From: Dennis Baker <helios!canal.crc.uno.edu!DCBCS@tssi.com>
Subject: Re: Sticking with your principles
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 04:33:00 GMT


On 14 Apr 92 20:05:55 GMT, Bruce_Leverett@TRANSARC.COM writes:

>Forgive me for interrupting your pleasure.  I was suggesting some skepticism.

*My* pleasure?  Sorry, Bruce, but I'm not going to let you off that easy :)
You can slant your argument a make it sound like the only ones on this net
are a bunch of chess groupies, with tongues hanging out, waiting to lap up
every morsel about their favorite chess personalities, and yes, this type of
reasoning might hold some weight.  But *my* pleasure?  Do I have to strip
all the humanity out of chess again, putting it back, little-by-little to see
how much *you* require?

>Stories such as the ones you solicit, about celebrities, are generally
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>worthless from the point of view of actually learning about someone.  There

Slant, slant.  Force your point.  Slant.  Hammer.  Nail.  Buzz words. :)

>are many reasons.  Consider a story such as the one submitted by Mr. Burch.

Well, I'll let Mr. Burch defend himself as he did in another post.  But yes,
you can always pick and choose your stories to make this point, the one you
are pursuing, but the one I'm not interested in.  Again, how much *humanity*
in chess do YOU require?  Any?  None?  Some?

>This relates a trivial misunderstanding, such as could have been straightened
>out on the spot, if Mr. Burch or his fellow TD's had had the time and the
>inclination to do so.  So what does it tell us about Reshevsky?  Nothing.

You are of course correct with this story that you selected to relate your
point.  It just goes to show you that if you pick a story that tells nothing,
it will, in fact, tell you nothing.  So?

>In this case, if we trust Mr. Burch and his memory of events 6 years ago,
>at least you are getting a first-hand story.  (How well do you remember details
>of unimportant events that happened 6 years ago?)  Most of the stories you will

Here I suppose your point is we shouldn't tell any stories older than 6 years
old?  Is that what you are saying!? :)

>get will not be first hand, and they will be much more than 6 years old.
>Moreover, many will be told by people who have a distinct interest in slanting
>the story; for instance, stories about disputes that arose during tournament

You mean like you're slanting this discussion to suit your purposes :)

>play, generally told by partisans of one side or the other.  (The version told
>by one player, is always different in at least one crucial detail from the
>version told by his opponent.)  Then there are the stories that are pure

How about this though -- many versions put together might approach the truth?
I mean I don't know, but we can make all kinds of points by now, rather than
just dawdling over this one.

>fiction, e.g. Korchnoi being deaf.

Are you saying because one story about Korchnoi being deaf is nonsense, ALL
stories are nonsense?

>Worse yet, you're asking for stories in a newsgroup.  The level of discourse
>in newsgroups is just amazingly low.  It's as if it were forbidden ever to
>look anything up in an authoritative source.

I agree with you about this.  But you know you are allowed to help out.  I mean
you do seem to follow this newsgroup, so you must see SOME good in it.  You can
also help lift it a level or so.  But all these types of discussions aside,
about Korchnoi being deaf, about 3-fold repetition, about chess clocks and other
"who cares" stuff (to me -- don't mean to insult anyone.  I've done enough of
that!), there is SOME good stuff, the Tilburg coverage for example.  If the
people who can lift this newsgroup to another level remain aloof, well, whose
fault is that?

>So don't let me stop you, but excuse me for being jaded.  Yes, I've heard lots
>of Browne stories, and Fischer stories, etc.  My experience has been that when
>you meet the guy in person, the bullshit stories fade away and the real human
>being is all that you care about any more.  Unfortunately it is no longer
>possible to meet Reshevsky in person.  Thinking about this makes me sad.

Well that's what *I'm* interested in, the REAL story.  Why do you think chess
magazines like Inside Chess, Chess Chow, New In Chess, even Chess Life have
all these interviews?  Because everyone is interested in the people that play
the game.  Is this all bullshit?  Are all these magazine providing a bull-
shit service?

