Apparently that annoying buzzing sound in my ear has been caused by yet another US Chess Federation board election. Call me irresponsible, and you wouldn't be the first, but over the years this has mostly looked like an exercise of well-motivated, intelligent people finding new and exciting ways to screw things up. Handing things over to a small minority of largely uninformed and/or uninterested members with the controversial "one member one vote" initiative added a dose of randomness that would at least have been entertaining had it not resulted in a mendacious nutball like Sam Sloan landing in a position to do real damage to others and the community at large instead of just to himself and anyone downwind.
Despite its name, the Dirt is mostly about chess and with so many good events lately I haven't wanted to drag it into federation politics (FIDE is a bigger fish). I thought about hosting a correspondence debate or something along those lines, but it seems enough has been said. For the most part I consider myself happily uninformed about the candidates and their positions, although in my defense I don't think much ever comes from those positions anyway. Please don't take this as expert commentary, but people keep asking for an item and my opinion, so this is it. I'd be looking for "sane, sincere, and not out for personal gain," but several of the candidates are relatively unknown. Voting for a known mediocrity over a newcomer with fewer credentials is distasteful. The link above gives position statements from the candidates with comments and endorsements from current board chairman Bill Goichberg, whose tenure and expertise I vaguely endorse despite undeniable conflicts of interest that don't seem to have manifested.
The most visible improvements of recent years, mostly those in Chess Life and uschess.org, are impressive. I'm not going to get into bang for the buck value on those transformations, but speaking only as an end consumer of those resources they are vastly improved. Many people are far too ambitious with what the USCF should be doing when they have enough trouble just doing the basics. Do the ratings, run the magazine and a decent website, find sponsors and organizers for a few official events, support scholastic chess while realizing it's not the holy grail, don't screw the professional players, manage the responsibilities efficiently, and don't go bankrupt. To that minimal charge I would add "welcome and leverage the knowledge and support of your members and the US chess community." There is a massive opportunity for volunteerism that is being squandered.
I don't really want to play the endorsement game because my role has always been one of equal-opportunity criticism. I'd probably be happy with an "anyone but Sloan" campaign, although I assume that's been taken. Since one of the other candidates, Mike Goodall, seems to think Sloan is a positive presence, I add him to my negative slate. Both Susan Polgar and her husband Paul Truong are running. While I wouldn't penalize them for this Bill & Hillary state of affairs as such, creating a de facto two-vote bloc is odd. They've done a great deal for chess in the US. I have taken issue with their take-no-prisoners methods on several occasions. They too often seem to feel that anyone who disagrees with them is an enemy of the state worthy of the most vicious assaults, a philosophy not conducive to collaborative and transparent governance. I'd vote for Susan because she knows chess and is a great ambassador. I'd say her election is a fait accompli anyway. But I'd take Paul only as Bill to her Hillary to save a vote and a voice of diversity on the board. Buy one, get one free.
That's three of ten candidates eliminated and there are four spots up for grabs. I haven't seen or heard anything veto-worthy about the others. I'm voting for Jim Berry because I've heard good things from people I like and trust, simple as that. And I'm generally in favor of new blood. Don Schultz is the oldest of the old blood, but I suppose experience should count for something. It's also possible that keeping him busy on the board will stop him from writing another horrible book. Joe Lux is an unknown to me but his statement was convincingly sincere. It's nice to see someone interested in the US Championship instead of a bunch of pie in the sky piffle based on money they don't have and never will. Let's deal with the problems we have instead of racing around making new ones. There's another vote.
So there you go, for what it's worth. Berry, Polgar, Lux, and a mystery candidate who won't be Sloan, Goodall, or Truong. Can I get back to the candidates matches now? My ear is starting to buzz...
PS Several people hereabouts suggested that the recent fulminations against our free speech by the company MonRoi should become an election issue. That they have become increasingly involved in USCF matters and with some people on the USCF board is clearly worth keeping an eye on. Being poor can mean being bought very cheaply. To my knowledge all of the candidates have remained mum on the matter, although I'm not sure why they would know about it. Dealing with sponsors is always tricky, especially if they are also elves with repressive tendencies.
Mig, your comments are right on. I am not sure why you endorse why endorse Susan after saying:
>>I have taken issue with their take-no-prisoners methods on several occasions. They too often seem to feel that anyone who disagrees with them is an enemy of the state worthy of the most vicious assaults, a philosophy not conducive to collaborative and transparent governance.
I agree with the above and that disqualifies Susan in my opinion. She has demonstrated intolerance to differences of opinion in her blog and there is no reason why it will be any different in USCF. I think that is the reason why she has a slate so that she can control the majority and have her way. I think most of her slate will be rejected and she won't take part in USCF affairs even if elected as she has burnt bridges with a lot of good people. That also makes a vote for her a wasted one.
