Main
Date: 15 Oct 2008 06:41:35
From: [email protected]
Subject: Sam Sloan & Larry Parr
MY DINNER WITH SAM

(With apologies to GM Larry Evans for his brutal interview MY DINNER
WITH CAMPO that appeared in segments during my waning days as editor
of Chess Life.)

If memory serves, I have never eaten dinner with
Sam Sloan. Still, we have had discussions and many
disagreements over the years via the Internet.

Sam and I had our longest battle, which extended
over seemingly numberless postings, about the virtues
of Carol Jarecki's work in chess. We have also
exchanged some jibes about sexual references that he
has employed. As for much of what he writes about
Susan Polgar and Paul Truong, I have responded
repeatedly that I find both of the latter to be
positive forces in the world of chess. Knowing well
the expressions of certitude by computer experts,
followed by equivocations and outright reversals of
opinion (which are then later reversed again) I don't
put much stock in the analyses arguing that Mr. Truong
MUST be The Fake Sam (though his defenders are now
few and far between)..

Further, I was not among those who argued that
Susan and Paul were under some obligation to share
their marital status with USCF members before they
ran for office. I intensely dislike the nosiness that extends
everywhere from our anti-terrorism laws to employer-mandated
drug testing. The whole shtick of public inquisitiveness appalls.

Sam and I have had our longest period of dulcet
accord and sweetness and light from about the time the
USCF decided on the disastrous move from New York to
Cross-to-Bear to the present stertorous, life-support
circumstances of the U.S. Chess Federation.

Sam produced hundreds of postings about the costs
of the move to Cross-to-Bear, and most of them
contained such horrible premonitions that the insiders
and oligarchs tried the usual Chicken Little ridicule.

The debris from the USCF's implosion finally
floated to the earth of Cross-to-Bear. If one were to
criticize Sam's Cassandra-like warnings these days,
one would argue that he evinced a failure of
imagination in picturing the extent of the damage done
to the Federation. His infamous statement -- as it
was described by the USCF establishment at the time --
that the move would cost the Federation $750,000 now
looks like a piece of Pollyanna-cake, sweet-toothed optimism!

We come to current times.

Phil Innes imagines that I was mocking John
Hillery so as to support Sam Sloan in what he does. I
admit to a bit of mockery directed at JH, though there
was a lesson included that Phil himself ought to have
appreciated. To wit: You don't attack a person, in
this case Sam, by linking him to the powers that be
if those powers, in this instance the NY Times, retain
significant residual prestige. It is polemically
stupid to do so.

Another point: I offered John Hillery some
public advice about his personal circumstances. That
advice was pretty good stuff, and if adopted to an
extent could yet help to secure a better future in
chess for the man.

Phil is right that I am more concerned than he is
about the future of the USCF. One does not wish to
see a return to the bad old American chess days of the
1930s when chess in our country was confined nearly
exclusively to New York City. We need a national
federative organization.

I am no longer certain about the form such an
organization ought to take. Perhaps privatizing the
USCF by allowing Bill Goichberg to take it over and
calling it the USCCF might not be such a bad thing
after all. For years, many of us saw such an
eventuality as a mortal threat; it may instead be
mortal salvation.

One is certain only that chess is suffering a
malaise worldwide. The world championship, though
more adequately funded this time around, is a remote
event these days attracting a minute level of
international attention. Ilyumzhinov and his fellow
FIDE thugs are like lead weights holding down chess
to procure their own political ends.

Yours, Larry Parr




 
Date: 21 Oct 2008 09:46:00
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan & Larry Parr
On Oct 20, 6:01=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:

> It seems to me that is you, Phil Innes, who has been injecting a great
> deal of hate into your postings, especially lately.
>
> Sam Sloan

No, there's no more hate than usual from P Innes. It's his usual
jealousy with a halo.



