Sam Sloan wrote:
PROPOSED ADDENDUM to the CHINESE CHESS FOR BEGINNERS

Since the first printing of this book in 1989, there have been changes
in the World of Chinese chess. The most obvious is the development and
the expansion of the Internet. Every major Chinese chess organization
now has a website. Most are in Chinese but some are in English. The
World Chinese Chess Federation, or WXF, has been formed. Previously,
there were just endless meetings of preparatory committees. The World
Chinese Chess Federation has now held nine world championships. The
most recent was in Paris in August 2005. I wish that I could have
attended, but I could not, as it conflicted with the US Open Chess
Championship in Phoenix, Arizona. It was won by Lu Qin, also spelled
Lv Qin, who has won the last five World Championships of Chinese
Chess.

In 1990, I played in the World Championship of Chinese Chess for
Non-Chinese in Singapore. I finished second. I am still angry at
myself because I missed the flight I was supposed to take and arrived
late. I forfeited one game. I feel that I would have won had I not
missed the flight. My result is posted on the Internet on page 8 at
http://wxf.hypermart.net/eg/wxf-masters.pdf

I have started a new family and this has prevented me from competing
internationally. I last played in the World Championship of Chinese
Chess in 1995. I played so poorly that they never invited me back. I
did get a draw in the first round against Yang Xiang Xi, the number
two representative of Indonesia, which was a good result for me
because it is rare that a Westerner has scored even a draw against a
top level Chinese player.

I learned a good lesson from this result because, when I reached a
position which I thought was a hopeless draw, I offered him a draw
which he accepted instantaneously. When it took him less than one
second to accept my draw offer (even though he spoke no English) I
realized that I must have done something wrong and turned out that I
had missed a clear endgame win. I had rook and pawn against rook and
elephant. It seemed to me that this must be a draw, but I was
mistaken. This would make a good study exercise. I posted the analysis
of the position on the Internet under my AOL address at the time,
which was .

After drawing this game, the Chinese were so impressed with me that
they paired me against one of the strongest players in the world, Lei
Kum Fun of Macau, and put my game up on the stage with a demonstration
board, posted by a beautiful Chinese girl in a miniskirt, showing the
moves of my game. A crowd of thousands of Chinese spectators watched.
I rose to the occasion by playing probably the worst game of my life.
I played a beginner's trap against my opponent. The game started 1.
P7+1 P3+1 2. P7+1 E3+5 This is an opening gambit. The idea is that if
Red tries to save his pawn with 3. P7+1, Black will keep attacking the
advancing pawn, each time increasing his lead in development. I did
not play this to insult my opponent, but rather because that was the
only opening gambit I knew. In response, my opponent did not try to
hold the pawn. He just let it sit there, forcing me to waste time by
recapturing it. I then proceeded to play badly and lost in 13 moves.

My poor result in this tournament was made up by the fact that on
September 9, 1995, an article with a picture of me appeared in the
Singapore Straits Times captioned "Xiangqi master catches his game -
again." In fact, the article was not about me but was about Lv Qin,
who had just won the world championship for the second time, but one
might easily have concluded that I was the "Xiangqi master" mentioned
in the article. The picture showed me playing my last round game and
described how I learned to play Chinese chess. What was odd was that
the player who had just won the World Championship did not get his
picture in the newspaper, but I did, simply because I was a Westerner
who played Chinese Chess.

They gave me a small prize and actually I have won more money playing
in Chinese chess tournaments than I have ever won in tournaments of
International chess, even though I have been playing international
chess all my life. I am told that I was listed in the WXF Bulletin as
a Master of Chinese Chess, but I make no such claim.

In August 2005, the World Championship of Chinese Chess was won again
by Lv Qin. In second place was Lei Kum Fun of Macau, the same man who
defeated me in round two of the 1995 World Championship of Chinese
Chess. Lei Kum Fun of Macau won his individual game against Lv Qin and
also defeated the players who finished 3rd and 4th, but he lost to
some lower rated players and therefore only finished second.

Here is an interesting short game from the 2005 World Championship of
Chinese Chess, which should help bring you up to date on the latest
theory. Note that they now use the notational system first established
by me in my book, "Chinese Chess for Beginners" .

Red : Lu Qin (China)
Black : Ng Junming (Singapore)
Date : 1st August 2005 Paris, 9th World Xiangqi Championships (2nd
round)

1. N8+7 N8+7 2. P3+1 P3+1 3. C8+4 B7+5 4. N2+3 N2+1 5. C8=3 C2=3 6.
R9=8 R1+1 7. R8+4 R1=6 8. P7+1 R6+3 9. B3+5 P3+1 10. R8=7 C3+5 11.
R7-2 P1+1 12. R7+2 G6+5 13. G4+5 C8+4 14. R1=3 P5+1 15. N3+2 C8=1 16.
P3+1 R6+4 17. P3=4 N7-9 18. C3=5 R9=7 19. R3+9 N9-7 20. R7=3 N7+9 21.
R3+4 C1=9 22. N2+1 (1-0)

Another interesting development is that some female players of Chinese
chess have switched over and become the world champions of
international chess. The first to accomplish this was Xie Jun, who is
mentioned on page 138 of this book, when she was still virtually
unknown in chess. She won the World Woman's Chess Championship in 1991
by defeating Maya Chiburdanidze of Georgia in a match and won it again
in 1998 by defeating Alisa Galliamova of Russia in a match. In 2000,
she defended her title by defeating Qin Kan Ying, whose name is also
mentioned on page 138 of this book. Xie Jun later retired to have a
baby. In 2001, Zhu Chen took over and won the world championship. In
2006, Xu Yuhua, another Chinese girl who happens to be the stunning
beauty of the bunch, became the third Chinese girl to win the Woman's
World Championship. Meanwhile, the Chinese women have won every World
Chess Olympiad by a wide margin since 1998, winning in 1998, 2000,
2002 and 2004, usually never losing even a single game. Since an
Olympiad lasts 14 rounds with three games per match, that means that
the Chinese women went 42 games in each Olympiad without a single loss.
The Chinese women are now so far ahead of the other countries that nobody
can even imagine the Chinese team finishing anywhere other than first.

"The Chinese women are now so far ahead of the other countries that
nobody can even imagine the Chinese team finishing anywhere other
than first."
--Sam Sloan

At the 2006 Chess Olympiad, China's women's team is seeded
only sixth (behind Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Hungary, and the
United States) with a young team that includes Shen Yang
(born in 1989) and Hou Yifan (born in 1994).

None of China's three past or present FIDE World Champions
will play for China at the 2006 Chess Olympiad.

GM Xie Jun has evidently retired from chess.
GM Zhu Chen will play for Qatar's men's team.
WGM Xu Yuhua, the current FIDE World Champion,
is on maternity leave.

--Nick

Another positive development is that in the past, party officials
occupied the top positions in the Chinese Qi Yuan in Beijing and
accompanied the players to the international competitions, keeping a
watchful eye. However, that seems to be no longer the case. Nowadays,
the Chinese players travel alone.

In New York City, the best place to play is the United East Athletic
Club in the Chinese Cultural Center, a large red building on the
corner of Mulberry Street and Bayard Street in Chinatown, on the
second floor. However, you can find a game even quicker in the park on
the corner of Elmhurst Avenue and Broadway in Elmhurst, Queens. Take
the R, V or G Train to Elmhurst Avenue. There are always games going
on there. However, the players are weak there and I can beat most of
them.

David H. Li, a Professor at the University of Maryland, has emerged as
both a big promoter of Chinese Chess and a researcher of its history.
He has published several books, including "The Genealogy of Chess",
ISBN 0963785222, published in 1998, which demonstrate that what we
call International Chess was actually invented in China, rather than
in India, as had previously been supposed. This is the theory that I
first advanced in my pamphlet, "The Origin of Chess", which was
published in 1985 and is now on my website at
http://www.samsloan.com/origin.htm .

To learn the latest news about the World of Chinese Chess, do an
Internet search for Felix Tan of Singapore, who always has the latest
information. Peter Sung of Toronto has a good website and a CCH Viewer
for playing over games. You can search the Usenet Newsgroup
rec.games.chinese-chess which can be reached at
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chinese-chess

I have established an email group for discussion of Chinese chess. The
address is There are at present 135
subscribers to the list, including many of the most important English
speaking personalities of Chinese chess.

I have broadcast some cable TV shows on Chinese chess and I have
created an elementary instructional DVD on Chinese chess, which can be
obtained at http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000CPMGQE

The best place to buy Chinese chess books and equipment is
yutopian.com at http://www.yutopian.com/cat.jsp?category=c

Sam Sloan

Nick wrote:
Sam Sloan wrote:
Meanwhile, the Chinese women have won every World Chess Olympiad
by a wide margin since 1998, winning in 1998, 2000, 2002 and 2004,
usually never losing even a single game. Since an Olympiad lasts
14 rounds with three games per match, that means that the Chinese
women went 42 games in each Olympiad without a single loss.

If they only `usually' didn't lose any games, they can't have been
undefeated in `each Olympiad'. How about doing some research instead
of writing the first thing that comes into your head?


The Chinese women are now so far ahead of the other countries that
nobody can even imagine the Chinese team finishing anywhere other
than first.

At the 2006 Chess Olympiad, China's women's team is seeded only
sixth (behind Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Hungary, and the United
States) with a young team that includes Shen Yang (born in 1989) and
Hou Yifan (born in 1994).

None of China's three past or present FIDE World Champions will play
for China at the 2006 Chess Olympiad.

Do not confuse Sam Sloan with the facts. ;-)


Dave.

--
David Richerby Revolting Disgusting Flower (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a flower but it'll turn your
stomach and turn your stomach!

"David Richerby" wrote in message
...
Nick wrote:
Sam Sloan wrote:
Meanwhile, the Chinese women have won every World Chess Olympiad
by a wide margin since 1998, winning in 1998, 2000, 2002 and 2004,
usually never losing even a single game. Since an Olympiad lasts
14 rounds with three games per match, that means that the Chinese
women went 42 games in each Olympiad without a single loss.

If they only `usually' didn't lose any games, they can't have been
undefeated in `each Olympiad'. How about doing some research instead
of writing the first thing that comes into your head?

Depends on how many draws they made compared with the winning team's wins!.
If you drew all games all the time, maybe you would finish half way down the
table?

Phil

The Chinese women are now so far ahead of the other countries that
nobody can even imagine the Chinese team finishing anywhere other
than first.

At the 2006 Chess Olympiad, China's women's team is seeded only
sixth (behind Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Hungary, and the United
States) with a young team that includes Shen Yang (born in 1989) and
Hou Yifan (born in 1994).

None of China's three past or present FIDE World Champions will play
for China at the 2006 Chess Olympiad.

Do not confuse Sam Sloan with the facts. ;-)


Dave.

--
David Richerby Revolting Disgusting Flower (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a flower but it'll turn
your
stomach and turn your stomach!

David Richerby wrote:
Nick wrote:
Sam Sloan wrote:
Meanwhile, the Chinese women have won every World Chess Olympiad
by a wide margin since 1998, winning in 1998, 2000, 2002 and 2004,
usually never losing even a single game. Since an Olympiad lasts
14 rounds with three games per match, that means that the Chinese
women went 42 games in each Olympiad without a single loss.

If they only `usually' didn't lose any games, they can't have been
undefeated in `each Olympiad'. How about doing some research
instead of writing the first thing that comes into your head?

David Richerby's question was addressed to Sam Sloan.

As I recall, in fact, China's women's team lost
at least one game in the 2004 Olympiad.

The Chinese women are now so far ahead of the other countries that
nobody can even imagine the Chinese team finishing anywhere other
than first.

At the 2006 Chess Olympiad, China's women's team is seeded only
sixth (behind Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Hungary, and the United
States) with a young team that includes Shen Yang (born in 1989)
and Hou Yifan (born in 1994).

I would hardly be surprised if China's women's team performs
significantly better than its seeding indicates. Some young Chinese
players may be improving faster than their ratings tend to show.

None of China's three past or present FIDE World Champions
will play for China at the 2006 Chess Olympiad.

Do not confuse Sam Sloan with the facts. ;-)

I lack the time to correct most of Sam Sloan's factual errors.

I have been rather amused to find that Sam Sloan seems to
have gained a reputation among many American readers in
RGC* as an 'expert' on the Chinese culture(s) and language(s).
As some Chinese friends of mine have said of most ignorant
Americans: 'They will believe any nonsense about China.'

--Nick

On 18 May 2006 14:29:33 -0700, "Nick"
wrote:

I have been rather amused to find that Sam Sloan seems to
have gained a reputation among many American readers in
RGC* as an 'expert' on the Chinese culture(s) and language(s).

"Many"? Really? Can Nick name some of these folks?

As some Chinese friends of mine have said of most ignorant
Americans: 'They will believe any nonsense about China.'

What a coincidence. Some American friends of mine have said of most
ignorant Chinese: 'They will believe any nonsense about America'.
Might help Disney, I suppose -- oh, I forgot -- piracy.

--Nick

Mike Murray wrote:

Mike Murray has a long record of writing insults,
dishonest distortions, and lies to attack me personally.

"Nick" wrote:
I have been rather amused to find that Sam Sloan seems

Please note that I wrote 'seems'.

to have gained a reputation among many American readers in
RGC* as an 'expert' on the Chinese culture(s) and language(s).

"Many"? Really? Can Nick name some of these folks?

Sam Sloan often has pontificated, posing as an 'expert',
about the Chinese culture(s) and languages(s), making
some statements that are dubious or incorrect.

As far as I can recall, the other American writers in those
threads did *not* dispute Sam Sloan's dubious or incorrect
statements. Those American writers *seemed* to accept
that Sam Sloan was writing knowledgeably in those threads.

--Nick

On 18 May 2006 14:59:12 -0700, "Nick"
wrote:

Mike Murray wrote:

Mike Murray has a long record of writing insults,
dishonest distortions, and lies to attack me personally.

Nick Bourbaki has a long record of trolling, writing gratuitous
insults, dishonest distortions and propaganda, inviting rebuttal by
thoughtful readers. It just happened to be my turn to respond.

"Nick" wrote:
I have been rather amused to find that Sam Sloan seems

Please note that I wrote 'seems'.

to have gained a reputation among many American readers in
RGC* as an 'expert' on the Chinese culture(s) and language(s).

"Many"? Really? Can Nick name some of these folks?

Sam Sloan often has pontificated, posing as an 'expert',
about the Chinese culture(s) and languages(s), making
some statements that are dubious or incorrect.

Sloan's opinion as to his own expertise was not in question.

As far as I can recall, the other American writers in those
threads did *not* dispute Sam Sloan's dubious or incorrect
statements. Those American writers *seemed* to accept
that Sam Sloan was writing knowledgeably in those threads.

"Seems"? Would Nick consider it valid to infer his *agreement* with
any post to which he has not publicly disagreed?? Would
*indifference* not equally fit the facts?

--Nick

Nick wrote:
Mike Murray wrote:

Mike Murray has a long record of writing insults,
dishonest distortions, and lies to attack me personally.

The evidence of Mike Murray's long record of insults,
dishonest distortions, and lies is in the Google archives.

I have offered to forward enough of that evidence about
Mike Murray's abusiveness and dishonesty to some
interested readers, such as Nick Cramer, who
responded that it's unnecessary because he
already had read enough of what Mike Murray
has written to be able to assess Mike Murray.
Mike Murray can keep writing his insults and lies
against me, but I don't expect that he will be able
to convince Nick Cramer that he's right about me.

Mark Houlsby and Simon ('chapman billy') may
not have much in common, yet they both share
a deep disdain for Mike Murray, whom they regard
as a pathological liar and an evident racist.

"Nick" wrote:
I have been rather amused to find that Sam Sloan seems

Please note that I wrote 'seems'.

