How about Larry Evans against the new owner of Chess Life?

After playing over the games posted here by Louis Blair, I find it
odd that anyone -- even Larry Parr -- would perceive Sam Sloan's
difficult struggles as "bitch-slapping" Bill Brock.

Yes, Mr. Sloan won the match; but the games were hard-fought. In one
game, Sloan hung a piece right in the opening -- is that any way to
"bitch-slap" one's opponent?

"Sam bitch-slapped him on the Chess board. When it mattered,
Sam kicked ass." -- Stanford

If sqeaking out a narrow victory with draw odds is to be considered
"kicking ass", how would two or three *convincing* wins in a row be
described? Face it, the Evans ratpackers were rather lucky to take
that match. Next time I would suggest appointing near-IM Innes to
tackle the job. Sloan is a fighter alright, but he simply plays Mickey
Mouse chess openings.


-- help bot

Alan O'Brien wrote:

"How about Larry Evans against the new owner of Chess Life?"


Larry Evans is a GM -- you want a massacre on your hands?
Besides, he doesn't post here much. I'm surprised to learn that
Sam Sloan travelled all the way to Chicago just to play a few
games of chess.

Focusing on the people who actually post here, and considering LP's
geographic location, that logically brings us next to near-IM Innes.
He probably should play a correspondence match with Taylor Kingston.
The games can be annotated by Ray
Keene or Larry Evans (via Larry Parr), and placed into historical
perspective by Neil Brennen. Sloan can sell the hot dogs and beer.

-- help bot

Help bot has had another look at these Grudge Match games, and it
seems to me that it would be fair to say that Sam Sloan, who won the
match, was "busted" in every game.

Not that this really matters, since the idea was not to win with
elegant smoothness -- like Jiff creamy peanut butter -- but to win.
But the point is that in many cases, Mr. Sloan was hanging on by his
fingernails. Help bot expects that if this had been a tag-team match,
with say, Randy Bauer or Taylor Kingston taking over in these key
positions, Sloan would have gone down for the count in all three games.
This is why help bot sees near-IM Innes as a better candidate for
defending the "honor" of the Evans ratpackers. Sloan handicaps himself
severely with his Mickey Mouse openings, as in this game:

1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 Bxg4 3. c4 c6 4. cxd5 cxd5 5. Qb3 Nf6 6. Nc3 e6 7. Qxb7
Nbd7 8. Nb5 Rc8 9. Nxa7

I think it is fairly obvious that White has not only moved the same
pieces over and over -- blatantly violating a Reinfeldian dictum
targeted at rank beginners -- but his Knight is lost for only two
pawns. For the life of me I can't see why Brock failed to play this
line again, in game three, since it easily wins for Back.

In their second game Brock inexplicably initiates a trade of Queens
when he has a winning attack.

In game three, there arises at one point an opportunity to transition
into a winning endgame, and again, Brock misses the boat.

I suspect Ray Keene would crush Sam Sloan blindfolded, but he is not
available to play for the other side since he, too, is an Evans
ratpacker. Clearly, one of the decent players from the other side
needs to step up to the plate.

Neil Brennen is apparently not qualified to tackle even Sam "MIckey
Mouse openings" Sloan, let alone near-IM Innes. Taylor Kingston claims
he is a patzer OTB, despite his correspondence results. That leaves
Randy Bauer (presumably) against Phil Innes. If Bauer refuses to play,
we have one side with a near-IM and the other side with a bunch of
1500s -- in a simul?


-- help bot

Dnia 23-04-2006 o 07:06:27 help bot napisa³:

Alan O'Brien wrote:

"How about Larry Evans against the new owner of Chess Life?"


Larry Evans is a GM -- you want a massacre on your hands?
Besides, he doesn't post here much. I'm surprised to learn that
Sam Sloan travelled all the way to Chicago just to play a few
games of chess.


That`s the main difference between real chess fans and morons who attack
Sam here. He is ready to play and win and morons can only write their crap
here.

--
U¿ywam programu pocztowego Opery: http://www.opera.com/mail/

help bot wrote:
Sam, you are living in the Dark Ages. Women are not some sort of
commodity to be traded or auctioned off -- except perhaps in your
twisted little mind.

Why are woman not some sort of commodity to be traded or auctioned off?

This has been going on for the last three million years, and will
continue, especially since the women remain willing.

"Sloan is a fighter alright, but he simply plays Mickey Mouse chess
openings."

"Why don't you put your money where your mouth is? Sloan is willing
to defend
his RGCP Chess Championship."


Okay, how do you think this could be handled?

I don't have a copy of Disney's official book on the chess openings,
but I might have a copy of BCO stashed in a closet somewhere. I take
it that Wilma believes the "credit" should perhaps go to Donald Duck or
even Minnie Mouse, whereas my firm position is that Mickey himself
deserves all the accolades.

Or did Wilma mean I should bet money on say, Taylor Kingston or some
other poster to win over Sam Sloan in a second Grudge Match? My
position here is that, apart from Bill Brock (who choked one match
already), I cannot think of a close match for Sloan from the "other
side". We have one master, who Sloan says he can beat despite a
ratings disparity of over 300 points, to which I can only say that he
would undoubtedly desire heavy odds; IMO, heavy odds can muck things up
by shifting the focus to the odds themselves.

If Wilma means that he wants to bet on Sam Sloan to win a match over
near-IM Innes, I can only reply that while Sloan's strength is well
known, Innes is an unknown entity whose strength can only be speculated
upon. Any such bet would in essence amount to a specific bet on how
big Innes' lies regarding his playing strength have been. I thought
the Grudge Match was supposed to be about something more general in
nature, and not between two Evans ratpackers.

How about a straddle or a strangle? If Sloan wins by a certain
margin or is crushed, I win. If he draws or finishes near-the-money, I
lose?

But I am getting way off track here; the issue was who first invented
and later perfected Sloan's chess openings style? I say it was the guy
with the big, round ears and a smiley face, who I first met at
Disneyland in 1965.

"I'm surprised to learn that Sam Sloan travelled all the way
to Chicago just to play a few games of chess." -- help bot

"That`s the main difference between real chess fans and
morons who attack Sam here." -- Jerzy

The freedom to travel? I should have thought that the
main difference was having a job or a family -- something
along those lines.

"He is ready to play and win and morons can only write
their crap here." -- Jerzy

I suspect that one reason Sloan is so willing to play again, is
that he not only was paid the first time, but he also won the
match. He also seems to desperately crave attention, and
how better to get it than by representing the Evans ratpackers
in an annual Grudge Match?
My idea was to get a couple of others involved in this; say,
Phil Innes and Randy Bauer, for example. It's called rotation.
The problem is disparity in playing strength, which could give
one side or the other a large advantage.

If Jerzy was referring to my comment that Sloan was busted
in every game, I will admit I got careless in my analysis of one
position, overlooking a saving resource which refutes outright my
prior assessment of "hanging a piece", at least at that point in
the game. Even so, my overall assessment of Sloan's openings
has not changed very much.

-- help bot

"Sam, you are living in the Dark Ages. Women are not some sort of
commodity to be traded or auctioned off -- except perhaps in your
twisted little mind." -- help bot


Sam Sloan replies:
"Why are woman not some sort of commodity to be traded or auctioned
off?
This has been going on for the last three million years, and will
continue, especially since the women remain willing."


You lost me there. Are you saying that in general all women are
"willing", yet they must be bought and sold by men? Or are you saying
that the specific women involved (in your fantasies) are willing to
participate? Did you realise Brock had you crushed, several times?
Are you making a generalisation about the way women have *historically*
been treated in societies? BTW, your opening play is from the Stone
Age. Are you talking about the Black Market in sex slaves? All of the
above?

-- help bot

"I would like to point out that thanks to the Feminist movement, some
of us
men are also willing to be sold and traded.

Picture in your mind Chewbacca if he was short and fat, and then bid
accordingly. I am available most nights." -- Wilma


At least you've still got hair.