Union, and several other less powerful persons was
despicable. Karpov has never made a true amende honorable.

PALMER

Gilbert Palmer says that I won't debate him. Mr. Palmer, to
paraphrase Alfred Doolittle, I am willin' to debate you, I am wantin' to
debate you, I am waitin' to debate you. But first, I need to know about
what you wish to debate.

Please, Mr. Palmer, let's try to work out this thing together. You
wrote: "I am concerned about chess, not about professional chess,


master chess or necessarily even competent chess, I cannot say the same

for Larry Parr." You would profit from rereading what you write. You
tell us in one breath that you are "concerned about chess" and then tell
us that you are not necessarily concerned about professional chess,
master chess or even that chess which is not necessarily competent. But
Mr. Palmer: you have just divided chess into its various constituent
parts: professional, the master, the not necessarily competent -- and
told us that you are not concerned about them! Yet you are "concerned
about chess."

Since this makes no sense, I don't know how to debate it.

Mr. Palmer says my area of concern is Western master chess and
U.S. master chess. He's almost right. I am concerned about what Garry
Kasparov has called "the real chess world." True enough.

Writes Mr. Palmer, "It is completely irrelevant to me what he
[Kirsan Ilyumzhinov] gets up to wearing another hat in his backyard if


it has no bearing on the good of the world wide game."

In response, my point is that the world wide game cannot possibly
benefit from having a power hungry oppressor running FIDE. If you
believe that dictators are creators, then you will buy Mr. Palmer's
argument. If you believe they eventually destroy what they touch,

then you must support my call to replace Khan Kirsan with a suitable
leader. We have already seen his attempt to copyright chess games with
most of the royalties going to FIDE. A great way to popularize chess!
We have already seen what happened to his announced world championship
in Las Vegas last December. We have already seen him break a pledge
that Karpov would hold the title two years. Another great way to
popularize chess!

I would also note that Mr. Palmer has written very carelessly. He
tells us that no matter what the Khan may do -- no matter how brutal and
murderous -- he would remain unmoved unless these activities touch the
world of chess. His position is completely untenable as even Rolf
Tueschen eventually recognized.

HYDE

In his posting of March 4 William Hyde pokes me for making an
historical analogy of the kind that starts flame wars. Sorry, Mr. Hyde,
if I make an argument and my opposite decides to call me names, use
vicious sexual imagery and so on, then he is merely demonstrating an
inability to respond to my analogy.

The point at issue is the likelihood that the Soviets had a policy
in place in 1975 to avoid a match with Fischer, if at all possible. We
know that such a policy existed in 1976. Mr. Hyde argued that in the
absence of a document stating how far back the policy went, he could not
make an assumption. I responded that by this standard, one could not
aver that Stalin had Kirov killed. The idea that Suslov was a guy
willing to play fair in 1975 though not in 1976 is fantastic.

Mr. Hyde has made the point that the Soviets could not have avoided
a 24-game old-style FIDE match with Fischer. For sure. I agree. So
what? This discussion was about the existential choices that existed in
1975. Fischer had his stubborn and unfair demands, and the Soviets
used every trick of leverage to overturn any possible agreement. They
were prepared to do so in 1976; there is no reason at all to imagine
that this attitude did not obtain in 1975. Whether they would have
succeeded in 1975 is beside the point.

Mr. Hyde says that for GM Alburt to say that Karpov "knew" he could
hardly draw a game against Fischer, the former Soviet grandmaster was
implying that he had some knowledge. That's true. Most of the emigres
over here state it was common knowledge that Karpov expected the worst
in 1975. GM Alburt was not talking about the final score of the
match; he was talking about what Karpov expected or feared to be the
final score. Fear breeds both true and false certainty.

However, Mr. Hyde misquoted GM Lev Alburt, who said that Karpov
could hardly hope to draw a game, not that he could never win one.

Mr. Hyde concedes that contrary to his claim there was no rematch
clause prior to 1950 and that, in truth, a rematch clause does not go
far back in history. He now argues: "But in the opinion of the public
the new champion was more or less required to give the old champion a
rematch, if he wanted one."


I flatly disagree with that reading of chess history. I have read
through the magazines of much of that period: BCM, ACB, Chess Review,
Chess World, Chess and the old chess columns of Hermann Helms, Herman
Steiner and others. I can recall no clamor for a rematch after Euwe
defeated Alekhine. True, that could be because Euwe was a gentlemen,
and a rematch was assumed. But I also fail to remember any clamor for a
Capa-Lasker rematch even though Lasker made some noises about such a
possibility after winning New York 1924. The only real clamor -- and it
was not all that great among the general public -- was for a Capa-Alekhine
rematch. But the result of that clamor -- no rematch -- preciselt
undermines Mr. Hyde's point.

Writes Mr. Hyde about FIDE apologist Jerry Bibuld's neologism,
the two Liarries: "You should probably wish him to continue the
comment as it can hardly be doing his cause any good." With all due
respect, Mr. Hyde, your sentiment strikes me as unworthy of honest
advocacy. Of course I do not want Mr. Bibuld to lower the standard of
public debate by employing such a phrase. The issue is not about
Machiavellian calculations of adversarial forensic advantage; the
issue is about raising the standard of our chess conversation; the issue
is about recognizing the vital distinction between arguing against a
person and arguing against his desiderata. I do not wish to prevail
simply because Mr. Bibuld brays "Liarry, Liarry, Liarry" like a senile
donkey; I wish to prevail because my point is sound. If it is not I
readily retract, as I have done in the past.

