I wrote (6 Aug 2006 18:14:16 -0700):
7 I suggest looking at:
7
7 http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/alekhine.html

_
jamesrynd wrote (6 Aug 2006 20:03:32 -0700):

7 I need to go back and read the Rothenberg and Horowitz
7 book, which has an excellent account of the whole affair.

_
I hate to say it (because, at one time, I enjoyed reading
that book), but I do not think that R&H are a particularly
good source for chess history. I suggest looking at
Edward Winter's material on the subject.

wrote in message
oups.com...

- 25 years ago I played against people who were, and
better, and did rather well.

I have two won blitz games to my credit against NM Joe Weber, and a
draw against NM Dan Heisman. I think that's doing well, since both
gentlemen have destroyed me at the chessboard regularly. Should I style
myself a "Nearly an NM 2200"?

I wouldn't think so. But if you make that a habit, perhaps? Last Summer I
played a Soviet Champion, who was also a European champion, and twice World
Youth Champion. I gave him a good game, and if the idiot hadn't allowed me
to sac the exchange, I would have ... lol

---------\\

You are such a reprobate that it would not matter if your received this
information or not - since you do not care for the subject under
discussion,
that is Gulko's record - and when asked directly gave the Blairian
response
that you had not committed yoruself either way.

When did the discussion become Gulko's record?

When I asked the person who wrote that he had read everything on the subject
that was in English.

I thought it was:

"A specific on Soviet-era affairs was if he had read the Gulko MSS, but
in his response he eliminated even the question, while maintaining his
superiority over others by putting them down, absent any content." -
Phil Innes
----------

Snip remaining Innes nonsense.

Brennan thinks this is a provocation, but we know that what he snips is
always the most essential part of any post,

An odd statement, since nothing was snipped from the end of your post.

An odd emphasis! What our friend Neil snipped is now gone with the wind - I
eman, what the hell do I care for people who snip things but then blather
after references? If people prefer a disneyesque view of what goes on, so be
it.

You fall into that trap all the time; all one needs to do is add "snip"
to the end of one of your deathless screeds, and you flip out.

How about you trying to write about chess instead of ****ing around with
people's messages? If you did that then at least your rather severe
reservations about what could possibly be happening over the horizon could
be addressed. As it is, its just bad-boy posturing - since that is the only
way to get attention for you. As far as I can tell you don't give a ****
about chess or its players. Who cares what you demand?

and he snips it because it
answers the questions he asks - and then he says, where is... ?

The only question I ask is how a person as insane as Phil Innes manages
to function in society.

Is this completely moronic behavior?

Your posts certainly qualify.

You have stalked my posts to newsgroups in which you never wrote a civil or
sensible word. Your opinion of yourself must be mighty indeed to allow you
to laugh at everything you don't know.

Should he ever be sincere, no doubt someone will attend to his every
need,
but not me! The topic under discussion is not his obsession with stalking
my
posts, nor his indolent and insincere questioning - it is what was
contained
in Susan Polgar's Chesscafe message.

But a moment ago it was allegedly "Gulko's record" which was under
discussion.

What does Neil Brennan care about any subject? Nothing! He even thinks I am
some computer program who will respond to him at the speed of light any time
night or day. Paranoid and delusional? Certainly. Subject matter, as can be
seen, does not occur to him.

Phil Innes

Dear Steven, while we [plural!] hold you in our affections, what you write
is a continuous demonstration of what I say, which is of your effections.

Perhaps it is because I am such a pragmatist that I typically think, "if he
could, he would," but you evidently can't address whatever was in the Polgar
column, since it is your preference to write in hissy fits.

Love and Kisses, Phil.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Chess One wrote:

Do whatever you want bucko - which is all posture. If you could write to
a
topic - why haven't you done so - instread of these parades which are all
about you and your enormous ****ing EGO?

Excuse you? You stated I could not see the world from the perspective
of others, and when I defend myself *I* am the one with the big ****ing
EGO? So I should just take your deprecation? You can spout all day
about how you are such a ****ing know-it-all and we just have to listen
to your off-topic rants? Sorry, I won't take your ignorant bile so
lightly, especially from an anti-Semitic bigot such as yourself..

As Dom DeLuise said in "Loose Cannons," They're ****ing with the wrong
Jew this time!"


Write to the topic - if you can't go 'way from my window, since I ain't
impressed by anything else.

One suspects that Phil Innes is only impressed by Phil Innes. And it
ain't your window - it is our window.

wrote:
Nick wrote:

Again much of the context was snipped by Steven B Dowd.

*Again* Steven B Dowd has used the verb 'subventing'
(sic) rather than 'subverting', so I shall assume that he
has used it intentionally rather than as the consequence
of a typing error.

It isn't a fingerfehler, but it also isn't a spelling error.
I am visiting my mother and using my nephew's computer;
due to my bad eyes I missed my mistake twice.

se?

Or would it make more sense to infer that
Steven B Dowd was ignorant of the meaning of
'subventing' and confused it with 'subverting'?

The simplest explanation usually suffices.
My diabetes has wreaked havoc with my eyes,
and small things are often blurry.

You may not understand what it is like to have morals and beliefs that
cause you to have to stand by the courage of your convictions, Nick.

Steven B Dowd again has shown that his inappropriate
and offensive personal comments are not only directed
toward Zsuzsa Polgar.

How? I simply indicated you "may not" understand; no accusation of a
lack of morals or beliefs, simply a truism that today there are many
who don't stand up for their beliefs. You may or may not... there is no
need to try to fool readers by pretending my statement was stronger
than it really was.

Apparently, Steven B Dowd feels entitled to make about any
inappropriate statement that he pleases about me as long as
it includes a 'may not'. Would these be other examples?

"You may not understand that sexually abusing children
is wrong, Nick."

"You may not understand that genocide is wrong, Nick."

The people in my family have long abhorred informers
and collaborators. And we abhor those people who
collaborate with American racism and imperialism.

As does any intelligent human. But what
does your family have to do with it?

I have always loved Alekhine's play, but find it hard to study his games
after reading the articles he wrote for the German press. Once I saw
the clear evidence of what he did (the originals in his own
handwriting), it really sickened me.

So would Steven B Dowd listen to Richard Wagner's music?

You are correct in assuming I have given up listening to Wagner.

I did *not* assume that; I simply asked a question.

However I have always had a greater interest in other composers:
Beethoven, Mozart, Telemann, Bach.

But at my age it probably has as much to do that I am not so interested
in the Sturm und Drang found in Wagner; I listened to Quadrophenia by
the Who when young, and it got me through a hard time; now the voices
seem so harsh.

Contrary to Steven B Dowd's apparent implication,
I have written hardly anything about USCF politics,
which seems to be the context of his strong objection
to Zsuzsa Polgar's criticisms of Sam Sloan.

I cannot be rightfully accused of 'simply jump(ing)
in to stir the pot' (to quote Steven B Dowd) of USCF
politics when I have hardly any interest in USCF politics.

As you noted yourself earlier, your comments were directed
at my, and I believe primarily other's comments on Polgar.

Steven B Dowd's statement (above) reveals that he evidently
read that part of my earlier post that he previously chose to
snip, dismissing it as a 'boring diatribe' (Steven B Dowd's
usual misrepresentation) and claiming *not* to have been
interested in it.

Steven B Dowd's statement (above) is another distortion
by Steven B Dowd, who prefers to omit the fact that my
original criticism was directed toward the writers who have
made inappropriate comments about Zsuzsa Polgar's
*personal life*. *Her personal life*, get it?

I do *not* regard Zsuzsa Polgar as above criticism.
Indeed, I have criticised Zsuzsa Polgar for what she
(along with Jacob Shutzman) has written about
Nana Alexandria and Xie Jun in the book "Queen
of the Kings Game". But my criticisms of Zsuzsa
Polgar have been limited to some of what she, a
chess professional, has written or done in chess.

That's USCF politics, Nickie.

Evidently, Steven B Dowd regards his comments
about Zsuzsa Polgar's personal life to be a part
of USCF politics. I regard Zsuzsa Polgar's
personal life to be separate from USCF politics.

And you did jump in and stir the pot.

Anyone who has ignored Steven B Dowd's disingenuous
snipping and read completely what he and I have written
in this thread should be able to tell that I made a general
criticism of the writers (plural) who have made inappropriate
comments about Zsuzsa Polgar's personal life.
I did *not* mention any of those writers by name.

*Only* Steven B Dowd has responded with an
attempted self-justification, which has included
making many dishonest distortions of what I
have written, not to mention his usual offensive
personal comments toward me.

Evidently, Steven B Dowd prefers to persist in his
practice of attributing views to me that I have *not*
expressed and that I do *not* hold.

As do you. Pot. Kettle. Black.

That's Steven B Dowd's 'proof by assertion'.

You are probably correct in your assertion that
my stance does say much about me.

Contrary to Steven B Dowd's distortion, what I wrote
pertained to *all comments* by Steven B Dowd about
Zsuzsa Polgar's personal life rather than to *only*
Steven B Dowd's objection to Zsuzsa Polgar's
criticism of Sam Sloan's becoming a member
of the USCF Executive Board.

You must be exceptionally intelligent to have read all
my posts over the last 10 years. I applaud you for that.

Contrary to Steven B Dowd's distortion, I did *not* write
that I 'have read all of (his) posts over the last 10 years.'

Again, what I wrote pertained to "*all comments* (which
I have read so far) by Steven B Dowd about Zsuzsa
Polgar's *personal life*". Her *personal life*, get it?

Whether that is a positive or negative view
is yours to decide.

My point was the readers here deserve to know the
fact that Steven B Dowd has written that he has no
respect whatsoever for Zsuzsa Polgar 'as a person'.
Then the readers here can take that fact into account
when assessing whatever Steven B Dowd writes
about Zsuzsa Polgar.

Most readers here are educated enough and have enough experience
in the group to know my views. They don't need Big Brother Nick
telling them what to believe about me.

That's another distortion by Steven B Dowd.

I did *not* write (above) that what Steven B Dowd writes
about Zsuzsa Polgar is necessarily right or wrong.
(Perhaps Steven B Dowd might agree with my criticisms of
what Zsuzsa Polgar wrote in "Queen of the Kings Game".)

I did write that it's a fact that Steven B Dowd has written
that he has no respect whatsoever for Zsuzsa Polgar 'as
a person'. Readers have the right to take that fact into
consideration when assessing whatever Steven B Dowd
writes about Zsuzsa Polgar.

Does Steven B Dowd now seem less eager to have
readers know that he, in fact, has declared in public
that he has no respect whatsoever for Zsuzsa Polgar
'as a person'?

Of course, Steven B Dowd prefers to snip the evidence
that shows he's wrong.

Of course, the ploy of claiming that content was snipped, without
indicating what was snipped is a nice ploy you must have learned
from Phil.

Steven B Dowd has made a completely unjustified
claim that I have learned something from Phil Innes.

"I know from long experience that there is nothing
at all between Dr. (Steven B) Dowd's ears."
--Kenneth Sloan (14 June 2006)

Steven B Dowd (2194 USCF) is rated much higher
than Kenneth Sloan (1760 USCF). I suppose that
Kenneth Sloan would concede that Steven B Dowd
is a stronger player of chess.

Given he could never even win a speed game from me,
he would probably have to.

As I understand it, however, Kenneth Sloan's
experienced judgement of Steven B Dowd applies
to some context(s) beyond playing chess.

I was simply expressing my interpretation of
what Kenneth Sloan's statement meant.

I suppose it could, but if you consider Kenneth Sloan a reliable
reference for anyone, you are being deluded. Why not let Sloan
elaborate himself and then you can decide whether such a statement was
made out of personal and professional jealousy or whether it is
warranted. You are quick to criticize others for making assumptions;
should this standard not also apply to the great Nick?

As far as I know, Kenneth Sloan and Steven B Dowd are
(or were) both professors at the University of Alabama.
I have *not* claimed to have any other knowledge of
the personal or professional relationships between
Kenneth Sloan and Steven B Dowd.

As far as I can recall of their posts in rec.games.chess.*,
Kenneth Sloan seems to be a less disingenuous writer
than Steven B Dowd.

--Nick

"Nick" wrote in message
ups.com...
Steven B Dowd (aka ) wrote:
Nick wrote:

Steven B Dowd has snipped nearly
the complete context of my post.

Recently, Steven B Dowd has evidently made it
clear enough that he has no respect whatsoever
for Zsuzsa Polgar 'as a person'.

