I have been avoiding the forum ever since Bill had me suspended from
posting here, but I cannot let this one pass.

At a meeting in Seattle in February, 2006, Bill Goichberg was informed
that AF4C was downgrading its involvement in the US Championship. Thus,
Bill knew by that date that AF4C would probably not be sponsoring the
2007 US Championship.

According to the contract with the Seattle Chess Foundation, now the
AF4C, they had 60 days after the conclusion of the 2006 US Championship
to declare an intention to sponsor the 2007 US Championship. The 2006
US Championship concluded on March 12, 2006. Thus, AF4C had until May
12, 2006 to state that it would be holding the 2007 US Championship.
When that date passed and AF4C has not exercised its option to sponsor
and organize the US Championship, Bill knew that they would probably
not do so.

At my first closed session of the board, which was on August 14, 2006,
I learned from Bill himself that Erik Anderson was not returning his
calls, not responding to his letters and Bill often did not even know
where Anderson was, yet publicly Bill led the players to believe that
AF4C sponsorship would still be forthcoming.

I have learned from a variety of sources that all along the relations
between Bill and AF4C have not been good. Bill has been pressing AF4C
to agree to more qualifiers. Realizing that each qualifier means more
money that AF4C will have to pay, they have been resistant to agree.

In recent months, Bill has been reporting on his negotiations with John
Henderson, implying that Henderson was the representative of AF4C.
However, Henderson works for ICC, not for AF4C. We were led to believe
that ICC was putting up $100,000 in sponsorship money. Now, with the
announcement that AF4C would not be sponsoring the US Championship,
Bill announced that ICC would still be willing to hold two online
qualifiers free of charge. Thus, we find out that ICC was never
planning to pay the USCF any money at all.

Several months ago Bill posted a list of qualifiers to the US
Championship on the uschess.org website. He implied that this list had
been provided and approved by AF4C. However, Bill knew that AF4C had
made no commitment to hold the US Championship and that the USCF had no
other sponsorship offers in the works.

In the last few days, Bill has suggested that it is because of Sam
Sloan (me) that "we the people" and AF4C pulled out of the 2007 US
Championship. However, neither organization had ever stated a
willingness or had ever agreed to sponsor the US Championship.

I was publicly reprimanded by Bill Goichberg and two other board
members, Joel Channing and Randy Hough, for stating facts in a private
email to the board that were subsequently proven to be true. Go back
and read what I was reprimanded for and you will be able to see that
what I wrote was exactly correct.

Two weeks ago I was suspended from posting to the USCF Forum on the
pretext that I had posted confidential information. Yet, the supposedly
objectionable posting did not reveal confidential information or indeed
any information at all. It simply asked a question. I have repeatedly
asked what information did it reveal. Bill has refused to answer
(claiming that the question has already been answered).

Now, the USCF faces a serious problem. Bill has qualified 18 players to
play in the US Championship who are not qualified by rating. Bill
insists that these 18 must be allowed to play. However, this will cost
a lot of money and we do not have any. You cannot squeeze blood from a
stone. Bill is demanding that any bidder for the US Championship must
provide enough money to pay for these 18 players. This huge expense
will drive away many sponsors and may kill the US Championship
entirely.

Sam Sloan

A TRUE TEST OF SKILL

See Who Killed Round Robin? in Evans on Chess

http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules....rder=0&thold=0



samsloan wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by chessoffice Quote: Originally Posted by ken sloan Quote: Originally Posted by chessoffice Quote: Originally Posted by artichoke Quote: Originally Posted by chessoffice ... Reneging on promised qualifier status would be no more ethical than reneging on guaranteed cash prizes and might even be illegal. Some players travelled to the qualifying tournaments only because US Championship qualification was advertised. I'm not sure that the USCF as a whole defined these as qualifying tournaments. I think this reticence was because the arrangements for the Championship were never settled. Going forward, we should define a process whereby USCF or a representative designated for that purpose has the clear authority to offer such invitations. Most or all qualifying tournaments stated "a US Championship Qualifier" in the TLA and/or display ad in Chess Life, including national tournaments such as the US Open, National Open. and US Masters. I don't see how USCF could possibly justify revoking the qualifier status of a tournament held by USCF and advertised as a qualifier in USCF's magazine. Bill Goichberg Who was responsible for USCF making these promises in the first place? AF4C notified USCF regarding most of the qualifiers for 2007 in the fall of 2005 and these were routinely announced, as in previous years. Bill Goichberg

I have been avoiding the forum ever since Bill had me suspended from
posting here, but I cannot let this one pass.

