SAT Prep

Vote in our newest poll! (You may vote more than once!)

How would you complete the analogy...

Paul Truong is to Sam Sloan as ....

a) Salamacis was to Hermaphrodite?

b) Sammy Sosa is to Mark McGuire?

c) Susan Polgar is to Judit Polgar?

d) Alien is to Predator?

e) cake is to pie?

f) Ali is to Abu Bakr?

g) garbage is to sewage?

Birthday Presents + Sister's Bike Photos + Shiyam Thavandiran - Vicary

Just a note about these games: I have 16 from the US Open and Edmonton, plus I'm playing this weekend in the Atlantic Open, so I'm going to try to annotate e as many as possible. The order is random: I'm just picking up the nearest scoresheet from the floor. OK, I know I'm 3-0, but a loss is randomly coming soon.
If you're looking for the political commentary, scroll down for a while.

Look what my sister got me for my birthday:

She took some awesome pictures on her phone at a bike show. She's into motorcycles.

Here's my game, which is not as bad as I'd thought at first:


(214) Thavandivan,Shiyam - Vicary,Elizabeth [B23]
Edmonton (3), 01.08.2008

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bb5 e6 4.Bxc6 bxc6 5.f4



Now I did what I sometimes do, which is very bad: I tried to pretend to myself that this position was exactly the same in principle as the position I was familiar with when white's played Nf3 instead of Nc3. Of course, this position is much more dangerous that the Rossilimo one because white can play f4 immediately (In the other variation when the knight is on f3, it usually goes to g5 to allow f4.)

5... Ne7 6.Nf3 Ng6 7.f5 Nh4 8.0–0 Bd6 9.d3 0–0 10.Ng5 h6 Look at me, playing all of beastie's first choices!

11.Qh5 I thought I was completely lost here, but I have one resource

11...Nxf5?

11...Be7! I don't find it of course, because it's an unforcing move, and I don't ever even look for those. 12.Nh3

12.exf5 hxg5 13.Ne4 Be7 14.f6 gxf6 15.Rf3??

Oops. He was totally winning and now he's lost. After 15.Qh6 I have to resign.

15...Kg7! So now he sees his attack isn't working anymore and he's down two pawns, so he

throws the kitchen sink at me.

16.Rxf6 Bxf6 17.Bxg5 Bxg5 18.Nxg5

18...f5
This is by far the best move, so I'm lucky that it's the first one that occurred to me.

19.Qh7+ Kf6 20.Ne4+

20...fxe4

[20...Ke5 21.Qg7+ Kd5 (21...Rf6 22.Qg3+ f4 23.Qg5+ Rf5 (23...Kd4 24.Qxc5#) 24.Qxd8) 22.c4#]

21.Rf1+ Ke5 22.Qg7+ Kd6 23.Rxf8 Qh4 24.dxe4 Qxe4

24...Qe1+? I definitely don't want to check, since his rook will be more dangerous to my king if it's on the first rank.

25.Qg3+ Qe5 26.Rf4 Ba6 27.b4

27...Rg8 28.bxc5+ Kc7 29.Rg4 Qxg3 30.Rxg3 Rxg3 31.hxg3 d5 32.cxd6+ Kxd6 33.Kf2 Ke5 34.Ke3 Bf1

After this game, I thought I just got insanely lucky, but I'm more proud of it now-- I play Fritz's first choice for almost all the game. 0–1

Vicary - Chiang US Open

Vicary,Elizabeth - Chiang,Sarah [A53]
US Open (6), 08.08.2008

1.e4 c6 2.c4 So I play this line still, although my coach keeps telling me to stop. His point is that I'm completely unprepared for 2...e5, and in fact perhaps I'm at sea after 2... g6 as well. It's just always worked so well for me, 2. c4--so disorienting for the opponent.Also she was a little kid, so I wanted to trick her somehow.

2...d6 But wow, this is a serious change of structure for a person who might or might not have any idea how to play a pirc.