Mr. Hyde notes that nothing done on this forum can match what he
has read on another forum, which is his way of putting in perspective
the bemerding sexual imagery directed against this writer. I'm sure
that he is correct. Though, once again, I believe he is confusing
neutrality with objectivity when writing: "But to trade insult for
insult is not the best way to fight." I cannot recall ever referring to
the smells of any person's private parts, as former USCF president E.
Steven Doyle did in referring to my "body oders," and so on. I do not
believe I have traded insult for insult.

As it happens, Mr. Hyde, I have worked for several years as a
journalist in SE Asia. I hope you realize that, like yourself, I
have seen much worse than the tepid insults that appear on this forum.


--
Larry Parr

Rolf Tueschen

unread,
Mar 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/5/99
to
Larry Parr <75227...@CompuServe.COM> wrote in
<ur#XZULZ#GA....@nih2naab.prod2.compuserve.com>:

> PHIL INNES RETURNS


> On the issue of name-calling, Mr. Innes continues his stony silence
>about the prurient sexual imagery of Rolf Tueschen, though before Mr.
>Tueschen started blathering about sex with children and multiple orgasms
>and at the time that the man was asking questions about adultery and all
>of the rest of the filth, he was excusing this bemerding exercise as an
>example of the gent's irony, wit or sarcasm.

In case we have some new members, let me just put this straight. Mr.
Larry Parr put the FIDE President and at the same time President of the
Republique of Kalmykia next to MURDER!! Read all the former posts.

What I did was exactly this. In several steps I tried to persuade our
Larry that we shouldn't go that low in political affaires. Where at the
moment nothing is proven yet. Comes Larry and tells me that he in fact
did NEVER even think of it to put Ilyumzhinov next to murder, but, Larry
repeated a thousand times, if so and so did happen, and it happened,
THEN you, the reader, could make your own decisions. He, Master Larry
would know what all this should mean. And therefore first of all we all
(sic) should try to get rid of such a FIDE president ... and on and on.

Well, at that moment, I had the idea. I spoke to myself watching the
clouds go by: Could it be that Larry as a Cold Warrior is absolutely
incapable of realizing what he's doeing with his propaganda? Like the
ugly House Managers against Clinton? Who made an elephant out of a
mouse. Or a political affaire out of a private sex adventure?

As an expert I thought, let's see brothers how Larry will react if _I_
for one start to talk about absolutely junk data, completely invented
and faked? Would Larry see the mess he's wading through?

And I gave a little injection of - say - Larry's chin structure, his
dubious male performances and the like. Would Larry forbid me to talk
such nonsense.


N O !!!


What Larry did was a real Larry, so to speak. He took all that as a
serious allegation. So, as if in his understanding people basically were
allowed to talk about such nonsense. Only, in his case, -unfortunately-,
all that was wrong. Larry's chin was not a double chin, was not
operated, was not operated in Brazil (hehehe), Larry was still a strong
male, and his whole family could give their affidavits. You know what I
mean?

In short.

Larry is completely uncapable to understand why after the Cold War has
gone since long such allegations like his defamations, are no longer
accepted and enjoyed. He's simply the typical robot who can't stop on
his own. He must repeat the old shit over and over again.

And dear friends, Larry makes use of the ugliest propaganda tricks in
history. E.g. he twists and cheats my naive English altogether so that
the meaning shines through that he wants to shine through, but what I
have never intended to say.

Even the seemingly exact quotes of Larry (some say therefore Liar Larry)
are cheated. He simply cut them out of context. This way, that the
meaning is completely confused or the opposite is suddenly standing
there.

I rest my case for this time. But I want to add that I'm still sad that
such a wonderful writer suddenly goes over the edge in this
international forum. A writer who was co-author of the brilliant Arnold
Denker study about many American chessplayers. A book I can only
recommand to read because of its deep humanity and compassion for the
strangest happenings in human life.

But here, in contrast, Larry seems to have forgotten all that about
humanity and for the sake of a cheap point he defames people of the
chess community. Thus assuring that he himself could never become a
President in USCF or FIDE or Kalmykia (sic). LOL.

Disclaimer. If someone should insinuate that I am able to understand or
use irony and sarcasm, or maybe cynism, I must give correction. I might
be able to understand a lot, but not the mentioned things. And if
someone of you in this forum dod ever see a single hint for me having
humour or such deviances, I should pay him a life-long rent of 1zillion
dollars ... (err, Kalmykian or US dollars ...)


Phil Innes

unread,
Mar 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/5/99
to
I mean to say, since Mr. Innes has addressed the Kennedy issue,
cant he suggest to Mr. Kennedy that he scribble a smear that is at
least internally consistent?

This is entirely unnecessary Larry, since you have done so for
me.

I have been talking with Mr. Kennedy, however. We have been
talking about how the world championship could be. He seems
like a sober fellow. Sensible on this subject. It does not
matter if we like each other particularly, we are not admiring
each other's writing - but proposing an idea that we can both
critique.