At a meeting in Seattle in February, 2006, Bill Goichberg was informed
that AF4C was downgrading its involvement in the US Championship. Thus,
Bill knew by that date that AF4C would probably not be sponsoring the
2007 US Championship.

According to the contract with the Seattle Chess Foundation, now the
AF4C, they had 60 days after the conclusion of the 2006 US Championship
to declare an intention to sponsor the 2007 US Championship. The 2006
US Championship concluded on March 12, 2006. Thus, AF4C had until May
12, 2006 to state that it would be holding the 2007 US Championship.
When that date passed and AF4C has not exercised its option to sponsor
and organize the US Championship, Bill knew that they would probably
not do so.

At my first closed session of the board, which was on August 14, 2006,
I learned from Bill himself that Erik Anderson was not returning his
calls, not responding to his letters and Bill often did not even know
where Anderson was, yet publicly Bill led the players to believe that
AF4C sponsorship would still be forthcoming.

I have learned from a variety of sources that all along the relations
between Bill and AF4C have not been good. Bill has been pressing AF4C
to agree to more qualifiers. Realizing that each qualifier means more
money that AF4C will have to pay, they have been resistant to agree.

In recent months, Bill has been reporting on his negotiations with John
Henderson, implying that Henderson was the representative of AF4C.
However, Henderson works for ICC, not for AF4C. We were led to believe
that ICC was putting up $100,000 in sponsorship money. Now, with the
announcement that AF4C would not be sponsoring the US Championship,
Bill announced that ICC would still be willing to hold two online
qualifiers free of charge. Thus, we find out that ICC was never
planning to pay the USCF any money at all.

Several months ago Bill posted a list of qualifiers to the US
Championship on the uschess.org website. He implied that this list had
been provided and approved by AF4C. However, Bill knew that AF4C had
made no commitment to hold the US Championship and that the USCF had no
other sponsorship offers in the works.

In the last few days, Bill has suggested that it is because of Sam
Sloan (me) that "we the people" and AF4C pulled out of the 2007 US
Championship. However, neither organization had ever stated a
willingness or had ever agreed to sponsor the US Championship.

I was publicly reprimanded by Bill Goichberg and two other board
members, Joel Channing and Randy Hough, for stating facts in a private
email to the board that were subsequently proven to be true. Go back
and read what I was reprimanded for and you will be able to see that
what I wrote was exactly correct.

Two weeks ago I was suspended from posting to the USCF Forum on the
pretext that I had posted confidential information. Yet, the supposedly
objectionable posting did not reveal confidential information or indeed
any information at all. It simply asked a question. I have repeatedly
asked what information did it reveal. Bill has refused to answer
(claiming that the question has already been answered).

Now, the USCF faces a serious problem. Bill has qualified 18 players to
play in the US Championship who are not qualified by rating. Bill
insists that these 18 must be allowed to play. However, this will cost
a lot of money and we do not have any. You cannot squeeze blood from a
stone. Bill is demanding that any bidder for the US Championship must
provide enough money to pay for these 18 players. This huge expense
will drive away many sponsors and may kill the US Championship
entirely.

Sam Sloan

"samsloan" samhsloanBill is demanding that any bidder for the US
Championship must provide enough money to pay for these 18 players. This
huge expense
will drive away many sponsors and may kill the US Championship
entirely.


Why don't those 18 assholes pay their own way??

Bill Goichberg
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:39 pm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

samsloan wrote:
[Bill Goichberg] wrote:
[Kenneth Sloan] wrote:
[Bill Goichberg] wrote:
[David Quinn] wrote:
[Bill Goichberg] wrote:
... Reneging on promised qualifier status
would be no more ethical than reneging
on guaranteed cash prizes and might
even be illegal. Some players travelled
to
the qualifying tournaments only because
US Championship qualification was
advertised. I'm not sure that the USCF as
a whole defined these as qualifying
tournaments. I think this reticence was
because the arrangements for the
Championship were never settled.

Going forward, we should define a process
whereby USCF or a representative
designated for that purpose has the clear
authority to offer such invitations.

Most or all qualifying tournaments stated "a US
Championship Qualifier" in the TLA and/or
display ad in Chess Life, including national
tournaments such as the US Open, National
Open. and US Masters. I don't see how USCF
could possibly justify revoking the qualifier
status of a tournament held by USCF and
advertised as a qualifier in USCF's magazine.

Bill Goichberg

Who was responsible for USCF making these
promises in the first place?

AF4C notified USCF regarding most of the qualifiers for
2007 in the fall of 2005 and these were routinely
announced, as in previous years.

