On Apr 30, 7:27 am, Brian Lafferty wrote:
The Historian wrote:
On Apr 30, 5:50 am, Brian Lafferty wrote:
wrote:

Brian Lafferty wrote:
samsloan wrote:
It is to be recalled that it is actually Susan who brought her
children into this debate by repeatedly claiming that her children
were being threatened. She stated making this claim back around
November 2006.
Meanwhile, her eldest son, Tom, reached his peak rating at about that
time.
http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?13060416
Her younger son has actually been dropping in rating. Apparently he is
the one who complained that he is being forced to play chess.
http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?13546228
It also appears that Truong finished 10th in the open adult four round
event with one win and three half point byes. How does one get all
those 1/2 byes?
He obviously played one game as a house man. If you had any experience
directing or playing in chess tournaments ... well, you wouldn't be
such an easy target.
So, like Las Vegas, the house always wins. And if you were at a
tournament, John, with a prize list that went down to 20th place, would
you feel good about the organizer pocketing extra cash because of 1/2
point byes not afforded to others when you finished in 11th place? I'll
have to look for tournaments where I can take 1/2 point byes for 3/4 of
the rounds.

It would have been proper for Mr. Truong to refuse a prize for playing
as a filler. In a situation like that, the prize list might have been
extended to compensate for his 11th place finish.

That is to say, his placing is bogus unless every other player was
afforded the opportunity to get 1/2 point byes for 3/4 of their rounds.

No, that is to say your argument is bogus. I have to agree with John
Hillery here. Your lack of experience with tournament play and
organization is showing, and it's making you look foolish.

Do you have any
evidence that Truong accepted prize money for playing as a house man,
or is this charge merely another example of your usual Sam-ish
"kitchen sink" attacks on the Trolgars?

I never said there was prize money of any kind in this case. I asked
John a purely hypothetical question. I wrote, "And IF YOU were at A
tournament, JOHN, with a prize list that went down to 20th place, would
you feel good about the organizer pocketing extra cash because of 1/2
point byes not afforded to others when you finished in 11th place?"
[emphasis added]

Interestingly, if you look at his tournament record over the past few
years, he appears to play to keep his rating up by playing in
tournaments where he faces opponents who are usually rated 500 points
(often 1000 or unrated) below him. He then takes byes in the later
rounds if there is significant opposition in the tournament. It's a
good way to inch your rating up. Of course, he isn't the first or only
player to do that. Too bad the USCF records only go back to 1990 or so.

How many of those events has he served as house man? And how many
points does he get for beating someone 500 or more points below him?
You really should spend some time playing in tournaments, Brian.

On Apr 30, 8:01 am, "
wrote:
On Apr 29, 9:26 pm, wrote:



Brian Lafferty wrote:
samsloan wrote:
It is to be recalled that it is actually Susan who brought her
children into this debate by repeatedly claiming that her children
were being threatened. She stated making this claim back around
November 2006.

Meanwhile, her eldest son, Tom, reached his peak rating at about that
time.

http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?13060416

Her younger son has actually been dropping in rating. Apparently he is
the one who complained that he is being forced to play chess.

http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?13546228

It also appears that Truong finished 10th in the open adult four round
event with one win and three half point byes. How does one get all
those 1/2 byes?

He obviously played one game as a house man. If you had any experience
directing or playing in chess tournaments ... well, you wouldn't be
such an easy target.- Hide quoted text -

Although I think Brian is barking up the wrong tree here, I have never
heard of a house player rated 2300 in a small tournament, being paired
against someone who was either unrated or had a provisional rating
10XX. If Paul wanted money, he obviously could have finished at worst
2d by just playing the games. It wasn't quite a standard house player
arrangement, however, though he did function as one. It looks more
like a withdrawal and the TD just filling in half point byes instead
of full point byes in the reporting list, perhaps in a decision that
this would be fairer for the tiebreak points of the person he played.
I think it is important to focus on the real issue, an actual case of
abusive impersonation; this tournament is not at all relevant.

Jerry Spinrad

Jerry, I've played as a house player in tournaments I've directed.
They've been scholastic events in which I've outrated opponents by
several hundred points. This is a non-issue. I expect Judge Lafferty
to try to dredge up an overdue library book for his next 'expose' on
Paul Truong. Although if the book were "How to Steal Someone's
Identity" that might be relevant....

