Another Dirty Deal from the USCF Board - One Page per month for College Chess

At 01:59 AM 2/28/2006 EST, wrote:
In a message dated 2/28/2006 1:05:14 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
writes:

and Don Schultz said that he was pushing it only
because he promised you that he would.

Sam, I did not say "only." I did say I promised I would push it but I
also said I believed we should support it. A review of the tape will
show that and perhaps Eric Mark remembers it.

But that aside, why should USCF not help publicize it. Susan has done
so much to improve the image of chess in the country, it would be an
insult to her to treat her request different than other requests.

Let me give you an example, which you don't know about because it
occurred the previous day.

The previous day, Tim Redman addressed the Board and made a request
for one page of CL a month to be devoted to College Chess. The Board,
I believe, heard that request for the first time passed it on the spot
unanimously. Yet Susan who requested only an endorsement of concept
gets ridiculed for requesting too much.

Did Susan and Paul change their request by asking for CL publicity
afterwards. Perhaps, but so what - why can't they? It doesn't change
the motion I made and passed. She can request and IMO, we should
respond favorably as it is a small commitment to make and will help
publicize a very worthy project.

I don't always agree with Susan and Paul but they are good for chess
and deserve our respect and support.

The real travesty at Parsippany was my being checkmated by Ernie
Schlich on the 14th move. The Board team would have had 4 and a half
points had I won that last round game. Instead we got three and a
half.

On the upside: We made some good contacts regarding the possibility
of a TV Chess show. Joel Channings reported on the revamping of our
methods of financial recording so that we will have a much improved
way of understanding where we spend our money. Mikhail Korenman's
succeeded in putting a bid together for six world champions U8, 10 and
12 - boys and girls to, if successful, will take place in Lindsborg
Kansas this coming August. We have found a super organizer in Mikhail.
The Paul Hoffman presentation to us on a new Chess Life format
exceeded expectations. Our new CL editor Dan Lucas attended the
meeting and the March issue will be his first - everyone was impressed
with Dan. Glenn Peterson is working on the new Chess Life for Kids
magazine, it is sorely needed. The entire board is enthusiastically
supporting a change of FIDE leadership, something you have been
promoting for a long time. So much good is taking place yet all the
focus seems to be on complaining that the Board should not have voted
to give Susan some small thing that she didn't request and which
wasn't addressed.

Regards,
Don



Dear Don,

I stand corrected on the word "only". However, I am shocked to learn
that the board agreed with Redman's proposal, unanimously, without any
thought or discussion.

There is simply no basis for giving college chess one page per month
in Chess Life. There is only one college chess tournament per year in
the entire United States. That is the US Intecollegiate Championship
during Christmas Vacation. Very few college students are USCF members.
I am thankful for that, as they should be studying math and physics
instead. The Redman scheme is the perfect example of why the board
should not be making editorial decisions about the contents of Chess
Life.

Giving college chess one page of Chess Life per month, gives college
chess more space than scholastic chess which is one-third of our
membership. The idea is ridiculous, one of the typically incredibly
stupid things that Redman did while he was president and why I hope he
will never be president again. Just because Redman is Chairman of the
College Chess Committee (mainly because nobody else wants to serve on
a committee with nothing to do) is not a reason to pass his ridiculous
proposal.

I believe that you are dead wrong in your point of "why not give more
publicity to Susan". Susan already gets ten times more publicity than
any other US Chess player and probably more than any other player in
the world with the exceptions of Fischer and Kasparov. This is
remarkable, especially since Susan stopped playing chess actively in
1995 except for a few occasional appearances. I am certain that the
board whould not have voted so quickly to approve Susan's proposal had
they known that Susan expected very substantial publicity for her
Susan Polgar Chess Jackets in Chess Life.

Remember that I am generally known as the World's Bigggest Promoter of
Susan Polgar, as indeed I was at one time. However, recent history
shows that any time Paul Truong is involved, then money is involved
too. Paul Truong is here for the money and that is it. I am happy if
Paul goes to corporations like IBM and asks for and receives
sponsorship money. However, Paul keeps coming to the USCF for money
and I do not believe that my dues money should be used any more to rob
me to pay Paul.

I am right now demanding that the Board rescend the Dirty Deal to give
Tim Redman one page per month in Chess Life. I also demand that the
board call a special session to reconsider the Paul Truong - Susan
Polgar deal and rescend it until such time as Paul tells us exactly
what he expects the USCF to do in return for his donation of Susan
Polgar chess jackets and chess lessons.

