Sam Sloan wrote:
On 21 Jun 2005 08:52:34 -0700, "Vince Hart"
wrote:

If Sam lets me know where he is staying, I will pick him up at 9:00 and
take him to Bill's office.

Vince Hart

I do not know where I will be staying and it has been many years since
I visited Chicago, except that I was there for the 1998 US Shogi
Championship.

Kindly recommend to me a place with very reasonable accommodations.

Sam Sloan

I really do not know since I never need accommodations in the city.

From Melrose Pk (even on a Sunday a.m.) I might suggest 8:45 a.m.
rather than 9:00 a.m.

Parking at that time of day should be no problem. A couple hours
later, it gets problematic, because we're in the theatre district.
Don't park under the El b/c of the pigeons :-)

I'll be there by 9:30. If you're there first, there's a coffee shop
downstairs. Security will know you're coming....

http://chicago-hotels.tripadvisor.co..._Illinois.html

Heart O' Chicago is North Side; probably not convenient for Vince in
the a.m.. But even with a $20 cab fare to the site, probably excellent
value. Neighborhood is safe (despite the one paranoid person's
review), and relatives have told me the motel is clean & quiet.

The #22 bus runs 24 hours: to return to hotel after match, walk two
blocks E from my office to Clark St--45 minute bus ride North--two
blocks W from corner of Clark & Ridge to Heart O' Chicago.

**********

alternatives

http://www.sidestep.com/hotel/itiner...itinid=2013376

http://www.sidestep.com/hotel/itiner...itinid=2012722

http://www.sidestep.com/hotel/itiner...itinid=2013381

MONEY

What a situation! The match "arbiter," Vinnie Hart, who has
threatened to try and put Sam in jail, assures us that Bill Brock, who
posts f-word headlines several times daily, will play fair in his
office. This assurance comes from a man who would volunteer to be an
arbiter in the first place in spite of the evident unfairness.

My advice to Sam: Be prepared for verbal abuse and possible physical
jostling when you get up from the board to stretch your legs.. YOU MUST
NOT LET
INTIMIDATION TO SHAKE YOUR GAME OR UNSETTLE YOUR TEMPER. EXPECT IT!

There is nothing in the match rules which prevents posting of
signage attacking you. If there is an audience, there will quite likely
be verbal attacks instigated by Mr. Brock in advance. Sam: I admire
your courage for walking into the lion's den. I understand why you are
doing it -- money.

But there is another way to view the situation. The 500 rode into
the valley of death willingly and bravely, but that did not make the
Charge either intelligent or the enemy praiseworthy. No gloryv
redounded on the enemy in such a slaughter, just as the German
machine-gunners claimed no glory at Loos.

The good news is that the odds are not so stacked against Sam as
they were against either the Light Brigade or the British tommies.
Overall, since Sam accepts the deal, Tyrone and his lads cannot be
faulted. But that does not mean we cannot discuss the objective merits
of the playing conditions.

Here are my worries, and why I agree with Chesstours that an
Internet match is infinitely preferable.

The match arbiter has launched repeated attacks on Sam Sloan
without offering proof of his charges. This is the man who volunteered
to be the arbiter. It speaks volumes about Mr. Hart that he would
offer his services in such a situation. The decent thing to do would
have been to recuse himself.

The office environment will likely be highly hostile. Perhaps
there will be signs in the playing room urging Mr. Brock on against his
favorite "pervert." Anything is possible with the Brock kind of
person.

If an audience is present, one may assume attempts at
intimidation, and that the f-word, Mr. Brock's favorite item of
expression, will be in evidence.

Four games in a single day is vicious and will take a toll on
Sam if the match gets that far. That's why Mr. Brock proposed this
deal: he knows Sam is 60 and hopes either that he will wilt or die.
It is not an example of Chritian charity, but it is an example of Mr.
Brock's sportsmanship.

The match that Should Have Been was Sam Sloan versus NM Taylor
Kingston, a 2300+ Elo tornado.

To be objective, I think that draw odds are probably more of an
edge to Sam than the rating numbers would suggest. And in spite of all
that I have written above, it is by no means obvious that Sam will not
win the match. He has a chance, though the playing field is not level.

Perhaps, once again in an attempt to be objective, all grudge
matches must, by their very nature, be skewed against the party whose
need is greater.

Unfair? Then have Sloan appoint you his agent. This should be done by
a post here.

He may decline by a post here, or by ignoring this post.

