From: Dennis Baker <helios!canal.crc.uno.edu!DCBCS@tssi.com>
Subject: Good-bye Reshevsky stuff
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:45:00 GMT


And now for something completely different...

Sigh...  Well, I've learned a lesson from my posts this week, as well
as from the many private responses I got about these posts.  I got some
hate mail... curiously, I got more hate mail AFTER I apologized to the
list.  I suspect the hyenas smelled a weakness!? :)  But I got more
constructive admonitions, for which I am greatful.  I have to admit I
agreed with many of your points.  (Note to the hate-mail-ees:  there were
only 3 of you, and one accepted my apology, so don't get excited :)

Here's the problem.  I'm basically a nice guy.  No really!  But one of the
problems of being nice is you have to bend a little to please everyone.
Sometimes nice people are seen as wishy-washy.  Many times it's the rude
people "with convictions" that are admired, like Reshevsky was admired
for "sticking to his principles" and not playing on Saturdays.

On the other hand, I view *nothing* as so sacred it can't be discussed.  Of
course, this doesn't mean going off-topic, like I did.  I have already
admitted this was wrong and I apologized.

Unfortunately, I didn't stick to one of my own principles when I brought up
the Reshevsky subject.  In one sense, Bruce Leverett was right -- I was
being disingenuous.  But not in the way he implied.  You see, I had a very
strong opinion of Reshevsky before I even asked my question.  And my opinion
was this (I'm going to use some strong language here to make my point -- I
won't make this a habit) -- Reshevsky was a shit!  THAT was my opinion
BEFORE I asked my question.  This opinion was from a) everything I had read
about him; b) opinions of my friends who played him in a simultaneous
exhibition in Baton Rouge, La. one year, and c) opinions of some friends of
mine who witnessed Reshevsky in action at a few World Opens, National Opens,
U.S. Opens, or something.  I had never EVER heard anything good about him.

No, straightforward is better.  I should had asked, "Everything I've heard and
read says Reshevsky was a shit.  Is this true?"  In fact, I e-mailed a rather
rude reply to the guy who posted the, if I remember correctly, the NYT blurb
on Reshevsky, when he asked me why no one was responding with anything about
Reshevsky.  I said, "Because Reshevsky was a shit."

Now.  How do I know what I know?  This is all second hand.  Also, a lot of 
people have many faces.  How many of you have heard about how rude the
ex-priest, GM Bill Lombardy was?  You read all the time about his rude and
loudmouthed behaviour.  Yet two friends of mine chatted with him at one of
the big national tournaments and really found him to be a nice guy.  One of
them opined that perhaps he liked an audience, but he said nontheless, he
found nothing to dislike.  He talked to them about Larry Christiansen's
loss to our local SM Alfred Carlin and about Jude Acers, among other things.

Locally, we have a master that is well-known for his two faces.  If you've
never beaten him or theatened him OTB, well you couldn't find anyone nicer.
But should you get the better position against him, suddenly belches and
all kinds of other sounds emanate from his person, in addition to his loudly
getting up from his chair and slamming doors as he leaves the room.

So... my opinion of Reshevsky was he was a shit.  But you can't say this on
a network.  How many of you have seen the Steve Martin movie Roxanne, the
Cyrano de Bergerac takeoff?  In this movie, Steve Martin's character is asked
to write a love letter for a friend.  He asks his friend how he feels about 
the woman.  "Horny," is the reply.  "But you can't say 'horny'," SM's character
replies.  "You've got to tone it down [or something].  Like 'I feel your
radiance inside me."  (Or something.)

So looking for an appropriate euphemism, I made the unfortunate switch of
"nasty" for "shit."  Well, I guess this makes sense.  My heart was in shit.
"Nasty" almost inevitably leads to claims of "juicy," "gossipy," "tabloid-y,"
etc.  If I had said, "I heard Reshevsky was a shit," I might of been accused
of being callous (which I'm still probably being accused of anyway), but 
certainly not "gossip seaking."

Regarding the "wait 6 weeks or so" before bringing all this stuff about
Reshevsky up, well, no one talked about Reshevsky before he died (anybody see
any "Reshevsky admiration posts" before his death?), and no one will talk about
him once this all dies down.

Now, I've since discovered that Reshevsky was a lot more.  In fact, I've gone
from having either a negative or zero opinion of him to finding I DO want to
hear more about him.  He is more interesting than I ever imagined.  But then,
I can't ask this -- I'd be accused of "gossip seeking."  Which of course
means, never ask idiots anything about Reshevsky.  You'll only get idiotic
responses.

So I will leave it here, regarding Reshevsky, leaving the cartoon that many
of you desire.  In the future, regarding such "idiotically sensitive" topics,
I shall e-mail privately those that I know can tell me of Reshevsky.

But I also learned this.  Straightforward IS better.  No more Mr. Nice Guy,
trying to please ALL the idiots.  Idiots by their very nature can't be pleased.
And who wants to wasted this time anyway?  Say what you mean and mean what
you say.

Dennis Baker
<DCBCS@uno.edu>

P.S. - That's it for me on Reshevsky.  I will only repond to private e-mail
       regarding Reshevsky in the future.