| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
server
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2003 10:26 pm Post subject: How to slow young chess players down ?! |
 |
|
| message unavailable |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Alessandro J.
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 12:55 pm Post subject: Re: Extra Ordinary game by Peter. |
|
|
On 18 Lug, 03:03, help bot <nomorech...@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | If you had paid attention, you would know
that this problem afflicted several users, but
after being corrected, one and only one
continued to report problems.
|
That user continued to have problems, and has since come to the
conclusion that its' system has some problem with java.
| Quote: | Thus far, only Mr. Allesandro has admitted
to having any significant difficulties with the
program, and I find it odd that he also
claims (at the same time) to be rated 2000
FIDE. Compare and contrast to those who
are using other chess engines to win, but
who play under pseudonyms to protect
their identity (in case of an embarrassing
loss).
|
OK, I'll level with you.
My peak was 1980, at the moment I'm stuck on the lowly 1962. I'm
hoping that by the end of the summer I will have at least once
improved, if not twice, and finally bridged the gap to 2000, and get
the Italian equivalent of the expert title. I should work on my
openings to get there, but I can't be asked ...
First : It could be argued that this particular rating was obtained
under tournament conditions , and not by flicking pieces about on a
screen in between reading the sports pages and messing around with my
mp3 library. My playchess blitz rating is " only " 1700 - 1800,
suggesting that a lot more than playing ability goes into one's final
rating.
Second : some of my problems must surely be derived from the fact
that against the Dutch my lifetime score is absolutely dreadful, I
think it's in the region of 1/2 out of 4, I really can't come to terms
with that wretched opening, and by chance is GC's defence of choice to
1. d4
Third : a bug in GC resulted it in screwing up the game in a level
position in our third game ( the first two I won quite easily ), I am
fairly confident I would have had the better of the program in the
endgame, though that might well be empty boasting.
Fourth : It is recognized that FIDE ratings, especially those under
2000, are considerably inflated compared to national gradings, and
infact some organizers have revised the old FIDE = USCF - 100 to FIDE
= USCF.
All of this to say that compared to other software GC has a lot to
work on, but I'm sure it can give anyone to class " C " a fair game,
infact, some of the moves it makes are downright interesting for a
software to make as, while not blatant blunders, still give a very
reasonable impression of an improver, something the commercial
software out there are still trying to emulate, albeit unsuccesfully. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
samsloan
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 1:22 pm Post subject: Re: Polgar the Homelessness Expert and Myth Maker |
|
|
On Jul 18, 7:49 am, Rob <robmt...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Jerry,
My entire post was sarcasm. :-)
But , to a point... if we look at who "no one" 'is'( the vast chess
playing public and non political USCF members) then outside of
possibly 30 people, no one in the US has an interest in who the FSS is
or how much money the USCF looses. And I would think that saying 30
people had an interest was a liberal stretch.
|
Rob ("The Robber") Mitchell is not a member of the USCF. He only
became a USCF member once and that was to apply for a job. When he was
turned down for jobs with the USCF, he let his membership expire.
His interest now is that the USCF loses a lot of money and goes out of
business so that he can start a new organization.
He got the moniker "The Robber" by trying to swindle Ed Trice. Imagine
that! A swindler swindling a swindler. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rob
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 1:32 pm Post subject: Re: Polgar the Homelessness Expert and Myth Maker |
|
|
On Jul 18, 8:22 am, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Jul 18, 7:49 am, Rob <robmt...@gmail.com> wrote:
Jerry,
My entire post was sarcasm. :-)
But , to a point... if we look at who "no one" 'is'( the vast chess
playing public and non political USCF members) then outside of
possibly 30 people, no one in the US has an interest in who the FSS is
or how much money the USCF looses. And I would think that saying 30
people had an interest was a liberal stretch.
|
| Quote: | Rob ("The Robber") Mitchell is not a member of the USCF. He only
became a USCF member once and that was to apply for a job. When he was
turned down for jobs with the USCF, he let his membership expire.
|
My membership expired after my kids decided they didn't want to be
members anymore and didn't enjoy the atmosphere. I'm sure not going to
renew my family membership if no one wants to take part. That would be
stupid.
| Quote: | His interest now is that the USCF loses a lot of money and goes out of
business so that he can start a new organization.
|
There is NO money in chess, Sam. Anyone wanting to start a new
organization would have to do it as a hobby. I don't need another
hobby.
| Quote: | He got the moniker "The Robber" From Sam Sloan as a personal attack.
|
Personal attacks based upon half-truths and ou tright lies. Very
predictible. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
samsloan
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:23 pm Post subject: Re: Polgar the Homelessness Expert and Myth Maker |
|
|
On Jul 18, 1:33 pm, Jürgen R. <jurg...@web.de> wrote:
| Quote: | While Sloan is a swindler reporting that a swindler swindled a swindler
|
Jürgen R., do you have such a shallow life that you have nothing to
do with your time but fill up the newsgroups with attacks on Sam Sloan
all the time?
