This will make interesting case-law for the 'I.T. Law (USA)' files. It is a pity Sam Sloan is involved though: he can mis-focus on an Olympian scale.
Polgar-Truong dismiss the case on the grounds that they had asked certain people to be dismissed from their work at/for the USCF, and that the methods used to gather the evidence were "100% illegal", oh, and that they didn't do it.
Webmasters are entitled to, encouraged to, examine how their websites are being used by users, and not just to detect abuse. They are probably not entitled to publish information about named users on the web. But the latter error does not negate any evidence there is.
I was not aware that Truong had a back-history of anonymous attacks on the web: perhaps there are sources for this.
The court could also ask Blogger HQ if Polgar-Truong have been contributing comments to their own blog at either the fake-cheerleader end or the fake-mad-opponent end.
Until the report of the independent expert comes out, and the case is heard ... let justice prevail.

Somehow recall this from an earlier thread...

http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2006/01/women_troubles_2.htm

"I deleted the "Topamura" troll about my ancient USCF rating and Maliq's taking the bait. But I am disturbed that it came from the same IP address as Susan Polgar's posts that immediately preceded it. If it is what is seems it is unacceptable whether the target is me, Anna Hahn, or anyone else. I'm disappointed to see this is the response to an attempt at dialogue about an important issue.

Posted by: Mig at January 30, 2006 14:15"

Mig,

Your 100% correct to stay away from this nonsense. I looked briefly at the Polgar website and Sloans commments (maybe they were fake?)during the election and it was like watching my brothers kids having an argument.

If this is what the USCF spends its time doing - your screwed.

I am sort of an expert in the field of "spoofing". IP addresses don't lie: if Paul Truong's IP address was logged in the posts, then the posts had to come from his internet connection.

The only way for a malicious person to make it look like it came from Paul/Susan's IP address, is to install spyware on Paul/Susan's computer, turn it into a proxy, and then post using that proxy in their browser. Basically this is not feasible unless the person is a serious hacker and has absolutely no life whatsoever.

If it was an email address that was spoofed, I would have bought it. An IP address--No way in hell.

yeah, I didnt quite understand Mig's post. Exactly what was the alleged spoof? Is Truong alleged to have posted as Sloan, and do the IP records show that it was in fact the same IP as related to other posts from Truong? Where is the "IP" spoof? ID spoof certainly, but IP?

I might add that I am supremely unconcerned about the parties involved, the IP issue interests me on a technical level.

Just a small clarification. Mig refers to me in his post as a "disgruntled employee" of the USCF.
It is surprising to find a two-word phrase with two mistakes in it, but "disgruntled employee" is one. I'm not a USCF employee and I am not disgruntled, at least not with the USCF.

In fact, I am a volunteer who has been working practically full-time on the USCF web site, completely gratis, since mid-July -- in order to be of help to the USCF. I have not received a penny from the USCF, or anybody else, for my work on behalf of the USCF. I wouldn't do that if I was "disgruntled".

Mig may be justified in the rest of his cynicism on this issue, but this isn't a "disgrunted employee" story.

It's much easier to spoof an IP address _in a Usenet post_ than Braden suggests. If you have access to an NNTP server that allows you to specify the NNTP-Posting_Host header (and some commercial services allow this); or if run your own news server and have a peering arrangement (or simply know a server that allows you to inject posts).

Sppofing your IP in _email_ is hard--the Received line from your own mail server will always show the real IP address it got the mail from. Sppofing IP in posts to a web forum (like the USCF forum) is hard.

Anyone concerned with spoofing on Usenet should PGP-sign their posts (as many people suggested to Sloan).

Susan Polgar & Paul Truong will prove to be greater liabilities to the USCF than Sam Sloan himself!

In the meantime, Donna Alaire is filing legal papers to access the USCF financial records, in pursuit of her investigation of the federation's shady financial practices...

Ed, the Fake Sam Sloan posts were almost all injected using Google's news server which, as you know, provides a web-based interface. This does not let you specify the NNTP-Posting_Host. Google probably gets the posting host IP from the HTTP connection of the poster, which as you say is "hard" (I would have said virtually impossible) to spoof. So your IP spoofing strategies are not applicable in this case.

Besides the fact that nobody can explain how the Fake Sam Sloan could have spoofed IP addresses in his Usenet posts through the Google news server, it also hasn't been explained how the Fake Sam Sloan poster found out which IP addresses to spoof.

This problem of finding out what to spoof applies also to the User Agent strings, which also match. Those are pretty easy to spoof, unlike IP addresses, but as with the IP addresses you still have to know what user agent strings to spoof.

Indeed, the alleged "spoofer" had to be able to learn what IP addresses and user agent strings to spoof regularly and at will over the course of 18 months. And, when the person he was framing switched computers or internet connections, he had to know when to switch to different user agent strings and IP addresses, so that the ones he was spoofing would continue to match.

It's sad but true: Zsuzsa Polgar does this on her own website all of the time. She (or Paul Truong or whoever) posted a lot of anti-Polgar stuff on their site, to make themselves look oh so good for the elections...

Polgar also censors every post on her site that are only a little bit not according to her taste. She only accepts people that have the exact same view as herself, and censors everybody else.

I quit going to that blog of hers, and i even deleted the link to there from my chessclub's website.

People should grow up. Those kind of politics, it seems like little children...

I certainly do not know much of anything about spoofing and NNTP and servers, and whatnot. I'll believe what everyone has said here at face value.

But it seems to me that the real potential problem is that the logs could have been tampered with. Are they simply just text files? How can someone ensure that the IP addresses were copied and pasted in the log files?

Note that I am not making any accusations, but from what everyone is saying, changing the log files seems like an easier task than spoofing an IP.

Truong et al haven't had a consistent story on this. To the New York Times and on his forum site, chessdiscussion.com, Truong said that his IP addresses had been spoofed on the Usenet posts.

At the same time, both Polgar and Truong have tried to characterize me as someone on a vendetta against them, implying that I doctored the USCF database and logs to implicate Truong. This "log-doctoring" story works out well for them, because it makes the whole thing a "he-said,she-said" situation: my word that I didn't doctor the logs versus Paul's insinuations that I did. This enables people who would like to believe Paul and Susan to continue doing so.

But please note that these are really two completely different and inconsistent stories. The spoofing story admits that the IP addresses on the Usenet posts are Truong's IP addresses, but claims that they got onto the Usenet posts through spoofing. The log-doctoring story says that Truong actually had different IP addresses than appear on the Usenet posts, but that the IP addresses from those posts got planted in the USCF database to make it look like Truong had those same IP addresses.

I already addressed how the IP spoofing story doesn't fly. Let me now address the suggestion that I have doctored the USCF database and logs.

I started working for the USCF on July 11, 2007, and that is when I was given access to the forum database and the files for the web site. The evidence that Paul Truong and the Usenet imposter are one and the same rests mainly on IP addresses stored in the USCF forum database. It is quite true that I had the ability to doctor the USCF forum database after July 11.

But there are three significant problems with the claim.

1) There are backups of the USCF forum databases from before July 11, and these are stored in a place to which I have no access at all. I might have been able to doctor the live database, but I would not have been able to doctor the backups. Much of evidence is from before July 11. If the backups from before July 11 are compared to the actual database, my doctoring would be discovered.

2) Similarly, there are web logs being created by the Apache web server. These web logs must be consistent with the information in the USCF Forum database. I have never had any access to these Apache web logs, neither those from before July 11, or after. If those web logs do not corroborate the evidence I have presented, again, the jig is up for me.

3) The various ISP's in question also have a record of what Paul Truong's IP addresses were at various times. The data in the USCF forum databases must be consistent with the records of Paul Truong's ISP's over the last 18 months. If it is not, it shows that I doctored the logs, and the game is up for me.

Now, nobody can know what is in the records of ISP's unless those records are subpoenaed, and that has not happened. But the USCF can corroborate that I did not doctor the database or the logs.

So, if the "disgruntled employee doctored the logs" theory is true,you have to believe that I am very foolish person who is going to be exposed as a fraud rather quickly.

Thank you Brian, for explaining the log back up procedures, and IP storage issues.

I await the results of where this is going to go.

Mig -- did you write this article with Dylan (his article was published Oct 8), and you wrote yours Oct 7. Next - seeing the future...

David Ulevitch, founder and chief executive of OpenDNS, which provides Internet domain name services, said that impersonating someone on the Internet “happens a lot"... Asked about Mr. Truong’s contention that he could have been framed, Mr. Ulevitch said, “It has been known to happen that someone has impersonated someone else impersonating someone else.”

As a party in this lawsuit, I would like to state unequivocally that it is trivial to spoof an IP address, or hack someone else's account and log in as someone on the USCF website. There also is a seemingly morbid fascination with a few members to follow certain political candidates every move in order to harass them. If you are at home, and no children are around you, look at the site of the person that made the lawsuit. If you dig around for awhile, you will find out that no-one can create more harm to his candidacy that his own words and images on his own site. I have created a PG version of some of Mr. Sloans postings ((a) see link below). Even though it is watered down, it should not be read for the faint of heart. There have also been a pattern of serious privacy breaches by the primary investigator and he has admitted breaking into other members private messaging accounts (b). This investigation is a political witch-hunt and the accusations have no real evidence to back them up.

That this is a story at all frankly amazes me. The evidence is extraordinarily weak, and the volunteer instigator of this investigation has caused harm to people's reputations in the name of political attack. This is one more attempt to smear a political candidate that someone does not like. Unfortunately, the USCF Executive Director's tacit approval of this investigation has caused harm to other people as Mr. Sloan is using a shot-gun approach in his lawsuit. The real story should be that the USCF is spending resources, and a great deal of time to have it's system administrator, and potentially other paid experts to try to determine the browsing patterns of it's own membership using the personal data that they collect on their own members.

