On 21 Dec 2003 13:03:34 GMT, (Miriling) wrote:

In the view of Grandmaster Nigel Short, Sam Sloan is a chess journalist.
Responding on December 16 in the ChessCafe.com Bulletin Board to a discussion
of the late GM Tony Miles, Short comments about Miles' actions at the 1986
Chess Olympiad in Dubai, where Miles, a member of the team selection committee
put himself on top board for England, even though he was ranked at the time no
higher than fourth among British players and Short was England's top-rated
player.
Short writes:
"After the American chess journalist, Sam Sloan, accused Miles in the bulletin
of having abused his authority, Miles punched him to the ground."
GM Short is not the only one who considers Sloan a chess journalist. There are
many others, including myself, who also view him as one.

George Mirijanian

Thank you for pointing out this article by Short, as I had not seen
it.

In the first place, I certainly was an "American Chess Journalist" at
the time of this article. I was working for a newspaper, The Gulf
News, and writing daily reports on the World Chess Olympiad which then
taking place in Dubai.

Here is what Short writes, as published in the Telegraph at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main...2F11%2F30%2Fch
:

"Moving on to Mr Horton's point : The Dubai Olympiad in late 1986
was, in my opinion, a pivotal moment in Tony's career. He had been
Britain's number one for around a decade or so but by then it was
clear to most people apart from himself that his time was up. On the
most recent July 1st 1986 rating list I was rated 2615 (ninth in the
world) Nunn 2590 (sixteenth) and Miles 2570 (equal twenty-fourth). I
might add that I had become Britain's first ever Candidate the
previous year, a feat Tony never achieved. Nevertheless I found myself
playing on board 3 behind Miles (1) and Nunn (2) , both of whom,
incidentally, were on the selection committee (I wasn't). Garry
Kasparov, for one, was speechless when I informed him that he would
not be facing me. After the American chess journalist , Sam Sloan,
accused Miles in the bulletin of having abused his authority, Miles
punched him to the ground. This was clearly a touchy subject. England
eventually won the silver medals. Miles scored an unimpressive 4½/9 on
board 1 whereas I won the gold medal on board three."

What actually happened is as follows:

Nigel Short was playing third board for England even though Short was
ranked number nine in the world and the two players above him were
ranked below him on the world ranking list.

In the match England vs. USA, Short was playing Lubamir Kavalek. I
happened to walk up to Jon Tisdall who was covering the Olympiad for
UPI and asked him why Short was playing Board Three. Tisdall
wisecracked: "Whoever shouts the loudest gets the highest board."

Short crushed Kavalek in fine style and I decided to use that game as
a feature in my chess column the following morning. In my lead-up to
the game I wrote:

"The English are said to have a very rational system for selecting
board order. Whoever shouts the loudest gets the highest board. That
is the reason why Nigel Short, who is ranked ninth in the world, is
playing board three for England. Here is his game yesterday against
Kavalek".

My remark was just a newspaper columnist's quip. I did not think
anything about it. I did not even think about who was on board one or
two for England.

The hosts to the Olympiad had set up a bar across from the playing
hall with drinking and dancing available. I did not usually go to the
bar but I did the following night which I believe was a rest day.

I was sitting next to David Goodman, the AP Reporter from England.
Tony Miles came up to me and said, "Are you the person who wrote the
chess collumn in the Gulf News yesterday?"

Thinking that he was going to congratulate me for my fine work, I
replied "Yes, I am."

He immediately slapped me very hard.

I am a big boy. I went to a tough school where I was often hit. So, I
did not cry or anything like that. However, several other people at
the table where we were sitting became hysterical, especially David
Goodman who was sitting right next to me. I do not remember who else
was at the table, but the table was full of chess journalists and
famous chess personalities.

I started asking the others why Miles had slapped me. I could not
understand it. I had not written anything, good or bad, about Miles. I
had not even mentioned his name.

Finally, it was explained to me. I had written, "The English are said
to have a very rational system for selecting board order. Whoever
shouts the loudest gets the highest board."