I enjoyed our conversation - pity we could not have it in the
open forum - but you see what some people would have us do
instead.

Phil.


William Hyde

unread,
Mar 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/6/99
to
In article <eH$nudxZ#GA....@nih2naad.prod2.compuserve.com>,
Larry Parr <75227...@CompuServe.COM> writes:

[much snipped - nothing new to say]

> Mr. Hyde concedes that contrary to his claim there was no rematch
> clause prior to 1950 and that, in truth, a rematch clause does not go
> far back in history.

I made no such claim. I stated that;

"The rematch clause has deep roots in history.",
and those roots were a tradition I cited.

No doubt I should have been clearer, but I never
imagined you would think I was claiming (e.g.) that
Steinitz had a rematch clause in his Lasker contract.

> I flatly disagree with that reading of chess history. I have read
> through the magazines of much of that period: BCM, ACB, Chess Review,
> Chess World, Chess and the old chess columns of Hermann Helms, Herman
> Steiner and others. I can recall no clamor for a rematch after Euwe
> defeated Alekhine. True, that could be because Euwe was a gentlemen,
> and a rematch was assumed.

But why would it be assumed? Why would people assume
that an Alekhine match was a given, rather than a
Capa match? Could it be because a defeated ex-champion
has some claim, tenuous perhaps, to be first in line?

But I also fail to remember any clamor for a
> Capa-Lasker rematch

Lasker had tried to resign the title before the match,
had resigned the match before its end, and fell very ill
after the match. Not the standard situation after a
champion loses the title. Everybody knew that Lasker
had no desire for a second match. Some doubted that
he would ever play chess again.

even though Lasker made some noises about such a
> possibility after winning New York 1924. The only real clamor -- and it
> was not all that great among the general public -- was for a Capa-Alekhine
> rematch. But the result of that clamor -- no rematch -- preciselt
> undermines Mr. Hyde's point.

No, for it was not a requirement - there was no mechanism
to force the champion to give a rematch. Alekhine did not,
and received no penalty other than a worsened reputation.
But note that Steintiz did get a rematch, and one was
actually scheduled between Staunton and St Amant. Steintiz
-Andersson was not considered a WC match at the time.

I repeat, this tradition made the imposition of a rematch
clause circa 1950 easier to do. Of course it does not
justify it.

As for insults. I dislike them, they annoy me, I try
not to use them myself. But there are other forms of
insult than crude labels, forms longer, better written,
just as insulting, and equally unjustified. False
implications, or false analogies, for example. But
then, countless perfectly innocent comments of the
latter type have been taken as serious insults at
times.

There is no point in taking those who degrade the
debate to task. If I think they are worth debating
or reading despite their proclivities I continue to
follow their posts - if not there is the killfile.

I hope you are making progress with the "match conditions"
post.

Greg Kennedy

unread,
Mar 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/6/99
to
> In a posting of March 4 Phil Innes wrote, "Come on Larry -- let
>us make up our own minds if Mr. [Greg] Kennedy reminds us of Stalin."


Now comes Larry's "substantive" reply:

> Typical.

> In a posting of February 7 Mr. Kennedy stated that there had been
>a "vast" and "obvious" conspiracy "in the press" designed to "brainwash"
>nearly everyone in the United States. He listed GM Larry Evans as one
>of the victims.

I would add to this list the name of Larry Parr, as he too
fell victim to Kalme's biased article and probably others.
Here we are in 1999, and Parr has just now, temporarily
perhaps, ceased to spew references to this particular
atrocity as "statistical proof".


> Then on February 9 when pressed by this writer to substantiate
>his preposterous charge of a "vast conspiracy," he listed both GMs
>Evans and Yasser Seirawan as two of the conspirators!


Seirawan, like Evans, has done an about-face
with regard to Fischer, but in the opposite order
from Evans. There was a time when the Yaz was
one of the rare rational voices in the American
press on this subject, but he succumbed at the
Spassky rematch, taking up the standard line of
blindly supporting Bobby the superhero afterwards.
Readers of "Inside Chess" witnessed this
acrobatic flip-flop by the Yaz live, and were
stunned.

> Never mind that
>GM Seirawan was only 15 years old at the time


Here Larry lost the thread entirely. Dates are
invented, ages evaluated, but his strawman
is irrelevant to my position, about which he
seems to have no clue or understanding.

>he did not begin to write on
>international issues beyond tournament reports until well into the 1980s.

This should have alerted him that something
was amiss. No wonder he is so confused.


> I mean to say, since Mr. Innes has addressed the Kennedy issue,
>cant he suggest to Mr. Kennedy that he scribble a smear that is at
>least internally consistent?


********************************************************
The spelling police sounded an alarm here, but I
will blame Larry's spell checker, not Larry himself
as that would be ad hominem or snobbery.
There's nothing funnier than watching two snobs
duke it out over each other's spelling errors.
Especially when the spell checker itself fails
to perform its intended function.
******************************************************

I would assess this quite differently. Larry has failed
to construct a strawman argument which is internally
consistent. Thus, when he knocks it down, he has
only embarassed himself by revealing his own
misunderstanding of my position. When in doubt,
clarify- don't just assume at random.

