From the USCF Forum - Susan Polgar All-American Girls Program

Dearest Zsuzsa,

I, along with newspaper journalist Eric Mark, were the only
non-present or former Executive Board members who attended the meeting
on February 19 where your proposal was discussed. (Former board
members Frank Brady and the Liebermans were there).

The vote was 4-1 in favor of your proposal, but only after a lengthy
debate. Beatriz Marinello was the sole vote against. We all know that
Beatriz dislikes you and will vote against anything that you propose.
However, you also know that I have strongly disagreed with the actions
of Beatriz in the past and have even sued her in court and will
possibly do so again.

However, this time is perhaps the first time where I felt that the
objections of Beatriz had some validity.

In the first place, I know both you and Paul Truong very well. I have
known both of you for more than 20 years. Your personalities are
exactly the opposite. You are an exceptionally, perhaps even
excessively, gracious and polite person. You never say a bad word
about anybody. You never complain about your losses. You did not even
complain when you lost to a 1700 player in the US Amateur Team East
last year.

Paul Truong, however, is a highly confrontational, in-your-face,
stick-it-to-him kind of guy. Paul Truong is, in my opinion, a very
dangerous man to try to do business with. A perfect example comes from
the training program for the so-called Dream Team. As you will recall,
I was present at the Executive Board meeting on March 16, 2003 when
Paul Truong first presented his proposal for a Dream Team Woman's
Olympiad training program. Every person in the room thought they heard
Paul Truong say that this program would cost the USCF nothing. Turns
out that Paul Truong did not really say that and the program cost the
USCF at least $20,000. More than that, Truong repeatedly and in public
forums threatened to sue the USCF for the money.

Here is what I posted to the groups on March 17, 2003, the following
day:

"5. The super-stars of the show arrived with the introduction
by Paul Truong of the US Woman?fs Olympic Team. The team consists of
Zsuzsa Polgar, Irina Krush, Jennifer Shahade, Rusudan Goletiani, and
Anna Zatonskih. What was amazing was how stunningly beautiful these
five are, especially when lined up together. All of the board members
clamored to be photographed with these five supermodel chess
grandmasters. Awards were presented to these five members of the team,
including an award by Frank Niro, and by Malcolm Pein representing
ChessBase, who awarded them $8,000 worth of ChessBase software. Paul
Truong announced that their next stop would be the Offices of IBM,
where they will each be awarded the latest high-technology laptop
computers to prepare for their chess matches. They will be given top
level trainers, including Grandmaster Boris Gulko. I have no doubt
that very soon we will be seeing them on CNN news. They make fantastic
role models for our youth.

"Sam Sloan"

As anybody can see, I made no mention of the fact that the USCF was
supposed to pay for all this. The reason I omitted this detail was
that Paul Truong had led us all to believe that this was a service
being provided to the USCF Free of Charge. It did not take long
however for Paul Truong to inform us that the USCF owed $50,000 (fifty
thousand dollars) for what we thought we were getting for free. Paul
threaten suit for the money and he also demanded $20,000 for the girls
for the chess lessons they were receiving. (He had told us that USCF
was not required to pay the teachers. He had left out that the USCF
was being required to pay the students!)

If we had known that this program for chess lessons for woman chess
players was going to cost the USCF $20,000, it would have been
rejected out of hand. We could not even really afford to pay the
travel expenses to send a men's team to the Olympiad in Spain, much
less pay for chess lessons and for stipends for the girls team.

In spite of the fact that you and Paul Truong are the opposite in
personalities, he is now your spokesman. (Perhaps he does not realize
that many years ago I used to be your spokesman.) We all admire the
fantastic and amazing job Paul Truong has done to publicize you and
chess. However, we still have to be careful in dealing with him.

It is obvious that these emails, supposedly from you, are actually
from Paul Truong. I wonder if the REAL Susan Polgar has even read
these emails and is familiar with the contents.

Here is the proof: You (supposedly) wrote.

"Unfortunately, the dirty USCF politics destroyed it. It was
promptly declined by the USCF in January 2005 because another deal was
made without my knowledge in the middle of 2004 while I had an
existing legal contract with the USCF until the end of 2004. I no
longer have any say in the program that I personally founded. In fact,
we no longer have any program. I prefer not to harp on the past.
However, I have expressed to a number of USCF board members about my
disappointment. I will not subject myself to this destructive dirty
political game."

I am absolutely 100% or even 1000% (which ever is greater) sure that
these words were written by Paul Truong. Susan Polgar would simply
never write such a thing. Paul writes and says things like that all
the time. Paul Truong often writes about existing legal contracts and
threatens suit. You never do that. Even the Fake Sam Sloan does a
better job of imitating me than Paul Truong does of imitating you.

I was present during the Special Executive Board meeting on Sunday,
February 19, 2006 which was called just to discuss your proposal.
Actually, I spoke twice at the meeting but both times I was shouted
down by Bill Goichberg before I had gotten to the main point of what I
was trying to say. The main debate was between Don Schultz and his
supposed puppet Joel Channing. In this heated debate, the "puppet"
argued that your proposal should be accepted "in principle" with Bill
Hall to negotiate the details. However, in opposition, the "puppeteer"
argued that the words "in principle" would be insulting to you and
must be left out.

