Main
Date: 06 Jun 2007 00:43:24
From: samsloan
Subject: Innes Challenges Sloan to a Grudge Match
On Jun 5, 6:57 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> having liberally smeared everyone who might contest his precious seat, mr
> slaon now proceeds to smear a player's record. i have seen paul troung play
> the twice european junior champion and russian champion too. otb mr truong
> would smear mr sloan! and so would i!


Why look at that! Phil Innes has just challenged the great me to a
grudge match.

How much do you really want to bet?

I realize that it takes great temerity for me to challenge the
redoubtable "Nearly an IM" Phil Innes to a grudge match, but I am
looking forward to picking up another easy thousand bucks. However, I
doubt anybody would be seriously willing to bet on a complete patzer
like Innes.

Unlike Innes, I do actually play chess.

Any takers?

Sam Sloan





 
Date: 07 Jun 2007 21:45:35
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Innes Challenges Sloan to a Grudge Match
On Jun 8, 12:33 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jun 7, 6:15 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The upper left hand corner of the RHP home page displays the
> > information below. Hoe knight avatar net to it wouldn't copy and
> > paste. I am signed up. Perhaps you should go to chessworld.net and
> > sign up there since you aren't taking invitations on RHP.
>
> > My Home
> > My Details
> > robmtchl
>
> Okay, so maybe there is a massive delay between
> when a new player signs up and when their name
> will appear in the search database? I assumed
> the last character in your handle is the letter L, not
> the number 1. How about this: you search for
> "robmtchl" and see if your own name comes up for
> you.
> Mine ("help bot") does.
>
> -- help bot

Okay, this is weird: I cannot locate the player named
"robmtchl" by any search but the site allowed me to
challenge "robmtchl" nonetheless! Of course I took
the Black pieces, so I can demolish the poor fellow
with my ultra-sharp Pelikan-Lopez-Sveshnikov line,
where on move 63 I have a little TN surprise waiting.
Feathers will fly!

-- help bot



 
Date: 07 Jun 2007 21:33:48
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Innes Challenges Sloan to a Grudge Match
On Jun 7, 6:15 pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:

> The upper left hand corner of the RHP home page displays the
> information below. Hoe knight avatar net to it wouldn't copy and
> paste. I am signed up. Perhaps you should go to chessworld.net and
> sign up there since you aren't taking invitations on RHP.
>
> My Home
> My Details
> robmtchl


Okay, so maybe there is a massive delay between
when a new player signs up and when their name
will appear in the search database? I assumed
the last character in your handle is the letter L, not
the number 1. How about this: you search for
"robmtchl" and see if your own name comes up for
you.
Mine ("help bot") does.

-- help bot





 
Date: 07 Jun 2007 15:15:47
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Innes Challenges Sloan to a Grudge Match
On Jun 7, 9:27 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jun 6, 10:34 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 6, 4:38 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > But judging someone of Sloan's stregnth isn't much of a stretch about
> > > our ability 'bot. I just signed up there too at RHP but it says you
> > > are not taking any new game invitations. I am there as robmtchl
>
> > "Rob Mitchell" is a Class D player. He has no idea.
>
> As far as I can tell, he can't even remember what name he
> signed up under, for "robmtchl" came up blank.
>
> > He cannot even imagine what my strength is.
>
> Offer him Queen odds; that way he can just begin to
> test your mettle.
>
> > Phil Innes has a barely established low expert rating from 1995, based
> > on 23 games.
> > Based on what has happened to the rating system during the past 12
> > years, I estimate his strength by today's standards as being 1850.
>
> In person, perhaps. But online, with his new chess
> program Rybka, he may well be in the realm of
> 2800+.
>
> > Yet, he continues to brag about how strong he is.
>
> Some people just don't know when to call it quits.
>
> In the threads regarding the Whitaker game, several
> people still refuse to admit that there is no "fortress"
> draw, even after a well-known chess genius (i.e. me)
> has verified this as fact.
>
> -- help bot
The upper left hand corner of the RHP home page displays the
information below. Hoe knight avatar net to it wouldn't copy and
paste. I am signed up. Perhaps you should go to chessworld.net and
sign up there since you aren't taking invitations on RHP.

My Home
My Details
robmtchl

Rob



 
Date: 07 Jun 2007 07:27:52
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Innes Challenges Sloan to a Grudge Match
On Jun 6, 10:34 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jun 6, 4:38 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > But judging someone of Sloan's stregnth isn't much of a stretch about
> > our ability 'bot. I just signed up there too at RHP but it says you
> > are not taking any new game invitations. I am there as robmtchl
>
> "Rob Mitchell" is a Class D player. He has no idea.

As far as I can tell, he can't even remember what name he
signed up under, for "robmtchl" came up blank.


> He cannot even imagine what my strength is.

Offer him Queen odds; that way he can just begin to
test your mettle.


> Phil Innes has a barely established low expert rating from 1995, based
> on 23 games.
> Based on what has happened to the rating system during the past 12
> years, I estimate his strength by today's standards as being 1850.


In person, perhaps. But online, with his new chess
program Rybka, he may well be in the realm of
2800+.


> Yet, he continues to brag about how strong he is.


Some people just don't know when to call it quits.

In the threads regarding the Whitaker game, several
people still refuse to admit that there is no "fortress"
draw, even after a well-known chess genius (i.e. me)
has verified this as fact.

-- help bot



 
Date: 07 Jun 2007 07:17:22
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Innes Challenges Sloan to a Grudge Match
On Jun 6, 9:49 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jun 6, 9:39 pm, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The reason I am not open to challenges from everyone
> > is that this one guy from Iceland keeps beating me with
> > Rook odds. Whatever you do, don't play "RbrtDJames".
> > ;>D
>
> > -- help bot
>
> I assume that this is a joke although I would like for it to be true.
>
> A good joke, but please don't let anybody in on it.


Of course it is a joke; nobody can beat me *consistently*
with Rook odds. : >D

-- help bot



 
Date: 06 Jun 2007 19:34:06
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Innes Challenges Sloan to a Grudge Match
On Jun 6, 4:38 pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:

> But judging someone of Sloan's stregnth isn't much of a stretch about
> our ability 'bot. I just signed up there too at RHP but it says you
> are not taking any new game invitations. I am there as robmtchl

"Rob Mitchell" is a Class D player. He has no idea. He cannot even
imagine what my strength is.

Phil Innes has a barely established low expert rating from 1995, based
on 23 games.

Based on what has happened to the rating system during the past 12
years, I estimate his strength by today's standards as being 1850.

Yet, he continues to brag about how strong he is.

Sam Sloan




  
Date: 06 Jun 2007 22:44:18
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Innes Challenges Sloan to a Grudge Match
On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 19:34:06 -0700, samsloan <[email protected] >
wrote:

>Phil Innes has a barely established low expert rating from 1995, based
>on 23 games.

>Based on what has happened to the rating system during the past 12
>years, I estimate his strength by today's standards as being 1850.

This doesn't match my experience. When I quit playing tournament
chess in 1976 (age 32), my rating had dropped to 1969. I took about
thirty years off, then started playing again. After four events, my
rating is 1979. Of the players I knew back then who are still
playing, the only ones to have suffered big drops in rating have also
suffered health problems. My experience may or may not be
representative, but I haven't seen anything to indicate a solid Expert
in 1995 would be on the low end of Class A today.


 
Date: 06 Jun 2007 18:49:26
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Innes Challenges Sloan to a Grudge Match
On Jun 6, 9:39 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:

> The reason I am not open to challenges from everyone
> is that this one guy from Iceland keeps beating me with
> Rook odds. Whatever you do, don't play "RbrtDJames".
> ;>D
>
> -- help bot

I assume that this is a joke although I would like for it to be true.

A good joke, but please don't let anybody in on it.

Sam Sloan



 
Date: 06 Jun 2007 18:39:40
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Innes Challenges Sloan to a Grudge Match
On Jun 6, 4:38 pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:

> But judging someone of Sloan's stregnth isn't much of a stretch about
> our ability 'bot. I just signed up there too at RHP but it says you
> are not taking any new game invitations. I am there as robmtchl

Funny: I searched for "robmtchl" and nothing comes up.

The reason I am not open to challenges from everyone
is that this one guy from Iceland keeps beating me with
Rook odds. Whatever you do, don't play "RbrtDJames".
; >D

-- help bot





 
Date: 06 Jun 2007 13:38:29
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Innes Challenges Sloan to a Grudge Match
On Jun 6, 3:27 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jun 6, 2:51 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Mr. Bot,
> > While unlikely I would stand a chance there is always the outside
> > opportunity for an upset.I am a fair judge of ability. SHould someone
> > wish to play me a game I will glady rate your chances against Mr.
> > Innes. I have played a few who may be as strong, but none clearly
> > stronger than Mr. Innes.
>
> Well, in my experience weak players are a poor judge
> of the relative skills of their vast superiors. For instance,
> many weak players will judge a reckless attacker who
> beats them *quickly* as far superior to a dull positional
> player like say, Ulf Andersen or former world champ
> Tigran Petrosian.
>
> If Sanny would bring his Web site back, we could play
> there live, but as it is, I am currently playing at RedHotPawn
> and it is entirely free (six concurrent games limit). This
> site works very well, and there are none of the annoying
> snafus seen at GetClub (like no draws!). My handle is
> nearlyanim2450 -- no, wait: that's somebody else! My
> handle is simply "help bot". Several players have beaten
> me soundly, though it is quite possible that one or two
> may have used computer assistance. On the whole, my
> typical game is a one-sided massacre of a much, much
> weaker player than myself; it's lonely at the top. ;>D
>
> -- help bot

But judging someone of Sloan's stregnth isn't much of a stretch about
our ability 'bot. I just signed up there too at RHP but it says you
are not taking any new game invitations. I am there as robmtchl



 
Date: 06 Jun 2007 13:27:46
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Innes Challenges Sloan to a Grudge Match
On Jun 6, 2:51 pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:


> Mr. Bot,
> While unlikely I would stand a chance there is always the outside
> opportunity for an upset.I am a fair judge of ability. SHould someone
> wish to play me a game I will glady rate your chances against Mr.
> Innes. I have played a few who may be as strong, but none clearly
> stronger than Mr. Innes.

Well, in my experience weak players are a poor judge
of the relative skills of their vast superiors. For instance,
many weak players will judge a reckless attacker who
beats them *quickly* as far superior to a dull positional
player like say, Ulf Andersen or former world champ
Tigran Petrosian.

If Sanny would bring his Web site back, we could play
there live, but as it is, I am currently playing at RedHotPawn
and it is entirely free (six concurrent games limit). This
site works very well, and there are none of the annoying
snafus seen at GetClub (like no draws!). My handle is
nearlyanim2450 -- no, wait: that's somebody else! My
handle is simply "help bot". Several players have beaten
me soundly, though it is quite possible that one or two
may have used computer assistance. On the whole, my
typical game is a one-sided massacre of a much, much
weaker player than myself; it's lonely at the top. ; >D

-- help bot





 
Date: 06 Jun 2007 11:51:55
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Innes Challenges Sloan to a Grudge Match
On Jun 6, 1:46 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jun 6, 12:54 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 6, 4:26 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 6, 12:28 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Tisk... you have dodged my invitations.
>
> > > Not at all. I am willing to play you a grudge match for a thousand
> > > dollars too.
>
> > > You are probably even weaker than Innes.
>
> > > Sam Sloan
>
> > Oh,
> > I am much weaker. But I see that you won't play for honor. I wouldn't
> > play you for money. WInning isn't a sure thing and gambling is for
> > suckers. I would be willing to admit that you beat me and were a
> > better player should that be the case. But you have ignored the
> > requests for two plus years and I doubt your dodging will change.
> > Rob
>
> Mr. Mitchel, do you think for one second that if your
> hero IM Innes is afraid to face Mr. Sloan himself, that you
> would stand even half a chance? No, I think it would
> hardly be a game at all, but merely a one-sided slaughter.
>
> You need to start thinking about playing people more
> your own level, like say, Sanny or Louis Blair. Don't
> worry: soon Sanny will be back and his program will be
> even more "improved" than ever before! I myself will
> sacrifice my rating by risking a game or two against you
> lowly humans.
>
> -- help bot- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Mr. Bot,
While unlikely I would stand a chance there is always the outside
opportunity for an upset.I am a fair judge of ability. SHould someone
wish to play me a game I will glady rate your chances against Mr.
Innes. I have played a few who may be as strong, but none clearly
stronger than Mr. Innes.
Rob



 
Date: 06 Jun 2007 11:46:50
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Innes Challenges Sloan to a Grudge Match
On Jun 6, 12:54 pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jun 6, 4:26 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 6, 12:28 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Tisk... you have dodged my invitations.
>
> > Not at all. I am willing to play you a grudge match for a thousand
> > dollars too.
>
> > You are probably even weaker than Innes.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> Oh,
> I am much weaker. But I see that you won't play for honor. I wouldn't
> play you for money. WInning isn't a sure thing and gambling is for
> suckers. I would be willing to admit that you beat me and were a
> better player should that be the case. But you have ignored the
> requests for two plus years and I doubt your dodging will change.
> Rob

Mr. Mitchel, do you think for one second that if your
hero IM Innes is afraid to face Mr. Sloan himself, that you
would stand even half a chance? No, I think it would
hardly be a game at all, but merely a one-sided slaughter.

You need to start thinking about playing people more
your own level, like say, Sanny or Louis Blair. Don't
worry: soon Sanny will be back and his program will be
even more "improved" than ever before! I myself will
sacrifice my rating by risking a game or two against you
lowly humans.

-- help bot



  
Date: 07 Jun 2007 06:19:26
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Innes Challenges Sloan to a Grudge Match
On Jun 7, 7:55 am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 05:17:03 -0700, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
> >I know how he really beat Brock. And it wasn't
> >over the board
> >Rob
>
> I don't think you were active in this group, Rob, when the original
> "grudge match" took place, but Sam beat Brock face-to-face, over the
> board. He traveled to Chicago, I believe, to play the match. Another
> player monitored the match and posted the moves to the net. A large
> group of us kibitzed while they played.
>
> Sloan won the match fair and square, and, AFAIK, Brock will be the
> first to admit it.

No. I remember the "flight to Chicago. But I also know something of
the psychology behind hustling. From what I heard of the match, it was
a well orchastrated "hustle". Chess was just the medium to forward it.


And to answer Sloan. I do play
Rob



 
Date: 06 Jun 2007 09:54:55
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Innes Challenges Sloan to a Grudge Match
On Jun 6, 4:26 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jun 6, 12:28 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Tisk... you have dodged my invitations.
>
> Not at all. I am willing to play you a grudge match for a thousand
> dollars too.
>
> You are probably even weaker than Innes.
>
> Sam Sloan

Oh,
I am much weaker. But I see that you won't play for honor. I wouldn't
play you for money. WInning isn't a sure thing and gambling is for
suckers. I would be willing to admit that you beat me and were a
better player should that be the case. But you have ignored the
requests for two plus years and I doubt your dodging will change.
Rob



 
Date: 06 Jun 2007 08:57:30
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Innes Challenges Sloan to a Grudge Match
On Jun 6, 9:17 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> > Good point. After years of watching his old pal Larry Parr
> > in action, IM Innes is well aware of how this game is played.
>
> you are surely not going to /continue/ to mock people with names from
> anonymity!

Ridiculous! I have been called all sorts of "names".


> the thing you miss is the different psychology of putting your
> own name to things

Ah, the personal, ad hom. psychology.



> then, at minimum, you have to own your own opinion from
> your own experience

This sounds like what IM Innes is missing, not me.

Consider, for example, the inability to think about
chess "creativity" for himself, while always using
a proxy thinker -- GM Adorjan -- to do this for him.
Even when the proxy cannot express himself clearly,
PI is mentally frozen, so to speak, and falls back to
mutterings about the jibber-English rantings of his
idol.


> rather than a mocking-superior type

I can't blame you for seeing me as "superior", since
in fact I am! Just consider my analysis of the SS
Whitaker game, which is unmatched here. Of course,
all the weaker players have trouble seeing the win,
while I (and Rybka?) can see it plain as day! This
is the sort of acid test which separates the corn from
the dry stalks.


> while i do not always agree with larry parr, and in terms of sloan, do not
> agree with him, i never noticed larry parr backing away from anything!

Ah, stubbornness! This is something he has in common
with other rgc posters (and mules!).


> even seen him admit a mistake!

Rare indeed. (Not the mistakes, the admissions.)



> which is at least a bronze medal on usenet.
> of course, he cannot defend what other people think he said, or even insist
> they think he said, which is an argument made of the merest kingstonite


The *automatic*, unthinking lashings out at TK are
revealing; how does TK really relate to LP here? Why
does his name magically appear? (Surely you are not
suggesting that TK is in the same class with me and
Rybka? I imagine he would be among the many who
can't quite see the win against Whitaker.)


> > I expect this demonstrates that GP was not then, the
> > "strongest player here".
>
> see 'player'. i know everyone else is much better than he and i, but we are
> both players rather than genius-theorists

Yeah, yeah -- you played a few games via the internet,
just like most of us. But when push comes to shove,
you can't back your claims to chess strength with OTB
results, any more than claims that SS is of master or
expert strength can be backed with real evidence. All
blow, and no go!


> > Any decent player ought to be
> > able to last longer than 14 or 18 moves, even against
> > PI's very latest version of Rybka.
>
> now if i used rybka i wouldn't be 2250, i would be 2950 or rather more!


I agree. But you say you defeated a 2100 in a very
small number of moves -- twice! Is this not just a
little bit suspicious looking in view of your relative
strengths (in reality, not Fantasy-land)? That's the
only reason I mentioned your new chess program,
not because you won, but because usually a 2100
can be expected to put up a bit of a tussle (to say
the least).


> > What the heck did he
> > do -- walk into an ultra-sharp Sicilian trap line that he
> > didn't even know how to play?
>
> he played a [delayed] pelikan as black, took an early mid game pawn i
> dangled out there, missed a simple fork netting me a piece.


See what I mean? A simple fork? Now what sort
of 2100 misses "simple" forks, unless of course it
was only simple... to Rybka!

OTOH, I once played in a team tourney where one
of us hung a piece in under ten moves. The other
guys were lucky to draw, and lo and behold, my
opponent, whose rating was quite impressive by
most standards, returned the favor! Some guys
give chess ratings a bad name.



> with black i
> played an english defence, which i know 3 moves of - gotta like them
> laser-bishops! and you get two of 'em - again he took a 'negligent' pawn,
> and another queen swoop threatened to bring the house down


Okay, here's the deal: I'm gonna save my allowance
for months and months, and then ask mummy if I can
butyRybka. Then you send me the game scores, and
I will check to see if you *copied* Ribbie's moves --
fair dinkam?


> seriously for a moment - what is the value of time in rating points at cc? i
> certainly have played one computer, probably sargon, where a 1350 player was
> rather better than the 1800 guys in our tournament, and sometimes people are
> very 'booked' and need to get tactically swindled by some slight manoeuvring
> out of the book
>
> but given time to make your move, how much advantage is that? I am playing
> one guy with a fide ELO of about 2000 [maybe 2175 us]

Yikes! Didn't you get the memo? At that level, there
is little difference between USCF and FIDE. Of course,
way up here (thin air is hard to breath, I tell you!) things
are different.


> who sports a cc rating
> of between 2400 and 2550. is that simply the result of him taking 8 days to
> work it out? in his game with white he played exxentrically in yet another
> pelikan, certainly not any book line. with black he has an unusual ruy.


Maybe he accidentally disabled the program's opening
book without realizing it.


> >> This morning someone said they'd put up more than $1,000, in fact $2,500
> >> for
> >> a match. But I don't chose to play cowards or me-me blowhards, or even
> >> their
> >> fakers.
>
> > That looks like a (quacking) duck to me.
>
> as above - you can have played, or you can talk about it

I think we have gone through this before; the prospect
of getting slaughtered by someone's new chess program
does not excite me at all. Many years ago I went through
the same ordeal in correspondence play, and like BF, I
just quit from disgust. Of course, if you are the only one
with Rybka, that's a horse of a different color. ; >D


> > The strange thing is, SS always looks at these matches
> > as a way of snarfing OPM (other people's money) for
> > himself, without risking his own. That makes him an
> > opportunist, not a defender of Truth, Justice, and the
> > 'Murican way.
>
> its a pure diversion from his 'questions' about paul truong

Yes, it is a diversion, but I think he is serious about
getting some free money; SS is always in the ket
for free money.


> people who question him are banned, like our man-in-white, which-Mitch?


If SS has the power to control things there, then
ask your "questions" someplace where he doesn't.
Like here maybe.


> > The thing about in-person matches is we get to focus
> > on the chess, and not on the possibility that one (or
> > more!) player is cheating by using a chess program.
>
> 'we' gawd! is that like we cheating paranoids?

It relates to the spectators, the peons. You know,
the little people. Let them eat cake, and all that.


> i think you'll find that a foundation entirely composed of shit won't hold
> much weight

It depends. If you dry it out and compact it... .

-- help bot





  
Date: 07 Jun 2007 00:05:31
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Innes Challenges Sloan to a Grudge Match

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]

>> the thing you miss is the different psychology of putting your
>> own name to things
>
> Ah, the personal, ad hom. psychology.

really? more like an experiment

>> then, at minimum, you have to own your own opinion from
>> your own experience
>
> This sounds like what IM Innes is missing, not me.
>
> Consider, for example, the inability to think about
> chess "creativity" for himself, while always using
> a proxy thinker -- GM Adorjan -- to do this for him.

i am really very shy to forward my own opinions into the public domain ;(

> Even when the proxy cannot express himself clearly,
> PI is mentally frozen, so to speak, and falls back to
> mutterings about the jibber-English rantings of his
> idol.

o dear...

>> rather than a mocking-superior type
>
> I can't blame you for seeing me as "superior", since
> in fact I am! Just consider my analysis of the SS
> Whitaker game, which is unmatched here. Of course,
> all the weaker players have trouble seeing the win,
> while I (and Rybka?) can see it plain as day! This
> is the sort of acid test which separates the corn from
> the dry stalks.

i'll take your word for it since i haven't followed that thread since i've
had a fried modem which lets me on-line for 30 secs every 2 minutes, but a
nice guy from mexico just fixed it.

>> while i do not always agree with larry parr, and in terms of sloan, do
not
>> agree with him, i never noticed larry parr backing away from anything!
>
> Ah, stubbornness! This is something he has in common
> with other rgc posters (and mules!).
>
>
>> even seen him admit a mistake!
>
> Rare indeed. (Not the mistakes, the admissions.)

laugh, but rare is an exclamation k here!


>> which is at least a bronze medal on usenet.
>> of course, he cannot defend what other people think he said, or even
>> insist
>> they think he said, which is an argument made of the merest kingstonite
>
>
> The *automatic*, unthinking lashings out at TK are
> revealing;

untrue, i rarely automatically lash out at fatuous flatlanders, gotta infer
their stuff stead of finding it in the real dirt, no more'n any other

> how does TK really relate to LP here? Why
> does his name magically appear? (Surely you are not
> suggesting that TK is in the same class with me and
> Rybka? I imagine he would be among the many who
> can't quite see the win against Whitaker.)

you are dissing long konig? how daring to place him among 'the others'

>> > I expect this demonstrates that GP was not then, the
>> > "strongest player here".
>>
>> see 'player'. i know everyone else is much better than he and i, but we
>> are
>> both players rather than genius-theorists
>
> Yeah, yeah -- you played a few games via the internet,
> just like most of us.

a few hundred or four hundred

> But when push comes to shove,
> you can't back your claims to chess strength with OTB
> results, any more than claims that SS is of master or
> expert strength can be backed with real evidence. All
> blow, and no go!

not true, i even have the label which gave me 2199 at uscf, not bad after a
20 year lay-off

>> > Any decent player ought to be
>> > able to last longer than 14 or 18 moves, even against
>> > PI's very latest version of Rybka.
>>
>> now if i used rybka i wouldn't be 2250, i would be 2950 or rather more!
>
>
> I agree. But you say you defeated a 2100 in a very
> small number of moves -- twice! Is this not just a
> little bit suspicious looking in view of your relative
> strengths (in reality, not Fantasy-land)?

why don;t you ask him?

> That's the
> only reason I mentioned your new chess program,
> not because you won, but because usually a 2100
> can be expected to put up a bit of a tussle (to say
> the least).

i think he pretty much beat everyone else - but look, i gotta date with my
wife,, so so long

pi

ps; i wish everyone would stop saying 'mr innes' - how ridiculous! lord
vader is a suitable substitute

>
>> > What the heck did he
>> > do -- walk into an ultra-sharp Sicilian trap line that he
>> > didn't even know how to play?
>>
>> he played a [delayed] pelikan as black, took an early mid game pawn i
>> dangled out there, missed a simple fork netting me a piece.
>
>
> See what I mean? A simple fork? Now what sort
> of 2100 misses "simple" forks, unless of course it
> was only simple... to Rybka!
>
> OTOH, I once played in a team tourney where one
> of us hung a piece in under ten moves. The other
> guys were lucky to draw, and lo and behold, my
> opponent, whose rating was quite impressive by
> most standards, returned the favor! Some guys
> give chess ratings a bad name.
>
>
>
>> with black i
>> played an english defence, which i know 3 moves of - gotta like them
>> laser-bishops! and you get two of 'em - again he took a 'negligent' pawn,
>> and another queen swoop threatened to bring the house down
>
>
> Okay, here's the deal: I'm gonna save my allowance
> for months and months, and then ask mummy if I can
> butyRybka. Then you send me the game scores, and
> I will check to see if you *copied* Ribbie's moves --
> fair dinkam?
>
>
>> seriously for a moment - what is the value of time in rating points at
>> cc? i
>> certainly have played one computer, probably sargon, where a 1350 player
>> was
>> rather better than the 1800 guys in our tournament, and sometimes people
>> are
>> very 'booked' and need to get tactically swindled by some slight
>> manoeuvring
>> out of the book
>>
>> but given time to make your move, how much advantage is that? I am
>> playing
>> one guy with a fide ELO of about 2000 [maybe 2175 us]
>
> Yikes! Didn't you get the memo? At that level, there
> is little difference between USCF and FIDE. Of course,
> way up here (thin air is hard to breath, I tell you!) things
> are different.
>
>
>> who sports a cc rating
>> of between 2400 and 2550. is that simply the result of him taking 8 days
>> to
>> work it out? in his game with white he played exxentrically in yet
>> another
>> pelikan, certainly not any book line. with black he has an unusual ruy.
>
>
> Maybe he accidentally disabled the program's opening
> book without realizing it.
>
>
>> >> This morning someone said they'd put up more than $1,000, in fact
>> >> $2,500
>> >> for
>> >> a match. But I don't chose to play cowards or me-me blowhards, or even
>> >> their
>> >> fakers.
>>
>> > That looks like a (quacking) duck to me.
>>
>> as above - you can have played, or you can talk about it
>
> I think we have gone through this before; the prospect
> of getting slaughtered by someone's new chess program
> does not excite me at all. Many years ago I went through
> the same ordeal in correspondence play, and like BF, I
> just quit from disgust. Of course, if you are the only one
> with Rybka, that's a horse of a different color. ;>D
>
>
>> > The strange thing is, SS always looks at these matches
>> > as a way of snarfing OPM (other people's money) for
>> > himself, without risking his own. That makes him an
>> > opportunist, not a defender of Truth, Justice, and the
>> > 'Murican way.
>>
>> its a pure diversion from his 'questions' about paul truong
>
> Yes, it is a diversion, but I think he is serious about
> getting some free money; SS is always in the ket
> for free money.
>
>
>> people who question him are banned, like our man-in-white, which-Mitch?
>
>
> If SS has the power to control things there, then
> ask your "questions" someplace where he doesn't.
> Like here maybe.
>
>
>> > The thing about in-person matches is we get to focus
>> > on the chess, and not on the possibility that one (or
>> > more!) player is cheating by using a chess program.
>>
>> 'we' gawd! is that like we cheating paranoids?
>
> It relates to the spectators, the peons. You know,
> the little people. Let them eat cake, and all that.
>
>
>> i think you'll find that a foundation entirely composed of shit won't
>> hold
>> much weight
>
> It depends. If you dry it out and compact it... .
>
> -- help bot
>
>
>




 
Date: 06 Jun 2007 05:48:47
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Innes Challenges Sloan to a Grudge Match
On Jun 6, 6:11 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> > Unlike Innes, I do actually play chess.
>
> Unlike Innes, Sloan doesn't play it here ;)

By "here", it looks like IM Innes means online chess,
where the possibility of computer cheating rears its ugly
head. I think SS meant OTB chess -- mono a mono.


> He is full of himself as usual, having just 'sort of' retracted his comments
> about Paul Truong - by his usual means of passing straight on when
> challenged., ie, if 'there is no evidence' that PT didn't win those Asian
> tournaments, is there any evidence of who did?
>
> Or is this another *special* sort of 'question' which suggests people's
> achievements aren't real, which evaporate like the mist when any light is
> shined on it? In other words, another casual smear?

Good point. After years of watching his old pal Larry Parr
in action, IM Innes is well aware of how this game is played.


> > Any takers?
>
> For what? More talk? Strongest player here was Grant Perks at 2100. I won
> with black in 14, but with white took all of 18 moves!

I expect this demonstrates that GP was not then, the
"strongest player here". Any decent player ought to be
able to last longer than 14 or 18 moves, even against
PI's very latest version of Rybka. What the heck did he
do -- walk into an ultra-sharp Sicilian trap line that he
didn't even know how to play?


> This morning someone said they'd put up more than $1,000, in fact $2,500 for
> a match. But I don't chose to play cowards or me-me blowhards, or even their
> fakers.

That looks like a (quacking) duck to me.

The strange thing is, SS always looks at these matches
as a way of snarfing OPM (other people's money) for
himself, without risking his own. That makes him an
opportunist, not a defender of Truth, Justice, and the
'Murican way.

The thing about in-person matches is we get to focus
on the chess, and not on the possibility that one (or
more!) player is cheating by using a chess program.
I think it goes without saying that if either player were
to make use of, say, Rybka, there isn't much point to
a match, and the result would be similar to giving Queen
and two Rooks odds.

-- help bot




  
Date: 06 Jun 2007 13:17:13
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Innes Challenges Sloan to a Grudge Match

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Jun 6, 6:11 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > Unlike Innes, I do actually play chess.
>>
>> Unlike Innes, Sloan doesn't play it here ;)
>
> By "here", it looks like IM Innes means online chess,
> where the possibility of computer cheating rears its ugly
> head. I think SS meant OTB chess -- mono a mono.

what a treat! not! the thing with all sorts of in-office politicians is to
ask them what they did already, not what they will do. since the former
question is relevant, and allowing them to speak of what they will do is to
conspire with their fnatasies not their performance

>> He is full of himself as usual, having just 'sort of' retracted his
>> comments
>> about Paul Truong - by his usual means of passing straight on when
>> challenged., ie, if 'there is no evidence' that PT didn't win those Asian
>> tournaments, is there any evidence of who did?
>>
>> Or is this another *special* sort of 'question' which suggests people's
>> achievements aren't real, which evaporate like the mist when any light is
>> shined on it? In other words, another casual smear?
>
> Good point. After years of watching his old pal Larry Parr
> in action, IM Innes is well aware of how this game is played.

you are surely not going to /continue/ to mock people with names from
anonymity! the thing you miss is the different psychology of putting your
own name to things, then, at minimum, you have to own your own opinion from
your own experience, rather than a mocking-superior type, can only wonder at
other people - try it, see if it makes a difference?

while i do not always agree with larry parr, and in terms of sloan, do not
agree with him, i never noticed larry parr backing away from anything! i
even seen him admit a mistake! which is at least a bronze medal on usenet.
of course, he cannot defend what other people think he said, or even insist
they think he said, which is an argument made of the merest kingstonite

>> > Any takers?
>>
>> For what? More talk? Strongest player here was Grant Perks at 2100. I won
>> with black in 14, but with white took all of 18 moves!
>
> I expect this demonstrates that GP was not then, the
> "strongest player here".

see 'player'. i know everyone else is much better than he and i, but we are
both players rather than genius-theorists

> Any decent player ought to be
> able to last longer than 14 or 18 moves, even against
> PI's very latest version of Rybka.

now if i used rybka i wouldn't be 2250, i would be 2950 or rather more!
according to this rating group's scale of things

> What the heck did he
> do -- walk into an ultra-sharp Sicilian trap line that he
> didn't even know how to play?

he played a [delayed] pelikan as black, took an early mid game pawn i
dangled out there, missed a simple fork netting me a piece. with black i
played an english defence, which i know 3 moves of - gotta like them
laser-bishops! and you get two of 'em - again he took a 'negligent' pawn,
and another queen swoop threatened to bring the house down

seriously for a moment - what is the value of time in rating points at cc? i
certainly have played one computer, probably sargon, where a 1350 player was
rather better than the 1800 guys in our tournament, and sometimes people are
very 'booked' and need to get tactically swindled by some slight manoeuvring
out of the book

but given time to make your move, how much advantage is that? I am playing
one guy with a fide ELO of about 2000 [maybe 2175 us] who sports a cc rating
of between 2400 and 2550. is that simply the result of him taking 8 days to
work it out? in his game with white he played exxentrically in yet another
pelikan, certainly not any book line. with black he has an unusual ruy.


>> This morning someone said they'd put up more than $1,000, in fact $2,500
>> for
>> a match. But I don't chose to play cowards or me-me blowhards, or even
>> their
>> fakers.
>
> That looks like a (quacking) duck to me.

as above - you can have played, or you can talk about it <shrug >

> The strange thing is, SS always looks at these matches
> as a way of snarfing OPM (other people's money) for
> himself, without risking his own. That makes him an
> opportunist, not a defender of Truth, Justice, and the
> 'Murican way.

its a pure diversion from his 'questions' about paul truong - don't worry,
his interest is so deep that it last 8 hours max, and today is another day,
and another half dozen 'questions' will appear about other people

people who question him are banned, like our man-in-white, which-Mitch?

> The thing about in-person matches is we get to focus
> on the chess, and not on the possibility that one (or
> more!) player is cheating by using a chess program.

'we' gawd! is that like we cheating paranoids?

i challenged sloan to discuss what he has done, not exite the gallery with
yet another diversion. whether done in chess or politics is the same, and
anything else is the escape clause and more me! me! me! exhibitionism

lookit! more shit here - hey, see this shit! hey! me found it - when i am
elected, i'll be just the same! O, i am elected - well! someone should clean
this up, i'm too busy finding it!

i think you'll find that a foundation entirely composed of shit won't hold
much weight

phil innes

> I think it goes without saying that if either player were
> to make use of, say, Rybka, there isn't much point to
> a match, and the result would be similar to giving Queen
> and two Rooks odds.
>
> -- help bot
>
>




 
Date: 06 Jun 2007 10:11:13
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Innes Challenges Sloan to a Grudge Match

"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Jun 5, 6:57 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> having liberally smeared everyone who might contest his precious seat, mr
>> slaon now proceeds to smear a player's record. i have seen paul troung
>> play
>> the twice european junior champion and russian champion too. otb mr
>> truong
>> would smear mr sloan! and so would i!
>
>
> Why look at that! Phil Innes has just challenged the great me to a
> grudge match.
>
> How much do you really want to bet?
>
> I realize that it takes great temerity for me to challenge the
> redoubtable "Nearly an IM" Phil Innes to a grudge match, but I am
> looking forward to picking up another easy thousand bucks. However, I
> doubt anybody would be seriously willing to bet on a complete patzer
> like Innes.
>
> Unlike Innes, I do actually play chess.

Unlike Innes, Sloan doesn't play it here ;)

He is full of himself as usual, having just 'sort of' retracted his comments
about Paul Truong - by his usual means of passing straight on when
challenged., ie, if 'there is no evidence' that PT didn't win those Asian
tournaments, is there any evidence of who did?

Or is this another *special* sort of 'question' which suggests people's
achievements aren't real, which evaporate like the mist when any light is
shined on it? In other words, another casual smear?

> Any takers?

For what? More talk? Strongest player here was Grant Perks at 2100. I won
with black in 14, but with white took all of 18 moves! Seems to me that
Sloan is the one who needs to prove he can play chess just like the rest of
us instead of suggesting he can only operate by making it a Sloan-special
event.

What I challenged Sloan to do is discontinue his cowardly running away from
the result of his actions by diverting or denying issues, and rushing on to
new scandals.

If he really can play chess like the rest of us then he could have showed up
and done it! What's his excuse this time? No time to play chess?

This isn't the same as chess politics and mouthing off about his suggestive
greatness about his suggested self, with the usual 'other people are trash'
commentary.

There are several challenges to Sloan in this message - and perhaps the
biggest one is not to talk about Sloan at all, but to look at Sloan's
responsibility to the chess world compared with what he actually does, not
suggests and not promises.

This morning someone said they'd put up more than $1,000, in fact $2,500 for
a match. But I don't chose to play cowards or me-me blowhards, or even their
fakers.

Phil Innes

> Sam Sloan
>




 
Date: 06 Jun 2007 09:26:50
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Innes Challenges Sloan to a Grudge Match
On Jun 6, 12:28 am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:

> Tisk... you have dodged my invitations.

Not at all. I am willing to play you a grudge match for a thousand
dollars too.

You are probably even weaker than Innes.