 
Date: 20 Oct 2008 16:01:24
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan & Larry Parr
On Oct 20, 6:09=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> **Blame indeed, is a grand psychological means of denial of looking,
> practiced by lower-life characters such as Neil Brennen, who never saw a
> discussion that he didn't think he could introduce hate into. That is his
> standard these past six years of posting, and misposting.
>
> Typically, such low-life misanthropes excite hatred and ignore all contex=
t -
> here demonstrated for six years. Newnet is easy for them to use since the=
y
> consciously prey on the negativity of others - and unconsciously but
> absolutely certainly reduce the potential of this medium to thier own
> standard.
>
> Should we hate such emotional cripples? If you are inclined to hate, go
> ahead, but that is not a mature response. Pity such people as Brennen who
> can only do as they do, some 5 years times 1,500 messages per year, per
> newsgroup.
>
> Such people are so innured and indiffernet to objective truth or public
> values and decency in America that they will literally say anything for t=
his
> entire time that they can in order to insert themselves.
>
> Elsewhere, public intstitution work hard to keep such persons away from
> those who they represent.
>
> Phil Innes

It seems to me that is you, Phil Innes, who has been injecting a great
deal of hate into your postings, especially lately.

Sam Sloan


  
Date: 20 Oct 2008 20:23:09
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan & Larry Parr

"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Oct 20, 6:09 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> **Blame indeed, is a grand psychological means of denial of looking,
> practiced by lower-life characters such as Neil Brennen, who never saw a
> discussion that he didn't think he could introduce hate into. That is his
> standard these past six years of posting, and misposting.
>
> Typically, such low-life misanthropes excite hatred and ignore all
> context -
> here demonstrated for six years. Newnet is easy for them to use since they
> consciously prey on the negativity of others - and unconsciously but
> absolutely certainly reduce the potential of this medium to thier own
> standard.
>
> Should we hate such emotional cripples? If you are inclined to hate, go
> ahead, but that is not a mature response. Pity such people as Brennen who
> can only do as they do, some 5 years times 1,500 messages per year, per
> newsgroup.
>
> Such people are so innured and indiffernet to objective truth or public
> values and decency in America that they will literally say anything for
> this
> entire time that they can in order to insert themselves.
>
> Elsewhere, public intstitution work hard to keep such persons away from
> those who they represent.
>
> Phil Innes

It seems to me that is you, Phil Innes, who has been injecting a great
deal of hate into your postings, especially lately.

--------

**Thank you Mr. Sloan for your commentary.

But I note that your idea of hate is to object to such a message above to
make your usual unexampled and vague 'seems' comments to those to whom pose
your rather negligible grasp on the chess scene any sort of challenge at
all. Much as you say 'attack' when you comment on a correction to falsehood.

That you can have written some 10,000 anti-Polgar messages while
simultaneously stating that you are not obsessed is the measue of your own
honesty.

You see, otherwise, you might indeed have become the right Henry Miller of
Chess, instead of its McCarthy.

That is my beef with Mr. Parr - and not with you! Since you are demonstrably
completely unable to say anything unspun which has the slightest thing to do
with chess in the USA, and what you cannot achieve outside ever reflects
your own inner condition.

As you know, I previously called you a coward for banning Rob Mitchell from
your 'own' newsgroup on such a fatuous pretext as to make your own standards
infamous.

I take it you have not quite understood the level to which in my regard you
have indulged yourself as a political and sexual pig, and, IMO, further
discourse between us will not dissuade you that you are anything else than a
self-created tone-deaf insignificant hanger on.

Here above you cut the context of my remarks about Neil Brennen, a complete
nihilist and stalker, and let me suppose thereby that you prefer him to me,
and may you both continue to sleep easy.

As for chess in the country I continue to challenge Mr. Parr that what I
write here is the way it actually is, and signally, that this is what it is
now become as result of a lack of vigilance in public ethics. Indeed, I say
no more than this:

Quousque tandem, vivit post funera virtus.

And so said, so long.

Phil Innes




Sam Sloan




 
Date: 19 Oct 2008 20:22:50
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan & Larry Parr
On Oct 19, 2:56=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> I do not expect John Hillery to much understand this,

Since it's a pretentious word-salad of twaddle, I don't blame him.


  
Date: 20 Oct 2008 18:09:46
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan & Larry Parr

"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Oct 19, 2:56 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> I do not expect John Hillery to much understand this,

Since it's a pretentious word-salad of twaddle, I don't blame him.

