MARKETING CHESS STUFF

So far I've had few complaints, over time, about sending out catalogs, flyers, and such--about once a week. Those who want to be removed from my email messages are removed, and I'm glad. Most businesses don't have the time (really) to defend ourselves or to tell someone that they had requested such and such... so when I get bouncebacks, in general, unless I know the recipient, I delete.

Some customers have web domains which are overly strict in spam control. "Spam" is anything they want it to be even if I have done business with that customer. I use a "forwarding" service and they do not tolerate sending "spam." So you can be pretty sure that I am an approved patron and I don't enjoy wasting time, theirs or mine.

I've removed people's names only later to have them request I reinstate. I think Alzheimer's is now a national disease!

There are so-called experts out there on email marketing:

1) Don't use caps;

2) Don't use the word FREE in the subject line;

3) Get permission to use someone's email address (I almost always contact people who have requested things from me). They break their silence. This, I've been told, is considered ethical. I have sent stuff to "friends of a friend" and in general, no repercussions... but now and then, I do hear from someone who is probably on his computer all day long and who enjoys "being in power."

One of the attractions of the internet is this so-called "anonymity" thing. It gets used by "writers" when they are too chicken to stand toe to toe with someone else and express their objections because the objectee "just might" be able to mentally disarm them.

If you write to my Blog in the comments, you are considered fair game, but that doesn't imply I will always contact you... sometimes I am just seriously busy.

ANNOUNCEMENT: I have prepared a big document. It will be FREE to those who use my analysis and evaluation services. It is based on the 2005 World Chess Championship in San Luis. It has not yet been published. It is not based on ANY book or notes from other sources. It's main purpose is two:

1) Separate the crap and hype from what really was played in San Louis (e.g., the implication is that Topalov was invincible. Not so, he was practical.)

2) Show you something about my analytical skills and curiosity. I ask questions and try to answer them as if I were sitting at the board.

Why use ALL grandmaster games? Primarily because these people are "guilty" of playing very good chess and because they can swiftly demonstrate what can happen when their opponent makes a mistake. Amazingly, there weren't many mistakes of an obvious nature--they were usually little mistakes which grew into bigger ones. Also, you might get hope from the fact that some people just seemed to be lethargic at certain times, just like we ourselves can be.

And lastly, I will show you not only what was "hot" in San Luis, but give you reasons of why YOU might play such chess (one reason is because of the large "body" of work which exists).

An announcement will be made sometime soon. Not since 1948 was such a championship held. The characters included: Svidler, Anand, Topalov, Polgar, Leko, Kasimdzhanov, Adams, and Morozevich.

Here's a factoid for you. Are you an e4 player? Good!! Why? Because out of 56 games in this round robin mini-match tournament, only 6 games did not start with 1. e4. Almost unbelievable isn't it?

Some more: 25 games were Sicilians!

There was only 1 French and it was drawn between Anand and Morozevich,

Only 4 Sicilians were won with the Black pieces while White won 9... maybe there should have been more Frenches!

The often used and abused Petroff only showed 5 times! White won 1 and so did Black.

14 Ruy Lopezes were played. White won 3 and lost 1.

All the games are commented and there are tons of diagrams and lots of analyses. Only in the last few games did analysis drop way off as it was clear that certain parties had, in effect, given up on their chances of being a "hero."

If you enjoy finding traps, tricks, and tips, these games provided plenty at a much higher level. Svidler played some impressive games at times, so did Topalov (very innovative and aggressive games). Polgar tried very hard in most of her games, but something was lacking even though everyone respected her. Anand, when in the right mood, could play some cold-blooded chess. Morozevich seemed to be somewhat inconsistent yet as soon as you tried to take him for granted, he'd buckle down and make you sorry you didn't believe in him.

I don't know that this book-document will be for regular sale (sometimes you have to hold some things back)... but this is to let you know that marketing TPi and G&L Chess is always on my mind, sort of Willie Nelson-like.