On Jul 15, 2:52 am, Paul Rubin wrote:
samsloan writes:
Similarly, Susan Polgar has not played an open tournament since 2005
and has played only 6 tournaments at standard time controls in the 12
years since 1995.

In the academic world they have publish or perish. A professor may be
a great teacher but if he does not write he loses his job.

I'm glad Sam thinks Susan writes so well then (Sam Sloan, 22 Mar 2006):

The Polgar column is the best and the most important regular monthly
column in Chess Life. Every month, Polgar discusses a new move or
recently popular old move. She writes about what the top grandmasters
today are playing. Her articles are right at the leading edge, indeed
the cutting edge, of chess opening theory and practice.

Watch what happens when any active grandmaster picks up a current
issue of Chess Life. He is going to turn to the Polgar column and
ignore the rest of the magazine.

Now, take a look at the other columns. None of the other columnist are
active players any more. They answer questions from beginners. They
write about historical events. None of them will tell you what opening
to play in the big tournament game tomorrow.

Nevertheless, there is one column that needs to stay in Chess Life,
and that is the Polgar column. By the way, some are suggesting that
the Polgar column should stay because she is a woman. That is not the
reason. Her column should stay because it is the best.

http://groups.google.com/group/samsloan/msg/6991dfafdb382346?dmode=so...

Thank you for bringing up that posting, in which I praised the Polgar
"Opening Secrets" column, because I still adhere to those remarks.

The Opening Secrets column was great and I read it all the time. It
provided information that tournament players need to know. I have
often stated that I got the ideas I used to defeat Bill Brock in our
infamous "Grudge Match" from Susan Polgar's Opening Secrets column.

Unfortunately, Susan Polgar stopped writing Opening Secrets when Dan
Lucas was hired as editor. He got Susan Polgar to write a "Game of the
Month" column instead. I never read that column and I doubt that many
do.

I do not know why Susan Polgar stopped writing Opening Secrets and I
would like to find out. Was this Susan Polgar's idea or was it Dan
Lucas'es idea? If it was the idea of Dan Lucas, it was a poor
decision.

None of this is relevant to my central point.

Regarding my central point, Pal Benko and Larry Evans have had a
column in Chess Life magazine every month since it started in 1960. I
know this because I just went back through the last 47 years of Chess
Life looking for articles about endgames. Actually, Larry Evans
started as a regular columnist in 1953. It appears that he was the
first regular monthly columnist in Chess Life.

Benko and Evans are proven writers with wide followings. Many
subscribers get Chess Life just to read their columns.

By contrast, the three I mention are new hires. I really do not know
how their writing abilities compare with others. I also do not know
whether Kamsky or Nakamura would be interested in writing a column for
Chess Life. I just find it odd that Benjamin, Shahade and Polgar are
all eligible to play and have been invited to play in the US
Championship, yet all have declined to compete. Evans and Benko, by
contrast, never turned down an invitation to compete in such events.

Sam Sloan

samsloan writes:
Benko and Evans are proven writers with wide followings. Many
subscribers get Chess Life just to read their columns.

Right, just like Polgar's old column, per your earlier post:

Watch what happens when any active grandmaster picks up a current
issue of Chess Life. He is going to turn to the Polgar column and
ignore the rest of the magazine.

I agree with you that "Game of the month" is a stupid idea for a
column. I bet Benko would lose a lot of his readers if he switched to
that format from Endgame Laboratory too. None of this has anything to
do with your proposal about limiting CL columns to active players,
which is quite obviously a thinly disguised attempt to clobber Polgar
for personal or political reasons.

On Jul 15, 6:54 am, "Chess One" wrote:

Reschevsky, among others, was a bloody awful writer during his chess carear.


The only work I can think of offhand which was written
by GM Reshevsky would be something on the 1972
world championship match. Did he do an autobiography
or something like that? Please explain why you think this
particular writer was so bloody awful; what specifically
about his writing was horrible?


Less than a quarter of USCF's adult population play 10+ games per year. 50%
of them, or 15,000, play no rated games per year.


