Chess politics - ChessCafe blackmailing USCF?

Author

ChessCafe blackmailing USCF?

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-09-25, 11:32 pm

CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE OR PRUDENT STEWARDSHIP?

A source, who was not anonymous but of unproven
veracity, contacted me about 24 hours ago. Here is
the story that I was told.

As we all know, the USCF's Book and Equipment
business was outsourced to Hanon Russell's Chess Cafe.
The latter undertook to provide a minimum annual
commission of $350,000 or 13.5% on sales,
whichever proved greater.

The current claimed amount owed by the Cafe is $180,000.

However, this debt figure of $180,000 included
monies only up to April 2005, according to my source.
Mr. Russell, I am told, has not provided sales figures
for several months and, says the source, the estimated
debt has skyrocketted to $250,000 -- and, of course, growing
daily, in this version of events.

I am told that there is now a cash flow problem
at the USCF, which if true, comes three to four months
after my prediction earlier this year for April or May.

This source says that the USCF has yet to issue
a default of contract notice on Mr. Russell because of
Board majority sympathetic to him. The issue thereby
becomes one of possible criminal negligence in failing
to protect USCF interests by pursuing legal recourse or
one of prudent stewardship by a Board majority that feels
this moment is the wrong one to lay down an ultimatum.

According to my source, Bill Goichberg relayed
an ultimatum from Mr. Russell to the EB with two
demands:

1. The 13.5% commission rate be lowered;

2. He will only pay what he owes if the Federation EXTENDS HIS
CONTROL OVER B & E UNTIL THE YEAR 2012.

My source states that Mr. Russell's demands
were defeated by the Board and that a compromise
proposal passed. It was apparently rejected by Mr.
Russell. I do not know the terms of this compromise.

IS THE USCF BEING BLACKMAILED BY HANON RUSSELL?

My source, who may be speaking on behalf of
interested chess book and equipment dealers, believes
it is "certain" that "the USCF is being blackmailed and
faces losing the entire B&E business."

Mr. Russell, states my source, "is a lawyer and now
he has all the customer information. Someone should
be asking the question why is the USCF not getting its
money??? And why is the Board submitting to blackmail?"

That is the situation which comes from one
source of as yet unproven veracity -- a new source
among my stable.

Matt Nemmers

2005-09-25, 11:32 pm

<parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1127702036.973609.87770@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

quote:

>
> CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE OR PRUDENT STEWARDSHIP?
>
> A source, who was not anonymous but of unproven
> veracity, contacted me about 24 hours ago. Here is
> the story that I was told.
>
> However, this debt figure of $180,000 included
> monies only up to April 2005, according to my source.
> Mr. Russell, I am told, has not provided sales figures
> for several months and, says the source,
>
> This source says that the USCF has yet to issue
> a default of contract notice on Mr. Russell because of
> Board majority sympathetic to him.
>
> My source states that Mr. Russell's demands
> were defeated by the Board and that a compromise
> proposal passed.
>
> My source, who may be speaking on behalf of
> interested chess book and equipment dealers, believes
> it is "certain" that "the USCF is being blackmailed and
> faces losing the entire B&E business."
>
> Mr. Russell, states my source, "is a lawyer and now
> he has all the customer information. Someone should
> be asking the question why is the USCF not getting its
> money??? And why is the Board submitting to blackmail?"

Anyone wanna bet that Liarry's source is none other than 1900-rated but
self-proclaimed 2200+ ELO Mack Truck NM Sam Sloan? And speaking on behalf
of Eric Schiller, no doubt....

Mike Murray

2005-09-26, 2:32 am

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 02:47:49 GMT, "Matt Nemmers"
<mattnemmers@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

quote:

[vbcol=seagreen]
>Anyone wanna bet that Liarry's source is none other than 1900-rated but
>self-proclaimed 2200+ ELO Mack Truck NM Sam Sloan? And speaking on behalf
>of Eric Schiller, no doubt....

Parr's had some solid hits in the last year or so, e.g., the initial
fee for the architect at Crossville, actual estimated construction
cost of the building, etc. And many here were skeptical of the Chess
Cafe deal from the inception.

Prices at Chess Cafe are generally not competitive with those at
Amazon, especially when you factor in the latter's consortium of used
book dealers.

For example, at Chess Cafe, Benko's revision of Fine's BCE is $23.95
with the member discount. It's 16.47 at Amazon, with some used ones
in good condition at $8.95.

The highly regarded "Pal Benko: My Life, Games and Compositions" is
$42.95, again with members discount, at Chess Cafe, while at Amazon
it's $27.90.

Nimzovich's "Chess Praxis" -- Chess Cafe: $16.95. Amazon is $17.95
for this "21st Century Edition", but it has the older edition
available for two bucks.

Watson's "Chess Strategy in Action -- Chess Cafe: 23.95. Amazon
$16.47 with used copies for 14.49.

I didn't cherry pick these examples. I just looked up some recent
books as I thought of 'em. I realize that Chess Cafe probably has
titles not available at Amazon. I could not quickly find if Chess
Cafe has anything comparable to Amazon's free shipping with x dollar
orders.

Given that both operations are mail order, I would be surprised if
Chess Cafe weren't in some trouble.

The Historian

2005-09-26, 2:32 am

Mike Murray wrote:

quote:

> I realize that Chess Cafe probably has
> titles not available at Amazon.

For example, the Quarterly for Chess History and other publications by
Moravian.

Mike Murray

2005-09-26, 2:32 am

On 25 Sep 2005 20:53:52 -0700, "The Historian" <Spamscone@yahoo.com>
wrote:

quote:

>Mike Murray wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>For example, the Quarterly for Chess History and other publications by
>Moravian.

Yup.

And if both stores were brick-and-mortar, folks browsing in ChessCafe
for the more esoteric and specialized stuff would be tempted to pick
up the more mainstream titles while they were in the store.

But, with a couple of mouse clicks, one can be in both Internet stores
simultaneously and it's minimal work to comparison shop for any given
title. So Amazon (or Barnes and Noble) can skim the cream.

Factoring in E-bay, and it's even tougher. I was on a nostalgia trip
not long ago and wanted to pick up one of the Windsor Castle chess
sets (a wood reproduction of a popular 1950s plastic set). Chess Cafe
had 'em on sale for $130 versus a "list price" of $160. I picked one
up on E-bay (new, from House of Staunton) for about $50, including
shipping and handling. A friend of mine got a new chess clock at
similar savings.

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-09-26, 5:31 am

I'LL TAKE THAT BET!

quote:

>Anyone wanna bet that Liarry's source is none other than 1900-rated but self-proclaimed 2200+ ELO Mack Truck NM Sam Sloan?> -- Matt Nemmers

Translation of Matt Nemmers' argument: above all else, try to
black out what is happening re the ChessCafe deal.

I provided a report with plenty of caveats about my source, who
is known by name but who is not yet known to be reliable.

I have a hunch, which I hope is wrong, that the current Board
will try to kill my report with silence in the hope that I will not
receive further information.

If my source is substantially accurate, then any deal handing B
&E another seven years to ChessCafe will mean the effective end of the
USCF as a
company that can market products.

To grant such a contract without Delegate approval would be as
irresponsible as Beatriz Marinello's decision to relegate the
Federation to a methamphetamine
capital known as Crossville.

Chess One

2005-09-26, 7:33 pm

<parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1127716423.221735.41000@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

quote:

> I'LL TAKE THAT BET!
>
>
> Translation of Matt Nemmers' argument: above all else, try to
> black out what is happening re the ChessCafe deal.
>
> I provided a report with plenty of caveats about my source, who
> is known by name but who is not yet known to be reliable.

News of the debt has been out for what, 5 months? No one had any idea how
chesscafe could actually pay it and continue.

The last bit of information leaking out of the basement was that there would
be a negotiation downward of the owed sum, together with a gigantic
reduction of future guaranteed income. Fears were that chesscafe would dump
it completely. Then we'd be in Crossville without a paddle.

quote:

> I have a hunch, which I hope is wrong, that the current Board
> will try to kill my report with silence in the hope that I will not
> receive further information.
>
> If my source is substantially accurate, then any deal handing B
> &E another seven years to ChessCafe will mean the effective end of the
> USCF as a
> company that can market products.

This was the 'discussion item' at the beginning of the deal. But all was
blue-skys then, and my suggestion to the proposer of the deal, VP Sgt.
Hanke, that there was no 'plan B' to the current deal was scorned, since
making a nice income for several years was 'guaranteed'! Right.

quote:

> To grant such a contract without Delegate approval would be as
> irresponsible as Beatriz Marinello's decision to relegate the
> Federation to a methamphetamine
> capital known as Crossville.

I seem to have different spies than you - in the recent open session the
board spent 2 hours discussing if the scholastic membership fee could be
raised by ... 2 bucks a year. They ignored a comment from the floor that
scholastic parents often spend $200 on a weekend tourney.

In the corridors the conversation turned to income - and a whaddawedonow?
series of conversations, because costs are higher than were supposed and the
guaranteed income stream to support running costs has evaporated - and
perhaps inevitably, the conversation turned to staffing levels, the high
cost of, these days...

But other comments should be contributed to the 'moderated forum' thread,
since even George John agreed that more not less light and air were
necessary at USCF, and that any admitted current ills were less likely to
occur if plans were aired and made [remember 'transparent'?] than hatched in
the dark basement of some old church down thair...

