Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
FIDE Views on the USA and the Polgar Problems
11 views
Skip to first unread message
samsloan
Apr 7, 2012, 9:54:20 PM4/7/12
to
When I was at the World Chess Olympiad in Khanty-Mansiyak, Siberia in
September 2010, I asked the delegate from Hungary about this. I am
quite aware that Zsuzsa Polgar had a very bad reputation in her own
country and they were quite happy to see her leave, so I thought he
might have some sympathy for the problems the USCF have had with her.
However, he replied that not only Hungary but all the countries in
FIDE have a very low opinion of USCF politics and therefore they pay
little or no attention to anything to come out of the USA. The USA is
respected in FIDE for being the most powerful country in the world but
only for that.
Sam Sloan
September 2010, I asked the delegate from Hungary about this. I am
quite aware that Zsuzsa Polgar had a very bad reputation in her own
country and they were quite happy to see her leave, so I thought he
might have some sympathy for the problems the USCF have had with her.
However, he replied that not only Hungary but all the countries in
FIDE have a very low opinion of USCF politics and therefore they pay
little or no attention to anything to come out of the USA. The USA is
respected in FIDE for being the most powerful country in the world but
only for that.
Sam Sloan
samsloan
Apr 8, 2012, 3:42:17 PM4/8/12
to
As best I recall there was no provision that Susan Polgar could
continue to represent the USCF in FIDE Events. I do recall it was said
that Susan Polgar could continue to play chess as a non-USCF member.
However, she has not played a rated tournament game of chess since
2006 and those were just blitz events so this does not matter.
Incidentally, the study by Ken Reagan showing the similarity between
the moves played by certain players and computer generated moves shows
a high similarity of Polgar's moves to computer generated moves. Over
80% of her moves are the same, more than any male grandmaster. Polgar
was expelled from ICC (the Internet Chess Club) for computer cheating
so this raises some doubts about her playing.
The real issue is that Polgar continues to serve as Co-chairman of the
FIDE Woman's Commission, a fact that she proudly trumpets on her
websites all the time. Since she is a US player, even though she is
not a USCF member, the USCF could insist that she be removed from that
position. However, having attended FIDE Congresses myself, I know that
most FIDE delegates have a poor opinion of the USCF. I think there is
an article in ChessBase that calls the USCF "a terrible" organization.
So, I think it is probably not good diplomacy for the USCF to insist
that Polgar be kicked off. Also, the FIDE Woman's Commission is a do-
nothing organization with no powers. They just meet once every two
years to discuss issues regarding woman's chess but do nothing, so
there is no real harm in letting Polgar keep that position.
continue to represent the USCF in FIDE Events. I do recall it was said
that Susan Polgar could continue to play chess as a non-USCF member.
However, she has not played a rated tournament game of chess since
2006 and those were just blitz events so this does not matter.
Incidentally, the study by Ken Reagan showing the similarity between
the moves played by certain players and computer generated moves shows
a high similarity of Polgar's moves to computer generated moves. Over
80% of her moves are the same, more than any male grandmaster. Polgar
was expelled from ICC (the Internet Chess Club) for computer cheating
so this raises some doubts about her playing.
The real issue is that Polgar continues to serve as Co-chairman of the
FIDE Woman's Commission, a fact that she proudly trumpets on her
websites all the time. Since she is a US player, even though she is
not a USCF member, the USCF could insist that she be removed from that
position. However, having attended FIDE Congresses myself, I know that
most FIDE delegates have a poor opinion of the USCF. I think there is
an article in ChessBase that calls the USCF "a terrible" organization.
So, I think it is probably not good diplomacy for the USCF to insist
that Polgar be kicked off. Also, the FIDE Woman's Commission is a do-
nothing organization with no powers. They just meet once every two
years to discuss issues regarding woman's chess but do nothing, so
there is no real harm in letting Polgar keep that position.
samsloan
Apr 8, 2012, 11:40:03 PM4/8/12
to
[quote="ChessSpawn"][quote="tsawmiller"][quote="samsloan"]
[quote="tsawmiller"][quote="samsloan"]
Is this documented anywhere?[/quote]
Is The New York Times good enough for you?[/quote]
Sure. Do you have a link to it?[/quote]
I just re-read Dylan McClain's article on this. It makes no mention
whatsoever of Susan Polgar or ICC.[/quote]
There was a link on the NY Times website showing 200 players and the
percentage of times their moves corresponded with the move the
computer picked.
Some of the players were historical. For example Bobby Fischer had a
high correlation with the computer picked moves. This was, of course,
because Bobby Fischer was a strong player. Computers did not exist
back when he was playing.