This gives me an idea: why not unfairly penalize such
players by taking away one point per month and transferring
them into an offshore account in Switzerland; these points
could then be sold off to the highest bidder, and the proceeds
could be used to fund the Life Membership liability, or perhaps
to hire an assassin to "eliminate" pests such as Sam Sloan,
or maybe even to improve Chess Life magazine so as to
ensnare new members, and thus turbo-charge the scheme
so it becomes akin to a perpetual-motion machine... .


As for the rest, assuming ALL scholastic players get in 10+ games/year,
their average rating is less than 1,000 - so why they would exactly need to
read a Benko or an Evans in preference to any old master who is used to
youth, is unclear?

In short, two more numb recommendations about what to do, based on not
noticing who the members are, or what they want.

[Hint: If you are really a bored board member, why not survey actual
members? Remember them?]


Offhand, I would guess that the cost of any scientific
survey of the membership might be considerable, but
if done right and not too frequently, well worth it. As
far as I know, the last time a survey was done, as LP
tells us again and again, the most popular columnists
were GMs Andy Soltis and Larry Evans.


-- help bot

On Jul 15, 6:57 am, samsloan wrote:

Now, take a look at the other columns. None of the other columnist are
active players any more. They answer questions from beginners. They
write about historical events. None of them will tell you what opening
to play in the big tournament game tomorrow.


The Opening Secrets column was great and I read it all the time. It
provided information that tournament players need to know. I have
often stated that I got the ideas I used to defeat Bill Brock in our
infamous "Grudge Match" from Susan Polgar's Opening Secrets column.


None of this is relevant to my central point.

Regarding my central point, Pal Benko and Larry Evans have had a
column in Chess Life magazine every month since it started in 1960. I
know this because I just went back through the last 47 years of Chess
Life looking for articles about endgames. Actually, Larry Evans
started as a regular columnist in 1953. It appears that he was the
first regular monthly columnist in Chess Life.

Benko and Evans are proven writers with wide followings. Many
subscribers get Chess Life just to read their columns.


Perhaps Mr. Sloan has confused GM Benko, and I
presume, his old endgame column, with GM Soltis and
his column?

Back when I played actively a bit, many of the chess
players I knew found the endgame in general -- and thus
Pal Benko's Chess Life column -- boring, and rarely read
it. These players were, just like Sam Sloan writes above,
much more interested in openings theory, in ways by
which to gain a won game without the need for mastery
of endgames or perfect technique. Some were interested
in GM Evans' political rants and some were fascinated by
GM Soltis' "historical events", as Mr. Sloan described
them, but few self-respecting high-rated players wanted
to read about "the ABCs of chess" or about dull, boring
endgames. This is/was not really any judgment on the
writing skills of GM Benko, but more a reflection of the
tendency of players to seek shortcuts, traps and zaps,
if you will, over plodding ahead, step by step, until
finally there amasses a real mastery of the game.


By contrast, the three I mention are new hires. I really do not know
how their writing abilities compare with others. I also do not know
whether Kamsky or Nakamura would be interested in writing a column for
Chess Life. I just find it odd that Benjamin, Shahade and Polgar are
all eligible to play and have been invited to play in the US
Championship, yet all have declined to compete.


Rather than try to fire those whose actions confound you,
perhaps a better approach would be to simply inquire as to
why each of them declined. [Even if I had been invited, I
would have been forced to decline because I have nothing
prepared for GM Kamsky's new anti-hippopotamus line
(27.h5! h6 28.a5! +=), or for GM Fischer's 2.d6! +-- in the
King's Gambit.]


Evans and Benko, by
contrast, never turned down an invitation to compete in such events.


So, your whole "logic" is based on precedence? If
a grandmaster does X, every player who follows is
automatically expected to do X? Or is it a fondness
for tradition? Where is your regard for what really
counts here -- for high-quality writing?


-- help bot

"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 15, 6:54 am, "Chess One" wrote:

Reschevsky, among others, was a bloody awful writer during his chess
carear.