3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 g6 5.h3 The lines I play against the pirc keep changing, really they change faster than I can't keep up with them, so I know nothing concrete about this position, but I can't see that her Bc8 has a decent square aside from g4.

5...Nbd7 6.Nf3 Nb6 I guess she hasn't heard the "Knights on b6 are always bad" rule. Maybe 6...e5 is playable?

7.Bd3 Qc7 8.Bf4

Try to find a decent move here. It's hard, right?

8...Qd8

If 8...Bg7, 9.e5 dxe5 10.Nxe5 was my intention, but Rybka prefers 9. c5 Nbd7 10. cxd6 exd6 11. 0-0

9.0–0 Bg7 10.Qe2

After a few moves, I was very upset with myself for putting the queen on e2, when it belonged on d2, and blamed this for making things harder than they had to be. But rybka likes it. How confusing.

Beastie also wants to play 10.e5-- I thought about this, but worried my center might dissolve. 10...dxe5 11.dxe5 Nh5 12.Bg5 Be6 13.Qe2; 10.Qd2 Be6 11.b3

10...0–0 11.Rad1 d5 12.cxd5

Here's a tactical line I never would have found: 12.exd5! cxd5 13.c5 Nbd7 (13...Nc4 14.Bxc4 dxc4 15.Qxc4) 14.Rfe1 Re8 15.Nb5.

12...cxd5 13.e5 Ne8

There are all kinds of ideas I want to play for the next 10 moves: h4-h5, f4-f5, Qd2, Bh6, Nf3-h2-g4, Re1–e3-g/h3 or maybe Kh2/Rh1/Kg1. Hard to choose.

14.Rfe1 Nc7 15.Qd2 Ne6 16.Bh6 Bd7 Here I couldn't decide if I should continue with attacking moves, Nh2-g4 or h4, or I should take two moves to restrict white on the queenside, with b3 and Ne2. I decided on the latter. Dunno which is best.

17.b3 Rc8 18.Ne2 Re8 19.h4 f6

20.Bxg7 Fritz and Rybka want to play 20.h5 g5 21.Bxg7 Kxg7 22.a4 Rc7 23.a5 Nc8 24.Rc1 but I'm never going to see an unforced line like that which switches plans.

20...Nxg7 At the time, I thought king takes was almost forced, but Rybka prefers Nxg7. However, the reason for the preference is the ridiculous computer line of the previous note, so it only half counts. [20...Kxg7 21.h5 g5 22.a4 Rc7 23.a5 Nc8 24.Rc1 Rxc1]

21.Ng3 Rybka prefers 21.Nf4 Bg4 22.Nxg6 hxg6 23.Bxg6 Nd7 24.Qf4+- (24.Qh6 Nf8) ]

21...Bg4 22.Qh6 Qd7 23.h5

23...Nf5

During the game I thought she would play this nice line:

23...Bxh5 24.Nxh5 Nxh5 25.e6 Now it does matter where the queen goes, because from c7, there might be a defence in Qc2, whereas on d6, the queen keeps an eye on the e6 pawn:

25...Qc7 26.Bxg6 hxg6 27.Qxg6+ Ng7 28.Qf7+ (28.Re5 fxe5) 28...Kh7 29.Re3 Qc2 30.Ng5+) 25... Qd6 26.Bxg6 hxg6 27.Qxg6+ Ng7 28.Re5 fxe5 (threat: 28...-- 29.Rg5 fxg5 30.Nxg5) 29.Ng5

24.Nxf5 gxf5 25.e6 Qd8 26.Nh4 Kh8 27.Nxf5 Rg8

28.Nd6! Rg7 29.Nf7+ Rxf7 30.exf7 f5 31.f3 Nd7 32.fxg4 1–0

Gardner-Vicary Edmonton International

Gardner,Rob (2200) - Vicary,Elizabeth (2142) [E27]
Edmonton International (9), 04.08.2008

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 d5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 0–0

I'm definitely supposed to play 6...c5 here. White's going to try to go Bd3, Ne2-g3, 0–0, Rae1 and eventually e4. So I have to do something in the center. Theory goes 6...c5 7.cxd5 Nxd5 8.dxc5!? This weird pawn capture is the mainline for white; 8.Qd3!? and 8.Qd2 are the alternatives. White's idea in taking is that black has to recapture on c5, which might take a couple moves, esp. if white defends with Be3, and in that time white can get some quite reasonable development and/or space.