I believe that Emanuel Lasker had a high correlation among the
historical players. This is surprising because it has long been
thought that Lasker was a mere coffee-house player who played weak
moves to trick his opponents.
At the very top of the list was Susan Polgar. Her games had the
highest correlation with computer moves of any grandmaster. Since
Susan has rarely played in recent years I wonder what games of hers
were checked.
I can no longer find the list on the nytimes.com website. Perhaps
Susan Polgar has threatened to sue them so they took it down.
The fact that both Susan Polgar and Paul Truong were banned from both
ICC and US Chess Live because of computer cheating was reported at the
time and even acknowledged by Truong. It was not in the New York Times
article.
[quote="tsawmiller"][quote="samsloan"]
Incidentally, the study by Ken Reagan showing the similarity between
the moves played by certain players and computer generated moves shows
a high similarity of Polgar's moves to computer generated moves. Over
80% of her moves are the same, more than any male grandmaster. Polgar
was expelled from ICC (the Internet Chess Club) for computer cheating
so this raises some doubts about her playing.
[/quote]
the moves played by certain players and computer generated moves shows
a high similarity of Polgar's moves to computer generated moves. Over
80% of her moves are the same, more than any male grandmaster. Polgar
was expelled from ICC (the Internet Chess Club) for computer cheating
so this raises some doubts about her playing.
Is this documented anywhere?[/quote]
Is The New York Times good enough for you?[/quote]
Sure. Do you have a link to it?[/quote]
I just re-read Dylan McClain's article on this. It makes no mention
whatsoever of Susan Polgar or ICC.[/quote]
There was a link on the NY Times website showing 200 players and the
percentage of times their moves corresponded with the move the
computer picked.
Some of the players were historical. For example Bobby Fischer had a
high correlation with the computer picked moves. This was, of course,
because Bobby Fischer was a strong player. Computers did not exist
back when he was playing.
I believe that Emanuel Lasker had a high correlation among the
historical players. This is surprising because it has long been
thought that Lasker was a mere coffee-house player who played weak
moves to trick his opponents.
At the very top of the list was Susan Polgar. Her games had the
highest correlation with computer moves of any grandmaster. Since
Susan has rarely played in recent years I wonder what games of hers
were checked.
I can no longer find the list on the nytimes.com website. Perhaps
Susan Polgar has threatened to sue them so they took it down.
The fact that both Susan Polgar and Paul Truong were banned from both
ICC and US Chess Live because of computer cheating was reported at the
time and even acknowledged by Truong. It was not in the New York Times
article.
Greegor
Apr 9, 2012, 6:37:57 AM4/9/12
to
Did she have a speaker in her ear and
a camera in her glasses or in her hairdo
to let her confederate back in the hotel
room see the board and search out moves
on the computer?
The exact details of their method would
be very amusing.
I would think that mainframe computers
could have been used as far back as the
1960's though at considerable cost for
service and long distance telephone service.
I am not a Chess player but my understanding
is that computer chess moves have always
been inferior to high level human players
up until IBM's recent success.
Is there an ulterior reason for these people
to go to all of that trouble just to pass
themselves off as sophisticated chess players?
Would they have obtained winnings at that level
of play that would have made the subterfuge
worth the trouble and expense?
Espionage type behavior to what ends??
Your smrat ®
Apr 9, 2012, 8:38:08 AM4/9/12
to
On Apr 8, 11:40 pm, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The fact that both Susan Polgar and Paul Truong were banned from both
> ICC and US Chess Live because of computer cheating was reported at the
> time and even acknowledged by Truong. It was not in the New York Times
> article.
According to sworn documents filed by Spam Splooge in the case Sloan v
> The fact that both Susan Polgar and Paul Truong were banned from both
> ICC and US Chess Live because of computer cheating was reported at the
> time and even acknowledged by Truong. It was not in the New York Times
> article.
Truong Polgar Channing etcetera and so on, verified complaint, page 6
paragraph 17:
"Detractors also say that both he [truong] and Susan Polgar have been
expelled for computer cheating from several Internet chess playing
servers, including the Internet Chess Club (“ICC”) and US Chess Live.
Plaintiff [sloan] has no idea which of these claims are true and which
are not, because all of these claims, both positive and negative, have
proven to be unverifiable."
http://www.anusha.com/truong-polgar-lawsuit.pdf
In 2008 Sloan swore under penalty of perjury that he had no personal
knowledge of the truth or falsity of the cheating allegation and that
there was no available proof on the matter. Here on 2012 he claims
that the cheating allegation is a "fact," the truth of which he has
personal knowledge, based on Truong's contemporaneous admission. Both
statements cannot be true. So either Scam lied under oath in 2008, in
which case he is guilty of perjury, or he is lying now, in which case
his pants are on fire.
samsloan
Apr 9, 2012, 9:33:51 AM4/9/12
to
"to test opening lines". In other words he wanted to learn a certain
opening that he did not know, so he would consult opening books or
computers during the opening phase of the game.
It is a fact that they were both expelled from ICC and US Chess Live.
The exact reasons have remained confidential. One person directly
familiar with the case was Duncan Oxley who unfortunately committed
suicide shortly thereafter for reasons unrelated to chess. Another
person with personal knowledge of the facts is Mike Aignar, a regular
on the USCF Issues Forum. He has stated that he is sworn to
confidentiality.
Both Duncan Oxley and Mike Aignar were administrators on ICC and US
Chess Life when these events took place, so they have personal
knowledge of the Polgar and Truong expulsion cases. Unfortunately,
they are not talking.
Sam Sloan
samsloan
Apr 9, 2012, 10:26:48 AM4/9/12
to
competed in the 1986 World Computer Championship in Cologne Germany.
My program only won one game but we were cheated in another game.
At that time the strongest computers in the world were about 2100
strength. In 1980, the best computer programs in the world were not
even Class C strength.
David Levy, whose strength is about 2300, did not lost his famous bet
until 1989:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Levy_%28chess_player%29#Computer_chess_bet
When Susan Polgar and Paul Truong were expelled for computer cheating,
they were playing online while using a computer. The interesting
querstion is how was ICC able to detect that they were using a
computer. It is possible that the computer program they were running
was being run on the same computer that they were playing on. In that
case, it should have been easy to detect. The other possibility is
that their moves were similar to the moves a computer program played.
This is the method that Ken Reagan used to confirm cheating by three
French players during the world Chess Olympiad in Khanty-Mansiysk in
2010.
Here is the list.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/03/19/science/chess-players-whose-moves-most-matched-computers.html
http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/WCallperfs.txt
Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan
samsloan
Apr 9, 2012, 10:52:21 AM4/9/12
to
[quote="Crume"][quote="samsloan"][quote="Brian Mottershead"]Randy, I
would also like to know whether the USCF has notified the FIDE of
Polgar's status. If you know, perhaps you would be kind enough to
answer. I am getting the impression from your previous answers in
this thread that you do know, but it isn't clear.
On a different point, it isn't clear whether Polgar's FIDE offices
depend on her having the approval of the federation with which she is
associated. Do you have an opinion on that question?[/quote]
It is an absolute fact that under FIDE rules, Susan Polgar cannot
serve as Co-Chairman of the FIDE Woman's Commission if the USCF
Objects.
Since Susan Polgar is still Co-Chairman of the FIDE Woman's
Commission, this means that the USCF has not objected.
Being a member of the USCF is not relevant. Many FIDE member nations
do not have memberships or membership dues. Thus the USA doctor who
serves on the FIDE Medical Commission does not have to be a dues-
paying USCF Member. However, if the USCF objects to his presence he
will be removed from that commission.[/quote]
Yes, well, enforcement of the objection is another matter.[/quote]
Not true. At the 2010 FIDE Congress in Khanty-Mansiysk Siberia which I
attended, if the US Delegation had objected to Susan Polgar being the
Co-Chairman of the FIDE Woman's Commission, she would have been
removed immediately.
I think the reason the US Delegate did not object was they saw Zsuzsa
hobnobbing with all those famous chess personalities so they thought
it diplomatically wise not to make a stink. I think that Goichberg was
angry with Bill Kelleher for this reason and that is why Kelleher lost
his FIDE Position and was not made USA Zone President, when he was by
far the most qualified person.
would also like to know whether the USCF has notified the FIDE of
Polgar's status. If you know, perhaps you would be kind enough to
answer. I am getting the impression from your previous answers in
this thread that you do know, but it isn't clear.
On a different point, it isn't clear whether Polgar's FIDE offices
depend on her having the approval of the federation with which she is
associated. Do you have an opinion on that question?[/quote]
It is an absolute fact that under FIDE rules, Susan Polgar cannot
serve as Co-Chairman of the FIDE Woman's Commission if the USCF
Objects.
Since Susan Polgar is still Co-Chairman of the FIDE Woman's
Commission, this means that the USCF has not objected.
Being a member of the USCF is not relevant. Many FIDE member nations
do not have memberships or membership dues. Thus the USA doctor who
serves on the FIDE Medical Commission does not have to be a dues-
paying USCF Member. However, if the USCF objects to his presence he
will be removed from that commission.[/quote]
Yes, well, enforcement of the objection is another matter.[/quote]
Not true. At the 2010 FIDE Congress in Khanty-Mansiysk Siberia which I
attended, if the US Delegation had objected to Susan Polgar being the
Co-Chairman of the FIDE Woman's Commission, she would have been
removed immediately.
