Polgar cannot "give a commitment" to go to Beijing

Main

Date: 30 Jul 2008 05:58:22
From: samsloan
Subject: Polgar cannot "give a commitment" to go to Beijing

The USCF Executive Director Bill Hall has informed Susan Polgar that
arrangements are being made and she will be included in the official
US Delegation to the World Mind Games Championships in Beijing China
after all.

In response, Susan Polgar has posted on her chess discussion group a
letter to John Donaldson as follows at:

http://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1362&start=20

"This is now a matter between me, the ED, and the USCF. The issue is a
lot deeper than just this invitation. I am not able to give you a
commitment until things can be resolved between the ED, the USCF, and
me. The way I was treated by the USCF is totally unprofessional and
inexcusable.

"Once again, big thanks to you and David Pruess for trying to help. I
really appreciate your effort and professionalism and I wish our U.S.
delegation the best of luck in Beijing.

"Best wishes,
"Susan Polgar
"http://www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
"http://www.SusanPolgar.com"

What Susan is saying is that now that she has been given what she
wants, which is an invitation to represent the US at the event in
China, she is not able to "give a commitment" at the present time,
even though the deadline passed a long time ago.

This is what Polgar-watches have observed is part of a regular pattern
with Polgar. When invited to any chess event, she has her demands that
she wishes to negotiate. She cannot just say either "yes" or "no" like
normal people do. She wants to negotiate. I provided an example
previously. When invited to represent Hungary in the 1984 World Chess
Olympiad, she demanded that her mother be allowed to come too. The
Hungarians would not agree to this and when in 1986 she was not
invited at all, she complained that she was a victim of discrimination
(because she was Jewish) even though she admitted that she would have
added the same conditions had they invited her which would again have
been unacceptable.

Now, more than 20 years later she is doing the same things with the
USCF.

Sam Sloan

Date: 01 Aug 2008 05:05:58
From: Rob
Subject: Mind Games in St Kitts and Nevis

On Aug 1, 5:40=A0am, Brian Lafferty <[email protected] > wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Jul 30, 7:51 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:57:09 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> I expect the pressure will fall on their weakest team member, rated 1=
460
> >>> blitz, which I personally could defeat blindfold and at Queen odds, a=
nd [no
> >>> way!] maybe not at blitz too? =A0[ROFL]
> >> The syntax of your paragraph might support a reading that you could
> >> win if she were *giving* the odds and playing blindfold, =A0but I assu=
me
> >> this was not your intended meaning.
>
> >> You are obviously writing about Shirley Ben-Dak who does have a 1460
> >> Rapid rating, but also a 1961 regular rating. =A0
>
> > It is worth looking at her tounament history. This 1460 rating comes
> > entirely from having acquired a very low quick chess rating some 10+
> > years ago, when she was also rated around the 3 digit mark in regular
> > chess. She only played a few quick chess events since that time, but
> > she played at the expert level.
>
> > It is fair to question whether she should be on the team, but using
> > this 1460 rating is completely deceptive. Look up her tournament
> > history, and you will realize that she is not anywhere near 1460 at
> > any speed nowadays. She is a strong player; whether she is strong
> > enough for this tournament I cannot judge. This is not one of those
> > Stan Vaughn manufactured ratings, however; she has beaten many strong
> > players.
>
> > Jerry Spinrad
> >> Thus, you claim you could give someone rated about 80 points lower
> >> than you Queen odds while playing blindfold (presumably, allowing this
> >> "fishie" full sight of the board)!
>
> >> Well, Phil, I think you should issue a formal challenge to that
> >> effect. =A0Let the Parrot proclaim it. =A0It would be a good way to gi=
ve
> >> back-of-the-hand to the evil USCF and their team selection.
>
> >> Beating a high "A" player while giving Queen odds and playing
> >> blindfolded would tend to confound those who earlier criticized your
> >> rating claims -- it might well silence =A0them permanently.
>
> >> It =A0would be good to offer substantial stakes for such a game, the
> >> likes of which we wouldn't =A0have seen since the King-Riggs tennis
> >> match!
>
> Interesting point. =A0Perhaps ratings should be based on performances ove=
r
> the past year?? =A0Maybe two?

Are they considering playing" mind games forever" in St Kitts and
Nevis?

Date: 01 Aug 2008 12:18:01
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Polgar cannot "give a commitment" to go to Beijing

Rob wrote:
> On Aug 1, 5:40 am, Brian Lafferty <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Jul 30, 7:51 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:57:09 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> I expect the pressure will fall on their weakest team member, rated 1460
>>>>> blitz, which I personally could defeat blindfold and at Queen odds, and [no
>>>>> way!] maybe not at blitz too? [ROFL]
>>>> The syntax of your paragraph might support a reading that you could
>>>> win if she were *giving* the odds and playing blindfold, but I assume
>>>> this was not your intended meaning.
>>>> You are obviously writing about Shirley Ben-Dak who does have a 1460
>>>> Rapid rating, but also a 1961 regular rating.
>>> It is worth looking at her tounament history. This 1460 rating comes
>>> entirely from having acquired a very low quick chess rating some 10+
>>> years ago, when she was also rated around the 3 digit mark in regular
>>> chess. She only played a few quick chess events since that time, but
>>> she played at the expert level.
>>> It is fair to question whether she should be on the team, but using
>>> this 1460 rating is completely deceptive. Look up her tournament
>>> history, and you will realize that she is not anywhere near 1460 at
>>> any speed nowadays. She is a strong player; whether she is strong
>>> enough for this tournament I cannot judge. This is not one of those
>>> Stan Vaughn manufactured ratings, however; she has beaten many strong
>>> players.
>>> Jerry Spinrad
>>>> Thus, you claim you could give someone rated about 80 points lower
>>>> than you Queen odds while playing blindfold (presumably, allowing this
>>>> "fishie" full sight of the board)!
>>>> Well, Phil, I think you should issue a formal challenge to that
>>>> effect. Let the Parrot proclaim it. It would be a good way to give
>>>> back-of-the-hand to the evil USCF and their team selection.
>>>> Beating a high "A" player while giving Queen odds and playing
>>>> blindfolded would tend to confound those who earlier criticized your
>>>> rating claims -- it might well silence them permanently.
>>>> It would be good to offer substantial stakes for such a game, the
>>>> likes of which we wouldn't have seen since the King-Riggs tennis
>>>> match!
>> Interesting point. Perhaps ratings should be based on performances over
>> the past year?? Maybe two?
>
> Are they considering playing" mind games forever" in St Kitts and
> Nevis?

