<[Event "Bulger Memorial"] [Site "Boston Mass"]
[Date "1985.01.13"]
[EventDate "1985"]
[Round "3"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Turnbull, Murray"]
[Black "Shaw, Alan"]
[ECO "A37"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<[Event "West Suburban Grand Prix"] [Site "Framingham Mass"]
[Date "1985.02.03"]
[EventDate "1985"]
[Round "3"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Shaw, Alan"]
[Black "Felber, Joseph J"]
[ECO "E12"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<[Event "US Amateur Team East"] [Site "Somerset NJ"]
[Date "1985.02.17"]
[EventDate "1985"]
[Round "4"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Evans, Larry David"]
[Black "Shaw, Alan"]
[ECO "C05"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<[Event "Woodstock Open"] [Site "Woodstock Conn"]
[Date "1985.03.10"]
[EventDate "1985"]
[Round "5"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Shaw, Alan"]
[Black "Sarkisian, Drew"]
[ECO "E11"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Bd2 Qe7 5.g3 0-0 6.Bg2 Bxd2+ 7.Qxd2 d6 8.Nc3 Nc6 9.0-0 Re8 10.e4 Nd7 11.Nh4 Nb6 12.b3 e5 13.d5 Nd4 14.Nf3 Nxf3+ 15.Bxf3 g5 16.Bg2 Kh8 17.f4 f6 18.Rf2 gxf4 19.gxf4 Rg8 20.Kh1 Bd7 21.a4 Raf8 22.a5 Nc8 23.f5 Rg5 24.Bf3 Rfg8 25.Rg2 Rxg2 26.Bxg2 Qg7 27.Bf3 Be8 28.Qf2 a6 29.Ne2 Qh6 30.Ng3 Qf4 31.Rf1 Rg5 32.Bd1 Qh4 33.b4 Kg8 34.Be2 Kf8 35.Bd3 Qh3 36.Qg2 Qxg2+ 37.Kxg2 Ke7 38.b5 Kd8 39.bxa6 bxa6 40.Rb1 c5 41.Rb7 Bd7 42.Be2 Rg8 43.Bh5 Rg7 44.Kf2 Re7 45.Bd1 Be8 46.Rb2 Kc7 47.Ke3 Rg7 48.Kf2 Rg8 49.Kf1 Rg7 50.Nh5 Bxh5 51.Bxh5 Rg5 52.Bd1 Rg8 53.Ba4 Rg4 54.Bc6 Ne7 55.Rb7+ Kd8 56.Rd7+ Ke8 57.Rxd6+ Kf7 58.Rd7 Kf8 59.Bb7 Rxe4 60.d6 Rf4+ 61.Ke1 Nxf5 62.Rd8+ Kg7 63.d7 Rd4 64.Bd5 1-0>

Pity there is a preponderance of evidence which contradicts the snippet below, but one naysayer will not be swayed from his chosen mission:

<....It's called the World Open for a reason. Perf prefers Vermont where the going is a wee bit easier.>

Yeah, it was expunged, but not completely.

<[Event "Clone Pine II"]
[Site "Antrim NH"]
[Date "1985.03.16"]
[EventDate "1985"]
[Round "3"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Cooper, Graham"]
[Black "Shaw, Alan"]
[ECO "B15"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[Source "Shaw"]

<[Event "Harvard Futurity"] [Site "Cambridge Mass"]
[Date "1987.??.??"]
[EventDate "1987"]
[Round "12"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Serotta, Andrew"]
[Black "Youssef, Issa"]
[ECO "B38"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<[Event "New England Open"] [Site "Merrimack NH"]
[Date "1982.09.06"]
[EventDate "1982"]
[Round "6"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Curdo, John"]
[Black "Middleton, Ervin R"]
[ECO "C17"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<Former President Donald Trump and his allies are truly gearing up to silence their political critics, attorney and MSNBC commentator Katie Phang warned on Friday evening.