> Now, back to Mr. Kennedy's methods. The man snipped all mention of
>the controversy swirling around his vast and obvious nonsense


I am trying (unsucessfully in Larry's case) to stick to
the issues under discussion. Strawmen and
diversions are not relevant to them.


-- tried to
>pretend it did not exist. I call it argumentum ad snip-em. Others via
>e-mail privately called it "intellectual dishonesty."

Here is a snip from a FAQ on net ettiquette, from a
pointer posted in these chess newsgroups. Larry might
wish to actually read it before proceeding to embarrass
himself even further by continuing this nonsense about
no snipping allowed:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most people who post a response to a message will quote the message as part
of the reply. This is because of the way that news propagates around the
Internet: By the time you see the answer, the question may have already
vanished, and sometimes you will even see an answer before you see the
question. Quoting a message that is a response to a response to a
response... gets cumbersome very quickly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now the part repeated by my browser, every time I
fail to snip sufficiently to suit it:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most experienced news posters trim the quotes down to the relevant material
to which they are responding. A good rule of thumb is that the quoting
should seldom be more than the response.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The key word here is _relevant_. Also see
"to which they are responding".


My previous browser would not allow me to post
without snipping as above. It basically said: sorry
buddy, you'll have to snip more than that! For the
record, I now am using Microsoft Explorer which
only issues a stern warning.


As for intellectual dishonesty, I would prefer such
accusations be made directly, rather than from
behind the skirts of others. Some sort of evidence
should be provided when making this kind of
attack. If there is any such evidence...


> Mr. Innes wishes that I would employ historical parallels other
>than so many Soviet ones.


Perspective Larry, that's all we want. Perspective
calls for something other than Cold War propaganda
continuing forever, ad nauseum like this.

>Finally, Marxist-Leninism constituted the greatest challenge to liberal
>democracy and its fundamental ideas in this century. Marxism-Leninism
>represents the touchstone of 20th century historical comparisons.


How do you rate the other factions- Rolf and Sean
seem to dwell upon Nazis, you upon Russkies. Who
are we to believe?


>Of course, corruption exists
>everywhere. The issue is one of extent. You either believe the West
>can do a better job than the crooks and thugs who administered FIDE
>since Fridrik Olafsson left office -- or you don't. You either believe
>an organization located in, say, New York would perform more creditably
>when exposed to easy press scrutiny -- or you don't.

Arrrrrgh! Wasn't the USCF based in or around New York?
Has not Larry Parr lambasted the USCF for corruption?
Is not the USCF subject to scrutiny of the press? There
must be a better way of putting this argument, without
poor Larry shooting himself in the foot! It is inconsistent
to argue what a great job the west can do, while conducting
a semmingly neverending campaign against the USCF, for
example.


>I've
>talked with numerous Russian emigres, and I've not run across one
>who expressed anything but scorn for Karpov as a person and as a


This is part of your problem Larry. Have you
ever considered talking to non-defectors from
Russia to get a better perspective? It should
come as no surprise that those who left their
homeland were very unhappy about the status
quo, which included Karpov.

> The point at issue is the likelihood that the Soviets had a policy
>in place in 1975 to avoid a match with Fischer, if at all possible


If both Fischer AND the Soviets had a "system" in place
to avoid this match, then blaming one rather than the other
for the whole thing makes no sense. On top of this, you
have already blamed FIDE for this mess, now you want
to blame the Soviets. There just doesn't seem to be
enough blame to go around, so you gotta multiply the
blame and dish it out to your perceived enemies. How
about a consistent position, where you put the blame
in one spot, and leave it there. No sticky mess to clean
up afterwards that way...

regarding the Alekhine/Capablanca rematch, Parr wrote:

> But the result of that clamor -- no rematch -- preciselt
>undermines Mr. Hyde's point.


(Spell checker took the day off?)

Not at all. There was NO rematch clause in this
particular case. The lazy Cuban assumed he would
win, so the need for assurances in case of a loss
was not deemed necessary.

I find it typical of Larry's style to present one,
and only one side of this controversy, failing to
note the circumstances leading up to this situation,
which resulted in Alekhine's action. I have seen
that there are two sides to this, each man having
his faults.

> Writes Mr. Hyde about FIDE apologist Jerry Bibuld's neologism,
>the two Liarries: "You should probably wish him to continue the
>comment as it can hardly be doing his cause any good." With all due
>respect, Mr. Hyde, your sentiment strikes me as unworthy of honest
>advocacy.


Another quick trip to the net etiquette site reveals
from whence Mr. Hyde comes. It is stated therein,
precisely what Hyde states above, that such tactics
are likely to backfire on the attacker (here Bibuld).
But Larry has never heeded such net ettiquette, so
it may be assumed that he is genuinely lacking
comprehension of Hyde's position here.

A seperate issue would be a discussion of the
truth of net etiquette's advice and assessments.
But this is supposed to be about... chess.


> I do not want Mr. Bibuld to lower the standard of

>public debate...


> the issue is about raising the standard of our chess

> conversation...