Date: 31 Jul 2008 22:30:01
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Polgar cannot "give a commitment" to go to Beijing

On Jul 31, 11:42=A0pm, thumbody <[email protected] > wrote:

> You missed out 'Skol lager, lager Skol & after, laaager-Skol' also that
> moody Strand cigarette ad. - 'You're never alone with a Strand' & don't
> forget those Bounty coconut-choc bar ads featuring idyllic sun-drenched
> isles, shark free waters & grass skirted maidens - very nice on a cold
> winter's day..

I had to think a second before realizing
what "Skol" was... of course, anybody
who would put that nasty stuff in their
mouth likely couldn't spell anyhow to
save their good-fer-nuthin' life.

Those were the good old days... back
when they allowed advertising for lung-
cancer sticks and such on your RCA
TV (we got a state-of-the-art one with
buttons to change channels, instead
of a boring knob).

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

I don't know how they did it, but the
SP apologists somehow managed to
focus the discussion on the relative
chess strengths/ratings of SP vs. the
(supposedly) weakest invitee, while just
forgetting about the /indecency/ of
giving someone an invitation and then
taking back that move to accommodate
some whiner who, as Mr. Sloan tells it,
is just looking for a free lunch. That's
not the way I would do things (but then,
I am not dictator/absolute-ruler of the
USCF, BG is).

Got to go now... the 7-11 closes in a
half hour; /it's a mile away/, and I'm out
of Camels.

-- help bot

Date: 01 Aug 2008 13:42:15
From: thumbody
Subject: Re: Polgar cannot "give a commitment" to go to Beijing

help bot wrote:

.
> Besides, you must realize that
> practically nobody alive today has
> the slightest inkling of who you are
> talking about; that match was AGES
> AGO... back when they were still
> airing TV commercials for Bryl-creme
> "a little dab wull do ya". Back when
> there were TV commercial "wars"
> between Colgate and Crest; between
> Lavoris mouthwash and Scope;
> between Fab laundry detergent and
> Bold. It was before The Brady
> Bunch, for cryin'out loud. I mean,
> we're talking Leave it to Beaver, in
> black and white old. Only the oldest
> of old farts would remember it. (Oops)

You missed out 'Skol lager, lager Skol & after, laaager-Skol' also that
moody Strand cigarette ad. - 'You're never alone with a Strand' & don't
forget those Bounty coconut-choc bar ads featuring idyllic sun-drenched
isles, shark free waters & grass skirted maidens - very nice on a cold
winter's day..

t.

Date: 31 Jul 2008 19:32:19
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Polgar cannot "give a commitment" to go to Beijing

On Jul 30, 7:51=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:57:09 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >I expect the pressure will fall on their weakest team member, rated 1460
> >blitz, which I personally could defeat blindfold and at Queen odds, and =
[no
> >way!] maybe not at blitz too? =A0[ROFL]
>
> The syntax of your paragraph might support a reading that you could
> win if she were *giving* the odds and playing blindfold, =A0but I assume
> this was not your intended meaning.
>
> You are obviously writing about Shirley Ben-Dak who does have a 1460
> Rapid rating, but also a 1961 regular rating. =A0

It is worth looking at her tounament history. This 1460 rating comes
entirely from having acquired a very low quick chess rating some 10+
years ago, when she was also rated around the 3 digit mark in regular
chess. She only played a few quick chess events since that time, but
she played at the expert level.

It is fair to question whether she should be on the team, but using
this 1460 rating is completely deceptive. Look up her tournament
history, and you will realize that she is not anywhere near 1460 at
any speed nowadays. She is a strong player; whether she is strong
enough for this tournament I cannot judge. This is not one of those
Stan Vaughn manufactured ratings, however; she has beaten many strong
players.

Jerry Spinrad
>
> Thus, you claim you could give someone rated about 80 points lower
> than you Queen odds while playing blindfold (presumably, allowing this
> "fishie" full sight of the board)!
>
> Well, Phil, I think you should issue a formal challenge to that
> effect. =A0Let the Parrot proclaim it. =A0It would be a good way to give
> back-of-the-hand to the evil USCF and their team selection.
>
> Beating a high "A" player while giving Queen odds and playing
> blindfolded would tend to confound those who earlier criticized your
> rating claims -- it might well silence =A0them permanently.
>
> It =A0would be good to offer substantial stakes for such a game, the
> likes of which we wouldn't =A0have seen since the King-Riggs tennis
> match!

