| |
Main
Date: 12 Nov 2007 14:38:05
From: samsloan
Subject: Sam Sloan beat USCF Master Richard Koepcke in 10 moves
|
[quote="nolan"]Since we have so few cases of contested races in small
states, I don't know if we can definitively say whether or not it is
easier to get elected from a small state than from a large state.[/
quote]
The best example of the problem this would create is Mike Nolan
himself.
Mike is from Nebraska, a state with only one delegate slot.
Yet, for some unknown reason, Nebraska has produced more chess
politicians than any other state.
In addition to Mike, there are Bruce Draney, Tom Dorsch and Al
Lawrence. However, the delegate position usually goes to Jim Jirousek,
the state chess historian. I do not count Tim Tobiason as a politician
yet.
Mike Nolan has attended every delegates meeting since at least 1995
but he usually has to fish around among the other states to get
seated.
I am still miffed that in 1996 Mike Nolan was made a delegate from
Northern California instead of me, when I actually lived in Northern
California. I believed at the time that Tom Dorsch had done this.
However, I have since learned that it was actually Richard Koepcke,
who was at the time President of the Northern California Chess
Association, who vetoed having me as a delegate and that Tom Dorsch
was actually in favor of making me a delegate.
However, Koepcke, a 2300 player, received his punishment when I beat
him in ten moves in the US Open. The reason I beat him in ten moves
was he made an illegal move and then had to move the piece he touched,
which would have resulted in the loss of a knight. He asked me to let
him take the move back, and when I would not agree, he resigned.
Sam Sloan
|
|
| |
Date: 13 Nov 2007 17:15:58
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan beat USCF Master Richard Koepcke in 10 moves
|
On Nov 13, 7:08 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 13, 12:31 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Bot,
> > Come back to chessworld.net. you have some games waiting.
>
> If it's that creep from Iceland, tell him I want *Queen*
> odds this time. I'm sick and tired of losing at Rook
> odds, while listening to ranting and raving about jewelry.
> Do I look like I give a hang about what he wears, or
> the size of his, um, organ? No. Besides... he MUST
> be using a computer -- there is no other possible
> explanation since I was getting help from Nigel Short.
>
> -- help bot
He offered rook,pawn and two moves. He also said it wasn't jewelry he
was ranting about ,.. but your were half right when you said that. He
also said he has no idea who SS is and says he will beat him with
queen qnd rook odds. I think the guy must be a little mad, myself.
|
| |
Date: 13 Nov 2007 17:08:13
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan beat USCF Master Richard Koepcke in 10 moves
|
On Nov 13, 12:31 am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> Bot,
> Come back to chessworld.net. you have some games waiting.
If it's that creep from Iceland, tell him I want *Queen*
odds this time. I'm sick and tired of losing at Rook
odds, while listening to ranting and raving about jewelry.
Do I look like I give a hang about what he wears, or
the size of his, um, organ? No. Besides... he MUST
be using a computer -- there is no other possible
explanation since I was getting help from Nigel Short.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 13 Nov 2007 08:27:17
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan beat USCF Master Richard Koepcke in 10 moves
|
On Nov 13, 5:47 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 12, 5:11 pm, Fromper <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > You know, everyone makes fun of the Englund Gambit, but I think most
> > of the people who ridicule it would have a tougher time beating it
> > than they think.
>
> Perhaps you should re-think that; it is not the gambit
> /itself/ a player has to beat. All a player needs to do is
> take the superior position an unsound gambit provides,
> and then work with it a bit.
>
> > I've used it three times in USCF tournament games and
> > scored two wins and a draw, all against opponents rated above me.
>
> Very nice! Would you like to bet that your lucky
> streak will continue were you to play someone who
> is not rattled by an opponent going "out of book", so
> to speak, early? I have been playing atGetClubfor
> quite some time, and have seen everything under the
> Sun; it makes no difference to me that the program
> has what Sanny calls "bugs", but which I suspect
> are merely "features", like frequent Windows crashes
> or self-canceling turn signals. A bad move is still bad,
> even if it steers into positions you have studied and
> which most opponents are unfamiliar with.
>
> > It may not be playable at the grandmaster level
>
> I don't know about that; Rybka has been quite
> successful with virtually any one-pawn gambit, so
> far.
