parrthenon@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> GM Larry Evans has been an objective observer of the chess scene for
> decades
In fact, Larry Evans is the most biased "observer"
I know; his spin-zone reminds me of the "fair and
balanced" Fox News channel on TV.
> EVANS ON CHESS (Best Question, September 1999)
>
> Answer to a reader who said he was "absolutely disgusted" with the way
> "Alexei ****rov got shafted after he was promised a title match."
>
> GM EVANS RESPONDED
>
> I couldn't agree with you more. In my syndicated column (A Debt Of
> Honor) I noted: A planned match with ****rov collapsed because backers
> got cold feet, fearing the contest might be too one-sided.
> Nonetheless, many critics feel that Kasparov is honor-bound to give
> ****rov a shot at the title first.
>
> 1. In 1998 Kasparov organized a match between ****rov and Kramnik,
> pledging to play the winner for $2 million.
>
> 2. ****rov won -- but only Kramnik got paid.
>
> 3. Kasparov has a debt of s****ting honor to see that ****rov is fully
> compensated and to face him under terms initially paraded by his
> defunct World Chess Countil." Kasparov's retaining draw odds is unfair
> to Anand and horribly distorted their 1995 tilt which began with eight
> straight draws.
I was a subscriber to Chess Lies at the time that
article appeared. Having become well accustomed to
the "huge bias" (IM John Watson, et al) of Mr. Evans,
I took the article as a token puff-piece-- not anything
like what one would expect if, say, FIDE or Anatoly
Karpov or any of the other, usual whipping boys had
done precisely the same thing.
You see, when FIDE messes up -- and it quite often
does -- Mr. Evans has a cow. He will rant and rave
about the "injustice" or whatever until the day he dies,
guaranteed. Yet when one of his faves -- here, Gary
Kasparov -- blunders, all we can expect from the
hugely biased five-time U.S. Champ is a scolding,
and then silence. It is a double-standard to be sure,
but then, that seems to be the only kind of standard
Mr. Evans knows.
So you see, the fact that Mr. Evans wanted "to be
seen" as having come out in sup****t of Mr. ****rov
does not impress. LE's scolding had no effect, and I
don't mean just on the cheating of Mr. ****rov, but on
his overall favoritism with regard to Mr. Kasparov.
The reason is obvious: sup****ting GK is conducive
to Larry Evan's FIDE-ba****ng agenda. That agenda
is so im****tant to LE that he cannot afford to side
with "justice", no matter what it might happen to be.
I couldn't help bot notice that Mr. Parr felt it might
help his ad hominem "cause" to switch threads; so
then, what was it that he was so worried about in
the original thread? I think I know: it was probably
the post in which LP presented Gary Kasparov as
a champion of "justice", who, much like Superman,
fights a never-ending battle for Truth, Justice, and
the Kasparov way.
The ploy /could have/ worked, but for making such
a titanic blunder in the area of casting. I cannot say
who is right for the role of champion of justice, but it
is painfully obvious that Gary Kasparov ain't it.
-- help bot
|