Date: 01 Aug 2008 10:40:45
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Polgar cannot "give a commitment" to go to Beijing

[email protected] wrote:
> On Jul 30, 7:51 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:57:09 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I expect the pressure will fall on their weakest team member, rated 1460
>>> blitz, which I personally could defeat blindfold and at Queen odds, and [no
>>> way!] maybe not at blitz too? [ROFL]
>> The syntax of your paragraph might support a reading that you could
>> win if she were *giving* the odds and playing blindfold, but I assume
>> this was not your intended meaning.
>>
>> You are obviously writing about Shirley Ben-Dak who does have a 1460
>> Rapid rating, but also a 1961 regular rating.
>
> It is worth looking at her tounament history. This 1460 rating comes
> entirely from having acquired a very low quick chess rating some 10+
> years ago, when she was also rated around the 3 digit mark in regular
> chess. She only played a few quick chess events since that time, but
> she played at the expert level.
>
> It is fair to question whether she should be on the team, but using
> this 1460 rating is completely deceptive. Look up her tournament
> history, and you will realize that she is not anywhere near 1460 at
> any speed nowadays. She is a strong player; whether she is strong
> enough for this tournament I cannot judge. This is not one of those
> Stan Vaughn manufactured ratings, however; she has beaten many strong
> players.
>
> Jerry Spinrad
>> Thus, you claim you could give someone rated about 80 points lower
>> than you Queen odds while playing blindfold (presumably, allowing this
>> "fishie" full sight of the board)!
>>
>> Well, Phil, I think you should issue a formal challenge to that
>> effect. Let the Parrot proclaim it. It would be a good way to give
>> back-of-the-hand to the evil USCF and their team selection.
>>
>> Beating a high "A" player while giving Queen odds and playing
>> blindfolded would tend to confound those who earlier criticized your
>> rating claims -- it might well silence them permanently.
>>
>> It would be good to offer substantial stakes for such a game, the
>> likes of which we wouldn't have seen since the King-Riggs tennis
>> match!
>
Interesting point. Perhaps ratings should be based on performances over
the past year?? Maybe two?

Date: 31 Jul 2008 18:40:34
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Polgar cannot "give a commitment" to go to Beijing

THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 44)

All this wrangling reminds me of an old joke about the difference
between a diplomat and a lady: If a diplomat says =93yes,=94 it means
maybe.
If a diplomat says =93maybe,=94 it means no. If a diplomat says =93no,=94 h=
e=92s
no diplomat. If a lady says =93no,=94 it means maybe. If a lady says
=93maybe,=94 it
means yes. If a lady says =93yes,=94 she=92s no lady.

thumbody wrote:
> samsloan wrote:
>
> > She cannot just say either "yes" or "no" like
> > normal people do.
>
> Normal? - She's a goirl fer chris'sakes! Any man with a modicum of
> experience in these affairs should know [yes] might mean [no] & [no]
> quite possibly means [yes]. What could be clearer? Sheesh..
>
> t.
>
>
>
>
> > She wants to negotiate. I provided an example
> > previously. When invited to represent Hungary in the 1984 World Chess
> > Olympiad, she demanded that her mother be allowed to come too. The
> > Hungarians would not agree to this and when in 1986 she was not
> > invited at all, she complained that she was a victim of discrimination
> > (because she was Jewish) even though she admitted that she would have
> > added the same conditions had they invited her which would again have
> > been unacceptable.
> >
> > Now, more than 20 years later she is doing the same things with the
> > USCF.
> >
> > Sam Sloan

Date: 01 Aug 2008 10:38:16
From: thumbody
Subject: Re: Polgar cannot "give a commitment" to go to Beijing

samsloan wrote:

> She cannot just say either "yes" or "no" like
> normal people do.

Normal? - She's a goirl fer chris'sakes! Any man with a modicum of
experience in these affairs should know [yes] might mean [no] & [no]
quite possibly means [yes]. What could be clearer? Sheesh..

t.

> She wants to negotiate. I provided an example
> previously. When invited to represent Hungary in the 1984 World Chess
> Olympiad, she demanded that her mother be allowed to come too. The
> Hungarians would not agree to this and when in 1986 she was not
> invited at all, she complained that she was a victim of discrimination
> (because she was Jewish) even though she admitted that she would have
> added the same conditions had they invited her which would again have
> been unacceptable.
>
> Now, more than 20 years later she is doing the same things with the
> USCF.
>
> Sam Sloan

Date: 30 Jul 2008 19:12:57
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Polgar cannot "give a commitment" to go to Beijing

On Jul 30, 8:51=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:

> You are obviously writing about Shirley Ben-Dak who does have a 1460
> Rapid rating, but also a 1961 regular rating.

Quickly: 2450 - 1961 =3D 589 points.

> Thus, you claim you could give someone rated about 80 points lower
> than you Queen odds while playing blindfold (presumably, allowing this
> "fishie" full sight of the board)!

No, no, no! You are trying to compare
apples to apples. The way to do it is to
take nearly-IMnes' imaginary rating of
2450 and subtract the actual rating of
anyone you wish to compare him to (i.e.
the oranges).

> Beating a high "A" player while giving Queen odds and playing
> blindfolded would tend to confound those who earlier criticized your
> rating claims -- it might well silence =A0them permanently.

There is only one way to accomplish
that-- "sanction" them. (Contact Clint
Eastwood for the current rates.)

> It =A0would be good to offer substantial stakes for such a game, the
> likes of which we wouldn't =A0have seen since the King-Riggs tennis
> match!

A thrown match if ever there was one.
The old geezer couldda given any
woman in world serve-odds in every
game and still won. Heck-- John
MacEnroe couldda played six women
at once, slamming the ball right in
their faces (yes, he /would/ do that)
while never leaving the net except to
scarf some more Gatorade.

