Half a prize? An adaptation of what Verlaine himself wrote and was used
by the BBC to signal the French Resistance on D-Day seems appropriate
then:

Les sanglots longs
Des salauds avares
Du Vermont
Blessent mon coeur
D'une langueur
Monotone.

Half a prize seems consistent with the above....

WHO IS TO BLAME?

Meanwhile where exactly has ChessCafe let the USCF
down? The problem seems to be the "guaranteed minimum." This
particular feature of the agreement appears to have been complete
bull****.
Why would an otherwise honest businessman agree to complete
bull****? First, because the prospective partner (USCF) insisted on
it. I am under the impression that bidders were compared on the basis
of (among other things) their guaranteed minimum. The successful
bidder knew that if he didn't state a high enough guaranteed minimum,
he
wouldn't get the deal, and so he stated a high guaranteed minimum.
The USCF insisted on complete bull****, and it got complete bull****.
-- Bruce

Bruce Leverett asks, "Who is most to blame? I know not."

You would never know that he knew not -- given
the weight of his advocacy, which is to place
virtually all of the blame on the USCF. The USCF
insisted on this thing called "complete bull****," and
received it from businessman Hanon Russell, a.k.a.
the Connecticut stone.

Mr. Leverett's phrase "an otherwise honest
businessman" contains a neat bit of logic-chopping.
If Mr. Russell tendered "complete bull****" in the
expectation of never being held to account, he is not
an honest businessman.

In this reading Mr. Russell becomes a political
crook who figured that he had enough friends in high
places to make money without having to tender any.
Mr. Leverett says he assumes ChessCafe has thus
far made money off the deal. Okay, at the very least
these profits should go to retire the debt to the
Federation. Otherwise, there was never a real
contract at all -- just a cosy sweetheart
understanding from the day the papers were signed.

AT THE VERY LEAST, ANY CHESSCAFE PROFITS MUST GO
TO PAY OFF THE DEBT TO THE FEDERATION.

The Russell idea is clear enough at this point:
once ChessCafe has a long-term contract, the
Federation dare never make policy that clashes with
the interests of Russell Enterprises.

If the Executive Board is looking after the
interests of the United States Chess Federation rather
than the intersets of Hanon Russell Enteprises, then
it should SERIOUSLY CONSIDER reclaiming the whole of
its inventory and a good amount of Mr. Russell's
inventory, plus the ChessCafe, in payment of the debt
owed it. The Federation could then move to a better vendor.

I don't necessarily advocate this course, but
any Board trothed to serve the interests of the U.S.
Chess Federation before those of Hanon Russell's
private desiderata must explain precisely why such a
huge debt cannot be collected. A failure to make such
an explanation can lead to only one conclusion: Board
members have decided to be palsy walsy with Mr. Russell at
the expense of their fiduciary responsibilities.

A FAILURE TO EXPLAIN AT LENGTH WHY ANY CHESSCAFE
PROFITS CANNOT BE COLLECTED, WHICH MAY NOT AMOUNT TO
THE ENTIRE DEBT, WOULD BE PROOF IN ITSELF THAT MR.
RUSSELL COMES FIRST IN THE HEARTS OF HIS FELLOW
INSIDERS.

We are cosmically certain that were GM Larry Evans in Mr.
Russell's shoes, the Board members would at this very moment be
voting to hire Pinkerton detectives to hunt down his assets, right
down to the wall fixtures on his curtains!

BOARD MEMBER BREAKS SILENCE

In a message dated 9/30/2005 6:00:41 AM Pacific Standard Time,
writes:

Subj: [fide-chess] ChessCafe blackmailing USCF?
Date:9/30/2005 6:00:41 AM Pacific Standard Time


Interesting experience. Being on the inside looking out. Things not
worked out yet. Full disclosure later. Joel Channing

The full message shows the *context* of who and what
Mr. Channing was responding to. I'm not sure just how
useful that quote is just by itself. You could pretty much
attribute it to anything, eh? :-)

Here is the complete post:
---------------------------------------------------

----- Original Message -----
From: "joelchanning"
To:
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 5:59 AM
Subject: [fide-chess] ChessCafe blackmailing USCF?


Interesting experience. Being on the inside looking out. Things not
worked out yet. Full disclosure later. Joel Channing



--- In , fidelis@t... wrote:
Gentlemen,

I have been told that a majority of the Executive Board will
vote to forgive a very large percentage of the current ChessCafe
debt, which is estimated to be $250,000. The amount to be forgiven
depends on the percentage of sales that ChessCafe must henceforth
send to the USCF and the length of time that the Cafe will be
permitted to run the B & E business.
I have heard that both Robert Tanner and Greg Shahade joined
Beatriz Marinello to defeat or delay a proposal, the terms of which I
did not have yesterday and still do not.
There would appear to be a split in the Board on the Cafe
issue with Goichbergt, Schultz and Channing (apparently dissenting,
though, from renewing a deal on Hanon Russell's terms) lining up on
one side and Tanner, Shahade and Marinello on the other side.
Three separate versions have been mailed to me within the
last 24 hours since my initial report!
We will be learning more as the days go by -- inevitably.
The great fear among all the Board members is that the
Federation ends up in Cross-to-Bear without a business to run -- a
membership organization that has lost the expertise to market
products involved with the game it promotes.
I find myself in the interesting position of supporting some
kind of deal with a site that bans me! Sam Sloan is right that
$180,000 is better than de nada. But my sense of affairs is that if
one is going to deal with a man whom Hal Terrie describes as "this
Connecticut stone," you better have some granite in you, too.
If it is true that Mr. Russell is seeking a long-term
contract until 2012, he is basically seeking to take over the USCF's
sales business in perpetuity. Seven years from now -- after that
amount of time in Cross-to-Bear -- there will be no expertise left
within the organization not only to run a sales business but even to
find others to take it over.
Finally, I have been told that there have been a couple of
personal tiffs, which I will only report if I can get a confirmation.

