On Jun 5, 6:57 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
having liberally smeared everyone who might contest his precious seat, mr
slaon now proceeds to smear a player's record. i have seen paul troung play
the twice european junior champion and russian champion too. otb mr truong
would smear mr sloan! and so would i!


Why look at that! Phil Innes has just challenged the great me to a
grudge match.

How much do you really want to bet?

I realize that it takes great temerity for me to challenge the
redoubtable "Nearly an IM" Phil Innes to a grudge match, but I am
looking forward to picking up another easy thousand bucks. However, I
doubt anybody would be seriously willing to bet on a complete patzer
like Innes.

Unlike Innes, I do actually play chess.

Any takers?

Sam Sloan

The loser agrees to be fisted repeatedly by the winner and to never post in
any Chess Forum, usenet, or other chess related message board for the next
five years.

On Jun 5, 7:43 pm, samsloan wrote:
On Jun 5, 6:57 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

having liberally smeared everyone who might contest his precious seat, mr
slaon now proceeds to smear a player's record. i have seen paul troung play
the twice european junior champion and russian champion too. otb mr truong
would smear mr sloan! and so would i!

Why look at that! Phil Innes has just challenged the great me to a
grudge match.

How much do you really want to bet?

I realize that it takes great temerity for me to challenge the
redoubtable "Nearly an IM" Phil Innes to a grudge match, but I am
looking forward to picking up another easy thousand bucks. However, I
doubt anybody would be seriously willing to bet on a complete patzer
like Innes.

Unlike Innes, I do actually play chess.

Any takers?

Sam Sloan

Tisk... you have dodged my invitations.

On Jun 6, 12:28 am, Rob wrote:

Tisk... you have dodged my invitations.

Not at all. I am willing to play you a grudge match for a thousand
dollars too.

You are probably even weaker than Innes.

Sam Sloan

"samsloan" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jun 5, 6:57 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
having liberally smeared everyone who might contest his precious seat, mr
slaon now proceeds to smear a player's record. i have seen paul troung
play
the twice european junior champion and russian champion too. otb mr
truong
would smear mr sloan! and so would i!


Why look at that! Phil Innes has just challenged the great me to a
grudge match.

How much do you really want to bet?

I realize that it takes great temerity for me to challenge the
redoubtable "Nearly an IM" Phil Innes to a grudge match, but I am
looking forward to picking up another easy thousand bucks. However, I
doubt anybody would be seriously willing to bet on a complete patzer
like Innes.

Unlike Innes, I do actually play chess.

Unlike Innes, Sloan doesn't play it here

He is full of himself as usual, having just 'sort of' retracted his comments
about Paul Truong - by his usual means of passing straight on when
challenged., ie, if 'there is no evidence' that PT didn't win those Asian
tournaments, is there any evidence of who did?

Or is this another *special* sort of 'question' which suggests people's
achievements aren't real, which evaporate like the mist when any light is
shined on it? In other words, another casual smear?

Any takers?

For what? More talk? Strongest player here was Grant Perks at 2100. I won
with black in 14, but with white took all of 18 moves! Seems to me that
Sloan is the one who needs to prove he can play chess just like the rest of
us instead of suggesting he can only operate by making it a Sloan-special
event.

What I challenged Sloan to do is discontinue his cowardly running away from
the result of his actions by diverting or denying issues, and rushing on to
new scandals.

If he really can play chess like the rest of us then he could have showed up
and done it! What's his excuse this time? No time to play chess?

This isn't the same as chess politics and mouthing off about his suggestive
greatness about his suggested self, with the usual 'other people are trash'
commentary.

There are several challenges to Sloan in this message - and perhaps the
biggest one is not to talk about Sloan at all, but to look at Sloan's
responsibility to the chess world compared with what he actually does, not
suggests and not promises.

This morning someone said they'd put up more than $1,000, in fact $2,500 for
a match. But I don't chose to play cowards or me-me blowhards, or even their
fakers.

Phil Innes

Sam Sloan

On Jun 6, 6:11 am, "Chess One" wrote:

Unlike Innes, I do actually play chess.

Unlike Innes, Sloan doesn't play it here

By "here", it looks like IM Innes means online chess,
where the possibility of computer cheating rears its ugly
head. I think SS meant OTB chess -- mono a mono.


He is full of himself as usual, having just 'sort of' retracted his comments
about Paul Truong - by his usual means of passing straight on when
challenged., ie, if 'there is no evidence' that PT didn't win those Asian
tournaments, is there any evidence of who did?