Phil Innes

Tom Martinak

2005-09-26, 7:33 pm

Chess One wrote:

quote:

> This was the 'discussion item' at the beginning of the deal. But all was
> blue-skys then, and my suggestion to the proposer of the deal, VP Sgt.
> Hanke, that there was no 'plan B' to the current deal was scorned, since
> making a nice income for several years was 'guaranteed'! Right.

You have the facts backwards. Hanke preferred a deal with a different
vendor which didn't have a 'guaranteed' value. At the time, he even
expressed the opinion that he was worried about the guarantee and
didn't want to include it in the USCF budget. He eventually went along
with the majority, but the prime advocate of the current deal was the
then Executive Director Bill Goichberg. You might want to take a look
at:
http://www.checkmate.us/report.htm
under the heading "Book and Equipment Sales Outsourcing" for more
details from Bill's campaign including:

"They were considering a proposal with no minimum guarantee to USCF.
Instead, there was a clause giving USCF the right to cancel the
contract after a year if annual sales were less than $1.8 million.
Hanke seemed to think this was just as good, but the right to cancel
wouldn't have produced any revenue, only allowed us to start the
bidding over again under less favorable conditions (poor sales do not
promote good bids) after a year of inadequate revenue. I argued that we
should insist on a substantial minimum guarantee and that we could
obtain one.
I suggested that I be put in charge of the negotiations and
allowed to contact any potential bidder, telling the Board I was sure I
could do much better than the bid they were considering. There was
strong resistence, but finally they agreed."

- Tom Martinak

jamesrynd@aol.com

2005-09-26, 7:33 pm

I am enough of a man not to argue with Larry just for argument's sake.
He makes some good points, even if it is in his usual muckraking style.

I don't understand enough of the ChessCafe deal to discuss it with any
intelligence, but I wonder why we didn't consider "outsourcing" to
Amazon, as many folks do with a link to Amazon from their webpage. Some
friends of mine who are part-time chess authors, and publish mostly
specialty books, have found that this has increased their sales
tremendously, and they also receive a commission back from Amazon as
well.

ChessCafe has great stuff, great customer service, but I only order the
odd stuff from them, as they are way too expensive. So I will ask: Why
not Amazon as a partner with a link from the USCF website? Could we do
any worse? Wouldn't it be great advertising for both USCF and Amazon?

Sam Sloan

2005-09-26, 7:33 pm

On 26 Sep 2005 07:30:06 -0700, "jamesrynd@aol.com" <jamesrynd@aol.com>
wrote:

quote:

>I am enough of a man not to argue with Larry just for argument's sake.
>He makes some good points, even if it is in his usual muckraking style.
>
>I don't understand enough of the ChessCafe deal to discuss it with any
>intelligence, but I wonder why we didn't consider "outsourcing" to
>Amazon, as many folks do with a link to Amazon from their webpage. Some
>friends of mine who are part-time chess authors, and publish mostly
>specialty books, have found that this has increased their sales
>tremendously, and they also receive a commission back from Amazon as
>well.
>
>ChessCafe has great stuff, great customer service, but I only order the
>odd stuff from them, as they are way too expensive. So I will ask: Why
>not Amazon as a partner with a link from the USCF website? Could we do
>any worse? Wouldn't it be great advertising for both USCF and Amazon?
>

Your idea is silly. The USCF is not a book publisher. The USCF had a
retail sales operation with sales of $3.5 million per year. The
operation was first gutted by Redman, then rebuilt under Niro and
finally outsourced under Marinello. So, the $3.5 million we used to
get we no longer get.

I get checks of $200 per year from Amazon. How much more than $200
would Amazon be willing to pay the USCF?

At least ChessCafe did pay $177,000 for the first year, which is a lot
better than nothing, and a lot more than Amazon would pay.

Sam Sloan

Chess One

2005-09-26, 7:33 pm

I note your response Tom - but are we agreeing that Tim went along with it
and boosted it here? Phil

"Tom Martinak" <martinak_tom_m@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127743067.319188.78270@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

quote:

> Chess One wrote:
>
>
> You have the facts backwards. Hanke preferred a deal with a different
> vendor which didn't have a 'guaranteed' value. At the time, he even
> expressed the opinion that he was worried about the guarantee and
> didn't want to include it in the USCF budget. He eventually went along
> with the majority, but the prime advocate of the current deal was the
> then Executive Director Bill Goichberg. You might want to take a look
> at:
> http://www.checkmate.us/report.htm
> under the heading "Book and Equipment Sales Outsourcing" for more
> details from Bill's campaign including:
>
> "They were considering a proposal with no minimum guarantee to USCF.
> Instead, there was a clause giving USCF the right to cancel the
> contract after a year if annual sales were less than $1.8 million.
> Hanke seemed to think this was just as good, but the right to cancel
> wouldn't have produced any revenue, only allowed us to start the
> bidding over again under less favorable conditions (poor sales do not
> promote good bids) after a year of inadequate revenue. I argued that we
> should insist on a substantial minimum guarantee and that we could
> obtain one.
> I suggested that I be put in charge of the negotiations and
> allowed to contact any potential bidder, telling the Board I was sure I
> could do much better than the bid they were considering. There was
> strong resistence, but finally they agreed."
>
> - Tom Martinak
>

Mike Murray

2005-09-26, 7:33 pm

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:49:45 GMT, sloan@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan)
wrote:

quote:

>I get checks of $200 per year from Amazon. How much more than $200
>would Amazon be willing to pay the USCF?

AFAIK, Amazon gives you a cut if you (1) formally sign up with them
and link to items for sale on their site, (2) somebody follows the
link and (3) buys that item in the same session. This means that any
member intending to buy something at Amazon could go to their site
*via* the USCF and funnel money to chess.

From the Amazon web site:
"The Amazon.com Associates program allows you to choose any items from
the millions listed in our online catalog and promote them on your Web
site. Best of all, Associates are paid up to 10% of the selling price
of qualifying items that are sold through these links."
http://www.amazon.com/gp/browse.htm...25?node=3309511

If my understanding of this is correct, the USCF would get this cut
for doing virtually nothing.

At any rate, the USCF site gets a lot more hits than yours and the two
hundred dollars you mention is not particularly relevant.

quote:

>At least ChessCafe did pay $177,000 for the first year, which is a lot
>better than nothing, and a lot more than Amazon would pay.

Yes, but what have they done for us lately? Or, that was then and this
is now. Or [substitute cliche of choice]...

Tom Martinak

2005-09-26, 7:33 pm

>I note your response Tom - but are we agreeing that

quote:

>Tim went along with it and boosted it here? Phil

Tim Hanke went along with it in that he was one of the 5-0 EB vote in
favor of it. I certainly wouldn't agree that he boosted it here (or
elsewhere as far as I know). Try googling this newsgroup with " Hanke
outsourcing "Chess Cafe" ".

Some examples.

Under "Two Board Positions Up for Grabs" Feb 23 2004, 10:00 pm:
"I am only one Board member out of five, and I was not prepared to make
strong objections to the process, however faulty, as long as the
outcome was favorable to USCF. I am not convinced the Chess Cafe
partnership will work as well as advertised, but neither is it clear to
me that any other arrangement would have been better for us. I did the
best I could during the selection process and now I'm hoping for the
best."

This could hardly be called boosting. Instead it appears to be warning
of potential problems. There were also many more later with even more
serious concerns. For example I remember many questions about the
budget - where Hanke felt the 'guaranteed' income shouldn't be
included.

If you want to look for boosting of the Chess Cafe deal, then you
should be looking at Bill Goichberg's posts here, his EB-run website
and his political mailings. You are making claims about the wrong
person.

- Tom Martinak

jamesrynd@aol.com

2005-09-26, 7:33 pm

The Sloan who makes us moan said:

quote:

>Your idea is silly

Why? Have you analyzed it in depth? USCF does not need to be a
publisher to reap these benefits, and I am sure it would be more than
the paltry $200 you get. As other, more intelligent posters have noted,
there is some value to the idea, although it may not pan out. I was
simply asking why we have not considered it.

USCF's retail sales operation is not coming back, so quoting $3.5 mil
is silly, especially when it is not profit. How much *profit* was the
retail sales operation making?

Sloan, you are stuck in the past. To be a successful enterpreneurial
operation these days requires considering all possible options, not
sticking your head in the mud.

Chess One

2005-09-26, 7:33 pm

"Tom Martinak" <martinak_tom_m@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127748347.106672.236500@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

quote:

>
> Tim Hanke went along with it in that he was one of the 5-0 EB vote in
> favor of it. I certainly wouldn't agree that he boosted it here (or
> elsewhere as far as I know). Try googling this newsgroup with " Hanke
> outsourcing "Chess Cafe" ".
>
> Some examples.
>
> Under "Two Board Positions Up for Grabs" Feb 23 2004, 10:00 pm:
> "I am only one Board member out of five, and I was not prepared to make
> strong objections to the process, however faulty, as long as the
> outcome was favorable to USCF. I am not convinced the Chess Cafe
> partnership will work as well as advertised, but neither is it clear to
> me that any other arrangement would have been better for us. I did the
> best I could during the selection process and now I'm hoping for the
> best."
>
> This could hardly be called boosting. Instead it appears to be warning
> of potential problems. There were also many more later with even more
> serious concerns. For example I remember many questions about the
> budget - where Hanke felt the 'guaranteed' income shouldn't be
> included.
>
> If you want to look for boosting of the Chess Cafe deal, then you
> should be looking at Bill Goichberg's posts here, his EB-run website
> and his political mailings. You are making claims about the wrong
> person.

