.

Jon Speelman is a fairly notable English chess grandmaster and a fairly notable Ph.D. mathemetician.  He won the English championship two or three times, played in the Olympiad for England, on 3rd or 4th board, I think.   

At his peak, around 1987-1992, he was ranked about 15th in the world.  He was a very fine player, but of course no threat to win the world champion's wreath.  Jon Speelman has been to chess what U.S. soccer has been to the World Cup.  Just good enough to (sometimes) draw a nodding respect from the Big Boys.

Around 1988, Speelman qualified for the championship knockout pairings when he placed 3rd in the 1987 Interzonal tournament.  He then, surprisingly, beat U.S. supergrandmaster Yasser Seirawan to advance to the final eight in the world.  This felt exactly like the U.S. soccer team advancing to the final eight of the World Cup.

Jon Speelman was then paired with the Brazil of world soccer at that time, that being his compatriot (and England team captain) Nigel Short.  Speelman won that too, going to the final four.

..............

I remember, 25 years later to this day, an interview that Speelman gave after his wonderful victories.  Everybody suddenly realized that he was underrated, and the interview went something like:

REPORTER:  So, what do you have to do to beat Timman next?  What would you have to do to beat Kasparov?

SPEELMAN:  "I can't beat Kasparov."

REPORTER:  Um, what.

SPEELMAN:  Nobody can beat Kasparov, except possibly Karpov.

REPORTER:  :blinks: 

REPORTER:  What, then, must you do to defeat Timman?

SPEELMAN:  It is very unlikely that I shall defeat Jan Timman.  He is a stronger player than I am.

REPORTER:  :blinks:

REPORTER:  What, then, are your ambitions?  Why are you playing in the Candidates at all?

SPEELMAN:  The farther I advance in the Candidates, the more accepted I am by my peers.

REPORTER:  :blinks:

SPEELMAN:  Some players tell themselves that they could be world champion.  I realise that, for me, this is out of contact with reality.  My ambition in chess is not to be world champion, not to win tournaments even.  My ambition is to be a strong player and to be accepted by my peers.  Isn't that terrible?

REPORTER:  :smiles:

................

What was unusual was only that Speelman confessed his lack of ambition.

Look, if Jon Speelman plays in a tournament with 11 other grandmasters, and finishes 8th ... what difference does his won-loss record make?  When he walks into the skittles room after a round is over in the GM section, all the club players like me, all the non-grandmasters, flock around.  

By normal chessplayers he is treated as though he were a superior human being.  I mean that literally.  He has privileges, and perks, and adulation, that the "riff-raff" only dream of.

Bill James once said that in baseball, the biggest difference is between being "safe" and "out" at first base.  All of the other considerations are secondary.

For Howard Lincoln and Chuck Armstrong ... hey.  Those guys run an MLB(TM) franchise.  How much difference does it really make, where they finish in the standings?  People pay $5,000 a night to sit in the Diamond Club seats, win or lose.  Lincoln and Armstrong own the Diamond Club, win or lose.  The more you think about it, isn't the winning and losing a negotiable consideration?*

::shrug:: And besides that, the guys who finish ahead of them, are doing it without fiscal responsibility, right?

Life's good,

Dr D

*until you realize that the Mariners aren't selling widgets.