Main Date: 17 Jun 2005 15:44:30 From: Sam Sloan Subject: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer. Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer. In all of these postings about a grudge match, I have lost track of which march they are talking about, Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer. I think just about everybody realizes that Kingston is such a weak player that he would have no chance whatever against the great me. Of course, that is not really his fault. We have to feel sympathy for those unfortunate people who were born with deformed or defective brains and due to no fault of their own but perhaps the fault of their parents they just cannot play chess. Indeed, we should admire them for the fact that they try to make up for these deficiencies that are no fault of their own by calling themselves masters which they dream of becoming but can never become and by writing magazine articles personally attacking those undeserving persons who just happen to be possessed of greater minds than they and when, having been banned from further publication by those chess magazines, they come here to the public newsgroups to continue their personal attacks. I am gratified that a few persons have offered to back this grudge match with money, especially since they obviously realize that Taylor Kingston would have no chance at all against me and I would probably wipe him out. They are commendable in their willingness to give the kid a chance. Kind of like allowing the runt to play right field in a Little League baseball game. What confuses the situation a bit is that some seem to be talking not about a match between Sloan and Kingston but about a match between Sloan and Bauer. They obviously see that Bauer is rated 2304 and I am rated 1931, so they figure that I have no chance at all against Bauer and so they plan to pick up some easy money. I too figured that Bauer was a much stronger player than I and so I rejected immediately his offer to play me a match for one thousand dollars. However, I just did a quick survey of Bauers tournament result and I have concluded that his published rating is inflated and his current strength is probably not much more than 2100. My actual strength is probably considerable greater than 1931 and so, while I still give Bauer the edge, I feel that I would have some chance of winning a grudge match. Throughout much of his playing career Bauer's rating was around 2150. Bauer has never in his life played in a major open tournament like the World Open or the Chicago Open. Bauer did not play in the recent $500,000 tournament in Minnesota, even though Bauer is from Minnesota and attended the event as a spectator. Bauer got his rating of 2304 by playing a rated match against a friend who was an expert, which Bauer won by a lop-sided score. Bauer has not played since. Bauer got his rating over 2200 by playing in very minor local tournaments in Iowa, such as the Ames Chess Festival and the Dubuque Open. Bauer NEVER DEFEATED A MASTER in any of these tournaments. Most of Bauer's wins were against Class A and Class B players. BAUER HAS NEVER PLAYED A PUBLISHED GAME, as least not so far as I could find. Bauers big result which gave him most of the present rating points was the 1997 Midwest Amateur Team Championship, where Bauer won all his games, scoring 5-0. However, Bauer played no masters in that tournament even though he gained 23 rating points up to 2299. His big win was against Larry Cohen, Chess politico and frequent poster to this group, who was rated 1982. That was more than eight years ago and Bauer has not played in a regular rated tournament since. http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?10320372 However, Bauer has played in one quick rated tournament since: The CCC Fourth Annual Picnic. However, he lost to a player rated 1988 and his overall performance rating from that tournament, calculated using the traditional system, was 1920. Therefore, Bauer is definitely not the 2300 strength player he claims to be. He is probably not master strength and might not even be expert strength considering his eight year absence from competitive chess. By contrast, although I have been relatively inactive, I have not shied away from playing in strong events. Back in 1997 when Bauer was still playing, my rating was 2104. The points I have lost since then have been mostly from playing in the World Open. The World Open is a highly competitive event. The players there have often nursed their ratings down to an artificially open level and have come to kill, hoping to win the $10,000 first class prize. If Bauer could play in an event like that and hold his 2304 rating, I would fully agree that he is a legitimate chess master. However, Bauer does not play in the events like the World Open. Instead, he got his rating by playing in soft events like the Ames Chess Festival and the CCC Fourth Annual Picnic. It is also noteworthy that Randy Bauer did not play at all during 1999-2000, which was a period of severe ratings deflation where most established active players lost between 100 and 200 rating points. I lost 160 points during that period. Bauer lost no points, because he did not play. In summary: 1. Randy Bauer has never defeated a master 2. Randy Bauer has never played a published game. 3. Randy Bauer has never played in a major open tournament. 4. Randy Bauer has obtained a 2304 rating by playing in soft non-competitive chess events where no significant prizes are involved and where most of his opponents are Class A or Class B. Now, let us compare this to me, Sam Sloan: 1. Sam Sloan has defeated many masters and at least two international masters in rated tournament games. 2. Sam Sloan has played many published chess games. 3. Sam Sloan plays almost exclusively in major open tournaments such as the World Open. 4. Sam Sloan plays against anybody, takes on all comers, and is not afraid of losing rating points. Please note that in spite of the above, I do not claim to be a stronger chess player than Randy Bauer. I must respect his high rating, even though it was obtained by playing against soft opponents., However, I do believe that I would have some chance to beat him. I might not be the favorite, but I would have some chance. Therefore, I propose a rated match against both Randy Bauer and Taylor Kingston simultaneously for one thousand dollars. I will play each of them a four game match. If I get four points or more I win one thousand dollars. If I get 3 1/2 points or less, I lose one thousand dollars. Please note that I am taking draw odds. If I beat Taylor Kingston 4-0 (as I believe I will) I still win the match even if in the unlikely event that I lose to Randy Bauer by 4-0. I think that this is a fair match because both Taylor Kingston and Randy Bauer claim to be masters but I claim to be just a Class A player. Therefore, they should have no hesitation about taking this bet. What do you say? Sam Sloan   Date: 21 Jun 2005 12:36:00 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer. "As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly." Proverbs 11. Sam Sloan wrote: > This entire thread started when Taylor Kingston claimed to be a 2300+ > Elo rasted player. Kingston made numerous insulting remarks and > personal attacks on Grandmaster Larry Evans among others. > > I thereupon challenged Taylor Kingston to a chess match for one > thousand dollars cash money. Since Taylor Kingston claims to be nearly > 400 points stronger than me, he should have no hesitation in accepting > this offer. > > Of course, Taylor Kingston was lying. He has never been close to a > 2300 player. The highest his rating has ever been was 1853. A player > at that level would have no chance against me. > > However, rather than admit that he is a liar, Taylor Kingston claimed > that he was too busy and such a wealthy man of the highest ilk that > one thousand dollars was too small an amount to interest him. > > Then, Bauer barged in and challenged me to a match for one thousand > dollars which I immediately declined in view of his 2304 rating. > > However, I later examined his tournament record and realized that he > was probably not really a 2304 player. His email address is > randybauer2300@yahoo.com . This shows that he is very proud of his > 2300 rating and advertises it. > > However, in his entire career as a chess player, Bauer never had a > rating over 2300 untril he played a match against a friend which gave > him 5 more points to raise his rating from 2299 to 2304. That was in > 1997 and Bauer has never played a regularly rated game since then. > > Bauer did play in one quick rated tournament. He lost to a player > rated 1988. Under the traditional system, Bauer would have lost 30 > points in this game. However, under the new Glickman System Bauer only > lost 10 points. I feel that this is a flaw in the Glickman System > which needs to be examined. > > I have never claimed that I can beat Bauer. I merely state that I feel > that his current strength would be about 2150 if he played. I base > this on the fact that Bauer was rated around 2170 back in 1994 when he > was active, he got his rating up by playing only in carefully selected > weak events against carefully selected opponents, he has not played in > eight years and the rating system has deflated by more than 100 points > since then. > > When Bauer got his 2304 rating, my rating was 2107. I have played and > my rating has dropped. Bauer has not played. I believe that his actual > strength is only about 200 points more than mine, which is much less > than the rating system suggests. > > Nevertheless, even if Bauer is only a 2150 player as I claim, he is > still strong enough to beat me easily. I have not challenged Bauer to > a match for money. > > Next came Brock, who is rated only slightly higher than me. Brock has > offered me draw odds and I believe that I can beat him, although I am > by no means guaranteeing victory. > > However, kindly recall that this all started with my challenge to play > Taylor Kingston a match after Kingston repeatedly insisted that he is > a 2300+ player. Everybody, including Bauer and Brock, realized that > Kingston is lying and that he would have no chance, zero, none > whatever against the great me. Kingston is not a chess player at all > and never will be. Kingston gets his jollies by personally attacking > grandmasters like Larry Evans, Raymond Keene and Bobby Fischer. He > feels that he elevates himself to their level by attacking them. > However, everybody else realizes that Kingston is merely a bafoon with > no chess playing ability at all. > > Sam Sloan     Date: 22 Jun 2005 00:50:40 From: Randy Bauer Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer. > Sam Sloan wrote: >> >> Then, Bauer barged in and challenged me to a match for one thousand >> dollars which I immediately declined in view of his 2304 rating. >> >> However, I later examined his tournament record and realized that he >> was probably not really a 2304 player. His email address is >> randybauer2300@yahoo.com . This shows that he is very proud of his >> 2300 rating and advertises it. I have 3 Yahoo email addresses, each with my name followed by an easy to type and remember 4 digit number. Two I keep for personal and work email, and one for chess. It's very easy for me to remember and type 2300, much easier than, say, 1749 or 9530 or such. I fail to see how this has any bearing on your argument that my chess strength is less than advertised, or my rating for that matter. Instead, it's typical Sloan distortion and innuendo. He provides few facts, and those he does spew out are often shown to be incorrect. I will provide the facts once more for the reader to judge. >> >> However, in his entire career as a chess player, Bauer never had a >> rating over 2300 untril he played a match against a friend which gave >> him 5 more points to raise his rating from 2299 to 2304. That was in >> 1997 and Bauer has never played a regularly rated game since then. For starters, Sloan has no way of verifying this fact. He started off his attack on my record by suggesting I had never beaten a rated master. When I trotted out at least 20 such players I had defeated in tournaments, including several game scores and published annotations, he backed off of that one. Now the claim is that since I am only now a 2300-rated player I must not be a 2300 rated player. What Sloan fails to mention is that I gained rating points in 9 of the last 10 tournaments I played. It's kind of far-fetched for me to believe that these were all flukes and my strength was that much below that rating. Further, Sloan also fails to note I was also a master in the mid to late 1980s, before the MSA on the USCF website. At that time, after, for example, winning the Iowa Closed State Championship with a 4-1 score in a field of all masters and experts, my rating was somewhere over 2260. I played at least 80 games as a rated master in that earlier time frame, which also included a 5-0 win in a tournament in Circle Pines MN (I believe it was 1986), which included wins over 2 NMs and 2 experts. In that same time frame, in 2 successive Oklahoma tournaments, I went a combined 4-1 in two games against SM Paul Kuroda, two games against NM Tom Amburn, and one game with NM Cliff McLaughlin. >> >> Bauer did play in one quick rated tournament. He lost to a player >> rated 1988. Under the traditional system, Bauer would have lost 30 >> points in this game. However, under the new Glickman System Bauer only >> lost 10 points. I feel that this is a flaw in the Glickman System >> which needs to be examined. Big deal, I've never cared about my 5 minute rating. The player I lost to, Pete Karagainis, is a fast rising young player with a 2170 rating, by the way. >> >> I have never claimed that I can beat Bauer. I merely state that I feel >> that his current strength would be about 2150 if he played. I base >> this on the fact that Bauer was rated around 2170 back in 1994 when he >> was active, he got his rating up by playing only in carefully selected >> weak events against carefully selected opponents, he has not played in >> eight years and the rating system has deflated by more than 100 points >> since then. This claim, that I only played in "carefully selected weak events against carefully selected oppnents" is an absolute lie. My last tournament, the US Amateur Team Midwest, had 225 players competing -- quite a carefully selected field! In it I beat former and future master Peter Stein (2193) as well as two experts rated 2054 and 2039. My next to last tournament was the South Dakota Governor's Cup, which was won by GMs Serper and Palatnik ahead of GMs Wolf and Kudrin (to whom I lost in the 4th round). It also included 13 other masters, and besides losing to Kudrin, I beat players rated 2124 and 1930 and drew a player rated 2153. It includes an Ames Chess Festival where I tied for first with NM Sharrafuddin ahead of NM Kevin Burnett and future NM Ilya Karasek. It also includes a Waterloo tournament where I finished clear first ahead of NMs Bob Jacobs (with whom I drew in the 4th round in a game I should have won), NM Dan Harger, and future NM Ilya Karasek (who I beat in the last round). Also included is a Goichberg tournament in Kansas City where I finished in the money but behind the winners, which included IM Mike Brooks, NM Jim McLaughlin (I drew with him in the last round) and tied with NM Mark Schiffner (we drew in round 4) and ahead of NMs Andrew Witte, Bob Jacobs, Ken Thomas, Mark Bohannan, and Alan Piper (who I beat in the third round). There are also 3 Iowa State Closed Championships. Twice I finished second behind NM Kevin Burnett and once third behind Burnett and IM Martin Olesen (in all three of those events I drew with Burnett in our game, and I also drew with Olesen the year he finished ahead of me). There are also at least 2 tournaments where I finished second behind IM Mike Brooks. In half of the tournaments I competed in as a master, I came in either first or second. In short, there were lots of competitive tournaments with many strong players. In fact, in the 72 games on the MSA where I was a master that Sloan could have reviewed, there are a total of 4 losses, 19 draws, and 49 wins, which is over an 80% winning percentage. The losses were to players rated 2596, 2249, 2598, and 1979. That works out to an average rating of 2356. The draws were with players rated 2153, 2232, 2235, 2338, 2237, 1802, 2000, 1800, 2323, 2238, 2222, 2597, 1725, 2139, 2359, 2408, 2034, 2380, 2046. That works out to an average rating of those I drew of 2172. Hardly a weak, hand picked field. >> >> When Bauer got his 2304 rating, my rating was 2107. I have played and >> my rating has dropped. Bauer has not played. I believe that his actual >> strength is only about 200 points more than mine, which is much less >> than the rating system suggests. This is a logical fallacy -- because your rating has declined, all ratings in that time frame can be assumed to decline. In fact, as noted on the MSA site, I gained rating points in 9 of the last 10 tournaments I played. It is just as likely to assume I would have gained another 50-100 points. If deflation is, in fact, the cause of your decline (and not, say, advancing age or just a good result or 2 that took you to 2107), I would suggest it is just as possible that I would have settled back into a rating of around 2250, based on current ratings of some opponents I am familiar with. In fact, it appears from looking at Sloan's MSA record that he got to 2100 on the strength of 2 tournament results. This, as opposed to a steady climb in 9 of 10 tournaments, suggests his peak rating, not mine, was the fluke result. >> >> Nevertheless, even if Bauer is only a 2150 player as I claim, he is >> still strong enough to beat me easily. I have not challenged Bauer to >> a match for money. The only logical analysis you have made so far. Randy Bauer >> Sam Sloan >       Date: 21 Jun 2005 23:50:33 From: Angelo DePalma Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer. Randy, I know you're a good player but were you really rated 9530 at one point?? "Randy Bauer" <randybauer2300@yahoo.com > wrote > I have 3 Yahoo email addresses, each with my name followed by an easy to > type and remember 4 digit number. Two I keep for personal and work email, > and one for chess. It's very easy for me to remember and type 2300, much > easier than, say, 1749 or 9530 or such. I fail to see how this has any > bearing on your argument that my chess strength is less than advertised, > or my rating for that matter.         Date: 22 Jun 2005 03:57:07 From: Randy Bauer Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer. "Angelo DePalma" <adpspammersgotohell@tellurian.net > wrote in message news:CYudnTVXGcWWfSXfRVn-tA@garden.net... > > Randy, I know you're a good player but were you really rated 9530 at one > point?? Probably not, although those bonus points were out of control at one time. > > "Randy Bauer" <randybauer2300@yahoo.com> wrote > >> I have 3 Yahoo email addresses, each with my name followed by an easy to >> type and remember 4 digit number. Two I keep for personal and work >> email, and one for chess. It's very easy for me to remember and type >> 2300, much easier than, say, 1749 or 9530 or such. I fail to see how >> this has any bearing on your argument that my chess strength is less than >> advertised, or my rating for that matter. > >   Date: 21 Jun 2005 19:03:21 From: Sam Sloan Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer. At 06:57 PM 6/20/2005 EDT, ChessMarketing@aol.com wrote: >Randy is a good player. Sam, you have no chance against Randy. He is DEFINITELY a solid solid solid master. >How about playing me Sam? You told me you beat me once so you should have no problem doing it again against a patzer like me. I will even give you 4 to 1 odd (For $1,000 you can win $4,000). If I win, 100% of it will go to the Susan Polgar Foundation. If you win, you can do whatever you wish with the money. I am in NY so no need for traveling cost. > We can play 4 games G/30 for $1,000 each game or we can play 4 >games for a total of $1,000 and my vote. Your choice :) What is your point in making this challenge? I beat you a tournament game in 1980 when you were about 13 years old. Your rating now is 2283 and you are a very active player. Assuming that our ratings are accurate, my chances of beating you in a four game match are statistically barely above zero. This entire thread started when Taylor Kingston claimed to be a 2300+ Elo rasted player. Kingston made numerous insulting remarks and personal attacks on Grandmaster Larry Evans among others. I thereupon challenged Taylor Kingston to a chess match for one thousand dollars cash money. Since Taylor Kingston claims to be nearly 400 points stronger than me, he should have no hesitation in accepting this offer. Of course, Taylor Kingston was lying. He has never been close to a 2300 player. The highest his rating has ever been was 1853. A player at that level would have no chance against me. However, rather than admit that he is a liar, Taylor Kingston claimed that he was too busy and such a wealthy man of the highest ilk that one thousand dollars was too small an amount to interest him. Then, Bauer barged in and challenged me to a match for one thousand dollars which I immediately declined in view of his 2304 rating. However, I later examined his tournament record and realized that he was probably not really a 2304 player. His email address is randybauer2300@yahoo.com . This shows that he is very proud of his 2300 rating and advertises it. However, in his entire career as a chess player, Bauer never had a rating over 2300 untril he played a match against a friend which gave him 5 more points to raise his rating from 2299 to 2304. That was in 1997 and Bauer has never played a regularly rated game since then. Bauer did play in one quick rated tournament. He lost to a player rated 1988. Under the traditional system, Bauer would have lost 30 points in this game. However, under the new Glickman System Bauer only lost 10 points. I feel that this is a flaw in the Glickman System which needs to be examined. I have never claimed that I can beat Bauer. I merely state that I feel that his current strength would be about 2150 if he played. I base this on the fact that Bauer was rated around 2170 back in 1994 when he was active, he got his rating up by playing only in carefully selected weak events against carefully selected opponents, he has not played in eight years and the rating system has deflated by more than 100 points since then. When Bauer got his 2304 rating, my rating was 2107. I have played and my rating has dropped. Bauer has not played. I believe that his actual strength is only about 200 points more than mine, which is much less than the rating system suggests. Nevertheless, even if Bauer is only a 2150 player as I claim, he is still strong enough to beat me easily. I have not challenged Bauer to a match for money. Next came Brock, who is rated only slightly higher than me. Brock has offered me draw odds and I believe that I can beat him, although I am by no means guaranteeing victory. However, kindly recall that this all started with my challenge to play Taylor Kingston a match after Kingston repeatedly insisted that he is a 2300+ player. Everybody, including Bauer and Brock, realized that Kingston is lying and that he would have no chance, zero, none whatever against the great me. Kingston is not a chess player at all and never will be. Kingston gets his jollies by personally attacking grandmasters like Larry Evans, Raymond Keene and Bobby Fischer. He feels that he elevates himself to their level by attacking them. However, everybody else realizes that Kingston is merely a bafoon with no chess playing ability at all. Sam Sloan     Date: 21 Jun 2005 15:53:36 From: Angelo DePalma Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer. My rating is 1896 and I think I have a great chance against you. I hereby challenge you to a 20-game match at 5/0 for a prize fund of bragging rights on RGCP. When can you get to Hackettstown? Ken likes babies, btw. adp "Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com > wrote > Of course, Taylor Kingston was lying. He has never been close to a > 2300 player. The highest his rating has ever been was 1853. A player > at that level would have no chance against me.   