On Mar 15, 6:45*pm, help bot wrote:
On Mar 15, 3:37 pm, wrote:

* I present again Sam Sloan's claim:

* "The fact is that Taylor Kingston has never beaten a master."

* Interested readers can check the original post hehttp://tinyurl.com/27n2xd

* Sam's claim is quite absolute and unequivocal

and also
unequivocally false. I have challenged Sam to put his money where his
mouth is. I have 10,000 actual, official American dollars that say I
have beaten an actual officially-titled USCF master in an actual,
serious, USCF-rated chess game.

* Who cares? *The question is, have you
ever beaten a REAL master -- that is, one
certified as such by FIDE, the official
organization recognized the world over as
the only corrupt entity with the power and
influence necessary to buy everyone off
and thus, reign supreme.

I have beaten someone who has since become a FIDE Master, but that
was not the "officially titled USCF master" I had in mind. His USCF
rating was only 2114 at the time I won (now it's 2423), and I don't
think he had a FIDE rating yet, so it would not be accurate to say "I
beat an FM" based on that game.

* Obviously, when Mr. Sloan used the term
"master", he must have been referring to
the title of /FIDE master/, commonly
abbreviated as "FM".

No, I took it to mean USCF master, i.e. someone rated 2200+ OTB, or
in postal chess, who had reached a rating of at least 1700 under the
Harkness system in effect when I played postal chess circa 1966-86. In
that system, Master was 1700-1899, Senior Master 1900+.


* 1. Sam is such an economic failure that he can't muster ten bucks in
the same place at the same time, let alone ten thousand.

* We can rule this out on the basis that
Mr. Sloan has often entered such big-
money tournaments as the World Open;
real chess players know that Mr.
Goichberg does not give away entries
for free.

Good! Then surely Sam can afford to risk $10,000, eh? Why then is he
hiding like a terrified mouse?

* 2. Sam has perhaps been trying to arrange a loan for the bet, acting
on the "greater fool" theory, but has not been able to find anyone
more foolish than himself.
* 3. Sam is not sane, and cannot distinguish between factual truth and
his own dream-world.

* Irrelevant. *Nutters have always had a
decided tendency to excel at chess.

A good point!

* 4. Sam is an inveterate liar and smear-monger who will say anything,
but he slinks away in silence when his lies are exposed.

* I like this one.

Yes, I conisder it the most likely explanation.

* But I think an alternate explanation
might be that Mr. Sloan was looking to
"show off" his wins against some USCF
masters, and wanted a challenge to
produce them here.

I seem to recall that I did annotate a few Sloan games here a few
years back, when he was hyping his favorite Damiano "Defense" as a
forced win for Black

*(Instead, he got a
mindless "give me $10K" diversion.)

* Rather than blather on about money,
why not show us some annotations of
Mr. Sloan's many famous games? *As
we know, even Dr. Phil IMnes can do
this, using the latest version of Rybka
in conjunction with the Fritz interface,
but that lends a rather robot-like style to
the writing. *We have been told that the
style of TK is that of a careful researcher,
a flawless technician, a nearly-a-genius,

I strive to be worthy of the first and second designations, but
errare humanum est and all that. The third, not even close.

and Mr. Sloan's efforts could use a good
looking over.

As I said, been there, done that, and Sam's games don't interest me
much. I have better games to go through, for example those of Max
Judd, for the next installment of Jeremy Spinrad's column. appearing
in about two weeks.