Add to it her habit of distorting facts) and shameless self-promotion (most USCF events might be in her name:))
Sincerely,
Kapalik
I used to be fan of Susan and a regular at her web site. However, the actions in the recent past have disgusted me. Some of my thoughts based on what I have seen in the last few months:
- I find it strange to see Susan talking of “protecting the USCF” when all that her campaign has been doing in the last few months is attack and undermine the USCF without much substance.
- There is one thing that is worse than substantiated attacks and that is unsubstantiated attacks. Which is what Susan and co are doing through their various sites. There is so much talk of lies, insults, attacks, threats, mismanagement, dirty politics without any substance. From what I can tell, Susan and Paul have only benefited from USCF. It is worse than Sam Sloan whose attacks are specific even if largely wrong.
- I am against any slate as it is highly political and will let some of the past evils come back. I like Bill Goichberg’s idea of independent candidates with a record of selfless service.
- One dirty campaign strategy I have seen is to attack what Sam Sloan does and equate/associate USCF and the board with Sam Sloan. Not everyone in USCF administration can be equated with Sam Sloan. Almost everyone who matters hates Sam and is against him. It is also a very sleazy tactic.
- There is heavy censorship in her blog. Anything that questions her comments or disagrees with her is block. The site is only for yes men. Of late there has been a new development. While genuine, powerful, real comments are censored/blocked, those that are petty and racial (such as "go back to where you came from", "why not contest in Hungary" or "a woman should be at home", "I will support Sloan and Goichberg" etc.) are allowed. The idea seems to be to show that all those who oppose Susan are racist and/or bigoted and to associate the other candidates with Sloan. The fact that genuine, factual comments are censored (I have verified it myself multiple times) also shows that these racist comments are likely posted by Susan or her supporters.
Kapalik
Excellent insight by MG: great writing as ever. While I wouldn't go quite as far as Kapalik in criticising the Susan Polgar campaign, the general tenor of it is right:
- there are probably blog-replies that should be censored under her published criteria but ...
- genuine points, gently made, which are not welcome have also been censored
- that's a poor lookout for a happy USCF Executive
- the SP/PT marriage announcement was release in an unusual and less than transparent manner
- the SP campaign is based on negative, unconstructive and inspecific criticism
- the relentless 'SP branding' is utterly grating
- the associating of other candidates with Sam Sloan is shabby tactics
Well, it looks like at least we will get rid of SS.
g
What was the problem with Sloan? I only knew he was kinda involved in chess, had a site, and his wikipedia entry is relatively tame
What was the problem with Sloan? I only knew he was kinda involved in chess, had a site, and his wikipedia entry is relatively tame
Also, is getting onto the USCF board really such a lucrative deal? I thought they evem had some financial issues years back. It's kinda sad to hear about the mudslinging that does nothing for the professional image of chessplayers
Everyone be sure to vote for the USCF executive board elections. If you do not vote then you have NO right to complain!
By the way, when will we get our voting ballots? I have not received mine yet.
The USCF really has been run in an amateurish way in the past several years. The unprofessional treatment of sponsors and potential sponsors has been particularly irksome.
Randy Bauer and Mikhail Korenman are also good candidates.
Kapalik = Goichburg?
Probably.
A man a plan a canal, Panama.
Able was I ere I saw Elba.
Parsnips spins rap.
"The link above gives position statements from the candidates with comments and endorsements from current board chairman Bill Goichberg, whose tenure and expertise I vaguely endorse despite undeniable conflicts of interest that don't seem to have manifested."
You can be sure that they've "manifested", although, to be sure, the conflicts of interested that have been made clear (for instance, a Tournament Life Announcement [TLA] policy that was
changed to become more favorable for organizers of
big Swiss events) have been relatively minor.
Goichberg's way of resolving conflicts has been to
simply assume that what is good for Continental Chess is good for the USCF. So, the venality has been kept in check. But if circumstances were to arise such that there WAS a major conflict of interest between the USCF and Goichberg's business, how do you think Goichberg would resolve his quandry?
Sloan is perhaps the least trustworthy member of the Board, but nobody suggests that his actions are motivated by financial self-interest. Indeed, on more than one occasion, he has exposed "inconvenient truths", such as when he found proof
from the MSA database that one of his fellow Board Members had manipulated ratings in the past. Sloan
is one of the few who is willing to pore through documents, and connect the dots. In any event, it is not logical to throw the baby out with the bathwater: some of Sloan's accusations are completely true, and it is best to evaluate each of his claims on a case by case basis.
Mig, the same arguments that you use to discredit One Member One Vote can be used to discredit Democracy in the US. Our current system amounts to:
"Handing things over to a [Large] minority of largely uninformed and/or uninterested" [voters]....
