" writes:
Thanks David, that was very informative. I guess then I would ask what
the sponsorship opportunities were that we supposedly lost.

This story about the Paul Masson tournament was memorable:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.g...39fcb4369e8d21

wrote in message
oups.com...

Thanks David, that was very informative. I guess then I would ask what
the sponsorship opportunities were that we supposedly lost.

I don't have any comment on the supposed lost opportunities
as a result of Sloan's election. It's just another internet claim
made without any evidence.

If you are speaking more generally, I can only give a general
answer that if there were a national chess organization that
somehow resonated with the 10+ million American chess
players, I don't think sponsorship would be hard to find.

I remember the Church's Fried Chicken Years where they were sponsoring
chess - for example, Larry Christiansen made a trip to my then hometown
of Champaign-Urbana in the (70s?) for a simul just so I could beat him
(we have to make this "all about me" just so Philsy won't be
disappointed!).

I also suppose there are many types of sponsorship opportunities -
supporting a tournament, a GM, a school program or programs. It seems
that institutions like Banks sponsor tournaments in Europe; there must
be some "value-added" for them or else they wouldn't do it.

I don't pretend to know much about the subject but you seemed to be
asserting that there will continue to be few opportunities for
sponsorship. Again, I am not sure if that is a good or bad thing, at
least from my perspective. Why can't chess "sponsor" itself?

I don't know what this means. I do believe that
getting more money into chess will improve the
chess experience for all players. Sponsorship
can be thought of as a way of expanding the
funding base. Example. I would love to see
chess reestablish a credible world championship
cycle, something which has been missing from
the chess world for a long time now. I am not
capable of personally bankrolling it. However,
a corporate sponsor could decide that my goodwill
(and the goodwill of others who think like me)
was worth the expense. If so, I would ultimately
end up paying a share of the costs of providing
the championship when I bought the sponsor's
products.

I understand your analogy re the 99.6 and the 0.4%, but I wonder if the
numbers aren't pretty much the same in most activities - a lot of
people play tennis at the local court, but few are a member of any sort
of tennis organization.

Membership per se has little to do with it. AF4C has
no members and few contributors (admittedly
wealthy ones) but is able to accomplish a function
of national importance - running the national championship.

The low membership of the USCF is relevant
because the USCF has defined itself as being a
benefit provider for its current members. If
instead it functioned as national organization
to further the game, it could have more
impact with fewer members. Ironically,
it probably wouldn't have to - if the
USCF had a positive reputation based
on national achievements, it likely would
have *more* donors and *more* sponsors.

On 7 Aug 2006 19:31:31 -0700, "
wrote:


Anyone who's interested in reading this complete thread should be able
to find the evidence of Nick's dishonest distortions and other abusive
comments. This is unfortunately nowhere near the rambling profanity he
sends Steven B. Dowd each and every day by email. Luckily, he has set
his spam filter so that messages from Nick (yesterday's count: 30) are
automatically deleted.

This does not seem behavior typical of Nick.

I've had many acrimonious newsgroup exchanges with him over the last
few years, but he's neither (1) responded with personal e-mail
(although he evidently did try to convince others via e-mail to attack
me on the group) nor (2) used profanity.

Are you certain you're not being plagued by an imposter?

Such documents are best served in the appropriate court of law.

Nick has declared in public that he has utter disdain for Steven B.
Dowd. Nick evidently regards his comments about him as being relevant
to this forum.

Nick regards all of his comments as relevant and contextually vital.

Please excuse any further commentary by Nick on this matter; SBD will
remain silent on the matter while the appropriate legal preparations
are being made to stop this abuse..

wrote in message
oups.com...

Chess One wrote:
Dear Steven, while we [plural!] hold you in our affections, what you
write
is a continuous demonstration of what I say, which is of your effections.

Perhaps it is because I am such a pragmatist that I typically think, "if
he
could, he would," but you evidently can't address whatever was in the
Polgar
column, since it is your preference to write in hissy fits.

Love and Kisses, Phil.


