"Ambassador" wrote in message
ups.com...
A very good article, Phil.

Thanks for noticing

My problem with Susan Polgar on the USCF Executive Board is that she is
simply a Eurpoean migrant with a FIDE score to settle.

I am also a European migrant, and such as we, and a bunch of Russians, have
fueled US chess for 3 decades far more than native efforts - and this has
come from the SYSTEMS in our previous countries - its not some magic thing
that happens by itself - its the result of much greater administrative
efficiency elsewhere.

(BTW: Some time ago, I even received a note from a certain USCF president on
arranging a US Russia match that it would be politically unacceptable since
the teams would be Russia vs ex-Russia and satelite states. [pardon me,
Ukraine])

Susan Polgar
WILL DROP HER PANTS and take a drug test. How can she represent the
interests of US chess players in FIDE?

From my personal understanding, which is not certain but still... if it were
not for the threat to the team at the Olympiad, then I rather doubt she
would have submitted to a drug test at all, even if it meant losing all her
games as result. That was a form of Fide-inflicted bullying of her
personally and with the results of the whole US team held-hostage upon her
compliance.

Hell, I represent more of the
interests of US Chess players in FIDE and I represent another nation in
FIDE. This woman - Susan Polgar - represents the STATUS QUO in FIDE.

Hardly, Marcus! See above!

She has no business expereince to speak of, and she has no basis to ask
for or recieve the respect on needs to lead a non for profit
corproation.

The way USCF is run is entirely amateur, and unlike any known business
model. There is so much power on the board [albeit, uncoordinated and split
all over the compass], and so little vested in USCF's salaried officers,
that it makes no difference what business experience board members have.

The current president Bill Goichberg when he was Ex Dir argued like hell
with President Marinello for what he said had always been in the purview of
the Ex Dir, but when he himself became president he took that power with
him, and away from the new guy, Hall. So what is /apparently/ an act of
impersonal respect for office, is shown to be a dress of disguise for
personality. This is much of USCF's problem.

Board members should hoot [wisely, if possible] from the trees, and
expertise and competency should reside with salaried staff. The current
vector is to dumb-down the staffing even more, reducing its role to
relatively well-paid clerical help, while a board gone mad with ideas of
their own worth, ignore any feed-back or effectiveness of their actions. The
result is a Wagnerian slide into some twilight ending, where you can't even
see the pieces move anymore. And therefore, can't really care either.

What is different about Polgar's candidacy is that she does care beyond her
own need for surety of her personal worth. This is a novelty for a USCF
politico! Perhaps the last person this could have been said about was GM Max
Dlugy who had no need to spend the majority of his time proping up the basis
of his opinions, and could speak to many issues with direct and perceivable
authority - this was immediately winning.

To lead Chess in the US, you need more business
expereince, as the culture does not respect Chess as it is respected in
Russia or Europe.

As long as Susan will drop her pants for a FIDE drug test, I see little
she has in common with these United States or North America.

Susan Polgar is hell bent on settling a score with Sam Sloan, not
heping chess.

"Marcus Roberts is BAD for Chess." Susan Polgar, at a US Open, around
1997.

Net, net, Susan is a mean BITCH.

While I cannot agree or affirm your opinion from my own experience, I do not
deny your opinion thereby, except that I would wish to change the focus of
what is valuable from personality [yours, mine or hers] - which is sometimes
all we discuss here - to something beyond that. What is the value of the
/application/ of the personality to the chess scene? Some people cannot do
that at all, and it remains 'all about them', and they scarcely notice any
result that is 'not about them'.

It is also my opinion that efficient businesses run by having good systems
in place, and are not reliant on special people to operate these systems.
The board's work is to direct activity these sytems address, but it is the
salaried staffer's work to create and deploy them efficently. Currently
there is a great board muddle, and much board muddling, and the result of
that is massive confusion and inefficiency - so that no one ever seems to be
responsible for anything.

Cordially, Phil Innes

Marcus Roberts
Permanent Delegate of St Kitts and Nevis to FIDE