Besides, you must realize that
practically nobody alive today has
the slightest inkling of who you are
talking about; that match was AGES
AGO... back when they were still
airing TV commercials for Bryl-creme
"a little dab wull do ya". Back when
there were TV commercial "wars"
between Colgate and Crest; between
Lavoris mouthwash and Scope;
between Fab laundry detergent and
Bold. It was before The Brady
Bunch, for cryin'out loud. I mean,
we're talking Leave it to Beaver, in
black and white old. Only the oldest
of old farts would remember it. (Oops)

-- help bot

Date: 30 Jul 2008 17:39:26
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Polgar cannot "give a commitment" to go to Beijing

On Jul 30, 9:54=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> =A0 =A0 "I am not able to give you a commitment until things can be resol=
ved
> between the ED, the USCF, and me"
>
> Which seems to me to offer to resolve issues by group discussion. My sens=
e
> of that comment from the statement itself and from elsewhere, is that it =
is
> a genuine offer to put US chess business back on the agenda as the main
> topic, and to lay to rest all else!
>
> Of course, I may not be correct in this - and merely state my own sense o=
f
> things. But it is at least an hypothesis worth testing, and that takes ju=
st
> one telephone call to set up.

Alas, history is a fine teacher (for those
who are not blind, that is).

I still recall the time when BF insisted
that he would not be able to play the
world champion, Gary Kasparov, until
such time as he was compensated for
one of his books being published in the
USSR. In reality, he just wanted some
money and never intended to play GK
at all. Now we have a person with a
long history (according to Mr. Sloan)
of similar behavior, who wants a free
ride to China, but who wants to
"negotiate" with the USCF, of which she
is a board member and in various and
sundry litigations with. Well, at least
she has not yet turned down a free
life membership, saying the magazine
is full of lies. A mere glance at the SP
Web site reveals the sort of people we
are talking about here, for it is chock-
a-block full of lies and deceptions. And
they want a "confirmation" from such
as this? Who cares-- it would only be
as valuable as her word, which is to say
zip; zero; nada.

As Paul Truong has advised us: talk
(like, say, a confirmation) is cheap. We
are advised to wait five years, and then
judge (whether or not she went to China
at members' expense).

-- help bot

Date: 30 Jul 2008 12:25:09
From:
Subject: Re: Polgar cannot "give a commitment" to go to Beijing

On Jul 30, 9:52=A0am, PaPaPeng <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:20:56 -0700 (PDT), The Historian
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Jul 30, 8:47 am, SBD <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Jul 30, 7:58 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > The USCF Executive Director Bill Hall has informed Susan Polgar that
> >> > arrangements are being made and she will be included in the official
> >> > US Delegation to the World Mind Games Championships in Beijing China
> >> > after all.
>
> >> It's really sad to see an otherwise talented person self-destruct like
> >> this.
>
> >I agree. This must be like watching Fischer melt down decades ago.
>
> Fischer was Jewish too and an egoistical show-off.

Fischer was also anti-Semitic. A very strange person.

Date: 30 Jul 2008 10:46:16
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Polgar cannot "give a commitment" to go to Beijing

On Jul 30, 7:58 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> The USCF Executive Director Bill Hall has informed Susan Polgar that
> arrangements are being made and she will be included in the official
> US Delegation to the World Mind Games Championships in Beijing China
> after all.
>
> In response, Susan Polgar has posted on her chess discussion group a
> letter to John Donaldson as follows at:
>
> http://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1362&start=20
>
> "This is now a matter between me, the ED, and the USCF. The issue is a
> lot deeper than just this invitation. I am not able to give you a
> commitment until things can be resolved between the ED, the USCF, and
> me. The way I was treated by the USCF is totally unprofessional and
> inexcusable.
>
> "Once again, big thanks to you and David Pruess for trying to help. I
> really appreciate your effort and professionalism and I wish our U.S.
> delegation the best of luck in Beijing.
>
> "Best wishes,
> "Susan Polgar
> "http://www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
> "http://www.SusanPolgar.com"
>
> What Susan is saying is that now that she has been given what she
> wants, which is an invitation to represent the US at the event in
> China, she is not able to "give a commitment" at the present time,
> even though the deadline passed a long time ago.
>
> This is what Polgar-watches have observed is part of a regular pattern
> with Polgar. When invited to any chess event, she has her demands that
> she wishes to negotiate. She cannot just say either "yes" or "no" like
> normal people do. She wants to negotiate. I provided an example
> previously. When invited to represent Hungary in the 1984 World Chess
> Olympiad, she demanded that her mother be allowed to come too. The
> Hungarians would not agree to this and when in 1986 she was not
> invited at all, she complained that she was a victim of discrimination
> (because she was Jewish) even though she admitted that she would have
> added the same conditions had they invited her which would again have
> been unacceptable.
>
> Now, more than 20 years later she is doing the same things with the
> USCF.
>
> Sam Sloan

Does Rob ("The Robber") Mitchell think he is being funny by covering
up this serious discussion of a serious issue by overwriting it on
Google with jokes?

Meanwhile, somebody who spoke to Bill Hall today says that Polgar is
either demanding money or setting conditions on playing in Beijing.

If she goes to Beijing she will not have an easy time over there. The
Chinese are preparing to throw their top players at her.

Do not be surprised if she chickens out and does not go. Chances are
if she goes she will bomb out. It will not be an easy walkover like
that patzer tournament she won in 2006 in Dresden, Germany during the
World Cup of Football, which they called the Woman's World Cup of
chess.

Sam Sloan

Date: 30 Jul 2008 10:19:31
From: Rob
Subject: I do Stand-up , too

On Jul 30, 12:17=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:12:08 -0700 (PDT), Rob <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Brian,
> >Having not gone through something like this myself personally I
> >thought I would ask someone who may have a better personal
> >understanding of it than me. So if you filed for personal bankruptcy
> >you list your wifes assets?
>
> Good point, =A0Rob. =A0Would you list your wife's child support as income=
?
>
> There's a lotta comics need straight men, Rob. =A0You could prove
> invaluable.

