Main
Date: 06 Oct 2008 20:34:05
From: samsloan
Subject: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times
Take a look at:
http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2008/10/spice-cup.html

Through her ubiquitous "anonymous" posters, Susan Polgar is attacking
the New York Times, demanding that its reporter be fired.

He had better watch out. Next thing, Susan Polgar will sue his ass,
claiming that he is persecuting her because she is a woman and of
foreign descent.

Sam Sloan




 
Date: 14 Oct 2008 08:45:08
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times
On Oct 14, 11:19=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> The comparison of what? When a subject begins as the strongest tournament
> *category*, then this means the average of the players' ratings which
> determine the tournament level.
>
> Here we have the Sloan switching topics to individual ratings of /some/ o=
f
> the players - and a little below he switches yet again to not-ratings, bu=
t
> world positions - either current ones or
>
> =A0 =A0 "...at some time in the past".
>
> I can only assume that the NY Times are reading the Sloan somewhere and n=
ot
> the Polgar everywhere else, or in fact, asking USCF people any questions
> about what they report - or contain anyone with knowledge of what a
> tournament is on their staff.
>
> In which case why not compare the SPICE event with Lone Pine or even
> Cambridge Springs since what is being compared continuously shifts even t=
o
> "...some time in the past", and now its about 'world class players' not
> category of tournament.
>
> Naturally, Sam Sloan does not think he is attacking anything here, except
> the literal truth - its other people who are doing the attacking, the peo=
ple
> who merely say what a Category rating is - and to which Sam Sloan is
> entirely wrong.
>
> The Sloan has stated that he is not obsessed by Susan Polgar, despite the
> evidence of his 10,00 posts about her - I think its therfore equitable to
> grant him that he is not obssessed with being correct either.
>
> The very strange thing here is that he submitted his 'argument' to a just=
ice
> in order that that the person should compare what he says with what who h=
e
> accuses says.
>
> Phil Innes

The press release issued by Texas Tech University stated:

"Texas Tech University=92s Susan Polgar Institute for Chess Excellence
announced Thursday it has assembled the strongest field of chess
grandmasters in U.S. round-robin history for its 2008 SPICE Cup
International Invitational Tournament."

This statement was not true as there have been at least four
tournaments stronger than that.

Now, Susan Polgar and Phil Innes are relentlessly attacking the New
York Times for making this true statement.

Probably next time the New York Times and other major media will
simply no longer report on any event involving Susan Polgar.

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 13 Oct 2008 23:36:07
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: honking of the wild Sloon
THE NEW YORK TIMES

>McClain has repeatedly given space to Sloan's loony
lawsuits. He has quoted self-serving claims without seeking
any contrary opinions from sane people. Whether this is a
bad thing is a matter of opinion. If you adopt the tabloid approach
Larry Parr brought to CL, this might be considered a good thing --
the old "if it bleeds it leads" philosophy.Personally, I think it
shows poor
judgment on McClain's part but I admit that I'm influenced by my view
that
Sloan is a couple of evolutionary steps below pond scum. > -- John
Hillery
(JKH) editor of The CJA Newsletter

I have an angry opinion of the New York Times.
By which I mean, one appreciates the many dozens of
fine stories and beautifully written articles that
appear inside its pages every year. The other side of
the coin is that rather than publishing all the news
fit to print, it too often publishes only the news
that fits and perverts its own function.

The anger enters because the NY Times, with its
resources and capacity to attract talent, could be so
much better than it is.

And then there are the depredations. The Times
has never returned or repudiated the Pulitzer it won
with Walter Duranty's reporting on the late USSR.
Duranty famously and infamously denied the existence
of the great Ukrainian famine, along with other crimes
of the Stalin regime. One also recollects Harrison
Salisbury's awful reportage from the Soviet Union in
the late 1940s and early 1950s.

The Times as an institution has too often trumped
the Times as a newspaper.

Having said all of the above, if John Hillery
wishes to attack Sam Sloan, there are more effective
lines of aggression than implying a relationship
between Sam and the premier journalistic organ of the
American establishment.

That's just practical polemics. There is too
much residual respect for even partially discredited
organs of the powers that be, and this respect
inevitably extends to Sam.

Much chess writing is simply boring. I disagree with
John Hillery that I brought a "tabloid approach" to Chess Life,
though I brought elements of such an approach.
There is a distinction.

And by the way, the supermarket tabloids are a
great place to catch up on the news that WILL BE in
the mainstream press months hence. The tabloids
reported freely on John Edwards' adultery, months
before the story finally broke in the mainstream
media. Sybil Edmonds' revelations on Israeli and
Turkish atomic espionage have appeared in American
tabloids AND twice on the front page of The Times
(London), but the story remains taboo on our TV
networks. The NY Times finally ran a short account of
the Edmonds testimony, but otherwise, this important
story appeared seldom in our printed and electronic
ether. Then there were the so-called "urban legends"
about blackhooded ninjas practicing war games in
American cities. Tabloids carried these stories for
years before the mainstream press finally reported on
what are claimed to be anti-terrorist exercises.

Accounts of Kellogg Brand Root building concentration
camps in the United States have been in a couple of
tabloids, and the French and British press have
published stories. The mainstream press still blacks
out the story, except for brief claims about centers
to house victims of natural disasters and a possible
influx of Mexicans in the event of an upheaval of some
kind to our south.

Tabloids and the Drudge Reports of this world
have their place. They occasionally force stories
into the open that otherwise have been spiked
throughout the United States.

Which brings up the next question: how does the
process of killing stories work?

I have no idea.

There appears to be no U.S. government mechanism
that can order hundreds of top American newspapers not
to print this or that story. Further, the idea that
thousands of editors are in phone contact daily about
what cannot be printed seems absurd.

What, then, is the precise censorship mechanism
that produces unanimity among thousands of editors and
writers across a vast continent about what cannot be published?

One possibility is a grand continental consensus
about what can ruin a journalistic career and lead to
dismissal. Editors and writers take their cue from
the NY Times and Washington Post about what is
permitted by noting stories appearing in major French
and British newspapers that never appear in the Times
and Post. Few have the guts to marginalize themselves
for the sake of telling not only the truth, but the whole truth.

This explanation, which posits a gutless
self-censorship, is attractive. Yet common sense
tells us that continental consensual censorship could
not produce such unanimity. Misunderstandings would
inevitably abound over what is not to be printed.

Still another answer, which contains watered
down Marxism, is that big corporations control what we
see, hear and read. Media consolidations, runs this
argument, have led to a press owned by great
corporations. True enough. But if one remembers
Marx, one also remembers his insistence that the
"contradictions" within the capitalist class
inevitably lead to disagreements and economic warfare.

The conclusion is that there is no love lost
among many of the great corporations. What one
group of companies considers unfriendly news, another
group of companies might welcome.

The idea that there are corporate officers in
phone contact thousands of times a week to coordinate
news coverage is as unworkable and fanciful as the
earlier notion that editors and writers were doing the
same thing.

So, then, what is my theory? I have no theory.
No conspiratorial explanation or combination of
socioeconomic explanations seems to suffice.

REPLY TO JOHN HILLERY

I offered you some advice that you
mischaracterize to an extent. The loose-bowelled,
freewheeling ways of a Sam Sloan are not particular to
his person, though he has some of those ways.

If you wish, change the name from Sam Sloan to,
say, Hunter S. Thompson or P. J. O'Rourke.

I have no great interest in you as a person per
se, but I do have sympathy for people who have devoted
themselves largely unsuccessfully to the world of chess.
(As an aside, some of your friends or acquaintances have
spoken about your personal life before.)

You need to ask yourself this question: why did
YOUR allies, for Pete's sake, never seriously promote
you for the job of Chess Life editor?

I immediately reject such explanations as
illiteracy or semi-literacy, ignorance of chess and
its lore, lack of intelligence or propensity for turf
wars. News judgment? There may have been some
legitimate concerns on this score, but those who might
have been natural supporters were likely never much
worried by this possible shortcoming.

My explanation, which is shared by some who are
far, far closer to you than I, is what I wrote above.
You need to open your ways, change your tone, though
without necessarily changing any fundamental ideas.

I don't insist that you accept what I wrote,
though you might usefully consider that there is a
measure, macro-or microscopic, of truth in it.

Yours, Larry Parr



Brian Lafferty wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >> NY TIMES PIMPING FOR SAM!?
> >>
> >>> This almost certainly refers to McClain pimping for
> >> your crackpot lawsuits, by printing your crazy allegations
> >> without any serious fact- checking. Whatever one thinks of
> >> Polgar and Truong, treating a vexatious litigant like you as a
> >> reliable source shows very poor judgment on McClain's part.>
> >> --JKH (John Hillery) to Sam Sloan
> >>
> >> If John Hillery has got it about right, then he
> >> is essentially charging the NY Times with pimping for
> >> Sam Sloan.
> >>
> >> Many of us also would like to have the most powerful
> >> newspaper on earth pimping for them.
> >>
> >> Sam: I will be contacting you privately to
> >> learn how you have wrapped the NY Times around your
> >> Caissic digits. I'd really like to know.
> >>
> >> We fully expect to hear that Warren Buffett and
> >> Bill Gates will be seeking Sam's favor as they develop
> >> their Foundation activities. And, to be sure, the
> >> British royals may already be in contact with Sam on a
> >> series of advisory efforts.
> >>
> >> We thank Mr. Hillery for advising us on Sam's
> >> breakthroughs into the haute monde.
> >>
> >> We hear unsubstantiated rumors that Mr. Hillery
> >> has the CJA Newsletter pimping for him. If true --
> >> and we don't insist that the editor possesses such vast
> >> influence -- then the man is also developing his
> >> networking capabilities, though evidently, judging by
> >> the man's own testimony, he lags far behind Sam.
> >>
> >> Yours, Larry Parr
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>> samsloan wrote:
> >>>> "It is sad to see a few people who have done virtually zero for chess
> >>>> using the NY Times article to make wild attacks and insults toward
> >>>> innocent people without even checking the facts.
> >>>>
> >>>> "Best wishes,
> >>>> "Susan Polgar
> >>>> " http://www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
> >>>> " http://www.SusanPolgar.com "
> >>>
> >>> This almost certainly refers to McClain pimping for your crackpot
> >>> lawsuits, by printing your crazy allegations without any serious fact-
> >>> checking. Whatever one thinks of Polgar and Truong, treating a
> >>> vexatious litigant like you as a reliable source shows very poor
> >>> judgment on McClain's part.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Have you noticed how Susan Polgar claims that her SPICE Cup was the
> >>>> strongest RR tournament in US history because the Second Piatagorsky
> >>>> Cup, with Fischer, Spassky and Petrosian, was a double round robin
> >>>> whereas her tournament was only a single round robin?
> >>>>
> >>>> Sam Sloan
> >>>
> >>> Can you document Polgar actually saying that, or is it another of your
> >>> hallucinations? The press release I saw described it as "the Highest
> >>> Rated 10-player International Round-Robin in U.S. History," which is
> >>> technically true -- FIDE didn't have a rating system in 1966. (It's
> >>> also weasel-worded PR flackery, but that's another matter.)
> >
> >
> > McClain has repeatedly given space to Sloan's loony lawsuits. He has
> > quoted self-serving claims without seeking any contrary opinions from
> > sane people. Whether this is a bad thing is a matter of opinion. If
> > you adopt the tabloid approach Larry Parr brought to CL, this might be
> > considered a good thing -- the old "if it bleeds it leads"
> > philosophy.Personally, I think it shows poor judgment on McClain's
> > part but I admit that I'm influenced by my view that Sloan is a couple
> > of evolutionary steps below pond scum. A proper chess columnist
> > (Robert Byrne, for example) would write about chess and ignore
> > vexatious litigation.
> >
> > BTW, criticizing McClain is not equivalent to criticizing the NYT. In
> > fact I do have a low opinion of the NYT, but it's for reasons entirely
> > unrelated to chess and completely irrelevant here.
>
> Mc Clain has covered newsworthy events in the world of chess. This
> includes Sloan's action, and Polgar's law suit that was removed to
> Federal court. When the USCF is sued for millions of dollars, that is
> news. IIRC, the initial report on the Sloan suit was carried in the
> business section of the Times. Chess, like it or not, is a business as
> well as chess.


  
Date: 14 Oct 2008 10:06:36
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: honking of the wild Sloon
[email protected] wrote:
> THE NEW YORK TIMES
>
>> McClain has repeatedly given space to Sloan's loony
> lawsuits. He has quoted self-serving claims without seeking
> any contrary opinions from sane people. Whether this is a
> bad thing is a matter of opinion. If you adopt the tabloid approach
> Larry Parr brought to CL, this might be considered a good thing --
> the old "if it bleeds it leads" philosophy.Personally, I think it
> shows poor
> judgment on McClain's part but I admit that I'm influenced by my view
> that
> Sloan is a couple of evolutionary steps below pond scum.> -- John
> Hillery
> (JKH) editor of The CJA Newsletter
>
> I have an angry opinion of the New York Times.
> By which I mean, one appreciates the many dozens of
> fine stories and beautifully written articles that
> appear inside its pages every year. The other side of
> the coin is that rather than publishing all the news
> fit to print, it too often publishes only the news
> that fits and perverts its own function.
>
> The anger enters because the NY Times, with its
> resources and capacity to attract talent, could be so
> much better than it is.
>
> And then there are the depredations. The Times
> has never returned or repudiated the Pulitzer it won
> with Walter Duranty's reporting on the late USSR.
> Duranty famously and infamously denied the existence
> of the great Ukrainian famine, along with other crimes
> of the Stalin regime. One also recollects Harrison
> Salisbury's awful reportage from the Soviet Union in
> the late 1940s and early 1950s.
>
> The Times as an institution has too often trumped
> the Times as a newspaper.
>
> Having said all of the above, if John Hillery
> wishes to attack Sam Sloan, there are more effective
> lines of aggression than implying a relationship
> between Sam and the premier journalistic organ of the
> American establishment.
>
> That's just practical polemics. There is too
> much residual respect for even partially discredited
> organs of the powers that be, and this respect
> inevitably extends to Sam.
>
> Much chess writing is simply boring. I disagree with
> John Hillery that I brought a "tabloid approach" to Chess Life,
> though I brought elements of such an approach.
> There is a distinction.
>
> And by the way, the supermarket tabloids are a
> great place to catch up on the news that WILL BE in
> the mainstream press months hence. The tabloids
> reported freely on John Edwards' adultery, months
> before the story finally broke in the mainstream
> media. Sybil Edmonds' revelations on Israeli and
> Turkish atomic espionage have appeared in American
> tabloids AND twice on the front page of The Times
> (London), but the story remains taboo on our TV
> networks. The NY Times finally ran a short account of
> the Edmonds testimony, but otherwise, this important
> story appeared seldom in our printed and electronic
> ether. Then there were the so-called "urban legends"
> about blackhooded ninjas practicing war games in
> American cities. Tabloids carried these stories for
> years before the mainstream press finally reported on
> what are claimed to be anti-terrorist exercises.
>
> Accounts of Kellogg Brand Root building concentration
> camps in the United States have been in a couple of
> tabloids, and the French and British press have
> published stories. The mainstream press still blacks
> out the story, except for brief claims about centers
> to house victims of natural disasters and a possible
> influx of Mexicans in the event of an upheaval of some
> kind to our south.
>
> Tabloids and the Drudge Reports of this world
> have their place. They occasionally force stories
> into the open that otherwise have been spiked
> throughout the United States.
>
> Which brings up the next question: how does the
> process of killing stories work?
>
> I have no idea.
>
> There appears to be no U.S. government mechanism
> that can order hundreds of top American newspapers not
> to print this or that story. Further, the idea that
> thousands of editors are in phone contact daily about
> what cannot be printed seems absurd.
>
> What, then, is the precise censorship mechanism
> that produces unanimity among thousands of editors and
> writers across a vast continent about what cannot be published?
>
> One possibility is a grand continental consensus
> about what can ruin a journalistic career and lead to
> dismissal. Editors and writers take their cue from
> the NY Times and Washington Post about what is
> permitted by noting stories appearing in major French
> and British newspapers that never appear in the Times
> and Post. Few have the guts to marginalize themselves
> for the sake of telling not only the truth, but the whole truth.
>
> This explanation, which posits a gutless
> self-censorship, is attractive. Yet common sense
> tells us that continental consensual censorship could
> not produce such unanimity. Misunderstandings would
> inevitably abound over what is not to be printed.
>
> Still another answer, which contains watered
> down Marxism, is that big corporations control what we
> see, hear and read. Media consolidations, runs this
> argument, have led to a press owned by great
> corporations. True enough. But if one remembers
> Marx, one also remembers his insistence that the
> "contradictions" within the capitalist class
> inevitably lead to disagreements and economic warfare.
>
> The conclusion is that there is no love lost
> among many of the great corporations. What one
> group of companies considers unfriendly news, another
> group of companies might welcome.
>
> The idea that there are corporate officers in
> phone contact thousands of times a week to coordinate
> news coverage is as unworkable and fanciful as the
> earlier notion that editors and writers were doing the
> same thing.
>
> So, then, what is my theory? I have no theory.
> No conspiratorial explanation or combination of
> socioeconomic explanations seems to suffice.
>
> REPLY TO JOHN HILLERY
>
> I offered you some advice that you
> mischaracterize to an extent. The loose-bowelled,
> freewheeling ways of a Sam Sloan are not particular to
> his person, though he has some of those ways.
>
> If you wish, change the name from Sam Sloan to,
> say, Hunter S. Thompson or P. J. O'Rourke.
>
> I have no great interest in you as a person per
> se, but I do have sympathy for people who have devoted
> themselves largely unsuccessfully to the world of chess.
> (As an aside, some of your friends or acquaintances have
> spoken about your personal life before.)
>
> You need to ask yourself this question: why did
> YOUR allies, for Pete's sake, never seriously promote
> you for the job of Chess Life editor?
>
> I immediately reject such explanations as
> illiteracy or semi-literacy, ignorance of chess and
> its lore, lack of intelligence or propensity for turf
> wars. News judgment? There may have been some
> legitimate concerns on this score, but those who might
> have been natural supporters were likely never much
> worried by this possible shortcoming.
>
> My explanation, which is shared by some who are
> far, far closer to you than I, is what I wrote above.
> You need to open your ways, change your tone, though
> without necessarily changing any fundamental ideas.
>
> I don't insist that you accept what I wrote,
> though you might usefully consider that there is a
> measure, macro-or microscopic, of truth in it.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
>
>
>
> Brian Lafferty wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> NY TIMES PIMPING FOR SAM!?
>>>>
>>>>> This almost certainly refers to McClain pimping for
>>>> your crackpot lawsuits, by printing your crazy allegations
>>>> without any serious fact- checking. Whatever one thinks of
>>>> Polgar and Truong, treating a vexatious litigant like you as a
>>>> reliable source shows very poor judgment on McClain's part.>
>>>> --JKH (John Hillery) to Sam Sloan
>>>>
>>>> If John Hillery has got it about right, then he
>>>> is essentially charging the NY Times with pimping for
>>>> Sam Sloan.
>>>>
>>>> Many of us also would like to have the most powerful
>>>> newspaper on earth pimping for them.
>>>>
>>>> Sam: I will be contacting you privately to
>>>> learn how you have wrapped the NY Times around your
>>>> Caissic digits. I'd really like to know.
>>>>
>>>> We fully expect to hear that Warren Buffett and
>>>> Bill Gates will be seeking Sam's favor as they develop
>>>> their Foundation activities. And, to be sure, the
>>>> British royals may already be in contact with Sam on a
>>>> series of advisory efforts.
>>>>
>>>> We thank Mr. Hillery for advising us on Sam's
>>>> breakthroughs into the haute monde.
>>>>
>>>> We hear unsubstantiated rumors that Mr. Hillery
>>>> has the CJA Newsletter pimping for him. If true --
>>>> and we don't insist that the editor possesses such vast
>>>> influence -- then the man is also developing his
>>>> networking capabilities, though evidently, judging by
>>>> the man's own testimony, he lags far behind Sam.
>>>>
>>>> Yours, Larry Parr

Take a look at the book, The Fourth Reich.