It finally came down to a vote. There were three votes for the puppet
and two votes for the puppeteer, the other vote being Beatriz, who
voted with Don, the puppeteer.

Next, the debate was on confidentiality. Joel Channing argued that the
deal with you must include the proviso that there would be no
publicity and no public announcement of the deal until you had signed
a written detailed contract with Bill Hall. If there was publicity
before the deal was signed, then the deal was automatically off.

Everybody agreed to that. There was no need for a vote.

However, now YOU have broken that deal. By your posting on the USCF
Forum, you, the FAKE Susan Polgar, who is really Paul Truong, have
publicized the deal, and so therefore, by its terms, the deal is off.

And for good reason, because already you are adding provisions which
were not mentioned in your original email.

Here is what you wrote for the first time on February 25, 2006:

"4. This is a joint project between the SPF and the USCF. The
SPF would take care of the costs for the jackets, plaques, prizes and
training. The USCF will help publicize the award and its criteria as
well as recognizing the girls who make the team. It can be done on the
uschess.org website, the USCF weekly newsletter, Chess Life and Chess
Life for Kids, the same as for the current Trophies Plus All America
Chess Team right now. We need to let all girls know about this award
to motivate them to achieve higher.

"Please feel free to contact me directly if you wish to
clarify or discuss any specific issue. I hope that this will not be a
public fiasco on Internet newsgroup as rumors and misinformation has
started. This would hurt the program as well as our ability to raise
additional funds to help these kids. Thank you again for your time and
support.

"Best wishes,
"Susan Polgar
"www.SusanPolgarFoundation.org"

Last edited by SusanPolgar on Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:01 am; edited
1 time in total

So, you are asking for publicity for you at least equal to the
publicity the USCF gives to its All-America Teams that are sent to the
World Youth Championships in Spain and elsewhere. Nowhere, in your
initial email or in the debate before the Executive Board on February
19, was this requirement that the USCF publicize your program
mentioned. I personally do not see how the USCF can publicize your
program for girls when it does not even have an equivalent program for
boys.

In addition, there is another, perhaps even more serious problem. In
the email from you quoted above, you state: "The USCF will help
publicize the award and its criteria".

However, at the meeting on February 19, ALL of the board members,
including Don Schultz, the proponent of your proposal, agreed that
there would be no publicity given to your criteria and rating chart,
because it shows that the requirements for a girl to make the team is
100 points less than the requirement for the boys.

Thus, I believe that your proposal is already dead, as you must have
already known when you posted this to the USCF Forum.

Paul, I think in the future you need to get clearance from Susan. She
would have told you not to post this.

Sam Sloan

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 2:43 pm Post subject: Reply with
quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post
billbrock wrote:
Here's the sad thing: I can't think of ONE girl from Illinois in the
past 15 years who would have met Susan's stringent (but not overly so)
benchmark. (Five years ago, Yelena Gorlin, two-time winner of the IL
Denker qualifier, came close....)

This is the problem we need to fix. Right?


No. We do not need to fix that.

The All-America team is supposed to be the elite. These are the
players who will be sent abroad at USCF expense to represent the
United States of America in the World Youth Championships and
children's Olympics.

We need not more than two or three girls in each age category. In some
cases no girl will meet the standard, especially if we do not have a
girl capable of winning a medal at her level.

All of which reminds me: Was it not your friend Kevin who FAKED a
bunch of chess tournaments which were never played to get his step-son
onto the USCF top-50 list and win a money prize as a result??

Sam Sloan Wink

Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:34 pm Post subject: Reply with
quote Edit/Delete this post
ericmark wrote:

I would like to correct a few factual inaccuracies in Mr. Sloan's
account of the meeting and forum last Sunday.

As for those present: Apart from the five EB members and ED Bill Hall,
there was one more young lady seated at the board table. She said
almost nothing but followed the proceedings closely with bright eyes.
I got the feeling I should know who she is, but alas I do not.


Unless you are referring to my daughter, Sandra, the lady with "bright
eyes" was Rachel Lieberman. sitting next to her husband Myron
Lieberman.

The Liebermans are mildly controversial. They do a wonderful job,
video-taping all these meetings and then writing the minutes. We could
hardly do without them, especially since nobody else wants to do those
dirty jobs.

On the other hand, the USCF pays their expenses to fly around the
country to attend these meetings.

The Liebermans do not really play chess. (Myron has a 1300 rating).
Yet Rachel served on the Executive Board for 6 years and Myron served
for either three or six years. Everybody wonders why.
[quote="ericmark"]
Sam Sloan arrived midway through the meeting, during the discussion of
the Polgar proposal. The audience included Frank Brady, who left for a
while then came back, and Brenda Goichberg. I think Hal Terrie was
there for a bit, and there were also two ladies I believe are Mrs.
Schultz and Mrs. Brady.
[/quote="ericmark"]

Yes. Hal Terrie steped in for just a second and then left. I believe
that he was not there during any substantive discussions. Also, I
forgot that Maxine Brady, the wife of Frank Brady, Theresa Schultz,
the wife of Don Schultz and the wife of Joel Channing were all there.

