--

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...
On 16 Sep 2003 03:54:33 -0700, (Underground) wrote:

Come on you never saw ralph win a bunch of blitz games from dzinzi.
Maybe at like 5 to one or something.

I certainly did. They played thousands of games. Taking your figure of
5 to one, if they played a thousand games, then Ralph won 200 of them.
That is a lot of games to win against a 2600 blitz player like Roman
Dzindzichashvili.

That would be 4-1

Harold Buck wrote in message .. .
In article , Jerry
wrote:

I suppose clubs ban people on the theory that banning
one person will bring in more people. Its usually not true.
People who didn't join before don't join after. Chess is

Um, no. You ban people so that the people who are already IN your club
don't quit because they can't stand having to deal with obnoxious
assholes. Or at least assholes that are more obnoxious than the club
norm.


--Harold Buck

In my youth I attended the Boylston Chess Club regularly: open every
day. A person who was not a member (and liked to come in on weekends)
sent a complaint to the Board about a member's obnoxious behavior
(which was true but not terribly important). I was at the Board
meeting. The president read the letter. Then he asked the club
secretary if the signer was a member, or if he had been issued a guest
card. He was not a member and had not been issued a guest card. So
no action was taken.

David Ames

In article ,
says...

Sam Sloan wrote:

When is it appropriate to ban a player from a chess club?

The statues of the club should make it clear. Typically,
a member who is consistently acting against the interest
of the club, or whose influence in other ways on the
club, society or organization will be detrimental
can be expelled.

Banning -- i.e. temporary suspension of membership privileges --
seems like an appropriate measure against first offences of
a nature that, once it's clear it is deliberate and wilful,
would cause explusion.


Here is what the 1964 constitution of the Athenaeum chess
club says:

"5. That subscriptions be due and to be paid on
election to membership, and subsequently on 1st
September in each year. Any member thirty days in arrear
shall be notified of the fact by the Hon. Secretary and
shall cease to be a member of the Club if his
subscription be not paid within seven days of the receipt
of such notice."

"10. That the Hon. Secretary shall call a Special
General Meeting on the instruction of the committee, or
on receipt of a written request signed by not less than
ten members. Seven clear days' notice shall be given of
such meeting, and twelve members shall be a quorum."

"11. That the committee may suspend or expel any member
whose conduct they consider objectionable or detrimental
to the interests of the Club. Any member so suspended or
expelled may appeal to the next Annual General Meeting or
to a Special General Meeting called in accordance with
Rule 10."

In practise in my time members were expelled at the AGM,
by then it was quite clear they had no intention of
paying the subscription. The only exceptions made were
for long time members who had fallen on hard times: in
one instance we waited three years, but he did pay!

When captaining a team I would drop players if they
defaulted without good cause. For instance the first time
someone did it I would listen to the explanation, and, if
it was a good one, pretend it never happened; the second
time I would be a bit more suspicious and prefer other
players, after a third default I would drop him entirely.
This was not a ban, but in practise they would be
unlikely to renew their subscription. Such defaulting was
very very rare.

On the other hand I once heard another captain opine that
"ten defaults is not so bad in one season": I never had
that many in ten years; in all the time I captained I
doubt I had twenty defaults.


Regards,

Simon.

"Matt Nemmers" wrote in message
news:0C7ab.487352$YN5.330535@sccrnsc01...
"Latin Thunder" wrote in message
...
You united statians should be banned from everything.
You really are a stupid nation!

Why am I not surprised that your U.S. bashing comes from a French address?

Dear Mr. Nemmers:

Some persons in the United States are among the most intelligent and educated
people whom I have ever known anywhere.

"Latin Thunder" was obviously trolling, as some writers like to do here.
In the thread, "Bobby Fischer and taxes" (19 September 2003), "Ivan" wrote:
"That country (Canada) has no culture and they want to be just like the USA
anyway."

Both "Latin Thunder" and "Ivan" have made thoughtless assertions.

Having read some of your posts about the state of the USCF and its many serious
problems, I think that you believe that the USCF now does not need any leaders
who would pretend that about everything's perfect in order to avoid making or
even considering the urgently needed honest, thoughtful criticisms that the
USCF requires to survive and to improve. If so, then I would concur with you.

I prefer to extend that principle of honest, thoughtful criticism to include
the United States as a whole. In my view, the United States still has many
good characteristics, yet the United States also has many serious problems,
both domestic and foreign, which could be solved only by considering such
honest, thoughtful criticisms from whatever sources that may propose them,
*not* by acting as though the United States must be above all criticism.

On one hand, for instance, Jerome Bibuld has often strongly criticised the
United States in many ways, which seems to have personally offended you.
I believe that some of Mr. Bibuld's criticisms of the United States are too
harsh, and I have criticised him for his lack of thoughtfulness in making them.
When Mr. Bibuld wrote that the United States should be "destroyed" because it's
allegedly "the source of all racism", his assertion was absurd. Racism existed
before the United States existed, and presumably racism would continue to exist
even if the United States did not. Like you would, I took strong exception to
that assertion by Mr. Bibuld.