The only work I can think of offhand which was written
by GM Reshevsky would be something on the 1972
world championship match. Did he do an autobiography
or something like that? Please explain why you think this
particular writer was so bloody awful; what specifically
about his writing was horrible?

Bland - too bland, and neither fish nor fowl. He wasn't writing from his own
insights or level, and his attempts to write-down for the public were
guesses on what lesser players might find useful or intereszzzzzz

Less than a quarter of USCF's adult population play 10+ games per year.
50%
of them, or 15,000, play no rated games per year.


This gives me an idea: why not unfairly penalize such
players by taking away one point per month and transferring
them into an offshore account in Switzerland; these points
could then be sold off to the highest bidder, and the proceeds
could be used to fund the Life Membership liability,

for USCF?

If only 7,500 USCF players achieve a rating every year which is not
provisional [10+ games/Nolan] how many of them do so at chess clubs, rather
than at CCA and other tournaments. Half again? That's just 3,750 people in
the entire adult chess playing community for the whole continent.

Another rating organisation has 1000+ members, and since those are 'Express'
maybe those people constitute non-USCf members, who are yet active.

Your suggestion above is already in place under another name, Rating Floors,
where 2210 players actually performance-rated 1780 these days, transfer
their points [calculated from 2210] to other players directly in Swisses,
rather than go through Switzerland. Its an innovation that the
mathematicians here will explain to your thick head, as if not understanding
why they do it makes you unable to see how they do it. Ask Ken!

As for Life Members, I see that many of them are Dead, and their widows
write in to say, no ... these widows are not personally interested in chess
and only tolerated it in their hubbies since they couldn't drink so much on
chess nights, and would USCF please send their magazine to the dog's home or
even the mortuary, where they think people play, off-hours?

or perhaps
to hire an assassin to "eliminate" pests such as Sam Sloan,
or maybe even to improve Chess Life magazine so as to
ensnare new members, and thus turbo-charge the scheme
so it becomes akin to a perpetual-motion machine... .

The trick, as above with ratings, is to avoid inflation. Actually its the
same trick with chess politicians, who, by the evidence of what they say,
think its all about them, and seem to have the scarecest idea of what you
are saying, and to cover 'your' embarrassment they therefore make speeches
at you about how they represent chess players.

The heavy irony of this situation escapes them. In fact, they probably think
Heavy Irony is one of those Rap Groups - the ones where adolescent males,
often very fat ones indeed, have fantasies about extremely thin girls, who
adore them, often three at a time, which is perhaps because they weigh the
same as three girls.

As for the rest, assuming ALL scholastic players get in 10+ games/year,
their average rating is less than 1,000 - so why they would exactly need
to
read a Benko or an Evans in preference to any old master who is used to
youth, is unclear?

In short, two more numb recommendations about what to do, based on not
noticing who the members are, or what they want.

[Hint: If you are really a bored board member, why not survey actual
members? Remember them?]


Offhand, I would guess that the cost of any scientific
survey of the membership might be considerable, but

But at a web site you can automatically see who reads what, which is another
sort of survey, and free! We don't need no stinkin science, when we could
look at what we already have in the bag.

if done right and not too frequently, well worth it. As
far as I know, the last time a survey was done, as LP
tells us again and again, the most popular columnists
were GMs Andy Soltis and Larry Evans.

He has it mixed up, it was Andy Evans and Garry Solstice. But we should
forgive these memories from before the age of electricity. The truth is all
there, in 128 archive boxes in a rented wharehouse in Crossville TN, slowly
mouldering away, not unlike the LMA, and all mixed up with one tone of
expired Chess Lives which were accidentally shipped down from NY.

The last staff person to go in there met Sam Sloan poking around, and caught
a staff-infection for which Sir Sloan never mentioned the medical details
thereof but recommended they be dismissed in case they turned out to be a
spy for Which Mitch, or Witch Mitch himself.