7.cxd5 exd5 8.e3 Bf5 I figured his bishop wanted to come to d3, so I would take this opportunity to try to trade off his better bishop, since he has 2.

8...c5 Probably better. I think I was worried about the isolation of my d pawn, but that's pretty silly. At minimum his c pawn is also weak.

9.Bd3 Qd7 I thought I was being all precise, but it turns out my queen doesn't want to be on d7, so really it's not good. [9...Bg6]
10.Ne2 Re8 11.0–0

So I don't exactly want to take on d3 here, but I had run out of useful things to do before developing my knight. And neither a6 nor c6 seemed playable here.

See, I'm very concerned that he doesn't get a huge huge center by playing c4, exchanging my d pawn, and then playing e4 (and d5, e5, f4-f5 etc). If he had tried it last move, I thought he was too far behind in development (see variation below), but I need to be watching out in the future, I felt. If I play 11... Nc6, then 12. c4 and I can't play ...c6.

I had thought 11.c4?! was not great because of Bxd3 12.Qxd3 dxc4 13.Qxc4 and then I was having fantasies about playing 13...c5 14.Qxc5 (14.dxc5 Na6? (14...Nc6) 15.c6!) 14...Na6 15.Qc2 Rac8]

11...Bxd3 [11...Nc6 12.c4; 11...Na6 12.Bxa6

12.Qxd3 Qc6 I was very proud of myself for this, I thought I was all "clamping down on the light squares," but now I think I was wrong because the queen is blocking the c pawn and will only get stranded on c4. Perhaps 12...c5?!Later note-- Rybka likes Qc6.

13.Ng3 Nbd7 14.Ra2 A good move which I had missed. I was expecting 14.Bd2 Nb6 15.Rae1 Nc4 when white cannot play e4 because the Bd2 is loose.

14...Nb6 15.Re2 Qc4

So I change my plan and put the queen there. It's a great idea if white takes the queen. Unfortunately, less good after
16.Qd2 g6
Two ideas behind this move:
1. Stops the dangerous Nf5, which might happen in conjunction with the scary e4 and the terrifying Qg5.
2. The reality is that I can't stop e4 from taking place, so I need to start planning for it. I hatch a scheme!
17.e4 c5
18.e5 Nfd7


19.h4

Of course I hadn't considered this at all. Instead, I'd expected 19.f4 f5 and this was my big idea-- if white doesn't take en passant, I play Nf8-e6 and it's pleasant for me because my knight on e6 is way better than his bishop. Plus the center and kingside are effectively closed, so my queenside superiority will finally mean something.

If 20. exf6 e.p. Nxf6 and I thought a number of his pieces would be v stupid, especially his bishop and knight. I didn't quite realize how scary it was going to become, however: 20.exf6 Rxe2 (20...Nxf6 21.Rxe8+ Rxe8 22.f5 Nbd7 23.fxg6 hxg6 24.Qh6 Qd3 25.Bg5 ( better is 25.Qg5) 25...Rf8 Abby and I were looking at this position and thought black was hanging on. Rybka gives it as 0.77 ) 21.Nxe2 Nxf6 22.f5 Re8 23.Ng3 Nbd7 24.fxg6 hxg6 25.Qh6 Qd3 (D)

This is very similar to previous line but black has one extra tempo, I think.

Back to the game....

