You can see her career clearly on http://www.chessgames.com which has
987 of her games.

Starting in 1984, she played hundreds of games every year in top level
competition. 1984 was the year when she went from Class A to
International Master and became temporarily the highest rated woman in
the world.

From then until she reached the legal age of 21, she was heavily
involved in competition. However, after she was no longer under
parental control, she rarely played in big tournaments. Most of her
games starting in 1993 were exhibition events, computer events,
simultaneous exhibitions, blindfold events with Melody Amber, and
women's events, whereas under her father she had refused to play in
women's events.

Finally, after winning the Woman's World Championship in 1996, she
stopped playing chess altogether.

Take a look at:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess...e=38&pid=15162

During the 8 years from 1996 to 2004 she only played four games of
chess. These were in the Israel Chess League, except that she played
two computer games.

She finally started playing again in 2004 with the Woman's World Chess
Olympiad. Since then, she has played occasionally due to the influence
of Mr. Truong, but almost all of her games have been simultaneous
exhibitions, computer games or exhibition games, not games in
competitive tournaments.

Sam Sloan

Editor's Note
Published: FRIDAY, APRIL 13, 2001

Under French press law, the IHT is called upon to publish the
following "right of reply" from Jean-Marc Reymond, a lawyer for FIDE
(the International Chess Federation), regarding the report "Tigress of
the Chessboard Purrs Quietly and Pounces" (March 31):-

"Judit Polgar says that FIDE (the International Chess Federation)
'lost two court cases, one of which was brought by her sister.' This
statement is absolutely inaccurate. It is true that Zsuzsa Polgar
introduced court proceedings before the Court of Arbitration for Sport
in Lausanne. She was asking the arbitrators to rule that she was still
women's world chess champion and that FIDE had to pay her damages
amounting to at least 500,000 Swiss francs. At the hearing held on
March 20, 2001, the parties settled their dispute. Mrs. Polgar
'unreservedly withdrew all of her claims, including the claim to be
reigning women's world chess champion,' with FIDE accepting to pay her
the sum of $25,000 'without prejudice to either party's contentions as
to the merits of the dispute between them.'
http://www.iht.com/articles/2001/04/13/DROIT_ed3_.php

So, in other words, Susan did not "win" the case. Rather, the case was
settled with Susan agreeing to withdraw her (meritless) claim, and
FIDE agreeing to pay the relatively small amount of $25,000, which
represented her attorney's fees in this case.

Sam Sloan

samsloan writes:
So, in other words, Susan did not "win" the case. Rather, the case was
settled with Susan agreeing to withdraw her (meritless) claim, and
FIDE agreeing to pay the relatively small amount of $25,000, which
represented her attorney's fees in this case.

Settlements just about always include some face-saving bull****
verbiage. The way you figure out who won is by seeing who paid money
to who.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2001/04/13/DROIT_ed3_.php

The above article was in response to the following article about Judit
Polgar:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2001/03/...d3_.php?page=3

Sam Sloan

On Sep 10, 9:32 pm, samsloan wrote:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2001/04/13/DROIT_ed3_.php

The above article was in response to the following article about Judit
Polgar:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2001/03/...d3_.php?page=3

Sam Sloan

Ho! Ho! Mo.

On 10 Sep, 21:09, Paul Rubin wrote:
samsloan writes:
So, in other words, Susan did not "win" the case. Rather, the case was
settled with Susan agreeing to withdraw her (meritless) claim, and
FIDE agreeing to pay the relatively small amount of $25,000, which
represented her attorney's fees in this case.

Settlements just about always include some face-saving bull****
verbiage. The way you figure out who won is by seeing who paid money
to who.

So Sam Sloan is bull****ing everyone again?

"Paul Rubin" wrote in message
...
samsloan writes:
So, in other words, Susan did not "win" the case. Rather, the case was
settled with Susan agreeing to withdraw her (meritless) claim, and
FIDE agreeing to pay the relatively small amount of $25,000, which
represented her attorney's fees in this case.

