Monday, June 2, 2008

Greg Shahade is a Greedy Young Man Who's Sister Is in the Employ of the USCF

I'm not going to make a real post on the Krush - Zatonskih thing, because, well, it's pretty obvious, right?

But I am moved to uncontrollable laughter by the comments on uschess.org to the most recent "Ask GM Joel." Blah blah blah, people discuss the decline of the US Championship. Surpise, chess is totally boring to non chessplayers and thus uninteresting to potential sponsors. Let's all comment.

But then someone posts a long, basically run-of-the-mill post which contains the sentence:
"I don't think the sponsors are there for all these tournaments unless the USCF wants to hire someone like G Shahade who is an expert at attracting sponsors. And pay him according to his expertise which would be a lot."

Notice that this is just a hypothetical suggestion from some random guy. Nothing to do with Greg or reality.

Immediately Harry Payne, who has been defending (rather too passionately) the US Championship's honor throughout the thread, jumps on this:
"Is it not a shame, that Mr. Shahade, (Who's sister is in the employ of the USCF) who is a member of the USCF and a Chess Player, would command such a high fee to help secure sponsors. But that is my point in essence I guess."

Greg's response:
"Yes Mr. Payne it's so shameful that I would command so much money for an imaginary position that has never existed for the USCF, that I've never heard of that I will never be offered, that some poster above just threw out there as a hypothetical concept! I don't know when I became so greedy! So shameful.

Really what is wrong with you?"

Greg's so funny. I laugh every time I reread it, and that's pretty often.

But keep reading, because another beautiful moment occurs later in the thread. Steve Immit, who apparently actually reads the previous comments before posting, is the only person to realize and mention that Payne's accusation that Greg Shahade called the US Championship "meaningless" is not true at all.

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

harry = ??

Anonymous said...

Steve Immitt often posts subtly hilarious comments on the USCF Forums. In fact his (usually one-line) zingers are one of the few highlights that make the Forums worth skimming on occasion.

You might also have mentioned that the now-infamous video of Krush-Zatonskih Armageddon game is being compared to the Zapruder film (on the USCF Forums, and perhaps elsewhere). Now, THAT's funny!

Anonymous said...

We can add this to the many reasons why sponsors (who've done their due diligence) don't sponsor chess:

1. Crazy chess parents - seriously messed up people
2. Obsessive crazy fans - quick to accuse, quick to tirade, and cheap!
3. Disorganized organizers - some how the same points of disputes keep coming up again and again...
4. Players whose egos rival Fischer, Alekhine and the immortals but whose skill is several orders of magnitude less nonetheless feel the same duty to protest and whine about the lighting, the boards and sets...
5. The latest scandal about cheating and accusing others of cheating.
Now we can add fighting over hypothetical situations regarding assertions which are totally fictional!

Now all of this would be tolerable if the fans had money but see #2...

Ilya said...

This is indeed hallarious, i must have missed it on uschess.org, must have been too busy reading and rereading Krush's tirade in total disbelief.

Anonymous said...

A different Anonymous said (Here I snatch the easy target that the immediate preceding Anonymous gave me... )

We can add this to the many reasons why sponsors (who've done their due diligence) don't sponsor...

[Now a word from our sponsor: Pick your choice of any or all of the following: Tennis, Cycling, Scholastic Soccer, Amateur Ice Hockey, Major League Baseball, Pro Football, Classical Music...or any of a number of activities I haven't thought of ... and substitute it for "XYZ" in what follows; Ok, back to our regularly scheduled programming]:

1. Crazy XYZ parents - seriously messed up people
2. Obsessive crazy fans - quick to accuse, quick to tirade, and cheap!
3. Disorganized organizers - some how the same points of disputes keep coming up again and again...
4. Players whose egos rival [tarnished XYZ immortal - Pete Rose, Marion Jones, Beethoven, Michael Vick, or whoever's appropriate for the XYZ of your choice] and the immortals but whose skill is several orders of magnitude less nonetheless feel the same duty to protest and whine about the [condition of the courts, quality of the umpiring, attitude of the spectators, burden of the anti-doping rules....]
5. The latest scandal about cheating and accusing others of cheating.
Now we can add fighting over hypothetical situations regarding assertions which are totally fictional!

Now all of this would be tolerable if the fans had money but see #2...

