"No Longer Searching for Bobby Fischer" wins "Best Team Name" Prize at
US Amateur Team East

Contrary to expectations, the US Amateur Team East Championship, also
known as the World Amateur Team Championship, held February 16-18,
2008 in Parsippany NJ, set the attendance record for this type of
event. There were 1248 players and 291 teams, both records, which
proves that the financial difficulties and other problems the USCF is
facing is not having a dampening effect on the membership.

The GGGg team won first prize in the chess championship. The prize for
"Best Team Name" was won by "No Longer Searching for Bobby Fischer".
It was also one of the strongest teams and one of the leaders up until
the end.

The most controversial team and also the winning team was GGGg. This
shocking team consisted of three Super-Grandmasters and one child who
was a complete beginner. The grandmasters were Zvaid Izoria, rated
2714, Eugene Perelshteyn, rated 2592, and Roman Dzindzichashvili,
rated 2586. The child-beginner was Stephen Fanning, age 6, rated 178.

The rules of the US Amateur East are that the average rating of all
four players must be under 2200. There used to be an additional rule
that the board four player could not be rated more than 1000 points
below the board three player. However, that rule had been forgotten
and not published for several years, so there was nothing to stop the
team consisting of three grandmasters and a beginner from entering.

That rule will certainly be changed for next years tournament.

Had that rule been in effect, Stephen Fanning would have been counted
as a 1586 player and the average rating of all the players would have
been 2371, far above the limit.

However, the GGGg team was not guaranteed of victory. If even one of
the grandmasters lost a game, then a match would have been at best
drawn. The grandmasters had to win or at least draw all of their 18
games to be guaranteed victory.

As it turned out, none of them lost a game. Dzindzichashvili won all
six of his games. Izoria and Perelshteyn won five and drew one each
but the draws were not in the same round so the team won all six
matches.

The intrepid New York Times Reporter, Dylan Mc Clain, rated 2304,
played on a team while taking notes for what will no doubt be a report
about this event in the New York Times soon. He scored five wins and
one draw.

There were a few controversies. Jerry Hanken got into an unusual two
bishops against king endgame (the first one I had ever seen in my
entire life). When his opponent, Rilwan Ameen, 1884, mistakenly
announced that it was stalemate, Hanken got upset. Hanken then missed
a mate in three but managed to find a mate in 5.

Then, in the next round, USCF Master Daniel Yeager, 2304, had a bishop
and knight against king endgame against Igor Schneider, 2389. Yeager
obviously did not know the technique. He foundered around and seemed
to be on the verge of exceeding the 50-move rule. Fortunately for him,
Igor Schneider did not seem to be playing the best defense, so Yeager
checkmated him just under the 50-move limit. Yeager scored a perfect
6-0 in the event.

The US Amateur Team East is normally also an informal congress of
Chess Politicians. Almost every year, the USCF Executive Director and
several of the board members and candidates for office have attended.

However, this year NONE of the current board members nor the Executive
Director attended, except that USCF President Bill Goichberg came
before round four to make a brief speech asking for donations to
support Gata Kamsky in his preparations for the matches for the World
Chess Championship and also to ask for donations for the College Chess
Tournament of Champions Goichberg is organizing this year.

There did not seem to be much enthusiasm for Goichberg's pitches for
funds.

As a joke, one of the players pointed out to Goichberg that he had
forgotten to bring the plaque to award Sam Sloan for "Shining Light on
the United States Chess Federation". Sloan had been awarded that honor
at the 2007 US Amateur Team Championship. Goichberg did not consider
that attempt at a joke to be funny.

Although NONE of the current board members attended USATE, many former
board members and former presidents were present, including all of the
board members who had been voted out of office in the 2007 elections:
Don Schultz, Beatriz Marinello and Sam Sloan. Other former presidents
or board members present included Frank Brady, Steve Shutt, Steve
Doyle, Leroy Dubeck and Joe Ippolito. In addition, former Executive
Director Al Lawrence was present and playing on a team.