Also, why do all the stories HAVE to be bullshit?  I didn't say, "Send in
all your bullshit about Reshevsky everyone?"  I said let's hear some Reshevsky
stories.  And yes, I was curious about the nasty stuff -- not because I wanted
some gossip to drool over  -- I didn't know how true this was.  In fact, I
didn't know much of anything about Reshevsky.  I heard rumors and I wanted
to know if these were true.

I understand your skepticism, but geez, so let's say nothing??  And let's
only talk about the good stuff?  I'm interested in the real Reshevsky, not
some cardboard cutout that will fit some marketing image of how everyone
wants Reshevsky to be.  THAT is bullshit.

Really, I think what everyone wants is bullshit.  Well I'm not interested in
the "polished to a spit shine" version.  But it seems finding out about the
real Reshevsky is like pulling teeth.

Also, I DON'T know a lot of stories on a lot of these players.  Your argument
seems to be it's ridculous to ask??

>Here is the score of the tournament game I played against Reshevsky, the one
>time that I met him in person.  You'll see plenty of better games by him,
>but this is my ``in memoriam'' contribution, for what it's worth.

Well thank you Bruce.  This is the kind of stuff I was hoping for.  It's just
that I also take the bad with the good.  But it's interesting to think that
if I wouldn't have provoked you, you wouldn't have bothered to mention your
very interesting thoughts on Reshevsky and given this game!?  Pulling teeth :)

>W: Samuel Reshevsky
>B: Bruce Leverett
>CCA Summer International
>Round 8, July 16, 1982
>
>1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 e3 e6 5 Bxc4 c5 6 O-O a6 7 Qe2 b5 8 Bd3 cxd4
>9 exd4 Bb7 10 Rd1 Nbd7 11 a4 bxa4 12 Rxa4 a5 13 Ne5 Be7 14 Bd2 O-O 15 Ra1 Nxe5
>16 dxe5 Nd5 17 Na3 Bb4 18 Qe4 g6 19 Bh6 Qe7 20 Bxf8 Rxf8 21 Qg4 f6 22 Nc4 fxe5
>23 Bxg6 Rf4 24 Bxh7+ Kxh7 25 Qh5+ Kg8 26 Rd3 Qh4 27 Rg3+ Kf8 28 Qxe5 Rxc4
>29 Qg7+ Ke8 30 Qxb7 Qf4 31 Rg8+ Bf8 32 g3 Rc1+ 33 Rxc1 Qxc1+ 34 Kg2 Qc5
>35 h4 Nf6 36 Rg5 Nd5 37 Re5 Qd6 38 Re1 Qd7 39 Qxd7+ Kxd7 40 f4 a4 41 Re4 a3
>42 bxa3 Bxa3 43 Kf3 Ke7 44 g4 Kf7 45 g5 Ne7 46 h5 Nf5 47 Ra4 Bd6 48 Ra7+ Ne7
>49 Rd7 Bb4 50 Ke4 Ba3 51 h6 Bb2 52 h7 Bh8 53 Rb7 Bg7 54 Kd3 Bh8 55 Ke4 Bg7
>56 Kf3 Bh8 57 Kg4 Bg7 58 Rb8 Ng6 59 Rg8 Bh8 60 Rb8 Bg7 61 Rb7+ Ne7 62 Kh5 Bh8
>63 Ra7 Bg7 64 f5 exf5 65 g6+ Kf6 66 Ra6+ Ke5 67 Ra8 Nd5 68 Re8+ Kf6 69 Rf8+ Ke5
>70 Kg5 Nc7 71 Rxf5+ Ke4 72 Ra5 Ne6+ 73 Kg4 Nf8 74 Ra7 Bd4 75 Re7+ Kd5 76 Kf5,
>Black Resigns.
>
>White's 63 Ra7! was a crucial insight, found during adjournment (I forget when
>the game was adjourned, but it was some time before move 60).  As for the
>rest of the game, presumably 15 ... Nxe5? 16 dxe5 Nd5?? losing the Exchange was
>the crucial error, but both players made other errors, which the reader is
>welcome to look for.  Note that 15 Nc4 would not have won the a-pawn because
>of 15 ... Nb6.

Again, thanks!  This is all very interesting.

Dennis Baker
<DCBCS@uno.edu>

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess