Comments on Shahcom informercial
The Historian
http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/archives/chess_on_tv_online.htm
"The commentary was mediocre...."
"This whole thing has been a joke."
"The show was an infomercial - and had a number of faults."
"I don't know why they did it, but they made Susan Polgar ... look like
a nerd without glasses. She really looked awful. Her hair looked like
it hadn't been washed in three days and she was wearing the most boring
outfit they could find. I might have mistaken her for a man with long
hair."
"It sounds like this whole thing was a disaster. Nice idea, incredibly
poor execution."
So much for Philth Innes, Trollgar, and their lickspittle Rob.
Tyrone Slothrop
some clear production issues. I hope it will spark more of the same.
(Disclaimer: I have no connection to the sponsor or the hosts and I
don't hate Phil Innes as much as The Historian so I can't possibly be
expected to be "objective.")
The Historian
Tyrone Slothrop wrote:
> I thought it was a brilliantly conceived program, although there were
> some clear production issues. I hope it will spark more of the same.
>
> (Disclaimer: I have no connection to the sponsor or the hosts and I
> don't hate Phil Innes as much as The Historian so I can't possibly be
> expected to be "objective.")
No hatred here either... I just object to untruthfulness.
Jerzy
news:1122840254....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Tyrone Slothrop wrote:
>> I thought it was a brilliantly conceived program, although there were
>> some clear production issues. I hope it will spark more of the same.
>>
>> (Disclaimer: I have no connection to the sponsor or the hosts and I
>> don't hate Phil Innes as much as The Historian so I can't possibly be
>> expected to be "objective.")
>
> No hatred here either... I just object to untruthfulness.
There were some technical issues as Tyrone wrote but it was all about chess
promotion over internet TV and the idea is wonderful
>
>> The Historian wrote:
>> > So much for Philth Innes, Trollgar, and their lickspittle Rob.
I`m afraid that you are blinded by your hatred ;-)
The Historian
Jerzy wrote:
> Uzytkownik "The Historian" <Spam...@yahoo.com> napisal w wiadomosci
> news:1122840254....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Tyrone Slothrop wrote:
> >> I thought it was a brilliantly conceived program, although there were
> >> some clear production issues. I hope it will spark more of the same.
> >>
> >> (Disclaimer: I have no connection to the sponsor or the hosts and I
> >> don't hate Phil Innes as much as The Historian so I can't possibly be
> >> expected to be "objective.")
> >
> > No hatred here either... I just object to untruthfulness.
>
> There were some technical issues as Tyrone wrote but it was all about chess
> promotion over internet TV and the idea is wonderful
Chess has been presented on TV before without the broadcast becoming an
infomercial.
> >> The Historian wrote:
> >> > So much for Philth Innes, Trollgar, and their lickspittle Rob.
>
> I`m afraid that you are blinded by your hatred ;-)
Again, no hatred here ... I just object to Philth's constant
untruthfulness. The Shahcom infomercial crew even before the broadcast
"aired" was circulating falsehoods and half-truths - recall the claim
Ms. Polgar was one of the top three players in the world for 20 years?
Jerzy
>> chess
>> promotion over internet TV and the idea is wonderful
>
> Chess has been presented on TV before without the broadcast becoming an
> infomercial.
on internet TV ?
> The Shahcom infomercial crew even before the broadcast
> "aired" was circulating falsehoods and half-truths - recall the claim
> Ms. Polgar was one of the top three players in the world for 20 years?
She has been in the top three in women`s chess for a long time.
Rob
Could you do a quick survey and find out who else didn't see the show
other than yourself and collect all of the negative information and
post it for me please? I need as much negative comments as possible. I
appreciate your help
Thanks,
Rob
The Historian
Rob wrote:
> Neil,
>
> Could you do a quick survey and find out who else didn't see the show
> other than yourself and collect all of the negative information and
> post it for me please?
Why should I do your work for you, Phil, err, Rob? BTW, are you saying
the comments from people viewed the broadcast are now being dismissed
with the claim they did NOT see the program?
Rob
Neil,
No. I said you did not see the show. No need to work for anyone. But I
know you didn't see the show and have no idea of it's content because
nowhere in any of our show or website was the Shahcom company
mentioned. There are no links to their site either.
I appreciate your posting the negative comments, but I had already seen
those and collected them for a critique. There werent that many. The
more negatives I can find the better the product can be improved.
You learn from your errors so honest critiques are appreciated.
Unfortunatly, I don't think you can find anything that we have not
already found in the way of negative comments. I wish you could and I
wish you good luck in finding any should you be inclined to put forth
such an effort.
Have a great Day!
Rob
jame...@aol.com
I have played chess for 40 years now, with a passion.
If you paid me to watch the next installment, I might consider it. But
the sum would have to be substantial.
The reality is, it can't be improved. It was boring to the extreme, as
opposed to watching matches on ICC, which is very interesting.
Television is not the medium to deliver chess.
And yes, the connection to the failure venture Shahcom was obvious. I
can't tell you how many times a chess magazine has arrived which
stated, "The game were supposed to be broadcast live over the Internet,
but the Shahcom boards used for the tournament couldn't seem to work
properly."
The Historian
YES! YES! YES!
Chess One
Since the commercial name of the e-board was not used, shown or spoken in
some 2 hours of the program, and since you didn't choose to solve either
Gulko position, may I assume your honesty in reporting is matched by your
chessic insight?
Perhaps go into writing hysteries like so-many-others and write biographies
of 1300 players?
Cornflakes, Phil
<jame...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1123026046.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
jame...@aol.com
How in the world would you know what I chose to do or not do? Have you
now developed the Shahcom crystal ball as well?
I gave an honest opinion of the show (it sucked), and I know Shahcom
boards, as well as their hystery. I've seen them used, although
"malfunction" would be a better term.
This is well-documented on this newsgroup (I seem to remember a
particularly disasterous "demonstration" at the USCF), as well as in
several international chess magazines. If you don't like such comments
as mine and as many other have made, perhaps you should try to deliver
better products instead of trying to make cornball jokes.
I will also match my "chessic insight" against yours any day. I have my
master's certificate framed on the wall, perhaps you have your "Almost
an International Master" certificate framed on the wall of your Vermont
home? Or did FIDE stop giving those out?
Chess One
<jame...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1123055068.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Cornballflakes,
>
> How in the world would you know what I chose to do or not do? Have you
> now developed the Shahcom crystal ball as well?
You seem rather fixated on this company, which you have mentioned several
times, even suggesting that it was responsible for the tv program. You seem
to have abandoned your criticism of my boosting this company, since in fact
I never mentioned the company name in the program, nor here.
You will forgive me for doubting your sober [?] judgement of the program
thereby - since you seem to have been seeing and hearing things which never
happened.
> I gave an honest opinion of the show (it sucked), and I know Shahcom
> boards, as well as their hystery. I've seen them used, although
> "malfunction" would be a better term.
You are still shy of saying if the product failed to work during the
program. How curious!
> This is well-documented on this newsgroup (I seem to remember a
> particularly disasterous "demonstration" at the USCF), as well as in
> several international chess magazines. If you don't like such comments
> as mine and as many other have made, perhaps you should try to deliver
> better products instead of trying to make cornball jokes.
I am sure you are making this contribution to the full extent of your wit.
And your comprehension is no doubt matched by your representation.
In 2 long posts you seem to have been attempting to suggest to people that
the boards did not work during the tv program. Is that so? Is there any
particular reason for you to say so? Not to put too fine a point on it, are
you telling lies?
Will you snip this challenge or find yourself a new complaint?
> I will also match my "chessic insight" against yours any day.
Thank you for offering to share. Let's see first if you can match your
opinion to anything that may have happened.
After that I am content that the reader makes up their own mind to the worth
of your comments on this or any subject. Why defer it with the comment
below? You are being called now ;)
Phil
The Historian
jame...@aol.com wrote:
> Dear Cornballflakes,
>
> How in the world would you know what I chose to do or not do? Have you
> now developed the Shahcom crystal ball as well?
His I-ness is all-knowing, it seems. Careful, he might threaten you
with a revelation a few hundred times.
> I gave an honest opinion of the show (it sucked), and I know Shahcom
> boards, as well as their hystery. I've seen them used, although
> "malfunction" would be a better term.
>
> This is well-documented on this newsgroup (I seem to remember a
> particularly disasterous "demonstration" at the USCF), as well as in
> several international chess magazines. If you don't like such comments
> as mine and as many other have made, perhaps you should try to deliver
> better products instead of trying to make cornball jokes.
>
> I will also match my "chessic insight" against yours any day. I have my
> master's certificate framed on the wall, perhaps you have your "Almost
> an International Master" certificate framed on the wall of your Vermont
> home? Or did FIDE stop giving those out?
It was printed on Shahcom paper, and the image of "almost an IM" faded
to nothing.
jame...@aol.com
>the boards did not work during the tv program. Is that so? Is there any
>particular reason for you to say so? Not to put too fine a point on it, are
>you telling lies?
No I didn't. I simply noted the connection between the two ventures,
both of which seem to have secured all the work effort normally found
at your local DMV. I receive a weekly chess newsletter from about.com,
and they also noted that the advertising for this came way too late for
most people to tune in (which was probably good for you). You seem to
confuse the fact that I know and noted the boards, which have a weak
history of working, with something grander. OK, that makes sense, this
is often the behavior of a delusional person.
There were no lies told, except perhaps by your attempt to intertwine
the two in a deeper manner. I suggested nothing except that Shahcom has
a shaky history at best. It seems that "Chess Masturbators," oops,
sorry, "Chess Masterminds," will show the same weak efforts.
>Let's see first if you can match your
>opinion to anything that may have happened.
Let's see, Rob asks for honest opinions, I give it, and you come on
with your usual sophomoric attacks. Next we'll get a post from "J.
Martin," I suppose. Separate the Shahcom comments from the program
comments, and you simply have two piles of Cornish excrement. So you
only want to deal with the one pile? Fine. The commentary was boring,
fractured, and the show was poorly produced. It was like watching
something put together by the high school AV club. I could go to the
Martin Broadcasting site and place a prayer request for a better
program to appear the next time, but I will leave that up to you.
I have had cordial conversations with Rob in the past, and he even
agreed once that he had what I called a "Pollyannish" attitude towards
chess, which can turn out well or turn out poorly. In this case, I
think the project was of too grand a scale for someone with that
attitude combined with a lack of experience, at least initially. My
opinion is that Rob got caught up with a snake oil salesman on this one
(wait, I forgot about Truo - I mean"J. Martin" - make that 2 snake oil
salesmen) and that his non-critical attitude led to this awful thing
called a TV show on chess. But his efforts appear honest (I would never
call him your "lickspittle," as one other here did, as I think the guy
deserves more respect than that - unlike you).
