Since I am currently interviewing 4 new board candidates - Polgar, Korenman,
Bauer and Truong, presenting them with substantial and rather difficult
questions on not just what the future should, but the method by which they
will achieve their goals, it seems pertinent to also ask those currently in
the driving seat similar questions.
But pointless to do so - there is no one home!
The general difficulty with this topic to-date is that it is about the USCF
forum, jovially known as Nolan-land, and who should speak - rather than what
is spoken about. I make this distinction since there is an inference that
free speech would have an [beneficial] effect on chess players in this
country. But this inference is potentially true, but actually false.
Its potential cannot be de-linked with subject matter, with current
responsibilities, or used as a diversionary device.
Only debating issues, prioritizing them with their concomitant viability in
terms of risk/benefit, rather than personality approaches and 'preferences',
will resolve anything to the general health of chess.
I suggest that current board members speak to the same issues as candidate
board members - but in this case, non-theoretically, since they have /a
current record/ to go on of their actual performance.
If this issue is important at all, it MUST revolve around subject matter -
even if that matter cannot be discussed at USCF itself - otherwise any
'free-speech' issue is entirely moot! To wit; qui bono?
No one has anything of substance to say which has to do with chessic health,
only who else should or should not be allowed to avoid this subject.
THE ISSUE for INCUMBENTS:-
I want to know who is responsible on the current board for the projected and
possibly lethal -$314,000 shortfall in revenue, which seems generously
spread over every USCF portfolio.
Since this has happened on the 'watch' of the current board, was anyone
actually 'watching' the store? Who will take responsibility?
OR...
Are current board members content to reconfigure the past, and make rather
theoretical issues of free speech, and watching over /other/ people?
Especially those who challenge the current board to their role in chess
management?
-------
The rest of this issue is something of an idée-fixe, and while it can be
attended to, it is very secondary business to what is actually happening at
USCF, and I think, a consciously diversionary activity by current board
members from their own performance.
Phil Innes
Vermont
PS: I have also lost a game to a 1700 player, and the last time I directly
watched Susan Polgar play it was a couple of games against a world champion,
Khalifman - and she did rather well, as indeed she did against another W Ch,
Karpov. I only mention these facts in case anyone should actually think the
1700 business is typical. In serious rated play I think S. Polgar's Olympiad
performance at board 1 for USA is an indicator of playing strength against
strong, determined opposition - if indeed this was the implicate question or
innuendo in what follows:
Sam,
Polgar played at the US Team two years ago...hardly a protected place,
whatever that means. Does she have to play there every year to be
"unprotected"?
That was the tournament to which I refer below. Take a look at:
http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain....13881-12452240
You will see that in the first round Polgar, player #91, lost to
Roberto Jose, player #385, who was rated 1796.
Since then, Polgar has never played in a rated tournament, other than
quick rated tournaments, except for the New York Mayor's Cup, a
tournament Truong organized for her. In the New York Mayor's Cup, she
refused to allow Hikaru Nakamura to play because he was a dangerous
opponent who would have beaten her and who could not have been bought off.
Perhaps you missed what I wrote about this at the bottom of my article:
"The last time Susan played chess in an open tournament was more than
two years ago and there she lost to a player rated 1700."
Sam Sloan