This comes after pro-Trump Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) sent a letter to the Justice Department demanding a criminal investigation of Washington Post columnist Robert Kagan for writing an article about the risk of a Trump dictatorship — which he claimed was a tongue-in-cheek way of protesting the absurdity of Trump facing deprivation of rights charges for the plot to overturn the 2020 election.

"You have a republican senator saying go after Kagan, and [Attorney General] Merrick Garland's not listening to J.D. Vance," said anchor Alicia Menendez. "If it is a Trump-appointed AG, the story is then very different."

"Absolutely," said Phang. "We saw what happened with Bill Barr. We've seen what can happen when you have somebody in a position like the attorney general, and there was a piece recently that just came out within the last 24 hours, talking about people that might be the attorney general. One name prominently: Jeffrey Clark. How do we know that name? ... he's been indicted, right? He's been charged criminally, for helping the insurrection, for helping overturn the results, lawfully, of an election."

"The problem we have here is J.D. Vance, senator, United States senator ... he's a Yale-educated lawyer," said Phang, adding that it's her own alma mater and they don't approve of him. "A Yale-educated lawyer thinking tongue-in-cheek this is funny? This is not funny. Why? Because this is something that Donald Trump said himself he was going to do. He put on Truth Social. He will put you and I in a cell if he wins. He's going to go after his critics. That's a dictator by definition. I'm going to silence my critics, I'm going to put them in jail, I'm going to get them prosecuted. I'm going to take the people that have something negative to say about me, that want to speak truth to power, and I'm going to silence them in ways that they've never seen."

This would not even be new, noted Phang.

"What about people that were anti-Trump during the Trump administration?" she said. "They had the same thing happen to them. This is truly that moment ... if someone shows who they are, believe them. I don't know why people are so casual about this. I don't know why people poo-pooh it when we cover it. I don't know why people don't care more, because they need to. This is very serious. The fact that J.D. Vance is now echoing and parroting what Donald Trump says, should make all of us concerned.">

<Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., continues to draw the ire of his Republican colleagues in the House weeks after he led the ouster of Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., from the speakership, and some of his detractors have privately floating expelling him from Congress.

Several Republican House members, many of whom are still angry at Gaetz for his antics that impeded McCarthy and the majority of the conference from passing legislation, have begun to discuss Gaetz’s ongoing investigation by the House Ethics Committee in the wake of the expulsion of embattled former Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y.

Leading up to Santos’ expulsion, multiple opponents of his removal publicly voiced their concerns about expelling a member who had not been convicted of a crime, which would overturn the precedent set by Congress in modern times.

One of those members was Gaetz himself, who openly defended Santos on the House floor.

“I rise not to defend George Santos whoever he is, but to defend the very precedent that my colleagues are willing to shatter,” Gaetz said last week.

One House Republican, who spoke to USA TODAY on the condition of anonymity to speak candidly about conversations between their colleagues, said GOP members were well aware of the future consequences of expelling Santos.

“There were a number of people who voted to expel Santos with the express intent of thinking through the precedent there on what happens next,” the member said. “There was a lot of forethought about the precedent and what would happen when a report on Gaetz comes out.”

Gaetz led the handful of Republicans who voted to remove McCarthy from the top job in the House earlier this year. After the lawmakers voted with Democrats to boot McCarthy, it led to weeks of infighting in the fractured Republican conference to select another leader. Though lawmakers eventually rallied around now-Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., it used up weeks of time as lawmakers tried to reach a temporary agreement to avoid a government shutdown.

GOP lawmakers, the Republican said, are much more “excited” to expel Gaetz than Santos if the House Ethics Committee releases a report that is just as damning for Gaetz as it was for the Long Island Republican.

The House Ethics Committee is investigating various allegations against Gaetz, including accusations of sexual misconduct, illicit drug use and misuse of campaign funds. The committee has reached out to at least one witness in its investigation in a sign the panel is turning to Gaetz after concluding its investigation into Santos, CNN reported. The Justice Department investigated Gaetz over sex trafficking allegations but decided not to pursue charges against him in February....>

<....The House Ethics Committee, a bipartisan panel evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, has been criticized for being slow-moving and having limited options for punishment if it finds wrongdoing.