>
> > but for us class
> > players, it's a good way to get into an open, tactical dogfight.
>
> If you cannot get into an open, tactical dogfight
> without this sort of thing, perhaps you are playing
> the sound openings incorrectly. Truth be told, I
> *rarely* get anything but a tactical dogfight, even
> though I like semi-closed, strategical positions!
>
> One fellow in particular seems to be convinced
> that trading off pieces will help him achieve a
> draw; trouble is, he loses ground with each
> effort to trade off one more piece, and all these
> backwards "baby steps" lead every time to a bad
> position which, although simplified a bit, cannot
> be held (but even here, the tactics abound).
>
> If you /must/ play inferior gambits, try to select
> those which at least have something in their
> favor besides surprise value. (Look at poor Mr.
> Sloan: he is reduced to playing Damiano's
> Defense and grotesquely mishandling the Grob.)
> Why not give the decent gambits a try, or play
> tactical lines which do not entail dropping any
> material whatever? Afraid of 1.d4? Never fear--
> there are numerous /sound/ replies, and not all
> of them are boring.
>
> -- help bot
GetClub Chess Bugs has been removed. Now it plays decent game.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 13 Nov 2007 07:11:36
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan beat USCF Master Richard Koepcke in 10 moves
|
On Nov 13, 7:08 am, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Actually, I have been very nice to Mr. Koepcke by never publishing
> > the game and I can no longer find the scoresheet.
>
> Oh, how very convenient. Just like the time I beat a consultation
> team of Karpov, Kasparov and Kramnik.
>
> > However, the game started like this. I was Black:
>
> > 1. d4 e5 2. dxe5 Nc6 3. Nf3 Qe7 4. Bf4 Qb4+ 5. Bd2 Qxb2 6. Nc3 Bb4 7.
> > Rb1 Qa3
>
> > A few moves later, I played Bxc3 and he played B on f1 captures B on
> > c3 which of course is illegal. He then said that he wanted me to
> > give him the move back. When I would not agree, he resigned.
>
> Um. Is this one of those points where USCF rules and FIDE rules
> diverge? Under FIDE rules, you would have been given extra time on
> the clock to compensate you for the confusion and White would have
> been forced to make a legal move with the Bf1 if any such move
> existed (assuming the Bf1 was the first piece he touched); if there
> was no such move, he would be forced to make a legal capture of your
> Bc3; if no capture was legal, he would have a free choice of move.
> The game is forfeit by a player who makes three illegal moves.
Dave, I take it you have a set of FIDE rules handy? If so, can you
tell me, is there any penalty for a false announcement of check? By
this I mean saying "check" when making a move that actually does not
give check. I'm sure this happens only very rarely, if at all, in FIDE
competition, but I have experienced it in USCF play.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Nov 2007 15:37:05
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan beat USCF Master Richard Koepcke in 10 moves
|
Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> Dave, I take it you have a set of FIDE rules handy?
Yes, as do you:
http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE101
> If so, can you tell me, is there any penalty for a false announce-
> ment of check? By this I mean saying "check" when making a move that
> actually does not give check.
Well, of course, there's no requirement to announce check or, indeed,
say anything to one's opponent except to adjust a piece, resign or
offer a draw. The only relevant law that I can see is law 12.6: `It
is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner
whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims or unreasonable offers
of a draw.'
So, if the arbiter felt that the opponent was being distracted or
annoyed by the false claim of check (most likely, there would have to
be several), he could apply any of the penalties from Law 13.4 that he
felt to be appropriate: warning the offender, adjusting the clocks
(either decreasing the offender's time or increasing the opponent's),
forfeiting the game, adjusting the points scored by the players for
that game or expelling the offender from the event.
In practice, I imagine a warning would be sufficient, if any action
was felt to be required.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Happy Hat (TM): it's like a hat that
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ makes your troubles melt away!
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Nov 2007 15:41:08
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan beat USCF Master Richard Koepcke in 10 moves
|
David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote:
> Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
>> can you tell me, is there any penalty for a false announce ment of
>> check?
>
> Well, of course, there's no requirement to announce check or,
> indeed, say anything to one's opponent except to adjust a piece,
> resign or offer a draw. The only relevant law that I can see is law
> 12.6: `It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any
> manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims or
> unreasonable offers of a draw.'