> I do not wish to prevail simply because Mr. Bibuld

>brays "Liarry, Liarry, Liarry" like a senile donkey...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I see. A senile donkey. Hmm.


> I wish to prevail because my point is sound.


Right. So sound, in fact, that you needn't bother
to belittle your opponent in order to prove your
point, right? So this is just a nasty habit of yours
then, not anything more.

> Mr. Hyde notes that nothing done on this forum can match what he

>has read on another forum, which is his way of putting in perspective...


> I do not believe I have traded insult for insult.

Two for one, then? Or sevenfold? Whatever.

Keep it up Larry. Everyone needs a good
laugh now and then to brighten up their day!

- Greg Kennedy


Rolf Tueschen

unread,
Mar 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/6/99
to
Larry Parr <75227...@CompuServe.COM> wrote in
<OSP1AVkZ#GA....@nih2naab.prod2.compuserve.com>:

> BACK TO THE KHAN

> Concerning the Khan himself, Mr. Tueschen admitted on one occasion
>that it was psychologically difficult to reprint the Khan's own words,
>and on another occasion he accused this writer or GM Yasser Seirawan of
>doctoring an interview conducted by a third party, Leontxo Garcia of
>Spain.

In the past few days Larry The Liar came up with this variation of a
smear. As far as I can understand the English, he tries to explain that
even I, the usual defender of Ilyumzhinov, had allegedly admitted that
it was psychologically difficult to reprint Ilyumzhinov's own words.

Apparently insinuating that I myself had understood that something was
wrong with Ilyumzhinov's tales.

But I'm definitely of that opinion! And I did never write that what
Larry tried to insinuate.

Actually, what I tried to explain was the following.

If someone from a different region in the world, from a different
culture, different religion etc, should be busted in our Western public,
then it's the easiest way to achieve that bust by doing the following
and Seirawan or "some third party" did exactly that.

Understood that you already _know_ in advance what the foreigner is
talking about you ask very naively put questions. In fact it's
sufficient to let drop certain key-words. And 'whoopie', success is
guaranteed. The guy _will_ fall into the trap.

What is the secret of that technique? Well, it's so simple.

First of all Kalmykia is a part of today's Russia. It's not at all an
independent State like the USA. The "President" of such a miniature
State, as a good politician, has many own convictions. Like any good
Leader of a little province in the USA and Scotland or Switzerland,
Ilyumzhinov is a little dictator. Meaning, the uncrowned King. Comparing
that understanding (of dictatorship) with Hitler or Stalin or whatelse,
is simply crazy. Yes, it's idiotic, so to say. With the same
justification you could call a caring family father who has full
authority in his little family, a dictator. Completely forgetting that
even such a father has a wife to talk to and in the USA the wife mostly
has the internal power ... ;)

Now ask such a President about dhis dictatorship. Will he understand
what you have in mind as interviewer? What you could show to your
readers if the interviewee will boast that yes, he's well a dictator and
that yes, this would be the best for his country? Of course not. You had
the interview with the Kalmykian President in his role as FIDE
President. And you want to bust him by asking some nice little questions
about his country at home. Because as FIDE President you know well that
the guy is not a dictator. How could he be with hundreds of delegates
who had elected him. With dozens of officials who helped him in
different field of chess politics. If he were a FIDE dictator like
Hitler or Stalin, well, it would be easy to get rid of him. Therefore we
have the idea with the smear about the alleged child abuse for the sake
of the Chess City and stuff like that. But let's concentrate on the term
"dictator". We also knw that from the recent Bobby Fischer "Interviews".
There I read the first two transcripts and I was astonished that a radio
interview with a chess champion could be an event like the Mr. Bean
show. One joke hunting the next one. With giggles all around. Now, taken
out of context, you can bust Fischer quite easily, as if he had read a
new encyclica like a Pope. You know what I mean?! Seirawan is the expert
for transferring small talk into Gothic Letters in a bombastic tiny
little booklet. :)

Now, these interviews with Ilymzhinow. Do they report how what was
declared? I for one know that Ilyumzhinow is smiling a very deep
philosophical smile. How can we know what he thought about the
interviewers when they asked him to speak about dictatorship? About
political parties? As I said before. Should he react like a hypocrit?
Saying that 15 parties could be the break-through into modern times for
his little country?? But if he agreed that he had the opinion that there
was no need for any parties, wouldn't that show us that he was a sexond
Hitler?? Oh, my goodness! What does Larry try to explain next?

I digress.

What I meant with psychology, is NOT the difficulty of Ilyumzhinov to
talk about his opinions. But the lack of wisdom or in other words the
bad intentions of the interviewers (no matter if third parties or
Seirawan himself). Because it's always a cheat to present something
strange, foreign, alien to a group that is interested in totally
different topics. Here in chess. If it would have been for a paper of
Foreign Affaires -- no problem. But in INSIDE CHESS it's a cheat by
definition. It's only justified if you want to take apart an official,
here the President of FIDE himself. In plain language, a dictatorshhip
under Ilyumzhinov would only be a problem for the West if that __ship
would be combined with inhuman events. But what the hell is different in
Kalmykia from the rest of Russia??? What specific evil is there to
complain about? The Chess City? Har-de-har-har.

