Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old February 17th 09, 06:59 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 9,302
Default Sam Sloan for USCF Board Campaign has created a Flyer

On Feb 15, 3:43*pm, samsloan wrote:

I have created a campaign flyer for my election campaign for election
to the USCF Executive Board. The flyer is two pages long, in PDF
Format. It is intended to be printed out on two sides of a single
sheet of paper.

I ask my supporters (and for that matter my opponents and anybody else
at all) to print out this flyer, read it and, if they like it,
distribute it.

The flyer is downloadable athttp://www.anusha.com/sams-flyer.pdf



Apart from other issues, the fact remains that we
were told here -- by Mr. Sloan himself -- that the
last time he was on the board, he was unable to
get anything done (because of having only a
single vote).

Now, what is the plan this time-- make the very
same mistake again, of getting on the board with
just the one, powerless vote? Wouldn't it be
wiser to let someone new have a crack at this--
someone who has not already demonstrated his
impotence, his inability to get anything done
while on the board? Check my math, but I
believe that zero-for-one yields a batting average
of roughly .000, so even Rob Mitchell stands a
better chance of getting on base.


-- help bot







  #2   Report Post  
Old February 17th 09, 01:31 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Sam Sloan for USCF Board Campaign has created a Flyer

On Feb 17, 1:59*am, help bot wrote:
On Feb 15, 3:43*pm, samsloan wrote:

I have created a campaign flyer for my election campaign for election
to the USCF Executive Board. The flyer is two pages long, in PDF
Format. It is intended to be printed out on two sides of a single
sheet of paper.


I ask my supporters (and for that matter my opponents and anybody else
at all) to print out this flyer, read it and, if they like it,
distribute it.


The flyer is downloadable athttp://www.anusha.com/sams-flyer.pdf


* Apart from other issues, the fact remains that we
were told here -- by Mr. Sloan himself -- that the
last time he was on the board, he was unable to
get anything done (because of having only a
single vote).

* Now, what is the plan this time-- make the very
same mistake again, of getting on the board with
just the one, powerless vote? * *Wouldn't it be
wiser to let someone new have a crack at this--
someone who has not already demonstrated his
impotence, his inability to get anything done
while on the board? * Check my math, but I
believe that zero-for-one yields a batting average
of roughly .000, so even Rob Mitchell stands a
better chance of getting on base.

* -- help bot


At the beginning of my one year on the board, I was able to get some
things done which would not have been done otherwise. Here are some
examples:

1. I got the Expulsion of Bobby Fischer by the 2002 Board reversed.

2. I obtained copies of the 2003 Truong-Polgar-Niro Contract and the
DeFeis- Erik Anderson Contract which up until then had been "lost".

3. I got the office to make a CD of all income and expenses since 2001
where I discovered a number of questionable payments such as the
$13,358.36 that Goichberg paid Polgar in USCF Funds in November 2003
and the fact that three candidates were allowed to run for election
without paying the required $250 filing fees.

4. I got all the issues of Chess Life newspaper from 1947 to 1960
scanned where they are now available on CD.

5. Membership increased while I was on the board, the first and still
only time in a decade when that has happened.

6. There was a financial surplus which I was on the board, only the
second time since 1995 that that has happened.

The reason that more dramatic changes cound not take place was after
Tanner was forced off the board, there were only six members left,
Goichberg had two votes in his hip pocket, Hough and Channing. Neither
Hough nor Channing EVER voted against Goichberg. Therefore, there were
only three votes on my side, Schultz, Marinello and myself. Since Hall
was just Goichberg's yes-man who would do whatever Goichberg told him
to do, there were never enough votes to over rule or reverse anything
that Goichberg did.

After the coming election, the situation will be different. Even
assuming that Goichberg is re-elected (which is increasingly in doubt
as he seems to have little support, in fact I know of NOBODY, nobody
at all, who still supports Goichberg) Goichberg can not be the
president so he can not give any more secret instructions to Hall
(assuming that Hall survives the election). Channing resigned in
disgrace and Hough wisely is not running again. Bauer is not known for
his loyalty and Goichberg will not be able to count on him for support
on the new board.