Tony Miles was playing first board for England. Therefore, he had
taken my remark as a personal insult.

At the time, I did not remember where I had heard this. I knew that
somebody had said this, but I did not remember that it was Tisdall.
So, I asked around. I remembered speaking to Tisdall that day, so I
asked him.

"Yea, I said that", was Tisdall's reply.

I still would like to know: Was Tisdall's quip, which I published
without attribution in the Gulf News, based on his actual knowledge of
the situation in England, or was it just a sarcastic remark or a joke?

Sam Sloan

I still would like to know: Was Tisdall's quip, which I published
without attribution in the Gulf News, based on his actual knowledge of
the situation in England, or was it just a sarcastic remark or a joke?

Considering the fact that you have been slapped by this person, there is at
least some circumstantial evidence that this postulation may have some truth

(Sam Sloan) wrote in message ...
On 21 Dec 2003 13:03:34 GMT, (Miriling) wrote:

In the first place, I certainly was an "American Chess Journalist" Sam Sloan

Who do you write for?

"Sam Sloan" wrote

(Miriling) wrote:
In the view of Grandmaster Nigel Short, Sam Sloan is a chess journalist.
Responding on December 16 in the ChessCafe.com Bulletin Board to a discussion
of the late GM Tony Miles, Short comments about Miles' actions at the 1986
Chess Olympiad in Dubai, where Miles, a member of the team selection committee
put himself on top board for England, even though he was ranked at the time no
higher than fourth among British players and Short was England's top-rated
player.
Short writes:
"After the American chess journalist, Sam Sloan, accused Miles in the bulletin
of having abused his authority, Miles punched him to the ground."
GM Short is not the only one who considers Sloan a chess journalist. There are
many others, including myself, who also view him as one.


Thank you for pointing out this article by Short, as I had not seen
it.

In the first place, I certainly was an "American Chess Journalist" at
the time of this article. I was working for a newspaper, The Gulf
News, and writing daily reports on the World Chess Olympiad which then
taking place in Dubai.

Here is what Short writes, as published in the Telegraph at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main...2F11%2F30%2Fch
:
"Moving on to Mr Horton's point : The Dubai Olympiad in late 1986
was, in my opinion, a pivotal moment in Tony's career. He had been
Britain's number one for around a decade or so but by then it was
clear to most people apart from himself that his time was up. On the
most recent July 1st 1986 rating list I was rated 2615 (ninth in the
world) Nunn 2590 (sixteenth) and Miles 2570 (equal twenty-fourth). I
might add that I had become Britain's first ever Candidate the
previous year, a feat Tony never achieved. Nevertheless I found myself
playing on board 3 behind Miles (1) and Nunn (2) , both of whom,
incidentally, were on the selection committee (I wasn't). Garry
Kasparov, for one, was speechless when I informed him that he would
not be facing me. After the American chess journalist , Sam Sloan,
accused Miles in the bulletin of having abused his authority, Miles
punched him to the ground. This was clearly a touchy subject. England
eventually won the silver medals. Miles scored an unimpressive 4½/9 on
board 1 whereas I won the gold medal on board three."


Sam, take note of this point forward. See below.

What actually happened is as follows:

Nigel Short was playing third board for England even though Short was
ranked number nine in the world and the two players above him were
ranked below him on the world ranking list.

In the match England vs. USA, Short was playing Lubamir Kavalek. I
happened to walk up to Jon Tisdall who was covering the Olympiad for
UPI and asked him why Short was playing Board Three. Tisdall
wisecracked: "Whoever shouts the loudest gets the highest board."

Short crushed Kavalek in fine style and I decided to use that game as
a feature in my chess column the following morning. In my lead-up to
the game I wrote:

"The English are said to have a very rational system for selecting
board order. Whoever shouts the loudest gets the highest board. That
is the reason why Nigel Short, who is ranked ninth in the world, is
playing board three for England. Here is his game yesterday against
Kavalek".

My remark was just a newspaper columnist's quip. I did not think
anything about it. I did not even think about who was on board one or
two for England.

The hosts to the Olympiad had set up a bar across from the playing
hall with drinking and dancing available. I did not usually go to the
bar but I did the following night which I believe was a rest day.

I was sitting next to David Goodman, the AP Reporter from England.
Tony Miles came up to me and said, "Are you the person who wrote the
chess collumn in the Gulf News yesterday?"

Thinking that he was going to congratulate me for my fine work, I
replied "Yes, I am."

He immediately slapped me very hard.

I am a big boy. I went to a tough school where I was often hit. So, I
did not cry or anything like that. However, several other people at
the table where we were sitting became hysterical, especially David
Goodman who was sitting right next to me. I do not remember who else
was at the table, but the table was full of chess journalists and
famous chess personalities.

I started asking the others why Miles had slapped me. I could not
understand it. I had not written anything, good or bad, about Miles. I
had not even mentioned his name.

Finally, it was explained to me. I had written, "The English are said
to have a very rational system for selecting board order. Whoever
shouts the loudest gets the highest board."

Tony Miles was playing first board for England. Therefore, he had
taken my remark as a personal insult.

At the time, I did not remember where I had heard this. I knew that
somebody had said this, but I did not remember that it was Tisdall.
So, I asked around. I remembered speaking to Tisdall that day, so I
asked him.

"Yea, I said that", was Tisdall's reply.

Sam, from the previous mark, this writing of yours is lucid, concise and actually makes sense. I enjoyed reading it. If your posts
always followed this type of structure, you would not receive as much guff on this forum as you normally do. Based on this, you may
actually have a talent for written communication, provided the related incidents are actually true, which I have no reason to doubt
(other than previous experience reading your stuff). Even if not true, as fiction it is quite readable.


I still would like to know: Was Tisdall's quip, which I published
without attribution in the Gulf News, based on his actual knowledge of
the situation in England, or was it just a sarcastic remark or a joke?

Sam Sloan

Yet the last paragraph is a microcosm of your ineptitude. Are you really naive enough to assume that such an outlandish statement
is fact? The average ten year old has better grasp of irony than this. Are you so unprofessional as to not check out such a
comment before publishing it, given the inflammatory aspect and the fact that you insinuated it to be true? You said yourself it
was a wisecrack, man, and that it was just a quip. Leave it at that! It is this type of thing that makes people think of
derogatory words to describe you: Sleaze; Scum; Slimebag. Why do you court this type of image?

REC

"sandirhodes" wrote in
message news:gXrFb.14813$PK3.2455@okepread01...(to Sam Sloan):
"Sam Sloan" wrote
(snipped)
I still would like to know: Was Tisdall's quip, which I published
without attribution in the Gulf News, based on his actual knowledge of
the situation in England, or was it just a sarcastic remark or a joke?
Sam Sloan

Yet the last paragraph is a microcosm of your ineptitude. Are you
really naive enough to assume that such an outlandish statement is fact?
The average ten year old has better grasp of irony than this.
Are you so unprofessional as to not check out such a comment before
publishing it, given the inflammatory aspect and the fact that you
insinuated it to be true?

Evidently, Sam Sloan *is* 'so unprofessional'. Here's another example:

In the thread, "John Fernandez and Yermonlinsky, long lost brothers?"
(30 March 2003), Sam Sloan wrote (the spelling errors are his, not mine):
"There was an indicent (sic) years ago where the player who won the British
Chess Championship was not allowed to play on the British Team in the
Olympiad, so he sent his championship trophy back to the BCF in the mail.
I think the name of the player was Botterwell (sic). Do you remember that?
Do you think that the Botterwells of the world should be entitled to compete
in the World Chess Olympiad?"

For the record, IM George Botterill was not involved in any incident such as
that described by Sam Sloan. But Sam Sloan rushed to circulate that allegation
without even troubling to check the facts, including the correct spelling
of IM Botterill's name.

As a 'chess journalist', Sam Sloan's standards of accuracy and fairness
leave something to be desired. And that's an example of my diplomatic
understatement.