Sam Sloan



 
Date: 05 Jun 2007 21:28:04
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Innes Challenges Sloan to a Grudge Match
On Jun 5, 7:43 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jun 5, 6:57 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > having liberally smeared everyone who might contest his precious seat, mr
> > slaon now proceeds to smear a player's record. i have seen paul troung play
> > the twice european junior champion and russian champion too. otb mr truong
> > would smear mr sloan! and so would i!
>
> Why look at that! Phil Innes has just challenged the great me to a
> grudge match.
>
> How much do you really want to bet?
>
> I realize that it takes great temerity for me to challenge the
> redoubtable "Nearly an IM" Phil Innes to a grudge match, but I am
> looking forward to picking up another easy thousand bucks. However, I
> doubt anybody would be seriously willing to bet on a complete patzer
> like Innes.
>
> Unlike Innes, I do actually play chess.
>
> Any takers?
>
> Sam Sloan

Tisk... you have dodged my invitations.



  
Date: 07 Jun 2007 07:41:08
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Innes Challenges Sloan to a Grudge Match
On Jun 7, 7:03 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:

> Innes got his provisional expert rating just at the point when ratings
> were highest. Actually, if you look at his results, he only won one
> game against an expert in his entire career. His last tournament game
> was a loss to a player rated 1724. I have never lost to a player rated
> that low, except that I once lost a game to Polly Wright.
>
> A similar case is Randy Bauer who in 1997 got his rating barely over
> 2300 by winning a match against a friend. His actual strength was
> about 2150 then, which would be worth about 2000 now. Wisely, Bauer
> has never played a rated game of chess since 1997. Instead he brags
> about his 2300 rating whenever he runs for election, including now,
> not mentioning that he could never hold it if he played again.
>
> I am quite willing to bet money that I could easily beat that patzer
> Innes in a match. I play chess. He does not. I could probably beat
> Bauer too, but not so easily.


Perhaps we should arrange a simul; Sam Sloan vs.
Rob Mitchel, Phil Innes (no doubt one will fail to show
up since they cannot be in the same place at the
same time), Randy Bauer and Larry Parr. Mr. Mitchel
could receive odds, of course.

I am wondering how the year 1997 was decided as
the year that USCF ratings peaked; in my experience,
it seemed like ratings were already dropping off before
then.

-- help bot





  
Date: 07 Jun 2007 07:34:42
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Innes Challenges Sloan to a Grudge Match
On Jun 7, 1:44 am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 19:34:06 -0700, samsloan <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Phil Innes has a barely established low expert rating from 1995, based
> >on 23 games.
> >Based on what has happened to the rating system during the past 12
> >years, I estimate his strength by today's standards as being 1850.
>
> This doesn't match my experience. When I quit playing tournament
> chess in 1976 (age 32), my rating had dropped to 1969. I took about
> thirty years off, then started playing again. After four events, my
> rating is 1979. Of the players I knew back then who are still
> playing, the only ones to have suffered big drops in rating have also
> suffered health problems. My experience may or may not be
> representative, but I haven't seen anything to indicate a solid Expert
> in 1995 would be on the low end of Class A today.

Logic error: the effects of ratings fluctuations from the
period "1976 to today" do not equate to the same from
the period "12 years ago to today".

In between 1976 and "twelve years ago", there was a
period of rampant ratings inflation, but then the USCF
modified their formula, and ratings have since dropped
back. In my experience, the difference between peak
inflation (date unknown) and today might well be in
excess of two hundred points. OTOH, with the internet,
it is quite possible to actually improve a good deal
without any effect on one's USCF ratings at all.

-- help bot






   
Date: 07 Jun 2007 12:02:18
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Innes Challenges Sloan to a Grudge Match
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 07:34:42 -0700, help bot <[email protected] >
wrote:

> Logic error: the effects of ratings fluctuations from the
>period "1976 to today" do not equate to the same from
>the period "12 years ago to today".

Or rather, an erroneous assumption that the rating inflation was ever
upward and relatively smooth.

> In between 1976 and "twelve years ago", there was a
>period of rampant ratings inflation, but then the USCF
>modified their formula, and ratings have since dropped
>back. In my experience, the difference between peak
>inflation (date unknown) and today might well be in
>excess of two hundred points. OTOH, with the internet,
>it is quite possible to actually improve a good deal
>without any effect on one's USCF ratings at all.
>
> -- help bot
>
>
>


  
Date: 07 Jun 2007 05:29:47
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Innes Challenges Sloan to a Grudge Match
On Jun 7, 8:17 am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jun 7, 6:03 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 7, 1:44 am, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 19:34:06 -0700, samsloan <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >Phil Innes has a barely established low expert rating from 1995, based
> > > >on 23 games.
> > > >Based on what has happened to the rating system during the past 12
> > > >years, I estimate his strength by today's standards as being 1850.
>
> > > This doesn't match my experience. When I quit playing tournament
> > > chess in 1976 (age 32), my rating had dropped to 1969. I took about
> > > thirty years off, then started playing again. After four events, my
> > > rating is 1979. Of the players I knew back then who are still
> > > playing, the only ones to have suffered big drops in rating have also
> > > suffered health problems. My experience may or may not be
> > > representative, but I haven't seen anything to indicate a solid Expert
> > > in 1995 would be on the low end of Class A today.
>
> > This is a big subject, worthy of independent discussion.
>
> > You missed your big chance to have a much higher rating. In 1978
> > George Cunningham became volunteer Executive Director and rating
> > statistician after almost the entire office staff walked off the job
> > in protest to the new president Gary Sperling. Cunningham introduced
> > bonus points, feedback points and fiddle points which led to rampant
> > ratings inflation. It was not uncommon for payers to gain 100 points
> > is a tournament. By the early 1980s, almost everybody had gained
> > between 100 and 200 points.
>
> > So, your 1976 rating would probably have been 2126 had you waited
> > around a bit longer.
>
> > Ratings peaked in 1997 and then started a rapid drop. I believe that
> > my case is typical. I was 2104 in 1997 but I am 1918 today. I do not
> > think I am much weaker. Almost everybody I know has suffered a similar
> > drop.
>
> > Innes got his provisional expert rating just at the point when ratings
> > were highest. Actually, if you look at his results, he only won one
> > game against an expert in his entire career. His last tournament game
> > was a loss to a player rated 1724. I have never lost to a player rated
> > that low, except that I once lost a game to Polly Wright.
>
> > A similar case is Randy Bauer who in 1997 got his rating barely over
> > 2300 by winning a match against a friend. His actual strength was
> > about 2150 then, which would be worth about 2000 now. Wisely, Bauer
> > has never played a rated game of chess since 1997. Instead he brags
> > about his 2300 rating whenever he runs for election, including now,
> > not mentioning that he could never hold it if he played again.
>
> > I am quite willing to bet money that I could easily beat that patzer
> > Innes in a match. I play chess. He does not. I could probably beat
> > Bauer too, but not so easily.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> Then sign up and do it. It can be moderated and checked against
> computers to insure there is no cheating. A pay-pal account can be set
> up for donations and transfer to Mr. Innes would be easily done. But
> Sloan won't do that. I know how he really beat Brock. And it wasn't
> over the board
> Rob

I beat Bill Brock over the board and I will beat Phil Innes a lot more
easily the same way.