"Any respect I had for her (Zsuzsa Polgar) as a person
is out the window; subventing (sic) the democratic process
is not exactly something we should encourage."
--Steven B Dowd (1 August 2006, writing as
' in RGCP)

I regret that my earlier quotation of Steven B Dowd's
statement had a typing error that resulted in the
accidental omission of the word 'something'.

That is a true statement. I cannot have respect for
individuals who advocate subventing the democratic
process.

*Again* Steven B Dowd has used the verb 'subventing'
(sic) rather than 'subverting', so I shall assume that he
has used it intentionally rather than as the consequence
of a typing error.

According to Dictionary.com, to subvent
means 'to guarantee financial support of'.

SUBVENT: also means in an American dictionary, the Government coming to the
aid of.

Essentially you are correct, and he intends to write subvert. If he had used
SUBVENE there may have been a better sense, since it can have the meaning of
coming to the aid of, as preventive measure, as in the sense of to cause to
have relief.

It seems though he confused the transitive subvert with the intransitive
subvene.

So, assuming that Steven B Dowd knew the meaning
of his verb 'subventing', Steven B Dowd's statement
(above) means: "I cannot have respect for individuals
who advocate (guaranteeing financial support of)
the democratic process". Does that make any sense?

Or would it make more sense to infer that
Steven B Dowd was ignorant of the meaning of
'subventing' and confused it with 'subverting'?

One is a much more 'clever' word than the other, and therefore...

Sam won, whether she likes it or not.
Her blog is one big whine over Sloan winning and how
we have to make sure he doesn't make it into office.

I did *not* write any comment about Zsuzsa
Polgar's criticisms of Sam Sloan.

Anyone interested can read Susan Polgar's blog
and decide to what extent it's fair and accurate for
Steven B Dowd to describe it as 'one big whine over
(Sam) Sloan winning...'

http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/

While I haven't made any personal comment on this issue, it is not a simple
one, and I hope people will comment on it. 2 things are very certain - that
5 major sponsors for chess have already turned down any current
'opportunities' in Chicago, precisely because Sam Sloan is on board.

The second thing to note is that this is pretty much the same as any other
year.

What I hope any continuation of this discussion would invoke is the sense of
the stalking-horse [Sloan] being now sacrificed as the scapegoat for lack of
financial investment in chess.


While I snipped the rest of this interaction, it seemed to rest mostly on
the understanding of the two writers - what will have any long term effect
will be to differentiate what might be objectionable about Sloan from what
has been long-term objectionable about USCF.

Otherwise we will have 12 months of 'personality' discussion which will
resolve nothing at all to the benefit of the future. When I wrote USCF about
standards it was way before the election, and they did nothing. No one here
did anything either, and people wrote that 'they just didn't understand' why
a basis of ethical behavior was even necessary, and when it was pushed up
the nose of the major whiners about Sloan, they were unable to make a
contribution about everyone.

The major absence of comment was for genuine concern about our children.

Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:
Dear Steven, while we [plural!] hold you in our affections, what you write
is a continuous demonstration of what I say, which is of your effections.

Perhaps it is because I am such a pragmatist that I typically think, "if he
could, he would," but you evidently can't address whatever was in the Polgar
column, since it is your preference to write in hissy fits.

Love and Kisses, Phil.


Um, you can keep the kisses, and I will accept the loving in the most
generic of ways, but I do not see what I failed to address. My view is
simple on what she wrote in the column and her blog: I disagree totally
with her rants on Sam. He won, and it would seem to me that a person
with the power to do so many positive things for chess (and who has
done many positive things for chess) should stay away from this sort of
thing, and her recommending that we find some way to prevent him from
assuming office is wrong. Not only wrong, but it sends a signal
(however false) that she is the one who wants to have her way through
"hissy fits."

Does her association with Truong bother me? No, it is up to her to
decide, but by your standards, Truong really is someone who "can't be
bothered to sign his name" and in fact floods many discussion groups
with anonymous postings, and is an accused Internet chess cheater. As
an opportunist, he has done well for her but I can't help thinking he
will also be her undoing.

And of course this is a form of armchair quarterbacking I am engaged in
when I discuss these matters, as are 99% of the posts here. It is sheer
speculation. If you want real news on Polgar, I suggest sources like
chesscafe, where her column appeared. It does an excellent job of
covering topical material in an informative manner. It has the best
writers on chess of any site I have seen.