'Scuse the self-follow-up.
What I forgot to say is that, since even a truthful announcemement of
check could be taken as a distraction to the opponent (and, particu-
larly, the other players), the sanctions I described could also be
applied in that case, too. Again, I imagine a warning would be
sufficient in all cases, except where the offender is being deliber-
ately disruptive, in which case expulsion would seem to be the only
option.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Technicolor Robot (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ high-tech robot but it's in realistic
colour!
|
| |
Date: 12 Nov 2007 21:31:40
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan beat USCF Master Richard Koepcke in 10 moves
|
On Nov 12, 6:47 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 12, 5:11 pm, Fromper <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > You know, everyone makes fun of the Englund Gambit, but I think most
> > of the people who ridicule it would have a tougher time beating it
> > than they think.
>
> Perhaps you should re-think that; it is not the gambit
> /itself/ a player has to beat. All a player needs to do is
> take the superior position an unsound gambit provides,
> and then work with it a bit.
>
> > I've used it three times in USCF tournament games and
> > scored two wins and a draw, all against opponents rated above me.
>
> Very nice! Would you like to bet that your lucky
> streak will continue were you to play someone who
> is not rattled by an opponent going "out of book", so
> to speak, early? I have been playing at GetClub for
> quite some time, and have seen everything under the
> Sun; it makes no difference to me that the program
> has what Sanny calls "bugs", but which I suspect
> are merely "features", like frequent Windows crashes
> or self-canceling turn signals. A bad move is still bad,
> even if it steers into positions you have studied and
> which most opponents are unfamiliar with.
>
> > It may not be playable at the grandmaster level
>
> I don't know about that; Rybka has been quite
> successful with virtually any one-pawn gambit, so
> far.
>
> > but for us class
> > players, it's a good way to get into an open, tactical dogfight.
>
> If you cannot get into an open, tactical dogfight
> without this sort of thing, perhaps you are playing
> the sound openings incorrectly. Truth be told, I
> *rarely* get anything but a tactical dogfight, even
> though I like semi-closed, strategical positions!
>
> One fellow in particular seems to be convinced
> that trading off pieces will help him achieve a
> draw; trouble is, he loses ground with each
> effort to trade off one more piece, and all these
> backwards "baby steps" lead every time to a bad
> position which, although simplified a bit, cannot
> be held (but even here, the tactics abound).
>
> If you /must/ play inferior gambits, try to select
> those which at least have something in their
> favor besides surprise value. (Look at poor Mr.
> Sloan: he is reduced to playing Damiano's
> Defense and grotesquely mishandling the Grob.)
> Why not give the decent gambits a try, or play
> tactical lines which do not entail dropping any
> material whatever? Afraid of 1.d4? Never fear--
> there are numerous /sound/ replies, and not all
> of them are boring.
>
> -- help bot
Bot,
Come back to chessworld.net. you have some games waiting.
|
| |
Date: 12 Nov 2007 16:47:23
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan beat USCF Master Richard Koepcke in 10 moves
|
On Nov 12, 5:11 pm, Fromper <[email protected] > wrote:
> You know, everyone makes fun of the Englund Gambit, but I think most
> of the people who ridicule it would have a tougher time beating it
> than they think.
Perhaps you should re-think that; it is not the gambit
/itself/ a player has to beat. All a player needs to do is
take the superior position an unsound gambit provides,
and then work with it a bit.
> I've used it three times in USCF tournament games and
> scored two wins and a draw, all against opponents rated above me.
Very nice! Would you like to bet that your lucky
streak will continue were you to play someone who
is not rattled by an opponent going "out of book", so
to speak, early? I have been playing at GetClub for
quite some time, and have seen everything under the
Sun; it makes no difference to me that the program
has what Sanny calls "bugs", but which I suspect
are merely "features", like frequent Windows crashes
or self-canceling turn signals. A bad move is still bad,
even if it steers into positions you have studied and
which most opponents are unfamiliar with.
> It may not be playable at the grandmaster level
I don't know about that; Rybka has been quite
successful with virtually any one-pawn gambit, so
far.
> but for us class
> players, it's a good way to get into an open, tactical dogfight.
