.....who would the players be?

This year Sam could've played just about *anybody* since he has so many
detractors on here, but I have to admit that Bill Brock didn't really
spring to mind as the top contendah. That he had the stones and the
cash to git'r dun speaks well for him (even if he lost) to put a
challenge on the table and follow through.

But because Bill and Sloan are within 150 or so rating points made it a
good match and interesting to watch. I wonder though, how many RGCP
opponents would make for a good match-up OTB? They'd have to have a
LOT of disagreements (or one or two very heated discussions) on RGCP
but be relatively close in playing strength (say, 200 rating points or
less) to make it interesting. Who would they be? Let's see.....

Taylor Kingston vs. Larry Parr:
Nobody knows Parr's rating, but rumors abound that it's somewhere in
the early 1900s, much like his birthdate. Kingston's a class A player
according to the USCF
(http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12360630) so this would
definitely qualify as a tight match given all their recent banter
back-and-forth.

Matt Nemmers vs. Jerry Bibuld:
Both Jerry and I are B-players and Lord knows we hold no love for one
another, so this would qualify, too. Stan Booz may want first dibs
though and that match would be worth watching as well.

Neil Brennen vs. Louis Blair:
The Historian is 1572 and The Blair-bot is 1611; another good match-up.


Kevin Bachler vs. Vince Hart:
Kevin's a master and Vince is a strong 'A' player, but the Caveman
hasn't played a rated game in almost two years and Vince has been
active forever. Maybe we could let this one slide in the hopes that
Kev's inactivity will hurt his game and make it a little better match.

Richard Haas vs. ???
Old Haasie totes a rating of 1954 but hasn't played a rated game since
before 1991. 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?

There are plenty of vendettas on here. Who'd be tough?

Regards,

Matt

Matt Nemmers wrote:
....who would the players be?

This year Sam could've played just about *anybody* since he has so many
detractors on here, but I have to admit that Bill Brock didn't really
spring to mind as the top contendah. That he had the stones and the
cash to git'r dun speaks well for him (even if he lost) to put a
challenge on the table and follow through.

But because Bill and Sloan are within 150 or so rating points made it a
good match and interesting to watch. I wonder though, how many RGCP
opponents would make for a good match-up OTB? They'd have to have a
LOT of disagreements (or one or two very heated discussions) on RGCP
but be relatively close in playing strength (say, 200 rating points or
less) to make it interesting.

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

(snip)

Neil Brennen vs. Louis Blair:
The Historian is 1572 and The Blair-bot is 1611; another good match-up.

I have a tremendous respect for Dr. Blair's chess history writing (I
wish there were more of it) and rather less respect for his postings
here; I doubt either of us have any time for chess play, but I would
have no objection to playing him.

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?

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....?

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.



Neil Brennen vs. Louis Blair:
The Historian is 1572 and The Blair-bot is 1611; another good match-up.

I have a tremendous respect for Dr. Blair's chess history writing (I
wish there were more of it) and rather less respect for his postings
here; I doubt either of us have any time for chess play, but I would
have no objection to playing him.

Might be an interesting game.

Regards,

Matt

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.

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?

Neil Brennen vs. Louis Blair:
The Historian is 1572 and The Blair-bot is 1611; another good match-up.

I have a tremendous respect for Dr. Blair's chess history writing (I
wish there were more of it) and rather less respect for his postings
here; I doubt either of us have any time for chess play, but I would
have no objection to playing him.

Might be an interesting game.

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

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.

This is done all the time in sports. One example:

STATEMENT OF WORLD PERSONALITIES IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES IN
SUPPORT FOR THE OLYMPIC TRUCE

"The concepts of the Olympic Games and of the Olympic Truce or
"Ekecheiria", meaning the ceasing of hostilities during the duration of
the Games, are inextricably linked. In ancient Greece, throughout the
duration of the Olympic Truce, from the seventh day prior to the
opening of the Games to the seventh day following their closing,
conflicts ceased, allowing athletes, artists and spectators to travel
to Olympia, participate in the Olympic Games and return to their
homelands in safety. ..."

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.

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

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.


Might be an interesting game.

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

I'd like to see that.

Regards,

Matt

"...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

The thing is, that by this time next year, everything will be different
and RGCP folks will be feuding about entirely different things. So I
think that we will have to just wait 10-11 months to get new potential
lineups! ;-)

Matt Nemmers wrote:
There are plenty of vendettas on here. Who'd be tough?

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

-Douglas

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

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?