| |
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 ch 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 sumy:
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 reks 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
> [email protected] . 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
>> [email protected] . 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 k
Schiffner (we drew in round 4) and ahead of NMs Andrew Witte, Bob Jacobs,
Ken Thomas, k 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 tin 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" <[email protected] > 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" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> 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" <[email protected]> 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, [email protected] 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 reks 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
[email protected] . 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" <[email protected] > 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" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
>
> In all of these postings about a grudge match, I have lost track of
> which ch 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 sumy:
>
> 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 <[email protected] >, 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
>>
>> In all of these postings about a grudge match, I have lost track of
>> which ch 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 sumy:
>>
>> 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" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
>>>
>>> In all of these postings about a grudge match, I have lost track of
>>> which ch 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 sumy:
>>>
>>> 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 <[email protected] >, 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
>>>>
>>>> In all of these postings about a grudge match, I have lost track of
>>>> which ch 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 sumy:
>>>>
>>>> 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" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> In article <[email protected]>, 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>> Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
>>>>>
>>>>> In all of these postings about a grudge match, I have lost track of
>>>>> which ch 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 sumy:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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?
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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?
|
k Houlsby wrote:
> I'll bet you tell *all* the girls that you drew with "Fisher", eh,
> Neil? ;-)
I enjoyed the Fisher game since k 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" <[email protected]> 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 ginal 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" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Randy Bauer wrote:
>> "Sam Sloan" <[email protected]> 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 ginal 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"
<[email protected] > wrote:
>
>"samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Randy Bauer wrote:
>>> "Sam Sloan" <[email protected]> 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 ginal 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" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 01:33:21 GMT, "Randy Bauer"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> Randy Bauer wrote:
>>>> "Sam Sloan" <[email protected]> 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 ginal 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"
<[email protected] > 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" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 02:13:39 GMT, "Randy Bauer"
> <[email protected]> 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 opinion
isn't worth squat. I have issued you a challenge to play and you have yet
to put your money where your enormous mouth lives. What's wrong, Sloan,
don't you have the courage of your written convictions?
Put your money on the table, and let's get it on.
Randy Bauer
>
> Sam Sloan
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 20 Jun 2005 01:58:51
From: Randy Bauer
Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
|
"Sam Sloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 01:33:21 GMT, "Randy Bauer"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> Randy Bauer wrote:
>>>> "Sam Sloan" <[email protected]> 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 ginal 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
So that is it? You're proven wrong twice and you are correct?
The original premise was I had not defeated any masters. That was proven
wrong. Further, the period you chose was a very short time frame. I have
demonstrated that I have defeated MANY masters in the period before the USCF
started chronicling events.
What exactly from your original premise remains intact?
Randy Bauer
|
| |
Date: 19 Jun 2005 15:26:38
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Why should Randy be the only one to show off?
|
Randy Bauer wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, The
> Historian says...
> >
> >It's Bauer's fault I am reposting this, so blame him. :-)
> >
>
> Since I mostly play positionally, indulge me showing a bit more of a tactical
> ending to a game.
Randy, I wasn't trying to compete with you. I freely admit you are a
much better player than I am. So is Bill Brock.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Jun 2005 22:22:06
From: StanB
Subject: Re: Why should Randy be the only one to show off?
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> Since I mostly play positionally, indulge me showing a bit more of a
>> tactical
>> ending to a game.
>
> Randy, I wasn't trying to compete with you. I freely admit you are a
> much better player than I am. So is Bill Brock.
But has Randy ever beaten Illinois former chess master and admitted cheat,
Kevin Bachler?
>
|
| | |
Date: 20 Jun 2005 01:37:43
From: Randy Bauer
Subject: Re: Why should Randy be the only one to show off?
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Randy Bauer wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, The
>> Historian says...
>> >
>> >It's Bauer's fault I am reposting this, so blame him. :-)
>> >
>>
>> Since I mostly play positionally, indulge me showing a bit more of a
>> tactical
>> ending to a game.
>
> Randy, I wasn't trying to compete with you. I freely admit you are a
> much better player than I am. So is Bill Brock.
I think everybody should show their favorite games -- I'm happy you posted
yours so I could continue with some of mine.
>
|
| |
Date: 19 Jun 2005 13:46:06
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
|
Now, now, Mr. Feeley, it's *not fair* to refer to either Mr. Kingston
or Mr. Bauer as "slugs".
k
|
| |
Date: 19 Jun 2005 12:49:10
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: Why should Randy be the only one to show off?
|
I'll bet you tell *all* the girls that you drew with "Fisher", eh,
Neil? ;-)
Nice games... thanks for posting them. In RGCA they seem oddly
out-of-place.
|
| |
Date: 19 Jun 2005 12:36:00
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Why should Randy be the only one to show off?
|
The Historian wrote:
> Randy Bauer wrote:
> >
>
> It's Bauer's fault I am reposting this, so blame him. :-)
More sins of my chessplaying days. Again, let's blame Bauer and Brock
for this:
Brennen,N - Brod,S [C31]
Chaturnaga Chess League (2), 06.12.2001
[Neil Brennen]
1=2Ee4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 e4 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.Bc4 Bc5 6.d4N [RR 6.d3 exd3
7=2EQxd3 0-0 8.Bd2 Bg4 9.Nge2 Bxe2 10.Nxe2 Re8 11.0-0-0 Bd6 12.Qh3 Qd7
13.f5 Qa4 14.Qd3 a6 15.Nc3 Qd7 16.Rhe1 Qd8 17.Ne4 Nbd7 18.Bg5 Be5 19.d6
cxd6 20.Nxd6 Bxd6 Brennen,N-Briggs,R/NPCC Winter Robin 1999/[Brennen,
Neil]/1-0 (66)] 6...Bb4 7.Nge2 Nxd5 8.0-0 Nxc3 9.Nxc3 Bxc3 10.bxc3 f5
[10...0-0 11.Qe2 Re8 12.Rb1 (12.f5 Qf6 13.Bf4 c5 14.Be5 Rxe5 15.dxe5
Qxe5 16.Rad1 Nc6 17.Rd5 Qxc3 18.Qxe4 h6 19.Qe8+ Kh7 20.f6) ] 11.Qh5+ g6
12.Qh6 Qe7 13.a4 Nd7 14.Ba3 c5 15.Bb5 b6 16.dxc5 bxc5 17.Bc6 Rb8
18.Rab1 Rxb1 19.Rxb1 Kd8 20.c4 Kc7 21.Bd5 a6 22.Bb2 Re8 23.Bc3 Nf6
24.Ba5+ Kd7 25.Bb7 Qd6 26.Qg7+ Qe7 27.Rd1+ Ke6 28.Bd5+ Nxd5 29.cxd5+
Kd6 30.Qb2 Qb7 31.Qf6+ Kd7 32.Qf7+ Re7 33.Qf6 Ke8 34.d6 Rf7 35.Qe5+
[35.Qd8#] 35...Kd7 36.c4 Qc6 37.Rd5 Bb7 [37...Qxa4 38.Rxc5 Qd1+ 39.Kf2
Qc2+ 40.Kg3 Qd3+ 41.Kh4 g5+ 42.fxg5] 38.Rxc5 Qxd6 39.Rc7+ 1-0
Conner,D (2179) - Brennen,N (1460) [C01]
NPCC G-45 (2), 12.03.1999
1=2Ee4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bd3 Be7 6.0-0 0-0 7.Bg5 Bg4
8=2ENbd2 Nbd7 9.c3 Bh5 10.Qc2 Bg6 11.Rfe1 Bxd3 12.Qxd3 Re8 13.h3 h6
14.Bf4 Nh5 15.Bh2 c6 16.Qf5 Nhf6 17.Ne5 Nxe5 18.dxe5 Nd7 19.Nf3 Nc5
20.Nd4 Qc8 21.Qf3 Ne6 22.Nf5 Bf8 23.Bf4 Nxf4 24.Qxf4 Qd8 25.h4 Qc7
26.Re3 g6 27.Nxh6+ Bxh6 28.Qxh6 Rxe5 29.Rg3 Qd6 30.h5 Rxh5 31.Qe3 Re5
32.Qd2 Rae8 33.Rf1 Rh5 0-1
Brennen,N (1480) - Fisher,M (2000) [B00]
NPCC G-45 (3), 19.03.1999
[Fritz 5.32 (10s)]
1=2Ee4 Nc6 2.Nc3 [2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bg4 5.d5 Nb8 6.h3 Bxf3 7.Qxf3
Nbd7 8.Bf4 g6 9.0-0-0 Bg7 10.g4 c6 11.dxc6 bxc6 12.e5 dxe5 13.Bxe5 Qc8
14.Bd4 0-0 15.g5 =BD-=BD Wilder,M-Benjamin,J/New York 1987/CBM 02 (15)]
2=2E..e6N Consolidates d5 [2...d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Bg5 e6 5.f4 Be7 6.Nf3 d5
7=2Ee5 Ne4 8.Bxe7 Qxe7 9.a3 Nxc3 10.bxc3 Bd7 11.Bd3 Na5 12.Qe2 c5 13.Qf2
Rc8 14.Qg3 g6 15.h4 h5 16.0-0 Ba4 17.Ng5 Kd7 18.f5 gxf5 19.Bxf5 Rhg8
20.Qh3 Rg7 21.Bxe6+ fxe6 22.Rf6 Rxg5 23.hxg5 Bxc2 24.Raf1 1-0
Koenig,D-Shahade,M/Parsippany 1998/EXT 99 (24)] 3.d4 Bb4 4.Nf3 Nf6
5=2EBd3 d6 Controls e5 6.0-0 0-0 7.e5 This push gains space 7...dxe5
8=2Edxe5 Bxc3 9.bxc3 Covers b4+d4 9...Ng4=B1 [9...Nd5!?=B2 is an
interesting idea] 10.Re1=3D [=B910.Bxh7+!? Kh8 11.Bd3=B1] 10...f5=B1
[10...f6!? should be investigated more closely 11.Ba3 Re8=3D] 11.exf6=3D
[11.h3!? Nh6 12.Bxh6 gxh6 13.Qd2=B1] 11...Nxf6 [11...Rxf6? 12.Bg5+-]
12.Qe2 Nd5=B1 [12...Re8!?=B2 is interesting] 13.Ng5 Nf4?+- [=B913...Nf6=B1]
14.Bxf4 [14.Bxh7+ Kh8 15.Bxf4 Qe8 16.Bxc7 Rf6+-] 14...Rxf4 15.Bxh7+
[15.Nxh7?! Rh4=B2;
15.Nxe6?! Bxe6 16.Qxe6+ Kh8=B1] 15...Kh8 [15...Kf8 16.Nxe6+ Bxe6 17.Qxe6
Rf7+-] 16.Qh5 Qf6 [16...g6 does not win a prize 17.Bxg6+! decapitation
17...Kg7 18.Qh7+ Kf6 19.Qh6+-] 17.Bg6+ [=B917.Bf5+! and the rest is a
matter of technique 17...Kg8 18.Qe8+ Qf8 19.Bxe6+ Bxe6 20.Qxe6+ Qf7
21.Nxf7 Rxf7 22.Rad1+-] 17...Kg8 18.Qh7+ [=B918.Rad1 and White wins
18...Rh4!? 19.Bf7+ Kf8 20.Qxh4+-] 18...Kf8 19.Qh8+ Ke7 20.Qe8+ Kd6
21.Rad1+ Kc5 22.Ne4+ Rxe4 23.Bxe4 Qxc3 [23...g5 what else? 24.Bxc6
bxc6+-] 24.Qh5+ [=B924.Qf8+ and White takes home the point 24...Kb5
25.Re3 Qb2 26.Rb3+ Qxb3 27.axb3 a5 28.Bxc6+ Kxc6+-] 24...e5 [24...Kb6 a
fruitless try to alter the course of the game 25.Re3 Qc5 26.Qxc5+ Kxc5
27.Rc3+ Kb4 28.Rxc6 bxc6 29.Bxc6+-] 25.Rd5+ [=B925.Bxc6 and White wins
25...g5 26.Re3 Qb2+-] 25...Kb6 [25...Kb4 the only chance to get some
counterplay 26.Re3 Qc4+-] 26.Rb1+ Nb4 27.a4 [=B927.Qxe5 seems even
better 27...Qxe5 28.Rxb4+ Kc6 29.Rxe5+ Kd6+-] 27...a5 28.Qxe5
[=B928.Qe8!? and White can already relax 28...Qc4 29.Rb5+ Ka6 30.R5xb4
Qxb4 31.Rxb4 axb4 32.Qxe5 Ka7 33.Qxc7 g5+-] 28...Qxe5 29.Rxe5 Ka6 30.c3
Nc6 31.Bxc6 bxc6 32.Re7 [=B932.Rg5 finishes off the opponent 32...Ra7+-]
32...Bf5 33.Rc1 g6 34.Rxc7 Kb6 35.Re7 Rd8 36.Re2 Rd3 37.Kf1 Rd6 38.c4
[38.Ke1!? makes it even easier for White 38...Kc5+-] 38...c5 [38...Kc5
39.Ke1+-] =BD-=BD
Brennen,N (1480) - Kuhn,K (1929) [B51]
Bloomsburg Open (1), 07.03.1999
1=2Ee4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6 4.0-0 Bd7 5.Re1 e6 6.Nc3 Nf6 7.d4 cxd4
8=2ENxd4 Be7 9.Be3 0-0 10.f4 Qc7 11.Be2 a6 12.g4 Nxd4 13.Bxd4 Bc6 14.Bd3
d5 15.e5 Ne4 16.Nxe4 dxe4 17.Bxe4 Rfd8 18.c3 Bc5 19.Qd2 Bxe4 20.Rxe4
Qc6 21.Qe3 Be7 22.Re1 Rd5 23.f5 Rad8 24.f6 Bf8 25.g5 Qb5 26.Re2 Qa4
27.a3 Qd1+ 28.Kf2 R8d7 29.Rh4 Qb1 30.Qe4 Qxe4 31.Rhxe4 b5 32.Rd2 a5
33.b4 axb4 34.axb4 Rd8 35.Ke2 R8d7 36.Be3 gxf6 37.gxf6 h6 38.Rxd5 Rxd5
39.Bf4 Kh7 40.Rd4 Kg6 41.Rxd5 exd5 42.Kd3 Kf5 43.Bg3 h5 44.Kd4 Ke6
=BD-=BD
McKenney,E - Brennen,N [C01]
Chaturanga Chess League (1), 29.11.2001
[Neil Brennen]
1=2Ee4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.Bd3 Nf6 5.Bg5N Be7 6.Nf3 Bg4 7.Nbd2 Nbd7
8=2Ec3 c5 9.Qc2 0-0 10.0-0 Re8 11.Ne5? [11.dxc5 Nxc5 12.Bxf6 Bxf6
13.Bxh7+] 11...h6 12.Nxg4 Nxg4 13.Bxe7 Qc7 14.Nf3 Rxe7 15.Bf5 Ngf6
16.Rfe1 Rae8 17.Rxe7 Rxe7 18.Re1 Rxe1+ 19.Nxe1 g6 20.Bxd7 Nxd7 21.Nf3
Qd6 22.Qe2 Qe6 23.Kf1 Kg7 24.dxc5 Nxc5 25.Nd4 Qe4 26.Qxe4 dxe4 27.b4
Nd3 28.Nb3 b6 29.Ke2 f5 30.f3 Kf6 [30...Nf4+! 31.Kf2 exf3 32.gxf3 Nd5]
31.fxe4 fxe4 32.Ke3 Ke5 33.Nd2 Ne1 34.Nxe4 Nxg2+ 35.Kf3 Nh4+ 36.Ke3
Nf5+ 37.Kf3 g5 38.Nd2 Nh4+ 39.Kg3 Nf5+ =BD-=BD
Brennen,N (1460) - Vasserstein,G (1890) [B51]
Bloomsburg Open (3), 07.03.1999
1=2Ee4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6 4.0-0 a6 5.Bxc6+ bxc6 6.Nc3 e6 7.d4 d5 8.Re1
c4 9.b3 Bb4 10.Bb2 cxb3 11.cxb3 Nf6 12.exd5 cxd5 13.a3 Bxc3 14.Bxc3 0-0
15.Rc1 Bd7 16.Ne5 Rc8 17.Qd3 Ne4 18.Nxd7 Qxd7 19.Bb4 Rxc1 20.Rxc1 Rc8
21.Rc2 h6 22.f3 Nf6 23.Rc5 Qb7 24.Qc3 Ra8 25.Rc7 Qb5 26.Rc8+ Rxc8
27.Qxc8+ Kh7 28.Qc2+ Kg8 29.Kf2 Nd7 30.Qc3 Kh7 31.a4 Qb7 32.Ba5 Nb8
33.b4 g6 34.Qc7 Qxc7 35.Bxc7 Nc6 36.b5 axb5 37.axb5 Nxd4 38.b6 Nc6
39.b7 f6 40.Ke3 Kg7 41.Kd3 Kf7 42.b8Q Nxb8 43.Bxb8 =BD-=BD
|
| |
Date: 19 Jun 2005 12:12:01
From: The Historian
Subject: Why should Randy be the only one to show off?
|
Randy Bauer wrote:
>
It's Bauer's fault I am reposting this, so blame him. :-)
Brennen,N (1573) - Amador,J (1944) [B30]
Chaturanga Chess League (4), 14.02.2002
[Neil Brennen]
1=2Ee4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Na5?!