Yet, is there any real argument that the US Congressional governance is better since the XVIIth Amendment (Popular election of US Senators) was ratified?
OMOV would never have been a "controversy" if the oligarchy that had been running the USCF was not also ruining it. If you think that this election is distasteful, let me remind you that the politics was even uglier in the pre-OMOV days. Every voting delegate would receive anonymous "hit letters" in the mail, which smeared one or more of the candidates. Worse, there was much more blatant
"horse trading" going on, where lucrative scholastic events would be promised to a State Affiliate, in exchange a promise of support.
As Churchill noted:
“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”
g,
I guess we are in agreement. Wanted to clarify on the Polgar site censorship. While censorship of a difference of opinion is bad, what is worse is that, it is selective and sleazy. e.g. if you make an really offensive post attacking immigrants and/or women on her blog, it will be published. But if you mention you are voting for someone not in her slate or ask her why her campaign is so ngative, it won't be published. Now that's sleazy and reveals a lot!
Kapalik
Doug,
Sam has revealed a lot of truths but he has also hurt USCF a lot including sponsorships (he was the cause and not the entire board and "chess politicians" as Polgar claims).
Kapalik
Doug,
Sam has revealed a lot of truths but he has also hurt USCF a lot including sponsorships (he was the cause and not the entire board and "chess politicians" as Polgar claims).
Kapalik
I agree with Mig that Susan Polgar has been a great chess ambassador. Yes, she self-promotes, but I don't have a problem with that. So do Coke and Pepsi. But I also agree that Paul Truong should get a no vote.
I too was perplexed by the peculiar timing of the marriage announcement. On her website, Susan said, "Thousands of people already know," or words to that effect. Well, if thousands already know, then what's the big secret? Either announce it, or don't announce it.
Sadly, we have another election where nearly everyone has huge downsides. Joe Lux is a very good guy and has been teaching and playing for decades. He gets a vote. Berry gets one for the US Champs, and not sure about the others.
Blah, I hate chess politics, they really ruin chess.
I'm lost here. How is it possible for any USCF voter not to know that Sloan is a lunatic and a paedophile? He's boastful enough about the latter, and the former is fairly clear from his website.
I'm also lost about the scepticism about the Truong/Poplgar marriage. Everyone but everyone knows they're closely connected and there's never been any secret about that. What conceivable business is it of anyone's but their own if they're married in their private life?
I don't have a vote but if I had a vote, I would vote for Jim Berry, Susan Polgar, Mikhail Korenman and Randy Bauer.
@rdh:
I'm lost here. How is it possible for any USCF voter not to know that Sloan is a lunatic and a paedophile?
You see behavioral disorders; USCF sees constituencies.
Ditto to that dirtbag, except substitute Lux for Bauer. While Bauer is part of Polgar's hoped-for voting bloc, Lux seems like a genuinely honest (!) guy.
After mulling it over, I'll run as a write-in candidate. My goals are two: one, to send a shock wave through USCF. If I can get three or four hundred votes the leadership class in USCF will act to steal my ideas so they can nip in the bud any nascent movement I may start. My second goal is to give people a clear protest candidate other than Sam Sloan.
My platform is simple. I would reverse two rule changes to rules 15 and 16. In rule 15, if a player wants to write his move down first before playing it he should be allowed to do it. It is pointless imitation to change the rule because FIDE does it that way, and it is counterproductive to require everyone to write their moves down after moving simply to make things easier for the Monroi users. As far as rule 16 goes, I would change the rule back to the old form, where if Black is late getting to the board, White may move or may simply start Black's clock without moving. The rule was changed to require White to move first and then start Black's clock, a change made to satisfy digital clock owners that used move counters.
To vote for me write in "Edward Yetman" in the write-in spot.
Ed Yetman, III
YetmanBrothers.com
(Dear Mig, please feel free to delete this if you like. I won't protest or complain.)
>> Dear Mig, please feel free to delete this if you like. I won't protest or complain.)
Ed, this isn't Susan's blog where inconvenient posts are deleted :)
- Kapalik
>> Dear Mig, please feel free to delete this if you like. I won't protest or complain.)
Ed, this isn't Susan's blog where inconvenient posts are deleted :)
- Kapalik
Hi Kapalik,
Yeah, but I don't want Mig to feel he's stepping on my toes by deleting my posts. After that Monroi debacle, I want to make sure that Mig knows that I won't be offended if he decides that this thread is no place for electioneering, even half-hearted campaigning like mine.
Ed Yetman, III
YetmanBrothers.com
Come on, Ed. Why don't you just step up to the plate and admit your Secret Agenda: Reinstating descriptive notation as the mandatory way of keeping score in USCF events? A vote for Ed is a vote for the Dark Ages!