It should be noted that Brian Mottershead continues to violate his NDA signed with the USCF, and nothing has been done to stop him for the last two weeks by the Executive Directors. If someone erroneously thinks that this is evidence; we should just go ahead and investigate all of our members, every single one of us, using our IP addresses? Why single just one member out for smear and violate his right to privacy? Since this was taken public immediately instead of heard internally, and papers were informed, it is quite likely that this investigation is being allowed to be done in the name of a dirty political attack.

If we as members allow this, it will destroy the very fabric of trust that we have by our members. Whoever controls the USCF database in the future will be in a very good place to direct attacks against their opponents-- whereas the folks that don't control the database will not be able to respond in kind. Furthermore, there are many ways to spoof and make the data look real. The USCF is not an organization to ensure that it's members have good browsing habits. If we set this precedent; It is likely that our resources will be further squandered for political attack.

Sincerely,

Gregory Alexander
USCF College Chess Committee Associate Chair.

A watered down version of Sam Sloan's on posts on his own website (not for the faint of heart)
http://www.tatiana.net/forum/index.cfm?fPage=topic&topicID=198

Prior privacy abuses from the volunteer system administrator, Brian Mottershead
http://www.tatiana.net/forum/index.cfm?fPage=topic&topicID=353

Gregory,

It strikes me as Mr. Ulevich's comments are either being taken completely out of context, or someone asked him the wrong question.

Spoofing someone's IP is one thing.

Spoofing someone's IP in order to do some behavior, immediately after the person actually using that person's IP did the exact same behavior is pretty tricky to do.

Heck, such an incident happened here. I recall the Topamura troll.

Let's use Occam's Razor. Which is more likely:

Truong (or Polgar, or both) posts regularly on the newsgroups/blogs/etc. under their real names, then switches, from the same computer, to an "Anonymous" name, in order to make posts which are a bit more edgy

or...

Truong and Polgar have some piece of malware on their machine(s) which has been hijacked by a fellow newsgroup/blog poster, who watches when Polgar and Truong make posts, then makes anonymous posts from the same IP, which no one can see, to argue a point and get Truong/Polgar in trouble.

Uhhhh, in the latter case, if the person had such access, it raises a few questions:
1) Why wouldn't they just make the posts under Polgar/Truong's name? That would get them in even more trouble.
2) Why is no one (years later), publicizing this? In essence, no one has provided the proof to get them caught, which would ultimately be the point of this ruse.

I like Paul and Susan a lot, actually, but it's hard to believe, based on what I've read, that this hasn't been going on.

Of course, Sloan's name attached to it... aiiiiiii.

David Ulevitch's quote sounds like he was given a brief summary of a situation and was asked for a comment. Doesn't sound like he knew the particulars. Kind of like when some TV personality psychologist "diagnoses" some celebrity based on news coverage. (Kind of like some previous threads here...)

If IP spoofing is trivial, tell us how it's done? This from someone who apparently didn't realize that forum administrators can (from a technical perspective) read whatever content is in the database regardless of whether they have access to the user's passwords.

Normally, a denial of service attack has to be launched against the address being spoofed so it doesn't respond to packets sent to it. This is not something just anyone can do. Also, you have to know what to spoof, which, as explained by Mottershead, would be very hard in this case (especially since it changed several times). Spoofing in an individual instance may be relatively easy for someone with the right skills and resources, but spoofing in a consistent way over months of changing IP addresses and in different contexts without making a mistake... not so much.

I think allegations of misconduct by those just elected (and misconduct apparently used to help them get elected) is extremely relevant to the proper running of USCF. And yes, Sam Sloan is a morally reprehensible individual, but that doesn't invalidate the ethical and legal issues involved in Truong's alleged conduct.

Gregory Alexander, whether he has done anything wrong in this matter or not, seems to be arguing from a standpoint of distorted reality. Especially considering his assertion (in the linked to web page) that Brian Mottershead was violating his privacy merely by logging into his account to check into problems. I've had web hosting support people log into my account to verify that it was or wasn't working. As long as they don't actually read my email, it's not a privacy issue.

Of course, I don't know all the facts. I am a technical person, however, and I find the technical arguments compelling.

I love that the Daily Dirt has some actual dirt in it today...

My reading of events goes down the same path as Mig's, more or less.

***

On-topic blogwhoring: grist for the US District Court mill at http://www.direkickfeud.blogspot.com/

***

So has Mr. Mottershead noted those who were accused by Mr. Sloan, but exonerated (or at least not "incriminated") by his analysis?

And will the USCF Board allow Messrs. Mottershead & Bogner to violate the privacy of all USCF members, or only those violations that Mr. Goichberg finds convenient for his political purpose?

Assume, arguendo, that Mr. Truong impersonated Mr. Sloan repeatedly. That's wrong, and if the case is proven to be probable, Mr. Truong would do well to resign. The fake Sloan posts were as execrable as Sloan himself.

However, the abuse of trust in violating the privacy of a nonprofit organization's members is equally unethical, IMO.

I'm the "Ray Gordon" mentioned in the postings.

Lost in all this is that the "imposter" was also impersonating ME. I had nothing to do with the USCF board or USCF forum.

I also conducted my own investigation into this, and while I've had strong suspicions about this imposter business for quite some time, I'm reserving judgment until everyone else gets their stories told, which they can do...once. Then they can't change it.

Meanwhile, ICC gives you an EKG-like rating that tells you how you are doing from minute to minute, for only a few dollars more than it costs to join USCF.

-

Brian, did you come up with more links besides the posts from the 25th and 19th?

Q: Did I come up with more links? A: Yes. The case is actually considerably stronger now than what I posted on the 25th in the USCF Issues forum. Not that it wasn't already plenty strong when I first posted my conclusions.

Regarding Sam Sloan's suit, my opinion is that Sam should have stuck to the matter at hand and not dragged in so many other irrelevant issues. Some of the defendants, such as Bill Brock and the USCF Issues forum moderators, don't make any sense to me. I understand why Sam wanted to drag Texas Tech into it, but I think the pretext for his doing that was really thin. Some of the prayers for relief in the complaint, such as the reinstatement of Bobby Fischer's USCF membership seem bizarre, completely irrelevant, and utter non sequiturs.

I've told Sam that I think his suit is kitchen-sinkish, and all of the extraneous stuff weakens his chances considerably. I don't know how a federal judge is going to react to it. Since Sam is a pro se plaintiff, a judge might feel it is his duty to "help" Sam distill it down to the essence, but it is just as likely that he will be exasperated, throw up his hands, and dismiss the whole thing.

Also, I think there was a good chance that the USCF would have found its way to doing the right thing, but that Sam's suit made that somewhat less likely. Some of the Executive Board members who might have been outraged to find the Fake Sam Sloan in their midst, are now reacting instead to being sued by the real Sam Sloan.

I've never felt that this matter was mainly about Sam Sloan, or Ray Gordon, or any of the others being impersonated by "the Fake Sam Sloan/Fake Ray Gordon/etc", although that of course was part of it. A lot of people on hearing about this tend to think, "well who cares if somebody was attacking Sam Sloan or Ray Gordon". But the real issue here is that the impersonator used those identities not only to torment Sam Sloan, Ray Gordon, etc, but to post obscene, racist, misogynistic, libelous attacks on the USCF and almost everybody having anything to do with the management of the USCF. Unless you actually read through a significant number of the posts, it would be hard to believe how vile the posts actually were.

Mr. Mottershead, let's grant the vileness of the faux Sloan posts. (I was in the habit of skipping them, and I was under the perhaps mistaken impression that there were multiple fakers, but I remember enough of them to trust your opinion.)

Does the desirable end (exposing the person who was making posts contrary to USCF's interests outside of the USCF forum) justify the means (your invasion of certain members' privacy by comparing private records to public records)?

Did you invade the privacy of others only to find them "innocent," or did you specifically target Mr. Truong?

Were your actions authorized by the Executive Director or Board of the USCF?

If so, was this authorization in writing/email?

If so, who made this authorization?

Did you communicate directly or indirectly with Mr. Sloan during your "investigation"?

If so, what was the nature of the information you exchanged?

Do you currently have access to any USCF databases containing member information?

I believe that this is relevant to this discussion as it shows that the privacy of the USCF is not taken seriously by Brian. Also, this so called 'investigation' took place right after I took this issue in house and Susan and Paul were the only EB members that supported it. It is a long read, but it is accurate.

There is a pattern of confidentiality breaches within the USCF. The pattern starts from the top, and it is filtered down to at least two developers, who have both admitted to logging in as someone else and accessing our personal accounts. Two confidentiality issues occurred to me personally that affected the ability to perform as a volunteer, and Bill Hall constantly ignored them. Unfortunately, their are individuals within the USCF that do not like criticism, and once a whistle blower has made an internal complaint, lawsuits are threatened after the complaint. We should all be aware of how the USCF treats our privacy and how they resolve an internal complaint.

I am web-developer, and a frequent visitor to the USCF Forums. I also moderated this form for several months during a contentious election season, currently I am the USCF College Chess Associate Chair, and developed and maintain the college chess league site (http://www.collegechess.org). I have worked hard; and just received notification that I was nominated as the USCF Volunteer of the Month. However, in my extensive dealings with the USCF, I have witnessed confidentiality breeches and I have grave concerns on how they handle our confidentiality. Please read on and try to imagine the following.

In September, a new website was released. You look at it, and find a ton of bugs. You sit for a few days, look again, and decide to write a thread titled ‘I am not impressed with the site’. In this thread, you annotate many bugs, the Interim System Administrator does not like your negative comments, nor does the head website developer, and they start attacking your comments. You post anyway, and just posted that there may be a problem with the Private Messaging functionality, and start to write another long post. You hit the submit button, and noticed that you are suddenly logged out of the site. You ask your friends via email if they are still on, the answer is yes, and after several hours of not being able to log on, you complain using the site. Now, after the reporting the incident, imagine reading the following response:

"Gregory reported two problems in the forum regarding his account, and was making a big fuss. Squeaky wheel getting the grease. I did not ask Gregory for permission to log into his account... (but) sent him a PM to let him know that I was temporarily substituting my password for his on the account so that I could log in as him... This was a notice, not a request for permission, sent as a courtesy in order to avoid any more inconvenience to him than necessary... When working on the latter, I went to (Gregory's) PM section of the User Control Panel, but I did not open any of the PMs. I then logged out, and reset the password back to his original password, or at least I believed I had done so... Because the passwords are encrypted, one cannot simply look up the password in the database and log in with it. You have to go through the process of saving the user's encrypted password aside, replacing it with a known password, encrypted, and then logging in with the known password, later on restoring the original password. In this particular case, because it was about 2AM and I was tired, I made a mistake when restoring the password, so in the morning when Gregory tried to login, he could not. The password was not correct.... Anybody working on the forums, as I have, has access to the forums database, which contains personal messages and the content of hidden private forums... If I had wanted to read your PM's, I did not need to log into your account, or tell you that I was doing so. I have access to every PM in the entire database along with everything else. I could have read every PM you have at any time in the last two and a half months without telling you or anybody else. The same goes for every other PM of every other user in the forums. However, if there is any further public suggestion or implication that my conduct was in any way improper, unethical, or unprofessional, or there is any other aspersion cast on my professional reputation, then this will become a matter involving lawyers, and, potentially, courts.

Sincerely,

Brian Mottershead”

These are real quotes from the Interim System Administrator, taken from three letters. Are you a bit chilled regarding your privacy? Read on, it gets worse.

Some may say that I must not care about confidentiality as I am revealing the contents of emails; however, Brian is acting on behalf of the USCF as the Interim Systems Administrator. The email goes into detail how my account was accessed-- nothing in the emails is personal. Hypothetically speaking; If I write an email to Acme credit card services, and asked them why they charged me for not using the credit card for a year, and they respond, I have a right to take it public, right? This is the same hypothetical situation that happened at the USCF. However the email that you read from Brian is not hypothetical at all. It is real.

Before continuing; I would like to comment upon the Interim System Administrator’s points. First, in over 20 years in this business, I have never looked at anyone’s email, or private messages. The forums that we are using, Phpbb3 makes sure that the password is encrypted to prevent the developer from gaining access to a users account. This design choice is intentional to discourage developers from getting the users log-in credentials. I did not even think that Brian’s tactic to access my account was possible, in fact, I never thought of any way to access someone’s account at all. Even if I posses the keys to the database, I am not going to try to figure it out. IMO, it is not the right thing to do an ethical standpoint.

Even when I ask someone to volunteer to help on my own college chess site, I am very careful to give them a quick lecture on privacy. I clearly state that under no circumstance should you look at anyone’s messages unless given consent, and we must ensure that our customers have the right to privacy. I am uncomfortable lecturing someone that I trust, especially when I just asked them for help, however I state it very clearly before I give anyone access. Good development processes require that the senior developer take the time to review basic privacy policies, and will often use development techniques to limit database access. All developers that have full access should have been very well trained on what they can do, and what they can’t. Unless required to by law, no one has the right to read other persons private discussions without the person’s explicit consent.

Brain has stated in the past that he ‘just logged in to try to fix a problem’. However, there is no reason for him to access my private messages to find the problem. The private messages are created by a single common phpbb3 template. From a technical standpoint, the template processes the same exact logic regardless of whose account it is. The fact of the matter is that Brian and I were in heated exchanges in the forums when this took place, and then I was booted out and he looked into my private message folder. Yes, Brian discovered a clever way to circumvent the phpbb3 encryption system, but even so, he had no reason to log in as me even if he was trying to ‘just fix my account’.

This is really not about Brian per-say; it is about bad USCF policy, and having management and some senior programmers that that have a long track record of violating confidentiality. Also, the official USCF response (and lack of it) of this incident concerns me. I took this in-house and tried to settle it internally. Instead of being formally apologize to, I was harassed for reporting it. Finally, it was not I that broke confidentiality. That distinction belongs to the head developer of the USCF, Hal Bogner.

Here is letter dated 9/16/2007 from the Head Developer, Hal Bogner:
“Important Note: This is a confidential email, and is not to be shared outside of the recipients or other board members, with equal attention to confidentiality…”

Followed up with:

Gregory:

I demand that you immediately cease and desist from posting or sending by email or otherwise expressing any and all derogatory remarks concerning myself, my clients, my partners, my colleagues, my associates, and/or my fellow volunteers, except of course those that are true and that are clearly supported by publicly available facts. I likewise demand that you remove and/or retract all such postings and that you retract all such email statements.

Any further references to allegations you wish to make towards me will be answered by attorneys, and any harm to the reputations of myself, partners, colleagues, associates, and/or fellow volunteers may become the subject of a lawsuit…

Sinecerely,

Hal Bogner”

Even though Hal clearly stated that this matter was confidential, a few days later Hal posted this in the USCF Issues forum:

“On Saturday night, Gregory had a problem… the development team (and now, the USCF executive board) saw the rather paranoid message he sent us in the middle of the night... He wrote to the development team, with cc's to three people: the USCF president, the USCF executive director, and his boss at chessdiscussion.com. I've been wondering about why he chose that particular USCF executive board member to include, without also cc'ing the remaining five members, too.

I, for one, would really appreciate an apology from Gregory, both for his erroneous assertions in this matter, and for past misrepresentations regarding me, and also regarding my separate web site operation, Chess Magnet School, too.

Hal Bogner
hal@chessmagnet.com
http://www.ChessMagnetSchool.com”

It seems like Hal chose to forget that he expressed confidentiality.

There are serious concerns regarding Hal’s past regarding confidentiality. Ask anyone on the FOC or moderation teams how Hal compromised their confidentiality. Privately; I am sure that most will agree that on many occasions Hal violated our privacy (I was a moderator at the time). Bill Hall originally set up the moderators to be private. However, it is a well known fact that Hal accessed the private moderations lounges, and then revealed the moderators names publicly. According to a letter sent to the ED from David Quinn, Hal originally accessed the private lounge by using the log-in credentials of his friend in the FOC. When publicly questioned, Hal originally stated that he was authorized to access the lounge with Bill Hall’s approval, but later denied this, and reversed his tune again after the election.

Even worse, Hal Bogner accessed a private complaint from one of our members that we serve, and he then propagated it around to his friends. This nearly became a serious legal issue. You can’t ask a fellow member to complain to the USCF representatives when your complaint when you know that your complaint might go public and be spread all over the net. Hal’s continued access, and the lack of accountability by the ED caused a huge issue with the effectively of the FOC and moderation teams as we did not know who to trust. Ramifications to the effectiveness of the FOC and moderators are continuing to this day. I wish that we could limit this issue to Hal Bogner, but the Executive Director is involved in this too.

When discussing this issue with Bill Hall, I asked Bill bluntly about Hal Bogner’s prior access as it is a related confidentiality issue. I let him know that four of my friends and colleagues stated to me privately that they all called Bill and asked him if he gave Bogner access. Bill denied this. However, for approximately four months, a few of us asked Bill to state this publicly. Bill said nothing. When I talked to Bill last week, I pointed this out, and really put Bill on the spot—did you, or didn’t you, authorize Hal? Bill fumbled around a bit, and then stated that ‘Hal informed me that he had access to the FOC lounge by using another FOC members log-in, and asked if he should report anything that might be wrong, and I said yes… Hal framed the question in such a way to have plausible deniability.’

It is not my intent to cause long term harm to the USCF. I could sued for an invasion of privacy, or took this matter public immediately, but instead chose to try to solve the issue in-house. Unfortunately, other than two EB board members, this issue has been ignored. Therefore, it is my intent to release this information so the members can be for-warned regarding the right to the choice of privacy of their own discussions, and to highlight what the Executive Director thinks about our right to privacy. The USCF is primarily a democratic institution; however slowly, we the members have the ability to make change. We can petition the Executive Board members or the Delegates, and make sure that the organization cares about our privacy and their representatives to not threaten legal action against a member that is raising the issue internally. To conclude, it is my desire that the processes that allowed the confidentiality breeches to occur in the first place be changed, and training and awareness, along with accountability is assured to respect our right to confidentiality.

Thank-you for your time,

Gregory Alexander

I have no idea what's going on here, and little interest in reading all the background verbiage beyond this blog to find out -- but I am very surprised to find people being so candid and forthcoming in this forum about a matter that's the subject of legal action. While I can sympathize with the desire to clear one's name publicly, I would have thought that "no comment" would be the best course of action in the long run. Is this all normal -- or am I simply not used to the wacky world of lawsuits?

About anyone could sue you for any sort of thing, imagined or real, frivolous or not. Law suits happen because people cannot agree what is right (legal) or wrong (illegal), sometimes to harm another person, gain money, disrupt competing interests, or because plaintiff believes that his rights were harmed. Sam Sloan will need to prove each point, and that he gathered evidence by legal means. If he did not get the court order for private information and hired experienced computer investigators, his case could be dismissed, and counter-suit filed.

@ Theorist:

As a litigator, I can confirm that "No comment" is absolutely the best course of action for the principals involved.

Unfortunately, the Federation seems to collectively have a pathological obsession with "openness" that prompts people to yell and scream about every real or perceived slight ad nauseam. The airing of such inside baseball is not good for business--in any business.

None of the loudest yellers in this matter have been on base:

1) Gregory Alexander's assertion that members' privacy is being invaded does not hold water. When you post something on an organization's web site, that organization or its agents are within their rights to track you. Period. The remedy for those who don't like it is not to post.

2) Brian Mottershead could not have chosen a more inappropriate venue and manner in which to disclose his findings. Anyone with half a brain would have known that findings this sensitive should be tactfully disclosed to the organization's staff--not announced to the whole world.

3) Notwithstanding Brian's conduct, it is a certainty that Paul Truong was the Fake Sam Sloan. The fact that he even thought about faking such posts renders him unfit for board service.