I fail to see how that or anything else I wrote is anything more of a
hissy fit than what you write here on a regular basis. When attacked,
you defend, as do I. Why is your defense supposedly superior to mine?

I consider myself a pragmatist as well, and in fact my master's work
was in part on Dewey and his philosophy of education; his "learning
lab" (learning through experimentation) ideas would fit well for chess
study if someone took up the notion.

However, I still think "on-topic" to you means "what I want (or is that
what we want?) to discuss." In fact, I always find it funny when you
accuse others of not discussing chess because your posts are often
without any relevant chess content whatsoever. In fact. except for
mentioning the name "Polgar," what does your post above have to do with
chess? Very little. It has more to do with me; and your accusations
that I don't post on chess and suffer from some sort of self-obsession,
well, here we go again: Pot, kettle, black.

Chess One wrote:

While I haven't made any personal comment on this issue, it is not a simple
one, and I hope people will comment on it. 2 things are very certain - that
5 major sponsors for chess have already turned down any current
'opportunities' in Chicago, precisely because Sam Sloan is on board.

One trouble is that we have heard this sort of thing before - not about
Sam, but about chessplayers in general. That somehow we do not present
ourselves as something sponsors would want to get involved in.

Again, without any firsthand evidence (who were the sponsors? what were
the stated reasons? why is Sam an issue to them?), this is a difficult
topic to discuss. We have only your word (and probably that is all you
can give in such circumstances) that these sponsors dropped out. But
certainly we cannot evaluate this simply based on your statement, we
need more evidence, which we may never get.

In a sense, I don't care. The level of commercialism I see in other
activities with sponsors is repugnant, in my view - "Well, here at the
Cellular Three field we now have the McDonald's halftime report, brough
to you by McDonald's etc."

Perhaps chess should be self-supporting and only engage in activities
it has the resources to accomplish on its own? Why do we have to be
like everyone else and beg for money?

WWMD*


* What would Morphy do?

Nick wrote:

I was simply expressing my interpretation of
what Kenneth Sloan's statement meant.

And I simply expressed mine. However uncomfortable it makes you that
someone is willing to challenge your nonsense is not my problem, Nick.
You might be better off dealing with that on your own time.

wrote in message
ups.com...


In a sense, I don't care. The level of commercialism I see in other
activities with sponsors is repugnant, in my view - "Well, here at the
Cellular Three field we now have the McDonald's halftime report, brough
to you by McDonald's etc."

Perhaps chess should be self-supporting and only engage in activities
it has the resources to accomplish on its own? Why do we have to be
like everyone else and beg for money?


There seems to be a misunderstanding of what sponsorship is.
Sponsors act on the belief that the sponsorship benefits
the sponsor. It's an issue of self-interest.

"Begging" is the usual fund-raising method employed
by non-profits. It appeals to charitable impulses.

The USCF attracts neither sponsors nor charity
because it is constructed along the "membership"
model - i.e. become a "member" and receive the "benefits"
of "membership". But of course 99.6% of chessplayers
don't need or want it. And since there are so few members,
there are no sponsors. But as the organization is structured
to function as a "benefit supplier" for the 0.4%, it's an
unsuitable donee for anyone charitably inclined
towards chess.

This is *not* the norm. Many national organizations
have a truly national purpose, and have both sponsors
and donors.

The fear that chess will be overcommercialized
seems a tad premature.

Steven B Dowd (aka ) wrote:
Nick wrote:

Again the context was snipped by Steven B Dowd.

I was simply expressing my interpretation of
what Kenneth Sloan's statement meant.

And I simply expressed mine. However uncomfortable it makes you that
someone is willing to challenge your nonsense is not my problem, Nick.
You might be better off dealing with that on your own time.

Anyone who's interested in reading this complete thread
should be able to find the evidence of Steven B Dowd's
dishonest distortions and other abusive comments.

Steven B Dowd has declared in public that he has no
respect whatsoever for Zsuzsa Polgar 'as a person'.
Steven B Dowd evidently regards his comments
about Zsuzsa Polgar's personal life as being a
part of USCF politics.

--Nick