Um, you can keep the kisses, and I will accept the loving in the most
generic of ways, but I do not see what I failed to address. My view is
simple on what she wrote in the column and her blog: I disagree totally
with her rants on Sam. He won,

Yes - even Tocqueville wrote 170 years ago of the necessity to seperate
Ethics from Politics. I think H-B Lévy has recently amplified on this, both
in his New York Times article, but much more substantially in his new title
American Vertigo.

and it would seem to me that a person
with the power to do so many positive things for chess (and who has
done many positive things for chess) should stay away from this sort of
thing, and her recommending that we find some way to prevent him from
assuming office is wrong. Not only wrong, but it sends a signal
(however false) that she is the one who wants to have her way through
"hissy fits."

To say it my way - which might be in agreement with you - the SPF benefits
by comparison, and need not agitate or excite the issue.

Unfortunately USCF passed on the opportunity to deal with any ethical
standards some months ago, when not only Sloan was involved - a small crowd
of current incumbents were kiting various issues to do with their personal
standards - as if they were reactionary Puritans and less likely to do harm
and burn witches, than witches themselves do to themselves.

Now the issue of personality and political role are all one.

Does her association with Truong bother me? No, it is up to her to
decide, but by your standards, Truong really is someone who "can't be
bothered to sign his name" and in fact floods many discussion groups
with anonymous postings, and is an accused Internet chess cheater.

I admit I know him more than I know her - in fact we talk on the phone quite
a bit. There are even things I have said to her which she agreed she would
not share with anyone, even him. But he does not strike me from a
psychological [nor linguistic] basis as likely to indulge a pseudonymous
identity. He is as straightforward as his ties! I cannot prove that -
but I think what happens when you are associated with 'Greats' is that there
is always much supposition, and the nature of it is that it is unprovable
either way - which is often the design of the supposer, neh?

As
an opportunist, he has done well for her but I can't help thinking he
will also be her undoing.

He is a strong advocate sure. But to say more of my opinion would mean to
write in public what is privvy to my own intelligence. I would say it to you
privately, but some here would seize on any such information, and then
excite it to lunatic levels of supposition, or else render it anodyne -
neither way contains much intellegence, IMO.

And of course this is a form of armchair quarterbacking I am engaged in
when I discuss these matters, as are 99% of the posts here. It is sheer
speculation. If you want real news on Polgar, I suggest sources like
chesscafe, where her column appeared.

I have her cell phone - if I want stuff 'so badly' I can call her up. But
that would be unusual for me, since, other than to ask some opinion about
another player I don't find much need to do other than send Paul T a note
asking for info. He kinvariably replies within 24 hours to everything.

It does an excellent job of
covering topical material in an informative manner. It has the best
writers on chess of any site I have seen.

I agree that it was also my favorite site at one time. But it seemed to go
off the boil 4 or 5 years ago and besides, so often does not bite the
bullet, especially if the subject is USCF of which it is in debt in two
senses - it owes USCF a quarter of a million dollars [forgiven?] and is the
official venue for B&E sales.

I have a remarkable e-mail testimony of the scale of honesty that Chesscafe
performed at its forum - as exchanged with another writer here. While that
is edifying, it ain't so very great at all!

I fail to see how that or anything else I wrote is anything more of a
hissy fit than what you write here on a regular basis. When attacked,
you defend, as do I. Why is your defense supposedly superior to mine?

I consider myself a pragmatist as well, and in fact my master's work
was in part on Dewey and his philosophy of education; his "learning
lab" (learning through experimentation) ideas would fit well for chess
study if someone took up the notion.

You ever look to [Harvard's] Gardner?

However, I still think "on-topic" to you means "what I want (or is that
what we want?) to discuss." In fact, I always find it funny when you
accuse others of not discussing chess because your posts are often
without any relevant chess content whatsoever. In fact. except for
mentioning the name "Polgar," what does your post above have to do with
chess?

Sure - you are right. I am reduced to an admonition to write to the nominal
subject as presented in the header. what else may be said in public?