No, the wording of the President that he likes to be seen as a
dictator... You get the idea.

Objectively this is nothing to talk about. Not even to speak of being
upset. But in a chess journal this is read in the USA (?) as if some
devil ruled the beloved FIDE. Now, if you read the Larry eruptions you
might get serious doubts about the motivation. For me it's clear that
folk like Larry don't like FIDE itself. Probably they are in the camp of
the WCA. The big organization that is competing with FIDE. ROTFL.


Psychological difficulties was the subject. I wouldn't say that Seirawan
and band had such difficulties as such with interviews as long as it's
about chess. Here, they simply failed -- I think deliberately -- to
prevent that they betrayed their interviewee with his own words. Simply
for the given reasons that words and terms are not the same all over the
world. And that with such words you could, if ever you wanted, bust
_anybody_, even pope John Paul. Look here in this thread. That is
exactly what Larry The Liar did all the time at least with my postings.
He twisted, cheated and lied. In fact, if anybody here is a dictator,
one of the not so nice sort, then Larry The Liar is a good candidate ...


Larry Parr

unread,
Mar 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/6/99
to
TUESCHEN VERSUS INNES

<<That's why sex with children is so awful. Not that it couldn't
produce multiple orgasms. But the offence lies in the *need to
violate the dignity of innocent human beings*.<< -- Rolf Tueschen
in a posting of February 6

In a posting of March 5 Rolf Tueschen takes issue with Phil
Innes, who initially defended Mr. Tueschen's lubricious effusions as
irony, satire and humor. Yet Mr. Innes fell silent when the latter began
to go ever further and further. Finally, a few days ago, Mr. Innes
reemerged to claim that I had provoked Mr. Tueschen. Now, however, Mr.
Tueschen returns to this forum to argue that his attempts to bemerd this
writer with name-calling and sexual imagery were merely his way of
upbraiding me for what he claims to be my attempt to pin Larisa
Yudina's murder on Kirsan Ilyumzhinov. These two guys need to get their
exculpatory act together.

The issue, as I have noted for readers of this forum repeatedly, is
whether we know enough about how Kirsan Ilyumzhinov runs Kalmykia to
make a POLITICAL decision to seek his removal as FIDE president. Mr.
Tueschen has absolutely no answer for the fact that Khan Kirsan
describes himself as a dictator and glories in a one-party state.
Having no answer for what the Khan himself says about the regime he runs
in Kalmykia, Mr. Tueschen can do nothing else than prate that there is
no courtroom evidence to convict the Khan of Mrs. Yudina's murder. On
one occasion he went so far as to refer to this woman, who was the
leader of Kalmykia's opposition, as "some journalist" and an "alleged
critic" of the regime. Of course, there is no courtroom evidence to
convict the Khan; there probably never will be so long as he is -- as he
himself states -- the only person allowed to make policy in Kalmykia.

Cultures vary, as Mr. Tueschen notes, but killing, suppressing
and imprisoning opponents is what dictators do.

Still, the issue is not whether we have enough evidence to make a
juridical decision about the Khan. As chess people, that's not our job
anyway. The issue is whether we have enough evidence to make a
POLITICAL decision to seek the Khans removal as FIDE president.

Mr. Tueschen will continue to blather about there being no evidence
to convict the Khan. I will continue to point out that for us chess
people, the issue is about making a political, not a courtroom, decision.

Mr. Tueschen is evidently obsessed by my person, or if not, he is
employing the rottenest kind of sexual imagery to avoid discussing the
issues. His name calling has become ever more infantile. In the
tradition of Jerry Bibuld and E. Steven Doyle, Mr. Tueschen invented his
own Larry-related neologism. If earlier GM Larry Evans and this
writer have been called "the two Liarries" or, simply, "Liarry" in the
singular, and if hitherto Mr. Doyle has offered such entries as
"Laiary-Laiary!!", "Lairry," and "Larr," and if Greg Kennedy has tossed
in Lar', then the self-described scientific and logical Mr. Tueschen
proffers "Liar Larry" for the delectation of forum participants.


Past names used by Mr. Tuechen for this writer have included "ugly
guy," "dirty fellow," "dishonest fellow," "impostor," "ignorant
loudmouth," "hypocrit" [sic] and so on. Yet another name is "liar
maximus." On another occasion he spoke of "how evil" I am, though he
assured us in another posting that he "wouldn't condemn Larry Parr as a
nasty guy as such." He also argued that he was merely providing
verdicts and definitions, though on March 5, he shifts ground completely
and starts talking about how he cleverly invented false charges rather
than his earlier verdicts and definitions.

Mr. Tueschen has argued that he is a clear thinker who denies
himself many inferences for fear of error. In the next breath, he
speculated on the motives and sexuality of others (he assumed in a
posting of February 6, without evidence or even, so to speak, raw data
of any kind, "sexual weaknesses" on my part) with utter abandon. What,
for example, to make of his bizarre claim: "Its OBVIOUS [my emphasis]
that you [Larry Parr] are only the *associate* of a greater power or
interest"? (The man sounds like Greg Kennedy charging a "vast" and
"obvious" conspiracy in the press to support Bobby Fischer's title
demands.) That "greater power or interest" would appear to be the CIA
or, as he speculated in another posting, the Opus Dei. In one recent
posting he wrote, "I would invite the CIA to keep an eye on Larry and
perhaps re-intigrate [sic] him into new political challenges." One
should note that gratuitous references to my being in the employ of the
Republican majority in the U.S. Congress or some other dark force is de
rigeur for a Tueschen posting.

