|
Home > Archive > Chess forum > August 2006 > New Election Statistics from Mike Nolan
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
New Election Statistics from Mike Nolan
|
|
| Sam Sloan 2006-08-03, 2:52 am |
| nolan New postPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 3:39 pm
I've got what I think are the final state-by-state totals.
Sloan received 73 votes in New Jersey, Goodall received 55.
Sloan received 99 votes in New York, Goodall received 70.
Sloan received 61 votes in Pennsylvania, Goodall received 45.
That means Sloan received 233 votes from the tri-state area to
Goodall's 170. He won by 80 votes, so his margin of victory in those
three states did not swing the election.
Conversely, Goodall received 131 votes in Northern California to
Sloan's 50. Southern California was much closer, Goodall received 94
votes, Sloan received 87. (Hough received 267 votes in Southern
California and 89 in Northern California.)
Sloan finished 1st in these states: Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware,
Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New
Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Texas and Utah.
| |
| Vlad Polock 2006-08-03, 2:52 am |
| Sam Sloan" <> Sloan finished 1st in these states: Colorado, Connecticut,
Delaware,
quote:
> Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New
Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Texas and Utah.>>
You are so GAY.
| |
| Matt Nemmers 2006-08-03, 2:52 am |
| Sam Sloan wrote:
quote:
> nolan New postPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 3:39 pm
>
> I've got what I think are the final state-by-state totals.
>
> Sloan received 73 votes in New Jersey, Goodall received 55.
>
> Sloan received 99 votes in New York, Goodall received 70.
>
> Sloan received 61 votes in Pennsylvania, Goodall received 45.
>
> That means Sloan received 233 votes from the tri-state area to
> Goodall's 170. He won by 80 votes, so his margin of victory in those
> three states did not swing the election.
>
> Conversely, Goodall received 131 votes in Northern California to
> Sloan's 50. Southern California was much closer, Goodall received 94
> votes, Sloan received 87. (Hough received 267 votes in Southern
> California and 89 in Northern California.)
>
> Sloan finished 1st in these states: Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware,
> Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New
> Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Texas and Utah.
You won. It's an unfortunate fact for almost all who know you, but
it's a fact nonetheless. Nobody cares about the point spread except
you. Being a nobody yourself though, it seems fitting.
The shame for this particular BB, however, isn't so much that the USCF
has to deal with Sloan on the EB for a year as much as the fact that
we're going to see all kinds of ridiculous numbers and dead-horse
statistics puked onto RGCP by Sloan for years to come as he slowly
tries to figure out how and why in the world he was elected in the
first place.
Much like the 10-year old Class E player who memorizes and memorializes
the game in which he managed a draw against a 1600 in the club
championships after his opponent blundered a piece, Sloan will be
hashing and re-hashing these election results forever and ever, amen.
I have no doubt that readers of alt.politics.ny.libertarian and
alt.soc.malaysian.culture and rec.games.go and alt.language.swahilli,
etc., will be plagued with all meaningless intricacies of this years
USCF EB election due to Sloan's penchant for rude cross-posting, as if
anyone besides him gave two shits.
Get used to it, people. You know how he do.
| |
| Vlad Polock 2006-08-03, 2:52 am |
| "Matt Nemmers" <Being a nobody yourself though, it seems fitting.
quote:
>
From a has-been to a nobody, your tirade against Sloan seems fitting. It is
as if he was picking up the gauntlet.
| |
| Enrico B. A. 2006-08-03, 2:52 am |
| I'm not into USCF politics... but I think Sam Sloan is the last thing
the USCF needed... I just hope he won't destroy everything.
| |
| jamesrynd@aol.com 2006-08-03, 2:52 am |
|
Enrico B. A. wrote:
quote:
> I'm not into USCF politics... but I think Sam Sloan is the last thing
> the USCF needed... I just hope he won't destroy everything.
The kind of overt destruction Sloan causes is rather easy to spot, and
hard but not impossible to eradicate... On the other hand, current
board members are much more covert in their destruction of the USCF....
Sam's tenure will be disasterous (not just because of him, but because
the politicos won't even try to work with him); I hope it shakes up the
membership enough to get them actively involved the next time.
What is really sickening is Polgar's attempts on her blog to invalidate
the election, etc. He won, fair and square. As much as I don't like the
idea, I also don't like it when I am to be checkmated, but, as Lasker
noted (not Evans) this contradicts the hypocrite.