Of course, Which Mitch is now desposed off by accusing him of being Paul
Truong, who ``SHOCK~~ HORROR`` there is now EVIDENCE to suggest did NOT
marry Susan Polgar - but instead in a Secret Ceremony last Fall, Paul
converted to Mormonisim, and gasp

married ALL 3 sisters!

Althoug it is unclear who started this rumor.

Phil Innes

-- help bot

On Jul 17, 1:39 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

Bland - too bland, and neither fish nor fowl. He wasn't writing from his own
insights or level, and his attempts to write-down for the public were
guesses on what lesser players might find useful or intereszzzzzz


Well, I suppose this is what one gets from a bloody
bean-counting accountant. I like a bit of spice myself,
but not the fluffy kind, special-made just for the sake
of trying to sound interesting.


Less than a quarter of USCF's adult population play 10+ games per year.
50% of them, or 15,000, play no rated games per year.


Hold it right there, mister! I can see where this is
going. You're going to throw a bunch of random
statistics out, and then ask us one of those trick
questions, like they have at Tickle.com, right?


If only 7,500 USCF players achieve a rating every year which is not
provisional [10+ games/Nolan] how many of them do so at chess clubs, rather
than at CCA and other tournaments. Half again?


Um, insufficient data?


That's just 3,750 people in
the entire adult chess playing community for the whole continent.


No, I believe the "whole continent" would include
countries like Mexico, Canada, and of course the
many banana republics (sorry!) north of Panama.


Your suggestion above is already in place under another name, Rating Floors,
where 2210 players actually performance-rated 1780 these days, transfer
their points [calculated from 2210] to other players directly in Swisses,
rather than go through Switzerland.


I see. This means that the USCF has already cornered the
market. Rats.


As for Life Members, I see that many of them are Dead


I say cut them off! Dead chess players no more need
to read Chess Life than I need to eat a whole roast ox.
"Waste not, want not!", my granddad always used to
type (back then, there were no computers, only type-
writers and mechanical adding machines). He worked
for a while at the New York Stock Exchange, but got
fed up when he learned they were working him silly just
to churn out paper for parades.


and their widows
write in to say, no ... these widows are not personally interested in chess
and only tolerated it in their hubbies since they couldn't drink so much on
chess nights, and would USCF please send their magazine to the dog's home or
even the mortuary, where they think people play, off-hours?


I thought they kept those places locked up at night.
This is why we always had to find a restaurant to play
at, but if they have cadaver tables wide enough for a
chess board... .


The trick, as above with ratings, is to avoid inflation.


This is what I keep trying to explain to the Feds.
Paul Volker understood, but ever since Alan
Greenspan and now Ben Bernanke took over, it
looks like inflation will be coming back for more.
Of course, inflation may well be their only way out
of the whole mess they've made of things.


Actually its the
same trick with chess politicians, who, by the evidence of what they say,
think its all about them, and seem to have the scarecest idea of what you
are saying, and to cover 'your' embarrassment they therefore make speeches
at you about how they represent chess players.


Please, you are reminding me of my job; the so-
called supervisors do precisely the same things,
and yes, they really do believe it's all about THEM.


The heavy irony of this situation escapes them. In fact, they probably think
Heavy Irony is one of those Rap Groups - the ones where adolescent males,
often very fat ones indeed


Okay, as "Scotty" put it in one Star Trek episode:
"We're big enough to take a few insults".


have fantasies about extremely thin girls


Of which there are none around here (except the
"teenyboppers" still in K-12 school).


who adore them, often three at a time, which is perhaps because they weigh the
same as three girls.


I know this old trick; you are tossing up more
numbers -- all irrelevant to the problem -- just to
confuse us. It makes no difference how many
skinny girls equal the weight of one fat adolescent
male, for the ratings are not affected by this. But
just for the record, an adult male hippopotamus
weighs around 6,000 pounds! An adult female,
around 4,000. Baby hippos weigh whatever they
weigh, which only matters to crocodiles, who eat
them. (If I were a 6,000 pound hippo, I think I'd
go croc hunting, rather than spend quite so much
time eating plants while my children were being
devoured -- but that's just me.)


