Monday, June 16, 2008

A Gallon of Karma Is Cheaper Than 200 Gallons of Gas


I have a favor to ask you guys. I teach a really amazing person, Angelica Berrios. She's a brilliant and hard-working chess player, a gracious and mature young woman, and a person who hasn't had a whole lot of opportunities in her life. She's one of my all-time favorite kids and she's graduating eighth grade this year, so I wanted to try to do something special for her. She's hardly gotten to play in any adult tournments ever, and I'd really like for her to be able to play in the World Open.
I should mention her recent accomplishments: she's the 2008 Brooklyn High School Champion, the 2008 National Girls 16 and Under Champion, and came 6th in the 2007 National Eighth Grade Championship. She's over 1800 (but not officially).

I was hoping some generous blog-reader might sponsor all or part of the cost of the World Open. It would bring you a truckload of good karma. She's a super-deserving kid, and it would mean a great deal to her.

I'm thinking the costs are about $750 ($375 entry fee, $250 for part of a hotel room (maybe less), and $125 food for 5 days). If you are moved to give something, but can only afford a smaller amount, we'd be extremely grateful for that also. Of course, you'll see every receipt. If she wins anything (not unlikely, as she's eligible to play the Under 1800 section), you'll get your money back first. And we'll go over your WO games with you, if that means anything to you.
Also, you have three straight years of being guaranteed not to be hit by a bus.
Thanks.

66 comments:

abby said...

hey im happy to donate some money for her. do i send it to you or the school or what?

Tom Panelas said...

Count me in for a donation.

Anonymous said...

GL

Elizabeth Vicary said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Elizabeth Vicary said...

Thanks everyone! I'm amazed by and grateful for everyone's unhesitating generosity. You're awesome.

Anonymous said...

Congratulations on making the goal so quick.

But based on her USCF record:

http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?13250086

I think she will have to play in the U2000

Tom Panelas said...

Great news. I had a feeling it wouldn't take long.

This really is an excellent use of blogging: aggregating the good intentions of many far-flung people. Not only will Angelica be able to go to the tournament, but she'll have an instant, virtual cheering section that includes everyone who took part in this.

I hope she has a great time and wins lots of games. I'll be rooting for her.

Anonymous said...

U-1800? Why aren't you playing her in the Open Section, Lizzy? You do want her to get better, right? (And tougher, too..)

In any case, congratulations on having raised the donations to make it possible.

Anonymous said...

ANGELICA BERRIOS - Rating

Anonymous said...

ya, u-2000,
good luck!

Anonymous said...

Dissenting Opinion

Hey, why isn't anyone handing me $750? I'm rated 1794. I'm 36. I'm improving. I'm distinctly disadvantaged, because I have a family of four and have no time to play in tournaments. I spend tens of thousands of dollars a year on child care. I can't afford a trip to Philly, either. Hey, where's my money?

Seriously, I'm not opposed to this girl getting sponsored. She seems like a promising junior. But I'd like to think that she's getting sponsored because of her potential, not because of her "lack of opportunity." IMHO, she has had tons of opportunity to play: she has played in 91 tournaments in the past few years. That's a lot more than most serious players. The WO is not about opportunity. It's about winning.

This ties in with what section she should play in. Tournaments like the World Open are not about getting experience or playing strong competition. They're all about money and winning that damn big first prize. If she wants experience, she should play in the U2000 section of a much lower entry fee local tournament. A 1990 player at the WO is no different than a 1990 at home. (Granted, hustlers exist at the WO, but if you're claiming this argument, then one can always play in an even higher rated section at home.) The bottom line is that Goichberg events are all about winning the multi-thousand dollar first place. If this girl only wanted experience, then she would use the $750 to fund her participation to "play up" in as many local swisses as she could.

Disclaimer: This is my general opinion. I'm not trying to flame anyone or be personal. I don't know Ms. Berrios. This opinion holds in general. In fact, I feel the same way about myself. Given my tight chess budget, I try not to kid myself that high entry fee tournaments are about experience. If I enter them (which happens rarely), it's about the money.

Howard Goldowsky

Anonymous said...

So, basically, my vote is to see Ms. Berrios kick some ass in the U1800 section. After she does that, she should get her butt over to the Marshall and play some Experts. --Howard Goldowsky

Elizabeth Vicary said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Elizabeth Vicary said...