Sorry, but we just cannot fail to mention the pulchritude parade.
There was an exceptional number of very beautiful women present. A
heated debate was going on as to whether Ettie Nikolova, rated 2032,
is the most the most beautiful girl in the entire world, or just the
most beautiful on the right side of the tournament playing hall.
Because, if the left side of the playing hall is considered, there was
Magda Matyszewska and also Alena Kuzniatsova playing on a team
provocatively named REAL GENTLEMEN WOULD RESIGN.

The Alena Kuzniatsova team won the Prize for the Best All-Girls Team.

Perhaps you will have noticed something about the names of these
future chess-beauty contest winners. They don't grow them like that in
America any more!

Sam Sloan

It's not quite true that the East used to have a 1000-point rule. What
their TLAs said until about 2001 was that "regional winner going to
the playoffs" could not have a difference of more than 1000 points
between boards 3 and 4. The other three USATs used the simpler wording
"difference between boards 3 and 4 may not exceed 1000 points." I
believe the West is the only one still using this. I shall be curious
to see what Steve Doyle and his crew do about the problem for next
year.

On Feb 20, 12:09 am, wrote:
It's not quite true that the East used to have a 1000-point rule. What
their TLAs said until about 2001 was that "regional winner going to
the playoffs" could not have a difference of more than 1000 points
between boards 3 and 4. The other three USATs used the simpler wording
"difference between boards 3 and 4 may not exceed 1000 points." I
believe the West is the only one still using this. I shall be curious
to see what Steve Doyle and his crew do about the problem for next
year.

I think there may be another problem.

Should the GGGg team be allowed to compete in the final playoffs
against the teams who are the winners of the North, South and West
events that may have still had the 1000-point rule?

Sam Sloan

On Feb 20, 5:09 am, wrote:

It's not quite true that the East used to have a 1000-point rule.

Only a fool breaks the 1000 point rule.

It may interest the chess world to know that this sort of thing is
more-than-common in bridge.

Of the top 16 teams in the U.S. Championships (which are not limited
to U.S. players, and draw many of the strongest players in the world)
13 or 14 will consist of 3 to 5 hired professionals and one paying
sponsor. Putting it in a a chess context, I would say the amateurs
vary in skill from around 1400 to 2400.

Indeed, 4 such sponsors have won the world team title (the team title
is considered the most prestegious in bridge) and another sponsor has
a silver and a bronze.

Of course, bridge is different in that:

a) Each player must play 1/2 of the time in US championships, 1/3 of
the time in world champsionships. So with 4 playing at a time, any
player can in effect be as little as 1/12 of the team.
b) Bridge remains a game of probabilities. It is not a game where one
little slip against a stronger opponent means inevitable defeat.
c) It is a partnership game. While you can't coach your partner while
playing, you can play in such a way as to give away small amounts of
equity to give your partner easier decisions. When playing with
weaker partners, the pros routinely do this.

Alas, though, bridge teams are invariably known by the name of the
captain (or the country if playing in a world championship where teams
are restricted to one or two entries per country). They don't let us
get imaginative with names.






On Feb 19, 10:30*pm, samsloan wrote:
"No Longer Searching for Bobby Fischer" wins "Best Team Name" Prize at
US Amateur Team East

Contrary to expectations, the US Amateur Team East Championship, also
known as the World Amateur Team Championship, held February 16-18,
2008 in Parsippany NJ, set the attendance record for this type of
event. There were 1248 players and 291 teams, both records, which
proves that the financial difficulties and other problems the USCF is
facing is not having a dampening effect on the membership.

The GGGg team won first prize in the chess championship. The prize for
"Best Team Name" was won by "No Longer Searching for Bobby Fischer".
It was also one of the strongest teams and one of the leaders up until
the end.