I think the reason the US Delegate did not object was they saw Zsuzsa
hobnobbing with all those famous chess personalities so they thought
it diplomatically wise not to make a stink. I think that Goichberg was
angry with Bill Kelleher for this reason and that is why Kelleher lost
his FIDE Position and was not made USA Zone President, when he was by
far the most qualified person.
Your smrat ®
Apr 9, 2012, 11:21:15 AM4/9/12
to
he stated it to you. When I search google for the phrase you put in qm
I get
No results found for truong "to test opening lines"..
> It is a fact that they were both expelled from ICC and US Chess Live.
> The exact reasons have remained confidential. One person directly
> familiar with the case was Duncan Oxley who unfortunately committed
> suicide shortly thereafter for reasons unrelated to chess. Another
> person with personal knowledge of the facts is Mike Aignar, a regular
> on the USCF Issues Forum. He has stated that he is sworn to
> confidentiality.
>
> Both Duncan Oxley and Mike Aignar were administrators on ICC and US
> Chess Life when these events took place, so they have personal
> knowledge of the Polgar and Truong expulsion cases. Unfortunately,
> they are not talking.
witnesses are dead or not talking. That is convenient. Do you expect
to be taken at your word because of your high character and reputation
for honesty? If so you are even stupider than I take you for and
believe me I think you're a high functioning refuckingtard.
samsloan
Apr 9, 2012, 10:36:31 AM4/9/12
to
Here is the New York Times Article and then the list:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/03/19/science/chess-players-whose-moves-most-matched-computers.html
http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/WCallperfs.txt
As you can see, Susan Polgar is right at the top. The games used were
her 1996 match for the World Chess Championship against Xie Jun.
Below her is Kramnik and the games used were his match for the world
championship against Topalov where Topalov accused Kramnik of computer
cheating.
It is interesting that the highest percentage for a historical player
were by Emanual Lasker for his match against Marshall. Lasker died in
1941 long before chess computers were invented so he could not have
been computer cheating.
Sam Sloan
http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/WCallperfs.txt
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/03/19/science/chess-players-whose-moves-most-matched-computers.html
http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/WCallperfs.txt
As you can see, Susan Polgar is right at the top. The games used were
her 1996 match for the World Chess Championship against Xie Jun.
Below her is Kramnik and the games used were his match for the world
championship against Topalov where Topalov accused Kramnik of computer
cheating.
It is interesting that the highest percentage for a historical player
were by Emanual Lasker for his match against Marshall. Lasker died in
1941 long before chess computers were invented so he could not have
been computer cheating.
Sam Sloan
http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/WCallperfs.txt
jeremy.p...@vanderbilt.edu
Apr 9, 2012, 12:28:27 PM4/9/12
to
be verified.
ICC does not discuss how they know that a person is cheating, because
telling their methods for testing would make it easier to bypass their
tests for computer cheating. They do not discuss this for any case of
cheating, so you cannot use the fact that they are not talking to make
it seem that this case was spurious.
Jerry Spinrad
Your smrat ®
Apr 9, 2012, 3:39:15 PM4/9/12
to
On Apr 9, 12:28 pm, "jeremy.p.spin...@vanderbilt.edu"
Splooge says. I wonder why if it is easily verifiable that Spam swore
under oath that he had no way of knowing whether it was true. I wonder
why if it is easily verifiable Spam says "the exact reasons [for the
expulsion] have remained confidential." What remains is that he either
lied under oath when he said he had no idea whether it was true, or
he's lying now when he says it is "a fact."
If you have evidence that it is "a fact" I'd be happy if you shared
it.
> ICC does not discuss how they know that a person is cheating, because
> telling their methods for testing would make it easier to bypass their
> tests for computer cheating. They do not discuss this for any case of
> cheating, so you cannot use the fact that they are not talking to make
> it seem that this case was spurious.
That they are not talking is proof that Scam doesn't know what they
said, that much should be obvious. Their not talking is neither
evidence of "a fact" not evidence of spuriousness. That Scam said it
is however prima facie evidence of spuriousness.
<jeremy.p.spin...@vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
> Are you doubting the expulsion for computer cheating? This can easily
> be verified.
I am doubting the expulsion for cheating, yes. I doubt everything Spam
> Are you doubting the expulsion for computer cheating? This can easily
> be verified.
Splooge says. I wonder why if it is easily verifiable that Spam swore
under oath that he had no way of knowing whether it was true. I wonder
why if it is easily verifiable Spam says "the exact reasons [for the
expulsion] have remained confidential." What remains is that he either
lied under oath when he said he had no idea whether it was true, or
he's lying now when he says it is "a fact."