However, after Santos' expulsion following the committee's scathing report showing substantial evidence he broke federal law members had renewed hopes it could act swiftly and promptly to address congressional wrongdoing.

“One of the complaints that you often hear is that things often go to the ethics committee and it takes an extended period of time,” Rep. Michael Guest, R-Miss., chair of the committee, said last week. “I think that’s unfair for members of Congress and for members of this body.”

“It’s important that the ethics committee do their work, that they return their reports in a timely fashion,” so members could face the proper repercussions, Guest said.

Another House Republican who spoke to USA TODAY on the condition of anonymity to speak about the conference’s attitude towards Gaetz, said members are waiting for any ethics report on Gaetz to be released before publicly calling for his ouster.

“If there’s anything in there that’s bad, I can guarantee people will have their fangs out. He is hated in our conference,” the House Republican said. “If he comes back as guilty in this ethics thing, I think he’s in trouble.”

In a recent closed-door conference meeting, the Republican recalled, Gaetz stood up to speak but was yelled at by members “to sit down and shut up,” reflecting the animosity GOP lawmakers still harbor for Gaetz.

But other Republicans are raising concerns their peers may be weaponizing the ethics committee against members with whom they may just have political disagreements.

Rep. Dave Joyce, R-Ohio, a member of the House Ethics Committee who led the investigation into Santos, declined to comment about the investigation into Gaetz but told USA TODAY that “every case is independent of one another” and cautioned against linking the inquiries into the two lawmakers.

Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., who has openly criticized Gaetz over his politics, also warned against using the committee as a “political weapon or a bludgeon against somebody just because you don’t like them.”

Other GOP members are trying to strike a middle ground between immediately pushing for Gaetz’s ouster to avoid predetermining judgment and leaving the door open to expelling Gaetz if the ethics committee comes out with damning findings.

Two other House Republicans said lawmakers would take a serious and thorough look at the committee’s report on Gaetz when it is released and make their determination of what they consider a proper punishment then.

When asked by USA TODAY about his thoughts on members’ call to expel him over his ousting of McCarthy, Gaetz, who has taken the vitriol his colleagues have thrown at him in stride, smiled: “Which members?”>

Brian would win the next round for 3.5/4 but lose in the last to Jim Rizzitano, leaving him out of a first-place tie:

<[Event "32nd New Hampshire Open"] [Site "Manchester NH"]
[Date "1982.07.31"]
[EventDate "1982"]
[Round "3"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Shaw, Alan"]
[Black "Warnock, Brian"]
[ECO "A95"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<[Event "New England Masters"] [Site "Boston Mass"]
[Date "1988.05.29"]
[EventDate "1988"]
[Round "6"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Bauer, Richard N"]
[Black "Gurevich, Ilya"]
[ECO "A72"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<Former President Donald Trump on Thursday sought to stop all proceedings in his D.C. election subversion case after U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan rejected his presidential immunity claim.

Trump’s lawyers in a filing argued that Chutkan no longer has any power over the case while he appeals her ruling, a process that could take weeks or months, according to Politico. Trump’s lawyers argue that Chutkan must delay all deadlines because the former president is entitled to an “automatic stay.”

“The filing of President Trump’s notice of appeal has deprived this Court of jurisdiction over this case in its entirety pending resolution of the appeal,” Trump attorneys Todd Blanche and John Lauro wrote. “Therefore, a stay of all further proceedings is mandatory and automatic.”

Trump’s lawyers also indicated that they plan to ask the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to grant a stay if Chutkan does not do so. Unless Chutkan rules otherwise, the lawyers wrote, they plan to ignore all upcoming pretrial deadlines in the case.

The Trump filing says that special counsel Jack Smith’s team has acknowledged that Trump can’t be forced to go to trial while the appeal is pending but plans to oppose the stay on proceedings such as pretrial motions, hearings and trial planning, according to Politico.

Trump’s lawyers rejected the special counsel’s argument, writing that Trump is entitled to avoid “the burdens of litigation” while his appeal is pending.

