Main Date: 21 Jan 2008 08:08:03 From: Chess One Subject: who is clean and who is not Monday January 21st, 2008 Chessville received a letter from Susan Polgar on Sunday morning, Jan 20, 2008, stating the USCF's process of inquiry, of herself, and Paul Truong's complicity with the terms of the inquiry, and to correct a "blatant misrepresentation" by Bill Goichberg. She ended by restating the offer:- "We give consent to the board and their attorneys to publish all information they have about us relating to this case. Everyone can then decide who is clean and who is not. Why not let the USCF members decide what the facts are? " The URL for the full statement is at http://www.chessville.com/Editorials/AlekhinesParrot/TheParrotSquaawks2008.htm which extracts from Alekhine's Parrot, which also contains her earlier statement on the same topic http://www.chessville.com/Editorials/AlekhinesParrot/Index.htm She very clearly states, quoting Paul Truong: "Do I know who did it? Absolutely no. Did I have anything to do with it? Absolutely no." Of which she comments: Can this be any clearer? If they wanted it in a different format, they should have officially informed or explained it to us. ---- Phil Innes for Chessville.   Date: 29 Jan 2008 15:51:39 From: help bot Subject: Re: GetClub is Strong Engine. On Jan 29, 12:40 am, Ralf Callenberg <ralf.callenb...@web.de > wrote: > The question is: whicht style do you use against it? I can see, that if > you jump right at the program, it might be able to defend itself. But I > played a quite slow setup and switched gear only after a mistake on its > side (which didn't take too long), and even then I didn't try to finish > it as fast as possible. The basic problem with Sannys program: it > doesn't know what to do when there is no immediate threat. In those > situations it tends to make silly moves and creates severe positional > weaknesses. It might have gained some tactical abilities over the time, > but has still no knowledge about positional factors. Gosh Wally, this sounds an awful lot like the old days, like back when chess computers were just starting out! > Also something > under which GC clearly suffers: horizon problem. In my game it went into > a situation, where it could prolong immediate loss of material for a > while by attacking my queen. So, Sanny obviously hasn't implemented the > increase of search depth in forced variations. This is a severe weak > spot of the program. I've tried to point Sanny to the resources on the Web where such things are ironed out in some detail. Things like, oh, tactical search extensions and the like-- but he apparently can't find them or else he is unwilling to just start over and do it the right way; after all, his programmers have already plowed a lot of time and effort into doing it all wrong! The clearest example of this problem may well be the draw issue; Sanny's program was originally written without any knowledge of draws, and even today there remain the remnants of this problem, here and there. > > This guy is a bit fruit-loopy; I'll wager the > > Normal level would demolish a 100-man team > > of USCF 1400s by a wide margin, in spite of > > there being no time restriction on the humans, > > while the program now generally follows its set > > limit which, for it, is very restrictive. > The thing is: it has tactical abilities which might go beyond a 1400. > But it has severe limitations a 1400 usually doesn't have. From your > remarks you made here in the past, I read that you got problems if your > attack didn't go through and GC was left with the upper hand. My main problem was where I played recklessly, as in my game as White in Larsen's Attack, and I overlooked some tactical shot which decided the game, from which there was no coming back. > But a 1400 > wouldn't play this way against it. A 1400 has some basic idea how to > develop, where to put the pieces etc. GC has nearly no idea about such > things. I disagree. While many 1400s are familiar with where the pieces go and in what specific order, *if* you follow along some traditional path, there always seems to be a point in my games where the typical 1400 player reveals a computeresque ignorance of some routine chess knowledge-- hence the 1400 rating. The most recent example I can recall was a line where the entire plan for White was jilted, in favor of a tactical battle which I won mainly because my King was castled, his not, and we were well into the middle-game at the time! The 1400-type neglected normal development, left his King in the center too long, and also seemed to allow his emotions to get involved; by which I mean that he was angry at me for "daring" to castle on the Queen-side, which was not the "normal", book plan for Black. He actually felt insulted at this, whereas my intentions were merely to maximize my King safety, and of course the Black King is not safe in the "normal" lines, but rather, a favorite target-- which is one reason the line is popular for White. > The question is: could GC beat a player which is not overly > ambitious of beating the shit out of the program right from the start? I don't think the approach would be the issue here; IMO, the issue would be that when the position opened up, the typical 1400 players would be over-matched in the tactical department. Both sides would likely make silly strategic mistakes, but the problem with humans is that our tactical mistakes tend to be really BIG ones, decisive ones. > I must admit, that we might talk about apples and oranges, when talking > about "1400". I have the German rating system in my mind, which is a bit > different from the US-scale. Just to give an idea: the average German > club player has a rating somewhere between 1600 und 1700. I like that-- between 1600 "und" 1700. > But nevertheless, for me it's not a bid deal, whether normal level has 1400 > or 1600 - fact is, a strong player shouldn't have a big problem beating it. It's very possible that the average "German" player is stronger than the average American. Take Wilhelm Stenitz, for instance; he hopped a boat to America, und violla: instant U.S. Champion. His successor, Em. Lasker, ranked as the highest-rated player *ever* for quite some time, using retroactively-calculated numbers. Ignoring regional variances for a moment, the typical American 1400 player is no chess genius. I play them all the time, and occasionally watch their games with one another; many of these games are easy wins, but "somehow" result in draws, or else they are easy draws, but result in wins. Really, these guys all need to be taking lessons from me, so they can get to 1500 or so... . -- help bot   Date: 29 Jan 2008 01:23:54 From: Sanny Subject: Re: GetClub is Strong Engine. > 7 or 8 - there are plenty of free programs around on the internet. Not > all of them are as strong as Fritz and Rybka, made by amateurs just for > fun. Look for those programs, download them and let them play against > yours - and see what happens. Only then you will be able to come up with > some "numbers" for the level of your program. Today after improving the GetClub Game, I tried with Jester here is the Game. Beginner Vs Jester. Game Played between sanjay11 and beginner at GetClub.com ---------------------- sanjay11: (White) beginner: (Black) Game Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html View Recorded Game: http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM15232&game=Chess ---------------------- White -- Black (sanjay11) -- (beginner) 1. e2-e4{6} e7-e5{0} 2. Ng1-f3{6} Nb8-c6{0} 3. Bf1-b5{6} a7-a6{0} 4. Bb5-c6{6} d7-c6{8} 5. Nb1-c3{8} f7-f6{6} 6. Ke1-g1{10} Bf8-c5{6} 7. d2-d3{12} Ng8-e7{10} 8. Nc3-a4{12} Bc5-a7{10} 9. Bc1-d2{10} Ke8-g8{6} 10. Bd2-b4{10} b7-b5{8} 11. Bb4-e7{10} Qd8-e7{8} 12. Na4-c3{10} b5-b4{12} 13. Nc3-a4{10} Qe7-d6{6} 14. Nf3-d2{12} Bc8-e6{16} 15. Qd1-h5{12} Be6-f7{6} 16. Qh5-h4{12} h7-h5{6} 17. a2-a3{10} b4-a3{16} 18. Ra1-a3{10} Rf8-b8{10} 19. Ra3-a1{14} Ba7-d4{10} 20. Rf1-b1{20} g7-g5{12} 21. Qh4-h3{46} Bd4-a7{6} 22. Na4-c3{12} g5-g4{6} 23. Qh3-h4{12} Ba7-d4{8} 24. Nc3-d1{10} Rb8-b6{6} 25. Nd2-c4{26} Bf7-c4{6} 26. d3-c4{12} f6-f5{6} 27. Qh4-g5{18} Kg8-f8{10} 28. Qg5-f5{16} Kf8-g8{8} 29. Qf5-h5{10} g4-g3{8} 30. h2-g3{10} Bd4-c5{10} 31. Ra1-a5{14} Ra8-f8{6} 32. Rb1-a1{14} Rb6-b8{6} 33. Ra5-a6{10} Qd6-f6{8} 34. Qh5-g4{10} Kg8-h8{6} 35. Qg4-h4{8} Kh8-g8{10} 36. Qh4-f6{10} Rf8-f6{8} 37. Ra6-a5{10} Bc5-d6{6} 38. b2-b3{10} Rb8-f8{8} 39. f2-f3{12} Kg8-h8{10} 40. Nd1-e3{16} c6-c5{8} 41. Ra5-a7{12} Bd6-e7{6} 42. Ra7-c7{22} Be7-d6{6} 43. Rc7-c6{10} Bd6-e7{6} 44. Rc6-f6{10} Rf8-f6{8} 45. Ne3-d5{12} Rf6-e6{6} 46. Nd5-e7{10} Re6-e7{6} 47. Ra1-a8{10} Kh8-g7{8} 48. Ra8-c8{10} Re7-a7{6} 49. Rc8-c5{16} Ra7-e7{6} 50. Kg1-f2{10} Kg7-h8{6} 51. Kf2-e3{10} Re7-d7{8} 52. Rc5-e5{10} Rd7-h7{8} 53. Ke3-d2{12} Rh7-h2{6} 54. Re5-g5{10} Rh2-g2{6} 55. Kd2-d3{10} Kh8-h7{6} 56. c4-c5{10} Rg2-h2{6} 57. c5-c6{10} Rh2-h6{6} 58. Rg5-c5{10} Rh6-g6{8} 59. c6-c7{10} Rg6-g8{12} 60. Qc7-c8{Q}{12} Rg8-c8{8} 61. Rc5-c8{10} Kh7-g7{12} 62. b3-b4{10} Kg7-h7{6} 63. b4-b5{8} Kh7-g6{8} 64. b5-b6{10} Kg6-f7{6} 65. b6-b7{10} Kf7-g7{6} 66. Qb7-b8{Q}{8} Kg7-f7{6} 67. Qb8-a7{10} Kf7-e7{6} ---------------------- sanjay11: (White) beginner: (Black) Game Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html View Recorded Game: http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM15232&game=Chess Is the game now playing OK, Or are you finding any mistake in GetClub Beginner Level Moves? Please indicate which moves are wrong So that I may correct them. Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html   Date: 29 Jan 2008 01:20:40 From: Sanny Subject: Re: GetClub is Strong Engine. > This question is the equivalent to: "Please explain me how to playchess." To be honest: I can not explain it. I may come up with some good > sounding sentences and advices, but they wouldn't help you much. The > hard truth is: be it playingchessor programmingchess: it takes time, > effort and lots of practice to learn it. > > Greetings, > Ralf Thanks for your Advices. Now a few of them have been implemented and Now the Game will play twice better than earlier. Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html     Date: 29 Jan 2008 22:38:59 From: Ralf Callenberg Subject: Re: GetClub is Strong Engine. 29.01.2008 10:20, Sanny: > > Thanks for your Advices. Now a few of them have been implemented and > Now the Game will play twice better than earlier. You have implemented my hint, that chess is more complex than you assumed? Amazing. Greetings, Ralf       Date: 30 Jan 2008 08:44:16 From: Chess One Subject: Re: GetClub is Strong Engine. "Ralf Callenberg" <ralf.callenberg@web.de > wrote in message news:fno6dj$cok$03$2@news.t-online.com... > 29.01.2008 10:20, Sanny: >> >> Thanks for your Advices. Now a few of them have been implemented and >> Now the Game will play twice better than earlier. > > You have implemented my hint, that chess is more complex than you assumed? > Amazing. At least Sanny provided the joke of the year so far, "Lucky". :)) Probably the best advice for him is to take in what an IM trainer recently wrote in this ng, and adapt it to his engine. Phil Innes > Greetings, > Ralf   Date: 28 Jan 2008 22:14:02 From: Sanny Subject: Re: GetClub is Strong Engine. > The thing is: it has tactical abilities which might go beyond a 1400. > But it has severe limitations a 1400 usually doesn't have. From your > remarks you made here in the past, I read that you got problems if your > attack didn't go through and GC was left with the upper hand. But a 1400 > wouldn't play this way against it. A 1400 has some basic idea how to > develop, where to put the pieces etc. GC has nearly no idea about such > things. The question is: could GC beat a player which is not overly > ambitious of beating the shit out of the program right from the start? Thats the Question I have been asking for so long. > A 1400 has some basic idea how to > develop, where to put the pieces etc Please give me in detail How to develop and what is wrong with GetClub development. GetClub program always take out Knight/Bishop out and do Chastling I think that is development am I missing something here? Where to put Piece. Can you tell me Places Where to put piece. Here is for white Good Places for pawn/knight/bishop Pawns: e4, e3, d4, d3, c4, f4, a3, h3 [Good] Any Other? Knight: f3, c3 [Good] Bishop: d2, e2, c3, e3, b4, f4 [Good] Any what are the places where pawn should not be placed. Pawns: c3, f3 [Bad] Knight: a3, h3 [Bad] Bishop: a4, h4. [Bad] Do you think above are Correct? What else you want in the positional play? > The basic problem with Sannys program: it > doesn't know what to do when there is no immediate threat. What should it do when it has no immidiate threath? Please Explain. Bye Sanny     Date: 29 Jan 2008 08:48:19 From: Ralf Callenberg Subject: Re: GetClub is Strong Engine. 