You said yourself it was a wisecrack, man, and that it was just a quip.
Leave it at that! It is this type of thing that makes people think of
derogatory words to describe you: Sleaze; Scum; Slimebag.
Why do you court this type of image?

One hypothesis is that Sam Sloan might have a flaw in his character.
I suspect that Sam Sloan really cannot help himself improve his 'image'.

On occasion, Sam Sloan can write something that's factual, relevant, and
even tasteful, yet even a stopped clock will be right twice per day, perhaps
more frequently than Sloan. 'Every dog has his day', and someday Peter Leko
really will stay dead. interdum stultus bene loquitur

--Nick

On 22 Dec 2003 09:29:57 -0800, (Nick) wrote:

"sandirhodes" wrote in
message news:gXrFb.14813$PK3.2455@okepread01...(to Sam Sloan):
"Sam Sloan" wrote
(snipped)
I still would like to know: Was Tisdall's quip, which I published
without attribution in the Gulf News, based on his actual knowledge of
the situation in England, or was it just a sarcastic remark or a joke?
Sam Sloan

Yet the last paragraph is a microcosm of your ineptitude. Are you
really naive enough to assume that such an outlandish statement is fact?
The average ten year old has better grasp of irony than this.
Are you so unprofessional as to not check out such a comment before
publishing it, given the inflammatory aspect and the fact that you
insinuated it to be true?

Evidently, Sam Sloan *is* 'so unprofessional'. Here's another example:

In the thread, "John Fernandez and Yermonlinsky, long lost brothers?"
(30 March 2003), Sam Sloan wrote (the spelling errors are his, not mine):
"There was an indicent (sic) years ago where the player who won the British
Chess Championship was not allowed to play on the British Team in the
Olympiad, so he sent his championship trophy back to the BCF in the mail.
I think the name of the player was Botterwell (sic). Do you remember that?
Do you think that the Botterwells of the world should be entitled to compete
in the World Chess Olympiad?"

For the record, IM George Botterill was not involved in any incident such as
that described by Sam Sloan. But Sam Sloan rushed to circulate that allegation
without even troubling to check the facts, including the correct spelling
of IM Botterill's name.

Yes, but this incident occur and the only difference was the name of
the player.

I wrote "I think the name of the player was Botterwell." I said, "I
think". I did not say that I know. This is after all just a discussion
group. The correct name of the player was later provided by somebody
else. It might have been Dr. Fazekas but again I do not know.

Sam Sloan

(Sam Sloan) wrote in
message ...
On 22 Dec 2003 09:29:57 -0800, (Nick) wrote:
"sandirhodes" wrote in
message news:gXrFb.14813$PK3.2455@okepread01...(to Sam Sloan):
"Sam Sloan" wrote
(snipped)
I still would like to know: Was Tisdall's quip, which I published
without attribution in the Gulf News, based on his actual knowledge of
the situation in England, or was it just a sarcastic remark or a joke?
Sam Sloan

Yet the last paragraph is a microcosm of your ineptitude. Are you
really naive enough to assume that such an outlandish statement is fact?
The average ten year old has better grasp of irony than this.
Are you so unprofessional as to not check out such a comment before
publishing it, given the inflammatory aspect and the fact that you
insinuated it to be true?

Evidently, Sam Sloan *is* 'so unprofessional'. Here's another example:

In the thread, "John Fernandez and Yermonlinsky, long lost brothers?"
(30 March 2003), Sam Sloan wrote (the spelling errors are his, not mine):
"There was an indicent (sic) years ago where the player who won the British
Chess Championship was not allowed to play on the British Team in the
Olympiad, so he sent his championship trophy back to the BCF in the mail.
I think the name of the player was Botterwell (sic). Do you remember that?
Do you think that the Botterwells of the world should be entitled to compete
in the World Chess Olympiad?"

For the record, IM George Botterill was not involved in any incident such
as that described by Sam Sloan. But Sam Sloan rushed to circulate that
allegation without even troubling to check the facts, including the correct
spelling of IM Botterill's name.

Yes, but this incident occur and the only difference was the name of
the player.

That's evidence of Sam Sloan's standards as a 'chess journalist'.