19...cxd4 20.cxd4 Re6 I'm not so sure about this move. At the time it seemed to be a very practical move, defending g6,f6, and stopping white from playing e6, but these might not be the most important demands on black's time, plus the rook on e6 is vunerable to f4-f5. Probably Nf8 followed by Nbd7, or just Rac8 makes more sense.

21.h5 Nf8 22.Re3 [22.f4 Rc8 23.f5 Rec6 24.Qf4+- White threatens to take on g6 and invade on f7 or play Nf5. ]

22...Rc8 stopping Rc3

23.Ne2 Qc2 24.Qe1 Rec6 again stopping Rc3

25.hxg6

25...Qxg6 Hilariously, Rybka thinks this is the worst of the recaptures, and by a fair amount. In order of good to descending badness, the recaptures are: 25...fxg6!, 25...hxg6, 25...Rxg6, 25...Nxg6.

I was scared that if hxg6 white was planning something like Kf2, Rh1, so I was scared to open the h file without the seventh rank open.

26.f4 threatens Rg3

26...Kh8? 26...Qf5 Rybka's preference, stopping white from playing f5.

27.f5 Qg4 I had 16 minutes here to reach move 40 (plus 30 second increment). Not 27...Qg7 28.Rg3]

28.Rg3 Qe4 threatening Rc2

29.Qd2 Qh4 It seems like my queen is getting chased around a lot, but white has a lot of pieces that are "not well-defended," i.e. attacked as many times as they are defended-- consquently he has to watch for Rxc1 and Rc2. Bu not quite yet: 29...Rc2 30.Qh6 and I'm mated.

30.Rh3 [30.Rf4 Rxc1+]

30...Qe4 31.Nc3 Qg4 32.Rf4 Qg5 33.Qe1 Na4 34.Rfh4 oops! [34.Ne2? Rxc1; 34.Rff3! Qg4 35.Rh4 Qg7 36.Ne2+-]

34...Qxf5

35.Bd2 I thought this was a very bad move-- it allows me to trade off my knight, which would otherwise be completely unemployed after 35. Ne2. Rybka is pointing out to me now, however, that Ne2 lets me play Qb1 or Qc2 or Rc2 and things are back to being ok for me.
35...Nxc3 36.Bxc3 Rg6 37.Bb4 Qg5 [37...Rc2!]
38.Qf2 Rg7? I was in time pressure-- this move is unnecessary. 38...Qc1 (as I played a move later) is much better
39.Rh5 [39.Bd2!]
39...Qc1+ 40.Kh2 Rc2 41.Qf3


41...Qf4+! Hurray! [41...Rgxg2+! is even slightly better: 42.Qxg2 Qf4+ 43.Rg3 Rxg2+ 44.Kxg2 Ng6–+]

42.Rg3 Qxf3 43.Rxf3 Rcxg2+ 44.Kh3 Ne6 45.Be7 Kg8 46.Rh4 Rg1 47.Kh2 R7g2+ 48.Kh3

48...Ng5+

This move got criticized later (deservedly), but I thought the double rook ending would be easy. I thought I was winning the d or a pawn by force. [48...Rd2]

49.Bxg5 Rxg5 50.Kh2 R1g4 51.Kh3 Rg1 52.Kh2 R5g4 53.Kh3 [53.Rh5] 53...Rxh4+ 54.Kxh4 I was moving around a little so I could play Rd1 next.

54...Rd1 55.Rf4 Rd3 56.a4 At some point you become really curious when they are going to resign. It's very nice in Edmonton though-- they have free hot tea with real milk and flavored creamer, so I wasn't bothered at all. I was just drinking my tea, having a congratulations party for myself.

56...Ra3 57.Kg5 Rxa4 58.e6 fxe6 59.Kf6 Ra6 60.Rg4+ Kf8 61.Rh4 h6 62.Ke5 b5 63.Rxh6 b4 64.Rh8+ Kg7 65.Rb8 Rb6 66.Ra8 a6 0–1

Delegates' Meeting + My Thoughts

I'm going to try to give a summary with only partial opinions*, and then give you my full take at the end.