29.01.2008 07:14, Sanny: >> The question is: could GC beat a player which is not overly >> ambitious of beating the shit out of the program right from the start? > > Thats the Question I have been asking for so long. The answer has been given to you. But you preferred to ignore it. > >> A 1400 has some basic idea how to >> develop, where to put the pieces etc > > Please give me in detail How to develop and what is wrong with GetClub > development. GetClub program always take out Knight/Bishop out and do > Chastling I think that is development am I missing something here? What you are missing can not be corrected by explaining it in a few sentences. Even the basic positional rules are not as simple as "develop knight first" or something like that. An average talented player needs several years before he reaches some decent level of play, before he gets an idea what to do and what not in the different phases of the game. > > Where to put Piece. This can simply not be answered in a general and static way. It depends on the positions of the pawns but also on dynamic factors. And it wouldn't help much, if I would tell you from a chess players perspective what to do and what not - programs are based on a very different approach. Only from the result, the actual moves your program makes, I can tell it does something wrong. What exactly it is it should do differently internally, I do not know, because I don't know all those tricks and techniques chess programmers use to tell their programs to play sound moves. >> The basic problem with Sannys program: it >> doesn't know what to do when there is no immediate threat. > > What should it do when it has no immidiate threath? Please Explain. This question is the equivalent to: "Please explain me how to play chess." To be honest: I can not explain it. I may come up with some good sounding sentences and advices, but they wouldn't help you much. The hard truth is: be it playing chess or programming chess: it takes time, effort and lots of practice to learn it. Greetings, Ralf   Date: 28 Jan 2008 12:46:37 From: help bot Subject: Re: com> On Jan 28, 3:31 pm, Kenneth Sloan <KennethRSl...@gmail.com > wrote: > > I am beaten by GetClub Beginner Level Every > > > time. So I have a rating of arround 1100-1200. > > Does not follow. > > Are you ignorant, or lying? Apparently, Sanny uses his own "identity" to test programs like Jester against the GetClub program, so "his" rating may be meaningless. It is true that having a rating well over 1000 is *not* indicative of losing to any of GetClub's levels, which are by and large, well under 1000. Anybody know how to "dumb-down" one of the commercial chess programs while still knowing its USCF-equivalent rating, for testing purposes? I've got one that is adjustable, but it won't go low enough for a fair fight-- maybe my notebook computer is just too fast for GC? I've seen plenty of complaints where players have reported that some of these programs don't accurately reflect true rating strengths. All I know is that if I remove Fritz' Queen at the start of a game, it seems to equalize things a bit.. . -- help bot   Date: 28 Jan 2008 11:36:00 From: help bot Subject: Re: GetClub is Strong Engine. On Jan 28, 1:23 am, Sanny <softta...@hotmail.com > wrote: > Game Played between s65 and normal at GetClub.com > > ---------------------- > s65: (White) I find it interesting that this critic chose the White pieces, instead of Black. Why? If the program is so very weak, would it not make more sense to give it every possible chance? (Just giving him a hard time.) I generally take White against the lower levels, intending to play a casual style game, as in (very slow) blitz chess. For when I have been requested to test the program's latest "improvements", I will normally take Black against the middle or higher levels, trying to level the field just a bit. I find it can take somewhat longer to win as Black, for instance, because when the GC program does its p-h3 thing, I merely gain back the tempo I was behind from the very start. -- help bot   Date: 28 Jan 2008 11:27:52 From: help bot Subject: Re: GetClub is Strong Engine. On Jan 27, 6:54 am, Ralf Callenberg <ralf.callenb...@web.de > wrote: > > I think Normal Level is good enough for most of the Strong players. > You think wrongly. It took me just routine moves, not playing > particularly accurate to beat it easily. This sounds like a description of a single game-- not exactly the approach a "scientist" might have tried. Indeed, Sanny himself has posted bizarre- looking results of such games here, including where his program was miniaturized in ways I've never seen it play against me. > It is indeed a bit stronger > since last time I played it, but it is still no match for a strong > player. I would estimate its strength on Normal Level somewhere around > 1400, give or take a hundred points. Not much more. This guy is a bit fruit-loopy; I'll wager the Normal level would demolish a 100-man team of USCF 1400s by a wide margin, in spite of there being no time restriction on the humans, while the program now generally follows its set limit which, for it, is very restrictive. Recently, I did play *one* 1400-type who was stronger, but then, he decimated all the other players in the field, so obviously his rating was not accurate, relative to others. > And by the way: you finally should teach your program: if there is only > one legal move: make it. There are many such issues like this one. I see no way in which making the "only" legal move could hurt the program's results, so it would be seen as an obvious improvement by the users. However, in view of GC's history, it is far from clear that the program "knows" there was but one legal move, even *after* it has played the move! My ballpark estimate (I certainly can't claim any particular accuracy here) for the Normal level would be to add Sanny's over-optimistic number to Mr. Clallenberg's, then divide the result by two. I would say they fairly represent the two extremes of the lunatic fringe. Another way to look at this would be to try and compare the move times taken by the human opponents with the times taken by the Normal level. I expect that some, if not all, of the braggers here were struggling to move as fast as they talk. OTOH, we cannot be certain that all of them were not themselves using a commercial chess program, in which case a few seconds per move would be more than adequate to the task at hand. In fact, I think a few program could tackle Sanny's program while "thinking", say, one second per move (or even less). This is mainly the dread result of "the boy who cried: wolf!"; many moons ago, I tried to warn Sanny that if he persisted in overstating his program's strength and "improvements", the result would be that no one would believe anything he said. Time has passed, and it is time to pay the (pied) piper (of Hamilin). Now, it would almost require a miracle before any of these injured townspeople would admit to seeing a small fox at GetClub, or even a rat terrier... . -- help bot     Date: 29 Jan 2008 06:40:20 From: Ralf Callenberg Subject: Re: GetClub is Strong Engine. 28.01.2008 20:27, help bot: > This sounds like a description of a single game-- > not exactly the approach a "scientist" might have > tried. I never pretended to have a scientifc approach to that. Indeed, Sanny himself has posted bizarre- > looking results of such games here, including > where his program was miniaturized in ways I've > never seen it play against me. The question is: whicht style do you use against it? I can see, that if you jump right at the program, it might be able to defend itself. But I played a quite slow setup and switched gear only after a mistake on its side (which didn't take too long), and even then I didn't try to finish it as fast as possible. The basic problem with Sannys program: it doesn't know what to do when there is no immediate threat. In those situations it tends to make silly moves and creates severe positional weaknesses. It might have gained some tactical abilities over the time, but has still no knowledge about positional factors. Also something under which GC clearly suffers: horizon problem. In my game it went into a situation, where it could prolong immediate loss of material for a while by attacking my queen. So, Sanny obviously hasn't implemented the increase of search depth in forced variations. This is a severe weak spot of the program. > > This guy is a bit fruit-loopy; I'll wager the > Normal level would demolish a 100-man team > of USCF 1400s by a wide margin, in spite of > there being no time restriction on the humans, > while the program now generally follows its set > limit which, for it, is very restrictive. The thing is: it has tactical abilities which might go beyond a 1400. But it has severe limitations a 1400 usually doesn't have. From your remarks you made here in the past, I read that you got problems if your attack didn't go through and GC was left with the upper hand. But a 1400 wouldn't play this way against it. A 1400 has some basic idea how to develop, where to put the pieces etc. GC has nearly no idea about such things. The question is: could GC beat a player which is not overly ambitious of beating the shit out of the program right from the start? I must admit, that we might talk about apples and oranges, when talking about "1400". I have the German rating system in my mind, which is a bit different from the US-scale. Just to give an idea: the average German club player has a rating somewhere between 1600 und 1700. But nevertheless, for me it's not a bid deal, whether normal level has 1400 or 1600 - fact is, a strong player shouldn't have a big problem beating it. Greetings, Ralf   Date: 28 Jan 2008 09:43:50 From: Sanny Subject: Re: GetClub is Strong Engine. On Jan 28, 7:21=A0pm, Ralf Callenberg <ralf.callenb...@googlemail.com > wrote: > On Jan 28, 7:23 am, Sanny <softta...