Well that's interesting. Looks like the entire forum area for discussing
anything other than running a chess club and tournaments has been
disappeared since this morning! Perhaps rgcp will see a few real
organisational posts now, since there are few other places to do it.

Phil Innes



"Chess One" wrote in message
news:TvMrh.14628$32.2477@trndny09...
I just posted this message into a Paul Truong thread at USCF's forums -
which exists like other threads there to discuss board-aspirants. Phil
Innes
-------------

I should like to make a personal statement at odds with some others here.

(1) The first comment is to address that 'everybody knows Mr. Truong is
difficult to work with', and I should like 'everybody' to know that I am
at least one exception to this. In fact, in exceptionally difficult
circumstances, at very high levels of chess engagement, and something not
attempted since 1947, Mr. Truong behaved in a stressful situation with
almost other-worldly calm, detachment and attention to what had to be
done - as indeed did a very complex crew with whom he worked, everyone
behaving with more cheer and mutual support than could be hoped for.

(2) A second point of three, is to merely point out his philosophy of
chess in a recent interview I was glad to conduct with him, which is
available at www.chessville.com in the '20 Questions' section and
comprises the most lengthy statement I have read by any candidate. While
you or I, dear reader, might agree or disagree with his comments, these
generous answers are not hiding his philosophy - which is right up front!

(3) Finally, I think it is important for all candidates [except one,
perhaps, see postscript] to understand that USCF has suffered overmuch by
personality politics in the past, and to compare this with the fact that
good businesses are run by good systems - and therefore clearer
distinctions might be made about policy issues, and stronger support
offered to paid staff to do their jobs properly and competently. If Mr
Truong will excuse a mention of another candidate in 'his' thread, I
understand Candidate Bauer has addressed these subjects in rgcp, and
indeed, has made very much sense.

Cordially, Phil Innes

Postscript: The exception I would make to general board membership is in
respect of Susan Polgar, who has no need to strain after publicity, or
compete at a personality level, and indeed, most would grant her a
disinterested love of chess before any other person. As such, she /is/ the
product.

To properly engage such unusual talent for the benefit of USCF means that
sufficient discipline needs to be deployed at the board level, and in
organisational competencies like other businesses, specifically, Audit or
monies and how it is expended, and also Marketing & Sales. The two most
marked disciplines would appear to be on institutional competencies and
responsibilities, as already remarked for Mr. Bauer, and the 'third' arm
of any business which is Marketing/Sales, which I think is Mr. Truong's
bag.

Getting these 3 aspects into right relation will perhaps turn USCF's
fortunes around, and I don't mean just financially, but as with Fide, it
suffers a lack of confidence before the chess public.