So Saturday morning I wake up around noon, discover the delegates are at a luncheon until 2, wander around for a while, chat to Shelby, the bookstore guy, take a few photos, interview Matt Perry, who had beaten Daniel Fernandez the night before. By two I'm sitting in the back of the meeting-- maybe 50 out of a couple hundred elected delegates were there. Donna Alarie later proposes an amendment to address this issue: that many delegates don't show up, and in multiple cases, state organizations had just placed someone's name on the ballot; the winner had never even been told.

Goichburg surrendered his chairmanship to Harold Winston, appropriately I thought, since he obviously had some stake in the proceedings. (sorry, for some reason I switch to present tense here, and I'm too lazy to rewrite it) Winston reminds everyone to be respectful.

.

A USCF lawyer (Kronenburger) makes a Powerpoint presentation on why Paul Truong is the Fake Sam Sloan. It's quite convincing: he cites IP addresses that Paul used to post on the USCF issues forums which are identical to the ones used for the fake Sam Sloan postings, and match the places Paul was (Queens last spring; Texas by August, Mexico City during the World Championship). He doesn't have all the IP addresses, because AOL was used for a lot of them, and AOL tends to change IP addresses every couple minutes, but he has at least 25 non-AOL IPs.

Bill Hall then makes a absolutely hilarious speech-- full of rhetorical flourishes and shouting for effect. He claims to have been convinced by Polgar/Truong when he first met them ("I drank the Kool-Aid!") but to now see them for what they really are. He quotes some especially disgusting Fake Sam Sloan posts relating to Jenn. Several delegates at the front laugh out loud.

Bill pounds on the podium and continues, at full volume:

"Gone must be the days when the federation cowers under threat of lawsuit,

Gone must be the days staff members tremble when going to sponsors in fear that they've Googled the organization..."

Gone must be a third one, but I couldn't write that fast.

Then he finishes with "Even Sam Sloan had the decency to recognize that a sitting board member should not file a lawsuit against this organization."

Basically I thought his speech was silly and over the top, but extremely funny.

Paul then gave a rebuttal speech, which seemed fairly irrelevant to me. He made some reasonable claims, like he didn't trust the USCF because of the leaks (specifically citing a Jerry Hanken-Sam Sloan conduit), and that Susan had been harassed at her job via allegations of child molestation. He also managed to call Brian Mottershead "Motorhead" for the first half of his presentation. (Amusing me in your speeches gets extra credit.) However, he made some completely silly points as well, like saying he was afraid that if he gave out his IP addresses, someone could use them to log into Susan's online bank account. That's a pretty lame attempt at a plausible fear. He also orally denied being the Fake Sam Sloan, but refused to put it in writing and offered no real reason for that other than saying his lawyer told him not to. I don't care what a lawyer tells me, there is no way I would refuse to declare my own innocence if I believed in it. Mostly what he said was "Let's see how it plays out in court."

Susan then made an impassioned speech about the harassment she had been subjected to. Someone "with links to the board" had contacted her ex-husband asking for dirt on her and had made allegations of child abuse/neglect to the police and to Texas Tech. Let me say I think it's quite clear Susan Polgar does not abuse or neglect her children. I've seen her with them at many scholastic events and they seem happy, well-adjusted, and cared for. However, it was never clear to me what connection these accusations actually had with the board itself. What exactly does "strong ties" mean? Someone on the board knows this guy?? I have strong suspicions that I can guess who's behind the child abuse allegations, and consequently I feel bad for Susan, because he's a nasty, sleezy guy that nobody deserves to be bothered by, but he's not a board member (and never has been, if my guess is accurate).