I guess I considered them to be non-persons.

When I get elected to the board, I will bring all my wives and
children to the meetings.

ericmark wrote:

The board did vote on the Channing amendment or motion in re
confidentiality; in fact that vote came before the vote on the Schultz
motion to endorse the Polgar proposal in re the all-girls AAT.

Channing's motion passed 3-2, with Schultz and Marinello opposed,
while the Schultz motion passed 4-1 with Marinello the lone "no" vote.

It was Bill Goichberg who proposed a alternate motion to endorse the
Polgar proposal "in principle" and refer it to the Scholastic Council,
the Women in Chess Committee and possibly elsewhere.

The question of whether Schultz' motion refers only to the text of the
Polgar email or rather that text plus the rating chart was and is not
100% clear to me. I suspect it's not 100% clear to 100% of the board.

Bill G. said Sunday his biggest objection to the proposal was the
rating chart. That's why he proposed to support the plan "in
principle."

Also technical issues complicated things. Based on comments Sunday, it
seems that the Polgar email message came as a whole text document to
some of its reipients, while to others the rating chart came as a
separate attachment. That's how it showed up on the Liebermans'
laptop, for instance.

Sam makes a good point that the requirement for USCF to "publicize"
the girls' AAT is too vague. Does that mean articles and photos in
Chess Life or does someone expect the Fed to take out ads in USA
Today?


Since you are a real journalist in real life and since you took notes,
I am sure that your account is more accurate than mine.

Thank you,

Sam Sloan Very Happy

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 12:56 am Post subject: Reply
with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post
SusanPolgar wrote:
Eric,

I completely fail to understand your #3 point. The USCF would not pay
a single penny. It costs nothing to put information on the web. The
USCF owns the Scholastic Magazine and Chess Life. This would be in the
best interest of the USCF to stop losing young female members and help
improve the playing strength of many of these young ladies.


This is a very silly argument. It costs money to print Chess Life. If
Chess Life publishes an article about how the Polgar Foundation is
awarding Polgar Chess Jackets, that costs money.

At the same meeting of the Executive Board, Tim Redman appeared with
his proposal/demand that EVERY ISSUE OF CHESS LIFE MAGAZINE contain a
full page of about College Chess. This is a silly idea which I am sure
will be rejected. When Redman was President he required Chess Life to
publish an article about the chess program at the University of Texas
at Dallas in every issue of the magazine. This is one of the reasons
why the entire Redman slate was defeated in the 1999 elections and
Redman will probably never be elected to anything again.

Now, you want Chess Life magazine to give free publicity to the Polgar
chess jackets awarded by the Polgar Foundation. Why don't you pay for
these ads as the other grandmasters do who are as prominent as
yourself?
Quote:


Now do you understand why so many potential sponsors would stay far
away from this federation for years? Who on earth would want to go
through this? As a friend of mine often said this about the USCF: "No
good deed for the USCF would ever go unpunished."

Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
www.SusanPolgarFoundation.org
www.SusanPolgar.com
www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com


Paul, when your proposal was presented on February 20, you made no
mention whatever of the fact that you wanted your program to be
publicized in Chess Life. Had the board known what you wanted they
would never have agreed to your deal, at least not without further
explanation. In fact, of the board members, Bill Goichberg wanted to
referred to the scholastic council and the woman's committee, Joel
Channing wanted it kept confidential, Roberty Tanner expressed grave
doubts about it, and Don Schultz said that he was pushing it only
because he promised you that he would. Finally, Beatriz Marinello was
completely against it.

Finally, it was passed only with the proviso added by Joel Channing
that the deal would be kept confidential. This makes it obvious that
the board had no intention of publicizing your deal in Chess Life.
Now, it was YOU who broke the confidentiality by complaining about it
on the forum. Now, you are complaining by writing, "Now do you
understand why so many potential sponsors would stay far away from
this federation for years?", when actually you were the one who broke
the agreement.

Sam Sloan

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 6:19 pm Post subject: Reply with
quote Edit/Delete this post
joelchanning wrote:
I'm disturbed by what I've been reading here. We voted 4 to 1 that
this seemed on its face like a good thing to pursue and then turned it
over to the ED to consult with the appropriate committees and
negotiate in detail before he brought it back to us. Supporting people
who are trying to promote chess is our mandate. Susan Polgar is
unquestionably one of our superstars. The deal is to be cost free to
us. Why does it matter if something simple comes to us on short
notice? How smart do we have to be to vote for the ED to consult with
the appropriate committees and then negotiate details for us to
consider?

And I'm sick of all this Polgar bashing. Who the #### is going to want
to be associated with us if we are so paranoid and inhospitable? I ran
for office to help improve this organization. I don't know nearly as
much about chess as some of you, but I recognize dysfunctional
behaviour when I see it. Those of you who really care about chess need
to distinguish clearly between what you want to say and how you say
it. I expected better of a group of intelligent people. If we can't
attract a higher minded sense of expression, then maybe I was wrong
about trying to enable so few rules here. This doesn't look good for
us, and it won't help us attract any important sponsors.