Alright - I was still writing privately to Tim at that time, with a third
person here. I note your correction to my newsgroup comment! Phil

quote:

> - Tom Martinak
>

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-09-27, 2:33 am

TIM HANKE OPPOSED THE DEAL

<Alright - I was still writing privately to Tim at that time, with a
third
person here. I note your correction to my newsgroup comment!> Phil
Innes

Tom Martinak is right. Tim Hanke opposed the ChessCafe deal and argued
against it caustically. I know. We exchanged some sharp e-mails in
which I
DEFENDED the Cafe deal, though I was banned from the site.

I still think the deal might work out if there is the will on
this Board to be every whit as tough as Hanon Russell happens to be.
But that is another matter.

For the record, Hanke fought hard against the Cafe deal and ...
lost.

Hal Terrie

2005-09-27, 2:33 am

On 25 Sep 2005 19:33:57 -0700, "parrthenon@cs.com" <parrthenon@cs.com>
wrote:

[SNIP]

quote:

> According to my source, Bill Goichberg relayed
>an ultimatum from Mr. Russell to the EB with two
>demands:
>
> 1. The 13.5% commission rate be lowered;
>
> 2. He will only pay what he owes if the Federation EXTENDS HIS
>CONTROL OVER B & E UNTIL THE YEAR 2012.
>
> My source states that Mr. Russell's demands
>were defeated by the Board and that a compromise
>proposal passed. It was apparently rejected by Mr.
>Russell. I do not know the terms of this compromise.
>
>IS THE USCF BEING BLACKMAILED BY HANON RUSSELL?
>
> My source, who may be speaking on behalf of
>interested chess book and equipment dealers, believes
>it is "certain" that "the USCF is being blackmailed and
>faces losing the entire B&E business."

[SNIP]

At the U.S. Open, the Delegates were told that an attempt by
the USCF to demand immediate full payment would lead to Chess Cafe
declaring bankruptcy, after which everyone would lose - USCF would not
get any money and Chess Cafe would disappear. I would like to point
out that this might soon no longer be true.

I'm no expert on the subject but there have been many articles
in the press about the new bankruptcy law due to take effect on Oct.
17, 2005. These articles say that the new law will make it harder to
declare Chapter 7 bankruptcy, under which one can walk away from many
debts. Instead, most would have to file under Chapter 13, under which
a court sets up a repayment schedule based on the individual's current
income. Hanon Russell is supposedly still a successful attorney...

Maybe if the USCF just waits until Oct. 18 to demand payment,
they can be confident that they will be able to extract some blood
from this Connecticut stone. Then they can reclaim their inventory and
pass the B&E operation on to a different outsourcer.

-- Hal Terrie

Mike Murray

2005-09-27, 2:33 am

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 23:34:33 -0400, Hal Terrie
<halNOSPAMterrie@comcast.net> wrote:

quote:

> I'm no expert on the subject but there have been many articles
>in the press about the new bankruptcy law due to take effect on Oct.
>17, 2005. These articles say that the new law will make it harder to
>declare Chapter 7 bankruptcy, under which one can walk away from many
>debts. Instead, most would have to file under Chapter 13, under which
>a court sets up a repayment schedule based on the individual's current
>income. Hanon Russell is supposedly still a successful attorney...
>
> Maybe if the USCF just waits until Oct. 18 to demand payment,
>they can be confident that they will be able to extract some blood
>from this Connecticut stone. Then they can reclaim their inventory and
>pass the B&E operation on to a different outsourcer.

Are you saying that a successful attorney hasn't segregated his
personal and professional assets from the side business that he runs?
It seems to me that a Chess Cafe bankruptcy would be unlikely to
encumber Russell's personal fortune. I suppose the cobbler's children
analogy could be applicable, but...

Sam Sloan

2005-09-27, 2:33 am

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 23:34:33 -0400, Hal Terrie
<halNOSPAMterrie@comcast.net> wrote:

quote:

>On 25 Sep 2005 19:33:57 -0700, "parrthenon@cs.com" <parrthenon@cs.com>
>wrote:
>
>[SNIP]
>
>
>[SNIP]
>
> At the U.S. Open, the Delegates were told that an attempt by
>the USCF to demand immediate full payment would lead to Chess Cafe
>declaring bankruptcy, after which everyone would lose - USCF would not
>get any money and Chess Cafe would disappear. I would like to point
>out that this might soon no longer be true.
>
> I'm no expert on the subject but there have been many articles
>in the press about the new bankruptcy law due to take effect on Oct.
>17, 2005. These articles say that the new law will make it harder to
>declare Chapter 7 bankruptcy, under which one can walk away from many
>debts. Instead, most would have to file under Chapter 13, under which
>a court sets up a repayment schedule based on the individual's current
>income. Hanon Russell is supposedly still a successful attorney...
>
> Maybe if the USCF just waits until Oct. 18 to demand payment,
>they can be confident that they will be able to extract some blood
>from this Connecticut stone. Then they can reclaim their inventory and
>pass the B&E operation on to a different outsourcer.
>
>-- Hal Terrie

This would only apply if Hanon Russell personally guaranteed the
contract.

If only ChessCafe is a party to the contract, ChessCafe would simply
cease to exist and the USCF would get nothing or very little.

Does anybody know if the USCF's contract is with the Chess Cafe
corporation or with Hanon Russell personally?

Also, who owns Russell Enterprises that published all those chess
books so glowingly reviewed by Taylor Kingston?

Sam Sloan

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-09-27, 7:32 pm

THIS CONNECTICUT STONE

I have been told that a majority of the Executive Board will vote
to forgive a very large percentage of the current ChessCafe debt, which
is estimated to be $250,000. The amount to be forgiven depends on the
percentage of sales that ChessCafe must henceforth send to the USCF and
the length of time that the Cafe will be permitted to run the B &E
business.

I heard that both Robert Tanner and Greg Shahade joined Beatriz
Marinello to defeat or delay a proposal, the terms of which I still do
not.

There would appear to be a split in the Board on the Cafe issue
with Goichbergt, Schultz and Channing (apparently dissenting, though,
from renewing a deal on Hanon Russell's terms) lining up on one side
and Tanner, Shahade and Marinello on the other side.

Three separate versions have been mailed to me within the last 24
hours since my initial report!

We will be learning more as the days go by -- inevitably.

The great fear among all the Board members is that the Federation
ends up in Cross-to-Bear without a business to run -- a membership
organization that has lost the expertise to market products involved
with the game it promotes.

I find myself in the interesting position of supporting some kind
of deal with a site that bans me! Sam Sloan is right that $180,000 is
better than de nada. But my sense is that if one is going to deal with
a man whom Hal Terrie describes as "this Connecticut stone" you better
have granite in you, too.

If it is true that Hanon Russell is seeking a long-term contract
until 2012, he is basically seeking to take over the USCF's sales
business in perpetuity. Seven years from now -- after that amount of
time in Cross-to-Bear -- there will be no expertise left within the
organization not only to run a sales business but even to find others
to take it over.

Finally, I have been told that there have been a couple of
personal tiffs on the board, which I will only report if I can get
proper confirmation.

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-09-27, 7:32 pm

Mike Murray

2005-09-27, 7:32 pm

On 27 Sep 2005 05:20:26 -0700, "parrthenon@cs.com" <parrthenon@cs.com>
wrote:

quote:

> I have been told that a majority of the Executive Board will vote
>to forgive a very large percentage of the current ChessCafe debt, which
>is estimated to be $250,000. The amount to be forgiven depends on the
>percentage of sales that ChessCafe must henceforth send to the USCF and
>the length of time that the Cafe will be permitted to run the B &E
>business.

Deferring payment or some arrangement short of outright forgiveness,
might be prudent. We need all the leverage we can get.

quote:

> If it is true that Hanon Russell is seeking a long-term contract
>until 2012, he is basically seeking to take over the USCF's sales
>business in perpetuity. Seven years from now -- after that amount of
>time in Cross-to-Bear -- there will be no expertise left within the
>organization not only to run a sales business but even to find others
>to take it over.

Much of the existing expertise may relate to a business model that
today is only marginally viable. The USCF sold only new merchandise,
with in-house warehousing and order fulfillment. Is this relevant
anymore? Will it be relevant in a few years?

In the long run, things don't look all that rosy for Russell,
competing with Amazon, B&N etc., while giving a substantial rake-off
to USCF. He gets squeezed from two directions.

He's not competitive, pricewise, with Amazon on the classic,
mainstream titles, so he has to make his money on the more esoteric
and specialized, lower sales volume titles, the stuff that doesn't get
to Amazon... yet. But, as these products migrate to electronic media
for delivery, the publishers may decide they can do better without a
middleman at all -- the customer need only click to their site, pay,
and download (or trigger a single copy printing which some other
specialist produces and mails out).

Tom Klem

2005-09-27, 7:32 pm

So Mike,

Don't you wonder why Hanon did this deal in the first place, if as you say,
he gets squeezed from both directions? Shouldn't he have had the business
sense to understand that?

Now that he is failing, do you believe that Hanon Russell would be dumb
enough to 'blackmail' the USCF?

