The following is the letter from Joel Benjamin in which he sets forth
his objections to the US Championship.

It was copied by me into BINFO 200700775.

In reading this, please note that Joel Benjamin was the only
Grandmaster who expressed a willingness to play the US Championship
online, provided that the prizes were substantial:

At 11:38 PM 3/6/2007 -0500, Joel Benjamin wrote:

Dear USCF officials:

I am extremely distressed by the recent announcements for the 2007
U.S. Championship. Let me start by thanking Frank Berry for his
generosity. He and others in Stillwater are doing their best to make
something out of nothing. But the USCF is not doing its part.

The $65,000 prize fund (with players paying expenses) is grossly
inadequate. With 32 players (and possibly more) the average prize
will be around $2,000. This is in contrast to that figure serving as
the minimum figure last year!

The proposed $15,000 contribution from the USCF is embarrassing. The
"buy-in" plan makes a mockery of the tournament (though I expect very
few takers anyway). The disbursement of any extra funds generated by
this plan is completely unacceptable. It has to go directly to the
players! The line about "replacement of the $10,000 sanctioning fee"
is fooling no one. You have already announced that Anderson is
contributing $25,000. Does the USCF actually have the audacity to
pocket that money and try to turn a profit on this tournament? I
sincerely hope you reconsider this plan. You will only embarrass
yourselves and enrage the players.

I find it especially galling that some Board members were openly
hostile to Erik Anderson's attempts to organize the Championship,
likely sabotaging a $100,000 prize fund. If any of you thought you
could do better, the fiction is surely put to that notion.

I have played in 23 U.S. Championships, every one since 1981. I have
never declined an invitation, nor even considered not playing. But
this proposed tournament is so outrageous that I don't think I could
participate. Please go back to the drawing board and reconsider.
Don't make me fight you.

Sincerely,

Joel Benjamin

On May 6, 10:45 am, samsloan wrote:
The following is the letter from Joel Benjamin in which he sets forth
his objections to the US Championship.

It was copied by me into BINFO 200700775.

In reading this, please note that Joel Benjamin was the only
Grandmaster who expressed a willingness to play the US Championship
online, provided that the prizes were substantial:

At 11:38 PM 3/6/2007 -0500, Joel Benjamin wrote:

Dear USCF officials:

I am extremely distressed by the recent announcements for the 2007
U.S. Championship. Let me start by thanking Frank Berry for his
generosity. He and others in Stillwater are doing their best to make
something out of nothing. But the USCF is not doing its part.

The $65,000 prize fund (with players paying expenses) is grossly
inadequate. With 32 players (and possibly more) the average prize
will be around $2,000. This is in contrast to that figure serving as
the minimum figure last year!

The proposed $15,000 contribution from the USCF is embarrassing. The
"buy-in" plan makes a mockery of the tournament (though I expect very
few takers anyway). The disbursement of any extra funds generated by
this plan is completely unacceptable. It has to go directly to the
players! The line about "replacement of the $10,000 sanctioning fee"
is fooling no one. You have already announced that Anderson is
contributing $25,000. Does the USCF actually have the audacity to
pocket that money and try to turn a profit on this tournament? I
sincerely hope you reconsider this plan. You will only embarrass
yourselves and enrage the players.

I find it especially galling that some Board members were openly
hostile to Erik Anderson's attempts to organize the Championship,
likely sabotaging a $100,000 prize fund. If any of you thought you
could do better, the fiction is surely put to that notion.

I have played in 23 U.S. Championships, every one since 1981. I have
never declined an invitation, nor even considered not playing. But
this proposed tournament is so outrageous that I don't think I could
participate. Please go back to the drawing board and reconsider.
Don't make me fight you.

Sincerely,

Joel Benjamin

Sam should be very proud of destroying the US open

On 6 May 2007 11:30:23 -0700, Rob wrote:


Sam should be very proud of destroying the US open


Don't you mean "closed" ?

Is this group dead??

Sam Sloan

Take a look at what has happened. This morning, in response to a
question somebody asked about why Joel Benjamin is not playing in this
year's US Championship, I dug out a letter Joel Benjamin had written
two months ago on March 6, 2007 explaining his objections to the US
Championship.

Benjamin sent that letter to me, to the other board members and to the
other grandmasters who had qualified to the US Championship, except
that he did not send the letter to Polgar, even though she is a
grandmaster who is qualified to play in the US Championship.

As a result, Polgar did not know about the letter until I posted it
here this morning.

Now Polgar has taken Benjamin's letter and posted it to her blogspot
in such a way as to create the impression that Benjamin wrote the
letter to her and that he endorses her for election.