When Bill Hall brings it back to us I will vote to the best of my
ability based on the facts, on precedence, on good business principles
and on what's best for chess.

Joel Channing


Joel,

Have you looked at the top of this thread?

This thread was started by Susan Polgar. She started off by attacking
the board. You and we did not attack her. She attacked us.

Sam Sloan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's
website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
joelchanning



Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Posts: 27


PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 6:31 pm Post subject: Reply with
quote
I'm sorry Sam, but I think you're wrong. It started right at the
meeting and was continued here.

In fact, I think Susan is very gacious about the crap that's been
heaped upon her. Imagine this sort of treatment to other stars. I'm
sure Kasparov would have been gone after the first salvo and Karpov
shortly thereafter. In a way, we're lucky that there's still so little
money in chess and maybe we shouldn't be working so hard to promote it
to the broader public. When the stars are all multi-millionaires, then
we'll learn to walk on eggshells.

Joel




Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 27
Location: Brooklyn, New York

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 7:14 pm


The problem here, Joel, is that you do not know the history.

Ever since Paul Truong started coming to the board with his various
plans and proposals three years ago, it has happened time and again
that Paul had told the board that his latest scheme will not cost the
USCF a cent,

and then not long thereafter Paul starts writing threats about how he
is going to sue the USCF is he is not paid.

I do not know hoiw much Paul has been paid in total up until now, but
I know that it is more than $25,000. I also know that Paul was
demanding $50,000 for one of his free deals, but as I understand it
the board refused to pay.

So, now again, Paul is telling us this this latest scheme will not
cost a cent. We know better. We know from experience that if Paul
Truong is invovled, it is only a question of time before the USCF is
going to be asked to pay.

Sam Sloan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's
website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
GrantPerks



Joined: 14 Apr 2004
Posts: 27
Location: Columbus, Oh

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 7:40 pm Post subject: Reply with
quote
samsloan wrote:
joelchanning wrote:
I'm sorry Sam, but I think you're wrong. It started right at the
meeting and was continued here.

In fact, I think Susan is very gacious about the crap that's been
heaped upon her. Imagine this sort of treatment to other stars. I'm
sure Kasparov would have been gone after the first salvo and Karpov
shortly thereafter. In a way, we're lucky that there's still so little
money in chess and maybe we shouldn't be working so hard to promote it
to the broader public. When the stars are all multi-millionaires, then
we'll learn to walk on eggshells.

Joel


The problem here, Joel, is that you do not know the history.

Ever since Paul Truong started coming to the board with his various
plans and proposals three years ago, it has happened time and again
that Paul had told the board that his latest scheme will not cost the
USCF a cent,

and then not long thereafter Paul starts writing threats about how he
is going to sue the USCF is he is not paid.

I do not know hoiw much Paul has been paid in total up until now, but
I know that it is more than $25,000. I also know that Paul was
demanding $50,000 for one of his free deals, but as I understand it
the board refused to pay.

So, now again, Paul is telling us this this latest scheme will not
cost a cent. We know better. We know from experience that if Paul
Truong is invovled, it is only a question of time before the USCF is
going to be asked to pay.

Sam Sloan


You aren't the real Sam Sloan are you?
_________________
Grant Perks
Columbus, Ohio
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's
website AIM Address
joelchanning



Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Posts: 27


PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 7:42 pm Post subject: Reply with
quote
Sam,

Without agreeing or arguing, but for the sake of comity, let's assume
that you're correct about the past. This is now, and she's a superstar
and we benefit having her acknowledge us as her home base. Maybe you'd
rather she formed a strategic alliance with AF4C?

If contracts were drafted less than perfectly in the past, I'll do
everything I can to guard against ambiguity in the future. As I
intimated before, be careful what you wish for. If all the great chess
players had the type of fame and money we want for them, we'd be
wistfully recalling the issues we had with Paul. Imagine Dennis Rodman
with a 2750 rating.

Joel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
CHESSDON



Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Posts: 24
Location: Highland Beach, Florida

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 10:02 pm Post subject: Reply with
quote
Eric: Don, do you truly not see why this looks less than ideal to lots
of people? This is especially true given the history of
miscommunication between Ms. Polgar and the EB. (As noted I do not
know the details of that issue well enough to form an opinion, but the
history is there.)

Don: I honestly don't. All we did is endorse the concept of a Susan
project. This is not unusual so long as it doen't infringe on anything
or anybody. For example. we recently endorsed the Kaspaov School of
chess. very similar - no cost to the USCF, no objections there.

Eris: Any deal that will involve "intense " negotiations between
parties.

DS: No intense negotiations. Details of any support were something
additional that however worked out would not impact the uSCF
endorsement of Susan's initiative. The Board didn't vote nor endorse
details. It is work to be done.

Eric: ....and it compounds the error to not only allow, but require
that the subsequent negotiations be kept secret.

DS: I voted against the do-it-in secret motion so I'm probably the
wrong person to defend that decision but again. it really has nothing
to do with endorsing Susan's initiative.