After the game Amador told me that this variation was chosen to
unbalance
the game against a weaker player.
4=2ENc3 a6 5.Be2 e6 6.d4!?
I don't normally play open Sicilians, but the Knight on a5 is out of
place,
so I transpose into one.
.=2E.. cxd4 7.Nxd4 Qc7
"So Black has gained a move in the Taimanov Sicilian (Na5), but not a
particularly useful one." -ICCF IM Junior Tay.
8.0-0 b5 9.f4 Bb7 10.f5?!
[10.a3 was better. ]
10...Bd6 11.fxe6!? 11...Bxh2+?! 12.Kh1 dxe6 13.Bg5!?
Continuing in Shirov mode." -ICCF IM Junior Tay.
[13.Ncxb5 axb5 14.Bxb5+ Nc6 15.Nxc6 Bxc6 16.Bxc6+ Qxc6 17.Kxh2=89-Tay]
13...Be5
[13...b4 14.Ncb5 Qb8 (14...Qe5 15.Nf3 Qxe4 16.Kxh2 axb5 17.Bxb5+ Bc6
18.Re1
Qg4 19.Qd5 Ne7 20.Qd6 0-0 21.Bxe7 Bxb5 22.Qxb4=3D ) 15.Nxe6 fxe6
16.Bh5+ g6
17.Qf3 Kd7 18.Qf7+ Kc6 19.Qxe6++--Tay]
14.Nxe6!
Tally ho!
fxe6 15.Bh5+ g6 16.Bg4+- Bc8
17.Qf3
"Neil is going all guns ablazing!" -ICCF IM Junior Tay
[17.Bd8!? =B1 is also pretty good.]
17...Bg7
[17. ...Qg7 may hold the game. I was unable to find full compensation
for
the piece when analyzing the game recently.]
18.Rad1
[18.e5!?]
18...Nc6 19.e5!!+-
I like this move.
19...Ra7
I'm not sure there's a valid defense for Black any longer.
20.Qxc6+!
I'm a little annoyed it took me ten minutes to find this obvious shot.
Obviously I need to work on tactics if I choose to resume playing at
some
point.
20...Bd7 21.Qf3 Nh6 22.Bxh6
My opponent wondered why I thought for 15 minutes here. I reminded him
that
I, as a C player, was fully capable of losing this game, and if it did,
it
wouldn't be because of a hurried move.
.=2E.Rf8 23.Qh3
[The Brilliancy was 23.Qxf8+!! The postmortem group had lots of fun
looking
at lines like ....Bxf8 24.Rxf8+ Ke7 25.Rdf1 A) 25...Be8 26.Nd5+!
(26.Bg5+
Kd7 27.Bxe6+ Kxe6 28.Rxe8+) ; B) 25...Qxe5 26.R1f7+ Kd6 27.Bf4 Qxf4
28.Rxf4]
However, as I learned from Dan Heisman, I choose the simplest win. Once
the
e-pawn falls, so does the Black game.
23...Rxf1+ 24.Rxf1 Qxe5
Desperation.
25.Bxg7 Qxg7 26.Bxe6 Bxe6 27.Qxe6+ Kd8 28.Qd6+
The most accurate move.
.=2E.Ke8 and resigns.
1-0
|
| | |
Date: 20 Jun 2005 22:08:19
From: StanB
Subject: Re: Why should Randy be the only one to show off?
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Randy Bauer wrote:
>
It's Bauer's fault I am reposting this, so blame him. :-)
Brennen,N (1573) - Amador,J (1944) [B30]
Chaturanga Chess League (4), 14.02.2002
[Neil Brennen]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Na5?!
After the game Amador told me that this variation was chosen to
unbalance
the game against a weaker player.
4.Nc3 a6 5.Be2 e6 6.d4!?
I don't normally play open Sicilians, but the Knight on a5 is out of
place,
so I transpose into one.
.... cxd4 7.Nxd4 Qc7
"So Black has gained a move in the Taimanov Sicilian (Na5), but not a
particularly useful one." -ICCF IM Junior Tay.
--The night move comes from an article in NIC called Secrets of Opening
Surprises. I play it myself to annoy Rossolino players. It does little more
than that if Black can't get it to c4. More often than not it returns to c6
and costs a tempo.
8.0-0 b5 9.f4 Bb7 10.f5?!
[10.a3 was better. ]
10...Bd6 11.fxe6!? 11...Bxh2+?! 12.Kh1 dxe6 13.Bg5!?
Continuing in Shirov mode." -ICCF IM Junior Tay.
[13.Ncxb5 axb5 14.Bxb5+ Nc6 15.Nxc6 Bxc6 16.Bxc6+ Qxc6 17.Kxh2?-Tay]
13...Be5
[13...b4 14.Ncb5 Qb8 (14...Qe5 15.Nf3 Qxe4 16.Kxh2 axb5 17.Bxb5+ Bc6
18.Re1
Qg4 19.Qd5 Ne7 20.Qd6 0-0 21.Bxe7 Bxb5 22.Qxb4= ) 15.Nxe6 fxe6
16.Bh5+ g6
17.Qf3 Kd7 18.Qf7+ Kc6 19.Qxe6++--Tay]
14.Nxe6!
Tally ho!
fxe6 15.Bh5+ g6 16.Bg4+- Bc8
17.Qf3
"Neil is going all guns ablazing!" -ICCF IM Junior Tay
[17.Bd8!? � is also pretty good.]
17...Bg7
[17. ...Qg7 may hold the game. I was unable to find full compensation
for
the piece when analyzing the game recently.]
18.Rad1
[18.e5!?]
18...Nc6 19.e5!!+-
I like this move.
19...Ra7
I'm not sure there's a valid defense for Black any longer.
20.Qxc6+!
I'm a little annoyed it took me ten minutes to find this obvious shot.
Obviously I need to work on tactics if I choose to resume playing at
some
point.
20...Bd7 21.Qf3 Nh6 22.Bxh6
My opponent wondered why I thought for 15 minutes here. I reminded him
that
I, as a C player, was fully capable of losing this game, and if it did,
it
wouldn't be because of a hurried move.
...Rf8 23.Qh3
[The Brilliancy was 23.Qxf8+!! The postmortem group had lots of fun
looking
at lines like ....Bxf8 24.Rxf8+ Ke7 25.Rdf1 A) 25...Be8 26.Nd5+!
(26.Bg5+
Kd7 27.Bxe6+ Kxe6 28.Rxe8+) ; B) 25...Qxe5 26.R1f7+ Kd6 27.Bf4 Qxf4
28.Rxf4]
However, as I learned from Dan Heisman, I choose the simplest win. Once
the
e-pawn falls, so does the Black game.
23...Rxf1+ 24.Rxf1 Qxe5
Desperation.
25.Bxg7 Qxg7 26.Bxe6 Bxe6 27.Qxe6+ Kd8 28.Qd6+
The most accurate move.
...Ke8 and resigns.
1-0
|
| | |
Date: 19 Jun 2005 13:26:09
From: Randy Bauer
Subject: Re: Why should Randy be the only one to show off?
|
In article <[email protected] >, The
Historian says...
>
>It's Bauer's fault I am reposting this, so blame him. :-)
>
Since I mostly play positionally, indulge me showing a bit more of a tactical
ending to a game. Here I'm black against NM Mike Zelkind:
r4r1k/ppp3bp/2npN3/3Bnp2/7q/2P1B2P/PP3PP1/R2Q1RK1
Here white's knight has hopped into the heart of the black position, but black
gets a typical KID/Pirc attack after:
16...f4! 17.Nxf8 Rxf8 18.Bd4 f3! 19.Qd2 (19.Qc2, attempting to keep the rook out
of f5, is interesting but insufficient after 19...fxg2! 20.Bxg2 Nf3+ 21.Bxf3
Nxd4! 22.cxd4 Rxf3 23.Qxc7 Qxh3! 24.Qd8+ Rf8 25.Qg5 Bh6! -+; or 24.Rfe1 Rg3+!
25.fxg3 Bxd4+; or 24.Rfd1 Rf4! 25.Qd8+ Bf8! -+) 19...Rf5! 20.Rfe1 Rg5 21.Rxe5
Rxg2+ 22.Kf1 Nxe5 23.Bxe5 Qxh3! (the move white missed. If black had to stop for
23..Bxe5, then 24.Bxf3 might hold on for awhile) 24.Bxf3 (24.Bxg7+ Rxg7+ mates)
24...Rg5+ 25.Ke2 Rxe5+ 26.Kd1 Qxf3+ 0-1
Randy Bauer
|
| |
Date: 18 Jun 2005 21:27:19
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
|
KINGSTON IS BAAACK
<The point was that Sloan had falsely claimed that none of Bauer's
games had been published. Whether Bauer beat Brooks or not is
immaterial; what matters in this argument is that the game *was*
published. In other words, Sloan is wrong (lying?) again. I know, this
is not exactly news -- pretty much everyone but Sloan and Parr already
know that Sloan is frequently wrong or lying. Actually, I am sure Parr
knows it, but he is too dishonest to admit it. > Taylor Kingston
Taylor Kingston assured us that he did not have time because of
other pressing commitments to discuss his claim about being 2300+ ELO.
But he's baaaaaack!
Our strong Natrol Master has once again graced us with his
presence -- not, to be sure, to talk about ducking a match with
low-1931-rated Sam "Call Me Ishmael" Sloan. Not that.
By all means, not that. Mr. Kingston is too honest for such a
discussion.
Instead, the man will stonewall the match and his lie about his
rating. He told us he had more important things to attend to, but that
was also obviously untrue, at least from the vantage point of what he
regards as important. For he is here. With us. Being honest. And so
Taylor Kingston is with us again.
Concerning Sam's claims about Randy Bauer, I understood him to
say that Randy Bauer did not appear to have won against an IM or have
had any of his games published. The issue, I suppose, is really
whether Sam is about right -- not whether a couple of the games saw
print at some time.
Perhaps Mr. Bauer can simply provide us with a coherent record
of his play against masters, or perhaps Sam can do so if records are
available. Then we can all reach a conclusion about whether Sam lied
(sheer negligence can also be a
form of lie, even if the intent was not there) or whether Mr. Kingston
is lying by virtue of touting an exception to a general rule that Sam
correctly laid down.
I have no problem at all labelling Sam a liar here if
negligence is demonstrated.
KINGSTON'S HORSEFEATHERS DEFENSE
The official Kingstonian excuse -- not believed even by his
SUPPORTERS -- is that his finer feelings would be injured sitting
across the board from Mr. Sloan. His proud-man's contumely would not
permit such a thing.
The other explanation: he figures Sam would probably defeat him,
possibly badly, and his ego -- his sense of self worth -- cannot abide
such an outcome.
NO SIRREE. He dislikes Mr. Sloan with intensity, and the idea that a
thousand bucks would eventuate to the Sloanian pockets, even if it went
for baby food, is too much to stomach.
Those are two likely explanations for why our 2300+ Elo master,
self-proclaimed, will not play Sam Sloan.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Jun 2005 04:55:25
From: Randy Bauer
Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Concerning Sam's claims about Randy Bauer, I understood him to
> say that Randy Bauer did not appear to have won against an IM or have
> had any of his games published. The issue, I suppose, is really
> whether Sam is about right -- not whether a couple of the games saw
> print at some time.
>
> Perhaps Mr. Bauer can simply provide us with a coherent record
> of his play against masters, or perhaps Sam can do so if records are
> available. Then we can all reach a conclusion about whether Sam lied
> (sheer negligence can also be a
> form of lie, even if the intent was not there) or whether Mr. Kingston
> is lying by virtue of touting an exception to a general rule that Sam
> correctly laid down.
Sure, Larry, will you then point out Sloan's obvious untruths?
Masters I have beaten include:
IM Mike Valvo
SM Paul Kuroda
NM Tom Amburn (twice)
NM Cliff Mclaughin (twice)
NM Peter Thompson (twice)
NM Tim Radermacher
NM Roger Rudolph
NM Mike Blankenau
NM Mitch Weiss
NM Dan Vasto
NM Hugh Myers
NM Khalid Sharafuddin
NM Ilya Karasik
There are several others whose names I cannot remember.
My record with masters is around 50%, including multiple draws with IM Mike
Brooks (minus 2 overall), IM tin Olesen (minus 1 overall with 5 draws and
all 6 games as black) and Senior master/national master Kevin Burnett (minus
1 overall with 6 draws and 1 loss).
Randy Bauer
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Jun 2005 18:34:45
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
|
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 04:55:25 GMT, "Randy Bauer"
<[email protected] > wrote:
>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Concerning Sam's claims about Randy Bauer, I understood him to
>> say that Randy Bauer did not appear to have won against an IM or have
>> had any of his games published. The issue, I suppose, is really
>> whether Sam is about right -- not whether a couple of the games saw
>> print at some time.
>>
>> Perhaps Mr. Bauer can simply provide us with a coherent record
>> of his play against masters, or perhaps Sam can do so if records are
>> available. Then we can all reach a conclusion about whether Sam lied
>> (sheer negligence can also be a
>> form of lie, even if the intent was not there) or whether Mr. Kingston
>> is lying by virtue of touting an exception to a general rule that Sam
>> correctly laid down.