Bill Goichberg

I have been avoiding this forum ever since Bill had me
suspended from posting here, but I cannot let this one
pass.

At a meeting in Seattle in February, 2006, Bill Goichberg
was informed that AF4C was downgrading its involvement
in the US Championship. Thus, Bill knew by that date that
AF4C would probably not be sponsoring the 2007 US
Championship.

The purpose of this meeting was discuss details of the 2007
US Championship to be held by AF4C. All the discussion was
about how to do it; there was no talk about the possibility of
AF4C not holding it. I don't think anyone who attended
concluded that AF4C would probably not sponsor the 2007
Championship.

[samsloan wrote]:
According to the contract with the Seattle Chess
Foundation, now the AF4C, they had 60 days after the
conclusion of the 2006 US Championship to declare an
intention to sponsor the 2007 US Championship. The 2006
US Championship concluded on March 12, 2006. Thus,
AF4C had until May 12, 2006 to state that it would be
holding the 2007 US Championship. When that date
passed and AF4C has not exercised its option to sponsor
and organize the US Championship, Bill knew that they
would probably not do so.

Even at this point I believed they would probably sponsor the
Championship. Certainly they said nothing suggesting they
were considering pulling out, instead they said they needed
more time to talk to their new sponsor. After all the money
they put in during past years, I felt they should be given the
benefit of the doubt.

[samsloan wrote]:
At my first closed session of the board, which was on
August 14, 2006, I learned from Bill himself that Erik
Anderson was not returning his calls, not responding to
his letters and Bill often did not even know where
Anderson was, yet publicly Bill led the players to believe
that AF4C sponsorship would still be forthcoming.

I have learned from a variety of sources that all along the
relations between Bill and AF4C have not been good. Bill
has been pressing AF4C to agree to more qualifiers.
Realizing that each qualifier means more money that
AF4C will have to pay, they have been resistant to agree.

Erik Anderson is a very busy person. The previous year he
had John Henderson working on the Championship, but with
Henderson gone things proceeded very slowly.

Regarding the number of qualifiers, when I saw Erik was
uncertain about the amount of sponsorship, I suggested that
half the qualifiers be eliminated to save money and he
accepted this.

[samsloan wrote]:
In recent months, Bill has been reporting on his
negotiations with John Henderson, implying that
Henderson was the representative of AF4C.

No, I reported that Henderson now works for ICC, but that
AF4C had asked ICC to run the Championship, therefore
Henderson would again be the organizer.

[samsloan wrote]:
However, Henderson works for ICC, not for AF4C. We
were led to believe that ICC was putting up $100,000 in
sponsorship money. Now, with the announcement that
AF4C would not be sponsoring the US Championship,
Bill announced that ICC would still be willing to hold two
online qualifiers free of charge. Thus, we find out that ICC
was never planning to pay the USCF any money at all.

I never suggested that ICC was going to be the sponsor. It
was AF4C that was going to put up $100,000 and they asked
ICC to run the event for them.

[samsloan wrote]:
Several months ago Bill posted a list of qualifiers to the
US Championship on the uschess.org website. He implied
that this list had been provided and approved by AF4C.

Wrong as usual; I stated that my list was unofficial. This was
a forum post and it can be easily accessed.

[samsloan wrote]:
However, Bill knew that AF4C had made no commitment
to hold the US Championship and that the USCF had no
other sponsorship offers in the works.

In the last few days, Bill has suggested that it is because
of Sam Sloan (me) that "we the people" and AF4C pulled
out of the 2007 US Championship. However, neither
organization had ever stated a willingness or had agreed
to sponsor the US Championship.

AF4C stated this all year long, and in December things
seemed to be finally moving ahead with the announcement
of dates for the final qualifiers to be held by ICC and new
dates for the Championship itself. In late December,
Henderson told me that Anderson had asked him to write up
a proposal. Henderson did so and sent the proposal to
Anderson, and told me that Anderson agreed with it and
would send it on to USCF for our approval. However, Anderson
apparently then heard from his major sponsor that they had
done an internet search, found objectionable posts by Sam
Sloan and others, and were very concerned. A few days later,
it was announced that by mutual agreement between AF4C
and USCF, AF4C would not fund the 2007 Championship.

[samsloan wrote]:
I was publicly reprimanded by Bill Goichberg and two
other board members, Joel Channing and Randy Hough,
for stating facts in a private email to the board that were
subsequently proven to be true. Go back and read what I
was reprimanded for and you will be able to see that what
I wrote was exactly correct.