;-)
I don't think I will vote for either Polgar or Truong. As Mig pointed out, they form a 2-vote solid bloc. Not that politicians have not formed alliances before, but this one strikes me as a couple of lovebirds on an express bus while the rest are on the local. Not good.Somewhere in Polgar's blog, she stated that she books her engagements two years ahead of time. Man, that's a busy schedule and I believe her. Where does the the USCF's business come into focus in her life? Will the USCF just end up as a tool for more glory? I don't want the USCF to be hijacked and made into a vehicle of self-promotion. I am not saying that this is a certainty, but just the prospect of it will take away my vote.
Chessbuff : Too late. The USCF was hijacked 50 years ago.
geez, i guess i am not too quick on hijackings!
Southern California's top players - GM Varuzhan Akobian, GM Melikset Khachiyan, IM Armen Ambartsoumian, IM Andranik Matikozyan, IM Jack Peters, IM Anthony Saidy, IM Enrico Sevillano and IM Jeremy Silman- have recommended 3 candidates - Stephen Jones, GM Susan Polgar and Jim Berry.
Southern California's top players - GM Varuzhan Akobian, GM Melikset Khachiyan, IM Armen Ambartsoumian, IM Andranik Matikozyan, IM Jack Peters, IM Anthony Saidy, IM Enrico Sevillano and IM Jeremy Silman- have jointly recommended 3 candidates - Stephen Jones, GM Susan Polgar and Jim Berry.
When Susan and Paul talk about lies, insults, attacks and such they were initially talking about Sloan on the uscf issues forum, and the inaction of the EB to do anything about what Sam was saying. From there it blossomed as many others have chimed in, and they seem to group them all under the heading of dirty chess politicians. It wasn't Susan and Paul that started the attacks, but they allowed themselves to be goaded into going negative in a big way after promising to run a positive campaign.
Doug,
You stated:
"some of Sloan's accusations are completely true, and it is best to evaluate each of his claims on a case by case basis."
Sloan's claims about Robert Tanner occurred before he came to the Board. Sloan's Board membership did not facilitate the discussion at all.
In fact, I have evaluated many of Sloan's claims as a Board member -- see http://christopherfalter.blogspot.com/2007/05/we-need-new-leadership-in-us-chess.html for my analysis.
Best regards,
Chris Falter
"Both Susan Polgar and her husband Paul Truong are running. While I wouldn't penalize them for this Bill & Hillary state of affairs as such, creating a de facto two-vote bloc is odd."
Mig, every USCF election of the past few decades, even prior to the implementation of OMOV, has featured "slates" of candidates that have teamed up to vote as a bloc. Usually, the members of the slates are upfront about their political affiliations, and openly join in an effort to increase their electability.
What Polgar and Truong are doing is no different, although, from a tactical point of view, I think that it was a mistake to place Truong on the slate. Truong is less popular, and somewhat controversial, and therefore will act as a drag on the slate. In any event, they have opened themselves up to political attack, based on the notion that intimately connected candidates give the appearance of impropriety/conflict of interest.
If Polgar's (and Truong's) slate wins, they will, for better or for worse, set the policy. If the Goichberg slate prevails, Polgar will be marginalized.
Democracy on the USCF Executive Board usually degenerates into 4 wolves and 3 sheep voting on what's for dinner.
IF one believes that Susan is the answer to what ails the USCF, then it is more logical not to hedge your bet, and (perhaps while holding your nose?) vote for all of the names on her slate.
Alternatively, with so many candidates running, there are at least a couple of independents. It might spice things up to vote for them, as bloc loyalty will not be the first criteria for casting their vote. Indeed, it is possible that some might vote on principle!
Slates aren't necessarily voting blocs. You can support or endorse another candidate or agree on a platform without always voting together and acting in unison in everything. That's what we could logically expect from Susan and Paul, at least on anything significant.
It's not a hedge. I'm not interested in anyone having a majority. They don't need sweeping reform or dramatic action. To the contrary. They need competence and small steps in reasonable directions.
Hehheh, "some of Sloan's accusations are true." Awesome endorsement. That a monkey occasionally throws *some* of its feces in the toilet doesn't mean I want one as a pet.
I'm voting for those who I believe will look at every question posed and ask "what is best for chess?" In that respect I am going with Polgar, Truong, Bauer and Berry.
Polgar is a respected name, not only in the chess world but outside of chess too, and that could prove invaluable, I have watched Truong in action at many tournaments and I like his work ethic, Bauer's reponses to questions have been impressive and the guy sounds like he knows what he is doing and I met Jim Berry in Stillwater back in February and he does everything he does because he loves chess.
Definite "no" votes put me in the "anyone but Sloan and Goodall" categories (Goodall added because of his comments on the bombings in London, and I am still a Brit after all).