>
>Sure, Larry, will you then point out Sloan's obvious untruths?
>
>Masters I have beaten include:
>
>IM Mike Valvo
>SM Paul Kuroda
>NM Tom Amburn (twice)
>NM Cliff Mclaughin (twice)
>NM Peter Thompson (twice)
>NM Tim Radermacher
>NM Roger Rudolph
>NM Mike Blankenau
>NM Mitch Weiss
>NM Dan Vasto
>NM Hugh Myers
>NM Khalid Sharafuddin
>NM Ilya Karasik
>
>There are several others whose names I cannot remember.
>
>My record with masters is around 50%, including multiple draws with IM Mike
>Brooks (minus 2 overall), IM tin Olesen (minus 1 overall with 5 draws and
>all 6 games as black) and Senior master/national master Kevin Burnett (minus
>1 overall with 6 draws and 1 loss).
>
>Randy Bauer
None of those games are on the USCF online ratings database. Why is
that?
http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?10320372
If you include 5-minute games, I can provide a far more impressive
list of Grandmasters that I have defeated.
Sam Sloan
|
| | | | |
Date: 19 Jun 2005 18:53:16
From: Randy Bauer
Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
|
"Sam Sloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 04:55:25 GMT, "Randy Bauer"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> Concerning Sam's claims about Randy Bauer, I understood him to
>>> say that Randy Bauer did not appear to have won against an IM or have
>>> had any of his games published. The issue, I suppose, is really
>>> whether Sam is about right -- not whether a couple of the games saw
>>> print at some time.
>>>
>>> Perhaps Mr. Bauer can simply provide us with a coherent record
>>> of his play against masters, or perhaps Sam can do so if records are
>>> available. Then we can all reach a conclusion about whether Sam lied
>>> (sheer negligence can also be a
>>> form of lie, even if the intent was not there) or whether Mr. Kingston
>>> is lying by virtue of touting an exception to a general rule that Sam
>>> correctly laid down.
>>
>>Sure, Larry, will you then point out Sloan's obvious untruths?
>>
>>Masters I have beaten include:
>>
>>IM Mike Valvo
>>SM Paul Kuroda
>>NM Tom Amburn (twice)
>>NM Cliff Mclaughin (twice)
>>NM Peter Thompson (twice)
>>NM Tim Radermacher
>>NM Roger Rudolph
>>NM Mike Blankenau
>>NM Mitch Weiss
>>NM Dan Vasto
>>NM Hugh Myers
>>NM Khalid Sharafuddin
>>NM Ilya Karasik
>>
>>There are several others whose names I cannot remember.
>>
>>My record with masters is around 50%, including multiple draws with IM
>>Mike
>>Brooks (minus 2 overall), IM tin Olesen (minus 1 overall with 5 draws
>>and
>>all 6 games as black) and Senior master/national master Kevin Burnett
>>(minus
>>1 overall with 6 draws and 1 loss).
>>
>>Randy Bauer
>
> None of those games are on the USCF online ratings database. Why is
> that?
>
> http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?10320372
Not true. Sharafuddin and Piper are both on the database.
The database began, I believe in the early 1990s. Most of my tournament
activity was prior to that. I've provided plenty of exact dates for some of
those prior tournaments. If you wish to verify, it shouldn't be all that
difficult.
>
> If you include 5-minute games, I can provide a far more impressive
> list of Grandmasters that I have defeated.
My wins are all serious tournament games. Speed games don't apply, or I
could add some IMs and GMs to my list as well.
Randy Bauer
>
> Sam Sloan
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Jun 2005 17:35:48
From: Randy Bauer
Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
|
"Randy Bauer" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:1V6te.66107$_o.37593@attbi_s71...
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Concerning Sam's claims about Randy Bauer, I understood him to
>> say that Randy Bauer did not appear to have won against an IM or have
>> had any of his games published. The issue, I suppose, is really
>> whether Sam is about right -- not whether a couple of the games saw
>> print at some time.
>>
>> Perhaps Mr. Bauer can simply provide us with a coherent record
>> of his play against masters, or perhaps Sam can do so if records are
>> available. Then we can all reach a conclusion about whether Sam lied
>> (sheer negligence can also be a
>> form of lie, even if the intent was not there) or whether Mr. Kingston
>> is lying by virtue of touting an exception to a general rule that Sam
>> correctly laid down.
>
> Sure, Larry, will you then point out Sloan's obvious untruths?
>
> Masters I have beaten include:
>
> IM Mike Valvo
> SM Paul Kuroda
> NM Tom Amburn (twice)
> NM Cliff Mclaughin (twice)
> NM Peter Thompson (twice)
> NM Tim Radermacher
> NM Roger Rudolph
> NM Mike Blankenau
> NM Mitch Weiss
> NM Dan Vasto
> NM Hugh Myers
> NM Khalid Sharafuddin
> NM Ilya Karasik
>
> There are several others whose names I cannot remember.
Looking back through some old scoresheets also adds:
NM Jim Hove
NM Alan Piper
Lots of draws with masters, including those listed below, plus multiple
draws with SM Lawrence Chachere, NM Siamack Bondari, NM Cliff McLaughlin, NM
Dan Harger, and NM Jim Ellis and single draws with NM Paul Rohwer, FM
Benedikt Jonsson, NM Bob Holliman, NM Jim Ellis, NM Dale Kenkel, NM Dan
Vasto, NM John Burstow, NM Steve Spencer, NM Craig Campbell, NM Thomas
Blaeser, NM Jim McLaughlin, NM Robert Jacobs, NM David Sprenkel, and most
likely some others I can't recall.
Randy Bauer
|
| |
Date: 19 Jun 2005 00:54:03
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
|
En/na Sam Sloan ha escrit:
> Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
> (...)
> Therefore, I propose a rated match against both Randy Bauer and Taylor
> Kingston simultaneously for one thousand dollars.
> (...)
> What do you say?
>
> Sam Sloan
Hello,
I decided not to read more Sam posts. Nothing personally, simply I did
not find much interesting aspects.
But that was a bad decision: I almost lost this thread!
I saw some nice commented games from Mr Bauer answering Sam and I was
curious about what produced that replies.
Reading the original post: simply that comparison Bauer-Sloan is the
most funny joke I have seen here in RGCA.
In order to add more fun I propose an alternative match: a rated match
against both Sam Sloan and Gary Kasparov simultaneously (4 games each)
for one thousand dollars. Please note that I am also taking draw odds
(If I get four points or more of 8 games I win). If Gary does not like
to play for that small amount of money I have no problems to increase
the total amount of the fight.
thanks Sam for this post,
AT
|
| | |
Date: 19 Jun 2005 10:07:10
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
|
Antonio Torrecillas <[email protected] > wrote:
> In order to add more fun I propose an alternative match: a rated match
> against both Sam Sloan and Gary Kasparov simultaneously (4 games each)
> for one thousand dollars. Please note that I am also taking draw odds
> (If I get four points or more of 8 games I win). If Gary does not like
> to play for that small amount of money I have no problems to increase
> the total amount of the fight.
When Kasparov last visited the London Chess Centre to sign copies of his
books, they organized a blitz tournament afterwards. Before Kasparov
arrived for the signing, somebody asked if he was playing in the
tournament. Malcolm Pein said no and, when asked why not, said something
like ``Do you have 32,000ukp you don't need?'' So I suspect you probably
can't afford Kasparov.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Transparent Tool (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ screwdriver but you can see right
through it!
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Jun 2005 14:56:28
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
|
En/na David Richerby ha escrit:
> Antonio Torrecillas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In order to add more fun I propose an alternative match: a rated match
>>against both Sam Sloan and Gary Kasparov simultaneously (4 games each)
>>for one thousand dollars. Please note that I am also taking draw odds
>>(If I get four points or more of 8 games I win). If Gary does not like
>>to play for that small amount of money I have no problems to increase
>>the total amount of the fight.
>
>
> When Kasparov last visited the London Chess Centre to sign copies of his
> books, they organized a blitz tournament afterwards. Before Kasparov
> arrived for the signing, somebody asked if he was playing in the
> tournament. Malcolm Pein said no and, when asked why not, said something
> like ``Do you have 32,000ukp you don't need?'' So I suspect you probably
> can't afford Kasparov.
>
> Dave.
No, .. it's Sam who invites!!! (... if he accept my challenge)
AT
|
| | | | |
Date: 19 Jun 2005 20:29:50
From: Philip Feeley
Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
|
If this match (Sloan-Bauer, Sloan-Kingston) ever takes
place it should be webcast. It looks like it will be a slug-fest!
Phil
|
| | |
Date: 19 Jun 2005 04:04:15
From: Randy Bauer
Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
|
"Antonio Torrecillas" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> En/na Sam Sloan ha escrit:
>> Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
>> (...)
>> Therefore, I propose a rated match against both Randy Bauer and Taylor
>> Kingston simultaneously for one thousand dollars.
>> (...)
>> What do you say?
>>
>> Sam Sloan
>
> Hello,
>
> I decided not to read more Sam posts. Nothing personally, simply I did
> not find much interesting aspects.
>
> But that was a bad decision: I almost lost this thread!
>
> I saw some nice commented games from Mr Bauer answering Sam and I was
> curious about what produced that replies.
Antonio, you are a strong player, and I have enjoyrf your posts and respect
your opinion. I am glad you found my games interesting.
This came about because Sam "delusions of grandeur" Sloan has decided he and
I are close enough in strength that he is willing to play a match. Given
that I have a 300+ rating advantage, I am happy to oblige.
Now Sam is trying to suggest that my rating is contrived and he is truly the
chess equivalent of sliced bread. I posted some of the many games of mine
that have been published to answer some of Sloan's totally baseless claims
(as if that was anything new).
Best in chess,
Randy Bauer
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Jun 2005 15:26:58
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
|
En/na Randy Bauer ha escrit:
>
> Antonio, you are a strong player, and I have enjoyed your posts and respect
> your opinion. I am glad you found my games interesting.
Some time ago I tried to introduce myself in the Pirc world, and your
notes in a WEB page were very ilustrative. From then I allways read your
post here or in another places and I have never been deceptioned. :-)
And as I explained, Sam is one of the few people I feel I'm losing my
time reading it, or answering it (not long ago He was defending here a
"simply lost opening line" without adding any defensive resource to the
winning line many people sent here to him)
> This came about because Sam "delusions of grandeur" Sloan has decided he and
> I are close enough in strength that he is willing to play a match. Given
> that I have a 300+ rating advantage, I am happy to oblige.
>
> Now Sam is trying to suggest that my rating is contrived and he is truly the
> chess equivalent of sliced bread. I posted some of the many games of mine
> that have been published to answer some of Sloan's totally baseless claims
> (as if that was anything new).
>
> Best in chess,
> Randy Bauer
I did understand that, and I'm sure no much people here takes Sam
seriously and know He was wrong. And some sentences are simply hilarant
like the one about rating deflation age in 1999-2000, ... I ask myself
(as a humble mathematician) who *^%&/) won all those 200 ELO points
almost every player lost.
... but I found very funny the challenge he made to you "two matches a 4
games with you and a second player I do not know, with draw odds". That
mean He can lost with you all 4 games and win the challenge!!!
Best regards
AT
|
| |
Date: 18 Jun 2005 13:20:24
From: Randy Bauer
Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
|
In article <[email protected] >, Sam Sloan says...
>
>2. Randy Bauer has never played a published game.
This game has also showed up in a few places. IM Mike Brooks was, for a time, a
player few GMs wanted to face. My record with him is something like -2 =3.
This is the game I thought would even the score. It was analyzed by both GM
Yermolinsky and me:
White: IM Mike Brooks (2558) Black: NM Randy Bauer (2212)
Midwest Open, 10-20-90 Pirc Defense, Classical Variation
1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Be2 0-0 6.0-0 Bg4 7.Be3 Nc6 8.d5 Bxf3
9.Bxf3 Ne5 10.Be2 c6 11.f4 Ned7 12.dxc6 bxc6 13.Rb1!?
Randy: The square b2 can be a problem for white in this type of position, since
it is at the intersection of black's g7 bishop and a rook or queen on the
half-open b-file. White chooses to take a move to protect that spot before
continuing with his natural play on the kingside, where he has more space and
two bishops that can point in that direction.
GM Yermolinsky: 13.Qd3 Qb8 14.a3 Nc5 15.Bxc5 dxc5 16.e5 Nd5 17.Na4 f6 18.c4 Nb6
19.Nxc5 looked promising for white in Hracek-Ftacnik, Erevan Olympiad, 1996.
13...a5
Randy: My thought process about 13.Rb1!? was something along the lines of "what
is he doing?! I don't understand this move at all . . . I finally decided that
it was possible that he was preparing play on the queenside with b2-b4, a2-a4,
and b4-b5, and my move discourages that plan. Black's play is on the queenside
anyway, so the move makes sense even if its original motivation was wrong.
Yermolinksy: Useless. Better is 13...Qc7 14.g4 (14.Qd3 Nb6 15.Kh1 d5 16.e5
Nfd7 17.Bg1 e6 black is very comfortable) 14...Nb6 15.g5 Nfd7 16.Qd2 e6 17.f5
exf5 18.exf5 Rfe8 followed by d6-d5, with an unclear game.
14.g4
Randy: "Oh, I guess I understand where white intends to play now."
14...Nb6
Randy: This is a common reaction to the threat of g4-g5 -- the knight on d7
clears that square for his partner. The point is that d7 is usually a better
square than e8 -- it contests the important e5 square and doesn't interfere with
the rooks.
15.g5 Nfd7 16.h4 f6 (Diagram)
Randy: White is playing to overrun black in breathtaking fashion. How should
black respond? The first thing that he shouldn't do is panic. the black
position is solid, and he's played fundamentally sound moves. The next thing
that black must do is seek his counterplay. In this case, black's counterplay on
the queenside is not sufficiently developed to serve as the way of slowing down
the white pawn advances. There are other ways, however.
In the black fianchetto positions arising out of the Sicilian and Pirc Defenses,
the e5 square can often be the key for the defender. From there, a
black knight can protect the often vulnerable f7 and g6 squares while also
attacking and controlling key white squares like c4, g4, f3, and d3. The knight
also prevents the e-pawn from advancing.
It is very hard to mate black in these types of positions when he has an iron
grip on the e5 square. In this position, if white blindly advances, with, say
17.h5? fxg5 18.fxg5 Ne5! gives black a very nice game -- his knight dominates
the board.
I can hear some players now -- how can black afford to make a weakening pawn
advance when white is attacking on the kingside? It is true that we should not
make weakening pawn advances in the face of an opponent's attack, but often the
best way to deal with an opponent's attack is to create sufficient maneuvering
space for our own pieces. In this case, black feels that he can over the light
squares because his knights are well placed. In the meantime, he may be able to
secure control of ...e5 and gain a trade of rooks on the f-file, which would
lessen the white attacking force.
GM Yermolinksy: Good move. White can't be sure about his attack when the
center is collapsing.
17.Rf2
Yermolinsky: 17.Bg4 Kh8 18.Be6 Nc5 19.Bxc5 dxc5.
17...Qc7 18.Qf1 d5! (Diagram)
Randy: White's play has been wing-oriented. As a result, black finds that his
logical response is in the center. We've all heard the tired old axiom that a
wing attack should be countered in the center. This game is an example of the
logic of that concept. White has to some extent abandoned that sector, so the
black advance, with the threat of 19...fxg5 followed by 20...d4, gains strength.