As for the rest, assuming ALL scholastic players get in 10+ games/year,
their average rating is less than 1,000 - so why they would exactly need
to read a Benko or an Evans in preference to any old master who is used to
youth, is unclear?


These are the readers who would benefit most
from a column such as Bruce Pandolfini's ABCs
of Chess.


In short, two more numb recommendations about what to do, based on not
noticing who the members are, or what they want.


Okay, then how about this: we gain control of the
ratings program, then "siphon off" a few points in
mysterious ways, depositing them to an offshore
account in Aruba. For example, who would ever
know it if we stole the 2800+ points belonging to
Bobby Fischer? A: Nobody! It's nearly foolproof.
I got the idea from a guy in prison; he says there's
nothing to it.


[Hint: If you are really a bored board member, why not survey actual
members? Remember them?]

Offhand, I would guess that the cost of any scientific
survey of the membership might be considerable, but

But at a web site you can automatically see who reads what, which is another
sort of survey, and free! We don't need no stinkin science, when we could
look at what we already have in the bag.


True enough, but this would tend to skew (a scientific
term far too advanced for me to explain here) the results
toward what computer types like or dislike, while ignoring
all those readers of Chess Life who are still living in the
Stone Age. Wouldn't it be "more clever" (ala GM
Petrosian) to pretend we still care about what they think,
and let them slowly die off, one by one?



if done right and not too frequently, well worth it. As
far as I know, the last time a survey was done, as LP
tells us again and again, the most popular columnists
were GMs Andy Soltis and Larry Evans.

He has it mixed up, it was Andy Evans and Garry Solstice.


Are they triple-weighted punk rockers, who like their
girls slim?


But we should
forgive these memories from before the age of electricity. The truth is all
there, in 128 archive boxes in a rented wharehouse


Now wait one cotton pickin' second; are you trying
to suggest that USCF dues monies are being used
so that Sam Sloan and his drinking buddies can...
oh, I think I misunderstood you. Never mind.


The last staff person to go in there met Sam Sloan poking around, and caught
a staff-infection


Nonsense. A staff is generally made of wood, and
cannot be infected since it is too dry for fungus, mold,
or mildew to thrive. Nevertheless, keep it warm and
give it lots of rest. Once "cured", give it a hefty coat
of polyethylene or Cabot wood protector, just to be on
the safe side. And make sure it sees a psychoanalyst.


for which Sir Sloan never mentioned the medical details
thereof but recommended they be dismissed in case they turned out to be a
spy for Which Mitch, or Witch Mitch himself.


I think it is amusing that even your doubles seem to
have acquired the same "allergies" as the original IM
Innes. It reminds me of the Jason Repa identities,
each of which displayed precisely the same troubles
with anger, swearing, and a lack of mental acuity.


Of course, Which Mitch is now desposed


Of which country was he King? Not that island
in the Caribbean where the loony Marcus Roberts
hangs out, I hope.



off by accusing him of being Paul
Truong, who ``SHOCK~~ HORROR`` there is now EVIDENCE to suggest did NOT
marry Susan Polgar - but instead in a Secret Ceremony last Fall, Paul
converted to Mormonisim, and gasp

married ALL 3 sisters!


This may net him a large chess book collection,
but purely from a genetics standpoint, it would be
better to marry three women with very different traits
-- even if none were any good at chess. And besides,
isn't it illegal to marry someone who is already hitched
to someone else? Perhaps we should ask Mr. Sloan,
he would know. In some countries, a (rich) man can
have as many wives as he can afford; here in America,
that comes to less than one apiece. :(


-- help bot

"help bot" wrote in message
ups.com...

Less than a quarter of USCF's adult population play 10+ games per
year.
50% of them, or 15,000, play no rated games per year.


Hold it right there, mister! I can see where this is
going. You're going to throw a bunch of random
statistics out, and then ask us one of those trick
questions, like they have at Tickle.com, right?

