His "stupid" remark would qualify as unprofessional in a public forum (was
this email part of public discussions?), but mere testiness in a private
meeting among peers.

Is this all there is? Could this be payback for uncovering Tanner's alleged
misdeeds?

I say "alleged" because while I strongly agree with Tanner's decision to
quit the board, it's unclear to me that he did anything that was against the
rules. Is an expert/master TD permitted to play fill-in games in the U-1200
section of tournaments he runs? I don't know. If it's a gray legal area such
behavior can be viewed in one of two ways: he's skimming rating points
(bad), or he's giving beginners a chance to play someone rated over 2000
(good).

As for his peripatetic tournaments with Hans and Franz, I have two
observiations. Where was the person who was rating these events when the
reports were submitted? Didn't he or she notice anything strange? Second, it
is not up to Tanner, 15 years after the fact, to prove that these guys
exist. Since USCF was accusing him of malfeasance it is up to them to prove
they do *not* exist. Since you can't prove a negative, and considering the
time that has elapsed, this matter should have been dropped with a valuable
lesson learned. Had the rating administrator 15 years ago raised a red flag
it would have been reasonable to ask him to produce these characters. Not
today.

Angelo DePalma

"Chess One" wrote in message
news:q0zdh.2103$g_3.1521@trndny02...

"Ange1o DePa1ma" wrote in message
...
I move that the Executive Board of the USCF censure Sam Sloan for his
failures to adhere to the Standards of Conduct as highlighted and noted
in
the attached emails.

Which emails? Does anyone have copies?

----
Angelo, here is a collation, reposted here from elsewhere, but in their
entirety without edit or comment from me. I also asked elsewhere which
specific Conduct is cited as failing to adhere to the Standards 'as
highlighted'. There has been no reply - Phil Innes
----

The following motion by Joel Channing has passed by a vote of 3-0 with
Channing, Goichberg and Hough in favor and Sloan, Marinello, Schultz and
Tanner abstaining.

Bill Goichberg


November 29, 2006:

I move that the Executive Board of the USCF censure Sam Sloan for his
failures to adhere to the Standards of Conduct as highlighted and noted in
the attached emails.

Joel Channing

Violations of (1c), (2e), (3), (3b) & (3d)

From: Sam Sloan ]
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 4:59 AM

To: ; ;
; ; ;
; ; ;
; ; ;
; ; ;


Subject: Letter Agreement with the Seattle Chess Foundation

Letter Agreement with the Seattle Chess Foundation

I wish that everybody here would get my email address straight.

My email address for all official USCF Business including the business of
the Executive Board is

Let us try that again. My address is

Let us try that again. My address is

Now that I have explained this three more times, I hope that you will
remember it this time. This is not the first time that you have made this
mistake. Let us try to make it the last.

I do have an old address, which is . That address is
still working and I use it for newsgroup postings, but I rarely check it,
because I receive more than one thousand spam emails per day at that
address.

However, I did happen to check it this morning, for the first time in more
than a week, and I discovered an email from Bill Hall containing as
attachments the June 2006 contract with AF4C and the May 18, 2000 Letter
Agreement with Seattle Chess Foundation.

I cannot understand why Bill Hall did not send those important documents
to my actual working address, which is

Is this part of the conspiracy?

Kindly tell Bill Hall that my address is

Should I say it again? Try to remember this and repeat after me. Sam
Sloan's address is [b]

Now, turning to the actual document dated May 18, 2000, in no way could
this be considered to be a legally enforceable contract. It is simply a
letter, endorsed by George DeFeis. It states that Seattle Chess Foundation
promises to incorporate by June 15, 2000, so it was not even a corporation
at the time of this letter. In addition, I have no way of knowing whether
the American Foundation for Chess is the same legal entity as the Seattle
Chess Foundation.

However, assuming for the sake of argument that it is a legal contract,
the
key paragraph is the following:

"The format of the SCF/USCF Championships will be set by SCF after prior
consultation with USCF, but shall be in a manner generally consistent with
past US Championships and with other events of this caliber or type. SCF
contemplates that for the year 2000 US Championships the format will be
either a 10 player or 12 player round robin event for each of the overall
or women fs categories."

It also states that after 2005 the SCF agrees to pay to the USCF an annual
fee of $10,000.

On page 5 of this document are hand written entries: "$100,000 prize
fund". "$100K was the agreed upon prize fund".

So, the purported agreement between Bill Goichberg and AF4C (which the
board has never voted on or even known about before it was posted on the
USCF website) fails to adhere to this agreement in at least the following
respects.

1. It fails to guarantee a $100,000 prize fund or indeed any prize fund at
all. It seems obvious that AF4C plans to run an El Cheapo event this year
with many or most of the games played online and a nominal prize fund.

2. The format of a knock-out event involving two-game matches is not "a
manner generally consistent with past US Championships and with other
events of this caliber or type". No US Championship or any other event of
this caliber or type has ever been conducted in this format.