GM Yermolinsky: Well played again! I should give black the edge here.
19.Rd1 e6 20.Qh3 f5
Randy: Black was now happy: he had placed his pawns on the light squares,
which didn't interfere with his bishop while blunting his opponent's. My
thought process was that 21.h5 Re8 22.hxg6 hxg6 23.Rh2 Kf7! got the king out of
the way of the attack on the h-file. If 22.h6 Bf8 was better for black, since
the white attack is stalled (by its own pawns!), but black's central and
queenside play was just beginning. Finally, 22.exf5 exf5 gave black good
central control.
21.h5!?
Randy: this threatens to obtain a positionally won game with h5-h6 followed by
e4-e5, when the black bishop is dead and white can play the game effectively a
piece up (another typical pattern to recognize).
21...Rfe8?!
Randy: If the pawns were exchanged on either f5 or d5, this move would allow
the rook to assume an active position on the open file, but, as white plays it,
21...Rfb8 would have saved an important tempo.
The key question, of course, is whether black can capture on e4. 21...fxe4
22.Qxe6+ is obviously bad for black, but perhaps he can defend after 21...dxe4
22.hxg6 hxg6 23.Rh2 Rfe8 24.Bd4 (24.Qh7+ Kf7 25.Bd4 Rg8 with ...Nf8 coming seems
to defend, and 25.Qxg6+ Kxg6 26.Bh5+ Kh7 27.Bf7+ Bh6 28.Rxh6+ Kg7 is not
convincing) 24...Nf8. White would, of course, have an attack for his pawn. I
decided that I didn't want to give my opponent that type of position.
GM Yermolinsky: I guess you paid too much respect to your opponent. Michael
Brooks is a good player, but stepped over the line in this game. Better is
21...dxe4! 22.Rh2 Kf7. I don't see a refutation of this. 23.Bd4 e5 24.fxe5
Nxe5 25.Rf2 Kg8 (25...c5? 26.Nb5 Qe7 27.Qb3+ c4 28.Qa3 unclear) 26.hxg6 hxg6
27.Rh2 Rad8 28.Qh7+ Kf7 29.Rh6 Rxd4 30.Rxd4 Qe7 and black wins.
Randy, upon reflection : Grandmaster Yermolinsky's comment, that I paid too
much respect to my opponent, is right on the k. Upon reflection, I probably
would have taken the pawn against a lower-rated player. Food for thought!
22.hxg6
Randy: Now, since the bishop can retreat to f8, 22.h6 would only close up the
kingside, which would favor black.
22...hxg6 23.Rh2 Nf8
GM Yermolinsky: 23...dxe4! 24.Qh7+ Kf7 25.Bd4 e5 26.fxe5 Nxe5 27.Rh6 (27.Nxe4
Rh8) 27...Rh8 28.Bxe5 Qxe5 29.Qxg6+ Ke7 is messy, but what is white to do here?
Randy, upon reflection: Bent Larsen once made a perceptive comment that a
player must always examine every position with a fresh perspective, without
regard to the moves played previously. Here black is still under the impression
that taking the pawn is inadvisable, but, as Yermo shows, this isn't necessarily
the case.
24.e5 Nbd7
Randy: Black is going to prepare play on the b-file so gets the knight off the
file. He also prevents an intrusive Bc5.
GM Yermolinsky: Black has a slight advantage.
25.Bf2?! Reb8 26.b3 Rb4!
Randy: Black needs counterplay. this hits the weak f-pawn and envisions play
with, perhaps, ...a5-a4. the absence of the bishop from e3 makes this possible.
27.Qf3?
Randy: Understandable, but I think that Mike just missed black's idea. White
wants to free his rook on d1 for offensive action, and 27.Be3 means that the
rook must stay on the d-file because of the threat of ...d5-d4. 27.Bg3 turns
the bishop into a big pawn, but now . . .
27...Rxf4!
GM Yermolinsky: Fantastic concept!
28.Qxf4 Bxe5 29.Qh4 Bxc3 30.Rd4!?
Randy: Another fascinating move that I hadn't considered, yet Mike played it
fairly quickly. At this point I had about 20 minute and Mike 15 to get to move
45, and I didn't spend too much time thinking about my response. Objectively, I
felt that I had a good position and didn't want to subject myself to a lightning
attack. It's not entirely clear that black cannot take the exchange, but the
attack is easier to play. After 30...Bxd4 31.Bxd4 e5 white has several ways to
pursue the attack.
After 32.Qh8+ Kf7 33.Rh7+ black may be able to defend with 33...Ke8 34.Bc5 Qd8
when the threat to the g5 pawn is hard for white to meet, and winning the queen
by 35.Re7+ Qxe7 36.Bxe7 Kxe7 looks better for black. A better try for white
seems to be the immediate 32.Bc5, the point being that 32...Nxc5? 33.Qh8+ Kf7
34.Rh7+ wins the queen under much better circumstances for white. After 32.Bc5
Qd8 33.Qh8+ Kf7 34.Rh7+! Nxh7 (34...Ke6 35.Qg8#) 35.Qxh7+ Ke6 36.Qxg6+ Nf6
37.Bd3! e5 38.Bf1! threatens both Bd4 and Bh3. Still, there may be a better
defense for black in there somewhere.
GM Yermolinsky: 30.Bd4 Bxd4+ 31.Rxd4 Qe5.
30...Qe5 31.Bf1 Qg7 32.Rd3 Be5 33.Rh1 Bd6 34.R3h3 Rb8
Randy: Black decides to take a tempo to get his rook on a square covered by his
minor pieces to prevent tactical ideas based on winning the rook at the tail-end
of a checking combination. Still, there were some other ways for black to
pursue the position. Black could play, for example, 34...a4, intending to meet
35.bxa4 with 35...Nc5.
GM Yermolinsky: 34...e5 35.Qh8+ Qxh8 36.Rxh8+ Kf7 37.Rah7+ Nxh7 38.Rxa8 Nxg5
39.Rxa5 e4 with a clear advantage for black.
Randy, upon reflection: John Nunn talks about lazy moves, and this is, as
Yermo's analysis shows, an example of one. While it's understandable that
black wants to remove those troublesome tactics based on the undefended rook, it
is not necessary at this particular point in the game. The tactics don't work
for white, and black should be seeking ways to develop his play, not respond to
threats that aren't there yet.
35.c4!
Randy: White needs to soften up the strong black pawn center to get his
light-squared bishop involved. This concept is something that black will soon
fail to grasp, to his detriment.
35...Nc5 36.Be3 a4
Yermolinsky: maybe you shouldn't have given him a passer (36...Ne4).
Randy, upon reflection: Actually, I recall being moderately surprised by this
move. I think that, for whatever reason, I had a mental block and didn't think
that white could play 38.b4.
37.cxd5 cxd5 38.b4 Ne4 39.b5
Randy: This is the critical position. White has succeeded in creating play
somewhere other than the h-file, which black has effectively defused. Indeed,
both white bishops are now engaged and he has a passed b-pawn. Black, however,
has also helped himself. His knight on e4 is very strong, his king is
relatively safe (note how well the knight on f8 holds white at bay on the
h-file), and with the white big guns on the h-file, it was time for black to
turn his attention to a real problem for white, the a-pawn.
39...e5?
Randy: With about 3 minutes to get to the time control, black falters. A much
better idea is 39...Qa1!, which threatens both ...Rxb5 and ...Qxa2. Black would
intend to play ...Be5 next, followed by taking the a-pawn, when his a4 pawn
would be very hard to stop. This may force white into 40.Qh8+ Qxh8 41.Rxh8+
Kf7, but the trade of queens would cut down on white's attacking chances, and
black would seem to have the better chances in that endgame.
Black's move weakens the central pawn bulwark that had been so effective in
holding together the light squares. By recognizing their vulnerability, white
quickly takes control.
GM Yermolinsky: You give this move a question k, but I think you made some
mistakes later on. The move e6-e5 is a bit loosening, but how are you going to
win this game if not with the pawns?
Randy, upon reflection: Grandmaster Yermolinsky did not have my notes when he
looked at the game, so I don't know if he considered my suggestion of 39...Qa1
or not. After I sent a follow-up query about this position, Yermolinsky was
good enough to have Boris Men, another member of the Yermo Chess Academy and
former participant in the U.S. Championship, take a look at the game. This was
his response:
Boris Men: About 39...Qa1. Alex asked me to look at your game too. I didn't
follow his analysis. In my opinion, this position is winning for black. You
simply must keep track of the h8 square and a1-h8 diagonal. Say, for example,
39...Qa1 40.Kg1 Be5 (not 40...Rxb5? 41.Qh8+) 41.b6 Qxa2 42.Bf4 Bd4+ 43.Be3 Qb2.
I would not go 39...e5 in order to keep control over this artery a1-h8. And of
course, your pawns d5, e6, f5 along with your Ne4 is a guarantee of safety. I
would not consider altering the structure.
Randy: This is an instructive exchange. To my way of thinking, the point is
that, in chess, there are many positions where there will be a legitimate
disagreement among strong players about the best plan. I think that both the
move played and the suggested 39...Qa1 are good for black in this position --
a sure sign that things are going well for the second player.
40.Qe1 f4 41.Qd1!
Randy: Hitting black's Achilles heel.
41...Qf7 42.Bf2 Nxf2
GM Yermolinsky: I understand that you wanted to simplify, but there was a
better move -- 42...Nxg5. You must have missed that one. After 43.Rd3 Rxb5
44.Qxa4 Qb7 black has a winning advantage.
Randy, upon reflection: Yermo is pointing out another common flaw in the
thinking of the lower-rated player -- that exchanges should always be welcomed.
As noted, black should, with active minor pieces, not shrink away from the
material gain. Over the next couple of moves black throws away a very good
game.
43.Kxf2 Qa7+?
GM Yermolinsky: What was the time control? You play leaves an impression of a
time scramble.
Randy, upon reflection: Yes, indeed, both players had less than a minute to get
to move 45, and black suffers from the old "duffer sees a check, duffer gives a
check" syndrome. Still, black totally falls apart at the end, and the clock
shouldn't be the only excuse.
44.Kg2 Qf7
GM Yermolinsky: 44...Qc5 and black is still better!
Randy, upon reflection: This is amazing to me. I had, during the game and
while annotating it, already given black up for lost. The point, of course, is
that black's pawns are very threatening. If white would play 45.Qxa4 e4! looks
very promising for black. I became fixated by the number of pawns, when
actually the advanced nature of the black pawns is much more important than
whether he has one or two pawns for the exchange. This is, of course, the type
of thing that separates the great players from the not so great.
45.Bc4! dxc4 46.Qxd6
Randy: Things have changed dramatically, and white's attack is now
overwhelming. After 46...Rxb5 47.Rh8+ Kg7 48.Qxf8+! Qxf8 49.R1h7#
Yermolinsky: 46...Rxb5 47.Rh8+ Kg7 48.Qxf8+ Qxf8 49.R1h7#
46...Qb7+? Kf1 1-0
Randy: The moral of the story: seize your opportunities, but remember that
pawns can't move backward.
Randy, upon reflection: Grandmaster Yermolinsky makes a telling point that
black's mistakes didn't necessarily come from the pawn advances but from not
seizing other tactical opportunities that presented themselves along the way.
In many ways, this is a rekable insight for me. I have always felt that I
let this game get away with loosening play. In reality, it was from a lack of
analytic precision, and maybe a bit of chess laziness sprinkled with
over-respect for my opponent. This has given me some things to work on before
my next meeting with an internationally titled opponent.
|
| |
Date: 18 Jun 2005 12:32:44
From: Randy Bauer
Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
|
In article <[email protected] >, Sam Sloan says...
>
>In sumy:
>
>1. Randy Bauer has never defeated a master
>
>2. Randy Bauer has never played a published game.
>
The following game and notes were published in Chess Horizons and won me the
"Best Instructive Article" from the Chess Journalists of America.
The fact that Sloan's sumy is once again FALSE is proving to be the one
constant.
My opponent is now an FM.
White: Randy Bauer (2240) Black: Jim Dean (2140)
1996 Midwest Amateur Team Championship
Leningrad Dutch
1.c4 f5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.d4 0-0 6.Nf3 d6 7.0-0 Qe8
By a round-about method we have reached one of the more important positions in
the Dutch Defense. Black's queen move helps prepare the pawn thrust e7-e5, and
she can also emerge on the kingside via f7, g6, or h5.
8.e4!?
My opponent is a strong young player who likely knew the ins and outs of this
topical line better than I did. The text is rarely mentioned in Leningrad books,
but there is some logic to it. Often if white can achieve e4, the black queen
will not feel real comfortable on the e-file. The downside is that white must
lose a bit of time recapturing the pawn, and black gets pretty active play on
the light squares.
8...fxe4 9.Ng5 Nc6 10.Be3 Bf5!?
The game that's usually cited in this line is Afifi-Yusupov, Tunis, 1985, which
continued with 10...Bg4 11.Qd2 Qd7 12.Ngxe4 Nxe4, when 13.Nxe4 would have given
white a slight advantage.
The advantage of 10...Bg4 is that it gives black the time to set up his
queen/bishop battery on the light squares. Now white can attempt to contest the
kingside light squares.
11.h3 h5
While this move maintains the bishop's position and is no doubt the critical
continuation, white is happy that the g5 square is now "his" for good. Both
sides have kingside weaknesses that may be exploitable.
12.Ncxe4 Qd7 13.Kh2 Rae8
A case can be made that black should strike immediately in the center, before
white has time to discourage the ...e7-e5 thrust. After 13...e5, if white seeks
to exchange the central pawns, the black knight can effectively recapture on e5.
14.f4!?
This wasn't a move that white played lightly, but a 10-minute think led to the
conclusion that if black achieved an easy ...e7-e5, white would likely find
himself on the defensive. There are imbalances galore after white's move: the
kingside is further loosened, and the dark square bishop is a bit of a problem,
since it's no longer protected by the f-pawn and now blocked by two white center
pawns. On the other hand, if white can consolidate, for example with Qd2 and
Nf2, he would have a nice grip on the center.
14...Nxe4
The move that I first considered was 14...h4!?, since 15.g4? Bxg4! exploits the
undefended white bishop after either 16.Nxf6+ exf6 or 16.hxg4 Nxg4+. Still,
things are far from easy for black after 15.d5! since 15...Na5 16.Bd4! now
threatens an effective 17.g4, and 16..hxg3+ 17.Nxg3 doesn't solve black's
problems.
15.Nxe4 e5
Perhaps black would do better to avoid the queen trade with 15...Qc8. As played,
white can feel much safer about his king.
16.dxe5 dxe5 17.Qxd7 Bxd7 18.Bc5?!
White would do better to simply seize the open file with 18.Rad1, when I would
rate his chances as slightly better, since his bishops are threatening havoc on
the queenside. Black cannot effectively utilize d4 either, since 18...Nd4 19 Nc5
favors white.
18...Rf5!
For some reason, I overlooked the fact that the rook could settle on this useful
square. Now the position of white's dark squared bishop is a bit ticklish, since
black threatens to play ...exf4, followed by ...Rxe4 and ...Rxc5, winning two
pieces for the rook. White could try to hang tight with something passive like
19.Ba3?!, but after 19...exf4 white will be left with a weak pawn on f4 and,
after the black knight lands on d4, a real poor piece placement.