On Apr 30, 8:09*am, samsloan wrote:
My real concern here is that Truong has played in three tournaments in
a row in which he has played much lower rated opponents, inching up
one point each time.



I thought your "real concern" was being impersonated? Which is it?
Don't you know or can't you make up your mind? It is my understanding
that similar inabilities to focus are a sign of a mental disease. Can
anyone verify?

So, like Las Vegas, the house always wins. And if you were at a
tournament, John, with a prize list that went down to 20th place, would
you feel good about the organizer pocketing extra cash because of 1/2
point byes not afforded to others when you finished in 11th place? I'll
have to look for tournaments where I can take 1/2 point byes for 3/4 of
the rounds.

A house player wouldn't pay an entry fee or be eligible for prizes. He is
simply someone available who the td can use to avoid giving byes (or to play
someone who received a forfeit). It is commonly handled in one of two ways
for tournament purposes: 1) If the house player is a reasonable opponent,
then the game is often included in the section and the result counts for the
paid player; 2) If the house player is not a reasonable opponent (either too
high or too low rated), then the game is commonly moved to a separate
section of extra games and the paid player gets a bye. A variant of this is
when there are byes in two adjacent sections: The player in the lower
section is given a bye and plays as a house player in the higher section.

- Tom Martinak

I don't want to harp on an unimportant issue, but I am curious. Who is
the player used as a house man in the second round? John Hawthorne
from NY, provisionally rated 2362, no tournament history. Is this some
old player who is a friend of the organizers, playing his first rated
game in dozens of years? Sounds a bit fascinating. Provisional 23XX is
very odd except for foreign players.


By the way, while in the very old days injecting these house players
who are much too high to play provisional players would have inflated
the rating pool, I am pretty sure that is not the case now, so this is
also not any issue except to the players in the tournament.

Jerry Spinrad

On Apr 30, 8:01*am, "
wrote:
On Apr 29, 9:26*pm, wrote:





Brian Lafferty wrote:
samsloan wrote:
It is to be recalled that it is actually Susan who brought her
children into this debate by repeatedly claiming that her children
were being threatened. She stated making this claim back around
November 2006.

Meanwhile, her eldest son, Tom, reached his peak rating at about that
time.

http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?13060416

Her younger son has actually been dropping in rating. Apparently he is
the one who complained that he is being forced to play chess.

http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?13546228

It also appears that Truong finished 10th in the open adult four round
event with one win and three half point byes. *How does one get all
those 1/2 byes?

He obviously played one game as a house man. If you had any experience
directing or playing in chess tournaments ... well, you wouldn't be
such an easy target.- Hide quoted text -

Although I think Brian is barking up the wrong tree here, I have never
heard of a house player rated 2300 in a small tournament, being paired
against someone who was either unrated or had a provisional rating
10XX. If Paul wanted money, he obviously could have finished at worst
2d by just playing the games. It wasn't quite a standard house player
arrangement, however, though he did function as one. It looks more
like a withdrawal and the TD just filling in half point byes instead
of full point byes in the reporting list, perhaps in a decision that
this would be fairer for the tiebreak points of the person he played.
I think it is important to focus on the real issue, an actual case of
abusive impersonation; this tournament is not at all relevant.

Jerry Spinrad





- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The Historian wrote:
On Apr 30, 7:27 am, Brian Lafferty wrote:
The Historian wrote:
On Apr 30, 5:50 am, Brian Lafferty wrote:
wrote:
Brian Lafferty wrote:
samsloan wrote:
It is to be recalled that it is actually Susan who brought her
children into this debate by repeatedly claiming that her children
were being threatened. She stated making this claim back around
November 2006.
Meanwhile, her eldest son, Tom, reached his peak rating at about that
time.
http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?13060416
Her younger son has actually been dropping in rating. Apparently he is
the one who complained that he is being forced to play chess.
http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?13546228
It also appears that Truong finished 10th in the open adult four round
event with one win and three half point byes. How does one get all
those 1/2 byes?
He obviously played one game as a house man. If you had any experience
directing or playing in chess tournaments ... well, you wouldn't be
such an easy target.
So, like Las Vegas, the house always wins. And if you were at a
tournament, John, with a prize list that went down to 20th place, would
you feel good about the organizer pocketing extra cash because of 1/2
point byes not afforded to others when you finished in 11th place? I'll
have to look for tournaments where I can take 1/2 point byes for 3/4 of
the rounds.
It would have been proper for Mr. Truong to refuse a prize for playing
as a filler. In a situation like that, the prize list might have been
extended to compensate for his 11th place finish.
That is to say, his placing is bogus unless every other player was
afforded the opportunity to get 1/2 point byes for 3/4 of their rounds.