Or is this another *special* sort of 'question' which suggests people's
achievements aren't real, which evaporate like the mist when any light is
shined on it? In other words, another casual smear?

Good point. After years of watching his old pal Larry Parr
in action, IM Innes is well aware of how this game is played.


Any takers?

For what? More talk? Strongest player here was Grant Perks at 2100. I won
with black in 14, but with white took all of 18 moves!

I expect this demonstrates that GP was not then, the
"strongest player here". Any decent player ought to be
able to last longer than 14 or 18 moves, even against
PI's very latest version of Rybka. What the heck did he
do -- walk into an ultra-sharp Sicilian trap line that he
didn't even know how to play?


This morning someone said they'd put up more than $1,000, in fact $2,500 for
a match. But I don't chose to play cowards or me-me blowhards, or even their
fakers.

That looks like a (quacking) duck to me.

The strange thing is, SS always looks at these matches
as a way of snarfing OPM (other people's money) for
himself, without risking his own. That makes him an
opportunist, not a defender of Truth, Justice, and the
'Murican way.

The thing about in-person matches is we get to focus
on the chess, and not on the possibility that one (or
more!) player is cheating by using a chess program.
I think it goes without saying that if either player were
to make use of, say, Rybka, there isn't much point to
a match, and the result would be similar to giving Queen
and two Rooks odds.

-- help bot

"help bot" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 6, 6:11 am, "Chess One" wrote:

Unlike Innes, I do actually play chess.

Unlike Innes, Sloan doesn't play it here

By "here", it looks like IM Innes means online chess,
where the possibility of computer cheating rears its ugly
head. I think SS meant OTB chess -- mono a mono.

what a treat! not! the thing with all sorts of in-office politicians is to
ask them what they did already, not what they will do. since the former
question is relevant, and allowing them to speak of what they will do is to
conspire with their fnatasies not their performance

He is full of himself as usual, having just 'sort of' retracted his
comments
about Paul Truong - by his usual means of passing straight on when
challenged., ie, if 'there is no evidence' that PT didn't win those Asian
tournaments, is there any evidence of who did?

Or is this another *special* sort of 'question' which suggests people's
achievements aren't real, which evaporate like the mist when any light is
shined on it? In other words, another casual smear?

Good point. After years of watching his old pal Larry Parr
in action, IM Innes is well aware of how this game is played.

you are surely not going to /continue/ to mock people with names from
anonymity! the thing you miss is the different psychology of putting your
own name to things, then, at minimum, you have to own your own opinion from
your own experience, rather than a mocking-superior type, can only wonder at
other people - try it, see if it makes a difference?

while i do not always agree with larry parr, and in terms of sloan, do not
agree with him, i never noticed larry parr backing away from anything! i
even seen him admit a mistake! which is at least a bronze medal on usenet.
of course, he cannot defend what other people think he said, or even insist
they think he said, which is an argument made of the merest kingstonite

Any takers?

For what? More talk? Strongest player here was Grant Perks at 2100. I won
with black in 14, but with white took all of 18 moves!

I expect this demonstrates that GP was not then, the
"strongest player here".

see 'player'. i know everyone else is much better than he and i, but we are
both players rather than genius-theorists

Any decent player ought to be
able to last longer than 14 or 18 moves, even against
PI's very latest version of Rybka.

now if i used rybka i wouldn't be 2250, i would be 2950 or rather more!
according to this rating group's scale of things

What the heck did he
do -- walk into an ultra-sharp Sicilian trap line that he
didn't even know how to play?

he played a [delayed] pelikan as black, took an early mid game pawn i
dangled out there, missed a simple fork netting me a piece. with black i
played an english defence, which i know 3 moves of - gotta like them
laser-bishops! and you get two of 'em - again he took a 'negligent' pawn,
and another queen swoop threatened to bring the house down

seriously for a moment - what is the value of time in rating points at cc? i
certainly have played one computer, probably sargon, where a 1350 player was
rather better than the 1800 guys in our tournament, and sometimes people are
very 'booked' and need to get tactically swindled by some slight manoeuvring
out of the book

but given time to make your move, how much advantage is that? I am playing
one guy with a fide ELO of about 2000 [maybe 2175 us] who sports a cc rating
of between 2400 and 2550. is that simply the result of him taking 8 days to
work it out? in his game with white he played exxentrically in yet another
pelikan, certainly not any book line. with black he has an unusual ruy.


