On Jun 6, 3:56 am, Jürgen R. wrote:

If you look up my games on chessgames.com you will probably conclude
that I am a grandmaster, since most of the games provided there are
wins by me.

You are dreaming. It is enough to look at any one of yor games to
know that you are a patzer.

I don't believe that's true. While the relatively
small selection at chessgames.com may or
may not contain examples of strong chess by
Mr. Sloan, if you were to sift through all of his
games, there would very likely be at least a
few which are virtually indistinguishable from
those of "weak" grandmasters.

In my years of learning the game, I managed
to produce an astounding number of poorly
played games. But at or around my peak, I
had a few games which were of decent quality,
and which, although not in the brilliant style
preferred by the masses, contained some
small evidence of respectable playing skill.

We are told that Mr. Sloan used to be of
nearly master strength-- back in the days
when he was young and handsome; er, make
that just young. Let's suppose that his real
strength was that of a strong USCF Expert;
is it not likely that he occasionally played a
competent, perhaps even impressive, game?
I expect so. After years of seeing annotated
games in which some famous player's flubs
are deliberately glossed over, I have perhaps
lowered my standards a bit for human versus
human games. If the greats -- or at any rate,
the famous -- can gloss over such errors and
still get published as "brilliancies", then why
can't Mr. Sloan get any slack here?

Don't forget, not only did Mr. Sloan win the
last rgc grudge match, he is still the top pick
for the next one-- in spite of being out-rated
by the nearly-an-IM 2450 Shakespearian
scholar. He also outclasses folks like Jr,
Larry Parr, Reverend Walker and Rob
Mitchell-- sorry for any redundancies. :D

How about a posting by Mr. Sloan in which
he presents his "best" game(s), annotated?
Or one of his favorite games, perhaps?


-- help bot