Not that I have any problem with Larry Parr's reportage, or his sources, I'm
just curious why you think Hanon would have gotten himself into this mess in
the first place? Was there some hidden advantage that we currently don't
know about, or was it pure altruism on Hanon's part?

Anybody?

--
Tom Klem

"The Vulcan Science Council has determined that Time Travel is impossible"
---Commander T'Pol
"Mike Murray" <mikemurray@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:g4mij1t2306bu9u1nmv1if0o72fohfeqka@4ax.com...

quote:

> On 27 Sep 2005 05:20:26 -0700, "parrthenon@cs.com" <parrthenon@cs.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Deferring payment or some arrangement short of outright forgiveness,
> might be prudent. We need all the leverage we can get.
>
>
> Much of the existing expertise may relate to a business model that
> today is only marginally viable. The USCF sold only new merchandise,
> with in-house warehousing and order fulfillment. Is this relevant
> anymore? Will it be relevant in a few years?
>
> In the long run, things don't look all that rosy for Russell,
> competing with Amazon, B&N etc., while giving a substantial rake-off
> to USCF. He gets squeezed from two directions.
>
> He's not competitive, pricewise, with Amazon on the classic,
> mainstream titles, so he has to make his money on the more esoteric
> and specialized, lower sales volume titles, the stuff that doesn't get
> to Amazon... yet. But, as these products migrate to electronic media
> for delivery, the publishers may decide they can do better without a
> middleman at all -- the customer need only click to their site, pay,
> and download (or trigger a single copy printing which some other
> specialist produces and mails out).
>

Mike Murray

2005-09-27, 7:32 pm

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 11:47:30 -0700, "Tom Klem"
<thewiz@nobibledebunkers.org> wrote:

quote:

>So Mike,

quote:

>Don't you wonder why Hanon did this deal in the first place, if as you say,
>he gets squeezed from both directions? Shouldn't he have had the business
>sense to understand that?

Well, a lot of smart people have fallen victim to unrealistic
expectations. And "unrealistic" is easier to see in retrospect. A
few years ago, many people were convinced that Amazon's business model
would fail. I've been surprised by how well their partnerships with
used booksellers is working.

quote:

>Now that he is failing, do you believe that Hanon Russell would be dumb
>enough to 'blackmail' the USCF?

My reading of the situation is that "blackmail" is too strong a term.
I think we have two businesses that are getting desperate, flailing
about to find a way to survive and, hopefully, prosper.

quote:

>Not that I have any problem with Larry Parr's reportage, or his sources, I'm
>just curious why you think Hanon would have gotten himself into this mess in
>the first place? Was there some hidden advantage that we currently don't
>know about, or was it pure altruism on Hanon's part?

If there's a hidden advantage, I suppose it will reveal itself in
time. Altruism, I doubt. But, the will to believe is pretty strong.
People who love the game and would like to make it their profession
often convince themselves that things will work out.

Louis Blair

2005-09-27, 7:32 pm

Larry Parr wrote (26 Sep 2005 17:48:47 -0700):

quote:

> ... For the record, Hanke fought hard against the Cafe
> deal and ... lost.

_
"I was hands-off on the ChessCafe" - Timothy Hanke
(Mon, 24 Jan 2005 13:27:25 -0500)
_
"Tim Hanke went along with [the current deal] in that
he was one of the 5-0 EB vote in favor of it." - Tom
Martinak (26 Sep 2005 08:25:47 -0700)

Chess One

2005-09-27, 7:32 pm

Hi Louis, I think Larry and I have been saying that we were writing with Tim
until he turned. Of course, if it ain't google-able, it never happened,
right. Cripes! Phil

"Louis Blair" <lblai@blackburn.edu> wrote in message
news:1127851146.719904.64170@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

quote:

> Larry Parr wrote (26 Sep 2005 17:48:47 -0700):
>
>
> _
> "I was hands-off on the ChessCafe" - Timothy Hanke
> (Mon, 24 Jan 2005 13:27:25 -0500)
> _
> "Tim Hanke went along with [the current deal] in that
> he was one of the 5-0 EB vote in favor of it." - Tom
> Martinak (26 Sep 2005 08:25:47 -0700)
>

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-09-27, 11:31 pm

WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE BOOKS

It is not necessarily the case that the Cafe has
lost any money whatsoever on this deal. We have no
access to the Cafe's books.

We are sure that if GM Larry Evans or someone
detested by the politicians were a quarter million
in default to the USCF that he would already have his
assets confiscated. Or have Pinkerton Detectives,
hired by the Federation, tailing him in order to confiscate
his cars and make off with his curtain rods when away from home.

That much is cosmically certain.

To my mind, Hanon Russell is a good businessman who has made the
Cafe successful in various ways over the years. If he ultimately
closes shop, he will have had a fine run and made money.

His big error in the first year was
not to hire the right people to do his print
advertising, which was very poorly done in my
estimation. It was dead on the page, and the sales
went dead with it.

If the market is now changing as Mike Murray
says, then it means that Mr. Russell (America's
Caissic Stalin) will either adapt or get out of
business. It does not mean he did a stupid thing
in signing the contract or that he failed to make money.

Mike Murray

2005-09-28, 2:31 am

On 27 Sep 2005 18:06:52 -0700, "parrthenon@cs.com" <parrthenon@cs.com>
wrote:

quote:

>WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE BOOKS

quote:

> It is not necessarily the case that the Cafe has
>lost any money whatsoever on this deal. We have no
>access to the Cafe's books.

Do you mean that the USCF lacks the right to audit the books, or just
that the books aren't public ?

quote:

> If the market is now changing as Mike Murray
>says, then it means that Mr. Russell (America's
>Caissic Stalin) will either adapt or get out of
>business. It does not mean he did a stupid thing
>in signing the contract or that he failed to make money.

Point taken. The clever entrepreneur will usually find a way to make
money, and knowing when to bail is as important as knowing when to
jump in.

My main argument was that the USCF's loss of in-house B&E expertise
may be less significant in the long run.

Mike Nolan

2005-09-28, 2:31 am

Mike Murray <mikemurray@despammed.com> writes:

quote:

>Do you mean that the USCF lacks the right to audit the books, or just
>that the books aren't public ?

They do have the right to audit the books. It's not clear what an audit
will discover, other than confirming that sales have been far less than
both parties expected.

quote:

>My main argument was that the USCF's loss of in-house B&E expertise
>may be less significant in the long run.

The USCF had had little 'in-house expertise' in B&E since Al Lawrence left.
--
Mike Nolan

Louis Blair

2005-09-28, 7:32 pm

Larry Parr wrote (26 Sep 2005 17:48:47 -0700):

quote:

> ... For the record, Hanke fought hard against the Cafe
> deal and ... lost.

_
"I was in an awkward spot, because I did not want to look
as if I had a selfish attachment to the bid I had personally
negotiated. Clearly the other Board members were being
swayed by Goichberg, and I did not want to insist that we
accept a bid Goichberg loudly and repeatedly insisted was
'terrible.'
_
So I withdrew myself from the process and we ended up
where we are today. I think it's safe to say the rest of the
EB is happy with the final choice we made. So who am
I to say they are all wrong and we should have done
something different? I am not that self-assured." - Tim
Hanke (Tue, 24 Feb 2004 23:56:24 GMT)
_
_
"Tim Hanke went along with [the current deal] in that
he was one of the 5-0 EB vote in favor of it." - Tom
Martinak (26 Sep 2005 08:25:47 -0700)

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-09-28, 11:31 pm

AWKWARD SPOT

quote:

>"I was in an awkward spot, because I did not want to look as if I had a selfish attachment to the bid I had personally negotiated. Clearly the other Board members were being swayed by Goichberg, and I did not want to insist that we accept a bid Goichberg

loudly and repeatedly insisted was 'terrible.'"> -- Tim Hanke

From what Louie Blair presents, it seems to me that Tim Hanke
opposed the ChessCafe deal but decided not to go to the mat, as they
say, in his opposition.

I am surprised that there is not more in the public record where
Tim lambasts the Cafe deal. I had though he posted here many times on
the subject. Perhaps I remember only our private exchanges in which he
said the deal was unrealistic and would lead to problems later on.

Tim was right on both scores, it would appear, though that does
not necessarily mean the deal cannot be redeemed.

jamesrynd@aol.com

2005-09-29, 2:31 am

>Perhaps I remember only our private exchanges in which he

quote:

>said the deal was unrealistic and would lead to problems later on.

Selective memory being your forte, I would agree that this is the most
plausible explanation.

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-09-29, 7:32 pm

DEBT TO BE RATCHETED DOWN

I have been told that the Executive Board will employ a device to
ratchet down the ChessCafe debt of about $250,000 so as to give an
impression of a smaller amount being forgiven than is actually the
case.

The 13.5% off the top that the Cafe was to pay will be lowered by
the USCF RETROACTIVELY. This form of forgiveness will impart the
misimpression that the Cafe owes less than it actually does.

I am told that Bill Goichberg and Don Schultz have disagreed over
the nature of a new deal which contradicts what I reported two days
ago. I mention it because a second source supported this claim. If
true, Schultz would appear to be the vote that prevented the Hanon
Russell-Goichberg version of a deal from being adopted
by the Board.

There is talk in the office and insiders that a long-term deal
between the USCF and Russell Enterprises will give Mr. Russell
effective control over Federation policies within a few years' time.

Slowly, the cohesion of silence is beginning to peel away just a
bit.