Note Mr. Tueschen's use of the word "obvious" in the above, which
means something that is plainly evident. Yet Mr. Tueschen, as noted,
offers neither evidence nor raw data. Nothing. Just a bald statement.
In one posting, he claimed to be a Cold War "connoisseur," which meant
that he did not require evidence or even raw data. On the other hand
he will not treat as probative evidence the fact that both the critics
of Khan Kirsan and the Khan himself agree that the man is a dictator.
Throughout our exchanges he has pathetically and repeatedly excised all
quotes from the Khan when responding to this writer's postings.

Now on the subject of pregnant crudities, we note the following
untruth in his posting of February 6: "Later Larry will ask himself why
people always come back to his sexual weaknesses. But then it's so
basic! Because a less inhibited guy never would masturbate on
foreigners, he would have sex with real peers."

Sorry, Mr. Tueschen, your ploy was ever so bumbling. Readers of
this forum -- even your confreres in this precinct -- knew that only
you ever talked about my sexuality. Mr. Innes pretty much stuck to my
being a pedant and possible coward, while Mr. Doyles concerns, though
placed squarely in the crotch, dealt with my "body oder" [sic] problem
emanating from "smears in private places." Mr. Kennedy only backed you
up on my being a "dirty fellow," etc.

The big recent development on March 5, is that Mr. Tueschen has
abandoned joking-joshing and even his claim about engaging in his
brand of psychologizing. Now he tells us that it was all related to the
murder of Mrs. Yudina and this writer's falsely alleged treatment of it.


In an earlier posting I made an error. Wrote yours truly, "As for
Mr. Tueschen's allegation that I *jump on children*, I believe that Mr.
Innes, if judged by his previous performances, will announce that he
sees still more irony and humor and that this writer is mean-spirited
for failing to appreciate Mr. Tueschen's difficulties in negotiating the
pitfalls of the English language."

I was wrong. Flat wrong. Mr. Innes did, of course, excuse Mr.
Tueschen. I got that much right. However, he dropped the irony-
satire-joking-joshing folderol and accused me instead of having
provoked Mr. Tueschen.

This writer has never quoted Mr. Tueschen out of context. I have
instead thrown his attempts at bemerding humor back in his face. Mr.
Tueschen's ploy is to cover another person in verbal excrement in the
hope they will cease criticizing Khan Kirsan and FIDE. A second
deconstructionist ploy is that by employing outrageous sexual imagery,
one can desensitize the audience. (William Hyde, for example, conceded
he had become desensitized to the use of phrases such as "the two
Liarries.") The person who is attacked with sexual imagery can be
further attacked for responding. "Methinks he doth protest too much" is
the next ploy.

These ploys would work except that I happen to enjoy dealing with
the likes of Tueschen-Innes-Kennedy. True enough, Mr. Innes writes more
intelligently than the others, but he has served as a staunch apologist
for Mr. Tueschen. And his silence about Mr. Kennedy's ludicrous charge
of a "vast conspiracy" in the chess press and about his inconsistent
smear against GM Evans is telling.



--
Larry Parr

Phil Innes

unread,
Mar 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/6/99
to
TUESCHEN VERSUS INNES

In a posting of March 5 Rolf Tueschen takes issue with Phil
Innes, who initially defended Mr. Tueschen's lubricious effusions as
irony, satire and humor.

One particular anecdote.

Yet Mr. Innes fell silent when the latter began
to go ever further and further.

And fell silent with the words, 'you seem to be addressing
Rolf Tueschen, I'll let him answer for himself, in case I
misrepresent him."

Wassamatter Larry? Yesterday you wanted to drive a wedge
between Kennedy/Innes.

If I were to endorse a sentiment - it would be the response
today from Rolf.

But you completely fail now, on all fronts. No-one thinks you
have anything to say that is not simple SHOCK! SCANDAL! READ
ALL ABOUT IT! If you would like to do otherwise, and take part
in a discussion, I have already encouraged you to do so, do
you object to this?

Finally, a few days ago, Mr. Innes
reemerged to claim that I had provoked Mr. Tueschen. Now, however, Mr.
Tueschen returns to this forum to argue that his attempts to bemerd this

writer with name-calling and sexual imagery were merely his way of
upbraiding me for what he claims to be my attempt to pin Larisa
Yudina's murder on Kirsan Ilyumzhinov. These two guys need to get their
exculpatory act together.

No we don't. There is no need to conspire.
I do not accuse Larry Parr of provoking Herr Tueschen, but of
provoking everyone that would demur from his opinions, by
freely mixing and matching any old context with thier stated
opinion here. It is a remarkable ruthless exhibition.

If Larry Evans is content in being represented, in absentia,
by Mr. Parr, or whether he feels he does not need to respond
to these issues raised around his name, then so be it. I
assume nothing of his sentiments of these issues from the
context in which Mr. Parr represents them.