>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> samsloan wrote:
>>>>>> "It is sad to see a few people who have done virtually zero for chess
>>>>>> using the NY Times article to make wild attacks and insults toward
>>>>>> innocent people without even checking the facts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Best wishes,
>>>>>> "Susan Polgar
>>>>>> " http://www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
>>>>>> " http://www.SusanPolgar.com "
>>>>> This almost certainly refers to McClain pimping for your crackpot
>>>>> lawsuits, by printing your crazy allegations without any serious fact-
>>>>> checking. Whatever one thinks of Polgar and Truong, treating a
>>>>> vexatious litigant like you as a reliable source shows very poor
>>>>> judgment on McClain's part.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you noticed how Susan Polgar claims that her SPICE Cup was the
>>>>>> strongest RR tournament in US history because the Second Piatagorsky
>>>>>> Cup, with Fischer, Spassky and Petrosian, was a double round robin
>>>>>> whereas her tournament was only a single round robin?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sam Sloan
>>>>> Can you document Polgar actually saying that, or is it another of your
>>>>> hallucinations? The press release I saw described it as "the Highest
>>>>> Rated 10-player International Round-Robin in U.S. History," which is
>>>>> technically true -- FIDE didn't have a rating system in 1966. (It's
>>>>> also weasel-worded PR flackery, but that's another matter.)
>>>
>>> McClain has repeatedly given space to Sloan's loony lawsuits. He has
>>> quoted self-serving claims without seeking any contrary opinions from
>>> sane people. Whether this is a bad thing is a matter of opinion. If
>>> you adopt the tabloid approach Larry Parr brought to CL, this might be
>>> considered a good thing -- the old "if it bleeds it leads"
>>> philosophy.Personally, I think it shows poor judgment on McClain's
>>> part but I admit that I'm influenced by my view that Sloan is a couple
>>> of evolutionary steps below pond scum. A proper chess columnist
>>> (Robert Byrne, for example) would write about chess and ignore
>>> vexatious litigation.
>>>
>>> BTW, criticizing McClain is not equivalent to criticizing the NYT. In
>>> fact I do have a low opinion of the NYT, but it's for reasons entirely
>>> unrelated to chess and completely irrelevant here.
>> Mc Clain has covered newsworthy events in the world of chess. This
>> includes Sloan's action, and Polgar's law suit that was removed to
>> Federal court. When the USCF is sued for millions of dollars, that is
>> news. IIRC, the initial report on the Sloan suit was carried in the
>> business section of the Times. Chess, like it or not, is a business as
>> well as chess.


 
Date: 13 Oct 2008 16:32:08
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times
On Oct 13, 6:51 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:22:44 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Name 5-yr peak 1-1-1978
> > Spassky: 2680 2630
> > Larsen: ----- 2620
> > Portisch: ----- 2630
> > Unzicker: 2590 2525
> > Petrosian: 2680 2620
> > Najdorf: 2635 2525
> > Ivkov: 2570 2515
> > Donner: 2500 2490
> >**Therefore, even with these retro-ratings, and even with some players
> >assessed at their peak, the last 3 players seriously reduce the Category
> >rating to less tha XV, - these 8 players average 2,569 in '78 - and even
> >given these means the current SPICE XV stands as being correct as highest.
>
> So what does "highest" mean?
>
> The number of players in the rating pool is much larger now than in
> 1978, which makes it almost certain that many more players will be
> rated above 2600 (or "x"). Unless the distribution changed in the 20
> intervening years, this would be true even the current crop of GMs
> played at a *lower* level of absolute strength than the GMs of 1978.
>
> The fact is the competitors at Santa Monica represented a much greater
> sampling of truly world-class players than did those in this year's
> Spice Cup.
>
> So, the often repeated claim of "highest rated" may be true (but
> slightly misleading in implication), but the single claim of
> "strongest" cannot be sustained.

The comparison is more extreme than that.

The higest rated player in the SPICE Cup was Harikrishna, rated 2659.
Second highest was Onischuk, rated 2644.

Harikrishna is ranked number 62 in the world. Onischuk is ranked
number 82 in the world.

None of the other players in the SPICE Cup were in the top 100 in the
world.

http://ratings.fide.com/top.phtml?list=men

By comparison, ALL of the players in both the First and the Second
Piatigorsky Cup either were in the top 20 in the world or had been in
the top 20 in the world at some time in the past.

In short, ALL of the players in either of the two Piatagorsky Cups
were or had been "World Class" players. NONE of the players in the
SPICE Cup have ever been World Class players.

None of this should distract from the fact that Susan Polgar has
accomplished a great and beneficial thing by putting together this
tournament. However, she ruins it by attacking the New York Times
after the Times correctly pointed out that Zsuzsa's tournament was NOT
the strongest tournament ever played in the USA.

Sam Sloan


  
Date: 14 Oct 2008 11:19:14
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times

"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:9f5998fc-b47d-418a-bb8e-5e5d89bcdf69@u65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 13, 6:51 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:22:44 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Name 5-yr peak 1-1-1978
>> > Spassky: 2680 2630
>> > Larsen: ----- 2620
>> > Portisch: ----- 2630
>> > Unzicker: 2590 2525
>> > Petrosian: 2680 2620
>> > Najdorf: 2635 2525
>> > Ivkov: 2570 2515
>> > Donner: 2500 2490
>> >**Therefore, even with these retro-ratings, and even with some players
>> >assessed at their peak, the last 3 players seriously reduce the Category
>> >rating to less tha XV, - these 8 players average 2,569 in '78 - and
>> >even
>> >given these means the current SPICE XV stands as being correct as
>> >highest.
>>
>> So what does "highest" mean?
>>
>> The number of players in the rating pool is much larger now than in
>> 1978, which makes it almost certain that many more players will be
>> rated above 2600 (or "x"). Unless the distribution changed in the 20
>> intervening years, this would be true even the current crop of GMs
>> played at a *lower* level of absolute strength than the GMs of 1978.
>>
>> The fact is the competitors at Santa Monica represented a much greater
>> sampling of truly world-class players than did those in this year's
>> Spice Cup.
>>
>> So, the often repeated claim of "highest rated" may be true (but
>> slightly misleading in implication), but the single claim of
>> "strongest" cannot be sustained.
>
> The comparison is more extreme than that.

The comparison of what? When a subject begins as the strongest tournament
*category*, then this means the average of the players' ratings which
determine the tournament level.

Here we have the Sloan switching topics to individual ratings of /some/ of
the players - and a little below he switches yet again to not-ratings, but
world positions - either current ones or

"...at some time in the past".

I can only assume that the NY Times are reading the Sloan somewhere and not
the Polgar everywhere else, or in fact, asking USCF people any questions
about what they report - or contain anyone with knowledge of what a
tournament is on their staff.

In which case why not compare the SPICE event with Lone Pine or even
Cambridge Springs since what is being compared continuously shifts even to
"...some time in the past", and now its about 'world class players' not
category of tournament.

Naturally, Sam Sloan does not think he is attacking anything here, except
the literal truth - its other people who are doing the attacking, the people
who merely say what a Category rating is - and to which Sam Sloan is
entirely wrong.

The Sloan has stated that he is not obsessed by Susan Polgar, despite the
evidence of his 10,00 posts about her - I think its therfore equitable to
grant him that he is not obssessed with being correct either.

The very strange thing here is that he submitted his 'argument' to a justice
in order that that the person should compare what he says with what who he
accuses says.


Phil Innes

> The higest rated player in the SPICE Cup was Harikrishna, rated 2659.
> Second highest was Onischuk, rated 2644.
>
> Harikrishna is ranked number 62 in the world. Onischuk is ranked
> number 82 in the world.
>
> None of the other players in the SPICE Cup were in the top 100 in the
> world.
>
> http://ratings.fide.com/top.phtml?list=men
>
> By comparison, ALL of the players in both the First and the Second
> Piatigorsky Cup either were in the top 20 in the world or had been in
> the top 20 in the world at some time in the past.
>
> In short, ALL of the players in either of the two Piatagorsky Cups
> were or had been "World Class" players. NONE of the players in the
> SPICE Cup have ever been World Class players.
>
> None of this should distract from the fact that Susan Polgar has
> accomplished a great and beneficial thing by putting together this
> tournament. However, she ruins it by attacking the New York Times
> after the Times correctly pointed out that Zsuzsa's tournament was NOT
> the strongest tournament ever played in the USA.
>
> Sam Sloan




 
Date: 13 Oct 2008 15:29:54
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times
On Oct 13, 5:57=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:5c7cbb11-be2c-4c5c-b200-7a207a2d67ca@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 13, 4:33 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > This is so useless. You would find a hair to split on Yule Brynner's
> > head.
>
> That is absolutely true, but remember that it was Susan Polgar, whom
> you generally support, who started this debate by repeatedly attacking
> the New York Times reporter over this issue.
>
> **Attacking, says Sloan, by stating that they were wrong, as wrong as USC=
F,
> Sloan - get it? Do you get that 10,000 posts about Susan Polgar equals [f=
or
> better or worse] an obsession on your part? And why would a justice not w=
ish
> to know this, whether you have a ligitmate argument or the usual trash?
>
> Phil Innes

The New York Times was not wrong. The New York Times was correct. A
press release by Texas Tech University stated that the SPICE Cup held
in Lubbock Texas was the strongest chess tournament ever in the
history of the United States.

That was not true. There have been at least four tournaments that were
stronger.

Susan Polgar would do well to leave this issue alone. Every time she
brings it up, she goes that much deeper in the hole.

Sam Sloan



  
Date: 14 Oct 2008 16:51:50
From: Chess One
Subject: Larry Parr should consider how many communists there are in government

"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Oct 13, 5:57 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:5c7cbb11-be2c-4c5c-b200-7a207a2d67ca@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 13, 4:33 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > This is so useless. You would find a hair to split on Yule Brynner's
> > head.
>
> That is absolutely true, but remember that it was Susan Polgar, whom
> you generally support, who started this debate by repeatedly attacking
> the New York Times reporter over this issue.
>
> **Attacking, says Sloan, by stating that they were wrong, as wrong as
> USCF,
> Sloan - get it? Do you get that 10,000 posts about Susan Polgar equals
> [for
> better or worse] an obsession on your part? And why would a justice not
> wish
> to know this, whether you have a ligitmate argument or the usual trash?
>
> Phil Innes

The New York Times was not wrong. The New York Times was correct. A
press release by Texas Tech University stated that the SPICE Cup held
in Lubbock Texas was the strongest chess tournament ever in the
history of the United States.

======

But you Sam Sloan understand the difference between a source and a report by
others, no? Or do you wish to simply pretend you do not? And further pretend
there is no difference?

If you don't understand [but of course you do - you cheat!], then complain
about Texas Tech, to NY Times and USCF - but do not continue as you do here
to talk of what Susan Polgar wrote in the first place about her tournament,
where you use such terms as 'attack' when she counters innacuracies, unless
you wish to be perceived as a petty idiotic obsessed McCathyite fool, whom
no-one whatsoever thinks has any point - and especially since you represent
your views to a Justice as if you knew something was wrong, when you know
damn well that it was not, and besides your view is singular of all people.

And stop pretending you are discussing anything, Sloan, instead of blaming
someone as usual - and falsely too! That is your measure Sloan, see how your
supporters avoid your behavior! but suggest it was noble, or some such rot.

And I think that if you are buoyed by such as Larry Parr's response to John
Hillery, it is foolish to support this latest lost cause excited merely to
attempt to embarass other people, but hopeless wrong and evidently
MALICIOUS.

Larr Parr should be ashamed of his response to Hillery [no friend of mine],
since the thing [Sloanism, which is undifferentiated to me from what
McCarthy did] he supports here is the very thing that will bring about the
demise of USCF.

Larry Parr cannot argue both sides of it; the romantic villain who is NOT
like anyone he mentions but more like McCarthy in his acusations, someone he
sides with but who possess no dimension at all other than of appearance.
That his opinions are so slight is hardly worth the contest, and yet that is
the current political game surrounding USCF - as if Larry Parr thought the
Sloan could actually remedy what was wrong with USCF [the Sloan who never
carried a single motion before the board except one proforma 'hurray' for a
volunteer].

Soviet people also thought romantic heros could save them. This is
imagination bought at great price, but paid by others! Here the serious
price remains the very existence of USCF itself.

I submit my frank and open criticism of Larry Parr in this way since we both
actually want to save USCF from destruction more than any other writers
here, and he more than me. My hostility to this indiescriminate support of
the Sloan is the same as that against the Ollie North defence of the
President:

Officers take their oath in defence of the people of the country, not their
leader, nor their own ego. Sloan is, in my opinion, incapable of even
understanding my first reference to where loyalty is due.

Phil Innes








 
Date: 13 Oct 2008 13:37:04
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times
On Oct 13, 4:33=A0pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> This is so useless. You would find a hair to split on Yule Brynner's
> head.

That is absolutely true, but remember that it was Susan Polgar, whom
you generally support, who started this debate by repeatedly attacking
the New York Times reporter over this issue.

Sam Sloan


  
Date: 13 Oct 2008 17:57:15
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times

"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:5c7cbb11-be2c-4c5c-b200-7a207a2d67ca@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 13, 4:33 pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> This is so useless. You would find a hair to split on Yule Brynner's
> head.

That is absolutely true, but remember that it was Susan Polgar, whom
you generally support, who started this debate by repeatedly attacking
the New York Times reporter over this issue.

**Attacking, says Sloan, by stating that they were wrong, as wrong as USCF,
Sloan - get it? Do you get that 10,000 posts about Susan Polgar equals [for
better or worse] an obsession on your part? And why would a justice not wish
to know this, whether you have a ligitmate argument or the usual trash?

Phil Innes



Sam Sloan




 
Date: 13 Oct 2008 13:33:32
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times
This is so useless. You would find a hair to split on Yule Brynner's
head.