The interesting thing is that Susan is actually suing the USCF, Continental Chess, the law firm the USCF retained (Kronenberger Burgoyne), and the following individuals: Bill Goichburg, Bill Hall, Randall Hough, Brian Mottershead, Hal Bogner, Randy Bower, Jerry Hanken, Brian Lafferty, Sam Sloan, and Karl Kronenberger for defamation of character and interference with contractual obligations. But mostly for defamation. They were served with papers at the beginning of the delegates meeting on Saturday.

I left at 5 pm-- the board meeting went on for another hour. The motion to remove Truong was defeated, as was the motion to have a recall election.

=========================================================

Review

So just in case you're confused, there are three separate lawsuits:

1. Sam Sloan vs. the USCF for (I believe) tolerating the Fake Sam Sloan postings and not doing everything they could to stop it. I think (not 100%) that this lawsuit is a large part of the reason that the EB feels compelled to do (and to show they are doing) everything in its power to deal with Paul Truong, because Sloan's lawsuit contends that Goichburg knew about the Mottershead report and didnt do anything until it was made public. I think that I read something months ago that suggested Mottershead leaked his report because he felt the Board would not act on it otherwise. Could be wrong on that, though. This lawsuit is for $20 million and has already cost the USCF $25,000 in budgeted legal fees and $25-50,000 more which is not yet budgeted for.

.

2. USCF vs. John Doe. This alleges that an unknown person broke into an EB member's email and stole a confidential communication between Karl Kronenberger (the USCF lawyer) and a member of the Board's legal committee. The implication of the recent NY Times article is that John Doe is either Paul Truong or Susan Polgar. The idea is that they would be the people with the most to gain from stealing the email because it's about them and how to get Paul to resign. I know nothing about the costs involved here. I'm confused about why the Secret Service handles wire fraud (which apparently is what this constitutes.) Can anyone think of any reason wire fraud would be under their sphere?

3. Susan Polgar vs. USCF et all. This is the surprise lawsuit described above-- Susan suing for defamation. The lawyer estimated legal fees of upwards of $100,000. I don't know how much she's suing for.

===========================================================

My Opinions

So here are my opinions:

1. Clearly Paul Truong was The or one of The Fake Sam Sloans. Anyone who follows internet chess knows this and has known this for years now. The lawyer gave air-tight proof for anyone who hadn't been following. If you still doubt me, check out the kid's reviews of Susan's books and ask yourself if you think they were all written by children under 13. (They are posted as such because if you claim to be a kid under 13 you don't have to leave your name; Amazon is legally required to protect your privacy.) I don't find it too hard to believe he's not the only Fake Sam Sloan -- it's my experience that people like to join in cruelty, kinda like Lord of the Flies.

Let me tell you a little personal story, involving Chess Bitch. When Jenn's book came out, there were many reader reviews on Amazon.com, most of which gave it either one star or five. There were dozens and dozens of kids' reviews, almost all of which were negative and some of which were extremely nasty. Most of these have since been deleted after Jenn complained to Amazon. I became involved because a few of the reviews were directed at me. For a long time, I suspected Paul Truong, in large part because Susan and he had a book that came out at the same time (Breaking Through), and it also got many many kids' reviews (but these were all positive). At one point two kids' reviews were accidentally cross-posted, i.e. a negative review of Jenn's book appeared on Amazon's Polgar page and vice versa. These reviews have since been deleted, but as of today (Aug 13-- when the first draft was written) there is still a reference to the mistake in a subsequent review of Breaking Through:

20 of 32 people found the following review helpful:

The first family of chess, November 6, 2005

A Kid's Review

What is the last reviewer talking about? There's no mentioning of Kosteniuk or Krush anywhere in the book. This book is about the lives of three Polgar sisters who made history. The author didn't use fancy words or complicated style. She's direct and candid with her views. I like this book very much. And by the way, there are plenty of nice analyzed games and combinations. Susan explained each move even from the first move. Nicely done! A high class book!