Phil Innes.


Larry Parr

unread,
Mar 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/6/99
to
A BLAST FROM THE PAST Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics From: rec...@aol.com (Recmate) Subject: Ilyuzhiminov: potential PB member views? Date: 21 Jan 1999 06:24:19 GMT Jeremy Spinrad wrote: >>1) Mr. Goichberg opposed Ilyuzhiminov before. Are you willing to state categorically that you will be voting against a US vote for Ilyuzhiminov in the future, if you have a chance to do so?>> I'm not running for the Board, but yes, unless Kalmykia changes dramatically and civil liberties and political opposition are allowed (very unlikely under Ilyuzhimov), I will oppose USCF backing him for FIDE President. Top chessplayers may enjoy the temporary benefits Ilyuzhimov provides, but in the long run it will be disadvantageous for our game to be associated with his repressive regime. The chess world has in effect accepted a bribe. To the players who say they "care about chess, not politics," I suggest that it is immoral to pursue prize money which has in effect been extorted from those who live in poverty. Some of the great despots of history came to power because many groups in society had attitudes similar to these players. Unfortunately, most chess federations in the world seem to share this "only chess counts, ignore anything else" attitude. Bill Goichberg Larry Parr

Gilbert Palmer

unread,
Mar 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/7/99
to

Larry Parr <75227...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:

>Top chessplayers may enjoy the temporary benefits
Ilyuzhimov provides, but in
>the long run it will be disadvantageous for our game to be
associated with his
>repressive regime.

Do you know for certain that they are temporary?

Chess players of all levels are benefiting, not only top
players this is what you fail (or refuse) to acknowledge.

Incidentally, your official tune is now "In the long run???"

You claimed less than a week ago:

>"Khan Kirsan is in the process of
discrediting the game of chess as a clean and decent sport."

There are some in this world who can accept that there are
alternate systems of government without being compelled to
criticise.

Hopefully those in power in all the chess federations the
world over (who do have Kirsan's fate in their power) do not
accept the wails of a soothsayer (however talented and
zealous) at face value.

Now if you had evidence of how chess wordwide is being
harmed (present tense)...that'd be different, very very
different.

Please make your case, it is obvious you feel strongly about
it.

Larry Parr

unread,
Mar 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/7/99
to
Mr. Palmer, as I have said repeatedly, dictators kill, repress, and
imprison their opponents. That's what dictators do. Having such a man
as the leader of international chess obviously isn't good for the game
and will make it difficult to attract real sponsors. If you refuse to
accept this fact, so be it.
--
Larry Parr

Rolf Tueschen

unread,
Mar 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/7/99
to
Larry Parr <75227...@CompuServe.COM> wrote in
<eU5drILa#GA...@nih2naab.prod2.compuserve.com>:

>Mr. Palmer, as I have said repeatedly, dictators kill, repress, and
>imprison their opponents.

Larry, you are a dictator yourself. So, what was your point?


Don C. Aldrich

unread,
Mar 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/7/99
to
On Sun, 07 Mar 1999 10:50:03 -0500, Larry Parr
<75227...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:

>Mr. Palmer, as I have said repeatedly, dictators kill, repress, and

>imprison their opponents. That's what dictators do. Having such a man
>as the leader of international chess obviously isn't good for the game
>and will make it difficult to attract real sponsors. If you refuse to
>accept this fact, so be it.

Please note that all the verbiage you have been spilling ove the last
several months boils down to this simple, declarative and easily
understood statement.

I submit this is far more persuasive than anything you have written to
date. Remember what many consider to be the most powerful sentence
ever written in English "Jesus wept."

Best,
==Dondo

"He thinks too much. Such men are dangerous."
Julius Caesar, Act I, Sc. 2.

anti...@spam.demon.co.uk

unread,
Mar 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/7/99
to rec.games.chess.misc, rec.games.chess.politics
In article <elyDq89Z#GA....@nih2naad.prod2.compuserve.com>, Larry Parr
wrote:

> The issue, as I have noted for readers of this forum repeatedly, is
> whether we know enough about how Kirsan Ilyumzhinov runs Kalmykia to
> make a POLITICAL decision to seek his removal as FIDE president.

Mr Parr, how are you today in your ivory tower!

You are quite right to ask the question, however, before one can answer
your question a further question needs to be addressed first.

Otherwise, one would suspect there would be no need to ask the question
out of sync.

The question being this, "what should constitute justifiable grounds
for the removal of the President?

Sorry, wrong question, that came up in the debate of "Slick Willie"

No, the real question is this:

"How do we determine whether the FIDE President is doing an "effective"
job for chess?"

Do we analyse his/her skills at the promotion of chess?

Do we analyse his/her skills at bringing all strands of the chess world
together?

Do we analyse his/her skills at bringing forward new ideas for the
promotion of a stagnant World Championship process?

Do we analyse his/her skills at keeping managing the "world wide
interests of chess"?

Sorry Mr Parr, maths was not my forte. Can't count for toffee.

I am sure you need no prompting on the "line" of my questioning.

Surely Mr Parr, these "questions" require answering before we can even
consider "POLITICAL" considerations?

Rolf Tueschen

unread,
Mar 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/7/99