Actually... I have done that :-).. Stand-up :-) comedy.
I mean, I have been standing a long long time. But I have done stand-
up comedy before too.

Date: 30 Jul 2008 10:07:09
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Polgar cannot "give a commitment" to go to Beijing

On Jul 30, 9:45=A0am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 30, 9:12 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Brian,
> > Having not gone through something like this myself personally I
> > thought I would ask someone who may have a better personal
> > understanding of it than me. So if you filed for personal bankruptcy
> > you list your wifes assets?
>
> Stop deflecting and do your own damn research if it really interests
> you.

Steven,
I know what the answer really is. I just want to see if he has the
ability to answer it directly and honestly. I am not trying to make
you angry or engage in a dispute with you. I wish our relationship to
remain cordial. How has your SUmmer been? I hope you have been well.
Rob

Date: 30 Jul 2008 09:20:56
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Polgar cannot "give a commitment" to go to Beijing

On Jul 30, 8:47 am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 30, 7:58 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The USCF Executive Director Bill Hall has informed Susan Polgar that
> > arrangements are being made and she will be included in the official
> > US Delegation to the World Mind Games Championships in Beijing China
> > after all.
>
> It's really sad to see an otherwise talented person self-destruct like
> this.

I agree. This must be like watching Fischer melt down decades ago.

Date: 30 Jul 2008 16:52:49
From: PaPaPeng
Subject: Re: Polgar cannot "give a commitment" to go to Beijing

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:20:56 -0700 (PDT), The Historian
<[email protected] > wrote:

>On Jul 30, 8:47 am, SBD <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Jul 30, 7:58 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > The USCF Executive Director Bill Hall has informed Susan Polgar that
>> > arrangements are being made and she will be included in the official
>> > US Delegation to the World Mind Games Championships in Beijing China
>> > after all.
>>
>> It's really sad to see an otherwise talented person self-destruct like
>> this.
>
>I agree. This must be like watching Fischer melt down decades ago.

Fischer was Jewish too and an egoistical show-off.

Date: 30 Jul 2008 07:45:49
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Polgar cannot "give a commitment" to go to Beijing

On Jul 30, 9:12 am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> Brian,
> Having not gone through something like this myself personally I
> thought I would ask someone who may have a better personal
> understanding of it than me. So if you filed for personal bankruptcy
> you list your wifes assets?

Stop deflecting and do your own damn research if it really interests
you.

Date: 30 Jul 2008 07:44:31
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Polgar cannot "give a commitment" to go to Beijing

On Jul 30, 8:54 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> Which seems to me to offer to resolve issues by group discussion. My sense
> of that comment from the statement itself and from elsewhere, is that it is
> a genuine offer to put US chess business back on the agenda as the main
> topic, and to lay to rest all else!

To most folks, it just sounds like whining. But posture away, oh swami
of dead language.

Date: 30 Jul 2008 07:12:08
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Polgar cannot "give a commitment" to go to Beijing

On Jul 30, 9:05=A0am, Brian Lafferty <[email protected] > wrote:
> Chess One wrote:
> > "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:0a354b39-3d3a-4050-b8cd-0479e06f90a4@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com..=
.
>
> >> "This is now a matter between me, the ED, and the USCF. The issue is a
> >> lot deeper than just this invitation. I am not able to give you a
> >> commitment until things can be resolved between the ED, the USCF, and
> >> me. The way I was treated by the USCF is totally unprofessional and
> >> inexcusable.
>
> >> "Once again, big thanks to you and David Pruess for trying to help. I
> >> really appreciate your effort and professionalism and I wish our U.S.
> >> delegation the best of luck in Beijing.
>
> >> "Best wishes,
> >> "Susan Polgar
> >> "http://www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
> >> "http://www.SusanPolgar.com"
>
> >> What Susan is saying
> >> is that now that she has been given what she
> >> wants, which is an invitation to represent the US at the event in
> >> China, she is not able to "give a commitment" at the present time,
>
> > Which, I agree, is what any intelligent reader would take from her
> > statement.
>
> >> even though the deadline passed a long time ago.
>
> > Even though the deadline passed before she received her invitation!
>
> > I tried to book Susan Polgar twice this year, one in support of Mil-che=
ss
> > and another in support of children's charities. At both times she had
> > calendar difficulties, one being the Category XV event she was hosting!=
And
> > I asked in one instance 5 months ahead, and the other 3 months ahead,
> > knowing that these were 'short-notice'.
>
> Interesting information, Phil. =A0Thank you. =A0This is completely contra=
ry
> to what was indicated in Truong's bankruptcy petition should no "real"
> income for Susan. =A0Someone book years in advance would be expected to
> have more income than an article payment from Chess Life. =A0Keep up the
> good work "helping" your friends.
>
>
>
>
>
> > To give, how long? 1 month? notice is really rather absurd when USCF co=
uld
> > have acted in January. So, these are demurrers on her part on naturally
> > understandable from just the calendar basis.
>
> > =A0 =A0 LESS THE TACTIC, MORE THE STRATEGY
>
> > To the broader context of her own statement I notice the sentence:
>
> > =A0 =A0 "I am not able to give you a commitment until things can be res=
olved
> > between the ED, the USCF, and me"
>
> > Which seems to me to offer to resolve issues by group discussion. My se=
nse
> > of that comment from the statement itself and from elsewhere, is that i=
t is
> > a genuine offer to put US chess business back on the agenda as the main
> > topic, and to lay to rest all else!
>
> > Of course, I may not be correct in this - and merely state my own sense=
of
> > things. But it is at least an hypothesis worth testing, and that takes =
just
> > one telephone call to set up.
>
> > Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Brian,
Having not gone through something like this myself personally I
thought I would ask someone who may have a better personal
understanding of it than me. So if you filed for personal bankruptcy
you list your wifes assets?

