I am reprinting "The Tactical Grob" by Claude Bloodgood

[samsloan]

I am reprinting "The Tactical Grob" by Claude Bloodgood.

The Grob is the name of the chess opening that begins with 1.g4.

Claude Bloodgood wrote the book while on Death Row in Virginia due to
an unfortunate butcher knife accident.

He was not executed however because, later on, the US Supreme Court
declared the death penalty unconstitutional.

This book has been almost impossible to obtain. For years I have been
dying to get it.

The ISBN Number will be 4-87187-866-X.

I selected that number because he was X-rated. Also, he was 86ed from
society. Also, the 66 in the number is part of 666.

When the book is printed in a week or so, it will be available at the
following addresses.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ISBN=487187866X
http://www.amazon.com/dp/487187866X

Sam Sloan

[p***@cs.com]

PRISONER 99432

A weird chapter in American chess ended in 2001 when Claude Bloodgood
died while serving a life sentence. Just five years earlier he was
briefly rated as the nation’s number two player.

"The Convict Who Would Be King" in the Virginian-Pilot by Marc Davis
reports how prisoner 99432 brutally killed his mother in 1969:
"Bloodgood jumped her, beat her head with a screwdriver, strangled her
with his hands, smothered her with a pillow, rolled her body in a
porch rug, then drove 70 miles and gently laid her corpse along a
wooded road, placing a pillow under her battered head."

Incredibly, thanks to his chess prowess, guards let him out to play in
tournaments. His escape in 1974 led to the resignation of Virginia’s
director of prisons.

Bloodgood played thousands of games by mail from his maximum security
cell. He also found a flaw in the system that enabled him to beef up
his rating solely by beating fellow inmates.

He boasted over 100 wins stretching from 1948 until 1966 against the
likes of Humphrey Bogart, Charlie Chaplin, Gary Cooper, Marlene
Dietrich, Albert Einstein, Clark Gable, Edward R. Murrow, and John
Wayne. They were fake.

He was born in 1937 and thus was only 11 in 1948. The dates don’t
jibe. To cover his fantasies, including spying for the Nazis during
World War II, he insisted he was born in 1924.

The man was a pathological liar. He left behind boxes of records and
games that may wind up in the Cleveland Public Library, home of the
world’s largest chess collection. This bogus game with Bogie was found
in his papers. It probably was won against another prisoner and he
simply attached the movie star’s name to it.

HUMPHREY BOGART?? vs. CLAUDE BLOODGOOD
Poisoned Spike Gambit, Hollywood, 1955??
1 d4 Nf6 2 g4?! Nxg4 3 f3 Nf6 4 e4 d6 5 Be3 c6 6.Bc4 Qa5 7 Nc3 b5
8 e5 dxe5 9 dxe5 bxc4 10 exf6 exf6 11 Nge2 Bb4 12 Qd4 Be6 13 h4
0-0 14 0-0-0 c5 15 Qe4 Na6 16 Kb1 Bxc3 17 Nxc3 Rab8 18 h5 Rxb2
19 Kxb2 Rb8 20 Kc1 Qxc3 21 h6 Nb4 White Resigns

THIS CRAzy WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans

Post by samsloan
I am reprinting "The Tactical Grob" by Claude Bloodgood.
The Grob is the name of the chess opening that begins with 1.g4.
Claude Bloodgood wrote the book while on Death Row in Virginia due to
an unfortunate butcher knife accident.
He was not executed however because, later on, the US Supreme Court
declared the death penalty unconstitutional.
This book has been almost impossible to obtain. For years I have been
dying to get it.
The ISBN Number will be 4-87187-866-X.
I selected that number because he was X-rated. Also, he was 86ed from
society. Also, the 66 in the number is part of 666.
When the book is printed in a week or so, it will be available at the
following addresses.
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ISBN=487187866X
http://www.amazon.com/dp/487187866X
Sam Sloan

[samsloan]

The book is very nicely printed with lots of diagrams by Chess of
Sutton Coldfield, England. I am surprised at how good it looks
especially considering the conditions of how it was written. Remember
they did not have chess computers or word processors back then and
even if they had them Bloodgood as a prisoner would not have been
allowed access to them or to any other kinds of electronic
communications devices.

One problem I will have is the book is only 51 pages. My printer only
prints books of 48 pages or more. At 51 pages it barely makes it. So,
I will have to fill it up a bit more to make a decent sized book. I am
asking permission of anyone who wrote about Bloodgood to use their
stuff. There is an article about him on Wikipedia but I want to avoid
using too much of that.

It will be important to emphasize that Bloodgood never intended to
commit ratings fraud. In fact, he warned or tried to warn the USCF
many times what was happening. His calls were ignored until he became
the number 2 rated player in the US, behind only Gata Kamsky.

What was happening is there were various ratings inflationary methods
at work, such as "Bonus Points", "Feedback Points", and "Fiddle
Points". These extra points were awarded to make up for the points
that were being taken out of the system by young players who were
simply improving.

In an open system where any body in the USA could play, these extra
points were designed to stabilize the ratings to keep them from going
down.

However, because Bloodgood was playing in a closed pool of players
incarcerated in Virginia State Prisons, and the system caused more
points to be awarded to players who won their games than were taken
away from players who lost, the result was the sending of the ratings
spiraling upwards.

With Bloodgood and his fellow prisoners playing thousands of USCF
rated games, the inevitable consequence was that the ratings of all of
the prisoners went through the roof.

I have it from a reliable source that Claude *NEVER* intended to
defraud the USCF on his rating. Claude notiffied the USCF long before
it became an issue and alerted them to the fact that prisoners were
playing thousands of games in a closed pool and it was resulting in
ratings inflation. They did not take Claude's warning seriously when
Claude said that he would soon be ranked #1 in America. It's amazing
that Claude was able to predict to the month when it would happen, but
nobody took it seriously. The fraud charge hurt Claude terribly to the
end of his life. He was upset that the USCF did not publish a
statement saying that Claude alerted them to the problem and that no
fraud had been going on. They could have easily done this. Instead,
they remained silent while charges flew all over America about ratings
fraud. Tragically the accusations destroyed the VAPEN chess program
and hurt Claude's chances of getting out on parole.

Most prisoners convicted of such minor offenses as Claude was
(murdering his mother with an ax) do get out on parole eventually.
Almost without doubt the reason Claude never got out was the ratings
fraud charge, his escape while attending a chess tournament and his
two unsuccessful appeals to the Virginia Supreme Court, both of which
resulted in lengthy court decisions.

Sam Sloan

Post by samsloan
I am reprinting "The Tactical Grob" by Claude Bloodgood.
The Grob is the name of the chess opening that begins with 1.g4.
Claude Bloodgood wrote the book while on Death Row in Virginia due to
an unfortunate butcher knife accident.
He was not executed however because, later on, the US Supreme Court
declared the death penalty unconstitutional.
This book has been almost impossible to obtain. For years I have been
dying to get it.
The ISBN Number will be 4-87187-866-X.
I selected that number because he was X-rated. Also, he was 86ed from
society. Also, the 66 in the number is part of 666.
When the book is printed in a week or so, it will be available at the
following addresses.
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ISBN=4871...http://www.amazon.com/dp/487187866X
Sam Sloan

[The Masked Bishop]

Great book for those who want to lose in a more interesting, and
quicker, way.

[Taylor Kingston]

Post by samsloan
Most prisoners convicted of such minor offenses as Claude was
(murdering his mother with an ax) do get out on parole eventually.
Almost without doubt the reason Claude never got out was the ratings
fraud charge ...

I must say, Sam, that is probably the funniest thing you have ever
written here.

[samsloan]

There is an article that says that Bloodgood won the Virginia Open
Championship in 1957 and 1958.

This is not true. The 1958 Virginia Open Championship was won by
Stuart Margulies. I was there and I remember it well. Margulies scored
a surprising upset against Senior Master Eliot Hearst and went on to
win the tournament.

I still have the crosstable somewhere. Bloodgood finished about 7th

I played against Bloodgood in that tournament and I remember him very
well.

Here is the game. Do not play it over. It is a terrible game. I was
just a kid 13 years old. I was from Lynchburg Virginia and I was the
only active chess player in Lynchburg so I had no chance for practice
except for traveling to other cities three or four times a year to
play in open tournaments. That is my excuse for playing so poorly.

By the way, my mother let me go alone to this three day tournament. I
took a Greyhound Bus the 200 miles there and back.

[Event "Virginia Open Championship"]
[Site "Hampton, Virginia"]
[Date "1958.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Bloodgood,Claude F."]
[Black "Sloan,Sam"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B21"]

1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 e5 4.cxd4 d6 5.Bc4 Nf6 6.dxe5 Nxe4 7.Qf3
Qa5+ 8.Nc3 d5 9.Bxd5 Qb4 10.Qxe4 Qxe4+ 11.Nxe4 Be7 12.Nf3 O-O
13.Bg5 Bxg5 14.Nfxg5 Bf5 15.Bxb7 Nd7 16.Bxa8 Rxa8 17.Nd6 Bg6
18.Rc1 Nxe5 19.Rc8+ Rxc8 20.Nxc8 Bf5 21.Nxa7 g6 22.Ke2 f6 23.Nf3
Nc4 24.b4 Be6 25.Rc1 Nb6 26.Rc6 Bxa2 27.Rxb6 Be6 28.Rxe6 1-0

Sam Sloan

[samsloan]

Just to explain further, the 1958 Virginia Open and the 1958 Virginia
Closed were different tournaments.

I played in both the Virginia Open and the Virginia Closed.

The Virginia Closed was called "closed" because only Virginia State
Residents could play. In 1957 it was played in Richmond. I played Tony
Pabon in that tournament. He won easily. I still have the cross table.
In 1958 it was played in Arlington. Both tournaments were won by Irwin
Sigmond.

The 1958 Virginia Open was a private tournament played in Hampton
Rhodes (near Norfolk) Virginia. I remember quite clearly Hearst losing
to Margulies. Some big name players came down from New York City to
play because of the $100 guaranteed first prize, which was a big prize
back then. Ivan Theodorovich came from Toronto, Canada just to play.