**Blame indeed, is a grand psychological means of denial of looking,
practiced by lower-life characters such as Neil Brennen, who never saw a
discussion that he didn't think he could introduce hate into. That is his
standard these past six years of posting, and misposting.

Typically, such low-life misanthropes excite hatred and ignore all context -
here demonstrated for six years. Newnet is easy for them to use since they
consciously prey on the negativity of others - and unconsciously but
absolutely certainly reduce the potential of this medium to thier own
standard.

Should we hate such emotional cripples? If you are inclined to hate, go
ahead, but that is not a mature response. Pity such people as Brennen who
can only do as they do, some 5 years times 1,500 messages per year, per
newsgroup.

Such people are so innured and indiffernet to objective truth or public
values and decency in America that they will literally say anything for this
entire time that they can in order to insert themselves.

Elsewhere, public intstitution work hard to keep such persons away from
those who they represent.

Phil Innes




 
Date: 15 Oct 2008 20:07:14
From:
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan & Larry Parr


[email protected] wrote:

> Phil Innes imagines that I was mocking John
> Hillery so as to support Sam Sloan in what he does. I
> admit to a bit of mockery directed at JH, though there
> was a lesson included that Phil himself ought to have
> appreciated. To wit: You don't attack a person, in
> this case Sam, by linking him to the powers that be
> if those powers, in this instance the NY Times, retain
> significant residual prestige. It is polemically
> stupid to do so.

True. My contempt for Sloan and my contempt for the NYT (Brontosaurus
of the dinosaur media) are entirely unrelated. Attempting to relate
them is just dumb. It's not as though Sam Sloan had any coherent
political position for them to be biased about.


> Another point: I offered John Hillery some
> public advice about his personal circumstances. That
> advice was pretty good stuff, and if adopted to an
> extent could yet help to secure a better future in
> chess for the man.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr

Why on earth would I be interested in the advice of someone who has
(aside from internet nattering) been out of chess for decades, and
whose last involvement with chess was a term as Chess Life editor most
of us remember with distaste? Larry's apparent belief that Sam was (or
could be) a worthwhile EB member does not inspire confidence in his
judgment. Or perhaps that should be his sanity.



  
Date: 19 Oct 2008 15:56:03
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan & Larry Parr

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...

> Why on earth would I be interested in the advice of someone who has
> (aside from internet nattering) been out of chess for decades, and
> whose last involvement with chess was a term as Chess Life editor most
> of us remember with distaste? Larry's apparent belief that Sam was (or
> could be) a worthwhile EB member does not inspire confidence in his
> judgment. Or perhaps that should be his sanity.

I have no idea, but Larry and I did mutually conspire in an unusual way to
provoke an issue - that is, we did not talk in advance about the subject,
not agree to role-play parts in it - yet we have.

What ever seems to me the miserable status of chess in the USA seems
inseparable from the sort of opinion which asks - who are you to say? -
rather than attend to what is said.

Whether one determines a tenure with 'distaste' or otherwise might be
determined by the previous paragraphs. Similarly with Sam Sloan, the
question is not if he drove a taxi, etc, but what wit he could bring to bear
on US chess issues. Larry Parr and I simply disagree on the worth of his
performance, and if I could not freely disagree with Larry Parr without
first asking his permission, then I would not think as well of him as I do.

The shame of USCF is that it is always argued on a personality basis - and
considering it has not done much since the Fischer era, and no personalities
of any stripe have proved sufficient, I wonder why it persists in thinking
personality so important?

It is, for any normal business, not a sign of strength in a mature entity to
rely on personalities, their liking or disliking.

Instead one would measure an organisation by what it sets out to do, and
argue as necessary, on how well it has achieved anything.

And there is where you find the current impasse - since no-one at all can
think of a single thing it currently intends to do [for chessplayers! for
other people - the very reason it is established] and so USCF is merely
perceived as a property, and a somewhat over-mortgaged one at that, both
literally and figuratively.

I do not expect John Hillery to much understand this, since who at all ever
speaks of any clearly stated goal and means to procure it at USCF? I suppose
by not doing so one may be free of criticism, but at the same time become
reduced to a national-anodyne status, where it makes no difference if the
Sloan's ego aggrandizement ravishes and rages over the entire scene, since
what actually is that scene worth?