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Yes I saw that Game. That Game was won because Blacks Queen & Bishop > > Got Pin by your Rook. So it lost 2 points in the beginning only. I > > think this game was won because of Luck. > > Listen man, this had nothing to do with luck. Your program played > poorly, that's it. > > > Play a few games more say 5 > > and tell =A0me how many of them you can win. > > I won't do anything of this sort. It's a waste of time. > > > The Game was won because of that Bishop got Pin by rook. > > Yes, and this shouldn't have happened. Good players avoid their pieces > to get pinned. > > > > > Here is the Game you played. Except 15..... Qd8-d7 I find all other > > moves were quite good. > > You might, I don't. Your program played the opening poorly and then > got destroyed. It didn't show any resistance afterwards. > > I asked you a question: How many rated players have you played in your > live? > > Greetings, > Ralf I am not a chess player. I have never played any tournaments. I play Chess only sometimes. I am beaten by GetClub Beginner Level Every time. So I have a rating of arround 1100-1200. I do not understand much in Chess only that pieces should be saved. What are things that need to be seen other than material advantage? You said it It didn't show any resistance afterwards? What type of moves should it have played? Bye Sanny     Date: 29 Jan 2008 07:18:18 From: Ralf Callenberg Subject: Re: GetClub is Strong Engine. 28.01.2008 18:43, Sanny: > I am not a chess player. I have never played any tournaments. I play > Chess only sometimes. I am beaten by GetClub Beginner Level Every > time. So I have a rating of arround 1100-1200. I do not understand > much in Chess only that pieces should be saved. And that's exactly my point. To you those numbers "1400", "1800", "2000" have no meaning. Even the 1100 you provide yourself is a quite optimistic guess. You haven't the slightest idea which strength to connect with those levels, you just make them up when you assign them to your program. In my experience, playes who never played tournament players have no clue how strong an average club player is. They beat consistently all friends and family members and think they have some strength. But when they walk into a chess club, they get beaten easily even by the weaker players there - much to their amazement. To give you a rough idea: a player around 1500, 1600 is not particularly strong - but he would massacre you on the board with ease. And such a 1500, 1600 wouldn't stand a 2000 player (a level, where I would say, we might start talking about strong players). And a 2000 player would be quite happy to get 1 point out of 10 games against an International Master. And such an IM is lost against current commercial chess programs on decent hardware. If you really want to get a rough idea about how strong your program is: get yourself a cheap copy of Fritz. It has a function to evaluate the strength of its component. It is a very rough estimate - but it might give you an idea. If you are not able to even get hands on an old Fritz 7 or 8 - there are plenty of free programs around on the internet. Not all of them are as strong as Fritz and Rybka, made by amateurs just for fun. Look for those programs, download them and let them play against yours - and see what happens. Only then you will be able to come up with some "numbers" for the level of your program. > What are things that need to be seen other than material advantage? Positional play. That you got an idea where to put the pieces and what to do when there is no immediate threat. To come up with long range ideas, which you can't "calculate", but where you know, that in the long run, it will lead to something. Chess programmers over the years came up with ways to circumvent the limitations of the limited chess knowledge they can provide their programs. They look at the mobility of the pieces, where on the board they are located and so on, and they searched for ways to weigh those factors against each other to reach strong levels. If you want to learn about this, you have to study the literature and look at Open Source programs. You will not be able to "detect" it by yourself, just based on some hints you might get in this forum. Greetings, Ralf     Date: 28 Jan 2008 14:31:23 From: Kenneth Sloan Subject: Re: com> 3441 wrote: > I am beaten by GetClub Beginner Level Every > time. So I have a rating of arround 1100-1200. Does not follow. Are you ignorant, or lying? -- Kenneth Sloan KennethRSloan@gmail.com Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213 University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473 Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/   Date: 28 Jan 2008 06:21:30 From: Ralf Callenberg Subject: Re: GetClub is Strong Engine. On Jan 28, 7:23 am, Sanny <softta...@hotmail.com > wrote: > Yes I saw that Game. That Game was won because Blacks Queen & Bishop > Got Pin by your Rook. So it lost 2 points in the beginning only. I > think this game was won because of Luck. Listen man, this had nothing to do with luck. Your program played poorly, that's it. > Play a few games more say 5 > and tell me how many of them you can win. I won't do anything of this sort. It's a waste of time. > The Game was won because of that Bishop got Pin by rook. Yes, and this shouldn't have happened. Good players avoid their pieces to get pinned. > > Here is the Game you played. Except 15..... Qd8-d7 I find all other > moves were quite good. You might, I don't. Your program played the opening poorly and then got destroyed. It didn't show any resistance afterwards. I asked you a question: How many rated players have you played in your live? Greetings, Ralf   Date: 27 Jan 2008 22:23:48 From: Sanny Subject: Re: GetClub is Strong Engine. > > I dont think you have played with Normal Level soon. > > I have clearly stated, that I played it recently. The game was a few > hours ago. Nickname S65. You may look it up yourself. Yes I saw that Game. That Game was won because Blacks Queen & Bishop Got Pin by your Rook. So it lost 2 points in the beginning only. I think this game was won because of Luck. Play a few games more say 5 and tell me how many of them you can win. The Game was won because of that Bishop got Pin by rook. Here is the Game you played. Except 15..... Qd8-d7 I find all other moves were quite good. Game Played between s65 and normal at GetClub.com ---------------------- s65: (White) normal: (Black) Game Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html View Recorded Game: http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM15187&game=Chess ---------------------- White -- Black (s65) -- (normal) 1. c2-c4{4} e7-e6{0} 2. Ng1-f3{6} d7-d5{0} 3. e2-e3{10} Ng8-f6{112} 4. Nb1-c3{18} Nb8-c6{130} 5. c4-d5{88} Nf6-d5{104} 6. Bf1-b5{6} Bc8-d7{132} 7. Nc3-d5{78} e6-d5{106} 8. Qd1-b3{14} a7-a6{126} 9. Bb5-e2{26} Bd7-f5{122} 10. Ke1-g1{136} b7-b5{88} 11. a2-a4{74} b5-b4{110} 12. d2-d3{54} h7-h6{86} 13. e3-e4{18} d5-e4{122} 14. d3-e4{8} Bf5-e6{82} 15. Qb3-c2{36} Qd8-d7{128} 16. Rf1-d1{20} Bf8-d6{194} 17. e4-e5{6} Be6-f5{84} 18. Be2-d3{134} b4-b3{90} 19. Qc2-e2{38} Bd6-c5{110} 20. Bd3-a6{166} Nc6-d4{154} 21. Nf3-d4{6} Bc5-d4{106} 22. Bc1-e3{6} Qd7-e6{124} 23. Ba6-b5{44} c7-c6{122} 24. Bb5-c4{48} Bf5-g4{110} 25. Qe2-d3{14} Qe6-d7{98} 26. Qd3-d4{14} Bg4-d1{142} 27. Qd4-d7{8} Ke8-d7{96} 28. Ra1-d1{4} Kd7-c7{132} 29. Bc4-b3{42} g7-g5{148} 30. Bb3-f7{40} Rh8-d8{98} 31. Rd1-d8{34} Ra8-d8{104} 32. Kg1-f1{16} Kc7-b8{146} 33. e5-e6{10} Rd8-c8{106} 34. e6-e7{16} Kb8-b7{80} 35. a4-a5{8} Kb7-a6{110} 36. Be3-b6{4} c6-c5{110} 37. Bf7-c4{8} Ka6-b7{108} 38. Bb6-d8{4} g5-g4{116} 39. a5-a6{26} Kb7-a8{92} ---------------------- s65: (White) normal: (Black) Game Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html View Recorded Game: http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM15187&game=Chess Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html   Date: 27 Jan 2008 08:36:46 From: Sanny Subject: Re: GetClub is Strong Engine. > > I think Normal Level is good enough for most of the Strong players. > > You think wrongly. It took me just routine moves, not playing > particularly accurate to beat it easily. It is indeed a bit stronger > since last time I played it, but it is still no match for a strong > player. I would estimate its strength on Normal Level somewhere around > 1400, give or take a hundred points. Not much more. I dont think you have played with Normal Level soon. Just play and show me your recorded game. I am sure Normal Level will win as Only Help Bot has managed to beat Normal Level. Other Players not even able to beat the Beginner Level. Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html     Date: 28 Jan 2008 00:54:54 From: Ralf Callenberg Subject: Re: GetClub is Strong Engine. 27.01.2008 17:36, Sanny: > I dont think you have played with Normal Level soon. I have clearly stated, that I played it recently. The game was a few hours ago. Nickname S65. You may look it up yourself. > I am sure Normal Level will win as Only > Help Bot has managed to beat Normal Level. That's just because he is probably the only decent player who bothers playing against your program on a regular basis. > Other Players not even able to beat the Beginner Level. Those other players might be beginners in chess - like you. Sanny, have you ever played a few games against tournament players (i.e. players with some sort of rating) of different strengths? Greetings, Ralf   Date: 27 Jan 2008 00:37:08 From: Sanny Subject: GetClub is Strong Engine. > > =A0My most interesting games are the ones at > >GetClub; indeed, the program could be fairly > > described as "half-blind", much like your > > opponent. > > Getclub is a weak engine, everyone but you laughs at - I suppose to invest= I am happy to know there are a few people who still thinks GetClub is weak Engine. These people are either of these. 1. They have never Played the Game at GetClub. For them Just play and see for yourself. Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html 2. You may have played 6 months back when it was really weak. Come on Now getclub Chess plays better than ever. Now it is even difficult to beat the Beginner Level. Only those taking help from Computer are able to win the Higher Levels. 3. GetClub Chess plays very Slow. Now, Beginner Level Makes Moves in just 6-10 seconds. No more waiting. Still the moves are very strong. If you are really tough player then you should try Easy & Normal Levels. Play Chess at:: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html I think Normal Level is good enough for most of the Strong players. Still for Grand Masters we have Master Level & Advance Levels. Which think for 5-10 min / Move giving extremely difficult game to win. But for Most Players Beginner Level is Sufficient which makes moves in 6-10 seconds. It is very difficult to get higher rating now. I see each players rating is going down as the Levels are playing much stronger than ever. Only those players who have left playing when it used to play weak are at the Top. Now it is very difficult even to mantain your rating from falling. However only Help Bot Manages to get Higher Ratings. That prooves Help Bot is really good players. If you think you are better than him then beat his Scores. But without help from COMPUTERS. Bye Sanny Play Chess at:: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html     Date: 27 Jan 2008 12:54:31 From: Ralf Callenberg Subject: Re: GetClub is Strong Engine. 