With the exception of the Nationals, the Amateur Team East and maybe 3 Marshall tournaments, every tournament Angelica has played in was a free G/30 scholastic tournament. The above mentioned exceptions were paid for by the school.

I'm sorry if you regret your decision to have children, Howard, but I don't see how that makes you deserving of sponsorship.

Anonymous said...

The lowest section she can play in is the U2000, sice her July rating will be above 1800

Anonymous said...

Elizabeth,

The first word of my second paragraph was "seriously." This makes the first paragraph sarcasm. The point of the sarcasm was to point out why it seems silly to sponsor Ms. Berrios based on her financial situation, and why it makes more sense to sponsor her based on her potential as a promising junior.

I advocate people spending their private money however they please. What I believe is that $750 spent on the WO for a promising junior could be more efficiently spent in different ways, i.e., paying for multiple entries to smaller swisses with strong competition.

Is there a better way to invest $750 on a promising junior? How do we define promising? What's the best way to allocate the money? Again, a trip to the WO where Ms. Berrios will get a chance to be inspired by all the GMs, soak in the chess atmosphere, play high-stakes games, etc., is certainly an excellent argument for spending $750. But is it the best argument? This is private money, so I don't care. I'm just raising the question. For those with an emotional and personal attachment to Ms. Berrios, I suppose that this rhetorical question appears obnoxious.

--Howard Goldowsky

Elizabeth Vicary said...

What's obnoxious is whining that you should get money because you chose to have children and have to care for them.

Saying "Seriously" in the second paragraph does not mean you aren't responsible for obnoxious comments in the first.

Anonymous said...

Liz,

The point of the paragraph was to show how arbitrary it seemed to give private money to Ms. Berrios for a trip to Philly compared to, say, a different reason (giving it to me). As I've stated, private money can be spent in any way, including giving it to a middle-aged father of two, who happens to be temporally challenged. (As Gary Larson proved in his famous Far Side cartoon, time = money.) It was sarcasm. We're not here to clash on the value of children to society, or what kind of temporal or financial compensation parents should get.

Howard

Anonymous said...

Liz,

You said, "she's eligible to play the Under 1800 section"

Was that a mistake since her rating will be over 1800 for July.

Curious Cat

Elizabeth Vicary said...

Yes, my mistake. I was thinking it was 1800 and under.

Anonymous said...

Howard Goldowsky,

You are obviously some chess loser who is jealous of an aspiring junior. Ms Berrios would easily crush you in a match. I am sorry that you had kids that you didn't want. You are 36 (but act like a 7 year old) GROW UP!!! Shut your mouth go get $750 if you want to go so badly instead of getting in the way of someone who deserves it.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Anonymous. Maybe you could leave your real name if you're going to write such acidic comments? You're putting words in my mouth. Your and Liz's interpretation of my comments are way off base. My kids are the best, and never once did I say I resent them. And how am I getting in the way? I'm stating my dissenting opinion in an open forum. Where's the debate? And why would someone rated 1805 crush someone rated 1794? I don't get your logic. And how am I getting in the way? If you read my original post, I wrote that I am NOT opposed to her getting the money! I'm just questioning the efficacy of the decision of her to go the the WO vs. using the money for some other training. Geez. --Howard

Anonymous said...

I can't believe how harshly I'm getting attacked here for merely stating an opinion. At least I have the guts to post under my real name. Should I have posted anonymously in a cowardly fashion? My guess is that if I posted anonymously, there wouldn't have been such backlash. Does anyone who disagrees with me even care to debate the issues I bring up, or is it more important to call me names? --Howard

Lex said...

Ok Howard here is my name Happy?
I am sorry that you are jealous of a talented junior. You don't need to whine about it. (you are 36You are too old for this) The World Open is a great tournament and experience and clearly Ms Berrios deserves it. If you are unopposed to donating just keep your mouth shut and go cry elsewhere. -Lex

Elizabeth Vicary said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Howard Goldowsky=Bitter Awful Human Being. Karma comes around Howard.

anjiaoshi said...

As a middle school teacher, I say the best way to spend $750 on any student is on whatever will motivate her the most.

Anonymous said...

mr goldowsky has point
world open like gmbling
much better work with small game

vlad

Globular said...

Lay off of Howard everyone; he was joking! Of course he doesn't think he should get free money for chess and Angelica shouldn't.

In the immortal words of Sgt. Hulka, "Lighten up, Francis."

