On 09 Jul 2003 04:59:14 GMT, eepmeep (John
Fernandez) wrote:

1)Did he in fact have the equivalent of a masters rating in Argentina?

Yes, his Argentine rating is 2300.

John Fernandez

John Fernandez, who claims to know just about everything about chess,
said on this newsgroup yesterday that Mig does in fact have a rating
of 2300 in Argentina.

However, Doctor SBD, who is certainly not my friend as he attacks me
almost every day, has received a letter from the Argentine Chess
Federation stating that Mig has no rating at all there.

On 10 Jul 2003 12:00:26 GMT, in rec.games.chess.politics
(Doctor SBD) wrote:

I simply got curious and asked. Here is what I received from the Argentinian
chess federation as a reply:

Dear Sir:
Michael Greengard isn't included in our rating list (Ranking Argentino)

He probably played chess on line, obtaining another kind of rating.

Sincerely.

M. Z.

So, Mr. John Know-it-all Fernandez, upon what do you base your
statement that Mig (Michael I. Greengard) has a 2300 rating in
Argentina?

Sam Sloan

However, Doctor SBD, who is certainly not my friend as he attacks me
almost every day,

Sam I only attack you when you say something stupid. It is not every day, but
it must seem like it as you often make the most apocryphal statements. I
reserve the incessant Sam bashing to others; not because you don't deserve it,
but because on my radar screen you serve one specific function.

I actually consider you a useful gadfly at times. 90% of what you post is crap,
but there are many interesting topics you post on, such as this one. I remember
years ago my German uncle said he thought the emergence of the Green Party was
a good thing, so long as they didn't get too big. His point was that a full
implementation of their views would ruin Germany, but having them in the
minority was good as they kept the government honest (or as honest as
possible). I see you in a similar light.

SBD

PS - I still want to see the match where you play Mig in the Damiano. I would
watch that one on ICC or Playchess, if broadcasted.....

I do not think it is particularly unusual for a strong blitz player to
struggle at regular chess.

A couple years back, a player began playing USCF chess at our club.
His initial quick rating was over 2400 while his initial regular
rating was under 1800. He might have been sandbagging but I do not
think so. I think he simply never played much slow chess and it took
him a while to figure out how to use the time effectively. Currently
he is about 2250 quick and 1950 regular.

Vince Hart

(Vince Hart) wrote in message . com...
I do not think it is particularly unusual for a strong blitz player to
struggle at regular chess.

A couple years back, a player began playing USCF chess at our club.
His initial quick rating was over 2400 while his initial regular
rating was under 1800. He might have been sandbagging but I do not
think so. I think he simply never played much slow chess and it took
him a while to figure out how to use the time effectively. Currently
he is about 2250 quick and 1950 regular.

Vince Hart

This issue of "Mig strength" has cropped up before. Back in the
period of about 1998-99 I was still somewhat active as a player and
played a lot on ICC. I played several games at either 2 0 or 3 0 time
controls with Mig; as I recall, we about broke even in those games.
Although now inactive, my USCF over the board rating is 2304 and my
USCF quick chess rating 2248. My ICC blitz rating at the time was in
the 2200-2300 range and my bullet rating about 2100.

Mind you, that was about 5 years, 2 or 3 ICC handles, and 2 computers
ago, so I don't still have the games to review. However, back then I
did look at some of them, and there were plenty of errors to go around
on both sides, so I don't think they were "computer enhanced" games
from either side.

If you do a Google search, you'll find an email or two from that time
period where I say basically the same thing. In one (gasp!) I even
was responding to Rolf Tueschen - now there is a name I never hope to
utter again.

Randy Bauer

Well, Sam, whatever the case, I do hope you feel that all this is making you
a better person.

--
Looney
----------------------------------------------------
http://www.patzersprogress.com

I recall Mig in the stands at the '96 Olympics after I threw the discus 72
meters on the way to winning my sixth Olympic gold in that event.

Mig, a well-known Field-Event Satiricst at the time, was loudly claiming to
have thrown 73 meters in some small Argentinian event six years before when
his arms were bigger, and caused a stir, distracting the other throwers.

Just then Sam Sloan, who was sitting in the upper deck with binoculars,
espied a 17 year old Tibetan girl in kneesocks, jumped up and tripped,
rolled down three flights of stairs in the grandstand, and slammed into Mig,
knocking Mig's USCF rating to the ground, and knocking his own sense loose
permanently.

Wait a minute. I never threw 72 meters. I was never in the Olympics. I
don't know what a discus is...

Sorry, Mig. Sorry Sam. I lost it for a minute. None of it happened.
Geeeesh.



"Mig" wrote in message
...
Right Sam, good logic there. Can't you even tell the truth once in a
while by accident? I play in my first serious tournament in six years
and am supposed to play at the same level. Maybe you should ask the
IMs and GMs I've played OTB blitz with, or look at the same crosstable
at the World Open with all the 2200+ players within a half-point of my
own score. Performance in one event doesn't mean anything more than
performance in that event.

