Evans On Chess. May 24, 1996. Copyright Chesstours. All rights reserved.

                          DIRTY TRICKS

      (Today's guest column is by former Chess Life editor Larry Parr.)

On December 6, 1992, the Policy Board of the U.S. Chess Federation voted
6-0 with one abstention to allocate $1000 to investigate five-time
national champion Larry Evans. They hired the Pinkerton Detective Agency
to determine whether mailing labels on an anti-Semitic letter to USCF
voters from a phony person with a phony address in San Luis Obispo, Ca.,
were photocopies of labels used in an earlier separate mailing by
grandmaster Evans.

Here's the story.

During the 1992 campaign for a seat on the board between Nigel Eddis of
New York and Donald Schultz of Florida, a fraudulent letter accused
Eddis, a political outsider, of being an agent of Russian Jews seeking to
take over American chess. Eddis lost in a landslide.

Schultz and his friends promptly claimed the enemy camp was behind this
dirty trick. But two of his avid supporters, who were both already on the
board of directors, came under suspicion because of circumstantial
evidence reported by Evans in a column he wrote called POISON PEN PLOT.

One of them was travelling by car in the area on the very day when and
where the fake letter was mailed. The other had used phrases identical to
those found in the hate letter. Both hotly denied any involvement.

The results of the investigation vindicated Evans. According to the
official report of vice president Frank Camaratta, "the hypothesis
attempting to link GM Larry Evans with the fraudulent mailings has been
disproved."

The Pinkertons found that the labels used on the fake letter were NOT
copies of labels used by Evans. "A lot of mud was thrown at someone for
no good reason," said Camaratta, who chaired the investigating committee.
Because of the cost involved in pursuing other leads, he recommended
dropping the matter.

In the wake of Evans' vindication, questions arise. Was it wise to bring
private eyes into chess? Why was Evans the only one investigated even
though two board members were suspects? Why were they both allowed to
introduce and vote on a motion targeting Evans? Why didn't Schultz, a
principal in the election, abstain from voting?

The board member who abstained said that he did so "because there had to
be not only fairness, but also the appearance of fairness."

"Fairness!" exclaimed David Saponara, who served on the board from
1988-91. "Fairness had nothing to do with this hideous business. There
can be no excuse for a group of interested parties to use our dues money
for a witch hunt against the journalist who dug up facts implicating some
of them."

The final twist in this bizarre tale is that AFTER Evans was exonerated,
five red-faced board members who voted to fund the investigation against
him decided to split the Pinkerton bill of $670 among themselves.

(Note: This column first appeared on June 13, 1993.)