If you cannot get into an open, tactical dogfight
without this sort of thing, perhaps you are playing
the sound openings incorrectly. Truth be told, I
*rarely* get anything but a tactical dogfight, even
though I like semi-closed, strategical positions!
One fellow in particular seems to be convinced
that trading off pieces will help him achieve a
draw; trouble is, he loses ground with each
effort to trade off one more piece, and all these
backwards "baby steps" lead every time to a bad
position which, although simplified a bit, cannot
be held (but even here, the tactics abound).
If you /must/ play inferior gambits, try to select
those which at least have something in their
favor besides surprise value. (Look at poor Mr.
Sloan: he is reduced to playing Damiano's
Defense and grotesquely mishandling the Grob.)
Why not give the decent gambits a try, or play
tactical lines which do not entail dropping any
material whatever? Afraid of 1.d4? Never fear--
there are numerous /sound/ replies, and not all
of them are boring.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 12 Nov 2007 22:38:35
From: zdrakec
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan beat USCF Master Richard Koepcke in 10 moves
|
On Nov 12, 2:27 pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2:00 pm, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Before we attack Mr. Sloan for "poor sportsmanship"
> > in exercising his legal rights, we ought first to eliminate
> > cheating which is illegal according to agreement by
> > all, as spelled out in the rules of the game. An example
> > would be taking back moves (Gary Kasparov, caught on
> > videotape), distracting/annoying opponents, routinely
> > utilized as an effective answer by many players when
> > they are losing, etc.
>
> On this we are certainly in agreement. Sam had every right, especially
> in a game he deemed important, not to allow a take-back; in fact, I
> think the mentality that leads to take-backs needs to be abolished.....
Oh, I agree he had the right. It's the attitude that accompanied it
that annoys me...
Additionally, I agree that it is incorrect in the extreme to request a
takeback. I for one would never ask for it.
Furthermore, I do not pretend that I myself would give the takeback.
Odds are I wouldn't - but then I might, if the game was in the early
stages and I felt like playing.
I'm just pointing out that Bronstein set a high bar for us amateurs.
Regards,
zdrakec
|
| |
Date: 12 Nov 2007 14:20:34
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan beat USCF Master Richard Koepcke in 10 moves
|
On Nov 12, 1:07 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Actually, I have been very nice to Mr. Koepcke by never publishing the
> game and I can no longer find the scoresheet. However, the game
> started like this. I was Black:
>
> 1. d4 e5 2. dxe5 Nc6 3. Nf3 Qe7 4. Bf4 Qb4+ 5. Bd2 Qxb2 6. Nc3 Bb4 7.
> Rb1 Qa3
>
> A few moves later, I played Bxc3 and he played B on f1 captures B on
> c3 which of course is illegal.
Had he moved his e- or g-pawn by then? If not, no touch-move penalty
could be enforced. A player cannot be made to move a piece that has no
legal move.
> He then said that he wanted me to give
> him the move back. When I would not agree, he resigned.
You caught a lucky break, Sam. Will you never tire of playing
unsound gambits? First it was the Damiano, now we see you with a
particulary bad line (6...Bb4?) of the Englund. Looks to me like after
8.Nd5! you're busted here.
|
| |
Date: 12 Nov 2007 14:11:55
From: Fromper
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan beat USCF Master Richard Koepcke in 10 moves
|
On Nov 12, 3:00 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2:12 pm, zdrakec <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Actually, I have been very nice to Mr. Koepcke by never publishing the
> > > game and I can no longer find the scoresheet. However, the game
> > > started like this. I was Black:
>
> > > 1. d4 e5 2. dxe5 Nc6 3. Nf3 Qe7 4. Bf4 Qb4+ 5. Bd2 Qxb2 6. Nc3 Bb4 7.
> > > Rb1 Qa3
>
> > > A few moves later, I played Bxc3 and he played B on f1 captures B on
> > > c3 which of course is illegal. He then said that he wanted me to give
> > > him the move back. When I would not agree, he resigned.
>
> > > Sam Sloan
>
> > Compare Bronstein's response to Dus Chotimirsky, if you want to see
> > how a sportsman behaves.
>
> Ha! Mr. Koepcke did not give SS back his first-move
> blunder, and what's sauce for the goose, is sauce for
> the gander.