On Oct 7, 1:52=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 7, 2:44=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 7, 2:30=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 7, 2:17=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 7, 6:34=A0am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Oct 6, 11:34=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Take a look at:http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2008/10/spice-cu=
p.html
>
> > > > > > Through her ubiquitous "anonymous" posters, Susan Polgar is att=
acking
> > > > > > the New York Times, demanding that its reporter be fired.
>
> > > > > > He had better watch out. Next thing, Susan Polgar will sue his =
ass,
> > > > > > claiming that he is persecuting her because she is a woman and =
of
> > > > > > foreign descent.
>
> > > > > > Sam Sloan
>
> > > > > Also, take a look athttp://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtop=
ic.php?f=3D4&t=3D1526
>
> > > > > Under the header "Questionable journalism?"
> > > > > Susan Polgar and Gregory Alexander are attacking the New York Tim=
es
> > > > > for "nit-picking".
>
> > > > > Sam Sloan
>
> > > > =A0 What is the NY Times reporter's source for his statement that "=
Texas
> > > > Tech said the Spice Cup was the strongest invitational tournament t=
o
> > > > be held in the United States"? Who at Texas Tech said this, when,
> > > > where? Did any such statement actually appear anywhere under Texas
> > > > Tech auspices?
> > > > =A0 It does not appear that Polgar herself has issued any such
> > > > statement; rather, she said "the 2008 SPICE Cup [will be] the highe=
st
> > > > rated 10 person International RR event in U.S. history." That's not=
at
> > > > all the same thing as McClain reports.
>
> > > The New York Times quoted a press release from Texas Tech that has
> > > been on the USCF website since July 10, 2008. If this was wrong Susan
> > > had an obligation as a USCF Board member and as director of the SPICE
> > > Program to correct it:
>
> > >http://main.uschess.org/content/view/8558/319/
>
> > =A0 Couldn't get that link to work.
>
> > > 2008 SPICE Cup to Break Records =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Print =A0 =A0 =A0=
=A0 =A0 E-mail
> > > By Cory Chandler
> > > July 12, 2008
> > > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> > > DATE: July 10, 2008
> > > CONTACT: Cory Chandler, [email protected]
> > > (806) 742-2136
>
> > > 2008 SPICE Cup is the Highest Rated 10-player International Round-
> > > Robin in U.S. History
>
> > > Texas Tech University=92s Susan Polgar Institute for Chess Excellence
> > > announced Thursday it has assembled the strongest field of chess
> > > grandmasters in U.S. round-robin history for its 2008 SPICE Cup
> > > International Invitational Tournament.
>
> > =A0 =A0Hmmm, I see. Thank you. The headline is accurate, but the senten=
ce
> > following is highly questionable.
>
> Right, it says:
>
> Texas Tech University=92s Susan Polgar Institute for Chess Excellence
> announced Thursday it has assembled the strongest field of chess
> grandmasters in U.S. round-robin history.
>
> US history starts in 1789. The USCF rating system started in 1950 and
> the FIDE rating system started in 1970.
>
> If the announcement said that it was "the highest rated tournament
> under the FIDE rating system since 1970" few would have disputed it.
>
> Sam Sloan- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



  
Date: 13 Oct 2008 15:28:41
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:33:32 -0700 (PDT), Rob <[email protected] >
wrote:

>This is so useless. You would find a hair to split on Yule Brynner's
>head.

That's Tellying him.


 
Date: 13 Oct 2008 07:43:31
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: honking of the wild Sloon
On Oct 13, 9:38=A0am, Brian Lafferty <[email protected] > wrote:
> Nomination for Post of the Year.

Yes, Mr. Parr was very clever in pointing out the source of JKH's
bitterness. "That national chess magazine was sour anyway!" said the
Fox.


  
Date: 13 Oct 2008 14:49:14
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: honking of the wild Sloon
The Historian wrote:
> On Oct 13, 9:38 am, Brian Lafferty <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Nomination for Post of the Year.
>
> Yes, Mr. Parr was very clever in pointing out the source of JKH's
> bitterness. "That national chess magazine was sour anyway!" said the
> Fox.

"I continue to hope that he will one day break out of
that sad intellectual and, yes, physical prison of
constipated constraint he erected for himself."

This should be placed in Bartlett's Quotations.


 
Date: 13 Oct 2008 04:01:22
From:
Subject: Re: honking of the wild Sloon


[email protected] wrote:
> GOOD ADVICE FOR JKH
>
> Dear Mike Murray,
>
> I try to be objective. John Hillery does an okay
> to fairly good job of editing the CJA journal. As
> always with the man, his efforts are without the
> moisture of life -- indeed, dessicated as if by an
> arid, shivery, dryasdust wind. Yet the mag is good
> enough for what it is, and he deserves credit for
> keeping the CJA going.
>
> If JH could keep his discipline and adopt just a
> smidgin of Sam's loose-bowelled, free-wheeling ways,
> he would do himself a world of good as a writer and
> editor. But I suppose he is too old to change, though
> I continue to hope that he will one day break out of
> that sad intellectual and, yes, physical prison of
> constipated constraint he erected for himself.
>
> If he were to do so, while maintaining the
> admirable sober aspects of his judgment, he might yet
> get what he has wanted from his life in chess and,
> yes, from Chess Life, too.
>
> I am not being condescending here. I am writing
> some good advice for the man.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr



What on earth are you maundering about here, Larry? We haven't met or
spoken since 1992. You know nothing about my personal life, and I know
(or care) nothing of yours.

In the (rather unlikely) event that you are being serious, I will note
that my adopting any character traits of Sam Sloan is somewhat less
probable than my flying to New York by flapping my arms. Sam has the
misfortune to combine in a single individual just about every trait I
find repugnant -- the moral rot of the sixties, the self-indulgence of
the eighties, the self-righteous litigiousness of today. I think he's
a disgrace to his species, but that's not really my problem. The fact
that he brings disgrace to the USCF is.


 
Date: 13 Oct 2008 03:49:34
From:
Subject: Re: honking of the wild Sloon


[email protected] wrote:
> NY TIMES PIMPING FOR SAM!?
>
> >This almost certainly refers to McClain pimping for
> your crackpot lawsuits, by printing your crazy allegations
> without any serious fact- checking. Whatever one thinks of
> Polgar and Truong, treating a vexatious litigant like you as a
> reliable source shows very poor judgment on McClain's part.>
> --JKH (John Hillery) to Sam Sloan
>
> If John Hillery has got it about right, then he
> is essentially charging the NY Times with pimping for
> Sam Sloan.
>
> Many of us also would like to have the most powerful
> newspaper on earth pimping for them.
>
> Sam: I will be contacting you privately to
> learn how you have wrapped the NY Times around your
> Caissic digits. I'd really like to know.
>
> We fully expect to hear that Warren Buffett and
> Bill Gates will be seeking Sam's favor as they develop
> their Foundation activities. And, to be sure, the
> British royals may already be in contact with Sam on a
> series of advisory efforts.
>
> We thank Mr. Hillery for advising us on Sam's
> breakthroughs into the haute monde.
>
> We hear unsubstantiated rumors that Mr. Hillery
> has the CJA Newsletter pimping for him. If true --
> and we don't insist that the editor possesses such vast
> influence -- then the man is also developing his
> networking capabilities, though evidently, judging by
> the man's own testimony, he lags far behind Sam.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
>
>
>
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> > samsloan wrote:
> > > "It is sad to see a few people who have done virtually zero for chess
> > > using the NY Times article to make wild attacks and insults toward
> > > innocent people without even checking the facts.
> > >
> > > "Best wishes,
> > > "Susan Polgar
> > > " http://www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
> > > " http://www.SusanPolgar.com "
> >
> >
> > This almost certainly refers to McClain pimping for your crackpot
> > lawsuits, by printing your crazy allegations without any serious fact-
> > checking. Whatever one thinks of Polgar and Truong, treating a
> > vexatious litigant like you as a reliable source shows very poor
> > judgment on McClain's part.
> >
> >
> > > Have you noticed how Susan Polgar claims that her SPICE Cup was the
> > > strongest RR tournament in US history because the Second Piatagorsky
> > > Cup, with Fischer, Spassky and Petrosian, was a double round robin
> > > whereas her tournament was only a single round robin?
> > >
> > > Sam Sloan
> >
> >
> > Can you document Polgar actually saying that, or is it another of your
> > hallucinations? The press release I saw described it as "the Highest
> > Rated 10-player International Round-Robin in U.S. History," which is
> > technically true -- FIDE didn't have a rating system in 1966. (It's
> > also weasel-worded PR flackery, but that's another matter.)


McClain has repeatedly given space to Sloan's loony lawsuits. He has
quoted self-serving claims without seeking any contrary opinions from
sane people. Whether this is a bad thing is a matter of opinion. If
you adopt the tabloid approach Larry Parr brought to CL, this might be
considered a good thing -- the old "if it bleeds it leads"
philosophy.Personally, I think it shows poor judgment on McClain's
part but I admit that I'm influenced by my view that Sloan is a couple
of evolutionary steps below pond scum. A proper chess columnist
(Robert Byrne, for example) would write about chess and ignore
vexatious litigation.

BTW, criticizing McClain is not equivalent to criticizing the NYT. In
fact I do have a low opinion of the NYT, but it's for reasons entirely
unrelated to chess and completely irrelevant here.


  
Date: 13 Oct 2008 08:08:24
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: honking of the wild Sloon
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 03:49:34 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote:


>BTW, criticizing McClain is not equivalent to criticizing the NYT. In
>fact I do have a low opinion of the NYT, but it's for reasons entirely
>unrelated to chess and completely irrelevant here.

Incidentally, NYT columnist Paul Krugman just won the Nobel Prize for
Economics.


  
Date: 13 Oct 2008 14:46:20
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: honking of the wild Sloon
[email protected] wrote:
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>> NY TIMES PIMPING FOR SAM!?
>>
>>> This almost certainly refers to McClain pimping for
>> your crackpot lawsuits, by printing your crazy allegations
>> without any serious fact- checking. Whatever one thinks of
>> Polgar and Truong, treating a vexatious litigant like you as a
>> reliable source shows very poor judgment on McClain's part.>
>> --JKH (John Hillery) to Sam Sloan
>>
>> If John Hillery has got it about right, then he
>> is essentially charging the NY Times with pimping for
>> Sam Sloan.
>>
>> Many of us also would like to have the most powerful
>> newspaper on earth pimping for them.
>>
>> Sam: I will be contacting you privately to
>> learn how you have wrapped the NY Times around your
>> Caissic digits. I'd really like to know.
>>
>> We fully expect to hear that Warren Buffett and
>> Bill Gates will be seeking Sam's favor as they develop
>> their Foundation activities. And, to be sure, the
>> British royals may already be in contact with Sam on a
>> series of advisory efforts.
>>
>> We thank Mr. Hillery for advising us on Sam's
>> breakthroughs into the haute monde.
>>
>> We hear unsubstantiated rumors that Mr. Hillery
>> has the CJA Newsletter pimping for him. If true --
>> and we don't insist that the editor possesses such vast
>> influence -- then the man is also developing his
>> networking capabilities, though evidently, judging by
>> the man's own testimony, he lags far behind Sam.
>>
>> Yours, Larry Parr
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> samsloan wrote:
>>>> "It is sad to see a few people who have done virtually zero for chess
>>>> using the NY Times article to make wild attacks and insults toward
>>>> innocent people without even checking the facts.
>>>>
>>>> "Best wishes,
>>>> "Susan Polgar
>>>> " http://www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
>>>> " http://www.SusanPolgar.com "
>>>
>>> This almost certainly refers to McClain pimping for your crackpot
>>> lawsuits, by printing your crazy allegations without any serious fact-
>>> checking. Whatever one thinks of Polgar and Truong, treating a
>>> vexatious litigant like you as a reliable source shows very poor
>>> judgment on McClain's part.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Have you noticed how Susan Polgar claims that her SPICE Cup was the
>>>> strongest RR tournament in US history because the Second Piatagorsky
>>>> Cup, with Fischer, Spassky and Petrosian, was a double round robin
>>>> whereas her tournament was only a single round robin?
>>>>
>>>> Sam Sloan
>>>
>>> Can you document Polgar actually saying that, or is it another of your
>>> hallucinations? The press release I saw described it as "the Highest
>>> Rated 10-player International Round-Robin in U.S. History," which is
>>> technically true -- FIDE didn't have a rating system in 1966. (It's
>>> also weasel-worded PR flackery, but that's another matter.)
>
>
> McClain has repeatedly given space to Sloan's loony lawsuits. He has
> quoted self-serving claims without seeking any contrary opinions from
> sane people. Whether this is a bad thing is a matter of opinion. If
> you adopt the tabloid approach Larry Parr brought to CL, this might be
> considered a good thing -- the old "if it bleeds it leads"
> philosophy.Personally, I think it shows poor judgment on McClain's
> part but I admit that I'm influenced by my view that Sloan is a couple
> of evolutionary steps below pond scum. A proper chess columnist
> (Robert Byrne, for example) would write about chess and ignore
> vexatious litigation.
>
> BTW, criticizing McClain is not equivalent to criticizing the NYT. In
> fact I do have a low opinion of the NYT, but it's for reasons entirely
> unrelated to chess and completely irrelevant here.

Mc Clain has covered newsworthy events in the world of chess. This
includes Sloan's action, and Polgar's law suit that was removed to
Federal court. When the USCF is sued for millions of dollars, that is
news. IIRC, the initial report on the Sloan suit was carried in the
business section of the Times. Chess, like it or not, is a business as
well as chess.


 
Date: 13 Oct 2008 02:23:36
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times
Sorry, either I made a mistake or Susan was in the middle of changing
her website and her "false claims" did not appear momentarily.

Susan often changes her website. She has changed the picture of
herself in the upper right corner several times in the last few days
after one reader said that her picture made her appear old, worn out
and tired.

The following false claims have reappeared:

=E2=99=A6 Winner of 4 Women=E2=80=99s World Championships (Under 16, Blitz,=
Rapid, and
Classical)
=E2=99=A6 The only World Champion in history to win the triple-crown (Blitz=
,
Rapid and Classical World Championships)

This is new. This is the first time she has explained that "Winner of
4 Women=E2=80=99s World Championships" means "Under 16, Blitz, Rapid, and
Classical". I do not know of anyone who agrees with her that winning
the "Under-16" championship constitutes winning Women=E2=80=99s World
Championships. Also, the "Blitz, Rapid" events were not official FIDE
events. These were events her father organized in Budapest. The Real
World Champion, Xie Jun, did not play and the main competition was her
own sisters, Judit and Sophia.

Sam Sloan




On Oct 13, 5:08=C2=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 7, 8:51=C2=A0am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > ButPolgar'spuffery comes along with her claim that she won the
> > Woman'sWorldChampionship four times, when she did not, that she won
> > the "Triple Crown of Chess" when there is no such title and that she
> > is the number onerankedwoman in the USA when she is not.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> I believe, but I am not sure, that Polgar has made some changes in the
> last few days to the claims that she has been making about herself onhttp=
://susanpolgar.blogspot.com
>
> She no longer claims to have won the Woman's World Championship four
> times or to have won the "Triple Crown" in chess.
>
> She still has a lot of false claims posted on her blog. For example:
>
> =E2=99=A6 #1 ranked woman chess player in the world at the age of 15 (rem=
ain
> in the top 3 in the world for 23 straight years)
> =E2=99=A6 Currently ranked #1 in the United States
> =E2=99=A6 Award-winning and best-selling chess author in numerous languag=
es
> =E2=99=A6 First ever recipient of the =E2=80=9CChess Educator of the Year=
=E2=80=9D award
> (2003)
>
> Susan has never been ranked number one in the world on the official
> FIDE rating list. However, she was tied with Maya Chiburdanidze with a
> rating of 2430 on a 1985 FIDE Rating list. Since 1992 she had been
> ranked in the top three in only a few of the official rating lists.
>
> Susan is not ranked number one in the US now. The number one ranking
> has been held by either Irina Krush or Anna Zatonskih for the last
> several years. If Susan came back and played I doubt that she could
> beat either one of them now, due to her age and inactivity. Remember
> that the last time Susan played in an open rated tournament was the
> 2005 US Amateur Team East and there her performance rating for the
> tournament was 2173. I do not believe that either Anna Zatonskih or
> Irina Krush have ever had such a poor result. Here are the official
> current top rankings:
>
> 1 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Zatonskih, Anna (12873912) =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0NY =
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0USA =C2=A0 =C2=A0 2498
> 2 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Krush, Irina (12543137) NY =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0USA=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 2493
>
> As far as I know, Susan's books are only published in English. None of
> them have received awards, other than the awards she gives herself.
>
> I have never heard of the title of =C2=A0=E2=80=9CChess Educator of the Y=
ear=E2=80=9D. This
> sounds like something that Truong awarded her.
>
> By claiming to have achieved things that she has not actually
> achieved, Susan Polgar is cheating those who have worked hard to
> actually achieve those things. For example, Susan is right now
> cheating Anna Zatonskih, who is a very active player, of the
> recognition Anna has earned and deserves for being both the US Woman's
> Champion and currently the highest ranked player on the official list.
>
> Sam Sloan



  
Date: 13 Oct 2008 17:34:41
From: =?utf-8?Q?J=C3=BCrgen_R.?=
Subject: AW: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times
samsloan wrote:
> Sorry, either I made a mistake or Susan was in the middle of changing
> her website and her "false claims" did not appear momentarily.
>
> Susan often changes her website. She has changed the picture of
> herself in the upper right corner several times in the last few days
> after one reader said that her picture made her appear old, worn out
> and tired.
>
> The following false claims have reappeared:
>
> ♦ Winner of 4 Women’s World Championships (Under 16, Blitz, Rapid, and
> Classical)
> ♦ The only World Champion in history to win the triple-crown (Blitz,
> Rapid and Classical World Championships)
>
> This is new. This is the first time she has explained that "Winner of
> 4 Women’s World Championships" means "Under 16, Blitz, Rapid, and
> Classical". I do not know of anyone who agrees with her that winning
> the "Under-16" championship constitutes winning Women’s World
> Championships. Also, the "Blitz, Rapid" events were not official FIDE
> events. These were events her father organized in Budapest. The Real
> World Champion, Xie Jun, did not play and the main competition was her
> own sisters, Judit and Sophia.
>
> Sam Sloan

The Chinese Chess World Championship that Sloan claimed to
have won had no official sanction either.

There isn't now and there never was a special Championship in
Chinese Chess for FWD's (Foreign White Devils).



 
Date: 13 Oct 2008 02:08:05
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times
On Oct 7, 8:51=C2=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:

>
> ButPolgar'spuffery comes along with her claim that she won the
> Woman'sWorldChampionship four times, when she did not, that she won
> the "Triple Crown of Chess" when there is no such title and that she
> is the number onerankedwoman in the USA when she is not.
>
> Sam Sloan

I believe, but I am not sure, that Polgar has made some changes in the
last few days to the claims that she has been making about herself on
http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com

She no longer claims to have won the Woman's World Championship four
times or to have won the "Triple Crown" in chess.