With regard to Mike Murray's level of reading comprension,
in the thread, 'Winter of Discontent', Mike Murray wrote:

"By omitting the important qualifier, 'considering their
lengthy reigns', Winter *clearly distorts* the meaning
of Keene's claim. ..."
--Mike Murray (9 May 2006)

What Mike Murray perceives as a '*clear* distort(ion)'
has been disputed independently by Taylor Kingston
and Louis Blair, who have explained why they believe
Mike Murray has misunderstood what has been written.

What Mike Murray regards as 'clear' according to his
reading comprehension is regarded as wrong by Taylor
Kingston and Louis Blair, if also not by other readers.

to have gained a reputation among many American readers in
RGC* as an 'expert' on the Chinese culture(s) and language(s).

"Many"? Really? Can Nick name some of these folks?

Sam Sloan often has pontificated, posing as an 'expert',
about the Chinese culture(s) and languages(s), making
some statements that are dubious or incorrect.

As far as I can recall, the other American writers in those
threads did *not* dispute Sam Sloan's dubious or incorrect
statements. Those American writers *seemed* to accept
that Sam Sloan was writing knowledgeably in those threads.

Many American writers have shown their eagerness to dispute
Sam Sloan's perceived dubious or incorrect statements in general.
Many American writers have shown their eagerness to point out
that Sam Sloan's being ignorant, misleading, or untruthful about
this issue or that issue. At least several American writers seem
to enjoy pointing out about as often as possible that Sam Sloan's
being wrong again--about anything.

Then why have American writers, as far as I can recall, *not*
been disputing some of Sam Sloan's dubious or incorrect
statements about the Chinese culture(s) or language(s)?

It seems to me that the most likely explanation is that those
American writers, who usually like to criticise Sam Sloan,
simply have *not been able to recognise* that Sam Sloan has
been making dubious or incorrect statements about the Chinese
culture(s) or language(s). Those American writers, apparently
recognising their own ignorance about the Chinese culture(s)
or language(s), seem to have implicitly deferred to Sam
Sloan's greater 'knowledge' or 'expertise' about the
Chinese culture(s) or language(s).

Contrary to what Mike Murray might prefer that you believe,
it's *not true* that American writers have been indifferent to
Sam Sloan's dubious or incorrect statements. *If* those
American writers had previously recognised that Sam Sloan
has made some dubious or incorrect statements about
the Chinese culture(s) or language(s), then I expect
that Sam Sloan *already* would have been criticised
by some American writers on account of that.

--Nick

Mike Murray wrote:
"Nick" wrote:
(snipped: I already have responded to it)
As some Chinese friends of mine have said of most ignorant
Americans: 'They will believe any nonsense about China.'

What a coincidence. Some American friends of mine have said of most
ignorant Chinese: 'They will believe any nonsense about America'.
Might help Disney, I suppose -- oh, I forgot -- piracy.

Some Chinese students have admitted to me that they used
to accept, more or less, much of what was broadcast by the
'Voice of America'. After living and studying for enough years
in the United States, however, they concluded that the 'Voice
of America' tends to express propaganda more than facts.

There are many more Chinese who have lived and studied in
the United States than there are Americans who have lived
and studied in China. There are many more Chinese
who can read American books in English than there are
Americans who can read Chinese books.

By the way, for years Chinese students have consistently
performed better than American students in international
competitions (i.e. Olympiads) of mathematics and science.

I doubt that anything now could stop many, perhaps
most, Americans from perceiving the Chinese with
racist condescension. But if a society's future is
determined largely by its young people's education,
then most Americans should consider becoming
apparently less complacent about their future.

--Nick

"Nick" wrote:
[ . . . ]
I doubt that anything now could stop many, perhaps
most, Americans from perceiving the Chinese with
racist condescension. But if a society's future is
determined largely by its young people's education,
then most Americans should consider becoming
apparently less complacent about their future.

It's unfortunate that the public schools in the US are to a large degree
abysmal, with a very high dropout rate. Asian children generally seem to
outperform the rest here. There's little doubt in my mind that real family
values are the major reason for that.

BTW with regard to your recent post on the subject, Sloan and Murray have
joined a select group of bozos in my killfile, so I don't even see their
posts.

--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!

Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !