The grass is not greener . . .

[TomChivers]

Chess in the US is exploding with lawsuits:

http://lizzyknowsall.blogspot.com/2008/ ... ughts.html

Anyone following all this??

[Paul Buswell]

I've been following it for a year or more on the google group rec.games.chess.politics and, more recently, in the moderated Polgar forum www.chessdiscussion.com I don't propose to try to explain it all, even if I thought I could, as that way lies madness.

It is just a shambles exacerbated by a raft of... 'unusual' individuals.

And I think you left out a fourth lawsuit that your link didn't mention...

PB

[David Robertson]

Unable to resist Paul Buswell's challenge not to seek further explanation, and in the pursuit of the common interest (avoiding madness only just), this is my summary of 'events across the pond'. If proceeding further, please be prepared to suspend all other activities for at least half a day; and disbelief, yet longer.

I called up (via a different route from Google) the messages posted to "rec.games.chess.politics". I received 126,604 messages posted since July 2003, of which roughly 125,000 concern various aspects of the 'crisis' in US chess. I haven't yet read them all

But by a judicious selection amongst the more recent, and sampling among the rest, I've come up with a rough assessment of what's what, or not The key dramatis personae appear to be:

* Samuel H Sloan; ex-member of the USCF Board
* Susan Polgar, a well-known WGM
* Paul Truong, a chessplayer, husband of Susan Polgar
* 'Sam Sloan', the alias of a poster to websites and forums
* Karl S Kronenberger, a lawyer
* the US Secret Service

In a nutshell, Polgar & Truong claim Samuel H Sloan is 'Sam Sloan' who posts damaging stuff about them on forums. In turn, Samuel H Sloan claims 'Sam Sloan' is in fact Paul Truong who seeks to discredit him by the same means. Karl S Kronenberger is a lawyer engaged by USCF to investigate, at $50,000 and rising; he is reported to have concluded that 'Sam Sloan' is indeed Paul Truong. Cross-petitions for defamation have been filed. Meanwhile the US Secret Service is investigating 'wire fraud' after allegations of email interceptions.

A concise summary of their entanglement can be read in the New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/cross ... ref=slogin

To give some idea of the type of material 'debated' in over 125,000 items, I include a lengthy post from 'Sam Sloan' (Nov 2003) and another (randomly selected) on a separate topic by 'M Winther' (Aug 2008). As Paul Buswell says, with admirable restraint, "unusual individuals". If nothing else, these examples should place in context the squabbles here we sometimes endure/enjoy

Sam Sloan DNA test results are back

I have just received back the results of my DNA test. This is a
Y-chromosome test administered by familytreedna.com and the University
of Arizona. It is different from the X-chromosome test administered by
Oxford Ancestors and Oxford University. The Y-Chromosome test I took
will show my inheritance from my male ancestors. It will not show my
female ancestors or relatives, since females do not have a
Y-chromosome.

I have posted my test results on my website at
http://www.samsloan.com/dnatest.htm

The results of the test show that I am a perfect match with five men
who have taken the same test, as we match on all twelve locii. This
means that I am 99.9% certain to have a direct male ancestor in common
with these five men, probably within 14 generations.

The test also shows that most of the people with test results similar
or the same as mine are from England or Ireland, plus a few from
Germany, Holland, Iceland and other European countries. This is not a
surprise since my father was half Irish and half English. It is mildly
surprising that there seem to be more English than Irish with my test
results. However, there has long been a question as to whether my
great-grandfather, Creighton Sloan, was born in Ireland or England.
Some sources say Ireland, some say England, and some say that he was
Born at Sea.

Another interesting issue concerns the fact that none of the five men
who match me exactly on all 12 locii have reported having anyone in
their family tree named Sloan. I have recently developed a theory (it
is just a theory with no proof) that my great-grandfather, Creighton
Sloan, was born illegitimate, with unknown father. My theory might be
influenced by the fact that my brother, whose name is also Creighton
Sloan, is a bastard. The fact that none of my DNA cousins report a
relative named Sloan plus there is a Sloan Family Surname Project DNA
Group which has not reported DNA similar to mine adds credence to my
theory that my great-grandfather may have been illegitimate.

Another reason for my taking this DNA test has been possibly to locate
my children. In the period 1976-1978, I was a sperm donor 5 or 6 times
through Idant Corporation, a sperm bank in New York City. I was told
by them that I have probably produced 5 or 6 children as a result. I
stopped donating sperm when I became concerned about the fact that I
have 5 or 6 children who would not know who I am and I would not know
who they are. They might become my rivals and beat me at chess or
something.

The fact that the sperm bank kept calling me down and asking me and
paying me to donate sperm obviously meant that children were being
produced. I was tested to have an exceptionally high sperm count of
144 million sperm per cc, whereas most American men have less than 20
million sperm per cc. I suppose that this is enhanced by my healthy
life-style. I do not smoke, drink or use drugs. My potency is
demonstrated by the fact that I have eight children born through the
natural process, the eldest having been born in 1978 and the youngest
born in 2001, plus historically all of my girlfriends have become
pregnant right away.

With this Y-chromosome DNA test, it will be possible to identify my
candidate sons from those sperm donations, provided of course that
they also submit to a DNA test. They might do this if they happen to
know that they are the products of artificial insemination and want to
find their real father.

Just to add a little incentive to this, I am right now fighting a
court case against my brother who, as noted previously, is a bastard,
and the court has just ruled that there is a $258,000 inheritance from
our late mother, who died in 2001. My brother is trying to have my
half of the money given to my children and not to me. Therefore, if
you think you might be my son, come forward and there might be money
in it for you (over my dead body, of course).

Here are my DNA test results. If you match me on all 12 locii, then
you are 99.9% certain to be my relative on the direct male line:

Again, I just got my results back from Family Tree DNA. I have been
provided the names and e-mail addresses of five persons with whom I am
a perfect DNA match on all 12 locii. However, none of them are named
Sloan.

I have nothing to hide, so here are my DNA test results:

Locus DYS# Alleles

1 393 13

2 390 23

3 19* 14

4 391 10

5 385a 11

6 385b 15

7 426 12

8 388 12

9 439 12

10 389-1 13

11 392 13

12 389-2 29

*Also known as DYS 394

Sam Sloan

Fide-chess is facing a problem. Undoubtedly the game will survive, but
professional chess faces a predicament due to the theoretical
development. In the future, all the best lines for white and black
will have been outlined, and games will revolve around memory
dexterity. Already, English opening has been solved as drawn, and
there is no use in playing it among professionals. Nobody plays King's
gambit anymore, or Bc4 openings. They have been solved. Comparatively,
Anglo-Saxon checkers has been solved, too (see Scient. Amer. article:
http://tiny.cc/wWDuG ). Although checkers is a wonderful game that
will always be played among amateurs, the checkers professionals now
face a serious problem. The computers have brought us to this, but we
can handle it by slightly increasing the complexity of the game.

For amateur chess players 1.d3 is good enough, but not to the elite.
To them, also the Closed Sicilian is obsolete. It has been
strategically solved. It's no use playing it in a super grandmaster
tournament anymore.

As an example of the numerous suggestions to address the problem, I
have suggested adding an extra square to the right of each player in
Neoorthodox chess: http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/neoorthodoxchess.htm

But I don't know the opening play consequences of this, while an extra
weakness is introduced on the first rank. However, the strategical
consequences are very wholesome. Suddenly the Closed Sicilian comes to
live while it's now possible to advance more rashly with the pawns on
the king's wing.