EM: I am truly trying to understand why you are surprised by the mixed
reaction to this. By your logic, perhaps we should just say:
"Susan Polgar is a great player and coach with a public profile in the
mass media who genuinely cares about promoting chess and encouraging
young players, especially girls, to improve."

DS: Right, that's it.

EM: (Very few folks would disagree with this so far.)

EM: "Therefore, let's just ask her what she wants to do to help us

DS: We didn't have to , she told us.

EM: Take her at her word it won't cost us anything,

DS: Why should a motion to endorse a concept cost us anything. Of
course she can request some support that might cost us and we may or
may not commit to expend resources. Based on all she is doing for USA
chess, I would say we should try to help if we can.

EM: Forget about past history.

DS: There is no consensus on past history, either we assume one side
is right and the other is wrong or we really do forget about the
disputes. What we cannot forget is her great success and help in
making the USA Women's 2004 Olympiad Chess Performance a historic
success!. That's the only uncontested chess history that I am aware.

EM: . . .and the possibility that she is not the only one involved in
forming the proposal,

DS: I don't understand your point here - please clarify.

EM: . . . and endorse on the spot any idea she suggests."

DS: We are only addressing one idea, the one she proposed.

EM: That's the part where you run into trouble....[/quote]

DS: I agree that if the impression is that we simply rubber stamp her
ideas, that would not be good. But you were at the meeting, did it
look like rubber stamping to you?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's
website
billbrock



Joined: 25 Sep 2005
Posts: 157
Location: Chicago, IL

PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:44 am Post subject: Reply with
quote
Quote:
DS: There is no consensus on past history, either we assume one side
is right and the other is wrong or we really do forget about the
disputes. What we cannot forget is her great success and help in
making the USA Women's 2004 Olympiad Chess Performance a historic
success!. That's the only uncontested chess history that I am aware.



We may consider the matter of past disputes amicably settled, but
remember that the past disputes occurred & take steps to minimize the
likelihood of future disputes.

I like Susan's proposal, too, and I too think it's a no-brainer. But
even no-brainers deserve to be reviewed, as there's an unfortunate
prehistory of misunderstandings. Eric's points are well taken.

Better process:

written proposal = informal private discussions = written motion =
Board vote = publicizing of Board action

It's a little slower, but it builds bureaucratic comity.

At this point, all parties should agree that the process was less than
ideal, and resolve to achieve satisfactory public closure.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

samsloan



Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 27
Location: Brooklyn, New York

PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:35 am Post subject: Reply with
quote Edit/Delete this post
joelchanning wrote:
Sam,

Without agreeing or arguing, but for the sake of comity, let's assume
that you're correct about the past. This is now, and she's a superstar
and we benefit having her acknowledge us as her home base. Maybe you'd
rather she formed a strategic alliance with AF4C?

If contracts were drafted less than perfectly in the past, I'll do
everything I can to guard against ambiguity in the future. As I
intimated before, be careful what you wish for. If all the great chess
players had the type of fame and money we want for them, we'd be
wistfully recalling the issues we had with Paul. Imagine Dennis Rodman
with a 2750 rating.

Joel


Since Joel is new here, I will just give a few examples of the kinds
of problems the USCF has had in dealing with Paul Truong in the past.
In every case, I do not know what the dispute was about. I only know
that again and again Paul has complained that he was cheated in some
way by the USCF and eventually in each case Paul was finally paid.

Here is one quote from Paul Truong:

Quote:

From:
Date: Thu Jun 2, 2005 11:40 pm
Subject: [fide-chess] One Board Member's Views on the USCF
-SusanPolgar ... chessmarketing


Enforcing the contract is the LEAST of the USCF's concern. He has no
comprehension of the magnitude of the damage that he and his people
have caused. If they can try to #### some of the biggest names in US
Chess (with a legal binding contract in place which the federation
created and made the players sign), who can trust the USCF in the
future? The worst part is the tone from them (from the President down
to her advisors). They attack the people who they should have
apologized to. AF4C, KSOC, and others all have had bad taste in their
mouths. They all have experienced the same garbage. This is a total
disaster for the federation from every aspect. l


OK. So Paul finally got his money on that deal. Now I will go back and
find a few similar previous disputes.

Sam Sloan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's
website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
samsloan



Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 27
Location: Brooklyn, New York

PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:48 am Post subject: Reply with
quote Edit/Delete this post
samsloan wrote:
joelchanning wrote:
Sam,

Without agreeing or arguing, but for the sake of comity, let's assume
that you're correct about the past. This is now, and she's a superstar
and we benefit having her acknowledge us as her home base. Maybe you'd
rather she formed a strategic alliance with AF4C?

If contracts were drafted less than perfectly in the past, I'll do
everything I can to guard against ambiguity in the future. As I
intimated before, be careful what you wish for. If all the great chess
players had the type of fame and money we want for them, we'd be
wistfully recalling the issues we had with Paul. Imagine Dennis Rodman
with a 2750 rating.

Joel


Since Joel is new here, I will just give a few examples of the kinds
of problems the USCF has had in dealing with Paul Truong in the past.
In every case, I do not know what the dispute was about. I only know
that again and again Paul has complained that he was cheated in some
way by the USCF and eventually in each case Paul was finally paid.