Can't you go out and chase girls or little boys or something. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Chess One
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:37 pm Post subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum |
|
|
"Mike Murray" <mikemurray@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:msdq741s5n37bijiqpjnjkqtstgpohut9e@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:29:49 -0400, "Chess One" <OneChess@comcast.net
wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" <blafferty@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MPRek.243$gH4.77@trnddc05...
Which is not hate speech, says Our Brian. And its not /exactly/, is it?
Its more the hatred of [other's] speech.
It's not hate speech withing the commonly accepted meaning of the term
in
Western society. If you used your definitions of words, Phil, we'd be
reduced to incoherent babel such as you speak.
Hate speech according to Brian does not mean referring to the person with
which he corresponds with suggestive negative and demeaning
characterisations of them, as is his own /observed/ practice. One wonders
what hate-speech actually is thereby, according to Judge Lafferty?
Probably, something like this:
"Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or
incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of
people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality,
religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language
ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or
appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity
and any other distinction-liability. The term covers written as well
as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting.
It is also sometimes called antilocution and is the first point on
Allport's scale which measures prejudice in a society." (Wikipedia)
|
Well, thank you for the illustration of what it is.
| Quote: | So, demeaning PT for his Vietnamese origins or The Historian for being
overweight would be hate speech as conventionally defined.
|
No it would not, and who has actually done that except for Sam Sloan?
Whereas demeaning PT for his successes in Vietnamese chess would be hateful.
Demeaning Brennen for his elective-size would be to only note what he
himself declares his excuse for his own hate-speech , if one didn't mention
that he would not be fat at all if he didn't spend so much time at the
keyboard rubbishing others - a condition which literally reduces the quality
and extent of his life.
Things are a bit more complex than your simple proposition, Mr. Murray. And
there are few innocent posters here who would agree at all.
But I note you write in response to my mention of Brian Lafferty's
psotings - and I think readers will decide for themselves if his responses
are according to the Wiki definition.
You will note that Brian Lafferty chose not to answer what he knew, when he
knew it, not what relations personal or professional he had with the
accuser, while still promoting the charge about people's children.
I merely asked him if he knew the charge was officially vacated by a court
when he made his offerings here. I have not understood him to make direct
response to this, and surely, not all questions can be answered yes or no,
but this one can.
Phil Innes |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Chess One
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:37 pm Post subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum |
|
|
"samsloan" <samhsloan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0eee1516-4858-484a-bdc3-434542c0525f@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | On Jul 18, 7:58 am, Rob <robmt...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 17, 4:57 pm, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 17, 5:45 pm, Rob <robmt...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 17, 2:59 pm, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 17, 3:40 pm, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote:
Still unanswered is what Brian Lafferty knew of the vacated
charge when he
published the charge itself. Did he know the court 'vacated it'
at that
time? Simple question - asked 10 times.
Here is a simple question for you.
Do you have any evidence that the charges of child abuse against
Miss
Polgar and her "paramour Paul" were ever vacated?
From her own comments, it seems that the Texas authorities are
still
investigating those charges.
Sam Sloan
Of what importance is any of this to chess?
If the USCF Scholastic Chess Liaison is charged with child abuse, that
certainly is of importance to chess.
Sam Sloan
Mr. Sloan,
That is an odd position for you to take, isn't it? Since it was my
questioning of your proclivities on your website that caused me to be
removed from posting on your newsgroup.
Rob was suspended from posting to my private email group because he
refused to identify himself.
|
I know that to be a lie.
| Quote: | My group has a rule that anonymous or
fake-name posters are not allowed.
The suspension turned into a ban after Rob joined several times under
more fake names.
Rob ("The Robber") is strongly suspected of flooding my group with
unwanted videos.