4) Finally, why would anyone want to imitate Sam Sloan in order to make him look bad? He does a good enough job of that himself.

Sheesh.

> Does the desirable end (exposing the person who > was making posts contrary to USCF's interests
> outside of the USCF forum) justify the means
> (your invasion of certain members' privacy by
> comparing private records to public records)?

I didn't make any posts outside the restricted USCF forum. My post was copied by others to RGCP before it was deleted. An administrator using IP addresses in the logs and database to identify a source of abuse is normal, and is not an invasion of privacy. It is to facilitate such inquiries that IP addresses are logged in the first place.

> Did you invade the privacy of others only to
> find them "innocent," or did you specifically
> target Mr. Truong?

At the beginning, I knew that Sam Sloan had publicly stated his suspicion that the Fake Sam Sloan was Paul Truong, but I did not specifically target Truong. At the outset, I did not have IP address matches, only user agent strings that had appeared on Usenet. I did a search to find matching user agent strings and it narrowed down to two people who had accessed the forum with those user agent strings. I studied those two cases more carefully, looking at time/dates etc, and so forth. This narrowed it down to one, which was Truong. I then went looking for IP address matches, and initially didn't find any, but I hadn't systematically made a copy of all the Usenet posts, as I did later. I didn't go any further at this point, because user agent string matches by themselves weren't sufficiently convincing. That can happen by chance. While only one other person had exactly the same user agent string besides Truong, there were several others that were quite close, for example. However, on the 19th, the Fake Ray Gordon made 6 posts on Usenet and these all matched Truong's IP address. A couple of days later Troung went to Mexico City, and Fake Ray Gordon posted from a Mexico City IP address that matched Truong's. That convinced me that Truong was the Fake Sam Sloan. That was the state when I wrote my post in the USCF Issues forum.

> Were your actions authorized by the Executive
> Director or Board of the USCF?

After I came across the user agent string matches, I informed Bill Hall and Bill Goichberg, and they instructed me to produce a report, which they said I should submit to the Ethics Committee. I took this as authorization to gather information for a report.

> If so, was this authorization in writing/email?

It was verbal.

> If so, who made this authorization?

Answered.

> Did you communicate directly or indirectly with
> Mr. Sloan during your "investigation"?

Yes. At the point when all I had was user agent string matches, I had an idea about how to gather more information, which involved the cooperation of Sam Sloan. He agreed to cooperate, but the Fake Ray Gordon posts on September 19th which produced IP address matches made it unnecessary to pursue this idea.

> If so, what was the nature of the information
> you exchanged?

See above.

> Do you currently have access to any USCF
> databases containing member information?

I am still working as one of two Administrators of the USCF forums.

"When you post something on an organization's web site, that organization or its agents are within their rights to track you. Period."

And "tracking" includes anywhere on the Web?

And any unpaid volunteer's witch hunt is equivalent to the duly authorized acts of an agent for his or her principal?

Thank you for your responses.

Followup:

> Were your actions authorized by the Executive
> Director or Board of the USCF?

**After I came across the user agent string matches, I informed Bill Hall and Bill Goichberg, and they instructed me to produce a report, which they said I should submit to the Ethics Committee. I took this as authorization to gather information for a report.**

> When you informed Messrs. Hall and Goichberg,
> prior to receiving authorization for your
> formal report, did you also inform them of your
> *preliminary* findings? (E.g., "it may be
> Truong?" or "it may be a Board member"?)

"And 'tracking' includes anywhere on the Web?"

Within available means of discovery, yes.

"And any unpaid volunteer's witch hunt is equivalent to the duly authorized acts of an agent for his or her principal?"

If within the scope of said volunteer's duties, yes.

> And "tracking" includes anywhere on the Web?

No, but if you are administering a restricted forum and the abusive conduct is reposting items from that forum elsewhere on the Internet doctored so as to discredit the original poster, I think it is quite fair to correlate information between those two locations in an attempt to identify who is doing that. Would you not agree?

Brian, does this mean that Mig is to reveal identity (address) of any person which makes defamatory and harmful posts, which cannot be proven true, are obvious lies, or are simply unethical and nasty notes. I guess, all those are considered abusive.

"Brian, does this mean that Mig is to reveal identity (address) of any person which makes defamatory and harmful posts, which cannot be proven true, are obvious lies, or are simply unethical and nasty notes. I guess, all those are considered abusive."

If Mig chooses, yes.

Thanks for the insights, BTP. Fascinating!

Well now that most of us have agreed that the IP address wasn't "spoofed", the USCF should be looking to hire someone to examine these backup database files (I'm available if they need me!).

If it turns out that these logs haven't been tampered with, then Truong/Polgar are guilty as charged and should be removed from the board.. I hate to take Sam Sloan's side on this one, but you gotta go with the evidence.

On another note, how f***** pathetic is it to impersonate someone for 18 months on a usenet board??

In July 2007, USCF Board member Sloan used the private forum to spread lies about my character. My past & present clientele includes current & former USCF members.

How did I obtain this information, Mr. Mottershead? Better plug the security gap before I repeat other lies told about me on the forum.

QTN 1

in USCF Issues Forum post 58536 (7/8/2007), Sam Sloan wrote:

Now that I am satisfied that my evidence does not prove that Randy Bauer is the Fake Sam Sloan, I revert to my previous belief that either Paul Truong or Bill Brock is the Fake Sam Sloan

END QTN 1

QTN 2

in USCF Issues Forum post 58541 (7/9/2007), Sam Sloan wrote:

AndyApplebaum wrote:"Sam, I'm having a little trouble understanding your wording, but did you say that one of the fake-sloans posted under that IP address?

If that is the case, I think it would be unlikely that the fake is Brock as the IP address indicates a New York residence (with a 78% certainty according to the cite I used)."

Yes. However, that approach will not be productive, as the Fake Sam Sloan knows about IP addresses now and will not be caught again that way.

END QTN 2

My attorney told me to consider the source & the publisher ....

"If within the scope of said volunteer's duties, yes."

Isn't that what's at issue? Did Mottershead informally identify Truong to Goichberg and Hall prior to issuance of the report?

Branden,

If you state that the simple use of IP correlation proves that the poster was Paul Truong, then you are not an expert in your field. Using IP addresses can't prove a darned thing; any even nominally proficient computer technician knows this.

For the record, I have discussed this issue with a few forensic experts with scores of years of experience, and they back my views up. Nothing can be proved with IP addresses. I would encourage all non-technical readers to make a quick phone call to any forensic expert in this field and as them if anything can be determined while just using IP addresses and header information.

Unless it is someone that just started out in this field; they will all tell you the same, you can't use IP addresses as proof of anything. Nothing, nada, zippo.

"I would encourage all non-technical readers to make a quick phone call to any forensic expert in this field and as them if anything can be determined while just using IP addresses and header information. "

It is possible to change your IP address by scanning/finding open proxies on the internet and connecting through those before you post. This is what your "expert" was probably getting at.

For the non-technical person, "open proxies" are computers/servers connected to the internet that have a vunerability that allows someone else to make a connection to it. The person who finds these open proxies usually sends spam through these computers, or hides the IP address when doing various other activities online.

The point is, these proxies are "specific" computers on the internet. If my computer was turned into a proxy, and my internet connection had an IP address of 62.45.93.174, then any post/email someone sent using my proxy would look like its coming from 62.45.93.174. It's impossible for it to make it look like its coming from 64.45.93.179 unless my IP address changes to that.

So in order for Paul Troung/Polgar to be a victim of this, someone would have to load malciious software onto their computer, which turns it into an open proxy and then exploit that for 18 months or however long the Fake Sam Sloan has been around. That is very unlikely. It is much more likely the logs were tampered with, which is why the USCF needs to examine the backups before passing judgement.

Hello all, and before I begin, I would like to thank all posters for their opinions/feedback. First, a bit about me: I have followed this matter since Brian Mottershead's original USCF members' forum postings and I agree with BTP's earlier posting (below) with one reservation, and this reservation relies upon Brian's evidence actions/remarks (above) being verified pending independent scrutiny. Pending independent examination, I find it likely that USCF governing members became aware of Truong-Polgar's propensity to post the indicated attacks (above) against Usenet members, particularly one Sam Sloan and one Ray Gorden long before they hired Mr. Mottershead. When ir became likely that Truong/Polgar would win seats in the USCF governing board, it is then not too much of a stretch to understand their concern about Truong/Polgar's ethical fitness to dispense with USCF EB duties. Thus, they hired an independent party, Mr. Mottershead to investigate in the event that Truong/Polgar were elected. When Truong/Polgar were elected, the aforementioned USCF governing members likely felt that they were left with no choice but to turn Mr. Mottershead loose, and we see the result. A somewhat interesting side-point in all this is that the Truong/Polgar "court of public opinion" defense has basically "retained" Gregory Alexander and Randy Bauer in their defense instead of posting professional responses themselves. Perhaps the real damaging future lawsuit to Truong/Polgar comes from Ray Gorden.

> Theorist:
>
> As a litigator, I can confirm that "No comment" is absolutely the best course of action for the principals involved.
>
> Unfortunately, the Federation seems to collectively have a pathological obsession with "openness" that prompts people to yell and scream about every real or perceived slight ad nauseam. The airing of such inside baseball is not good for business--in any business.
>
> None of the loudest yellers in this matter have been on base:
>
> 1) Gregory Alexander's assertion that members' privacy is being invaded does not hold water. When you post something on an organization's web site, that organization or its agents are within their rights to track you. Period. The remedy for those who don't like it is not to post.
>
> 2) Brian Mottershead could not have chosen a more inappropriate venue and manner in which to disclose his findings. Anyone with half a brain would have known that findings this sensitive should be tactfully disclosed to the organization's staff--not announced to the whole world.
>
> 3) Notwithstanding Brian's conduct, it is a certainty that Paul Truong was the Fake Sam Sloan. The fact that he even thought about faking such posts renders him unfit for board service.
>
> 4) Finally, why would anyone want to imitate Sam Sloan in order to make him look bad? He does a good enough job of that himself.
>
> Sheesh.
> Posted by: BTP at October 8, 2007 18:42

You need a computer forensic expert in this case (http://www.computerforensicscompanies.com/companies.html ), no amateur board admin. An ISP can match the public IP to some user, and not the board admin. The board admin sees public IP address provided by the ISP. The ISP will need a court order to provide a user associated with this IP. There could be many computers using the same public IP address. There could be hundreds and thousands of computers (in a company, university…) which use private IP addresses (cannot be seen or recognized as public IPs) for inter-communications and the router translates them into a single public address.