“Concerns regarding judicial resources and costs from continued litigation during the pendency of the appeal — including financial, reputational, and political costs to President Trump and this country — are significant,” Blanche and Lauro wrote.

Chutkan on Thursday ordered Smith’s team to file their response by Sunday.

Trump’s “goal is clear: prevent this case from making it to trial before the election,” tweeted national security attorney Bradley Moss.

“Trump knows his only way out is making sure the trials never happen,” agreed former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance.

MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin explained on Thursday that it is "not just an appeal to the D.C. Circuit, but potentially an appeal to the Supreme Court."

"So when you talk about running out the clock, it's certainly possible that we could get through this appellate process and give Judge Chutkan time before the 2024 election to try this case," she said. "But Donald Trump is going to try every play in the book, both to stay the case pending appeal, and then to delegate that appeal and not expedite it so that he doesn't have to be tried before November, in the hopes that by January he can stop this case dead in its tracks."

Chutkan last week rejected Trump’s presidential immunity argument, writing that the office of the president "does not confer a lifelong 'get-out-of-jail-free' pass."

"Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability," Chutkan wrote. "Defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office."

Chutkan also rejected Trump’s claims that the indictment violates his free speech rights, writing that "it is well established that the First Amendment does not protect speech that is used as an instrument of a crime."

"Defendant is not being prosecuted simply for making false statements ... but rather for knowingly making false statements in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy and obstructing the electoral process," she wrote.

Former federal prosecutor Denis Aftergut wrote on Monday that Chutkan’s opinion is “meticulously crafted with the Supreme Court in mind.”

“The decision deploys every methodology of constitutional interpretation, including textualism, each variety of so-called originalism, attention to constitutional structure and underlying premises, functional considerations, and history,” he wrote in Slate op-ed. “All point ineluctably to her conclusion.”>

<[Event "Boston Met League"] [Site "Boston Mass"]
[Date "1985.03.08"]
[EventDate "1985"]
[Round "1"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Mataga, Peter"]
[Black "Shaw, Alan"]
[ECO "B06"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<....perfidious musta been in a hurry again - he blundered again before Moussard did:

<Dec-07-23 perfidious: The kind of mistake that could well haunt Moussard for a long while; 31.Rxf7 was far stronger.>

Nothing wrong with 31.Bxf7+ as actually played. White had a win with some effort, but no mate after exchanges.

Notes by Stockfish give the correct follow up to 31.Bxf7+: 32.f4 Qg4 33.Rb8+ Rf8 34.Qd5+ Kh7 35.Rxf8 Qe2+ 36.Kh3 +- +10.61 (37 ply)....>

<[Event "US Amateur Team East"] [Site "Somerset NJ"]
[Date "1985.02.17"]
[EventDate "1985"]
[Round "3"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Shaw, Alan"]
[Black "Oberholzer, Neal"]
[ECO "E84"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 Nc6 7.Qd2 a6 8.Nge2 Rb8 9.Nc1 Bd7 10.Nb3 Qe8 11.Be2 e5 12.0-0 Nh5 13.Nd5 Qd8 14.Rad1 f5 15.dxe5 Nxe5 16.Bg5 Bf6 17.Nxf6+ Nxf6 18.exf5 Bxf5 19.c5 Nf7 20.Bc4 Kg7 21.Bxf7 Rxf7 22.cxd6 Qxd6 23.Qxd6 cxd6 24.Rxd6 Re8 25.Nd4 h6 26.Nxf5+ gxf5 27.Bd2 Ng8 28.Bc3+ Kf8 29.Rfd1 Rfe7 30.Rd7 Kf7 31.Bb4 1-0>

New Jersey must be another of those Vermont counties that I have visited; after all, the narrative, according to <fredmentiroso>, is that I was afear'd of leaving Vermont--even when I lived elsewhere.