She still has a lot of false claims posted on her blog. For example:

=E2=99=A6 #1 ranked woman chess player in the world at the age of 15 (remai=
n
in the top 3 in the world for 23 straight years)
=E2=99=A6 Currently ranked #1 in the United States
=E2=99=A6 Award-winning and best-selling chess author in numerous languages
=E2=99=A6 First ever recipient of the =E2=80=9CChess Educator of the Year=
=E2=80=9D award
(2003)

Susan has never been ranked number one in the world on the official
FIDE rating list. However, she was tied with Maya Chiburdanidze with a
rating of 2430 on a 1985 FIDE Rating list. Since 1992 she had been
ranked in the top three in only a few of the official rating lists.

Susan is not ranked number one in the US now. The number one ranking
has been held by either Irina Krush or Anna Zatonskih for the last
several years. If Susan came back and played I doubt that she could
beat either one of them now, due to her age and inactivity. Remember
that the last time Susan played in an open rated tournament was the
2005 US Amateur Team East and there her performance rating for the
tournament was 2173. I do not believe that either Anna Zatonskih or
Irina Krush have ever had such a poor result. Here are the official
current top rankings:

1 Zatonskih, Anna (12873912) NY USA 2498
2 Krush, Irina (12543137) NY USA 2493

As far as I know, Susan's books are only published in English. None of
them have received awards, other than the awards she gives herself.

I have never heard of the title of =E2=80=9CChess Educator of the Year=E2=
=80=9D. This
sounds like something that Truong awarded her.

By claiming to have achieved things that she has not actually
achieved, Susan Polgar is cheating those who have worked hard to
actually achieve those things. For example, Susan is right now
cheating Anna Zatonskih, who is a very active player, of the
recognition Anna has earned and deserves for being both the US Woman's
Champion and currently the highest ranked player on the official list.

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 12 Oct 2008 20:38:06
From: none
Subject: Re: honking of the wild Sloon
On Oct 12, 11:22=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> GOOD ADVICE FOR JKH
>
> Dear Mike Murray,
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0I try to be objective. John Hillery does an okay
> to fairly good job of editing the CJA journal. =A0As
> always with the man, his efforts are without the
> moisture of life -- indeed, dessicated as if by an
> arid, shivery, dryasdust wind. Yet the mag is good
> enough for what it is, and he deserves credit for
> keeping the CJA going.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0If JH could keep his discipline and adopt just a
> smidgin of Sam's loose-bowelled, free-wheeling ways,
> he would do himself a world of good as a writer and
> editor. =A0But I suppose he is too old to change, though
> I continue to hope that he will one day break out of
> that sad intellectual and, yes, physical prison of
> constipated constraint he erected for himself.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0If he were to do so, while maintaining the
> admirable sober aspects of his judgment, he might yet
> get what he has wanted from his life in chess and,
> yes, from Chess Life, too.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0I am not being condescending here. =A0I am writing
> some good advice for the man.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
>
>
>
> Mike Murray wrote:
> > On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 23:30:43 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > =A0 =A0 =A0We hear unsubstantiated rumors that Mr. Hillery
> > >has the CJA Newsletter pimping for him.
>
> > Is that more analogous to the "Little Nickle" or to a restroom wall?- H=
ide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Do you still think Sam would make a great ED?


 
Date: 12 Oct 2008 20:22:03
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: honking of the wild Sloon
GOOD ADVICE FOR JKH

Dear Mike Murray,

I try to be objective. John Hillery does an okay
to fairly good job of editing the CJA journal. As
always with the man, his efforts are without the
moisture of life -- indeed, dessicated as if by an
arid, shivery, dryasdust wind. Yet the mag is good
enough for what it is, and he deserves credit for
keeping the CJA going.

If JH could keep his discipline and adopt just a
smidgin of Sam's loose-bowelled, free-wheeling ways,
he would do himself a world of good as a writer and
editor. But I suppose he is too old to change, though
I continue to hope that he will one day break out of
that sad intellectual and, yes, physical prison of
constipated constraint he erected for himself.

If he were to do so, while maintaining the
admirable sober aspects of his judgment, he might yet
get what he has wanted from his life in chess and,
yes, from Chess Life, too.

I am not being condescending here. I am writing
some good advice for the man.

Yours, Larry Parr






Mike Murray wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 23:30:43 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> > We hear unsubstantiated rumors that Mr. Hillery
> >has the CJA Newsletter pimping for him.
>
> Is that more analogous to the "Little Nickle" or to a restroom wall?


  
Date: 13 Oct 2008 14:38:32
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: honking of the wild Sloon
Nomination for Post of the Year.

[email protected] wrote:
> GOOD ADVICE FOR JKH
>
> Dear Mike Murray,
>
> I try to be objective. John Hillery does an okay
> to fairly good job of editing the CJA journal. As
> always with the man, his efforts are without the
> moisture of life -- indeed, dessicated as if by an
> arid, shivery, dryasdust wind. Yet the mag is good
> enough for what it is, and he deserves credit for
> keeping the CJA going.
>
> If JH could keep his discipline and adopt just a
> smidgin of Sam's loose-bowelled, free-wheeling ways,
> he would do himself a world of good as a writer and
> editor. But I suppose he is too old to change, though
> I continue to hope that he will one day break out of
> that sad intellectual and, yes, physical prison of
> constipated constraint he erected for himself.
>
> If he were to do so, while maintaining the
> admirable sober aspects of his judgment, he might yet
> get what he has wanted from his life in chess and,
> yes, from Chess Life, too.
>
> I am not being condescending here. I am writing
> some good advice for the man.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mike Murray wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 23:30:43 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> We hear unsubstantiated rumors that Mr. Hillery
>>> has the CJA Newsletter pimping for him.
>> Is that more analogous to the "Little Nickle" or to a restroom wall?


 
Date: 12 Oct 2008 07:00:15
From:
Subject: Re: More honking of the wild sloon
On Oct 11, 8:32=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> 3) Even if the USCF assigned ratings to all the players in the
> Piatigorsky Cup, in 1966 Najdorf, Donner, Unzicker and Ivkov would
> almost certainly have been rated in the 2500s. They didn't start
> giving out 2600 ratings to all and sundry until quite recently. This,
> however, _is_ subject to test. Find a 1967 annual rating list and look
> up the ratings. If you're too lazy or stupid to do so (what do I mean,
> "if"?), shut up and crawl back under your rock.

I don't believe the Piatigorsky Cup tournaments were USCF-rated,
except perhaps games between two Americans. Nor did any of the foreign
players there have a USCF rating at that time, as far as I can tell.
Checking the rating list in the December 1966 Chess Life, the only
Piatigorsky Cup contestants I can find are the Americans: Fischer (who
played in 1966), Reshevsky (1963 and 1966) and Benko (1963). They are
rated 2713, 2626 and 2542 respectively. Nothing for Larsen, Petrosian,
Spassky, Keres, Donner, Unzicker, Najdorf et al.
For what it's worth, I can supply ratings from Elo's "The Rating of
Chessplayers Past and Present." He provides a full list, current as of
1 January 1978, of GMs and IMs, giving their 1-1-1978 rating and, in
some cases, their best 5-year average rating, whenever that may have
been. Here is what he has for the non-American players from Santa
Monica 1966:

Name 5-yr peak 1-1-1978

Spassky: 2680 2630
Larsen: ----- 2620
Portisch: ----- 2630
Unzicker: 2590 2525
Petrosian: 2680 2620
Najdorf: 2635 2525
Ivkov: 2570 2515
Donner: 2500 2490

As far as 1966 is concerned, Unzicker, Petrosian, Ivkov and Donner
were probably at or near their peaks at that time. Spassky and Larsen
were probably near but not quite at their peaks yet, Fischer was
definitely not yet at his peak, while Najdorf and Reshevsky were past
theirs.


  
Date: 13 Oct 2008 15:22:44
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: More honking of the wild sloon

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Oct 11, 8:32 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> 3) Even if the USCF assigned ratings to all the players in the
> Piatigorsky Cup, in 1966 Najdorf, Donner, Unzicker and Ivkov would
> almost certainly have been rated in the 2500s. They didn't start
> giving out 2600 ratings to all and sundry until quite recently. This,
> however, _is_ subject to test. Find a 1967 annual rating list and look
> up the ratings. If you're too lazy or stupid to do so (what do I mean,
> "if"?), shut up and crawl back under your rock.

I don't believe the Piatigorsky Cup tournaments were USCF-rated,
except perhaps games between two Americans. Nor did any of the foreign
players there have a USCF rating at that time, as far as I can tell.
Checking the rating list in the December 1966 Chess Life, the only
Piatigorsky Cup contestants I can find are the Americans: Fischer (who
played in 1966), Reshevsky (1963 and 1966) and Benko (1963). They are
rated 2713, 2626 and 2542 respectively. Nothing for Larsen, Petrosian,
Spassky, Keres, Donner, Unzicker, Najdorf et al.
For what it's worth, I can supply ratings from Elo's "The Rating of
Chessplayers Past and Present." He provides a full list, current as of
1 January 1978, of GMs and IMs, giving their 1-1-1978 rating and, in
some cases, their best 5-year average rating, whenever that may have
been. Here is what he has for the non-American players from Santa
Monica 1966:

Name 5-yr peak 1-1-1978

Spassky: 2680 2630
Larsen: ----- 2620
Portisch: ----- 2630
Unzicker: 2590 2525
Petrosian: 2680 2620
Najdorf: 2635 2525
Ivkov: 2570 2515
Donner: 2500 2490

**Therefore, even with these retro-ratings, and even with some players
assessed at their peak, the last 3 players seriously reduce the Category
rating to less tha XV, - these 8 players average 2,569 in '78 - and even
given these means the current SPICE XV stands as being correct as highest.
Of course this is understandable to all, except for Sam Sloan and the NY
Times [who get their chessic advice from the 8-ball?] and USCF; the current
tournament was always the strongest 10 player rr Cat XV, simply because
there was never any higher tournament held. The Sloan will not answer these
factual objections since he has moved on to toilets, what is written on
their walls, and if that is some equivalent to his own utterances in a
court, and if the very idea of being equivalent to toilet graffitum is a
'defence'. Well, I suppose the justices could decide if there is even a
theoretical basis for someone of such standand to suffer reduction in the
mind's of the chess public. And they could as well argue if you could get
all Paris in a bottle - what is notable in these affairs is that the
obsessive attention of Sloan to Polgar is not admitted here publicly by the
Sloan, and instead he suggests to us all [gasp fpor breath] that the inverse
is true: that he is so fascinating or important or something, that a world
champion became obsessed by it, 2,500 instances followed. And [b] if it
wasn't her, it was her now husband who needed to deflate the Sloan lesser
than toilets have lessened others. Quite why anyone would want to do this as
an anon and 2,500 times is entirely unclear, as the Sloan himself would put
it, since I have merely done it a few hundred times, as have you, dear
newsgroup reader, and we have no need to pretend to be him to refute him -
or not to own our own comments, since they seem sensible to us to say, and
are very generally not contested criticisms of the real and really elusive
Sloan. Phil Innes

As far as 1966 is concerned, Unzicker, Petrosian, Ivkov and Donner
were probably at or near their peaks at that time. Spassky and Larsen
were probably near but not quite at their peaks yet, Fischer was
definitely not yet at his peak, while Najdorf and Reshevsky were past
theirs.




   
Date: 13 Oct 2008 15:51:42
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: More honking of the wild sloon
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:22:44 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:


> Name 5-yr peak 1-1-1978

> Spassky: 2680 2630
> Larsen: ----- 2620
> Portisch: ----- 2630
> Unzicker: 2590 2525
> Petrosian: 2680 2620
> Najdorf: 2635 2525
> Ivkov: 2570 2515
> Donner: 2500 2490

>**Therefore, even with these retro-ratings, and even with some players
>assessed at their peak, the last 3 players seriously reduce the Category
>rating to less tha XV, - these 8 players average 2,569 in '78 - and even
>given these means the current SPICE XV stands as being correct as highest.

So what does "highest" mean?

The number of players in the rating pool is much larger now than in
1978, which makes it almost certain that many more players will be
rated above 2600 (or "x"). Unless the distribution changed in the 20
intervening years, this would be true even the current crop of GMs
played at a *lower* level of absolute strength than the GMs of 1978.

The fact is the competitors at Santa Monica represented a much greater
sampling of truly world-class players than did those in this year's
Spice Cup.

So, the often repeated claim of "highest rated" may be true (but
slightly misleading in implication), but the single claim of
"strongest" cannot be sustained.


 
Date: 11 Oct 2008 23:30:43
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: honking of the wild Sloon
NY TIMES PIMPING FOR SAM!?

>This almost certainly refers to McClain pimping for
your crackpot lawsuits, by printing your crazy allegations
without any serious fact- checking. Whatever one thinks of
Polgar and Truong, treating a vexatious litigant like you as a
reliable source shows very poor judgment on McClain's part. >
--JKH (John Hillery) to Sam Sloan

If John Hillery has got it about right, then he
is essentially charging the NY Times with pimping for
Sam Sloan.

Many of us also would like to have the most powerful
newspaper on earth pimping for them.

Sam: I will be contacting you privately to
learn how you have wrapped the NY Times around your
Caissic digits. I'd really like to know.

We fully expect to hear that Warren Buffett and
Bill Gates will be seeking Sam's favor as they develop
their Foundation activities. And, to be sure, the
British royals may already be in contact with Sam on a
series of advisory efforts.

We thank Mr. Hillery for advising us on Sam's
breakthroughs into the haute monde.

We hear unsubstantiated rumors that Mr. Hillery
has the CJA Newsletter pimping for him. If true --
and we don't insist that the editor possesses such vast
influence -- then the man is also developing his
networking capabilities, though evidently, judging by
the man's own testimony, he lags far behind Sam.

Yours, Larry Parr




[email protected] wrote:
> samsloan wrote:
> > "It is sad to see a few people who have done virtually zero for chess
> > using the NY Times article to make wild attacks and insults toward
> > innocent people without even checking the facts.
> >
> > "Best wishes,
> > "Susan Polgar
> > " http://www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
> > " http://www.SusanPolgar.com "
>
>
> This almost certainly refers to McClain pimping for your crackpot
> lawsuits, by printing your crazy allegations without any serious fact-
> checking. Whatever one thinks of Polgar and Truong, treating a
> vexatious litigant like you as a reliable source shows very poor
> judgment on McClain's part.
>
>
> > Have you noticed how Susan Polgar claims that her SPICE Cup was the
> > strongest RR tournament in US history because the Second Piatagorsky
> > Cup, with Fischer, Spassky and Petrosian, was a double round robin
> > whereas her tournament was only a single round robin?
> >
> > Sam Sloan
>
>
> Can you document Polgar actually saying that, or is it another of your
> hallucinations? The press release I saw described it as "the Highest
> Rated 10-player International Round-Robin in U.S. History," which is
> technically true -- FIDE didn't have a rating system in 1966. (It's
> also weasel-worded PR flackery, but that's another matter.)


  
Date: 12 Oct 2008 18:24:23
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: honking of the wild Sloon

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:b7e6ab6e-a63d-4449-9406-547f3367b786@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> NY TIMES PIMPING FOR SAM!?
>
>>This almost certainly refers to McClain pimping for
> your crackpot lawsuits, by printing your crazy allegations
> without any serious fact- checking. Whatever one thinks of
> Polgar and Truong, treating a vexatious litigant like you as a
> reliable source shows very poor judgment on McClain's part.>
> --JKH (John Hillery) to Sam Sloan
>
> If John Hillery has got it about right, then he
> is essentially charging the NY Times with pimping for
> Sam Sloan.

and it has been for awhile

when i challenged McClain and editors to there pimpiness i received the
response that it was pro-forma to report a law-suit, and if they they then
entertained the views of a protagonist to the suit, Sloan, to outrageous
degree of futher inuendo... this too, these days, is proforma

ny times chess reporting is so bloody awful anyway, and to then receive
answers to these formalisms about how awful they became, is like reading
pravda

> Many of us also would like to have the most powerful
> newspaper on earth pimping for them.

would we?

speak for your self. if you prefer this standard, then did you just vote on
it?

once upon a time the ny times was the wisdom speaking to power, now it is
whoring after scandal like the cheapest rag sheet - chess topics included

> Sam: I will be contacting you privately to
> learn how you have wrapped the NY Times around your
> Caissic digits. I'd really like to know.

sorry - this is insufficient for public dialog. if ny times = sloan-isms,
the they merely equate their mutual ethical standards - which is to say,
skirting with some minimum

> We fully expect to hear that Warren Buffett and
> Bill Gates will be seeking Sam's favor as they develop
> their Foundation activities. And, to be sure, the
> British royals may already be in contact with Sam on a
> series of advisory efforts.
>
> We thank Mr. Hillery for advising us on Sam's
> breakthroughs into the haute monde.


No friend of yours or mine - yet the first words from a CJA operative I
respect, since JH here talks about a public issue which can actually have an
effect on what happens.

I do not see that he should be mocked for that, even in some abstract way.
Meanwhile the Sloan is really in, and I think he and NY Times should
definitely be mocked for that!

> We hear unsubstantiated rumors that Mr. Hillery
> has the CJA Newsletter pimping for him. If true --
> and we don't insist that the editor possesses such vast
> influence -- then the man is also developing his
> networking capabilities, though evidently, judging by
> the man's own testimony, he lags far behind Sam.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr

Not a most worthy your better mind, sir, and furthermore, one absent content
entirely. It would be merely pathetic if the subject became NY Times
reporting, or the topic of Sam Sloan's personality as it actually exists -
far better someone mentioned some lode-stone of confidence where we decide
what is decent standard for reporting and what is personality polemicism.