I believe that Bloodgood was one of the organizers of the 1958
Virginia Open but I am not sure. I am sure that Bloodgood finished
about 7th and was never one of the tournament leaders.

Sam Sloan

[samsloan]

There was a good, logical reason why Bloodgood should have been
released on parole.

As I pointed out at the time, there was no chance that he was going to
repeat his crime, because he was never going to murder his mother
again.

Meanwhile, I just found the game I played against Tony Pabon in the
1957 Virginia Closed. I did not know I still had it. Tony Pabon asked
me about this game at the 2009 USCF Delegates Meeting in Indianapolis.

It is another very poorly played game. I was very weak back then. Give
me a break. I was only 12. It was better than my game against
Bloodgood though. I came out of the opening a rook and a knight down.
However, Pabon sacrificed back two pieces incorrectly and it almost
looked like I was going to come out of it. I scored 3-4 in that
tournament, which shows how much chess has progressed since then.

Here is it, but don't play this one over either. It is terrible.

[Event "Virginia State Championship"]
[Site "Richmond, Virginia"]
[Date "1957.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Pabon,Anthony Jr."]
[Black "Sloan,Sam"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C78"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 b5 5.Bb3 Nf6 6.O-O d6 7.Ng5 Bg4
8.Bxf7+ Ke7 9.f3 h6 10.fxg4 hxg5 11.Bd5 Nxd5 12.exd5 Nd4 13.c3
Kd7 14.cxd4 exd4 15.Qc2 Qe7 16.Qc6+ Kd8 17.Qxa8+ Kd7 18.Qc6+ Kd8
19.d3 Qe5 20.Qa8+ Ke7 21.Bxg5+ Qxg5 22.Re1+ Kf7 23.Qe8+ Kg8
24.Qe6+ Kh7 25.Nd2 Qxd2 26.Qf5+ g6 27.Qf7+ Bg7 28.Re7 Qh6 29.g5
Rf8 30.Qxf8 1-0

[Taylor Kingston]

Post by samsloan
There was a good, logical reason why Bloodgood should have been
released on parole.
As I pointed out at the time, there was no chance that he was going to
repeat his crime, because he was never going to murder his mother
again.

You know, Sam, I think you have just hit on a brilliant new
principle that defense lawyers could use: a person can be murdered
only once. By this logic, all murderers should go free. For example,
however evil Charles Manson may have been, Sharon Tate could die but
once. Let's all set Charlie free!

[madams]

Post by Taylor Kingston

Post by samsloan
Most prisoners convicted of such minor offenses as Claude was
(murdering his mother with an ax) do get out on parole eventually.
Almost without doubt the reason Claude never got out was the ratings
fraud charge ...

I must say, Sam, that is probably the funniest thing you have ever
written here.

---

Note: He shuffles-off @ "64" (almost by design)... there's probably a
few other chess-identities in this catagory.

m.

[MrVidmar]

Post by Taylor Kingston

Post by samsloan
Most prisoners convicted of such minor offenses as Claude was
(murdering his mother with an ax) do get out on parole eventually.
Almost without doubt the reason Claude never got out was the ratings
fraud charge ...

I must say, Sam, that is probably the funniest thing you have ever
written here.

I recall sharing a drink at the local Irish bar with the dean of a law
school. He said, jokingly, that there was no need to incarcerate one who
murders his wife, as obviously, the problem had been solved.

[samsloan]

Post by MrVidmar

Post by samsloan
Most prisoners convicted of such minor offenses as Claude was
(murdering his mother with an ax) do get out on parole eventually.
Almost without doubt the reason Claude never got out was the ratings
fraud charge ...

  I must say, Sam, that is probably the funniest thing you have ever
written here.

I recall sharing a drink at the local Irish bar with the dean of a law
school. He said, jokingly, that there was no need to incarcerate one who
murders his wife, as obviously, the problem had been solved.

Exactly the point. However, a man can get married again and murder his
next wife too. There are many cases where this has happened and, I
believe, even more cases where a woman has murdered more than one
husband.

However, a man can only murder his mother only once.

The motivation Claude Bloodgood had for murdering his mother was that
she was the one who had reported him for forging her signature so, as
soon as he got out of prison, he got revenge by killing her.

The reason sex criminals are made to serve not only their full time
but in some cases are continued to be incarcerated even after their
sentence has been served is they have an unusually high rate of
recidivism. They have a sickness that causes them to do it again and
again.

Murders have the lowest recidivism rate. Murderers rarely kill again.
There was the case of a Govenor of Tennessee who, on his last day in
office, released a bunch of convicted murderers by granting executive
clemency. There was a great hue and outcry about this but, as far as I
know, none of them were ever charged with another crime and they are
all still free today.

Sam Sloan

[Taylor Kingston]

Post by samsloan
Murders have the lowest recidivism rate. Murderers rarely kill again.
There was the case of a Govenor of Tennessee who, on his last day in
office, released a bunch of convicted murderers by granting executive
clemency. There was a great hue and outcry about this but, as far as I
know, none of them were ever charged with another crime and they are
all still free today.
Sam Sloan

This whole line of argument is absurd (not surprising since it's
Sloan). The rate of recidivism is completely beside the point. The
main purpose of legal penalties is to deter people from committing
crimes. If, as Sam seems to be advocating, there were no penalty for
murder, a substantial increase in murders would be the likely result,
mostly by first-time killers who would have nothing to fear.

[Taylor Kingston]

Post by samsloan
Murders have the lowest recidivism rate. Murderers rarely kill again.
There was the case of a Govenor of Tennessee who, on his last day in
office, released a bunch of convicted murderers by granting executive
clemency. There was a great hue and outcry about this but, as far as I
know, none of them were ever charged with another crime and they are
all still free today.
Sam Sloan

  This whole line of argument is absurd (not surprising since it's
Sloan). The rate of recidivism is completely beside the point. The
main purpose of legal penalties is to deter people from committing
crimes. If, as Sam seems to be advocating, there were no penalty for
murder, a substantial increase in murders would be the likely result,
mostly by first-time killers who would have nothing to fear.

A relevant quote from George Saville, Marquis of Halifax
(1633-1695):

"Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that horses may not be
stolen."

[madams]

Taylor Kingston wrote:
.

Post by Taylor Kingston
A relevant quote from George Saville, Marquis of Halifax
"Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that horses may not be
stolen."

How about: "Men are not hanged for stealing bread, hanging is so much
more humane than starvation" - Lord Cumalotte...

m.

[ChessFire]

Post by madams
.

  A relevant quote from George Saville, Marquis of Halifax
  "Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that horses may not be
stolen."

How about: "Men are not hanged for stealing bread, hanging is so much
more humane than starvation" - Lord Cumalotte...
m.

I think the only crime that is completely safe to release a prisoner
for is suicide.

Phil Innes

[t***@att.net]

Post by MrVidmar

Post by samsloan
Most prisoners convicted of such minor offenses as Claude was
(murdering his mother with an ax) do get out on parole eventually.
Almost without doubt the reason Claude never got out was the ratings
fraud charge ...

  I must say, Sam, that is probably the funniest thing you have ever
written here.

I recall sharing a drink at the local Irish bar with the dean of a law
school. He said, jokingly, that there was no need to incarcerate one who
murders his wife, as obviously, the problem had been solved.

Well, perhaps he should be barred from re-marrying.

[sd]

Why reprint a book when it can be had for free as an e-book:

http://www.chessville.com/downloads/ebooks.htm

A free version of CB on any computer will read the files nicely, and
the text - or most of it - appears to be contained within as well,
unlike many CB e-books.

It would be easier to approve of Sam's copying if he added significant
new material (not just an new Introduction or Foreword, by way of
which he thinks he is getting away with something) or perhaps trying
to reprint all three major Grob books with a concordance. Or updating
it based on the others. Just annofritzing Bloodgood's analysis could
prove interesting, but no, Sam just wants to photocopy someone else's
work and sell it as his own. If his plagiarism was a bit more
creative, it might be tolerable.

[samsloan]

Post by sd
http://www.chessville.com/downloads/ebooks.htm
A free version of CB on any computer will read the files nicely, and
the text - or most of it - appears to be contained within as well,
unlike many CB e-books.
It would be easier to approve of Sam's copying if he added significant
new material (not just an new Introduction or Foreword, by way of
which he thinks he is getting away with something) or perhaps trying
to reprint all three major Grob books with a concordance. Or updating
it based on the others. Just annofritzing Bloodgood's analysis could
prove interesting, but no, Sam just wants to photocopy someone else's
work and sell it as his own. If his plagiarism was a bit more
creative, it might be tolerable.

Thank you for pointing out the above file on Chessville. I was not
previously aware of it.

However, it is not a book or even an ebook. It appears to be a data
file in ChessBase format.

Essentially, what the author seems to have done is play through the
games in Bloodgood's book and save them in ChessBase. He has done this
with several other books as well.

That is a commendable and a worthwhile contribution.

However, there still some people who do not like to spend hours
looking at a computer screen and prefer to read a traditional type of
book made with paper and ink. Those people will prefer my books. None
of my books are ebooks. All of my books are paper and ink style books.

It is true that in many of my books, I have just added a foreword of 2
to 4 pages to bring it up to date. However, it is safe to assume that
the buyers of my books are buying them not because of what I wrote but
because of what the original author wrote.

Many of my books are nearly impossible to obtain as a used book even
on Amazon. An example, of this is the Bloodgood book. I searched for
years before I found a copy available.

Another example is Modern Coins of China, a book I just reprinted.
That book published in 1951 in Shanghai China was completely unknown
until it was sold at a China Guardian's Auction held in Beijing China
on June 28, 2009 (not on June 30 as I incorrectly stated earlier). The
reason it was completely unknown is fairly obvious. During the
"Cultural Revolution" in China, millions of books were destroyed and
intellectuals and qualified people were mostly killed. It is likely
that the author of this book perished during that time.

It may be that the copy I have is the only one left. Now, thanks to my
reprinting of this book, anybody can buy it.


http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ISBN=4871878708
http://www.amazon.com/dp/4871878708

Sam Sloan

[sd]

Post by samsloan
However, it is not a book or even an ebook. It appears to be a data
file in ChessBase format.

