MY CHESS PICKS

Here are my picks for the Executive Board in the current
election:

1. Sam Sloan (by about 70 political lengths);

2. Paul Truong;

3. Mike Goodall;

4. Stephen Jones or Joe Lux.

Mr. Sloan has been the most effective USCF Board
member in decades. If you wish to continue knowing
what the powerbrokers are doing, then you must vote
for Sam. If you prefer secrecy, there are other
candidates running who will do their level best to
blanket scandals with darkness. This past year, Sam
has acted as a beacon unto our USCF chess nations.

FURTHER, I HAVE INDEPENDENT CONFIRMATION OF SAM'S
CHARGE THAT ALTHOUGH THE BALANCE SHEETS WILL LOOK FINE
FOR THE UPCOMING DELEGATES' MEETING, THESE ACCOUNTS
WILL BE REWORKED TO SHOW THEIR TRUE STATE IN SEPTEMBER
-- AND THEY WILL LIKELY SHOW A SUBSTANTIAL SIX-FIGURE LOSS.

Paul Truong is one of the most successful chess
organizers and promoters in America. One member of
the Truong-Polgar chess team deserves to be on the
Executive Board. I prefer Paul because Susan would
dissipate her chess energies and likely ruin her chess
businesses by getting trussed up in chess politics.
We all HAVE finite limits on our energy, and Susan
would soon wish she were anywhere but at the heart of
Federation politics. Let her remain within chess
society rather than ruin her chess life by entering
chess governance.

Along with Sam Sloan, Mike Goodall strongly opposes drug
testing in chess and, I believe, the trend toward
extending damnable social snooping into our world of
chess. Mike has been a very successful California and
Western states organizer, and he has reached that
point in his life where his experience would serve him
well at the summit of chess politics.

Stephen Jones or Joe Lux make sense to me
because they make sense to several individuals whose
judgment seems okay. I know little about either man
and rely on good words spoken by some knowledgable
people. That is an inadequate basis to support
candidates, except by eliminating others who are less adequate.

What about Don Schultz? This old bottle of
chess wine, whose vintage has improved over the years,
needs to be opened and poured into a decanter other
than chess politics. Let him return to organizational work.

A note of appreciation for "Schultzie," as
Arnold Denker used to call him: he has cast some
votes during the past year that have likely irked his
friend Joel Channing, a successful Florida building
developer who has a powerful physical presence and
personality. Don is a man who finds such
confrontations to be highly unpleasant. One hesitates
ever to use the word, "courage," when discussing
conduct in the area of chess politics, but Schultzie
has acted in what is for him a brave fashion. That is
not condescension; it is a statement of fact.

Finally, a word about Bill Goichberg's political
postcard. Paul and Susan Truong are taken to task for
keeping their marriage between themselves as long as
possible. I find the fact that they are married and
wished to keep the matter private to speak favorably
of these two. I can still recollect a former USCF
president carrying his baby or perhaps leading his
toddler among the tables at the annual USCF Awards
luncheon. That scene, which involved trading on one's
own child, was distasteful.

The official line of attack against the Truong
couple is that they spoke of transparency and honesty
in Federation affairs while keeping their married life
to themselves. I find that linkage laughable.

Yours, Larry Parr

This is a very fair post by Larry Parr, which nevertheless needs contest. It
is fair [meaning 'good' in English] since it attends to issues, and besides
[a small point, alas] is better than what anyone else has wrote

wrote in message
oups.com...
MY CHESS PICKS

Here are my picks for the Executive Board in the current
election:

1. Sam Sloan (by about 70 political lengths);

2. Paul Truong;

3. Mike Goodall;

4. Stephen Jones or Joe Lux.

Mr. Sloan has been the most effective USCF Board
member in decades. If you wish to continue knowing
what the powerbrokers are doing, then you must vote
for Sam.

And this is true. Sam Slaon is more likely to expose what anyone is saying
than anyone else in office or pretending to it.

If you prefer secrecy, there are other
candidates running who will do their level best to
blanket scandals with darkness. This past year, Sam
has acted as a beacon unto our USCF chess nations.

While my own views on the efficacy of Mr Sloan's progress and discrimination
are well known here, which is to say, that other problems relating to mr
sloan's behavior are less than well examined, even to the extent that they
offset the first point above... and I should mention a certain cowardice in
his behavior in proposing so much open speculation about others while being
coy about his own! These remarks seem at a minimum required to evaluate the
worth of Sam Sloan.

If what I say is true, then he has no more than raised issues which we all
knew were distinctly odd - though he has raised them in some detail so that
we assuredly know they are odd. What he has been able to achieve on
resolving such oddness is as unclear as his own predeliction to suppose
negatively on every subject and person related to it - a pathology, I ask
you to accept - which precludes Slaon taking part in any solution of the
positied problem.

FURTHER, I HAVE INDEPENDENT CONFIRMATION OF SAM'S
CHARGE THAT ALTHOUGH THE BALANCE SHEETS WILL LOOK FINE
FOR THE UPCOMING DELEGATES' MEETING, THESE ACCOUNTS
WILL BE REWORKED TO SHOW THEIR TRUE STATE IN SEPTEMBER
-- AND THEY WILL LIKELY SHOW A SUBSTANTIAL SIX-FIGURE LOSS.

I knew this last December. It was plain to see from Alarie that only
extraordinary change of fortune [ex cathehra too] could turn the negative
financial tide.

That Sam Sloan wakes up to the writing on the wall 5 months later is not
extraordinarily to his credit.