Yes, let's let the reader decide - how often do your posts engender
positive comments from the "readers"?
If you wish to continue this dialogue, go to the smallest room in your
house, look in the mirror, and tell yourself how great it was. "Honest
opinions," indeed.
Rob
The games were NOT to be broadcast live over the internet.
Rob
jame...@aol.com
Which means to me that you picked the possibly worst medium for showing
a chess match.
Tv's contributions to chess should be in the form of snippets, like
Susan Polgar's (Congratulations!) recent establishment of the world
simul record, or in movies.
I have called this the "Chess is Like Golf or Poker, So We Can Show It
on TV." I also realize you may not come from the route, but it is a
common one. The fact is, any fool can understand golf or poker, and can
watch it with interest. Chess? An abstract game in which it is more
likely that the Elephant drinks than the gnats bathe (apologies to the
originator of that saying!). Maybe in Eastern Europe you could do this;
in "Short-Attention Span America"?
It is said so many people play chess, blah, blah. So many people play
bad chess with no idea of what they are doing. They can no easier
understand GM's moves than I can relativity theory. Nor do they find
them at all interesting. But that Susan Polgar, a woman, just set the
world simul record? A good news snippet that may encourage girls to
take up chess. I think your program, as delivered, sends the opposite
message.
I realize we will differ on this ontological assumption, Rob, and that
is why I respect you. You think you can do chess matches on TV, I think
you will rue the day you ever tried it. You could pick better partners,
though.
>From seeing the business your partner, Martin, is in, I would think you
might (and yes, I hate amateur Internet psychoanalysis too, so take my
comments or throw them away; your choice!) think chess can be
"prostelytized" (is that spelled correctly? sorry if not) to a greater
public. Again, respectfully, I would say you are wrong.
Hopefully I delivered the comments with the respect you deserve for a
noble yet misguided effort!
The Historian
I used to think Rob deserved respect, but then he decided it was better
to be apologist for all the thud and blunder of Trollgar and Innes. The
press release has false information about Trollgar's reputation? That's
OK. Spamming newsgroups and email? Cool. Misrepresenting criticism?
YEAH! I find it hard to believe he's not aware he's helping to sell
snake oil.
The Historian
jame...@aol.com wrote:
> >The games were NOT to be broadcast live over the internet.
>
> Which means to me that you picked the possibly worst medium for showing
> a chess match.
>
> Tv's contributions to chess should be in the form of snippets, like
> Susan Polgar's (Congratulations!) recent establishment of the world
> simul record, or in movies.
>
> I have called this the "Chess is Like Golf or Poker, So We Can Show It
> on TV." I also realize you may not come from the route, but it is a
> common one. The fact is, any fool can understand golf or poker, and can
> watch it with interest. Chess? An abstract game in which it is more
> likely that the Elephant drinks than the gnats bathe (apologies to the
> originator of that saying!). Maybe in Eastern Europe you could do this;
> in "Short-Attention Span America"?
>
> It is said so many people play chess, blah, blah. So many people play
> bad chess with no idea of what they are doing. They can no easier
> understand GM's moves than I can relativity theory. Nor do they find
> them at all interesting. But that Susan Polgar, a woman, just set the
> world simul record? A good news snippet that may encourage girls to
> take up chess. I think your program, as delivered, sends the opposite
> message.
>
> I realize we will differ on this ontological assumption, Rob, and that
> is why I respect you. You think you can do chess matches on TV, I think
> you will rue the day you ever tried it.
Didn't the BBC have some success with "The Master Game"? Although
perhaps the presentation of the Shahcom infomercial was rather
different, I gather.
You could pick better partners,
> though.
I agree. Since I was once part of an Innes "project" before, and have
some experience with his idea of organizing a chess match (talking
about it endlessly and inviting VIPs to hobnob with), I think the fact
anything got done at all is due to the hard work of Mr. Mitchell.
Rob
First, thank you for you honest comments and I appreciate your respect.
jame...@aol.com wrote:
> >The games were NOT to be broadcast live over the internet.
>
> Which means to me that you picked the possibly worst medium for showing
> a chess match.
Possibly. I just have to think back on what Edison said when confronted
with his one thousand attempts on making an electric light bulb. He
said something to the effect he found 999 ways not to make a light
bulb!" I just believe there is a formala we have to find.
> Tv's contributions to chess should be in the form of snippets, like
> Susan Polgar's (Congratulations!) recent establishment of the world
> simul record, or in movies.
Point well taken. Think about the movie" Searching for Bobby Fischer".
What was the most "watchable" and entertaining aspect of chess in that
movie?
> I have called this the "Chess is Like Golf or Poker, So We Can Show It
> on TV." I also realize you may not come from the route, but it is a
> common one. The fact is, any fool can understand golf or poker, and can
> watch it with interest. Chess? An abstract game in which it is more
> likely that the Elephant drinks than the gnats bathe (apologies to the
> originator of that saying!). Maybe in Eastern Europe you could do this;
> in "Short-Attention Span America"?
I think we have to do an "education" process for chess. Introduce the
public to the players, both historical and current so people can become
engaged in the stories behind the games.
>
> It is said so many people play chess, blah, blah. So many people play
> bad chess with no idea of what they are doing. They can no easier
> understand GM's moves than I can relativity theory. Nor do they find
> them at all interesting. But that Susan Polgar, a woman, just set the
> world simul record? A good news snippet that may encourage girls to
> take up chess. I think your program, as delivered, sends the opposite
> message.
It made even some GM's feel imcompetent, I have heard, trying to keep
up with the games. Maybe it could be used as physcological warefare on
opposing players? :-) LOL
> I realize we will differ on this ontological assumption, Rob, and that
> is why I respect you. You think you can do chess matches on TV, I think
> you will rue the day you ever tried it. You could pick better partners,
> though.
>
> >From seeing the business your partner, Martin, is in, I would think you
> might (and yes, I hate amateur Internet psychoanalysis too, so take my
> comments or throw them away; your choice!) think chess can be
> "prostelytized" (is that spelled correctly? sorry if not) to a greater
> public. Again, respectfully, I would say you are wrong.
I appreciate your feelings. In my heart, I want people to love the
games as I do. I play a horrible game of chess. But wim or lose, I love
to play.
I play on www.chessworld.net as "robmtchl" . I would love to play
anyone. Win or lose , I just love to play.
> Hopefully I delivered the comments with the respect you deserve for a
> noble yet misguided effort!
Thank you James. That is very kind. I must say that everyone I worked
with on the project was honorable, professional and easy to get along
with.
Best Wishes,
Rob
The Historian
Rob wrote:
> I must say that everyone I worked
> with on the project was honorable, professional and easy to get along
> with.
LOL!
Catalan
"The Historian" <Spam...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123110501.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> I used to think Rob deserved respect, but then he decided it was better
> to be apologist for all the thud and blunder of Trollgar and Innes.
Rob is just a Parr/Sloan/Innes in training.
jame...@aol.com
>movie?
I think we are on some common ground here, so I will reserve my
comments for this one question.
There was never "too much" or "too little" chess in the movie - whether
you are a master, an A player, a sub-1000 player, or the Joe off the
street.
It was fun to see Josh achieve in chess what he should, and it has been
great to see that he takes his inability to become Bobby Fischer well -
he still is outstanding in chess and many other endeavors in life. It
was a great story. The stuff in the park was great. Laurence Fishburne
was great. Ben Kingsley was no Pandolfini, but I was able to "suspend"
disbelief long enough to forget that little error.
The old Russian man who had a sign "Play the man who beet Tal" - and
yes, he spelled it "beet" - which showed all that he was a little
wacky. Us chess players got a bit more out of the joke, because we knew
who Tal was, but maybe someone watches this movies, somehow remembers
the name "Tal" and finds an out of print copy of Tal's Best Games (the
book he wrote - I don't know the exact title) and is so enteratined by
Tal's annotations that he takes up chess for life.
Yes, this is what both you and I want. This is how we are both
pollyannish and love chess; in that sense we have a brotherhood. You
want others to share in it; I do too, but I am not sure that chess will
not always be a game for certain people - like you and me. After all, I
may be a master, and you may be below that, but compared to how the
best humans play, we *BOTH* suck, and are both fish. I take no shame in
that, as you do not.
But we both enjoy it. Now I spend much time trying tp make chess
problems instead of playing; I have my "sucky days" too when the editor
sends back,a kind, but firm, "No, thank you," and you realize, "Hey, It
really wasn't that good - I should have known better." No different
than the mistakes in a game. On my best day ever, I beat an IM (with a
real FIDE title, not something dreamed up in one's head), and I know I
probably will never do that again. I sometimes beat FMs and IMs
on-line, but with GMs, I should just resign on move one if it wasn't
for the learning experience.
But isn't that how you and I and many others feel about the game?
That is why I think again: trying to reach out to people who will never
appreciate the game is a mistake. Let the universe take it's course -
let us not be like my friend, who once claimed at age 30, if he had
taken up the bobsled, maybe he would have won the gold medal. Maybe he
just picked the wrong event?
Just as Trix are for kids, chess is for chessplayers and other
aficionados of the game..
Rob
I can only judge people by my personal experiences with them. There was
a great deal that those outside of the event will never know.Unless you
were a part of it, you cannot understand. It would be much the same as
the nen who stormed the beach at Normandy. Only those who were there on
that day can truely understand what happened.
Yes. It would have been nice to have had a copy of those games to show
our directors and editors. There is never a need to make a mistake
twice or to reinvent the wheel needlessly.
> You could pick better partners,
> > though.
I am not sure who you are referring to.
I had two partners, and several investors.
> I agree. Since I was once part of an Innes "project" before, and have
> some experience with his idea of organizing a chess match (talking
> about it endlessly and inviting VIPs to hobnob with), I think the fact
> anything got done at all is due to the hard work of Mr. Mitchell.
There was a lot of hard work on everyones part, but thank you.
> > >From seeing the business your partner, Martin, is in, I would think you
> > might (and yes, I hate amateur Internet psychoanalysis too, so take my
> > comments or throw them away; your choice!) think chess can be
> > "prostelytized" (is that spelled correctly? sorry if not) to a greater
> > public. Again, respectfully, I would say you are wrong.
There was no one involved in the project named Martin. Where did that
come from? We had a lot of Michaels! LOL I think, five maybe?
> > Hopefully I delivered the comments with the respect you deserve for a
> > noble yet misguided effort!
Rob
The Historian
Rob wrote:
> Neil,
> I can only judge people by my personal experiences with them.
Rob, I can only judge people by my personal experiences with them, and
by their actions. I've seen Trollgar in action, and have unfortunately
worked with Philth Innes on a project like yours.