Phil Innes

>
>
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>> samsloan wrote:
>> > "It is sad to see a few people who have done virtually zero for chess
>> > using the NY Times article to make wild attacks and insults toward
>> > innocent people without even checking the facts.
>> >
>> > "Best wishes,
>> > "Susan Polgar
>> > " http://www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
>> > " http://www.SusanPolgar.com "
>>
>>
>> This almost certainly refers to McClain pimping for your crackpot
>> lawsuits, by printing your crazy allegations without any serious fact-
>> checking. Whatever one thinks of Polgar and Truong, treating a
>> vexatious litigant like you as a reliable source shows very poor
>> judgment on McClain's part.
>>
>>
>> > Have you noticed how Susan Polgar claims that her SPICE Cup was the
>> > strongest RR tournament in US history because the Second Piatagorsky
>> > Cup, with Fischer, Spassky and Petrosian, was a double round robin
>> > whereas her tournament was only a single round robin?
>> >
>> > Sam Sloan
>>
>>
>> Can you document Polgar actually saying that, or is it another of your
>> hallucinations? The press release I saw described it as "the Highest
>> Rated 10-player International Round-Robin in U.S. History," which is
>> technically true -- FIDE didn't have a rating system in 1966. (It's
>> also weasel-worded PR flackery, but that's another matter.)




  
Date: 12 Oct 2008 11:55:35
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: honking of the wild Sloon
On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 23:30:43 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:


> We hear unsubstantiated rumors that Mr. Hillery
>has the CJA Newsletter pimping for him.

Is that more analogous to the "Little Nickle" or to a restroom wall?


 
Date: 11 Oct 2008 17:32:56
From:
Subject: Re: More honking of the wild sloon


samsloan wrote:
> On Oct 11, 7:38=EF=BF=BDpm, Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > samsloan wrote:
> > > Oct 11, 2:29 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > > > samsloan wrote:
> > > > > "It is sad to see a few people who have done virtually zero for c=
hess
> > > > > using the NY Times article to make wild attacks and insults towar=
d
> > > > > innocent people without even checking the facts.
> >
> > > > > "Best wishes,
> > > > > "Susan Polgar
> > > > > "http://www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
> > > > > "http://www.SusanPolgar.com"
> >
> > > > This almost certainly refers to McClain pimping for your crackpot
> > > > lawsuits, by printing your crazy allegations without any serious fa=
ct-
> > > > checking. Whatever one thinks of Polgar and Truong, treating a
> > > > vexatious litigant like you as a reliable source shows very poor
> > > > judgment on McClain's part.
> >
> > > > > Have you noticed how Susan Polgar claims that her SPICE Cup was t=
he
> > > > > strongest RR tournament in US history because the Second Piatagor=
sky
> > > > > Cup, with Fischer, Spassky and Petrosian, was a double round robi=
n
> > > > > whereas her tournament was only a single round robin?
> >
> > > > > Sam Sloan
> >
> > > > Can you document Polgar actually saying that, or is it another of y=
our
> > > > hallucinations? The press release I saw described it as "the Highes=
t
> > > > Rated 10-player International Round-Robin in U.S. History," which i=
s
> > > > technically true -- FIDE didn't have a rating system in 1966. (It's
> > > > also weasel-worded PR flackery, but that's another matter.)
> >
> > > The Second Piatigorsky Cup had Petrosian and Spassky, Bobby Fischer,
> > > Samuel Reshevsky, Bent Larsen (Denmark), Lajos Portisch (Hungary),
> > > Wolfgang Unzicker (West Germany), Miguel Najdorf (Argentina), Borisla=
v
> > > Ivkov (Yugoslavia), and Jan Hein Donner (Netherlands). It was a ten-
> > > player double round robin.
> >
> > > Susan Polgar's SPICE Cup had Alexander Onischuk, Harikrishna Pentala,
> > > Varuzhan Akobian, Leonid Kritz, Gregory Kaidanov, Julio Becerra,
> > > Victor Mikhalevski, Kamil Miton, Hannes Stefansson and Eugene
> > > Perelshteyn. It was a ten-player round robin.
> >
> > > Susan Polgar states that it is "debatable" which one was stronger, bu=
t
> > > that her's was the strongest ten-player round robin because the Secon=
d
> > > Piatigorsky Cup was a ten player double round-robin.
> >
> > > Do you think that it is "debatable"? If so, which side of this debate
> > > would you like to take?
> >
> > > Sam Sloan
> >
> > So, as I asked before, can you document Polgar actually saying that?
>
> Susan wrote: "In both emails, I clearly did not use the word strongest
> which may or may not be true but definitely highly debateable since
> some other big tournaments were from different time and it is
> difficult to compare. I clearly stated "Highest rated 10-player
> international round robin chess tournament in U.S. history!" so that
> there can be absolutely no dispute. It clearly defines as a 10-player
> event, round robin and not double round robin, and it includes
> International players so there would be no comparison to U.S.
> championships.
>
> Susan states above that it is "debateable" as the whether her SPICE
> Cup won by Harikrishna Pentala was stronger than the Second
> Piatigorsky won by Spassky.
>
> So, I am asking you: Which side of this debate would you like to take?
>
> Her claim that the SPICE CUP is the highest rated is not clear either.
> Although FIDE Ratings did not exist in 1966, USCF ratings had been
> long established. In spite of the tremendous rating inflation since
> 1966 it is still likely that the Second Piatigorsky was higher rated.
>
>
> Sam Sloan


1) You just conceded that you are a liar (or, to frame it in the
manner most favorable to you, a blithering idiot).

2) I am inclined to agree that the 2nd Piatigorsky Cup was stronger,
and probably the first as well (Keres, Petrosian, Najdorf, Olafsson,
Reshevsky, Gligoric, Benko, Panno). But since the hypothesis is
inherently untestable without a time machine, arguing about it is
utterly pointless.

3) Even if the USCF assigned ratings to all the players in the
Piatigorsky Cup, in 1966 Najdorf, Donner, Unzicker and Ivkov would
almost certainly have been rated in the 2500s. They didn't start
giving out 2600 ratings to all and sundry until quite recently. This,
however, _is_ subject to test. Find a 1967 annual rating list and look
up the ratings. If you're too lazy or stupid to do so (what do I mean,
"if"?), shut up and crawl back under your rock.




 
Date: 11 Oct 2008 16:53:42
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: More honking of the wild sloon
On Oct 11, 7:38=A0pm, Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
<[email protected] > wrote:
> samsloan wrote:
> > Oct 11, 2:29 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > > samsloan wrote:
> > > > "It is sad to see a few people who have done virtually zero for che=
ss
> > > > using the NY Times article to make wild attacks and insults toward
> > > > innocent people without even checking the facts.
>
> > > > "Best wishes,
> > > > "Susan Polgar
> > > > "http://www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
> > > > "http://www.SusanPolgar.com"
>
> > > This almost certainly refers to McClain pimping for your crackpot
> > > lawsuits, by printing your crazy allegations without any serious fact=
-
> > > checking. Whatever one thinks of Polgar and Truong, treating a
> > > vexatious litigant like you as a reliable source shows very poor
> > > judgment on McClain's part.
>
> > > > Have you noticed how Susan Polgar claims that her SPICE Cup was the
> > > > strongest RR tournament in US history because the Second Piatagorsk=
y
> > > > Cup, with Fischer, Spassky and Petrosian, was a double round robin
> > > > whereas her tournament was only a single round robin?
>
> > > > Sam Sloan
>
> > > Can you document Polgar actually saying that, or is it another of you=
r
> > > hallucinations? The press release I saw described it as "the Highest
> > > Rated 10-player International Round-Robin in U.S. History," which is
> > > technically true -- FIDE didn't have a rating system in 1966. (It's
> > > also weasel-worded PR flackery, but that's another matter.)
>
> > The Second Piatigorsky Cup had Petrosian and Spassky, Bobby Fischer,
> > Samuel Reshevsky, Bent Larsen (Denmark), Lajos Portisch (Hungary),
> > Wolfgang Unzicker (West Germany), Miguel Najdorf (Argentina), Borislav
> > Ivkov (Yugoslavia), and Jan Hein Donner (Netherlands). It was a ten-
> > player double round robin.
>
> > Susan Polgar's SPICE Cup had Alexander Onischuk, Harikrishna Pentala,
> > Varuzhan Akobian, Leonid Kritz, Gregory Kaidanov, Julio Becerra,
> > Victor Mikhalevski, Kamil Miton, Hannes Stefansson and Eugene
> > Perelshteyn. It was a ten-player round robin.
>
> > Susan Polgar states that it is "debatable" which one was stronger, but
> > that her's was the strongest ten-player round robin because the Second
> > Piatigorsky Cup was a ten player double round-robin.
>
> > Do you think that it is "debatable"? If so, which side of this debate
> > would you like to take?
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> So, as I asked before, can you document Polgar actually saying that?

Susan wrote: "In both emails, I clearly did not use the word strongest
which may or may not be true but definitely highly debateable since
some other big tournaments were from different time and it is
difficult to compare. I clearly stated "Highest rated 10-player
international round robin chess tournament in U.S. history!" so that
there can be absolutely no dispute. It clearly defines as a 10-player
event, round robin and not double round robin, and it includes
International players so there would be no comparison to U.S.
championships.

Susan states above that it is "debateable" as the whether her SPICE
Cup won by Harikrishna Pentala was stronger than the Second
Piatigorsky won by Spassky.

So, I am asking you: Which side of this debate would you like to take?

Her claim that the SPICE CUP is the highest rated is not clear either.
Although FIDE Ratings did not exist in 1966, USCF ratings had been
long established. In spite of the tremendous rating inflation since
1966 it is still likely that the Second Piatigorsky was higher rated.

Also, remember that it is Susan who is aggressively attacking the New
York Times on her blog. The New York Times has no interest in pursuing
this debate.

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 11 Oct 2008 03:22:51
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times
Oct 11, 2:29 am, [email protected] wrote:
> samsloan wrote:
> > "It is sad to see a few people who have done virtually zero for chess
> > using the NY Times article to make wild attacks and insults toward
> > innocent people without even checking the facts.
>
> > "Best wishes,
> > "Susan Polgar
> > "http://www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
> > "http://www.SusanPolgar.com"
>
> This almost certainly refers to McClain pimping for your crackpot
> lawsuits, by printing your crazy allegations without any serious fact-
> checking. Whatever one thinks of Polgar and Truong, treating a
> vexatious litigant like you as a reliable source shows very poor
> judgment on McClain's part.
>
> > Have you noticed how Susan Polgar claims that her SPICE Cup was the
> > strongest RR tournament in US history because the Second Piatagorsky
> > Cup, with Fischer, Spassky and Petrosian, was a double round robin
> > whereas her tournament was only a single round robin?
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> Can you document Polgar actually saying that, or is it another of your
> hallucinations? The press release I saw described it as "the Highest
> Rated 10-player International Round-Robin in U.S. History," which is
> technically true -- FIDE didn't have a rating system in 1966. (It's
> also weasel-worded PR flackery, but that's another matter.)

The Second Piatigorsky Cup had Petrosian and Spassky, Bobby Fischer,
Samuel Reshevsky, Bent Larsen (Denmark), Lajos Portisch (Hungary),
Wolfgang Unzicker (West Germany), Miguel Najdorf (Argentina), Borislav
Ivkov (Yugoslavia), and Jan Hein Donner (Netherlands). It was a ten-
player double round robin.

Susan Polgar's SPICE Cup had Alexander Onischuk, Harikrishna Pentala,
Varuzhan Akobian, Leonid Kritz, Gregory Kaidanov, Julio Becerra,
Victor Mikhalevski, Kamil Miton, Hannes Stefansson and Eugene
Perelshteyn. It was a ten-player round robin.

Susan Polgar states that it is "debatable" which one was stronger, but
that her's was the strongest ten-player round robin because the Second
Piatigorsky Cup was a ten player double round-robin.

Do you think that it is "debatable"? If so, which side of this debate
would you like to take?

Sam Sloan


  
Date: 12 Oct 2008 01:38:54
From: Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
Subject: More honking of the wild sloon
samsloan wrote:
> Oct 11, 2:29 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > samsloan wrote:
> > > "It is sad to see a few people who have done virtually zero for chess
> > > using the NY Times article to make wild attacks and insults toward
> > > innocent people without even checking the facts.
> >
> > > "Best wishes,
> > > "Susan Polgar
> > > "http://www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
> > > "http://www.SusanPolgar.com"
> >
> > This almost certainly refers to McClain pimping for your crackpot
> > lawsuits, by printing your crazy allegations without any serious fact-
> > checking. Whatever one thinks of Polgar and Truong, treating a
> > vexatious litigant like you as a reliable source shows very poor
> > judgment on McClain's part.
> >
> > > Have you noticed how Susan Polgar claims that her SPICE Cup was the
> > > strongest RR tournament in US history because the Second Piatagorsky
> > > Cup, with Fischer, Spassky and Petrosian, was a double round robin
> > > whereas her tournament was only a single round robin?
> >
> > > Sam Sloan
> >
> > Can you document Polgar actually saying that, or is it another of your
> > hallucinations? The press release I saw described it as "the Highest
> > Rated 10-player International Round-Robin in U.S. History," which is
> > technically true -- FIDE didn't have a rating system in 1966. (It's
> > also weasel-worded PR flackery, but that's another matter.)
>
> The Second Piatigorsky Cup had Petrosian and Spassky, Bobby Fischer,
> Samuel Reshevsky, Bent Larsen (Denmark), Lajos Portisch (Hungary),
> Wolfgang Unzicker (West Germany), Miguel Najdorf (Argentina), Borislav
> Ivkov (Yugoslavia), and Jan Hein Donner (Netherlands). It was a ten-
> player double round robin.
>
> Susan Polgar's SPICE Cup had Alexander Onischuk, Harikrishna Pentala,
> Varuzhan Akobian, Leonid Kritz, Gregory Kaidanov, Julio Becerra,
> Victor Mikhalevski, Kamil Miton, Hannes Stefansson and Eugene
> Perelshteyn. It was a ten-player round robin.
>
> Susan Polgar states that it is "debatable" which one was stronger, but
> that her's was the strongest ten-player round robin because the Second
> Piatigorsky Cup was a ten player double round-robin.
>
> Do you think that it is "debatable"? If so, which side of this debate
> would you like to take?
>
> Sam Sloan


So, as I asked before, can you document Polgar actually saying that?















































 
Date: 10 Oct 2008 23:29:55
From:
Subject: honking of the wild Sloon

samsloan wrote:
> "It is sad to see a few people who have done virtually zero for chess
> using the NY Times article to make wild attacks and insults toward
> innocent people without even checking the facts.
>
> "Best wishes,
> "Susan Polgar
> " http://www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
> " http://www.SusanPolgar.com "


This almost certainly refers to McClain pimping for your crackpot
lawsuits, by printing your crazy allegations without any serious fact-
checking. Whatever one thinks of Polgar and Truong, treating a
vexatious litigant like you as a reliable source shows very poor
judgment on McClain's part.


> Have you noticed how Susan Polgar claims that her SPICE Cup was the
> strongest RR tournament in US history because the Second Piatagorsky
> Cup, with Fischer, Spassky and Petrosian, was a double round robin
> whereas her tournament was only a single round robin?
>
> Sam Sloan


Can you document Polgar actually saying that, or is it another of your
hallucinations? The press release I saw described it as "the Highest
Rated 10-player International Round-Robin in U.S. History," which is
technically true -- FIDE didn't have a rating system in 1966. (It's
also weasel-worded PR flackery, but that's another matter.)




 
Date: 10 Oct 2008 19:29:34
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times
Here is another attack by Susan Polgar:

"If picking on one debateable sentence written by a non-chess player
out of more than one hundred from SPICE makes better news for the NY
Times then so be it. I cannot control what is written in the NY Times.

"My last response to Mr. McClain was:

"Thank you Dylan for covering the SPICE Cup.

"Best wishes,
"Susan Polgar

"It is sad to see a few people who have done virtually zero for chess
using the NY Times article to make wild attacks and insults toward
innocent people without even checking the facts.

"Best wishes,
"Susan Polgar
" http://www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
" http://www.SusanPolgar.com "

http://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1526

However, the "wild attacks" are coming from Susan Polgar and her
cronies against the New York Times and its reporter, not the other way
around. The Times report was accurate. Texas Tech University announced
that the tournament was the strongest in US history. That was not
true. It was not debatable. It was simply not true. Why does Susan
Polgar keep attacking the New York Times for writing a true and
accurate report of her event. Would she have preferred that the Times
not report on the event at all? And who is making "wild insults"
here? Anybody other than Susan Polgar?

Have you noticed how Susan Polgar claims that her SPICE Cup was the
strongest RR tournament in US history because the Second Piatagorsky
Cup, with Fischer, Spassky and Petrosian, was a double round robin
whereas her tournament was only a single round robin?

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 10 Oct 2008 19:14:13
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times
Here is the latest attack piece by Susan Polgar:

"In both emails, I clearly did not use the word strongest which may or
may not be true but definitely highly debateable since some other big
tournaments were from different time and it is difficult to compare. I
clearly stated "Highest rated 10-player international round robin
chess tournament in U.S. history!" so that there can be absolutely no
dispute. It clearly defines as a 10-player event, round robin and not
double round robin, and it includes International players so there
would be no comparison to U.S. championships.

"I also sent the same info to over 40 media (chess and non-chess)
sources."

"Susan Polgar
"http://www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
"http://www.SusanPolgar.com"

http://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1526

However, the New York Times did not say that Susan herself said that
the SPICE tournament was the strongest in US history. Rather, the New
York Times said that Texas Tech University said that, which was
correct, because Texas Tech University clearly did say that.

So, why is Susan Polgar attacking the New York Times and its reporter?