>
You know, everyone makes fun of the Englund Gambit, but I think most
of the people who ridicule it would have a tougher time beating it
than they think. I've used it three times in USCF tournament games and
scored two wins and a draw, all against opponents rated above me. It
may not be playable at the grandmaster level, but for us class
players, it's a good way to get into an open, tactical dogfight.
--Fromper
|
| |
Date: 12 Nov 2007 21:43:59
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan beat USCF Master Richard Koepcke in 10 moves
|
On Nov 12, 3:16 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 12, 3:24 pm, SBD <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > No bot, no ad hom intended.
>
> Here is what you *actually* wrote:
>
> "Certainly, you could take on a part-time job using the same
> hours you pissed away on Sanny's hunk of junk and earn
> enough to play in a US Open and meet some real competition."
>
> Notice anything peculiar -- like maybe a focus on
> the person, not the issue?
Ad hom means against a person, not just the mere focus, doesn't it?
Perhaps my Latin is rusty.
|
| |
Date: 12 Nov 2007 13:16:43
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan beat USCF Master Richard Koepcke in 10 moves
|
On Nov 12, 3:24 pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> No bot, no ad hom intended.
Here is what you *actually* wrote:
"Certainly, you could take on a part-time job using the same
hours you pissed away on Sanny's hunk of junk and earn
enough to play in a US Open and meet some real competition."
Notice anything peculiar -- like maybe a focus on
the person, not the issue? That's ad hominem (in
case you didn't know). Not that I was making an
actual /argument/ -- more like an observation. But
as I wrote, the comments applied to those people
I noticed in some crosstables at the USCF Web
site. I did not even mention my own situation, since
it is rather unique; for one thing, I am -- or at least
was -- the highest-rated player /ever/ on GetClub!
These other guys are mere wannabees; they
remind me of poor Larry Parr, who fantasizes that he
/is/ the five-time U.S. champion, Larry Evans, and
writes here accordingly; they remind me of blithering
idiots like IM Innes, who babbles about ideas he
can't even spell, let alone, even begin to grasp. ; >D
> I agree it is interesting how some very small time players invest in
> chess like they were potential GMs or WC candidates. Again, one can
> only assume the chess is important to them. I have played in big
> tournaments without any hope of winning money, simply to play good
> competition. A friend of mine is quite low-rated, but always goes only
> to big tourneys and always plays up one to two classes, again for the
> chess, not the prize. My sister runs athons with the goal of
> running in every state, no chance of glory (she loves to run but is
> slow as molasses), except the personal achievement.
Some players enjoy the opportunity -- however remote --
of a potential upset, about which they presumably would
be happy to brag for the rest of their days. I see things
a bit differently: fluke performances are not any /real/
measure of chess talent.
I have known players whose focus had shifted from the
quality of their play, to the quality of their chess equipment.
Such players can be found uncrating bulky wooden boards
from their protective coverings, and carefully laying out their
Jacques sets.
And I have known players whose sole purpose in life
seemed to revolve around the gaining of yet another rating
class -- by hook or by crook. These players might be
found "arranging" the outcome of a game which was not
going their way.
And I imagine there are many players who have the
resources to travel /at will/, to enter even the World
Open with no thought as to what may become of their
hefty entry fee, or of hotel bills and whatnot. I say I
"imagine" because I have yet to actually meet such a
person... . : >D
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 12 Nov 2007 20:27:02
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan beat USCF Master Richard Koepcke in 10 moves
|
On Nov 12, 2:00 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> Before we attack Mr. Sloan for "poor sportsmanship"
> in exercising his legal rights, we ought first to eliminate
> cheating which is illegal according to agreement by
> all, as spelled out in the rules of the game. An example
> would be taking back moves (Gary Kasparov, caught on
> videotape), distracting/annoying opponents, routinely
> utilized as an effective answer by many players when
> they are losing, etc.
On this we are certainly in agreement. Sam had every right, especially
in a game he deemed important, not to allow a take-back; in fact, I
think the mentality that leads to take-backs needs to be abolished.....
|
| |
Date: 12 Nov 2007 20:24:55
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan beat USCF Master Richard Koepcke in 10 moves
|
On Nov 12, 1:47 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
No bot, no ad hom intended. It was more along the line of "people
place their priorities according to what is important to them.....," a
self-evident statement, I know, but no less true.