No - I was going to move on to the local chess club, where there has been a
conversation recently on if one of the nude people wants to play - an
emergency ordinance has just restricted their activity, but the select board
is split 3-2, see

http://www.reformer.com/headlines/ci_6401076

people have been coming to town from surrounding states to be nude

however, the numbers above are not random and come from Mike Nolan at USCF.
More than half of USCF's adult members play NO rated games/year, and
presumably are members just to read the larry Evans column in Cheese Lite.

If only 7,500 USCF players achieve a rating every year which is not
provisional [10+ games/Nolan] how many of them do so at chess clubs,
rather
than at CCA and other tournaments. Half again?


Um, insufficient data?

Yes - I don't know the answer, and neither did Mike N. For some reason,
ratings cannot be correlated with type of event.

That's just 3,750 people in
the entire adult chess playing community for the whole continent.


No, I believe the "whole continent" would include
countries like Mexico, Canada, and of course the
many banana republics (sorry!) north of Panama.

across the whole continental usa is the sense, like, from sea to shining
sea, which isn't right either, since they're not seas but oceans

Your suggestion above is already in place under another name, Rating
Floors,
where 2210 players actually performance-rated 1780 these days, transfer
their points [calculated from 2210] to other players directly in Swisses,
rather than go through Switzerland.


I see. This means that the USCF has already cornered the
market. Rats.

yes - they now have several animal leagues icluding rats - which TDs say,
they prefer to chess-playing lawyers! one said to me, "there are some things
a rat jsut wont do!"


As for Life Members, I see that many of them are Dead


I say cut them off! Dead chess players no more need
to read Chess Life than I need to eat a whole roast ox.

You don't have to read it all at once anymore than the person needs to eat
the ox at one sitting - take 2 10 minute sessions to properly absorb all the
chess

...

chess nights, and would USCF please send their magazine to the dog's home
or
even the mortuary, where they think people play, off-hours?


I thought they kept those places locked up at night.

They do! Otherwise people would break in and steal the bodies and the
digital clocks - by the way - don't buy a Chronos if offered to you at a
discount - lots of them were recently ripped off [stolen]

This is why we always had to find a restaurant to play
at, but if they have cadaver tables wide enough for a
chess board... .

and you can put your elbows on it, plus a flagon of cheap wine - or even the
pickling alcohol they put the 'bits' in, though from experience I recommend
you remove the bits first.

...

are saying, and to cover 'your' embarrassment they therefore make
speeches
at you about how they represent chess players.


Please, you are reminding me of my job; the so-
called supervisors do precisely the same things,
and yes, they really do believe it's all about THEM.

just send them an unsigned note written on your grandfather's typerwriter
which says

" come the revolution, your type will the the first to go "

and sign it "Red-5"

it'll scare the bejeezus out of them for a week


Okay, as "Scotty" put it in one Star Trek episode:
"We're big enough to take a few insults".

just stop short of needing two zip codes

have fantasies about extremely thin girls


Of which there are none around here (except the
"teenyboppers" still in K-12 school).

you don't have 'Corn-Day' in the fields where eligible young maidens do
things [doesn't matter what] and then there is a barbque and then it gets
dark?

who adore them, often three at a time, which is perhaps because they
weigh the
same as three girls.


I know this old trick; you are tossing up more
numbers -- all irrelevant to the problem -- just to
confuse us.

you are embarrassed! ha! possibly because you weigh twice as much as a young
girl, or expressed mathematically

1hb = 2yg

It makes no difference how many
skinny girls equal the weight of one fat adolescent
male, for the ratings are not affected by this. But
just for the record, an adult male hippopotamus
weighs around 6,000 pounds! An adult female,
around 4,000. Baby hippos weigh whatever they
weigh, which only matters to crocodiles, who eat
them. (If I were a 6,000 pound hippo, I think I'd
go croc hunting, rather than spend quite so much
time eating plants while my children were being
devoured -- but that's just me.)

If I were a Hippo
And you were a Lady [Croc]
I would stomp you anyway
If you neared by baby!