Let's have a civil debate (har!) about his real point; is it a good use of the money for Ms. Berrios? I believe it is. Experiencing the atmosphere at such a tournament will be extremely valuable. Either she'll drink it all up and get totally hooked (likely), or recoil in horror at the giant freak show.

Or both. :)

-Matt

dvigorito said...

I believe it was "relax, Francis"

Anonymous said...

After reading some of the dumb and cowardly comments here, I'm rethinking Susan Polgar's blog now.

Like most thinking people, I've long assumed that when a series of dumb comments anonymously attacking someone appear on Polgar's blog, they were actually written by Polgar or her husband - especially if the Polgars had publicly expressed similar sentiments toward the target.

Since I know Liz doesn't manufacture fake comments here, now I'm wondering if idiot flaming (such as the 3:58 P.M., 5:01 P.M. and 6:09 P.M. anons) might also originate from legitimate sources (i.e. dumb cowards who aren't affiliated with the blog owner) when it appears on Polgar's blog.

Jon Jacobs

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Matt. I felt like I was getting torn apart, limb by limb. Finally someone comes to my rescue! I enjoy Liz's blog, and what hurt almost as much as getting called rude names and having lies told about my parenting, was seeing how quickly anonymous posters will kick you when you're down and when they have the support of the admin. It's scary how anonymous posters assume the "mob mentality" without even reading or exercising some critical thinking on the text of the thread.

I would say something sarcastic here, but I don't think it would go over too well, so I'll stay quiet.

Regarding the debate about distribution of money: I've always felt that chess is chess, whether it's being played for a $20,000 prize or a $100 prize. When the game is on the line, people fight. If it's not for money, then it's for rating points. Spending $350 to enter the U2000 section of the WO, where your statistical chances of winning are less than 5%, makes no sense to me, especially considering that tough, competitive chess can be found anywhere. Once the clocks start and the pieces engage, it doesn't matter where you are or what you're playing for. In other words, it doesn't matter if you're boxing at Ceasar's palace with 10,000 spectators or in a fist fight in a back ally; in both cases your ego is on the line and you try your best.

So the chances of Ms. Berrios getting a financial return on her investment are slim (but not impossible). $750 could be spent on GM lessons, chess books, entry fees to smaller yet strong tournaments, etc.

The non-tangible return of the $750 investment is where I may be off-base. If the experience is motivational, then perhaps it would be worth it.

--Howard

Anonymous said...

Thank you too, Jon. I remember that you were the victim of a different "mob beating" a few weeks ago. :) I now know how you must have felt! Whatever. I'm not taking any comments personally, especially since they were made anonymously. I just need to exhibit a bit more restraint and self-control before posting potentially explosive material. I intend to post here again. Also no hard feelings on Liz, as I understand that she has a strong opinion about the rhetorical question I raised. Although her "Bravo!" comment unfairly affirmed the anonymous posters' rudeness, in my opinion. --Howard

Globular said...

No... it definitely was "Lighten up, Francis."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083131/quotes

Tommyg said...

I have been out in the hills teaching a music camp for a school that provides music lessons to children who would not otherwise be able to afford it. So count me in for a donation for Angelica..it won't be that much..I am a professional musician after all....

How and where do I send the money!

TommyG

Elizabeth Vicary said...

Thank you so much Tommy, but all the money she needs has been donated. I really appreciate the offer.

Anonymous said...

This could all be settled if Howard would donate $100 towards entry fees for the Marshall tournamnets this summer for the student. i am sure she would appreciate Howards generosity.How about it Howard?

Anonymous said...

Kudos to you Elizabeth for harnessing the power of the internet to do good for one of your students.

Howard - are your kids playing chess? This is just my two cents so take it with a grain of salt...my take on the scholastic chess scene is that it is populated by middle class to wealthy parents who view chess as a valuable enrichment activity and have the resources to pursue all manner of private coaches, group lessons and tournament opportunities for their children.

My son played in the "city Championships" in NYC a couple of times and the kids from the Bronx were an inspiration. I don't think a single kid had a clock and many didn't have chess sets - those that did carried them in plastic zip lock bags. The kids were polite, fierce competitors and good sportsman. It was an inspiration to see these kids win individual and team trophies competing against private schools with their arsenals of resources.

I think participation in a tournament of this size is motivational - just being around such a large group of people who are passionate about chess is a great experience.