<[Event "Harvard Open"]
[Site "Cambridge Mass"]
[Date "1988.05.07"]
[EventDate "1988"]
[Round "2"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Ivanov, Alexander"]
[Black "Shipman, Joseph L"]
[ECO "C64"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bc5 4.c3 f5 5.d4 fxe4 6.Bxc6 dxc6 7.Nxe5 Bd6 8.0-0 Qh4 9.Nd2 Nf6 10.f3 0-0 11.fxe4 Bg4 12.Qb3+ Kh8 13.Qxb7 Bxe5 14.dxe5 Nxe4 15.Nf3 Bxf3 16.gxf3 Rad8 17.Qxc7 Rd3 18.e6 Rdxf3 19.Bf4 R3xf4 20.Rxf4 Qg5+ 21.Kh1 Qxf4 22.Qxf4 Rxf4 23.e7 Nf6 24.Re1 Ne8 25.Re6 Rf6 26.Re4 Rf7 27.Re6 Kg8 28.Rxc6 Rxe7 29.Ra6 Kf7 30.b4 Nf6 31.c4 Ne4 32.c5 Nf2+ 33.Kg2 Nd3 34.a3 Rc7 35.Rd6 Ne5 36.Kg3 Nc4 37.Rd3 Ne5 38.Rc3 Ke7 39.b5 Kd7 40.a4 g6 41.Kf4 Rxc5 42.Rxc5 Nd3+ 43.Kg5 Nxc5 44.a5 Nb3 45.Kh6 Nxa5 46.Kxh7 Ke6 47.Kxg6 Nb7 48.h4 Nd6 49.h5 Nxb5 0-1>

For that most faithful follower: you want a source for this, ask another admin. It is not being listed here.

<[Event "Cambridge Chess Classic"] [Site "Cambridge Mass"]
[Date "1985.10.05"]
[EventDate "1985"]
[Round "2"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Shaw, Alan"]
[Black "Kelleher, William"]
[ECO "D48"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<[Event "US Amateur Team East"] [Site "Somerset NJ"]
[Date "1985.02.18"]
[EventDate "1985"]
[Round "5.16"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Shaw, Alan"]
[Black "Thomas Jr, Leonard"]
[ECO "D48"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<[Event "Cambridge Chess Classic"] [Site "Cambridge Mass"]
[Date "1985.10.05"]
[EventDate "1985"]
[Round "3.2"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Belopolsky, Boris"]
[Black "Shaw, Alan"]
[ECO "E15"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<[Event "Met League Playoff"] [Site "Boston Mass"]
[Date "1988.04.22"]
[EventDate "1988"]
[Round "1"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Turnbull, Murray"]
[Black "Cherniack, Alex"]
[ECO "C02"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<[Event "Cambridge Chess Classic"] [Site "Cambridge Mass"]
[Date "1985.10.05"]
[EventDate "1985"]
[Round "4"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Shaw, Alan"]
[Black "Gurevich, Ilya"]
[ECO "E84"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<[Event "Cambridge Chess Classic"] [Site "Cambridge Mass"]
[Date "1985.10.05"]
[EventDate "1985"]
[Round "5"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Shaw, Alan"]
[Black "Fang, Joseph"]
[ECO "B06"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<[Event "Boylston CC Championship"] [Site "Boston Mass"]
[Date "1985.10.17"]
[EventDate "1985"]
[Round "7"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Chase, Christopher"]
[Black "Shaw, Alan"]
[ECO "A07"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<[Event "US Amateur Team East"] [Site "Somerset NJ"]
[Date "1985.02.16"]
[EventDate "1985"]
[Round "1.48"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Shaw, Alan"]
[Black "Crawford, Clayton"]
[ECO "A56"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.e3 e6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.Nc3 a6 6.a3 0-0 7.Be2 b6 8.0-0 Bb7 9.d5 exd5 10.cxd5 d6 11.a4 Nbd7 12.e4 Ng4 13.Nd2 Nge5 14.f4 Ng6 15.Nc4 f6 16.Bg4 Bc8 17.g3 Rb8 18.Be6+ Kh8 19.e5 fxe5 20.f5 b5 21.axb5 axb5 22.Na5 c4 23.fxg6 Rxf1+ 24.Qxf1 Nf8 25.Nc6 Qb6+ 26.Qf2 Qxf2+ 27.Kxf2 Bxe6 28.Nxb8 1-0>