From an historical perpective, chess during the medieval era was a
very popular parlour game, especially among the upper classes. But
by the turn of the seventeenth century it was no longer fashionable.
Marilyn Yalom says:

"...Ironically enough, it may be that the elevation of the chess queen
and the bishop to new levels of strength had something to do with the
dwindling numbers of female participants. Once those two pieces
acquired a greater range of mobility, it took fewer moves, on average,
to complete a match. New chess was no longer suited to leisurely
encounters between ladies and gentlemen that could last a day or more,
with interruptions for eating, drinking, dancing, and singing, or, in
more plebian settings, for stirring the pot and nursing the baby. New
chess was fast and fierce. A match could be over in a few hours or
even a few moves if you didn't pay strict attention. Hands had to be
ready to grasp a piece on the board, and not a knee under the table.
Chess would no longer tolerate dalliance of any sort. As chess became
less social and more competitive, the professional chess player
arrived on the scene. Forget the troubadour chess partner or the
attentive lover or even the town Wunderkind who was allowed to take
time off after the harvest to play with the local lord. Now there were
full-time champions earning their living from arranged matches in
princely settings throughout Europe...." (Yalom, Birth of the Chess Queen,
pp. 228-9).

It is against this backdrop that we must view many chess variants of
later date. For instance, certain big board variants (10x10) fulfil
the criterion of a slower game suitable for the leisurely parlour. I
mention two examples, Paulovits's variant c. 1890 :
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/paulovitsgame.htm and my own Mastodon
Chess: http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/mastodon.htm

To the modern chess players the empty spaces at the flanks must appear
like immense deserts where pieces can squander about without seeing
much sign of enemy opposition. Such a game can never acquire the
"nerve" of standard chess. But this is a good quality because then we
are somehow back at the leisurely parlour game where the technique of
moving pieces needn't be that exacting.

I want to strike a blow for a form of chess which isn't that
competitive. The above two big board variants contain many finesses,
but if played by strong players they are likely to end in a draw, I
suppose. Outside the sporting context this is not disadvantageous. If
we want a still slower game then we can turn to 1000 year old Shatranj
Kamil, allegedly invented by Timur Lenk. There are also slow standard
board variants, like Thai Chess (Makruk).

The conclusion is that it's much up to the character of the game and
its rules if a game is to become a popular social occupation. Chess
had acquired an immense romantic status during the medieval era, but
now there is almost nothing left of this. During the 19th century,
people could still be seen playing chess in a lounge, smoking a cigar,
sipping from a glass of cognac. But today chess is merely
professional. Occasional park players also want money.

There is however another aspect to discuss. A game can also become
more leisurely and parlour if it encourages phantasy and
combinations. In such case there is no room for ruminations. This is
probably why Chinese Chess (Xiangqi) (
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/chinesechess.htm ) is the world's most
popular game. It is superficial but very adventurous, played with very
weak pieces, considerably weaker than in medieval European chess,
even.

Another obvious advantage with chess variants is that you can partake in
an email chess tournament knowing that it's a human opponent you are
playing against, as there are no really strong programs that can play all
these thousands of chess variants. This is a huge advantage. On MindSports (
http://www.mindsports.net/index-mindsports.html ) you can play Grand
Chess, and at play.chessvariants.com you can play, e.g. Commodore Chess
( http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdi ... odorechess )
or Gunnery Chess
( http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdi ... nnerychess )
etc., etc.

Mats

[IM Jack Rudd]

I've read enough rec.games.chess.politics postings over the years to know who Sam Sloan is and what his reputation is; I agree that it's difficult to argue that he was seriously defamed by anything.

[Kevin Thurlow]

That forum does have some weird and wonderful stuff. Someone appeared to be in the habit of posting multiple messages under different names, probably to blanket out criticism of certain individuals. Sadly, the messages all allegedly came from the same IP address, that belonging to a married couple.....

They seem a litigious lot over there, hence the "someone" and "allegedly"!

But there's always a high drongo count on internet fora. There are plenty of people with bad reputations.

[TomChivers]

Interesting replies!

There was another related post on that blog later, here:

http://lizzyknowsall.blogspot.com/2008/ ... larie.html

If you had to lay odds on the chances each of the three lawsuits has of succeeding, what would you give them?

There are four lawsuits not three…

It seems people even closely involved don't fully understand what's happening!