The other nice thing here is that this girl may inspire other girls both within and outside of her school to play chess - worth the money IMO.

Chess Mom

Anonymous said...

Howard,

I can't speak for Liz, but I can explain what I found off-putting about your remarks.

In an abstract discussion of how best to spend chess money on kids, your comments would have been just fine. But the present context is dramatically different. Liz is doing something extraordinarily nice for a special child, and she asked the public for help. This involves an act of faith on the part of prospective sponsors: she alone knows all the (potentially sensitive and highly personal) particulars, and has done the psychic calculus that says this is a worthwhile undertaking. By criticizing this project on callous utilitarian grounds, you are questioning not only her judgment, but also whether she is worthy of the trust that the sponsors have placed in her.

A second issue relates to timing. Liz had just reached her fundraising goal, some number of readers having stepped up to pledge their support. Your comments thus put Liz in the terribly awkward position of having to explain that her sponsors were not dupes for going along with this. And since this goes way beyond purely utilitarian motives (see psychic calculus, above), she is at an unfair disadvantage.

Antonio Mendoza

Anonymous said...

Why don't you anonymous guys sign your real name? I feel like I'm talking to a wall.

I'm editing a collection of chess related short stories, written by a lot of famous, mainstream, and excellent writers, which is scheduled for publication by Mongoose Press in April. 100% of the profits are going to charity. This project has been in the works for six months. Neither I nor the publisher or any of the contributors are making a cent. The contributors and publisher will all be voting on a charity, and I'll mention this possibility. No charity has been decided on yet.

You guys think I'm a mean ogre; but I'm donating dozens of hours of my time to this project. It's all for charity. And a book like this has never been done.

All of the contributors are excellent writers, but a few of the ones you might have heard of before include NY Times best-selling author Stephen Carter (Emperor of Ocean Park) and Catherine Neville (The Eight). I'm sure Ms. Neville, especially, would support a cause to help low-opportunity female chess-players.

So, to all you crazy people with a mob mentality, do you think it's fair for Liz and the others to beat me with your words like you did? In fact, it's one thing to lead an intelligent argument against my position; it's another thing to attack me with names. I'm also disappointed in Liz for affirming the immature behavior of the anonymous group. She deleted some posts she wrote that supported the name calling. Why should I donate to the charity of someone who supports calling me names?

I've been thinking about the appropriate use of charitable chess funds for a long time. People have been attacking me for a sarcastic remark I made, and instead of thinking about it critically, they took it literally.

--Howard Goldowsky

Elizabeth Vicary said...

Howard, it's simply not true at all to say I deleted multiple posts. I think you know that. I deleted one post that said simply "Bravo" to Lex's post (which immediately preceded it), both because I agree with him and because he decided to sign his name. It did not say bravo to the more offensive previous one.

Tom Panelas said...

I have to say I'm baffled by the way this thing has evoked such passionate criticism.

Though Antonio lost me a bit in some of the philosophical terminology, I think he makes what may be the most important point of all. This is a simple, personal act of kindness from a teacher to a student whom she, the teacher, deems worthy of the act. For such a gesture to be scrutinized as if questions of public policy governing the expenditure chess funds generally applied strikes me as completely out of place. (That last sentence was a mouthful, I realize. My apologies; I don't have time to rewrite it more cogently.)

How can it not be a good thing? If you don't find Angelica's story compelling don't contribute. But I simply don't see how the act of helping her get to the WO can be criticized on ethical grounds.

And of course there should be no personal attacks. C'mon, people.

Anonymous said...

We all agree here that Angelica getting funds to attend the WO is a good thing. Not a single person here thinks it's a bad thing. My original question was to ask if it was the best way to spend the money on her development. That's all. Since I've been thinking about how to donate money to chess, I thought I'd raise the question when Liz announced she wanted to bring her student along. Of course this is a good thing, especially if there is private money available. WRT the bigger picture, however, is this the best way to allocate charitable contributions to promising players? For this question, a question that seems very important if one is responsible for allocating, I hope, at least 10x what we're talking about here, I've been attacked.

Liz, your "Bravo!" post was the only supporting post you deleted. I stand corrected. But, still, you've shown no distinction between supporting his arguments and his immature behavior. And in addition, he DID NOT state his surname. He merely stated a random first name, which is still equivalent to hiding behind anonymity.

Howard Goldowsky

Anonymous said...

