wrote in message
oups.com...

Chess One wrote:
Dear Steven, while we [plural!] hold you in our affections, what you
write
is a continuous demonstration of what I say, which is of your effections.

Perhaps it is because I am such a pragmatist that I typically think, "if
he
could, he would," but you evidently can't address whatever was in the
Polgar
column, since it is your preference to write in hissy fits.

Love and Kisses, Phil.


Um, you can keep the kisses, and I will accept the loving in the most
generic of ways, but I do not see what I failed to address. My view is
simple on what she wrote in the column and her blog: I disagree totally
with her rants on Sam. He won,

Yes - even Tocqueville wrote 170 years ago of the necessity to seperate
Ethics from Politics. I think H-B Lévy has recently amplified on this, both
in his New York Times article, but much more substantially in his new title
American Vertigo.

and it would seem to me that a person
with the power to do so many positive things for chess (and who has
done many positive things for chess) should stay away from this sort of
thing, and her recommending that we find some way to prevent him from
assuming office is wrong. Not only wrong, but it sends a signal
(however false) that she is the one who wants to have her way through
"hissy fits."

To say it my way - which might be in agreement with you - the SPF benefits
by comparison, and need not agitate or excite the issue.

Unfortunately USCF passed on the opportunity to deal with any ethical
standards some months ago, when not only Sloan was involved - a small crowd
of current incumbents were kiting various issues to do with their personal
standards - as if they were reactionary Puritans and less likely to do harm
and burn witches, than witches themselves do to themselves.

Now the issue of personality and political role are all one.

Does her association with Truong bother me? No, it is up to her to
decide, but by your standards, Truong really is someone who "can't be
bothered to sign his name" and in fact floods many discussion groups
with anonymous postings, and is an accused Internet chess cheater.

I admit I know him more than I know her - in fact we talk on the phone quite
a bit. There are even things I have said to her which she agreed she would
not share with anyone, even him. But he does not strike me from a
psychological [nor linguistic] basis as likely to indulge a pseudonymous
identity. He is as straightforward as his ties! I cannot prove that -
but I think what happens when you are associated with 'Greats' is that there
is always much supposition, and the nature of it is that it is unprovable
either way - which is often the design of the supposer, neh?

As
an opportunist, he has done well for her but I can't help thinking he
will also be her undoing.

He is a strong advocate sure. But to say more of my opinion would mean to
write in public what is privvy to my own intelligence. I would say it to you
privately, but some here would seize on any such information, and then
excite it to lunatic levels of supposition, or else render it anodyne -
neither way contains much intellegence, IMO.

And of course this is a form of armchair quarterbacking I am engaged in
when I discuss these matters, as are 99% of the posts here. It is sheer
speculation. If you want real news on Polgar, I suggest sources like
chesscafe, where her column appeared.

I have her cell phone - if I want stuff 'so badly' I can call her up. But
that would be unusual for me, since, other than to ask some opinion about
another player I don't find much need to do other than send Paul T a note
asking for info. He kinvariably replies within 24 hours to everything.

It does an excellent job of
covering topical material in an informative manner. It has the best
writers on chess of any site I have seen.

I agree that it was also my favorite site at one time. But it seemed to go
off the boil 4 or 5 years ago and besides, so often does not bite the
bullet, especially if the subject is USCF of which it is in debt in two
senses - it owes USCF a quarter of a million dollars [forgiven?] and is the
official venue for B&E sales.

I have a remarkable e-mail testimony of the scale of honesty that Chesscafe
performed at its forum - as exchanged with another writer here. While that
is edifying, it ain't so very great at all!

I fail to see how that or anything else I wrote is anything more of a
hissy fit than what you write here on a regular basis. When attacked,
you defend, as do I. Why is your defense supposedly superior to mine?

I consider myself a pragmatist as well, and in fact my master's work
was in part on Dewey and his philosophy of education; his "learning
lab" (learning through experimentation) ideas would fit well for chess
study if someone took up the notion.

You ever look to [Harvard's] Gardner?

However, I still think "on-topic" to you means "what I want (or is that
what we want?) to discuss." In fact, I always find it funny when you
accuse others of not discussing chess because your posts are often
without any relevant chess content whatsoever. In fact. except for
mentioning the name "Polgar," what does your post above have to do with
chess?

Sure - you are right. I am reduced to an admonition to write to the nominal
subject as presented in the header. what else may be said in public?

Very little. It has more to do with me; and your accusations
that I don't post on chess and suffer from some sort of self-obsession,
well, here we go again: Pot, kettle, black.

We have insufficient understanding of each other. You may be assured I have
been as antagonistic to world champions [and candidates] as to you, and
indifferent to status-things as I might be, while still noticing that it
goes on.

You scored a few points in this one! The weather is better here now, dryer.
Shall I finish on a natural note?

But now the elm is still
All its frame bare
Its leaves are a carpet for the cabbages

And it stands engulfed in the peculiar golden light
With which Eternity's flash
Photographed the sudden cock pheasant -

Engine whinneying, the fire-ball bird clatters up,
Shuddering full-throttle
Its three-toungued tail-tip writhing

And the Elm stands, astonished, wet with light,

And I stand, dazzled to my bones, blinded.

Phil