Here is one quote from Paul Truong:
Quote:

From:
Date: Thu Jun 2, 2005 11:40 pm
Subject: [fide-chess] One Board Member's Views on the USCF
-SusanPolgar ... chessmarketing


Enforcing the contract is the LEAST of the USCF's concern. He has no
comprehension of the magnitude of the damage that he and his people
have caused. If they can try to #### some of the biggest names in US
Chess (with a legal binding contract in place which the federation
created and made the players sign), who can trust the USCF in the
future? The worst part is the tone from them (from the President down
to her advisors). They attack the people who they should have
apologized to. AF4C, KSOC, and others all have had bad taste in their
mouths. They all have experienced the same garbage. This is a total
disaster for the federation from every aspect. l


OK. So Paul finally got his money on that deal. Now I will go back and
find a few similar previous disputes.

Sam Sloan


Here is another similar letter from Paul Truong. Apparently, the
dispute here was that the players who Paul Truong represents had been
paid by the Kasparov Chess Foundation. Now, Paul was claiming that the
USCF was supposed to pay the players too, so that the players got paid
twice for the same work. Again, as I understand it, the USCF finally
caved in and paid Paul. and so the players got double money.

Quote:

From:
Date: Wed Jun 1, 2005 1:43 am
Subject: [fide-chess] Marinello comes right out with it
chessmarketing

When will your boss publish the contracts so the members can see who
is lying and who is wrong? Again, you guys throw out propaganda with
not an ounce of evidence to back anything up. Your USCF forced the
players to sign the contracts and return the contracts by a specific
date or else they cannot represent their country. No one asked the
USCF to create this contract. They USCF did it on their own.

After a number of us informed the USCF that there were mistakes in the
contract, the USCF promised to send a final revised corrected contract
which they did. This contract was created when your buddies are in
charge. The contracts came unsolicited. The players signed the
contracts and they fulfilled every obligations set forth by the USCF.
Your buddies then refused to pay claiming that the players did receive
their bonuses from the KCF which has nothing to do with the USCF. The
contract clearly stated that "In addition, the USCF will pay the
following..." Even a 7 year old child can read this.

Instead of coming to the players nicely and ask them to work things
out and apologize for the misunderstanding, your President decided to
attack the players. She infuriated them. They were extremely insulted
and they ALL responded to her directly. Her actions and words prompted
the players to ask me to go forward with the claim for the bonuses
they are entitled to. I did not make this decision. Two of the players
were leading the charge to fight for their rights and it was not
Susan. All four voted to fight to enforce the contracts.

The time for screwing the players has ended. If the USCF management
decides to treat the players this way, do you expect them to sit back
and say please go ahead and take advantage of us at will? We can
settle this matter in any forum your buddies choose. It will not
remain quiet. The members and the public must know this kind of
behavior and actions.

Your President admitted numerous times in writing that the USCF did
create the contracts. She admitted several times in writing that the
players did sign it. She also admitted that it was the error of the
USCF and not the players. It is also the President of the USCF who
advocated the idea of not paying the players when they did nothing
wrong. The facts are quite clear. Why waste time debating? Why not
show the contract to the members? This will settle things once in for
all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's
website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
samsloan



Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 27
Location: Brooklyn, New York

PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:59 am Post subject: Reply with
quote Edit/Delete this post
Here is another letter from Paul Truong:

Quote:

From:
Date: Mon May 30, 2005 6:46 am
Subject: [fide-chess] Marinello comes right out with it
chessmarketing

This is the breakdown for the Olympiad Team:

Hotel: $100 / night x 5 rooms = $500 x 16 nights = Approx. $8,000
Airline tickets: $500-$700 each x 5 = Approx. $2,500 - $3,500
Fees: $3,000-$5,000 each x 4 = Approx. $12,000 - $20,000
Misc. Expenses: Approx. $10,000 - $15,000 (Training fees, training
tournaments, meals, ground transportation, misc. expenses)

Plus bonuses if the team wins medals.

This is what any sponsor has to expect to pay. When was the last time
the USCF was able to raise this kind of money?

This is not counting the men's team. This is serious money we are
talking about.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's
website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
samsloan



Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 27
Location: Brooklyn, New York

PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:48 am Post subject: Reply with
quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post
Here is another example. Apparently, Truong sent the USCF a bill for
$50,000 in "matching funds". The USCF disputed the bill. I do not know
if Truong was eventually paid or not.

Later, Troung sent the USCF a bill for $15,000 for the work Susan
Polgar had done such as appearing at the Delegate's meeting at the
2003 US Open in Los Angeles and in giving simultaneous exhibitions.
The USCF countered that this was supposed to be volunteer work and for
this Susan had been awarded the title of "Volunteer of the Year".

Again, I do not know the truth or falsity of the claims made. However,
it is clear that there is a history of repeated disputes between
Truong and the USCF over money. These disputes are over a period of
years and have involved several different boards. Here are a few
quotes from rec.games.chess.politics :

Quote:

From: Bill Brock - view profile
Date: Tues, Dec 9 2003 2:52 pm
Email: (Bill Brock)
Groups: rec.games.chess.politics

"StanB" wrote in message
...
"Spam Scone" wrote in message
om...

