wrote:

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.

Neither. You on the other hand attempt constantly to place words in
other's mouths. That is to say, you are fundamentally dishonest.

1. I never said I expected Truong to raise his rating to 2700. In fact,
I made clear that I was not saying that. You said that. As for Claue
Bloodgood, he's not listed in the USCF database. However, Larry Evans
notes that at one point, for a brief time, he was the number two rated
player in the US. So I guess you're saying he must have been at 2300??
Bloodgood got his rating up to 2702 in 1996.(Chessville, Wikipedia,
Larry Evans Crazy World). Once again you don't know ****. Go back to
law. It's easier to cover up your inadequacy in that field.

2. Now, look at Truong's rating increase via mostly small events (a good
number at the Polgar chess Center in Queens) over a period from 1993 to
2008--a slow and steady climb, no more than a few points a year, from
2267 to 2301 and now 2303 after two little Texas events against lower
rated opponents. Maybe he'll play in Dallas this August. That would be
lovely.

Now, I suggest you crawl back under your rock and read a good law book.

Kenneth Sloan wrote:
Brian Lafferty wrote:

complete drivel.

That's nothing new from you. You might try actually reading what I wrote
instead of allowing your aging mind to spin off into its own little world.

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.

I've read the rule book. Where did I say that what was done violated
any tournament rules? Nowhere. Another Sloan straw man exposed.

Then, talk to someone with some experience.

I have. Not everyone agrees with you.

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

You're so kind, Kenny.

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."

Good advice for you to take. You might also try reading for
comprehension. I suggest you go back on Aricept before contacting Sylvan.

Once you're thinking a little more clearly, compute the average rating
of Truong's opponents over the past four years and get back to us.

On Apr 30, 7:06 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:

2. Now, look at Truong's rating increase via mostly small events (a good
number at the Polgar chess Center in Queens) over a period from 1993 to
2008--a slow and steady climb, no more than a few points a year, from
2267 to 2301 and now 2303 after two little Texas events against lower
rated opponents.

At worst, he's a rabbit-basher - which fits with Truong's habit of
always taking the low road. This is a non-issue, Brian.

Maybe he'll play in Dallas this August. That would be
lovely.

Under his own name, or under someone else's?

The Historian wrote:
On Apr 30, 7:06 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:

2. Now, look at Truong's rating increase via mostly small events (a good
number at the Polgar chess Center in Queens) over a period from 1993 to
2008--a slow and steady climb, no more than a few points a year, from
2267 to 2301 and now 2303 after two little Texas events against lower
rated opponents.

At worst, he's a rabbit-basher - which fits with Truong's habit of
always taking the low road. This is a non-issue, Brian.

I agree it's tangential to the serious issues he's created for the USCF.

Maybe he'll play in Dallas this August. That would be
lovely.

Under his own name, or under someone else's?

I could help him do a legal name change if he did it in NY. He could
change his name legally to Fake Sam Sloan.

wrote:

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.

BTW John, I'm still waiting for the citation to the article on usenet
impersonation that you claimed supported your position. When can I
expect you to provide it?

I would just note that sooner or later one of these
bunnys will bash Paul (been there done that).
Bashing bunnys is all well and good but a single loss
will cost him 15 years progress, heck even a single
draw will set him back 7 years worth. There are far
better time proven techniques he could use if he
really wanted enguage in some personal rating
inflation.

Frankly this is just a total non-issue and is probably
a plum for the child who gets paired with him in that
they get to play a semi-celebrity.

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:42:51 -0700 (PDT),
"
wrote:


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?


In about 1976, I played my last USCF tournament game until December of
2005. After a few mixups, they found my old rating. Since then I've
played in seven USCF tournaments and lost all of three rating points.