On Oct 26, 7:52 am, " wrote:
CHESS LIES

BOBBY FISCHER: "I have nothing to do with them...I would appreciate it
if all my fans canceled their subscriptions to their horrible magazine
Chess Life. I call it Chess Lies and withdrew from the membership of
this organization."

REUBEN FINE: "The USCF is a meaningless paper organization, generally
antagonistic to the needs of its masters."

GARRY KASPAROV: "The small minded leaders of the USCF try to keep it
an amateur game and must be purged like entrenched Communist
bureaucrats."


It seems to me that these criticisms fall into different
categories:

RF and GK were attacking the USCF for not catering to
the desire$ of the elite players; but BF, OTOH, was saying
that Chess Life -- the magazine -- was full of lies. This
makes sense if you think about it, because the USCF *did*
cater to the desires of BF, did support him against FIDE.

The withdrawal from membership was irrelevant; BF no
longer played in any USCF tournaments, didn't like their
magazine, and certainly didn't need a "member discount"
on equipment or supplies.

As for purging "entrenched" Commie "bureaucrats", this
was accomplished when Mr. Kasparov's own organization
dumped him in favor of a better man; when rulers become
so self-obsessed that they forget they are not gods, it's
time for a change. As far as that fiasco went, Mr.
Kasparov's own effort failed even more miserably than the
USCF has, for it is still breathing (okay, wheezing).


-- help bot

On Oct 26, 5:43 pm, Mike Murray wrote:
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:29:27 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:

What will you do with yourself after all this is resolved by grown-ups?

Probably make do with watching you make a fool of yourself over and
over. Same old, same old. Been there, done that. But it beats
working.

When do you plan to take a refresher in English comp and training in
use of spelling and syntax checkers?


I would not advise IM Innes to try and make the switch
to checkers; those guys are really tough, and will draw
the daylights out of you. At least with chess he can
fire up Rybka and win any time he wants.


As for growing up -- that leads to growing old, which
leads to dyin', and dyin', to me, don't sound like all that
much fun.


-- redneck bot

On Oct 26, 6:03 pm, samsloan wrote:


Gregory Alexander does not seem to be at all concerned that my
reputation was ruined by 2463 Fake Sam Sloan postings, plus the
reputations of several other individuals were harmed as well.


In what way was your reputation "ruined" by anyone
other than yourself? Unless you have everyone in rgc
killfiled, I don't see how you could reasonably hold that
your reputation was intact before the Fake Sloan
postings started.

Perhaps what you meant was that in spite of all your
own efforts, the Fake Sloan still somehow managed to
inflict even more damage to what little remained of your
already-ruined reputation. No, wait -- that won't get you
beans in a lawsuit for money damages. (shrugs)


-- help bot

wrote:
BOBBY FISCHER: "..."
REUBEN FINE: "..."
GARRY KASPAROV: "..."

Citations, please. When and where were these things said?


Dave.

--
David Richerby Fluorescent Indelible Book (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a romantic novel but it can't be
erased and it'll hurt your eyes!

Taylor Kingston wrote:
This appears to be a slight misquotation of something Fine wrote in
1976, in the second edition of "The World's Great Chess Games," page
224. Fine wrote "The USCF *_was_* [not is] a meaningless paper
organization," [...]

So in that sentence Fine was referring specifically to the USCF in
1947. How long he continued to hold this opinion, or if he ever
changed his mind, I am not sure.

Well, presumably, if Fine had still believed in 1976 that the USCF was
a meaningless paper organization and so on, he'd have used the present
tense or a construction like `The USCF was and still is...' or `The
USCF, then as it is now, was...'


Dave.

--
David Richerby Transparent Impossible Whisky (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a single-malt whisky but
it can't exist and you can see right
through it!

On Oct 28, 6:04 pm, David Richerby
wrote:
wrote:
BOBBY FISCHER: "..."
REUBEN FINE: "..."
GARRY KASPAROV: "..."

Citations, please. When and where were these things said?


The dramatic effect would be ruined if Mr. Parr had placed
these quotes into their proper perspectives, and that of course
would defeat the whole purpose of the piece.