It is more than that. You need to look at it and the book and compare.

Post by samsloan
However, there still some people who do not like to spend hours
looking at a computer screen and prefer to read a traditional type of
book made with paper and ink. Those people will prefer my books. None
of my books are ebooks. All of my books are paper and ink style books.

It would be relatively easy to print out all of the e book, and bind
it in any form you want. At a much lower cost than what you charge for
photocopying.

[samsloan]

Post by sd

Post by samsloan
However, it is not a book or even an ebook. It appears to be a data
file in ChessBase format.

It is more than that. You need to look at it and the book and compare.

Post by samsloan
However, there still some people who do not like to spend hours
looking at a computer screen and prefer to read a traditional type of
book made with paper and ink. Those people will prefer my books. None
of my books are ebooks. All of my books are paper and ink style books.

It would be relatively easy to print out all of the e book, and bind
it in any form you want. At a much lower cost than what you charge for
photocopying.

How is that? In the format it is in now it cannot be printed at all.

Also, some of the lines are so bad that a beginner would be
embarrassed to play them.

Here is one, from what you call the "ebook".

1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 e5 3. e4 dxe4 4. Bxe4 Nf6 5. f3 Nxe4 5. fxe4 Qh4+

The ebook recommends against this line for White.

How much would someone be willing to pay for this analysis?

I do not know if this analysis is in the printed book or not, because
I do not have the printed book.

Sam Sloan

[MrVidmar]

Post by samsloan

Post by sd

Post by samsloan
However, it is not a book or even an ebook. It appears to be a data
file in ChessBase format.

It is more than that. You need to look at it and the book and compare.

Post by samsloan
However, there still some people who do not like to spend hours
looking at a computer screen and prefer to read a traditional type of
book made with paper and ink. Those people will prefer my books. None
of my books are ebooks. All of my books are paper and ink style books.

It would be relatively easy to print out all of the e book, and bind
it in any form you want. At a much lower cost than what you charge for
photocopying.

How is that? In the format it is in now it cannot be printed at all.
Also, some of the lines are so bad that a beginner would be
embarrassed to play them.
Here is one, from what you call the "ebook".
1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 e5 3. e4 dxe4 4. Bxe4 Nf6 5. f3 Nxe4 5. fxe4 Qh4+
The ebook recommends against this line for White.
How much would someone be willing to pay for this analysis?
I do not know if this analysis is in the printed book or not, because
I do not have the printed book.
Sam Sloan

I'm confused. If you don't have the printed book by Bloodgood, how can
you comment on it compared to the ebook on Chessville?

[samsloan]

Post by samsloan

Post by sd

Post by samsloan
However, it is not a book or even an ebook. It appears to be a data
file in ChessBase format.

It is more than that. You need to look at it and the book and compare.

Post by samsloan
However, there still some people who do not like to spend hours
looking at a computer screen and prefer to read a traditional type of
book made with paper and ink. Those people will prefer my books. None
of my books are ebooks. All of my books are paper and ink style books.

It would be relatively easy to print out all of the e book, and bind
it in any form you want. At a much lower cost than what you charge for
photocopying.

How is that? In the format it is in now it cannot be printed at all.
Also, some of the lines are so bad that a beginner would be
embarrassed to play them.
Here is one, from what you call the "ebook".
1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 e5 3. e4 dxe4 4. Bxe4 Nf6 5. f3 Nxe4 5. fxe4 Qh4+
The ebook recommends against this line for White.
How much would someone be willing to pay for this analysis?
I do not know if this analysis is in the printed book or not, because
I do not have the printed book.
Sam Sloan

I'm confused.  If you don't have the printed book by Bloodgood, how can
you comment on it compared to the ebook on Chessville?

I have seen the Bloodgood book and know what it looks like.

I just do not have it yet.

The so-called "ebook" on Chessville, is not an ebook at all, as that
term is understood. It is a database in ChessBase format, which is OK
if you have ChessBase and like using it, but that does not make it a
book.

I have no plans to go into ebooks. I tried one of two and they did not
sell well. I am sticking to traditional style books.

Sam Sloan

[sd]

Post by samsloan

Post by samsloan

Post by sd

Post by samsloan
However, it is not a book or even an ebook. It appears to be a data
file in ChessBase format.

It is more than that. You need to look at it and the book and compare.

Post by samsloan
However, there still some people who do not like to spend hours
looking at a computer screen and prefer to read a traditional type of
book made with paper and ink. Those people will prefer my books. None
of my books are ebooks. All of my books are paper and ink style books.

It would be relatively easy to print out all of the e book, and bind
it in any form you want. At a much lower cost than what you charge for
photocopying.

How is that? In the format it is in now it cannot be printed at all.
Also, some of the lines are so bad that a beginner would be
embarrassed to play them.
Here is one, from what you call the "ebook".
1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 e5 3. e4 dxe4 4. Bxe4 Nf6 5. f3 Nxe4 5. fxe4 Qh4+
The ebook recommends against this line for White.
How much would someone be willing to pay for this analysis?
I do not know if this analysis is in the printed book or not, because
I do not have the printed book.
Sam Sloan

I'm confused.  If you don't have the printed book by Bloodgood, how can
you comment on it compared to the ebook on Chessville?

I have seen the Bloodgood book and know what it looks like.
I just do not have it yet.
The so-called "ebook" on Chessville, is not an ebook at all, as that
term is understood. It is a database in ChessBase format, which is OK
if you have ChessBase and like using it, but that does not make it a
book.

You have no idea what you are talking about. It is not simply a
database of games. CB offers the ability to include significant
amounts of text.

As you noted earlier, you don't know what is in the book and what
isn't.

[samsloan]

Post by sd

Post by samsloan

Post by samsloan

Post by sd

Post by samsloan
However, it is not a book or even an ebook. It appears to be a data
file in ChessBase format.

It is more than that. You need to look at it and the book and compare.

Post by samsloan
However, there still some people who do not like to spend hours
looking at a computer screen and prefer to read a traditional type of
book made with paper and ink. Those people will prefer my books. None
of my books are ebooks. All of my books are paper and ink style books.

It would be relatively easy to print out all of the e book, and bind
it in any form you want. At a much lower cost than what you charge for
photocopying.

How is that? In the format it is in now it cannot be printed at all.
Also, some of the lines are so bad that a beginner would be
embarrassed to play them.
Here is one, from what you call the "ebook".
1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 e5 3. e4 dxe4 4. Bxe4 Nf6 5. f3 Nxe4 5. fxe4 Qh4+
The ebook recommends against this line for White.
How much would someone be willing to pay for this analysis?
I do not know if this analysis is in the printed book or not, because
I do not have the printed book.
Sam Sloan

I'm confused.  If you don't have the printed book by Bloodgood, how can
you comment on it compared to the ebook on Chessville?

I have seen the Bloodgood book and know what it looks like.
I just do not have it yet.
The so-called "ebook" on Chessville, is not an ebook at all, as that
term is understood. It is a database in ChessBase format, which is OK
if you have ChessBase and like using it, but that does not make it a
book.

You have no idea what you are talking about. It is not simply a
database of games. CB offers the ability to include significant
amounts of text.
As you noted earlier, you don't know what is in the book and what
isn't.

I have the book now. I just received it and the line above
1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 e5 3. e4 dxe4 4. Bxe4 Nf6 5. f3 Nxe4 5. fxe4 Qh4+ is
indeed on page 23.

Bloodgood's weakness as a player is obvious. For example, he gives the
line 1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 c6 3. g5 as playable.

However, this move is obviously busted with 3. h6 forcing open the h-
file. After 4. gxh6 Nxh6 I would say that White is virtually lost.
Bloodgood analyzes this move on pages 20-22 and makes no mention of
the move 3. ... h6 in his book.

I have a little secret to reveal to you. Bloodgood was a Class-B
player. His rating in the Virginia State Rating list for April 1, 1958
was 1721. My rating on the same list was 1461. The rating statistician
was none other than Claude F. Bloodgood.

I think that due to rating inflation since that time we were all
underrated by about 100 points compared with the current standard, but
that still puts Bloodgood at 1821, no where near to being a master.

Also on the 1958 Virginia-North Carolina Match, Bloodgood was placed
on board 20.

In the 1958 Newport News Invitational, a relatively strong tournament,
Bloodgood scored 1.5-8.5. David Shook, an 1800 player, won with 8.5 -
1.5, although he lost to Bloodgood with his only loss and Bloodgood's
only win.

All this is reported in the April 1, 1958 issue of the "Virginia Chess
News Roundup", edited by Leonard Morgan of Roanoke. I may have the
only copy left of this publication.

Sam Sloan

[Taylor Kingston]

Post by samsloan

Post by samsloan
Also, some of the lines are so bad that a beginner would be
embarrassed to play them.
Here is one, from what you call the "ebook".
1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 e5 3. e4 dxe4 4. Bxe4 Nf6 5. f3 Nxe4 5. fxe4 Qh4+
The ebook recommends against this line for White.
How much would someone be willing to pay for this analysis?

I have the book now. I just received it and the line above
 1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 e5 3. e4 dxe4 4. Bxe4 Nf6 5. f3 Nxe4 5. fxe4 Qh4+ is
indeed on page 23.
Bloodgood's weakness as a player is obvious. For example, he gives the
line 1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 c6 3. g5 as playable.
I have a little secret to reveal to you. Bloodgood was a Class-B
player.

Then if Bloodgood was so weak and the book is so bad, why reprint
it?

[samsloan]

Post by samsloan

Post by samsloan
Also, some of the lines are so bad that a beginner would be
embarrassed to play them.
Here is one, from what you call the "ebook".
1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 e5 3. e4 dxe4 4. Bxe4 Nf6 5. f3 Nxe4 5. fxe4 Qh4+
The ebook recommends against this line for White.
How much would someone be willing to pay for this analysis?

I have the book now. I just received it and the line above
 1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 e5 3. e4 dxe4 4. Bxe4 Nf6 5. f3 Nxe4 5. fxe4 Qh4+ is
indeed on page 23.
Bloodgood's weakness as a player is obvious. For example, he gives the
line 1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 c6 3. g5 as playable.
I have a little secret to reveal to you. Bloodgood was a Class-B
player.

  Then if Bloodgood was so weak and the book is so bad, why reprint
it?

The simple answer is it is a rare book in high demand.

If you doubt this, try buying one and see what happens.

Sam Sloan

[Taylor Kingston]

Post by samsloan

Post by samsloan

Post by samsloan
Also, some of the lines are so bad that a beginner would be
embarrassed to play them.
Here is one, from what you call the "ebook".
1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 e5 3. e4 dxe4 4. Bxe4 Nf6 5. f3 Nxe4 5. fxe4 Qh4+
The ebook recommends against this line for White.
How much would someone be willing to pay for this analysis?

I have the book now. I just received it and the line above
 1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 e5 3. e4 dxe4 4. Bxe4 Nf6 5. f3 Nxe4 5. fxe4 Qh4+ is
indeed on page 23.
Bloodgood's weakness as a player is obvious. For example, he gives the
line 1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 c6 3. g5 as playable.
I have a little secret to reveal to you. Bloodgood was a Class-B
player.

  Then if Bloodgood was so weak and the book is so bad, why reprint
it?

The simple answer is it is a rare book in high demand.
If you doubt this, try buying one and see what happens.

Since, by your own admission, it's a bad book by a bad player, I'll
pass.

[samsloan]

Post by samsloan

Post by samsloan

Post by samsloan
Also, some of the lines are so bad that a beginner would be
embarrassed to play them.
Here is one, from what you call the "ebook".
1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 e5 3. e4 dxe4 4. Bxe4 Nf6 5. f3 Nxe4 5. fxe4 Qh4+
The ebook recommends against this line for White.
How much would someone be willing to pay for this analysis?

I have the book now. I just received it and the line above
 1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 e5 3. e4 dxe4 4. Bxe4 Nf6 5. f3 Nxe4 5. fxe4 Qh4+ is
indeed on page 23.
Bloodgood's weakness as a player is obvious. For example, he gives the
line 1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 c6 3. g5 as playable.
I have a little secret to reveal to you. Bloodgood was a Class-B
player.

  Then if Bloodgood was so weak and the book is so bad, why reprint
it?

The simple answer is it is a rare book in high demand.
If you doubt this, try buying one and see what happens.

  Since, by your own admission, it's a bad book by a bad player, I'll
pass.

That does not matter. What does matter is that the book is impossible
to find and people want it.

I am thinking of publishing more books about Hitler, by the way.

Sam

[Taylor Kingston]

Post by samsloan

Post by samsloan

Post by samsloan

Post by samsloan
Also, some of the lines are so bad that a beginner would be
embarrassed to play them.
Here is one, from what you call the "ebook".
1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 e5 3. e4 dxe4 4. Bxe4 Nf6 5. f3 Nxe4 5. fxe4 Qh4+
The ebook recommends against this line for White.
How much would someone be willing to pay for this analysis?

I have the book now. I just received it and the line above
 1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 e5 3. e4 dxe4 4. Bxe4 Nf6 5. f3 Nxe4 5. fxe4 Qh4+ is
indeed on page 23.
Bloodgood's weakness as a player is obvious. For example, he gives the
line 1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 c6 3. g5 as playable.
I have a little secret to reveal to you. Bloodgood was a Class-B
player.

  Then if Bloodgood was so weak and the book is so bad, why reprint
it?

The simple answer is it is a rare book in high demand.
If you doubt this, try buying one and see what happens.

  Since, by your own admission, it's a bad book by a bad player, I'll
pass.

That does not matter. What does matter is that the book is impossible
to find and people want it.

Yep, people like that are born every minute.

[samsloan]

Post by samsloan

Post by samsloan

Post by samsloan

Post by samsloan
Also, some of the lines are so bad that a beginner would be
embarrassed to play them.
Here is one, from what you call the "ebook".
1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 e5 3. e4 dxe4 4. Bxe4 Nf6 5. f3 Nxe4 5. fxe4 Qh4+
The ebook recommends against this line for White.
How much would someone be willing to pay for this analysis?

I have the book now. I just received it and the line above
 1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 e5 3. e4 dxe4 4. Bxe4 Nf6 5. f3 Nxe4 5. fxe4 Qh4+ is
indeed on page 23.
Bloodgood's weakness as a player is obvious. For example, he gives the
line 1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 c6 3. g5 as playable.
I have a little secret to reveal to you. Bloodgood was a Class-B
player.

  Then if Bloodgood was so weak and the book is so bad, why reprint
it?

The simple answer is it is a rare book in high demand.
If you doubt this, try buying one and see what happens.

  Since, by your own admission, it's a bad book by a bad player, I'll
pass.

That does not matter. What does matter is that the book is impossible
to find and people want it.

  Yep, people like that are born every minute.

There are many books written by very weak chess players that
nevertheless are giood books.

For example, when I knew him, Claude Bloodgood was about your
strength.

I do not know if he got better or worse during his years in prison.

That does not stop you from writing about chess.

Sam Sloan

[Taylor Kingston]

Post by samsloan
There are many books written by very weak chess players that
nevertheless are good books.

Sure. For example, Edward Winter is probably not much of chess
player, but he's a good chess historian. However, that's completely
beside the point at issue. Name one good opening manual written by a
very weak player.

In any event, you've already admitted that Bloodgood's book on the
Grob is bad, so your whole bad-players-can-write-good-books argument
is dead on arrival.

Post by samsloan
For example, when I knew him, Claude Bloodgood was about your
strength.
That does not stop you from writing about chess.

False comparison, Sam. I do not write opening manuals. I'd never
even presume to try. My chess writing has consisted mainly of book
reviews, historical articles, and tournament reports.
A weak player writing an opening manual is like a blind man trying
to paint.

[None]

Post by samsloan
There are many books written by very weak chess players that
nevertheless are good books.

  Sure. For example, Edward Winter is probably not much of chess
player, but he's a good chess historian. However, that's completely
beside the point at issue. Name one good opening manual written by a
very weak player.
  In any event, you've already admitted that Bloodgood's book on the
Grob is bad, so your whole bad-players-can-write-good-books argument
is dead on arrival.

Post by samsloan
For example, when I knew him, Claude Bloodgood was about your
strength.
That does not stop you from writing about chess.

  False comparison, Sam. I do not write opening manuals. I'd never
even presume to try. My chess writing has consisted mainly of book
reviews, historical articles, and tournament reports.
  A weak player writing an opening manual is like a blind man trying
to paint.

A weak player writing an opening manual is like a blind man trying
to paint. --TK

Far out man.

[madams]

None wrote:
.

Post by Taylor Kingston
A weak player writing an opening manual is like a blind man trying
to paint. --TK
Far out man.

Not sure about "far-out" but I must concur, not one of Taylor's best
'nalogy's.

See for examps: http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/6899349

http://www.lisafittipaldi.com/

m.

[samsloan]

Post by samsloan
There are many books written by very weak chess players that
nevertheless are good books.

  Sure. For example, Edward Winter is probably not much of chess
player, but he's a good chess historian. However, that's completely
beside the point at issue. Name one good opening manual written by a
very weak player.
  In any event, you've already admitted that Bloodgood's book on the
Grob is bad, so your whole bad-players-can-write-good-books argument
is dead on arrival.

Post by samsloan
For example, when I knew him, Claude Bloodgood was about your
strength.
That does not stop you from writing about chess.

  False comparison, Sam. I do not write opening manuals. I'd never
even presume to try. My chess writing has consisted mainly of book
reviews, historical articles, and tournament reports.
  A weak player writing an opening manual is like a blind man trying
to paint.

I disagree. I think that a majority of all chess opening books are
written by weak players.

Here is an example: In the 1960s the best opening books were written
by Rolf Schwartz. His book on the Sicilian Defense was the Bible of
that opening. Every serious player had to have it.

http://www.amazon.com/HANDBUCH-SCHACH-EROFFNUNGE-Band-Sizilianische-Verteidigung/dp/B002A43FZQ/

However, he was a weak player, at best Class B, or so I was told.

I think that most opening book authors wisely avoid playing in rated
tournamenmts so we do not know their actual strength.

Sam Sloan

[None]

On Dec 18, 8:15 pm, samsloan <***@gmail.com> wrote:

However, he was a weak player, at best Class B, or so I was told. --SS

What's that brown stuff on the ceiling? Sniff, sniff, it sure ain't
mistletoe.

[sd]

Post by None
However, he was a weak player, at best Class B, or so I was told. --SS
What's that brown stuff on the ceiling? Sniff, sniff, it sure ain't
mistletoe.

Not too many B players have drawn Rudolf Teschner or beaten a champion
of the former DDR OTB:

http://www.lasker-gesellschaft.de/forum/harald-fietz/schwarz/schwarz.html

He was also an International master in postal chess.

[sd]

Post by samsloan

Post by samsloan
There are many books written by very weak chess players that
nevertheless are good books.

  Sure. For example, Edward Winter is probably not much of chess
player, but he's a good chess historian. However, that's completely
beside the point at issue. Name one good opening manual written by a
very weak player.
  In any event, you've already admitted that Bloodgood's book on the
Grob is bad, so your whole bad-players-can-write-good-books argument
is dead on arrival.

Post by samsloan
For example, when I knew him, Claude Bloodgood was about your
strength.
That does not stop you from writing about chess.

  False comparison, Sam. I do not write opening manuals. I'd never
even presume to try. My chess writing has consisted mainly of book
reviews, historical articles, and tournament reports.
  A weak player writing an opening manual is like a blind man trying
to paint.

I disagree. I think that a majority of all chess opening books are
written by weak players.
Here is an example: In the 1960s the best opening books were written
by Rolf Schwartz. His book on the Sicilian Defense was the Bible of
that opening. Every serious player had to have it.
http://www.amazon.com/HANDBUCH-SCHACH-EROFFNUNGE-Band-Sizilianische-V...
However, he was a weak player, at best Class B, or so I was told.

