Media comments on chess

[Matt Mackenzie]

Ex KGB General Kalugin, (himself, not an actor) says they would normally have just taken Korchnoi out
but he was deemed too famous, so they used paranormal 'mind control' methods instead.
(though he does not mention what would have happened if Korchnoi won.)

The consequences of that might just have been worse for Karpov than Korchnoi?

Thinking about it, given how the match had turned against him prior to it - and the almost indescribable level of pressure he must have been under - the way AK played in that 32nd game has to be one of the most staggering achievements not just by him, but by anybody.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"This might change in the light of any proper evidence from any other source, but is there anything actually documented anywhere? This would be a proposal to assassinate a then world-famous individual, with all kinds of potential consequences. There would have to be discussions, authorisations, and they're not going to be confined to one person's supposedly stolen file."

It is of course gratifying that KGB would conform to their Quality Procedures in case they were subject to an ISO9001 audit. But even if Korchnoi produced the document he said he had purchased, how would anyone authenticate it? So the argument would continue. What Ian said was evidence, not proof, but it is quite possible that proof does not exist.

So it is quite reasonable to discuss the possibility, which is what it is. As any plan never got carried out, we don't know if there were a plan. We don't know who shot JFK and that was on live television!

[JustinHorton]

. But even if Korchnoi produced the document he said he had purchased, how would anyone authenticate it?

You appreciate that that's an argument agaibst it, not one in its favour?

What Ian said was evidence

It really isn't, because there's nothing to examine. It's barely even hearsay.

[JustinHorton]

It is of course gratifying that KGB would conform to their Quality Procedures in case they were subject to an ISO9001 audit.

This isn't a particularly good point, on all kinds of grounds. Secret services do make records, do have files, do keep archives. So do the political systems that stand over them. One outcone of this has been that since the collapse of the USSR a lot of archives have become open to public inspection (as they have in Eastern European countries, with all kinds of consequences). So there's really quite a lot that students of the period can find out with a high degree of reliability.

[Kevin Thurlow]

" But even if Korchnoi produced the document he said he had purchased, how would anyone authenticate it?"

The point is that fans of the KGB would still dispute it.

[Richard Bates]

. But even if Korchnoi produced the document he said he had purchased, how would anyone authenticate it?

You appreciate that that's an argument agaibst it, not one in its favour?

What Ian said was evidence

It really isn't, because there's nothing to examine. It's barely even hearsay.

Of course it’s evidence. Even hearsay is evidence.
You are changing the meaning of the word.

Just because something is offered as evidence, doesn’t mean it is true. And not just, in this case, because Kortchnoi (or even Ian, theoretically) might be an unreliable witness.

Ian might have misunderstood Korchnoi’s claim. Kortchnoi could have made it up. He could have genuinely had access to a “file”, but the file could have been a fake. Or it could have been a genuine file, but one that just referenced an assassination as a possibility, not definitely, or even potentially to be carried out (an options appraisal if you like).

But it’s still evidence. But evidence requiring of significant additional corroboration to be accepted as something close to the truth.

[NickFaulks]

I tend to be with Justin here. If VK had the file, and even if there were reasons why he did not wish it to be published during his lifetime, it would be unusual behaviour to allow it to evaporate on his death.

[JustinHorton]

. But even if Korchnoi produced the document he said he had purchased, how would anyone authenticate it?

You appreciate that that's an argument agaibst it, not one in its favour?

What Ian said was evidence

It really isn't, because there's nothing to examine. It's barely even hearsay.

Of course it’s evidence. Even hearsay is evidence.
You are changing the meaning of the word.

Just because something is offered as evidence, doesn’t mean it is true.

Are you under the impression here that I think the difference between hearsay and evidence is that the latter is true?

The reason this doesn't reach the level of evidence is that there's nothing in it you can look at to try and determine the truth of it. It's a claim, but it's an evidence-free claim.

I can, if I wish, insist that aliens tried to abduct me on my way back from work this evening. Would that constitute evidence? No, it would constitute a claim.

[Roger de Coverly]

But evidence requiring of significant additional corroboration to be accepted as something close to the truth.

The allegation was made during Korchnoi's lifetime.

From
http://dev.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/The ... -p3686.htm

Not only does it not have any games or diagrams, but in the first 20 pages we learn that many well-known Soviet Grandmasters were recruited to inform for the KGB including Nikolai Krogius, Yury Averbakh, Tigran Petrosian, Rafael Vaganian, Eduard Gufeld and Lev Polugaevsky not to mention Alexander Roshal, the editor of the famous chess magazine 64. If that were not enough, one soon reads that it was very important for Viktor Kortscnoi’s health that he did not win the 1978 World Championship. Had he beaten Anatoly Karpov, the KGB had plans to kill him by the use of a toxic substance that would cause congestive heart failure.

[JustinHorton]

But evidence requiring of significant additional corroboration to be accepted as something close to the truth.

The allegation was made during Korchnoi's lifetime.

Heh, I wondered if Popov et al would come up. What's their source?

[JustinHorton]

I tend to be with Justin here. If VK had the file, and even if there were reasons why he did not wish it to be published during his lifetime, it would be unusual behaviour to allow it to evaporate on his death.

I did wonder (not too seriously) whether it was found among his effects after his death, though of course if it wasn't there could be many reasons why

" But even if Korchnoi produced the document he said he had purchased, how would anyone authenticate it?"

The point is that fans of the KGB would still dispute it.

Who cares? Who would be relying on their opinion?

[Ian Rogers]

I did wonder (not too seriously) whether it was found among his effects after his death, though of course if it wasn't there could be many reasons why


[

Surely Petra would have all Korchnoi's possessions?

[Jacques Parry]

The reason this doesn't reach the level of evidence is that there's nothing in it you can look at to try and determine the truth of it. It's a claim, but it's an evidence-free claim.

I can, if I wish, insist that aliens tried to abduct me on my way back from work this evening. Would that constitute evidence? No, it would constitute a claim.

Suppose you were prosecuted for a crime, and your alibi were that you had in fact been abducted by aliens at the relevant time. Do you think you wouldn't be allowed to assert that, because it isn't evidence? If you were allowed to assert it, do you think the court would have no way of determining whether it was true?

[JustinHorton]

I don't know, but to some degree I don't know what "allowed to assert" means here. I don't think I know what precisely the court would do, except that it clearly would not take my claim into account, presumably because I could not support it in any way.

Is there any history of defendants making or seeking to make such a defence?

[Jacques Parry]

If it were not evidence, it would be inadmissible: that is, the judge would tell the jury to ignore it. But that's not what would happen, because it would be evidence. The judge would tell the jury to decide whether it was true (or, to be strictly accurate, whether they were sure that it was untrue), doubtless with a strong hint that it was very unlikely to be true. And the jury would doubtless convict.

I have no idea whether anyone has ever relied on alien abduction as a defence. It's a hypothetical, like yours. That doesn't mean it isn't clear what the legal position would be.