So I figured it was Paul who was behind it. Later, another person (totally unrelated to Paul) admitted to writing a few of these reviews, but said she definitely had not done more than a few and that she thought 4-5 other people had written the rest. Clearly, she can't really know it's 4-5 people, but she can know it's at least one more and she can reasonably suspect (she's an intelligent person and an experienced writer) that it's multiple people. This is part of why I have believed Paul is at least A Fake Sam Sloan.

2. I fail to see why anyone would want to imitate Sam Sloan. I mean, really, let the man hang himself. His website is more than enough to convince anyone he's a repulsive character. (more on my thoughts on SS later.)

3. I think Susan Polgar has done a lot for chess. I like her on a personal level. I think she's intelligent in both a practical way and a chess way. I think she works hard and is a good ambassador for chess.

4. I think suing people is ridiculous. You cannot argue you are trying to help American chess if you sue the USCF. It also lowers the level of discussion because you can blackmail anyone just by threatening to sue them. Even if the suit is completely unfounded, the legal expenses and time involved are such an incredible burden that you can easily ruin someone's life. This makes it hard for intelligent people/ observers to be straightforward.

5. I think the delegates should have removed Truong from the board because of his refusal to cooperate with the insurance lawyers in the Sam Sloan lawsuit. Regardless of how guilty/innocent he may be of the fake postings, his refusal to admit or deny culpability in writing seems indefensible to me.

Many delegates seemed to agree with Paul that the conflict should be settled in court, but this course of action seems very likely to bankrupt the USCF. I heard estimates of legal expenses around $200,000, and this is if we win both suits (numbers 1 and 3) and if they take a year or less to settle.

Finally, I want to add that I was impressed by a couple delegates' comments. Donna Alarie seemed rational and on-target to me, and a guy named Holliman made some very intelligent points. Also, Sam Sloan-- for as much as I think the guy defines creepy-- I do agree with a surprisingly large number of his arguments.

So that's my two cents.

Feel free to leave a comment.

Please do not sue me.

* I don't believe any account is ever told without authorial bias, so I'm not going to try too hard.

Mysterious Fruit Tabs

a. k. a. Miracle Fruit Tablets

You let half of one melt on your tongue, and then for the next hour, everything sour or bitter tastes SUPER SUPER SWEET. I read an article about the berry this is derived from in the NY Times, and then I saw it on ThinkGeek, so I ordered some. It's fantastic-- highly recommended.

Here's me, enjoying a lime:

Photographs courtesy of Abby Marshall

Secret Service!??!!?

Did you guys see this??

.

"On June 25, the federation, contending that the e-mail messages had been stolen, filed a lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court seeking subpoenas for Internet service providers to turn over the Internet protocol addresses that had been used to gain access to the board’s e-mail accounts. The federation was also seeking to take depositions from Ms. Polgar and Mr. Truong about the issue.

.

Mr. Kronenberger said that the service providers provided the Internet protocol addresses. He said he believed that the unauthorized access to the e-mail between him and the litigation subcommittee, in addition to compromising attorney-client privilege in the case, constituted wire fraud. He said he had turned the information provided by the Internet service providers over to federal authorities.
.

Edwin Donovan, a spokesman for the Secret Service, which investigates certain instances of wire fraud, said the case had been referred to its field office in San Francisco."

--NY Times Aug 17

.

I still intend to post my thoughts on the delegates meeting, btw, I'm just overwhelmed with a couple other projects right now....

Movie Reviews

I never would have thought of going to this site for movie reviews, but maybe I'm going to start...

More US Chess School Photos

Evan Ju
Michael Lee

Greg Shahade plays Joel Benjamin
Victor Shen won the blitz tournament 6-1, which advanced him to the finals vs. Joel Benjamin. They played a 4 game blitz match, pictured above, which Joel swept. Daniel Yeager, Sam Shankland, and Abby Marshall watch.
Blitz tournament: Abby Marshall plays Daniel Yeager