Date: 21 Jun 2005 07:17:44 From: Mark Houlsby Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer. I think the adjective which applies to Sam here is: "fuckwittednesslessnesslessness". hth   Date: 19 Jun 2005 22:49:03 From: Angelo DePalma Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer. Sam, During the last 10 years (mostly 1995-6) Bauer has been above 2200 for 10 events. I took a quick look and saw that many of his opponents were experts and class A players. It's very tough to keep gaining 10-15 points in almost every event when playing a field that's about one to two classes below you. They're all gunning for you and you have to score 75%-90% just to break even. You're rated 1931. Would you have a better chance picking up 100 rating points by playing against a bunch of 15 year olds from NY rated 1500-1600, or against a field consisting mostly of established 2000-2100 players? My guess is you'd prefer the latter group. Unless the 1500s were old guys. If you're active your rating is probably accurate. Randy's true strength may have declined due to inactivity, but he's still a solid 250 points ahead of you. I think it's safe to say he'd score 80% against you. adp "Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com > wrote in message news:42b2ee3e.16461984@ca.news.verio.net... > Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer. > > In all of these postings about a grudge match, I have lost track of > which march they are talking about, Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. > Bauer. > > I think just about everybody realizes that Kingston is such a weak > player that he would have no chance whatever against the great me. Of > course, that is not really his fault. We have to feel sympathy for > those unfortunate people who were born with deformed or defective > brains and due to no fault of their own but perhaps the fault of their > parents they just cannot play chess. Indeed, we should admire them for > the fact that they try to make up for these deficiencies that are no > fault of their own by calling themselves masters which they dream of > becoming but can never become and by writing magazine articles > personally attacking those undeserving persons who just happen to be > possessed of greater minds than they and when, having been banned from > further publication by those chess magazines, they come here to the > public newsgroups to continue their personal attacks. > > I am gratified that a few persons have offered to back this grudge > match with money, especially since they obviously realize that Taylor > Kingston would have no chance at all against me and I would probably > wipe him out. They are commendable in their willingness to give the > kid a chance. Kind of like allowing the runt to play right field in a > Little League baseball game. > > What confuses the situation a bit is that some seem to be talking not > about a match between Sloan and Kingston but about a match between > Sloan and Bauer. They obviously see that Bauer is rated 2304 and I am > rated 1931, so they figure that I have no chance at all against Bauer > and so they plan to pick up some easy money. > > I too figured that Bauer was a much stronger player than I and so I > rejected immediately his offer to play me a match for one thousand > dollars. However, I just did a quick survey of Bauers tournament > result and I have concluded that his published rating is inflated and > his current strength is probably not much more than 2100. My actual > strength is probably considerable greater than 1931 and so, while I > still give Bauer the edge, I feel that I would have some chance of > winning a grudge match. > > Throughout much of his playing career Bauer's rating was around 2150. > Bauer has never in his life played in a major open tournament like the > World Open or the Chicago Open. Bauer did not play in the recent > $500,000 tournament in Minnesota, even though Bauer is from Minnesota > and attended the event as a spectator. > > Bauer got his rating of 2304 by playing a rated match against a friend > who was an expert, which Bauer won by a lop-sided score. Bauer has not > played since. Bauer got his rating over 2200 by playing in very minor > local tournaments in Iowa, such as the Ames Chess Festival and the > Dubuque Open. Bauer NEVER DEFEATED A MASTER in any of these > tournaments. Most of Bauer's wins were against Class A and Class B > players. BAUER HAS NEVER PLAYED A PUBLISHED GAME, as least not so far > as I could find. > > Bauers big result which gave him most of the present rating points was > the 1997 Midwest Amateur Team Championship, where Bauer won all his > games, scoring 5-0. However, Bauer played no masters in that > tournament even though he gained 23 rating points up to 2299. His big > win was against Larry Cohen, Chess politico and frequent poster to > this group, who was rated 1982. That was more than eight years ago and > Bauer has not played in a regular rated tournament since. > > http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?10320372 > > However, Bauer has played in one quick rated tournament since: The CCC > Fourth Annual Picnic. However, he lost to a player rated 1988 and his > overall performance rating from that tournament, calculated using the > traditional system, was 1920. > > Therefore, Bauer is definitely not the 2300 strength player he claims > to be. He is probably not master strength and might not even be expert > strength considering his eight year absence from competitive chess. > > By contrast, although I have been relatively inactive, I have not > shied away from playing in strong events. Back in 1997 when Bauer was > still playing, my rating was 2104. The points I have lost since then > have been mostly from playing in the World Open. The World Open is a > highly competitive event. The players there have often nursed their > ratings down to an artificially open level and have come to kill, > hoping to win the $10,000 first class prize. If Bauer could play in an > event like that and hold his 2304 rating, I would fully agree that he > is a legitimate chess master. However, Bauer does not play in the > events like the World Open. Instead, he got his rating by playing in > soft events like the Ames Chess Festival and the CCC Fourth Annual > Picnic. > > It is also noteworthy that Randy Bauer did not play at all during > 1999-2000, which was a period of severe ratings deflation where most > established active players lost between 100 and 200 rating points. I > lost 160 points during that period. Bauer lost no points, because he > did not play. > > In summary: > > 1. Randy Bauer has never defeated a master > > 2. Randy Bauer has never played a published game. > > 3. Randy Bauer has never played in a major open tournament. > > 4. Randy Bauer has obtained a 2304 rating by playing in soft > non-competitive chess events where no significant prizes are involved > and where most of his opponents are Class A or Class B. > > Now, let us compare this to me, Sam Sloan: > > 1. Sam Sloan has defeated many masters and at least two international > masters in rated tournament games. > > 2. Sam Sloan has played many published chess games. > > 3. Sam Sloan plays almost exclusively in major open tournaments such > as the World Open. > > 4. Sam Sloan plays against anybody, takes on all comers, and is not > afraid of losing rating points. > > Please note that in spite of the above, I do not claim to be a > stronger chess player than Randy Bauer. I must respect his high > rating, even though it was obtained by playing against soft > opponents., However, I do believe that I would have some chance to > beat him. I might not be the favorite, but I would have some chance. > > Therefore, I propose a rated match against both Randy Bauer and Taylor > Kingston simultaneously for one thousand dollars. > > I will play each of them a four game match. If I get four points or > more I win one thousand dollars. If I get 3 1/2 points or less, I lose > one thousand dollars. > > Please note that I am taking draw odds. If I beat Taylor Kingston 4-0 > (as I believe I will) I still win the match even if in the unlikely > event that I lose to Randy Bauer by 4-0. > > I think that this is a fair match because both Taylor Kingston and > Randy Bauer claim to be masters but I claim to be just a Class A > player. > > Therefore, they should have no hesitation about taking this bet. > > What do you say? > > Sam Sloan     Date: 20 Jun 2005 06:31:25 From: Randy Bauer Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer. In article <S4-dnWA5JYE_syvfRVn-2Q@garden.net >, Angelo DePalma says... > >Sam, > >During the last 10 years (mostly 1995-6) Bauer has been above 2200 for 10 >events. I took a quick look and saw that many of his opponents were experts >and class A players. It's very tough to keep gaining 10-15 points in almost >every event when playing a field that's about one to two classes below you. >They're all gunning for you and you have to score 75%-90% just to break >even. Actually, 12 - I think you probably missed my earlier period above 2200 in 1993 for the State Championship and 1992 for the Ames Chess Festival. Further, there are 2 events where I started as a 2190-something and finished over 2200, and another where I started over 2200 and ended as a 2190-something. Further, as I have pointed out elsewhere, the starting point for the USCF tournament history misses a couple of other very strong periods for my play, one of which was a stretch of at least 60 games above 2200 the year I won the Iowa State Championship, another a strong stretch of tournaments in Oklahoma. For example, in the 9 games that comprised the NE Oklahoma Open and the Tulsa Open (I think it was 1986), I played senior master Paul Kuroda twice, NM Tom Amburn twice and NM Cliff McLaughlin once -- and scored 4-1. I won the Iowa State Closed Championship with a 4-1 score against a field of all masters and experts, and I won a tournament in Circle Pines, MN 5-0 with victories over 2 masters and 2 experts. > >You're rated 1931. Would you have a better chance picking up 100 rating >points by playing against a bunch of 15 year olds from NY rated 1500-1600, >or against a field consisting mostly of established 2000-2100 players? My >guess is you'd prefer the latter group. Unless the 1500s were old guys. That is pretty similar to the situation that often exists for established players in this part of the country. I have travelled to tournaments in South Dakota, for example, where I am 200 points higher rated than any of the local players -- and many of them are plenty tough. I won a tournament in Sioux Falls South Dakota one year where I drew South Dakota players in the first two rounds, then had to win three in a row but still took clear first place. In rounds 4 and 5 I had to beat the highest rated South Dakota players at the tournament to take the top prize (one was 2080, the other 2005). One of my contemporaries when I was a rising junior player in Minnesota, Nels Truelson, now lives in South Dakota and has a hard time keeping his rating above 2200. I know Sloan will scream "deflation" but I think there is more to it than that. > >If you're active your rating is probably accurate. Randy's true strength may >have declined due to inactivity, but he's still a solid 250 points ahead of >you. I think it's safe to say he'd score 80% against you. I think Angelo's analysis is persuasive, and the 250 point difference is probably about right. Sloan, in his disengenuous fashion, suggests that for most of my tournament life my rating was around 2150. What is the basis for this claim? None is given. In fact, the MSA history, which he wishes to use as the basis for his claims, doesn't show a single tournament where my rating was as low as he claims is the average! Talk about being math-challenged. I am hoping to test this hypothesis of decline due to inactivity in the next couple of years. Now that my daughters are older and my time in the budget office is winding down, I hope to get back into playing competitive chess. Randy Bauer > >adp > >"Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote in message >news:42b2ee3e.16461984@ca.news.verio.net... >> Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer. >> >> In all of these postings about a grudge match, I have lost track of >> which march they are talking about, Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. >> Bauer. >> >> I think just about everybody realizes that Kingston is such a weak >> player that he would have no chance whatever