"help bot" <nomorechess@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:e5683061-bf11-4551-9bb2-5ebd4e4f3bc8@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On May 9, 2:02 pm, "Chess One" <OneCh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> > It seems likely that this particular blather was a
>> > response to the innumerable attacks "on Karpov",
>> > but by others.
>>
>> Sorry, that sentence doesn't parse.
>>
>> > One of these others was of course,
>> > Gary Kasparov, who continued to belittle his
>> > adversary until he signed a contract forbidding it,
>> > not very long ago.
>>
>> 'these others'? Did you announce your own topic yet?
>
> Got issues with not always being parroted or
> your speculations not just being swallowed whole,
> every time? Then this is not the place for you, my
> friend; why not go to the USCF forum, and hire
> "moderators" to ****eld your speculations from
> sunlight?
Let me take that as a 'no'. Furthermore, it regrets other people who do
nominate a topic, and recommends they go elsewhere.
>> What I wrote is that Karpov fessed up to things he did as world
champion,
>> that he later was not proud of, and that he is the first I know to have
>> done
>> this in writing.
>
> Indeed. And what I wrote is that I believe he
> wrote that /in response to/ the innumerable
> attacks on him.
Well, let us grant you your belief, at least inasmuch as making your
beliefs
the topic of this interchange.
> In sum, I don't buy it, any
> more than I "buy" the lies and fabrications of
> Mr. Karpov's nemesis, Gary "I never touched it"
You don't buy what? What is 'it?'
You first posit your 'belief' that the confessio was indicated by public
sentiment, then you don't 'buy it?' But immediately switch to someone
else,
as if there was any cogency to even your own argument.
> Kasparov. (At least, I don't think I touched it.
> Somebody else must have moved it! You can't
> prove anything. Top of the world, Ma!)
In his passion Greg Kennedy once more upends his /own/ argumet. This time
messing up 'touching it' with 'releasing it'.
But isn't the point the same as with Karpov, that he didn't think he did
it,
didn't intend to release it, but at length admitted that he actually did?
What Greg Kennedy does not seem to understand is that the very point of
what
I wrote is admission of wrong. Kennedy cannot address this at all, and
continues just as if these players had not admitted anything. Just being
wrong condemns them for ever, in his opinion. Since that seems pretty well
established, then let that be his personal opinion. For myself, I have
more
a sense of people changing over time, which may not be his own experience
of
himself or of others. But <shrug> that is merely to argue the paucity and
lack of generosity of his observations - he doesn't want any relievo, he
needs constant villains to be a little parano about, and fallen heroes
like
Fischer to be sceptical of.
Such are the perils of a chess-life lived vicariously.
>> Fischer had no especial financial woes [laugh]
>
> Alas, the nearly-an-IM legend-in-his-own-mind
> Phil Innes has forgotten that Mr. Fischer -- who
> one poster asserted was likely a fine investor
> and manager of money -- was swindled out of
> much of his 1972 winnings... like a child.
>
> As I recall, Mr. Fischer desired a big house,
> built in the shape of a Rook. He wanted to be
> paid big money, like Muhammed Ali was. But
> he was too scared to write books, on account
> of everyone being out to get him, see?
The last people to contact Fischer were Ed Trice and myself. Actually I
dealt mostly with Saemi P. So I must excuse myself from speculation and
seek
my refuge in actual knowledge and direct experience.
>> As far as the public was concerned there was no Fischer-the-person,
there
>> was only the chess hero.
>
> You are talking about the mindless fans here
> in the USA. But there are others who read
> English... who were not so obsessed, or
> deluded about BF. In fact, David Levy wrote
> a book about Mr. Fischer, which, far from
> going over the top, was as they say on the
> Fox TV channel, /fair and balanced/.
You de**** your reference by its publisher, no? Unfortunately you cite an
exception to the norm, which was out-and-out Fischer wor****p.
> Some subjects upon which BF might have
> "safely" written were the Sicilian Defense, the
> "Roy" Lopez, and the endgame. None of
> these entail /personal/ issues, nor even hero
> wor****p.
How absurd to think Fischer would need to teach oepning systems while he
was
still very active creating them!
But Kennedy skips his own attachment, as if he were not here uttering his
opinions. He is plainly fixated on strong players, and a demonstration of
my
point that the person is invisible for those fixated on the hero role.
> People would buy them because
> they believed BF to be a very strong chess
> analyst (think of GM Huebner or Fritz-- two
> powerful analysts who never made it to the
> pinnacle).
>
>
>> And when heroes don't compete any more for us, we
>> the public resent the fact, and want to punnish the Hero.
>
> Even so, it is possible for the "hero" to help
> promote chess -- and make lots of money from
> it -- by writing books and such without having
> to compete. (Think of how many Raymond
> Keene hack-jobs the world could have been
> saved! Eric Schiller could have been a taxi
> driver or something, and we would all have
> /real/ chess books to ****e over.)
You merely suggest a different punishment - that these best in the world
players shoould write materials to entertain you - whereas you are quite
content to be entertained by me! And still cannot talk chess ~ you seem to
have no other orientation than to public persona, and what you don't like
about the /presentation/ of other people.
>
>> The fate of abandoned-celebrity is to be treated just as you have done
>> here
>> with Karpov and Kasparov. You can no longer fantasize yourself into
their
>> situations
>
> I keep getting the feeling that some of the hacks
> here in rgc are a tad frustrated; that they feel a
> need to /project/ upon me their hearts' greatest
> unfulfilled desires of greatness in chess. (Why
> me, I wonder? Is it my innumerable wins at
> GetClub? My good looks, or amazing charm or
> wit? Who knows... .)
I suppose you constant sup****t of GetClub is a primary dumbing-down of the
chess thread, to levels which are truly imbecilic, and therefore the
'hacks'
as you call them, being the general chess reader****p, consider you to have
attained your proper level of contribution. Indeed, you achieve the height
of dumbth.
>
>> neither can you get there by you own efforts - intolerable
>> situation! - [for fantacists] so you 'kill' him still, even though
>> Fischer
>> is dead.
>
> More ad hom. stuff, as always.
>
> Note to imbecilic "projectionists": my view is
> that chess is a horrible *waste* of the human
> intellect.
And here is your confession... though you did not intend it to be such
> As such, the weaker you may be
> (and I expect you are mediocre, at best), the
> better off you are, for you will be less likely to
> get sucked in and waste your pitiful lives away
> on a silly board game.
And these comments are from someone who takes no joy in playing the game,
and only writes to tell others they don't either.
> Now then, what constitutes something more
> worthwhile? The easy answer is the field of
> medicine, or science, or even sharpening
> pencils for that matter. What might be worse
> than wasting one's life away on chess? Well,
> there is politics, lawyering, the advertising
> business, and the /ad hominem/ trade.
>
> Now, I hope you learned something from all
> this. Stop your puerile projections, and face
> your "issues" head-on, like men. (Well, just
> *pretend* to be men then.)
You don't have to pretend anything if you just stick to your experience of
things, playing chess would be on-topic here, and stop living other
people's
lives instead of your own.
Otherwise you will become like Mr. Kennedy, who cannot achieve that modest
state, and regrets that you do to the extent that he must always suppose
what enjoying chess is like.
Phil Innes
> -- help bot
|