I refuse to invest in the cash suck that is HDTV... in that case, I
would spend the money on a US Open instead and content myself with a
small, old TV..... Again, priorities..... :)
I agree it is interesting how some very small time players invest in
chess like they were potential GMs or WC candidates. Again, one can
only assume the chess is important to them. I have played in big
tournaments without any hope of winning money, simply to play good
competition. A friend of mine is quite low-rated, but always goes only
to big tourneys and always plays up one to two classes, again for the
chess, not the prize. My sister runs athons with the goal of
running in every state, no chance of glory (she loves to run but is
slow as molasses), except the personal achievement.
|
| |
Date: 12 Nov 2007 12:00:06
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan beat USCF Master Richard Koepcke in 10 moves
|
On Nov 12, 2:12 pm, zdrakec <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Actually, I have been very nice to Mr. Koepcke by never publishing the
> > game and I can no longer find the scoresheet. However, the game
> > started like this. I was Black:
>
> > 1. d4 e5 2. dxe5 Nc6 3. Nf3 Qe7 4. Bf4 Qb4+ 5. Bd2 Qxb2 6. Nc3 Bb4 7.
> > Rb1 Qa3
>
> > A few moves later, I played Bxc3 and he played B on f1 captures B on
> > c3 which of course is illegal. He then said that he wanted me to give
> > him the move back. When I would not agree, he resigned.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> Compare Bronstein's response to Dus Chotimirsky, if you want to see
> how a sportsman behaves.
Ha! Mr. Koepcke did not give SS back his first-move
blunder, and what's sauce for the goose, is sauce for
the gander.
-----
Before we attack Mr. Sloan for "poor sportsmanship"
in exercising his legal rights, we ought first to eliminate
cheating which is illegal according to agreement by
all, as spelled out in the rules of the game. An example
would be taking back moves (Gary Kasparov, caught on
videotape), distracting/annoying opponents, routinely
utilized as an effective answer by many players when
they are losing, etc.
First, clear out the worst muck; then work to improve
appearances, apply a coat of glossy shine, etc. (I can't
imagine a greater waste than applying wax over the top
of such awful muck, except, perhaps, putting expensive
lipstick on a pig.)
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 12 Nov 2007 11:47:27
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan beat USCF Master Richard Koepcke in 10 moves
|
On Nov 12, 1:50 pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> > I am left wondering how a NY city cab driver (and so many
> > others like him) somehow managed to come up with the
> > funds to travel the world, playing in such tournaments as
> > that one. Many of the people I have known simply get out
> > a calculator, figure that one-third of their expenses will go
> > to the hotels and restaurants, one-third to a greedy
> > organizer, and another third to the top finishers (almost
> > always professionals, GMs) and decide they can't afford
> > it.
>
> Because they want to play?
Just wanting to play does not get it done; you need to
allocate lots of dough to these tournaments, and I might
add that in playing, you miss out on much in the way of
being able to observe (first-hand) other games, like those
of the top players.
Many players I have known were ried, so they could
not (in reality) decide to take off for a weekend to some
far-away city, just because they "wanted to play".
> Certainly, you could take on a part-time
> job using the same hours you pissed away on Sanny's hunk of junk and
> earn enough to play in a US Open and meet some real competition.
Ad hominem. That's all you've got to add? Look,
fella: I was not talking about *me*; I was talking
about people like Sam Sloan and others I noticed
who appear to have played in numerous high-cost
events over the years, based on my visits to the USCF
Web site, which lists tournament participation by
player. Many such events, I noticed, were spread
out across the entire country -- not excluding the
state of Hawaii. (That is some serious dough.)
For instance, the fellow SS claimed he defeated in
just ten moves had apparently done some extensive
traveling in this vein, as has a fellow who recently
tied for our state championship, just as if he were a
/chess professional/. I find that interesting as these
are not grandmasters, but ordinary players, who
nevertheless appear to devote similar time and
money to participation in numerous major events.
