wrote:
"...Who amongst our motley group of Class A players wouldn't love to
take a shot at beating Haasie and earning carte blanche to make
him NOT post anything about Mensa for a month/year/lifetime?..."
(Matt)
============
I wouldn't play under those circumstances.

Old Haasie

C'mon, Haasie! We'll never get another grand donated as the prize fund
so we have to play for stakes of honor. We'll call it "The
Anti-Idiosyncracy Clause" in future RGCP matches. If we DO get money,
well, then we can just add that as a kicker.

Regards,

Matt

Louis Blair wrote:
Dr. Blair, you interested?

Game One

White: Louis Blair
Black: Neil Brennen

1. I resign.

Game Two

White: Neil Brennen
Black: Louis Blair

1. e4 I resign.

Game Three

White: Louis Blair
Black: Neil Brennen

1. I resign

Now, where is my $100 appearance fee?

Shutouts have to put up the prize fund for next years match out of
their own pockets. Get out your wallet.

Regards,

Matt

Sloan was the winner long before he pushed his g pawn, simply by
getting Bill Brock to 'overlook' his true nature. I don't see why we
need to set aside right and wrong for the sake of a little glorified
skittles.

I am an imperfect human being, but I *try* to live a principled life.

I believe one can be principled and get one's hands dirty, too. (And
boy, they got dirty.)

Here's what I was & am trying to do:

1. Dramatize the fact (OK, assertion) that Parr & Sloan have sown an
inordinate share of the bad karma in USCF for more than a decade. I
hear preemption is fashionable these days--I launched a fact-based
strike that did to Sloan what he has done to others, in spades.

2. Ask folks not to fall into the Larry Parr "let's you and him fight"
trap, but to work together. In elections, candidates should debate the
issues with a view towards keeping the working relationship
intact--it's natural for elections to have winners & losers, and the
common interests of both should outweigh the differences. (In this
election cycle, the board members almost ripped each others' throats
out--would that have been good for USCF? Fortunately, they reached a
last-minute compromise.)

I'm just a shmo--not even a USCF delegate, just an alternate--so how
could I get folks to listen to my message? Our hero Slothrop came
along, and I jumped at the opportunity....

This was performance art.

Did the Board members follow the goings on? You bet.

Will it have a positive effect? We'll see.

"What if we were competing for Tampa Bay's USCF metro district funds
for FY 2006? :-)"

(Douglas)
============
The Metro Districts would be a good platform for team play. Imagine
teams of 4 representing their areas.. top four rated players being that
District's A Team. Each District could enter a B Team and so on. Each
year we could have a US Team Olympiad.
I think it would be interesting to see matches among A Teams such as
New York vs Los Angeles, Chicago vs Philadelphia, San Francisco-Oakland
vs Miami-Ft. Lauderdale, Detroit vs Atlanta, and so on.
A lot of neat things could be done with the Metro Districts... if we
had Metro Districts. But we don't have them.
If I ran the Federation my way, we'd have a Federation like no other
in the world.. and one you could be proud of.

Old Haasie

Matt Nemmers wrote:
The Historian wrote:
Matt Nemmers wrote:
The Historian wrote:

You are assuming, Matt, that the people who argue on here don't really
mean what they write.

How do you get that out of my post, Neil?

You are assuming people will be willing to set aside strongly-held
positions in order to toss some plastic pieces around.

Despite Jerry's being a paranoid conspiracy theorist on the fringe of
lunacy, I wouldn't mind spending a few hours across a chessboard from
him in the quest of crushing him intellectually.

I unfortunately agree with you about Mr. Bibuld's fondness for
conspiracy theory, but I wouldn't consider your beating him at chess to
be "crushing him intellectually". Besides, I think that rather supports
my point - as warped as you consider his views to be, you aren't
sickened by them.

Besides, not agreeing with someone on certain issues doesn't rule out
the possibility of amiable contact, maybe even friendship.

Oh, this is agreed. I've even met Oxfordians for lunch.

Randy Bauer
is a great guy I've met, corresponded with, and voted for in two EB
elections -- I like him DESPITE his being a Democrat. Some here would
lump me into the "war-mongering, super-patriot" pile they've lumped
Booz & Hanke -- some have already, but it's company I wouldn't mind
keeping -- and wouldn't sit down across from me just because they're
against the war in Iraq and I'm not. So be it. Little people, they
are.

I don't think you are getting my point, Matt. No one you've mentioned
is a child pornographer - or worse.

Sloan was the winner long before he pushed his g
pawn, simply by getting Bill Brock to 'overlook' his true nature.

And that would be....?

When was the last time you willing shared space with a "kiddie-f*cker",
Matt?

I don't see why we need to set aside right and wrong for the sake of a
little glorified skittles.

Dr. Freud, I think you're reading between the lines a bit much here.


When was the last time you willing shared space with a "kiddie-f*cker",
Matt?

The point, Neil -- one that you apparently missed in Brock's thread
"Life is funny...." -- was that chess is a great unifier. Even if
you're light-years apart morally, intellectually, politically,
whatever....if you play chess with someone you tend to view them more
as a human instead of the personification of a bunch of words written
on a computer screen you don't agree with. I played a three-minute
game with Jerzy Ciruk today in between the first and second round of
the Brock-Sloan match and enjoyed it quite a bit. I got crushed, but
he was cool and we both have a common interest. Jerzy and I don't
agree on much, if anything, but we both like to play chess and can
enjoy each other's company while engaged in a game.

