Matt Nemmers wrote:
....who would the players be?

This year Sam could've played just about *anybody* since he has so many
detractors on here, but I have to admit that Bill Brock didn't really
spring to mind as the top contendah. That he had the stones and the
cash to git'r dun speaks well for him (even if he lost) to put a
challenge on the table and follow through.

But because Bill and Sloan are within 150 or so rating points made it a
good match and interesting to watch. I wonder though, how many RGCP
opponents would make for a good match-up OTB? They'd have to have a
LOT of disagreements (or one or two very heated discussions) on RGCP
but be relatively close in playing strength (say, 200 rating points or
less) to make it interesting.

You are assuming, Matt, that the people who argue on here don't really
mean what they write. Sloan was the winner long before he pushed his g
pawn, simply by getting Bill Brock to 'overlook' his true nature. I
don't see why we need to set aside right and wrong for the sake of a
little glorified skittles.

(snip)

Neil Brennen vs. Louis Blair:
The Historian is 1572 and The Blair-bot is 1611; another good match-up.

I have a tremendous respect for Dr. Blair's chess history writing (I
wish there were more of it) and rather less respect for his postings
here; I doubt either of us have any time for chess play, but I would
have no objection to playing him.