I would also not vote for Lux, Korenman or Schultz. I met Lux at the Chicago Open, and although he seemed like a nice guy, he didn't impress me too much when it came to just talking to him about chess. The only thing I know about Korenman is that he has did a lot of good stuff down in Kansas but nobody has heard of anything good from his new haunts in Chicago. Schultz has had his shot and I just think we need a fresh perspective.
That only leaves Jones who would be a respectable 5th vote for me if there was one.
I can't help but laugh at this thread; for months going on years I have been reading Sloan's incredibly obscene and obsessive diatribes against USCF eminentoes on the Google chess site in stunned amazement. There is no scurrilous statement that is beneath him! It seems others have noticed something is seriously wrong with this man's mental health. I join hands with all Sloan-haters even though I personally haven't got a horse in this race.
Well... I do like a bit of drama, so I'll do a quick comment.
There seems to be a lot of internal fighting with the USCF. Maybe that's one of the reasons why there are hardly any top 'native American' chess players. Chess probably looks like even less a fulfilling and 'lucrative' career in the US than it does in the UK.
So you need candidates who actually care about the 'ordinary' players in America. The ECF seems to be finally getting its act together in this regard, so new faces can help.
I think that all candidates should really aim to get people who are born in the USA to improve in chess. You can't just keep importing players and expect to provide inspiration to young American kids, let alone sponsors.
Which brings me to a point that should be understood. Polgar and Truong (didn't know they were husband and wife lol) weren't actually born in the USA. Neither were some of the people on their slate. Now, those two are probably the best 'chess qualified' to be part of the USCF, but the origin point should be taken into account.
I'd still be tempted to have Polgar on board to be honest, although I have to agree that some of her writing has a feminist bent. And she seems very sensitive to anybody not agreeing with her.
However it turns out, I hope American chess players improve ;)!
Now hang on a minute there Mr. Howitt. As an immigrant to the U.S. myself, I must strongly disagree that where someone was born has any bearing on how they will be able to best run the USCF. I think the biggest impediment to homegrown chess talent here in the U.S. is the lack of any guarantee of being able to make a solid, professional living out of playing chess full time. What will inspire American chess players to devote their time to chess and not drop out of chess is money. Just look at all of the top American talents that have dropped out of chess to pursue a more solid and/or lucrative career in other fields. So I think the best people are the ones that will bring sponsors and more money to chess, and where they were born has nothing to do with that.
Mr. Cheng, there will never be any serious money in chess as long as professionalism is emphasized while amateurs get ignored or denigrated. Go to USCF's homepage and you will find plenty about American professionals overseas, and plenty about players who are not American in any way. Recently the U.S. Amateur Championships were held in four cities. What do they get? Nothing.
If USCF wants to thrive a way of blending the membership appeal needs to be found. I am not suggesting that amateurs be the focus while professionals are ignored. I am suggesting that amateurs and adults who are unconnected to scholastic chess need more cultivating. Without them, there are no fans for the professionals and no adult chess for the scholastic players to grow into.
Ed Yetman, III
YetmanBrothers.com
Sheesh!
Well a lot of things make me feel like a dinosaur, and most of them aren't even related to chess.
But this takes the cake: I find I'm in bed with the guy who's claim to fame is the crusade to bring back descriptive notation (Ed Yetman).
He just wrote: "I am suggesting that amateurs and adults who are unconnected to scholastic chess need more cultivating."
Well, that's been the core of my chess promotion "program", such as it is, since returning to chess five years ago. I won't detail the steps I tried to effect it, or how bored I am with both the chess world's and the mainstream media's obsession with chess for kids. Suffice it to say that I found ample evidence that my quest was no less quixotic than Ed's bring-back-descriptive crusade (i.e. doomed to utter failure, in today's cultural environment at least).
So his post is further evidence of my troglodyte nature....guilty by association. And I didn't even know I was associating with him!
As for Mark Howitt: One idiotic statement after another. Lou Dobbs for USCF Executive Board!
Hey there Mr. Jacobs,
Why not send me a mailing address (real, not email) and I'll send you some free copies of my magazine, such as it is. Then you can criticize me even more freely!
As for quixotic quests, well, are there any others?
As for my claim to fame, at least I, unlike Mr. Sloan, have no claim to infamy.
Ed Yetman, III
YetmanBrothers.com
My preference is for those recommended by Bill G. All are well qualified and independent (with the exception of Joe Lux). Bauer could be the backup. By linking to Goichberg's site, I assume Mig is also endorsing his choice :)
Polgar and Truong are ruled out for negative campaign, intolerant views and censorship, lack of good relations and inability to work with a team, misleading claims and campaign, and excessive self-promotion. All these will come in the way of running a broad-based and diverse organization where consensus and teamwork are needed. They are better off running their own foundation the way they want (and they have got good success with that) - running the USCF is a different thing altogether.