Then you and I will re-re-renegotiate the terms (if Sam is alive in
2045, he'll still be trying to get USCF out of Crossville). Make the
terms fairer to Sam. You can even make them more unfair to me (perhaps
I need to win 4-0?). We have time.

Re one of your concerns: if Sloan does not speak to me, I will not
speak to him. Functional communication ("The coffeepot is here"; "This
is the men's room key" etc.) and post-match gloating excluded. I take
my obligations as a host seriously, and I take Article 12 seriously.

We will need to have the terms faxed and signed by all the parties.
The terms must be acceptable to Slothrop--you and Slothrop may
therefore begin the revision without me. I will be the last party to
sign. I would then post a *.pdf of the signed agreement on the web.

But not until tomorrow night circa 9 p.m. CST: I will be offline all
day tomorrow.

VAUDEVILLE SHOW

Much as I would enjoy revisiting all these issues with you, I must
maintain the appearance of impartiality in the upcoming match.
Prosecutor Vince Hart

Thanks for not rising to this bait before the upcoming grudge match plays out. Tyrone Slothrop

For the record, I was responding to a mock letter (see below)
written by Vince Hart AFTER the man became a conscienceless match
"arbiter," which was an evident reference to the Sam Sloan dispute.
There is no appearance of impartiality on Mr. Hart's part -- he
threatened to prosecute Mr. Sloan. Indeed, even AFTER taking the post
of "arbiter," the man could not stop attacking Mr. Sloan.

A normal arbiter would resign immediately after levelling attacks
on one of the participants, which have nothing to do with the match.
Instead Mr. Hart writes about maintaining "the appearance of
impartiality."

Sam has exhibited the model comportment of your classic Christian
sportsman, though Sam is not himself a Christian. He brings to mind in
his gentle yet firm ways an amalgam of Boris Spassky and the great
Scots runner and missionary Eric Liddell. Like St. George he enters
boldly the Den. He fears not. He accepts.

Sam accepts, then, playing in Chicago; he accepts travelling; he
accepts as the playing site the office of his hostile opponent, who has
likely spread the "pervert" charge against him among employees; he
accepts as match "arbiter" someone who has in the past stated he would
try and use the power of the State against him and who continued
attcking him even AFTER accepting the post of arbiter; he accepts match
rules that do not preclude multiple possible abuses against him in the
opponent's office; he accepts at age 60 the killing regimen of a
possible 12 straight hours of chess with no provision for food
mentioned in the match rules; and yes, to be objective, he accepts the
possibility of winning a thousand dollars with draw odds.

I have given a lot of thought to whether this is a legitimate
match.

Given what I have written above, the instant answer would be a
loud "No!" Using normal criteria, one ought to condemn the match as
one played on a severely sloping playing field.

However, Tyrone Slothrop, whoever he is, is right to call it a
grudge match. I think what we have here is a NATURAL match rather than
a fair match. We have a grudge match in which the need of one
participant, Mr. Sloan, is far greater than the need of the other. It
is NATURAL, if not fair, that the arrangements will be skewed to the
advantage of the better-positioned party.

The boxing analogy of a challenger having to lift the title from
a champion in his hometown strikes me as applicable, though Mr. Brock
is no champion, except of the f-word. Plenty of challengers have had
the deck stacked against them (ring size, boxing glove size, gate
percentage, referee, judges, audience, etc.) and they went on to knock
the champion silly.

Sloan vs. Brock is, everything considered, a natural match
rather than a fair one. The arrangements speak immensely ill of f-word
foul Mr. Brock and the conscienceless Mr. Hart. But they are NOT
invalid arrangements thereby.

Tyrone Slothrop, so far as I can see, is just a pre-Don King
boxing promoter who has little say over what the better-positioned
party (in boxing, the champ) may dictate for the conditions. And he
generously donated the lion's share of the purse.

Sloan vs. Brock is, then, a valid matchup, all factors
considered. It meets the standard of a NATURAL contest, which is the
minimum standard.

If there are unpleasant incidents in Mr. Brock's office --
jostling Mr. Sloan or verbally attacking him (with "arbiter" Hart
smiling and failing to notice) -- then my judgment would change. But
as of this writing, we can look forward to entertainment that belongs,
if barely, in the great vaudeville show of life.