OPPOSITE OF SELECTIVE MEMORY

quote:

>Perhaps I remember only our private exchanges in which he [Tim Hanke] said the deal was unrealistic and would lead to problems later on.> -- Larry Parr

quote:

>Selective memory being your forte, I would agree that this is the most plausible explanation.> -- Rynd-Dowd

We have another example of Dowd-mind creaking when it tries to
work.

"Selective memory" is a phrase that means a propensity to recall
what one wishes to remember while forgetting what one wishes to forget.

The example adduced by Mr. Dowd-Rynd is nearly the opposite of
selective memory: it is an example of our likely remembering a private
exchange as a public one. Nothing was selected out; and yes, possibly
something was added.

We think the Dowd-Rind complex does not think -- at least not
very clearly.

jamesrynd@aol.com

2005-09-29, 7:32 pm

>We think the Dowd-Rind complex does not think -- at least not

quote:

>very clearly

Another royal "we'? Clarity of thought? - hey pot, this is the kettle.

quote:

>Perhaps I remember only

quote:

>Selective memory" is a phrase that means a propensity to recall
>what one wishes to remember while forgetting what one wishes to forget.

I don't see the dichotomy here, but then again, in Parr-land,
everything revolves around Larry's interpretation of the events, not
the events as they actually occurred.

Chess One

2005-09-29, 7:32 pm

<jamesrynd@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1127964805.235853.63460@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

quote:

>
> Selective memory being your forte, I would agree that this is the most
> plausible explanation.

I am also guilty of 'selective memory' which in my case means successfully
selecting a memory of what happened privately rather than publically: I
mentioned this private correspondence with Tim and 'another rgc*
participant', never identifiying Larry Parr, who volunteered that he was
t'other.

On the /public/ record Tim certainly reversed himself on several issues, the
most prominent was to entirely junk Chess Life as a print magazine and go
with an e-zine.

I think, James, you should conclude that we are both nuts, liars and even,
therefore, members of skull & crossbones. You could also conclude that we
are both over forte, and possibly will soon forget the names of the objects.

Cryptically, Pauvre Lélian *

*literary quiz: (1) who, and (2) what does it indicate?

jamesrynd@aol.com

2005-09-29, 7:32 pm

>I think, James, you should conclude that we are both nuts, liars and even,

quote:

>therefore, members of skull & crossbones. You could also conclude that we
>are both over forte, and possibly will soon forget the names of the object=

s=2E

quote:

> Cryptically, Pauvre L=E9lian *

Very nicely done, Phil, I must say, and not grudgingly at all.

The
proverbial tip of the hat to you.

Duncan Oxley

2005-09-29, 7:32 pm

<parrthenon@cs.com> wrote

quote:

> CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE OR PRUDENT STEWARDSHIP?
>

<SNIP>

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

A story is in the national news today about trends in book sales:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/29/b...html?oref=login

I also saw a blurb on CNN a few minutes ago but can't seem to find a link.

Duncan

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

Chess One

2005-09-29, 7:32 pm

<jamesrynd@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1128006070.981907.102610@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

quote:

>I think, James, you should conclude that we are both nuts, liars and even,
>therefore, members of skull & crossbones. You could also conclude that we
>are both over forte, and possibly will soon forget the names of the
>objects.

quote:

> Cryptically, Pauvre Lélian *

Very nicely done, Phil, I must say, and not grudgingly at all.

The
proverbial tip of the hat to you.

Come on - solve it! You need a clue, mon ami? [no one has ever got it,
including purported liteatti; that it is his own anagram of his own name,
and a rather terrible forecast of his future condition as An Authority]

Le petit oiseau va sortir, Pauvre Lélian

jamesrynd@aol.com

2005-09-29, 7:32 pm

Oh yes, I plan to try, a nice riddle always intrigues me. Just not much
time today to do so. But I will give it a shot and see if I can do
better than the "purported literatti!"

Mike Murray

2005-09-29, 7:32 pm

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:15:03 -0700, "Duncan Oxley" <no@thanks> wrote:

quote:

>A story is in the national news today about trends in book sales:
>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/29/b...html?oref=login

quote:

>I also saw a blurb on CNN a few minutes ago but can't seem to find a link.

quote:

>Duncan

And a similar article in the print edition of today's (9/29/2005) Wall
Street Journal. Somebody who subscribes to the online edition may be
able to cite a url.

Bruce Leverett

2005-09-29, 7:32 pm

Hal Terrie wrote:

quote:

> On 25 Sep 2005 19:33:57 -0700, "parrthenon@cs.com" <parrthenon@cs.com>
> wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
>
>
> [SNIP]
>
> At the U.S. Open, the Delegates were told that an attempt by
> the USCF to demand immediate full payment would lead to Chess Cafe
> declaring bankruptcy, after which everyone would lose - USCF would not
> get any money and Chess Cafe would disappear. I would like to point
> out that this might soon no longer be true.
>
> I'm no expert on the subject but there have been many articles
> in the press about the new bankruptcy law due to take effect on Oct.
> 17, 2005. These articles say that the new law will make it harder to
> declare Chapter 7 bankruptcy, under which one can walk away from many
> debts. Instead, most would have to file under Chapter 13, under which
> a court sets up a repayment schedule based on the individual's current
> income. Hanon Russell is supposedly still a successful attorney...
>
> Maybe if the USCF just waits until Oct. 18 to demand payment,
> they can be confident that they will be able to extract some blood
> from this Connecticut stone. Then they can reclaim their inventory and
> pass the B&E operation on to a different outsourcer.

What a misguided suggestion. Where to begin?

You're proposing bankruptcy liquidation, where the USCF gets its
inventory back. What would the USCF do with a warehouse full of books
and equipment? If the USCF got its inventory back, that would mean the
whole B&E outsourcing project was back to square zero -- a total
failure. They could, in principle, start over from square zero, but
minus a whole lot of good will and hope.

Is it really time to declare a total failure? In the first 1.5 years
of B&E outsourcing, I would assume that both USCF and ChessCafe have
made money. The USCF in particular has done much better than it had
been doing when B&E was in-house. How much do you think they want to
rock this boat?

You referred to "extract[ing] blood from [a] stone." At least you're
using the right metaphor. One should assume that, in the absence of
some monumental error or carelessness on the part of its founder,
ChessCafe has no assets worth going after, except the books and
equipment. You might get some office furniture. Retail businesses
aren't made of very thick stuff.

Meanwhile where exactly has ChessCafe let the USCF down? The problem
seems to be the "guaranteed minimum." This particular feature of the
agreement appears to have been complete bullshit. Why would an
otherwise honest businessman agree to complete bullshit? First,
because the prospective partner (USCF) insisted on it. I am under the
impression that bidders were compared on the basis of (among other
things) their guaranteed minimum. The successful bidder knew that if
he didn't state a high enough guaranteed minimum, he wouldn't get the
deal, and so he stated a high guaranteed minimum. The USCF insisted on
complete bullshit, and it got complete bullshit.

Second, because the USCF did not do its own reality check on the
"guaranteed minimum". At the time the deal was negotiated, the USCF
may well have had people on its staff with experience in estimating
sales of books and equipment. Those people might have looked at a
guaranteed minimum, evaluating the predictions on which it was based,
and given it a thumbs-up or thumbs-down. That evidently didn't happen.

So where do those long-past events leave us? The net effect of the
"guaranteed minimum" has been: that the USCF didn't get any more money
than it would have without; and that ChessCafe has a debt that is much
more than it can pay. Such is the price of bullshit. Who is most to
blame? I know not. Live and learn.

What about the commission rate that ChessCafe is paying and the
duration of the agreement? I would assume that, whenever the USCF and
its B&E vendor re-evaluate and re-negotiate their agreement, things
like the commission rate and the duration of the agreement would
naturally be up for discussion. Why should we call this "blackmail"?
Where does negotiation end and blackmail begin? The only real
constraint on the outcome of the negotiation is that both sides have to
make money on the deal. (But a reduction in the amount of bullshit
would also be desirable, I suppose.)

Bruce

Hans Poschmann

2005-09-29, 11:31 pm

I propose the following:
1) Let USCF lease space at their new building to an independent manager
for the purpose of B&E sales ar a reasonable rate.
2) The manager can employ as many people that he feels are needed to run
a profitable business.
3) The business pays for all costs including advertisement.
4) The business can use any USCF Data base including E-mail addresses.
5) For the privilege to use the USCF Logo, the business contributes a
small percentage of its profits.
6) As a start-up help USCF transfers any inventory in its possession to
that business ar cost minus 50% to be paid back after two years of
operation.