Complicating the matter somewhat was the fact that this was a team tournament,
and our fourth board was already losing. As a result, I wasn't particularly
interested in playing 40 moves of perfect defense to achieve a draw.
Given that set of circumstances, white's next is understandable: white's play is
based on his bishop's activity and chances against black's king. In particular,
the square g5 is key.
19.Ng5(!) exf4 20.Bd5+ Kh8
Black doesn't profit from 20...Rxd5 21.cxd5 Re2+ 22.Rf2 when white has the
better chances.
21.gxf4 Re2+
21...Bxb2 22.Rb1 Re2+ 23.Rf2 Rxf2+ 24.Bxf2 Be5 looks good except for 25.Nf7+ --
a common theme over the next few moves.
22.Rf2!
One thing that I've learned over time is that sometimes you have to put safety
first, even when you're trying to justify a pawn sacrifice. My first inclination
here was 22.Kg3, but white's king is then walking into a mating net. After, for
example, 22...Bd4 the white king would find itself in a difficult position.
By contrast, the text accepts the trade of a set of rooks and the win of a pawn
by black, but white's remaining pieces become very active.
22...Rxf2+ 23.Bxf2 Rxf4 24.Bg3
Not 24.Be3? Be5!.
24...Rf5
Black needs to use this square or white can consider the drawing method with
Nf7+ and Ng5+. With the rook on f5, of course, Ng5+ is just a hanging piece.
25.h4
This move has advantages and disadvantages. On the plus side, it maintains the
knight's offensive position. The downside is that black can now play his knight
to its own strong post at g4. White sees, however, that this will take time that
allows him to aggressively post his rook.
25...Ne5!?
The move that I expected-black has been nothing if not aggressive in this game.
The alternative 25...Bxb2 26.Rb1 Bd4 27.Rxb7 Bb6 runs into 28.Bxc7 when black's
light squared bishop is a problem. This will become a recurring theme during the
rest of the game.
Black's move envisions the knight settling in on g4 and also prepares to eject
the bishop from d5 with either ...c6 or ...Bc6.
26.Re1
White gets his rook onto an open file and envisions penetrating to the seventh
or eighth ranks. This also sets up ideas of capturing twice on e5 followed by
Nf7+, winning material. This is a common tactic in these types of positions that
every player should be on the look-out for.
26...Ng4+
Black can't afford a move like 26...Nd3, which allows the white rook into his
position with 27.Re7.
27.Kg2 Bf6
This subtle move accomplishes a number of things: it threatens to remove the
annoying knight, keeps the rook out of e7, and, as a consequence, prepares to
play ...c6. The immediate 27...c6 is playable, since 28.Re7 cxd5 29.Rxd7 dxc4
(or even 29...d4) gets the pawn moving very quickly.
Better for white is 28.Be4 Rf6 29.Bf3, when white envisions Re7.
28.Bxb7!?
This looks like a materialistic approach, but it is more than that. First, we
must recognize that black is getting ready to force the bishop back.
The first line I considered was 28.Be4, but black could play 28... Bc6, and
after 29.Bxc6 bxc6 30.Re8+ Kg7 31.Rc8 Bxg5 32.Rxc7+ Kh6 33.hxg5+ Kxg5 with an
advantage in a still very unbalanced endgame.
Black could also play 31...Ne3+ since 32.Kh3 Rf1 threatens mate and white
probably has to bail out with perpetual checks on the seventh and eighth ranks.
Likewise, 32.Kh2 Nf1+ 33.Kg2 Ne3+ is just a repetition, and 33.Kh3!? Bxg5
34.hxg5 Rf3 34.Rxc7+ Kg8! 35.Kg2! Rxg3+ 36.Kxf1 Rxg5 favors black since the
h-pawn is very dangerous.
One of the key points about these lines is that black's poorest minor piece, the
white squared bishop, is off the board. Right now that piece is a liability that
is subject to attack, and white doesn't want to eliminate those opportunities.
28...c6!?
Black seeks to keep the bishop out of play. White's last had set a trap, since
28...Bxg5 29.hxg5 Rxg5?? 30.Re7! wins material, because 30...Bf5 31.Bf4
embarrasses the rook.
29.Ne4
The knight move seeks to get the bishop to give up defense of the e7 square,
which white needs to get his rook to the seventh rank. The alternative route,
via the d-file, isn't possible because Rd1 runs into Ne3+. White is hoping for
29...Bxb2 30.Nd6 Rf6 31.Re7 when white is again a pawn down but has powerful
threats.
29...Bd4
Both sides are angling to get at the opponent's weaknesses. In this case, black
wants to play ...Ne3+, which blocks the e-file and also threatens to weave a
mating net around the white king. In white's favor at this point is the fact
that black has just 14 minutes to get to the time control at move 50, while
white has 36 minutes.
30.Nd6 Rf6?!
In this slugfest it's not surprising that the player that made the retreating
move ends up losing. Black should probably block the e-file immediately. After
30...Ne3+, the powerful knight holds white at bay. Probably 31.Rxe3 would be
necessary, and after 31...Bxe3 32.Nxf5 gxf5 (otherwise the c6 pawn falls)
33.Be5+ Kg8 34.Kf3 white probably has some advantage in the ending based on his
more advanced king and better pawn structure, but black can probably draw.
31.Re7!
Now the white pieces are very active, and black should recognize that it's time
to bail out.
31...Ne3+??
Black misses a tactic. It's fitting that black can survive if he keeps the
proper focus on the white king. With 31...Be6!, black restores the threat of
...Ne3+. Now, on ideas like 32.Ne4 black can play 32...Ne3+. 33.Kh1 Rf1+ 34.Kh2
Ng4+ 35.Kg2 Ne3+ is perpetual check. On 33.Kh2 Ng4+ 34.Kh1 Rf1+ 35.Kg2 Ne3+
leads to the same thing. It's notable, however, that black probably shouldn't
try for more with 35...Rg1+ since 36.Kf3 lets the king out of the box.
32.Rxe3!
Now it's over. White wins a piece due to the unfortunate placement of his king
and rook.
32...Rxd6
32...Bxe3 33.Be5 Kg7 34.Ne4 also wins a piece. Now black hopes for 33.Bxd6??
Bxe3, which throws away the win.
33.Rd3!
Both the rook and bishop are under attack and they both cannot be saved.
33...Bf5
Again hoping for 34.Bxd6?? Bxd3.
34.Rxd4! 1-0
34...Rxd4 35.Be5+ finally garners the doomed piece.
|
| |
Date: 18 Jun 2005 12:26:32
From: Matt Nemmers
Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
|
Randy Bauer wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Sam Sloan says...
> >
> >Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
> >
> >In all of these postings about a grudge match, I have lost track of
> >which ch 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.
>
> False. First, I have somewhere around 200 games rated as a master - you don't
> get those at 2150. Second, I played in the National Open held in Chicago -- the
> year Tal played in it. I was playing pretty well until I secrewed up a decent
> game against SM John Meyer. I still gained rating points in the tournament, in
> fact, I may have made NM there for the first time.
> >
> >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.
>
> I gained 5 points from that match - hardly a big deal. Typically, Sloan
> distorts the facts to make it sound like something it is not. It's notable that
> the Ames Chess Festival routinely attracted players like IM Mike Brooks back in
> those days.
>
> Bauer NEVER DEFEATED A MASTER in any of these
> >tournaments. Most of Bauer's wins were against Class A and Class B
> >players.
>
> Totally false. I have defeated at least a couple dozen masters, including the
> likes of 2300+ players Paul Kuroda, Tim Rachermacher, Cliff McLaughlin, and
> Mitch Weiss. I have defeated masters back to back on several occasions,
> including Kuroda and Tom Amburn at a tournament I won in Oklahoma and Roger
> Rudolph and Tim Radermacher in a tournament I won in Minnesota.
>
> BAUER HAS NEVER PLAYED A PUBLISHED GAME, as least not so far
> >as I could find.
>
> False. You can find several on IM Jeremy Silman's website, for starters. IM
> John Donaldson was gracious enough to send me an old column of George
> Koltanowski's where he published one of my games as well.
> >
> >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.
>
> False. My big wins in the Amateur Team were against Kurt Stein and James Dean,
> both of whom are or became masters.
>
> >
> >In sumy:
> >
> >1. Randy Bauer has never defeated a master
>
> FALSE
>
> >2. Randy Bauer has never played a published game.
>
> FALSE
> >
> >3. Randy Bauer has never played in a major open tournament.
>
> FALSE
> >
> >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.
>
> My biggest rating gains were a win in Minnesota where I went 5-0 and beat 2 NMs
> and 2 experts in the last 4 rounds, winning the Iowa State Closed Championship
> 4-1 against a field of all masters and experts, and winning a tournament in
> Oklahoma where I beat SM Paul Kuroda and NM Tom Amburn in back to back rounds.
> The previous tournament I beat NMs Cliff McLaughlin and Tom Amburn in back to
> back rounds.
>
> The reader can judge for themselves the veracity of Sloan's claims.
> >
> >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
>
> I have no problem playing you for a thousand, Sloan, but since you've called my
> strength into question, we play straight up, you against me. I'm happy to go
> halfway on location. You seem to think you're hot stuff, bring it on.
>
> Randy Bauer
ROFLMFAO!!
Regards,
Matt
|
| |
Date: 18 Jun 2005 11:55:29
From: Randy Bauer
Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
|
In article <[email protected] >, Sam Sloan says...
>
>
>In sumy:
>
>1. Randy Bauer has never defeated a master
>
>2. Randy Bauer has never played a published game.
This is another game that has been published in various places:
White: Randy Bauer(2108) Black: Paul Kuroda (2410)
Northeast Oklahoma Open 10-86
Sicilian Grand Prix Attack
1.e4 c5 2.f4
This was my favorite method for dealing with the Sicilian Defense at that time,
and it is a very dangerous system that was also scoring well for aggressive
international players like Hebden, William Watson, and Plasket. Unfortunately,
Tal�s gambit with 2�d5 3.exd5 Nf6!? has taken most of the fun out of this for
white. Those still interested in playing similar structures must generally play
2.Nc3 followed by f4.
2�Nc6 3.Nf3 g6 4.Bb5 Bg7 5.Bxc6!
This is a good practical choice, as white now has a clear-cut aim:. he will seek
the better pawn structure, put his pawns on the light squares, and play to gain
space on the kingside.
5...dxc6
More popular is 5...bxc6, which aims for a big center and counterplay down the
half-open b-file. The text is certainly playable, however.
6.d3 Bg4?!
Black's priy trump is the pair of bishops, and it's strange to give them up
so readily. White's solid center, however, makes it difficult to find active
duty for the piece. White's strategy has already paid dividends, as black has
failed to find an active plan.
7.h3 Bxf3 8.Qxf3 Nf6 9.Nd2
One advantage of white's move order (as opposed to 2.Nc3 and 3.f4) is that he
can now develop his queen knight in this way. Now c4 would be a nice post for
the piece, from where it can go to e3 or e5 to support a kingside attack.
9...0-0 10.0-0 Ne8
Black envisions ...Nc7-b5-d4, but the idea is time consuming. White now has a
relatively clear position (one of our goals) and must develop and execute a
plan. He has extra space on the kingside, and his bishop is restrained by the f4
pawn, so the idea should be clear: white needs to play f4-f5.
11.Nc4?! Nc7?!
On their eleventh move, both white and black fail to react properly to the
nature of the position. From white�s perspective, he must realize that his play
is on the kingside. To improve his chances, he needs to active his dark-squared
bishop, which is hemmed in by the f4 pawn. That means that white needs to play
f4-f5, and he should do so immediately with 11.f5! He would then have a solid
advantage, especially since black cannot quickly stick a knight on e5, which is
often a useful antidote to f4-f5.
From black�s perspective, he should prevent f4-f5. 11�f5! is a thematic counter
that is also found in the Closed Sicilian. Black would have fully equal chances
after that move.
12.f5!
White now has a solid advantage. He can choose an active development for his
bishop, and he may also use his kingside pawns aggressively.
12�Nb5 13.g4
Black now thought for 20 minutes, probably realizing that white's demonstration
on the kingside is very real. Unfortunately for black, he has already spent
three moves to bring his knight to b5, so there is nothing better than
continuing on to d4.
13...Nd4 14.Qf2!
The queen keeps an eye on the c5 pawn and stays off the soon-to-be-opened
g-file. White continues to play with a clear plan of kingside play, but it
doesn�t hurt that the queen move also eyes the underprotected c5 pawn.
14...gxf5 15.gxf5 Kh8 16.Kh1 Rg8 17.Bg5 (Diagram)
White has a clear strategic goal: develop his pieces aggressively on the
kingside. His kingside space advantage makes that possible.
On the other hand, black finds it difficult to make his pieces work together.
The knight looks good on d4, but it is unstable there (white may play c2-c3 to
dislodge it at the appropriate moment) and it blocks the action of the
dark-squared bishop and it cannot readily help in the defense of the kingside.
The black queen and queen rook also do not have much to do.
17...Qd7 18.Ne3 Be5!?
Hoping, no doubt, for something like 19.Bf4? Bxf4 20.Qxf4 Ne2 followed by
...Ng3+. Black is forced to resort to mixing things up tactically, because
white�s better placed pieces have won the strategic battle.
19.Ng4! (Diagram)
The logical continuation of white�s play. He simply brings another piece to an
aggressive post on the kingside. Given their strong posts on the kingside, it is
not surprising that the tactics are in his favor.
The nice thing about this game is that white really didn't have to do an
extraordinary calculating or thinking. His moves were logical and pretty easy to
find. That is exactly the type of situation you want against a stronger player.
Having been on the opposite side of these positions, it is also frustrating for
your opponent.
19�Bc7
Black was almost out of time (time control was 25/1), and this was an attempt to
mix it up. White's active pieces and the chance to dislodge the d4 knight give
him nearly a winning edge after 19...Rxg5 20.Nxe5 Qe8 21.c3.
20.Nf6! exf6?
This loses prosaically. Black can still put up a fight with 20...Qd6, (analysis
diagram) since 21.e5? Qd8 22.Nxg8 Qd5+! turns the tables after 23.Qg2 Qxg2+
23.Kxg2 Rxg8. White must play 21.Nxg8 Rxg8 22.Rg1! (the natural 22.Bf4 Qxf4!
23.Qxf4 Bxf4 24.Rxf4 Nxc2 allows black to fight back. White should still have
the advantage in a line like 25.Rc1 Nb4 26.Rf3!. Then 26...Rd8 27.Rc3 prepares
a3, and 27...Nxa2 28.Ra3 Nb4 29.Rxa7. Then passive defense like 29...Rd7? fails
to 30.Rg3!, but the straightforward
29...Rxd3 30.Rxd3 Nxd3 31.Rxb7 Nf2+ 32.Kg2 Nxe4 33.Rxe7 favors the rook. Still
there's a lot of play in this variation). Now the tactical 22...Nf3? fails to
the counterstroke 23.Bxe7!, and the tactically greedy 23�Nxf5 24.Raf1! should
also consolidate to a winning position.