Sam Sloan



 
Date: 09 Oct 2008 05:21:26
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times
On Oct 8, 4:54 am, J=FCrgen R. <[email protected] > wrote:
> samsloan wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 11:49 pm, "Bob" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> samsloan wrote:
> >>> Susan Polgar
>
> >> And yet Susan is still rated higher thatn any of
> >> these.http://main.uschess.org/assets/msa_joomla/MbrDtlMain.php?1245224=
0
>
> >> Just another problem with the USCF website. I suppose the list you
> >> cited was of "active" players, but this is just a guess and not sted
> >> on
> >> the website.
>
> >> --
>
> > Do you know of any sporting activity that ranks a person on what he or
> > she did years ago?
>
> Yes, I do: Chinese Chess. The Chinese have a ranking foreign players
> that takes no account of age, sexual orientation, religious prejudice,
> national origin or the ability to play Xiangqi. Consequently Sam Sloan
> runs around claiming that he won the World Championship in Chinese Chess,
> based on a tournament for amateurs, which nobody recorded,
> played many years ago.

Not true. The Event was called the "Seven Stars Cup" played in
Beijing, China in December, 1988. Only last August I went to San
Francisco and recovered some documents and photos from the event. If
anybody can read them and tell me more about them, please do so.

http://www.2008wmsg.org/en/news/2008-10-09/1649583.html

in my recent trip to San Francisco on August 15-23, 2008 in which I
was able to locate and recover some of my old possessions, including
scoresheets and photos from the comparable event in 1988 which was
called "The Seven Stars Cup".

Here is a picture of me playing in the competition. If anybody knows
the name of my opponent please tell me. He is likely to be a strong
and famous player.

http://www.anusha.com/cc-playing.jpg

Here is a group picture of the players and officials in the
tournament. There are many famous personalities in this picture. I am
standing at the far left wearing a red tie.

http://www.anusha.com/cc-officials.jpg

Here is a picture of me at a meeting of the "Preparatory Committee of
the World Chinese Chess Federation". I am sitting in the middle
wearing a white shirt and red tie. Frank C. Ing representing San
Francisco is to the far right.

http://www.anusha.com/cc-meeting.jpg

Here is a picture of me with Hu Long Hua, "The Bobby Fischer of
Chinese Chess". Hu Long Hua is by far the most famous player of
Chinese chess. His career closely paralleled that of Bobby Fischer
because he won the All China Championship, which was the same thing as
the world championship, in 1960 at age 15. He then proceeded to win it
ten times in a row. My daughter, Shamema, is standing to the right. We
are standing in front of the hotel where the event was played. If
anybody knows the name of the hotel, please let me know.

http://www.anusha.com/hu-sam-shamema.jpg

Here is a picture of my daughter Shamema standing on the Great Wall of
China. Shamema is the child who was kidnapped by the Jerry Falwell
Gang two years later and taken to America.

http://www.anusha.com/shamema-on-wall.jpg

Here is a picture of me standing in front of the cross table of the
event.

http://www.anusha.com/cc-sam-and-crosstable.jpg

Here is a picture of the cross table of the event. If anybody can read
and translate this, please do so. I believe that I am number 11 on the
cross table. I cannot figure out how this cross table works, but what
I remember is that it was a Swiss, everybody played two games with his
opponent, one with red, one with black. A win and a win scored one
point, the same as a win and a draw. This is because of the high
percentage of draws in Chinese chess plus red, who has the first move,
has a much bigger advantage than in chess.

By the way, I only won two games in the event, but that was an
accomplishment as it was an almost all grandmaster event. (I was one
of the few non-grandmasters). Both games I won were against a player
who was the Champion of Europe and has since written several books on
Chinese Chess, Mr. C. K. Lai.

http://www.anusha.com/cc-crosstable.jpg

The boy on the right was the big winner in the tournament, according
to my standards, not because he won the most games, but because he
married one of his opponents and took her back to England. She became
the champion of England in Chinese chess. He was not such a strong
player. I believe that I was beating him one of the two games I played
with him, but I blundered and lost.

http://www.anusha.com/cc-england-representative.jpg

Here is a demonstration board in Chinese chess. However, I believe
that this demo board is from the event in Singapore in 1990. If
anybody can translate the two names at the bottom, please do so.

http://www.anusha.com/cc-demo-board.jpg

I found about ten scoresheets of games played during the Seven Stars
Cup. I cannot read Chinese, especially not hand written Chinese, so I
do not know if these are the scoresheets of my games or the games of
other players. If anybody can tell me the names of the two players
here, please do so.

http://www.anusha.com/cc-scoresheet.jpg

Here is my best opponent from the event. Not the strongest but
certainly the most beautiful. Actually, I beat her. This was not from
the main event but a side event sponsored by a whiskey company.
Considering how beautiful some of these girls were, I am wondering
what they had in mind, especially since, as noted above, the player
from England married one of his opponents.

http://www.anusha.com/my-best-opponent.jpg

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 08 Oct 2008 10:25:22
From: none
Subject: Re: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times
On Oct 8, 4:20=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 7, 11:49=A0pm, "Bob" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > samsloan wrote:
> > > Susan Polgar
>
> > And yet Susan is still rated higher thatn any of these.http://main.usch=
ess.org/assets/msa_joomla/MbrDtlMain.php?12452240
>
> > Just another problem with the USCF website. I suppose the list you
> > cited was of "active" players, but this is just a guess and not sted on
> > the website.
>
> > --
>
> Do you know of any sporting activity that ranks a person on what he or
> she did years ago?
>
> Susan Polgar's chess activities were mostly in the 1980s. She retired
> as an active player in 1992 and has played only a few times since
> them. The last time she played in an open tournament was the 2005 US
> Amateur Team East where she bombed out, losing to a Class B player
> named Roberto Jose and drawing with the New York Times Reporter Dylan
> McClain.
>
> If Susan Polgar wants to prove that she is better than the current
> crop of young players whom she has never faced in competition, she
> needs to sit down and play them. Only then, will we see who is best.
>
> Sam Sloan

Do you know of any sporting activity that ranks a person on what he
or
she did years ago?

Yes, Karate, Bridge, Golf and Go


 
Date: 08 Oct 2008 08:31:52
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Horrible Polgar Woman, Exposed!
On Oct 8, 8:37=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

(Nothing worth reading, so I snipped it.)

From the subject line, I thought this was going to be another post
about the 'blue' video Susie Chesspiece allegedly made. Pity.


  
Date: 08 Oct 2008 20:19:32
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Horrible Polgar Woman, Exposed!

"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Oct 8, 8:37 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

(Nothing worth reading, so I snipped it.)

From the subject line, I thought this was going to be another post
about the 'blue' video Susie Chesspiece allegedly made. Pity.

**Here writes the nearest profile to you-know-who, the obsessive stalker and
abuser who never met a women he disliked, or a strong player either. 8 years
of this pattern can't mean nothing, can it? <wink >

PI




 
Date: 08 Oct 2008 08:28:34
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times
On Oct 8, 9:17=A0am, Brian Lafferty <[email protected] > wrote:
> samsloan wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 4:29 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> **Gosh - now Sam Sloan drops the ideas of ratings altogether - as if h=
e
> >> doesn't understand the issue - and it may seem so, since Sam Sloan at =
the
> >> same time also snipped the context of the very thing he complains abou=
t,
> >> while providing a ratings list - the dufus-like understanding of the
> >> Category 15 rr event has dissapeared entirely, as if those facts too w=
ere
> >> nothing to such as he. Much better to keep beggaring the truth of ever=
ything
> >> as some way to justify your own existance? Sloan's lists of things are
> >> longer than there are things to list, which includes various invention=
s, as
> >> if from the basis of an improbable understanding of what seems plain e=
nough
> >> to the vast majority of people. Sloan concludes as if my rating Susan =
Polgar
> >> was less than those listed, despite a couple of pretty strong performa=
nces
> >> against ex W Ch Karpov, scoring 50%, a player who could take Sloan's l=
ist on
> >> in a simul. Phil Innes =A0 [the usual newsgroups deleted, since Sloan =
adds
> >> them back in since the more confusion to his constant calumnys, the be=
tter.
>
> > Would somebody kindly explain or translate into English whatever it is
> > that Phil Innes is saying here?
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> I no longer think that translation of Innes is possible.

There was at one time an Innes Decoder Ring, but that seems to have
disappeared.


  
Date: 08 Oct 2008 20:17:35
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times
How irritable for Brennen to chip in with abuse. Naturally, he can address
the subject no more than the BRAIN nor Sloan could, and therefore offers up
his dumbth to them as some sort of idiotic celebration of their mutual
stupidity.

2 agencies of paid journalists get it wrong, and these goons say it is
someone else's fault.

I wonder what other geniuses will attempt some blame, and if they will
simply do as these morons have, or <wowa > attempt a reason? I personally
will not attend very heavily on their responses since I am no sadist, and
thought I merely said what was evident to ordinary chess folks.

Phil Innes


"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:dd6d30b4-77ff-4af0-a8bb-20c8408d2956@d70g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 8, 9:17 am, Brian Lafferty <[email protected] > wrote:
> samsloan wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 4:29 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> **Gosh - now Sam Sloan drops the ideas of ratings altogether - as if he
> >> doesn't understand the issue - and it may seem so, since Sam Sloan at
> >> the
> >> same time also snipped the context of the very thing he complains
> >> about,
> >> while providing a ratings list - the dufus-like understanding of the
> >> Category 15 rr event has dissapeared entirely, as if those facts too
> >> were
> >> nothing to such as he. Much better to keep beggaring the truth of
> >> everything
> >> as some way to justify your own existance? Sloan's lists of things are
> >> longer than there are things to list, which includes various
> >> inventions, as
> >> if from the basis of an improbable understanding of what seems plain
> >> enough
> >> to the vast majority of people. Sloan concludes as if my rating Susan
> >> Polgar
> >> was less than those listed, despite a couple of pretty strong
> >> performances
> >> against ex W Ch Karpov, scoring 50%, a player who could take Sloan's
> >> list on
> >> in a simul. Phil Innes [the usual newsgroups deleted, since Sloan adds
> >> them back in since the more confusion to his constant calumnys, the
> >> better.
>
> > Would somebody kindly explain or translate into English whatever it is
> > that Phil Innes is saying here?
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> I no longer think that translation of Innes is possible.

There was at one time an Innes Decoder Ring, but that seems to have
disappeared.




 
Date: 08 Oct 2008 07:29:59
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times
On Oct 8, 10:05=A0am, Javert <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 8, 4:20=A0am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 7, 11:49=A0pm, "Bob" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > samsloan wrote:
> > > > Susan Polgar
>
> > > And yet Susan is still rated higher thatn any of these.http://main.us=
chess.org/assets/msa_joomla/MbrDtlMain.php?12452240
>
> > > Just another problem with the USCF website. I suppose the list you
> > > cited was of "active" players, but this is just a guess and not sted =
on
> > > the website.
>
> > > --
>
> > Do you know of any sporting activity that ranks a person on what he or
> > she did years ago?
>
> > Susan Polgar's chess activities were mostly in the 1980s. She retired
> > as an active player in 1992 and has played only a few times since
> > them. The last time she played in an open tournament was the 2005 US
> > Amateur Team East where she bombed out, losing to a Class B player
> > named Roberto Jose and drawing with the New York Times Reporter Dylan
> > McClain.
>
> > If Susan Polgar wants to prove that she is better than the current
> > crop of young players whom she has never faced in competition, she
> > needs to sit down and play them. Only then, will we see who is best.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> Recent Olympiad ring any bells?
>
> I mostly agree with you, she isn't an active player and picks
> exhibition events, but that Olympiad performance speaks for itself.

Her Olympiad performance was not that recent. It was in 2004. That
was the last time she has ever played in FIDE rated competition.

Sam Sloan

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 08 Oct 2008 07:05:01
From: Javert
Subject: Re: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times
On Oct 8, 4:20=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 7, 11:49=A0pm, "Bob" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > samsloan wrote:
> > > Susan Polgar
>
> > And yet Susan is still rated higher thatn any of these.http://main.usch=
ess.org/assets/msa_joomla/MbrDtlMain.php?12452240
>
> > Just another problem with the USCF website. I suppose the list you
> > cited was of "active" players, but this is just a guess and not sted on
> > the website.
>
> > --
>
> Do you know of any sporting activity that ranks a person on what he or
> she did years ago?
>
> Susan Polgar's chess activities were mostly in the 1980s. She retired
> as an active player in 1992 and has played only a few times since
> them. The last time she played in an open tournament was the 2005 US
> Amateur Team East where she bombed out, losing to a Class B player
> named Roberto Jose and drawing with the New York Times Reporter Dylan
> McClain.
>
> If Susan Polgar wants to prove that she is better than the current
> crop of young players whom she has never faced in competition, she
> needs to sit down and play them. Only then, will we see who is best.
>
> Sam Sloan

Recent Olympiad ring any bells?

I mostly agree with you, she isn't an active player and picks
exhibition events, but that Olympiad performance speaks for itself.


 
Date: 08 Oct 2008 06:45:13
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times
On Oct 7, 4:29=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> **Gosh - now Sam Sloan drops the ideas of ratings altogether - as if he
> doesn't understand the issue - and it may seem so, since Sam Sloan at the
> same time also snipped the context of the very thing he complains about,
> while providing a ratings list - the dufus-like understanding of the
> Category 15 rr event has dissapeared entirely, as if those facts too were
> nothing to such as he. Much better to keep beggaring the truth of everyth=
ing
> as some way to justify your own existance? Sloan's lists of things are
> longer than there are things to list, which includes various inventions, =
as
> if from the basis of an improbable understanding of what seems plain enou=
gh
> to the vast majority of people. Sloan concludes as if my rating Susan Pol=
gar
> was less than those listed, despite a couple of pretty strong performance=
s
> against ex W Ch Karpov, scoring 50%, a player who could take Sloan's list=
on
> in a simul. Phil Innes =A0 [the usual newsgroups deleted, since Sloan add=
s
> them back in since the more confusion to his constant calumnys, the bette=
r.

Would somebody kindly explain or translate into English whatever it is
that Phil Innes is saying here?

Sam Sloan


  
Date: 08 Oct 2008 20:01:36
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times

"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Oct 7, 4:29 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> **Gosh - now Sam Sloan drops the ideas of ratings altogether - as if he
> doesn't understand the issue - and it may seem so, since Sam Sloan at the
> same time also snipped the context of the very thing he complains about,
> while providing a ratings list - the dufus-like understanding of the
> Category 15 rr event has dissapeared entirely, as if those facts too were
> nothing to such as he. Much better to keep beggaring the truth of
> everything
> as some way to justify your own existance? Sloan's lists of things are
> longer than there are things to list, which includes various inventions,
> as
> if from the basis of an improbable understanding of what seems plain
> enough
> to the vast majority of people. Sloan concludes as if my rating Susan
> Polgar
> was less than those listed, despite a couple of pretty strong performances
> against ex W Ch Karpov, scoring 50%, a player who could take Sloan's list
> on
> in a simul. Phil Innes [the usual newsgroups deleted, since Sloan adds
> them back in since the more confusion to his constant calumnys, the
> better.

Would somebody kindly explain or translate into English whatever it is
that Phil Innes is saying here?

**Sloan continues to pretend he is as thick as 2 planks, and whatever he
don't like he usually ignores - but here is stung! And decides to strike
back!

**But instead of admitting his complaint has no basis whatever [he doesn't
even contest it after being repeatedly challenged (he even deliberately cuts
the challenge <wink >], he pretends he can't understand that USCF and NY
Times got things wrong when they are both paid to get things right, and he
now can't understand that he personally initiated this thread to blame Susan
Polgar for it. [!]

**Sloan pretends he can't understand what he himself did. That is why Sloan
is an obsessed and idiotic whiner who is quite content to rubbish the first
category XV 10 player round-robin in the USA, because, as he previously
explained, he can't understand what that is from a hole in 1965.

**What we got here is as straight as the Sloan will ever get in his
reporting - and this is also what he seriously attached to a judge in order
that his legal case be reconsidered - which is fine in terms of rights to
complain, except that the judge should not think this is any objective
complaint, and that anyone else at all is confused by it as is Sloan.

**Unfortunately this level of 'honesty' is prominent in Sloan's reporting.
The meagre revelations of wrong-doing he uncovered while in USCF office he
managed to uncover are entirely covered over by such instances as this,
which resulted in none of them being acted upon and all forgotten already!

**Which makes even righteous complaints he raises become clouded by massive
noises resulting from his long-time and tedious personality stuff because he
couldn't ever get it together with the gal of his dreams, and presumably the
one he has ain't no dream at all? Besides, he does resent the foreigner who
did succeed... etc

**I don't really care much about that. But that it is true is very evident,
and maybe he can understand this English?

Phil Innes




Sam Sloan




  
Date: 08 Oct 2008 14:17:27
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times
samsloan wrote:
> On Oct 7, 4:29 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> **Gosh - now Sam Sloan drops the ideas of ratings altogether - as if he
>> doesn't understand the issue - and it may seem so, since Sam Sloan at the
>> same time also snipped the context of the very thing he complains about,
>> while providing a ratings list - the dufus-like understanding of the
>> Category 15 rr event has dissapeared entirely, as if those facts too were
>> nothing to such as he. Much better to keep beggaring the truth of everything
>> as some way to justify your own existance? Sloan's lists of things are
>> longer than there are things to list, which includes various inventions, as
>> if from the basis of an improbable understanding of what seems plain enough
>> to the vast majority of people. Sloan concludes as if my rating Susan Polgar
>> was less than those listed, despite a couple of pretty strong performances
>> against ex W Ch Karpov, scoring 50%, a player who could take Sloan's list on
>> in a simul. Phil Innes [the usual newsgroups deleted, since Sloan adds
>> them back in since the more confusion to his constant calumnys, the better.
>
> Would somebody kindly explain or translate into English whatever it is
> that Phil Innes is saying here?
>
> Sam Sloan

I no longer think that translation of Innes is possible.