27.01.2008 09:37, Sanny: > I am happy to know there are a few people who still thinks GetClub is > weak Engine. > > These people are either of these. > > 1. They have never Played the Game at GetClub. [..] > > 2. You may have played 6 months back when it was really weak. > You forgot a third option: those who know something about chess. > Now it is even > difficult to beat the Beginner Level. It is not. Well, maybe it is for you. > I think Normal Level is good enough for most of the Strong players. You think wrongly. It took me just routine moves, not playing particularly accurate to beat it easily. It is indeed a bit stronger since last time I played it, but it is still no match for a strong player. I would estimate its strength on Normal Level somewhere around 1400, give or take a hundred points. Not much more. And by the way: you finally should teach your program: if there is only one legal move: make it. Greetings, Ralf   Date: 26 Jan 2008 13:41:59 From: help bot Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not On Jan 26, 3:46 pm, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net > wrote: > > Speaking of grandstanding egos... what point is > > there in a challenge when the opponent can, if he > > chooses, fire up Rybka and win virtually any > > position? > > True! But in these 700 games I have found only 3 people doing that, weak > anbd strong players, so maybe your suspicions are unwarranted? In my experience at ChessWorld, *nobody* used Rybka (see my results-- no tough draws, for instance. ; >D ) But is it unreasonable for Mr. Sloan to refuse to play someone remotely, who *could* fire up a chess program at any time-- even for one move? I don't think so; I believe his request to play real chess, mano a mano, was quite reasonable. > But this has > nothing to do with egos, this has to do with paranoia, yours. T'was SS who objected to playing Rybka, not I! I am unafraid of stupid chess programs. You are aware that without its openings book, even Rybka will play moves like 1. Nc3, no? In fact, it thinks 1. Nc3! Nc6! is perfect play for both sides. (What a duffer!) I say, bring it on, big daddy! > Getclub is a weak engine, everyone but you laughs at ...And runs from! Even 2300+ TK has cut and run, protecting his supposed "goal" of 50-0 by getting out before the going got tough. Unless you suffer from mental rigormortis, it is obvious that the program is still improving. > What is your opiniopn to me? It's obviously Andean, not Latin or Chinese. But I have to admit, I'm stumped; I'm really not into the vocabulary-ego thing. To me, one language is sufficient-- American. -- help bot   Date: 26 Jan 2008 11:20:29 From: help bot Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not On Jan 26, 8:35 am, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net > wrote: > >> Maybe the commons is not his scene. Besides, I have merrily slaughtered > >> anyone less than 2100. > > > Not in person, you haven't! > see answer to mike murray - who needs special effects for special people? > for me its about the chess, not grandstanding egos Speaking of grandstanding egos... what point is there in a challenge when the opponent can, if he chooses, fire up Rybka and win virtually any position? No, in spite of all the talk about Mr. Sloan's personal habits, I think it is ludicrous to play a grunge match under conditions which allow for wanton cheating, on a whim; it defeats the whole purpose of such a match (destroying the other guy's ego, etc.). > the most interesting pair of games i have going at the moment is with a > blind-person in yugoslavia - he has dropped a piece in one, but is level in > the other at abt move 14 My most interesting games are the ones at GetClub; indeed, the program could be fairly described as "half-blind", much like your opponent. > look greg, i never refused to play anyone here, am not interested in special > person status, and chess is a game of doing, not not doing and mouthing off > instead It's a fine line-- between "doing" and bragging. This is where the Evans ratpack seem to get confused, recognizing Mr. Sloan as a "doer" and nearly-IMnes as a wannabe, a bragger-- and yet they cannot admit this publicly. Me, I don't brag about my alleged results in some far away land, of which there is no record; but I will relate stories of such events-- not to provide a basis for any claims of greatness or nearly-IMdom, but merely for the content. > i just took about 20 years off from playing serious chess, and if i can > score 2200 playing fellow vermonters and a few others at U Mass after that, > then maybe that isn't luck? "If" you can do this and "if" you can do that, then do it, my boy; don't talk about doing it! The critics have nothing whatever to go by apart from the public records of the sinister organization known as the USCF; and by those records, you seem to be struggling well below the nearly-an-IM level of late. It is obvious that playing in person negates any advantages a player might have from his computer at home, and subjects him to cruel rules of time-management and so forth. OTOH, everybody is on a level field, which makes for decent comparisons. > of course, you are not really interested in this > stuff at all, right? you didn't join in the rgcp team I was invited by Rob "da robber" Mitchell to join some peculiarly ratpackish teams, and declined. Note well that any foolish notions regarding securing a "master" -- relying upon imaginary syntax anal-thingies -- would be a grave error. Look over some of my GetClub games and get the real picture; I think it would probably let people down if I signed up under false pretenses, then played like the fish I am... . OK, here's my best offer: I will play Slam Stoned, but not for any huge sum of money (because I believe many people cheat under such circumstances). If a Mr. Slater type wants to double the prize money, I'll play for a huge sum. But know this: I've been, um, training sort of, against computers (and I don't mean just GetClub!). Mr. Sloan's funky chess openings do not impress me in the least; I've seen worse at my local club, and yes, at GetClubbed as well. I'm a stupid-chess openings specialist. -- help bot     Date: 26 Jan 2008 15:46:08 From: Chess One Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not "help bot" <nomorechess@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:ca4247ed-cfe2-4d81-a4be-4467401c75f0@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 26, 8:35 am, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> >> Maybe the commons is not his scene. Besides, I have merrily >> >> slaughtered >> >> anyone less than 2100. >> >> > Not in person, you haven't! > >> see answer to mike murray - who needs special effects for special people? >> for me its about the chess, not grandstanding egos > > Speaking of grandstanding egos... what point is > there in a challenge when the opponent can, if he > chooses, fire up Rybka and win virtually any > position? True! But in these 700 games I have found only 3 people doing that, weak anbd strong players, so maybe your suspicions are unwarranted? But this has nothing to do with egos, this has to do with paranoia, yours. > No, in spite of all the talk about Mr. > Sloan's personal habits, I think it is ludicrous to > play a grunge match under conditions which > allow for wanton cheating, on a whim; it defeats > the whole purpose of such a match (destroying > the other guy's ego, etc.). And so you reduce yourself to what no real chess players here experience as any thing common to their experience, and instead, you use it to be sceptical. Let's face it Greg, you can only get better if you play. If you don't then you are just a paranoic protester. >> the most interesting pair of games i have going at the moment is with a >> blind-person in yugoslavia - he has dropped a piece in one, but is level >> in >> the other at abt move 14 > > My most interesting games are the ones at > GetClub; indeed, the program could be fairly > described as "half-blind", much like your > opponent. Getclub is a weak engine, everyone but you laughs at - I suppose to invest your time and then to triumph over it is to award the spammer his due. >> look greg, i never refused to play anyone here, am not interested in >> special >> person status, and chess is a game of doing, not not doing and mouthing >> off >> instead > > It's a fine line-- between "doing" and bragging. Just shut up and play - like the rest of us. Are you, like Sloan, a *special* person? ROFL. If you play there is nothing to bullshit about. Its just chess. And you win some you lose some. > This is where the Evans ratpack seem to get > confused, recognizing Mr. Sloan as a "doer" > and nearly-IMnes as a wannabe, a bragger-- > and yet they cannot admit this publicly. > > Me, I don't brag about my alleged results in > some far away land, of which there is no record; No. You never left your cornfields and have nothing to brag about! Ker-ist! Who is it but you non-playing commentators who ever makes a big deal about ratings? If you were a player you would understand that it is always relative to someone else, and those people are always better. If you want to whine for a living, the best thing to do is pick on substantially stonger players than yourself, and mouth off for years!! ROFL - which is like you and Brennan, right? > but I will relate stories of such events-- not to > provide a basis for any claims of greatness or > nearly-IMdom, but merely for the content. > > >> i just took about 20 years off from playing serious chess, and if i can >> score 2200 playing fellow vermonters and a few others at U Mass after >> that, >> then maybe that isn't luck? > > "If" you can do this and "if" you can do that, > then do it, my boy; don't talk about doing it! I do do it! > The critics have nothing whatever to go by > apart from the public records of the sinister > organization known as the USCF; and by > those records, you seem to be struggling > well below the nearly-an-IM level of late. It > is obvious that playing in person negates > any advantages a player might have from > his computer at home, and subjects him to > cruel rules of time-management and so > forth. OTOH, everybody is on a level field, > which makes for decent comparisons. Some show up and play, don't talk about it - then you can find out for yourself. If you want to keep finding excuses for not playing chess, carry on! What is your opiniopn to me? > >> of course, you are not really interested in this >> stuff at all, right? you didn't join in the rgcp team > > I was invited by Rob "da robber" Mitchell to join > some peculiarly ratpackish teams, and declined. Ah... Let us end this here, since you have been called by all sorts of people to put up or shut up. I think by your own continued words, we can understand how you are, and why you write at all ;) meanwhile, this thread is not about you or Brennan, its about USCF coming clean or not. That you both pervert this to your own ideas and resentments is also a perversion - your perverison. Everyone has met people like you full of opinions on others, but who don't risk anything themselves. There is substantially more at stake here than your shy engagement with events, paranoia, and resentment of anyone who knows stuff. Get it yet Greg? Not about you - its about real players, their choices. Not their suspicions. But their judgment given all the information. Phil Innes > Note well that any foolish notions regarding > securing a "master" -- relying upon imaginary > syntax anal-thingies -- would be a grave error. > Look over some of my GetClub games and > get the real picture; I think it would probably > let people down if I signed up under false > pretenses, then played like the fish I am... . > > > OK, here's my best offer: I will play Slam > Stoned, but not for any huge sum of money > (because I believe many people cheat under > such circumstances). If a Mr. Slater type > wants to double the prize money, I'll play for > a huge sum. But know this: I've been, um, > training sort of, against computers (and I > don't mean just GetClub!). Mr. Sloan's > funky chess openings do not impress me in > the least; I've seen worse at my local club, > and yes, at GetClubbed as well. I'm a > stupid-chess openings specialist. > > > -- help bot > > > > >   Date: 26 Jan 2008 05:40:30 From: The Historian Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not On Jan 25, 2:20 pm, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net > wrote: > "The Historian" <neil.thehistor...