Date: 30 Jul 2008 10:17:05
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Polgar cannot "give a commitment" to go to Beijing

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:12:08 -0700 (PDT), Rob <[email protected] >
wrote:

>Brian,
>Having not gone through something like this myself personally I
>thought I would ask someone who may have a better personal
>understanding of it than me. So if you filed for personal bankruptcy
>you list your wifes assets?

Good point, Rob. Would you list your wife's child support as income?

There's a lotta comics need straight men, Rob. You could prove
invaluable.

Date: 30 Jul 2008 09:54:03
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Polgar cannot "give a commitment" to go to Beijing

"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:0a354b39-3d3a-4050-b8cd-0479e06f90a4@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

> "This is now a matter between me, the ED, and the USCF. The issue is a
> lot deeper than just this invitation. I am not able to give you a
> commitment until things can be resolved between the ED, the USCF, and
> me. The way I was treated by the USCF is totally unprofessional and
> inexcusable.
>
> "Once again, big thanks to you and David Pruess for trying to help. I
> really appreciate your effort and professionalism and I wish our U.S.
> delegation the best of luck in Beijing.
>
> "Best wishes,
> "Susan Polgar
> "http://www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
> "http://www.SusanPolgar.com"
>
> What Susan is saying
> is that now that she has been given what she
> wants, which is an invitation to represent the US at the event in
> China, she is not able to "give a commitment" at the present time,

Which, I agree, is what any intelligent reader would take from her
statement.

> even though the deadline passed a long time ago.

Even though the deadline passed before she received her invitation!

I tried to book Susan Polgar twice this year, one in support of Mil-chess
and another in support of children's charities. At both times she had
calendar difficulties, one being the Category XV event she was hosting! And
I asked in one instance 5 months ahead, and the other 3 months ahead,
knowing that these were 'short-notice'.

To give, how long? 1 month? notice is really rather absurd when USCF could
have acted in January. So, these are demurrers on her part on naturally
understandable from just the calendar basis.

LESS THE TACTIC, MORE THE STRATEGY

To the broader context of her own statement I notice the sentence:

"I am not able to give you a commitment until things can be resolved
between the ED, the USCF, and me"

Which seems to me to offer to resolve issues by group discussion. My sense
of that comment from the statement itself and from elsewhere, is that it is
a genuine offer to put US chess business back on the agenda as the main
topic, and to lay to rest all else!

Of course, I may not be correct in this - and merely state my own sense of
things. But it is at least an hypothesis worth testing, and that takes just
one telephone call to set up.

Phil Innes

Date: 30 Jul 2008 14:05:49
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Polgar cannot "give a commitment" to go to Beijing

Chess One wrote:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:0a354b39-3d3a-4050-b8cd-0479e06f90a4@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>> "This is now a matter between me, the ED, and the USCF. The issue is a
>> lot deeper than just this invitation. I am not able to give you a
>> commitment until things can be resolved between the ED, the USCF, and
>> me. The way I was treated by the USCF is totally unprofessional and
>> inexcusable.
>>
>> "Once again, big thanks to you and David Pruess for trying to help. I
>> really appreciate your effort and professionalism and I wish our U.S.
>> delegation the best of luck in Beijing.
>>
>> "Best wishes,
>> "Susan Polgar
>> "http://www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
>> "http://www.SusanPolgar.com"
>>
>> What Susan is saying
>> is that now that she has been given what she
>> wants, which is an invitation to represent the US at the event in
>> China, she is not able to "give a commitment" at the present time,
>
> Which, I agree, is what any intelligent reader would take from her
> statement.
>
>> even though the deadline passed a long time ago.
>
> Even though the deadline passed before she received her invitation!
>
> I tried to book Susan Polgar twice this year, one in support of Mil-chess
> and another in support of children's charities. At both times she had
> calendar difficulties, one being the Category XV event she was hosting! And
> I asked in one instance 5 months ahead, and the other 3 months ahead,
> knowing that these were 'short-notice'.

Interesting information, Phil. Thank you. This is completely contrary
to what was indicated in Truong's bankruptcy petition should no "real"
income for Susan. Someone book years in advance would be expected to
have more income than an article payment from Chess Life. Keep up the
good work "helping" your friends.
>
> To give, how long? 1 month? notice is really rather absurd when USCF could
> have acted in January. So, these are demurrers on her part on naturally
> understandable from just the calendar basis.
>
> LESS THE TACTIC, MORE THE STRATEGY
>
> To the broader context of her own statement I notice the sentence:
>
> "I am not able to give you a commitment until things can be resolved
> between the ED, the USCF, and me"
>
> Which seems to me to offer to resolve issues by group discussion. My sense
> of that comment from the statement itself and from elsewhere, is that it is
> a genuine offer to put US chess business back on the agenda as the main
> topic, and to lay to rest all else!
>
> Of course, I may not be correct in this - and merely state my own sense of
> things. But it is at least an hypothesis worth testing, and that takes just
> one telephone call to set up.
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
>

Date: 30 Jul 2008 19:57:09
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Polgar cannot "give a commitment" to go to Beijing