   
Date: 08 Oct 2008 20:11:42
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times

"Brian Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> samsloan wrote:
>> On Oct 7, 4:29 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> **Gosh - now Sam Sloan drops the ideas of ratings altogether - as if he
>>> doesn't understand the issue - and it may seem so, since Sam Sloan at
>>> the
>>> same time also snipped the context of the very thing he complains about,
>>> while providing a ratings list - the dufus-like understanding of the
>>> Category 15 rr event has dissapeared entirely, as if those facts too
>>> were
>>> nothing to such as he. Much better to keep beggaring the truth of
>>> everything
>>> as some way to justify your own existance? Sloan's lists of things are
>>> longer than there are things to list, which includes various inventions,
>>> as
>>> if from the basis of an improbable understanding of what seems plain
>>> enough
>>> to the vast majority of people. Sloan concludes as if my rating Susan
>>> Polgar
>>> was less than those listed, despite a couple of pretty strong
>>> performances
>>> against ex W Ch Karpov, scoring 50%, a player who could take Sloan's
>>> list on
>>> in a simul. Phil Innes [the usual newsgroups deleted, since Sloan adds
>>> them back in since the more confusion to his constant calumnys, the
>>> better.
>>
>> Would somebody kindly explain or translate into English whatever it is
>> that Phil Innes is saying here?
>>
>> Sam Sloan
>
> I no longer think that translation of Innes is possible.

Let us agree with the first part of your sentence "I no longer think...",
since there is no evidence of it whatsoever in your indolent and lethargic
replies, which do not even attempt to address any issue, and argue for your
own ignorance. Why you should profess this in public is only of interest to
me, since you yourself, ipso facto, will not understand your dumbth.

Phil Innes




    
Date: 09 Oct 2008 00:15:42
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times
Chess One wrote:
> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> samsloan wrote:
>>> On Oct 7, 4:29 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> **Gosh - now Sam Sloan drops the ideas of ratings altogether - as if he
>>>> doesn't understand the issue - and it may seem so, since Sam Sloan at
>>>> the
>>>> same time also snipped the context of the very thing he complains about,
>>>> while providing a ratings list - the dufus-like understanding of the
>>>> Category 15 rr event has dissapeared entirely, as if those facts too
>>>> were
>>>> nothing to such as he. Much better to keep beggaring the truth of
>>>> everything
>>>> as some way to justify your own existance? Sloan's lists of things are
>>>> longer than there are things to list, which includes various inventions,
>>>> as
>>>> if from the basis of an improbable understanding of what seems plain
>>>> enough
>>>> to the vast majority of people. Sloan concludes as if my rating Susan
>>>> Polgar
>>>> was less than those listed, despite a couple of pretty strong
>>>> performances
>>>> against ex W Ch Karpov, scoring 50%, a player who could take Sloan's
>>>> list on
>>>> in a simul. Phil Innes [the usual newsgroups deleted, since Sloan adds
>>>> them back in since the more confusion to his constant calumnys, the
>>>> better.
>>> Would somebody kindly explain or translate into English whatever it is
>>> that Phil Innes is saying here?
>>>
>>> Sam Sloan
>> I no longer think that translation of Innes is possible.
>
> Let us agree with the first part of your sentence "I no longer think...",
> since there is no evidence of it whatsoever in your indolent and lethargic
> replies, which do not even attempt to address any issue, and argue for your
> own ignorance. Why you should profess this in public is only of interest to
> me, since you yourself, ipso facto, will not understand your dumbth.
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
Oh boy, do I ever feel spanked by Innes. ;-) To the point, it is
impossible to address any issue you might raise because your writing is
so deficient in syntax and, probably, content.


     
Date: 09 Oct 2008 13:45:15
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 00:15:42 GMT, Brian Lafferty
<[email protected] > wrote:


>Oh boy, do I ever feel spanked by Innes. ;-)

Careful here.


   
Date: 08 Oct 2008 15:37:19
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times

"Brian Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> samsloan wrote:
>> On Oct 7, 4:29 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> **Gosh - now Sam Sloan drops the ideas of ratings altogether - as if he
>>> doesn't understand the issue - and it may seem so, since Sam Sloan at the
>>> same time also snipped the context of the very thing he complains about,
>>> while providing a ratings list - the dufus-like understanding of the
>>> Category 15 rr event has dissapeared entirely, as if those facts too were
>>> nothing to such as he. Much better to keep beggaring the truth of everything
>>> as some way to justify your own existance? Sloan's lists of things are
>>> longer than there are things to list, which includes various inventions, as
>>> if from the basis of an improbable understanding of what seems plain enough
>>> to the vast majority of people. Sloan concludes as if my rating Susan Polgar
>>> was less than those listed, despite a couple of pretty strong performances
>>> against ex W Ch Karpov, scoring 50%, a player who could take Sloan's list on
>>> in a simul. Phil Innes [the usual newsgroups deleted, since Sloan adds
>>> them back in since the more confusion to his constant calumnys, the better.
>>
>> Would somebody kindly explain or translate into English whatever it is
>> that Phil Innes is saying here?
>>
>> Sam Sloan
>
> I no longer think that translation of Innes is possible.

or desirable.



    
Date: 08 Oct 2008 20:45:13
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times
David Kane does not argue about

" the dufus-like understanding of the
Category 15 rr event has disappeared entirely"

and is content to say the topic is 'not desirable', and brown-noses the
Brain

[unless of course he admits 'not understanding' things he doesn't like on
purpose

or

is capable of saying what he doesn't understand, which he fails to do]

pi

Four idiots are always wrong - Confucius



"David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> samsloan wrote:
>>> On Oct 7, 4:29 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> **Gosh - now Sam Sloan drops the ideas of ratings altogether - as if he
>>>> doesn't understand the issue - and it may seem so, since Sam Sloan at
>>>> the
>>>> same time also snipped the context of the very thing he complains
>>>> about,
>>>> while providing a ratings list - the dufus-like understanding of the
>>>> Category 15 rr event has dissapeared entirely, as if those facts too
>>>> were
>>>> nothing to such as he. Much better to keep beggaring the truth of
>>>> everything
>>>> as some way to justify your own existance? Sloan's lists of things are
>>>> longer than there are things to list, which includes various
>>>> inventions, as
>>>> if from the basis of an improbable understanding of what seems plain
>>>> enough
>>>> to the vast majority of people. Sloan concludes as if my rating Susan
>>>> Polgar
>>>> was less than those listed, despite a couple of pretty strong
>>>> performances
>>>> against ex W Ch Karpov, scoring 50%, a player who could take Sloan's
>>>> list on
>>>> in a simul. Phil Innes [the usual newsgroups deleted, since Sloan
>>>> adds
>>>> them back in since the more confusion to his constant calumnys, the
>>>> better.
>>>
>>> Would somebody kindly explain or translate into English whatever it is
>>> that Phil Innes is saying here?
>>>
>>> Sam Sloan
>>
>> I no longer think that translation of Innes is possible.
>
> or desirable.




 
Date: 08 Oct 2008 01:20:01
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times
On Oct 7, 11:49=A0pm, "Bob" <[email protected] > wrote:
> samsloan wrote:
> > Susan Polgar
>
> And yet Susan is still rated higher thatn any of these.http://main.usches=
s.org/assets/msa_joomla/MbrDtlMain.php?12452240
>
> Just another problem with the USCF website. I suppose the list you
> cited was of "active" players, but this is just a guess and not sted on
> the website.
>
> --

Do you know of any sporting activity that ranks a person on what he or
she did years ago?

Susan Polgar's chess activities were mostly in the 1980s. She retired
as an active player in 1992 and has played only a few times since
them. The last time she played in an open tournament was the 2005 US
Amateur Team East where she bombed out, losing to a Class B player
named Roberto Jose and drawing with the New York Times Reporter Dylan
McClain.

If Susan Polgar wants to prove that she is better than the current
crop of young players whom she has never faced in competition, she
needs to sit down and play them. Only then, will we see who is best.

Sam Sloan


  
Date: 08 Oct 2008 10:54:44
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: AW: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times
samsloan wrote:
> On Oct 7, 11:49 pm, "Bob" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> samsloan wrote:
>>> Susan Polgar
>>
>> And yet Susan is still rated higher thatn any of
>> these.http://main.uschess.org/assets/msa_joomla/MbrDtlMain.php?12452240
>>
>> Just another problem with the USCF website. I suppose the list you
>> cited was of "active" players, but this is just a guess and not sted
>> on
>> the website.
>>
>> --
>
> Do you know of any sporting activity that ranks a person on what he or
> she did years ago?

Yes, I do: Chinese Chess. The Chinese have a ranking foreign players
that takes no account of age, sexual orientation, religious prejudice,
national origin or the ability to play Xiangqi. Consequently Sam Sloan
runs around claiming that he won the World Championship in Chinese Chess,
based on a tournament for amateurs, which nobody recorded,
played many years ago.

>
> Susan Polgar's chess activities were mostly in the 1980s. She retired
> as an active player in 1992 and has played only a few times since
> them. The last time she played in an open tournament was the 2005 US
> Amateur Team East where she bombed out, losing to a Class B player
> named Roberto Jose and drawing with the New York Times Reporter Dylan
> McClain.
>
> If Susan Polgar wants to prove that she is better than the current
> crop of young players whom she has never faced in competition, she
> needs to sit down and play them. Only then, will we see who is best.
>
> Sam Sloan


 
Date: 07 Oct 2008 12:29:08
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times
On Oct 7, 1:52=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> If the announcement said that it was "the highest rated tournament
> under the FIDE rating system since 1970" few would have disputed it.


It is interesting to try to determine how much of this is needed
criticism in the name of accuracy and how much of it is a tempest in a
teacup.

You see this sort of thing all the time. In Tim Taylor's Pawn
Sacrifice!, blurbs refer both to the book as a pioneering work and an
"in-depth study." It is not a bad little book at all, but it really is
neither of those things, something of the first and none of the
second. But having published a few books, I know how blurb-writers get
carried away (and the author doesn't always see those or sometimes
have much say), so I wouldn't doubt that some PR guy at TTU did the
same thing. But you do have to advertise in this world. And that makes
for exaggerated copy.

The NYT report seems accurate, and hardly worth all the effort Polgar
and her followers put into disputing it, but they seem to live for
this sort of controversy, as does Sloan. I am beginning to find the
whole group "birds of a feather." It's the chess equivalent of the
Hatfields and McCoys.

It strikes me as the sort of thing best ignored, get on to the next
even stronger SPICE tournament, etc. Let the naysayers chatter.




 
Date: 07 Oct 2008 11:52:43
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times
On Oct 7, 2:44=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Oct 7, 2:30=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 7, 2:17=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 7, 6:34=A0am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 6, 11:34=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > Take a look at:http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2008/10/spice-cup.=
html
>
> > > > > Through her ubiquitous "anonymous" posters, Susan Polgar is attac=
king
> > > > > the New York Times, demanding that its reporter be fired.
>
> > > > > He had better watch out. Next thing, Susan Polgar will sue his as=
s,
> > > > > claiming that he is persecuting her because she is a woman and of
> > > > > foreign descent.
>
> > > > > Sam Sloan
>
> > > > Also, take a look athttp://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic=
.php?f=3D4&t=3D1526
>
> > > > Under the header "Questionable journalism?"
> > > > Susan Polgar and Gregory Alexander are attacking the New York Times
> > > > for "nit-picking".
>
> > > > Sam Sloan
>
> > > =A0 What is the NY Times reporter's source for his statement that "Te=
xas
> > > Tech said the Spice Cup was the strongest invitational tournament to
> > > be held in the United States"? Who at Texas Tech said this, when,
> > > where? Did any such statement actually appear anywhere under Texas
> > > Tech auspices?
> > > =A0 It does not appear that Polgar herself has issued any such
> > > statement; rather, she said "the 2008 SPICE Cup [will be] the highest
> > > rated 10 person International RR event in U.S. history." That's not a=
t
> > > all the same thing as McClain reports.
>
> > The New York Times quoted a press release from Texas Tech that has
> > been on the USCF website since July 10, 2008. If this was wrong Susan
> > had an obligation as a USCF Board member and as director of the SPICE
> > Program to correct it:
>
> >http://main.uschess.org/content/view/8558/319/
>
> =A0 Couldn't get that link to work.
>
> > 2008 SPICE Cup to Break Records =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Print =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 E-mail
> > By Cory Chandler
> > July 12, 2008
> > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> > DATE: July 10, 2008
> > CONTACT: Cory Chandler, [email protected]
> > (806) 742-2136
>
> > 2008 SPICE Cup is the Highest Rated 10-player International Round-
> > Robin in U.S. History
>
> > Texas Tech University=92s Susan Polgar Institute for Chess Excellence
> > announced Thursday it has assembled the strongest field of chess
> > grandmasters in U.S. round-robin history for its 2008 SPICE Cup
> > International Invitational Tournament.
>
> =A0 =A0Hmmm, I see. Thank you. The headline is accurate, but the sentence
> following is highly questionable.

Right, it says:

Texas Tech University=92s Susan Polgar Institute for Chess Excellence
announced Thursday it has assembled the strongest field of chess
grandmasters in U.S. round-robin history.

US history starts in 1789. The USCF rating system started in 1950 and
the FIDE rating system started in 1970.

If the announcement said that it was "the highest rated tournament
under the FIDE rating system since 1970" few would have disputed it.

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 07 Oct 2008 11:44:55
From:
Subject: Re: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times
On Oct 7, 2:30=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 7, 2:17=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 7, 6:34=A0am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 6, 11:34=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Take a look at:http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2008/10/spice-cup.ht=
ml
>
> > > > Through her ubiquitous "anonymous" posters, Susan Polgar is attacki=
ng
> > > > the New York Times, demanding that its reporter be fired.
>
> > > > He had better watch out. Next thing, Susan Polgar will sue his ass,
> > > > claiming that he is persecuting her because she is a woman and of
> > > > foreign descent.
>
> > > > Sam Sloan
>
> > > Also, take a look athttp://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.p=
hp?f=3D4&t=3D1526
>
> > > Under the header "Questionable journalism?"
> > > Susan Polgar and Gregory Alexander are attacking the New York Times
> > > for "nit-picking".
>
> > > Sam Sloan
>
> > =A0 What is the NY Times reporter's source for his statement that "Texa=
s
> > Tech said the Spice Cup was the strongest invitational tournament to
> > be held in the United States"? Who at Texas Tech said this, when,
> > where? Did any such statement actually appear anywhere under Texas
> > Tech auspices?
> > =A0 It does not appear that Polgar herself has issued any such
> > statement; rather, she said "the 2008 SPICE Cup [will be] the highest
> > rated 10 person International RR event in U.S. history." That's not at
> > all the same thing as McClain reports.
>
> The New York Times quoted a press release from Texas Tech that has
> been on the USCF website since July 10, 2008. If this was wrong Susan
> had an obligation as a USCF Board member and as director of the SPICE
> Program to correct it:
>
> http://main.uschess.org/content/view/8558/319/

Couldn't get that link to work.

> 2008 SPICE Cup to Break Records =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Print =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=
=A0 E-mail
> By Cory Chandler
> July 12, 2008
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> DATE: July 10, 2008
> CONTACT: Cory Chandler, [email protected]
> (806) 742-2136
>
> 2008 SPICE Cup is the Highest Rated 10-player International Round-
> Robin in U.S. History
>
> Texas Tech University=92s Susan Polgar Institute for Chess Excellence
> announced Thursday it has assembled the strongest field of chess
> grandmasters in U.S. round-robin history for its 2008 SPICE Cup
> International Invitational Tournament.

Hmmm, I see. Thank you. The headline is accurate, but the sentence
following is highly questionable.


 
Date: 07 Oct 2008 11:30:04
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times
On Oct 7, 2:17=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Oct 7, 6:34=A0am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 6, 11:34=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Take a look at:http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2008/10/spice-cup.html
>
> > > Through her ubiquitous "anonymous" posters, Susan Polgar is attacking
> > > the New York Times, demanding that its reporter be fired.
>
> > > He had better watch out. Next thing, Susan Polgar will sue his ass,
> > > claiming that he is persecuting her because she is a woman and of
> > > foreign descent.
>
> > > Sam Sloan
>
> > Also, take a look athttp://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php=
?f=3D4&t=3D1526
>
> > Under the header "Questionable journalism?"
> > Susan Polgar and Gregory Alexander are attacking the New York Times
> > for "nit-picking".
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> =A0 What is the NY Times reporter's source for his statement that "Texas
> Tech said the Spice Cup was the strongest invitational tournament to
> be held in the United States"? Who at Texas Tech said this, when,
> where? Did any such statement actually appear anywhere under Texas
> Tech auspices?
> =A0 It does not appear that Polgar herself has issued any such
> statement; rather, she said "the 2008 SPICE Cup [will be] the highest
> rated 10 person International RR event in U.S. history." That's not at
> all the same thing as McClain reports.

The New York Times quoted a press release from Texas Tech that has
been on the USCF website since July 10, 2008. If this was wrong Susan
had an obligation as a USCF Board member and as director of the SPICE
Program to correct it:

http://main.uschess.org/content/view/8558/319/

2008 SPICE Cup to Break Records Print E-mail
By Cory Chandler
July 12, 2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
DATE: July 10, 2008
CONTACT: Cory Chandler, [email protected]
(806) 742-2136

2008 SPICE Cup is the Highest Rated 10-player International Round-
Robin in U.S. History

Texas Tech University=92s Susan Polgar Institute for Chess Excellence
announced Thursday it has assembled the strongest field of chess
grandmasters in U.S. round-robin history for its 2008 SPICE Cup
International Invitational Tournament.