Very little. It has more to do with me; and your accusations
that I don't post on chess and suffer from some sort of self-obsession,
well, here we go again: Pot, kettle, black.

We have insufficient understanding of each other. You may be assured I have
been as antagonistic to world champions [and candidates] as to you, and
indifferent to status-things as I might be, while still noticing that it
goes on.

You scored a few points in this one! The weather is better here now, dryer.
Shall I finish on a natural note?

But now the elm is still
All its frame bare
Its leaves are a carpet for the cabbages

And it stands engulfed in the peculiar golden light
With which Eternity's flash
Photographed the sudden cock pheasant -

Engine whinneying, the fire-ball bird clatters up,
Shuddering full-throttle
Its three-toungued tail-tip writhing

And the Elm stands, astonished, wet with light,

And I stand, dazzled to my bones, blinded.

Phil

"michael adams" wrote in message
...
Chess One wrote:

(,,)

http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/

While I haven't made any personal comment on this issue, it is not a
simple
one, and I hope people will comment on it. 2 things are very certain -
that
5 major sponsors for chess have already turned down any current
'opportunities' in Chicago, precisely because Sam Sloan is on board.

Eee, by goum!

Dear Wallace,

Eer! ow come youms' speaking after they? And isn't it 'bah goum?

- it should be clear even to a blind pig that uscf is a
dead hulk floating there waiting & waiting the depleted u torpedo of net
savvy young'uns.

And thereby, Garry expands his comment on USCF, which he previously merely
called 'dead'.

A sad fact only to the porkers habitually conditioned
to gorge members dollars & a fitting sinecure for 60yr old Sloan.

That is an interesting point - just two days ago someone said me on the
phone - that the lack of drive of USCF seemed likely because they are all
too old!

Not a good mix of young tigers and wise old owls. Instead we got tired
tigers and wizened fowls.

Henceforward I forsee uscf becoming this unimportant boutique concern.

You see that happening in 2003?

Other orgs. will easily absorb their 'heritage' & probably attract the
customary ungenerous & stingy corps. who deign to patronise chess, Sloan
or no Sloan, Parr or no Parr - etc. Yawwwn..

My challenge to a USCF booster recently was twofold: (1) how come it
couldn't attract any money for scholarships whereas SPF could attract
$300,000 a year on a pretty consistent basis? and (2) how would it deploy
that money any differently than SPF does.

Of course: Silence was the stern reply.

Now - I think these are the real underlying conditions facing what you call
'boutique' and I called 'ChessHut' - essentially marginalising the scope of
the venture - they have nothing to do with Sloanism, who is and will be
continue to be scapegoated for these missing fundamental factors.

Cordially, Gromit

"Paul Rubin" wrote in message
...
" writes:
Thanks David, that was very informative. I guess then I would ask what
the sponsorship opportunities were that we supposedly lost.

This story about the Paul Masson tournament was memorable:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.g...39fcb4369e8d21

Wow. Tom never wrapped it up overmuch.

And just to think I was warming up to Jerry Hanken, who I sent to Chicago
with an agenda to make CJA relevant to chess in this country, with some
clues on how to do it.

Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:

(,,)

Of course: Silence was the stern reply.

Now - I think these are the real underlying conditions facing what you call
'boutique' and I called 'ChessHut' - essentially marginalising the scope of
the venture - they have nothing to do with Sloanism, who is and will be
continue to be scapegoated for these missing fundamental factors.

Cordially, Gromit

N. Park might have been among the thousands schelduled to fly the
targetted airliners, scary thought life without Wal. & Grom. - Chess is
surely a young man's game see Garry retire etc. good luck to Sloan but
uscf just seems irrelevant to me - got any Howard Spring?..

Chess One wrote:
...Jerry Hanken, who I sent to Chicago
with an agenda to make CJA relevant to chess in this country, with some
clues on how to do it.

Anyone have a clue how to make Philsy Innes "relevant to chess in this
country?"