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:80263311-9d64-4e47-8a5d-fe4dadf6b652@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jan 25, 9:27 am, zdrakec <zdra...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jan 25, 7:57 am, The Historian <neil.thehistor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > On Jan 25, 8:26 am, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote: > > >> > > A series of exchanges on this issue of the current USCF Scandal, the > >> > > Sloan > >> > > suit, and related matters will appear this weekend at Chessville, > >> > > including > >> > > the initial invitational letter from Susan Polgar; a response to the > >> > > opportunity to USCF to make their own statement by Chessville, > >> > > [received > >> > > overnight]; and a counter-note from Susan Polgar. > > >> > Oh, the latest "final response", in other words. > > >> > > When the material is published, further commentary may be made, both > >> > > editorially at Chessville, and in these newsgroups. > > >> > Warning, threat, or permission? P Innes' announcement can be read as > >> > any of the three. > > >> <<shrug>> I read it simply being information. > > > Why did he feel the need to give us permission to do what we would do > > anyway? > > The culprit is the usual lack of understanding by Brennan, who is ever > confused by multi-phrase sentences. Nowhere did I use the word 'permission', > and whether its "warning, threat or permission", all three or none, seems to > be simply the terms used by those who are so very /anxious/ about this > issue. There are certainly other ways to characterise the issue. > > The sense of the material I wrote is to first allow it a big public view, > and then to make commentary on it. This must mean Paul Truong is going to allow the USCF attorneys access to his IP records. There is no new 'final response' by > Polgar, but instead a reiteration of what she predicted would happen - with > perhaps some additional emphasis indicated after the board's response, on > the consequences of declining to open up. In other words, the latest final response, with empty threats. > My mailbag is already full of GM commentary [with an IM here and there] Real titled players, or phony ones like yourself? all, > so far, supportive of Polgar. Now all chess players can also comment on what > seems right and fair to them. After digesting the exchange sufficiently, I > feel assured we will be entertained by more than a bunch of hot-heads here, > by people who /do/ want to see the whole picture before committing to > judgment. > > That was, and remains, the issue. > > Phil Innes     Date: 26 Jan 2008 11:13:36 From: Chess One Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not "The Historian" <neil.thehistorian@gmail.com > wrote in message news:5598bf7c-8004-431a-ba79-740f9e96a1c4@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com... >> The culprit is the usual lack of understanding by Brennan, who is ever >> confused by multi-phrase sentences. Nowhere did I use the word >> 'permission', >> and whether its "warning, threat or permission", all three or none, seems >> to >> be simply the terms used by those who are so very /anxious/ about this >> issue. There are certainly other ways to characterise the issue. >> >> The sense of the material I wrote is to first allow it a big public view, >> and then to make commentary on it. > > This must mean Paul Truong is going to allow the USCF attorneys access > to his IP records. Having already confounded the issue in his mind by inserting the word 'permission', Brennan now insists on what something 'must mean'. How he should twice evolve his commentary from the statement before it, and why any imperative 'must', is best known to himself. If he has comprehension problems he should consult a philologist or stick to reading Winnie the Pooh. > There is no new 'final response' by >> Polgar, but instead a reiteration of what she predicted would happen - >> with >> perhaps some additional emphasis indicated after the board's response, on >> the consequences of declining to open up. > > In other words, the latest final response, with empty threats. That again is a paraphrase so obtuse that it almost defies belief anyone could write it. If what Polgar and Truong are saying is 'open it up' and others decline to do so, which was their own prediction, they merely refer to the /content/ they made before. What is 'final' about it seems to me to be how far they are willing to go to cooperate with anyone - and in fact, what or who limits any other possible cooperation. Quite obviously, if USCF say that materials may not be vented, based on their legal advice, neither can anyone else access the same materials. >> My mailbag is already full of GM commentary [with an IM here and there] > > Real titled players, or phony ones like yourself? How would you know? You don't write about chess - 99% percent of your posts here and elsewhere are about trashing people. More trash about more people than the FSS ever did. Maybe 5 times as much? 10 times? How you can possibly pretend any interest in caring about cyber-abuse or chess, is again, a subject known only to yourself, and the reverend re-mailer, plus one or two other people spinning for a living, instead on any attention to subject matter. With such a record, its nothing to any point to protest it! It is a demonstrated record - as any one can see. Phil Innes > all, >> so far, supportive of Polgar. Now all chess players can also comment on >> what >> seems right and fair to them. After digesting the exchange sufficiently, >> I >> feel assured we will be entertained by more than a bunch of hot-heads >> here, >> by people who /do/ want to see the whole picture before committing to >> judgment. >> >> That was, and remains, the issue. >> >> Phil Innes >   Date: 25 Jan 2008 15:11:43 From: help bot Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not On Jan 25, 5:08 pm, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net > wrote: > Indeed - this is a truism from our corn-fed, yet after 700 games against > all-comers this past year, I don't see no Sloans showing up to do the same. > Maybe the commons is not his scene. Besides, I have merrily slaughtered > anyone less than 2100. Not in person, you haven't! > Perhaps chess is more to do with doing than with whatever the kibitzers 'are > thinking', and certainly are saying? There seems to be a noted proclivity in > ability :: lack of chess commentary. > > If any of these boys were ever interested in chess - and here as an aside to > take offence at Larry Parr; what is it he thinks cornbot was an aspirant to? > A class 'c' player ain't exactly any contendah! In Vermont, perhaps; but where I'm at, a Class C player can win a 5-round Swiss. In fact, I'm not even sure that guy was as high as Class C; he may technically be in the D class. Damned sandbaggers! To me, it would be a titanic insult to have my handler pay lip service to my nearly-a-great- player status, then turn around and embarrass me by backing someone like Sam Sloan-- a lowly Class A type. But it seems that the ratpackers are immune to such incongruities; they have no ability to detect their own gross hypocrisies, nor can they seem to see any problem in simultaneously accusing TK of "lying" about his rating, while endorsing the big lie of nearly-an-IM Innes' title and rating claims. In short, they are as dumb as short planks (or "boxes of rocks", in American English). -- help bot     Date: 26 Jan 2008 08:35:17 From: Chess One Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not "help bot" <nomorechess@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:cc5b966a-589a-4c12-a60e-afc006f8f355@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 25, 5:08 pm, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> Indeed - this is a truism from our corn-fed, yet after 700 games against >> all-comers this past year, I don't see no Sloans showing up to do the >> same. >> Maybe the commons is not his scene. Besides, I have merrily slaughtered >> anyone less than 2100. > > Not in person, you haven't! see answer to mike murray - who needs special effects for special people? for me its about the chess, not grandstanding egos >> Perhaps chess is more to do with doing than with whatever the kibitzers >> 'are >> thinking', and certainly are saying? There seems to be a noted proclivity >> in >> ability :: lack of chess commentary. >> >> If any of these boys were ever interested in chess - and here as an aside >> to >> take offence at Larry Parr; what is it he thinks cornbot was an aspirant >> to? >> A class 'c' player ain't exactly any contendah! > > In Vermont, perhaps; the most interesting pair of games i have going at the moment is with a blind-person in yugoslavia - he has dropped a piece in one, but is level in the other at abt move 14 > but where I'm at, a Class C > player can win a 5-round Swiss. In fact, I'm not > even sure that guy was as high as Class C; he > may technically be in the D class. Damned > sandbaggers! > > To me, it would be a titanic insult to have my > handler pay lip service to my nearly-a-great- > player status, then turn around and embarrass > me by backing someone like Sam Sloan-- a > lowly Class A type. But it seems that the > ratpackers are immune to such incongruities; when you use that term, do you mean 'actual chess players?' > they have no ability to detect their own gross > hypocrisies, nor can they seem to see any > problem in simultaneously accusing TK of > "lying" about his rating, while endorsing the > big lie of nearly-an-IM Innes' title and rating > claims. look greg, i never refused to play anyone here, am not interested in special person status, and chess is a game of doing, not not doing and mouthing off instead i just took about 20 years off from playing serious chess, and if i can score 2200 playing fellow vermonters and a few others at U Mass after that, then maybe that isn't luck? of course, you are not really interested in this stuff at all, right? you didn't join in the rgcp team or even stick around much, but if you admit that its an //excuse// not to play, because all others are cheating or something, then you would either have to shut up, or put up but please don't go on for another 6 years stuck between the horns of your self-made dilemma, sinc it really is all about you, dude! phil innes > In short, they are as dumb as short > planks (or "boxes of rocks", in American > English). > > > -- help bot   Date: 25 Jan 2008 09:55:51 From: help bot Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not On Jan 23, 9:26 am, The Historian <Spamsc...@yahoo.com > wrote: > Another example of P Innes and his wonderful "stylistic" analysis. > Only P Innes is capable of deducing that David Kane and Mike Murray > are one and the same poster. Idunno. If Larry Parr were to do a "syntax analysis", it might turn out that DK, MM, and the three fake-Taylor Kingstons were all one and the same person... . But one thing cannot be faked, and that it amazing, astounding, and incredible chess skill! This is why the Evans ratpackers always go with Sam Sloan rather than nearly-IMnes when it comes to their choice for the annual grunge match (yes, grunge). Behind their countless lies, the truth comes out in their *actions*: not one believes in nearly-IMnes' chess skill being comparable to SS's. In any case, none of nearly-IMnes' many critics is a writer of any significance, apart from Mr. Orwell, who wrote: "who the hell is Phil Innes?" -- hep blot     Date: 25 Jan 2008 17:08:39 From: Chess One Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not "help bot" <nomorechess@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:19abc65d-ce8f-41e4-92ce-d24b6c6af099@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 23, 9:26 am, The Historian <Spamsc...