 
Date: 07 Oct 2008 11:17:02
From:
Subject: Re: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times
On Oct 7, 6:34=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 6, 11:34=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Take a look at:http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2008/10/spice-cup.html
>
> > Through her ubiquitous "anonymous" posters, Susan Polgar is attacking
> > the New York Times, demanding that its reporter be fired.
>
> > He had better watch out. Next thing, Susan Polgar will sue his ass,
> > claiming that he is persecuting her because she is a woman and of
> > foreign descent.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> Also, take a look athttp://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=
=3D4&t=3D1526
>
> Under the header "Questionable journalism?"
> Susan Polgar and Gregory Alexander are attacking the New York Times
> for "nit-picking".
>
> Sam Sloan

What is the NY Times reporter's source for his statement that "Texas
Tech said the Spice Cup was the strongest invitational tournament to
be held in the United States"? Who at Texas Tech said this, when,
where? Did any such statement actually appear anywhere under Texas
Tech auspices?
It does not appear that Polgar herself has issued any such
statement; rather, she said "the 2008 SPICE Cup [will be] the highest
rated 10 person International RR event in U.S. history." That's not at
all the same thing as McClain reports.


  
Date: 08 Oct 2008 09:37:20
From: Chess One
Subject: Horrible Polgar Woman, Exposed!

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Oct 7, 6:34 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 6, 11:34 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:

SLOAN'S REMARKS, PART UNO

The two statements:

"Texas Tech said the Spice Cup was the strongest invitational tournament to
be held in the United States" - NY Times

"the 2008 SPICE Cup [will be] the highest rated 10 person International RR
event in U.S. history." - SPICE

ARE FOLLOWED HIS THOUGHTS

"The New York Times quoted a press release from Texas Tech that has
been on the USCF website since July 10, 2008. If this was wrong Susan
had an obligation as a USCF Board member and as director of the SPICE
Program to correct it:" - Sam Sloan

What Sam Sloan avoids in his complicated sentence, is that the New York
Times failed to look at a primary source for its news, and repeated USCF's
mis-reporting.

According to Sam Sloan this is Susan Polgar's fault, although she issued a
correct version at SPICE, she, according to Sloan, had an obligation to
correct edited versions that proved to be contentious, and, passim, USCF and
NY Times have no such obligation.

So... when she did correct the NY Times, Sam Sloan began this thread and
said she is 'attacking', in his own words, NY Times.

Therefore we got a correct version of the event from SPICE: then by unknown
means and unknown editorial persons, an abbreviated version at USCF - which
again, by unknown means the NY Times cited, rather than the source - which I
must presume any chess writer would have known to reference.

SLOAN'S REMARKS, PART DUH

"Texas Tech University's Susan Polgar Institute for Chess Excellence
announced Thursday it has assembled the strongest field of chess
grandmasters in U.S. round-robin history.

US history starts in 1789. The USCF rating system started in 1950 and
the FIDE rating system started in 1970.

If the announcement said that it was "the highest rated tournament
under the FIDE rating system since 1970" few would have disputed it."

AND FEW DID DISPUTE

And I think few disputed the highest Category 10-player rr event in US
history since there /were/ none before 1970, and so on, the events not
existing as Category-based chess tournaments before that time - and so such
clarification would be entirely redundent - it would make a distinction
without a difference.

WHERE POLGAR WAS WRONG

Evidently Susan Polgar continues to think erroneously that some Americans do
not require these history lessons whenever a tournament is announced,
expanded to essay length and adjusted to the weakest understanding,
explaining the very origins of the Category system of tournaments, plus the
intermediate history of such events in the United States - all this being
necessary background for current tournament announcements - which do not
need adjustment! But justification to the aforesaid weak-minded who
challenge everything whether they know anything or not.

And she completely fails to understand that people who do not know this
information like the NY Times, and those who do know this information like
Sam Sloan, nevertheless require it to be spelled out at great length.

The chess public itself does /not/ require this, since they perhaps were
never discontent or confused with the original SPICE series of
announcements, or the actually chess issuing from the event? Susan Polgar's
error has been to only present her tournament information to the chess
public, and not to *special* person's understandings, such as chess
politicians and certain chess [paid] reporters who presumably have *special*
understandings of things than have the chess public.

If NY Times and USCF got her information wrong - and they have paid chess
editors and reporters - she should adjust her attitude to the professional
realm of reporting, since it seems clearly indicated by Sam Sloan's writing
here that *special* is often an American euphemism for *lesser*. Sam Sloan
clearly understands the specialness of NY Times and USCF's editors, since he
finds no fault with them whatever, and as such achieves a form of empathy
with their hapless state.

WHO'LL BE THE JUDGE?

I hope the poor Justice who receives the current complaint from Sam Sloan
will take heart from the fact that We the Chess People are not nearly as
*special* as the complainant, and understand instead that this horrible
Polgar woman has put on a level of chess tournament never before witnessed
in the United States, at no cost whatever to the public purse, nor to the US
Chess Federation, and the free boradcast of the games by the MonRoi company
has been received by much acclaim by We, the Chess People, who overall are
content to welcome and remark on the quality of the chess to which we are
exposed.

Phil Innes
Vermont









 
Date: 07 Oct 2008 10:47:13
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times
On Oct 7, 1:34=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> Who then is the #1 ranked? Is there really any woman with a stronger rati=
ng
> in the US? I thought Susan Polgar was about 100 points clear of all rival=
s -
> but perhaps Sam Sloan will now think I 'attack' him, rather than address =
a
> plain fact?
>
> Phil Innes

Thank you for asking.

This information is available on the USCF website:

http://main.uschess.org/component/option,com_top_players/Itemid,371?op=3Dli=
st&month=3D0810&f=3DTopWomen&h=3DTop%20Women

Here are the top ten players in the USA:

1 Zatonskih, Anna (12873912) NY USA 2498
2 Krush, Irina (12543137) NY USA 2493
3 Goletiani, Rusudan (12807449) NY USA 2384
4 Rohonyan, Katerine (12973020) WA USA 2335
5 Abrahamyan, Tatev (12851435) CA USA 2328
6 Tuvshintugs, Batchimeg (12925481) CA USA 2312
7 Melekhina, Alisa (12726115) PA USA 2310
8 Shahade, Jennifer (20058274) PA USA 2301
9 Battsetseg, Tsagaan (12719650) MD USA 2256
10 Zenyuk, Iryna (12846035) NY USA 2249

As you can plainly see, Susan Polgar is not even in the top ten.

Sam Sloan


  
Date: 08 Oct 2008 03:49:38
From: Bob
Subject: Re: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times
samsloan wrote:

> Susan Polgar

And yet Susan is still rated higher thatn any of these.
http://main.uschess.org/assets/msa_joomla/MbrDtlMain.php?12452240

Just another problem with the USCF website. I suppose the list you
cited was of "active" players, but this is just a guess and not sted on
the website.





--



  
Date: 07 Oct 2008 16:29:53
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times

"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Oct 7, 1:34 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> Who then is the #1 ranked? Is there really any woman with a stronger
> rating
> in the US? I thought Susan Polgar was about 100 points clear of all
> rivals -
> but perhaps Sam Sloan will now think I 'attack' him, rather than address a
> plain fact?
>
> Phil Innes

Thank you for asking.

This information is available on the USCF website:

http://main.uschess.org/component/option,com_top_players/Itemid,371?op=list&month=0810&f=TopWomen&h=Top%20Women

Here are the top ten players in the USA:


**Gosh - now Sam Sloan drops the ideas of ratings altogether - as if he
doesn't understand the issue - and it may seem so, since Sam Sloan at the
same time also snipped the context of the very thing he complains about,
while providing a ratings list - the dufus-like understanding of the
Category 15 rr event has dissapeared entirely, as if those facts too were
nothing to such as he. Much better to keep beggaring the truth of everything
as some way to justify your own existance? Sloan's lists of things are
longer than there are things to list, which includes various inventions, as
if from the basis of an improbable understanding of what seems plain enough
to the vast majority of people. Sloan concludes as if my rating Susan Polgar
was less than those listed, despite a couple of pretty strong performances
against ex W Ch Karpov, scoring 50%, a player who could take Sloan's list on
in a simul. Phil Innes [the usual newsgroups deleted, since Sloan adds
them back in since the more confusion to his constant calumnys, the better.



1 Zatonskih, Anna (12873912) NY USA 2498
2 Krush, Irina (12543137) NY USA 2493
3 Goletiani, Rusudan (12807449) NY USA 2384
4 Rohonyan, Katerine (12973020) WA USA 2335
5 Abrahamyan, Tatev (12851435) CA USA 2328
6 Tuvshintugs, Batchimeg (12925481) CA USA 2312
7 Melekhina, Alisa (12726115) PA USA 2310
8 Shahade, Jennifer (20058274) PA USA 2301
9 Battsetseg, Tsagaan (12719650) MD USA 2256
10 Zenyuk, Iryna (12846035) NY USA 2249

As you can plainly see, Susan Polgar is not even in the top ten.

Sam Sloan




 
Date: 07 Oct 2008 05:51:20
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times
Susan Polgar organized a tournament with ten players that nobody ever
heard of but all of whom have very high ratings.

She deserves full credit for that.

All she had to do was say that it was "one of the strongest
tournaments ever heard in the USA" and everybody would have agreed.

But her publicist had to say that it was the "strongest". That is
where the trouble lies.

Now, it is entirely possible that Pentala Harikrishna, Alexander
Onischuk, Varuzhan Akobian and Leonid Kritz really are stronger than
Capablanca, Lasker and Alekhine who played in New York 1924. We will
never know because Capablanca, Lasker and Alekhine are all dead and
Pentala Harikrishna, Alexander Onischuk, Varuzhan Akobian and Leonid
Kritz all come armed with computer databases that have figured out
their opening moves before they even sit down to play.

It is also possible that Pentala Harikrishna, Alexander Onischuk,
Varuzhan Akobian and Leonid Kritz are stronger than Fischer, Spassky
and Petrosian who played in the Piatagorsky Cup. Nobody will ever
really know.

But Polgar's puffery comes along with her claim that she won the
Woman's World Championship four times, when she did not, that she won
the "Triple Crown of Chess" when there is no such title and that she
is the number one ranked woman in the USA when she is not.

Sam Sloan


  
Date: 07 Oct 2008 13:34:51
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times

"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:8149e5df-3c5c-44c5-9bc5-20adb4953516@t41g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> Susan Polgar organized a tournament with ten players that nobody ever
> heard of but all of whom have very high ratings.
>
> She deserves full credit for that.
>
> All she had to do was say that it was "one of the strongest
> tournaments ever heard in the USA" and everybody would have agreed.
>
> But her publicist had to say that it was the "strongest". That is
> where the trouble lies.
>
> Now, it is entirely possible that Pentala Harikrishna, Alexander
> Onischuk, Varuzhan Akobian and Leonid Kritz really are stronger than
> Capablanca, Lasker and Alekhine who played in New York 1924. We will
> never know because Capablanca, Lasker and Alekhine are all dead and
> Pentala Harikrishna, Alexander Onischuk, Varuzhan Akobian and Leonid
> Kritz all come armed with computer databases that have figured out
> their opening moves before they even sit down to play.
>
> It is also possible that Pentala Harikrishna, Alexander Onischuk,
> Varuzhan Akobian and Leonid Kritz are stronger than Fischer, Spassky
> and Petrosian who played in the Piatagorsky Cup. Nobody will ever
> really know.

Sam Sloan continues to speak for nobody - by stating that it is unknown if 4
players he mentions are stronger than 3 others he mentions.

Surely the very simply point that McClain and Sloan miss is that the
CATEGORY is achieved by averaged ELO, and of the strongest field of chess
grandmasters in U.S. round-robin history. Note the round-robin.

Either commentators will cite a stronger category of tournament or give up
the point. This includes the time when there were no category numbers and no
rating systems - since obviously those cannot be compared with when there
was.

That would be to unspin the issue. The 'attack' on the NY Times requests
that their reporter take note of these circumstances, rather than equivocate
about not-knowing, as does our own Sloan. As an attack, it seems very mild
indeed to remind journalist McClain to get things right.

Nothing here to even argue about except of course if certain heros of the
group want to retrogressively revert older tournaments into rated ones, and
thereby achieve a Category. A sort of opposite to science-fiction exercise,
when we can all pretend Lasker would have beaten Fischer, and Marshall
Topalov. But that sort of stuff is merely for fantascists.

Here we got yet another storm from Sam Sloan who continues to be obsessed by
Susan Polgar to the degree that he continuously invents who she is in such a
way as to sustain his somewhat dark and injured fascination.

> But Polgar's puffery comes along with her claim that she won the
> Woman's World Championship four times, when she did not, that she won
> the "Triple Crown of Chess" when there is no such title and that she
> is the number one ranked woman in the USA when she is not.

Who then is the #1 ranked? Is there really any woman with a stronger rating
in the US? I thought Susan Polgar was about 100 points clear of all rivals -
but perhaps Sam Sloan will now think I 'attack' him, rather than address a
plain fact?

Phil Innes

these newsgroups snipped:
alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.analysis

> Sam Sloan




 
Date: 07 Oct 2008 03:56:01
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times
On Oct 7, 5:23=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> As for the anonymous trolls, what part of "anonymous" is confusing to you=
? For
> all we know, they could be you, trying to discredit Polgar by
> pretending to be an insane supporter.

Sorry, but I know exactly what "anonymous trolls" means on Polgar's
websites.

It means something that Polgar or Truong wrote that they do not want
to sign their names too.

There are hundreds of examples of this. Some "anonymous troll" will
attack a person and then Polgar will write something like "Don't
attack that person. He is such a nice guy in spite of his character
flaws." This makes Polgar seem to be the voice of moderation when
actually it was her or Truong who wrote both postings.

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 07 Oct 2008 03:34:54
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times
On Oct 6, 11:34=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Take a look at:http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2008/10/spice-cup.html
>
> Through her ubiquitous "anonymous" posters, Susan Polgar is attacking
> the New York Times, demanding that its reporter be fired.
>
> He had better watch out. Next thing, Susan Polgar will sue his ass,
> claiming that he is persecuting her because she is a woman and of
> foreign descent.
>
> Sam Sloan

Also, take a look at
http://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3D4&t=3D1526

Under the header "Questionable journalism?"
Susan Polgar and Gregory Alexander are attacking the New York Times
for "nit-picking".

Sam Sloan


  
Date: 07 Oct 2008 10:53:46
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times
samsloan wrote:
> On Oct 6, 11:34 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Take a look at:http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2008/10/spice-cup.html
>>
>> Through her ubiquitous "anonymous" posters, Susan Polgar is attacking
>> the New York Times, demanding that its reporter be fired.
>>
>> He had better watch out. Next thing, Susan Polgar will sue his ass,
>> claiming that he is persecuting her because she is a woman and of
>> foreign descent.
>>
>> Sam Sloan
>
> Also, take a look at
> http://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1526
>
> Under the header "Questionable journalism?"
> Susan Polgar and Gregory Alexander are attacking the New York Times
> for "nit-picking".
>
> Sam Sloan

I think she should join McClain and the NY Times in her "defamation"
action. They clearly don't like her and they are tearing down
everything she and hubby do because she is of Eastern European heritage.
They probably wish she was still in Forrest Hill running these
tournaments out of the Polgar Chess Center. Shame on the Times for
pointing out the truth. Shame!


 
Date: 07 Oct 2008 02:23:40
From:
Subject: Re: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times


samsloan wrote:
> Take a look at:
> http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2008/10/spice-cup.html
>
> Through her ubiquitous "anonymous" posters, Susan Polgar is attacking
> the New York Times, demanding that its reporter be fired.
>
> He had better watch out. Next thing, Susan Polgar will sue his ass,
> claiming that he is persecuting her because she is a woman and of
> foreign descent.
>
> Sam Sloan


This is a good example of why, no matter what Truong and Polgar may
have done, I still find them more tolerable than some of the bottom-
feeding vermin on the other side. (In case I'm being too subtle, Sam,
that refers to you.) Anyone who bothers to look at the link will see
that Polgar _correctly_ rebukes McClain for misquoting. As for the
anonymous trolls, what part of "anonymous" is confusing to you? For
all we know, they could be you, trying to discredit Polgar by
pretending to be an insane supporter.

(Parenthesis for donkeys: The previous sentence in paranoid drivel. It
is, however, the same kind of paranoid drivel the Sloon tried to
peddle in his nutcase lawsuit. Live by it, die by it.)


  
Date: 07 Oct 2008 11:18:46
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Now Susan Polgar is Attacking the New York Times
[email protected] wrote:
>
> samsloan wrote:
>> Take a look at:
>> http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2008/10/spice-cup.html
>>
>> Through her ubiquitous "anonymous" posters, Susan Polgar is attacking
>> the New York Times, demanding that its reporter be fired.
>>
>> He had better watch out. Next thing, Susan Polgar will sue his ass,
>> claiming that he is persecuting her because she is a woman and of
>> foreign descent.
>>
>> Sam Sloan
>
>
> This is a good example of why, no matter what Truong and Polgar may
> have done, I still find them more tolerable than some of the bottom-
> feeding vermin on the other side. (In case I'm being too subtle, Sam,
> that refers to you.) Anyone who bothers to look at the link will see
> that Polgar _correctly_ rebukes McClain for misquoting............

From the TTU web site:

"Texas Tech University�s Susan Polgar Institute for Chess Excellence
announces it has assembled the *strongest field of chess grandmasters in
U.S. round-robin history* for its 2008 SPICE Cup International
Invitational Tournament."