As for the rest, assuming ALL scholastic players get in 10+
games/year,
their average rating is less than 1,000 - so why they would exactly
need
to read a Benko or an Evans in preference to any old master who is
used to
youth, is unclear?


These are the readers who would benefit most
from a column such as Bruce Pandolfini's ABCs
of Chess.

well sure, but buying his book might be better, cause as we say in Vermont,
its a long way to Zugswang.

In short, two more numb recommendations about what to do, based on not
noticing who the members are, or what they want.


Okay, then how about this: we gain control of the
ratings program, then "siphon off" a few points in
mysterious ways, depositing them to an offshore
account in Aruba. For example, who would ever
know it if we stole the 2800+ points belonging to
Bobby Fischer? A: Nobody! It's nearly foolproof.
I got the idea from a guy in prison; he says there's
nothing to it.

is that /why/ he was in prison? not everyone in prison is george cluny!

..

But at a web site you can automatically see who reads what, which is
another
sort of survey, and free! We don't need no stinkin science, when we could
look at what we already have in the bag.


True enough, but this would tend to skew (a scientific
term far too advanced for me to explain here) the results
toward what computer types like or dislike, while ignoring
all those readers of Chess Life who are still living in the
Stone Age. Wouldn't it be "more clever" (ala GM
Petrosian) to pretend we still care about what they think,
and let them slowly die off, one by one?

I thought they already tried that with Patzers Mind = American Mind, the
Insult-a-Yank column?

..

The last staff person to go in there met Sam Sloan poking around, and
caught
a staff-infection


Nonsense. A staff is generally made of wood, and
cannot be infected since it is too dry for fungus, mold,
or mildew to thrive. Nevertheless, keep it warm and
give it lots of rest. Once "cured", give it a hefty coat
of polyethylene or Cabot wood protector, just to be on
the safe side. And make sure it sees a psychoanalyst.

Ridiculous! Anyone goes to see a shrink needs their head examined!

for which Sir Sloan never mentioned the medical details
thereof but recommended they be dismissed in case they turned out to be a
spy for Which Mitch, or Witch Mitch himself.


I think it is amusing that even your doubles seem to
have acquired the same "allergies" as the original IM
Innes. It reminds me of the Jason Repa identities,

True, I am Jason Aper, which as you see is a sort of copy-cat or
monkey-fella, spelled backwards, and obviously Jason is No Saj [not a wise
bone in his head or quivver] just **** and vinegar,

each of which displayed precisely the same troubles
with anger, swearing, and a lack of mental acuity.

Fukin idyuts, kant spel nythur, mus be emoceans mess me up agin

off by accusing him of being Paul
Truong, who ``SHOCK~~ HORROR`` there is now EVIDENCE to suggest did NOT
marry Susan Polgar - but instead in a Secret Ceremony last Fall, Paul
converted to Mormonisim, and gasp

married ALL 3 sisters!


This may net him a large chess book collection,
but purely from a genetics standpoint, it would be
better to marry three women with very different traits

no no no - think of the tax-breaks, its gotta be at least triple the regular

-- even if none were any good at chess. And besides,
isn't it illegal to marry someone who is already hitched
to someone else? Perhaps we should ask Mr. Sloan,
he would know. In some countries, a (rich) man can
have as many wives as he can afford; here in America,
that comes to less than one apiece. :(

that's true, even women's socks cost 3x what mens socks cost
this country is messed up - and its mostly those magazines they get that
keep making them do it

if i find a subscription coming to my house i put it straight into the
neighbours trash

although this does give me a marketing idea for women's chess sets, which
are just a little nicer than the regular sort, but you can dress em up!@
like Barbie pieces [did K-Tel get here first?]

course, fore you know it, they'll have the SF Set for guys, where you
receive a little squadron of Kens, plus some designer notes

If this is sexist, then its equally sexist. And remember, you stimulated
this idea, but were too dumb too come up with the big idea because you are
an international B player

and as we say in this country, das de breaks, kid

Lord of the Northern Wastes, Sir Peregrin Innes [hic]



-- help bot