So the new situation will be dynamic. I know that I will be pushing
for a reinstatement for Chess Life and Chess Life for Kids for ALL
members and for the USCF to start selling life memberships again. The
USCF will have to find a new vendor for books and equipment or to
start selling books and equipment itself again. Obviously, with the
current lawsuit by Hanon Russell against the USCF he cannot continue
as the vendor of USCF Books and Equipment.

So, the situation will be fluid and very dynamic especially at the
beginning. I think that the terrible things that Goichberg has done
during his four years in power will soon be swept into the dustbin of
USCF history. His four-year presidency will be just a bad memory. The
real danger facing the USCF is what will happen if the Polgar Group
wins the election and gains power. Everybody agrees that while
Goichberg is bad, Polgar is far, far worse.

In any event, my vote will consistently be for a return to the old way
of doing things, the way things were done prior to 1996. Prior to 1996
there was an increase in membership every year and profits every year.
The USCF had built up $2 million in the bank in the LMA. So that is
the way I want for the USCF to go back to doing business and my one
vote could be critical.

Sam Sloan
  #3   Report Post  
Old February 17th 09, 07:23 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Sam Sloan for USCF Board Campaign has created a Flyer

Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyShane
Quote:
Originally Posted by samsloan

I know that I will be pushing for a reinstatement for Chess Life and
Chess Life for Kids for ALL members and for the USCF to start selling
life memberships again.

Sam Sloan
Does this mean that you wish to get rid of the $29 no-paper-magazine
adult membership, and have everybody pay $42 (or some higher rate)
again?

-- Randy Shane
I favor a $39 rate for all adult memberships sold online. By the way,
$39 has never been the official rate.

Yes, I do not support and have never supported any no magazine
memberships. All members must receive a magazine.

Sam Sloan
  #4   Report Post  
Old February 18th 09, 01:21 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 9,302
Default Sam Sloan for USCF Board Campaign has created a Flyer

On Feb 17, 8:31*am, samsloan wrote:

At the beginning of my one year on the board, I was able to get some
things done which would not have been done otherwise. Here are some
examples:

1. I got the Expulsion of Bobby Fischer by the 2002 Board reversed.



Mr. Fischer was already retired, so this is an
issue only for the hangers-on who believe the
Cold War is still raging, and BF still central to
world chess.


2. I obtained copies of the 2003 Truong-Polgar-Niro Contract and the
DeFeis- Erik Anderson Contract which up until then had been "lost".

3. I got the office to make a CD of all income and expenses since 2001
where I discovered a number of questionable payments such as the
$13,358.36 that Goichberg paid Polgar in USCF Funds in November 2003
and the fact that three candidates were allowed to run for election
without paying the required $250 filing fees.



I'm not sure that was a /good/ thing. Look at
how one individual is specifically targetted, as
evidence of this "accomplishment's" obviously
personal-vendetta nature.


4. I got all the issues of Chess Life newspaper from 1947 to 1960
scanned where they are now available on CD.



I think I saw this advertised in Chess Lies. When
say, Mr. Kingston for instance, is searching for a
specific text, the Adobe format creates technical
difficulties (one can buy the solution, but it is
rather expensive). Also, this renders my collection
of old issues of CL far less valuable-- thanks, pal!


5. Membership increased while I was on the board, the first and still
only time in a decade when that has happened.



Is Mr. Sloan trying to imply a /causal/ relationship
between his serving on the board and a USCF
membership increase? Just how stupid does he
believe rgc readers are-- incredibly stupid, or just
plain ordinary stupid, I wonder.


6. There was a financial surplus which I was on the board, only the
second time since 1995 that that has happened.



Is Mr. Sloan again trying to assert a causal
relationship between these things and his
serving on the board? Please elaborate.