Antonio,

Sure, I see what you're saying; however, I feel that by Liz going public, she allows for potential public questioning of her motives.

Her position should not be awkward. This is private money, and Angelica's sponsors have given this money based on their own judgment or faith in Liz's judgment (like you write). If I question that judgment, then is it too much to expect open dialog with Liz or her supporters? Presumably, people who donate money believe in their cause and are willing to defend it in mature conversation.

Liz seemed over sensitive to my questioning. I've been thinking about chess charity for about six months, and I've had talks with many people about it. Here was a good opportunity, I thought.

Perhaps using myself as an example of an ARBITRARY person to give money to was a bad idea. The anonymous hoard then latches on to every possible way to hurl insults, including using inert supporting statements I made about the cost of child care -- including Liz, the first mud slinger, who made a horrible disfigurement about what I said by twisting my comments about the cost of child care and the time it takes to be a parent, into her claiming that I resent my kids. Nothing could be further from the truth!

Chess Mom, My kids are not old enough to play. They're 1 and 3.5.

Howard

likesforests said...

Liz, I would donate, but it looks like you already met your goals. Good luck in Philly. :)

Howard, I'm also going to to Philly and I don't agree that going is all about money.

For me it isn't. The max prize I can win is $1000, and that would only cover my expenses. And not even, since winnings are taxable!

Don't get me wrong. I intend to win a trophy and hopefully money. But my main motivation is to see what a 'big tournament' is like and compete in one, see strong players in action, meet fellow bloggers, and I've never been to Philly! I'm a bit nervous and very excited about the trip. :)

Anonymous said...

Tom,

I honor your decision to give money. I also realize that there's no reason why you should even think about an alternative charity or allocation. Here was a good cause, and you went with it. Good for you.

To be totally honest, my first reaction was to give money, but then I thought about how little discretionary income I have these days (due to day care) and how much time I've put into this book project. And THEN it occurred to me that I might have donated personal money anyway if I thought the cause was spending the money more efficiently, given that in the last six months I've thought of potentially more efficient ways to spend charitable chess dollars. This was my thought process.

I wish you, and all others who donated, the best.

--Howard

Anonymous said...

Howard,

I'm sorry you feel everyone is hating on you.

You sound as if you have a sincere interest in chess charity - perhaps you could get involved in your local state chess association and start a scholarship fund for under-priviledged kids or other deserving individuals? There is a fairly robust program in NYC called the Right Move which holds free citywide tournaments. I have heard that there are kids in some states that cannot afford the State and USCF dues. If they cannot afford these fees which are relatively small for juniors they certainly can't afford entry fees at $15-50 a pop for scholastic events. Just organizing free tournaments could be a good place to start.

With all the emphasis on keeping elders brains active to stave off dementia I have been thinking recently about a program that would pair chess players with elders. The chess players could play the elders once a week. Nice community service opportunity for the chess player and social contact for the elder.

Just some thoughts. Hang in there.

Chess Mom

Lex said...

Howard,

Lex is my sur name not some random one and you are in no position to say that it isn't b/c you don't know me.I will be at the WO b/c I think it's a great tournament and experience. If you disagree that's fine but you don't have to call out one of the best chess coaches for wanting to take her student there.

Anonymous said...

Howard, please re-read your original post. You mock the circumstances of a 13 year old middle school student by comparing her life to yours. Then you wonder why people find your views repugnant? Teachers, who spend their lives working in inner city schools, who choose to ask people to do something nice for a special student, do not need to answer your "ethical" questions or to defend at all the choices they make. All of your "talk" about a future chess charity based on the speculative sales of a book pales in comaprison to the daily work of Ms. Vicary at her school.

Frank Llangari

Elizabeth Vicary said...

Wow, this post's comments could rival the Amateur Team East's.

Many thanks to everyone for the support.

Howard, you call me over-sensitive, but I would say the same about you.

You intentionally took a provocative tone in your first post, but then it's not ok with you when people react to this. If you are going to talk smack, you can't cry when people talk smack back to you.

You brought up your children to say they interfere with your chess; I just repeated that. You were being sarcastic perhaps, but you can't claim to be an innocent martyr here-- you complained about your children first.

You wrote in an email to me that "I guess in the back of my mind I wonder if Ms. Berrios' financial situation is being used as a guise." Of course I take that personally. How could I not? You're calling me a liar and a con artist.

You also said "One could claim that middle-aged, middle-class chess bozos like myself, who can't afford $750 weekend trips or lessons, resent the free entries and lessons kids like Ms. Berrios get." Do you understand that she goes to an inner-city public school? She doesn't get private lessons. She never has. She gets whatever attention I can give her in a class of 34 students. Of course I try to spend as much time with her as I can after-school or at tournaments, but I normally have 30-60 students with me then too. There's really nothing to be jealous of.

Elizabeth Vicary

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry that my sarcasm was interpreted as provocation. It was not meant to be.

Liz, I'm not calling you a liar. My whole motivation here is to point out the arbitrariness of giving money to Ms. Berrios instead of, say, some other underprivileged 1800 13-year-old. I also admitted that my point is mute, because these are private funds.

Let's move on...

--Howard

Tommyg said...

Hey Likesforests,

I was born in Philly! Get a cheese steak sandwich! They really are better there. Since my family moved away from philly in 1983 I have YET to find a cheese steak that comes close!

Have fun there,

TommyG

Tom Panelas said...

I'm ready to move on to the next post and discuss something less controversial -- like the presidential election. :o)

Peace & Love to one and all.

Globular said...

Howard,

Your point is far from mute, given all the posts here.

It may still be moot however...

(Sorry, I can't resist correcting a professional writer. :) )

-Matt

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Matt. I also made the error of writing "further from the truth" rather than "farther from the truth."

I'm not a professional writer. I'm a professional electrical engineer. Writing is my hobby; and, although I'm a punctuation and grammar Nazi, I'm still improving in this area. --Howard

Tom Panelas said...

Actually, "further from the truth" is correct, isn't it?

I recall learning that "farther" is for literal distance and "further" for figurative distance. So it's "L.A. is farther from Chicago than New York is," but "nothing could be further from the truth."

Is that wrong?

Anonymous said...

I went to dictionary.com, and "further" is typically but not exclusively used to mean "in addition." "Farther" is typically used to mean a distance. But "further" can also be used to denote a distance. So, Tom, you're probably right about the literal/figurative thing. I didn't read closely. Maybe Liz would know. She's an English teacher :). But now we're much farther from the topic of conversation than I care to discuss :)

-Howard

Tom Panelas said...

I find it something of a relief to see this tortured thread take a turn toward something harmless, like grammar and usage, a subject that never excites passions and about which everyone agrees.

For those of us of a certain age (or uncertain age), you can never go wrong with Strunk & White, Third Edition, which says this about farther/further:

“The two words are commonly interchanged, but there is a distinction worth observing: farther serves best as a distance word, further as a time or quantity word. You chase a ball farther than the other fellow; you pursue a subject further.”

Howard: Merriam-Webster’s Concise Dictionary of English Usage has a long disquisition on the subject, which I won’t try to summarize here, though it does make the same observation you do about “in addition.”

Merriam-Webster is also characteristically more laid back about the distinction, noting that they are the same word historically and that the distinction in their usage appears to emerge first in the early 20th century.

Glenn Wilson said...

Whoever makes the last comment in this thread, loses. :)

Anonymous said...

me, me, me! i made the last post. no, i did! nuh uh ... i made the last post. mooom.

chess mom's monsters

Anonymous said...

i think angelica berrios going to the WO is a graet idea.this up for a political debate.just accept it!! as a scholastic player myself i have seen angelica berrios compete. i have even played her. she is a great player and i think she can crush any 1794 any day any time.it doesn't matter what sectio she plays in. she will do damage!!

Anonymous said...

you should get your own talk show,liz! i can just read this stuff all day with a bowl of cereal!

Anonymous said...

good luck to ms.vicary and ms.berrios. if you guys get some money maybe you can send our buddy howard next year!!!!

Anonymous said...

Hello Liz,

Good luck to you and Ms Berrios at the World Open.

Unfortunately for me I am in the same section as Ms Berrios!

Getting to 2000

Elizabeth Vicary said...

Thanks!!

Anonymous said...

Good for you Howard! I totally agree with you. I also think the organization of the WO is a joke. I was there on 7/3/08 to play a quad as I did not have the time for the regular tournament. How can you screw up the running of a quad and not know which room it is to be played in, what time the next round is and where to find your opponent. Anyone here of posting announcements? Also noticed the posting of not wearing headphones with an 80% score to deal with cheating. How and why should should anyone have to deal with this? I guess cheating is not a problem as it used to be.