Susan Polgar's Blogspot is filled with postings that are quite funny
when you think about it, because most of the posters wax on about how
much they support Polgar and how strongly they stand behind her.

(Of course, It is widely suspected that most of the postings to
Polgar's blog are written by Troung, in view of Susan's limited
knowledge of English, but that is another subject.)

What is funny is how can one claim to "stand behind" Susan when they
are unwilling to reveal their names?

Here is a typical example:

"Anonymous said...

"Go Susan! Keep up the great work! We're behind you all the way!

"Wednesday, June 13, 2007 9:06:00 AM"

On Jun 13, 11:11 am, samsloan wrote:
most of the posters wax on about how
much they support Polgar and how strongly they stand behind her.

The diction police have failed to catch me.

I have decided that I did not properly use the term "to wax".

The definition as an intransitive verb is:

Main Entry: 3wax
Function: intransitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English weaxan; akin to Old High
German wahsan to increase, Greek auxanein, Latin augEre -- more at EKE
1 a : to increase in size, numbers, strength, prosperity, or intensity
b : to grow in volume or duration c : to grow toward full development
2 : to increase in phase or intensity -- used chiefly of the moon,
other satellites, and inferior planets
3 : to assume a (specified) characteristic, quality, or state : BECOME
wax indignant wax poetic

So, perhaps what I should have written is the anonymous posters on her
blog wax eloquent about how strongly they stand behind her and wax
indignant about anybody who questions how many times she has won the
woman's world championship and wax ecstatic about how the USCF will be
a land of sweetness and light if only Susan is elected president next
month.

Meanwhile, we have finally figured out the basis for the claim that
Susan Polgar is four times world woman's champion.

Susan won the woman's world championship in 1996 by beating Xie Jun in
a match by 8 1/2 - 4 1/2.

Traditionally, the woman's world championship had been held once every
two years. However, to accommodate Susan, her title defense was
postponed several times, because she refused to play, first because
she was pregnant, then because she was nursing.

Finally, FIDE became fed up with this and stripped her of her title in
1999.

Therefore, she is claiming that she was woman's world champion four
times, 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999, even though she did not play even a
single game of chess in 1997, 1998 or 1999.

Similarly, Paul Truong is claiming that he was Champion of Vietnam 11
times because he "won" the title by finishing second to Kenneth
Clayton in a tournament at the American Sporting Club in 1974 and then
since Vietnam did not hold a national chess championship until 1985 he
was champion of the country for those 11 years in a row.

I hope that this explains it.

Sam Sloan

samsloan writes:
Therefore, she is claiming that she was woman's world champion four
times, 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999, even though she did not play even a
single game of chess in 1997, 1998 or 1999.

The way I parse it, she's counting the rapid and blitz championships
and the Women's World Cup championship as women's world championships,
in addition to the FIDE women's world championnship. Of course we
cogniscenti know that there's only one World Championship title that
really matters, and that's the one that Bobby Fischer won in 1972 and
successfully defended in 1992, heh heh heh. Oh yes, I guess we should
also count Herceg Novi 1971.

Similarly, Paul Truong is claiming that he was Champion of Vietnam 11
times because he "won" the title by finishing second to Kenneth
Clayton in a tournament at the American Sporting Club in 1974 and then
since Vietnam did not hold a national chess championship until 1985 he
was champion of the country for those 11 years in a row.

Reuben Fine did a similar analysis to somehow conclude that he was the
real world champion after AVRO, since he (according to himself) was
also strong enough by then to beat Alekhine. There is nothing new
under the sun.