against the great me. Of >> course, that is not really his fault. We have to feel sympathy for >> those unfortunate people who were born with deformed or defective >> brains and due to no fault of their own but perhaps the fault of their >> parents they just cannot play chess. Indeed, we should admire them for >> the fact that they try to make up for these deficiencies that are no >> fault of their own by calling themselves masters which they dream of >> becoming but can never become and by writing magazine articles >> personally attacking those undeserving persons who just happen to be >> possessed of greater minds than they and when, having been banned from >> further publication by those chess magazines, they come here to the >> public newsgroups to continue their personal attacks. >> >> I am gratified that a few persons have offered to back this grudge >> match with money, especially since they obviously realize that Taylor >> Kingston would have no chance at all against me and I would probably >> wipe him out. They are commendable in their willingness to give the >> kid a chance. Kind of like allowing the runt to play right field in a >> Little League baseball game. >> >> What confuses the situation a bit is that some seem to be talking not >> about a match between Sloan and Kingston but about a match between >> Sloan and Bauer. They obviously see that Bauer is rated 2304 and I am >> rated 1931, so they figure that I have no chance at all against Bauer >> and so they plan to pick up some easy money. >> >> I too figured that Bauer was a much stronger player than I and so I >> rejected immediately his offer to play me a match for one thousand >> dollars. However, I just did a quick survey of Bauers tournament >> result and I have concluded that his published rating is inflated and >> his current strength is probably not much more than 2100. My actual >> strength is probably considerable greater than 1931 and so, while I >> still give Bauer the edge, I feel that I would have some chance of >> winning a grudge match. >> >> Throughout much of his playing career Bauer's rating was around 2150. >> Bauer has never in his life played in a major open tournament like the >> World Open or the Chicago Open. Bauer did not play in the recent >> $500,000 tournament in Minnesota, even though Bauer is from Minnesota >> and attended the event as a spectator. >> >> Bauer got his rating of 2304 by playing a rated match against a friend >> who was an expert, which Bauer won by a lop-sided score. Bauer has not >> played since. Bauer got his rating over 2200 by playing in very minor >> local tournaments in Iowa, such as the Ames Chess Festival and the >> Dubuque Open. Bauer NEVER DEFEATED A MASTER in any of these >> tournaments. Most of Bauer's wins were against Class A and Class B >> players. BAUER HAS NEVER PLAYED A PUBLISHED GAME, as least not so far >> as I could find. >> >> Bauers big result which gave him most of the present rating points was >> the 1997 Midwest Amateur Team Championship, where Bauer won all his >> games, scoring 5-0. However, Bauer played no masters in that >> tournament even though he gained 23 rating points up to 2299. His big >> win was against Larry Cohen, Chess politico and frequent poster to >> this group, who was rated 1982. That was more than eight years ago and >> Bauer has not played in a regular rated tournament since. >> >> http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?10320372 >> >> However, Bauer has played in one quick rated tournament since: The CCC >> Fourth Annual Picnic. However, he lost to a player rated 1988 and his >> overall performance rating from that tournament, calculated using the >> traditional system, was 1920. >> >> Therefore, Bauer is definitely not the 2300 strength player he claims >> to be. He is probably not master strength and might not even be expert >> strength considering his eight year absence from competitive chess. >> >> By contrast, although I have been relatively inactive, I have not >> shied away from playing in strong events. Back in 1997 when Bauer was >> still playing, my rating was 2104. The points I have lost since then >> have been mostly from playing in the World Open. The World Open is a >> highly competitive event. The players there have often nursed their >> ratings down to an artificially open level and have come to kill, >> hoping to win the $10,000 first class prize. If Bauer could play in an >> event like that and hold his 2304 rating, I would fully agree that he >> is a legitimate chess master. However, Bauer does not play in the >> events like the World Open. Instead, he got his rating by playing in >> soft events like the Ames Chess Festival and the CCC Fourth Annual >> Picnic. >> >> It is also noteworthy that Randy Bauer did not play at all during >> 1999-2000, which was a period of severe ratings deflation where most >> established active players lost between 100 and 200 rating points. I >> lost 160 points during that period. Bauer lost no points, because he >> did not play. >> >> In summary: >> >> 1. Randy Bauer has never defeated a master >> >> 2. Randy Bauer has never played a published game. >> >> 3. Randy Bauer has never played in a major open tournament. >> >> 4. Randy Bauer has obtained a 2304 rating by playing in soft >> non-competitive chess events where no significant prizes are involved >> and where most of his opponents are Class A or Class B. >> >> Now, let us compare this to me, Sam Sloan: >> >> 1. Sam Sloan has defeated many masters and at least two international >> masters in rated tournament games. >> >> 2. Sam Sloan has played many published chess games. >> >> 3. Sam Sloan plays almost exclusively in major open tournaments such >> as the World Open. >> >> 4. Sam Sloan plays against anybody, takes on all comers, and is not >> afraid of losing rating points. >> >> Please note that in spite of the above, I do not claim to be a >> stronger chess player than Randy Bauer. I must respect his high >> rating, even though it was obtained by playing against soft >> opponents., However, I do believe that I would have some chance to >> beat him. I might not be the favorite, but I would have some chance. >> >> Therefore, I propose a rated match against both Randy Bauer and Taylor >> Kingston simultaneously for one thousand dollars. >> >> I will play each of them a four game match. If I get four points or >> more I win one thousand dollars. If I get 3 1/2 points or less, I lose >> one thousand dollars. >> >> Please note that I am taking draw odds. If I beat Taylor Kingston 4-0 >> (as I believe I will) I still win the match even if in the unlikely >> event that I lose to Randy Bauer by 4-0. >> >> I think that this is a fair match because both Taylor Kingston and >> Randy Bauer claim to be masters but I claim to be just a Class A >> player. >> >> Therefore, they should have no hesitation about taking this bet. >> >> What do you say? >> >> Sam Sloan > >       Date: 20 Jun 2005 10:27:42 From: Angelo DePalma Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer. Randy, My analysis is only a "two standard deviation units" prediction. There is a chance, if all the planets align correctly, that he could beat you. Way back when I was in grad school I befriended a mid-A player who claimed he could beat me 80-20 in a 100-game blitz match with $50 at stake. At the time my rating was about 1560. We stopped the match at 50-31 in my favor. In our case I was much better at tactics and open positions than my friend, and he realized that. I agreed to double or nothing (dumb) and he played nothing but closed stuff with white and black, and the score was approximately reversed. adp "Randy Bauer" <Randy_member@newsguy.com > wrote in message news:129274285.000077aa.011@drn.newsguy.com... > In article <S4-dnWA5JYE_syvfRVn-2Q@garden.net>, Angelo DePalma says... >> >>Sam, >> >>During the last 10 years (mostly 1995-6) Bauer has been above 2200 for 10 >>events. I took a quick look and saw that many of his opponents were >>experts >>and class A players. It's very tough to keep gaining 10-15 points in >>almost >>every event when playing a field that's about one to two classes below >>you. >>They're all gunning for you and you have to score 75%-90% just to break >>even. > > Actually, 12 - I think you probably missed my earlier period above 2200 in > 1993 > for the State Championship and 1992 for the Ames Chess Festival. Further, > there > are 2 events where I started as a 2190-something and finished over 2200, > and > another where I started over 2200 and ended as a 2190-something. > > Further, as I have pointed out elsewhere, the starting point for the USCF > tournament history misses a couple of other very strong periods for my > play, one > of which was a stretch of at least 60 games above 2200 the year I won the > Iowa > State Championship, another a strong stretch of tournaments in Oklahoma. > For > example, in the 9 games that comprised the NE Oklahoma Open and the Tulsa > Open > (I think it was 1986), I played senior master Paul Kuroda twice, NM Tom > Amburn > twice and NM Cliff McLaughlin once -- and scored 4-1. I won the Iowa > State > Closed Championship with a 4-1 score against a field of all masters and > experts, > and I won a tournament in Circle Pines, MN 5-0 with victories over 2 > masters and > 2 experts. >> >>You're rated 1931. Would you have a better chance picking up 100 rating >>points by playing against a bunch of 15 year olds from NY rated 1500-1600, >>or against a field consisting mostly of established 2000-2100 players? My >>guess is you'd prefer the latter group. Unless the 1500s were old guys. > > That is pretty similar to the situation that often exists for established > players in this part of the country. I have travelled to tournaments in > South > Dakota, for example, where I am 200 points higher rated than any of the > local > players -- and many of them are plenty tough. I won a tournament in Sioux > Falls > South Dakota one year where I drew South Dakota players in the first two > rounds, > then had to win three in a row but still took clear first place. In > rounds 4 > and 5 I had to beat the highest rated South Dakota players at the > tournament to > take the top prize (one was 2080, the other 2005). > > One of my contemporaries when I was a rising junior player in Minnesota, > Nels > Truelson, now lives in South Dakota and has a hard time keeping his rating > above > 2200. I know Sloan will scream "deflation" but I think there is more to > it than > that. > >> >>If you're active your rating is probably accurate. Randy's true strength >>may >>have declined due to inactivity, but he's still a solid 250 points ahead >>of >>you. I think it's safe to say he'd score 80% against you. > > I think Angelo's analysis is persuasive, and the 250 point difference is > probably about right. Sloan, in his disengenuous fashion, suggests that > for > most of my tournament life my rating was around 2150. What is the basis > for > this claim? None is given. In fact, the MSA history, which he wishes to > use as > the basis for his claims, doesn't show a single tournament where my rating > was > as low as he claims is the average! Talk about being math-challenged. > > I am hoping to test this hypothesis of decline due to inactivity in the > next > couple of years. Now that my daughters are older and my time in the > budget > office is winding down, I hope to get back into playing competitive chess. > > Randy Bauer > >> >>adp >> >>"Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote in message >>news:42b2ee3e.16461984@ca.news.verio.net... >>> Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer. >>> >>> In all of these postings about a grudge match, I have lost track of >>> which march they are talking about, Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. >>> Bauer. >>> >>> I think just about everybody realizes that Kingston is such a weak >>> player that he would have no chance whatever against the great me. Of >>> course, that is not really his fault. We have to feel sympathy for >>> those unfortunate people who were born with deformed or defective >>> brains and due to no fault of their own but perhaps the fault of their >>> parents they just cannot play chess. Indeed, we should admire them for >>> the fact that they try to make up for these deficiencies that are no >>> fault of their own by calling themselves masters which they dream of >>> becoming but can never become and by writing magazine articles >>> personally attacking those undeserving persons who just happen to be >>> possessed of greater minds than they and when, having been banned from >>> further publication by those chess magazines, they come here to the >>> public newsgroups to continue their personal attacks. >>> >>> I am gratified that a few persons have offered to back this grudge >>> match with money, especially since they obviously realize that Taylor >>> Kingston would have no chance at all against me and I would probably >>> wipe him out. They are commendable in their willingness to give the >>> kid a chance. Kind of like allowing the runt to play right field in a >>> Little League baseball game. >>> >>> What confuses the situation a bit is that some seem to be talking not >>> about a match between Sloan and Kingston but about a match between >>> Sloan and Bauer. They obviously see that Bauer is rated 2304 and I am >>> rated 1931, so they figure that I have no chance at all against Bauer >>> and so they plan to pick up some easy money. >>> >>> I too figured that Bauer was a much stronger player than I and so I >>> rejected immediately his offer to play me a match for one thousand >>> dollars. However, I just did a quick survey of Bauers tournament >>> result and I have concluded that his published rating is inflated and >>> his current strength is probably not much more than 2100. My actual >>> strength is probably considerable greater than 1931 and so, while I >>> still give Bauer the edge, I feel that I would have some chance of >>> winning a grudge match. >>> >>> Throughout much of his playing career Bauer's rating was around 2150. >>> Bauer has never in his life played in a major open tournament like the >>> World Open or the Chicago Open. Bauer did not play in the recent >>> $500,000 tournament in Minnesota, even though Bauer is from Minnesota >>> and attended the event as a spectator. >>> >>> Bauer got his rating of 2304 by playing a rated match against a friend >>> who was an expert, which Bauer won by a lop-sided score. Bauer has not >>> played since. Bauer got his rating over 2200 by playing in very minor >>> local tournaments in Iowa, such as the Ames Chess Festival and the >>> Dubuque Open. Bauer NEVER DEFEATED A MASTER in any of these >>> tournaments. Most of Bauer's wins were against Class A and Class B >>> players. BAUER HAS NEVER PLAYED A PUBLISHED GAME, as least not so far >>> as I could find. >>> >>> Bauers big result which gave him most of the present rating points was >>> the 1997 Midwest Amateur Team Championship, where Bauer won all his >>> games, scoring 5-0. However, Bauer played no masters in that >>> tournament even though he gained 23 rating points up to 2299. His big >>> win was against Larry Cohen, Chess politico and frequent poster to >>> this group, who was rated 1982. That was more than eight years ago and >>> Bauer has not played in a regular rated tournament since. >>> >>> http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?10320372 >>> >>> However, Bauer has played in one quick rated tournament since: The CCC >>> Fourth Annual Picnic. However, he lost to a player rated 1988 and his >>> overall performance rating from that tournament, calculated using the >>> traditional system, was 1920. >>> >>> Therefore, Bauer is definitely not the 2300 strength player he claims >>> to be. He is probably not master strength and might not even be expert >>> strength considering his eight year absence from competitive chess. >>> >>> By contrast, although I have been relatively inactive, I have not >>> shied away from playing in strong events. Back in 1997 when Bauer was >>> still playing, my rating was 2104. The points I have lost since then >>> have been mostly from playing in the World Open. The World Open is a >>> highly competitive event. The players there have often nursed their >>> ratings down to an artificially open level and have come to kill, >>> hoping to win the $10,000 first class prize. If Bauer could play in an >>> event like that and hold his 2304 rating, I would fully agree that he >>> is a legitimate chess master. However, Bauer does not play in the >>> events like the World Open. Instead, he got his rating by playing in >>> soft events like the Ames Chess Festival and the CCC Fourth Annual >>> Picnic. >>> >>> It is also noteworthy that Randy Bauer did not play at all during >>> 1999-2000, which was a period of severe ratings deflation where most >>> established active players lost between 100 and 200 rating points. I >>> lost 160 points during that period. Bauer lost no points, because he >>> did not play. >>> >>> In summary: >>> >>> 1. Randy Bauer has never defeated a master >>> >>> 2. Randy Bauer has never played a published game. >>> >>> 3. Randy Bauer has never played in a major open tournament. >>> >>> 4. Randy Bauer has obtained a 2304 rating by playing in soft >>> non-competitive chess events where no significant prizes are involved >>> and where most of his opponents are Class A or Class B. >>> >>> Now, let us compare this to me, Sam Sloan: >>> >>> 1. Sam Sloan has defeated many masters and at least two international >>> masters in rated tournament games. >>> >>> 2. Sam Sloan has played many published chess games. >>> >>> 3. Sam Sloan plays almost exclusively in major open tournaments such >>> as the World Open. >>> >>> 4. Sam Sloan plays against anybody, takes on all comers, and is not >>> afraid of losing rating points. >>> >>> Please note that in spite of the above, I do not claim to be a >>> stronger chess player than Randy Bauer. I must respect his high >>> rating, even though it was obtained by playing against soft >>> opponents., However, I do believe that I would have some chance to >>> beat him. I might not be the favorite, but I would have some chance. >>> >>> Therefore, I propose a rated match against both Randy Bauer and Taylor >>> Kingston simultaneously for one thousand dollars. >>> >>> I will play each of them a four game match. If I get four points or >>> more I win one thousand dollars. If I get 3 1/2 points or less, I lose >>> one thousand dollars. >>> >>> Please note that I am taking draw odds. If I beat Taylor Kingston 4-0 >>> (as I believe I will) I still win the match even if in the unlikely >>> event that I lose to Randy Bauer by 4-0. >>> >>> I think that this is a fair match because both Taylor Kingston and >>> Randy Bauer claim to be masters but I claim to be just a Class A >>> player. >>> >>> Therefore, they should have no hesitation about taking this bet. >>> >>> What do you say? >>> >>> Sam Sloan >> >> >         Date: 20 Jun 2005 08:27:07 From: Randy Bauer Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer. In article <WMadnXQI_er_TyvfRVn-pw@garden.net >, Angelo DePalma says... > >Randy, > >My analysis is only a "two standard deviation units" prediction. There is a >chance, if all the planets align correctly, that he could beat you. Agreed. It would be a pretty big upset, though. Even if I accepted the fact that Sloan's current rating should be inflated by 100 points or mine deflated by 100 points, it has been a rare occurrence for me to lose to a significantly lower rated player (draws less so, but the prospect of Sloan drawing 4 games against me is pretty unlikely). In the events where I was a master on the USCF MSA tournament history (either before or after), there are 72 games, of which 4 are losses. My losses were to players rated 2596, 2249, 2598, and 1979. That works out to an average rating of those I lost to of 2356. Drop a hundred points off the average and it still looks pretty good. There were also 19 draws, to players rated 2153, 2232, 2235, 2338, 2237, 1802, 2000, 1800, 2323, 2238, 2222, 2597, 1725, 2139, 2359, 2408, 2034, 2380, 2046. That works out to an average rating of those I drew of 2172. Drop a hndred points off the average and it too still looks significantly better than Sloan's rating. > >Way back when I was in grad school I befriended a mid-A player who claimed >he could beat me 80-20 in a 100-game blitz match with $50 at stake. At the >time my rating was about 1560. We stopped the match at 50-31 in my favor. > >In our case I was much better at tactics and open positions than my friend, >and he realized that. I agreed to double or nothing (dumb) and he played >nothing but closed stuff with white and black, and the score was >approximately reversed. > >adp You make a good point. I would most likely play my usual positional chess against someone of Sloan's tendencies. My belief is he would find plenty of rope with which to hang himself. Randy Bauer > > > >"Randy Bauer" <Randy_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message >news:129274285.000077aa.011@drn.newsguy.com... >> In article <S4-dnWA5JYE_syvfRVn-2Q@garden.net>, Angelo DePalma says... >>> >>>Sam, >>> >>>During the last 10 years (mostly 1995-6) Bauer has been above 2200 for 10 >>>events. I took a quick look and saw that many of his opponents were >>>experts >>>and class A players. It's very tough to keep gaining 10-15 points in >>>almost >>>every event when playing a field that's about one to two classes below >>>you. >>>They're all gunning for you and you have to score 75%-90% just to break >>>even. >> >> Actually, 12 - I think you probably missed my earlier period above 2200 in >> 1993 >> for the State Championship and 1992 for the Ames Chess Festival. Further, >> there >> are 2 events where I started as a 2190-something and finished over 2200, >> and >> another where I started over 2200 and ended as a 2190-something. >> >> Further, as I have pointed out elsewhere, the starting point for the USCF >> tournament history misses a couple of other very strong periods for my >> play, one >> of which was a stretch of at least 60 games above 2200 the year I won the >> Iowa >> State Championship, another a strong stretch of tournaments in Oklahoma. >> For >> example, in the 9 games that comprised the NE Oklahoma Open and the Tulsa >> Open >> (I think it was 1986), I played senior master Paul Kuroda twice, NM Tom >> Amburn >> twice and NM Cliff McLaughlin once -- and scored 4-1. I won the Iowa >> State >> Closed Championship with a 4-1 score against a field of all masters and >> experts, >> and I won a tournament in Circle Pines, MN 5-0 with victories over 2 >> masters and >> 2 experts. >>> >>>You're rated 1931. Would you have a better chance picking up 100 rating >>>points by playing against a bunch of 15 year olds from NY rated 1500-1600, >>>or against a field consisting mostly of established 2000-2100 players? My >>>guess is you'd prefer the latter group. Unless the 1500s were old guys. >> >> That is pretty similar to the situation that often exists for established >> players in this part of the country. I have travelled to tournaments in >> South >> Dakota, for example, where I am 200 points higher rated than any of the >> local >> players -- and many of them are plenty tough. I won a tournament in Sioux >> Falls >> South Dakota one year where I drew South Dakota players in the first two >> rounds, >> then had to win three in a row but still took clear first place. In >> rounds 4 >> and 5 I had to beat the highest rated South Dakota players at the >> tournament to >> take the top prize (one was 2080, the other 2005). >> >> One of my contemporaries when I was a rising junior player in Minnesota, >> Nels >> Truelson, now lives in South Dakota and has a hard time keeping his rating >> above >> 2200. I know Sloan will scream "deflation" but I think there is more to >> it than >> that. >> >>> >>>If you're active your rating is probably accurate. Randy's true strength >>>may >>>have declined due to inactivity, but he's still a solid 250 points ahead >>>of >>>you. I think it's safe to say he'd score 80% against you. >> >> I think Angelo's analysis is persuasive, and the 250 point difference is >> probably about right. Sloan, in his disengenuous fashion, suggests that >> for >> most of my tournament life my rating was around 2150. What is the basis >> for >> this claim? None is given. In fact, the MSA history, which he wishes to >> use as >> the basis for his claims, doesn't show a single tournament where my rating >> was >> as low as he claims is the average! Talk about being math-challenged. >> >> I am hoping to test this hypothesis of decline due to inactivity in the >> next >> couple of years. Now that my daughters are older and my time in the >> budget >> office is winding down, I hope to get back into playing competitive chess. >> >> Randy Bauer >> >>> >>>adp >>> >>>"Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote in message >>>news:42b2ee3e.16461984@ca.news.verio.net... >>>> Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer. >>>> >>>> In all of these postings about a grudge match, I have lost track of >>>> which march they are talking about, Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. >>>> Bauer. >>>> >>>> I think just about everybody realizes that Kingston is such a weak >>>> player that he would have no chance whatever against the great me. Of >>>> course, that is not really his fault. We have to feel sympathy for >>>> those unfortunate people who were born with deformed or defective >>>> brains and due to no fault of their own but perhaps the fault of their >>>> parents they just cannot play chess. Indeed, we should admire them for >>>> the fact that they try to make up for these deficiencies that are no >>>> fault of their own by calling themselves masters which they dream of >>>> becoming but can never become and by writing magazine articles >>>> personally attacking those undeserving persons who just happen to be >>>> possessed of greater minds than they and when, having been banned from >>>> further publication by those chess magazines, they come here to the >>>> public newsgroups to continue their personal attacks. >>>> >>>> I am gratified that a few persons have offered to back this grudge >>>> match with money, especially since they obviously realize that Taylor >>>> Kingston would have no chance at all against me and I would probably >>>> wipe him out. They are commendable in their willingness to give the >>>> kid a chance. Kind of like allowing the runt to play right field in a >>>> Little League baseball game. >>>> >>>> What confuses the situation a bit is that some seem to be talking not >>>> about a match between Sloan and Kingston but about a match between >>>> Sloan and Bauer. They obviously see that Bauer is rated 2304 and I am >>>> rated 1931, so they figure that I have no chance at all against Bauer >>>> and so they plan to pick up some easy money. >>>> >>>> I too figured that Bauer was a much stronger player than I and so I >>>> rejected immediately his offer to play me a match for one thousand >>>> dollars. However, I just did a quick survey of Bauers tournament >>>> result and I have concluded that his published rating is inflated and >>>> his current strength is probably not much more than 2100. My actual >>>> strength is probably considerable greater than 1931 and so, while I >>>> still give Bauer the edge, I feel that I would have some chance of >>>> winning a grudge match. >>>> >>>> Throughout much of his playing career Bauer's rating was around 2150. >>>> Bauer has never in his life played in a major open tournament like the >>>> World Open or the Chicago Open. Bauer did not play in the recent >>>> $500,000 tournament in Minnesota, even though Bauer is from Minnesota >>>> and attended the event as a spectator. >>>> >>>> Bauer got his rating of 2304 by playing a rated match against a friend >>>> who was an expert, which Bauer won by a lop-sided score. Bauer has not >>>> played since. Bauer got his rating over 2200 by playing in very minor >>>> local tournaments in Iowa, such as the Ames Chess Festival and the >>>> Dubuque Open. Bauer NEVER DEFEATED A MASTER in any of these >>>> tournaments. Most of Bauer's wins were against Class A and Class B >>>> players. BAUER HAS NEVER PLAYED A PUBLISHED GAME, as least not so far >>>> as I could find. >>>> >>>> Bauers big result which gave him most of the present rating points was >>>> the 1997 Midwest Amateur Team Championship, where Bauer won all his >>>> games, scoring 5-0. However, Bauer played no masters in that >>>> tournament even though he gained 23 rating points up to 2299. His big >>>> win was against Larry Cohen, Chess politico and frequent poster to >>>> this group, who was rated 1982. That was more than eight years ago and >>>> Bauer has not played in a regular rated tournament since. >>>> >>>> http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?10320372 >>>> >>>> However, Bauer has played in one quick rated tournament since: The CCC >>>> Fourth Annual Picnic. However, he lost to a player rated 1988 and his >>>> overall performance rating from that tournament, calculated using the >>>> traditional system, was 1920. >>>> >>>> Therefore, Bauer is definitely not the 2300 strength player he claims >>>> to be. He is probably not master strength and might not even be expert >>>> strength considering his eight year absence from competitive chess. >>>> >>>> By contrast, although I have been relatively inactive, I have not >>>> shied away from playing in strong events. Back in 1997 when Bauer was >>>> still playing, my rating was 2104. The points I have lost since then >>>> have been mostly from playing in the World Open. The World Open is a >>>> highly competitive event. The players there have often nursed their >>>> ratings down to an artificially open level and have come to kill, >>>> hoping to win the $10,000 first class prize. If Bauer could play in an >>>> event like that and hold his 2304 rating, I would fully agree that he >>>> is a legitimate chess master. However, Bauer does not play in the >>>> events like the World Open. Instead, he got his rating by playing in >>>> soft events like the Ames Chess Festival and the CCC Fourth Annual >>>> Picnic. >>>> >>>> It is also noteworthy that Randy Bauer did not play at all during >>>> 1999-2000, which was a period of severe ratings deflation where most >>>> established active players lost between 100 and 200 rating points. I >>>> lost 160 points during that period. Bauer lost no points, because he >>>> did not play. >>>> >>>> In summary: >>>> >>>> 1. Randy Bauer has never defeated a master >>>> >>>> 2. Randy Bauer has never played a published game. >>>> >>>> 3. Randy Bauer has never played in a major open tournament. >>>> >>>> 4. Randy Bauer has obtained a 2304 rating by playing in soft >>>> non-competitive chess events where no significant prizes are involved >>>> and where most of his opponents are Class A or Class B. >>>> >>>> Now, let us compare this to me, Sam Sloan: >>>> >>>> 1. Sam Sloan has defeated many masters and at least two international >>>> masters in rated tournament games. >>>> >>>> 2. Sam Sloan has played many published chess games. >>>> >>>> 3. Sam Sloan plays almost exclusively in major open tournaments such >>>> as the World Open. >>>> >>>> 4. Sam Sloan plays against anybody, takes on all comers, and is not >>>> afraid of losing rating points. >>>> >>>> Please note that in spite of the above, I do not claim to be a >>>> stronger chess player than Randy Bauer. I must respect his high >>>> rating, even though it was obtained by playing against soft >>>> opponents., However, I do believe that I would have some chance to >>>> beat him. I might not be the favorite, but I would have some chance. >>>> >>>> Therefore, I propose a rated match against both Randy Bauer and Taylor >>>> Kingston simultaneously for one thousand dollars. >>>> >>>> I will play each of them a four game match. If I get four points or >>>> more I win one thousand dollars. If I get 3 1/2 points or less, I lose >>>> one thousand dollars. >>>> >>>> Please note that I am taking draw odds. If I beat Taylor Kingston 4-0 >>>> (as I believe I will) I still win the match even if in the unlikely >>>> event that I lose to Randy Bauer by 4-0. >>>> >>>> I think that this is a fair match because both Taylor Kingston and >>>> Randy Bauer claim to be masters but I claim to be just a Class A >>>> player. >>>> >>>> Therefore, they should have no hesitation about taking this bet. >>>> >>>> What do you say? >>>> >>>> Sam Sloan >>> >>> >> > >           Date: 21 Jun 2005 09:24:54 From: Angelo DePalma Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer. I think the issue of who's objectively the better player needs no further elaboration. That said, I don't blame Sam for his bluster. What's the word here? Not brinkmanship...somebody help me here. It's way too early for me to be thinking. If you play, beware the Damiano! "Randy Bauer" <Randy_member@newsguy.com > wrote in message news:129281227.0000cd2f.057@drn.newsguy.com... > In article <WMadnXQI_er_TyvfRVn-pw@garden.net>, Angelo DePalma says... >> >>Randy, >> >>My analysis is only a "two standard deviation units" prediction. There is >>a >>chance, if all the planets align correctly, that he could beat you. > > Agreed. It would be a pretty big upset, though. > > Even if I accepted the fact that Sloan's current rating should be inflated > by > 100 points or mine deflated by 100 points, it has been a rare occurrence > for me > to lose to a significantly lower rated player (draws less so, but the > prospect > of Sloan drawing 4 games against me is pretty unlikely). > > In the events where I was a master on the USCF MSA tournament history > (either > before or after), there are 72 games, of which 4 are losses. My losses > were to > players rated 2596, 2249, 2598, and 1979. That works out to an average > rating > of those I lost to of 2356. Drop a hundred points off the average and it > still > looks pretty good. > > There were also 19 draws, to players rated 2153, 2232, 2235, 2338, 2237, > 1802, > 2000, 1800, 2323, 2238, 2222, 2597, 1725, 2139, 2359, 2408, 2034, 2380, > 2046. > That works out to an average rating of those I drew of 2172. Drop a > hndred > points off the average and it too still looks significantly better than > Sloan's > rating. > >> >>Way back when I was in grad school I befriended a mid-A player who claimed >>he could beat me 80-20 in a 100-game blitz match with $50 at stake. At the >>time my rating was about 1560. We stopped the match at 50-31 in my favor. >> >>In our case I was much better at tactics and open positions than my >>friend, >>and he realized that. I agreed to double or nothing (dumb) and he played >>nothing but closed stuff with white and black, and the score was >>approximately reversed. >> >>adp > > You make a good point. I would most likely play my usual positional chess > against someone of Sloan's tendencies. My belief is he would find plenty > of rope > with which to hang himself. > > Randy Bauer >> >> >> >>"Randy Bauer" <Randy_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message >>news:129274285.000077aa.011@drn.newsguy.com... >>> In article <S4-dnWA5JYE_syvfRVn-2Q@garden.net>, Angelo DePalma says... >>>> >>>>Sam, >>>> >>>>During the last 10 years (mostly 1995-6) Bauer has been above 2200 for >>>>10 >>>>events. I took a quick look and saw that many of his opponents were >>>>experts >>>>and class A players. It's very tough to keep gaining 10-15 points in >>>>almost >>>>every event when playing a field that's about one to two classes below >>>>you. >>>>They're all gunning for you and you have to score 75%-90% just to break >>>>even. >>> >>> Actually, 12 - I think you probably missed my earlier period above 2200 >>> in >>> 1993 >>> for the State Championship and 1992 for the Ames Chess Festival. >>> Further, >>> there >>> are 2 events where I started as a 2190-something and finished over 2200, >>> and >>> another where I started over 2200 and ended as a 2190-something. >>> >>> Further, as I have pointed out elsewhere, the starting point for the >>> USCF >>> tournament history misses a couple of other very strong periods for my >>> play, one >>> of which was a stretch of at least 60 games above 2200 the year I won >>> the >>> Iowa >>> State Championship, another a strong stretch of tournaments in Oklahoma. >>> For >>> example, in the 9 games that comprised the NE Oklahoma Open and the >>> Tulsa >>> Open >>> (I think it was 1986), I played senior master Paul Kuroda twice, NM Tom >>> Amburn >>> twice and NM Cliff McLaughlin once -- and scored 4-1. I won the Iowa >>> State >>> Closed Championship with a 4-1 score against a field of all masters and >>> experts, >>> and I won a tournament in Circle Pines, MN 5-0 with victories over 2 >>> masters and >>> 2 experts. >>>> >>>>You're rated 1931. Would you have a better chance picking