Is there a site where there is a good discussion (informative and uncensored) on these elections?
- Kapalik
Kapalik -
I've been trying to present balanced treatment on USCF election questions at my blog. For example, I suggest that Paul Truong's Vietnamese chess career is authentic ( http://christopherfalter.blogspot.com/2007/06/1986-chess-life-interview-confirms.html ) but the sites that bear his name (along with a claim to have a Ph.D.) raise difficult questions for him. (See http://christopherfalter.blogspot.com/2007/06/paul-truong-has-question-to-answer.html ) Paul has responded with a comment on the issue of the websites. Judge for yourself how satisfactory you find his answer to be. In fact, feel free to leave a comment of your own!
LOL. Oh, tears of laughters. No wonder the USCF has a convicted criminal on board if its members can't listen to some outside criticism. I couldn't care less really, you deserve what you get.
Ed III,
If Jon's busy, I'd be delighted to criticize you freely!
42W711 Seavey Rd.
Sugar Grove, IL 60554
Hello Mr. Koster,
I'll be glad to send you some freebies. I ask that you check your address; is the second line correct? It looks kind of odd to me.
Yours, Ed Y.
Ed III,
It's odd and correct.
42 miles (and change) west of the county line.
Many thanks!
Hello Mr. Koster,
Is 42 miles enough to put you out in the sticks? If so I'll send extras so you can pass the time.
I'll try to mail them Monday.
Ed Yetman, III
YetmanBrothers.com
Surrounded by cornfields, serenaded by coyotes, awakened by roosters, bombed by overflying geese; car always dusty from driving the gravel road.
Thanks!
I am a USCF life member, but not allowed to vote because I am living in Mexico. Duh.
About slates, in the recent past there have been always competing slates. However, the degree of Independence has been very different. In the Marinello 05 slate, Shaughnessy, Schutt and John were mostly yes-men to Marinello. In the other hand, Bauer shown independence in money issues.
The 05 Goichberg slate were mostly independent, allied against Marinello. They never worked in bloc; two of them have resigned since.
Now the Polgar slate looks as a bloc of two plus two independent allies (Kornemann and Bauer). The Goichberg endorsed four are also allied independents. And "the other two" Goodall and Sloan are clearly independent (but without a real chance to get elected). So, I do not see a bloc taking over the USCF this year.
I see Goichberg chess business experience as a great asset to USCF. Of course, there could be a conflict of interest, but anyone working in chess would have some conflict of interest. Could USCF afford to work without chess professionals? I think not. Besides, up to this moment, Goichberg has not had a position clearly against USCF interests.
About Susan Polgar, her over self-promotion annoys me. Four times world champion? Even if technically correct (I am not sure), it is misleading. Truong eleven times national champion? Same thing. Susan brand recognition assures her a place in the board, but I am not convinced that she can work in harmony with a board of dissenting opinions.
I see big pluses in Schultz (experience), Jones (academic), Berry (willing to pay from his pocket), Bauer (financial) and Kornemann (rising money). If I would be allowed to vote, I would select four of them.
I'll say this for Goichberg's conflict of interest: at least he has an interest. If USCF goes under it will be bad for his business, so he's got motivation to save USCF. That at least is something.
Ed Yetman, III
YetmanBrothers.com
By the way, Bill Goichberg is conducting a poll, which (at this writing) shows GM S. Polgar leading but the rest of her slate trailing. This is a very small and possibly unrepresentative sample though. I don't know if there are safeguards against multiple votes.
The link is at www.chessnews.org
Please everybody, vote for Sloan AND Polgar. Then we will something exciting to follow.
Eduardo, I am in full agreement with your post. Regarding the 4 time world champion claims by Polgar, it is yet another example of her misleading (if not incorrect) claims. I think the 4 includes junior championships, Olympiad medals etc.
Theodulf, when I last visited chessnews, Berry was leading followed by Polgar. It seems Berry will certainly make it, most likely at the top. He in non-controversial and committed and puts his money where his mouth is. Polgar may survive her negative campaign and sleazy tactics but her slate will be hurt.
- Kapalik
>>
Regarding the 4 time world champion claims by Polgar, it is yet another example of her misleading (if not incorrect) claims. I think the 4 includes junior championships, Olympiad medals etc.
>>
I'm not sure what the "Four times Women's World Champion" claim means. She won the Women's Championship once. She won the Women's Under 16 Championship in 1981, and the Women's Blitz and Rapid Championship in 1992. Apparently she's counting these as being "the Women's World Championship". And there's probably a 4th in there somewhere, though it didn't make the list of Top 10 Moments in Chess on her blog a few months back.