Regarding the IP spoofing defense, it should be pointed out that this theory requires us to believe not only that the "real Fake Sam Sloan" (sheesh) either learned the IP addresses and user agent strings of, or actually took over, one computer that was owned by Paul Truong, but he had to take over several different such computers at different times, including laptops with which Paul apparently travelled.

Moreover, you have to believe that for 18 months while the "real Fake Sam Sloan" seemed to be targetting Sam Sloan, Ray Gordon, Jennifer Shahade, Beatriz Marinello, Joe Lux, Bill Hall, Bill Goichberg, and numerous others, he was actually executing a long-range plan to implicate Paul Truong as the impersonator. As the New York Times expert said, the IP spoofing theory means that the Fake Sam Sloan was not somebody impersonating Sam Sloan and Ray Gordon. It was actually somebody quietly and patiently impersonating Paul Truong impersonating Sam Sloan and Ray Gordon, hoping for 18 months that Paul would be accused of the impersonation. Though he hardly ever mentioned them and when he did it was positive (almost uniquely), for 18 months Truong and Polgar were his real targets.

As Braden says, this theory, though it is the one that Paul put up on chessdiscussion.com and told to the New York Times, and leaving aside the technical near-impossibility of pulling it off, makes no sense at all.

This is why Polgar and Truong are also putting around the notion that I tampered with the logs. That notion, though it completely contradicts the other theory, at least makes some sense. It isn't true, but it isn't ridiculous. Fortunately, that notion can be disproved.

By the way, in addition to the arguments I gave previously against the log-doctoring story, there is another one I should mention. That is that the evidence basically consists of two parts: the Usenet evidence, and the USCF forum database evidence. The Usenet evidence, without any support from any USCF forum evidence, shows that the Fake Sam Sloan posted from AOL, a few times from a RoadRunner cable IP address in New York, from a couple of Suddenlink cable IP addresses in Texas starting around the time Paul moved to Texas, and a Mexico City ISP during the World Championship starting around the time when Paul was there. Being from the Usenet posts themselves, none of that rests on anything from the USCF databases, and therefore is not anything that I could have falsified. Anybody can do as I did -- namely to download the Fake Sam Sloan Usenet posts from a news server that has them all and confirm this.

You have to pick the right news server, though. This is because during the night of September 25/26 after I published some of my conclusions, the Fake Sam Sloan apparently deleted a lot of his posts. And I couldn't have fabricated that either.

Yes Pr, in more ways than one, the exact IP match is the "glove-fit/non-fit issue" in the O.J. Simpson murder trial here, while noting that Sloan's/Gorden's future cases be civil, not criminal cases. That said, I suppose that here in the "court of public opinion" it is appropriate to say that if the IP match is made to Truong/Polgar, alike to the O.J. Simpson criminal case, the glove fits. If the IP match is not made, it then is appropriate to recall the words of the late Johnnie L. Cochrane in O.J. Simpson's defense: "If the glove doesn't fit, you've got to acquit."

> ...An ISP can match the public IP to some user, and not the board admin...
> Posted by: Pr at October 8, 2007 20:35

I'll start by repeating that, arguendo, if the proof offered is convincing enough--and the standard is well below reasonable doubt--then Truong should resign.

However, what rational person would want to serve on the Board of USCF, knowing that a significant percentage of the membership is waiting to undermine him or her?

***

The real agenda: there's a lot of money in chess. (!)

Yes, the pros starve. But there's $$ to be made teaching the scholastic kiddies, the absolute beginners between ELO 100 & 800.

This squabble is the fallout from a struggle to control the typical USCF self-dealing.

There are trustworthy Board members on both old & new slates. But this incident highlights USCF President Goichberg's ineffective leadership and his failure to foreground the fiduciary duty of each Board member.

Let me concur with another poster, it's been awhile since we had some real Dirt!

Is this for real?

For the last year I've sensed the stench of sleaze from the alleged real fake Sam Sloan and his wife, but never had the evidence to back it up. This makes my day!

This reminds me of criminals from yesteryear who are just now being busted because of DNA matching technology that didn't exist when they did their crime. Better than CSI! (Maybe this will make a CSI episode - I should forward it to them.)

Is it any wonder why top-flight chess is always in a state of flux from an organizational perspective when all the little pisants at the pathetic USCF act in this manner. If I were a CEO of any corporation, why in hell would I want to sponsor chess in this country when I can readily see that it's run by a bunch of losers at any particular time and date. People, it doesn't matter who's in office, or what they promise they can do if elected. There will always be office politics, back-biting, one-upmanship, brown-nosing, sword-rattling, underhandedness which always coincides with personal gain etc. etc. Someone once said that politics is nothing but a bunch of sh.. with just a little bit of sugar sprinkeled on top. The sad part is the sugar dissolves quickly and your just left with sh... Don't waste time with all the above pontifications; play chess, love the game for what it really is and what really means to you, and to hell with these people.

And now, in one last-ditch twinge of desperation, the defendant falls on their sword while screaming "Why hang me, everybody cheats!"...

>>>>> Is it any wonder why top-flight chess is always in a state of flux...

Mr. Brock, didn't you play a much-publicized "grudge chess match" with Sam Sloan over the Internet recently?

That in and of itself has to be one of the more egregious lapses of judgment by a USCF official.

With individuals like Mr. Sloan there can be only one policy: strict ostracism. If he is elected to a position, freeze him out to the extent allowed by law.

That you lost the match is neither here nor there, the match should never have been played in the first place.

"If it turns out that these logs haven't been tampered with, then Truong/Polgar are guilty as charged and should be removed from the board.. I hate to take Sam Sloan's side on this one, but you gotta go with the evidence."

I think that engaging in such behavior would warrant removal from the Executive Board. However, the entity "Truong/Polgar" is not part
of the Board. Rather, Paul Truong and Susan Polgar were elected, each in their own right. Likewise, if either or both are to be removed from the Board, it ought to be on the basis of what actions they, as individuals, did.

The least likely scenario (that would account for the fake posts) is that Truong and Polgar are both equally culpable. Rather, if the posts can be traced to their household, it would likely be the case that most or all of the posts were made by just one of them. It is possible that the other party might have been aware of the smear campaign, or approved of it, or bade that it was done. However, the exact extent of Truong's and Polgar's specific individual involvement needs to be demonstrated.

It would be wrong to resort to "Guilt by Association", even if that association is based on a marriage.

from the New York Times:
"Ms. Polgar said that she had no idea who the Web site impersonator was, and that she did not have the time to post the messages, given her hectic schedule."

Note that Polgar's statement is limited to denying that **She** is the one who posted the objectionable messages--she does not make any statement defending Truong from the accusations.

Moreover, she pleads ignorance as to who "the Web site impersonator" might be. So, even if it were to transpire that Polgar was to "discover" that Truong was indeed the miscreant, she could claim that she was unaware of Truong's activities prior to the scandal breaking.

This is just silly. Usenet? Didn't that die along side things like gopher? Who is dumb enough to even look at Usenet these days? What idiots even bothers with those useless feeds? That's a waste of bandwidth!

There are very, very, very few webmasters who really understand IP. This day and age, matching an IP to an individual is not really possible. Nearly every network in the World uses a form of dynamic addressing and proxies. Most large companies just present one IP address to the Internet for thousands of people at once. Its quite common and easy to do.

I really doubt that USCF would be able to afford to have an actual IP expert working on their website. (IP means Internet Protocol. Its the guts of how the Internet actuall works.)

Just a hunch from someone who really knows this stuff.

what i like about bill brock's last post is that it drives home a point about the downward trajectory of the uscf by explicitly mocking that most reviled of groups .... children.

I was briefly a member of one committee and never chaired any, so it's a stretch to call me a USCF official (the lawsuit ascribes to me positions that I never held).

Poor judgment? Yeah, probably. The Exchange sac in a totally winning position in game 2, though sound, was too showy, and I soon totally lost the thread of the game. I have not learned from experience: I tossed away two wins and a draw in the past two weeks with the VERY SAME MISTAKE. (Did salvage two draws: should have lost all three games.) Petrosian I am not.

And in game 3, after 1.g4 e5 2.Bg2 h5 3.d4, I was already embarrassingly out of preparation. (Even more embarrassing is to HAVE preparation against such randomness.) 3...hxg4 is natural, but I fetishized the center. Still got a winning position anyway...

I'm not a bad tactician for a middle-aged weakie, but I have a bad tendency to lose the thread in random positions. (Everyone does, but me more than most....) Sloan did not, and won deservedly.

My typical flippancy came off as condescension: my apologies, Elizabeth. Long day....

That there is $$ in the endeavor emphatically does not mean that it's not worth doing, or that those making the $$ are exploitative, or that the kiddies (meant to be cute, not a pejorative) aren't worth teaching unless they master the Lucena & Philidor positions.

Give or take 100 ELO, I was one of those guppies for the first four years of USCF membership....

I really truly believe--despite abundant evidence on this thread to the contrary :) -- that chess is great for children. They don't have to take it seriously: my son stopped playing at 8. (Mig gets a bit of the blame: "Com" and Grandpa on kasparovchess.com were the last straw, if I recall.) Kids with physical disabilities can get the adrenaline rush of competition, kids with learning disabilities can learn the joy of sitting quietly and thinking--these are wonderful things.