There was
> a great deal that those outside of the event will never know.Unless you
> were a part of it, you cannot understand. It would be much the same as
> the nen who stormed the beach at Normandy. Only those who were there on
> that day can truely understand what happened.
This is well and good, but it has little bearing on the fact that you
chose to associate with shameless publicity hounds and a snake-oil
salesman from Vermont.
Why someone who makes such a great deal out of both his association
with Cornwall and his connections in chess has no knowledge of the
BBC's "The Master Game" is beyond me. He might have mentioned that the
games were taped in advance, and the tapes edited so they made
entertaining and instructional broadcasts. Such a program might have a
market in the US. However, the edited tapes would not show off the
Shahcom board in real time, so an inferior mode of presentation was
selected..... or do you still think the idea was to promote chess?
> > You could pick better partners,
> > > though.
>
> I am not sure who you are referring to.
> I had two partners, and several investors.
Leaving aside Trollgar's publicity hunting (I understand a PR stop at
the White Collection, of all places, has been mentioned for the
future), the association with Innes should have been enough to deter
you. Wasn't there enough evidence on the newsgroup that the man was
unstable and a liar?
> > I agree. Since I was once part of an Innes "project" before, and have
> > some experience with his idea of organizing a chess match (talking
> > about it endlessly and inviting VIPs to hobnob with), I think the fact
> > anything got done at all is due to the hard work of Mr. Mitchell.
>
> There was a lot of hard work on everyones part, but thank you.
'fess up. Philth's hard work was inviting congressmen to the event and
adding them to your spam mailing list. Back in 2001, when he tried to
promote his Shahcom infomercial idea in the name of 9/11, his sole
contribution was dreaming about inviting President Bush to the match.
> > > >From seeing the business your partner, Martin, is in, I would think you
> > > might (and yes, I hate amateur Internet psychoanalysis too, so take my
> > > comments or throw them away; your choice!) think chess can be
> > > "prostelytized" (is that spelled correctly? sorry if not) to a greater
> > > public. Again, respectfully, I would say you are wrong.
>
> There was no one involved in the project named Martin. Where did that
> come from? We had a lot of Michaels! LOL I think, five maybe?
The male half of Trollgar likes to post under fake names; J. Martin was
allegedly him.
Rob
jame...@aol.com wrote:
> >What was the most "watchable" and entertaining aspect of chess in that
> >movie?
>
> I think we are on some common ground here, so I will reserve my
> comments for this one question.
>
> There was never "too much" or "too little" chess in the movie - whether
> you are a master, an A player, a sub-1000 player, or the Joe off the
> street.
>
> It was fun to see Josh achieve in chess what he should, and it has been
> great to see that he takes his inability to become Bobby Fischer well -
> he still is outstanding in chess and many other endeavors in life. It
> was a great story. The stuff in the park was great. Laurence Fishburne
> was great. Ben Kingsley was no Pandolfini, but I was able to "suspend"
> disbelief long enough to forget that little error.
>
> The old Russian man who had a sign "Play the man who beet Tal" - and
> yes, he spelled it "beet" - which showed all that he was a little
> wacky. Us chess players got a bit more out of the joke, because we knew
> who Tal was, but maybe someone watches this movies, somehow remembers
> the name "Tal" and finds an out of print copy of Tal's Best Games (the
> book he wrote - I don't know the exact title) and is so enteratined by
> Tal's annotations that he takes up chess for life.
I see you remember that "street chess" portion too! :-)
> Yes, this is what both you and I want. This is how we are both
> pollyannish and love chess; in that sense we have a brotherhood. You
> want others to share in it; I do too, but I am not sure that chess will
> not always be a game for certain people - like you and me. After all, I
> may be a master, and you may be below that, but compared to how the
> best humans play, we *BOTH* suck, and are both fish. I take no shame in
> that, as you do not.
And some people watch golf, and have never played. I want chess in
every school. I want every park in America to have chess tables in
them. I want 5 minute "conjunction junction" like cartoons teaching
kids chess on Saturday mornings. I want kids to sit down to a game of
chess instead of logging onto the x-box. " You may say I'm a dreamer.
Well I'm not the only one. I hope some day you 'll join us. And the
chess world will be as one!" LOL
Sorry, I was having a Lennon moment.... "All I am saying.. is give
chess a chance" oops.. did it again! :-)
> But we both enjoy it. Now I spend much time trying tp make chess
> problems instead of playing; I have my "sucky days" too when the editor
> sends back,a kind, but firm, "No, thank you," and you realize, "Hey, It
> really wasn't that good - I should have known better." No different
> than the mistakes in a game. On my best day ever, I beat an IM (with a
> real FIDE title, not something dreamed up in one's head), and I know I
> probably will never do that again. I sometimes beat FMs and IMs
> on-line, but with GMs, I should just resign on move one if it wasn't
> for the learning experience.
I know the feeling. my passion is the risky exchange. I am still
searching for my own "Oprah Game".
> But isn't that how you and I and many others feel about the game?
>
> That is why I think again: trying to reach out to people who will never
> appreciate the game is a mistake. Let the universe take it's course -
> let us not be like my friend, who once claimed at age 30, if he had
> taken up the bobsled, maybe he would have won the gold medal. Maybe he
> just picked the wrong event?
If any great player had missed that first time of being exposed to
chess, may they have never played into greatness? How are we to know if
that one match that was seen on television was not the spark that
started someone to play? But someone might decide to play. SOmeone
might decide to teach their child and that child may go on to do great
things.
> Just as Trix are for kids, chess is for chessplayers and other
> aficionados of the game..
TV is not well suited to simple go after a very small target market of
regular chess players. We will have something special for them on the
dvd. TV is good at dealing with the least common denominator; those who
can't play or who can play an average game at best. The best golfers
dont watch golf, they play it! All of the money is generated through
advertising in golf. But we need to have chess "heros". And telling
their stories in a compelling way and then explaining a game they
played over is very important I think. We did a poor job of that in our
last production and I will take responsibility for that. But I do want
and need the help of the chess commnity to improve the product.
I would hope that everyone who knows chess history and chess
personalities would write to me with suggestions and offer tid bits of
information on all of the chessplayers.
I think that you James, in your heart of hearts share a kinship with me
in regards to this game. And it's a common attribute of chess players
to always analyis each position to death. But sometimes bold illogical
moves have to be made. Tal once is reported to have said this about one
of his games. In post analysis of a game he lost, a comrade pointed out
a different line of attack than the one he chose. It would have won the
game. Tal smiled and said something to the effect of" but that was not
my style".
WHat I am learning is that the TV world isn't full of any logic. It is
full of dollars but no sense. TV is a game I need to learn.
SOrry for this reply being so long. I felt you and the group deserved
as much. We all love chess or we would not post here. I appreciate you
taking the time to offer advise.
Best Wishes,
Rob
Rob
The Historian wrote:
> Rob wrote:
> > Neil,
> > I can only judge people by my personal experiences with them.
>
> Rob, I can only judge people by my personal experiences with them, and
> by their actions. I've seen Trollgar in action, and have unfortunately
> worked with Philth Innes on a project like yours.
My experience with Phil was quit satisfactory. He did all that was
asked of him and more.
> There was
> > a great deal that those outside of the event will never know.Unless you
> > were a part of it, you cannot understand. It would be much the same as
> > the nen who stormed the beach at Normandy. Only those who were there on
> > that day can truely understand what happened.
>
> This is well and good, but it has little bearing on the fact that you
> chose to associate with shameless publicity hounds and a snake-oil
> salesman from Vermont.
Actually, Phil was not the snake oil salesman nor was Mr.Truong the
publicity hound. His job is to make certain that every move Susan
Polgar makes is put in the best light possible to the press. That is a
publicists job and he does that well. Phil tried to sell nothing except
the idea that chess is a worthwhile endeavor and pursuit.
Phil actually tried to track down copies of "The Master Game" as did I.
No one seems to be able to locate a copy. Do you know where we might
find one?
> > > You could pick better partners,
> > > > though.
> >
> > I am not sure who you are referring to.
> > I had two partners, and several investors.
>
> Leaving aside Trollgar's publicity hunting (I understand a PR stop at
> the White Collection, of all places, has been mentioned for the
> future), the association with Innes should have been enough to deter
> you. Wasn't there enough evidence on the newsgroup that the man was
> unstable and a liar?
What is the "White Collection"? I do not believe half the stuff
written by others about others in newsgroups. I deal with people
honestly and up front. I find that when I do that, I get the same in
return. Every mans slate is clean with me until such time as they sully
it themselves. Phil's slate is clean with me as is Mr. Truong's. I only
hope mine is with them as well.
> > > I agree. Since I was once part of an Innes "project" before, and have
> > > some experience with his idea of organizing a chess match (talking
> > > about it endlessly and inviting VIPs to hobnob with), I think the fact
> > > anything got done at all is due to the hard work of Mr. Mitchell.
> >
> > There was a lot of hard work on everyones part, but thank you.
>
> 'fess up. Philth's hard work was inviting congressmen to the event and
> adding them to your spam mailing list. Back in 2001, when he tried to
> promote his Shahcom infomercial idea in the name of 9/11, his sole
> contribution was dreaming about inviting President Bush to the match.
No. He wrote dialogues, provided backgrounds and photos and provived
insites we would have gotten from no one else. I invited the
congressman and oter political figures.
As far as what happened in 2001, I cannot speak to that except to say
that the wrong mix of people must have been involved. Not pointing
blame at anyone, but like a Gallo wine, it can't be servd before it's
time. I can guarantee you that you had nothing invested as I do in this
project. I am not wiling to give up because the board position is
complex. I am looking for a win. I want a brilliancy prize. I am also
willing to share that acclaim with anyone willing to help me figure it
out.
> > > > >From seeing the business your partner, Martin, is in, I would think you
> > > > might (and yes, I hate amateur Internet psychoanalysis too, so take my
> > > > comments or throw them away; your choice!) think chess can be
> > > > "prostelytized" (is that spelled correctly? sorry if not) to a greater
> > > > public. Again, respectfully, I would say you are wrong.
> >
> > There was no one involved in the project named Martin. Where did that
> > come from? We had a lot of Michaels! LOL I think, five maybe?
>
> The male half of Trollgar likes to post under fake names; J. Martin was
> allegedly him.
I had never heard that before.
> > > > Hopefully I delivered the comments with the respect you deserve for a
> > > > noble yet misguided effort!
> >
Rob
> > Rob
Catalan
"Rob" <robm...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1123124860....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Neil,
> I can only judge people by my personal experiences with them. There was
> a great deal that those outside of the event will never know.Unless you
> were a part of it, you cannot understand.