Any respect I had for her as a person is out the window; subventing the
democratic process is not exactly something we should encourage. But of
course, her followers, the "entitlement mommies," are all now horrified
that Sam might show up at a tournament where their daughter plays.
And??
By trying to make Sam look bad (he needs no help), she makes herself
look like a spoiled cryer over split milk. Or worse yet, a hypocrite.
| |
| Enrico B. A. 2006-08-03, 2:52 am |
| I agree that Mrs. Polgar should not cry as she is doing. Sam Sloan won
the elections and he has to be a board member. She should oppose his
crazy ideas using her name and the class she has shown in chess. She
would have more followers than now.
I agree with you also that the USCF board wasn't that good in the past
years. I came from Italy 3 yrs ago and I was a former (unrated) member
of the FSI (Federazione Scacchistica Italiana, Italian Chess
Federation). When I came here (TX) I thought I would have found much
more chess involment and a much stronger USCF, much more than the FSI
is in Italy, but I was wrong. The FSI is more coordinated on the field
and they are able to get more "advertising" and more news than the
USCF, they even held the Olympics this year which is surprising for a
small federation like the Italian... I think one of the real problems
in the USCF is that there is a HUGE gap between strong (national)
players and club players. I simply hope the USCF doesn't need a new
Bobby Fischer to get more people involved. Surprisingly Sloan makes a
lot of (stupid) fuzz and that's one of the main reason on why he was
elected: sadly rumors, chaos, fuzz and weird behavior is actractive for
a lot of people. We saw that w/ Fischer.
ciao,
Enrico
jamesrynd@aol.com wrote:
quote:
> Enrico B. A. wrote:
>
> The kind of overt destruction Sloan causes is rather easy to spot, and
> hard but not impossible to eradicate... On the other hand, current
> board members are much more covert in their destruction of the USCF....
>
> Sam's tenure will be disasterous (not just because of him, but because
> the politicos won't even try to work with him); I hope it shakes up the
> membership enough to get them actively involved the next time.
>
> What is really sickening is Polgar's attempts on her blog to invalidate
> the election, etc. He won, fair and square. As much as I don't like the
> idea, I also don't like it when I am to be checkmated, but, as Lasker
> noted (not Evans) this contradicts the hypocrite.
>
> Any respect I had for her as a person is out the window; subventing the
> democratic process is not exactly something we should encourage. But of
> course, her followers, the "entitlement mommies," are all now horrified
> that Sam might show up at a tournament where their daughter plays.
> And??
>
> By trying to make Sam look bad (he needs no help), she makes herself
> look like a spoiled cryer over split milk. Or worse yet, a hypocrite.
| |
|
| Uzytkownik "Enrico B. A." <muaddib@digibank.it> napisal w wiadomosci
news:1154453494.247880.92030@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> I'm not into USCF politics... but I think Sam Sloan is the last thing
> the USCF needed... I just hope he won't destroy everything.
>
What is left so attractive for destruction in the USCF ?
Do members have any big profits for being USCF members or you just write it
because you don`t like Sam`s style ?
| |
| jamesrynd@aol.com 2006-08-03, 2:52 am |
|
Enrico B. A. wrote:
quote:
> I agree with you also that the USCF board wasn't that good in the past
> years. I came from Italy 3 yrs ago and I was a former (unrated) member
> of the FSI (Federazione Scacchistica Italiana, Italian Chess
> Federation). When I came here (TX) I thought I would have found much
> more chess involment and a much stronger USCF, much more than the FSI
> is in Italy, but I was wrong. The FSI is more coordinated on the field
> and they are able to get more "advertising" and more news than the
Yes, a quick read of L'Italia Scacchistica's June issue shows all this
to be true (I get free copies when I publish a problem in a magazine).
All kinds of sponsorship, and nothing against Dan Lucas, who seems to
be doing the best he can, but take L'Italia and CL for the same month
and compare them.
Of course, no one will do this here because as insular Americans, they
have no idea how good chess journalism is in the rest of the world.
| |
| jamesrynd@aol.com 2006-08-03, 2:52 am |
|
Jerzy wrote:
quote:
> Do members have any big profits for being USCF members or you just write it
> because you don`t like Sam`s style ?
