On Nov 12, 2:12 pm, zdrakec wrote:

Actually, I have been very nice to Mr. Koepcke by never publishing the
game and I can no longer find the scoresheet. However, the game
started like this. I was Black:

1. d4 e5 2. dxe5 Nc6 3. Nf3 Qe7 4. Bf4 Qb4+ 5. Bd2 Qxb2 6. Nc3 Bb4 7.
Rb1 Qa3

A few moves later, I played Bxc3 and he played B on f1 captures B on
c3 which of course is illegal. He then said that he wanted me to give
him the move back. When I would not agree, he resigned.

Sam Sloan

Compare Bronstein's response to Dus Chotimirsky, if you want to see
how a sportsman behaves.


Ha! Mr. Koepcke did not give SS back his first-move
blunder, and what's sauce for the goose, is sauce for
the gander.

-----

Before we attack Mr. Sloan for "poor sportsmanship"
in exercising his legal rights, we ought first to eliminate
cheating which is illegal according to agreement by
all, as spelled out in the rules of the game. An example
would be taking back moves (Gary Kasparov, caught on
videotape), distracting/annoying opponents, routinely
utilized as an effective answer by many players when
they are losing, etc.

First, clear out the worst muck; then work to improve
appearances, apply a coat of glossy shine, etc. (I can't
imagine a greater waste than applying wax over the top
of such awful muck, except, perhaps, putting expensive
lipstick on a pig.)


-- help bot

On Nov 12, 1:47 pm, help bot wrote:

No bot, no ad hom intended. It was more along the line of "people
place their priorities according to what is important to them.....," a
self-evident statement, I know, but no less true.

I refuse to invest in the cash suck that is HDTV... in that case, I
would spend the money on a US Open instead and content myself with a
small, old TV..... Again, priorities.....

I agree it is interesting how some very small time players invest in
chess like they were potential GMs or WC candidates. Again, one can
only assume the chess is important to them. I have played in big
tournaments without any hope of winning money, simply to play good
competition. A friend of mine is quite low-rated, but always goes only
to big tourneys and always plays up one to two classes, again for the
chess, not the prize. My sister runs marathons with the goal of
running in every state, no chance of glory (she loves to run but is
slow as molasses), except the personal achievement.

On Nov 12, 2:00 pm, help bot wrote:


Before we attack Mr. Sloan for "poor sportsmanship"
in exercising his legal rights, we ought first to eliminate
cheating which is illegal according to agreement by
all, as spelled out in the rules of the game. An example
would be taking back moves (Gary Kasparov, caught on
videotape), distracting/annoying opponents, routinely
utilized as an effective answer by many players when
they are losing, etc.

On this we are certainly in agreement. Sam had every right, especially
in a game he deemed important, not to allow a take-back; in fact, I
think the mentality that leads to take-backs needs to be abolished.....

On Nov 12, 3:24 pm, SBD wrote:


No bot, no ad hom intended.

Here is what you *actually* wrote:

"Certainly, you could take on a part-time job using the same
hours you ****ed away on Sanny's hunk of junk and earn
enough to play in a US Open and meet some real competition."


Notice anything peculiar -- like maybe a focus on
the person, not the issue? That's ad hominem (in
case you didn't know). Not that I was making an
actual /argument/ -- more like an observation. But
as I wrote, the comments applied to those people
I noticed in some crosstables at the USCF Web
site. I did not even mention my own situation, since
it is rather unique; for one thing, I am -- or at least
was -- the highest-rated player /ever/ on GetClub!

These other guys are mere wannabees; they
remind me of poor Larry Parr, who fantasizes that he
/is/ the five-time U.S. champion, Larry Evans, and
writes here accordingly; they remind me of blithering
idiots like IM Innes, who babbles about ideas he
can't even spell, let alone, even begin to grasp. ;D


I agree it is interesting how some very small time players invest in
chess like they were potential GMs or WC candidates. Again, one can
only assume the chess is important to them. I have played in big
tournaments without any hope of winning money, simply to play good
competition. A friend of mine is quite low-rated, but always goes only
to big tourneys and always plays up one to two classes, again for the
chess, not the prize. My sister runs marathons with the goal of
running in every state, no chance of glory (she loves to run but is
slow as molasses), except the personal achievement.