The most controversial team and also the winning team was GGGg. This
shocking team consisted of three Super-Grandmasters and one child who
was a complete beginner. The grandmasters were Zvaid Izoria, rated
2714, Eugene Perelshteyn, rated 2592, and Roman Dzindzichashvili,
rated 2586. The child-beginner was Stephen Fanning, age 6, rated 178.

The rules of the US Amateur East are that the average rating of all
four players must be under 2200. There used to be an additional rule
that the board four player could not be rated more than 1000 points
below the board three player. However, that rule had been forgotten
and not published for several years, so there was nothing to stop the
team consisting of three grandmasters and a beginner from entering.

That rule will certainly be changed for next years tournament.

Had that rule been in effect, Stephen Fanning would have been counted
as a 1586 player and the average rating of all the players would have
been 2371, far above the limit.

However, the GGGg team was not guaranteed of victory. If even one of
the grandmasters lost a game, then a match would have been at best
drawn. The grandmasters had to win or at least draw all of their 18
games to be guaranteed victory.

As it turned out, none of them lost a game. Dzindzichashvili won all
six of his games. Izoria and Perelshteyn won five and drew one each
but the draws were not in the same round so the team won all six
matches.

The intrepid New York Times Reporter, Dylan Mc Clain, rated 2304,
played on a team while taking notes for what will no doubt be a report
about this event in the New York Times soon. He scored five wins and
one draw.

There were a few controversies. Jerry Hanken got into an unusual two
bishops against king endgame (the first one I had ever seen in my
entire life). When his opponent, Rilwan Ameen, 1884, mistakenly
announced that it was stalemate, Hanken got upset. Hanken then missed
a mate in three but managed to find a mate in 5.

Then, in the next round, USCF Master Daniel Yeager, 2304, had a bishop
and knight against king endgame against Igor Schneider, 2389. Yeager
obviously did not know the technique. He foundered around and seemed
to be on the verge of exceeding the 50-move rule. Fortunately for him,
Igor Schneider did not seem to be playing the best defense, so Yeager
checkmated him just under the 50-move limit. Yeager scored a perfect
6-0 in the event.

The US Amateur Team East is normally also an informal congress of
Chess Politicians. Almost every year, the USCF Executive Director and
several of the board members and candidates for office have attended.

However, this year NONE of the current board members nor the Executive
Director attended, except that USCF President Bill Goichberg came
before round four to make a brief speech asking for donations to
support Gata Kamsky in his preparations for the matches for the World
Chess Championship and also to ask for donations for the College Chess
Tournament of Champions Goichberg is organizing this year.

There did not seem to be much enthusiasm for Goichberg's pitches for
funds.

As a joke, one of the players pointed out to Goichberg that he had
forgotten to bring the plaque to award Sam Sloan for "Shining Light on
the United States Chess Federation". Sloan had been awarded that honor
at the 2007 US Amateur Team Championship. Goichberg did not consider
that attempt at a joke to be funny.

Although NONE of the current board members attended USATE, many former
board members and former presidents were present, including all of the
board members who had been voted out of office in the 2007 elections:
Don Schultz, Beatriz Marinello and Sam Sloan. Other former presidents
or board members present included Frank Brady, Steve Shutt, Steve
Doyle, Leroy Dubeck and Joe Ippolito. In addition, former Executive
Director Al Lawrence was present and playing on a team.

Sorry, but we just cannot fail to mention the pulchritude parade.
There was an exceptional number of very beautiful women present. A
heated debate was going on as to whether Ettie Nikolova, rated 2032,
is the most the most beautiful girl in the entire world, or just the
most beautiful on the right side of the tournament playing hall.
Because, if the left side of the playing hall is considered, there was
Magda Matyszewska and also Alena Kuzniatsova playing on a team
provocatively named REAL GENTLEMEN WOULD RESIGN.

The *Alena Kuzniatsova team won the Prize for the Best All-Girls Team.

Perhaps you will have noticed something about the names of these
future chess-beauty contest winners. They don't grow them like that in
America any more!