A similar deal could be arranged with Chess Life on a subscription basis.
Hans Poschmann

Bruce Leverett wrote:

quote:

> Hal Terrie wrote:
>
>
>
> What a misguided suggestion. Where to begin?
>
> You're proposing bankruptcy liquidation, where the USCF gets its
> inventory back. What would the USCF do with a warehouse full of books
> and equipment? If the USCF got its inventory back, that would mean the
> whole B&E outsourcing project was back to square zero -- a total
> failure. They could, in principle, start over from square zero, but
> minus a whole lot of good will and hope.
>
> Is it really time to declare a total failure? In the first 1.5 years
> of B&E outsourcing, I would assume that both USCF and ChessCafe have
> made money. The USCF in particular has done much better than it had
> been doing when B&E was in-house. How much do you think they want to
> rock this boat?
>
> You referred to "extract[ing] blood from [a] stone." At least you're
> using the right metaphor. One should assume that, in the absence of
> some monumental error or carelessness on the part of its founder,
> ChessCafe has no assets worth going after, except the books and
> equipment. You might get some office furniture. Retail businesses
> aren't made of very thick stuff.
>
> Meanwhile where exactly has ChessCafe let the USCF down? The problem
> seems to be the "guaranteed minimum." This particular feature of the
> agreement appears to have been complete bullshit. Why would an
> otherwise honest businessman agree to complete bullshit? First,
> because the prospective partner (USCF) insisted on it. I am under the
> impression that bidders were compared on the basis of (among other
> things) their guaranteed minimum. The successful bidder knew that if
> he didn't state a high enough guaranteed minimum, he wouldn't get the
> deal, and so he stated a high guaranteed minimum. The USCF insisted on
> complete bullshit, and it got complete bullshit.
>
> Second, because the USCF did not do its own reality check on the
> "guaranteed minimum". At the time the deal was negotiated, the USCF
> may well have had people on its staff with experience in estimating
> sales of books and equipment. Those people might have looked at a
> guaranteed minimum, evaluating the predictions on which it was based,
> and given it a thumbs-up or thumbs-down. That evidently didn't happen.
>
> So where do those long-past events leave us? The net effect of the
> "guaranteed minimum" has been: that the USCF didn't get any more money
> than it would have without; and that ChessCafe has a debt that is much
> more than it can pay. Such is the price of bullshit. Who is most to
> blame? I know not. Live and learn.
>
> What about the commission rate that ChessCafe is paying and the
> duration of the agreement? I would assume that, whenever the USCF and
> its B&E vendor re-evaluate and re-negotiate their agreement, things
> like the commission rate and the duration of the agreement would
> naturally be up for discussion. Why should we call this "blackmail"?
> Where does negotiation end and blackmail begin? The only real
> constraint on the outcome of the negotiation is that both sides have to
> make money on the deal. (But a reduction in the amount of bullshit
> would also be desirable, I suppose.)
>
> Bruce
>

Mike Murray

2005-09-29, 11:31 pm

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 00:10:19 GMT, Hans Poschmann
<poschmann@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

quote:

>I propose the following:
>1) Let USCF lease space at their new building to an independent manager
>for the purpose of B&E sales ar a reasonable rate.

AFAIK, the new building doesn't have space for a retail operation.

quote:

>2) The manager can employ as many people that he feels are needed to run
>a profitable business.
>3) The business pays for all costs including advertisement.
>4) The business can use any USCF Data base including E-mail addresses.
>5) For the privilege to use the USCF Logo, the business contributes a
>small percentage of its profits.
>6) As a start-up help USCF transfers any inventory in its possession to
>that business ar cost minus 50% to be paid back after two years of
>operation.

How are these conditions essentially different from what we set up
with Chess Cafe ?

quote:

>A similar deal could be arranged with Chess Life on a subscription basis.
>Hans Poschmann

Hans Poschmann

2005-09-29, 11:31 pm

Mike Murray wrote:

quote:

> On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 00:10:19 GMT, Hans Poschmann
> <poschmann@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> AFAIK, the new building doesn't have space for a retail operation.

Can there be space added? I can't tell what will be available.

quote:

>
>
>
>
> How are these conditions essentially different from what we set up
> with Chess Cafe ?

Chess Cafe doesn't seem to pay for advertising.
Hans Poschmann

jamesrynd@aol.com

2005-09-29, 11:31 pm

OK, I am ready, Phil - Paul Verlaine?

What is my prize? A chess book of my choosing?

Chess One

2005-09-29, 11:31 pm

<jamesrynd@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1128041952.534417.55600@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

quote:

> OK, I am ready, Phil - Paul Verlaine?
>
> What is my prize? A chess book of my choosing?

you only got half the prize. but it is yours. the other half you must award
yourself Stephen.

he said it about himself when he was hanging on rimbaud's coat-tails, and it
was a prediction about his future self, an authority on the anti-empire
writing of the past 3 centuries, about becoming an authority in its place,
poor Lélian!

he never took rimbaud's leap which few people understood - no one at the
time

henry miller did in the best work of his life - The Time of the Assassins -
to him the Earth was not a dead place.

this is not everything, but it is something, and only you will know what
prize

phil

Tom Klem

2005-09-29, 11:31 pm

Yeah, I know exactly what you mean here.

Wishing to save a few bucks on some technical geek, this or that, I ordered
a "used" book from Amazon a few years ago. It arrived in mint condition. The
tags from the Atlanta Library System were still smartly affixed to the book.

Caveat Emptor indeed.

Tom

"Duncan Oxley" <no@thanks> wrote in message
news:11jo4o9ih9dfrb9@corp.supernews.com...

quote:

>
> <parrthenon@cs.com> wrote
>
>
> <SNIP>
>
> -------------------------
>
> A story is in the national news today about trends in book sales:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/29/b...html?oref=login
>
> I also saw a blurb on CNN a few minutes ago but can't seem to find a link.
>
> Duncan
>
> --------------------------
>
>

jamesrynd@aol.com

2005-09-30, 2:32 am

Half a prize? An adaptation of what Verlaine himself wrote and was used
by the BBC to signal the French Resistance on D-Day seems appropriate
then:

Les sanglots longs
Des salauds avares
Du Vermont
Blessent mon coeur
D'une langueur
Monotone.

Half a prize seems consistent with the above....

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-09-30, 2:32 am

WHO IS TO BLAME?

<Meanwhile where exactly has ChessCafe let the USCF
down? The problem seems to be the "guaranteed minimum." This
particular feature of the agreement appears to have been complete
bullshit.
Why would an otherwise honest businessman agree to complete
bullshit? First, because the prospective partner (USCF) insisted on
it. I am under the impression that bidders were compared on the basis
of (among other things) their guaranteed minimum. The successful
bidder knew that if he didn't state a high enough guaranteed minimum,
he
wouldn't get the deal, and so he stated a high guaranteed minimum.
The USCF insisted on complete bullshit, and it got complete bullshit.>
-- Bruce

Bruce Leverett asks, "Who is most to blame? I know not."

You would never know that he knew not -- given
the weight of his advocacy, which is to place
virtually all of the blame on the USCF. The USCF
insisted on this thing called "complete bullshit," and
received it from businessman Hanon Russell, a.k.a.
the Connecticut stone.

Mr. Leverett's phrase "an otherwise honest
businessman" contains a neat bit of logic-chopping.
If Mr. Russell tendered "complete bullshit" in the
expectation of never being held to account, he is not
an honest businessman.

In this reading Mr. Russell becomes a political
crook who figured that he had enough friends in high
places to make money without having to tender any.
Mr. Leverett says he assumes ChessCafe has thus
far made money off the deal. Okay, at the very least
these profits should go to retire the debt to the
Federation. Otherwise, there was never a real
contract at all -- just a cosy sweetheart
understanding from the day the papers were signed.

AT THE VERY LEAST, ANY CHESSCAFE PROFITS MUST GO
TO PAY OFF THE DEBT TO THE FEDERATION.

The Russell idea is clear enough at this point:
once ChessCafe has a long-term contract, the
Federation dare never make policy that clashes with
the interests of Russell Enterprises.

If the Executive Board is looking after the
interests of the United States Chess Federation rather
than the intersets of Hanon Russell Enteprises, then
it should SERIOUSLY CONSIDER reclaiming the whole of
its inventory and a good amount of Mr. Russell's
inventory, plus the ChessCafe, in payment of the debt
owed it. The Federation could then move to a better vendor.

I don't necessarily advocate this course, but
any Board trothed to serve the interests of the U.S.
Chess Federation before those of Hanon Russell's
private desiderata must explain precisely why such a
huge debt cannot be collected. A failure to make such
an explanation can lead to only one conclusion: Board
members have decided to be palsy walsy with Mr. Russell at
the expense of their fiduciary responsibilities.

A FAILURE TO EXPLAIN AT LENGTH WHY ANY CHESSCAFE
PROFITS CANNOT BE COLLECTED, WHICH MAY NOT AMOUNT TO
THE ENTIRE DEBT, WOULD BE PROOF IN ITSELF THAT MR.
RUSSELL COMES FIRST IN THE HEARTS OF HIS FELLOW
INSIDERS.

We are cosmically certain that were GM Larry Evans in Mr.
Russell's shoes, the Board members would at this very moment be
voting to hire Pinkerton detectives to hunt down his assets, right
down to the wall fixtures on his curtains!

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-09-30, 7:32 pm

AUTHORS BANNED

<Now there is much more competition in the overall B&E chess market,
and the Cafe is probably the most expensive option, and after a couple
of Googles, much
cheaper books show up at other sites.> -- Phil Innes.

Right.

IIn previous threads the bias at ChessCafe was denied by NM Taylor
Kingston despite the fact that few titles, if any, are carried by GM
Larry Evans, GM Ray Keene, IM Eric Schiller or yours truly. I just
discovered a site that carries a complete line of chess merchandise at
deep discounts, and hasten to add that I have no connection to it in
any way. They state:

"Wholesale Chess carries a complete line of chess books from all the
majorand minor chess publishers. If there is something you want but
can't find,please let us know! We carry these titles IN STOCK - they
are notdropshipped to you via some 3rd party. We ship immediately!"

http://www.wholesalechess.com/store/chess_books

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-09-30, 7:32 pm

BOARD MEMBER BREAKS SILENCE

In a message dated 9/30/2005 6:00:41 AM Pacific Standard Time,
CHESSJOEL@AOL.COM writes:

Subj: [fide-chess] Re: ChessCafe blackmailing USCF?
Date:9/30/2005 6:00:41 AM Pacific Standard Time
From:CHESSJOEL@AOL.COM

Interesting experience. Being on the inside looking out. Things not
worked out yet. Full disclosure later. Joel Channing

Jürgen R.