On the other hand, unfortunately too many Americans prefer to hold only highly
idealised beliefs about the United States, notwithstanding the facts, even when
those unrealistic beliefs could have dangerous consequences. For instance,
not long ago, many, if not most, Americans believed that the United States
(and its few allies, such as the United Kingdom) could 'liberate' Iraq from the
tyranny of Saddam Hussein in a swift, decisive campaign that would cost at most
a few American lives and little American money. I can recall having heard one
American cite the reputed fact that American pop music was popular in Iraq as
his conclusive evidence that almost all Iraqis would treat all American (not
to mention British) soldiers as their honoured guests, who should be welcome
to stay as long as they wished. In short, many, if not most, Americans seemed
to believe again that a foreign people would perceive them only in the highly
idealised ways by which most Americans evidently prefer to perceive themselves.

Based on what I knew of Iraq (which included discussions with an Iraqi academic
who opposed Saddam Hussein), I thought that this American popular expectation
was quite unrealistically optimistic. Yes, given the vast disparity in the
"correlation of forces", I expected that the Allies could swiftly win the
initial military phase of the campaign and remove Saddam Hussein from power.
But then I expected that matters probably would soon become more complicated.
As far as I know, most Americans have (or had) little or no understanding of
the political or cultural divisions and dynamics among the peoples of Iraq.
I doubted that the United States had done much, if any, realistic detailed
planning for Iraq's postwar reconstruction. I supposed that then a combination
of ignorant, arrogant, or oppressive American policies of military occupation
and popular Iraqi disappointment at unfulfilled American promises could set
the stage for a protracted partisan war of resistance supported by many Iraqis
against the foreign military occupation. (After all, a young Iraqi fighter
could both enjoy American pop music and be well aware that many Americans tend
to regard him with at least strong cultural prejudice because he's a Muslim.)
As I write now, more and more American, British, or Iraqi combatants and
civilians are being killed every week, if not every day.

On a more prosaic note, every one of my thoughtful American friends has
expressed his or her deep concern at the evidently increasing diffusion of
ignorance in the United States. There's concern about having to send one's
children to public schools with low academic standards and expectations.
There's concern about having to employ some American college graduates who
seem nearly illiterate. There's concern about the relentless "dumbing down"
of popular culture to suit the "lowest common denominator" of mass interests.
And there's concern that many, if not most, Americans might have become so
ignorant, misinformed, or gullible, particularly on issues of foreign policy,
that they would complacently accept any propaganda that the United States
government cares to feed them. For example, about 70% of the Americans
recently polled believed that Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for
the attacks of 11 September 2001, even though President Bush later admitted
that the United States lacks the evidence to corroborate that hypothesis.

God, I'm ashamed to be of French decendency these days.

You should not need to be ashamed of your French ancestry or of any other
part of your ancestry, for which you could not have been responsible.
In my opinion, it's just as misguided for an American to 'bash' all people in
France as it would be for a Frenchman to 'bash' all people in the United States.

I have family members and friends in the United States. (One of them was a
nearby witness to the fall of the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001.)
I hope that more Americans will be able to learn to accept that considering
honest, thoughtful criticisms is vital for making the United States better,
both for its people and for everyone else.

gens una sumus
--Nick

"Matt Nemmers" wrote in message
news:0C7ab.487352$YN5.330535@sccrnsc01...
"Latin Thunder" wrote in message
...
You united statians should be banned from everything.
You really are a stupid nation!

Why am I not surprised that your U.S. bashing comes from a French address?

Dear Mr. Nemmers:

Some persons in the United States are among the most intelligent and educated
people whom I have ever known anywhere.

"Latin Thunder" was obviously trolling, as some writers like to do here.
In the thread, "Bobby Fischer and taxes" (19 September 2003), "Ivan" wrote:
"That country (Canada) has no culture and they want to be just like the USA
anyway."

Both "Latin Thunder" and "Ivan" have made thoughtless assertions.

Having read some of your posts about the state of the USCF and its many serious
problems, I think that you believe that the USCF now does not need any leaders
who would pretend that about everything's perfect in order to avoid making or
even considering the urgently needed honest, thoughtful criticisms that the
USCF requires to survive and to improve. If so, then I would concur with you.

I prefer to extend that principle of honest, thoughtful criticism to include
the United States as a whole. In my view, the United States still has many
good characteristics, yet the United States also has many serious problems,
both domestic and foreign, which could be solved only by considering such
honest, thoughtful criticisms from whatever sources that may propose them,
*not* by acting as though the United States must be above all criticism.

On one hand, for instance, Jerome Bibuld has often strongly criticised the
United States in many ways, which seems to have personally offended you.
I believe that some of Mr. Bibuld's criticisms of the United States are too
harsh, and I have criticised him for his lack of thoughtfulness in making them.
When Mr. Bibuld wrote that the United States should be "destroyed" because it's
allegedly "the source of all racism", his assertion was absurd. Racism existed
before the United States existed, and presumably racism would continue to exist
even if the United States did not. Like you would, I took strong exception to
that assertion by Mr. Bibuld.

