ChessBanter - View Single Post

John J.

Let's you and I play. I'll beat you like a red headed step child.

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...
On 18 Apr 2006 18:00:04 -0700, "Tyrone Slothrop"
wrote:

June 26, 2005 was the date of the 1st Annual RGCP Grudge Match. Eleven
months afterwards, this historic matchup is still mentioned in RGCP.
But how can we say it was the first, unless there is a 2nd also? Well,
fear not.

It is almost time for the 2nd Annual RGCP Grudge Match, but I am
honestly uncertain about who should be the contenders this time.
Everyone on here is so full of vile and spit against everyone else that
it seems just about any two RGCPers would do.

Well, as last time, I'll toss my money in this time to sponsor if we
have some co-sponsors and we can find a pair of contenders and terms.
Only this time, I'll double up and stake $1500 this time on the match
if there are some co-sponsors that would agree to come up with another
$750.

So let's open the discussion. Which RGCPers would we like to see face
off against each other OTB?

I should also ask potential contenders, which of you would be willing
to play in a two person match if you were nominated? (Now potential
contestants, don't hold out hoping for me to double up again next year
and kick in $3K for the 3rd Annual RGCP Grudge Match, because if I
can't pull off this year's match, next year's match won't happen!)

And as last time, I'll ask potential co-sponsors, which of you would be
willing to put up some money for one of the few interesting and "real"
things that ever happen on RGCP?

RGCP Grudge Match ?

I do not think it will be possible to come up with a RGCP Grudge match
that works as well as the match did last year. I think you need the
following elements:

1. Genuine animosity and indeed hatred.

2. The players must be strong enough so that the games will be
interesting to watch. For example, nobody would pay to see the games
by Neil Brennen, a 1500 player.

3. The players must be close enough in strength so that either side
has a fair chance to win.

A good match would have been Jim Eade vs. Tim Hanke. There was genuine
animosity between them. Hanke used to accuse Eade of wanting to sleep
or having already slept with his sister-in-law (as though this would
have been a crime). Eade was a stronger player and would have been a
heavy favorite, but Hanke was strong enough to have some chance to
win.

But, alas, neither player posts here any more. Hanke has done his
patriotic duty by going off to Iraq where he fights in the war against
the Freedom Fighters over there, whereas Eade has moved in with his
sister-in-law full time and he gets the two sisters to have lesbian
sex with each other just for his own entertainment while resting up
from sex from one or the other of them in between.

I could play with Taylor Kingston. However, this would hardly be fair.
I would not want to take advantage of the fact that Kingston suffered
from a horrible birth defect while his father was giving birth, which
rendered Kingston unable to play chess and left him with a rare brain
disease which compels him to search endlessly through immense volumes
of published material searching for tiny spelling mistakes and
typographical errors. Strangely, there is only one other chess player
in the entire world that has that odd affliction. That is Edward
Winter.

The match between me and Bill Brock worked in part because, although
Brock was 110-points higher rated, he gave me draw odds. Thus, to win
a four game match I had only to win two games, whereas he needed two
wins and a draw. I won two out of the first three and thereby won the
match.

A good match would be Sloan vs. Bauer. The problem is that Bauer is
rated 366 points higher than me. This would seem to make him the
prohibitive favorite. However, I feel that Bauer's rating is not real.
He manipulated the rating system to get his rating over 2300 by
playing a rated match against a friend. Also, he has not played a
rated game in nine years since 1997. I feel that Bauer's true strength
is not more than 2150, and probably even less than that.
http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?10320372

If I am right, then, in a four game match, I should win one game. My
games are almost never draws, so any odds involving draws cannot be
considered. However, a good match might be a three game match. The
deal would be that I only have to score one win or two draws in the
three games to win the match. This I think is a fair match. Bauer
would still be the heavy favorite but, nevertheless, I think I can win
it.

Back to Eade: Eade once told me (when we were still on good terms)
that he is incapable of producing children and therefore his wife has
never been able to get pregnant. Gentleman that I am, I offered to
impregnate his wife free of charge because I look a bit like Eade and
I have the proven capability time and again to get a woman pregnant.
However, Eade respectfully declined my generous offer.

So, I propose to play a match against Eade. Same odds as Bauer, since
Eade has about the same rating as Bauer. However, I do not want money
from Eade. If I win, my winnings will go to charity. All I get as my
prize for winning is to f Eade's wife (whom I have met, by the way.
Not a bad looking broad.) Eade can throw in her sister too, as a
bonus.

Does that sound like a fair deal?

Sam Sloan