This morning someone said they'd put up more than $1,000, in fact $2,500
for
a match. But I don't chose to play cowards or me-me blowhards, or even
their
fakers.

That looks like a (quacking) duck to me.

as above - you can have played, or you can talk about it shrug

The strange thing is, SS always looks at these matches
as a way of snarfing OPM (other people's money) for
himself, without risking his own. That makes him an
opportunist, not a defender of Truth, Justice, and the
'Murican way.

its a pure diversion from his 'questions' about paul truong - don't worry,
his interest is so deep that it last 8 hours max, and today is another day,
and another half dozen 'questions' will appear about other people

people who question him are banned, like our man-in-white, which-Mitch?

The thing about in-person matches is we get to focus
on the chess, and not on the possibility that one (or
more!) player is cheating by using a chess program.

'we' gawd! is that like we cheating paranoids?

i challenged sloan to discuss what he has done, not exite the gallery with
yet another diversion. whether done in chess or politics is the same, and
anything else is the escape clause and more me! me! me! exhibitionism

lookit! more **** here - hey, see this ****! hey! me found it - when i am
elected, i'll be just the same! O, i am elected - well! someone should clean
this up, i'm too busy finding it!

i think you'll find that a foundation entirely composed of **** won't hold
much weight

phil innes

I think it goes without saying that if either player were
to make use of, say, Rybka, there isn't much point to
a match, and the result would be similar to giving Queen
and two Rooks odds.

-- help bot

On Jun 6, 9:17 am, "Chess One" wrote:

Good point. After years of watching his old pal Larry Parr
in action, IM Innes is well aware of how this game is played.

you are surely not going to /continue/ to mock people with names from
anonymity!

Ridiculous! I have been called all sorts of "names".


the thing you miss is the different psychology of putting your
own name to things

Ah, the personal, ad hom. psychology.



then, at minimum, you have to own your own opinion from
your own experience

This sounds like what IM Innes is missing, not me.

Consider, for example, the inability to think about
chess "creativity" for himself, while always using
a proxy thinker -- GM Adorjan -- to do this for him.
Even when the proxy cannot express himself clearly,
PI is mentally frozen, so to speak, and falls back to
mutterings about the jibber-English rantings of his
idol.


rather than a mocking-superior type

I can't blame you for seeing me as "superior", since
in fact I am! Just consider my analysis of the SS
Whitaker game, which is unmatched here. Of course,
all the weaker players have trouble seeing the win,
while I (and Rybka?) can see it plain as day! This
is the sort of acid test which separates the corn from
the dry stalks.


while i do not always agree with larry parr, and in terms of sloan, do not
agree with him, i never noticed larry parr backing away from anything!

Ah, stubbornness! This is something he has in common
with other rgc posters (and mules!).


even seen him admit a mistake!

Rare indeed. (Not the mistakes, the admissions.)



which is at least a bronze medal on usenet.
of course, he cannot defend what other people think he said, or even insist
they think he said, which is an argument made of the merest kingstonite


The *automatic*, unthinking lashings out at TK are
revealing; how does TK really relate to LP here? Why
does his name magically appear? (Surely you are not
suggesting that TK is in the same class with me and
Rybka? I imagine he would be among the many who
can't quite see the win against Whitaker.)


I expect this demonstrates that GP was not then, the
"strongest player here".

see 'player'. i know everyone else is much better than he and i, but we are
both players rather than genius-theorists

Yeah, yeah -- you played a few games via the internet,
just like most of us. But when push comes to shove,
you can't back your claims to chess strength with OTB
results, any more than claims that SS is of master or
expert strength can be backed with real evidence. All
blow, and no go!


Any decent player ought to be
able to last longer than 14 or 18 moves, even against
PI's very latest version of Rybka.

now if i used rybka i wouldn't be 2250, i would be 2950 or rather more!


I agree. But you say you defeated a 2100 in a very
small number of moves -- twice! Is this not just a
little bit suspicious looking in view of your relative
strengths (in reality, not Fantasy-land)? That's the
only reason I mentioned your new chess program,
not because you won, but because usually a 2100
can be expected to put up a bit of a tussle (to say
the least).


What the heck did he
do -- walk into an ultra-sharp Sicilian trap line that he
didn't even know how to play?

he played a [delayed] pelikan as black, took an early mid game pawn i
dangled out there, missed a simple fork netting me a piece.


See what I mean? A simple fork? Now what sort
of 2100 misses "simple" forks, unless of course it
was only simple... to Rybka!