VINCE HART'S FAKE POEM

IL PROSECUTOR PROMOTES PUBLIC DRINKING

"By Larry Parr"

Yup, it had to happen. I keep telling ya all, and
no one believes - or
says they believe. Deep in their craniums, they say
"Yes Larry", but
not in public. But circumstances keep a-proving me right.

Our IL Prosecutor was gung-ho with enthusiasm to
label Sam Sloan a
child molester because he did what hundreds of men
have done to little
girls in wartime. There is absolutely no evidence
any crime was ever
committed by Sam Sloan. True, he has been less than
a moral beacon at
times, and I don't want him to date my daughter,
but that doesn't mean
he did anything worse than indulge himself in the
same harmless fashion
that many American businessmen indulged themselves
in during visits to
Southeast Asia in the 1990s.

Now, our moral crusader, the same IL Prosecutor who
was so willing to
prosecute - nay, persecute - our shining star Sam
Sloan, yea, that
same IL Prosecutor, is now offering to get Randy
Bauer the Dirt Farmer
publicly drunk. To make the Dirt Farmer crapulous
may be an effort on
the part of the IL Prosecutor, but hardly a worthy
one. Too, the mind
wonders what other vice-peddling is next? Booz and
blow? Kingston and
chewing gum? And what vice for Our Historian?

Yup, it had to happen. I keep telling ya all, and
no one believes. But
circumstances keep a-proving me right. Our IL
Prosecutor, the moral
judge of Sam Sloan, is a portrait painted
incarnedine.

Vince is sworn to uphold the law, even when dealing with a convicted
felon.

Get back to me on the contract revisions tomorrow night, ganzer Macher.

I have been in the afore mentioned office. It has a nice small room
that serves well as a playing room. There is also other usuable rooms
in the office. Question: will any spectators be allowed into the
office during the match?

Also I would like to know, considering the round times and time control
will there be any snacks available? Is it to be just water and coffee?
I know there is a Walgreens drug store about a block away. This could
be important should a player develop a headache and need some aspirin
or maybe Natrol.

-Larry Cohen



Tyrone Slothrop wrote:
Sam, Bill:

As a sponsor, could I ask that both Sam Sloan and Bill Brock plan to
show up at the game site at the very least by _9:30AM_ on the June
26th, 30 minutes in advance of the start time for Game 1?

This particular sponsor would not like to "pay" to see Game 1 forfeited
only because one of the players didn't show or couldn't find the proper
route from his hotel to the venue in question or didn't anticipate
Chicago traffic or traffic patterns or simply "got lost" or forgot that
there is a timezone change. (Obviously all this applies more to Mr.
Sloan who would be a guest in Chicago!)


Tyrone Slothrop wrote:
Copied from another message.


FIRST ANNUAL RGCP GRUDGE MATCH:
Sloan vs. Brock in Chicago, draw odds to Sloan

MATCH TERMS (ver. 3):

Venue: Offices of William H. Brock, Ltd.
(address found he
http://www.billbrock.net/conta=ADct.html)
Playing room: Bill Brock's 4th floor conference room
Date: June 26, 2005
Match Schedule: Round 1: 10 a.m.
Round 2: 1 p.m.
Round 3: 4 p.m. (if necessary)
Round 4: 7 p.m. (if necessary)
Prize Fund: $1000, Winner takes all
Match Arbiter: ???? (we need an arbiter!)
Match Conditions: Winner is the first person to
2.0 (if Sloan) or 2.5 (if Brock)
Time Controls: G/75 (+ 5" Bronstein)
Match Rules: USCF's Official Rules of Chess,
5th edition
Rules of Note: 1. No cellphones
2. No baby in playing room
3. Baby at venue,outside of playing
room, only if accompanied by another
adult person (e.g., babysitter)
4. Restroom runs only when accompanied
by match arbiter
Other: 1. Sam Sloan will be provided $350-worth
of RT airfare to Chicago and
accommodations for the evening of
June 25, 2005
2. An small honorarium may be supplied
to the arbiter (details to be worked
out)
3. Arbiter would be holder of the $1000
prize fund and would handle the
disbursement thereof
4. Arbiter would enter the moves as
played into ICC
5. Coffee/water to be supplied by Bill
Brock
6. Game scores to be posted to RGCP

Get back to me on the contract revisions tomorrow night, ganzer
Macher. Bill Brock

I am in no sense Sam's "agent."

I have already stipulated that the debate proper does not exist
because Sam has accepted the conditions. But said stipulation does not
mean one cannot offer commentary on the conditions without involving
Sam in the least.