3. The AF4C has not paid nor has it promised to pay the annual agreed upon
fee of $10,000. I would be interested in knowing whether the AF4C ever
paid the required annual fees for the years 2000-2005. If they have not
paid, they should now pay the back money they owe us, before there are any
further discussions.

4. The agreement states that the SCF will be holding the US Woman's
Championship, but this year AF4C states that it will not be holding the US
Woman's Championship.

I am extremely disappointed in Bill Goichberg for directing that this
announcement of the US Championship be posted on the uschess.org website,
without addressing these concerns and without even informing the rest of
the board or consulting with the board or taking a vote by the board on
these issues prior to making the announcement.

Sam Sloan


Violations of (1), (1c), (3) & (3b).

From: Sam Sloan ]

Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 5:47 AM

To: ; ; ;
; ; ;
; ; ;
; ;

Cc:

Subject: US Championship

At 01:02 PM 10/11/2006 EDT, wrote:

In a message dated 10/11/2006 10:48:46 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
Chessdon writes: Dear EB: I hereby submit the following motion to you for
email vote. I discussed
this with Bill Goichberg and he favors it. I have also talked to Erik
Anderson and he likes it as well.
Moved: The winner of the 2007 US Championship would defend his titled
title in a match against the winner of the 2008 US Championship
Tournament.
The process of a defending champion would continue through time.
I vote yes. Don Schultz

I vote yes. Also, I like the concept of the champion holding the title,
which can only be taken away from him in a match of substantial length.
Bill Goichberg

As usual, you have not thought clearly about this and considered the
consquences.

If this motion passes, that will mean that there will no longer be a
tournament for the US Championship, thus ending a tradition that began in
1940.

Instead, there will merely be a series of qualifying tournaments the
ultimate winner of which will get to play a match for the US
Champuionship.

Who will pay for this? Surely not the AF4C, who only wants the prestigue
associaed with the US Championship, not just some preliminary event.

Don likes the old FIDE System, where there were first zonal tournaments,
then the interzonal, then candidates matches and finally a match for the
World Championship.

However, that system worked because they did not have to pay the players.

Almost all of the top players were from the Soviet Union. Players like
Botvinnik, Keres, Geller, Petrosian and Smyslov were supported by the
state and played free of charge.

Since the break-up of the Soviet Union, the players started demanding to
be paid, and the Interzonal System collapsed.

In 1987, after no country in the world had submitted a bid to hold the
Interzonal, I submitted a bid to hold the event in the US Virgin Islands
and paid the required fee. Since the local country gets to designate two
of
its own players to play in the Interzonal, I designated Anand and Zsuzsa
Polgar as my representatives.

In response to my bid, Dr. Lim Kok Ann, General Secretary of FIDE,
responded that the Hungarians were objecting to allowing Zsuzsa Polgar to
play in the Interzonal. Also, the regulations state that the two players
must be from the host country. Anand and Zsuzsa Polgar were not from the
host country.

I replied that unless Zsuzsa Polgar and Anand were allowed to play, I was
not willing to organize the event.

Incidentally, Anand was at the time just a little known young grandmaster,
but I realized that he was a future world champion, years before anybody
else did.

The matter ended there. Dr. Lim refused to agree to allow Anand and Polgar
to play in the Interzonal and I would not organize the event otherwise.

The result was that the interzonal was never held. Not only did I not hold
the Interzonal, but nobody did. Since then, there has never been another
Interzonal.

Now, the current situation is that Don Schultz has made a motion and Bill
Goichberg has vote yes. With only two more votes, it will have been
decided that there will never again be a tournament for the US
Championship, without even consulting the delegates or the membership.

Frankly, I think that you guys are really stupid.


Sam Sloan


From USCF Forum posting: Violations of (1c) and (3b).

Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:28 am
Post subject: Bigger Scandal: Some Insider Candidates Did Not Pay Files

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even Bigger Scandal: Some Insider Candidates Did Not Pay Filing Fees

Looking at the list of Candidates for the 2005 elections, it seems that
several approved candidates did not pay the required $250 filing fee.

The following candidates DID pay the $250 fee:

Joel Channing
Greg Shahade
William Goichberg
Sam Sloan
Randy Bauer
Elizabeth Shaughnessy

However, the following candidates appear not to have paid the required
$250 fee:

Robert Tanner
George John
Steve Shutt

Of particular interest to me is the case of George John. I have long
suspected that George John does not exist. By that I mean that although I
have met several times a person who calls himself George John, I suspect
that this is not his real name.

Therefore, I have searched for payments of exactly $250.00 by anybody,
thinking that in this way I might be able to find out the real name of
George John.

Looking for payments of exactly $250, I find that this amount was paid by
St. Benilde Chess on January 28, 2005. I suspect that this was the payment
for Steve Shutt.

I find a payment in the amount of $250 by Vela Middle School on 12/1/04. I
suspect that this was unrelated to the election.

There are no other payments of $250 by anybody during the relevant time
period.

Therefore, at least one and possibly as many as three candidates did not
pay the required $250 filing fee, one of whom was elected.


Kindly investigate this.