Some players enjoy the opportunity -- however remote --
of a potential upset, about which they presumably would
be happy to brag for the rest of their days. I see things
a bit differently: fluke performances are not any /real/
measure of chess talent.

I have known players whose focus had shifted from the
quality of their play, to the quality of their chess equipment.
Such players can be found uncrating bulky wooden boards
from their protective coverings, and carefully laying out their
Jacques sets.

And I have known players whose sole purpose in life
seemed to revolve around the gaining of yet another rating
class -- by hook or by crook. These players might be
found "arranging" the outcome of a game which was not
going their way.

And I imagine there are many players who have the
resources to travel /at will/, to enter even the World
Open with no thought as to what may become of their
hefty entry fee, or of hotel bills and whatnot. I say I
"imagine" because I have yet to actually meet such a
person... . :D


-- help bot

On Nov 12, 3:16 pm, help bot wrote:
On Nov 12, 3:24 pm, SBD wrote:

No bot, no ad hom intended.

Here is what you *actually* wrote:

"Certainly, you could take on a part-time job using the same
hours you ****ed away on Sanny's hunk of junk and earn
enough to play in a US Open and meet some real competition."

Notice anything peculiar -- like maybe a focus on
the person, not the issue?

Ad hom means against a person, not just the mere focus, doesn't it?
Perhaps my Latin is rusty.

On Nov 12, 3:00 pm, help bot wrote:
On Nov 12, 2:12 pm, zdrakec wrote:

Actually, I have been very nice to Mr. Koepcke by never publishing the
game and I can no longer find the scoresheet. However, the game
started like this. I was Black:

1. d4 e5 2. dxe5 Nc6 3. Nf3 Qe7 4. Bf4 Qb4+ 5. Bd2 Qxb2 6. Nc3 Bb4 7.
Rb1 Qa3

A few moves later, I played Bxc3 and he played B on f1 captures B on
c3 which of course is illegal. He then said that he wanted me to give
him the move back. When I would not agree, he resigned.

Sam Sloan

Compare Bronstein's response to Dus Chotimirsky, if you want to see
how a sportsman behaves.

Ha! Mr. Koepcke did not give SS back his first-move
blunder, and what's sauce for the goose, is sauce for
the gander.


You know, everyone makes fun of the Englund Gambit, but I think most
of the people who ridicule it would have a tougher time beating it
than they think. I've used it three times in USCF tournament games and
scored two wins and a draw, all against opponents rated above me. It
may not be playable at the grandmaster level, but for us class
players, it's a good way to get into an open, tactical dogfight.

--Fromper

On Nov 12, 1:07 pm, samsloan wrote:
Actually, I have been very nice to Mr. Koepcke by never publishing the
game and I can no longer find the scoresheet. However, the game
started like this. I was Black:

1. d4 e5 2. dxe5 Nc6 3. Nf3 Qe7 4. Bf4 Qb4+ 5. Bd2 Qxb2 6. Nc3 Bb4 7.
Rb1 Qa3

A few moves later, I played Bxc3 and he played B on f1 captures B on
c3 which of course is illegal.

Had he moved his e- or g-pawn by then? If not, no touch-move penalty
could be enforced. A player cannot be made to move a piece that has no
legal move.

He then said that he wanted me to give
him the move back. When I would not agree, he resigned.

You caught a lucky break, Sam. Will you never tire of playing
unsound gambits? First it was the Damiano, now we see you with a
particulary bad line (6...Bb4?) of the Englund. Looks to me like after
8.Nd5! you're busted here.

On Nov 12, 2:27 pm, SBD wrote:
On Nov 12, 2:00 pm, help bot wrote:



Before we attack Mr. Sloan for "poor sportsmanship"
in exercising his legal rights, we ought first to eliminate
cheating which is illegal according to agreement by
all, as spelled out in the rules of the game. An example
would be taking back moves (Gary Kasparov, caught on
videotape), distracting/annoying opponents, routinely
utilized as an effective answer by many players when
they are losing, etc.

On this we are certainly in agreement. Sam had every right, especially
in a game he deemed important, not to allow a take-back; in fact, I
think the mentality that leads to take-backs needs to be abolished.....