If you have evidence that it is "a fact" I'd be happy if you shared
it.
> ICC does not discuss how they know that a person is cheating, because
> telling their methods for testing would make it easier to bypass their
> tests for computer cheating. They do not discuss this for any case of
> cheating, so you cannot use the fact that they are not talking to make
> it seem that this case was spurious.
said, that much should be obvious. Their not talking is neither
evidence of "a fact" not evidence of spuriousness. That Scam said it
is however prima facie evidence of spuriousness.
jeremy.p...@vanderbilt.edu
Apr 9, 2012, 5:40:48 PM4/9/12
to
his statements here. What Sam said under oath is that Truong was
kicked of the servers for cheating, but he had no direct way of
knowing what was behind the accusations of cheating are true. This is
all perfectly reasonable.
Sam believes something is a fact because those who know more about it
than he does have declared it to be a fact. One can believe that the
laws of gravity are a fact, without having directly tested them
yourself, because you believe that the authorities who tested the law
were knowledgeable.
A flat-earther can take issue with the statement that the world is
round is a fact, but would be viewed as a kook. On the other hand,
declaring something is a fact because you read an internet post on
someone's blog saying it was true makes you naive. Trusting the
authorities of ICC clearly ranks between these two, but certainly does
not make Sam a liar as your twisting of the account would have it.
Would it change your mind about anything if you were convinced that
Truong was kicked off internet servers for cheating? I can find posts
by people I happen to trust (not Sam) which assert the fact, but you
may not have the same level of trust in these people. It is possible
that the servers would verify this, if you think that would have any
effect on an issue that you care about, eg whether it would make you
think Truong is a shady person. On the other hand, if you simply want
to score points against Sam Sloan in an argument, it is not worth
yours or my time to try to check it out.
Sam gets many things wrong, but you seem to have picked an odd point
on which to challenge him here.
Jerry Spinrad
Message has been deleted
samsloan
Apr 10, 2012, 12:12:54 AM4/10/12
to
One Way to tell that a posting is fake:
Click on "more options" at the top and then click on "show original".
You may see something like this:
Received: by 10.68.202.37 with SMTP id kf5mr8294080pbc.
7.1334015685264;
Mon, 09 Apr 2012 16:54:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Path: r9ni38267pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!
border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-
in-01.newsfeed.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!news.alt.net!
news.dizum.com!sewer-output!mail2news-x5!mail2news-x4!mail2news-x3!
mail2news-x2!mail2news
Subject: USCFId: 11115292 re: FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
From: "Chronic Pain" <voiceo...@aol.com>
References: <66dfd7ef-15e5-4ea0-
a7c3-8df...@l3g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>
X-No-Archive: Yes
X-No-Tracker: yes
X-bcc: "Boris Kreiman" <se...@nym.mixmin.net>
Newsgroups:
rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.computer,talk.politics.libertarian
Message-ID:
<276476abef841496...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 01:52:25 +0200
Mail-To-News-Contact: ab...@dizum.com
Organization: mail2n...@dizum.com
X-Received-Bytes: 15775
Lines: 407
This shows the above postuing to be fake. This is because it uses
dizum.com which the Fake dsam Sloan uses most often.
Also, the poster is voiceo...@aol.com
VoiceOfReason was shown in 2008 to be Paul Truong.
The Real Sam Sloan
Click on "more options" at the top and then click on "show original".
You may see something like this:
Received: by 10.68.202.37 with SMTP id kf5mr8294080pbc.
7.1334015685264;
Mon, 09 Apr 2012 16:54:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Path: r9ni38267pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!
border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-
in-01.newsfeed.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!news.alt.net!
news.dizum.com!sewer-output!mail2news-x5!mail2news-x4!mail2news-x3!
mail2news-x2!mail2news
Subject: USCFId: 11115292 re: FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
From: "Chronic Pain" <voiceo...@aol.com>
References: <66dfd7ef-15e5-4ea0-
a7c3-8df...@l3g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>
X-No-Archive: Yes
X-No-Tracker: yes
X-bcc: "Boris Kreiman" <se...@nym.mixmin.net>
Newsgroups:
rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.computer,talk.politics.libertarian
Message-ID:
<276476abef841496...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 01:52:25 +0200
Mail-To-News-Contact: ab...@dizum.com
Organization: mail2n...@dizum.com
X-Received-Bytes: 15775
Lines: 407
This shows the above postuing to be fake. This is because it uses
dizum.com which the Fake dsam Sloan uses most often.
Also, the poster is voiceo...@aol.com
VoiceOfReason was shown in 2008 to be Paul Truong.