The reason that more dramatic changes cound not take place was after
Tanner was forced off the board, there were only six members left,
Goichberg had two votes in his hip pocket, Hough and Channing. Neither
Hough nor Channing EVER voted against Goichberg. Therefore, there were
only three votes on my side, Schultz, Marinello and myself. Since Hall
was just Goichberg's yes-man who would do whatever Goichberg told him
to do, there were never enough votes to over rule or reverse anything
that Goichberg did.



I think I see the root of the problem now. It is
quite unnecessary to put Mr. Sloan back on the
USCF board. On the contrary, that would
accomplish nothing, because the real problem
is "eradicating" BG and his yes-men... .


After the coming election, the situation will be different. Even
assuming that Goichberg is re-elected (which is increasingly in doubt
as he seems to have little support, in fact I know of NOBODY, nobody
at all, who still supports Goichberg) Goichberg can not be the
president so he can not give any more secret instructions to Hall
(assuming that Hall survives the election). Channing resigned in
disgrace and Hough wisely is not running again. Bauer is not known for
his loyalty and Goichberg will not be able to count on him for support
on the new board.



That is beside the point. We must "eliminate"
such men, as a matter of principle; this is after
all, a democracy, and tyrants must be delt with
/decisively/. Just name your price, and I will put
the word out to my contact, Mack-the-Knife.


So the new situation will be dynamic. I know that I will be pushing
for a reinstatement for Chess Life and Chess Life for Kids for ALL
members and for the USCF to start selling life memberships again. The
USCF will have to find a new vendor for books and equipment or to
start selling books and equipment itself again. Obviously, with the
current lawsuit by Hanon Russell against the USCF he cannot continue
as the vendor of USCF Books and Equipment.

So, the situation will be fluid and very dynamic especially at the
beginning. I think that the terrible things that Goichberg has done
during his four years in power



"In power"... you see, you knew all along who
it was that held REAL POWER, but you were
afraid to admit it. This is just like in that Burt
Reynolds movie, The Longest Yard... .


will soon be swept into the dustbin of
USCF history. His four-year presidency will be just a bad memory. The
real danger facing the USCF is what will happen if the Polgar Group
wins the election and gains power. Everybody agrees that while
Goichberg is bad, Polgar is far, far worse.



Ve know how to deal with such people,
comrade.


In any event, my vote will consistently be for a return to the old way
of doing things



Ah, another great movie springs to mind...
starring the beautiful, young Jane Fonda, as
Barbarella... ... ... ... (Is it hot in here, or
is it just me?)


-- help bot


  #5   Report Post  
Old February 18th 09, 04:14 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Sam Sloan for USCF Board Campaign has created a Flyer

Quote:
Originally Posted by rfeditor
How many times does Sam get to repeat this stuff? #3
is clearly false. It was long ago established that the payment to
Polgar was a perfectly legitimate payments for services rendered, and
that all candidates paid their filing fees. As for #4, Tim Tobiason
did the scanning. Sloan said it was a good idea, but I don't think
anyone felt otherwise. #5 and #6 had absolutely nothing to do with
Sloan. "Neither Hough nor Channing EVER voted against Goichberg" is
simply false (all those motions and votes are listed in
200-07_EB_Motions_Final.pdf). Oh, and Channing resigned because he
didn't like the lawsuit situation. To claim he "resigned in disgrace"
is probably libelous.

An ordinary poster who made this many, ah, statements which fail to
accord with consensus reality
would get slammed by the moderators.
How long is Sloan going to be a protected species?
Not true. At the time I discovered this payment of $13,358.36 nobody
on the board, either on the board at the time that this payment was
made or on the board at the time I discovered this payment knew about
it. Beatriz Marinello who had been USCF President in November 2003 at
the time that this payment was made stated at the November 2006
meeting that she never knew about this payment until I brought it up.
This was the biggest single check of any kind that Bill Goichberg
wrote while he was USCF Executive Director, so he could not have
overlooked it. It also came just after the USCF had fired 17 people
because otherwise the USCF could not have made payroll. No
documentation has ever been provided about this payment. If any such
documentation existed, it probably have been on the laptop that went
missing on August 20, 2003.