You rely a lot on "so I was told." And again, wrongly,

Post by samsloan
I think that most opening book authors wisely avoid playing in rated
tournamenmts so we do not know their actual strength.
Sam Sloan

[Jürgen R.]

Post by samsloan

Post by Taylor Kingston
False comparison, Sam. I do not write opening manuals. I'd never
even presume to try. My chess writing has consisted mainly of book
reviews, historical articles, and tournament reports.
A weak player writing an opening manual is like a blind man trying
to paint.

I disagree. I think that a majority of all chess opening books are
written by weak players.
Here is an example: In the 1960s the best opening books were written
by Rolf Schwartz. His book on the Sicilian Defense was the Bible of
that opening. Every serious player had to have it.
http://www.amazon.com/HANDBUCH-SCHACH-EROFFNUNGE-Band-Sizilianische-Verteidigung/dp/B002A43FZQ/
However, he was a weak player, at best Class B, or so I was told.
I think that most opening book authors wisely avoid playing in rated
tournamenmts so we do not know their actual strength.
Sam Sloan

It is pointless to correct the nonsense that Slink spews forth,
nevertheless:

1) The Schwarz (not Schwartz) books were published by the dominant German
chess publisher Kurt Rattmann. These books were valuable mainly as
source material: Schwarz was a schoolteacher and a pedant; he
collected opening variations like others collect stamps or beetles
and in his books generally consist of complete games sorted according
to variation. He discusses the ideas of the openings and doesn't
pretend to analyze deeply.

2) Schwarz is an IM at correspondence chess.

3) A curious fact: The best-selling Schwarz volume was on 1. f2-f4.

4) Slink claims most opening books are written by weak players.
This is certainly not true of the opening books that are widely
distributed. Before the Informant and the databases the standard
opening book series was written by Euwe. Euwe's collection was
continued by Ludek Pachman, who had earlier written
a 4-volume book on openings. The other important series
was authored by Suetin, Keres, Boleslavsky, Taimanov.

I don't know if any of these books were translated into
English, nor what was current in the U.S. at the time when
these books were important. If you wanted to follow the
development of opening variations in the 50's and
60's, and probably still in the 80's, you had to learn
enough Russian to read 'Shakhmaty' and enough German
to read Euwe's loose-leaf periodical.

You can find most of this information by googling for
10 minutes, even though Slink can't.

[Taylor Kingston]

Post by samsloan
I think that a majority of all chess opening books are
written by weak players.

Utter nonsense. Checking the opening manuals on my shelf, I see such
authors as GM Reuben Fine, GM Svetozar Gligoric, GM Mark Taimanov, GM
Alexander Matanovic, GM Tony Miles, GM Lev Alburt, GM Nick DeFirmian,
GM Roman Dzindzichashvili, GM John Nunn, GM Raymond Keene, GM Larry
Evans, GM Andrew Soltis, GM Glenn Flear, GM Eduard Gufeld, GM Bruno
Parma, GM Karsten Müller, GM Joe Gallagher, and ICCF World Champion
Hans Berliner. Not to mention IMs Silman, Donaldson, Pein, Lane,
Bellin, Hartston, Minev, Horowitz, Levy, Mednis, Grefe, Perelshteyn.
Also "Lasker's Manual of Chess" and Steinitz's "Modern Chess
Instructor" devote many pages to openings.
That's just books I own personally. Other authors of opening books:
Kasparov, Karpov, Petrosian, Euwe — you've heard of them, I presume,
Sam?

Post by samsloan
I think that most opening book authors wisely avoid playing in rated
tournamenmts so we do not know their actual strength.

Riiight. That's how all those World Champions, GM and IMs I named
got their titles, by avoiding rated tournaments.

Seriously, Sam: Do you ever actually think before you write? Or are
you just some sort of random verbiage generator?

[None]

On Dec 19, 10:21 am, Taylor Kingston <***@comcast.net>
wrote:

Seriously, Sam: Do you ever actually think before you write? Or are
you just some sort of random verbiage generator?--TK

What else would you expect from someone whose chess library is
apparently 20 or 30 books by Eric Schiller?

[samsloan]

 Seriously, Sam: Do you ever actually think before you write? Or are
you just some sort of random verbiage generator?--TK
What else would you expect from someone whose chess library is
apparently 20 or 30 books by Eric Schiller?

I realize that I can expect nothing much from None, but what is this
comment about "someone whose chess library is apparently 20 or 30
books by Eric Schiller?".

[Chris Falter]

Sam,

I am *still* interested in learning how it is that your opinion of the
Claude Bloodgood matter changed so dramatically. Twice I have asked
this question:

<question from a few days ago that Sam has not yet answered>

Sam, your most recent comment on Bloodgood is as follows:

"Bloodgood's weakness as a player is obvious"

But earlier, in another thread, you advanced a different opinion:

"Claude Bloodgood...through hard work and diligent study
of chess, achieved a USCF rating or 2702, only to have it taken away
from him through a vile conspiracy by USCF insiders jealous of his
achievements."

What caused you to change your opinion? And do you think that maybe
the accusation of a vile conspiracy was a bit hasty?

</question from a few days ago that Sam has not yet answered>

There is nothing inherently wrong with changing an opinion, Sam. We
come across new facts, or new perspectives, so we change our minds.
The change evinced by your differing rhetoric seemed so remarkable
that I was wondering what was going on. I was hoping to learn
something by asking this question.

Thanks!

Chris Falter

[Bobcat]

Post by Chris Falter
Sam,
I am *still* interested in learning how it is that your opinion of the
Claude Bloodgood matter changed so dramatically.  Twice I have asked
<question from a few days ago that Sam has not yet answered>
 "Bloodgood's weakness as a player is obvious"
 "Claude Bloodgood...through hard work and diligent study
 of chess, achieved a USCF rating or 2702, only to have it taken away
 from him through a vile conspiracy by USCF insiders jealous of his
 achievements."
 What caused you to change your opinion?  And do you think that maybe
 the accusation of a vile conspiracy was a bit hasty?
</question from a few days ago that Sam has not yet answered>
There is nothing inherently wrong with changing an opinion, Sam.  We
come across new facts, or new perspectives, so we change our minds.
The change evinced by your differing rhetoric seemed so remarkable
that I was wondering what was going on.  I was hoping to learn
something by asking this question.
Thanks!
Chris Falter

This is no mystery Chris, Sam is of two minds and they are in the
middle of a family argument and have reached an impasse so are
ignoring each other, which leaves Sam out of his mind (hehwehehehe).

[Taylor Kingston]

Post by Chris Falter
Sam,
I am *still* interested in learning how it is that your opinion of the
Claude Bloodgood matter changed so dramatically.  Twice I have asked
<question from a few days ago that Sam has not yet answered>
 "Bloodgood's weakness as a player is obvious"
 "Claude Bloodgood...through hard work and diligent study
 of chess, achieved a USCF rating or 2702, only to have it taken away
 from him through a vile conspiracy by USCF insiders jealous of his
 achievements."
 What caused you to change your opinion?  And do you think that maybe
 the accusation of a vile conspiracy was a bit hasty?
</question from a few days ago that Sam has not yet answered>
There is nothing inherently wrong with changing an opinion, Sam.  We
come across new facts, or new perspectives, so we change our minds.
The change evinced by your differing rhetoric seemed so remarkable
that I was wondering what was going on.  I was hoping to learn
something by asking this question.
Thanks!
Chris Falter

Sloan seldom if ever answers inconvenient questions.

[madams]

Taylor Kingston wrote:
.

Post by Taylor Kingston
Seriously, Sam: Do you ever actually think before you write? Or are
you just some sort of random verbiage generator?

I'd describe him as your typical 'diarrhist' actually...

m.

[I.P.Knightly]

Post by Taylor Kingston
Seriously, Sam: Do you ever actually think before you write? Or are
you just some sort of random verbiage generator?

He thinks long and hard. Or does he think he's long and hard?

[The Historian]

  A weak player writing an opening manual is like a blind man trying
to paint.

I love Sam Loyd's put down of another problemist as like a 'rook odds
player trying to annotate a game by Steinitz.' Or words to that
effect.

[Mike Murray]

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:46:09 -0800 (PST), Taylor Kingston

Post by Taylor Kingston

Post by samsloan
There are many books written by very weak chess players that
nevertheless are good books.

Sure. For example, Edward Winter is probably not much of chess
player, but he's a good chess historian.

For that matter, how strong was H.J.R. Murray?

Post by Taylor Kingston
However, that's completely
beside the point at issue. Name one good opening manual written by a
very weak player.

The book Zuke 'Em and a follow-up volume were evidently written by
someone below Expert strength, but they've received pretty good
reviews. I haven't looked at them, however.

In the past, opening books that were essentially collections of games
from master practice might have been of some value, but with the
database software and collections available today, there wouldn't be
much point to 'em.

[Bobcat]

Post by samsloan

Post by samsloan

Post by samsloan

Post by samsloan
Also, some of the lines are so bad that a beginner would be
embarrassed to play them.
Here is one, from what you call the "ebook".
1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 e5 3. e4 dxe4 4. Bxe4 Nf6 5. f3 Nxe4 5. fxe4 Qh4+
The ebook recommends against this line for White.
How much would someone be willing to pay for this analysis?

I have the book now. I just received it and the line above
 1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 e5 3. e4 dxe4 4. Bxe4 Nf6 5. f3 Nxe4 5. fxe4 Qh4+ is
indeed on page 23.
Bloodgood's weakness as a player is obvious. For example, he gives the
line 1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 c6 3. g5 as playable.
I have a little secret to reveal to you. Bloodgood was a Class-B
player.

  Then if Bloodgood was so weak and the book is so bad, why reprint
it?

The simple answer is it is a rare book in high demand.
If you doubt this, try buying one and see what happens.

  Since, by your own admission, it's a bad book by a bad player, I'll
pass.

That does not matter. What does matter is that the book is impossible
to find and people want it.
I am thinking of publishing more books about Hitler, by the way.
Sam

A "rare book" is one that is collectible. I seriously people are
"demanding" this book. If a bad book is impossible to find, then may
it remain lost. How about YOU WRITING a book of your own on the
opening and use it as one of you references -- Oh I forgot: that
sounds too much like WORK. You'd rather reprint an obscure poorly
written book that multiplies the errors found in the book so you can
make a quick buck.