2005-09-30, 7:32 pm

On 30 Sep 2005 06:07:05 -0700, "parrthenon@cs.com" <parrthenon@cs.com>
wrote:

quote:

>AUTHORS BANNED
>
><Now there is much more competition in the overall B&E chess market,
>and the Cafe is probably the most expensive option, and after a couple
>of Googles, much
>cheaper books show up at other sites.> -- Phil Innes.
>
>Right.
>
>IIn previous threads the bias at ChessCafe was denied by NM Taylor
>Kingston despite the fact that few titles, if any, are carried by GM
>Larry Evans, GM Ray Keene, IM Eric Schiller or yours truly.

You seem to think that 'bias' has sufficient negative connotation to
prevent the reader from noticing the nonsense you just wrote: Bias on
the part of a bookseller could also be due to discriminating taste.
And failing that, it could be due to slow turnover, which is likely to
be the problem with the immortal works of Larry Parr.

quote:

> I just
>discovered a site that carries a complete line of chess merchandise at
>deep discounts, and hasten to add that I have no connection to it in
>any way. They state:
>
>"Wholesale Chess carries a complete line of chess books from all the
>majorand minor chess publishers. If there is something you want but
>can't find,please let us know! We carry these titles IN STOCK - they
>are notdropshipped to you via some 3rd party. We ship immediately!"
>
>http://www.wholesalechess.com/store/chess_books

jamesrynd@aol.com

2005-09-30, 7:32 pm

>And failing that, it could be due to slow turnover, which is likely to

quote:

>be the problem with the immortal works of Larry Parr.

One might better call them, given the dumbed-down approach he takes to
writing chess books, the immoral works of Larry Parr.

But the truth has never been a problem for Larry, our 400 lb behemoth
Rush Limbaugh of chess. Just side-step it.

cynic

2005-09-30, 7:32 pm

*And failing that, it could be due to slow turnover, which is likely to
be the problem with the immortal works of Larry Parr.
One might better call them, given the dumbed-down approach he takes to
writing chess books, the immoral works of Larry Parr.* James Rynd

Is there no end to this nonsense?

Evans, Keene and Schiller are some of the best-selling authors in the
history of chess. There is no excuse for not carrying their books which
are still in print.

"The Bobby Fischer I Know and Other Stories" by Denker and Parr was
awarded book of the year and is a delightful read.

jamesrynd@aol.com

2005-09-30, 7:32 pm

>"The Bobby Fischer I Know and Other Stories" by Denker and Parr was

quote:

>awarded book of the year and is a delightful read.

When my son was 6, he also found "The Big Book of Fishes" a delightful
read. Hardly reason enough to recommend it to others.

Chess One

2005-09-30, 7:32 pm

<jamesrynd@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1128096750.493347.13550@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

quote:

> Well, I think many "best-selling" books are dumbed down.
>
> In fact, one could turn the argument on its ear and applaud Chess Cafe
> for not selling dumbed-down junk. That would be the easy way out.

The trouble is that if the public wants such 'dumbed-down' books then we
should suspect that it accords with their dumbed-down taste, and moreover,
the public is willing to pay.

quote:

> If you find such junk appealing, go ahead and read it. I save my chess
> money for books like Cheron and others, that may not be "best-selling"
> but actually contain information I can use. A year's subscription to
> Kassiber contains 10 times the information one finds in one dumbed-down
> Parr book, and I don't have to worry whether it is simply recycled
> nonsense.

And let us assume you get genuine worth for your subscribed money, since you
are able to absorb the content to your satisfaction. Whereas the active
chess market in the USA is composed of 60% of players with current
memberships under 1000 rated. Of these players the turnover is enormous,
another 60% per year. These folks flirt with chess, will not study deeply,
and will prefer books that take them a little deeper without tremendous
effort. Aren't most novels like this?

quote:

> But one thing I do find impressive Larry, is how you are *almost* able
> to adapt a more restrained writing style when you post as cynic. Having
> read student papers for 25 years and needing to recognize personal
> style to combat plagiarism has made me able to spot such deceptions a
> bit easier.
>
> When it comes to being bad, you are very good.

Orwell wrote of the good bad book, citing Kipling - an author with a massive
world-wide audience, in fact said to be the most famous person of his time;
more people knew of him than of any other person. His royalties would even
look okay converted to modern dollars.

The question about Chesscafe's censorship of these authors is not to do with
the popularity of their works, and therefore about income. It is based on
much as you have put it above. The public are not even allowed to choose
these works, and instead, in good old defeatist style, some other standard
is put in place.

I would have thought that eliminating these popular authors from public
sight is an activity inspired by Soviet-era 'erasing' of people. Fat lot of
good it did them, and the Soviet Union died of lack of air.

To finish with an Orwell quotation: The imagination does not breed in
captivity. And the [business] moral of the story is that you cannot lead a
demand market.

Phil Innes
Kiplings Town, Vt

Mike Murray

2005-09-30, 7:32 pm

On 30 Sep 2005 09:12:30 -0700, "jamesrynd@aol.com" <jamesrynd@aol.com>
wrote:

quote:

>Well, I think many "best-selling" books are dumbed down.

quote:

>In fact, one could turn the argument on its ear and applaud Chess Cafe
>for not selling dumbed-down junk. That would be the easy way out.

quote:

>If you find such junk appealing, go ahead and read it. I save my chess
>money for books like Cheron and others, that may not be "best-selling"
>but actually contain information I can use. A year's subscription to
>Kassiber contains 10 times the information one finds in one dumbed-down
>Parr book, and I don't have to worry whether it is simply recycled
>nonsense.

Aren't you conflating "useful" with "specialized" or "advanced"?
Potential customers might want some anecdotal material as a change of
pace.

At any rate, Cafe carries "Bobby Fischer's Outrageous Chess Moves" by
Pandolfini. The decision to stock that title and not reminiscences by
Denker seems hard to justify.

Duncan Oxley

2005-09-30, 7:32 pm

The full message shows the *context* of who and what
Mr. Channing was responding to. I'm not sure just how
useful that quote is just by itself. You could pretty much
attribute it to anything, eh? :-)

Here is the complete post:
---------------------------------------------------

----- Original Message -----
From: "joelchanning" <CHESSJOEL@AOL.COM>
To: <fide-chess@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 5:59 AM
Subject: [fide-chess] Re: ChessCafe blackmailing USCF?

quote:

> Interesting experience. Being on the inside looking out. Things not
> worked out yet. Full disclosure later. Joel Channing
>
>
>
> --- In fide-chess@yahoogroups.com, fidelis@t... wrote:
> vote to forgive a very large percentage of the current ChessCafe
> debt, which is estimated to be $250,000. The amount to be forgiven
> depends on the percentage of sales that ChessCafe must henceforth
> send to the USCF and the length of time that the Cafe will be
> permitted to run the B & E business.
> Beatriz Marinello to defeat or delay a proposal, the terms of which I
> did not have yesterday and still do not.
> issue with Goichbergt, Schultz and Channing (apparently dissenting,
> though, from renewing a deal on Hanon Russell's terms) lining up on
> one side and Tanner, Shahade and Marinello on the other side.
> last 24 hours since my initial report!
> Federation ends up in Cross-to-Bear without a business to run -- a
> membership organization that has lost the expertise to market
> products involved with the game it promotes.
> kind of deal with a site that bans me! Sam Sloan is right that
> $180,000 is better than de nada. But my sense of affairs is that if
> one is going to deal with a man whom Hal Terrie describes as "this
> Connecticut stone," you better have some granite in you, too.
> contract until 2012, he is basically seeking to take over the USCF's
> sales business in perpetuity. Seven years from now -- after that
> amount of time in Cross-to-Bear -- there will be no expertise left
> within the organization not only to run a sales business but even to
> find others to take it over.
> personal tiffs, which I will only report if I can get a confirmation.
> HIS
> Cafe
> point
> Oct.
> harder to
> many
> which
> blood
> simply
> -
> -
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wU...QLSAA/EsQolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fide-chess/
>
> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> fide-chess-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>

jamesrynd@aol.com

2005-09-30, 7:32 pm

Thoughtful, Phil, (although I still think you "welshed" me on my
prize), but is not selling a title "censorship"? Especially given that
many other opportunities to buy the work(s) in question is out there.

I can understand how people- primarily USCF members, who are
stakeholders in the money Chess Cafe is supposed to give us - might
take Chess Cafe to task for not carrying the titles, since it limits
the income of the "Fed" - and as you noted, they have a bill to pay for
the Olympiad team.

But it is a business decision. If your local bookstore doesn't carry a
book, and doesn't want to, is that "censorship"? I really don't see it
as such.

jamesrynd@aol.com

2005-09-30, 7:32 pm

>Aren't you conflating "useful" with "specialized" or "advanced"?

quote:

>Potential customers might want some anecdotal material as a change of
>pace.