No, that is to say your argument is bogus. I have to agree with John
Hillery here. Your lack of experience with tournament play and
organization is showing, and it's making you look foolish.

Do you have any
evidence that Truong accepted prize money for playing as a house man,
or is this charge merely another example of your usual Sam-ish
"kitchen sink" attacks on the Trolgars?
I never said there was prize money of any kind in this case. I asked
John a purely hypothetical question. I wrote, "And IF YOU were at A
tournament, JOHN, with a prize list that went down to 20th place, would
you feel good about the organizer pocketing extra cash because of 1/2
point byes not afforded to others when you finished in 11th place?"
[emphasis added]

Interestingly, if you look at his tournament record over the past few
years, he appears to play to keep his rating up by playing in
tournaments where he faces opponents who are usually rated 500 points
(often 1000 or unrated) below him. He then takes byes in the later
rounds if there is significant opposition in the tournament. It's a
good way to inch your rating up. Of course, he isn't the first or only
player to do that. Too bad the USCF records only go back to 1990 or so.

How many of those events has he served as house man? And how many
points does he get for beating someone 500 or more points below him?
You really should spend some time playing in tournaments, Brian.

If you do it often enough it can keep your rating steady or increase it
bit by bit. His name slips my mind (Bloodgood??), but didn't we have a
prison inmate who built his rating up to over 2700? Not that I'm saying
Truong would do that. But, look at his ratings climb and how he's done
it. Maybe he's trying to get his USCF rating to match his FIDE rating. ;-)

On Apr 30, 10:57*am, "
wrote:
I don't want to harp on an unimportant issue, but I am curious. Who is
the player used as a house man in the second round? John Hawthorne
from NY, provisionally rated 2362, no tournament history. Is this some
old player who is a friend of the organizers, playing his first rated
game in dozens of years? Sounds a bit fascinating. Provisional 23XX is
very odd except for foreign players.

Turns out he is foreign, so no great mystery. I like to see what
happens when a player inactive for dozens of years turns up. I
encountered one such in a tournament (he was playing in the memorial
tournament for his old chess mentor after abandoning chess for 20
years); he seemed to play at almost exactly the level of his ancient
rating. Have people seen other examples of this?

Jerry Spinrad

By the way, while in the very old days injecting these house players
who are much too high to play provisional players would have inflated
the rating pool, I am pretty sure that is not the case now, so this is
also not any issue except to the players in the tournament.

Jerry Spinrad

On Apr 30, 8:01*am, "



wrote:
On Apr 29, 9:26*pm, wrote:

Brian Lafferty wrote:
samsloan wrote:
It is to be recalled that it is actually Susan who brought her
children into this debate by repeatedly claiming that her children
were being threatened. She stated making this claim back around
November 2006.

Meanwhile, her eldest son, Tom, reached his peak rating at about that
time.

http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?13060416

Her younger son has actually been dropping in rating. Apparently he is
the one who complained that he is being forced to play chess.

http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?13546228

It also appears that Truong finished 10th in the open adult four round
event with one win and three half point byes. *How does one get all
those 1/2 byes?

He obviously played one game as a house man. If you had any experience
directing or playing in chess tournaments ... well, you wouldn't be
such an easy target.- Hide quoted text -

Although I think Brian is barking up the wrong tree here, I have never
heard of a house player rated 2300 in a small tournament, being paired
against someone who was either unrated or had a provisional rating
10XX. If Paul wanted money, he obviously could have finished at worst
2d by just playing the games. It wasn't quite a standard house player
arrangement, however, though he did function as one. It looks more
like a withdrawal and the TD just filling in half point byes instead
of full point byes in the reporting list, perhaps in a decision that
this would be fairer for the tiebreak points of the person he played.
I think it is important to focus on the real issue, an actual case of
abusive impersonation; this tournament is not at all relevant.