But please also realize that the teaching of this great game is sometimes a very very commercial operation--USCF is a long way from AYSO in fulfilling its goals. The commercial operations could play nice, cooperate on curricula, support each other as professionals.

...instead of these stupid pointless incessant turf wars.

And maybe for everyone 100,000 new kiddies, we'll get one big GM kiddie. So what's the conflict between scholastic/youth/adult chess? Done right, it's all good.

Were I still a USCF member, I would advise the Board to reach out to the absolute beginners & their parents. I think the Board members know this already....

***

Should the Board members have a financial interest in the direction of USCF? Several certainly have the appearance of same....

Has USCF ever had good nonprofit governance? It's been a while....

Well, if internet expediters' ISP cannot be matched then we have a lot of legal cases that will be overturned, as well as need to convince the NSA (National Security Agency) and Department of Homeland security of this. Also, I work for a Fortune 500 company and our computer systems support people routinely monitor and catch people surfing porn and match them to their unique computer via their ISP signature. Old, very old, technology.

CRZ said:

"This day and age, matching an IP to an individual is not really possible. Nearly every network in the World uses a form of dynamic addressing and proxies.

Just a hunch from someone who really knows this stuff."
Posted by: CRZ at October 8, 2007 23:56

Killing is against our policy.

Anyone who might have pulled the trigger, please leave the room.

Okay, has everybody washed their hands? Good.

Now, we must decide what to do about this smoking gun.

We are still forming a committee to advise policy with regard to material evidence of a possible crime.

Ultimately we will either dispose of the gun or turn it over to the authorities, but there's no need to decide right away.

In the mean time, nobody can talk about this. Got it? Good.

We'll meet again next week and postpone this decision again.

Oh, about those financial records.

They are still missing, right?

Great I can check that off my list again.

Okay meeting adjourned.

USCF makes $3.2 millions / year. What happened to financial records. $2 millions are missing? Is that possible or is it some fabrication?

Mr. Alexander,

You need to have a bit more knowledge in terms of Internet Protocol and mail headers. You're either habitually defending Truong or just not knowledgeable enough.

The reason this is so clear is because of the fact that as Mr. Truong does a great deal of business, he travels a ton, but does post from his other locales. This "Fake Poster" followed Mr. Truong's postings around the continent. This leaves 3 possibilities:

1) Someone very talented in these matters found a way to mimic Mr. Truong's exact IP and mail headers for posts over a couple of years

2) Someone infected Mr. Truong's machine with some type of rootkit or trojan program which allowed posts to be sent from Mr. Truong's computer.

3) Mr. Truong was the fake poster.

As to which it is, I don't know. :)

Saying you can't prove anything from IP addresses is fine, but you better ask the following question:

"If e-mail messages over a long period of time from persons A and B had the exact same headers and originating IPs, what would you conclude about the relationship between persons A and B?"

As someone from India (see our Coup of Koya), I find this absolutely utterly fascinating. Someone said that no one will sponsor chess because of these shenanigans. I say balderdash! This thread has all the excitement of a CSI show and I for one will be following this fascinating duel of wits.

To Guppy,

Sure your company checks the logs and can track down policy violators. That’s easy, its all internal and the system are set to catch porn and other policy violators. The systems are NOT set to see who went to a generic site X, on May 5th at 1437. That takes serious forensics –IF you have ALL the required data. It is much more than just a firewall or proxy log. The more slipshod the maintenance and security, the hard it is to track. Old logs are lost or there is no logging at all.

The NSA or other Gov’t agencies can go to an ISP or company and “ask” for its logs and records. Or they can use the installed hardware they have on a number of major networks directly. The can then begin to piece together the puzzle of where a message or a connection came from. They have to tack it backwards from network to network. And it isn’t easy. It ain’t cheap.

An weblog only records the return IP address. This is not always the IP address of the computer that connected to the webserver.

A company or university of thousands can have just one IP address visible to the public. Every web connection from every user in that school will show the same address even if they are connecting to the university network from home 50,000 miles away.

There are other ways to better track a person though the Internet. Tracking an IP address is just part of it.

What I find funny is that people expect a large network to keep gigantic log files around forever. Log files are for diagnostics. At most you only keep them a few days and then destroy them per company policy. If they are destroyed, they can’t be subpoenaed. Those log files are very sensitive to a company.

Actual IP spoofing on a web server isn’t as easy as it sounds. The IP address a web log gets is the address it is replying back to.

Spoofing an IP address in email or a Usenet posting. – Piece of cake –sort of. There are some things you can spoof and some things you can’t. Much depends on the systems involved.

That’s why all my emails are digitally signed and/or encrypted. (Not that there is any real security with commercial encryption but at least its something.)

A visit from the "Polgar Pixie" is long overdue.

I can hear her (him? it?) now:

"Why oh why does everyone pick on Susan, who has selflessly, humbly, and anonymously, done so much for chess? Why can't everyone just get along?"

I certainly hope the "Polgar Pixie's" upbeat, positive messages are not traced back to Paul!

In my view this IP address tracking is a small problem, when you compare it with alleged $2 million dollars missing. Money needs to tracked first, and after some IPs.

Are these the same people that not long ago and from a moral highground had the nerve to insinuate that Aronian was a slouching ape in a suit ? I am sure this (i.e. losing a lawsuit to Mr. Sloan) will do wonders in creating a squeaky clean and professional image of chess and attracting new sponsorship...

Well said, John.

BTW, IP Addresses are routinely used to track offenders. They are VERY reliable in most cases. In fact, the RIAA has used them in many of their cases against students illegally downloading music from the internet.

In the case of Mr. Truong, he has a history of pretending that his actions are not his. The most egregious example is when he created his own AOL site a few years ago, where he claimed that he had a Ph.D., and when confronted with the bogus claim, he said someone had hacked his page and he had no idea how it happened!

Equally farcical is his epic account of "survival" in the sea:

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/polgar14.pdf

It is pretty obvious that there is something wrong with the whole picture...

The funniest part:

"So I went to college. And during college, I did the same thing. I had 7 part-time jobs while taking over 21 credits per semester. I also took winter courses,summer courses. I needed to graduate as quickly as possible."

ROTFLMAO!

He certainly loves the number 7:

"I was going to high school full time (without even knowing the language) and I worked seven part-time jobs at night and weekends to raise money to send back to Vietnam to help my mother, my brother and over 60 other relatives."

Lucky 7!

The Truong Ph.D. Affair

http://christopherfalter.blogspot.com/2007/06/paul-truong-has-question-to-answer.html

Well, maybe when he changed his first name to Paul, he changed the last as well, so that his name is in fact "Paul Truong PhD." Didn't think of that, did you?! Oh, you are all so quick to judge this man (and wife) who have so selflessly given their all to chess.

Ya, you creeps lay off PT. From what I understand he is going to send all of his yearly earnings to the lowest rated players under 12 years old in Arizona for 20 years. What's more, he says that Susan's going to do it too.

Paul and I have a lot in common...Paul blames phantom web demons for his misfortune, and I keep telling the IRS every year, those weren't really my wages, they're really someone else's who impersonates me...

It's been a bad few days for politicians all over: http://tinyurl.com/ytkfww

from that Christopher Falter blog:

"Whoever did it took the pictures from Susan's old website which was created and maintained by her ex-husband."

and

'I have no reason to create any site to promote me. And if I do, I would not do something with such low quality."

Ouch!

I have lost all confidence in Susan and Paul, they should both resign.

Paul Truong is guilty. Period!

Am a newcomer to all this, so I kindly request someone to supply the background.

-> Why is Sam Sloan considered to have reached "new depths of loathsomeness"? I had a quick look at his site, but could not find anything majorly incriminating (there was even an interesting point on the Kashmir earthquake). Seems like an elderly crank.

-> Who is Jacob Schutzman?

I have lost all confidence in Susan and Paul, they should both resign.

Posted by: miles at October 9, 2007 13:40

Don't blame me I didn't vote for them. =8-)

Paul Truong is guilty. Period!

Posted by: Vanessa at October 9, 2007 13:49

Vanessa,

I couldn't agree with you more.

Mountain, meet molehill.

Can we all just ignore Sam Sloan please? This gadfly serves no relevant purpose and should not be given any more airtime than his allotted 15 minutes.

@ JaiDeepBlue 14:07

1) Sam's elderly crankiness does not preclude his loathesomeness. Just poke around his website. We'll charitably say he demonstrates an odd fascination with young women.

2) Jacob Shutzman is Susan Polgar's first husband.

At this moment it is unclear whether the USCF serves any useful
purpose, other than providing great entertainment if one likes stinky,
slimy display. It is an entity that has reached the zone of
organizational death IMO, beyond which it cannot be resuscitated. I've
seen a few organizations in such deep comatose state and dissolution seems
the only choice. I am afraid that USCF has to be disbanded and all
current members in executive roles banned from further participation.

Too bad about Susan -- I have always had a very high opinion of
her. I've no doubt that she's innocent and ignorant of the mechanics
of how her name might have been being dragged into this.

D.

Hi all, I've never posted here before and normally stay out of these sort of things. I would just say that I worked with Paul (and Susan to a much lesser extent) for quite some time as an admin on Chess Live several years ago, as well as having met them both in person on a couple of occasions. I've found them to be very nice, generous people, but at the same time I've seen Paul do more than a few things that were less than honest.

I can certainly confirm that Paul told me he was working on a Phd on a number of occasions, and then subsequently claimed to have actually received it. I've also seen other people refer to him as "Dr. Truong" when talking to him without him correcting them. I have no idea whether he really did get one or not, but to see him feigning ignorance on Christopher Falter's blog of ever claiming to have a Phd is somewhat surprising.