I don't know about realities in this case, but we have been the
subject of so
many lies regarding "facts" on this forum that one could be forgiven
if she/he
was stubborn in not believing the given facts.
Even with Susan's excellent character as a given, she hurts herself by
surrounding herself with the Bob Bennett's of this world. The
hyperbole of Mr.
Truong was so over the top, people could certainly be confused as to
Susan's
character when Paul is claiming thousands of positive responses per
month for
her column.
While Susan did not make this claim, Truong has claimed a business
relationship
and Susan has not rejected that claim. (Rp)

She refers to him as her business manager.

To the extent that agent may have said something demonstrably untrue
about principal & did not retract, and principal did not subsequently
distance herself, yes, that's an ethical issue. But that's a long way
from financial impropriety.

I thought the issue was Truong and Polgar allegedly expecting payment
for work they had allegedly agreed to do pro bono. Doesn't that count,
Bill? Stan, will you clarify this?

She was paid for several of the very same things that counted toward her
"Volunteer of the Year" award. Don't blame her, blame Niro for that one.
Brock called around and could get no one to dispute the various stories
about their shady dealings. So he appoints himself judge and jury and wants
copies of checks and other nefarious documents to accept the stories
floating around the newsgroups. Right. Like anyone cares whether Bob Brock
believes it or not.

StanB

I'm not appointing myself judge & jury: to the contrary, I'm
challenging you to prove that the woman you (as self-appointed judge &
jury) have characterized as a "bloodsucke[r]" is indeed one. Or,
absent proof, or absent the belief that producing said proof in public
is productive, I'm gently suggesting that characterizing individuals
as "bloodsuckers" may not be productive.

Re my phone calls--one can't disprove certain negatives. I couldn't
get anyone to go on record confirming the gist of your financial
story.... No one else I've spoken to had anything disparaging to say
about Susan Polgar's character; in fact, praise was the uniform
response.

Re volunteerism & payment for services. In general, Grandmasters get
paid for playing chess. This is what they do for a living.
Volunteers, by definition, don't get paid, but they often do receive
reimbursement for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses. Some volunteers
get paid an honorarium (which often, though not always, means
compensation way below market). Once upon a time, I received
$250/issue for editing the Illinois Chess Bulletin, which I used to
pay my out-of-pocket expenses (layout work). I did not consider
myself a bloodsucker; I did consider myself a volunteer.

Having said that, I acknowledge that there's a big ethical problem in
saying "I'm volunteering for X," then turning around & saying,
"Where's my payment for X?" I would also note that one can volunteer
for event X & expect to be paid for event Y, etc....

--Bob

***********************************
P.S. Polgar herself furnished me with this "invoice" (which looks more
like a statement, & which I reformatted from Word doc--the math error
is present in the original). I make no representations about the
propriety of any of the line items.
***********************************

Polgar Chess Center

[contact info redacted]

Grandmaster Susan Polgar
4-time Women's World Chess Champion & 3-time Olympic Champion

INVOICE # 102003

KISSIMMEE 2003 (3 days of activities)

Expenses for Susan Polgar, Tom & Leeam Shutzman Polgar and Paul Truong
a) Flight (4 tickets) = $820.00
b) Rental car = $449.86
Total Expenses: $1,269.86

Fee for simul, lectures, book signings, etc.
$2 / participant x 1168 participants = $2,336.00

NATIONAL ELEMENTARY - NASHVILLE 2003 (3 days of activities)

Expenses are already reimbursed.

Fee for simul, lectures, book signings, etc.
$2 / participants x 2396 participants = $4,792.00

US OPEN 2003 (14 days of activities)

Expenses for Susan Polgar and Paul Truong
a) Flight (2 tickets) $494.00
b) Daily allowance for food $50x2x14days = $1400.00
Total Expenses:
$1,494.00
Fee (Simul/Lecture/Book Signings etc.) $1,500.00

ROSEMONT K-12 DEC. 2003 (2-3 days of activities)

Susan's ticket only as agreed $246.50
Fee (Simul/Lecture/Book Signings etc. to be paid later) ($1,500.00)
Chess Life Opening Column - June 03 $500.00
Chess Life Opening Column - July 03 $500.00
Chess Life Opening Column - August 03 $500.00
Chess Life Opening Column - September 03 $500.00
Chess Life Opening Column - October 03 $500.00
_________
$15,638.36

Book & Equipment Balance:
$1,836.21
_________
$17,474.57
To be paid later
($1,500.00)
_________
$15,974.57

Please make check payable to Polgar Chess, Inc. Thank you!

Additional:

TLA amount: ? To be deducted or billed by the USCF

1,300 Women's Olympiad Calendars @ $6 each (payable to the Susan
Polgar Foundation) Only calendars that are sold are to be paid.
Unsold calendars can be returned by March 31, 2004 at no charge.

****
END STATEMENT
****

joelchanning wrote:
Eric,

I think you're missing the point. I belive that if either Kasparov or
Karpov got the kind of treatment Susan has gotten, they would have
told us to forget about any deal long before now. The kind of stuff
that's been going on here can ruin reputations.