Typical little Larry. You see, you don't understand...
jame...@aol.com
friendly advice (though I am!) and I think you will see this once you
have been doing this for awhile, is that anyone so unfamiliar with
chess as to not know what the White Collection is, is probably a bit
developmentally arrested to be pursuing projects on the scale you are.
And this has nothing to do with chess ability; it has to do with
understanding the culture of chess.
If they still exist, I would recommend you take the chess courses
(graduate or undergraduate level) offered by UT-Dallas. They are geared
towards chess teachers, but I think you would find a lot of structured
lessons that would help you understand chess culture - and a promoter
such as yourself must be a teacher, correct? If Alexy Root is still
teaching the curriculum class, it is worth 3 times the money you will
pay for it. She will help you become structured (curriculum is, after
all, the proper presentation of information - media) and organized in
presenting chess to people who don't know much about chess - and I bet
your job working on Masterminds would improve as a result, and you can
probably even use the project in the course (I don't teach it, so don't
take my word for it). One project that was worth the money was trying
to make a chess story to add to the "Wizard's chess" part of the first
Harry Potter movie. That was wonderful, and just one of many
assignments you might use for your program.
I am done on the subject. Again, the best of luck to you, however
misguided you may be! :)
Chess One
<jame...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1123094631....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >In 2 long posts you seem to have been attempting to suggest to people
> >that
>>the boards did not work during the tv program. Is that so? Is there any
>>particular reason for you to say so? Not to put too fine a point on it,
>>are
>>you telling lies?
>
> No I didn't.
"James Rynd" seems a little shy of his own point :)
In another long effort he seems to have veered off from directly answering
the first question above, on which he hung the balance of his criticism, to
make various analogies including several items of bathroom 'humor'.
In my previous post, which he snipped, I predicted that he would so, and try
another line of attack by associating completely unknown factors with the
actual project, while still complaining about 'sophomoric attacks'.
"James Rynd" will no doubt be offended if his judgement of what is suitable
for general broadcast on television is not taken seriously.
Phil Innes
Rob
jame...@aol.com wrote:
> One final comment Rob. It may not make sense or sound like I am giving
> friendly advice (though I am!) and I think you will see this once you
> have been doing this for awhile, is that anyone so unfamiliar with
> chess as to not know what the White Collection is, is probably a bit
> developmentally arrested to be pursuing projects on the scale you are.
> And this has nothing to do with chess ability; it has to do with
> understanding the culture of chess.
I always knew it as the Cleveland Library collection. As far as Neil's
comment goes, we never discussed anything about that collection
anywhere to my knowledge.
> If they still exist, I would recommend you take the chess courses
> (graduate or undergraduate level) offered by UT-Dallas. They are geared
> towards chess teachers, but I think you would find a lot of structured
> lessons that would help you understand chess culture - and a promoter
> such as yourself must be a teacher, correct? If Alexy Root is still
> teaching the curriculum class, it is worth 3 times the money you will
> pay for it. She will help you become structured (curriculum is, after
> all, the proper presentation of information - media) and organized in
> presenting chess to people who don't know much about chess - and I bet
> your job working on Masterminds would improve as a result, and you can
> probably even use the project in the course (I don't teach it, so don't
> take my word for it). One project that was worth the money was trying
> to make a chess story to add to the "Wizard's chess" part of the first
> Harry Potter movie. That was wonderful, and just one of many
> assignments you might use for your program.
DIstance might be an issue.
> I am done on the subject. Again, the best of luck to you, however
> misguided you may be! :)
Thanks James! Be forewarned, I will probably email you to ask questions
now. LOL
Rob
Rob
jame...@aol.com wrote:
> One final comment Rob. It may not make sense or sound like I am giving
> friendly advice (though I am!) and I think you will see this once you
> have been doing this for awhile, is that anyone so unfamiliar with
> chess as to not know what the White Collection is, is probably a bit
> developmentally arrested to be pursuing projects on the scale you are.
> And this has nothing to do with chess ability; it has to do with
> understanding the culture of chess.
I always knew it as the Cleveland Library collection. As far as Neil's
comment goes, we never discussed anything about that collection
anywhere to my knowledge.
> If they still exist, I would recommend you take the chess courses
> (graduate or undergraduate level) offered by UT-Dallas. They are geared
> towards chess teachers, but I think you would find a lot of structured
> lessons that would help you understand chess culture - and a promoter
> such as yourself must be a teacher, correct? If Alexy Root is still
> teaching the curriculum class, it is worth 3 times the money you will
> pay for it. She will help you become structured (curriculum is, after
> all, the proper presentation of information - media) and organized in
> presenting chess to people who don't know much about chess - and I bet
> your job working on Masterminds would improve as a result, and you can
> probably even use the project in the course (I don't teach it, so don't
> take my word for it). One project that was worth the money was trying
> to make a chess story to add to the "Wizard's chess" part of the first
> Harry Potter movie. That was wonderful, and just one of many
> assignments you might use for your program.
DIstance might be an issue.
> I am done on the subject. Again, the best of luck to you, however
> misguided you may be! :)
Thanks James! Be forewarned, I will probably email you to ask questions
now. LOL
Rob
The Historian
Rob wrote:
> Dear James,
>
> jame...@aol.com wrote:
> > One final comment Rob. It may not make sense or sound like I am giving
> > friendly advice (though I am!) and I think you will see this once you
> > have been doing this for awhile, is that anyone so unfamiliar with
> > chess as to not know what the White Collection is, is probably a bit
> > developmentally arrested to be pursuing projects on the scale you are.
> > And this has nothing to do with chess ability; it has to do with
> > understanding the culture of chess.
>
> I always knew it as the Cleveland Library collection. As far as Neil's
> comment goes, we never discussed anything about that collection
> anywhere to my knowledge.
Typical. The people who claim to be making chess history have no idea
where chess history is stored.
Trollgar's possible PR turn at the White Collection is gossip in the
chess history community.
The Historian
Catalan wrote:
> "Rob" <robm...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:1123124860....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Neil,
> > I can only judge people by my personal experiences with them. There was
> > a great deal that those outside of the event will never know.Unless you
> > were a part of it, you cannot understand.
>
> Typical little Larry. You see, you don't understand...
I agree. Did you see his 'I don't know what the White Collection is'
post, and his followup claiming he always knew what it was?
Tyrone Slothrop
You have misunderstood him. Rob was saying that he had known of the
collection of chess history books at the Cleveland Public Library, but
by the term "Cleveland Library collection" and not by the moniker,
"White Collection". Besides this collection is really properly named,
"The John G. White Collection of Chess and Checkers". Still shows that
Rob is not a historian of chess, but it is not the lie you are claiming.
The Historian
The opinions of someone who finances chess matches for convicted felons
and kidnappers carries a lot of weight.
jame...@aol.com
The courses are taught by distance learning. Another good reason to
take them - they are well designed.
jame...@aol.com
>for general broadcast on television is not taken seriously.
Oh gosh no, course I am not offended. You are a fool, and I simply do
not suffer fools gladly. If someone snips, you complain. If they don't,
you complain. The formula is simple. You weave around the topic at
hand, thinking you are some grand intellectual when you are - well
there is no better word for it - a fool.
I would suggest you compare our conversation with the one I had with
Rob, and determine who is the jackass. The braying is coming out of
Vermont.....
Mike Murray
wrote:
>Tyrone Slothrop wrote:
>> You have misunderstood him. Rob was saying that he had known of the
>> collection of chess history books at the Cleveland Public Library, but
>> by the term "Cleveland Library collection" and not by the moniker,
>> "White Collection". Besides this collection is really properly named,
>> "The John G. White Collection of Chess and Checkers". Still shows that
>> Rob is not a historian of chess, but it is not the lie you are claiming.
>The opinions of someone who finances chess matches for convicted felons
>and kidnappers carries a lot of weight.
Hmmmm. A new methodology for evaluating accuracy of Usenet posts. If
only Slothrop had donated the stakes to United Way, we could trust his
assessment of what Rob said earlier in the thread.
Matt Nemmers
You're slipping, Neil.
Catalan
"Tyrone Slothrop" <lttyrone...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123155351.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Who claimed he was lying? I don't see either of us saying that.
Nick
> Tyrone Slothrop wrote:
> > The Historian wrote:
> > > Catalan wrote:
> > > > "Rob" <robm...@msn.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:1123124860....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > Neil,
> > > > > I can only judge people by my personal experiences with them.
> > > > > There was a great deal that those outside of the event will never
> > > >
> > > > Typical little Larry. You see, you don't understand...
How *could* the members of the audience see *everything* that
has happened before the curtain drops to open a play on stage?
> > > I agree. Did you see his 'I don't know what the White Collection is'
> > > post, and his followup claiming he always knew what it was?
> >
> > You have misunderstood him. Rob was saying that he had known of the
> > collection of chess history books at the Cleveland Public Library, but
> > by the term "Cleveland Library collection" and not by the moniker,
> > "White Collection". Besides this collection is really properly named,
> > "The John G. White Collection of Chess and Checkers". Still shows that
> > Rob is not a historian of chess, but it is not the lie you are claiming.
Rob Mitchell's explanation seems plausible enough to me.
> The opinions of someone who finances chess matches for
> convicted felons and kidnappers carries a lot of weight.
How far would that 'principle' of 'The Historian' extend?
As far as I can recall, Tyrone Slothrop was the primary sponsor but
*not* the only sponsor of the recent chess match between Bill Brock
and Sam Sloan. If I recall correctly, Randy Bauer, for instance,
also made a contribution to finance that match. As far as I know,
Vince Hart made no financial contribution, but he definitely
facilitated that match by acting as its arbiter. So *if*
'The Historian' regards Tyrone Slothrop as 'guilty' in some way,
then it should be noted that Tyrone Slothrop had some willing
accomplices, including Bill Brock for soliciting the match with
Sam Sloan in the first place.
So would 'The Historian' thereby have less respect for the
opinions of Randy Bauer, Bill Brock, and Vince Hart in addition
to Tyrone Slothrop's?
--Nick
The Historian
Hello Nick,
The answer is, in many instances, yes.
Sam Sloan
wrote:
>
>Nick wrote:
>> So would 'The Historian' thereby have less respect for the
>> opinions of Randy Bauer, Bill Brock, and Vince Hart in addition
>> to Tyrone Slothrop's?
>
>Hello Nick,
>
>The answer is, in many instances, yes.
There are very few people left on this group who have any respect at
all for the opinions of Neil Brennen.
His list of enemies seems to be getting longer every day.
Why don't you just quit this group and go somewhere else where they do
not know you as well as we do?
Sam Sloan
The Historian
Sam Sloan wrote:
> On 4 Aug 2005 19:01:13 -0700, "The Historian" <Spam...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Nick wrote:
>
> >> So would 'The Historian' thereby have less respect for the
> >> opinions of Randy Bauer, Bill Brock, and Vince Hart in addition
> >> to Tyrone Slothrop's?