I know the above is somewhat off topic, but it's probably also worth bearing in mind that Paul also had a bad habit of creating multiple accounts on various chess servers, and using them to pretend to be different people. That doesn't suggest that he's in any way guilty of what he's currently being accused of, but it also means it wouldn't be entirely out of character.

@BTP thanks!

the way it seems, Paul Truong is the "Svengali" and Susan Polgar is probably unaware of the shenanigans perpetuated in her name. Isn't it odd that all these antics (dirty tricks, impersonation,censorship) originate from two "survivors" of ostensibly totalitarian regimes? (Hungary and Vietnam)

If the allegations are true as they seem to be based on Brian's excellent analysis, it is really a shame.

Polgar/troung, who ran their campaign on bringing professionalism, integrity and transparency to USCF seem to have outdone their previous disgraceful acts. They are completely intolerant of any criticism or difference of
opinion and thus have their own censored blog and discussion forum (where anything can be deleted whenever they want).

These allegations take the perversity to a new level. I had been critical of their behavior during election time and that they can't work as a team and my fears seem correct now. They have been trashing the USCF board almost from the day they were elected and have broken most of their promises. And they were also promising to bring millions to USCF!

Kapalik

It is interesting to notice the defence being adopted and how that has been evolving.

- First attack Sam. People mention Sam isn't the issue here.

- Use minions/sidekicks like Gregory (who hasn't disclosed that he works for their discussion site, such a shame!)to show that IP spoofing is kid's play. Brian and other experts rip that to shreds.

- In any case, the evidence was obtained in an unauthorized manner. This seems the latest excuse. Evidence obtained illegally is inadmissible, is the claim. However, it seems the NDA is inapplicable to unlawful acts.

- Yet another seems to be to scare USCF and its board with threats of lawsuit for violation of privacy so that they don't release the evidence. Will it work?

There could be another way to get out. Since there is no way to tell whether Susan or Paul did it, can any of them be convicted or kicked out of USCF board? I am curious what the law says? That could be their last resort but may not happen as Susan seems too keen to protect her own skin saying that she was too busy to post the fakes and not saying anything in
Troung's defense.

Kapalik

Irv's "I was attacked by a pirate ship" link above was fascinating reading. But to get the right effect, you have to read it while holding your tongue.

Geez Dimi, I actually agree with you regarding the USCF. It's demise has been long overdue and its continued stagnation can only be attributed to the majority (not all) "elected" who still see it as a opportunity for personal monetary gain by whatever means necessary.

I do disagree about Susan Polar and her complete "innocence" in this matter. The woman isn't stupid by any definition, a little self-centered and self-serving perhaps, but not stupid. As someone else indicated earlier, she does come from an environment where the end justifies the means.

Between Polgar and Truong, it is a close contest as to who has more fabrications in their resume/bio (4 WC, 1st woman to be GM, no of years at top, Phd, national titles in Vietnam, pirate attacks, top mgmt experience etc.) :)

Well, if it wasn't for Susan being involved this entire issue
would have been strictly funny (very much so!) and that's all. But now
it has a touch of sadness because people are dragged through the Court
of public opinion where bunch of bystanders pass judgment and shout
out sentences like medieval burgers at the square of the execution...
See, even I am doing the same. Bad, bad...

On the legal end -- I doubt that the Courts will take serious interest
in a weird case like that, particularly when nobody has been injured,
or has died, and particularly because millions are not up for
grabs... And someone like the plaintiff would certainly not come
across as particularly sympathetic.

Nevertheless, it is very disappointing because I actually do not doubt
the charges and if not quite at Tony Soprano's level, they're still
embarrassing enough. Particularly when so much noise about
cleanliness has been made. That's why I have a strict policy to
absolutely always post as myself and be rather strict about the nicks
I use. It just make me feel better. Otherwise the Internet is a mess.

D.

I'm not sure I agree that "nobody has been injured." Legally speaking, I believe that the loss of income and opportunity associated with a USCF directorship (it does pay, right?), as well as damage to reputation, would constitute an "injury."

I certainly agree that Sam would not come across as a sympathetic plaintiff. On the other hand, one benefit of espousing such unconventional views is that (we all know) he has no need to lie. He doesn't care what others think of him.

Sam has done us all at least one service by exposing rating manipulation (fake tournaments!) by yet another USCF board member, Robert Tanner.

This thread is more interesting than any that came out of the "World Championship" in Mexico. I agree with others who've said that "The Dirt" needs more of this, well, dirt. Sure it's distasteful in spots and undoubtedly childish in others, but overall it is undeniably ENTERTAINING AS HELL.

Best thing about it, as a passive observer, is that there are no people to root for in this drama, so the pain of accusations and lawsuits and ethical referendums that they suffer at each others' hands are ALL GOOD. It's like watching the mob turn on its own - the more bodies piled up on either side, the better.

My opinion so far: While spoofing IP one time is doable with some effort, doing so repeatedly and consistently from different locations almost instantaneously over 18 months is a parlay situation that makes the odds of it happening extremely low. Low enough, if corroborated by the independent checks mentioned above, to be well within non-reasonable doubt territory.

Given the other stuff I've read linked to on this thread, I'd give Paul Truong being innocent about 30-1 against. Past history, some pretty damning evidence that can only be explained away by the most unlikely of parlay events, the targets involved, and gut feel.

Susan having no knowledge of any of Paul's actions, if he did such things: 25-1 against.

Sam Sloan's lawsuit going forward in it's current rendition : 15-1 against - it's way to wide and unfocused, seemingly taking more delight in describing the defendants unflatteringly than being a serious statement of facts. But I've seen worse go through...

Susan remaining on the USCF Board 4-1 in favor - she should survive this, if by simply denying any knowledge of "other's" actions. She also has her name power to help support her standing.

Paul remaining on the USCF Board for the full term - 1-1. It's hard to judge whether he will be forced out, resign "for the good of the USCF and chess", or rely on the slow wheels of justice, both internally and externally, to keep his seat.

If "The Dirt" finds following this story distasteful, it's time to change the name of this blog. This is exactly the stuff it should be uncovering.

In all this turmoil, we have to focus on the key question: who was the fake Jack Peters that attacked me?

After such a good time enjoying real chess, such as we've had lately, I guess a little slime was statistically to be expected, and Mig has been handling it well, as usual.
I'm not qualified to comment on the internal problems of a foreign chess federation, and I don't really care, but am I the only one who sees some analogy between Zs. Polgar and Topalov? Both appear to be fundamentally good people and are wonderful chess players, yet their reputation has been ruined (for ever, I fear) by the dubious actions of their managers, who are incidentally also family members now, although perhaps not officially in Danailov's case.
They deserve to be remembered for their brilliant moves and not for the money others have made exploiting their names and skills.

I'm not sure it's accurate to portray Topalov and S. Polgar as victims in all this, mere pawns subject to the malign manipulations of their operators.

The lust for fame, money, and power is not mitigated simply because its implementation is utterly inept.

This just keeps getting better and better, now Truong is being linked to the Asian mob and the word is that the modern-day "Man Called Intrepid" is stepping in.

As long as the USCF exists, chess is dead in the United States of America.

Well, I wouldn't use hyperbole like "their reputation has been ruined
forever". That's not true, in fact it's a stupid statement even in the
most cleancut environment (and chess is far from that). If what the
Internet impersonator did is true then the best punishment is 5
slashes on his naked butt in front of the crowds. And then life goes
on. Chess hasn't been shockingly clean of all kinds of crap, now or
before. The plaintiff too hasn't been an angel to whom some satanic
deeds were wrongfully attributed to the disbelief of the audience...
On the contrary, it was just a case of bum being made to look even
more like himself -- the falsehood being questioned on technical
terms. Chess hasn't impressed me by being particularly cleaner than
the other walks of life -- rivalries, innuendo and dirty dealings all
around. Actually the only fault that I find with all this is its
nerdish aftertaste -- Internet impersonation -- oh my, what kind of
geekish crap is this? No smashed kneecaps, no barroom brawls, just an
Internet penpal abuse. Ouch, boring. No personalities, no corporate
sponsorship...

D.

Well...for one, Dimi how trivial and geeky would you think this issue is if someone spoofed/impersonated your "Dimi" account name and then made terrible accusations while threatening criminal attacks against other people. Suppose they posed as you, made sure that your address was available, and then offered illegal madame services...

Meanwhile, here are some interesting links in the matter of Internet usage-tracking:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2004-06-17-kantor_x.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/technology/09aol.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
http://www.ernietheattorney.net/ernie_the_attorney/2004/05/some_people_thi.html
http://www.panicware.com/resource_privacy.html
http://www.abika.com/Reports/verifyemail.htm

My fresh issue of _Chess Life_ quotes Paul Hoffman in _King's Gambit_: "The irony is that chess, which seems so pure in the abstract, is a magnet for deceptive people ... I moved away from the game not because I lost interest in what was happening on the board but because I could not tolerate the dishonesty and psychic aggression all around me in the tournament hall."

Prungo,

I disagree! They (Polgar and Topolov) are both ADULTS and are absolutely responsible for any action(s) taken by family members or managers representing them. If in any way they feel that what has been said or done is inflamatory or detrimental to their reputations, they have a voice, they can take action by firing, castigating or in Susan's case even divorcing the one who has wronged them in the public eye. To remain silent is to take on the roll of an accomplice.

That sneaky gook!

Wow. This thread really is another *new* low. No way is this going to stay contained to one day's post. I predict spillover into unrelated topic headers much like toiletgate.

Hello to all the chess chatters in here. I wish to comment on the interesting legal rantings I have just read in here. The court system has a little clause called Circumstantial Evidence.

Unless you have 100% proof, not 99.5 or 99.8 or 99.9%, but actually 100% proof, then saying things like: "it is a certainty that Paul Truong was the Fake Sam Sloan. The fact that he even thought about faking such posts renders him unfit for board service." is in itself slanderous and you have the stupidity of posting it on a public forum!