> And seeing what people throw away on travel, just to see some historic
> sight, often pales in comparison to what chessplayers expend on their
> hobby. To say nothing of what "sports afficonados" spend to go watch
> someone else play in some meaningless bowl game. (Just to go to a
> regular football game is beyond my means, at least in terms of benefit
> versus expense).
I have one word for you: HDTV. (Okay, that may be
four words.)
> I still hope to make a US Open one day, although that hope dims with
> each year.
There is a decent chance the U.S. Open will come
to me, like the mountain, to Mohammed. The year?
2009. The state? Indiana. The city? Indianapolis.
First prize? Emory Tate. Best under-1400? Yours
truly. Mr. Sloan can drive 500 miles, if he wishes,
to capture the coveted under-2000 prize money.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 12 Nov 2007 19:12:14
From: zdrakec
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan beat USCF Master Richard Koepcke in 10 moves
|
On Nov 12, 12:07 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Actually, I have been very nice to Mr. Koepcke by never publishing the
> game and I can no longer find the scoresheet. However, the game
> started like this. I was Black:
>
> 1. d4 e5 2. dxe5 Nc6 3. Nf3 Qe7 4. Bf4 Qb4+ 5. Bd2 Qxb2 6. Nc3 Bb4 7.
> Rb1 Qa3
>
> A few moves later, I played Bxc3 and he played B on f1 captures B on
> c3 which of course is illegal. He then said that he wanted me to give
> him the move back. When I would not agree, he resigned.
>
> Sam Sloan
Compare Bronstein's response to Dus Chotimirsky, if you want to see
how a sportsman behaves.
|
| |
Date: 12 Nov 2007 18:50:49
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan beat USCF Master Richard Koepcke in 10 moves
|
On Nov 12, 12:23 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> I am left wondering how a NY city cab driver (and so many
> others like him) somehow managed to come up with the
> funds to travel the world, playing in such tournaments as
> that one. Many of the people I have known simply get out
> a calculator, figure that one-third of their expenses will go
> to the hotels and restaurants, one-third to a greedy
> organizer, and another third to the top finishers (almost
> always professionals, GMs) and decide they can't afford
> it.
Because they want to play? Certainly, you could take on a part-time
job using the same hours you pissed away on Sanny's hunk of junk and
earn enough to play in a US Open and meet some real competition. And
seeing what people throw away on travel, just to see some historic
sight, often pales in comparison to what chessplayers expend on their
hobby. To say nothing of what "sports afficonados" spend to go watch
someone else play in some meaningless bowl game. (Just to go to a
regular football game is beyond my means, at least in terms of benefit
versus expense).
I still hope to make a US Open one day, although that hope dims with
each year.
|
| |
Date: 12 Nov 2007 10:29:26
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan beat USCF Master Richard Koepcke in 10 moves
|
On Nov 12, 1:07 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Actually, I have been very nice to Mr. Koepcke by never publishing the
> game and I can no longer find the scoresheet. However, the game
> started like this. I was Black:
>
> 1. d4 e5 2. dxe5 Nc6 3. Nf3 Qe7 4. Bf4 Qb4+ 5. Bd2 Qxb2 6. Nc3 Bb4 7.
> Rb1 Qa3
>
> A few moves later, I played Bxc3 and he played B on f1 captures B on
> c3 which of course is illegal. He then said that he wanted me to give
> him the move back. When I would not agree, he resigned.
Interesting. Did you return his glasses -- which you had
obviously taken during the game -- afterward, so he could
see again?
I have now gotten to the point where I need glasses to
read my computer screen (or any small text). Take note:
in case we ever play a grudge match, I have a spare pair
in the car, so don't get any ideas.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 12 Nov 2007 10:23:56
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan beat USCF Master Richard Koepcke in 10 moves
|
On Nov 12, 12:58 pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> > (Just find Mr. Sloan on the
> > relevant crosstable and look way, way below to find his many
> > hapless victims.)
>
> For an attention whore like SS, just making you look is enough for
> him.
Bully for him.
I am left wondering how a NY city cab driver (and so many
others like him) somehow managed to come up with the
funds to travel the world, playing in such tournaments as
that one. Many of the people I have known simply get out
a calculator, figure that one-third of their expenses will go
to the hotels and restaurants, one-third to a greedy
organizer, and another third to the top finishers (almost
always professionals, GMs) and decide they can't afford
it.