The Real Sam Sloan
Your smrat ®
Apr 10, 2012, 8:22:29 AM4/10/12
to
On Apr 9, 5:40 pm, "jeremy.p.spin...@vanderbilt.edu"
Delusional is a benign explanation. He routinely displays behaviors
that in more civilized times would have gotten him hanged, or
disemboweled.
> you are completely twisting
> his statements here. What Sam said under oath is that Truong was
> kicked of the servers for cheating, but he had no direct way of
> knowing what was behind the accusations of cheating are true. This is
> all perfectly reasonable.
Leaving aside the unreasonableness of including unverifiable innuendo
in a verified complaint and then swearing under oath that you don't
know whether the innuedo is false, yes, so far this is perfectly
reasonable: Sam heard a rumor that Troung was expelled for cheating
and doesn't know whether it is true. If that was all that he had said
then he would not have lied.
> Sam believes something is a fact because those who know more about it
> than he does have declared it to be a fact.
This is not reasonable and is not what he said. Sam said "The exact
reasons [for the expulsion] have remained confidential" because the
people in the know "are not talking." If the exact reasons for the
expulsion are confidential, then Spam doesn't know what the exact
reasons for the expulsion are, because no one has declared anything a
fact.
<hose>
> Trusting the
> authorities of ICC clearly ranks between these two, but certainly does
> not make Sam a liar as your twisting of the account would have it.
What makes Sam a liar is that he tells lies. Under oath he says he has
no way of knowing whether the allegation is true. Not under oath he
says the allegation is "a fact" that "was reported at the time" and
"acknowledged by Truong" from whom he supplies a quotation. These two
statements are contradictory. He cannot both know that the allegation
is true and not know that it's true. Therefore one statement is false.
Whether Truong was in fact expelled for cheating is irrelevant. Sam
lied about his knowledge of the event, not the truth of the event. Not
a particularly subtle distinction, and yet it seems to have eluded
you.
> Would it change your mind about anything if you were convinced that
> Truong was kicked off internet servers for cheating? I can find posts
> by people I happen to trust (not Sam) which assert the fact, but you
> may not have the same level of trust in these people. It is possible
> that the servers would verify this, if you think that would have any
> effect on an issue that you care about, eg whether it would make you
> think Truong is a shady person. On the other hand, if you simply want
> to score points against Sam Sloan in an argument, it is not worth
> yours or my time to try to check it out.
I note in passing that whereas before you said that the allegation
could "easily be verified," now it seems like a great deal of trouble.
Evidence that Truong was expelled for cheating would convince me that
Scram wasn't lying when he said Truong was expelled for cheating.
Because I believe that every word out of Sloon's mouth is a lie,
including and and the. It wouldn't convince me that he wasn't lying
when said first that he had no proof one way or the other and then
later said that he had contemporaneous proof. These statements cannot
be reconciled.
> Sam gets many things wrong, but you seem to have picked an odd point
> on which to challenge him here.
I challenged him here on this point because this was the point here he
made. Challenging him on this point elsewhere or another point here
would have confused my many fans. And anyway I enjoy pointing out
Scam's many instances of juridical humiliation and legal
numfuckingskullery. Meanwhile you should consider that the point seems
odd to you because it went whooshing over your head.
Delusional is a benign explanation. He routinely displays behaviors
that in more civilized times would have gotten him hanged, or
disemboweled.
> you are completely twisting
> his statements here. What Sam said under oath is that Truong was
> kicked of the servers for cheating, but he had no direct way of
> knowing what was behind the accusations of cheating are true. This is
> all perfectly reasonable.
in a verified complaint and then swearing under oath that you don't
know whether the innuedo is false, yes, so far this is perfectly
reasonable: Sam heard a rumor that Troung was expelled for cheating
and doesn't know whether it is true. If that was all that he had said
then he would not have lied.
> Sam believes something is a fact because those who know more about it
> than he does have declared it to be a fact.
reasons [for the expulsion] have remained confidential" because the
people in the know "are not talking." If the exact reasons for the
expulsion are confidential, then Spam doesn't know what the exact
reasons for the expulsion are, because no one has declared anything a
fact.
<hose>
> Trusting the
> authorities of ICC clearly ranks between these two, but certainly does
> not make Sam a liar as your twisting of the account would have it.
no way of knowing whether the allegation is true. Not under oath he
says the allegation is "a fact" that "was reported at the time" and
"acknowledged by Truong" from whom he supplies a quotation. These two
statements are contradictory. He cannot both know that the allegation
is true and not know that it's true. Therefore one statement is false.