This payment may have violated at least the spirit if the rule that no
Executive Director may commit to a payment of more than $10,000
without approval of the board.

The decision to allow Tim Tobiason to scan the Chess Life newspapers
was my idea and my motion. Before I got on the board, I offered to
scan the Chess Life newspapers myself. After I got on the board, I put
the item on the agenda and made the motion. I contacted Tobiason and
got him to agree to do this. It passed as I recall by a 3-1-1 vote. At
least one member of the board was strongly opposed to this idea. It
was quite clear that if I had not championed this idea it would have
never passed. In fact, I was probably the only member of the board who
even knew that there had ever been a Chess Life newspaper. I knew
because I first joined in 1956. Other board members did not join until
after about 1961 by which time the bi-weekly newspaper had been turned
into a monthly magazine.

John Hillery states above "'Neither Hough nor Channing EVER voted
against Goichberg' is simply false." OK I challenge you on this. Find
one time that Hough or Channing EVER voted opposite to Goichberg.
There were many, many times when Beatriz Marinello, Don Schultz and
myself voted opposite to Goichberg, but none that Channing or Hough
ever voted against Goichberg.

Regarding 5 and 6 it is a fact that membership increased for the first
time in a decade while I was on the board and a financial surplus was
reported for only the second time since 1995 while I was on the board.
It is true that I cannot take all the credit for this. However, more
than any other board member I was the watchdog on the money. The
office knew that they could not slip anything by me. I caught several
improper or questionable payments. This probably encouraged them to
report a financial surplus. It also proves that there is no reason
that the USCF has to lose money every year. Draconian measures such as
no longer sending Chess Life to the regular members are unnecessary
with proper management.

Sam Sloan


  #6   Report Post  
Old February 18th 09, 04:34 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Sam Sloan for USCF Board Campaign has created a Flyer

Quote:
Originally Posted by tanstaafl
This is revisionist history. Yes, Sam Sloan
"championed" this cause, but there's no evidence that Bobby WANTED a
membership (and every indication that he DIDN'T want to be a member).
We couldn't FORCE him to be a member against his will. This whole
issue was just a game for political points.

Tanstaafl
As I reported to the board, both Grandmaster Benko and Grandmaster
Lombardy told Bobby Fischer about the action I had taken to get his
expulsion reversed and he expressed appreciation and gratitude for
what I had done.

Also, I had known Bobby Fischer since 1956 and had been a personal
friend of his since 1964.

Nevertheless, his membership was never fully reinstated. Goichberg and
Channing voted against reinstating Fischer as a USCF Member every time
I made the motion. The first motion I made regarding this was at the
August 14, 2006 meeting. Tanner was one of the votes in favor.
However, after Tanner left the board, all my subsequent motions failed
because Goichberg, Channing and Hough voted against them. This was one
of those 3-3 tie situations where if Goichberg was opposed it was
impossible to get anything passed.

Sam Sloan
  #7   Report Post  
Old February 18th 09, 05:11 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Sam Sloan for USCF Board Campaign has created a Flyer

Quote:
Originally Posted by rfeditor
When people do work, they get paid for it. Is this
really such a hard concept for you, Sam? The USCF owed Polgar the
money. They paid what they owed. End of story. Until you started
making reckless accusations, of course. It's tempting to let you have
it with both barrels yet again, but why bother? There can't be too
many people still in the dark about you. Anyone who still requires
convincing is probably beyond hope.
The invoice which was posted by Bill Brock who was, I believe, at that
time chairman of the finance committee, made ridiculous demands for
payments for things that nobody at the USCF could ever have agreed to,
such as a demand for Polgar to be paid $4,000 for a one-day celebrity
appearance in Nashville. There is no documentation to support any of
her demands. If there is any, I call upon you or the board to produce
it.