Settlements just about always include some face-saving bull****
verbiage. The way you figure out who won is by seeing who paid money
to who.

That statement is not remotely accurate. It neglects the fact that
even in arbitration there are costs that have nothing to do
with a case's merit.

Although Sloan himself may not have been successful in
collecting on his own meritless court actions, that does
not mean that nobody else has.

"David Kane" writes:
Settlements just about always include some face-saving bull****
verbiage. The way you figure out who won is by seeing who paid money
to who.

That statement is not remotely accurate. It neglects the fact that
even in arbitration there are costs that have nothing to do
with a case's merit.

I'll be the first to agree that the party with merit is not always the
one who ultimately wins. But they usually are, and either way, it
doesn't change who won. I also notice that the IHT article doesn't
say anything about the $25K that FIDE paid to Susan Polgar being
attorneys' fees--Sam is making up bull**** again. The $25K sounds
like compensation for damages to me, which FIDE would not have paid
unless it felt Susan's case was strong, whether they spun it that way
afterwards or not. By paying Susan to drop the case, they avoided an
extremely messy potential situation of having to yank Xie Jun's title
and maybe get in another lawsuit over THAT.

"Paul Rubin" wrote in message
...
"David Kane" writes:
Settlements just about always include some face-saving bull****
verbiage. The way you figure out who won is by seeing who paid money
to who.

That statement is not remotely accurate. It neglects the fact that
even in arbitration there are costs that have nothing to do
with a case's merit.

I'll be the first to agree that the party with merit is not always the
one who ultimately wins. But they usually are, and either way, it
doesn't change who won. I also notice that the IHT article doesn't
say anything about the $25K that FIDE paid to Susan Polgar being
attorneys' fees--Sam is making up bull**** again. The $25K sounds
like compensation for damages to me, which FIDE would not have paid
unless it felt Susan's case was strong, whether they spun it that way
afterwards or not. By paying Susan to drop the case, they avoided an
extremely messy potential situation of having to yank Xie Jun's title
and maybe get in another lawsuit over THAT.

The "spin" is in the claim of "victory". Do you really think someone with a
valid
claim to the world championship would give it up for $25K??
FIDE was just being expedient. What would have been the point of
spending $100k+ in legal costs to "win"?

Xie Jun was a worthy challenger, Polgar ducked
her, then sought to have her title reinstated through legal action,
and failed. While that kind of behavior is sadly common
in the chess world, it's hardly commendable.

"David Kane" writes:
The "spin" is in the claim of "victory". Do you really think someone with a
valid
claim to the world championship would give it up for $25K??
FIDE was just being expedient. What would have been the point of
spending $100k+ in legal costs to "win"?

If FIDE won, Susan would have had to pay the costs. Anyway, in that
particular court, lawyers are not required:

The parties may appear themselves before the CAS or be represented
by a person of their choice, who may or may not a lawyer.
(http://www.tas-cas.org/en/pdf/guide.pdf p.8)

The court attempts to keep costs low:

One of the CAS objectives is to make available to the members of the
world sports family an instrument for settling disputes not only
rapidly, but also at little cost. (p. 9)

And they encourage parties to settle:

The arbitration procedure before the CAS allows the flexible
resolution of a considerable number of disputes, and encourages the
search for an amicable solution. Discussion between the parties is
facilitated, and it is not uncommon for an arrangement to be found
during the proceedings. (p. 8)

Here is a case where FIDE went through the whole CAS procedure and
claimed the result as a victory, though if you read the actual
decision, it was a partial victory at best:

http://fide.com/news.asp?id=1295

Here is one from someone who claimed FIDE jerked him around about the
2004 Men's WC. FIDE won this one partly on legalistic grounds, but
still got penalized because of their procedural shenanigans:

http://fide.com/news.asp?id=694

Both of the above show that FIDE is willing to see these cases all the
way through if they think they are going to win. In Polgar's case,
they paid up and slunk away.