Nobody has ever been banned from my group for criticizing me. For
example, Phil Innes, Paul Truong, Susan Polgar, Steve of Tennessee and
several others who do nothing but attack me are still all members of
my group and have never been banned or suspended,
|
Another lie, Steve of Tennessee was banned for questioning you about the
very same thing that Rob Mitchell did - your public posture about children
in chess in contradistinction to your personal posture as exemplified on
your website.
| Quote: | nor have any of
their postings ever been removed or "moderated".
The only person who has ever been banned from my group is Rob ("The
Robber") Mitchell and there is absolutely no chance that this ban will
ever be lifted.
|
Which leaves you and Eric [aka 'several delegates'] a gay person with no
known sympathy to children, who does not even show up at delegate meetings,
and rather famous for conducting 'psychic surveys', in fact who has an
antipathy to kids, to promote your views about the wellbeing of children?
What a farce of a person you are, Mr. Sloan. I support your freedom of
speech initiatives since what you say resolutely disqualifies you from the
public trust.
Phil Innes
> Sam Sloan |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Jürgen R.
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:37 pm Post subject: Re: Polgar the Homelessness Expert and Myth Maker |
|
|
"samsloan" <samhsloan@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:7be4ffc1-4f60-442c-90cd-41b8afd36f90@v21g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | On Jul 18, 7:49 am, Rob <robmt...@gmail.com> wrote:
Jerry,
My entire post was sarcasm. :-)
But , to a point... if we look at who "no one" 'is'( the vast chess
playing public and non political USCF members) then outside of
possibly 30 people, no one in the US has an interest in who the FSS is
or how much money the USCF looses. And I would think that saying 30
people had an interest was a liberal stretch.
Rob ("The Robber") Mitchell is not a member of the USCF. He only
became a USCF member once and that was to apply for a job. When he was
turned down for jobs with the USCF, he let his membership expire.
His interest now is that the USCF loses a lot of money and goes out of
business so that he can start a new organization.
He got the moniker "The Robber" by trying to swindle Ed Trice. Imagine
that! A swindler swindling a swindler.
|
While Sloan is a swindler reporting that a swindler swindled a swindler |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
samsloan
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 8:25 pm Post subject: Re: Complaint to Referee Mildred Negron regarding Dorchen Le |
|
|
On Jul 18, 2:46 pm, billbrock <billbrock1...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Doubtless the above made a certain impression upon the Court.
Any updates?
|
I am working very hard on perfecting my appeal.
I hope to have my brief finished AND PUBLISHED next week.
Meanwhile, any progress in getting that one penny book you sold to me?
Black Sambo |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rob
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 8:56 pm Post subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum |
|
|
On Jul 18, 7:09 am, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Jul 18, 7:58 am, Rob <robmt...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 17, 4:57 pm, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 17, 5:45 pm, Rob <robmt...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 17, 2:59 pm, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 17, 3:40 pm, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote:
Still unanswered is what Brian Lafferty knew of the vacated charge when he
published the charge itself. Did he know the court 'vacated it' at that
time? Simple question - asked 10 times.
Here is a simple question for you.
Do you have any evidence that the charges of child abuse against Miss
Polgar and her "paramour Paul" were ever vacated?
From her own comments, it seems that the Texas authorities are still
investigating those charges.
Sam Sloan
Of what importance is any of this to chess?
If the USCF Scholastic Chess Liaison is charged with child abuse, that
certainly is of importance to chess.
Sam Sloan
Mr. Sloan,
That is an odd position for you to take, isn't it? Since it was my
questioning of your proclivities on your website that caused me to be
removed from posting on your newsgroup.
|
| Quote: | Rob was suspended from posting to my private email group because he
refused to identify himself. My group has a rule that anonymous or
fake-name posters are not allowed.
|
LOL.. not hardly.
| Quote: | The suspension turned into a ban after Rob joined several times under
more fake names.