> >
> >Hello Nick,
> >
> >The answer is, in many instances, yes.
>
> There are very few people left on this group who have any respect at
> all for the opinions of Neil Brennen.
The feeling is mutual.
The Historian
Philth Innes' rent boy Rob wrote:
> The Historian wrote:
> > Rob wrote:
> > > Neil,
> > >
> > > other than yourself and collect all of the negative information and
> > > post it for me please?
> >
> > Why should I do your work for you, Phil, err, Rob? BTW, are you saying
> > the comments from people viewed the broadcast are now being dismissed
> > with the claim they did NOT see the program?
> Neil,
>
> No. I said you did not see the show.
What you said... oh, the heck with it. I should know better than to
argue with a barely literate troll.
BTW, here's more from the blogosphere on the Infomercial:
"Overall, my thoughts after turning it off were, "what a wasted
opportunity". Paul [Truong] and Phil[th Innes] proved they are 'not'
qualified commentators and had no business representing the chess
community in offering their 'expert-commentary' during the games, nor
did they utilize Palatnik's expertise to full effect - he should have
been much more involved."
Chess One
slights and name-calling hissy fits.
Sam Palatnik is a delightful fellow and a gentleman, who made a highly
technical commentary during the program with Sergei Ivanov in Russian
language. I would also say that Sam has a great deal of experience in chess
education, and would recommend his book, a chess title actually worth
printing - since it promotes something useful for a chess player's
development. The title is "The Tarrasch Formula" which he co-authored with
Mark Ishee, and published by Chess Digest, call 1 800 524 3527, ISBN:
0875680003
Sam was also responsible for the fantastic success of both men and women's
chess training programs in Ukraine [of top 25 players Ukraine is #2 in the
world] and besides which Ukraine has a greater %age of female players than
any other country to my knowledge [with the possible exception of China].
Comparable to US with 7% female participation for example, Ukraine has 35%+.
Sam's English is okay if a bit slow for tv.
All this is quite besides the point of what a 1300 rated player appreciates
about 2 masters making only very general and deliberated comments aimed at a
casual audience of chess players, but mostly non chess players, who will be
hearing and seeing chess terms and images for the first time in their lives.
What is certain about the behavior of this poster over a long period of time
is a determined distortion of everything he writes about - not to put too
fine a point on it, a malicious intent to distort from start to finish.
It is of course vastly amusing to have a chess 'Hysterian' who is a stranger
to the truth, and can only get any attention at all by telling big whoppers.
ROFL!!!
Phil Innes
"The Historian" <Spam...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123324469.7...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The Historian
Chess One wrote:
> Sam Palatnik is a delightful fellow and a gentleman, who made a highly
> technical commentary during the program with Sergei Ivanov in Russian
> language. I would also say that Sam has a great deal of experience in chess
> education, and would recommend his book, a chess title actually worth
> printing - since it promotes something useful for a chess player's
> development. The title is "The Tarrasch Formula" which he co-authored with
> Mark Ishee, and published by Chess Digest, call 1 800 524 3527, ISBN:
> 0875680003
Even his newsgroup posts are commercials now.
> Sam was also responsible for the fantastic success of both men and women's
> chess training programs in Ukraine [of top 25 players Ukraine is #2 in the
> world] and besides which Ukraine has a greater %age of female players than
> any other country to my knowledge [with the possible exception of China].
> Comparable to US with 7% female participation for example, Ukraine has 35%+.
>
> Sam's English is okay if a bit slow for tv.
>
> All this is quite besides the point of what a 1300 rated player appreciates
> about 2 masters making only very general and deliberated comments aimed at a
> casual audience of chess players, but mostly non chess players, who will be
> hearing and seeing chess terms and images for the first time in their lives.
How do you know the author of the passage in question is rated 1300?
And there were "two masters" commenting on the games played? Truong was
commenting; who was the other "master?" The 2000-rated Innes?
Vince Hart
I certainly do not consider Neil an enemy and I am (reasonably)
confident that he does not consider me one either. I understand and
respect Neil's objections to Bill's decisions, and I am not sure I
fully understood what Bill was hoping to accomplish. On the other
hand, I've made Bill's life difficult in other ways and I wanted to let
him know I was in his corner (plus I never figured that Sam would agree
to me being the arbitrator).
Vince Hart
Catalan
"Vince Hart" <Vin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123642775.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I certainly do not consider Neil an enemy and I am (reasonably)
> confident that he does not consider me one either. I understand and
> respect Neil's objections to Bill's decisions, and I am not sure I
> fully understood what Bill was hoping to accomplish. On the other
> hand, I've made Bill's life difficult in other ways and I wanted to let
> him know I was in his corner (plus I never figured that Sam would agree
> to me being the arbitrator).
Brown noser.
The Historian
I don't consider you an enemy, Vince, but I think your reputation has
been damaged a little because you squired Sloan around Chicago. I now
better understand your reasons for doing so without agreeing with them.
As for Mr. Brock's behavior, that remains indefensible. Is it true he's
planning a match for money with John Eric Armstrong? Perhaps Matt
Nemmers can sponsor it, since Armstrong was a sailor.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/armstrong/jordan_1.html?sect=2
Best wishes,
Neil Brennen
Bruce Leverett
Hmm.
I have gone into prison on many occasions to play chess with criminals
far more dangerous than Sam Sloan. (I even shook their hands :-)) I
co-authored a theoretical article on openings with a guy who was in
prison for life for murdering his whole family. I guess I better not
complain too loud about the moral turpitude involved in this "grudge
match". BTW, the first game was pretty stoopid, but the second and
third games were interesting to play through.
Bruce
Tyrone Slothrop
code obviously doesn't permit it, is 'reformation'. Sam Sloan made a
mistake. He became a felon. He was caught. He served his time. The
State is now done with him. Should that make him untouchable forever?
Should we strip him of his citizenship? His right to vote and
participate in civic activities? We want to strip him of his right to
participate in social events and ostracize him for a crime he committed
14+ years ago.
Vince Hart
I think that the educational experience was probably worth a little
damage to my reputation. Sam is a unique specimen and you cannot get
the full flavor of his neurosis/psychosis without meeting him.
As far as Bill's behavior goes, I would offer the following defense:
Neither anyone else nor anything else has proved an effective deterent
when it comes to Sam (or Larry). It may be that there is no antidote
and that trying to find one makes things worse, but I don't question
Bill's motives in wanting to do some experiments.
Vince Hart
The Historian
Tyrone Slothrop wrote:
> The other thing that The Historian doesn't consider, because his moral
> code obviously doesn't permit it, is 'reformation'.
When you learn how to read, Tyrone, please look up the meaning of the
word "reformation", and come back then.
Rob
The Historian wrote:
> Tyrone Slothrop wrote:
> > The other thing that The Historian doesn't consider, because his moral
> > code obviously doesn't permit it, is 'reformation'.
>
> When you learn how to read, Tyrone, please look up the meaning of the
> word "reformation", and come back then.
improvement (or an intended improvement) in the existing form or
condition of institutions or practices etc.; intended to make a
striking change for the better in social or political or religious
affairs
ie.. reformation of chess institutions?
Tyrone Slothrop
n.
1. The act of reforming or the state of being reformed.
2. Reformation A 16th-century movement in Western Europe that aimed at
reforming some doctrines and practices of the Roman Catholic Church and
resulted in the establishment of the Protestant churches.
I'm back.
parrt...@cs.com
<Your reputation has been damaged a little because you squired Sloan
around Chicago.> Neil Brennen to Vince Hart
<There are very few people left on this group who have any respect at
all for the opinions of Neil Brennen. His list of enemies seems to be
getting longer every day.> Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan kidnapped his daughter. That was the
"crime," which was an affair of the heart. It is
likely, given the circumstances, that the issue would
never have been in the courts two generations back.
Not being a statist, I do not regard violations
of a regime's law as necessarily criminal. I cannot
see that Sam was convicted of any infraction of the
natural law; he fell afoul of federal family policy, a
hideous phrase in itself.
Our prisons are teeming with millions of prisoners, many of whom
would never have been there earlier.
A Vinnie Hart and his ilk defend the proposition
that what the state decrees is what constitutes the
line separating civil from criminal conduct. Guys
like these would have been beating the drums in the
old Soviet Union for the tens of millions convicted
under Article 58 because if the state so decrees -- to
hell with the concept of legal norms -- then what was
okay on Monday can be criminal on Wednesday but is
then okay next week or next month, though criminal
once again the following year.
Vince Hart
More strawman arguments from Larry Parr. He attributes positions to
his opponents that they never took (or positions that someone else took
years ago) rather than dealing honestly with positions they actually
have taken. Similarly, he invents a fairy tale version of Sam's
activities both with respect to his sexual encounters with young girls
as well as his conviction for kidnapping rather than address the events
that Sam has detailed so thoroughly on his website.
This is why I pay little attention to Larry's rantings about
Crossville. Even if there is a factual basis for some of his claims,
his willingness to lie when it suits his rhetorical purposes--or for
his own amusement like the little boy who cried wolf--renders all his
statements unreliable.
Vince Hart
parrt...@cs.com
<[Parr] invents a fairy tale version of Sam's activities both with
respect to his sexual encounters with young girls as well as his
conviction for kidnapping rather than address the events that Sam has
detailed so thoroughly on his website. This is why I pay little
attention to Larry's rantings about Crossville. Even if there is a
factual basis for some of his claims, his willingness to lie when it
suits his rhetorical purposes--or for his own amusement like the little
boy who cried wolf--renders all his statements unreliable.> Vince Hart
Perhaps Vinnie Hart and I can agree that his
statement is an example of an intellectual
product that suits his standard.
The gent again accuses me of lying without providing
examples. He accuses me of offering up strawmen but
offers no explanation as to what is made of straw. He
speaks of my ranting about Cross-to-Bear but somehow
can't deny the factual basis, though he evidently
wishes that he could. The guy is a piece of work.
Once again, Mr. Hart accuses Sam Sloan of doing
something with young girls without providing any
proof. This time around he drops the specifics in
favor of vague innuendo. Just his, by now, patented
charge without proof. That's his style. The guy is a
piece of work.
As for the point I made -- that Mr. Sloan
committed a "crime" that was nothing more than a
violation of federal family law which would never have
been an issue two generations back -- he is silent.
I think it fair to conclude that he equates an
overbearing government's legal enactments with
normative law. He might indeed have been one of those
egging on the Soviet regime in its horrors of the 1930s.
Vince Hart
The strawman arguments are those positions which Parr insists upon
attributing to me despite the fact that I have never argued them.