The censure was for many things, such as falsely claiming
that EB candidates had failed to pay their filing fees.

[samsloan wrote]:
Two weeks ago I was suspended from posting to this
forum on the pretext that I had posted confidential
information. Yet, the supposedly objectionable posting
did not reveal confidential information or indeed any
information at all. It simply asked a question. I have
repeatedly asked what information did it reveal. Bill has
refused to answer (claiming that the question has already
been answered.)

The question reflected knowledge of a national tournament
bid. Yes, you can argue that a question is not a revelation,
but the moderator felt that "Are you the one who is bidding
for..." addressed to the person who was in fact making such
a bid was inappropriate. Certainly that question would better
have been addressed to the ED, the Board, or even directly
by a private email to the bidder.

[samsloan wrote]:
Now, the USCF faces a serious problem. Bill has qualified
18 players to play in the US Championship who are not
qualified by rating. Bill insists that these 18 must be
allowed to play. However, this will cost a lot of money and
we do not have any. You cannot squeeze blood from a
stone. Bill is demanding that any bidder for the US
Championship must provide enough money to pay for
these 18 players. This huge expense will drive away many
sponsors and may kill the US Championship entirely.

I did not personally qualify players. I accepted the list AF4C
provided, but it didn't occur to anyone to question AF4C in
the fall of 2005 when they designated which events were
qualifiers for 2007; this had been happening for several years
without problems. The failure to exercise their option was
still at least 6 months in the future and came after the first
two qualifiers had already been held.

We have $25,000 already and can easily get enough more
in my opinion to get to $40,000 or $50,000. There is no
problem holding a 9-round Swiss with this money and
including all who qualified.

[samsloan wrote]:
Sam Sloan

Bill Goichberg
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:39 pm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

samsloan wrote:
[Bill Goichberg] wrote:
[Kenneth Sloan] wrote:
[Bill Goichberg] wrote:
[David Quinn] wrote:
[Bill Goichberg] wrote:
... Reneging on promised qualifier status
would be no more ethical than reneging
on guaranteed cash prizes and might
even be illegal. Some players travelled
to the qualifying tournaments only
because US Championship
qualification was advertised. I'm not
sure that the USCF as a whole defined
these as qualifying tournaments. I think
this reticence was because the
arrangements for the Championship
were never settled.

Going forward, we should define a process
whereby USCF or a representative
designated for that purpose has the clear
authority to offer such invitations.

Most or all qualifying tournaments stated "a US
Championship Qualifier" in the TLA and/or
display ad in Chess Life, including national
tournaments such as the US Open, National
Open. and US Masters. I don't see how USCF
could possibly justify revoking the qualifier
status of a tournament held by USCF and
advertised as a qualifier in USCF's magazine.

Bill Goichberg

Who was responsible for USCF making these
promises in the first place?

AF4C notified USCF regarding most of the qualifiers for
2007 in the fall of 2005 and these were routinely
announced, as in previous years.

Bill Goichberg

I have been avoiding this forum ever since Bill had me
suspended from posting here, but I cannot let this one
pass.

At a meeting in Seattle in February, 2006, Bill Goichberg
was informed that AF4C was downgrading its involvement
in the US Championship. Thus, Bill knew by that date that
AF4C would probably not be sponsoring the 2007 US
Championship.

The purpose of this meeting was discuss details of the 2007
US Championship to be held by AF4C. All the discussion was
about how to do it; there was no talk about the possibility of
AF4C not holding it. I don't think anyone who attended
concluded that AF4C would probably not sponsor the 2007
Championship.

[samsloan wrote]:
According to the contract with the Seattle Chess
Foundation, now the AF4C, they had 60 days after the
conclusion of the 2006 US Championship to declare an
intention to sponsor the 2007 US Championship. The 2006
US Championship concluded on March 12, 2006. Thus,
AF4C had until May 12, 2006 to state that it would be
holding the 2007 US Championship. When that date
passed and AF4C has not exercised its option to sponsor
and organize the US Championship, Bill knew that they
would probably not do so.

Even at this point I believed they would probably sponsor the
Championship. Certainly they said nothing suggesting they
were considering pulling out, instead they said they needed
more time to talk to their new sponsor. After all the money
they put in during past years, I felt they should be given the
benefit of the doubt.

[samsloan wrote]:
At my first closed session of the board, which was on
August 14, 2006, I learned from Bill himself that Erik
Anderson was not returning his calls, not responding to
his letters and Bill often did not even know where
Anderson was, yet publicly Bill led the players to believe
that AF4C sponsorship would still be forthcoming.