"Brian Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:1z_jk.382$iM5.173@trnddc07...
> Chess One wrote:
>> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:0a354b39-3d3a-4050-b8cd-0479e06f90a4@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> "This is now a matter between me, the ED, and the USCF. The issue is a
>>> lot deeper than just this invitation. I am not able to give you a
>>> commitment until things can be resolved between the ED, the USCF, and
>>> me. The way I was treated by the USCF is totally unprofessional and
>>> inexcusable.
>>>
>>> "Once again, big thanks to you and David Pruess for trying to help. I
>>> really appreciate your effort and professionalism and I wish our U.S.
>>> delegation the best of luck in Beijing.
>>>
>>> "Best wishes,
>>> "Susan Polgar
>>> "http://www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
>>> "http://www.SusanPolgar.com"
>>>
>>> What Susan is saying
>>> is that now that she has been given what she
>>> wants, which is an invitation to represent the US at the event in
>>> China, she is not able to "give a commitment" at the present time,
>>
>> Which, I agree, is what any intelligent reader would take from her
>> statement.
>>
>>> even though the deadline passed a long time ago.
>>
>> Even though the deadline passed before she received her invitation!
>>
>> I tried to book Susan Polgar twice this year, one in support of Mil-chess
>> and another in support of children's charities. At both times she had
>> calendar difficulties, one being the Category XV event she was hosting!
>> And I asked in one instance 5 months ahead, and the other 3 months ahead,
>> knowing that these were 'short-notice'.
>
> Interesting information, Phil. Thank you. This is completely contrary to
> what was indicated in Truong's bankruptcy petition should no "real" income
> for Susan.

? I dont think I mentioned money, I did mention charities <shrug > and
advance bookings. I did not mention 'years ahead'. How quaint you continue
to be unable to acknowledge what the witness said - no doubt this is a
professional deformation?

> Someone book years in advance would be expected to have more income than
> an article payment from Chess Life. Keep up the good work "helping" your
> friends.

Since yor frenz, Neil Brennen and Sam Sloan keep pressing me for
information, or alternatively offer false information their own [Sloan!]
diligent attention rather than scandal-mongering reveals a very different
situation!

Let me say on topic that what Sam Sloan reported here was to you own
perceived standard of honesty! That is, did he report what he knew, or
selectively from it?

Specifically, I understand that USCF has NOT offered Susan Polgar a place to
represent USA at the world mind games in Beijing. They have instead said
that if any player should drop out, then she should have a place.

I expect the pressure will fall on their weakest team member, rated 1460
blitz, which I personally could defeat blindfold and at Queen odds, and [no
way!] maybe not at blitz too? [ROFL]

This is USCF's preferred choice over a 2600+ GM who would as like defeat the
entire US team in a clock simul blitz.

That, I suggest to you is what politics does to national asperation and
chess promotion. This poor 1460 player will be smashed.

Her team will suffer, she will feel that too.

And this is OFFICIAL USCF policy. I am sorry for this player, for her own
likely results, and her sense of letting down her country, while her choice
is to give up this great opportunity to instead allow her country to go for
a gold.

That is how your 'politics' in chess actually plays out, Mr. Laffety. And
how you & crew love creating your own country's losing chances.

Phil Innes

>> To give, how long? 1 month? notice is really rather absurd when USCF
>> could have acted in January. So, these are demurrers on her part on
>> naturally understandable from just the calendar basis.
>>
>> LESS THE TACTIC, MORE THE STRATEGY
>>
>> To the broader context of her own statement I notice the sentence:
>>
>> "I am not able to give you a commitment until things can be resolved
>> between the ED, the USCF, and me"
>>
>> Which seems to me to offer to resolve issues by group discussion. My
>> sense of that comment from the statement itself and from elsewhere, is
>> that it is a genuine offer to put US chess business back on the agenda as
>> the main topic, and to lay to rest all else!
>>
>> Of course, I may not be correct in this - and merely state my own sense
>> of things. But it is at least an hypothesis worth testing, and that takes
>> just one telephone call to set up.
>>
>> Phil Innes
>>
>>

Date: 30 Jul 2008 17:51:45
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Polgar cannot "give a commitment" to go to Beijing

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:57:09 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>I expect the pressure will fall on their weakest team member, rated 1460
>blitz, which I personally could defeat blindfold and at Queen odds, and [no
>way!] maybe not at blitz too? [ROFL]

The syntax of your paragraph might support a reading that you could
win if she were *giving* the odds and playing blindfold, but I assume
this was not your intended meaning.

You are obviously writing about Shirley Ben-Dak who does have a 1460
Rapid rating, but also a 1961 regular rating.

Thus, you claim you could give someone rated about 80 points lower
than you Queen odds while playing blindfold (presumably, allowing this
"fishie" full sight of the board)!

Well, Phil, I think you should issue a formal challenge to that
effect. Let the Parrot proclaim it. It would be a good way to give
back-of-the-hand to the evil USCF and their team selection.

Beating a high "A" player while giving Queen odds and playing
blindfolded would tend to confound those who earlier criticized your
rating claims -- it might well silence them permanently.

It would be good to offer substantial stakes for such a game, the
likes of which we wouldn't have seen since the King-Riggs tennis
match!

Date: 01 Aug 2008 13:17:12
From: thumbody
Subject: Re: Polgar cannot "give a commitment" to go to Beijing

Mike Murray wrote:
>
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:57:09 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >I expect the pressure will fall on their weakest team member, rated 1460
> >blitz, which I personally could defeat blindfold and at Queen odds, and [no
> >way!] maybe not at blitz too? [ROFL]
>
> The syntax of your paragraph might support a reading that you could
> win if she were *giving* the odds and playing blindfold, but I assume
> this was not your intended meaning.

Well Mike, assuming you're not just stirring here & agreeing the
paragraph in question needed clarification & also in no way being an
apologist for yours-truly, here is my interpretation:

Phil is being very generous in his hypothetical chances against the
serious & well-tuned young blitzer saying in effect that even if [she]
were blindfolded & gave queen odds he "could" [NOT] (note the contextual
absence of this critical word in the original par.) feel confident about
winning & as for *blitz* 'pls. don't mention it as he fears he'll be
done like a carrot, toasted like a marshmallow & crushed like a chicken'
also note the telltale "rofl" - too. hth..

t.