Yours, Larry Parr


----- Original Message -----
From: sloan@i...
Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 12:35 pm
Subject: [fide-chess] ChessCafe blackmailing USCF?

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 23:34:33 -0400, Hal Terrie
halNOSPAMterrie@c... wrote:

On 25 Sep 2005 19:33:57 -0700, "parrthenon@c..."
parrthenon@c...wrote:

[SNIP]

According to my source, Bill Goichberg relayed
an ultimatum from Mr. Russell to the EB with two
demands:

1. The 13.5% commission rate be lowered;

2. He will only pay what he owes if the Federation EXTENDS
HIS
CONTROL OVER B & E UNTIL THE YEAR 2012.

My source states that Mr. Russell's demands
were defeated by the Board and that a compromise
proposal passed. It was apparently rejected by Mr.
Russell. I do not know the terms of this compromise.

IS THE USCF BEING BLACKMAILED BY HANON RUSSELL?

My source, who may be speaking on behalf of
interested chess book and equipment dealers, believes
it is "certain" that "the USCF is being blackmailed and
faces losing the entire B&E business."

[SNIP]

At the U.S. Open, the Delegates were told that an attempt by
the USCF to demand immediate full payment would lead to Chess
Cafe
declaring bankruptcy, after which everyone would lose - USCF
would not
get any money and Chess Cafe would disappear. I would like to
point
out that this might soon no longer be true.

I'm no expert on the subject but there have been many articles
in the press about the new bankruptcy law due to take effect on
Oct.
17, 2005. These articles say that the new law will make it
harder to
declare Chapter 7 bankruptcy, under which one can walk away from
many
debts. Instead, most would have to file under Chapter 13, under
which
a court sets up a repayment schedule based on the individual's
currentincome. Hanon Russell is supposedly still a successful
attorney...
Maybe if the USCF just waits until Oct. 18 to demand payment,
they can be confident that they will be able to extract some
blood
from this Connecticut stone. Then they can reclaim their
inventory and
pass the B&E operation on to a different outsourcer.

-- Hal Terrie

This would only apply if Hanon Russell personally guaranteed the
contract.

If only ChessCafe is a party to the contract, ChessCafe would
simply
cease to exist and the USCF would get nothing or very little.

Does anybody know if the USCF's contract is with the Chess Cafe
corporation or with Hanon Russell personally?

Also, who owns Russell Enterprises that published all those chess
books so glowingly reviewed by Taylor Kingston?

Sam Sloan


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -------------------
-
~--
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your
home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUI...LSAA/EsQolB/TM
------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-~-


Yahoo! Groups Links











------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUI...LSAA/EsQolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-


Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fide-chess/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:


* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

THUS SPAKE DR. DOWD

But one thing I do find impressive Larry, is how you are *almost* able to adapt a more restrained writing style when you post as cynic. Having read student papers for 25 years and needing to recognize personal style to combat plagiarism has made me able to spot such deceptions a bit easier...When it comes to being bad, you are very good. -- Rynd-Dowd

Here's betting that Rynd-Dowd won't put his money where his mouth
is. I'll offer him the same lie detector wager that Neil Brennen and
Taylor Kingston rejected.

I have never posted under any screen name other than Parrthenon
and Fidelis.

We each agree on a master; we each agree on a police polygraph
tester, we each agree to put $10,000 in escrow; and I take a polygraph
test. If I emerge as any bogus name that he cares to pick, I get his
dough and keep mine. Vice-versa if I lose. I do not know the identity
of Cynic. I will assert that my identity here is known and that I am
none of the pseudonyms he accuses me of. I already know who will win
this bet.

Such a wager would possibly pick up some news coverage, and I
will be Stateside later in the year. It is a doable deal.

But Rynd-Dowd and Dowd-Rynd has the right not to put up and not
to shut up. Which is the way it will be.

One might better call them, given the dumbed-down approach he takes to writing chess books, the immoral works of Larry Parr...When my son was 6, he also found "The Big Book of Fishes" a delightful read. Hardly reason enough to recommend it to others. -- Rynd-Dowd

Rynd-Dowd implies that I don't believe ChessCafe has a right not to
carry my books, including works with Lev Alburt and Arnold Denker. He
is wrong. Pace Mike Murray, I would say that Hanon Russell can choose
not to sell works by this
writer or by Eric Schiller and Ray Keene. Larry Evans, too.

