On Nov 3, 1:57 pm, The Historian wrote:
On Nov 3, 10:11 am, "Chess One" wrote:

For Gawds sake!

How many times will Brennan wholesale his lies? Playing strength of around
2400 for a couple of seasons over 25 years ago.

Again, that's not what you wrote:

***************
I must qualify what I have said therefo from the resolution of the
painitng on my monitor I can't tell Kings from Queens for white or
black,
but given the worst placements from white's perspective, I would still
hold
these views, [even though black is holding a piece in the air].

My qualifications for saying so is that I was nearly an international
master, with a rating of 2450, which is a tolerably qualified level to
offer
an opinion - for example, Nil, who used to post here before splitting,
so to
speak, was a player of about 1400 rating, and this "ELO" scale is not
linear. This is not to say that Nil could not also resolve the
situation
over the board - but given the best imagined placements for black and
the
worst for white, it is hard or even impossible to assert "mate-in-
three" if
a board position cannot be resolved.

Phil
****************

If anyone is looking for a lying obsessive hate-mongering stalker, voila!
[but who is?]

Stop quoting your business cards, Philsy.

So you are still claiming to have been "nearly an IM".

How come you refuse to play me a chess match for $1000 cash?

Sam Sloan

On Nov 3, 6:30 am, The Historian wrote:

On Nov 3, 5:45 am, "Chess One" wrote:

My writing about my rating was sloppy.... Mine was because I was
writing to non-chess players, who don't even know which way the ELO scale
goes, up or down.

That is not the case. You will be surprised at the number of
chessplayers on HLAS. Here's what one of them wrote:

"This I cannot understand at all. USCF ratings are a matter of
public record, and either he had the rating (in which case it is
recorded) or he did not. And I certainly cannot understand his claim
that he was "almost" an International Master. After all, it's a
lifetime title awarded by the FIDE, and either one has been awarded it
or one hasn't; being "almost" an International Master is, as I said
before, like being "almost pregnant." "


As far as almost being an IM, it really is not that tough;
you just look at the requirements for earning that title, and
find someone who falls just short of them.

Perhaps the easiest way to find players who are nearly
IMs would be to look at the top 5% of FMs. Of course,
nearly-an-IM Innes was not even an FM when he told that
fib.


-- help bot

On Nov 3, 12:06 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

For that excuse to work, you would need to have written
something along these lines:

"I once was among the top 1% of all casual chess
players worldwide, IMO; this makes me an expert, so
you should listen to me, not to Nil Brennan, who is a
relatively weaker player."

Instead, what you wrote made very specific claims,
including assigning yourself an imaginary rating of
2450

wrong. plain wrong. almost at im level, that's all

but what the hell is it to you - other than envy? ))


IMO, it is impossible to envy *imaginary* chess skill.

However, if you meant that perhaps I am envious of
your extensive lying skills, you are mistaken. It seems
that each and every time you tell another fib, not one
but many others catch you in your lies, and from my
point of view, that makes you a /horrible/ liar -- not one
to be envied. An enviable liar might be someone who
is so believable that he is virtually never caught. I am
reminded of a movie I saw, in which an alien visits
Earth and is taken for a delusional nut case; so good
were his "lies" that he began to drive his assigned
psychologist batty. The shrink makes it his mission
to catch the alien/delusional in a self-contradiction or
blunder, but he never can; that is because in the movie,
the guy is not lying. Perhaps... in an alternate world,
Phil Innes really is a nearly-an-IM... .


-- help bot

On Nov 3, 12:57 pm, The Historian wrote:
On Nov 3, 10:11 am, "Chess One" wrote:

For Gawds sake!

How many times will Brennan wholesale his lies? Playing strength of around
2400 for a couple of seasons over 25 years ago.

Again, that's not what you wrote:

***************
I must qualify what I have said therefo from the resolution of the
painitng on my monitor I can't tell Kings from Queens for white or
black,
but given the worst placements from white's perspective, I would still
hold
these views, [even though black is holding a piece in the air].

My qualifications for saying so is that I was nearly an international
master, with a rating of 2450, which is a tolerably qualified level to
offer
an opinion - for example, Nil, who used to post here before splitting,
so to
speak, was a player of about 1400 rating, and this "ELO" scale is not
linear. This is not to say that Nil could not also resolve the
situation
over the board - but given the best imagined placements for black and
the
worst for white, it is hard or even impossible to assert "mate-in-
three" if
a board position cannot be resolved.

Phil
****************

If anyone is looking for a lying obsessive hate-mongering stalker, voila!
[but who is?]

Stop quoting your business cards, Philsy.


Anybody else notice that the nearly-an-IM made a
specific reference to ELO ratings? Not only did the
nearly-an-IM claim a 2450 rating, but he added that
the rating scale was not linear, and the kindest
interpretation of that comment might be that he
meant the rating curve is not linear, but bell shaped
(a very generous interpretation, IMO).


That being said, I agree with the nearly-an-IM-in-his
-own-mind that unless the position in the painting can
be "resolved", it is unwise to assert a mate-in-three...
unless that happened to be /the title/ of this painting.
(Thank Bot I have never had to play on such a hideous
set.)


-- help bot

On Nov 3, 6:45 pm, Kenneth Sloan wrote:
Chess One wrote:
For Gawds sake!