21.Bxf6+ Rg7 22.Rg1 Nxf5 23.Qxf5
White must play accurately to the end. 23.exf?? Qd5+! 24.Rg2 Be5 allows black to
climb back into the game.
23...Qxf5 24.Bxg7+ Kg8 25.exf5 1-0
|
| |
Date: 18 Jun 2005 11:52:27
From: Randy Bauer
Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
|
In article <[email protected] >, Sam Sloan says...
>
>Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
>
>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.
The following game has been published in many places. So much for both of
Sloan's claims. Besides being a strong master and multiple times Iowa champion,
Weiss was also a strong postal master who has represented the US
internationally. The notes were written several years ago so may be dated in
some places.
White: Mitch Weiss (2350) Black: Randy Bauer (2250)
1989 Iowa State Closed Championship
Sicilian Defense
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5
This was the critical game of the championship. My opponent, the defending
champion, was the top-rated player and I was number two in the 6-player round
robin. Most of my pre-tournament preparation had been spent on 6.f4, my
opponent's usual choice. Before the tournament, however, I had prepared
"something different" in case he played this most popular try.
6...e6 7.f4 Be7 8.Qf3 Qc7 9.0-0-0 Nbd7 10.g4 h6!??
The position after 10.g4 is considered the main line of the 6.Bg5 Najdorf and is
still a hot topic in high level play. The theory on it is extensive and
ever-changing. As an example, the priy theoretical work at that time on the
Najdorf was John Nunn's excellent Najdorf for the Tournament Player. That 1988
book contained 16 pages of double spaced text on the line with 10.g4. Black's
choice, 10...h6, merited just 6 lines in one column on one page.
Things have only gotten worse theory-wise since this game was played. John Nunn
has recently starting revising his 1988 book. In 1988, he was able to cover all
the variations of the Najdorf in 288 pages. Earlier this year, Nunn released a
partial revision of his work. This time, he spent 320 pages on the lines with
6.Bg5 alone, of which 60 are devoted to 10.g4. All the other popular tries
(6.Bc4, 6.Be2, 6.Be3, 6.f4, etc.) will be covered in a second volume of similar
length!
By finding lines like the text, black is able to sidestep most of that theory.
Of course, avoiding theory is of little use if the move you play is downright
bad. In this case, I'll grant you that 10...h6 is not as objectively good as
black's priy choice, 10...b5. However, the move isn't without its points.
Black envisions a typical attack on the dark squares with ...g5, which helps
secure a fine outpost on e5 for black's pieces. In similar positions, the g-pawn
would be on g2, which is probably a better square for it.
Still, 10...h6 costs time, and white should be able to get an edge with accurate
play. In my database, however, black scores about 50% with it (albeit from a
small sample).
11.Bxf6 Bxf6 12.h4 Qb6 13.Nb3
In 1988, all Nunn gave was 13.Nce2 g5!? without further comment, and I did a
fair amount of original analysis on that position. After the game, I analyzed
the game quite a bit with NM Dan Harger. His suggestion was 13.Nde2 g5 14.hxg5
hxg5 15.e5. Then 15...Rxh1 16.Qxh1 dxe5 17.f5! causes black some problems, but
16...Be7!? looks playable.
Interestingly, Nunn gives a little further information on Harger's 13.Nde2 in
his 1997 book. He gives 13.Nde2 g5 14.e5 dxe5 15.fxg5 e4 16.Qxe4 hxg5 17.h5 Ne5
18.Nd4 Bd7 19.Rh3 0-0-0 as unclear, based on Molvig-Kristensen, Copenhagen 1995.
At the time, I thought 13.Nb3 passive, as it removes the knight from a strong
central post, and the knight does nothing but watch for the rest of the game.
Nunn also ignores it in both his 1988 and 1997 books. However, when I repeated
this opening in a preliminary game of the 1994 Iowa state postal championships,
I found an interesting idea for white that I'd been oblivious to.
13...g5(?) 14.hxg5 hxg5 15.Rxh8+ Bxh8 (diagram)
16.f5?
Although this seemed logical at the time, it weakens the dark squares and hands
over control of e5 without a fight. Of course, 16.fxg5? would be no better, as
after ...Ne5 black's knight dominates the board and white's pawns are fractured.
The testing try, which I found while analyzing my postal game, was 16.Nd2!
Suddenly, the d6 pawn is a big weakness and the knight coming to c4 controls the
e5 square as well.
I could find no satisfactory method for black and concluded that 13...g5 was in
fact an error. In my postal game, I avoided 13...g5 and played 13...Qc7,
offering to repeat the position. My opponent chose something else and I ended up
winning the game.
16...Be5!
This may seem strange, since black generally bases his play in these types of
positions around securing a knight on e5, but here it is the right decision. For
starters, after 16...Ne5 17.Qh3 the dark squared bishop is uncomfortably placed
and hard to activate. Second, the bishop on e5 absolutely dominates the board.
It has no counterpart, and it simultaneously supports the weak d-pawn, threatens
to block the f-file if necessary via ...Bf4, and also keeps an eye on the c3
knight. No other minor piece on the board does so much.
17.fxe6 fxe6 18.Qh3
White logically aims at the black kingside via the open h-file. Another plan
would have been to attempt to utilize the open f-file, but after 18.Be2 Qd8!
black re-deploys his queen to the kingside with good play.
It's important to note that all the long term prospects are black's. His two
bishops are potentially very strong (and his dark-squared bishop already the
best minor piece on the board), and white's g and e-pawns are targets. That
means that black can defend by offering queen trades.
18...Qf2!
After I played this move, my opponent thought for 16 minutes. I think he was
realizing that black was taking control of the game. Black's move maintains his
dark square grip while re-deploying the queen to the kingside. Now on Be2 or Bd3
black plays ...Qh2 and, if necessary, ...Qf4+ Black welcomes the trade of
queens, since in any endgame the white light-squared bishop will be the worst
minor piece on the board because of the e and g-pawns, and black's dark squared
bishop will be the best. The other point of black's move is that 19.Qh5+ Qf7
20.Qxg5?? Bf4+ wins the queen.
I can probably hear some of the skeptics now. "How can black be better? White is
better developed and black's king looks insecure." In the Sicilian, however,
black often looks optically bad when in fact his position is quite good.
This is one such example. Although white appears better developed, neither of
his knights is doing much, and his light squared bishop is severely constricted.
Black's position is solid, and if he develops his queen bishop, he's got much
better long term chances.
19.Bc4 Nb6 20.Rf1 Qh2! 21.Qd3 Nxc4 22.Qxc4 Bd7 23.Qc7!?
White decides to mix it up, since if black gets to play ...Rc8 white will be
totally defensive.
23...b5
24.Kb1
White gets out of ideas based on checking on f4, but it is too slow. A better
try was 24.Qb7 Rc8, but white can't play 25.Qxa6 because of 25...b4, or 25.Rf7
because of 25...Bf4+ 26.Kd1 Qg1+ 27.Ke2 Qe3+ 28.Kd1 or Kf1 Qf3+ followed by a
bishop check and ...Qxf7. White has to stop for 25.a3, when Bxc3 26.bxc3 Rxc3
27.Nd4 at least muddies the water. Black shouldn't give up his strong
dark-squared bishop. After 25...Bf4+! (which removes tactics based on the rook
getting to f7) 26.Kb1 Qh3 27.Rd1 Be5 black is clearly better.
24...Qg2 25.Rf7?
White can't hope to get anything out of this, since his knights are so far
removed from the action. A better try was 25.Rd1, but after 25...Qxg4 26.Rh1!
Rc8 27.Qb7 Qg2! 29.Rh7 Qf1+ 30.Nc1 Rd8. White's problem is that he can't get the
rook to the 8th rank, and black intends to just push the g-pawn.
25...Kxf7 26.Qxd7+ Kf6 27.Qh7 Qxg4 28.Qh6+ Kf7 29.Qh7+ Bg7 (Diagram)
The threat of ...Rh8 forces back the white queen. With white's knights just
spectating, the rest is simple technique - penetrate with the big guns to the
seventh and eighth ranks.
30.Qh1 Rh8 31.Qf1+ Qf4 32.Qg1 Rh2 33.Nd1 Be5 34.Nc1 Qxe4 35.Nd3 Rh1 36.Nxe5+
dxe5 0-1
This win catapulted me into the lead. I ended up winning the state championship
by half a point over Weiss.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Jun 2005 02:24:38
From: Randy Bauer
Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
|
> In article <[email protected]>, Sam Sloan says...
>>
>>Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
>>
>>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.
>
This is like shooting ducks in a barrel. The following game is against long
time master Hugh Myers and improves on analysis found in his book on the
Nimzovic Defense. It can also be found on IM Jeremy Silman's website.
Randy Bauer (2220) - Hugh Myers (2200)
Hawkeye (Iowa) Open, 9-25-94
Scandinavian Defense (by transposition)
1.e4 Nc6 2.Nf3 d5 3.ed Qxd5 4.Nc3 Qa5 5.d4 Bg4 6.Bb5 e6
The game, which started as a Nimzovich Defense, has now transposed into a
Scandinavian Defense. The problem with the lines with ...Nc6 in these
positions is that white can inflict structural damage because of the pin of
the knight by the bishop. This also makes black think twice about castling
queenside. Even so, 6...0-0-0 is a double-edged alternative.
7.h3 Bh5
Interestingly, when I looked up this line in my database, I found one of
those strange statistical anomalies: 7...Bxf3 has a great score for black,
while the logical text doesn't do as well. You always have to watch out for
the "garbage in, garbage out" syndrome in bases with a small sample. I think
7...Bh5, forcing white to weaken his pawn structure to eliminate the pin, is
stronger than 7...Bxf3, which too easily falls in with white's plans to get
the queen off the d-file and break the pin.
8.g4 Bg6 9.Ne5
My opponent, who has written several books on the Nimzovich, had been
blitzing out his moves, while I was now on my own. At this point, I'd used
20 minutes to his 2! The text seems logical; black must do something about
the threat of Nc4, winning the queen, so his next move is forced.
9...Bb4 10.Bd2
Likewise, white must deal with the threat of 10...Qxb5. Of course 10.Bxc6+
is possible, but not 10.Nxc6? Bxc3+ 11.bxc3 Qxb5 when white's pawn structure
is a mess. Upon returning home, I also discovered that 10.0-0, which I
didn't consider, is playable. A game from my database continued 10...Bxc3
11.Bxc6+ bxc6 12.Qf3! (the move I had missed) followed by bxc3, with an
interesting game.
10...Bxc3 11.Bxc6+ bxc6 12.Bxc3 Qd5 13.f3
This is an extremely unbalanced middlegame. Black has a bad queenside pawn
structure but a nice grip on the d5 square, and white's kingside pawns leave
some holes that have "knight outpost" written all over them. I'd say the
chances are roughly equal.
After the game Myers told me that he had played this position several times,
including wins against a couple of 2300+ players. He also said that one of
the games was in his latest book on the Nimzovich Defense (I'd meant to
order that book, too!). I'm glad I didn't know all of this during the game.
At this point, I'd used 35 minutes and my opponent 5; he now doubled his
thinking time and played...
13...Ne7
I don't know if this natural move can be "bad," but it gives white some
chances he probably shouldn't have. For white's position to work, he needs
to eject the queen from d5, thus c2-c4 is called for. That means the bishop
has to move. If black had played, for example, 13...Rb8, he would make it
more difficult for white to undertake this action, and also place the rook
on the half-open file.
14.Bb4
White takes the opportunity to improve the scope of his bishop. This also
prepares the key c2-c4 advance and sets up some tactics. If, for example,
black would play something foolish (say 14...a5? or 14...Rb8??) then 15.c4
Qd8 16.Bxe7 wins material because of the knight fork on c6.
14...Qb5
Black logically interferes with white's plan. Now 15.Qd2 Nd5 looks dangerous
for white.
15.a3
So that 15...Nd5 can be met by 16.c4, forking the pieces. As a result,
white will get in c2-c4.
15...a5
A few weeks after playing this game, I actually did get around to ordering
Myers' book on the Nimzovich. There I found that, up to this point, we had
been following Mitch Weiss-Hugh Myers, Bettendorf (Iowa) 1981. National
Master Weiss is a several time Iowa State Champion and a strong positional
player, so I think my moves were probably on the right track. However, after
15.f6 16.c4 Qa6 17.Nxg6 Nxg6 18.Qc2 0-0-0 19.0-0-0 e5! black had the
initiative and went on to win. I think that 18.Qe2 is a much better try, as
it calls black back to the defense of his e-pawn at a time when .e5 isn't as
strong.
16.c4 Qb7 17.Bc3
Myers thought I would play 17.Bxe7 Kxe7 18.Nxg6, but I thought that black
would have all the play down the half-open h- and b-files. I hate those
kinds of positions.
17...f6
Logical - the knight is a pain for black. If white now plays 18.Nxg6, either
recapture gives counterplay.
18.Nd3 Bxd3
Black cannot let the knight go to c5 - it would paralyze his game by fixing
the doubled pawns and also covering the important central light squares -
d7, e6, e4, d3.
19.Qxd3 c5!?
A very double-edged pawn sacrifice. Black pitches one of his doubled,
isolated pawns but also frees his queen and the c6-square. I was expecting
19...Qb3, which seeks to exploit the queen's need to protect the c4 pawn,
but I thought 20.a4 a good reply, as it fixes the a5-pawn on a dark square
and allows Ra3, if necessary, to expel the queen.
20.dxc5 Qc6
This is a key decision point for white. Recognizing these points in a game
and reacting properly is very important. White has a couple of logical
ideas. First, I rejected 21.Rd1 because after 21...Qxc5 22.Qd7+ Kf7 white
has no clear follow-up. Although 23.Rh2 Qxc4 24.R2d2 gives some play for the
pawn, I thought black could sit tight with 24...Rhe8 threatening simply
...Qc6. Maybe white has enough, but this was just too speculative.
Next I had to decide whether or not I wanted to play a queenless endgame.
Because of black's piece placement, white can play 21.Qe4, which guarantees
the queen trade. Was this good for me, especially since 21.Qe3, simply
protecting the pawn, was a viable option? Looking at the position
schematically, I didn't see (after 21.Qe3) an easy way for white to combat
the black plan of playing ...a4...Ng6...e5...Nf4...Ne6 and winning the
c5-pawn. Now, granted, white gets some moves in there, but it seemed that
black's queen was more relevant than mine.
Looking at the resulting positions, it seemed to me that while the black
knight has some nice squares, it was still a game with pawns on both sides
of the board - the bishop should be better.
21.Qe4 Qxe4+
Black wants to make the capture, because it further weakens the white pawn
structure. Now ...e5 will deaden the bishop, and the e4-pawn may become
weak.
22.fxe4 e5 23.Ke2 Ng6?
This underestimates white's play and is virtually the losing move. Black
needs to take the time to slow white's queenside pawns with 23...a4!, when
he has better chances than in the game. White would probably play 24.b4!
anyway, since 24...axb3 25.Rhb1 gives an outside passed a-pawn - another
situation where the knight is inferior to the bishop.
24.b4!
White recognizes that this continuation allows black to "win" back his pawn,
because of the threat of playing ...Rxa1 Rxa1 Nf4+, but the price is steep.
This is an example of the relative value of things in chess. The h3-pawn
means nothing to white - he intends to win by queening a b-pawn. Black has
no similar way to quickly take advantage of the pawn majority he would get
on the kingside by winning the h3-pawn - in fact, it just makes him misplace
his knight on the edge of the board, far from the battle on the queenside.