Frankly, I find it a bit off-putting that we should have to guess what the claim is, and a bit disturbing that different titles should so often be lumped together that way. I've seen articles where she described both Karpov and herself as "former world champions", without differentiating, and so leading the reader to believe that they won the same title. It's not wrong, exactly, but it's misleading. At least I think I'd be annoyed if William Lombardy or Mark Diesen went around telling the press that they were former world chess champions, without specifying that they were talking about the *Junior* Championship.
Now, the news story about her moving to Texas Tech describes her as a "5 time Olympic Champion". But what does that mean? She only played in 4 Olympiads.
But, after poring through olimpbase.org for a bit, it appears that that claim refers to Gold Medals. I see that she won two Gold Medals for being on the Winning Team, two for Best Overall Performance Rating, and one for Best Performance on Board 1. That makes five. It's not really the same thing as being a "5 time Olympic Champion", though, and I really see no point in encrypting the claim. To me "5 time Gold Medallist" sounds every bit as impressive.
One claim that I've been a bit troubled about (since I'm a bit anal-retentive about historical accuracy), is the whole "First Female Grandmaster" question. Chessgames.com's bio of her states flat out that she was the first female grandmaster, which is a fairly common notion. Her own Top 10 Achievemetns List
http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2007_04_01_archive.html
...leads the casual reader to assume the same, but says it in a more roundabout way: "1. Becoming the first woman ever to break the gender barrier, earning the Grandmaster title".
What she means is not that she was the first female Grandmaster, but that she was the first to "earn" it (i.e. through the norm system).
I tried to question this on her blog, and pointed out that actually Nona Gaprindashvili was the first female GM. Unfortunately, at that point, the way she had worded it led some of her fans to want to draw a distinction between GM's who "earned" their title, and GM's who just had it given to them, and led to people implying that, okay, Nona may have been a GM, but she wasn't a "real" GM (like Polgar was). To Polgar's credit, she did jump in at that point and ask people not to denigrate Gaprinidashvili or Chiburdanidze or their accomplishments. But still, the way she'd worded it had caused the problem. By saying that she's the first woman to earn the title she had logically implied that either there were no previous female GM's, or if there were, they didn't earn it. An unfortunate choice of words that I haven't seen repeated since then. Let's see how she phrases it next time.
Part of the problem may have been due to a genuine misunderstanding. Polgar stated (and so did Wikipedia until recently), that Nona and Maia had gotten their titles simply from being Women's World Champion, while she (Polgar) was the first to "earn" it (meaning through the norm system). This is not true, as can be seen from Benko's column in the January 1979 Chess Life & Review. Gaprindashvili did get her title through the norm system, although some discretionary judgement was used for her that was not used in Polgar's case (None had the norms, but was 2 or 3 games short in the overall games requirement, but they gave her the title anyway). It's true that Polgar did something Nona didn't, by winning the title without any such discretion, but I'd find it a bit strong to suggest that Nona didn't earn it.
I think I agree with Mig on this. Polgar does know chess and is a great ambassador for the game. I'm planning to vote for her. But at the same time, she seems to regard everyone who disagrees with her as being on the same level as the people in her youth who told her that women shouldn't be playing chess, or the chromosome-deficient misogynist types on rec.games.chess.politics who spew obscenities at her constantly. The honesty and professionalism of the existing USCF board is attacked constantly on her blog, always in a non-specific way.
We're always told that unnamed evil chess politicians are lying about her, attacking her, threatening her, threatening her family, behaving unprofessionally, behaving dishonsetly, but she never quite gets around to saying who's doing it or exactly what they're doing. While I'm sure that incompetence and misconduct may exist, and would love to see examples of it, it just seems like dirty politicking to tar everyone generically in this way. It often seems that whenever Sam Sloan says something stupid, it's paraded out anonymously as an example of what those who oppose her are like. It might be better if I had a clear idea what she'll do if elected, but I don't have that either.
She's alluded to (unspecified) terrible things happening to her on the USCF Boards, but if you don't read those, as I don't, then you have no idea what she's talking about (and she never says).
Whoever's running her campaign is doing an awful job. It's as if she's been told to attack everyone, but do it in an impersonal way, say as little as possible, and rely on name power to get in. I want her on the board, but don't want whoever's running this campaign. The way I'm thinking now, unless she changes my mind, I'll probably vote for her but against all the rest of her slate. I'll hang onto my ballot until the last few days, just in case things change.
Hello Mr. Koster,
Your magazines went out today. You should get them by Monday.
Ed Yetman, III
YetmanBrothers.com
Ed III,
Thanks!
greg, were the magazines any good?!
I feel like I have to comment on this one:
"I'd still be tempted to have Polgar on board to be honest, although I have to agree that some of her writing has a feminist bent."