[Bobcat]

Post by samsloan

Post by samsloan

Post by samsloan
Also, some of the lines are so bad that a beginner would be
embarrassed to play them.
Here is one, from what you call the "ebook".
1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 e5 3. e4 dxe4 4. Bxe4 Nf6 5. f3 Nxe4 5. fxe4 Qh4+
The ebook recommends against this line for White.
How much would someone be willing to pay for this analysis?

I have the book now. I just received it and the line above
 1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 e5 3. e4 dxe4 4. Bxe4 Nf6 5. f3 Nxe4 5. fxe4 Qh4+ is
indeed on page 23.
Bloodgood's weakness as a player is obvious. For example, he gives the
line 1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 c6 3. g5 as playable.
I have a little secret to reveal to you. Bloodgood was a Class-B
player.

  Then if Bloodgood was so weak and the book is so bad, why reprint
it?

The simple answer is it is a rare book in high demand.
If you doubt this, try buying one and see what happens.
Sam Sloan

Sam, do you remember WHY the USCF forms pulled your thread. This is a
prime example WHY they pulled it.

Post by samsloan
The simple answer is it is a rare book in high demand.
If you doubt this, try buying one and see what happens.
Sam Sloan

High DEMAND by WHOM?!? Or are just try to create more BUZZ for this
worthless book you want to reprint?!? Please tell us who is
"demanding" this book that you what to rip off and "re-print".

[Chris Falter]

Post by samsloan

Post by sd

Post by samsloan

Post by samsloan

Post by sd

Post by samsloan
However, it is not a book or even an ebook. It appears to be a data
file in ChessBase format.

It is more than that. You need to look at it and the book and compare.

Post by samsloan
However, there still some people who do not like to spend hours
looking at a computer screen and prefer to read a traditional type of
book made with paper and ink. Those people will prefer my books. None
of my books are ebooks. All of my books are paper and ink style books.

It would be relatively easy to print out all of the e book, and bind
it in any form you want. At a much lower cost than what you charge for
photocopying.

How is that? In the format it is in now it cannot be printed at all.
Also, some of the lines are so bad that a beginner would be
embarrassed to play them.
Here is one, from what you call the "ebook".
1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 e5 3. e4 dxe4 4. Bxe4 Nf6 5. f3 Nxe4 5. fxe4 Qh4+
The ebook recommends against this line for White.
How much would someone be willing to pay for this analysis?
I do not know if this analysis is in the printed book or not, because
I do not have the printed book.
Sam Sloan

I'm confused.  If you don't have the printed book by Bloodgood, how can
you comment on it compared to the ebook on Chessville?

I have seen the Bloodgood book and know what it looks like.
I just do not have it yet.
The so-called "ebook" on Chessville, is not an ebook at all, as that
term is understood. It is a database in ChessBase format, which is OK
if you have ChessBase and like using it, but that does not make it a
book.

You have no idea what you are talking about. It is not simply a
database of games. CB offers the ability to include significant
amounts of text.
As you noted earlier, you don't know what is in the book and what
isn't.

I have the book now. I just received it and the line above
 1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 e5 3. e4 dxe4 4. Bxe4 Nf6 5. f3 Nxe4 5. fxe4 Qh4+ is
indeed on page 23.
Bloodgood's weakness as a player is obvious. For example, he gives the
line 1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 c6 3. g5 as playable.
However, this move is obviously busted with 3. h6 forcing open the h-
file. After 4. gxh6 Nxh6 I would say that White is virtually lost.
Bloodgood analyzes this move on pages 20-22 and makes no mention of
the move 3. ... h6 in his book.
I have a little secret to reveal to you. Bloodgood was a Class-B
player. His rating in the Virginia State Rating list for April 1, 1958
was 1721. My rating on the same list was 1461. The rating statistician
was none other than Claude F. Bloodgood.
I think that due to rating inflation since that time we were all
underrated by about 100 points compared with the current standard, but
that still puts Bloodgood at 1821, no where near to being a master.
Also on the 1958 Virginia-North Carolina Match, Bloodgood was placed
on board 20.
In the 1958 Newport News Invitational, a relatively strong tournament,
Bloodgood scored 1.5-8.5. David Shook, an 1800 player, won with 8.5 -
1.5, although he lost to Bloodgood with his only loss and Bloodgood's
only win.
All this is reported in the April 1, 1958 issue of the "Virginia Chess
News Roundup", edited by Leonard Morgan of Roanoke. I may have the
only copy left of this publication.
Sam Sloan

Of course, if Bloodgood was spending 3 hours/day on chess while in
prison, and he was actually doing an improvement plan (not just
playing games with his colleagues), he could have been considerably
stronger in the 70s. It would probably be very hard to reach master
level in prison, given the paucity of strong competition, but expert
would be within reach.

[Chris Falter]

Sam, your most recent comment on Bloodgood is as follows:

"Bloodgood's weakness as a player is obvious"

But earlier, in another thread, you advanced a different opinion:

"Claude Bloodgood...through hard work and diligent study
of chess, achieved a USCF rating or 2702, only to have it taken away
from him through a vile conspiracy by USCF insiders jealous of his
achievements."

What caused you to change your opinion? And do you think that maybe
the accusation of a vile conspiracy was a bit hasty?

[Chris Falter]

On Dec 18, 5:40 pm, Chris Falter <***@gmail.com> wrote:

A bump for Sam. Still interested in your opinion on this, Sam.

<question from a few days ago that Sam has not yet answered>

Sam, your most recent comment on Bloodgood is as follows:

"Bloodgood's weakness as a player is obvious"

But earlier, in another thread, you advanced a different opinion:

"Claude Bloodgood...through hard work and diligent study
of chess, achieved a USCF rating or 2702, only to have it taken away
from him through a vile conspiracy by USCF insiders jealous of his
achievements."

What caused you to change your opinion?  And do you think that maybe
the accusation of a vile conspiracy was a bit hasty?

</question from a few days ago that Sam has not yet answered>

Best regards,

Chris Falter

[MrVidmar]

Post by sd

Post by samsloan
However, it is not a book or even an ebook. It appears to be a data
file in ChessBase format.

It is more than that. You need to look at it and the book and compare.

Indeed it is. Came out very nicely using CB Reader. Ebooks are the
ware of the future. Everyman knows this and is converting their entire
catalog to ebook.

Post by sd

Post by samsloan
However, there still some people who do not like to spend hours
looking at a computer screen and prefer to read a traditional type of
book made with paper and ink. Those people will prefer my books. None
of my books are ebooks. All of my books are paper and ink style books.

It would be relatively easy to print out all of the e book, and bind
it in any form you want. At a much lower cost than what you charge for
photocopying.

I've done this with sections of Everyman books where I really want to
play with a variation on a real board. Maybe Sam should invest in a Kindle.

[ChessFire]

Post by sd
http://www.chessville.com/downloads/ebooks.htm
A free version of CB on any computer will read the files nicely, and
the text - or most of it - appears to be contained within as well,
unlike many CB e-books.
It would be easier to approve of Sam's copying if he added significant
new material (not just an new Introduction or Foreword, by way of
which he thinks he is getting away with something) or perhaps trying
to reprint all three major Grob books with a concordance. Or updating
it based on the others. Just annofritzing Bloodgood's analysis could
prove interesting, but no, Sam just wants to photocopy someone else's
work and sell it as his own. If his plagiarism was a bit more
creative, it might be tolerable.

I could have pointed it but I think we all went through this before
with another, I Am Photocopying A Book and Selling It episode

The Tactical Grob would actually be more useful if it were updated
into say, short-algebraic - and better diagrams offered. As for the
Sutton Coalfield address, that was the HQ of the British Chess
Federation. I used to have a copy of Grob's book while in England. I
don't know if it has any advantages over Basman's title - I don't
think so.

Phil Innes

[Andy Walker]

[...] As for the
Sutton Coalfield address, that was the HQ of the British Chess
Federation.

Erm, no. "Chess, Sutton Coldfield, Sufficient Address" was
the address of B. H. Wood's magazine and business. Nothing to do
with the BCF [now ECF], which is now based near Hastings but used
not to have a proper "home" -- I think it was wherever the secretary
lived and kept the filing cabinet.

[None]

[...] As for the
Sutton Coalfield address, that was the HQ of the British Chess
Federation.

        Erm, no.  "Chess, Sutton Coldfield, Sufficient Address" was
the address of B. H. Wood's magazine and business.  Nothing to do
with the BCF [now ECF], which is now based near Hastings but used
not to have a proper "home" -- I think it was wherever the secretary
lived and kept the filing cabinet.
--
Andy Walker
Nottingham

Are you impying that ChessFarte was talking out of his ass again?

[ChessFire]

[...] As for the
Sutton Coalfield address, that was the HQ of the British Chess
Federation.

        Erm, no.  "Chess, Sutton Coldfield, Sufficient Address" was
the address of B. H. Wood's magazine and business.  Nothing to do
with the BCF [now ECF], which is now based near Hastings but used
not to have a proper "home" -- I think it was wherever the secretary
lived and kept the filing cabinet.
--
Andy Walker
Nottingham

Ha! Yes, of course you are right. & Probably the BCF's bookshop was
also wherever PH Clarke was. I think that's where my copy of
Bloodgood's title came from, together of course with the MCO edited by
Walter Korn, and my Sokolski title, written by Sokolski.

When I interviewed Michael Adams a few years ago he said 'you know,
I'm studying this really old book written in descriptive notation',
and I didn't say anything since at the time of buying my first chess
books algebraic notation hadn't been invented. At least I never saw it
deployed anywhere.

Does anyone actually know who originated and popularized it?

Phil Innes

[madams]

ChessFire wrote:
.