24...Nf4+ 25.Ke3!
The king must stay as close as possible to the queenside. Again, worrying
about the h-pawn serves no purpose.
25...axb4 26.axb4 Ke7
Likewise, black must keep his king near the center as well. 26...Kd7 would
probably transpose to the game after 27.Rhd1+ Ke7 28.b5 Rxa1
27.b5 Rxa1 28.Rxa1
Better than 28.Bxa1?, which turns the bishop into a big pawn and robs the
rook of the file it needs. Why on earth would white do that to protect the
inconsequential h3 pawn?
28...Rd8!
Black fights back. The threat of ...Rd3+ forces white to defend.
29.Ra3!
This is the key move that white envisioned when embarking on this course of
play (with 24.b4). The rook and bishop will interfere with the black rook's
ability to stop the advancing pawns. Now a move like 29...Ne6 is crushed by
30.Ra7, so black forges ahead with his "attack."
29...Rd3+ 30.Kf2 Nxh3+ 31.Kf1!
Now the threat is simply b6, since 31...Kd7 32.c6+ Ke6 33.c5 Rd1+ 34.Ke2 Rb1
35.Ra5! allows a theme like the game's - black is powerless to prevent
Kd2-Kc2 ejecting the rook from the b-file.
31...Rd1+
After the game Myers thought that 31...Nf4, getting the knight back into the
game, was a saving defense. White still wins with 32.Ke1 Ng2+ (otherwise the
rook doesn't get to the b-file) 33.Kf2 Nf4 34.b6, or 32...Ne6 33.b6, since
33...Nxc5? 34.Bb4! and either 34...Kd6 35.Rxd3+ or 34...Rxa3 35.Bxc5+ win
immediately.
32.Ke2 Rb1 33.Kd2!
The winning plan. Once the rook is forced away, the queenside pawns advance
triumphantly.
33...Nf2 34.Kc2 Rg1 35.b6 cxb6 36.cxb6 Kd7 37.b7, 1-0.
Since 37...Kc7 38.Rb3 Kb8 39.Ba5! and Bc7+ forces a new queen for white.
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Jun 2005 18:29:33
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
|
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 02:24:38 GMT, "Randy Bauer"
<[email protected] > wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Sam Sloan says...
>>>
>>>Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
>>>
>>>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.
>>
>
>This is like shooting ducks in a barrel. The following game is against long
>time master Hugh Myers and improves on analysis found in his book on the
>Nimzovic Defense. It can also be found on IM Jeremy Silman's website.
>Randy Bauer (2220) - Hugh Myers (2200)
>Hawkeye (Iowa) Open, 9-25-94
>Scandinavian Defense (by transposition)
I beat Hugh Myers too, when he played the same opening against me in
the 1969 World Open Chess Championship in San Juan Puerto Rico.
Myers did not publish the game where I beat him in his book, however.
I drew famous International Master Rene Letelier of Chile in the same
tournament.
If you are in contact with Myers, ask him if he still has that game
score. (He probably does).
Sam Sloan
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Jun 2005 04:37:27
From: Randy Bauer
Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
|
"Randy Bauer" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:GH4te.83726$xm3.70290@attbi_s21...
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Sam Sloan says...
>>>
>>>Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
>>>
>>>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.
>>
Not a great game, but a position from it was published by Larry Evans in
Chess Life. Again, Sloan is proven false on both fronts:
White: Randy Bauer (2213) Black: Mike Blankenau (2365)
Council Bluffs Open, 1988
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3 dxe4 4.fxe4 e5 5.Nf3 exd4 6.Bc4 Qa5+ 7.c3 dxc3 8.Nxc3
b5 9.Bb3 b4 10.Ne2 Bc5 11.Ned4 Nf6 12.e5 Nd5 13.Nxc6 Nxc6 14.Qxd5 Nd8
15.Be3 Bb6 16.Bxb6 Qxb6 17.Ba4+ Ke7 18.Nd4 Ne6 19.Nf5+ 1-0
This is a mistake filled game, but the result still stands.
Randy Bauer
|
| |
Date: 18 Jun 2005 11:08:01
From: Randy Bauer
Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
|
In article <[email protected] >, Sam Sloan says...
>
>Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
>
>In all of these postings about a grudge match, I have lost track of
>which ch 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.
False. First, I have somewhere around 200 games rated as a master - you don't
get those at 2150. Second, I played in the National Open held in Chicago -- the
year Tal played in it. I was playing pretty well until I secrewed up a decent
game against SM John Meyer. I still gained rating points in the tournament, in
fact, I may have made NM there for the first time.
>
>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.
I gained 5 points from that match - hardly a big deal. Typically, Sloan
distorts the facts to make it sound like something it is not. It's notable that
the Ames Chess Festival routinely attracted players like IM Mike Brooks back in
those days.
Bauer NEVER DEFEATED A MASTER in any of these
>tournaments. Most of Bauer's wins were against Class A and Class B
>players.
Totally false. I have defeated at least a couple dozen masters, including the
likes of 2300+ players Paul Kuroda, Tim Rachermacher, Cliff McLaughlin, and
Mitch Weiss. I have defeated masters back to back on several occasions,
including Kuroda and Tom Amburn at a tournament I won in Oklahoma and Roger
Rudolph and Tim Radermacher in a tournament I won in Minnesota.
BAUER HAS NEVER PLAYED A PUBLISHED GAME, as least not so far
>as I could find.
False. You can find several on IM Jeremy Silman's website, for starters. IM
John Donaldson was gracious enough to send me an old column of George
Koltanowski's where he published one of my games as well.
>
>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.
False. My big wins in the Amateur Team were against Kurt Stein and James Dean,
both of whom are or became masters.
>
>In sumy:
>
>1. Randy Bauer has never defeated a master
FALSE
>2. Randy Bauer has never played a published game.
FALSE
>
>3. Randy Bauer has never played in a major open tournament.
FALSE
>
>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.
My biggest rating gains were a win in Minnesota where I went 5-0 and beat 2 NMs
and 2 experts in the last 4 rounds, winning the Iowa State Closed Championship
4-1 against a field of all masters and experts, and winning a tournament in
Oklahoma where I beat SM Paul Kuroda and NM Tom Amburn in back to back rounds.
The previous tournament I beat NMs Cliff McLaughlin and Tom Amburn in back to
back rounds.
The reader can judge for themselves the veracity of Sloan's claims.
>
>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
I have no problem playing you for a thousand, Sloan, but since you've called my
strength into question, we play straight up, you against me. I'm happy to go
halfway on location. You seem to think you're hot stuff, bring it on.
Randy Bauer
|
| | |
Date: 19 Jun 2005 05:31:53
From: Randy Bauer
Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
|
> In article <[email protected]>, Sam Sloan says...
>>In sumy:
>>
>>1. Randy Bauer has never defeated a master
This is so easy... FALSE FALSE FALSE should be Sloan's nickname.
This, again, is not a great game, but another ANOTHER example (one of many)
of me beating an NM
White: Randy Bauer Black: James Hove (2320)
Twin Cities Open, November 1988
1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4 d6 4.fxe5 Nxe4 5.d3 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Nc6 7.Nf3 Be7 8.d4
Bf5 9.Bd3 Bxd3 10.Qxd3 0-0 11.0-0 Na5 12.Bf4 Nc4 13.Rae1 a5 14.h4 Bxh4 15.g3
Be7 16.Re2 Ra6 17.Qf5 Qc8 18.Qh5 Qe6 19.Bg5 Bxg5 20.Nxg5 Qg6 21.Qh4 h6
22.Nh3 Qe6 23.Nf4 Qd7 24.Qh1 Rd8 25.Qf3 b5 26.Rff2 Qf5 27.g4 Qg5 28.e6 f5
29.e7 Re8 30.Qd5+ Kh8 31.Qxf5 Qxf5 32.gxf5 Rf6 33.Nd5 Rc6 34.Re6 Nd6 35.f6
1-0
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Jun 2005 18:23:46
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
|
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 05:31:53 GMT, "Randy Bauer"
<[email protected] > wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Sam Sloan says...
>>>In sumy:
>>>
>>>1. Randy Bauer has never defeated a master
>
>This is so easy... FALSE FALSE FALSE should be Sloan's nickname.
>
>This, again, is not a great game, but another ANOTHER example (one of many)
>of me beating an NM
>
>White: Randy Bauer Black: James Hove (2320)
>Twin Cities Open, November 1988
>
>1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4 d6 4.fxe5 Nxe4 5.d3 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Nc6 7.Nf3 Be7 8.d4
>Bf5 9.Bd3 Bxd3 10.Qxd3 0-0 11.0-0 Na5 12.Bf4 Nc4 13.Rae1 a5 14.h4 Bxh4 15.g3
>Be7 16.Re2 Ra6 17.Qf5 Qc8 18.Qh5 Qe6 19.Bg5 Bxg5 20.Nxg5 Qg6 21.Qh4 h6
>22.Nh3 Qe6 23.Nf4 Qd7 24.Qh1 Rd8 25.Qf3 b5 26.Rff2 Qf5 27.g4 Qg5 28.e6 f5
>29.e7 Re8 30.Qd5+ Kh8 31.Qxf5 Qxf5 32.gxf5 Rf6 33.Nd5 Rc6 34.Re6 Nd6 35.f6
>1-0
Please note that when I made the statement that Bauer has never
defeated a master, I was referring to the period since 1991 when the
USCF has maintained an online database.
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.
All of the examples that Bauer now cites are games played in the 1980s
which was before the USCF now has online records.
Of course, if you go back to year one there must be many games
including blitz games where Bauer defeated a master.
What is rekable is that Bauer's rating rose from 2169 in 1994 to
2304 in 1997 without ever beating a master and while playing in only
friendly amateur events with little or no prize money involved.
By contrast, although I have played very little recently, I did defeat
Alexander Beltre, a master rated 2257, in a recent tournament at the
shall Chess Club.
http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200211145780-11115292
Sam Sloan
|
| | | | |
Date: 19 Jun 2005 18:45:06
From: Randy Bauer
Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
|
"Sam Sloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 05:31:53 GMT, "Randy Bauer"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>, Sam Sloan says...
>>>>In sumy:
>>>>
>>>>1. Randy Bauer has never defeated a master
>>
>>This is so easy... FALSE FALSE FALSE should be Sloan's nickname.
>>
>>This, again, is not a great game, but another ANOTHER example (one of
>>many)
>>of me beating an NM
>>
>>White: Randy Bauer Black: James Hove (2320)
>>Twin Cities Open, November 1988
>>
>>1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4 d6 4.fxe5 Nxe4 5.d3 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Nc6 7.Nf3 Be7 8.d4
>>Bf5 9.Bd3 Bxd3 10.Qxd3 0-0 11.0-0 Na5 12.Bf4 Nc4 13.Rae1 a5 14.h4 Bxh4
>>15.g3
>>Be7 16.Re2 Ra6 17.Qf5 Qc8 18.Qh5 Qe6 19.Bg5 Bxg5 20.Nxg5 Qg6 21.Qh4 h6
>>22.Nh3 Qe6 23.Nf4 Qd7 24.Qh1 Rd8 25.Qf3 b5 26.Rff2 Qf5 27.g4 Qg5 28.e6 f5
>>29.e7 Re8 30.Qd5+ Kh8 31.Qxf5 Qxf5 32.gxf5 Rf6 33.Nd5 Rc6 34.Re6 Nd6 35.f6
>>1-0
>
> Please note that when I made the statement that Bauer has never
> defeated a master, I was referring to the period since 1991 when the
> USCF has maintained an online database.
No, Sloan, you were not. You said "1. Randy Bauer has never defeated a
master." The fact is, I've defeated lots of them. I've defeated even more
experts and A players, which I why I am more than happy to split putting up
a prize fund with you, winner takes all.
>
> 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.
>
> All of the examples that Bauer now cites are games played in the 1980s
> which was before the USCF now has online records.
According to Sloan's logic, Stefan Popel never beat a master because Sloan
can't look him up on the USCF website. It's typical Sloan BS. Besides,
I've provided lots of dates for many of these tournements. I even have the
photocopy of the wallchart for the Circle Pines Open where I beat NMs Roger
Rudolph and Tim Radermacher in consecutive rounds and won the tournament
5-0.
>
> Of course, if you go back to year one there must be many games
> including blitz games where Bauer defeated a master.
If we want to count blitz games, I've won hundreds of games against masters.
I regularly played blitz with the likes of NMs Harger, Weiss, Bondari, and
Burnett. NONE of the games I listed were blitz games -- they were all
tournament games.
>
> What is rekable is that Bauer's rating rose from 2169 in 1994 to
> 2304 in 1997 without ever beating a master and while playing in only
> friendly amateur events with little or no prize money involved.
What you fail to grasp, Sloan, is that I was a master long before then. I
played somewhere around 100 rated games before the MSA site picks things up.
That included my State Championship back in 1989 where I beat Mitch Weiss
(2350) in a game that has been published in multiple locations. Sloan, I
know Mitch Weiss. Mitch Weiss is a friend of mine -- you are no Mitch
Weiss.
Further, as noted previously, I did defeat masters. I also drew with a lot
of them. I also defeated a lot of experts. I also lost very few games.
That's how you get a high rating.
Someone else also noted that the Midwest is tough on high ratings -- I often
played in events where I was the only master or one of a very few. That's
life around these parts. I know for a fact that other players came to the
Midwest with higher ratings than they left with -- tin Olesen and Kevin
Burnett are two very good examples from the state of Iowa.
Randy Bauer
|
| | |
Date: 18 Jun 2005 14:52:15
From: StanB
Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
|
Too funny!!!
"Randy Bauer" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Sam Sloan says...
>>
>>Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
>>
>>In all of these postings about a grudge match, I have lost track of
>>which ch 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.
>
> False. First, I have somewhere around 200 games rated as a master - you
> don't
> get those at 2150. Second, I played in the National Open held in
> Chicago -- the
> year Tal played in it. I was playing pretty well until I secrewed up a
> decent
> game against SM John Meyer. I still gained rating points in the
> tournament, in
> fact, I may have made NM there for the first time.
>>
>>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.
>
> I gained 5 points from that match - hardly a big deal. Typically, Sloan
> distorts the facts to make it sound like something it is not. It's
> notable that
> the Ames Chess Festival routinely attracted players like IM Mike Brooks
> back in
> those days.
>
> Bauer NEVER DEFEATED A MASTER in any of these
>>tournaments. Most of Bauer's wins were against Class A and Class B
>>players.
>
> Totally false. I have defeated at least a couple dozen masters, including
> the
> likes of 2300+ players Paul Kuroda, Tim Rachermacher, Cliff McLaughlin,
> and
> Mitch Weiss. I have defeated masters back to back on several occasions,
> including Kuroda and Tom Amburn at a tournament I won in Oklahoma and
> Roger
> Rudolph and Tim Radermacher in a tournament I won in Minnesota.
>
> BAUER HAS NEVER PLAYED A PUBLISHED GAME, as least not so far
>>as I could find.
>
> False. You can find several on IM Jeremy Silman's website, for starters.
> IM
> John Donaldson was gracious enough to send me an old column of George
> Koltanowski's where he published one of my games as well.
>>
>>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.