Rob ("The Robber") is strongly suspected of flooding my group with
unwanted videos.
|
I suspect you did it.
| Quote: | Nobody has ever been banned from my group for criticizing me. For
example, Phil Innes, Paul Truong, Susan Polgar, Steve of Tennessee and
several others who do nothing but attack me are still all members of
my group and have never been banned or suspended, nor have any of
their postings ever been removed or "moderated".
|
It is sad to forget things when you get old.
| Quote: | The only person who has ever been banned from my group is Rob ("The
Robber") Mitchell and there is absolutely no chance that this ban will
ever be lifted.
|
Who cares? Not I! only two maybe three people have posted on your
group in the last six months.. and that include you.
| Quote: | Sam Sloan- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text - |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rob
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 9:28 pm Post subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum |
|
|
On Jul 18, 4:16 pm, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: | "Rob" <robmt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:df7f75d5-1ae0-4cba-a99d-8447a7c14d1b@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 18, 7:09 am, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 18, 7:58 am, Rob <robmt...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 17, 4:57 pm, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 17, 5:45 pm, Rob <robmt...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 17, 2:59 pm, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 17, 3:40 pm, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote:
Still unanswered is what Brian Lafferty knew of the vacated
charge when he
published the charge itself. Did he know the court 'vacated it'
at that
time? Simple question - asked 10 times.
Here is a simple question for you.
Do you have any evidence that the charges of child abuse against
Miss
Polgar and her "paramour Paul" were ever vacated?
From her own comments, it seems that the Texas authorities are
still
investigating those charges.
Sam Sloan
Of what importance is any of this to chess?
If the USCF Scholastic Chess Liaison is charged with child abuse, that
certainly is of importance to chess.
Sam Sloan
Mr. Sloan,
That is an odd position for you to take, isn't it? Since it was my
questioning of your proclivities on your website that caused me to be
removed from posting on your newsgroup.
Rob was suspended from posting to my private email group because he
refused to identify himself. My group has a rule that anonymous or
fake-name posters are not allowed.
LOL.. not hardly.
The suspension turned into a ban after Rob joined several times under
more fake names.
Rob ("The Robber") is strongly suspected of flooding my group with
unwanted videos.
I suspect you did it.
Nobody has ever been banned from my group for criticizing me. For
example, Phil Innes, Paul Truong, Susan Polgar, Steve of Tennessee and
several others who do nothing but attack me are still all members of
my group and have never been banned or suspended, nor have any of
their postings ever been removed or "moderated".
It is sad to forget things when you get old.
The only person who has ever been banned from my group is Rob ("The
Robber") Mitchell and there is absolutely no chance that this ban will
ever be lifted.
Who cares? Not I! only two maybe three people have posted on your
group in the last six months.. and that include you.
And Sam Sloan quoted the direct words of Ed Trice, quoted them them over and
over, which are often contestible, or mostly so. Sam Sloan does not even
deign to notice words from a draught document, unsigned, and within a
confidentiality agreement, which is not any agreement at all. It is enough
to him to speculate on such things, as is his wont.
Sam Sloan does not care much for his sources, though will repeat them as a
laugh-erty might.
Its all scandal to the Sloan and his cohorts, and if any reader thinks there
is more here than that, they do not understand the power of accusations in
our society, nor what sorts of people are content with them alone. That is
the level of contestant to truth.
Phil Innes
Sam Sloan- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
It's easy to throw out an unsubstianted accusation and then demand
proof that it didn't happen. Because if it didn't happen how could
there be proof. It would be like saying" Sloan, there are reports that
you beat your wife. Can you provide us proof that you have stopped
beating your wife?" |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rob
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 9:50 pm Post subject: Re: Polgar the Homelessness Expert and Myth Maker |
|
|
On Jul 18, 4:37 pm, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: | "samsloan" <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:38b7e4b1-bd0c-429e-b795-043ff23810a1@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 18, 1:33 pm, Jürgen R. <jurg...@web.de> wrote:
While Sloan is a swindler reporting that a swindler swindled a swindler
Jürgen R., do you have such a shallow life that you have nothing to
do with your time but fill up the newsgroups with attacks on Sam Sloan
all the time?
Can't you go out and chase girls or little boys or something.
-----
**There you have it Jurgen, you see, you perceive, something central to an
issue, and respond to it, and experience the projections of who you are by
the Sloan - not what you say, but a personality comment of who you are.
That is the pathetic state of Chess USA generally. It is like to the old
USSR, which is difficult to comprehend the rank stupidity thereof.
You understand me better now? There is a way out - Vykod est!
But not this way, which is merely to address what is wrong with it [as some
say to their own reflection], rather than what could be right about it.That
is an unrehearsed subject in the land of the 'free'. You were skeptical
before, there is justification for that.
