Geez, Phil, it's been a long time since I found myself in agreement
with many of the things you write -- maybe I'm mellowing with age.
Please note responses below.

Chess One wrote:
"Randy Bauer" wrote in message
ups.com...

Actually, I applauded and supported Don Schultz when he provided the
necessary leadership to reinstitute the BINFO system for communication
among the Board. I think the USCF forums are another excellent
opportunity for members and others to interact. It at least has, by
requiring members to post their ID numbers, prevented the spamming and
forgeries that plague this newsgroup.

Let me just amplify on some of these themes, and with some other
perspectives, not necessarily head-on ones, but tangential. I will not
introduce new material, but use some news to illustrate points already
raised:-
--------

I looked at the USCF site this morning and reported on the $10,000 'award',
which is this week's scandal, and also how it was treated at the Nolanland
forum by a moderator - which even a Rhino's skin would register as rash and
offensive abuse of speech.

I also noticed the less-than-honest reporting about Tanner, which had no
mention at all about an ethics scandal, and its far better psychologically
to pre-empt criticism by admitting a problem, especially since this was yet
another 'award' to insiders.

Well, my perspective is a bit different here; I think the USCF website
in general is meant to promote the USCF -- and chess -- in general. If
there is a need for discussion of the issues you describe, which would
be governance in nature, I would expect to see them either in the
members only sections or governance.

I'm not sure that I would describe spending $10,000 on fundraising as a
'scandal' although I think it's very fair to question whether any value
came from that expenditure. I do think that is an area where the Board
should be held accountable for it, but sometimes you do take risks that
don't pan out.


If it isn't openly admitted, it is safe to assume that nothing at all will
happen to obviate future occurance.

--------

I think Susan Polgar has done more to market chess in this country than
any player in a long time. I don't know the percentage of credit Paul
should receive for this, but Susan suggests it is a lot.

Yes, I think 'a lot' is correct. In fact last year 50 mainstream media
mentions compared with 2 for USCF. That, as my wife says, 'is not nothing.'

Agreed.

--------

It's all about providing something that people value, that is unique.
There are areas, such as Internet chess play, where I doubt the USCF is
going to be able to carve out a place from those who are further along.
However, given a strong scholastic presence, there must be
opportunities to continue to involve these players. I was one of those
strong scholastic players who ultimately stayed with the USCF, but the
chess playing world was a lot different then. Quite frankly, I think
the Board needs to dialogue with those who are the members, who may be
interested in paying for the USCF's services given their specific needs
and wants rather than thinking that they always know the answers.

the 'old fashioned' sense of 'marketing' was purely analytical, and was
indifferent to result - that is, it was not prescriptive, and the entire
goal was to find where people were spening their money and where people
would spend their money

Yes, but I think a member organization has to be held to a slightly
different standard. That was why I opposed the Natrol marketing, for
example.

----

These are two vital statistics to the health of USCF and US chess, so it
seems to me, and I compare them with UK stats from 35 years ago, when UK
chess was about to birth some 20 GMs from its national club system.

That was a unique and very interesting time! At the same time, the US
was developing some strong GMs as well.

The per capita rate is interesting, and if extrapolated here would have
produced 80 GMs. I think actual production in the same period was for
home-grown GMs, UK = 20, USA = 2. Meanwhile Poland has produced 20 GMs from
an even smaller pop. than UK since the wall came down.

What is peculiar about these statistics is that there is rarely any
curiosity about them - and they are most often met with passive-aggressive
responses, like 'what's your point' as if people were too thick to notice
the scale of the diference, or resented feeling that something was at all
amiss here in sleepy USA.

No one seems interested in learning anything about the UK club system, or
whatever they did in Poland

I'm not sure I buy your claim of only 2 US GMs - off the top of my head
(maybe the years are wrong) wasn't there Rogoff, Tarjan, Soltis,
Fedorowicz, Benjamin, DeFirmian, Christiansen, Rohde, Henley, Ashley,
Sherzer, Tisdall. Plus, Seirwan, while not born in the US, was clearly
a product of US chess -- in some respects so was Browne. I probably
missed a few also.


No doubt, the UK experience
was much better per capita, but there are always countries who are
going to outperform the per capita statistics -- if not, the World Cup
and many Olympic events would be much less interesting than they
generally turn out.

A leading UK newspaper, the Independent, this week featured an article by
its political correspondent [I am not sure that its true! I should like to
understand more of it] that chess is second only to football [soccer to you]
in the UK. !!

---

And I think below you write sensible things, to which I would only add that
they need to be seen in the context of USCF's history and current fiscal
practices - illustrated by the actual practice as illustrated by 'these
bastions of free expression', and since this is where I think you would
outshine all other candidates, and also is 'the other hand' of marketing,
then a suggest that making constructive means to implement these factors,
especially considering the consdierable political graft and cronyism that is
not only in place, but has become institutionalised, absolutely deflating
any positive expectations that might result from it.

Which is to say, you will need to convince people not that you have a will
to do it, but a means to do it.

That's entirely correct and a fair point. That is why I've pledged to
support any other reasonable candidates with the background,
temperment, and ability to work collectively for change. I'm not
interested in serving on another board that is sharply divided. I
think that I can work with Bill, Joel, Don, etc. and I pledge to do so
if I'm elected.

Cordially, Phil Innes


Randy Bauer