Sam Sloan

On Feb 28, 8:37 am, Hank Youngerman wrote:
It may interest the chess world to know that this sort of thing is
more-than-common in bridge.

Of the top 16 teams in the U.S. Championships (which are not limited
to U.S. players, and draw many of the strongest players in the world)
13 or 14 will consist of 3 to 5 hired professionals and one paying
sponsor. Putting it in a a chess context, I would say the amateurs
vary in skill from around 1400 to 2400.

Indeed, 4 such sponsors have won the world team title (the team title
is considered the most prestegious in bridge) and another sponsor has
a silver and a bronze.

Of course, bridge is different in that:

a) Each player must play 1/2 of the time in US championships, 1/3 of
the time in world champsionships. So with 4 playing at a time, any
player can in effect be as little as 1/12 of the team.
b) Bridge remains a game of probabilities. It is not a game where one
little slip against a stronger opponent means inevitable defeat.
c) It is a partnership game. While you can't coach your partner while
playing, you can play in such a way as to give away small amounts of
equity to give your partner easier decisions. When playing with
weaker partners, the pros routinely do this.

Alas, though, bridge teams are invariably known by the name of the
captain (or the country if playing in a world championship where teams
are restricted to one or two entries per country). They don't let us
get imaginative with names.


When I used to play in a partnership with Mike Lawrence (and it is
true, I really did play several times with Mike Lawrence as my
partner) I tried in every way I could to make him the declarer. In
addition, I warned him to try at all costs to avoid making me the
declarer, because, if I ever became the declarer, I would have no idea
what to do. Unless the hand was really simple, I would mess it up.

I also backed the game, so that if we lost I would pay all the losses.
(This was never a problem because we never lost.)

Our opponents were top level or nearly top level players too.
Remember, this was the Game Room at the University of California at
Berkeley. Some of the other bridge players hanging out in the game
room were Lou Stansby, Bob Hammand, Kyle Larsen and Bill Nudding. I
knew them all.

I also played in duplicate tournaments with Rich Laver and Earl Pruner
as my partners. Both of them are chess masters who were strong bridge
players too.

I could defend fairly well but I told my partners that under no
circumstances allow me to play the hand.

In one duplicate tournament our opponents called the director to
complain that I had made a bid designed to make my partner, Earl
Pruner, the declarer. Actually, it was just a mistake on my part. I
had miscounted the hand. Just an accident, but it looked bad.

I might as well tell you now that the Bridge Book I am about to
publish is by Kenneth Harkness. He was a famous chess personality and
a good writer who made his living as the bridge director on ocean
cruises. I am told that he was a strong bridge player too but I do not
know if he won any tournaments or titles.

Sam Sloan

On Feb 28, 11:51*am, samsloan wrote:
On Feb 28, 8:37 am, Hank Youngerman wrote:





It may interest the chess world to know that this sort of thing is
more-than-common in bridge.

Of the top 16 teams in the U.S. Championships (which are not limited
to U.S. players, and draw many of the strongest players in the world)
13 or 14 will consist of 3 to 5 hired professionals and one paying
sponsor. *Putting it in a a chess context, I would say the amateurs
vary in skill from around 1400 to 2400.

Indeed, 4 such sponsors have won the world team title (the team title
is considered the most prestegious in bridge) and another sponsor has
a silver and a bronze.

Of course, bridge is different in that:

a) Each player must play 1/2 of the time in US championships, 1/3 of
the time in world champsionships. *So with 4 playing at a time, any
player can in effect be as little as 1/12 of the team.
b) Bridge remains a game of probabilities. *It is not a game where one
little slip against a stronger opponent means inevitable defeat.
c) It is a partnership game. *While you can't coach your partner while
playing, you can play in such a way as to give away small amounts of
equity to give your partner easier decisions. *When playing with
weaker partners, the pros routinely do this.