As far as his supposed point goes, it was nothing more than a baseless
assertion. Parr has already demonstrated his ignorance with respect to
the current state of American law regarding child molestation and
evidence. But like the little boy who cried wolf, he still expects
people to run when he screams. Unfortunately for Parr, there is no
reason to believe that he is anything but equally ignorant with respect
to the state of American family law two generations ago.
Vince Hart
Catalan
<parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1123778865.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I think it fair to conclude that he equates an
> overbearing government's legal enactments with
> normative law. He might indeed have been one of those
> egging on the Soviet regime in its horrors of the 1930s.
I'm not surprised to see you bring up an era when Stalin executed all the
black people living in Russia.
>> Larry won't do that. You see, Larry sees blacks as inferior too. I
>> discovered this when Larry told a story about how while waiting for a
>> light
>> to change in Newburgh, he watched a black man use his chest to bend a
>> parking meter. Not any man, but a BLACK man. Larry found it important to
>> specify that it wasn't a white man but rather a BLACK man that did this
>> childish act of wanton destruction.
>
> "Instead Mr. Cavallo spends his time
> in New Windsor, which is only a few miles south of Newburgh. Newburgh,
> of course, is one of America's most inflamed rat rectums. About half
> its population feeds at the public welfare trough, and parking costs
> about five cents an hour when the meters are not bent at crazy skew-
> wiff angles. One afternoon (not night!) while driving along the main
> street of Newburgh, I witnessed a sight that has remained with me ever
> since. A mammoth black man with muscles the size of the average
> Japanese apartment in Tokyo rammed his chest into a parking meter.
> He was charging it straight on and eventually bent it nearly in half.
> Any of us would have been in the hospital with a broken collar bone or
> a cracked sternum. Such are the street sights of the New Windsor area."
<- L. Parr>
Larry seems to be obsessed with a rat's ability to void itself.
Taylor Kingston
Vince Hart wrote:
> The strawman arguments are those positions which Parr insists upon
> attributing to me despite the fact that I have never argued them.
> As far as his supposed point goes, it was nothing more than a baseless
> assertion.
Nothing new for Parr, as you surely know already, Vince. Faulting
someone for something they never said is a favorite tactic of Larry's.
In one particular juicy instance, he attributed to me a statement about
Stalin, attacking it as stupid, silly and/or ignorant. As it turned
out, not only had I never said such a thing, but guess who *had* said
such a thing -- Parr's good buddy Larry Evans, and ... Parr himself!
Somehow Parr never got around to criticizing his own and Evans'
stupidity and ignorance.
parrt...@cs.com
>I'm not surprised to see you bring up an era when Stalin executed all the black people living in Russia.> Stan Booz
Historian Stan "ad hominid" Booz states that Stalin executed all
of the Blacks in Russia. What a bizarre idea -- as though such a group
were an important category within the Slavic population.
Even so, he is wrong. Tell it, as they say, to Paul Robeson.
"Uhh, uhh, Powell Robertson? Whose that guy?" one can hear Mr.
Booz wondering.
Knowledge is his short suit. Oh, of course, he was just joking.
His rgcp ally 230+ ELO Grand Coulee Taylor Kingston has fallen
into dialogue with another ally Vinnie Hart. They hunt in packs.
Mr. Hart has me writing strawmen without adducing them.
Mr. Kingston alleges that I attributed a remark about Stalin to him
without showing how that would be a strawman as opposed to an error,
if indeed it ever occurred.
Self-proclaimed 2300+ ELO powerhouse Taylor Kingston, who will not
take a polygraph test about his identity of Xylothist, is disappointed
with Phil Innes. I am not disappointed with NM Kingston, and it may be
the case, though I cannot speak for Mr. Innes, that he too is not
disappointed with NM Kingston. Our national master, self-proclaimed,
has revealed himself to be exactly what I and playwright Richard Laurie
and a few others figured he was all along. The man's essential
phoniness sets him apart from, say. an outright thug such as Stan Booz.
The man still won't state straight out whether he was Xylothist,
dishonestly defending himself behind a pseudonym. Imagine the ego
behind his obvious word games.
Vince Hart
Let me guess what he did instead. First he congratulated himself for
carving you up with his rhetorical brilliance. Then he accused you of
some new misstatement that was clearly more egregious than any trivial
mistake that the Larrys might have made (which they really hadn't made
anyway). Am I close?
Vince Hart
Catalan
<parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1123818319.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> STRAW BETWEEN THEIR EARS
>
>>I'm not surprised to see you bring up an era when Stalin executed all the
>>black people living in Russia.> Stan Booz
>
> Historian Stan "ad hominid" Booz states that Stalin executed all
> of the Blacks in Russia. What a bizarre idea -- as though such a group
> were an important category within the Slavic population.
I get this knowledge from a person born and raised in Moscow. She went on to
say that blacks were a scarce commodity in Russia until 1980. Then nine
months after the Olympics, they began to see the black love children.
parrt...@cs.com
<I'm not surprised to see you bring up an era when Stalin executed all
the black people living in Russia....I get this knowledge from a person
born and raised in Moscow. She went on to say that blacks were a scarce
commodity in Russia until 1980. Then nine months after the Olympics,
they began to see the black love children.> Stan Booz
Stalin died in 1953. But that's history a la ad hominid.
Don C. Aldrich
how horrible parental kidnapping is.
First, your 'statism' comments. Larry, the federal act *is*
relatively new. Most states have had laws about this on the books for
a hundred years at least. The necessity for federal legislation was
when a parent abducted the child and went to a state where it wasn't a
crime.
Second, this isn't only a US problem. Most European countries have
similar laws, and it is part of the Hague convention. What about
Malaysia? Wouldn't be surprised.
Third, it does horrible things to the children. Your 'affair of the
heart' line is so wrong. Parents don't do it for the kids, they do it
for themselves, or evne just to hurt the other parent.
In any event, no matter what the driving force, it causes permanent
psychological scarring in the children. It is the stuff that
nightmares are made of. For at least one take, see
http://womensissues.about.com/cs/divorce/a/parentalkidnap.htm
written by a victim of parental kidnapping.
Frankly, I would rather defend an armed robber than a parental
kidnapper. This isn't wrong because the 'state' deems it so; it is a
horrible crime whose victims are children. I have seen this stuff
first hand. You cannot imagine the pain involved.
Surely someone as clever as you can defend Sloane without claiming
this is not a crime.
==Dondo
On 11 Aug 2005 02:34:25 -0700, "parrt...@cs.com" <parrt...@cs.com>
wrote:
samsloan
> Third, it does horrible things to the children. Your 'affair of the
> heart' line is so wrong. Parents don't do it for the kids, they do it
> for themselves, or evne just to hurt the other parent.
>
> In any event, no matter what the driving force, it causes permanent
> psychological scarring in the children. It is the stuff that
> nightmares are made of. For at least one take, see
> http://womensissues.about.com/cs/divorce/a/parentalkidnap.htm
> written by a victim of parental kidnapping.
>
> Frankly, I would rather defend an armed robber than a parental
> kidnapper. This isn't wrong because the 'state' deems it so; it is a
> horrible crime whose victims are children. I have seen this stuff
> first hand. You cannot imagine the pain involved.
>
> Surely someone as clever as you can defend Sloane without claiming
> this is not a crime.
>
> ==Dondo
Wait a second. I had no idea you were writing about me. I thought you
were writing about Charles and Shelby Roberts who kidnapped my daughter
in Fujairah, United Arab Emirates on October 7, 1990.
Nothing that you have written above has any application to me.
Sam Sloan
Taylor Kingston
Vince Hart wrote:
> Let me guess what he did instead. First he congratulated himself for
> carving you up with his rhetorical brilliance. Then he accused you of
> some new misstatement that was clearly more egregious than any trivial
> mistake that the Larrys might have made (which they really hadn't made
> anyway). Am I close?
Definitely a plausible scenario, but not quite what happened in this
case. You can read it for yourself in the rgcp threads "Politicising
History in Chess Life and ChessCafe" which began 15 February 2002, and
"Kingston replies to Parr" beginning 2 March 2002.
Gambit
Please believe me when I say I understand (and share) your contempt for
Sloan, Neil; however, your stance on Bill's "behavior" is pretty
over-zealous. Here's why:
Sloan is a braggart and Bill wanted to "teach him a lesson." Knowing
he could only get Sloan to put his money where his mouth is was by
offering a big cash pot for the winner, Slothrop took the helm and put
up the stakes thus allowing the match to take place. Unfortunately,
Bill lost and now has to live with the shame -- the unbearable,
ego-crushing, never-to-be-forgotten shame -- of that for the rest of
his life.
The intent was not to "help" Sloan, not by any stretch of the
imagination. After all, VERY few people even gave him a snowball's
chance in hell and so nobody thought he'd take home the money. It was
more an attempt to shut him up about his OTB prowess than anything.
Unfortunately, it backfired.
If you dislike Bill because he played a match with Sloan in an attempt
to dislodge his unjustifiably tremendous ego, well, that's your
misfortune. As is your decision to judge me immoral because I see
nothing wrong with trying to silence a shit-talking felon by playing a
couple games of chess with him. That's your perrogative, so do
what'cha like. But personally, I think you're being pretty stupid
about the whole thing.
Jürgen R.
>
>The intent was not to "help" Sloan, not by any stretch of the
>imagination. After all, VERY few people even gave him a snowball's
>chance in hell and so nobody thought he'd take home the money. It was
>more an attempt to shut him up about his OTB prowess than anything.
>Unfortunately, it backfired.
No, it didn't backfire. If you think losing would make Sloan shut up
you haven't understood this dung beetle. Playing chess like a Patzer
didn't make him shut up, did it?
Taylor Kingston
> ... NM Kingston. Our national master, self-proclaimed,
Larry, I am honored that you keep repeating over and over that I hold
a National Master title. And it is very nice of you to acknowledge that
you were wrong to call me a "weak player." But in all humility, I
respectfully submit that you are overdoing it. There is no need to
mention my title every time you bring up my name.
By the way, Larry, my title of Correspondence Chess Master is not in
any way "self-proclaimed." The title was duly conferred upon me by the
USCF when my postal rating rose above the required level in 1984 (1700
in the old system then in effect, 2200 Elo now). My rating of 1806
(about 2270 Elo), ranking me at #45 on the USCF Postal Master list was
published in an issue of Chess Life that *_you yourself_* edited (April
1985).
Therefore, rather than being "self-proclaimed," it would be more
accurate to say that my title was Parr-proclaimed. I thank you, but
enough's enough -- people will say we're in love.
politi...@gmail.com
Smythe (who I've occasionally blown off the board in fashion similar
to Game 1 of the Sloan match, but who has a lifetime performance rating
against me way above ELO expectations), I realized that Sloan would be
a difficult opponent for me. Smythe is a better endgame player, but
Sloan is stronger in tactics.