Tim Hanke, who was VP of Finance at that time, said "Don't pay them a
penny" when he saw the invoice. That is why it is significant that
Goichberg made this payment of $13,358.36 without telling the board
about it.

However, Beatriz Marinello has just pointed out that the rule that the
Executive Director cannot commit to a contract for more than $10,000
without board approval was not passed until May 2005, so I was not
correct in stating that Goichberg "may have violated the spirit of the
rule".

Goichberg showed me an invoice in Los Angeles where Polgar had
demanded reimbursement for airline tickets not only for her two
children but also for a domestic servant who was traveling with them,
so we USCF members had to pay for flying around the kids and the maid.

Sam Sloan
  #8   Report Post  
Old February 18th 09, 05:28 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,194
Default Honking of the wild Sloon


samsloan wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rfeditor
When people do work, they get paid for it. Is this
really such a hard concept for you, Sam? The USCF owed Polgar the
money. They paid what they owed. End of story. Until you started
making reckless accusations, of course. It's tempting to let you have
it with both barrels yet again, but why bother? There can't be too
many people still in the dark about you. Anyone who still requires
convincing is probably beyond hope.

The invoice which was posted by Bill Brock who was, I believe, at that
time chairman of the finance committee, made ridiculous demands for
payments for things that nobody at the USCF could ever have agreed to,
such as a demand for Polgar to be paid $4,000 for a one-day celebrity
appearance in Nashville. There is no documentation to support any of
her demands. If there is any, I call upon you or the board to produce
it.

Tim Hanke, who was VP of Finance at that time, said "Don't pay them a
penny" when he saw the invoice. That is why it is significant that
Goichberg made this payment of $13,358.36 without telling the board
about it.

However, Beatriz Marinello has just pointed out that the rule that the
Executive Director cannot commit to a contract for more than $10,000
without board approval was not passed until May 2005, so I was not
correct in stating that Goichberg "may have violated the spirit of the
rule".

Goichberg showed me an invoice in Los Angeles where Polgar had
demanded reimbursement for airline tickets not only for her two
children but also for a domestic servant who was traveling with them,
so we USCF members had to pay for flying around the kids and the maid.

Sam Sloan



I'm not sure what to make of this farrago. I suspect what you
intended to say (in your usual bumbling manner) was that Niro made
some bad deals with Polgar. So what? That's ancient history. No one
cares except you. If you really think you're entitled to demand
"documentation" for a bill paid by the USCF five years ago, you're
even stupider than I thought.

One lie down, many to go.
  #9   Report Post  
Old February 18th 09, 07:24 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 9,302
Default Sam Sloan for USCF Board Campaign has created a Flyer

On Feb 17, 11:34*pm, samsloan wrote:

As I reported to the board, both Grandmaster Benko and Grandmaster
Lombardy told Bobby Fischer about the action I had taken to get his
expulsion reversed and he expressed appreciation and gratitude for
what I had done.

Also, I had known Bobby Fischer since 1956 and had been a personal
friend of his since 1964.



This is not good.

As we know, only those who sucked up and pretended
to admire and adore every looney whim of BF's were
accepted into his circle of "friends". Those who were
honest with him, who, like Larry Evans, dared to speak
up when he took a wrong path, were quickly and
/permanently/ excommunicated. So then, Mr. Sloan
appears to be one of those who sucked up, much as
Mr. Mitchell sucks up to Dr. IMnes, who in turn sucks
up to LP... who sucks up to LE... who sucks up to RK
.... who sucks up to GK... who sucks up to... himself.


Nevertheless, his membership was never fully reinstated.