Alas, though, bridge teams are invariably known by the name of the
captain (or the country if playing in a world championship where teams
are restricted to one or two entries per country). *They don't let us
get imaginative with names.

When I used to play in a partnership with Mike Lawrence (and it is
true, I really did play several times with Mike Lawrence as my
partner) I tried in every way I could to make him the declarer. In
addition, I warned him to try at all costs to avoid making me the
declarer, because, if I ever became the declarer, I would have no idea
what to do. Unless the hand was really simple, I would mess it up.

I also backed the game, so that if we lost I would pay all the losses.
(This was never a problem because we never lost.)

Our opponents were top level or nearly top level players too.
Remember, this was the Game Room at the University of California at
Berkeley. Some of the other bridge players hanging out in the game
room were Lou Stansby, Bob Hammand, Kyle Larsen and Bill Nudding. I
knew them all.

I also played in duplicate tournaments with Rich Laver and Earl Pruner
as my partners. Both of them are chess masters who were strong bridge
players too.

I could defend fairly well but I told my partners that under no
circumstances allow me to play the hand.

In one duplicate tournament our opponents called the director to
complain that I had made a bid designed to make my partner, Earl
Pruner, the declarer. Actually, it was just a mistake on my part. I
had miscounted the hand. Just an accident, but it looked bad.

I might as well tell you now that the Bridge Book I am about to
publish is by Kenneth Harkness. He was a famous chess personality and
a good writer who made his living as the bridge director on ocean
cruises. I am told that he was a strong bridge player too but I do not
know if he won any tournaments or titles.

Are you going to have someone edit it so that random things like
"bridge book" don't get capitalized? More seriously, how many copies
do you need to sell to make your nut on this thing? You have a
practically unknown author and _you_ don't have the kind of
information, titles won, for instance, that would make a blurb for the
book more appetizing.

Will in New Haven

--



Sam Sloan- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Feb 28, 12:20 pm, Will in New Haven
wrote:
On Feb 28, 11:51 am, samsloan wrote:



On Feb 28, 8:37 am, Hank Youngerman wrote:

It may interest the chess world to know that this sort of thing is
more-than-common in bridge.

Of the top 16 teams in the U.S. Championships (which are not limited
to U.S. players, and draw many of the strongest players in the world)
13 or 14 will consist of 3 to 5 hired professionals and one paying
sponsor. Putting it in a a chess context, I would say the amateurs
vary in skill from around 1400 to 2400.

Indeed, 4 such sponsors have won the world team title (the team title
is considered the most prestegious in bridge) and another sponsor has
a silver and a bronze.

Of course, bridge is different in that:

a) Each player must play 1/2 of the time in US championships, 1/3 of
the time in world champsionships. So with 4 playing at a time, any
player can in effect be as little as 1/12 of the team.
b) Bridge remains a game of probabilities. It is not a game where one
little slip against a stronger opponent means inevitable defeat.
c) It is a partnership game. While you can't coach your partner while
playing, you can play in such a way as to give away small amounts of
equity to give your partner easier decisions. When playing with
weaker partners, the pros routinely do this.

Alas, though, bridge teams are invariably known by the name of the
captain (or the country if playing in a world championship where teams
are restricted to one or two entries per country). They don't let us
get imaginative with names.

When I used to play in a partnership with Mike Lawrence (and it is
true, I really did play several times with Mike Lawrence as my
partner) I tried in every way I could to make him the declarer. In
addition, I warned him to try at all costs to avoid making me the
declarer, because, if I ever became the declarer, I would have no idea
what to do. Unless the hand was really simple, I would mess it up.

I also backed the game, so that if we lost I would pay all the losses.
(This was never a problem because we never lost.)

Our opponents were top level or nearly top level players too.
Remember, this was the Game Room at the University of California at
Berkeley. Some of the other bridge players hanging out in the game
room were Lou Stansby, Bob Hammand, Kyle Larsen and Bill Nudding. I
knew them all.