Recently, one player seemed concerned about burning up
$10 of gasoline (each way, I expect), just to drive to another
city not too far away, to play in something like say, the
King's Island (Cincinnati) Open -- a decent-sized event. That
tourney no doubt drew many players from around here. Not
long ago, four players drove all the way from Chicago to
play in a tiny event down here -- in a beat-up old econo-car
to save gas. One of them was a world-class GM. Strange
world.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 12 Nov 2007 10:07:38
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan beat USCF Master Richard Koepcke in 10 moves
|
Actually, I have been very nice to Mr. Koepcke by never publishing the
game and I can no longer find the scoresheet. However, the game
started like this. I was Black:
1. d4 e5 2. dxe5 Nc6 3. Nf3 Qe7 4. Bf4 Qb4+ 5. Bd2 Qxb2 6. Nc3 Bb4 7.
Rb1 Qa3
A few moves later, I played Bxc3 and he played B on f1 captures B on
c3 which of course is illegal. He then said that he wanted me to give
him the move back. When I would not agree, he resigned.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 13 Nov 2007 12:08:41
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan beat USCF Master Richard Koepcke in 10 moves
|
samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Actually, I have been very nice to Mr. Koepcke by never publishing
> the game and I can no longer find the scoresheet.
Oh, how very convenient. Just like the time I beat a consultation
team of Karpov, Kasparov and Kramnik.
> However, the game started like this. I was Black:
>
> 1. d4 e5 2. dxe5 Nc6 3. Nf3 Qe7 4. Bf4 Qb4+ 5. Bd2 Qxb2 6. Nc3 Bb4 7.
> Rb1 Qa3
>
> A few moves later, I played Bxc3 and he played B on f1 captures B on
> c3 which of course is illegal. He then said that he wanted me to
> give him the move back. When I would not agree, he resigned.
Um. Is this one of those points where USCF rules and FIDE rules
diverge? Under FIDE rules, you would have been given extra time on
the clock to compensate you for the confusion and White would have
been forced to make a legal move with the Bf1 if any such move
existed (assuming the Bf1 was the first piece he touched); if there
was no such move, he would be forced to make a legal capture of your
Bc3; if no capture was legal, he would have a free choice of move.
The game is forfeit by a player who makes three illegal moves.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Edible Beer (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ refreshing lager but you can eat it!
|
| |
Date: 12 Nov 2007 17:58:15
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan beat USCF Master Richard Koepcke in 10 moves
|
On Nov 12, 11:34 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> (Just find Mr. Sloan on the
> relevant crosstable and look way, way below to find his many
> hapless victims.)
For an attention whore like SS, just making you look is enough for
him.
|
| |
Date: 12 Nov 2007 09:34:05
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan beat USCF Master Richard Koepcke in 10 moves
|
samsloan wrote:
> I am still miffed that in 1996 Mike Nolan was made a delegate from
> Northern California instead of me, when I actually lived in Northern
> California. I believed at the time that Tom Dorsch had done this.
> However, I have since learned that it was actually Richard Koepcke,
> who was at the time President of the Northern California Chess
> Association, who vetoed having me as a delegate and that Tom Dorsch
> was actually in favor of making me a delegate.
So Sam Sloan was dead wrong? He got the facts exactly
backwards? What a "surprise".
> However, Koepcke, a 2300 player, received his punishment when I beat
> him in ten moves in the US Open. The reason I beat him in ten moves
> was he made an illegal move and then had to move the piece he touched,
> which would have resulted in the loss of a knight. He asked me to let
> him take the move back, and when I would not agree, he resigned.
Why any strong player would resign /only a piece down/
against Mr. Sloan is baffling. Perhaps he felt it would make
the game seem "invalid", decided on a mere technicality,
but a win is a win. Chalk up another one for SS -- the king
of sting, the master of disaster. (Just find Mr. Sloan on the
relevant crosstable and look way, way below to find his many
hapless victims.)
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 12 Nov 2007 09:30:27
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan beat USCF Master Richard Koepcke in 10 moves
|
Actually, I finished the tournament ahead of him.
I finished number 83. He finished number 145.
You can see the crosstable at
http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?199608166460
Sam Sloan
|
|