up 100 rating >>>>points by playing against a bunch of 15 year olds from NY rated >>>>1500-1600, >>>>or against a field consisting mostly of established 2000-2100 players? >>>>My >>>>guess is you'd prefer the latter group. Unless the 1500s were old guys. >>> >>> That is pretty similar to the situation that often exists for >>> established >>> players in this part of the country. I have travelled to tournaments in >>> South >>> Dakota, for example, where I am 200 points higher rated than any of the >>> local >>> players -- and many of them are plenty tough. I won a tournament in >>> Sioux >>> Falls >>> South Dakota one year where I drew South Dakota players in the first two >>> rounds, >>> then had to win three in a row but still took clear first place. In >>> rounds 4 >>> and 5 I had to beat the highest rated South Dakota players at the >>> tournament to >>> take the top prize (one was 2080, the other 2005). >>> >>> One of my contemporaries when I was a rising junior player in Minnesota, >>> Nels >>> Truelson, now lives in South Dakota and has a hard time keeping his >>> rating >>> above >>> 2200. I know Sloan will scream "deflation" but I think there is more to >>> it than >>> that. >>> >>>> >>>>If you're active your rating is probably accurate. Randy's true strength >>>>may >>>>have declined due to inactivity, but he's still a solid 250 points ahead >>>>of >>>>you. I think it's safe to say he'd score 80% against you. >>> >>> I think Angelo's analysis is persuasive, and the 250 point difference is >>> probably about right. Sloan, in his disengenuous fashion, suggests that >>> for >>> most of my tournament life my rating was around 2150. What is the basis >>> for >>> this claim? None is given. In fact, the MSA history, which he wishes >>> to >>> use as >>> the basis for his claims, doesn't show a single tournament where my >>> rating >>> was >>> as low as he claims is the average! Talk about being math-challenged. >>> >>> I am hoping to test this hypothesis of decline due to inactivity in the >>> next >>> couple of years. Now that my daughters are older and my time in the >>> budget >>> office is winding down, I hope to get back into playing competitive >>> chess. >>> >>> Randy Bauer >>> >>>> >>>>adp >>>> >>>>"Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote in message >>>>news:42b2ee3e.16461984@ca.news.verio.net... >>>>> Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer. >>>>> >>>>> In all of these postings about a grudge match, I have lost track of >>>>> which march they are talking about, Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. >>>>> Bauer. >>>>> >>>>> I think just about everybody realizes that Kingston is such a weak >>>>> player that he would have no chance whatever against the great me. Of >>>>> course, that is not really his fault. We have to feel sympathy for >>>>> those unfortunate people who were born with deformed or defective >>>>> brains and due to no fault of their own but perhaps the fault of their >>>>> parents they just cannot play chess. Indeed, we should admire them for >>>>> the fact that they try to make up for these deficiencies that are no >>>>> fault of their own by calling themselves masters which they dream of >>>>> becoming but can never become and by writing magazine articles >>>>> personally attacking those undeserving persons who just happen to be >>>>> possessed of greater minds than they and when, having been banned from >>>>> further publication by those chess magazines, they come here to the >>>>> public newsgroups to continue their personal attacks. >>>>> >>>>> I am gratified that a few persons have offered to back this grudge >>>>> match with money, especially since they obviously realize that Taylor >>>>> Kingston would have no chance at all against me and I would probably >>>>> wipe him out. They are commendable in their willingness to give the >>>>> kid a chance. Kind of like allowing the runt to play right field in a >>>>> Little League baseball game. >>>>> >>>>> What confuses the situation a bit is that some seem to be talking not >>>>> about a match between Sloan and Kingston but about a match between >>>>> Sloan and Bauer. They obviously see that Bauer is rated 2304 and I am >>>>> rated 1931, so they figure that I have no chance at all against Bauer >>>>> and so they plan to pick up some easy money. >>>>> >>>>> I too figured that Bauer was a much stronger player than I and so I >>>>> rejected immediately his offer to play me a match for one thousand >>>>> dollars. However, I just did a quick survey of Bauers tournament >>>>> result and I have concluded that his published rating is inflated and >>>>> his current strength is probably not much more than 2100. My actual >>>>> strength is probably considerable greater than 1931 and so, while I >>>>> still give Bauer the edge, I feel that I would have some chance of >>>>> winning a grudge match. >>>>> >>>>> Throughout much of his playing career Bauer's rating was around 2150. >>>>> Bauer has never in his life played in a major open tournament like the >>>>> World Open or the Chicago Open. Bauer did not play in the recent >>>>> $500,000 tournament in Minnesota, even though Bauer is from Minnesota >>>>> and attended the event as a spectator. >>>>> >>>>> Bauer got his rating of 2304 by playing a rated match against a friend >>>>> who was an expert, which Bauer won by a lop-sided score. Bauer has not >>>>> played since. Bauer got his rating over 2200 by playing in very minor >>>>> local tournaments in Iowa, such as the Ames Chess Festival and the >>>>> Dubuque Open. Bauer NEVER DEFEATED A MASTER in any of these >>>>> tournaments. Most of Bauer's wins were against Class A and Class B >>>>> players. BAUER HAS NEVER PLAYED A PUBLISHED GAME, as least not so far >>>>> as I could find. >>>>> >>>>> Bauers big result which gave him most of the present rating points was >>>>> the 1997 Midwest Amateur Team Championship, where Bauer won all his >>>>> games, scoring 5-0. However, Bauer played no masters in that >>>>> tournament even though he gained 23 rating points up to 2299. His big >>>>> win was against Larry Cohen, Chess politico and frequent poster to >>>>> this group, who was rated 1982. That was more than eight years ago and >>>>> Bauer has not played in a regular rated tournament since. >>>>> >>>>> http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?10320372 >>>>> >>>>> However, Bauer has played in one quick rated tournament since: The CCC >>>>> Fourth Annual Picnic. However, he lost to a player rated 1988 and his >>>>> overall performance rating from that tournament, calculated using the >>>>> traditional system, was 1920. >>>>> >>>>> Therefore, Bauer is definitely not the 2300 strength player he claims >>>>> to be. He is probably not master strength and might not even be expert >>>>> strength considering his eight year absence from competitive chess. >>>>> >>>>> By contrast, although I have been relatively inactive, I have not >>>>> shied away from playing in strong events. Back in 1997 when Bauer was >>>>> still playing, my rating was 2104. The points I have lost since then >>>>> have been mostly from playing in the World Open. The World Open is a >>>>> highly competitive event. The players there have often nursed their >>>>> ratings down to an artificially open level and have come to kill, >>>>> hoping to win the $10,000 first class prize. If Bauer could play in an >>>>> event like that and hold his 2304 rating, I would fully agree that he >>>>> is a legitimate chess master. However, Bauer does not play in the >>>>> events like the World Open. Instead, he got his rating by playing in >>>>> soft events like the Ames Chess Festival and the CCC Fourth Annual >>>>> Picnic. >>>>> >>>>> It is also noteworthy that Randy Bauer did not play at all during >>>>> 1999-2000, which was a period of severe ratings deflation where most >>>>> established active players lost between 100 and 200 rating points. I >>>>> lost 160 points during that period. Bauer lost no points, because he >>>>> did not play. >>>>> >>>>> In summary: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Randy Bauer has never defeated a master >>>>> >>>>> 2. Randy Bauer has never played a published game. >>>>> >>>>> 3. Randy Bauer has never played in a major open tournament. >>>>> >>>>> 4. Randy Bauer has obtained a 2304 rating by playing in soft >>>>> non-competitive chess events where no significant prizes are involved >>>>> and where most of his opponents are Class A or Class B. >>>>> >>>>> Now, let us compare this to me, Sam Sloan: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Sam Sloan has defeated many masters and at least two international >>>>> masters in rated tournament games. >>>>> >>>>> 2. Sam Sloan has played many published chess games. >>>>> >>>>> 3. Sam Sloan plays almost exclusively in major open tournaments such >>>>> as the World Open. >>>>> >>>>> 4. Sam Sloan plays against anybody, takes on all comers, and is not >>>>> afraid of losing rating points. >>>>> >>>>> Please note that in spite of the above, I do not claim to be a >>>>> stronger chess player than Randy Bauer. I must respect his high >>>>> rating, even though it was obtained by playing against soft >>>>> opponents., However, I do believe that I would have some chance to >>>>> beat him. I might not be the favorite, but I would have some chance. >>>>> >>>>> Therefore, I propose a rated match against both Randy Bauer and Taylor >>>>> Kingston simultaneously for one thousand dollars. >>>>> >>>>> I will play each of them a four game match. If I get four points or >>>>> more I win one thousand dollars. If I get 3 1/2 points or less, I lose >>>>> one thousand dollars. >>>>> >>>>> Please note that I am taking draw odds. If I beat Taylor Kingston 4-0 >>>>> (as I believe I will) I still win the match even if in the unlikely >>>>> event that I lose to Randy Bauer by 4-0. >>>>> >>>>> I think that this is a fair match because both Taylor Kingston and >>>>> Randy Bauer claim to be masters but I claim to be just a Class A >>>>> player. >>>>> >>>>> Therefore, they should have no hesitation about taking this bet. >>>>> >>>>> What do you say? >>>>> >>>>> Sam Sloan >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >   Date: 19 Jun 2005 18:58:37 From: Subject: Re: Why should Randy be the only one to show off? This is a nice idea. Unfortunately, I lost my score books many years ago during a move, and only a few of my later games ever made it onto the chess databases. My favorite of my games was a draw with Black against Mikhail Tal at the 1988 Software Toolworks American Open in Long Beach. This game doesn't seem to have made it into any of the databases, so it is probably lost forever. - Geof Strayer     Date: 20 Jun 2005 02:07:16 From: Randy Bauer Subject: Re: Why should Randy be the only one to show off? <Equinorm@AOL.com > wrote in message news:1119232717.070044.87930@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > This is a nice idea. Unfortunately, I lost my score books many years > ago during a move, and only a few of my later games ever made it onto > the chess databases. I know the feeling! I played many nice games in my junior high through college days, and they were all lost. > > My favorite of my games was a draw with Black against Mikhail Tal at > the 1988 Software Toolworks American Open in Long Beach. This game > doesn't seem to have made it into any of the databases, so it is > probably lost forever. That is truly a shame! A draw with a former world champion is something special. Randy Bauer > > - Geof Strayer >   Date: 19 Jun 2005 18:45:05 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Why should Randy be the only one to show off? Mark Houlsby wrote: > I'll bet you tell *all* the girls that you drew with "Fisher", eh, > Neil? ;-) I enjoyed the Fisher game since Mark had called me a "fish" years before. I wish I had polished him off instead of letting him slither away with a draw. > Nice games... thanks for posting them. In RGCA they seem oddly > out-of-place.   