Joel


Sorry, Joel, but I think that you are missing the point. The point is
that Paul Truong has a BAD REPUTATION. I am not passing judgment as to
whether Paul was right or Paul was wrong because I do not know.
However, everyone who has dealt with Paul Truong says that, after you
have shaken hands with him, you need to count your fingers to see if
they are all still there.

The fact is that, rightly or wrongly, every deal betwen Paul Truong
and the USCF has wound up in a major dispute. Grant Perks who was
briefly USCF Executive Director and dealt with Paul Truong notes that
in the past Truong has cost the USCF a lot in legal fees. You should
listen to these people wisened with experience and not so easily
assume that you can avoid the pitfalls your predecessors have falled
into.

Sam Sloan

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...
joelchanning wrote:
Eric,

I think you're missing the point. I belive that if either Kasparov or
Karpov got the kind of treatment Susan has gotten, they would have
told us to forget about any deal long before now. The kind of stuff
that's been going on here can ruin reputations.

Joel

This is one of the most bizarre threads I've read in a while.

When I arranged for Kasparov to do a fundraiser for USCf, they didn't reply.
When Karpov offered a building [free] in Lindsborg, USCf didn't even go look
at it.

On USCF:

'dead' Kasparov
'frozen' Karpov

In case Louis Blair ask me where these things are written, I couldn't say,
except in my e-mail.

Joel may wake up one day with the idea that ChessHut is not exactly the
center of the chessic universe, and those who want to pursue chess are in
greater part outside it, than in. Who knows? He is very resilient to hearing
anything other than blue skies, and giving it the old college try.

Another 3 months of Marinello and Uncle Bill will have him whistling to
himself "which side are you on boy?"

Sorry, Joel, but I think that you are missing the point. The point is
that Paul Truong has a BAD REPUTATION.

I see that Don S has replied elsewhere. Paul Troung has a reputation for
doing what he says he is going to do, and he expects you to do the same.
Sticking to your word isn't such a bad idea - maybe we could all get used to
it?

I am not passing judgment as to
whether Paul was right or Paul was wrong because I do not know.
However, everyone who has dealt with Paul Truong says that, after you
have shaken hands with him, you need to count your fingers to see if
they are all still there.

Very old joke. But I think Sam has a little Troung envy

The fact is that, rightly or wrongly, every deal betwen Paul Truong
and the USCF has wound up in a major dispute.

Every deal USCF has with everyone has wound up in major dispute - for as
long as I can remember.

Grant Perks who was
briefly USCF Executive Director and dealt with Paul Truong notes that
in the past Truong has cost the USCF a lot in legal fees.

Sure! It reneaged on its contract and got sued. Troung actually pointed out
the error to USCF and Bill Goichberg as Exec Dir still issued a very
whimsical contract, apparently delegating it [still] without noticing the
2nd edition. I have a facsimile copy of the revised document!

You should
listen to these people wisened with experience and not so easily
assume that you can avoid the pitfalls your predecessors have falled
into.

One goal a year is usually plenty for any institution. What about addressing
the reason USCF exists, and ignoring everything else?

The peculiar irony in this affair is that, for no additional expenditure
whatever, USCF could have received the world's leading champion of
scholastics chess as a partner.

Phil Innes

Sam Sloan

Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 7:08 pm Post subject: Polgar
Initiative
Alaskan Bishop wrote:
I support the Polgar iniative. I believe it will increase the number
of young women playing chess. Which in turn will increase female
participation at all levels.

The more girls play, the more girls will succeed. Create interest and
longevity and they will come--- and they will win even more.

I believe that the goal and comraderie of an All-American Girls Team
will encourage more girls to play. It seems to me that an iniative
such as this would help to accomplish the very goals its opponents
support.

----------------------------------------------
You fail to understand and obviously you have not studied the
proposal.

The proposal is NOT for a program to teach chess to girls. It is a
plan to help the handful of top level girls who are already strong
enough at chess to compete successfully for the world championship.
Looking at the rating chart provided by Polgar and comparing it to the
current USCF rating list, it can be seen that there are at present
only three girls in the entire United States strong enough to qualify
for the program. They a

Sylvia S. Yang, 9 TX 1653
Alisa Melekhina, 14 PA 2104
Tatev Abrahamyan, 17 CA 2325

Sam Sloan

Sam Sloan wrote:
Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 7:08 pm Post subject:

Do you deny this?

--- In , chesspride@... wrote:


The loss is in the overall content and readability -- some would say style --
of the magazine or online presentation. A story about a dozen players with
low ratings getting jackets just isn't interesting to 99 percent of the
readers/audience. It is interesting to those dozen families and their friends.

Boy! Eric certainly has not studied the proposal.

The proposal is not about a dozen players with low ratings getting
jackets.

It is about very high rated players who are strong enough to have a
shot at winning the world championship receiving training from Polgar.

Right now, only three US girls are strong enough to qualify for the
program. One of the three is Tatev who tied for the US Woman's
Championship last year and is playing in the US Championship right now
today.

Sam Sloan