Phil Innes
|
For accuracy's state it should be that Sloan is reporting on a
swindler who claims to have been swindled but who in reality was
simply stopped dead in his tracks when asked to prove he was for real. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Brian Lafferty
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 11:50 pm Post subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum |
|
|
Chess One wrote:
| Quote: | "Mike Murray" <mikemurray@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:msdq741s5n37bijiqpjnjkqtstgpohut9e@4ax.com...
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:29:49 -0400, "Chess One" <OneChess@comcast.net
wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" <blafferty@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MPRek.243$gH4.77@trnddc05...
Which is not hate speech, says Our Brian. And its not /exactly/, is it?
Its more the hatred of [other's] speech.
It's not hate speech withing the commonly accepted meaning of the term
in
Western society. If you used your definitions of words, Phil, we'd be
reduced to incoherent babel such as you speak.
Hate speech according to Brian does not mean referring to the person with
which he corresponds with suggestive negative and demeaning
characterisations of them, as is his own /observed/ practice. One wonders
what hate-speech actually is thereby, according to Judge Lafferty?
Probably, something like this:
"Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or
incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of
people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality,
religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language
ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or
appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity
and any other distinction-liability. The term covers written as well
as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting.
It is also sometimes called antilocution and is the first point on
Allport's scale which measures prejudice in a society." (Wikipedia)
Well, thank you for the illustration of what it is.
So, demeaning PT for his Vietnamese origins or The Historian for being
overweight would be hate speech as conventionally defined.
No it would not, and who has actually done that except for Sam Sloan?
Whereas demeaning PT for his successes in Vietnamese chess would be hateful.
Demeaning Brennen for his elective-size would be to only note what he
himself declares his excuse for his own hate-speech , if one didn't mention
that he would not be fat at all if he didn't spend so much time at the
keyboard rubbishing others - a condition which literally reduces the quality
and extent of his life.
Things are a bit more complex than your simple proposition, Mr. Murray. And
there are few innocent posters here who would agree at all.
But I note you write in response to my mention of Brian Lafferty's
psotings - and I think readers will decide for themselves if his responses
are according to the Wiki definition.
You will note that Brian Lafferty chose not to answer what he knew, when he
knew it, not what relations personal or professional he had with the
accuser, while still promoting the charge about people's children.
I merely asked him if he knew the charge was officially vacated by a court
when he made his offerings here. I have not understood him to make direct
response to this, and surely, not all questions can be answered yes or no,
but this one can.
Phil Innes
Yada, yada, yada, Phil. |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Edward Labate
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 11:58 pm Post subject: Re: I met the Great Ed Trice |
|
|
Mr. Strong,
I was recently copied on an email that Ed Trice sent to the USCF in
which he said that he had won a slander/libel lawsuit against you and
that you received a "hard blow" by the justice system.
Is this true?!? And if so, can you give me the dates and case number
please?
Thank you in advance,
Best Wishes!
Edward Labate
labatechess@sbcglobal.net
ALSO, MUST READING / Please forward as a warning and Public Service
Announcement/PSA to all you know:
http://www.labatechess.com/61_games.html
RE: My 61 Memorable Games SCAM…'PHILLY PHRAUD' Ed Trice scamming a
dying Bobby Fischer
http://www.labatechess.com/ed_trice.html
RE: ‘Most Hated Man In Chess’, Ed Trice scamming a dying Bobby Fischer
http://www.labatechess.com/robert_snyder.html
RE: Convicted Felon/Pedophile, Robert Snyder |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Edward Labate
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 11:59 pm Post subject: Re: CJA, decline and de Nile |
|
|
Mr. Strong,
I was recently copied on an email that Ed Trice sent to the USCF in
which he said that he had won a slander/libel lawsuit against you and
that you received a "hard blow" by the justice system.
Is this true?!? And if so, can you give me the dates and case number
please?
Thank you in advance,
Best Wishes!
Edward Labate
labatechess@sbcglobal.net
ALSO, MUST READING / Please forward as a warning and Public Service
Announcement/PSA to all you know:
http://www.labatechess.com/61_games.html
RE: My 61 Memorable Games SCAM…'PHILLY PHRAUD' Ed Trice scamming a
dying Bobby Fischer
http://www.labatechess.com/ed_trice.html
RE: ‘Most Hated Man In Chess’, Ed Trice scamming a dying Bobby Fischer
http://www.labatechess.com/robert_snyder.html
RE: Convicted Felon/Pedophile, Robert Snyder |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