Bill Brock does play chess. I was fortunate to be able to beat him.

I do not play chess for money against known cheaters over the
Internet.

And forget about "Rob Mitchell". He does not play chess at all.

Sam Sloan



  
Date: 07 Jun 2007 05:17:03
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Innes Challenges Sloan to a Grudge Match
On Jun 7, 6:03 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jun 7, 1:44 am, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 19:34:06 -0700, samsloan <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > >Phil Innes has a barely established low expert rating from 1995, based
> > >on 23 games.
> > >Based on what has happened to the rating system during the past 12
> > >years, I estimate his strength by today's standards as being 1850.
>
> > This doesn't match my experience. When I quit playing tournament
> > chess in 1976 (age 32), my rating had dropped to 1969. I took about
> > thirty years off, then started playing again. After four events, my
> > rating is 1979. Of the players I knew back then who are still
> > playing, the only ones to have suffered big drops in rating have also
> > suffered health problems. My experience may or may not be
> > representative, but I haven't seen anything to indicate a solid Expert
> > in 1995 would be on the low end of Class A today.
>
> This is a big subject, worthy of independent discussion.
>
> You missed your big chance to have a much higher rating. In 1978
> George Cunningham became volunteer Executive Director and rating
> statistician after almost the entire office staff walked off the job
> in protest to the new president Gary Sperling. Cunningham introduced
> bonus points, feedback points and fiddle points which led to rampant
> ratings inflation. It was not uncommon for payers to gain 100 points
> is a tournament. By the early 1980s, almost everybody had gained
> between 100 and 200 points.
>
> So, your 1976 rating would probably have been 2126 had you waited
> around a bit longer.
>
> Ratings peaked in 1997 and then started a rapid drop. I believe that
> my case is typical. I was 2104 in 1997 but I am 1918 today. I do not
> think I am much weaker. Almost everybody I know has suffered a similar
> drop.
>
> Innes got his provisional expert rating just at the point when ratings
> were highest. Actually, if you look at his results, he only won one
> game against an expert in his entire career. His last tournament game
> was a loss to a player rated 1724. I have never lost to a player rated
> that low, except that I once lost a game to Polly Wright.
>
> A similar case is Randy Bauer who in 1997 got his rating barely over
> 2300 by winning a match against a friend. His actual strength was
> about 2150 then, which would be worth about 2000 now. Wisely, Bauer
> has never played a rated game of chess since 1997. Instead he brags
> about his 2300 rating whenever he runs for election, including now,
> not mentioning that he could never hold it if he played again.
>
> I am quite willing to bet money that I could easily beat that patzer
> Innes in a match. I play chess. He does not. I could probably beat
> Bauer too, but not so easily.
>
> Sam Sloan

Then sign up and do it. It can be moderated and checked against
computers to insure there is no cheating. A pay-pal account can be set
up for donations and transfer to Mr. Innes would be easily done. But
Sloan won't do that. I know how he really beat Brock. And it wasn't
over the board
Rob



   
Date: 07 Jun 2007 05:55:23
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Innes Challenges Sloan to a Grudge Match
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 05:17:03 -0700, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:

>I know how he really beat Brock. And it wasn't
>over the board
>Rob

I don't think you were active in this group, Rob, when the original
"grudge match" took place, but Sam beat Brock face-to-face, over the
board. He traveled to Chicago, I believe, to play the match. Another
player monitored the match and posted the moves to the net. A large
group of us kibitzed while they played.

Sloan won the match fair and square, and, AFAIK, Brock will be the
first to admit it.


  
Date: 07 Jun 2007 04:03:10
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Innes Challenges Sloan to a Grudge Match
On Jun 7, 1:44 am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 19:34:06 -0700, samsloan <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Phil Innes has a barely established low expert rating from 1995, based
> >on 23 games.
> >Based on what has happened to the rating system during the past 12
> >years, I estimate his strength by today's standards as being 1850.
>
> This doesn't match my experience. When I quit playing tournament
> chess in 1976 (age 32), my rating had dropped to 1969. I took about
> thirty years off, then started playing again. After four events, my
> rating is 1979. Of the players I knew back then who are still
> playing, the only ones to have suffered big drops in rating have also
> suffered health problems. My experience may or may not be
> representative, but I haven't seen anything to indicate a solid Expert
> in 1995 would be on the low end of Class A today.

This is a big subject, worthy of independent discussion.

You missed your big chance to have a much higher rating. In 1978
George Cunningham became volunteer Executive Director and rating
statistician after almost the entire office staff walked off the job
in protest to the new president Gary Sperling. Cunningham introduced
bonus points, feedback points and fiddle points which led to rampant
ratings inflation. It was not uncommon for payers to gain 100 points
is a tournament. By the early 1980s, almost everybody had gained
between 100 and 200 points.

So, your 1976 rating would probably have been 2126 had you waited
around a bit longer.

Ratings peaked in 1997 and then started a rapid drop. I believe that
my case is typical. I was 2104 in 1997 but I am 1918 today. I do not
think I am much weaker. Almost everybody I know has suffered a similar
drop.

Innes got his provisional expert rating just at the point when ratings
were highest. Actually, if you look at his results, he only won one
game against an expert in his entire career. His last tournament game
was a loss to a player rated 1724. I have never lost to a player rated
that low, except that I once lost a game to Polly Wright.

A similar case is Randy Bauer who in 1997 got his rating barely over
2300 by winning a match against a friend. His actual strength was
about 2150 then, which would be worth about 2000 now. Wisely, Bauer
has never played a rated game of chess since 1997. Instead he brags
about his 2300 rating whenever he runs for election, including now,
not mentioning that he could never hold it if he played again.

I am quite willing to bet money that I could easily beat that patzer
Innes in a match. I play chess. He does not. I could probably beat
Bauer too, but not so easily.

Sam Sloan



 
Date: 05 Jun 2007 23:46:30
From: Straight Arrow
Subject: Innes vs. Sloan Grudge Match & Fisting Contest
The loser agrees to be fisted repeatedly by the winner and to never post in
any Chess Forum, usenet, or other chess related message board for the next
five years.