Questions for Larry Bevand

[Peter McKillop]

Larry, I've copied below a post from another thread. The post was written by Paul Bonham and subsequently edited by your moderator, Nigel Hanrahan. I've 'bolded' and italicized Nigel's contributions.

I didn't see Paul's original comments so I'm not in a position to judge whether Nigel was justified in what he thinks about Paul. I do know that Paul wrote on ChessTalk that Nigel censored his (Paul's) comments because he used a well-known simile ('like putting lipstick on a pig') which in and of itself is not indicative of racism, or hatred, including misogyny.

Why, Larry, do you allow these words (racism, hatred, misogyny) to stand publicly under Paul Bonham's name if, as Paul said, his only 'crime' was the use of the above figure of speech? Nigel's behaviour in this instance is potentially very damaging to Paul. What if, for example, some prospective employer googles his name (this is a fact of life these days) and finds he's been labelled a racist who hates women. Will that enhance Paul's prospects with that employer? If your moderator has a problem with someone's behaviour then all that needs to be said when a post is edited by the moderator is "reason: violation of guidelines." The specifics of the matter should be taken up privately with the individual. Even if a 'reasonable and independent individual acting reasonably' would agree with everything Nigel wrote about Paul, what the hell gives you the right, Larry, to let someone be publicly pilloried on your discussion board?

p.s. For years, Larry, back in the early '00s, you stood by and did next to nothing while a well known Canadian GM used your board to assault people in an over-the-top fashion and often without any apparent justification. Are you now letting your moderator take over that GM's role? Do you really know with absolute certainty that PB is a racist, hatred-filled misogynist?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:

* Racism
* Hatred
....


Chess is driftwood afloat on Lake Placid. Nothing is changing. FIDE is introducing no rule changes. Compare this to the NHL, which annually introduces new rule changes and according to this, is ready to spice up the game a little more:

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2...artner=ya5nbcs

Now, why can't FIDE / chess be so welcoming to rule changes to adapt the game to SPECTATOR INTEREST???

If you really want to know the state of chess, people, here's something Wayne Komer posted from the current World Cup:

Fabiano Caruana: I was cursing myself for not checking this before the game. I had the position somewhere in my computer and I couldn’t remember whether I should put my bishop on c7 or d8 (move 16). I could have used the time later. You can’t think naturally about the move, you are trying to remember what you had on the computer and recreate it. In the end, I chose the wrong move.

This about sums up the problem with elite chess today. Rote memorization of lines stored on computer files (here he mentions move 16, it goes way beyond that). Pay attention, kiddies: this is the skill you need to learn to reach the top in chess. MEMORIZE OPENING LINES STORED ON YOUR COMPUTER. THAT IS YOUR FUTURE IF YOU CHOOSE CHESS. Even Kramnik has complained about this.

And then we have Kasparov (and others) remarking about the low quality of the chess at this level today and the number of blunders being made. It's because no one is learning the art to, as Caruana put it, "think naturally about the move".

And then we now have more games than ever going 150+ moves per player. It's because no chances are being taken, the game should be drawn, but it now becomes an endurance contest. Damn the spectators, just keep playing dreary dull moves until someone makes a blunder or even a tiny miniscule mistake that leads to a lost game in 20 or 30 Houdini-like moves.

Nigel, you are posting rubbish to make yourself look so intellectual and savois faire. But Joshua Hu very succinctly and effectively destroyed your garbage with his description of how poker is much more effective than chess at modeling real life and preparing people for real life, and you had no response to that either.

Chess may be open to everyone, but it is not FOR everyone. Not even close. It increasingly appeals to kids because they (quite understandably) see it as an avenue of creativity, almost infinite. But by the time they leave chess, they realize it is a stale game of memorization and variations on a theme, repeated ad finitum ad nauseum. Anyone who thinks that every game is unique just because it leads to never before encountered positions is deceived. Beneath that veneer of uniqueness is a pattern, a theme, that has been repeated over and over again because standard chess is exhausted of anything truly original.

But I can tell you, there is a new era of chess to come. And it's not Nigel's phony new era full of lipsticked pigs and kids who drop out never to come back until they are seniors and want to avoid Alzheimer's. No, this new era has something to do with Joshua Hu's great insights about poker.

Last edited by Nigel Hanrahan; August 26th, 2013 at 11:29 AM. Reason: violation of guidelines: personal attack, hatred (misogyny)