quote:

---

> You may be interested to know that the Ethics
>Committee ruled 6-3 in favor of Sam Sloan's
>complaint against Robert Tanner, namely that he made
>up tournaments in order to inflate his rating over
>2200. It is certain that Sammie knows this, and
>likely that Parr knows this, but there has not been
>a bleep (as far as I know) on the Internet about
>this. Contrast this to the way your case was
>er.... communicated. Tanner, when told of the vote,
>apparently shrugged it off. Donnie has gotten Sammie
>to low key it, and it might all blow over. This is
>about putting the fix in, not to go from class B to
>C, and play in the World Open, which we all know
>happens, but about crossing the critical line
>between expert and master. Isn't that Taboo?
>Shouldn't people care? I guess we earned ours the
>old fashioned way.

quote:

---

> SLOAN'S COMPLAINT VS. TANNER UPHELD
>
> The following note came to me today. For the
> record, I knew NOTHING about the Tanner ruling, but
> you have to say that since he is one of our guys in
> FIDE, this new information is hardly surprising.
>
> If the message is accurate, we now have a
> verifiable cheat on the Executive Board who is also a
> member of our FIDE "team."
>
> We are told in the note below that Mr. Tanner
> has simply "shrugged it off," in the great tradition
> of Jim Fisk who said famously when caught in a scam,
> "Nothing is lost save honor."
>
> Will the board now police itself? Will, say, Joel
> Channing tell us that he disapproves having a cheat on
> the the board? Will Bill Goichberg request a resignation?
> Will Sam break silence, if the report is true?
>
> Methinks the official reaction will be: Keep
> Mr. Tanner on the FIDE "team" because the loss of
> honor is meaningless to this group of chess politicos.

quote:

---

>
> parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
>
>
> How is it that LP has reversed course, now slamming
> Sam Sloan when before the man was seen as a useful
> tool by the Evans ratpack? Weird.

quote:

---

> You may be interested to know that the Ethics
>Committee ruled 6-3 in favor of Sam Sloan's
>complaint against Robert Tanner, namely that he made
>up tournaments in order to inflate his rating over
>2200.

quote:

---

> -- confused bot
>

quote:

---

> An interesting item, if true. I add "if true" because the item in
> question is an anonymous note presented to us by one of the
> bottom-feeders in chess 'journalism.'
>

quote:

---

> "The Historian" <Spamscone@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>
> Neil, sadly it just *may* be true. Have a look at was posted today
> by Hal Bogner. I took a cursory look and have not been able
> to connect the dots quite so easily. I'll have to look a little closer
> later tonight but Bogner seems to be convinced. I'm curious, does
> anyone else see a smoking gun here?
>
> --Duncan
>
> ------
> hmb 10062225
> Joined: 29 Jun 2006
> Posts: 5
> Location: Half Moon Bay, California
>
> Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:45 am
> Post subject: Status of Complaint(s)
> ------
> tanstaafl wrote:
> Given how little factual basis there has been when
> Mr. Sloan has gone on the record with a charge of
> wrong-doing, I wonder what kind of basis we
> should assume when he *declines* to make a
> specific charge!
>
> My guess is that nobody would take him
> seriously anyway.
> ------
>
> Well, Tan, in this case, I suggest that you ignore
> the back-and-forths of these present and past
> board members, and look instead at what appears to
> me to be some shocking public data from the Member
> Services Area (MSA).
>
> I happened to look, and there appears to be a series
> of contrived tournaments involving an apparently
> closed group of players (who may also be contrived),
> which resulted in steady gains of rating from the
> 2159 to 2319 by Robert Tanner, during the period
> February 1992 through January 1993 (plus one cameo
> appearance in 1997). There is nothing confidential
> about this data, and it's fully documented as to
> dates, places, affiliates, TDs, etc. Here are some of
> the relevant URLs; I suggest that you view this while
> sitting down, and have smelling salts at hand:
>
> Robert Tanner's rating history can be found in the
> MSA at:
> http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?10495334
>
> The most intriguing of the apparently made-up players,
> and his tournament history, is here:
>
> 12570599: MILAN DJIATLICH
> http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?12570599
>
> Robert Tanner's 12-month ascent from 2153 to 2319 starts
> in section 2 of this event, the aptly named
> "IT'S A GAMBLE":
>
> http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain...123240-12570599
>
> ...and culminates in this event, "INT'L FAREWELL OF FRIENDS":
> http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain...114260-10495334
>
> If anyone is interested and has the time, clicking around
> through the rating histories and events of this closed
> circle of players is somewhere between fascinating and
> horrifying.
>
> Unless there is some evidence to refute what appears to
> be prima facie evidence here of rating manipulation,
> I can only conclude with great disappointment that this
> man who many of us know and respect went horribly
> wrong for a time, and has hidden and had built upon
> this foundation ever since.
>
> Today, we find him as the trusted Executive Board member who
> served as liason to Erik Anderson and AF4C as the current US
> Championship plans were constructed; who represents USCF in
> FIDE (now as Zonal President, and incredibly, as a member of
> FIDE's Ethics Commission, too - see
> http://www.fide.com/official/officials.asp?f=31)
> ; as well as a Board member and formerly a member of the
> Scholastic Council, and who is noth an NTD and an
> International Arbiter.
>
> All politics aside, the degree of violation of trust that
> has occurred here is unprecedented. I'm a life master and
> an IA, and I'm seriously offended. I suspect that the
> Scholastic Council, the TDCC, many Masters, and those
> members of the FIDE Ethics Commission who deserve respect,
> will be, too - along with many other chess players.
>
> We've all no doubt made mistakes in our lives (certainly
> I have), but abusing official powers and privileges is
> something that must be dealt with harshly, for the good
> of the organization and the game.
>
> I'm sorry to have to break this data here, but what can
> one say? I've known, liked, trusted and respected Robert,
> as many of us have. My heart sank as I worked my way
> through the crosstables and rating histories, and I'm
> quite saddened now.
>
> PS - I don't know if there are other people who did
> things like this back in the 1990s, before the excellent
> efforts of people like Mike Nolan and Gary Prince brought
> all this data to us via the web, but this would be a
> good time for anyone else in a position of trust to
> 'fess up, too. (And no, I don't see any serious issue
> regarding Mr. Bauer's 5-point rating gain that Mr. Sloan
> refers to, no matter how much anyone wants to raise dust
> about it. Mr. Bauer's MSA history clearly demonstrates that
> his rating reflects steady performance at and near the
> 2300 level.)
> _________________
> Hal Bogner
> hal@chessmagnet.com
> http://www.ChessMagnetSchool.com

quote:

---

> Surely you can't stonewall an ethics decision, or why have an ethics
> committee if there are no consequences?

quote:

---

> Here is another castle built in the dark with very uncertain foundations. Is
> this news item still blacked-out by USCF? You really can't fix the dark side
> of things unless you let some light in, so it will now be interesting to see
> the board's reaction, or if they will try to fix it in the dark - or even
> just ignore it!
>
> Phil Innes

quote:

---

> "The Historian" <Spamscone@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>
> Neil, sadly it just *may* be true. Have a look at was posted today
> by Hal Bogner. I took a cursory look and have not been able
> to connect the dots quite so easily. I'll have to look a little closer
> later tonight but Bogner seems to be convinced. I'm curious, does
> anyone else see a smoking gun here?
>
> --Duncan