And I should point out that people can always change their minds or
change their ways. I certainly hope you wouldn't condemn someone
forever for a previous slight or misunderstanding.

Matt, you are completely clueless, or willfully ignoring my point. I
suggest you and Bill Brock start searching he
http://www.registeredoffenderslist.org/?engine=adwords!3475&keyword=%2Asex+offenders%2A&m atch_type=
for Bill's next match opponent. After all, chess is great unifier!

Might be an interesting game.

It very well may be. Dr. Blair, you interested?

I'd like to see that.

Regards,

Matt

Louis Blair wrote:
Dr. Blair, you interested?

Game One

White: Louis Blair
Black: Neil Brennen

1. I resign.

Game Two

White: Neil Brennen
Black: Louis Blair

1. e4 I resign.

Game Three

White: Louis Blair
Black: Neil Brennen

1. I resign

Now, where is my $100 appearance fee?

And mine!

wrote:
Sloan was the winner long before he pushed his g pawn, simply by
getting Bill Brock to 'overlook' his true nature. I don't see why we
need to set aside right and wrong for the sake of a little glorified
skittles.

I am an imperfect human being, but I *try* to live a principled life.

I believe one can be principled and get one's hands dirty, too. (And
boy, they got dirty.)

I don't question your principles, only why you abandoned them.

Here's what I was & am trying to do:

1. Dramatize the fact (OK, assertion) that Parr & Sloan have sown an
inordinate share of the bad karma in USCF for more than a decade. I
hear preemption is fashionable these days--I launched a fact-based
strike that did to Sloan what he has done to others, in spades.

Unfortunately, that's not what happened.

2. Ask folks not to fall into the Larry Parr "let's you and him fight"
trap, but to work together. In elections, candidates should debate the
issues with a view towards keeping the working relationship
intact--it's natural for elections to have winners & losers, and the
common interests of both should outweigh the differences. (In this
election cycle, the board members almost ripped each others' throats
out--would that have been good for USCF? Fortunately, they reached a
last-minute compromise.)

I'm just a shmo--not even a USCF delegate, just an alternate--so how
could I get folks to listen to my message? Our hero Slothrop came
along, and I jumped at the opportunity....

This was performance art.

Did the Board members follow the goings on? You bet.

Everyone loves a bout of pig-wrestling. At the end of the day the pig
remains a pig. You, however, have gotten dirty.

Will it have a positive effect? We'll see.

The Historian wrote:

I unfortunately agree with you about Mr. Bibuld's fondness for
conspiracy theory, but I wouldn't consider your beating him at chess to
be "crushing him intellectually".

Maybe not, but you can't deny the brief feeling of superiority when you
checkmate someone or tip their king to yours in somber resignation.

Besides, I think that rather supports
my point - as warped as you consider his views to be, you aren't
sickened by them.

Au contraire, mon frere. I *AM* sickened by MANY of ol' Jerry's views
and I think my posts in reply to many of his underscore that statement
rather nicely. Go back and check out our argument when Jerry said that
"anyone with a *.mil email address didn't deserve to live" or some such
bile.

I don't think you are getting my point, Matt. No one you've mentioned
is a child pornographer - or worse.

I understand that, but that's irrelevant to the point Bill made. The
point that, emotionally, it's harder to hate someone after you've
played chess with them. I understand that mentality and agree with it.

Matt, you are completely clueless, or willfully ignoring my point. I
suggest you and Bill Brock start searching he
http://www.registeredoffenderslist.org/?engine=adwords!3475&keyword=%2Asex+offenders%2A&m atch_type=
for Bill's next match opponent. After all, chess is great unifier!

I don't know when you became the Official RGCP Moral Compass and
started dictating who can or should play who in a game of chess, Neil,
but I suggest you at least TRY to understand my original point before
dubbing ME "clueless."

Regards,

Matt

Matt Nemmers wrote:
The Historian wrote:

I unfortunately agree with you about Mr. Bibuld's fondness for
conspiracy theory, but I wouldn't consider your beating him at chess to
be "crushing him intellectually".

Maybe not, but you can't deny the brief feeling of superiority when you
checkmate someone or tip their king to yours in somber resignation.

I'm sorry, but I don't ever recall such feelings of superiority. Then
again, I don't play competatively for just that reason.

Besides, I think that rather supports
my point - as warped as you consider his views to be, you aren't
sickened by them.

Au contraire, mon frere. I *AM* sickened by MANY of ol' Jerry's views
and I think my posts in reply to many of his underscore that statement
rather nicely. Go back and check out our argument when Jerry said that
"anyone with a *.mil email address didn't deserve to live" or some such
bile.

Then I question why you want to play chess with the man.

I don't think you are getting my point, Matt. No one you've mentioned
is a child pornographer - or worse.

I understand that, but that's irrelevant to the point Bill made. The
point that, emotionally, it's harder to hate someone after you've
played chess with them. I understand that mentality and agree with it.

Matt, you are completely clueless, or willfully ignoring my point. I
suggest you and Bill Brock start searching he
http://www.registeredoffenderslist.org/?engine=adwords!3475&keyword=%2Asex+offenders%2A&m atch_type=
for Bill's next match opponent. After all, chess is great unifier!

I don't know when you became the Official RGCP Moral Compass and
started dictating who can or should play who in a game of chess, Neil,

Oh, I'm not dictating, I'm criticizing people who call others
"kiddie-f*ckers" and show their contempt by playing chess for money
with them.

but I suggest you at least TRY to understand my original point before
dubbing ME "clueless."

Regards,

Matt