Whether Truong was in fact expelled for cheating is irrelevant. Sam
lied about his knowledge of the event, not the truth of the event. Not
a particularly subtle distinction, and yet it seems to have eluded
you.
> Would it change your mind about anything if you were convinced that
> Truong was kicked off internet servers for cheating? I can find posts
> by people I happen to trust (not Sam) which assert the fact, but you
> may not have the same level of trust in these people. It is possible
> that the servers would verify this, if you think that would have any
> effect on an issue that you care about, eg whether it would make you
> think Truong is a shady person. On the other hand, if you simply want
> to score points against Sam Sloan in an argument, it is not worth
> yours or my time to try to check it out.
could "easily be verified," now it seems like a great deal of trouble.
Evidence that Truong was expelled for cheating would convince me that
Scram wasn't lying when he said Truong was expelled for cheating.
Because I believe that every word out of Sloon's mouth is a lie,
including and and the. It wouldn't convince me that he wasn't lying
when said first that he had no proof one way or the other and then
later said that he had contemporaneous proof. These statements cannot
be reconciled.
> Sam gets many things wrong, but you seem to have picked an odd point
> on which to challenge him here.
made. Challenging him on this point elsewhere or another point here
would have confused my many fans. And anyway I enjoy pointing out
Scam's many instances of juridical humiliation and legal
numfuckingskullery. Meanwhile you should consider that the point seems
odd to you because it went whooshing over your head.
micky
Apr 10, 2012, 5:36:48 PM4/10/12
to
haw haw "numfuckingscullerymaids" haw haw de haw (num num nutz) haw haw
foad leading the way - haw haw..
.
Taylor Kingston
Apr 10, 2012, 5:16:10 PM4/10/12
to
On Apr 9, 2:40 pm, "jeremy.p.spin...@vanderbilt.edu"
curiosity: has Truong in fact been banned from ICC? I did a google
search for phrases to that effect, and all I found were posts by
Sloan. Does ICC keep publish a blacklist somewhere?
<jeremy.p.spin...@vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
>
> Would it change your mind about anything if you were convinced that
> Truong was kicked off internet servers for cheating? I can find posts
> by people I happen to trust (not Sam) which assert the fact,
Jerry, I don't have a dog in this fight, and I ask purely out of
>
> Would it change your mind about anything if you were convinced that
> Truong was kicked off internet servers for cheating? I can find posts
> by people I happen to trust (not Sam) which assert the fact,
curiosity: has Truong in fact been banned from ICC? I did a google
search for phrases to that effect, and all I found were posts by
Sloan. Does ICC keep publish a blacklist somewhere?
jeremy.p...@vanderbilt.edu
Apr 10, 2012, 9:34:45 PM4/10/12
to
making the statement, also John Fernandez. These are members of the
old-time rational crowd from this newsgroup, as you certainly know. I
am sure they could be contacted about the matter. I would ask them
about it if the question was coming from a truly interested party,
which this guy does not seem to be.
Jerry
Your smrat ®
Apr 11, 2012, 8:41:13 AM4/11/12
to
On Apr 10, 5:16 pm, Taylor Kingston <ttk5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jerry, I don't have a dog in this fight, and I ask purely out of
> curiosity: has Truong in fact been banned from ICC? I did a google
> search for phrases to that effect, and all I found were posts by
> Sloan. Does ICC keep publish a blacklist somewhere?
I've found a thread that discusses the allegation.
> Jerry, I don't have a dog in this fight, and I ask purely out of
> curiosity: has Truong in fact been banned from ICC? I did a google
> search for phrases to that effect, and all I found were posts by
> Sloan. Does ICC keep publish a blacklist somewhere?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/browse_frm/thread/994490251bbf6ce7/78744903346aa40c?q=banned+author:Tim+author:Hanke#
In the thread one Tim Hanke (never heard of him) posts a letter from
Polgar and Truong's (SPPT) lawyer threatening to sue him for libel. It
turns out later in the thread that the alleged libel concerns
statements by Hanke alleging that SP, assisted by PT, cheated in an
online chess match vs some grandmaster. The alleged cheating is
discussed by Hanke, this Fernandez guy (infra), and something called
Stan Booze. None of these people seem to have first hand knowledge but
the allegation at least is in the lexicon. It should be noted that
Booze and Hanke were quite vociferous in their distaste for SPPT, the
latter of whom Hanke compared to Hitler. No really, he compared Truong
to Hitler.
But that's not the interesting part. What's interesting is who appears
in the thread defending SPPT from accusations of cheating - who finds
that the accusations comprise libel. Is was of course - wait for
it ... Sam Sloan:
"I think that they [SPPT] have a very strong case. Among other things,
Hanke claimed that Zsuzsa did not play her own games but essentially
cheated by having Truong play for her using a computer. Such an
allegation is clearly libelous."
and again
"However, the more than one hundred vicious personal attacks can be
used to establish malice. That plus libelous statements such as Polgar
cheated in a chess game could meet the high standard set in New York
Times vs. Sullivan."
