"help bot" <nomorechess@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:cf446a4b-fa7f-457d-a27f-b85628557007@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Apr 29, 4:52 pm, "Chess One" <OneCh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> > Of course, that detail has little to do with anything,
>> > and does not resurrect the Evans mythology (of
>> > someone bravely takes on a corrupt establishment) that
>> > Parr has been assigned with promulgating.
>>
>> Who else has bravely done so? There are few truly independent voices.
The
>> inverse of Larry Evans is Jerry Hanken, eg.
>
>
> Larry Parr has indeed promulgated the fiction that
> Larry Evans is an "independent" voice. Well, while
> he may well be independent of the folks who run
> the show at the USCF, he is far from a truly
> independent thinker. Many of the stories I've seen
> were merely parroted or borrowed from others, with
> apparently zero critical examination on LE's part.
This may or may not have significance; after all, is Evans writing for
people who already know some things so that he records his own comments
along with theirs in order to substantiate an issue? Being 'independent'
is
no virtue if what you are describing is common to other observers, in
fact,
it detracts from the issue to become a personality point of view.
Or is Evans writing for people who know nothing at all, and who want to
start from the beginning? I don't think so. I think the former is true,
and
if Evans has a fault in this, then it is his presumption that the chess
public actually know very much at all about the goings on of chess
politicians.
> One of these was examined in an article by Taylor
> Kingston (I think), who noted that even the original
> source was unreliable.
That's very vague.
> Other "ideas" of Larry Evans
> originated from Raymond Keene, a notorious hack
> whose antics have long annoyed pedants like Ed
> Winter.
It must be particularly galling for Winter to have to deal with 'hack'
Keene, since Winter has only tittle-tattle from those who feed it to him,
while Keene actually was behind the Wall and smuggling out stuff on what
it
was really like from first hand knowledge, and also the samizdat of other
personal witness to the /systemic/ corruption of the SU.
Larry Evans also engaged the Soviet chess machine, and therefore is guilty
of the same crime as Keene; essentially neither of them bought into any
propaganda whether it was issued from East or West, and preferred what
they
knew as fact to some filtered gloss on it.
> But my favorite are the "stories" which Mr.
> Evans has borrowed from Gary Kasparov, known
> liar and cheater but one of the finest chess players
> who ever lived.
I know it is your favorite. But the elephant in your viewing room is you!
It
is this obsessional general opinions that you then fix onto individual
circumstance - and therefore an honest though very real mistake or error
by
Kasparov is sufficient for you to condemn the man's entire character.
My personal understanding of the issue is that he apologised to Judit, who
<emphasis> accepted that apology. Why then is this still an issue for Greg
Kennedy?
Not that such compacted cynicism can be answered in anything less than an
essay, but in terms of collaborations and discussions, many strong players
talk with each other about the organisational side of chess, and it is
much
less a matter of who spoke what first, as that strong players witness a
common set of facts - then re****t matters in their own ways.
>> > GM Evans, a player I admire and an author of chess
>> > works of which I am a satisfied customer (believe it
>> > or not, he actually wrote about chess at one time!),
>
>
> It seems the further back in time you go, the
> better were Larry Evans' writings! He's aging
> backwards, like Merlin.
Criticism is always welcome, but this isn't criticism, its *****ing. The
reader will note that there is no suggested /subject/ that critics mention
that they thought better then rather than now - and they don't even bother
to say what they personally would like to read about. <shrug> That's no
critique, and it doesn't even indicate if the critics want to read
anything... So is this 'complaint' on behalf of other people? [lol]
>> > Of course, when CL made it mandatory for
>> > every article to have a red-baiting angle, Evans
>> > complied with his wild, fact-free allegations - often
>> > contradicting his own prior writings.
>
>
> I somehow doubt that the honchos at the USCF
> "forced" Mr. Evans to contradict himself or to
> adopt a rabid anti-Soviet bias. I think he did that
> largely on his own.
I suppose the opposite of 'rabid' anti-soviet bias is... ?
If you know the game is rigged, do you re****t what goes on as if you don't
know? That would be deceptive, no? That would be a form of lying. And
there
is no doubt that Sovietism was pulling Fide's strings.
>> Are there ex-Soviets chess players in the West who actually contest
this
>> as
>> a basis?
>
>
> Hmm. It seems that nearly-IMnes is afraid to
> consider what people who live further East might
> have to say; I wonder what he is afraid of learning?
I see that response is not an answer. But the fatuous chess-lout Kennedy
ignores the fact that I interviewed Taimanov who spoke of the systemic
aspect of soviet life - it was into everything!
So in reading all these 'questions' from Kennedy I have yet to find one
which is not about himself - since anyone who has applied themselves to
the
subject could answer his 'questions' the same as me.
But vague and abstracted criticisms are useless to any understanding of
what
goes on - and the usual projection takes place in this speil, which the
reader will remember began with the phrase
with apparently zero critical examination
Phil Innes
>
>> > But I will grant that
>> > Parr does have a point in that the USCF
>> > does not speak with a single voice and
>> > at times he's been at odds with certain factions
>> > within the organization. Perhaps the wily politician
>> > is a more apt image than apparatchik, which
>> > emphasizes conformity above all else.
>
>
> Well, when Taylor Kingston goofed, he refused
> to admit it was really a mistake, saying he ought
> to have phrased what he said a bit differently.
> Now we have this fuss over appa-rat chicks,
> and -- surprise -- somebody again refuses to
> admit error. My pattern-recognition detector is
> going wild; could it be that chess players (?) are
> unable to admit error? (Preposterous.)
>
> Why can't we all just grant that Larry Parr is
> right about LE being a thorny-chick to the honchos
> at the USCF? After all, that was not the real issue.
> (Remember, the ploy was to divert attention from
> LP's *gaffe* regarding Mr. Kane insisting that LE
> needed the USCF's money. Appa-ratta-chick or
> thorny-pointy-chick, it makes no real difference.)
>
>
> -- help bot
>
>
|