Date: 19 Jun 2005 17:42:33 From: samsloan Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer. Randy Bauer wrote: > "Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote in message > > Bauer's tournament record is posted at: > > > > http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?10320372 > > > > I have not checked it all and I might have might have missed a game or > > two, but Bauer played 55 tournaments during that period and I have not > > been able to find any instance where Bauer defeated a master. > > Wrong, as always. I defeated NM Khaled Sharrafuddin in the last round of > the B&C 29th Iowa Open. Wrong twice -- I defeated NM Alan Piper in the > third round of the 1994 Kansas City Open. > > Randy Bauer It is true that I missed Piper but his is a marginal case. He is now rated 2036. He left the tournament where you beat him with a rating of 2174 and with a score of 1-3 and has never been a master since, although he previously did get his rating barely above 2200. http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?199401169020.1-10320372 Khaled Sharafuddin is clearly a solid master. However, I cannot find anywhere that you defeated him. Rather you drew him in the 1995 Ames Chess Festival. The 29th Iowa Open was played in 1983, long before the time period in question. One again, you forgot to take your Natrol. http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?199511052750-12642922 Sam Sloan     Date: 20 Jun 2005 01:33:21 From: Randy Bauer Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer. "samsloan" <sloan@ishipress.com > wrote in message news:1119228153.095026.112730@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Randy Bauer wrote: >> "Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote in message > >> > Bauer's tournament record is posted at: >> > >> > http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?10320372 >> > >> > I have not checked it all and I might have might have missed a game or >> > two, but Bauer played 55 tournaments during that period and I have not >> > been able to find any instance where Bauer defeated a master. >> >> Wrong, as always. I defeated NM Khaled Sharrafuddin in the last round of >> the B&C 29th Iowa Open. Wrong twice -- I defeated NM Alan Piper in the >> third round of the 1994 Kansas City Open. >> >> Randy Bauer > > > It is true that I missed Piper but his is a marginal case. He is now > rated 2036. He left the tournament where you beat him with a rating of > 2174 and with a score of 1-3 and has never been a master since, > although he previously did get his rating barely above 2200. > > http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?199401169020.1-10320372 > > Khaled Sharafuddin is clearly a solid master. However, I cannot find > anywhere that you defeated him. Rather you drew him in the 1995 Ames > Chess Festival. The 29th Iowa Open was played in 1983, long before the > time period in question. One again, you forgot to take your Natrol. Once again, you forgot to learn to read. Last round, B&C 29th Des Moines Open, there on the MSA site for all to see - I beat him in a money round for $500 big ones, with the black pieces. How can you read the B&C 29th Des Moines Open and come up with the 29th Iowa Open? All I can say is, either quit the untruths or lay off the smack. Randy Bauer > > http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?199511052750-12642922 > > Sam Sloan >       Date: 20 Jun 2005 01:53:05 From: Sam Sloan Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer. On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 01:33:21 GMT, "Randy Bauer" <randybauer2300@yahoo.com > wrote: > >"samsloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote in message >news:1119228153.095026.112730@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> Randy Bauer wrote: >>> "Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote in message >> >>> > Bauer's tournament record is posted at: >>> > >>> > http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?10320372 >>> > >>> > I have not checked it all and I might have might have missed a game or >>> > two, but Bauer played 55 tournaments during that period and I have not >>> > been able to find any instance where Bauer defeated a master. >>> >>> Wrong, as always. I defeated NM Khaled Sharrafuddin in the last round of >>> the B&C 29th Iowa Open. Wrong twice -- I defeated NM Alan Piper in the >>> third round of the 1994 Kansas City Open. >>> >>> Randy Bauer >> >> >> It is true that I missed Piper but his is a marginal case. He is now >> rated 2036. He left the tournament where you beat him with a rating of >> 2174 and with a score of 1-3 and has never been a master since, >> although he previously did get his rating barely above 2200. >> >> http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?199401169020.1-10320372 >> >> Khaled Sharafuddin is clearly a solid master. However, I cannot find >> anywhere that you defeated him. Rather you drew him in the 1995 Ames >> Chess Festival. The 29th Iowa Open was played in 1983, long before the >> time period in question. One again, you forgot to take your Natrol. > >Once again, you forgot to learn to read. Last round, B&C 29th Des Moines >Open, there on the MSA site for all to see - I beat him in a money round for >$500 big ones, with the black pieces. How can you read the B&C 29th Des >Moines Open and come up with the 29th Iowa Open? All I can say is, either >quit the untruths or lay off the smack. > >Randy Bauer You do not even read what you wrote. You wrote above "29th Iowa Open". I could not find any such event. Now, you say that it was the 29th Des Moines Open. Now, I have found it. It is at: http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?199506186370.1-10320372 However, I wrote above that there might be one or two instances in the databases where you defeated a master. I was correct. There are two instances,although in one of them the player lost his master title and has never gotten it back. Sam Sloan         Date: 20 Jun 2005 02:13:39 From: Randy Bauer Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer. "Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com > wrote in message news:42b62040.55649796@ca.news.verio.net... > On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 01:33:21 GMT, "Randy Bauer" > <randybauer2300@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >>"samsloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote in message >>news:1119228153.095026.112730@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >>> Randy Bauer wrote: >>>> "Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote in message >>> >>>> > Bauer's tournament record is posted at: >>>> > >>>> > http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?10320372 >>>> > >>>> > I have not checked it all and I might have might have missed a game >>>> > or >>>> > two, but Bauer played 55 tournaments during that period and I have >>>> > not >>>> > been able to find any instance where Bauer defeated a master. >>>> >>>> Wrong, as always. I defeated NM Khaled Sharrafuddin in the last round >>>> of >>>> the B&C 29th Iowa Open. Wrong twice -- I defeated NM Alan Piper in the >>>> third round of the 1994 Kansas City Open. >>>> >>>> Randy Bauer >>> >>> >>> It is true that I missed Piper but his is a marginal case. He is now >>> rated 2036. He left the tournament where you beat him with a rating of >>> 2174 and with a score of 1-3 and has never been a master since, >>> although he previously did get his rating barely above 2200. >>> >>> http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?199401169020.1-10320372 >>> >>> Khaled Sharafuddin is clearly a solid master. However, I cannot find >>> anywhere that you defeated him. Rather you drew him in the 1995 Ames >>> Chess Festival. The 29th Iowa Open was played in 1983, long before the >>> time period in question. One again, you forgot to take your Natrol. >> >>Once again, you forgot to learn to read. Last round, B&C 29th Des Moines >>Open, there on the MSA site for all to see - I beat him in a money round >>for >>$500 big ones, with the black pieces. How can you read the B&C 29th Des >>Moines Open and come up with the 29th Iowa Open? All I can say is, either >>quit the untruths or lay off the smack. >> >>Randy Bauer > > You do not even read what you wrote. You wrote above "29th Iowa Open". > I could not find any such event. Now, you say that it was the 29th Des > Moines Open. Now, I have found it. It is at: > > http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?199506186370.1-10320372 > > However, I wrote above that there might be one or two instances in the > databases where you defeated a master. I was correct. There are two > instances,although in one of them the player lost his master title and > has never gotten it back. > > Sam Sloan Of course, by the Sam Sloan illogic, my win over Jim Dean, when he was a 2140 player, should be considered a win over a master. He is now an FM. If my win over an NM who is now an expert doesn't count, my win over an expert who is now an FM should. That would also register me wins over at least 5 other experts who later became NMs. It's a silly argument. The bottom line remains the same -- I have lots of wins over NMs and a legitimate 2304 USCF over the board rating. Take it to the bank. Randy Bauer           Date: 20 Jun 2005 02:23:50 From: Sam Sloan Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer. On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 02:13:39 GMT, "Randy Bauer" <randybauer2300@yahoo.com > wrote: >The bottom line remains the same -- I have lots of wins over NMs and a >legitimate 2304 USCF over the board rating. Take it to the bank. > >Randy Bauer This last point is where I disagree. You got your rating up to 2299 without defeating a master in the previous two years. Then, to get your rating over 2300 so that you could say that you are a 2300 player, you played a match against an expert rated friend. This put your rating up to 2304. That was eight years ago and since then you have not played. If you look at almost everybody who had a long established rating in 1997 and is still playing, he has a rating between 100 and 200 points lower now. For this reason, I say that if you were actively playing, your rating would probably fall back down to 2150. Sam Sloan             Date: 20 Jun 2005 02:33:42 From: Randy Bauer Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer. "Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com > wrote in message news:42b62710.57393843@ca.news.verio.net... > On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 02:13:39 GMT, "Randy Bauer" > <randybauer2300@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>The bottom line remains the same -- I have lots of wins over NMs and a >>legitimate 2304 USCF over the board rating. Take it to the bank. >> >>Randy Bauer > > This last point is where I disagree. > > You got your rating up to 2299 without defeating a master in the > previous two years. Then, to get your rating over 2300 so that you > could say that you are a 2300 player, you played a match against an > expert rated friend. This put your rating up to 2304. You first claimed no master wins, and I pointed out two. Come on, give it a rest. The match I played was when I was rated 2299, for crying out loud, and I played it because of a bet I had made with my friend. Joel and I played lots of very competitive games in lots of tournaments. Your comments are your typical garbage -- think the worst of people because you are that sort of person. > > That was eight years ago and since then you have not played. Which, of course, is not true, because you yourself alluded to the "picnic" event I played last year. > > If you look at almost everybody who had a long established rating in > 1997 and is still playing, he has a rating between 100 and 200 points > lower now. Typical Sloan BS -- "everybody" has a certain event history. I could prove you wrong on several players, but what would be the point? The fact is that I quit tournament chess because of career and family changes at EXACTLY THE MOMENT when I was playing very well. Players in Iowa at that time would not have wanted to play me in a rated match. My guess is I would have added 50-100 points to my rating, but being the budget director for the State of Iowa was more important than playing Sam Sloan in a rated match. > > For this reason, I say that if you were actively playing, your rating > would probably fall back down to 2150. I have lots of wins over 2150 players, even those owning that rating today. I doubt they would agree with you. It doesn't matter, because your opin