>
> You are obviously writing about Shirley Ben-Dak who does have a 1460
> Rapid rating, but also a 1961 regular rating.
>
> Thus, you claim you could give someone rated about 80 points lower
> than you Queen odds while playing blindfold (presumably, allowing this
> "fishie" full sight of the board)!
>
> Well, Phil, I think you should issue a formal challenge to that
> effect. Let the Parrot proclaim it. It would be a good way to give
> back-of-the-hand to the evil USCF and their team selection.
>
> Beating a high "A" player while giving Queen odds and playing
> blindfolded would tend to confound those who earlier criticized your
> rating claims -- it might well silence them permanently.
>
> It would be good to offer substantial stakes for such a game, the
> likes of which we wouldn't have seen since the King-Riggs tennis
> match!

Date: 31 Jul 2008 00:17:39
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Polgar cannot "give a commitment" to go to Beijing

Chess One wrote:
> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:1z_jk.382$iM5.173@trnddc07...
>> Chess One wrote:
>>> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:0a354b39-3d3a-4050-b8cd-0479e06f90a4@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>> "This is now a matter between me, the ED, and the USCF. The issue is a
>>>> lot deeper than just this invitation. I am not able to give you a
>>>> commitment until things can be resolved between the ED, the USCF, and
>>>> me. The way I was treated by the USCF is totally unprofessional and
>>>> inexcusable.
>>>>
>>>> "Once again, big thanks to you and David Pruess for trying to help. I
>>>> really appreciate your effort and professionalism and I wish our U.S.
>>>> delegation the best of luck in Beijing.
>>>>
>>>> "Best wishes,
>>>> "Susan Polgar
>>>> "http://www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
>>>> "http://www.SusanPolgar.com"
>>>>
>>>> What Susan is saying
>>>> is that now that she has been given what she
>>>> wants, which is an invitation to represent the US at the event in
>>>> China, she is not able to "give a commitment" at the present time,
>>> Which, I agree, is what any intelligent reader would take from her
>>> statement.
>>>
>>>> even though the deadline passed a long time ago.
>>> Even though the deadline passed before she received her invitation!
>>>
>>> I tried to book Susan Polgar twice this year, one in support of Mil-chess
>>> and another in support of children's charities. At both times she had
>>> calendar difficulties, one being the Category XV event she was hosting!
>>> And I asked in one instance 5 months ahead, and the other 3 months ahead,
>>> knowing that these were 'short-notice'.
>> Interesting information, Phil. Thank you. This is completely contrary to
>> what was indicated in Truong's bankruptcy petition should no "real" income
>> for Susan.
>
> ? I dont think I mentioned money, I did mention charities <shrug> and
> advance bookings. I did not mention 'years ahead'. How quaint you continue
> to be unable to acknowledge what the witness said - no doubt this is a
> professional deformation?
>
>> Someone book years in advance would be expected to have more income than
>> an article payment from Chess Life. Keep up the good work "helping" your
>> friends.
>
> Since yor frenz, Neil Brennen and Sam Sloan keep pressing me for
> information, or alternatively offer false information their own [Sloan!]
> diligent attention rather than scandal-mongering reveals a very different
> situation!
>
> Let me say on topic that what Sam Sloan reported here was to you own
> perceived standard of honesty! That is, did he report what he knew, or
> selectively from it?
>
> Specifically, I understand that USCF has NOT offered Susan Polgar a place to
> represent USA at the world mind games in Beijing. They have instead said
> that if any player should drop out, then she should have a place.

Susie Chesspiece write on chessdiscussion:
"Now you are saying that *I can take the place of two young players who
were already invited but only for 2 individual events.* In addition,
announcements were made with a player rated 1466 in Blitz / Rapid (who
also did not make the activity requirement) making the team and I did
not. I want to go because I am still good enough to compete and to try
to win medals for the U.S. I do not want to be an after thought excuse
or to become a distraction to the team."

Sounds like a definite invitation--perhaps it's not enough for Susie?
>
> I expect the pressure will fall on their weakest team member, rated 1460
> blitz, which I personally could defeat blindfold and at Queen odds, and [no
> way!] maybe not at blitz too? [ROFL]
>
> This is USCF's preferred choice over a 2600+ GM who would as like defeat the
> entire US team in a clock simul blitz.
>
> That, I suggest to you is what politics does to national asperation and
> chess promotion. This poor 1460 player will be smashed.
>
> Her team will suffer, she will feel that too.
>
> And this is OFFICIAL USCF policy. I am sorry for this player, for her own
> likely results, and her sense of letting down her country, while her choice
> is to give up this great opportunity to instead allow her country to go for
> a gold.
>
> That is how your 'politics' in chess actually plays out, Mr. Laffety. And
> how you & crew love creating your own country's losing chances.
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
>>> To give, how long? 1 month? notice is really rather absurd when USCF
>>> could have acted in January. So, these are demurrers on her part on
>>> naturally understandable from just the calendar basis.
>>>
>>> LESS THE TACTIC, MORE THE STRATEGY
>>>
>>> To the broader context of her own statement I notice the sentence:
>>>
>>> "I am not able to give you a commitment until things can be resolved
>>> between the ED, the USCF, and me"
>>>
>>> Which seems to me to offer to resolve issues by group discussion. My
>>> sense of that comment from the statement itself and from elsewhere, is
>>> that it is a genuine offer to put US chess business back on the agenda as
>>> the main topic, and to lay to rest all else!
>>>
>>> Of course, I may not be correct in this - and merely state my own sense
>>> of things. But it is at least an hypothesis worth testing, and that takes
>>> just one telephone call to set up.
>>>
>>> Phil Innes
>>>
>>>
>

Date: 30 Jul 2008 06:47:31
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Polgar cannot "give a commitment" to go to Beijing