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Another example of P Innes and his wonderful "stylistic" analysis. >> Only P Innes is capable of deducing that David Kane and Mike Murray >> are one and the same poster. > > Idunno. If Larry Parr were to do a "syntax > analysis", it might turn out that DK, MM, and > the three fake-Taylor Kingstons were all one > and the same person... . > > But one thing cannot be faked, and that it > amazing, astounding, and incredible chess > skill! This is why the Evans ratpackers always > go with Sam Sloan rather than nearly-IMnes > when it comes to their choice for the annual > grunge match (yes, grunge). Behind their > countless lies, the truth comes out in their > *actions*: not one believes in nearly-IMnes' > chess skill being comparable to SS's. Indeed - this is a truism from our corn-fed, yet after 700 games against all-comers this past year, I don't see no Sloans showing up to do the same. Maybe the commons is not his scene. Besides, I have merrily slaughtered anyone less than 2100. Perhaps chess is more to do with doing than with whatever the kibitzers 'are thinking', and certainly are saying? There seems to be a noted proclivity in ability :: lack of chess commentary. If any of these boys were ever interested in chess - and here as an aside to take offence at Larry Parr; what is it he thinks cornbot was an aspirant to? A class 'c' player ain't exactly any contendah! And since on the same scale as myself cornbot managed something like 1500, compared with 2300, but plays Sanny's engine at genius level, and beats it ... snore :))) What do all these protestations mean? Clearly cornbot needs to read more to even overcome the errors of other writers, which he often rightly senses are there, but cannot adequately address from his own wit, nor really correct them [except for Fischer's bad play, of course], but more significant is his absense from actual chess commentary - if he were actually a contendah! he might have a go, no? But in all these years, he don't. So he probably is a contendah to C, maybe even B class. But he don't actually do neither. And here he hob-nobs with an even greater chessic numbskull, the resident Eyeore named Brennan. What a sad cast they throw together: As if a general misanthropy as result from [indicated, no more] disspointment about one's own prospects in chess, should be piled on willful ignorance and crass stupidity, as result of being a fat bastard. <that is the name volunteered in another ng to the person by a certain literat, who, like me, suggests that work reduces fat, and intellectual work reduces fatousness >. Phil Innes > In any case, none of nearly-IMnes' many > critics is a writer of any significance, apart > from Mr. Orwell, who wrote: "who the hell is > Phil Innes?" > > > -- hep blot >       Date: 25 Jan 2008 14:35:02 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:08:39 -0500, "Chess One" <OneChess@comcast.net > wrote: >Indeed - this is a truism from our corn-fed, yet after 700 games against >all-comers this past year, I don't see no Sloans showing up to do the same. >Maybe the commons is not his scene. Besides, I have merrily slaughtered >anyone less than 2100. Didn't Sloan challenge you to a grudge match some time ago?         Date: 26 Jan 2008 08:24:16 From: Chess One Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not "Mike Murray" <mikemurray@despammed.com > wrote in message news:gvokp3t822fhl4n1jq19t9d4mr4v2n71nt@4ax.com... > On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:08:39 -0500, "Chess One" <OneChess@comcast.net> > wrote: > > >>Indeed - this is a truism from our corn-fed, yet after 700 games against >>all-comers this past year, I don't see no Sloans showing up to do the >>same. >>Maybe the commons is not his scene. Besides, I have merrily slaughtered >>anyone less than 2100. > > > Didn't Sloan challenge you to a grudge match some time ago? for several thousand million hundred dollars, if i remember but since half a dozen 'ordinary' people in this ng were already playing each other, we suggested he play in the open, so to speak, where his *special* behavioral effects would be nullified - he could even join our team! but i don't think he's a joiner it was about this time when our team captain who invited him to play was banned by Sloan from his fide group, on the pretence that he didn't know if the captain's name was real [and because of certain questions put to Sloan] i suppose that's a way out of a very general challenge, and besides, i think everyone was sick of everything Sloan having to be *special* if Mr. Slaon really wanted to play chess, he should have a go at being one of the people, and show up where others play - he missed a chance to play yelena dembo, who took us all on, a massacre, of course ;) now, i have about 10 boards still going, and i'm losing half of them to people rated 2500-2800, besides Corus is just firing up for the final rounds... phil innes   Date: 25 Jan 2008 07:05:14 From: The Historian Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not On Jan 25, 9:27 am, zdrakec <zdra...@gmail.com > wrote: > On Jan 25, 7:57 am, The Historian <neil.thehistor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 25, 8:26 am, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > A series of exchanges on this issue of the current USCF Scandal, the Sloan > > > suit, and related matters will appear this weekend at Chessville, including > > > the initial invitational letter from Susan Polgar; a response to the > > > opportunity to USCF to make their own statement by Chessville, [received > > > overnight]; and a counter-note from Susan Polgar. > > > Oh, the latest "final response", in other words. > > > > When the material is published, further commentary may be made, both > > > editorially at Chessville, and in these newsgroups. > > > Warning, threat, or permission? P Innes' announcement can be read as > > any of the three. > > <<shrug>> I read it simply being information. Why did he feel the need to give us permission to do what we would do anyway?     Date: 25 Jan 2008 14:20:59 From: Chess One Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not "The Historian" <neil.thehistorian@gmail.com > wrote in message news:80263311-9d64-4e47-8a5d-fe4dadf6b652@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 25, 9:27 am, zdrakec <zdra...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jan 25, 7:57 am, The Historian <neil.thehistor...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On Jan 25, 8:26 am, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> > > A series of exchanges on this issue of the current USCF Scandal, the >> > > Sloan >> > > suit, and related matters will appear this weekend at Chessville, >> > > including >> > > the initial invitational letter from Susan Polgar; a response to the >> > > opportunity to USCF to make their own statement by Chessville, >> > > [received >> > > overnight]; and a counter-note from Susan Polgar. >> >> > Oh, the latest "final response", in other words. >> >> > > When the material is published, further commentary may be made, both >> > > editorially at Chessville, and in these newsgroups. >> >> > Warning, threat, or permission? P Innes' announcement can be read as >> > any of the three. >> >> <<shrug>> I read it simply being information. > > Why did he feel the need to give us permission to do what we would do > anyway? The culprit is the usual lack of understanding by Brennan, who is ever confused by multi-phrase sentences. Nowhere did I use the word 'permission', and whether its "warning, threat or permission", all three or none, seems to be simply the terms used by those who are so very /anxious/ about this issue. There are certainly other ways to characterise the issue. The sense of the material I wrote is to first allow it a big public view, and then to make commentary on it. There is no new 'final response' by Polgar, but instead a reiteration of what she predicted would happen - with perhaps some additional emphasis indicated after the board's response, on the consequences of declining to open up. My mailbag is already full of GM commentary [with an IM here and there] all, so far, supportive of Polgar. Now all chess players can also comment on what seems right and fair to them. After digesting the exchange sufficiently, I feel assured we will be entertained by more than a bunch of hot-heads here, by people who /do/ want to see the whole picture before committing to judgment. That was, and remains, the issue. Phil Innes   Date: 25 Jan 2008 06:27:05 From: zdrakec Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not On Jan 25, 7:57=A0am, The Historian <neil.thehistor...@gmail.com > wrote: > On Jan 25, 8:26 am, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > A series of exchanges on this issue of the current USCF Scandal, the Slo= an > > suit, and related matters will appear this weekend at Chessville, includ= ing > > the initial invitational letter from Susan Polgar; a response to the > > opportunity to USCF to make their own statement by Chessville, [received= > > overnight]; and a counter-note from Susan Polgar. > > Oh, the latest "final response", in other words. > > > When the material is published, further commentary may be made, both > > editorially at Chessville, and in these newsgroups. > > Warning, threat, or permission? P Innes' announcement can be read as > any of the three. <<shrug >> I read it simply being information.   Date: 25 Jan 2008 05:57:41 From: The Historian Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not On Jan 25, 8:26 am, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net > wrote: > A series of exchanges on this issue of the current USCF Scandal, the Sloan > suit, and related matters will appear this weekend at Chessville, including > the initial invitational letter from Susan Polgar; a response to the > opportunity to USCF to make their own statement by Chessville, [received > overnight]; and a counter-note from Susan Polgar. Oh, the latest "final response", in other words. > When the material is published, further commentary may be made, both > editorially at Chessville, and in these newsgroups. Warning, threat, or permission? P Innes' announcement can be read as any of the three.   Date: 24 Jan 2008 15:21:24 From: help bot Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not On Jan 24, 5:45 pm, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net > wrote: > 3 perversions and you are out of all reckoning. Join the perverts, > Phil Innes Why does nearly-IMnes keep ranting about other people, trashing them? Why can't he seem to write about /chess/? It seems that most days, while I am busy recounting my brilliant successes against the Beginner level, all nearly-IMnes does is bash Neil Brennan and dismiss every report regarding the Fake Sam Sloan; what a narrow repertoire... . -- hep blot     Date: 24 Jan 2008 19:13:34 From: Chess One Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not "help bot" <nomorechess@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:fb39cf6f-efa0-44c4-8830-838bd0a614d8@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 24, 5:45 pm, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> 3 perversions and you are out of all reckoning. Join the perverts, > >> Phil Innes > > > Why does nearly-IMnes keep ranting about > other people, trashing them? Why can't he > seem to write about /chess/? Greg, have a bash at writing about Corus if you are capable of it, instead of cutting what i wrote to you and mouthing off about some idiotic and utterly indifferent program spammer any master could defeat [given 3 days] with their eyes closed. > It seems that most days, while I am busy > recounting my brilliant successes against > the Beginner level, all nearly-IMnes does is > bash Neil Brennan and dismiss every report > regarding the Fake Sam Sloan; what a > narrow repertoire... . Chess itself is narrow - those who shout abuse about it for 6 years straight is passed over with no comment? If Greg Kennedy wanted to really address anything, then he would address his own attitude, but he cuts that. I suppose Kennedy's noise is simply a different form than other non-chess writers achieve here. It does have the same motive though, sour resentment of any achievement. If the gent wishes to be taken seriously, he will not behave as the lowest low-life here, with all its cowardly symptoms. If he has nothing to say at all to other people that he wishes to actually discuss with them, perhaps he will shut his mouth? That is his choice. I want to talk chess, not regret those who do. Phil Innes > > -- hep blot   Date: 24 Jan 2008 06:34:46 From: The Historian Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not On Jan 24, 9:30 am, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net > wrote: > "David Kane" <davidek...