KENNEDY BUSTED AGAIN
>The rules of the game are clear, concise, and consistent. If you touch
a piece, you must move it. If your hand quits the piece, the move
stands.
If your hand is still on it, then you can change your mind and move it
elsewhere. But move it you must. Since the rules specify that a
protest
must be lodged during play....> -- Touch Move byGM Larry Evans
>Nonsense. The proper thing to do is recognize that
Mr. Kasparov is a low-down good-for-nothing cheater,
and then treat him accordingly.> -- Greg Kennedy
You yelling "Nonsense" does not change the rules of chess,
which clearly state:
4.7 A player forfeits his right to a claim against his
opponent`s violation of Article 4.3 or 4.4, once he
deliberately touches a piece.
-- Guy Macon
Source: http://fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE101
<Judit Polgar made her next move without making any such
claim. It would have been a violation of the rules if
the arbiter had examined the video tape and ruled against
Kasparov after Polgar made her next move. It would have
been a serious breach of professional ethics if he had
shown any sort of reaction that would indicate that this
was in any way different from any other move. -- Guy Macon
[Unfortunately he posted his reply only on rec.games.chess.misc. For
the rest of
the material he cites check it out.]
parrthenon@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> KENNEDY'S NEW LIE
>
> <Not all their stories are of a simple nature, but those two certainly
> cannot deal with any facts which don't neatly "fit" into their bizarre
> fairyland world. For instance, having long cast Gary Kasparov as a
> hero who fights a never-ending battle for Justice, they must painfully
> struggle to somehow deal with the man's cheating poor
> little Judit Polgar with his infamous take-back. Nutters don't have it
> so easy as you might think... .> -- Greg Kennedy
>
> As this writer noted when this thread began: <I realize that setting
> the record straight won't do much good when it comes to the "bots" of
> this world because they will just continue inventing new lies.>
>
> This thread is about ****rov, but that doesn't stop Greg from
> changing the header or the subjet to beat dead horses. As soon as one
> charge is refuted (Evans is USCF apparatchik -- then Kane withdrew it
> and instead called him a wily politician) a new one pops up. One would
> fill a book refuting all of their fabrications.
>
> I will answer David Kane later. Needless to say, contrary to Greg's
> new lie, GM Evans did re****t on the Polgar-Kasparov incident in his
> newspaper column as well as in his new book, giving both sides of the
> story.
>
> THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 266)
>
> Touch Move!
> April 25, 2005
>
> Chess is perfect. People aren?t.
>
> The rules of the game are clear, concise, and consistent. If you touch
> a piece, you must move it. If your hand quits the piece, the move
> stands. If your hand is still on it, then you can change your mind and
> move it elsewhere. But move it you must.
>
> Enforcing touch move in the heat of battle isn?t always easy. A case
> in point was the first encounter in 1994 between Judit Polgar, then
> 17, and world champion Garry Kasparov, then 31, at a major tournament
> in Linares, Spain.
>
> After a tough fight Polgar threw in the towel because 47 Kg1 e2 49 Re1
> Qd4 49 Kh1 Nf2 50 Kg1 Nh3 51 Kh1 Qg1! 52 Rxg1 Nf2 leads to smothered
> mate.
>
> Afterwards she complained that Kasparov took back a move. At first he
> played 36...Nc5 but then saw it refuted by 37 Bc6 and instead he
> placed the knight on f8.
> [Note: As it turns out, his initial 36...Nc5 probably didn't lose --
> LP]
>
> Since the rules specify that a protest must be lodged during play,
> nothing could be done after the game was over. "I didn?t want to cause
> unpleasantness during my first invitation to such an im****tant event,"
> she explained. "We were both in severe time pressure. I was also
> afraid I would be penalized on the clock if my protest was rejected."
>
> "Kasparov did not take his hand off the knight, so he had a perfect
> right to change his move," said the chief arbiter. "My conscience is
> clear. I have the feeling my hand was still on it," added Kasparov.
>
> Yet we all know the ****d eye can be fooled. A camera crew was filming
> the game and a replay revealed that Kasparov removed his hand for
> exactly ? of a second! Deliberate foul or did he try to change his
> grip in order to reverse direction? Who can say for sure?
>
> His enemies promptly called it cheating. But Robert Solso, a noted
> cognitive psychologist, said that a time span of 250 milliseconds
> might be too short to make such a conscious decision.
>
> POLGAR vs. KASPAROV
> Sicilian Defense, 1994
> 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 a6 6 f4 e6 7 Be2 Be7 8
> 0?0 Qc7 9 Qe1 Nbd7 10 a4 b6 11 Bf3 Bb7 12 Kh1 Rd8 13 Be3 0?0 14
> Qg3 Nc5 15 f5 e5 16 Bh6 Ne8 17 Nb3 Nd7 18 Rad1 Kh8 19 Be3 Nef6
> 20 Qf2 Rfe8 21 Rfe1 Bf8 22 Bg5 h6 23 Bh4 Rc8 24 Qf1 Be7 25 Nd2
> Qc5 26 Nb3 Qb4 27 Be2 Bxe4 28 Nxe4 Nxe4 29 Bxe7 Rxe7 30 Bf3
> Nef6 31 Qxa6 Ree8 32 Qe2 Kg8 33 Bb7 Rc4 34 Qd2 Qxa4 35 Qxd6
> Rxc2 36 Nd2 Nf8 37 Ne4 N8d7 38 Nxf6 Nxf6 39 Qxb6 Ng4 40 Rf1 e4
> 41 Bd5 e3 42 Bb3 Qe4 43 Bxc2 Qxc2 44 Rd8 Rxd8 45 Qxd8 Kh7 46
> Qe7 Qc4 White Resigns
>
>
>
> help bot wrote:
> > On Apr 29, 2:32 am, "David Kane" <davidek...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> > > > Mr. Kane's point was that (he says) the Soviets'
> > > > *routine practice* was to deny such emigration
> > > > requests as those by family members of defector
> > > > Victor Kortchnoi. Now, while I don't know about
> > > > such things, I do know that Mr. Parr studiously
> > > > avoided addressing that issue, instead doing
> > > > another of his ad hominem dances, with both feet
> > > > flying this way and that. It must be concluded then
> > > > that Mr. Kane struck a nerve.
> >
> > > The bigger point really was that no rational person
> > > could expect a chessplayer to influence the
> > > emigration policies of the Soviet government.
> >
> >
> > That's true, but what if the government sometimes
> > makes exceptions to their usual policies? Well, of
> > course this has a serious drawback in that the
> > "criminal" is in essence rewarded for having
> > defected.
> >
> >
> > > The Evans and Parrs of this world are simply
> > > not capable of dealing with facts which get
> > > in the way of their simplistic stories.
> >
> >
> > Not all their stories are of a simple nature, but
> > those two certainly cannot deal with any facts
> > which don't neatly "fit" into their bizarre fairyland
> > world. For instance, having long cast Gary
> > Kasparov as a hero who fights a never-ending
> > battle for Justice, they must painfully struggle
> > to somehow deal with the man's cheating poor
> > little Judit Polgar with his infamous take-back.
> > Nutters don't have it so easy as you might
> > think... .
> >
> >
> > -- help bot
|
