A GOOD AND GREAT THING

I usually agree with Wlod, and I disagree with
Susan Polgar and Paul Truong about Sam Sloan's
election to the USCF Executive Board, which I hold to
be a good and great thing.

Having said that, I think Wlod's suggestion that
there is something odd in Paul Truong getting some
byline credit when working with Susan Polgar to be
wrongheaded. The arrangement is common enough in a
million different authorial endeavours around the world.

Further, if proper credit were not given to Mr.
Truong (proper credit is defined as that which the two
principals mutually and freely agree upon) then the
opposite charge would be levelled. Namely, that Mr.
Truong was ghosting Susan Polgar's work, and the
reading public was being misled. Moreover, the charge
about the reading public being misled would contain a
grain of truth if proper credit were not accorded to
Mr. Truong.

I see the credit accorded Mr. Truong for his
efforts to be an entirely normal arrangement.

One final point: an absurd charge levelled in
the past was that Mr. Truong was exploiting Susan
Polgar by associating his name with hers. Ai, yi, yi.
If Papa and Mama Polgar and those three sisters don't
know their own minds and can't work out cost-benefits,
then no one on this Earth can do so.

Paul Truong is no one's fool, which is obvious
enough, and the Polgars are sharp-eyed folk if ever
sight were given to male and female. I assume in the
absence of hard evidence to the contrary that the
Polgar-Truong arrangement is one of mutual benefit.

I call that normal.

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (wlod) wrote:
wrote:
http://www.chesscafe.com/polgar/polgar.htm

As far as I can tell from reading the column, Trollgar thinks Sloan is
unfit for the EB because Sloan 'attacked' Trollgar. In other words,
Trollgar can't think past themselves. Is there anyone in chess politics
that doesn't think the word "chess" starts with "i"?

With all respect and admiration for
Grandmaster Susan Polgar, how is it
that Paul Truong will not allow her
a single fart without claiming himself
a partial credit for his contribution?

Wlod

wrote:
A GOOD AND GREAT THING

I usually agree with Wlod, and I disagree with
Susan Polgar and Paul Truong about Sam Sloan's
election to the USCF Executive Board, which I hold to
be a good and great thing.

Having said that, I think Wlod's suggestion that
there is something odd in Paul Truong getting some
byline credit when working with Susan Polgar to be
wrongheaded. The arrangement is common enough in a
million different authorial endeavours around the world.

Further, if proper credit were not given to Mr.
Truong (proper credit is defined as that which the two
principals mutually and freely agree upon) then the
opposite charge would be levelled. Namely, that Mr.
Truong was ghosting Susan Polgar's work, and the
reading public was being misled. Moreover, the charge
about the reading public being misled would contain a
grain of truth if proper credit were not accorded to
Mr. Truong.

I see the credit accorded Mr. Truong for his
efforts to be an entirely normal arrangement.

It should be noted that *when* Paul Truong has made
no contribution to something written by Zsuzsa
(Susan) Polgar, he has received no byline credit for it.

For example, Paul Truong received no byline
credit for the book "Queen of the Kings Game"
by Zsuzsa Polgar and Jacob Shutzman.

As I have noted in earlier posts (e.g.
read the RGCM thread 'Nana Alexandria'),
"Queen of the Kings Game" contains some
false and offensive statements, particularly
about Nana Alexandria and Xie Jun.

In my view, Paul Truong should not be held
responsible for the contents of "Queen of
the Kings Game".

One final point: an absurd charge levelled in
the past was that Mr. Truong was exploiting Susan
Polgar by associating his name with hers. Ai, yi, yi.
If Papa and Mama Polgar and those three sisters don't
know their own minds and can't work out cost-benefits,
then no one on this Earth can do so.

Paul Truong is no one's fool, which is obvious
enough, and the Polgars are sharp-eyed folk if ever
sight were given to male and female. I assume in the
absence of hard evidence to the contrary that the
Polgar-Truong arrangement is one of mutual benefit.

I call that normal.

I have noted with disdain that some writers in RGC*
have made inappropriate comments about the personal
relationship between Zsuzsa Polgar and Paul Truong.
Those comments seem to reveal more about those
writers' prejudices than anything relevant about
Zsuzsa Polgar and Paul Truong.