Post by ChessFire
When I interviewed Michael Adams a few years ago he said 'you know,
I'm studying this really old book written in descriptive notation',
and I didn't say anything since at the time of buying my first chess
books algebraic notation hadn't been invented. At least I never saw it
deployed anywhere.
Does anyone actually know who originated and popularized it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipp_Stamma

[Taylor Kingston]

Post by ChessFire
When I interviewed Michael Adams a few years ago he said 'you know,
I'm studying this really old book written in descriptive notation',
and I didn't say anything since at the time of buying my first chess
books algebraic notation hadn't been invented. At least I never saw it
deployed anywhere.
Does anyone actually know who originated and popularized it?

One can find references to algebraic notation in various 19th-
century works. One example is "The Modern Chess Instructor" by
Steinitz (1889) which discusses the "German algebraic system of
notation" on pages xvi-xvii.
Therefore, unless our Phil is much older than he lets on, he's quite
incorrect to say "at the time of buying my first chess books algebraic
notation hadn't been invented." But then, being incorrect is hardly a
new experience for Innes.

[Taylor Kingston]

Post by ChessFire
When I interviewed Michael Adams a few years ago he said 'you know,
I'm studying this really old book written in descriptive notation',
and I didn't say anything since at the time of buying my first chess
books algebraic notation hadn't been invented. At least I never saw it
deployed anywhere.
Does anyone actually know who originated and popularized it?

  One can find references to algebraic notation in various 19th-
century works. One example is "The Modern Chess Instructor" by
Steinitz (1889) which discusses the "German algebraic system of
notation" on pages xvi-xvii.
  Therefore, unless our Phil is much older than he lets on, he's quite
incorrect to say "at the time of buying my first chess books algebraic
notation hadn't been invented." But then, being incorrect is hardly a
new experience for Innes.

It is probably impossible to answer Phil's question about who
invented algebraic notation; apparently its origins are lost in
antiquity. Sunnucks' "Encyclopaedia of Chess" says it was used in
Europe in medieval times, and according to H.J.R. Murray it was
probably borrowed from Muslim players. In which case it's been around
for probably a thousand years or so, again contradicting Phil's belief
that it had not been invented at the time he bought his first chess
books.
It would be accurate to say that algebraic notation was not widely
used by the English-speaking chess community in the days of Phil's
youth. It was probably not until the 1970s or '80s that most British
and American players and publishers turned away from the old
descriptive notation.

[ChessFire]

Post by ChessFire
When I interviewed Michael Adams a few years ago he said 'you know,
I'm studying this really old book written in descriptive notation',
and I didn't say anything since at the time of buying my first chess
books algebraic notation hadn't been invented. At least I never saw it
deployed anywhere.
Does anyone actually know who originated and popularized it?

  One can find references to algebraic notation in various 19th-
century works. One example is "The Modern Chess Instructor" by
Steinitz (1889) which discusses the "German algebraic system of
notation" on pages xvi-xvii.
  Therefore, unless our Phil is much older than he lets on, he's quite
incorrect to say "at the time of buying my first chess books algebraic
notation hadn't been invented." But then, being incorrect is hardly a
new experience for Innes.

And the same to Kingbone, who didn't notice that I said of material at
the time I bought books, not some German theory. But that is his
geist, no? To bitch.

Merry Christmas, Kingbone. Cheer up, wontcha? This German idea hadn't
been invented into print, is my point, but if you want to bitch, be my
bitch, baby.

Phil Innes

[Taylor Kingston]

Post by ChessFire

Post by ChessFire
When I interviewed Michael Adams a few years ago he said 'you know,
I'm studying this really old book written in descriptive notation',
and I didn't say anything since at the time of buying my first chess
books algebraic notation hadn't been invented. At least I never saw it
deployed anywhere.
Does anyone actually know who originated and popularized it?

  One can find references to algebraic notation in various 19th-
century works. One example is "The Modern Chess Instructor" by
Steinitz (1889) which discusses the "German algebraic system of
notation" on pages xvi-xvii.
  Therefore, unless our Phil is much older than he lets on, he's quite
incorrect to say "at the time of buying my first chess books algebraic
notation hadn't been invented." But then, being incorrect is hardly a
new experience for Innes.

And the same to Kingbone, who didn't notice that I said of material at
the time I bought books, not some German theory. But that is his
geist, no? To bitch.
Merry Christmas, Kingbone. Cheer up, wontcha? This German idea hadn't
been invented into print, is my point,

You are saying there were no books using algebraic notation until
late in the 20th century? Nonsense! I have the 1843 edition of
Bilguer's "Handbuch des Schachspiels." It's definitely invented, it's
definitely in print, and it's definitely algebraic.

Post by ChessFire
but if you want to bitch, be my
bitch, baby.

Phil, will you ever grow up? You're caught out in broad daylight
making a clearly false statement. I quote you directly:

"...at the time of buying my first chess books algebraic notation
hadn't been invented."

Then when the inaccuracy of this statement is pointed out, you
pretend to have said something else. But everyone here can read what
you actually wrote.
How old are you, Phil? 50-something? Certainly old enough to stop
acting like a toddler who blames everything on his imaginary playmate.

[ChessFire]

Post by ChessFire

Post by ChessFire
When I interviewed Michael Adams a few years ago he said 'you know,
I'm studying this really old book written in descriptive notation',
and I didn't say anything since at the time of buying my first chess
books algebraic notation hadn't been invented. At least I never saw it
deployed anywhere.
Does anyone actually know who originated and popularized it?

  One can find references to algebraic notation in various 19th-
century works. One example is "The Modern Chess Instructor" by
Steinitz (1889) which discusses the "German algebraic system of
notation" on pages xvi-xvii.
  Therefore, unless our Phil is much older than he lets on, he's quite
incorrect to say "at the time of buying my first chess books algebraic
notation hadn't been invented." But then, being incorrect is hardly a
new experience for Innes.

And the same to Kingbone, who didn't notice that I said of material at
the time I bought books, not some German theory. But that is his
geist, no? To bitch.
Merry Christmas, Kingbone. Cheer up, wontcha? This German idea hadn't
been invented into print, is my point,

  You are saying there were no books using algebraic notation until
late in the 20th century? Nonsense! I have the 1843 edition of
Bilguer's "Handbuch des Schachspiels." It's definitely invented, it's
definitely in print, and it's definitely algebraic.

Post by ChessFire
but if you want to bitch, be my
bitch, baby.

  Phil, will you ever grow up? You're caught out in broad daylight
  "...at the time of buying my first chess books algebraic notation
hadn't been invented."
  Then when the inaccuracy of this statement is pointed out, you
pretend to have said something else. But everyone here can read what
you actually wrote.

How dare you continue to willfully misunderstand - OBVIOUSLY the
context of talking with Adams is the right one, and if algebraic was
showing up in chess books? How come you leave out the context? In
order to have a hissy fit? You can't even end the paragraph you cite,
so leave out "At least I never saw it deployed anywhere."

==

Then you yourself talk of 1850, but Stamma in 1745.

I think it quite likely that it came from Spain much earlier, both the
game and the idea of algebra being Arab.

  How old are you, Phil? 50-something? Certainly old enough to stop
acting like a toddler who blames everything on his imaginary playmate.

As I said, be a bitch if you want, what's new?

Phil Innes

[Taylor Kingston]

Post by ChessFire
How dare you continue to willfully misunderstand -

Phil, did it ever occur to you that your writing is so murky,
confused and self-contradictory that it cannot be understood, as the
word "understood" is usually understood? I recall a comedian who
quipped "You know, nothing actually makes any sense; we just
understand it, that's all." With you, he was only half-right.
If you wanted to say "I had never heard of algebraic notation until
I was umpteen years old," then you should have written that. Not
"algebraic notation hadn't been invented," followed by "At least I
never saw it deployed anywhere." Your wording is like saying "When I
was a teenager the Pacific Ocean did not exist. At least, I had never
seen it."
BTW, one does not "deploy" chess notation. Soldiers and warships are
deployed. Chess notation is employed.

Post by ChessFire
Then you yourself talk of 1850, but Stamma in 1745.

Eh? I have not mentioned 1850, 1745 or Stamma at all in this thread.
This is another serious problem you have, Phil: attributing to people
things they never said.

[Mike Murray]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 06:56:59 -0800 (PST), Taylor Kingston

Post by Taylor Kingston

Post by ChessFire
How dare you continue to willfully misunderstand -

Phil, did it ever occur to you that your writing is so murky,
confused and self-contradictory that it cannot be understood, as the
word "understood" is usually understood?...
If you wanted to say "I had never heard of algebraic notation until
I was umpteen years old," then you should have written that. Not
"algebraic notation hadn't been invented," followed by "At least I
never saw it deployed anywhere." Your wording is like saying "When I
was a teenager the Pacific Ocean did not exist. At least, I had never
seen it."

Post by ChessFire
Then you yourself talk of 1850, but Stamma in 1745.

Eh? I have not mentioned 1850, 1745 or Stamma at all in this thread.
This is another serious problem you have, Phil: attributing to people
things they never said.

What the hell is wrong with him, anyway? He denies stuff he's
written just a few posts up-thread. He falsely attributes quotes and
comments, seldom admits error. The relatively few people who read
this forum regularly all seem on to his "tricks". What's the payoff?

[The Historian]

What the hell is wrong with him, anyway?  He denies stuff  he's
written just a few posts up-thread.  He falsely attributes quotes and
comments, seldom admits error.   The relatively few people who read
this forum regularly all seem on to his "tricks".  What's the payoff?

He's trolling. What's the payoff in trolling? Attention. Just as James
Eade pegged him back in 2001.

[None]

Post by The Historian
He's trolling. What's the payoff in trolling? Attention. Just as James
Eade pegged him back in 2001.

So you're saying Phil ochrestrated 911 just for the attention?

[ChessFire]

Post by None

Post by The Historian
He's trolling. What's the payoff in trolling? Attention. Just as James
Eade pegged him back in 2001.

So you're saying Phil ochrestrated 911 just for the attention?

are you the person who says 'faggot' about discussing Morphy?

how brave the marines now are, they can't own their own names, but
they can trash everyone else's

that's a syndrome isn't it Stan? home of the free to own your own
opinion, or scared to? as another vet i would not settle for what you
have

phil innes

[madams]

ChessFire wrote:
.