I doubt many who know him like Sam's style. The simple fact: the USCF
is in trouble. 20 years ago, Sloan might have been a useful gadfly. Now
he is a shell of his former self, and it is increasingly obvious that
his perception of reality will not lead to any positive change.
Actually, my hope is that Sammy will restore GM Evans' column and be
invited to be a co-author. That would place the column squarely in the
surreal, and would probably be at least interesting. Then we can return
to analytical issues, especially on the Damiano, Grob, and other crap
openings.
| |
| RSHaas@aol.com 2006-08-03, 2:52 am |
| Contrary to widespread expectations, I think Sam Sloan will be a fairly
good EB member this coming year,... good enough to get elected to a
three year term on the next go.
Old Haasie <who always likes the theory of contrary opinion>
| |
| Mike Nolan 2006-08-03, 2:52 am |
| "RSHaas@aol.com" <RSHaas@aol.com> writes:
quote:
>Contrary to widespread expectations, I think Sam Sloan will be a fairly
>good EB member this coming year,... good enough to get elected to a
>three year term on the next go.
Not likely, since there are no three year terms. A full term is four years.
--
Mike Nolan
| |
| Ray Gordon 2006-08-03, 2:52 am |
| > Much like the 10-year old Class E player who memorizes and memorializes
quote:
> the game in which he managed a draw against a 1600 in the club
> championships after his opponent blundered a piece,
But it was a great game!
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-08-03, 2:52 am |
| ___"Sloan does all he can by denying the charges."
___- artichoke (Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:58 pm)
What exactly has Sam Sloan denied?
___"Any suggestion that I behaved inappropriately with
___any of the Polgar women is slander." - Sam Sloan
___(Fri Jul 28, 2006 9:29 pm)
What do we know about Sam Sloan's opinion of what is
and what is not "appropriate"? Has Sam Sloan (here)
denied posting the note about the age of consent in
Hungary being 14?
___"Sloan never listed Polgar as a 'notch in his belt'."
___- artichoke (Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:58 pm)
Does Sam Sloan have a history of counting unsuccessful
"solicitation" as a "notch in his belt"?
___"I believe Sloan." - artichoke (Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:58 pm)
Does artichoke believe that "two names [of opponents
of Sophia Polgar in Rome 1989] have never been provided"?
Does artichoke believe "that if she wants to apply to FIDE
for a GM norm she will have to provide the names of the
other two players plus the scores of the other six games"?
(Sam Sloan, Sun Jul 30, 2006 4:56 pm)
| |
| Enrico B. A. 2006-08-03, 2:52 am |
| > Yes, a quick read of L'Italia Scacchistica's June issue shows all this
quote:
> to be true (I get free copies when I publish a problem in a magazine).
> All kinds of sponsorship, and nothing against Dan Lucas, who seems to
> be doing the best he can, but take L'Italia and CL for the same month
> and compare them.
> Of course, no one will do this here because as insular Americans, they
> have no idea how good chess journalism is in the rest of the world.
Yep, "L'Italia Scacchistica" is a great magazine (or at least it was 4
yrs. ago). That's probably why it's still there after almost 100 years
in a small chess country like Italy.
It's simple, almost all in black and white, you can fit it in a pocket
and the chess articles are simply amazing : the games are analyzed in
depth (as opposite of CL), the theories are well explained and there is
less "Oh this guy is good, he's the King of chess" stuff.
CL can be read in a train, on an airplane or in 5-min. reading
sessions, it doesn't give me (unrated!) that much, and I think it give
less to the experienced tournament player.
Since the news nowdays can be found easly on the internet IMO CL should
give up a good portion of non-technical articles (all those pages on
"Girls in chess" ? come on. I mean, it's interesting but not on a small
CL issue!!!! I want games and deep analysis!!!!) and put them in the
internet (maybe dedicating 1 page to headlines, 1 or 2 pages of
non-technical issues and all the rest in less columns but more in
depth). They should understand that the chess-fan (not serious player)
is not interested in "who won that tournament and what is his life",
while the serious tournament player already know the very same news
from the internet. CL should be, like L'Italia Scacchistica, more a
book-magazine that has to stay near a chess board and less a
Glamour-like magazine that you can read in the bathroom... or the USCF
should start a new magazine, even bi-monthly but with GREAT GREAT GREAT
explanations on games and theories.
|
| |
|
|