I also played in duplicate tournaments with Rich Laver and Earl Pruner
as my partners. Both of them are chess masters who were strong bridge
players too.

I could defend fairly well but I told my partners that under no
circumstances allow me to play the hand.

In one duplicate tournament our opponents called the director to
complain that I had made a bid designed to make my partner, Earl
Pruner, the declarer. Actually, it was just a mistake on my part. I
had miscounted the hand. Just an accident, but it looked bad.

I might as well tell you now that the Bridge Book I am about to
publish is by Kenneth Harkness. He was a famous chess personality and
a good writer who made his living as the bridge director on ocean
cruises. I am told that he was a strong bridge player too but I do not
know if he won any tournaments or titles.

Are you going to have someone edit it so that random things like
"bridge book" don't get capitalized? More seriously, how many copies
do you need to sell to make your nut on this thing? You have a
practically unknown author and _you_ don't have the kind of
information, titles won, for instance, that would make a blurb for the
book more appetizing.

Will in New Haven

Thank you for asking.

The book is a reprint. The book was originally published in 1949. It
was a very successful and popular book at the time. That is the reason
I have been asking if it should be reprinted.

It is an absolute beginners book. It starts out by explaining the
difference between a spade, a diamond, a heart and a club.

I wrote a brief biography of the author which is how I became aware of
this book.

My costs are very, very low because I do all the work myself. All the
text goes into a PDF file. I design the cover using Adobe Photoshop
7.0. It takes me only 10 days to two weeks to publish a book provided
the text is written. That is how I have been able to publish 30 books
in the last year including one coming out today or tomorrow and four
more presently in the works.

If I even sell 100 books I will be quite satisfied.

Sam Sloan

samsloan wrote:
On Feb 28, 12:20 pm, Will in New Haven
wrote:
On Feb 28, 11:51 am, samsloan wrote:


I might as well tell you now that the Bridge Book I am about to
publish is by Kenneth Harkness. He was a famous chess personality and
a good writer who made his living as the bridge director on ocean
cruises. I am told that he was a strong bridge player too but I do not
know if he won any tournaments or titles.

A far as I can tell niether Kenneth Harkness nor Stanley Edgar (his real
name) ever was a member of a team or pair that placed either first nor
second in any major event. His main importance to Bridge is his
introduction of Swiss system tournaments to the US _chess_ world.

Are you going to have someone edit it so that random things like
"bridge book" don't get capitalized? More seriously, how many copies
do you need to sell to make your nut on this thing? You have a
practically unknown author and _you_ don't have the kind of
information, titles won, for instance, that would make a blurb for the
book more appetizing.

Will in New Haven

Thank you for asking.

The book is a reprint. The book was originally published in 1949. It
was a very successful and popular book at the time. That is the reason
I have been asking if it should be reprinted.

It is an absolute beginners book. It starts out by explaining the
difference between a spade, a diamond, a heart and a club.

You might mention its title, _Invitation to Bridge_. I hope you have
cleared this with the publishers (Simon & Schuster), who date it as
1950. The Library of Congress control number, 50008099, corresponds to
that date. It was neither an important nor "successful and popular" book
at the time it was published. It is even less important now. You may
find a small group of people interested in buying reprints of obscure,
unimportant monographs on bridge, but the number will be very small.

On Feb 28, 2:01 pm, Martin Ambuhl wrote:

You might mention its title, _Invitation to Bridge_. I hope you have
cleared this with the publishers (Simon & Schuster), who date it as
1950. The Library of Congress control number, 50008099, corresponds to
that date. It was neither an important nor "successful and popular" book
at the time it was published. It is even less important now. You may
find a small group of people interested in buying reprints of obscure,
unimportant monographs on bridge, but the number will be very small.

For anyone that simply can't wait, I have six of these in stock. Come
to think of it, I've pretty much always had six of these in stock.
Take a number, please...

Cheers,
Carl

www.carlritner.com --- ACBL Library Used Books