@comcast.net> wrote in message > >>> I am asking you why you think Paul Truong should be exempt > >>> from consequences for his actions. > > >> And I am repeatedly telling you that I do not think so. Before making yet > >> another response to you, on the same point, I should wish to understand > >> from you that you comprehend this fact. If you do not, then what you > >> write is simply more perversion. > > > I am not asking you to comment on Trolgar's latest > > story. (Has it ever stayed the same two weeks running?) > > Those are not facts. > > > I am asking for your comment on the facts. Why do > > you believe that Truong should not experience consequences > > for posting 1000s of obscene messages in others' names? > > And I am repeatedly telling you that I do not think so. Before making yet > another response to you, on the same point, I should wish to understand from > you that you comprehend this fact. If you do not, then what you write is > simply more perversion. > > > Repeating irrelevant, non-factual arguments tells us that > > you don't believe Truong should experience consequences, > > but it doesn't tell us *why* you believe that. > > > So I am asking. > > And I am repeatedly telling you that I do not think so. Before making yet > another response to you, on the same point, I should wish to understand from > you that you comprehend this fact. If you do not, then what you write is > simply more perversion. > > PI <snip ongoing propaganda & ad hominen attacks > Mr. Innes, I am not interested in your partisan PR campaign.     Date: 24 Jan 2008 16:57:43 From: Chess One Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not "The Historian" <neil.thehistorian@gmail.com > wrote in message news:0caafacf-dc20-4503-98aa- > > I am not interested in your partisan PR campaign. neil brennan is only interested in trashing other people. he has done so for 6 years he does not even like chess by any evidence of his writing which is 99% trashing people and he is merely a typical newsgroup abusenik an idiot who uses this medium to trash other people non-stop since that is the only attention possible for the likes of him he is /particularly/ interested in not opening up the doors so that anyone could discover just how it is since there is nothing whatever clean about neil brennan not in this newsgroup nor in others he is unable to distinguish between partisanship and openess, has consistently said so, to please the small gallery here that is his measure if i were to investigate who was the fss i would wonder very much why brennan himself was absent when that dolt was most active and stuggle to distinguish brennan's orientation from the fss since this is mere speculation, and that is the game here, why not say so? it is said that it only takes good people to do nothing for evil to flourish and this is the state of us chess such as brennan's postings and vile speculations go unnoticed and unchallenged by those who think rubbishing real merit a bit of sport think on that, won't you? but do not neglect that uscf are offered their own statement since either susan polgar is lying about recent events, or it is or another and nothing said on what is so secret that we can't attend on it instead of these rubbishings by noted stalkers and abuseniks? that is the choice for any reader to want to know all of it or attend these people's comments phil innes       Date: 24 Jan 2008 14:05:35 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:57:43 -0500, "Chess One" <OneChess@comcast.net > wrote: Phil might consider posting as "f f goings", since his writings are progressing from bad to verse.   Date: 24 Jan 2008 06:32:45 From: The Historian Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not On Jan 23, 10:49 am, "David Kane" <davidek...@comcast.net > wrote: > "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote in message > > news:gJGdnSMfcv9jpAranZ2dnUVZ_siknZ2d@comcast.com... > > > > > > > "David Kane" <davidek...@comcast.net> wrote in message > >news:YNednQpXsdxQ6QvanZ2dnUVZ_sCtnZ2d@comcast.com... > > >>>> Why do *you* believe that Paul Truong has a > >>>> right to post thousands of obscene messages while > >>>> posing as others, without consequence? > > >>> David, I never I said I do feel that - you have written it twice now - while > >>> ignoring this idea to open it up. > > >>> Therefore, I already know your evasions, and your lack of interest in > >>> opening the doors of perception. Do not write that I believe anyone has any > >>> write to 'post thousands of obscene messages'. How dare you! > > >> For months, you've been doing nothing but try to make excuses for the > >> person who did just that. Asking why is a perfectly legitimate question. > > >> I suppose in Polgar's case, she's married to him, which is an > >> understandable excuse. What is *your* excuse? > > > David - you did this with Larry Parr - you put words in his mouth which he > > never held - then when challenged you refused to correct your comment. > > > Secondly, asking for all parties to open up is not partisan! It is IMPARTIAL > > justice, for one and all. Any thing /else/ is partisan. > > The *facts* create the question. Paul Truong posted thousands > of obscene messages while posing as others. You repeatedly > have argued that he should suffer no consequences, and applaud > his and Susan's attempts to avoid them. Not just that. He's argued that resources should be spent tracking down the 'real' FSS. And curiously, the prime 'suspect' changes based on who is arguing with P Innes at the time.   Date: 23 Jan 2008 07:44:52 From: The Historian Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not On Jan 22, 3:17 pm, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net > wrote: > Meanwhile in the above comment, I ask you to take the challenge - to find > out who is clean or not. OK. We have two published reports, Mottershead and Jones. One links the FSS to Truong. The other confirms the findings of the first without naming Truong. I think Mr. Truong needs to come clean first.   Date: 23 Jan 2008 07:38:08 From: The Historian Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not On Jan 23, 7:53 am, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net > wrote: > To take them in order; Greg Kennedy who can't own his name thinks what's > fair is to lessen the names of those who can. Proabably, from a > psychological basis, we could stop there. The irony of Trolgar's defender making that criticism almost makes one's head explode!   Date: 23 Jan 2008 06:27:51 From: The Historian Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not On Jan 22, 2:26 pm, "David Kane" <davidek...@comcast.net > wrote: > "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote in message > > news:bLGdnSaw9bWBogvanZ2dnUVZ_vamnZ2d@comcast.com... > > > > > > > "David Kane" <davidek...@comcast.net> wrote in message > >news:3c2dnfyafPvNrgvanZ2dnUVZ_q2hnZ2d@comcast.com... > > >> "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote in message > >>news:c-mdnS8N4asYfAjanZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@comcast.com... > >>> STATE OF PLAY > > >> Please state why you believe that Paul Truong has a > >> right to post thousands of obscene messages while > >> posing as others, and then suffer no consequences for > >> his behavior. > > > I have no reason to do so beyond what I have already written which you are > > You have called for transparency. The only mystery in the present matter > is why some people feel that Truong's posting thousands of obscene messages > while > posing as others should not involve consequences. > > That is the question you should answer yourself, but also pose > to other members of the EB who, to date, have given Truong > a free ride. > > By the way, I am not Mike Murray, though I find his contributions > the best this newsgroup has to offer. I agree, David. Mike has been a beacon of sense amid the 'ignorant anonymice clashing by night' over the Mottershead Report.   Date: 23 Jan 2008 06:26:08 From: The Historian Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not On Jan 22, 2:08 pm, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net > wrote: > "David Kane" <davidek...@comcast.net> wrote in message > > news:3c2dnfyafPvNrgvanZ2dnUVZ_q2hnZ2d@comcast.com... > > > > > "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote in message > >news:c-mdnS8N4asYfAjanZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@comcast.com... > >> STATE OF PLAY > > > Please state why you believe that Paul Truong has a > > right to post thousands of obscene messages while > > posing as others, and then suffer no consequences for > > his behavior. > > I have no reason to do so beyond what I have already written which you are > not brave enough to let a single word stand. Pleaser state why Mike Murray > is such a //wussie// that he can't let other people's comments stand? ;) > > You are such a trite imbecile Murray! That is my opinion of you! > > > It is appalling that there have been no consequences > > to date. > > Consequences to you, do you mean? You are not correct. You are shown to be > what you are - a coward. > > You are not even worth discussing anything with, since you bravely CUT the > //entire// appeal for all parties to act in the open, while continuing your > agit-prop campaign here. That is all people need to know about one-issue > Mike Murray. > > But I think there /are/ consequences to all this business - its just a > matter of time until all is revealed, and you and the gang attain your just > deserts. You may not have noticed that you have all been called, and still > posture away!\ > > Don't ask me more question when you cut the responses and tell people what I > believe instead. That is the mark of a coward. Is /that/ clear, Murray? > > ROFL > > Phil Innes Another example of P Innes and his wonderful "stylistic" analysis. Only P Innes is capable of deducing that David Kane and Mike Murray are one and the same poster.   