Take a look he

http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2007...min.html#links

Already in just the five hours since I posted the Benjamin letter
here, there are 34 replies to Susan's blogspot. Many of these postings
attack Goichberg and Lux. Since it is well known that Polgar deletes
any letters she does not agree with, one must conclude that these
attacks on Goichberg and Lux reflect her views.

Incidentally, there is a secret letter by Polgar attacking Lux that
has been circulating during the past few days. I have not seen it, but
I have heard about it.

I do not know who Joel Benjamin is supporting for election but it is a
safe bet that he is not supporting Polgar. I believe that her use of
his letter is misleading.

Sam Sloan

Kamsky wrote that he would consider playing subject to the condition
that the complete event was played over a two week period and did not
stretch from March to November as announced and that it did not
conflict with his scheduled match with Etienne Bacrot for the quarter-
finals of the World Championship.

However, Kamsky also wrote than since his match with Bacrot conflicted
with the dates of the US Championship, he would not be able to play.

Thus, the only top player who said that he would both be willing and
able to play in the US Championship as scheduled was Joel Benjamin.

Sam Sloan

"samsloan" The $65,000 prize fund (with players paying expenses) is
grossly
inadequate. With 32 players (and possibly more) the average prize will be
around $2,000. This is in contrast to that figure serving as the minimum
figure last year!


And why should you losers get anything? Who knows or remembers the U.S.
Chess Champions of the past thirty years? Who cares? Outside of a few
pathetic geeks, nobody else could care less.

So if you want a bigger pot, increase the fees and let each prospective
champion put $2,000.00 into the kitty.

Here is exactly the problem. It is actually Herbert Vaughn a/k/a
tanstaafl who keeps bring up this problem over and over again to the
embarrassment of Eric Anderson. Herbert Vaughn raised this issue again
at the delegates' meeting August 4-5, 2007 in Cherry Hill. I decided
not to respond because that would have just started a floor fight.

I never mentioned the name of Eric Anderson in that context. Herbert
Vaughn did. I never said that pornography was on the website. Herbert
Vaughn did. It is Herbert Vaughn that keeps bringing up this subject
over and over again and if anything that is what embarrasses Eric
Anderson.

Now, Vaughn is Moderator6. Will he allow his posting to stay up on the
USCF Forums? Will anyone be allowed to respond to his attacks?

Also, Mig Greengard did NOT report speaking directly to Eric Anderson
on this issue.

Sam Sloan

[quote="tanstaafl"]I have just done a search of Mig Greengard's website and EVERYTHING
that Herbert Vaughn a/k/a tanstaafl writes above is a ###.

Nowhere does Mig Greengard ever state that he spoke to Eric Anderson
directly. In fact, he rarely mentions Eric Anderson at all.

I know of noone who has spoken to Eric Anderson on this subject and I
have asked around quite a bit.

Here is the only posting by Mig Greengard on this subject.

http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/...aves_us_ch.htm

Note the date: It was January 2007, months before the issue in
question arose. Also, the posting by Mig contains a number of errors.
It says that Eric Anderson handed the USCF a check for $25,000 as a
going away present. Of course, the USCF never received any such check.
The question is whether Eric Anderson ever promised this amount of
money. The only person who actually spoke to Eric Anderson about this
was Don Schultz and Schultz reported that Eric Anderson was vague
about it and did not make a firm commitment. Later, at Goichberg's
request, Schultz called back Eric Anderson and subsequently reported
that it was unlikely that Eric Anderson would be donating any money to
the USCF any time soon.

All this happened in January 2007, months before the issues that
Herbert Vaughn a/k/a tanstaafl raises occurred.

It is well known that Eric Anderson does not like to talk to Goichberg
directly. Those two have not spoken in a long time, perhaps in more
than a year. For this reason, Goichberg has to go through
intermediaries to communicate with Anderson. His two primary contact
persons are Don Schultz and Robert Tanner. We should really bring
those two back.

It is extremely unlikely that Anderson would speak to a muck-raking
journalist like Mig Greengard (who often gets his facts wrong) when he
is not even willing to speak with Goichberg.

As far as the "Chess Goddess" is concerned (Susan Polgar calls herself
a "Chess Goddess" on http://www.chessgoddess.com ) she makes no claim
to have received any information directly from any source. She just
repeats the hearsay that everybody else keeps repeating.

Sam Sloan

Yes, but that was months later after everybody else had jumped in the
bandwagon and written about porn on the website.

I did not start this discussion nor am I the person who keeps bringing
it up. The person who does keep bringing this up is Herbert Vaughn a/k/
a tanstaafl. He brought it up again at the USCF delegates meeting in
Cherry Hill.

I question Bill Hall's judgment in making tanstaafl a moderator.
Vaughn is the last person who should ever be made a moderator.

Sam Sloan