Upon further reflection, it suddenly hit me why BF's request
could and would not be granted by the members: they did not
merely "subscribe" to Chess Life -- oh no! The USCF had a
stranglehold on official chess ratings, and by bundling this
service along with a subscription to CL, they effectively
forced USCF-rated players to buy the rag, regardless of its
inherent quality. This has been true since the advent of
published USCF ratings, so when folks like me who barely
had time to read /part/ of CL got ads in the mail from English
language competitors, the easy choice was to decline and
just keep reading the second-rate rag we got as a matter of
course. This marketing strategy has artificially kept Chess
Life afloat for decades, in spite of everything.


-- help bot

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 23:06:26 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:


how quickly you abandon your subject matter and all your certainties! -
suspecting nothing at all

It's only when you're unsure of yourself that you repeat the same
"subject matter" over and over, Phil.

tell me, swami. but, tell me something... ?

Well, I suppose sometimes you
forget what you said, so you say it again or argue with it, but that's
a personal quirk on your part.

that's telling? what is the subject?

- you would not make a good journalist, nor a
jurer, come to that

Ya mean, just cause I'd sit there making little nooses out of pieces
of string, and drawing my index finger across my throat periodically?

no - that's what you mean. if you want to write to others interest its not
good to use strawmen analogies, since even children know you are faking
something

They'd know I was only funnin' a little, wouldn't they?

yes - they'd think you were nutz

but this is but pain or enthusiasm, until you know yourself why you write
anything at all, you cannot explain it to me

But I've never tried to explain to you why I write. In fact, I'm
unable to explain to myself why I write to you.

quite! and on being asked, you still can't say. and if you don't know what
you are doing, maybe you should not so easily dismiss /motive/, and i'm
talking yours, since those who do know what they are doing can play you like
the old banjo


Given your inability
to understand less complicated issues, why waste the bandwidth?

what a weak trope - but answer yourself, since you waste it as equally

I
mean, there's only a few billion terabytes to go around.

and that was some contribution to content? no! - as a journalist you would
have to do more - and there are 3 rules;-

1) never encourage more burocracy - instead ask why previous measures are
abandoned

2) don't try to change anyone's opinion, instead, if you can get anyone to
open their mind to a subject for as much as 10 minutes, you will be a genius
at the journalistic business [even though they land back where they
started]. be personally disinterested in the result

3) it's not about you, its about them; therefore assume nothing in raising
content issues, but connect with several possible orientations, the main one
being not about conclusions, but about how to look at something in the first
place

my writing gets to twice as many people as read chess life per month, more
than that, and its not luck nor money that propels it. don't worry about
this - its nothing to do with you

phil innes

On Oct 31, 4:05 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

my writing gets to twice as many people as read chess life per month, more
than that, and its not luck nor money that propels it. don't worry about
this - its nothing to do with you

phil innes

I wonder why he is proud of the fact that his unintelligible nonsense
"gets to twice as many people as read chess life per month"? Since
nobody can figure out what he is trying to say, is that something to
be proud of?

Sam Sloan

"samsloan" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 31, 4:05 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

my writing gets to twice as many people as read chess life per month,
more
than that, and its not luck nor money that propels it. don't worry about
this - its nothing to do with you

phil innes

I wonder why he is proud of the fact that his unintelligible nonsense
"gets to twice as many people as read chess life per month"? Since
nobody can figure out what he is trying to say, is that something to
be proud of?

nobody times 5,000 every day

sad, but true. and in your newsgroup you provide, what? 90% of the
'messages' - if I didn't stimulate a Delegate's 'thinking' it would be
completely dead!

how reduced you are, Sloan, to so obviously resent every level of success.

here it is modest notoriety, and only because it is challenged by an
abusenik who writes about episodes of dead 'c' players.

but every day you write 10 trashy stories about either Polgar or Truong, and
can you really think anyone here doesn't understand why that is?

R

O


F



L


!


!


!

you don't even understand the uses people put you to, you political patzer!
the very thing you want, is the thing you attack because you cannot possess
it - because no-one can possess that - or it kills it

ponder that a bit, or ask Larry what it means

Phil Innes

Sam Sloan