How many times will Brennan wholesale his lies? Playing strength of around
2400 for a couple of seasons over 25 years ago.

Where might one find documentation?


Don't bother looking; twenty-five years ago Mr. Brennan was
no better than he is today.


-- anti-help bot

On Nov 3, 7:34 pm, samsloan wrote:

So you are still claiming to have been "nearly an IM".

How come you refuse to play me a chess match for $1000 cash?


Mr, Sloan, I don't think you /get it/.

IM Innes does not really believe he is nearly-an-IM;
he just wants everyone else to believe it. Deep down,
where he keeps his pocketbook and ratpack membership
card, he knows better than to throw away hard-earned
cash like that.

For $1,000, IM Innes could buy around 100 pizzas,
or approximately 100 Eric Schiller chess books (that's
everything he has written in the last two years!), or he
could enter and play in the World Open. No way is he
going throw that away for a one-in-ten shot at beating
the great Sam Sloan. Un-uh.



-- Vegas odds maker bot

On Nov 3, 10:47 am, Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Oct 31, 1:19 am, Rich Hutnik wrote:

With all this lawsuit business and whatnot, I am curious how Mr. Sloan
can help improve the state of chess. Mr. Sloan, can you speak up
please?

We're still waiting for Sam to reply to Mr. Hutnik, the original
poster. So far in this thread, Sloan has done nothing but dredge up
old ad-hom attacks on me that were refuted years ago. He has thereby
provided nothing but support for my view, that he has no genuine
interest in improving chess, only in slinging mud. I'd say that if he
ever had any chance to get Mr. Hutnik's vote, he's lost it now.

Considering I sent Mr. Sloan two emails in September, before running
across this All Sloan All the Time newsgroup(s), and he never wrote me
back, I wouldn't be surpised Mr. Sloan ignored my question, which is
why it was phrased in the third-person and not addressed to him.

- Rich

On Nov 3, 11:16 pm, Rich Hutnik wrote:
On Nov 3, 10:47 am, Taylor Kingston wrote:

On Oct 31, 1:19 am, Rich Hutnik wrote:

With all this lawsuit business and whatnot, I am curious how Mr. Sloan
can help improve the state of chess. Mr. Sloan, can you speak up
please?

We're still waiting for Sam to reply to Mr. Hutnik, the original
poster. So far in this thread, Sloan has done nothing but dredge up
old ad-hom attacks on me that were refuted years ago. He has thereby
provided nothing but support for my view, that he has no genuine
interest in improving chess, only in slinging mud. I'd say that if he
ever had any chance to get Mr. Hutnik's vote, he's lost it now.

Considering I sent Mr. Sloan two emails in September, before running
across this All Sloan All the Time newsgroup(s), and he never wrote me
back, I wouldn't be surpised Mr. Sloan ignored my question, which is
why it was phrased in the third-person and not addressed to him.

- Rich

I do not recall ever receiving an email from you.

I get more than one thousand emails per day and I do not read all of
them.

Sam Sloan

"samsloan" wrote in message
oups.com...

How come you refuse to play me a chess match for $1000 cash?

Because I enjoy playing chess, and have no need to confound that with the
subject of you, and since I have previously explained directly to you that
excessive personality involvement is the very thing that inhibits chess at
the national federation level, and in these newsgroups, [where so people
seem unable to express any joy in their own chess playing, and write
non-stop & depressingly about those who do], and instead use it for other
purposes.

In short, my motive is other than yours, which is only about you.
Furthermore, I /dare/ say that my orientation is entirely mainstream, but
you ignore it because you are a *special* person.

Many people just play the game for its own sake, and find their enjoyment
that way. Should you understand that fact, then you will also understand
that your own orientation is eccentric to both the art of the game, and
enjoyment thereof.

It must also be said that the Miles-effect could kick in, where you seek to
unsettle others by your *special* comments would certainly transport the
engagement away from the chessboard.

A logical conclusion may be that this also renders you useless to any chess
public by way of 'representing' them so as to 'improve' chess, since, by all
these tokens especially you 'deafness', you so plainly do not.

Phil Innes

Sam Sloan

On Nov 4, 6:54 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"samsloan" wrote in message

oups.com...

How come you refuse to play me a chess match for $1000 cash?

Because I enjoy playing chess, and have no need to confound that with the
subject of you, and since I have previously explained directly to you that
excessive personality involvement is the very thing that inhibits chess at
the national federation level, and in these newsgroups, [where so people
seem unable to express any joy in their own chess playing, and write
non-stop & depressingly about those who do], and instead use it for other
purposes.

In short, my motive is other than yours, which is only about you.
Furthermore, I /dare/ say that my orientation is entirely mainstream, but
you ignore it because you are a *special* person.

Many people just play the game for its own sake, and find their enjoyment
that way. Should you understand that fact, then you will also understand
that your own orientation is eccentric to both the art of the game, and
enjoyment thereof.

It must also be said that the Miles-effect could kick in, where you seek to
unsettle others by your *special* comments would certainly transport the
engagement away from the chessboard.

A logical conclusion may be that this also renders you useless to any chess
public by way of 'representing' them so as to 'improve' chess, since, by all
these tokens especially you 'deafness', you so plainly do not.

Phil Innes

"Thou coward, art thou bragging to the stars,
Telling the bushes that thou look'st for wars,
And wilt not come?"