Another good point, but what titles a business wants to carry would
seem to be the "business of that business." A good libertarian like
Larry should support Chess Cafe's decision not to stock certain titles,
if they don't want to. Even if they are his.

One of my colleagues came to me this year and said he was not going to
use my book as a required text in his class this year, as a "simplier,
easy-to-understand" text came out in competition to mine. He felt
compelled to apologize, although I told him he had no reason to. He
needs to choose the book he thinks best meets the needs of the
students, and I won't miss the $30 per year in royalties from that
decision but we both bemoaned the fact that my book had become "too
complex" for students who now seem to enter college with the frailest
of knowledge in science. At one time, it was regarded as the one that
explained things best in the simplest way!

But people should choose what they want. If they think it is wrong for
Chess Cafe not to carry that title, they can shop elsewhere. The
decision not to stock Parr/Denker may indeed be difficult to justify,
but it is Hannon Russell's business, not yours or mine. He doesn't need
to justify the decision. Of course, he does need to justify why he
cannot pay the 350 G or even better, simply pay it.

Mike Murray

2005-09-30, 7:32 pm

On 30 Sep 2005 11:42:05 -0700, "jamesrynd@aol.com" <jamesrynd@aol.com>
wrote:

quote:

[vbcol=seagreen]
>Another good point, but what titles a business wants to carry would
>seem to be the "business of that business." A good libertarian like
>Larry should support Chess Cafe's decision not to stock certain titles,
>if they don't want to. Even if they are his.

I'd agree totally if Chess Cafe were operating as a fully independent
business, as it did before linking up with the USCF.

But, now they're the Federation's official retail arm, and I'm
uncomfortable with them making decisions, based on factors other than
availability and sales volume, on what literature to stock. For one
thing, it cuts the commission to which we were contractually entitled
-- it's a rational expectation that they'd try to maximize sales. For
another, it's a form of censorship bearing the implied imprimatur of
the Federation.

Chess Cafe's web site retains the right of review for literature --
seems to me if they believe an item that sells well is unworthy for
reasons of content they should so state, but sell it anyway.

Louis Blair

2005-09-30, 7:32 pm

Larry Parr wrote (30 Sep 2005 06:07:05 -0700):

quote:

> IIn previous threads the bias at ChessCafe was
> denied by NM Taylor Kingston

_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
From: "Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com>
Date: 12 Sep 2005 09:12:52 -0700
Subject: Re: Misleading Book Titles.
_
parrthenon@cs.com wrote:

quote:

> Taylor Kingston assures us there is no bias at the Censored Cafe,

_
No, Larry, I said that reviewers at ChessCafe.com were left free to
judge books honestly, without interference. This was to contradict your

malodorous and completely baseless lie that ChessCafe reviews of Keene
and/or Schiller books had predestined verdicts.
Hanon Russell may well prefer not to carry their books on the
catalog. ...
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Chess One

2005-09-30, 7:32 pm

<jamesrynd@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1128105067.918101.70900@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

quote:

> Thoughtful, Phil, (although I still think you "welshed" me on my
> prize), but is not selling a title "censorship"?

Seek thy reward in Heaven, or in Rimbaud's case in Africa, where he trod
ground not visited [certainly not recorded] for 100 years, since Richard
Burton, but do not accelerate your presence there [in heaven], nor indeed
your marytrdom by saying 'welshed' in Wales boyo.

quote:

> Especially given that
> many other opportunities to buy the work(s) in question is out there.
>
> I can understand how people- primarily USCF members, who are
> stakeholders in the money Chess Cafe is supposed to give us - might
> take Chess Cafe to task for not carrying the titles, since it limits
> the income of the "Fed" - and as you noted, they have a bill to pay for
> the Olympiad team.
>
> But it is a business decision. If your local bookstore doesn't carry a
> book, and doesn't want to, is that "censorship"? I really don't see it
> as such.

It is technically a censorship, which only means to suppress
representation - and can be made on any basis - the wonder of Chesscafe is
that it does not seem to be have a commercial basis for its decision, if
other sites and book-sales are compared with it.

I am busy fundraising at the moment, and have written to chess-folks on
every continent today, including LA, but excluding S. A. If you have more
money than sense, combined with sufficient avarice, e-mail.

Phil

Ps: "blackmail", origin of term? & when?

jamesrynd@aol.com

2005-09-30, 7:32 pm

>Chess Cafe's web site retains the right of review for literature --

quote:

>seems to me if they believe an item that sells well is unworthy for
>reasons of content they should so state, but sell it anyway.

This seems perfectly reasonable on first sight, but I imagine they
would have to tred lightly, perhaps with sections "Highly Recommended,
"Recommended, and so on."

The trouble is, as Bill Smythe noted long ago, with the lack of
sunshine applied to dealings by the Board.

jamesrynd@aol.com

2005-09-30, 7:32 pm

>nor indeed your marytrdom by saying 'welshed' in Wales boyo.

Understood, mon capitain. But I still think I received precious little
(in fact nothing) for doing well on your quiz that supposedly stumped
the illerati. After all, you are a well-to-do guy, why can't you buy me
a chessbook (nothing by Parr, please) for doing well on the test? A
collection of Smyslov's studies would seem appropriate....

Mike Murray

2005-09-30, 11:31 pm

On 30 Sep 2005 16:20:26 -0700, "jamesrynd@aol.com" <jamesrynd@aol.com>
wrote:

quote:

[vbcol=seagreen]
>This seems perfectly reasonable on first sight, but I imagine they
>would have to tred lightly, perhaps with sections "Highly Recommended,
>"Recommended, and so on."

That's OK. The knowledgeable customer could extrapolate -- like when
your brokerage says "hold", it means "drop like a hot potato".

Actually, Chess Cafe reviews use a system of zero to five stars --
customers can add their own reviews, similar to the way Amazon does
it, on the sales segment of the website.

Chess One

2005-09-30, 11:31 pm

<jamesrynd@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1128122654.640955.196480@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

quote:

>
> Understood, mon capitain. But I still think I received precious little
> (in fact nothing) for doing well on your quiz that supposedly stumped
> the illerati.

Its true - even hairy great lit.crits. never get it - and you get public
praise! You get the benefit of solving it as its own reward! You achieve
insights based on this dire prediction that the 19 year-old kid must have
feared would be his fate if his avarice overcame his daring! You obtain the
thesis for a new book, cleverly transposing these clever frogs to
contemporay El A, Warshingsdone and Nu Yawk, as a sort of intellectual pair
of Crocodile Dundees.

"Blow your what? Yes, your mind Ma'am! Ma'am, your mind!"

Shouldn't be too difficult to serialise, and that's where the money is.
Latex is coming back.

quote:

> After all, you are a well-to-do guy,

I like to tell people I am independently poor

quote:

> why can't you buy me
> a chessbook (nothing by Parr, please) for doing well on the test? A
> collection of Smyslov's studies would seem appropriate....

I hate begging letters. These days the only beggars on the telephone are the
government - they are doing a survey and can you tell them everything they
want in about 40 minutes during dinner time? They have good reasons, and the
inference is that if you don't play along your neglect will make someone
suffer. Sod off! I tell them nicely in charming English English.

I already owe countless people round the world books and maple-products made
here in Vermont by real nuns. If its chess books you want the only ones I
could forward are the ones I gave bad reviews to since there will be plenty
more of those coming along to prop up desk leg - a better source would be
the fabulous horde that LP maintains in NY, which he sort of owns now, by
virtue of USCF having forgotten they ever owned them. O! Can this be an
indiscretion?

I suggest a soft-soap letter of approach not sparing the violins, along the
lines:

Dear Larry H. Parr,

A mutual acquaintance of some standing in the chess community has
mentioned... we seem to have a deep and mutual interest in the subject of...
properly crediting your contribution in the forthcoming Work, published by
Barker and Burkur just before Christmas... life-long aspiration to write
about... currently sadly reduced to aforementioned wheelchair, but a
blessing in disguise?... proper acknowledgements to the sage of the page,
advice welcomed on general thesis... following address can reach me before
Bermuda boat sales next Wednesday... have never eaten chocolate-coated
grasshoppers, but aspire to join you one day... and BTW, once passed the
salt to GM Evans and exchanged polite nod... "you old goat!" in parking lot,
but all ended well... well, not entirely well, but end it did... excuse
brevity of note, publisher on phone, they want more and more...

Cordially, Dr. Wodd.

Cordially, Phil
The Hippocampus, Vermont etc.

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-10-01, 2:31 am

THUS SPAKE DR. DOWD

quote:

>But one thing I do find impressive Larry, is how you are *almost* able to adapt a more restrained writing style when you post as cynic. Having read student papers for 25 years and needing to recognize personal style to combat plagiarism has made me able

to spot such deceptions a bit easier...When it comes to being bad, you are very good.> -- Rynd-Dowd

Here's betting that Rynd-Dowd won't put his money where his mouth
is. I'll offer him the same lie detector wager that Neil Brennen and
Taylor Kingston rejected.

I have never posted under any screen name other than Parrthenon
and Fidelis.

We each agree on a master; we each agree on a police polygraph
tester, we each agree to put $10,000 in escrow; and I take a polygraph
test. If I emerge as any bogus name that he cares to pick, I get his
dough and keep mine. Vice-versa if I lose. I do not know the identity
of Cynic. I will assert that my identity here is known and that I am
none of the pseudonyms he accuses me of. I already know who