Jerry Spinrad

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Brian Lafferty wrote:

complete drivel.

One can only repeat the sound words at the beginning of this thread:
please get some experience as a player and TD before engaging in public
debate on matters about which you know NOTHING.

Start with reading the rulebook.

Then, talk to someone with some experience.

If after all that, you have strong opinions on how events should be run,
by all means bring them up in a public forum.

Until then, be guided by the adage: "'tis better to keep your mouth
shut, and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/

Brian Lafferty wrote:
The Historian wrote:
On Apr 30, 7:27 am, Brian Lafferty wrote:
The Historian wrote:
On Apr 30, 5:50 am, Brian Lafferty wrote:
wrote:
Brian Lafferty wrote:
samsloan wrote:
It is to be recalled that it is actually Susan who brought her
children into this debate by repeatedly claiming that her children
were being threatened. She stated making this claim back around
November 2006.
Meanwhile, her eldest son, Tom, reached his peak rating at about that
time.
http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?13060416
Her younger son has actually been dropping in rating. Apparently he is
the one who complained that he is being forced to play chess.
http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?13546228
It also appears that Truong finished 10th in the open adult four round
event with one win and three half point byes. How does one get all
those 1/2 byes?
He obviously played one game as a house man. If you had any experience
directing or playing in chess tournaments ... well, you wouldn't be
such an easy target.
So, like Las Vegas, the house always wins. And if you were at a
tournament, John, with a prize list that went down to 20th place, would
you feel good about the organizer pocketing extra cash because of 1/2
point byes not afforded to others when you finished in 11th place? I'll
have to look for tournaments where I can take 1/2 point byes for 3/4 of
the rounds.
It would have been proper for Mr. Truong to refuse a prize for playing
as a filler. In a situation like that, the prize list might have been
extended to compensate for his 11th place finish.
That is to say, his placing is bogus unless every other player was
afforded the opportunity to get 1/2 point byes for 3/4 of their rounds.

No, that is to say your argument is bogus. I have to agree with John
Hillery here. Your lack of experience with tournament play and
organization is showing, and it's making you look foolish.

Do you have any
evidence that Truong accepted prize money for playing as a house man,
or is this charge merely another example of your usual Sam-ish
"kitchen sink" attacks on the Trolgars?
I never said there was prize money of any kind in this case. I asked
John a purely hypothetical question. I wrote, "And IF YOU were at A
tournament, JOHN, with a prize list that went down to 20th place, would
you feel good about the organizer pocketing extra cash because of 1/2
point byes not afforded to others when you finished in 11th place?"
[emphasis added]

Interestingly, if you look at his tournament record over the past few
years, he appears to play to keep his rating up by playing in
tournaments where he faces opponents who are usually rated 500 points
(often 1000 or unrated) below him. He then takes byes in the later
rounds if there is significant opposition in the tournament. It's a
good way to inch your rating up. Of course, he isn't the first or only
player to do that. Too bad the USCF records only go back to 1990 or so.

How many of those events has he served as house man? And how many
points does he get for beating someone 500 or more points below him?
You really should spend some time playing in tournaments, Brian.

If you do it often enough it can keep your rating steady or increase it
bit by bit. His name slips my mind (Bloodgood??), but didn't we have a
prison inmate who built his rating up to over 2700? Not that I'm saying
Truong would do that. But, look at his ratings climb and how he's done
it. Maybe he's trying to get his USCF rating to match his FIDE rating. ;-)


Bloodgood got his rating up to 2400 (not 2700) by playing dozens of
games a week (he had a lot of time on his hands). At the rate Truong
is playing, he would need ~150 years to reach 2600. Tell us Brian: Are
you grossly dishonest or grossly ignorant? Inquiring minds want to
know.

Kenneth Sloan wrote:
Brian Lafferty wrote:

complete drivel.

One can only repeat the sound words at the beginning of this thread:
please get some experience as a player and TD before engaging in public
debate on matters about which you know NOTHING.

Start with reading the rulebook.

Then, talk to someone with some experience.

If after all that, you have strong opinions on how events should be run,
by all means bring them up in a public forum.

Until then, be guided by the adage: "'tis better to keep your mouth
shut, and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

oops!
--

"Do that which is right..."

Rev. J.D. Walker