On the other hand, unfortunately too many Americans prefer to hold only highly
idealised beliefs about the United States, notwithstanding the facts, even when
those unrealistic beliefs could have dangerous consequences. For instance,
not long ago, many, if not most, Americans believed that the United States
(and its few allies, such as the United Kingdom) could 'liberate' Iraq from the
tyranny of Saddam Hussein in a swift, decisive campaign that would cost at most
a few American lives and little American money. I can recall having heard one
American cite the reputed fact that American pop music was popular in Iraq as
his conclusive evidence that almost all Iraqis would treat all American (not
to mention British) soldiers as their honoured guests, who should be welcome
to stay as long as they wished. In short, many, if not most, Americans seemed
to believe again that a foreign people would perceive them only in the highly
idealised ways by which most Americans evidently prefer to perceive themselves.

Based on what I knew of Iraq (which included discussions with an Iraqi academic
who opposed Saddam Hussein), I thought that this American popular expectation
was quite unrealistically optimistic. Yes, given the vast disparity in the
"correlation of forces", I expected that the Allies could swiftly win the
initial military phase of the campaign and remove Saddam Hussein from power.
But then I expected that matters probably would soon become more complicated.
As far as I know, most Americans have (or had) little or no understanding of
the political or cultural divisions and dynamics among the peoples of Iraq.
I doubted that the United States had done much, if any, realistic detailed
planning for Iraq's postwar reconstruction. I supposed that then a combination
of ignorant, arrogant, or oppressive American policies of military occupation
and popular Iraqi disappointment at unfulfilled American promises could set
the stage for a protracted partisan war of resistance supported by many Iraqis
against the foreign military occupation. (After all, a young Iraqi fighter
could both enjoy American pop music and be well aware that many Americans tend
to regard him with at least strong cultural prejudice because he's a Muslim.)
As I write now, more and more American, British, or Iraqi combatants and
civilians are being killed every week, if not every day.

On a more prosaic note, every one of my thoughtful American friends has
expressed his or her deep concern at the evidently increasing diffusion of
ignorance in the United States. There's concern about having to send one's
children to public schools with low academic standards and expectations.
There's concern about having to employ some American college graduates who
seem nearly illiterate. There's concern about the relentless "dumbing down"
of popular culture to suit the "lowest common denominator" of mass interests.
And there's concern that many, if not most, Americans might have become so
ignorant, misinformed, or gullible, particularly on issues of foreign policy,
that they would complacently accept any propaganda that the United States
government cares to feed them. For example, about 70% of the Americans
recently polled believed that Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for
the attacks of 11 September 2001, even though President Bush later admitted
that the United States lacks the evidence to corroborate that hypothesis.

God, I'm ashamed to be of French decendency these days.

You should not need to be ashamed of your French ancestry or of any other
part of your ancestry, for which you could not have been responsible.
In my opinion, it's just as misguided for an American to 'bash' all people in
France as it would be for a Frenchman to 'bash' all people in the United States.

I have family members and friends in the United States. (One of them was a
nearby witness to the fall of the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001.)
I hope that more Americans will be able to learn to accept that considering
honest, thoughtful criticisms is vital for making the United States better,
both for its people and for everyone else.

gens una sumus
--Nick

Right, if the shoe were on the other foot and we had to be liberated from under
the heel of an oppresor, I would want a country such as ourselves to do it. I
can think of such a one right now, but "beggars can not be choosers" can they.

On 18 Oct 2003 02:19:42 GMT, (PJDBAD) wrote:

Right, if the shoe were on the other foot and we had to be liberated from under
the heel of an oppresor, I would want a country such as ourselves to do it. I
can think of such a one right now, but "beggars can not be choosers" can they.

The gentleman's address you are responding to said ".co.uk"

Surely you know what that means so when did your country liberate his?

EVANS LEFT ONE THING OUT

By Larry Parr

In Chess Life, November 2003 (page 9) the following Q&A appeared in Larry Evans
On Chess:

ANYONE CAN PLAY

Charles Panoryan
Fort Lauderdale, Florida

Q. Can people with a felony on their record play in USCF tournaments?

A. Anyone can play unless expelled from the USCF for a chess-related offense.
"Even Hitler should be able to enter an open tournament," said IM Ricardo
Calvo. (FIDE tried to ban him for five years before declaring him 'persona non
grata' for a letter criticizing its leaders published in New in Chess.)

GM Evans forgot to mention that any player who refuses to submit in advance
to a mandatory drug test will be inteligible to play in FIDE events held in
America.

The American Revolution was about the Rights of Englishmen and the natural
contract between those who govern and those who are governed.

The Declaration of Independance wasn't just for America, Canada, and The
British Isles.

(PJDBAD) wrote in rec.games.chess.misc:

The Declaration of Independance wasn't just for America, Canada, and
The British Isles.


And to be honest, it wasn't the the only - nor the first - contract to
regulate civil liberties.


--
CeeBee


Uxbridge: "By God, sir, I've lost my leg!"
Wellington: "By God, sir, so you have!"


Google CeeBee @ www.geocities.com/ceebee_2