Unfortunately USCF has become the sleeping midget of chess, insufficient to
wake the sleeping giant USA. Whether USCF as such continues or perishes is
merely a matter of sentimentality on this scale of things.

Either some new entity must emerge to be more vital, or one must remain
content with the long-time mediocre performance of the good 'ol boys; those
are the choices.

Larry Parr and I merely differ on which of the two are worth a damn.

Cordially, Phil Innes




 
Date: 15 Oct 2008 20:17:21
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan & Larry Parr

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...
> MY DINNER WITH SAM



> We come to current times.
>
> Phil Innes imagines that I was mocking John
> Hillery so as to support Sam Sloan in what he does. I
> admit to a bit of mockery directed at JH, though there
> was a lesson included that Phil himself ought to have
> appreciated. To wit: You don't attack a person, in
> this case Sam, by linking him to the powers that be
> if those powers, in this instance the NY Times, retain
> significant residual prestige. It is polemically
> stupid to do so.

It is certainly residual, as in, res nihili, though Juvenal is perhaps
better of its intellectual staightened circumstance with his res angusta
domi [straightened circumstances at home]. Indeed, I have even corrected the
paucity of its chess analysis, just upon chancing on it, to the applause of
other chess-playing readers [a Judit Polgar game]. But should this be the
standard to which I am stupid, so be it - though it is tempting to reference
the Orwellianism of stupid meaning correct, as corollary of the Sloan's
references to Polgar's corrections there of plain matters of fact as being
'attacks'.

That, so it seems, is the mood of the time, and how we should now speak of
things.

Some 3 or 4 years ago the NY Times switched its intellectual authority for
power [formally by claiming all copyright over all contributors without
exception] but in terms of its chessic blog of yore, it is scarcely
different from the National Enquirer, which at least must be fun to make
up - whereas the current grim fare must be the result of some favorite
nephew's precedence.

> Another point: I offered John Hillery some
> public advice about his personal circumstances. That
> advice was pretty good stuff, and if adopted to an
> extent could yet help to secure a better future in
> chess for the man.
>
> Phil is right that I am more concerned than he is
> about the future of the USCF. One does not wish to
> see a return to the bad old American chess days of the
> 1930s when chess in our country was confined nearly
> exclusively to New York City.

Really? Wasn't this the era when American teams dominated the world, with 4
Olympiad Golds out of 4 tries? But perhaps this is a rhetorical device, and
today we prefer the sort of Olympiad team which, at least for women, could
afford to eliminate the best player?

Once again, is this now how we should speak of things?

> We need a national
> federative organization.

We have one - and all critics agree it is not a very good one, nor has been
for the recent geological age. In fact, it seems to aspire if such a word
can be used to the depths, which also by all public accounts it has
achieved.

> I am no longer certain about the form such an
> organization ought to take. Perhaps privatizing the
> USCF by allowing Bill Goichberg to take it over and
> calling it the USCCF might not be such a bad thing
> after all. For years, many of us saw such an
> eventuality as a mortal threat; it may instead be
> mortal salvation.

I suspect you suggest a distinction without a meaning. In what way is this
not already come about?

> One is certain only that chess is suffering a
> malaise worldwide. The world championship, though
> more adequately funded this time around, is a remote
> event these days attracting a minute level of
> international attention. Ilyumzhinov and his fellow
> FIDE thugs are like lead weights holding down chess
> to procure their own political ends.

And do you abandon USCF to Goichberg's "vision" of it, and there is no more
to be said of it than the despicable FIDE? There is not even talk of reform
since reformers, no matter their stature and abilities, are currently
rejected.

If we only wanted a big tournament organiser then there are a few choices
other than Mr.Goichberg - but why should that subject alone enjoy national
federation status, since after all, a bigger tournament has just been
celebrated than anything any of the 25-50 staff at USCF have ever put on for
the past 35 years.

I have written here and elsewhere for 8 years that if USCF gives up its
mission statement entirely, then it should rejoin the fray with the rest of
us - but if it wants to enjoy its non-profit status to promote chess then it
might just show a little effort in doing so - or get out of the way of those
who can, and who do more than it does in this country.