Post by ChessFire
are you the person who says 'faggot' about discussing Morphy?
how brave the marines now are, they can't own their own names, but
they can trash everyone else's

"Wouldn't you want to see a low-budget Canadian film wherein ex-marine
Steiger .... Rod Steiger stars as Master Sergeant Albert Callan, a hero
of WWII who is ..."

Well, y'know... a POOFTAH !

www.fandango.com/rodsteiger/filmography/p67882 - Cached - Similar -
The Sergeant (1968)

m.

[ChessFire]

Post by ChessFire
How dare you continue to willfully misunderstand -

  Phil, did it ever occur to you that your writing is so murky,
confused and self-contradictory that it cannot be understood, as the
word "understood" is usually understood?

Has it occurred to you that you have written shit about other people
in public and private since I first encountered your 'orienbtation to
chess.

I recall a comedian who

But you don't recall the 20 some e-mails you sent to me denigrating
other players and commentators? You don't recall even if I returned
you some of them at your own request.

What does it feel like to be the Ollie North of chess?

Non-stiop shit from Kingston, and no content from Kingston. Just what
Kingston makes from his books, and not from his intelligence.

quipped "You know, nothing actually makes any sense; we just
understand it, that's all." With you, he was only half-right.
  If you wanted to say "I had never heard of algebraic notation until
I was umpteen years old," then you should have written that. Not

But that is NOT my point, numbskull! It is that chess books did not
use algebraic notation in my youth. Tell me you understand this before
you rant and hiss further.

Tell me you understand the plain context of my writing, and don't spin
it because you are numb in the head, or something, or needing some
enemy always.

"algebraic notation hadn't been invented," followed by "At least I
never saw it deployed anywhere." Your wording is like saying "When I
was a teenager the Pacific Ocean did not exist. At least, I had never
seen it."

It is only if you destroy the context - which you did - and you even
eliminate my accusation to you that you did it willfully, since no-one
could read what I wrote and think as you do.

;)

Therefore, you continue to fuck with people, since you cannot admit
your own need to be a rather superior bloke, but to be superior you
have to be very much more informed than Taylor Kingston is, including
admitting your won insights, and more modest too.

  BTW, one does not "deploy" chess notation. Soldiers and warships are
deployed. Chess notation is employed.

Evidently one did not deploy algebraic notation much before 1970. Even
though the idea of it was 250 or even a thousand years older. The word
deploy indicates an idea acted upon, eh?

Post by ChessFire
Then you yourself talk of 1850, but Stamma in 1745.

  Eh? I have not mentioned 1850,

Yes you did, by virtue of your previous post.

1745 or Stamma at all in this thread.

You have not mentioned it because you did not know of it.

This is another serious problem you have, Phil: attributing to people
things they never said.

60,000+ words with Blair reveal the same thing, apparently. He does
not want to discuss things, despite his 60,000 words.

:)

Get it, Kingston?

The question is whether you will own your own opinion and behavior or
be content to have your say while pretending you have nothing to say.

As usual, you will either now become more personal and in denial, or
hiss and run. What you will not do is state your own opinion and try
to decently discuss it.

That is why you are such a light-weight, Kingston. You, who once wrote
a calendar.

Phil Innes

[Taylor Kingston]

Post by ChessFire

  If you wanted to say "I had never heard of algebraic notation until
I was umpteen years old," then you should have written that. Not

But that is NOT my point, numbskull! It is that chess books did not
use algebraic notation in my youth.

Utter nonsense, Phil. Algebraic notation has been used by most of
the chess world for centuries. The fact that you were ignorant of it
does not change that fact.

Well, I'm off now for a week in sunny San Diego. Happy Christmas to
all!

[madams]

Post by Taylor Kingston

Post by ChessFire
Then you yourself talk of 1850, but Stamma in 1745.

Eh? I have not mentioned 1850, 1745 or Stamma at all in this thread.

.
Phil's referencing wot you wrote here:

[You are saying there were no books using algebraic notation until
late in the 20th century? Nonsense! I have the 1843 edition of
Bilguer's "Handbuch des Schachspiels."] - tk...

m.

[sd]

Alain White (an American problemist and publisher) used English
Algebraic (modified, as is convention in problems with S for knight)
in his book "More White Rooks", published in 1911.

I would have to go back to the magazines to look, but I believe
algebraic was occasionally used - although mostly discussed - as early
as the 1950s in American publications such as Chess Life. I recall
readers were not for it, but that doesn't mean it was not around.

I imagine the same is true for Britain.

[samsloan]

Post by ChessFire

Post by sd
http://www.chessville.com/downloads/ebooks.htm
A free version of CB on any computer will read the files nicely, and
the text - or most of it - appears to be contained within as well,
unlike many CB e-books.
It would be easier to approve of Sam's copying if he added significant
new material (not just an new Introduction or Foreword, by way of
which he thinks he is getting away with something) or perhaps trying
to reprint all three major Grob books with a concordance. Or updating
it based on the others. Just annofritzing Bloodgood's analysis could
prove interesting, but no, Sam just wants to photocopy someone else's
work and sell it as his own. If his plagiarism was a bit more
creative, it might be tolerable.

I could have pointed it but I think we all went through this before
with another, I Am Photocopying A Book and Selling It episode
The Tactical Grob would actually be more useful if it were updated
into say, short-algebraic - and better diagrams offered. As for the
Sutton Coalfield address, that was the HQ of the British Chess
Federation. I used to have a copy of Grob's book while in England. I
don't know if it has any advantages over Basman's title - I don't
think so.
Phil Innes

My books are not photocopies. They are very high resolution 600 dpi
scans. They usually look better than the original, as they are then
cleaned.

It was suggested that I enhance the book by adding my own games with
the Grob plus Fritz analysis. I have rejected that I idea because the
importance to the Bloodgood is that it is by Bloodgood. I will not
pollute it with anybody else's stuff.

I cannot improve on the diagrams in the book because they are very
high quality. What is amazing is that the book was written while
Bloodgood was in prison on Death Row. B. H. Wood must have done
substantial work on it, just re-typing and setting it and creating the
diagrams.

Was the full name of B. H. Wood Baruch H. Wood?

How strong was he as a chess player? By the way, I played him once.

Sam Sloan

[ChessFire]

Post by samsloan

Post by ChessFire

Post by sd
http://www.chessville.com/downloads/ebooks.htm
A free version of CB on any computer will read the files nicely, and
the text - or most of it - appears to be contained within as well,
unlike many CB e-books.
It would be easier to approve of Sam's copying if he added significant
new material (not just an new Introduction or Foreword, by way of
which he thinks he is getting away with something) or perhaps trying
to reprint all three major Grob books with a concordance. Or updating
it based on the others. Just annofritzing Bloodgood's analysis could
prove interesting, but no, Sam just wants to photocopy someone else's
work and sell it as his own. If his plagiarism was a bit more
creative, it might be tolerable.

I could have pointed it but I think we all went through this before
with another, I Am Photocopying A Book and Selling It episode
The Tactical Grob would actually be more useful if it were updated
into say, short-algebraic - and better diagrams offered. As for the
Sutton Coalfield address, that was the HQ of the British Chess
Federation. I used to have a copy of Grob's book while in England. I
don't know if it has any advantages over Basman's title - I don't
think so.
Phil Innes

My books are not photocopies. They are very high resolution 600 dpi
scans. They usually look better than the original, as they are then
cleaned.

Digital copies.

Post by samsloan
It was suggested that I enhance the book by adding my own games with
the Grob plus Fritz analysis. I have rejected that I idea because the
importance to the Bloodgood is that it is by Bloodgood. I will not
pollute it with anybody else's stuff.

Indeed! Why pollute the Bloodgood material with how to play it, or
play against it? That would occasion a real book.

Post by samsloan
I cannot improve on the diagrams in the book because they are very
high quality. What is amazing is that the book was written while
Bloodgood was in prison on Death Row. B. H. Wood must have done
substantial work on it, just re-typing and setting it and creating the
diagrams.

Why is that amazing?

Post by samsloan
Was the full name of B. H. Wood Baruch H. Wood?

Baruch Harold Wood.

Post by samsloan
How strong was he as a chess player? By the way, I played him once.

My Cornish team captain PH Clarke was assessed as an IM, Wood was not
quite so strong as Peter, but at least a strong master.

I played Wood's daughter a couple times, result 50% score against her.
Wiki Says:

Wood's daughter Margaret (Peggy) Clarke won the British Girls'
Championship in 1952, 1955, and 1956, and was the joint British
Ladies' Champion in 1966.[7] Her husband Peter Clarke is a full-time
chess player and writer, who finished second in the British Chess
Championship five times, represented England in the Chess Olympiads
seven times, wrote five chess books, and was the Games Editor of the
British Chess Magazine.[8] Woods' sons Christopher, Frank and Philip
are also strong chess players.

In our youth we didn't pay much attention to titles or elos. Michael
Adams was also a 'student' under PH Clarke, and when I asked him who
influenced him, what influence training etc, he got from Clarke, etc,
he told me if a long weekend was to be a student, then that was all.
Otherwise the guy did it by his own bootstraps, as we all did then.

Phil Innes

Post by samsloan
Sam Sloan

[samsloan]

Post by samsloan
I am reprinting "The Tactical Grob" by Claude Bloodgood.
The Grob is the name of the chess opening that begins with 1.g4.
Claude Bloodgood wrote the book while on Death Row in Virginia due to
an unfortunate butcher knife accident.
He was not executed however because, later on, the US Supreme Court
declared the death penalty unconstitutional.
This book has been almost impossible to obtain. For years I have been
dying to get it.
The ISBN Number will be 4-87187-866-X.
I selected that number because he was X-rated. Also, he was 86ed from
society. Also, the 66 in the number is part of 666.
When the book is printed in a week or so, it will be available at the
following addresses.
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ISBN=487187866X
http://www.amazon.com/dp/487187866X
Sam Sloan

I did not change my opinion. I played Bloodgood a tournament game in the Virginia Open in about 1958 when I was 13. Although Bloodgood won, he was a 1600 player. The remark about "hard work" was a sarcastic reference to rating manipulation.