The other side of the coin is that we are free to hold the
candle to his business foot, so long as it doesn't involve governmental
coercion or other violence.

But it is a business decision. If your local bookstore doesn't carry a book, and doesn't want to, is that "censorship"? I really don't see it as such. -- Rynd-Dowd

Readers interested in the Denker-Parr remembrance, The Bobby
Fischer I Knew and Other Stories, will find chapters serialized in
Chess Life from the mid-1990s. The book is available from
Hardinge-Simpole Publishers. It was selected USCF-ACF book of the year
in 1996. Ray Keene wrote that it book reminded him of "Damon Runyon
stories," and Lev Alburt said it was "one of the finest memoirs of its
kind." He spoke of it being "alternately sad and happy, serious and
witty, insightful and self-effacing," which is more than can be said
for this writer quoting from these folks. Larry Evans in a foreword
spoke of how the "book radiates life."

Polygraph?

All forms of "graphy" are my professional business, Larry. The most
cited article on the reliability of the polygraph:

'The Validity of the Lie Detector: Two Surveys of Scientific Opinion,'
by W.G. Iacono, Ph.D., and D.T. Lykken, Ph.D.,University of Minnesota,
Twin Cities, in Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.82, No. 3.

The use of the polygraph (lie detector test) is not nearly as valid as
some say and can easily be beaten and should never be admitted into
evidence in courts of law, say psychologists from two scientific
communities who were surveyed on the validity of polygraphs. This
survey appears in the June 1997 issue of the American Psychological
Association's (APA) Journal of Applied Psychology.

Bottom line: the psychologists assigned a 61% reliability to lie
detector tests. The polygraph community, on the other hand, quotes an
85% reliability.

It is also well known that individuals can be trained to beat the
polygraph, and that their use on habitual liars who are out of touch
with reality is worthless.

You can call this "weaseling out," if you wish. It won't matter (Again,
your opinion is as valuable to me as Reichmarks). I wouldn't make a bet
even if I took the polygraph's community (those are the people who have
a financial stake in polygraph examination) 85% rate, which I find to
be seriously hyperinflated.

So when you critique TK and Neil's rejection of the test, you are
simply critiquing them for making a sound decision to *not* use
something that in my opinion, is as reliable as a newspaper horoscope.
And many in the professional community agree. I listen to the opinions
of actual experts, not weak-minded libertarians.

As noted before, you use this ploy often to "prove" you aren't lying.
You count on people having even weaker minds than yours, and seeing the
polygraph used in the movies (a great plot device, but no different
than "cut the green wire on this kind of bomb" nonsense), and believing
it has value.

And what else would the three GMs say? Haven't you written/edited books
both for Alburt and Evans? Your buddies aren't going to sink the book
for you; you may as well believe all the reviews Don Schultz got from
his political buddies for Chessdon.

I am sure this form of challenge works well for the 2 dittoheads here
who might agree with you; I will not agree to something I find
pseudoscientific. Or should I? Would that be logical to you?

Besides, it matters not that you use other screen names to agree with
yourself. If that feeds your ego, which apparently needs large meals
each and every day, I say go for it. Probably good for what is left of
your mental health.

Another, more recent source:

Volume 35, No. 7 July/August 2004 of "Monitoring Psychology" put out by
the APA

Psychological sleuths
The polygraph in doubt

"In fact, due to such skepticism, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in a
1998 case involving military courts that a defendant did not have a
right to introduce polygraph evidence. The Supreme Court decision cited
scientific judgments about the accuracy of the test. "

*At any rate, Cafe carries "Bobby Fischer's Outrageous Chess Moves" by
Pandolfini. The decision to stock that title and not reminiscences by
Denker seems hard to justify.* Mike Murray

*Your buddies aren't going to sink the book for you; you may as well
believe all the reviews Don Schultz got from his political buddies for
Chessdon.* James Rynd

I seem to recall that Tim Redman (not exactly a friend of Parr) also
wrote a glowing review of Denker's memoir written with Parr..

*Having read student papers for 25 years and needing to recognize
personal style to combat plagiarism has made me able to spot such
deceptions a bit easier.* James Rynd

Terrific. Those who agree with Parr must be Parr. Very sound reasoning.


Has our esteemed academic also spotted the deception of Bill Brock who
apparently broke his vow of silence by returning to this forum under
the handle of Curious George?

Terrific. Those who agree with Parr must be Parr. Very sound reasoning.

The reasoning was based on writing style, not agreement, Larry. Please
pay better attention, or if you are smart enough to see that you are
just practicing misdirection, how about laying off it for awhile and
try to argue based on facts instead?

Has our esteemed academic also spotted the deception of Bill Brock who
apparently broke his vow of silence by returning to this forum under
the handle of Curious George?

I have not seen any posts by Curious George or even by the Man in the
Red Hat. However, it would take several posts before I determined
whether or not it was Bill. Spotting consistencies and inconsistencies
in writing style takes awhile, besides being an acquired art. And your
making such a determination so quickly (unless it was obvious, like
same email address) increases my belief you are Parr. He jumps to
conclusions quicker than a frog on methamphetamine.