Meanwhile, the Sloan does nothing other than moon over lost opportunities
and blame the very agents of progress for his own lost hopes and
aspirations - a tiried saga of self-important whining, equalled only by - as
we must now say, the NY Times reporting, as pointed out by We, the stupid
players.

Phil Innes

> Yours, Larry Parr




 
Date: 15 Oct 2008 10:17:46
From: Lee
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan & Larry Parr
On Oct 15, 9:41=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> MY DINNER WITH SAM
>
> (With apologies to GM Larry Evans for his brutal interview MY DINNER
> WITH CAMPO that appeared in segments during my waning days as editor
> of Chess Life.)
>
> =A0 If memory serves, I have never eaten dinner with
> Sam Sloan. =A0Still, we have had discussions and many
> disagreements over the years via the Internet.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0Sam and I had our longest battle, which extended
> over seemingly numberless postings, about the virtues
> of Carol Jarecki's work in chess. =A0We have also
> exchanged some jibes about sexual references that he
> has employed. =A0As for much of what he writes about
> Susan Polgar and Paul Truong, I have responded
> repeatedly that I find both of the latter to be
> positive forces in the world of chess. =A0Knowing well
> the expressions of certitude by computer experts,
> followed by equivocations and outright reversals of
> opinion (which are then later reversed again) I don't
> put much stock in the analyses arguing that Mr. Truong
> MUST be The Fake Sam (though his defenders are now
> few and far between)..
>
> =A0 =A0 Further, I was not among those who argued that
> Susan and Paul were under some obligation to share
> their marital status with USCF members before they
> ran for office. =A0I intensely dislike the nosiness that extends
> everywhere from our anti-terrorism laws to employer-mandated
> drug testing. The whole shtick of public inquisitiveness appalls.
>
> =A0 =A0 Sam and I have had our longest period of dulcet
> accord and sweetness and light from about the time the
> USCF decided on the disastrous move from New York to
> Cross-to-Bear to the present stertorous, life-support
> circumstances of the U.S. Chess Federation.
>
> =A0 =A0 Sam produced hundreds of postings about the costs
> of the move to Cross-to-Bear, and most of them
> contained such horrible premonitions that the insiders
> and oligarchs tried the usual Chicken Little ridicule.
>
> =A0 =A0 The debris from the USCF's implosion finally
> floated to the earth of Cross-to-Bear. =A0If one were to
> criticize Sam's Cassandra-like warnings these days,
> one would argue that he evinced a failure of
> imagination in picturing the extent of the damage done
> to the Federation. =A0His infamous statement -- as it
> was described by the USCF establishment at the time --
> that the move would cost the Federation $750,000 now
> looks like a piece of Pollyanna-cake, sweet-toothed optimism!
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0We come to current times.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0Phil Innes imagines that I was mocking John
> Hillery so as to support Sam Sloan in what he does. =A0I
> admit to a bit of mockery directed at JH, though there
> was a lesson included that Phil himself ought to have
> appreciated. =A0To wit: =A0You don't attack a person, in
> this case Sam, by linking him to the powers that be
> if those powers, in this instance the NY Times, retain
> significant residual prestige. =A0It is polemically
> stupid to do so.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0Another point: =A0I offered John Hillery some
> public advice about his personal circumstances. That
> advice was pretty good stuff, and if adopted to an
> extent could yet help to secure a better future in
> chess for the man.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0Phil is right that I am more concerned than he is
> about the future of the USCF. =A0One does not wish to
> see a return to the bad old American chess days of the
> 1930s when chess in our country was confined nearly
> exclusively to New York City. =A0We need a national
> federative organization.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0I am no longer certain about the form such an
> organization ought to take. =A0Perhaps privatizing the
> USCF by allowing Bill Goichberg to take it over and
> calling it the USCCF might not be such a bad thing
> after all. =A0For years, many of us saw such an
> eventuality as a mortal threat; it may instead be
> mortal salvation.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0One is certain only that chess is suffering a
> malaise worldwide. =A0The world championship, though
> more adequately funded this time around, is a remote
> event these days attracting a minute level of
> international attention. =A0Ilyumzhinov and his fellow
> FIDE thugs are like lead weights holding down chess
> to procure their own political ends.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr

What a mind melding mix of misguided metaphors