Re the purpose: I was never so naïve as to think Sloan would go
silent. A win would have felt much much better to me, but he'd still
be talking. Further, I found it expedient to play the naïf WRT
Sloan's covert supporters. It's not about him or Parr-who indeed
are never going to change--it's about the folks who want to advance
their agenda (anti-Crossville, in this instance) at any cost.
Note that some of my best friends are anti-Crossvile :-) . I don't
have a problem with any member's stance on any substantive issue, but
with the unethical methods *routinely* used to advance one's agenda.
Comments immediately before the match:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/msg/486d119916860db2?hl=en&
Comments immediately after the match:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/4c9ef8765e8868cc?hl=en&
Further affiant sayeth not.
politi...@gmail.com
no longer even an Alternate Delegate. I have no plans to slate myself.
cynic
Thanks go toTaylor Kingston for providing a link that proves he posted
as Xylothist on 2/16/02 where he stated: Larry Parr wrote: "One of the
sillier things stated by Taylor Kingston in a
ChessCafe piece was that no one dared to defy Stalin's orders if he
were in the dictator's grasp.
It's silly If Parr indeed did write that, Perhaps he misspoke?
According to Kingston "NO SOVIET CITIZEN dared to defy an order from
Stalin ON PAIN OF DEATH" was written by GM Larry Evans in Chess Life,
12/2001, page 7 (emphasis added). This apparently refers to the
pressure put on Keres to throw games to Botvinnik in the 1948 world
championship.
Do either Kingston or Parr disagree with this sentiment? It certainly
seems to accord with the reality of Soviet Russia during Stalin's
tyrannical reign.
Taylor Kingston
cynic wrote:
> Larry Parr wrote: "One of the
> sillier things stated by Taylor Kingston in a
> ChessCafe piece was that no one dared to defy Stalin's orders if he
> were in the dictator's grasp.
>
> It's silly If Parr indeed did write that, Perhaps he misspoke?
"If"?? There is no "if" about it. Parr wrote it, though earlier in
this thread he seemed unable to remember doing so. However, I did not
write any such absolute about Stalin in any ChessCafe article. Parr did
not "misspeak" (whatever that useless word is supposed to mean) -- he
fabricated. Made up something I never said, then tried to criticize me
for it.
However, while I never wrote it, as it turned out Parr himself, and
his pal Evans, had both written such things. Get the picture?
BTW, the fact that I happened to cite a pseudonymous post proves
nothing about his identity. And I wonder, don't you feel just a little
silly and hypocritical to post accusations about a pseudonym -- while
using a pseudonym yourself?
Catalan
<parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1123833360.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Yes but he was able to execute most, if not all of them long before 1953.
That's why they were scarce until 1980.
Chess One
"Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1123857394.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> parrt...@cs.com wrote:
>> ... NM Kingston. Our national master, self-proclaimed,
>
> Larry, I am honored that you keep repeating over and over that I hold
> a National Master title. And it is very nice of you to acknowledge that
> you were wrong to call me a "weak player." But in all humility, I
> respectfully submit that you are overdoing it. There is no need to
> mention my title every time you bring up my name.
Why don't you just come right out with your OTB rating Taylor? As much as
1700?
Are you capable of such direct statements. Larry Parr [and I!] are guilty of
suspecting you of more than you seem. Are we at all warranted in our
misapprehension?
To wit: what is your OTB rating?
Phil Innes
Nick
> <parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
> news:1123778865.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > I think it fair to conclude that he equates an overbearing
> > government's legal enactments with normative law. He might
> > indeed have been one of those egging on the Soviet regime
> > in its horrors of the 1930s.
>
> I'm not surprised to see you bring up an era when Stalin
> executed all the black people living in Russia.
"...an era when Stalin executed all the black people living in Russia."
--Stan Booz (aka 'Catalan')
That's another false statement by Stan Booz.
Here are some memoirs of Soviet life by writers
who are of black African ancestry:
"Black Man in Red Russia: A Memoir"
by Homer Smith (with an introduction by Harrison Salisbury)
"Black on Red: A Black American's 44 Years Inside the Soviet Union"
by Robert Robinson (with Jonathan Slevin)
"Soul to Soul: A Black Russian American Family, 1865-1992"
by Yelena Khanga (with Susan Jacoby)
By the way, Paul Robeson, an African American singer, was a frequent
visitor to the USSR, which he regarded as less racist toward him than
the United States of that time.
--Nick
The Historian
Chess One wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
> news:1123857394.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > parrt...@cs.com wrote:
> >> ... NM Kingston. Our national master, self-proclaimed,
> >
> > Larry, I am honored that you keep repeating over and over that I hold
> > a National Master title. And it is very nice of you to acknowledge that
> > you were wrong to call me a "weak player." But in all humility, I
> > respectfully submit that you are overdoing it. There is no need to
> > mention my title every time you bring up my name.
>
> Why don't you just come right out with your OTB rating Taylor? As much as
> 1700?
>
> Are you capable of such direct statements. Larry Parr [and I!] are guilty of
> suspecting you of more than you seem. Are we at all warranted in our
> misapprehension?
>
> To wit: what is your OTB rating?
Philth, would you explain your recent claim to be "nearly an IM" and a
"master", when you've never broken 2100? We asked you first!
Taylor Kingston
Chess One wrote:
> Why don't you just come right out with your OTB rating Taylor? As much as
> 1700?
Phil, are you saying you do not know how to look it up on
www.uschess.org? I thought you were a master of online chess
technology. Are you saying you do not remember what I told you when you
interviewed me for www.chessville.com?
I said then, and I say now, that I am a Class A OTB player (currently
1811), and was a postal master (ranked #45 on the USCF list in 1985).
Clear enough?
parrt...@cs.com
<"...an era when Stalin executed all the black people living in
Russia.">--Stan Booz (aka 'Catalan')
>That's another false statement by Stan Booz.> Nick Bourbaki
From an endless array of false statements.
Perhaps I shall quit calling Stan Booz our "ad
hominid" man. Not right away, but at some point.
The man probably is getting an inkling here that he
has read virtually nothing worth reading. His ignorance
about the USSR is boundless.
There were more blacks in the Soviet Union in
the 1960s and 1970 than there ever were under Stalin.
The Comintern had little to do with Africa in the
1920s and 1930s, concentrating on Europe and Asia.
Nick Bourbaki has probably read a bit in the old bound
volumes of Inprekorr (or at least heard of them) but
as for Mr. Booz, not only has he not got the foggiest
what "Inprekorr" might mean, I think it fair to
conclude that he is innocent of the meaning of
"Comintern," too.
Blacks first came to the Soviet Union in
significant numbers after the founding of Patrice
Lumumba University. As for Paul Robeson, I tossed the
name at Mr. Booz earlier, just as Mr. Bourbaki does in
the current instance, but one understands that there
would not have been the intellectual curiosity on Mr.
Booz's part even to do a Google search.
Back when I edited Glasnost News and Review, I
had some interesting conversations with Paul Robeson's
son, who speaks fluent Russian. Interestingly -- and
of interest as a footnote only to one or two people
here who have heard the name -- journalist I. F. Stone
contributed money to Glasnost.
<Here are some memoirs of Soviet life by writers
who are of black African ancestry: "Black Man in Red Russia:
A Memoir" by Homer Smith (with an introduction by Harrison
Salisbury)> Nick
I knew about this memoir ( but never read
it) which came out in the early 1960s or thereabouts,
but the other two citations are new to me. Smith went
to Stalinland in the early 1930s and got out some
time after WWII. I would imagine he was pretty
disillusioned, yes?
parrt...@cs.com
<Larry, If I achieve one thing in life, it will be to convince you of
how horrible parental kidnapping is.> Dondo
Don Aldrich argues that Sam's abducting his own
daughter is not an affair of the heart, and he then
adduces all of the motives in love and hate that make
such an act ... an affair of the heart.
As for the federal regime sticking its nose into
family affairs, I see no warrant for it under Article
1, Secton 8, the enumerated powers of a proper federal
government under the U. S. Constitution.
Now, then, I have read here all of the stuff
thrown at Sam Sloan. One of the best ones was Stan
Booz's claim that Sam changing a diaper wrongly at a
USCF Executive Board meeting. That went on for weeks
at the keyboards of Booz, Brock and the other low lifes.
My reaction is that Sam probably did a better job than 90%
of fathers who never do the task to begin with.
I oppose government getting its foot into the
door of the family residence except in instances of
traditional criminal physical torture. The word
"abuse," for example, is a warrant for the government
to blackmail and silence in fear all parents.
ANYTHING can be construed as abuse.
I, myself, learned that about 1997. We were
looking through family photo albums with a friend, who
remarked that three or four pictures of our children
in the bathtub might be construed as abuse.
ow the person making the remark, another expatriate
over here from Colorado, was indignant, as many
parents are, that such thoughts and inhibitions have
become part of social calculations in the land of the
repressed and home of the poltroons. But the person
was right. People who make a living out of snooping
want to grow their bureaucracies, which will
eventually destroy all privacy and freedom if they are
not stopped.
So, then, a practical case. When I edited
Glasnost News and Review in the early 1990s in New
York City, I commuted from New Windsor. One day at
the Port Authority, a father smacked his kid flat on
the floor. Just knocked him down.
A number of us looked to register our clear
disapproval to the father and then proceeded about our
business. Oh, yes, the father was black. I mention
his race only so that Stan Booz, the ad hominid guy, can
include this passage in his Catalan retchings.
parrt...@cs.com
<Thanks go toTaylor Kingston for providing a link that proves he posted
as Xylothist on 2/16/02...> Cynic
Our self-proclaimed 2300+ ELO Grand Coulee NM
Taylor Kingston claimed to be a strong master and
was caught out on this forum, just as Stan Booz was
caught out in lying. Both men then stated that they
were having their jokes.
If you believe Mr. Kingston, then you will also
believe Mr. Booz in his serial falsifications here.
If you believe Mr. Booz, then you will believe Mr.
Kingston.
That Mr. Kingston would use the false name of
Xylothist (and still deny it!) to defend himself in a
dispute tells us about an ego that must really be something.
The moment of weakness when lying about his rating
resulted from Sam Sloan pushing him until his
character popped out as in a Jack out of the box.
Vince Hart
parrt...@cs.com wrote:
>
> I oppose government getting its foot into the
> door of the family residence except in instances of
> traditional criminal physical torture. The word
> "abuse," for example, is a warrant for the government
> to blackmail and silence in fear all parents.
How about a father who leaves his infant daughter to be raised by
someone else for four years, with no contact or support whatsoever for
the last two and one-half years? Do you think maybe that guy opened
the door for the government to get involved?
