"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 May 2007 01:18:00 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:

OK, I've read the editorial and it contains some comments I find
disturbing.

Mike, there are two pertinent interviews - I think the one you selected was
the initial interview offered to all board candidates who were prepared to
write their answers. In effect all board candidates answer same questions.

The new interview is with Randy Bauer [RB], who Answers individualised
questions posed to him. Mikhail Korenman has also done the same.

The Susan Polgar article is not in response to questions, and is a guest
editorial.

Perhaps in RB's Answers there is more detail, or address, to your comments
below? I think you raise some interesting points, and in fact, the question
sets were designed to get at them, since they are all important issues which
rarely achieve more than sound-bite answers. I think at least we can review
what individual candidates think on each one, from their own perspectives,
and also the variety of opinions and options expressed.

I hope the Question and Answer sets will stimulate more public dialog -
because, you see, these questions have been ignored by politics-as-usual,
who either make long speeches about their past records [sometimes on related
subjects] which are responses rather than answers - or as in one case, a
politico became angry with me because I didn't want to report his response
about 'jackets'. [The questions was why Scholastic members don't stay in the
game] But at least talk of jackets was something - mostly these questions
are entirely buried or lack any response, since no one seems to believe
there IS a future that is worth attending to in such detail - especially
established politicos ;(

Phil Innes

Let's follow the money for a while.

Getting chess formally into the schools is a potential gravy train for
people who want to be coaches and administrators. You want to make a
living at chess without competing for prizes or selling books and
sets? Having trouble getting students because your rating is under
2300? Become a chess coach, salaried by the state, the feds, private
schools. Jobs will open up at the grammar school, high school, and
college level. And you don't have to be a Grandmaster to get one of
these jobs, any more than your average high-school basketball coach
has to be an NBA vet. But you will have to be certified.

Who controls access to that gravy train? Those who own, control or
manage the certification program for chess coaches. Salaries ought
to be pretty good for those positions, especially if they grow into
tenure track jobs at the college level.

Says Korenman: "The certification program... if applied correctly,
should help to clear the problem who can and can not teach chess at
schools....Not everyone can coach basketball or tennis at schools, but
anyone can be a chess coach. It should be changed."

But you better tread lightly when dealing with the certification
folks:

Says Korenman: "USCF should use the organizational right to take
membership away from people who proved to be problem-makers."

Says Polgar: " In major sports such as the NBA, NFL, MLB, etc., if
players say derogatory things about other players, about league
officials or the sponsors, the players would get fined and sometimes
even suspended."

If you tick off the power structure, you can be kicked out of the
USCF, can't play in tournaments, can't teach. Is that what this
means?

Paul Truong states the USCF shouldn't control certification -- this
should be left in the hands of one of the various private foundations:

Truong: "In regards to developing standards and certifications for
chess teachers, I do not think the USCF should be investing the time
and resource to do this.... it is better to reach out and partner up
with organizations like the AF4C, the SPF or the Karpov School of
Chess, etc. It is better to leave it to the hands of the experts."