Sandwich shop open Sundays on the ground floor of the bldg.

Will there be a ceremonial ****ing in a cup by both players at the
Opening Ceremony? I wouldn't want this match to ruin our chances of
getting chess into the Olympics.

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...

Kindly recommend to me a place with very reasonable accommodations.

Airport Hilton. Lots of hotels in Rosemont and they all send shuttles.

wrote in message
oups.com...
SAVAGE, HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT

They're going to play for 12 hours, potentially with almost no
breaks. They're going to have to eat at the board. Paul Rubin

I think Sam understands this point and probably will bring
something with him. It's clear the environment. in the office will be
fairly savage. I think he also understands this point.


One of them could eat crow.

Scrod!!!

"StanB" wrote

One of them could eat crow.

My apologies for repeating myself but Google Groups failed to post my
last couple messages. I will be happy to withdraw as arbiter if Sam
has any objection whatsoever. There is no reason for me to recuse
myself absent such objection.

I note that Senior Tournament Director Larry Cohen has expressed an
interest in being a spectator. Perhaps Sam would prefer him to act as
arbiter. I would still be willing to give Sam a ride to Bill's office,
but I would be happy to find something else to do on Sunday.

Vince Hart




wrote:
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.

" writes:
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.

I agree that the match schedule appears to be nuts. What I don't
remember is who challenged who in the first place. Traditionally the
challenger doesn't get to choose the match conditions beyond appealing
to the onlookers' sense of fairness if the chalengee wants something
unreasonable. But Brock seems to have claimed the right to choose
most of the particulars we've seen so far for this match. Unless it
was Sloan who threw out the original challenge, these conditions seem
unreasonable and it would have been better to postpone the match until
a 2-day schedule could be worked out.

The last round is at 7pm, iirc. Is that sandwich shop open til 10pm
on Sunday?

wrote:
The conference room seats six comfortably (barely); however, it is a
narrow room, and from the POV of players' comfort, there is probably
not room for more than the arbiter and one additional spectator at a
time.

So I leave this to my opponent, the arbiter, & Slothrop to decide.

Actually, I only wanted a OTB grudge match. I have put my money where
my mouth is. In fact, sent it out today in Express Mail. (Look for it
tomorrow Bill) I don't need to be involved in deciding anything
further. The view of the players and arbiter should govern in this and
other matters.

Now I get to be a just a spectator.

In my "opinion" however, I think it would be nice if spectators were
allowed. However, it doesn't seem like there is much space for them.
And the comfort of the players should not be sacrificed in order to
have spectators. Perhaps it might be nice to allow two spectators
though. Larry Cohen has already expressed interest to be one of them.
Kevin might be interested also. With Vince, that makes three others
besides the players. One of them should also to double as the ICC
move-amanuensis. I don't know the layout of your conference room.
Could you put spectators in the doorway? Or both spectators in a
corner? Could you move a smaller table into the conference room?

Most spectators will be on ICC. That is why I think an ICC simulcast
is important. And will be interesting. Especially to see the
kibitzing. I imagine that one or more of the kibitzers will be running
the moves through Fritz or Shredder, so the kibitzing there should be
pretty interesting.

These are only ideas. Again, the decision of the players and arbiter
should govern with regards to room, comfort, etc.

Also, part of my library is in this room, including one full bookcase
of chess books. I could put a piece of tape over the spines of each
shelf, or I could temporarily unshelve the entire bookcase & remove
from the room. Either is fine.

Yikes! A bookcase of chessbook! In the playing room! ummm... Ok.
My opinion: Perhaps you could put some paper over the entire open face
of the bookcase? Wouldn't want players to get some hints/ideas by
looking at the names of the books.

Again, mine is only my opinion. Arbiter should weigh in on this one.

My total office is 2,050 SF; However, my thought was to restrict access
to most of the office during play **for both players** because of
computers etc. (Disclosu I do have Fritz/ChessBase on a machine or
two.) Other that the playing area, unrestricted space would include
the reception areal and the kitchen/file room.

My opinion again is that during games, no player (or spectator) should
have access to the computers, except to the one computer being used by
the one spectator for entering moves into ICC. And this one computer
(or laptop) should be positioned so that neither player can see it or
what is being kibitzed on ICC about the in-progress game. The other
computers in your office should be left off, if possible.

And I agree with you Bill that definitely during an in-progress game,
there should be no unsupervised bathroom breaks. So everyone should
endeavor to do what they have to do in the breaks between games.

The players should discuss with the arbiter all these points though.

offline today

I've decided to offer a special (smallish) prize for the single best
game. I've sent that also off to Chicago with my pledge of $680. It
would be nice if the players and arbiter could decide beforehand how
this will be judged.

----

Speaking of the pledge, something else totally escaped my mind until
now. By tomorrow afternoon, there should be $1350 in Chicago from all
the sponsors. $1000 is for the prize fund and $350 of this (from myself
and Lance Smith's sponsor) is for Sam Sloan's travel and accommodation.
How will Sam Sloan get ahold of this?

Sam: we should hear from you on whether you will be able to get to
Chicago yourself and just take this travel allowance from the arbiter
on Sunday, or whether special arrangements need to be made in advance
in order for you to even purchase an airline ticket.


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

I think both players are completely capable of agreeing on terms and
such questions as whether Vince, Kevin, or Larry should be arbiter, and
who then will be the ICC move-amanuensis, etc. There is no reason for
an arbiter to recuse himself if the players themselves are content with
the choice.

In my opinion, so far, I've heard a lot of complaints about match
conditions flying around, from Larry Parr to Paul Rubin to Neil
Brennan. But nothing from the players themselves. I think all of this
sniping at the match terms is meaningless, unless it is what the
players themselves think.

I call on each player, Bill and Sam, to express any dissatisfaction
they may be harboring in their chest over match terms & conditions.
And if so, it is possible something can be done to address concerns in
the few days remaining.

I call on all second-guesser to give the players the "space" to play
some chess.

And I call on the players on Sunday, to show us some Chess - the best
you can give.

Vince Hart wrote:
My apologies for repeating myself but Google Groups failed to post my
last couple messages. I will be happy to withdraw as arbiter if Sam
has any objection whatsoever. There is no reason for me to recuse
myself absent such objection.

I note that Senior Tournament Director Larry Cohen has expressed an
interest in being a spectator. Perhaps Sam would prefer him to act as
arbiter. I would still be willing to give Sam a ride to Bill's office,
but I would be happy to find something else to do on Sunday.

Vince Hart




wrote:
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.