My 2300 rating wasn't even the highest among those with three points!
Heck, an FM withdrew with two rounds to go with 2.5 points. Superkid
Fabiano Caruana (an FM, though by appointment) also scored 3.0. There
were many masters with 3-3.5. It was a tough event.

I'm certainly not going to make excuses for what was a terrible
tournament for me, but if you think I'm a 1700-1800 player (like I was
10 years ago when that old USCF rating of mine you love so much was
current) you are even crazier than we think. And that's pretty damn
crazy.

And I didn't have to claim any rating, the 2300 was given to me by TD
Doyle in Parsippany in February after he contacted the Argentine
federation. It would have been silly for me to play in anything other
than the open with my background and past rating.

I lost several winning positions on time and my preparation consisted
of four coast-to-coast flights before arriving in Philadelphia minutes
before the first round. Bad nerves after the long layoff led to no
sleep and a terrible result. (Not to take anything away from my
opponents. Two of them were US Championship veterans with far more
tournament experience than I have.) Because I play so rarely I
rejected draws and played to the bitter end despite clearly being a
mess at the board.

Life goes on and I hope to be able to play somewhat regularly this
year. It was sad that such a big event was my first tournament back
because it was mostly a waste.

Why you find in this an excuse to slander me is beyond me. Have you
even ever considered the source of your hatred, Spam? Some serious
issues there. But never fear, a chess version of The National Enquirer
might still launch and find a place for you.

Mig
http://www.chessninja.com



On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 12:54:19 GMT, (Sam Sloan)
wrote:

One of the great debates of Our Modern Times has been the chess
strength of Mig, whose real name is Michael Greengard.

Everyone agrees that Mig is a talented writer about chess. His
articles are popular and have been read and published everywhere,
including ChessBase magazine and TWIC.

Mig also was Director of KasparovChess during its heyday.

However, Mig often puts on airs about being a chess master. When
somebody discovered that he has an old USCF rating of 1743, the
question came up as to whether this was really the same person and
whether it was likely that an adult could improve that much in a short
period of time.

Mig played in the World Open last week and now we have the answer. It
seems that the real chess stength of MIG is no better than about 1800.
He is certainly not a master.

http://www.64.com/uscf/ratings/12525629

MIG finished the tournament with a score of 3-6 which placed him
number 181. His losses were primarily to experts and to one player
rated 1990. His wins were primarily against 1500-1600 players.

The tournament wall chart showed Mig as having a rating of 2300. I
asked Bill Goichberg about this. Goichberg said that it is not against
the rules for a player to claim to be stronger than he really is. It
is only against the rules for a player to claim to be weaker than he
really is, so that he can try to win a class prize. Mig entered the
tournament claiming to have a rating of 2300 in Argentina, where he
lived for several years. That self-rating was accepted at the World
Open and Mig was paired according to that.

MIG's results show that a rating in the range of 1700 or 1800 is about
right for Mig.

Sam Sloan

"Doctor SBD" wrote in message
...

However, Doctor SBD, who is certainly not my friend as he attacks me
almost every day,

Sam I only attack you when you say something stupid. It is not every day,
but
it must seem like it as you often make the most apocryphal statements. I
reserve the incessant Sam bashing to others; not because you don't deserve
it,
but because on my radar screen you serve one specific function.

I don't blame you. Who wants to stand in line every day waiting for their
turn to bash Sam?

StanB

Ahh, but in chess, you only receive a complement when you have been compared
to Capablanca!


"John Macnab" wrote in message
. ca...
Mig wrote:
Right Sam, good logic there. Can't you even tell the truth once in a
while by accident? I play in my first serious tournament in six years
and am supposed to play at the same level. Maybe you should ask the
IMs and GMs I've played OTB blitz with, or look at the same crosstable
at the World Open with all the 2200+ players within a half-point of my
own score. Performance in one event doesn't mean anything more than
performance in that event.
[snip]

Here is the crosstable:

http://www.worldopen.com/2003Results/open.htm

Mig is in a large group (3.0 points) with ratings between 1803 and 2556.
The median of the group appears to be about 2100, so a performance
rating calculation may be misleading. Note also that several of the
higher rated players on this score dropped out early (we'll allow the
bottom feeders of the group to speculate on this.)

As I've pointed out before, threads like this are evidence that Mig is a
significant celebrity in the English-speaking chess world.

Enjoy it Mig: the only thing worse than being talked about is not being
talked about.

John

"Bruce Leverett" wrote in message
m...

Good luck to Mig if he is returning to rated tournaments. Sam Sloan
thinks that when a master scores 3/9, he should say "how the mighty
have fallen", but I would reserve that comment for weightier
occasions, like when a journalist takes a job as a User Confuser on
chesscafe.com.

The folks seem excited that MIG would try and pass himself off as a master
by claiming a bogus 2300 rating. A couple of years back he was outed for
passing off Fritz's analysis as his own. Folks need to remember that
journalists are liars and bull****ters by profession. Anyway, he conceded
and stuck his tail between his legs and slithered off to apply for a job at
the New York Times.

StanB