Circumstantial evidence refresher for you non-law-knowing-chess-playing-nerd-types(This includes you Ismail Sammy-boy):

Evidence of an indirect nature which implies the existence of the main fact in question but does not in itself prove it. That is, the existence of the main fact is deduced from the indirect or circumstantial evidence by a process of probable reasoning. The introduction of a defendant's fingerprints, DNA sample, or IP Addresses are examples of circumstantial evidence.

Some people believe that all evidence is circumstantial because -- some observers think (and some thoughtful judges agree) -- no evidence ever directly proves a fact. Thus explains why "Mad Mohammad" Sam Sloan lost all of his cases. ooooo... I'm ganna get sued! Oh no! Help! I need to take a dump and wipe my hairy infidel ass with a Quran! (Peace be upon my Dingle-berries)

It's no fun when you are wearing the "Shiite" (Islamic pun for you dummies out there) Sunni-boy (Another one for Sammy-boy)!

Ha! Ha! Ha!

You chess nerds like to posture to and defame names and personalities, but as a relative newcomer to the chess community, I feel sad and disgusted at your behavior. You all act like little angry children (While in reality I think I qualify as a youngster at age 25 freshly graduated from Law School) who need their diapers changed especially Sam Sloan and to some extent Brian Mottershead. And stupid me was thinking about joining the USCF. I am glad to know you all made the decision for me. Screw all of you and the USCF.

I can't believe "Mad Mohammad" Sam Sloan used a racial slur "gook" to describe a vietnamese-american. This is coming from an ex-board member of the USCF? Sam your day in court is coming in spades. You are finished. Literally... you are going to DIE of old age. God is giving you a death threat! Ha! Ha! You should sue God, Allah, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, the Great Turnip or what ever you think is your god for making you DIE of old age! Ha ! Ha! As for your 72 virgins, I think you will be surprised that all of them will be camels. I thought you would like that you depravo-freak.

Looking at your words make me feel physically sick and makes me hate American Chess more than anything. Thank goodness there are better things to do in life than play a stupid board game. Imagine the fact that all you idiots accomplished in life is the manipulation of little plastic pieces on a 64 square checker board and you all argue about who has the highest rating, score, or who is "beating their bishop" too much? Hell, I did that when I was 7 years old. I don't do that anymore because I learned real sportsmanship and decided to play something worthwhile called LIFE (and no I don't mean the Milton Bradley board game, smart-asses) (For the record, I still "beat the bishop"). Chess sucks. You all suck. You suck long time. Idiots.

Todays rant was brought to you by the First Amendment and the Number 3. Idiots.

Mig you can delete this if you wish... It would just prove that you care nothing about the game of chess, just the daily dirt. Hey now there's a new tag line for this page. "Screw Chess, it's just about the dirt."(tm)

Now all of you can guess who I am. (Hint, I'm probably Bobby Fischer's partially aborted son on his mother's side or I am just pissed off that I am someones elses kidnapped brat and my deat-beat dad never came back for me while I suffer at the hands of fundamentalist christians and being forced to watch re-runs of Veggie Tales).

Sincerely,

The Voice of Reason, JD
(Playing Halo 3 on my 80 inch Plasma screen, eating Pizza off of a Chess Board)(Hey, I found a use for chess: Pizza board! I feel my rating going up with each slice, yum!)

Take a look at the posting above:

That sneaky gook!
Posted by: Sam Sloan at October 10, 2007 00:58

That is not by me. That is by a Fake Sam Sloan. I hope that Mig can check the IP address of this newest fake and try to track it down.

The Real Sam Sloan

Old, comic low, please meet new, disturbing low. I think you'll all get along quite nicely.

Could Sam Sloan go molest third-world girls somewhere and disappear already? His "Im a dirty old man and proud routine" is getting old. I thought we were rid of him for good just a month ago.

The Fake Sam Sloan, too, needs to disappear and stop having children

Can any of the legal eagles confirm the following for me:

1. The standard of "proof" in a civil action is "on the balance of probability" a much lower standard than that required for a criminal conviction i.e. "beyond reasonable doubt"

2. Doesn't the success of such a suit depend on Sam Sloan having a reputation in the first place. I don't know Sam Sloan and he may be a total weirdo or a great guy but judging from the posts about him already existing on the net, the man doesn't have a reputation to defame. Righly or wrongly his reputation appears to be very slimey and can't be lowered any further that it is by anonymous posts or otherwise.

Don't know Paul Troung either but I have to admit I would piss myself laughing if this was all finally laid at his doorstep given the pious nature of the election campaign.

Voice of Reason is Stern in drag.

Audioq - Point 1 is true, point 2 is untrue.

The standard of proof in a civil action I think is "a preponderance of evidence" (whose meaning is equivalent to the phrase you quoted). The rule of thumb is, one side side prevails by convincing the judge or jury that their version is 51% (or 50 + epsilon percent) likely. Meanwhile, the "reasonable doubt" standard in criminal cases is often described as 95% proof of guilt. I don't know if the latter figure has any formal legal validity, it's just a rule of thumb one sometimes hears.

Point 2 is incorrect; any person has a basic legal right not to be defamed in public. So the plaintiff's prior reputation is not an issue in a libel suit (although evidence related to the prior reputation presumably could come up if the defendant tried to prove their statements were true). Off the cuff, it seems to me that being defamed is (legally) somewhat akin to being raped; these days no court outside the Middle East/Africa/Subcontinent would entertain an argument that she had no right to refuse/resist because she put out for other people, or even for you the last time you saw her.

But the above paragraph doesn't much matter in the Sloan vs. Polgar case. As in most lawsuits, the bulk of the impact comes from the filing itself, rather than the suit's ultimate outcome. I agree that Sloan's suit likely won't prevail in its present form. But the mere filing of the suit opens the door to all the publicity we are seeing now (and not only here -- no less than the NY Times covered this, remember), with all the bad (or good) implications for chess promotion that flow from that. (N.B. There is even a legal reason for that: Once a suit has been filed, the allegations stated in the legal documents can be reported by others, such as newspapers and TV, without risk that they themselves can be sued for libel for repeating those allegations.)

Mr. "Voice of Reason",

As someone who had been repeatedly attacked by whomever was also the fake Sloan, it kind of matters to me who did it. Can I be 100% certain? No, but such is life.

And yeah, Chess does suck. That doesn't mean some of us still genuinely like the game, even if I've left for the the issues so eloquently written by Paul Hoffman. It also doesn't mean stuff like this should go unpunished.

No, no, Voice of Reason: you are the new, disturbing low. Sorry for any confusion.

"Voice of Reason is Stern in drag."

Oh, a sign of an advanced chess mind. Name calling. I bet one of you geeks dress up as Pee Wee Herman and tell each other "I know you are but what am I?"

Next you are going to call me a dirty Jew and blame me for 9-11, venerial disease, cheating at ICC, and Celine Dion. Well, the Celine Dion plan was my idea... I have already taken over Las Vegas and parts of New Jersey with the Celine Dion clones...

Just shut yer yap and play with yer chess pieces already ya schicksa.

To John Fernandez,

Larry Niven once coined a phrase in his book "Ringworld": TANJ *There Ain't No Justice*
Just by looking at the threads in here and around the net about chess scandals I believe this to be a TANJ situation. I have discovered that there are no innocent parties here. People are still bastards whether they post using their real names or pseudonames like myself. I am protecting my identity because I don't want to be identified as a chess nerd. Not yet...I haven't come out of the closet yet to express my chessness to the world.

My parents will be devistated when they find out I play chess with multiple partners during all hours of the day. They think I am a sodoku player.

Voice of Reason

No offense Voice, but you know the old joke about Grape Nuts (not grape and not nuts). I don't hear any audible voice, and there's certainly not much reason here, just a lot of highly emotional ramblings on a dozen or so completely unrelated topics (one or two of them even pertinent to this discussion). Good luck with the Celine Dion clones, VD and 911. Maybe you could change your name to Voice of the Id.

There is a new article by Dylan McClain on the New York Times website at
http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/interview-with-the-uscf-president-a-chess-sponsor-says-hes-had-enough/#more-115

Charles,

You don't know emotional ramblings until you have seen this: http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com

I am just trying to point out the obvious that all the sacred cows in chess circles have been made into hamburger and you all are having one hell of a BBQ. You all damn your heroes and stab each other in the back...*This is an impartial view from the outside looking in*

What is next, you guys gonna accuse Anand of being a cheater because he can dedicate more time to chess practice because of super-human powers gained from Yoga exercises that are not FIDE authorised exercises?

I am just trying to make myself feel better through poking fun at the obvious others here who can't or refuse to see the silliness of their actions. I really like chess, but the so called experts here do not impress me, nor do they move me to participate. Nothing I say or do can change the poor saps who think they are the vangaurd if this sad little, and quite frankly, dying sport.

Ignoring and denigrading what I say simply confirms the cause of the failure of chess in the US.

VOR

VOR,

I don't disagree. No one in their right mind (which might disqualify a lot of people) expect to be made whole by these actions.

I personally left chess 3 years ago, and you know what? I don't miss it. I just keep tabs on the game (most of my close friends are ex-chessplayers also), and certainly always get interested when the game pops back up, especially if it was something I'd been involved in.

These fake postings have been happening for years, back to when I was active on RGCP. At the time I (and many others) did a great deal of analysis and it seemed nearly 100% at the time that this poster seemed to be shadowing Mr. Truong. I always had cordial relationships with Paul, so I was quite a bit baffled that it was possible he was being very kind to me and then at some point slaying me anonymously. Personally, I wouldn't have had a problem with people publicly slaying me since I was quite a bit of a blowhard in those days.

Ultimately, I'm reminded about what a good friend of mine said about the intelligence of chess players: "You'd think chess players are smarter than the average person, but they're not. The real smart people are doing something more constructive with their lives."

Gosh, I really love chess. However, my love of chess is surpassed only for my utter hatred of so many chessplayers.