>
> ANYTHING can be construed as abuse.
>
> I, myself, learned that about 1997. We were
> looking through family photo albums with a friend, who
> remarked that three or four pictures of our children
> in the bathtub might be construed as abuse.
>
> ow the person making the remark, another expatriate
> over here from Colorado, was indignant, as many
> parents are, that such thoughts and inhibitions have
> become part of social calculations in the land of the
> repressed and home of the poltroons. But the person
> was right. People who make a living out of snooping
> want to grow their bureaucracies, which will
> eventually destroy all privacy and freedom if they are
> not stopped.
Let me see if I am following this correctly. Nobody actually said that
the bathtub pictures constituted abuse, right? But your friend was
indignant because he (or she) thought that someone (?) might construe
them as abuse? And now you think that we should all feel that our
privacy and freedom are threatened by these hypothetical people who
your friend thinks might not approve of your bathtub pictures?
Vince Hart
Chess One
>
> Chess One wrote:
>
>> Why don't you just come right out with your OTB rating Taylor? As much as
>> 1700?
>
> Phil, are you saying you do not know how to look it up on
> www.uschess.org?
No. I am not saying I do not know how to look it up.
> I thought you were a master of online chess
> technology. Are you saying you do not remember what I told you when you
> interviewed me for www.chessville.com?
> I said then, and I say now, that I am a Class A OTB player (currently
> 1811), and was a postal master (ranked #45 on the USCF list in 1985).
> Clear enough?
Yes!
Phil
parrt...@cs.com
>Why don't you just come right out with your OTB rating Taylor?> Phil Innes
> I said then, and I say now, that I am a Class A OTB player
(currently 1811), and was a postal master (ranked #45 on the USCF list
in 1985). Clear enough?> Taylor Kingston
NM 2300+ Elo Taylor Kingston only mentioned his actual rating
after he was outed lying. Which is to say, he was joking a la his
new-found ally Stan Booz.
In view of his 1811 rating, perhaps now Sam Sloancan offer
him draw odds a la Bill Brock in a four-game match.
Catalan
<parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1123902656....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> There were more blacks in the Soviet Union in
> the 1960s and 1970 than there ever were under Stalin.
> The Comintern had little to do with Africa in the
> 1920s and 1930s, concentrating on Europe and Asia.
Ah yes, Stalin's apologist says it never happened. The Georgian never strung
up one darkie. You see, coloreds just didn't wanna come to the USSR. They
preferred to live in the trees of Africa and idle their time by eating
watermelon and reading from Mao's little red book. Delicious.
Rob
The Historian wrote:
> Chess One wrote:
> > "Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
> > news:1123857394.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > parrt...@cs.com wrote:
> > >> ... NM Kingston. Our national master, self-proclaimed,
> > >
> > > Larry, I am honored that you keep repeating over and over that I hold
> > > a National Master title. And it is very nice of you to acknowledge that
> > > you were wrong to call me a "weak player." But in all humility, I
> > > respectfully submit that you are overdoing it. There is no need to
> > > mention my title every time you bring up my name.
> >
> > Why don't you just come right out with your OTB rating Taylor? As much as
> > 1700?
> >
> > Are you capable of such direct statements. Larry Parr [and I!] are guilty of
> > suspecting you of more than you seem. Are we at all warranted in our
> > misapprehension?
> >
> > To wit: what is your OTB rating?
I read the aforementionedpost several months ago. It was done as
tongue- in- cheek dry British wit. I "got" it. You did not and now use
it as bait to the uninitiated. I have not seen you play Neil. I have
seen Phil play a GM and seen the GM fight for position against him. You
may be much better than your USCF rating. I do not know. I can tell you
I believe that should Phil ever be inclined to compete OTB his rating
would be around 2000 to 2200 currently.
USCF has yours as :
Current Published
Rating (August Supplement)
Regular Rating 1571 2004-08
(Current floor is 1400)
Quick Rating 1280 2004-08
Correspondence Rating 1829
State PA
Expiration Dt. 2004-10-31
Last Change Dt. 2005-08-04
That is why I think Phil could give you knights odds and still come out
on top.
Rob
The Historian
Rob wrote:
> The Historian wrote:
> > Chess One wrote:
> > > "Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1123857394.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > > parrt...@cs.com wrote:
> > > >> ... NM Kingston. Our national master, self-proclaimed,
> > > >
> > > > Larry, I am honored that you keep repeating over and over that I hold
> > > > a National Master title. And it is very nice of you to acknowledge that
> > > > you were wrong to call me a "weak player." But in all humility, I
> > > > respectfully submit that you are overdoing it. There is no need to
> > > > mention my title every time you bring up my name.
> > >
> > > Why don't you just come right out with your OTB rating Taylor? As much as
> > > 1700?
> > >
> > > Are you capable of such direct statements. Larry Parr [and I!] are guilty of
> > > suspecting you of more than you seem. Are we at all warranted in our
> > > misapprehension?
> > >
> > > To wit: what is your OTB rating?
>
>
> I read the aforementionedpost several months ago. It was done as
> tongue- in- cheek dry British wit.
There is no indication Philth intended it as "wit" of any sort. And the
fact that he first presented his "title" with a straight face to an
audience that had very little knowledge of chess hints that it was an
attempt to decieve, rather than an attempted joke.
I "got" it. You did not and now use
> it as bait to the uninitiated.
How is it that the chess readership of RGCP is "uninitiated" in the
meaning of the IM title, and the readers of HLAS
(humanities.literature.authorship.shakespeare) are expected to be
familiar with them? And you still haven't answered why Phil spoke of
"two masters" giving play-by-play in the Shahcom infomercial. We know
of Truong. Who was the other one?
(Snip Rob trying to turn the questioning of Innes' claims into a
personal matter.)
Rob
GM Sam Palatnik. Neil, You saw nothing so your comments come from
ignorance.
> (Snip Rob trying to turn the questioning of Innes' claims into a
> personal matter.)
No, You simply snipped my posting of your USCF ratings and my
contention that having seen Phil play against a GM firsthand; my
personal opinion of his OTB stregnth. If I saw you play against a GM
personally I may have the same impression of your ability. Sam Sloan is
brave enough to step forward to be tried by fire, are you? You have a
postal rating of over 1800, you should do quite well. You are a much
better player than I so if we were to play I would request knight odds.
Rob
Rob
GM Sam Palatnik. Neil, You saw nothing so your comments come from
ignorance.
> (Snip Rob trying to turn the questioning of Innes' claims into a
> personal matter.)
No, You simply snipped my posting of your USCF ratings and my
contention that having seen Phil play against a GM firsthand; my
personal opinion of his OTB stregnth. If I saw you play against a GM
personally I may have the same impression of your ability. Sam Sloan is
brave enough to step forward to be tried by fire, are you? You have a
postal rating of over 1800, you should do quite well. You are a much
better player than I so if we were to play I would request knight odds.
Rob
jr
Maybe it wasn't perfect, but it's a great start. Can't understand all
the negativity when people try to do something good for chess!
The Historian
Rob wrote:
>
> > > I read the aforementionedpost several months ago. It was done as
> > > tongue- in- cheek dry British wit.
> >
> > There is no indication Philth intended it as "wit" of any sort. And the
> > fact that he first presented his "title" with a straight face to an
> > audience that had very little knowledge of chess hints that it was an
> > attempt to decieve, rather than an attempted joke.
Rob, of course, cannot answer this.
> > I "got" it. You did not and now use
> > > it as bait to the uninitiated.
> >
> > How is it that the chess readership of RGCP is "uninitiated" in the
> > meaning of the IM title, and the readers of HLAS
> > (humanities.literature.authorship.shakespeare) are expected to be
> > familiar with them? And you still haven't answered why Phil spoke of
> > "two masters" giving play-by-play in the Shahcom infomercial. We know
> > of Truong. Who was the other one?
>
> GM Sam Palatnik. Neil, You saw nothing so your comments come from
> ignorance.
No, it comes from a confusion as to who is doing the commentary. All
the reports on the Shahcom Informercial state Truong and Innes are
giving the play-by play. If Innes wishes to describe a GM as a
"master", that is his choice, but the confusion was an understandable
one. Now if your Master Philth answered simple questions with as much
grace as you have, online life for everyone would be so much easier.
> > (Snip Rob trying to turn the questioning of Innes' claims into a
> > personal matter.)
>
> No, You simply snipped my posting of your USCF ratings and my
> contention that having seen Phil play against a GM firsthand; my
> personal opinion of his OTB stregnth. If I saw you play against a GM
> personally I may have the same impression of your ability. Sam Sloan is
> brave enough to step forward to be tried by fire, are you? You have a
> postal rating of over 1800, you should do quite well. You are a much
> better player than I so if we were to play I would request knight odds.
> Rob
Rob, by interjecting MY rating and presumed playing ability into a
simple question, namely the source of Innes' claim to be "nearly an
IM", you ARE personalizing things. But then again, you HAVE to do that
so that my original question might be forgotten. I'll repeat it below.
"Philth, would you explain your recent claim to be "nearly an IM"....
Rob
Thank you JR! There is more to come. :-)
Rob
Rob
Neil,
If you are going to persist, repost the entire conversation containing
what your refutation is . We will then vote on our understanding of it.
When my kids are arguing, often times it is the one making the most
noise that garners my ire first because their incessant whining annoys
me. Please stop your whining, Neil. PLease use your talents to do
something worthwhile and cease in striving to be no more than a gadfly.
Such a need for attention is unbecomming of an adult.
Rob
The Historian
Rob wrote:
> Neil,
>
> If you are going to persist, repost the entire conversation containing
> what your refutation is . We will then vote on our understanding of it.
Rob, as should be clear by now, I don't care a fig for your opinion of
Philth's motives/reasons/excuses/etc. I would like Mr. Innes to
explain, in English if he is able, and with the help of a translator if
he is not, why he stated the following in a Shakespeare newsgroup:
"My qualifications for saying so is [sic] that I was nearly an
international
master, with a rating of 2450, which is a tolerably qualified level to
offer
an opinion - for example, [a person], who used to post here before
splitting, so to
speak, was a player of about 1400 rating, and this "ELO" scale is not
linear."
Once again, we ask Mr. Innes for a factual reference - a FIDE/BCF/USCF
rating list, for instance - for his claim to be rated 2450. If he wrote
truthfully, it should be easy for him to produce documentation.
The Historian
BTW, if Mr. Innes were indeed at one time rated 2450, he would probably
be among the top 100 players in the United States. On the current list,
he would be 99, ahead of Calvin Blocker and behind Marcel Martinez. If
his rating is in USCF correspondence play, he would be fourth on the
current USCF list.