OTOH, I once played in a team tourney where one
of us hung a piece in under ten moves. The other
guys were lucky to draw, and lo and behold, my
opponent, whose rating was quite impressive by
most standards, returned the favor! Some guys
give chess ratings a bad name.



with black i
played an english defence, which i know 3 moves of - gotta like them
laser-bishops! and you get two of 'em - again he took a 'negligent' pawn,
and another queen swoop threatened to bring the house down


Okay, here's the deal: I'm gonna save my allowance
for months and months, and then ask mummy if I can
butyRybka. Then you send me the game scores, and
I will check to see if you *copied* Ribbie's moves --
fair dinkam?


seriously for a moment - what is the value of time in rating points at cc? i
certainly have played one computer, probably sargon, where a 1350 player was
rather better than the 1800 guys in our tournament, and sometimes people are
very 'booked' and need to get tactically swindled by some slight manoeuvring
out of the book

but given time to make your move, how much advantage is that? I am playing
one guy with a fide ELO of about 2000 [maybe 2175 us]

Yikes! Didn't you get the memo? At that level, there
is little difference between USCF and FIDE. Of course,
way up here (thin air is hard to breath, I tell you!) things
are different.


who sports a cc rating
of between 2400 and 2550. is that simply the result of him taking 8 days to
work it out? in his game with white he played exxentrically in yet another
pelikan, certainly not any book line. with black he has an unusual ruy.


Maybe he accidentally disabled the program's opening
book without realizing it.


This morning someone said they'd put up more than $1,000, in fact $2,500
for
a match. But I don't chose to play cowards or me-me blowhards, or even
their
fakers.

That looks like a (quacking) duck to me.

as above - you can have played, or you can talk about it

I think we have gone through this before; the prospect
of getting slaughtered by someone's new chess program
does not excite me at all. Many years ago I went through
the same ordeal in correspondence play, and like BF, I
just quit from disgust. Of course, if you are the only one
with Rybka, that's a horse of a different color. ;D


The strange thing is, SS always looks at these matches
as a way of snarfing OPM (other people's money) for
himself, without risking his own. That makes him an
opportunist, not a defender of Truth, Justice, and the
'Murican way.

its a pure diversion from his 'questions' about paul truong

Yes, it is a diversion, but I think he is serious about
getting some free money; SS is always in the market
for free money.


people who question him are banned, like our man-in-white, which-Mitch?


If SS has the power to control things there, then
ask your "questions" someplace where he doesn't.
Like here maybe.


The thing about in-person matches is we get to focus
on the chess, and not on the possibility that one (or
more!) player is cheating by using a chess program.

'we' gawd! is that like we cheating paranoids?

It relates to the spectators, the peons. You know,
the little people. Let them eat cake, and all that.


i think you'll find that a foundation entirely composed of **** won't hold
much weight

It depends. If you dry it out and compact it... .

-- help bot

On Jun 6, 4:26 am, samsloan wrote:
On Jun 6, 12:28 am, Rob wrote:

Tisk... you have dodged my invitations.

Not at all. I am willing to play you a grudge match for a thousand
dollars too.

You are probably even weaker than Innes.

Sam Sloan

Oh,
I am much weaker. But I see that you won't play for honor. I wouldn't
play you for money. WInning isn't a sure thing and gambling is for
suckers. I would be willing to admit that you beat me and were a
better player should that be the case. But you have ignored the
requests for two plus years and I doubt your dodging will change.
Rob

On Jun 6, 12:54 pm, Rob wrote:
On Jun 6, 4:26 am, samsloan wrote:

On Jun 6, 12:28 am, Rob wrote:

Tisk... you have dodged my invitations.

Not at all. I am willing to play you a grudge match for a thousand
dollars too.

You are probably even weaker than Innes.

Sam Sloan

Oh,
I am much weaker. But I see that you won't play for honor. I wouldn't
play you for money. WInning isn't a sure thing and gambling is for
suckers. I would be willing to admit that you beat me and were a
better player should that be the case. But you have ignored the
requests for two plus years and I doubt your dodging will change.
Rob

Mr. Mitchel, do you think for one second that if your
hero IM Innes is afraid to face Mr. Sloan himself, that you
would stand even half a chance? No, I think it would
hardly be a game at all, but merely a one-sided slaughter.

You need to start thinking about playing people more
your own level, like say, Sanny or Louis Blair. Don't
worry: soon Sanny will be back and his program will be
even more "improved" than ever before! I myself will
sacrifice my rating by risking a game or two against you
lowly humans.

-- help bot