I have learned from a variety of sources that all along the
relations between Bill and AF4C have not been good. Bill
has been pressing AF4C to agree to more qualifiers.
Realizing that each qualifier means more money that
AF4C will have to pay, they have been resistant to agree.

Erik Anderson is a very busy person. The previous year he
had John Henderson working on the Championship, but with
Henderson gone things proceeded very slowly.

Regarding the number of qualifiers, when I saw Erik was
uncertain about the amount of sponsorship, I suggested that
half the qualifiers be eliminated to save money and he
accepted this.

[samsloan wrote]:
In recent months, Bill has been reporting on his
negotiations with John Henderson, implying that
Henderson was the representative of AF4C.

No, I reported that Henderson now works for ICC, but that
AF4C had asked ICC to run the Championship, therefore
Henderson would again be the organizer.

[samsloan wrote]:
However, Henderson works for ICC, not for AF4C. We
were led to believe that ICC was putting up $100,000 in
sponsorship money. Now, with the announcement that
AF4C would not be sponsoring the US Championship,
Bill announced that ICC would still be willing to hold two
online qualifiers free of charge. Thus, we find out that ICC
was never planning to pay the USCF any money at all.

I never suggested that ICC was going to be the sponsor. It
was AF4C that was going to put up $100,000 and they asked
ICC to run the event for them.

[samsloan wrote]:
Several months ago Bill posted a list of qualifiers to the
US Championship on the uschess.org website. He implied
that this list had been provided and approved by AF4C.

Wrong as usual; I stated that my list was unofficial. This was
a forum post and it can be easily accessed.

[samsloan wrote]:
However, Bill knew that AF4C had made no commitment
to hold the US Championship and that the USCF had no
other sponsorship offers in the works.

In the last few days, Bill has suggested that it is because
of Sam Sloan (me) that "we the people" and AF4C pulled
out of the 2007 US Championship. However, neither
organization had ever stated a willingness or had agreed
to sponsor the US Championship.

AF4C stated this all year long, and in December things
seemed to be finally moving ahead with the announcement
of dates for the final qualifiers to be held by ICC and new
dates for the Championship itself. In late December,
Henderson told me that Anderson had asked him to write up
a proposal. Henderson did so and sent the proposal to
Anderson, and told me that Anderson agreed with it and
would send it on to USCF for our approval. However, Anderson
apparently then heard from his major sponsor that they had
done an internet search, found objectionable posts by Sam
Sloan and others, and were very concerned. A few days later,
it was announced that by mutual agreement between AF4C
and USCF, AF4C would not fund the 2007 Championship.

[samsloan wrote]:
I was publicly reprimanded by Bill Goichberg and two
other board members, Joel Channing and Randy Hough,
for stating facts in a private email to the board that were
subsequently proven to be true. Go back and read what I
was reprimanded for and you will be able to see that what
I wrote was exactly correct.

The censure was for many things, such as falsely claiming
that EB candidates had failed to pay their filing fees.

[samsloan wrote]:
Two weeks ago I was suspended from posting to this
forum on the pretext that I had posted confidential
information. Yet, the supposedly objectionable posting
did not reveal confidential information or indeed any
information at all. It simply asked a question. I have
repeatedly asked what information did it reveal. Bill has
refused to answer (claiming that the question has already
been answered.)

The question reflected knowledge of a national tournament
bid. Yes, you can argue that a question is not a revelation,
but the moderator felt that "Are you the one who is bidding
for..." addressed to the person who was in fact making such
a bid was inappropriate. Certainly that question would better
have been addressed to the ED, the Board, or even directly
by a private email to the bidder.

[samsloan wrote]:
Now, the USCF faces a serious problem. Bill has qualified
18 players to play in the US Championship who are not
qualified by rating. Bill insists that these 18 must be
allowed to play. However, this will cost a lot of money and
we do not have any. You cannot squeeze blood from a
stone. Bill is demanding that any bidder for the US
Championship must provide enough money to pay for
these 18 players. This huge expense will drive away many
sponsors and may kill the US Championship entirely.

I did not personally qualify players. I accepted the list AF4C
provided, but it didn't occur to anyone to question AF4C in
the fall of 2005 when they designated which events were
qualifiers for 2007; this had been happening for several years
without problems. The failure to exercise their option was
still at least 6 months in the future and came after the first
two qualifiers had already been held.

We have $25,000 already and can easily get enough more
in my opinion to get to $40,000 or $50,000. There is no
problem holding a 9-round Swiss with this money and
including all who qualified.

[samsloan wrote]:
Sam Sloan