Date: 22 Jan 2008 14:56:37 From: help bot Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not On Jan 22, 5:02 pm, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net > wrote: > > Why do *you* believe that Paul Truong has a > > right to post thousands of obscene messages while > > posing as others, without consequence? > > David, I never I said I do feel that - you have written it twice now - while > ignoring this idea to open it up. > > Therefore, I already know your evasions, and your lack of interest in > opening the doors of perception. Do not write that I believe anyone has any > write to 'post thousands of obscene messages'. How dare you! > > Whatever else you have to say, don't say it to me. You already know my > opinion about your 'orientation'. I think that's Skippy Repa you are thinking of: ninety percent straight, ten percent bi- curious. ---------------------- Writers who claim to know something about Paul Truong have opined that if the SP/PT duo are involved, it must be PT who is guilty, not SP. But what if these "experts" are wrong? What if he is covering for his wife? Then a whole lot of accusations would turn out to have missed the mark. Who can blame a man for attempting to protect his wife, for not willingly handing over evidence against her? As for me, I find the Susan Polgar Web site to be clear evidence of heinous atrocities against Truth and Justice, so accusations against the owner(s) and creator(s) of that site are consistent with what I've seen with my own eyes. Hence, I am a bit lacking in sympathy, or interest in defending the low scum responsible-- whoever it might be. Not to say I want to hang an innocent man... far from it. I've seen what can happen to those who make that mistake (gulp); a tall rider comes looking for you, to take his revenge... someone who looks just like Clint Eastwood-- without the beer-belly. Even Alan Hale could not escape... . But I think it is a fair question to ask nearly-Innes why he kneejerk-defends these two, and like other ratpackers, ignores any and all "evidence" which might implicate either of them. It is certainly peculiar, in view of the many attacks on others which had no real evidence, and which were supported by the evil ratpack. The about-face regarding "innocent until proved guilty" sticks out like a doubled h-pawn. It indicates that this is no matter of principle, but rather, one of personal bias. And what does that say about the real-world value of nearly-Innes' opinions on this matter? -- help bot     Date: 23 Jan 2008 07:53:06 From: Chess One Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not "help bot" <nomorechess@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:7218ea3c-ec16-475d-8f86-5d5bdf4406d3@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... > But I think it is a fair question to ask > nearly-Innes why he kneejerk-defends > these two, and like other ratpackers, that's 2 questions so far > ignores any and all "evidence" which that's 3 > might implicate either of them. It is > certainly peculiar, in view of the many > attacks on others which had no real > evidence, and which were supported > by the evil ratpack. The about-face > regarding "innocent until proved guilty" > sticks out like a doubled h-pawn. It > indicates that this is no matter of > principle, but rather, one of personal > bias. And what does that say about > the real-world value of nearly-Innes' > opinions on this matter? those are 4 and 5. To take them in order; Greg Kennedy who can't own his name thinks what's fair is to lessen the names of those who can. Proabably, from a psychological basis, we could stop there. But the 2nd is to call 'rat-packers' everyone who wants to write about chess in the open - or even just want to write about chess! Then there is all "evidence" which Kennedy suggests I ignore - but it has it exactly the wrong way around - and the challenge /is/ to look at all evidence, instead of one-sided accusations. That challenge now lies on USCF's doormat. Kennedy continues to argue that all sides having to open up is personal not a matter of principle. Shall we pass by this one quickly, lest he commits 2 logical fallicies, one after the other? And finally, what it says about me is that I see one secretive organisation operating as a non-profit, pro bono caissa, and because I write about chess, and none of the anti-Truong crowd do that, then it is as natural as day that I want chess to be an open topic for everyone. --- I merely assume that all the people who do not want USCF to open up - can't even seem to notice that this is, and always has been, the issue - are interested in something other than chess. The list of people who encourage such openess seems to include the strongest players in the USA, now and then, rather than any saucerful of secrets of which no good can ever come. There is nothing else to say except to make this point, and to ask people to admit it, or do their own thing for their own reasons: that the USCF should not operate in camera, and that it is the considered opinion of very many people indeed, that most of its 'troubles' would simply not exist if it did so. Phil Innes > > > -- help bot > > >   Date: 22 Jan 2008 11:27:44 From: jeremy.p.spinrad@vanderbilt.edu Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not I did not want to be caught up in this argument, which I feel is a sideshow. However, since Phil brought me up, I feel I must say my piece. The accusation against the USCF board is that they used a pretext to request that Paul Truong step down. This simply does not interest me at all as a potential scandal. It distracts from the real issue - did Paul Truong impersonate people in the newsgroups, and then try to lie about it and cover it up? If I had to guess, I would venture that at some point the board had enough of the foot-dragging tactics of Truong, and made the request because of it, while Truong could make the argument that he was cooperating and was going to produce them. No crime either side as far as that goes. Truong could defuse the resignation call much more effectively by simply producing legally binding testimony of innocence, and giving legal access to his internet records. If he is innocent, he should be eager to provide both of these, rather than having to negotiate his way to doing so. The longer he waits on doing these, the more we deserve to know why it is taking so long (and the more suspicious his actions will seem). I would prefer this to be my final word on opening the email records between the board, since it is not an issue I want to see continue distracting from the main question. I would enjoy looking at such records, but mostly as a form of entertainment on the order of finding out what new lows Brittney Spears has reached. Jerry Spinrad On Jan 22, 6:28=A0am, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net > wrote: > =A0 =A0 STATE OF PLAY > > While to-date I, Phil Innes, and Larry Parr, have both encouraged openning= > up this issue so that all can see 'who is clean and who is not', and > especially that USCF members can make their own assessment, and to let the= > chips lie where they may... It is fascinating to read that this is > partisanship! Though how Lary Parr and I can possibly be on the same team > for this issue is unexplained [though surely someone will try now!] In fac= t, > this issue will not even be contested or resolved by either of us - since > the intent is for the members to do that. > > Equally fascinating is who does /not want/ the issue opened up. At least 4= > recent commentators here, Brennan + 3 single-issue posters; the > not-a-Christian 'Reverend' Walker, Litigious-Laugherty, and Mike '48' > Murray, cannot bring themselves to support members coming to their own > conclusions by assessing all sides of the issue. > > Who else can't manage to say much who is a 'frequent-contributor' to this > subject? Well, there is ChessCafe's columnist Jerry Spinrad. But the main > absentee from openness of communcation is Sam Sloan himself. > > =A0 =A0 SLOAN'S OPTIONS > > After an entire year of preaching to us that openning up the secretive can= > of worms at USCF was his own dedicated mission, where is Sam Sloan now, wh= en > it comes right down to it? > > And finally, the last party not to aver allowing the members to make up > their own minds, rather than whatever is currently going on in the secret > recessess, is USCF itself. In 3 days the editorial deadline is reached, an= d > if USCF decline to accept either making their own statement, or to accept > the offer to open the secret doors, then I will be obliged to say so. To > respond or not is entirely USCF's own business, but it does have > consequences:- > > =A0 =A0 REASONABLE DOUBT > > Since this is a very specific instance of official secrecy then the > speculatory boot -the reasonable doubt- will be on the other foot, no? Sin= ce > what business /should/ need be secret in a public non-profit which exists = to > promote and administer chess in the USA [excepting personnel records, and > such mandated federal confidential matters]. > > The biggest stimulus to affronting 'official secrets' would be if Sam Sloa= n > should support Susan Polgar on this issue, by also declaring that the ligh= t > should shine on all this matter - as he himself said most consistently of > all for an entire year - and indeed, who could possibly object then? > > Phil Innes     Date: 22 Jan 2008 15:26:46 From: Chess One Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not <jeremy.p.spinrad@vanderbilt.edu > wrote in message news:d41f4e14-1634-4864-a077-5e47d44ea863@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com... I did not want to be caught up in this argument, which I feel is a sideshow. However, since Phil brought me up, I feel I must say my piece. The accusation against the USCF board is that they used a pretext to request that Paul Truong step down. This simply does not interest me at all as a potential scandal. It distracts from the real issue - did Paul Truong impersonate people in the newsgroups, and then try to lie about it and cover it up? If I had to guess, ---- Jerry Spinraqd of Chesscafe /has/ to guess. He wants to guess. If he wanted to actually find out who is clean or not, and he does not! Then he would come along with Larry Parr and I and say, 'throw open the doors!' and let the sun shine in, and let all see within. The rest of his message here is because he does /not/ want to do that. And since I have a reasonable toleration level for plain statement, and an equivocation or two, and I have asked him this before - lets not pretend that Jerry Spinrad , who previously wrote on 'behalf of the members' is at all sincere. In fact... he now abandons his last plea, 'for the members' since he can't admit even that the issue is to do with corruption within, the strange awarding of contracts to certain parties, and that members should even know about these things. he does not mention that he is employed by a USCF contractee! The gauntlet is down - he is not going to pick it up - but spares us a few further insincere words about what he cares - his last words, so he says. May they be so. Phil Innes ------------- I would venture that at some point the board had enough of the foot-dragging tactics of Truong, and made the request because of it, while Truong could make the argument that he was cooperating and was going to produce them. No crime either side as far as that goes. Truong could defuse the resignation call much more effectively by simply producing legally binding testimony of innocence, and giving legal access to his internet records. If he is innocent, he should be eager to provide both of these, rather than having to negotiate his way to doing so. The longer he waits on doing these, the more we deserve to know why it is taking so long (and the more suspicious his actions will seem). I would prefer this to be my final word on opening the email records between the board, since it is not an issue I want to see continue distracting from the main question. I would enjoy looking at such records, but mostly as a form of entertainment on the order of finding out what new lows Brittney Spears has reached. Jerry Spinrad On Jan 22, 6:28 am