In my view, Zsuzsa Polgar is a woman who's
completely capable of looking after the best
interests of herself and her family. She does
not need and I doubt that she appreciates
any strangers telling her how to manage her
personal relationship with Paul Truong.

--Nick

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (wlod) wrote:
wrote:
http://www.chesscafe.com/polgar/polgar.htm

As far as I can tell from reading the column, Trollgar thinks Sloan is
unfit for the EB because Sloan 'attacked' Trollgar. In other words,
Trollgar can't think past themselves. Is there anyone in chess politics
that doesn't think the word "chess" starts with "i"?

With all respect and admiration for
Grandmaster Susan Polgar, how is it
that Paul Truong will not allow her
a single fart without claiming himself
a partial credit for his contribution?

Wlod

Nick wrote:

In my view, Zsuzsa Polgar is a woman who's
completely capable of looking after the best
interests of herself and her family. She does
not need and I doubt that she appreciates
any strangers telling her how to manage her
personal relationship with Paul Truong.


Your view is not well-respected here - or probably anywhere - and as a
public figure Polgar must expect that such things will be discussed;
whether it fits your narrow ethical and world view or not is also
irrelevant.

Now go somewhere and proclaim someone "beyond disdain," one of your
favorite hobbies.

Steven B Dowd (aka ) wrote:
Nick wrote:
(The context was snipped by Steven B Dowd.)

In my view, Zsuzsa Polgar is a woman who's
completely capable of looking after the best
interests of herself and her family. She does
not need and I doubt that she appreciates
any strangers telling her how to manage her
personal relationship with Paul Truong.

Your view is not well-respected here - or probably anywhere -

I prefer to regard Zsuzsa Polgar as a woman who knows her
own mind and who's capable of looking after the best interests
of herself and her family. Some other writers apparently prefer
to treat Zsuzsa Polgar as though she were a helpless child
who must be 'protected' from the supposedly malign influence
of Paul Truong, whom those writers apparently loathe.

and as a public figure Polgar must expect that such things
will be discussed;

Then Zsuzsa Polgar should know that Steven B Dowd
apparently feels entitled to unleash his conjectures
about her personal life, if not also his conjectures
about her state of mind.

whether it fits your narrow ethical and world view or not
is also irrelevant.

"I know from long experience that there is nothing
at all between Dr. (Steven B) Dowd's ears."
--Kenneth Sloan (14 June 2006)

Now go somewhere and proclaim someone "beyond disdain,"
one of your favorite hobbies.

To correct Steven B Dowd's distortion of *exactly* what
I have written, I have written that some writers in RGC*
'warrant no response beyond disdain', which pertains
to what they have written.

--Nick

Nick wrote:

"I know from long experience that there is nothing
at all between Dr. (Steven B) Dowd's ears."
--Kenneth Sloan (14 June 2006)

Dr. Sloan is also 0-4 in rated games against me, and about the biggest
jackass in Alabama chess.

I do believe he dropped a knight in 4 moves in our last game.

So if there is nothing between my ears....

wrote:
A GOOD AND GREAT THING

I usually agree with Wlod, [...]

I wish, Larry, that you and others who have
devoted so much energy and time to chess,
would finally and totally ignore USCF+FIDE
(thus would also stop complaining about the
stupid FIDE+USCF), and would build a chess
movement away from these anachronic,
centralised, bureaucratic organizations, which
these days stifle the chess progress around
the world.

There is no point in any attempts to "improve"
these wrongfully designed organizations.

The Internet chess portals act already
but only in for amateur competitions,
since their rated games are not properly
supervised (and most of the time the games
are not supervised at all).

Just think about it, Larry, how nice it'd be to
get rid of all that ugly overhead. Observe that
Sam Sloan is already using his first election
success to blackmail those who oppose his
wikipedia abuse. It's a stupid blackmail, inefficient,
but nevertheless crass and symptomatic. And Sam
is not yet certified! Just imagine what may happen
when Sam gets any semblance of power.

A friend (AJ) quoted Koran:

give a man power, and he'll make angels cry!

And that (the human nature) is one more reason
why central, monopolistic organizations like
FIDE & USCF are doomed to be corrupted
and abusive.

Regards,

Wlod

"Nick" wrote in message
oups.com...
Steven B Dowd (aka ) wrote:
Nick wrote:
(The context was snipped by Steven B Dowd.)

In my view, Zsuzsa Polgar is a woman who's
completely capable of looking after the best
interests of herself and her family. She does
not need and I doubt that she appreciates
any strangers telling her how to manage her
personal relationship with Paul Truong.

Your view is not well-respected here - or probably anywhere -

I prefer to regard Zsuzsa Polgar as a woman who knows her
own mind and who's capable of looking after the best interests
of herself and her family. Some other writers apparently prefer
to treat Zsuzsa Polgar as though she were a helpless child
who must be 'protected' from the supposedly malign influence
of Paul Truong, whom those writers apparently loathe.

I suffer the disadvantage of knowing them both - they seem unacquainted with
their suffering.

People loathe Truong for the same reasons they loathe Evans, Keene,
Schiller, Parr... because all these people are openly critical of a
political class in chess who serve mostly themselves - indeed, on the whole,
they only talk with each other - and from one administration to the next,
despite however much money is in the pot, nothing changes for the better.

and as a public figure Polgar must expect that such things
will be discussed;

Yes, I think there is an expectation - though that is not to say that much
of these speculations are decent or honorable! And are usually a failure to
get things in perspective - the relative weight of the life to the art, and
also of public to private affairs.

This is resolved in the speculator, rather than elsewhere, since if writers
do not display some adequate level of human understanding, then such
'expectation' can have little of value, [can it?] other than to distort how
things actually are.

Then Zsuzsa Polgar should know that Steven B Dowd
apparently feels entitled to unleash his conjectures
about her personal life, if not also his conjectures
about her state of mind.

Although not a specific to Dowd, I think her opinion of many such newsgroup
'expectations' is, quote, 'vile'.

For myself, I think some of this has to do with celebrity and some to do
with gender. Clearly women in American society suffer more unwelcome and
unwonted attention than men, but the larger fact may be an overemphasis on
status, and people here obsess about that.

Psychologically, the mechanism is very similar if you either like or dislike
some fixation - what becomes disturbed is a proportion of things, with some
part inflated so that it occupies more space than is warranted [ 'a
glamour' ] while other parts are diminished or absented entirely ['a
repression' ].

An interesting way to explore this is to attempt to talk about yourself! How
honestly could you exclaim on your own life, love, art, and their
inter-relation? How much of yourself is mysterious?!

Idiotically in this instance, Dr D can't even use his own name, or personal
circumstance, and merely indicates his magnificance to us mortals, rather
than quite engaging with us with perspectives from his own life. These
vicarious excursions into the lives of others are become commonplace in
society and so in newsgroups too, but really are no more than an inability
to make sense of one's own life and affairs, and a flight into a fantasy
about the lives of others.

whether it fits your narrow ethical and world view or not
is also irrelevant.

"I know from long experience that there is nothing
at all between Dr. (Steven B) Dowd's ears."
--Kenneth Sloan (14 June 2006)

Now go somewhere and proclaim someone "beyond disdain,"
one of your favorite hobbies.

To correct Steven B Dowd's distortion of *exactly* what
I have written, I have written that some writers in RGC*
'warrant no response beyond disdain', which pertains
to what they have written.

I extended Dr D an invitation to evaluate his own knowledge, indeed, so that
his own disdain at other's could be placed into a perspective, and thereby
he could gain some sense of proportion of the worth of other people to
exist?

A specific on Soviet-era affairs was if he had read the Gulko MSS, but in
his response he eliminated even the question, while maintaining his
superiority over others by putting them down, absent any content.

What seems most 'disdained' beyond individual behaviors, is the worth of
knowledge and an insistent preference to speculations, which must be termed
'idle' in the absense of real knowledge - and this is not just information,
but material taken in as a human being, digested and matured by reflection,
and so understood in that context.

Why anyone at all on this Planet should argue or behave as if they have not
exactly the same circumstances of human evaluation as anyone else is a
neurotic activity. To indulge and persist in it is psychotic.

Phil Innes

--Nick

Chess One wrote:

Why anyone at all on this Planet should argue or behave as if they have not
exactly the same circumstances of human evaluation as anyone else is a
neurotic activity. To indulge and persist in it is psychotic.

An excellent self-evaluation. Now troll, heal thyself.

wrote in message
ups.com...

Chess One wrote:

Why anyone at all on this Planet should argue or behave as if they have
not
exactly the same circumstances of human evaluation as anyone else is a
neurotic activity. To indulge and persist in it is psychotic.

An excellent self-evaluation. Now troll, heal thyself.

Q.E.D.

Dr. Dowd cuts the content, the challenge to write as a human being with
common perspective as the rest of us, and persists in his obsessional abuses
with no irony at all.

Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:

People loathe Truong for the same reasons they loathe Evans, Keene,
Schiller, Parr... because all these people are openly critical of a
political class in chess who serve mostly themselves - indeed, on the whole,
they only talk with each other - and from one administration to the next,
despite however much money is in the pot, nothing changes for the better.

As usual, a broad and false statement from Brattleboro's Nearly an IM
2450. By your logic, anyone "critical of a political class in chess"
would be tarred with the same brush, and yet neither IM Donaldson (a
real IM, by the way) nor GM Seirawan are so marked. So perhaps there's
another factor at work.

More likely, the reason people "loathe" the persons you name is that
they routinely engage in falsehood and distortion. Examples are
available on request.

and as a public figure Polgar must expect that such things
will be discussed;

Yes, I think there is an expectation - though that is not to say that much
of these speculations are decent or honorable! And are usually a failure to
get things in perspective - the relative weight of the life to the art, and
also of public to private affairs.

This is resolved in the speculator, rather than elsewhere, since if writers
do not display some adequate level of human understanding, then such
'expectation' can have little of value, [can it?] other than to distort how
things actually are.

Then Zsuzsa Polgar should know that Steven B Dowd
apparently feels entitled to unleash his conjectures
about her personal life, if not also his conjectures
about her state of mind.

Although not a specific to Dowd, I think her opinion of many such newsgroup
'expectations' is, quote, 'vile'.

For myself, I think some of this has to do with celebrity and some to do
with gender. Clearly women in American society suffer more unwelcome and
unwonted attention than men, but the larger fact may be an overemphasis on
status, and people here obsess about that.

Psychologically, the mechanism is very similar if you either like or dislike
some fixation - what becomes disturbed is a proportion of things, with some
part inflated so that it occupies more space than is warranted [ 'a
glamour' ] while other parts are diminished or absented entirely ['a
repression' ].

An interesting way to explore this is to attempt to talk about yourself! How
honestly could you exclaim on your own life, love, art, and their
inter-relation? How much of yourself is mysterious?!

Idiotically in this instance, Dr D can't even use his own name, or personal
circumstance, and merely indicates his magnificance to us mortals, rather
than quite engaging with us with perspectives from his own life. These
vicarious excursions into the lives of others are become commonplace in
society and so in newsgroups too, but really are no more than an inability
to make sense of one's own life and affairs, and a flight into a fantasy
about the lives of others.

whether it fits your narrow ethical and world view or not
is also irrelevant.

"I know from long experience that there is nothing
at all between Dr. (Steven B) Dowd's ears."
--Kenneth Sloan (14 June 2006)

Now go somewhere and proclaim someone "beyond disdain,"
one of your favorite hobbies.

To correct Steven B Dowd's distortion of *exactly* what
I have written, I have written that some writers in RGC*
'warrant no response beyond disdain', which pertains
to what they have written.

I extended Dr D an invitation to evaluate his own knowledge, indeed, so that
his own disdain at other's could be placed into a perspective, and thereby
he could gain some sense of proportion of the worth of other people to
exist?

A specific on Soviet-era affairs was if he had read the Gulko MSS, but in
his response he eliminated even the question, while maintaining his
superiority over others by putting them down, absent any content.

Again, please present the post in which you "extended" this offer to
Dr. D.

What seems most 'disdained' beyond individual behaviors, is the worth of
knowledge and an insistent preference to speculations, which must be termed
'idle' in the absense of real knowledge - and this is not just information,
but material taken in as a human being, digested and matured by reflection,
and so understood in that context.

Why anyone at all on this Planet should argue or behave as if they have not
exactly the same circumstances of human evaluation as anyone else is a
neurotic activity. To indulge and persist in it is psychotic.

Snip remaining Innes nonsense.