[It's me again. I think you all get the point. The kind of cheap exploitation of anti-chess stereotypes attempted by the previous Anon is useful to people like Susan Polgar when it suits their purposes to dish dirt on whoever they label the chess establishment. Other than that, its only utility is among anonymous internet trolls who try to con people merely for kicks, rather than for a business purpose.

So, my Anonymous predecessor - WHICH ONE ARE YOU????]

Anonymous said...

I think Krush's letter was a mistake but I think it doesn't matter for the following reasons:

Krush is smart AND beautiful. look at anna and you see why anyone would rather be Irina Krush then zathonsk, whether or not they are US champion.

also, i would point out that Krush is making a big mistake in her evaluation of Blitz play. The key point is that when someone basically cheats at the board you have to call them out on it immediately once the game is over you can't go back and change the result so i don't understand why krush even bothered to write this letter in the first place. Ilya krasik was correct to say that this letter reflects poorly on her and someone should have stepped in and told her not to write it.

Anonymous said...

Also, i just wiki Irina Krush and she is married to Charbanono? Rats, there goes my chances! someone update me if they get divorced! i won't give up yet my sweet Irina!

:)

Anonymous said...

also, I am quite in admiraion of a certain blogger named elizabeth

Naisortep said...

There are many imaginary and despicable acts that Greg could theoretically have committed. He is out of control and must be stopped.

Globular said...

Shahade is indeed the most despicable of all types. I will never accept money from him!!

Oh, wait... Pokerstars is putting up HOW much for the USCL?

Never mind...

-Matt Phelps
Manager, The Boston Blitz
Eastern Division Champions
US Chess League

Elizabeth Vicary said...

Thanks, anon, but I only value admiration from people who think mistakes are more consequential than beauty.

Tom Panelas said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tom Panelas said...

How do we know you anonymouses are not all the same person?

Anonymous said...

Personally, I think Anna Zatonskih is very beautiful. Even if she were not conventionally beautiful, it's extremely rude to demean her like that. Why do you even need to bring it up? What do Zatonskih and Krush's physical appearances have to do with their chess abilities?

Tom Panelas said...

anonymous said...
"someone update me if they get divorced!"

How can we update you if we don't know who you are?

Anonymous said...

"2. Obsessive crazy fans - quick to accuse, quick to tirade, and cheap!"

Chess has fans? Well, maybe. But both of them are not cheap.

"Thanks, anon, but I only value admiration from people who think mistakes are more consequential than beauty."

I think your mistakes are cute. Lets elope!

Anonymous said...

Maybe I'm reading too much into it but some of the comments on the USCF forum made me a bit uneasy -- specifically the phrase "the boys from New York" (which boys by the way? Joel Benjamin is in his late 40s the last time I checked) and the "Is it not a shame that Mr. Shahade would command such a high fee to help secure sponsors." Not too far from those comments to Greedy New York ...... vs. the selfless hard working white folks (with apologies to Hillary Rodham Clinton) from Oklahoma who are motivated by their love of the game.

Elizabeth Vicary said...

last anon-- sorry, under all the layers of irony I've become a little confused. What are you asking/critiquing/saying?

Bill Brock said...

The poster implies (not unreasonably, IMO) that references to "boys from New York" are generally not intended as references to goyim.

Ever since the 1972 Pennsylvania Open at the Pgh YMCA, I've assumed that the surname came from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahadah

Bill Brock said...

...and (while I'm dating myself) those of you old enough to remember the thick pink Zeuthen book on the Modern Benoni may remember the scriptural Benjamin / Benoni riff....

Bill Brock said...

Invitees to the US closed championship should be either in the top 25 in the US, or juniors with a reasonable chance of making the top 10 in the near future (to cover the Fischer / Rogoff / Robson cases), or earned by a "top-10 caliber" performance in qualifying events.

Organizer's invitations should be limited to veteran GMs with exceptional achievements (e.g., Browne, Gulko).

10-to-14 player round robins are ideal.

Rich in Brooklyn said...

I see Tom Panelas has used the word "anonymouses" as the plural form of anonymous. Shouldn't it be "anonymice"?

Anonymous said...

Warning - Harry Payne alert -

He wrote "I can not imagine A Chess Player saying, The U.S. Chess Championship isn't that meaningful. That is saying that the players playing in that Tournament are not that meaningful. Or the Great Players of the past ( Including the possibly greatest Player to every play the game) are not that meaningful.
That the Title itself is not that meaningful. "

The weIrd Caps LOcks are a symptom of FAnaticAL DeVOtion to cauSes we dare not guesS at.