>
> False. My big wins in the Amateur Team were against Kurt Stein and James
> Dean,
> both of whom are or became masters.
>
>>
>>In sumy:
>>
>>1. Randy Bauer has never defeated a master
>
> FALSE
>
>>2. Randy Bauer has never played a published game.
>
> FALSE
>>
>>3. Randy Bauer has never played in a major open tournament.
>
> FALSE
>>
>>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.
>
> My biggest rating gains were a win in Minnesota where I went 5-0 and beat
> 2 NMs
> and 2 experts in the last 4 rounds, winning the Iowa State Closed
> Championship
> 4-1 against a field of all masters and experts, and winning a tournament
> in
> Oklahoma where I beat SM Paul Kuroda and NM Tom Amburn in back to back
> rounds.
> The previous tournament I beat NMs Cliff McLaughlin and Tom Amburn in back
> to
> back rounds.
>
> The reader can judge for themselves the veracity of Sloan's claims.
>>
>>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
>
> I have no problem playing you for a thousand, Sloan, but since you've
> called my
> strength into question, we play straight up, you against me. I'm happy to
> go
> halfway on location. You seem to think you're hot stuff, bring it on.
>
> Randy Bauer
The term is, "bring it on asshole."
|
| |
Date: 17 Jun 2005 17:38:09
From: R.P. Warren
Subject: Are these Sloan games?
|
Sam Sloan wrote:
> Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
> In all of these postings about a grudge match, I have lost track of
> which ch 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.
I'd like to ask Sam about these games. Sometimes databases have bogus
games, so I am not absolutely sure these are by Sam himself, but the
database (Master Chess 98) lists them as being by 'Sloan,S'.
Sloan-Neff, US Open, Concord 1995
Position after 43...Rd7-c7:
B: Kd6, Rc7, Rh8, a7, b6, h7
W: Kh2, Rc4, Be4, a6, b5 d3, f5, g4, h3
White is in fine shape here, down the exchange but up three pawns.
Simplification is called for, e.g. 44.Rxc7 Kxc7 45. Kg3 Kd6 46.Kh4 and
it's only a matter of time. But White here had other ideas. The game
actually went:
44.Rd4+?! Ke5 45.Rd5+ Kf4 46.Rd6? (better 46.f6 Rc2+ 47.Bg2 Rf8 48.Rd7
Rxf6 49.Rxa7 Ra2 50.Rxh7+-) 46...Rc2+ 47.Kg1 Kg3 48.Kf1 Rhc8 49.d4??
(White has walked into a mating net. 49.Rc6 was required.) 49...Rf2+
50.Ke1 Rc1#. Practically a help-mate.
Sloan-Eldridge, World Open, Philadelphia 1996
Position after 23...Qd8-f6:
B: Kh8, Qf6, Rf8, Bd5, Bh4 a7, e6, f7, g6, h6
W: Kd1, Qc2, Rc7, Rg1, Ne5, a2, b2, d4, e3, e2, h2
In this position, White could have smashed through in a blaze of glory
with 24.Rxf7! Rxf7 25.Nxg6+ Kg7 26.Nxh4+ and Black is doomed. But that
did not happen:
24.Rc8? Throwing away most of White's advantage. 24...Rxc8 25.Qxc8+ Kg7
26.Nd3? (better 26.Qd7 Qe7 27.Kd2 Qxd7 28.Nxd7 Be7 (28...Bxa2 29.Ra1)
29.b3, and White is OK.) 26...Bxa2 27.Qc7 Qe7 28.Qxe7 Bxe7 29.Kd2 Bd6
Now we have a sort of reverse of the first game. Black is down the
exchange but ahead in pawns. The difference is, he knows what to do
with them. 30.h3 Bd5 31.Ra1 Bb8 32.Nf4 Be4 33.Rc1 g5 34.Rc8 Bd6 35.Nd3
h5 36.Nc5 Bg2 37.b4 Bxh3 38.Ra8 Bg2 39.Rxa7 Kg6 40.e4 h4 41.Ke3 Bg3
42.Ra1h3 43.Rg1 h2 44.Rxg2 Bf4+ 45.Kf3 h1Q 46.Nd3 Qh3+ 47.Kf2 Be3+ 0-1.
Truly a case of defeat snatched from the jaws of victory.
If the database is wrong, and Sloan did not actually play these games,
then disregard them. If he actually did, 'The Great Me' does not look
so great.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Jun 2005 01:29:11
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: Are these Sloan games?
|
On 17 Jun 2005 17:38:09 -0700, "R.P. Warren" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>Sam Sloan wrote:
>> Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
>> In all of these postings about a grudge match, I have lost track of
>> which ch 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.
>
>I'd like to ask Sam about these games. Sometimes databases have bogus
>games, so I am not absolutely sure these are by Sam himself, but the
>database (Master Chess 98) lists them as being by 'Sloan,S'.
>
>Sloan-Neff, US Open, Concord 1995
>Position after 43...Rd7-c7:
>B: Kd6, Rc7, Rh8, a7, b6, h7
>W: Kh2, Rc4, Be4, a6, b5 d3, f5, g4, h3
>
>White is in fine shape here, down the exchange but up three pawns.
>Simplification is called for, e.g. 44.Rxc7 Kxc7 45. Kg3 Kd6 46.Kh4 and
>it's only a matter of time. But White here had other ideas. The game
>actually went:
>
>44.Rd4+?! Ke5 45.Rd5+ Kf4 46.Rd6? (better 46.f6 Rc2+ 47.Bg2 Rf8 48.Rd7
>Rxf6 49.Rxa7 Ra2 50.Rxh7+-) 46...Rc2+ 47.Kg1 Kg3 48.Kf1 Rhc8 49.d4??
>(White has walked into a mating net. 49.Rc6 was required.) 49...Rf2+
>50.Ke1 Rc1#. Practically a help-mate.
>
>Sloan-Eldridge, World Open, Philadelphia 1996
>Position after 23...Qd8-f6:
>B: Kh8, Qf6, Rf8, Bd5, Bh4 a7, e6, f7, g6, h6
>W: Kd1, Qc2, Rc7, Rg1, Ne5, a2, b2, d4, e3, e2, h2
>
>In this position, White could have smashed through in a blaze of glory
>with 24.Rxf7! Rxf7 25.Nxg6+ Kg7 26.Nxh4+ and Black is doomed. But that
>did not happen:
>
>24.Rc8? Throwing away most of White's advantage. 24...Rxc8 25.Qxc8+ Kg7
>26.Nd3? (better 26.Qd7 Qe7 27.Kd2 Qxd7 28.Nxd7 Be7 (28...Bxa2 29.Ra1)
>29.b3, and White is OK.) 26...Bxa2 27.Qc7 Qe7 28.Qxe7 Bxe7 29.Kd2 Bd6
>Now we have a sort of reverse of the first game. Black is down the
>exchange but ahead in pawns. The difference is, he knows what to do
>with them. 30.h3 Bd5 31.Ra1 Bb8 32.Nf4 Be4 33.Rc1 g5 34.Rc8 Bd6 35.Nd3
>h5 36.Nc5 Bg2 37.b4 Bxh3 38.Ra8 Bg2 39.Rxa7 Kg6 40.e4 h4 41.Ke3 Bg3
>42.Ra1h3 43.Rg1 h2 44.Rxg2 Bf4+ 45.Kf3 h1Q 46.Nd3 Qh3+ 47.Kf2 Be3+ 0-1.
>Truly a case of defeat snatched from the jaws of victory.
>
>If the database is wrong, and Sloan did not actually play these games,
>then disregard them. If he actually did, 'The Great Me' does not look
>so great.
Yes. Those are both my games. You have managed to pick two games where
I was winning easily but played badly and lost.
Please note however that my opponent in the first game was a master
and my opponent in the second game was an expert. This hardly
demonstrated that I would not be able to beat Taylor Kingston, who is
rated 1811.
I am still angry that I lost the first game. Yes. I obviously should
have traded rooks. I could not understand why I did not do that. Even
being in time trouble was not an excuse for not making such an obvious
move.
I have no excuse for the second loss. I just thought I had an easy win
and did not see the danger until it was too late.
Both games involved disputes. In the first game, my opponent was a
member of some religion which prohibited his from playing at the
scheduled time. I was brought in as a filler. After I got a winning
position, my opponent thought himself down to almost no time and then
brought in his sister to keep score. I protested and the tournament
director was called, who ruled in my favor. At about this time, I
started making the blunders which lost the game.
In the second game, my opponent complained that I was too strong. He
wanted to be paired against a weaker opponent. Steve Immitt, the
director, was called, and he ruled that the pairing was correct. My
opponent played the game under protest. After he won the game, he
withdrew his protest.
I am not using these disputes as an excuse for my bad play, however.
Sam Sloan
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Jun 2005 08:03:24
From: J�rgen R.
Subject: Re: Are these Sloan games?
|
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 01:29:11 GMT, [email protected] (Sam Sloan)
wrote:
>On 17 Jun 2005 17:38:09 -0700, "R.P. Warren" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>Sam Sloan wrote:
>>> Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
>>> In all of these postings about a grudge match, I have lost track of
>>> which ch 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.
>>
>>I'd like to ask Sam about these games. Sometimes databases have bogus
>>games, so I am not absolutely sure these are by Sam himself, but the
>>database (Master Chess 98) lists them as being by 'Sloan,S'.
>>
>>Sloan-Neff, US Open, Concord 1995
>>Position after 43...Rd7-c7:
>>B: Kd6, Rc7, Rh8, a7, b6, h7
>>W: Kh2, Rc4, Be4, a6, b5 d3, f5, g4, h3
>>
>>White is in fine shape here, down the exchange but up three pawns.
>>Simplification is called for, e.g. 44.Rxc7 Kxc7 45. Kg3 Kd6 46.Kh4 and
>>it's only a matter of time. But White here had other ideas. The game
>>actually went:
>>
>>44.Rd4+?! Ke5 45.Rd5+ Kf4 46.Rd6? (better 46.f6 Rc2+ 47.Bg2 Rf8 48.Rd7
>>Rxf6 49.Rxa7 Ra2 50.Rxh7+-) 46...Rc2+ 47.Kg1 Kg3 48.Kf1 Rhc8 49.d4??
>>(White has walked into a mating net. 49.Rc6 was required.) 49...Rf2+
>>50.Ke1 Rc1#. Practically a help-mate.
>>
>>Sloan-Eldridge, World Open, Philadelphia 1996
>>Position after 23...Qd8-f6:
>>B: Kh8, Qf6, Rf8, Bd5, Bh4 a7, e6, f7, g6, h6
>>W: Kd1, Qc2, Rc7, Rg1, Ne5, a2, b2, d4, e3, e2, h2
>>
>>In this position, White could have smashed through in a blaze of glory
>>with 24.Rxf7! Rxf7 25.Nxg6+ Kg7 26.Nxh4+ and Black is doomed. But that
>>did not happen:
>>
>>24.Rc8? Throwing away most of White's advantage. 24...Rxc8 25.Qxc8+ Kg7
>>26.Nd3? (better 26.Qd7 Qe7 27.Kd2 Qxd7 28.Nxd7 Be7 (28...Bxa2 29.Ra1)
>>29.b3, and White is OK.) 26...Bxa2 27.Qc7 Qe7 28.Qxe7 Bxe7 29.Kd2 Bd6
>>Now we have a sort of reverse of the first game. Black is down the
>>exchange but ahead in pawns. The difference is, he knows what to do
>>with them. 30.h3 Bd5 31.Ra1 Bb8 32.Nf4 Be4 33.Rc1 g5 34.Rc8 Bd6 35.Nd3
>>h5 36.Nc5 Bg2 37.b4 Bxh3 38.Ra8 Bg2 39.Rxa7 Kg6 40.e4 h4 41.Ke3 Bg3
>>42.Ra1h3 43.Rg1 h2 44.Rxg2 Bf4+ 45.Kf3 h1Q 46.Nd3 Qh3+ 47.Kf2 Be3+ 0-1.
>>Truly a case of defeat snatched from the jaws of victory.
>>
>>If the database is wrong, and Sloan did not actually play these games,
>>then disregard them. If he actually did, 'The Great Me' does not look
>>so great.
>
>Yes. Those are both my games. You have managed to pick two games where
>I was winning easily but played badly and lost.
Wrong, as usual. You probably meant that anybody else would have won
easily, but you were losing.
>
>Please note however that my opponent in the first game was a master
>and my opponent in the second game was an expert. This hardly
>demonstrated that I would not be able to beat Taylor Kingston, who is
>rated 1811.
>
>I am still angry that I lost the first game. Yes. I obviously should
>have traded rooks. I could not understand why I did not do that.
It was because of the deal with Henry Kissinger, who believed that
Neff should be the next world champion. Remember? Kissinger threatened
to have the CIA kidnap all of your daughters if you refused to lose
this game.
> Even
>being in time trouble was not an excuse for not making such an obvious
>move.
Which proves that the game must have been rigged.
>
>I have no excuse for the second loss. I just thought I had an easy win
>and did not see the danger until it was too late.
How can you forget? Eldridge was Hillary's lover at the time.
Remember? He was the actual reason why Slick Willy got so horny that
he thought Monica was charming. During the game Hillary kept sending
you messages promising that you could have a piece of Monica if you
lost.
Sloan, you are a dung beetle.
>
>Both games involved disputes. In the first game, my opponent was a
>member of some religion which prohibited his from playing at the
>scheduled time. I was brought in as a filler. After I got a winning
>position, my opponent thought himself down to almost no time and then
>brought in his sister to keep score. I protested and the tournament
>director was called, who ruled in my favor. At about this time, I
>started making the blunders which lost the game.
>
>In the second game, my opponent complained that I was too strong. He
>wanted to be paired against a weaker opponent. Steve Immitt, the
>director, was called, and he ruled that the pairing was correct. My
>opponent played the game under protest. After he won the game, he
>withdrew his protest.
>
>I am not using these disputes as an excuse for my bad play, however.
>
>Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 17 Jun 2005 17:52:55
From: Steve Grant
Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
|
"Sam Sloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> What do you say?
The match I would pay good money to see is Sloan vs. Gordon. Each combatant
gets a chainsaw.
|
| |
Date: 17 Jun 2005 20:15:57
From: Lee Harris
Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
|
"Sam Sloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
>
> In all of these postings about a grudge match, I have lost track of
> which ch 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.
I am pretty bad at chess but don't have the time to get too deep into it.
Mind you, I do have a Phd in semiconductor quantum dot physics (lasers), and
currently work in nuclear medicine in Leeds, UK. I think I am a pretty st
guy. Why does the lack of chess ability make you stupid or brain deformed? I
think you are quite possibly insane. Certainly a dick of the highest order.
Why don't you naff off and play a World Championship series with Ray "the
love machine" Gordon and stop boring everyone with your twaddle.
|
| |
Date: 17 Jun 2005 12:48:17
From: Dragon Ash
Subject: Re: Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.
|
Well, I believe Kingston said he wouldn't play OTB.
But I'd put up $500 of my own money to put in the pot to see a Sloan vs
Bauer OTB match. 30/90, 60 SD, have it at the shall, aired live on
Chess.FM.
Scott Urista
Sam Sloan wrote:
>
> Therefore, they should have no hesitation about taking this bet.
>
> What do you say?
>
> Sam Sloan
|
|