Sam Sloan

Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 6:17 am Post subject: College Chess In
Chess Life

CHESSDON wrote:

I also will be moving to reconsider the 1 page a month column on
college chess. But before any of you college chess pundits jump out of
your skin, I am not advocating less than 12 pages a year. I am
advocating a policy directive to the editor to have at least 12 pages
of coverage per year but how and what areas are covered is determined
by the CL editor. Certainly during the summer coverage is not as
critical and for some of the big college events much more than one
page is in order.

I'd like to get member comments on this as it could very well
influence whether my motion to reconsider passes or fails.

Don Schultz


You know my view, but I will tell you what it is anyway.

My view is that except in the most extreme cases the USCF Board should
NEVER tell the editor of Chess Life what to publish. The editor is
hired to bring out a magazine interesting to the membership. That is
his job. Directing the editor to put politically mandated garbage into
the pages of Chess Life is the worst thing the board could ever do.
The one time in recent history when the board should have intervened
came with Tim Taylor's article about lesbian love and live sex shows.
That was the time when the board should have intervened and it did
not.

Sam Sloan

Don Schultz wrote (Thu Mar 02, 2006 6:17 am):

I also will be moving to reconsider the 1 page a month
column on college chess. But before any of you college
chess pundits jump out of your skin, I am not advocating
less than 12 pages a year. I am advocating a policy
directive to the editor to have at least 12 pages of
coverage per year but how and what areas are covered
is determined by the CL editor. Certainly during the
summer coverage is not as critical and for some of
the big college events much more than one page is
in order.
_
I'd like to get member comments on this as it could
very well influence whether my motion to reconsider
passes or fails.

_
I think the Don Schultz suggestion would be an
improvement on what was passed. In my opinion,
it would be even better to eliminate the quota and
simply encourage the (new) Chess Life editor to
increase coverage of college chess. It seems
heavy-handed and bad for moral if the board
gets into micro-managing an issue like this
without first seeing if a simple suggestion would
do the job without setting quotas.
_
Encouraging college chess is important, and I
have been saying so for years, but it is also
important to improve Chess Life, and I do not
think it is good for the magazine to mandate
a quota for every issue, thus possibly forcing
the editor from time to time to fill up a page
when there is not really much to report. I
agree with Mike Nolan's (Tue Feb 28, 2006
8:27 am) opinion, "I think the editor should
have some discretion as to both frequency
and length."
_
Incidentally, I see no evidence of anything
"dirty" here. It's just a disagreement about
the best approach.

Don Schultz wrote (Thu Mar 02, 2006 6:17 am):

I also will be moving to reconsider the 1 page a month
column on college chess. But before any of you college
chess pundits jump out of your skin, I am not advocating
less than 12 pages a year. I am advocating a policy
directive to the editor to have at least 12 pages of
coverage per year but how and what areas are covered
is determined by the CL editor. Certainly during the
summer coverage is not as critical and for some of
the big college events much more than one page is
in order.
_
I'd like to get member comments on this as it could
very well influence whether my motion to reconsider
passes or fails.

_
I think the Don Schultz suggestion would be an
improvement on what was passed. In my opinion,
it would be even better to eliminate the quota and
simply encourage the (new) Chess Life editor to
increase coverage of college chess. It seems
heavy-handed and bad for morale if the board
gets into micro-managing an issue like this
without first seeing if a simple suggestion would
do the job without setting quotas.
_
Encouraging college chess is important, and I
have been saying so for years, but it is also
important to improve Chess Life, and I do not
think it is good for the magazine to mandate
a quota for every issue, thus possibly forcing
the editor from time to time to fill up a page
when there is not really much to report. I
agree with Mike Nolan's (Tue Feb 28, 2006
8:27 am) opinion, "I think the editor should
have some discretion as to both frequency
and length."
_
Incidentally, I see no evidence of anything
"dirty" here. It's just a disagreement about
the best approach.

Sam is dirty.

_
Encouraging college chess is important, and I

As one who joined the USCF while in college, I agree.

_
Incidentally, I see no evidence of anything
"dirty" here. It's just a disagreement about
the best approach.


Don't listen to that Scam Sloan character. Everyone knows that the Scamster
passionately dislikes Tim Redman and will dispute every issue TR stands for.
One thing about Scam - when you run against him in an election, he hates you
for life, even long after the election ends. How could anyone inexplicably refer
to Scam Sloan as non vindictive?

Also, one can argue that if Scam Sloan is against college chess in Chess Life,
then the idea is most probably a good one. Whatever Scammie advises, do the
opposite. You'll rarely go wrong.