So here we have the trifecta. Regarding the allegation that SPPT
cheated in an online chess match Sloan has written that
1. He has no knowledge whether the allegations are true or false.
2. He knows the allegations are true.
3. He believes that allegations are libelous, meaning he thinks them
false.
One further note of hilarity: in the thread Scram Sploop posted an
example of a complaint that could be filed alleging that SP had been
libeled by Hanke. The hilarious part is not that Sploon is giving
anyone legal advice, and neither does the hilarity derive from Spam's
usual legal nitfuckingwittery in which he uses legal phrases
incorrectly and rambles on like a deranged slobbering dottard. Rather,
it is Spam's opinion that Hanke libeled SP because she would not fuck
him:
"1. In August 2003 Tim Hanke, the recently elected VP of Finance at
the
USCF, made sexual approaches and sexually suggestive remarks to
Polgar. Polgar rejected these advances and refused to sleep with
Hanke.
2. Thereafter, Hanke made a statement in a widely circulated e-mail
that Polgar had cheated in an Internet chess game."
Sloonatic, heal thyself.
chaos
May 6, 2012, 11:08:52 PM5/6/12
to
On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 20:40:03 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
<samh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>(snipped)
>Some of the players were historical. For example Bobby Fischer had a
>high correlation with the computer picked moves. This was, of course,
>because Bobby Fischer was a strong player. Computers did not exist
>back when he was playing.
A very minor correction here. Chess playing computers did in fact
exist when Fischer was playing, but they were nothing like the monster
software of today. In fact one quotable quip he made was to the effect
that someone should teach them (the computers) when to resign. (I
think that may have been after a game he played with MacHack, but I'm
not certain that was the one. Another quip he made was to the effect
that the programs were bad for a chess player since it caused them to
have squinty eyes - or words to that effect.
>I believe that Emanuel Lasker had a high correlation among the
>historical players. This is surprising because it has long been
>thought that Lasker was a mere coffee-house player who played weak
>moves to trick his opponents.
And a bit of a question here: who ever thought Emanuel Lasker was a
"mere coffee-house player"? I've not read of any of his contemporaries
or later grandmasters since say anything like that. except for where I
did read once where one of his opponents said something to the effect
that it was not easy to reply to his weak moves, but by far the
comments on his play were more of the nature of when one contemporary
said (or words to this effect) when comparing Capablanca to Lasker:
Capablanca's moves were like clear water, Lasker's were like clear
water with a drop of poison. Again, it words to that effect. As for
the rest, yes indeed, Lasker's moves do have a high correlation with
the srongest programs, but I think I would also put that in the
context of there being a high correlation with pretty much all of the
best players in history. The only exception may be M. Tal and, I
think, T. Petrosian. Even so the last time I looked the correlation
was high, ,though not as high as Fiscjer, Kasparov, et al.
Anyways...
<samh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>(snipped)
>Some of the players were historical. For example Bobby Fischer had a
>high correlation with the computer picked moves. This was, of course,
>because Bobby Fischer was a strong player. Computers did not exist
>back when he was playing.
exist when Fischer was playing, but they were nothing like the monster
software of today. In fact one quotable quip he made was to the effect
that someone should teach them (the computers) when to resign. (I
think that may have been after a game he played with MacHack, but I'm
not certain that was the one. Another quip he made was to the effect
that the programs were bad for a chess player since it caused them to
have squinty eyes - or words to that effect.
>I believe that Emanuel Lasker had a high correlation among the
>historical players. This is surprising because it has long been
>thought that Lasker was a mere coffee-house player who played weak
>moves to trick his opponents.
"mere coffee-house player"? I've not read of any of his contemporaries
or later grandmasters since say anything like that. except for where I
did read once where one of his opponents said something to the effect
that it was not easy to reply to his weak moves, but by far the
comments on his play were more of the nature of when one contemporary
said (or words to this effect) when comparing Capablanca to Lasker:
Capablanca's moves were like clear water, Lasker's were like clear
water with a drop of poison. Again, it words to that effect. As for
the rest, yes indeed, Lasker's moves do have a high correlation with
the srongest programs, but I think I would also put that in the
context of there being a high correlation with pretty much all of the
best players in history. The only exception may be M. Tal and, I
think, T. Petrosian. Even so the last time I looked the correlation
was high, ,though not as high as Fiscjer, Kasparov, et al.
Anyways...
0 new messages