Markovich wrote on 02/24/09 at 16:25:03:



Here is an example of his anti-semitic, misogynistic remarks from his "work":

"The brain of the smartest jew in the world is smaller than a woman's--and the smartest jew sin the world is a LIAR, plagiarist, and idiot"


"This "brilliant", "pacifist" jew, who condemned us for nuking Japan, is referring to a people who, almost totally destroyed in a jew-created world war, succeeded in ridding themselves of the scourge of jews, and within half a century rebuilding their country to achieve family incomes almost twice as high as ours

and proved that exiling the jew is worth every electron of effort required to accomplish that noble goal"



Markovich, in all seriousness, as a person married to a woman of Jewish persuasion, who has herself lost family members in Concentration camps, the words of Richard Moody Jr are a deeply painful reminder that there are those out there that would walk my wife and kids into an oven if given that opportunity.

He is a front-man of seriously cult of hatred.  I am not joking at all about this.  


It it talks like a Nazi and walks like a Nazi, it is a Nazi.

Defending sloughter in any fashion is akin to defending Goebels, Goering or any other member of the Third Reich.

He should be banned for violating the TOS in which it explicity states:

"You agree, through your use of this YaBB forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually-oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of ANY law. You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or you have consent from the owner of the copyrighted material. Spam, flooding, advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are also inappropriate to this YaBB forum."



His entire scheme is one big Spam-a-lot to promote his books among his fellow cultists and to attract more members to said cult.

I also see the irony in that I have also willfully breached said TOS and I am willing to live with whatever repurcussions grow from my actions.

Matemax:  Ignorance will not work with this guy, nor did it work with Hitler.  Sloughter has crossed over the Poland-Germany border and that is why I have been carpet bombing his attempts at fortifying his advance positions.

And as much fun as I am having with rhetorical target practice, my aim the entire time has been to take this thread into the closest Black Hole in the Gamma Quadrant in the hopes of restoring some sanity here so that I can continue to learn something from the real chess players.

sloughter wrote on 02/24/09 at 03:43:04:


I hate to say it, but sloughter is on to something here.
Still he gets no marks for originality.

It is known that for his 1905 article about special relativity,
Einstein drew very heavily on a paper by Poincare without crediting him.
Some remarks about the 'transformation group' cannot have been devised by a 1905 physicist, even if more interested in math than Einstein.
E=mc2 and the notion of relative time are found in Poincare.
In his reference work Sir Edmund Whittaker talks about 'the relativity of Poincare-Lorentz'.

This is not yet mainstream knowledge because restoring credit where due is usually slow, especially when the media can't wait to create icons.

sloughter wrote on 02/24/09 at 03:43:04:


Cheesus K. Reist!

sloughter wrote on 02/24/09 at 01:07:31:


I am sorry, but this is the end.  I'm writing to Tony with a request to have you banned, and I hope others do so as well.

You only have to read any of the other threads on chesspub to see how serious people are here about sharing chess ideas and learning from what others have to say.  The community here is not closed, but is very open to newcomers.  It welcomes not only those with chess knowledge to contribute, but anyone who comes in a constructive and questing spirit.  Though there is the occasional spat, this also happens to be one of the most polite forums that you'll come across on the internet.  A little decency is all that's expected here.

You instead come here with a markedly superior tone and dispense definitive lectures in support of chess ideas that are pretty well understood to be false.  It appears you think that your chess engine, your personal knowledge of the deep structure of chess (in spite of being a rather weak player yourself), and your private conversations with Lev Alburt place you on a plane of chess understanding higher that that occupied by anyone else here (in spite of some here being quite strong players, and most being stronger than you).   

Anyone with any sort of social sense would understand that this kind of conduct is much more likely to irritate people than to draw them into useful conversation.  I advised you in the beginning to take a less superior tone, but it was advice that went unheeded.

Now having run into so much opposition, you react in this way (see quotation).  You don't pay attention to any of the chess thinking that people share with you, instead coming back with more superiority.   

Your whole approach to this forum makes constructive discussion impossible.  People here either have to yield to your highly dubious conclusions and hail you as the font of chess wisdom, or be decried as naysayers, pigheaded poohbahs, or scared little boys in need of a real life.   

I don't know what you find satisfying about any of this.  For a long time I thought that you should be tolerated, and that perhaps you'd eventually come around to some sort of decent mode of interaction with others here.  But you haven't, and instead you resort to ever more imperious and insulting rejoinders.

So I've had it with you, and I'm going to do my best to get you kicked out of here. 

P.S.  I have no problem with anyone posting here anonymously, but my own true identity is well known here, and as you will recall, I even sent you a couple of messages signed with my real name.

P.P.S.  I rather strongly suspect that your failure to make progress in chess is due to your stubborn unwillingness to accept your present degree of ignorance and your shortcomings as a player.  You should think about that.

Bibs wrote on 02/24/09 at 04:17:53:


Of course not. Nobody on this planet has an IQ high enough to peer review Sloughter's articles on any subject. He is the one to do the peer reviewing. I am sure he also peer reviews the articles in NIC-yearbooks.

TN wrote on 02/24/09 at 06:43:25:

Pah, that's so easy to refute that I could do it in my sleep. 4. Ng5 Bxf2+ 5. Kf1 +-

@GM Sloughter(ed), 

Have you refuted 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5? I am interested to know your refutation as this ground-breaking evidence could overturn 500 years of theory and prove a major improvement over the play of hundreds of Grandmasters.