Welcome to the unique world of "Planet Sam".
Here might be a headline from the popular tabloid, "The Planet Sam Crimes":
"President Kennedy was Assassinated by Sam Sloan!!!"
(more revealing details inside after the section with photos of nude women)

Here might be a dialogue between Sam Sloan and the tabloid's editor:
SS: I'm going to sue you for libel! Even if I have been disbarred!
Ed: Why us?
SS: You published something that's not true about me! Shame on you!
Ed: But the 'incident (did) occur and the only difference was the name'.

I wrote "I think the name of the player was Botterwell."
I said, "I think". I did not say that I know.

Sam Sloan did not have to mention anyone's name at all.
(How many 'facts' could Sam Sloan 'know' without doing any 'thinking'?)

This is after all just a discussion group.

Sam Sloan could have *asked*: "Does anyone know this player's name?"

The correct name of the player was later provided by somebody else.
It might have been Dr. Fazekas but again I do not know.

Mr. Sloan, when you don't know something, please don't write as though you do
know it. And if that means that you hardly will be able to write at all as
a 'chess journalist', then please consider that fiction might be a more
promising field for your evident literary talents.

--Nick

(Sam Sloan) wrote in
message ...
On 22 Dec 2003 09:29:57 -0800, (Nick) wrote:
"sandirhodes" wrote in
message news:gXrFb.14813$PK3.2455@okepread01...(to Sam Sloan):
"Sam Sloan" wrote
(snipped)
I still would like to know: Was Tisdall's quip, which I published
without attribution in the Gulf News, based on his actual knowledge of
the situation in England, or was it just a sarcastic remark or a joke?
Sam Sloan

Yet the last paragraph is a microcosm of your ineptitude. Are you
really naive enough to assume that such an outlandish statement is fact?
The average ten year old has better grasp of irony than this.
Are you so unprofessional as to not check out such a comment before
publishing it, given the inflammatory aspect and the fact that you
insinuated it to be true?

Evidently, Sam Sloan *is* 'so unprofessional'. Here's another example:

In the thread, "John Fernandez and Yermonlinsky, long lost brothers?"
(30 March 2003), Sam Sloan wrote (the spelling errors are his, not mine):
"There was an indicent (sic) years ago where the player who won the British
Chess Championship was not allowed to play on the British Team in the
Olympiad, so he sent his championship trophy back to the BCF in the mail.
I think the name of the player was Botterwell (sic). Do you remember that?
Do you think that the Botterwells of the world should be entitled to compete
in the World Chess Olympiad?"

For the record, IM George Botterill was not involved in any incident such
as that described by Sam Sloan. But Sam Sloan rushed to circulate that
allegation without even troubling to check the facts, including the correct
spelling of IM Botterill's name.

Yes, but this incident occur and the only difference was the name of
the player.

That's evidence of Sam Sloan's standards as a 'chess journalist'.

Welcome to the unique world of "Planet Sam".
Here might be a headline from the popular tabloid, "The Planet Sam Crimes":
"President Kennedy was Assassinated by Sam Sloan!!!"
(more revealing details inside after the section with photos of nude women)

Here might be a dialogue between Sam Sloan and the tabloid's editor:
SS: I'm going to sue you for libel! Even if I have been disbarred!
Ed: Why us?
SS: You published something that's not true about me! Shame on you!
Ed: But the 'incident (did) occur and the only difference was the name'.

I wrote "I think the name of the player was Botterwell."
I said, "I think". I did not say that I know.

Sam Sloan did not have to mention anyone's name at all.
(How many 'facts' could Sam Sloan 'know' without doing any 'thinking'?)

This is after all just a discussion group.

Sam Sloan could have *asked*: "Does anyone know this player's name?"

The correct name of the player was later provided by somebody else.
It might have been Dr. Fazekas but again I do not know.

Mr. Sloan, when you don't know something, please don't write as though you do
know it. And if that means that you hardly will be able to write at all as
a 'chess journalist', then please consider that fiction might be a more
promising field for your evident literary talents.

--Nick