Oh, I agree he had the right. It's the attitude that accompanied it
that annoys me...
Additionally, I agree that it is incorrect in the extreme to request a
takeback. I for one would never ask for it.
Furthermore, I do not pretend that I myself would give the takeback.
Odds are I wouldn't - but then I might, if the game was in the early
stages and I felt like playing.
I'm just pointing out that Bronstein set a high bar for us amateurs.
Regards,
zdrakec

On Nov 12, 5:11 pm, Fromper wrote:

You know, everyone makes fun of the Englund Gambit, but I think most
of the people who ridicule it would have a tougher time beating it
than they think.

Perhaps you should re-think that; it is not the gambit
/itself/ a player has to beat. All a player needs to do is
take the superior position an unsound gambit provides,
and then work with it a bit.


I've used it three times in USCF tournament games and
scored two wins and a draw, all against opponents rated above me.

Very nice! Would you like to bet that your lucky
streak will continue were you to play someone who
is not rattled by an opponent going "out of book", so
to speak, early? I have been playing at GetClub for
quite some time, and have seen everything under the
Sun; it makes no difference to me that the program
has what Sanny calls "bugs", but which I suspect
are merely "features", like frequent Windows crashes
or self-canceling turn signals. A bad move is still bad,
even if it steers into positions you have studied and
which most opponents are unfamiliar with.


It may not be playable at the grandmaster level

I don't know about that; Rybka has been quite
successful with virtually any one-pawn gambit, so
far.


but for us class
players, it's a good way to get into an open, tactical dogfight.

If you cannot get into an open, tactical dogfight
without this sort of thing, perhaps you are playing
the sound openings incorrectly. Truth be told, I
*rarely* get anything but a tactical dogfight, even
though I like semi-closed, strategical positions!

One fellow in particular seems to be convinced
that trading off pieces will help him achieve a
draw; trouble is, he loses ground with each
effort to trade off one more piece, and all these
backwards "baby steps" lead every time to a bad
position which, although simplified a bit, cannot
be held (but even here, the tactics abound).

If you /must/ play inferior gambits, try to select
those which at least have something in their
favor besides surprise value. (Look at poor Mr.
Sloan: he is reduced to playing Damiano's
Defense and grotesquely mishandling the Grob.)
Why not give the decent gambits a try, or play
tactical lines which do not entail dropping any
material whatever? Afraid of 1.d4? Never fear--
there are numerous /sound/ replies, and not all
of them are boring.


-- help bot

On Nov 12, 6:47 pm, help bot wrote:
On Nov 12, 5:11 pm, Fromper wrote:

You know, everyone makes fun of the Englund Gambit, but I think most
of the people who ridicule it would have a tougher time beating it
than they think.

Perhaps you should re-think that; it is not the gambit
/itself/ a player has to beat. All a player needs to do is
take the superior position an unsound gambit provides,
and then work with it a bit.

I've used it three times in USCF tournament games and
scored two wins and a draw, all against opponents rated above me.

Very nice! Would you like to bet that your lucky
streak will continue were you to play someone who
is not rattled by an opponent going "out of book", so
to speak, early? I have been playing at GetClub for
quite some time, and have seen everything under the
Sun; it makes no difference to me that the program
has what Sanny calls "bugs", but which I suspect
are merely "features", like frequent Windows crashes
or self-canceling turn signals. A bad move is still bad,
even if it steers into positions you have studied and
which most opponents are unfamiliar with.

It may not be playable at the grandmaster level

I don't know about that; Rybka has been quite
successful with virtually any one-pawn gambit, so
far.

but for us class
players, it's a good way to get into an open, tactical dogfight.

If you cannot get into an open, tactical dogfight
without this sort of thing, perhaps you are playing
the sound openings incorrectly. Truth be told, I
*rarely* get anything but a tactical dogfight, even
though I like semi-closed, strategical positions!

One fellow in particular seems to be convinced
that trading off pieces will help him achieve a
draw; trouble is, he loses ground with each
effort to trade off one more piece, and all these
backwards "baby steps" lead every time to a bad
position which, although simplified a bit, cannot
be held (but even here, the tactics abound).

If you /must/ play inferior gambits, try to select
those which at least have something in their
favor besides surprise value. (Look at poor Mr.
Sloan: he is reduced to playing Damiano's
Defense and grotesquely mishandling the Grob.)
Why not give the decent gambits a try, or play
tactical lines which do not entail dropping any
material whatever? Afraid of 1.d4? Never fear--
there are numerous /sound/ replies, and not all
of them are boring.

-- help bot

Bot,
Come back to chessworld.net. you have some games waiting.