-----------------

"At the beginning of my one year on the board, I was able to get some
things done which would not have been done otherwise. Here are some
examples:

1. I got the Expulsion of Bobby Fischer by the 2002 Board reversed."

-----------------

Something is rotten in Denmark. Earlier, we
were informed by Mr. Sloan that he was responsible
for the reinstatement of BF; now he sings a different
tune, admitting that -- as usual -- he was unable to
get the job done.
Either Mr. Sloan is a pathological liar, or else his
mind is so far gone that it would be nothing short of
/recklessness/ to elect him to the board of directors.


Goichberg and
Channing voted against reinstating Fischer as a USCF Member every time
I made the motion. The first motion I made regarding this was at the
August 14, 2006 meeting. Tanner was one of the votes in favor.
However, after Tanner left the board, all my subsequent motions failed
because Goichberg, Channing and Hough voted against them. This was one
of those 3-3 tie situations where if Goichberg was opposed it was
impossible to get anything passed.



Impossible for Mr. Sloan, perhaps; but there
are men who are not quite so easily flustered,
rendered impotent.

Take Mr. Bush, for instance; when he wantd
to invade Iraq, he just did it. There were no
whiny-baby excuses about how the U.N. kept
getting in his way or how the hated Democrats
were not being cooperative. He knew what he
wanted to do, and just went for it-- just like his
predecessor, Mr. Hitler, had done. And then
there was that guy who wanted to untie the
Gordian knot-- a funky, whopping mess of a
knot of rope; he cut to the chase, not bothering
to make excuses for failure the way Mr. Sloan
always does. We need more men like these;
bold, decisive men, who aren't afraid to make
mistakes-- even HUGE ones like invading
Russia... Vietnam... or Iraq... .


-- help bot




  #10   Report Post  
Old February 18th 09, 09:56 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Honking of the wild Sloon

On Feb 18, 12:28*am, wrote:

I'm not sure what to make of this farrago. *I suspect what you
intended to say (in your usual bumbling manner) was that Niro made
some bad deals with Polgar. So what? That's ancient history. No one
cares except you. If you really think you're entitled to demand
"documentation" for a bill paid by the USCF five years ago, you're
even stupider than I thought.

One lie down, many to go.

John Hillery


I did not intend to say that. How do we know that Niro made such a
deal? There was no documentation, or none that has ever been found.
Niro disappeared on or about August 7, 2003. His laptop disappeared on
August 20, 2003. (Polgar and Truong subsequently admitted to having
taken it.)

If Niro intended to make such a deal, why did not he pay Polgar when
he was in office? Why did not Mike Nolan or Grant Perks, who succeeded
Niro, make the payment? Why did Goichberg make the payment, when Niro,
Nolan and Perks had failed to do so?

Most likely because Truong threatened to sue Goichberg if he did not
pay the money. We know that Truong often did that, so that seems to be
the most likely reason. But if that is the reason, why did not
Goichberg disclose that to the board at the time. Why did this secret
wait three years until it was discovered by me in 2006.

Corporations are supposed to keep their records for six years. This
happened less than six years ago. Why cannot the records of this
transaction be produced? Do not forget that you have been denying the
truth of my statement that all of the records of this period have been
lost or destroyed?

The fact that Goichberg made a large payment like this one,
$13,358.36, without any documentation or proof of any kind that the
money was owed shows his lack of qualifications to be either executive
director or USCF President.

Sam Sloan
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sam Sloan for USCF Board Campaign has created a Flyer samsloan rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 30 February 20th 09 06:00 AM
Paul Truong is the Fake Sam Sloan [email protected] alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 12 August 3rd 06 04:50 AM
Paul Truong is the Fake Sam Sloan BarbaraVilliers rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 August 1st 06 12:33 PM
Paul Truong is the Fake Sam Sloan BarbaraVilliers rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 August 1st 06 12:33 PM
Marinello Case: Affidavit in Support of Order to Show Cause [email protected] alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 6 March 4th 05 04:53 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:58 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017