Mark Howitt.
Did he seriously just use the tag feminist as an insult, no explanation or clarification?
Incidentally, no one mentions Stephen Jones, but he seems-- both in his writing and in person-- to be both intelligent and not crazy. It's a shame no one is going to vote for him.
Elizabeth
Over the years, the term "feminist" has been used to mean everything from "seeing everything in male vs female terms" to "fighting for equal rights and representation of women in the world". People apply it very differently.
"Over the years"?
What is this, a etymology lesson designed to make us all friends? People "apply it very differently" because some people are hate-mongering lunatics with bad vocabularies.
From her last email alone, I'm convinced Elizabeth belongs on the USCF board.
Elizabeth, Mark Howitt is a clown. No need to waste bytes on him. Not only does he aggressively and proudly proclaim with his every word that he knows zip about what he's talking about -- but he does so with not even a trace of wit.
The nearest parallel I can think of is a guy (a prolific Polgar supporter, actually) who posts frequently on USCF Forums, and occasionally here, under the handle, "George."
Anyway, the offensiveness of Howitt's throwaway derogatory reference to femininsm pales next to the attitudes toward immigrants that he expressed at several points in the same post.
Makes you wonder if maybe the rabidly xenophobic comments that showed up on Polgar's blog a couple weeks ago, right after Goichberg sent a blast email dissing her -- comments that almost everyone assumes were actually planted there by Polgar herself so she can claim she's being persecuted by bigots -- might be authentic after all.
Those xenophobic, ostensibly anti-Polgar comments that "miraculously" sidestepped the censors who guard Polgar's blog, sound not too different from what Howitt wrote above:
"Polgar and Truong...weren't actually born in the USA. Neither were some of the people on their slate. Now, those two are probably the best 'chess qualified' to be part of the USCF, but the origin point should be taken into account." (Translation: damn furriners!)
And that is why the words "feminist" and "bent" can often be encountered in the same sentence.
Polgar didn't have to post the racist/secist comments herself, because there are way too many people out there who dislike her and are crazy/stupid enough to post them. Goichberg took a big negative in my book for suggesting that.
On the other hand, it is also painfully obvious that until it was pointed out in the last couple of weeks, reasoned critical posts were being censored from her blog, while "I love you"-type and "I hate you"-type posts were getting in. So it was clear to me how the editorial policy was being dictated by the campaign policy.
OK Elizabeth, I'll go into more detail for you.
I believe that Susan Polgar's strict upbringing has left her a bit psychologically damaged. Couple that with being a 'single mom' and having to compete against some very serious men all her life has made her pretty feminist. Now personally, that's a side of her I don't especially like, but she seems to have other good qualities: determination, 'chess promotion', a 'good heart'.
That's why I'd still probably vote for her... if I moved to America that is ;).
Feminism is not an indicator of psychological damage. I would say that it's an indicator of psychological health, though probably the association is weak.
Elizabeth, I think Stephen Jones has a decent chance. Before Bill G. discontinued his poll, it looked like Berry and Polgar were coming in 1-2, Bauer at 3 but not as commandingly, and then Jones, Lux, and Schultz in a close race for the fourth spot.
Ed III,
Got your magazines. Many thanks.
Watch these pages for a review. But don't think that just because you threw some twenties in the mailing envelope that it'll necessarily be a good one.
Hi Greg,
I hope you enjoy them. Thanks in advance for any contribution that you send our way. We need the money for our wastrel lifestyles.
If you like, why not start a thread on the message boards?
Yours, Ed Y.
Ed,
Maybe so. Although finding a chess magazine written in Descriptive Notation in my mailbox is like finding a new car with a crank-start in my driveway!
Anyway, I'm donning my knickers and tweed cap and am looking forward to taking a spin.
good heavens, Greg are you a cross-dresser? ;-)
Hello Greg,
Don't forget the handlebar mustache!
d_tal, if you want some free copies, send me a regular mailing address by email to: traditionalchess@hotmail.com
Ed Yetman, III
YetmanBrothers.com
Hello Greg,
Don't forget the handlebar mustache!
d_tal: if you want some free issues, send me a postal mailing address at traditionalchess@hotmail.com
Ed Yetman, III
YetmanBrothers.com
Although I don't wish to support the pervasive and mildly derrogatory use of the word "feminist" as Mr. Howitt used it, I do feel as though S.Polgar does sometimes overestimate her importance simply because of her gender. In actuality, she is but a normal grandmaster, who was trained from a very young age. If anything, any sort of extraordinary merit rests with her father.
I visited this page first time to get info on people search and found it Very Good Job of acknowledgment and a marvelous source of info.........Thanks Admin! http://www.reverse-phone-look-up.net