Paul Truong is one of the most successful chess
organizers and promoters in America. One member of
the Truong-Polgar chess team deserves to be on the
Executive Board. I prefer Paul because Susan would
dissipate her chess energies and likely ruin her chess
businesses by getting trussed up in chess politics.

You know, Larry, at the back-end of one of those NiC's, Garry offers an
apologic reason for his column; to reflect the reality that half is politics
and half chess, he said. Though I have been reading that for 10 years for
East and West, from Khalifman to Evans.It is hardly a minor point and since
Su Polgar has already hit all the top spots that seem possible, she has
shifted to wanting to find who and how to encourage les autres.

Nolens Volens! You are in the right of it, and to question a GM who wants to
do chess-politics while still active in the chess world is a very fair
point - and there are few precedents, eh? I wrote with J. Lautier some, and
he is no exception.

We all HAVE finite limits on our energy, and Susan
would soon wish she were anywhere but at the heart of
Federation politics. Let her remain within chess
society rather than ruin her chess life by entering
chess governance.

The very sad thing about the current scene is this divorce between anodyne
administrators and the heart and soul of the game as represented by its
betetr players. What the public thinks of this divorce is clear! I think
they consider it as disgusting as that rogue who rules over all of us from
Kalmykia, and where chess is just a world wide business and politcal
platform for his non-democratic self.

That's why Fide sucks, and why USCF sucks too. We all know it. The only
[horrible] question we have is what strong player will we throw into this
mill to sort it out?

Along with Sam Sloan, Mike Goodall strongly opposes drug
testing in chess and, I believe, the trend toward
extending damnable social snooping into our world of
chess. Mike has been a very successful California and
Western states organizer, and he has reached that
point in his life where his experience would serve him
well at the summit of chess politics.

What I would like to see for scholastics are parents voting what they would
like. If messers Goodall and Sloan could pass a minimum test - that is, a
highschool level background check - then I would consider their opinions
with more weight that those of just ideas - especially if he [Mike G] would
take the challenge of meeting with those who speak of what is not okay with
scholastic chess. Slaon will speak with no one, and to no subject.

I would reject him for this reason alone from having anything whatever to do
with children. So would my every neighbour, whether chess or baseball is the
subject.

Stephen Jones or Joe Lux make sense to me
because they make sense to several individuals whose
judgment seems okay. I know little about either man
and rely on good words spoken by some knowledgable
people. That is an inadequate basis to support
candidates, except by eliminating others who are less adequate.

I don't know either gent either to warrant any comment.

What about Don Schultz? This old bottle of
chess wine, whose vintage has improved over the years,
needs to be opened and poured into a decanter other
than chess politics. Let him return to organizational work.

Yes - he has done stuff for chess, and has perhaps been unfortunate in not
being surrounded by those of equal stuff. Though Don's ideas are now
exhausted, and in my last exchange with him he could only recommend himself
by some rules measure he suggested over 10 years ago [not adopted] and in
terms of the main market, scholastics, by thinking that more 'jackets' will
get em in and keep em.

This is too slighting to the gent as an overall record - and the question
must be, as some wag put it - of how to now engage younger people at USCF
who might provide a platform for the future, rather than continue to run
affairs as if it were 1985.

A note of appreciation for "Schultzie," as
Arnold Denker used to call him: he has cast some
votes during the past year that have likely irked his
friend Joel Channing, a successful Florida building
developer who has a powerful physical presence and
personality. Don is a man who finds such
confrontations to be highly unpleasant.

I think this is rather besides the point that Mr. Channing is rather
dependent on Mr. Schultz for his opinion, and had not actually broken out
into chess as the rest of us see it, and is rather stuck on his mentor. In
other words, a cypher.

Having said what I have about Don Schultz, which not to hide it, is the same
as my review of his book Chess Don - what changed from start to finish? I
could not conclude that anything had as result of American chess-politcs in
the post-Fischer era.

One hesitates
ever to use the word, "courage," when discussing
conduct in the area of chess politics, but Schultzie
has acted in what is for him a brave fashion. That is
not condescension; it is a statement of fact.

You know him better than I.
But I tell you - no ideas now, no evident energy, influence, and frankly,
its time for the gent to retire with dignity in having given it his best
shot for a quarter decade, and more than anyone else.

But the brutal reality is that we have a chess federation on the skids in
2007: without international ally in the world, financially hand to mouth
every year, no sponsors still, and ethically appaling!

Abandoned of their mission[ scoffed at in private, sometimes publicly too]
and still acting like a New York City dining club of 1899 which excludes
Jews and blacks and certainly all women, and other such persons! A private
member network of good-ol-boys, presiding over the dust, the nothing, of the
past quarter century.

Finally, a word about Bill Goichberg's political
postcard. Paul and Susan Truong are taken to task for
keeping their marriage between themselves as long as
possible. I find the fact that they are married and
wished to keep the matter private to speak favorably
of these two.

It has not been any secret to friends. How interesting that the issue should
now arise, and just about them!

I can still recollect a former USCF
president carrying his baby or perhaps leading his
toddler among the tables at the annual USCF Awards
luncheon. That scene, which involved trading on one's
own child, was distasteful.

The official line of attack against the Truong
couple is that they spoke of transparency and honesty
in Federation affairs while keeping their married life
to themselves. I find that linkage laughable.

It is an American disease - to demand the latest revelation of all public
figures, as if... as if what? What exactly does it mean to other people?
Would they want the same eyes looking into their own lives?

Of couse not! People would shun it! And so they bloody well should.

Phil Innes

Yours, Larry Parr

wrote in message
oups.com...
MY CHESS PICKS

Here are my picks for the Executive Board in the current
election:

1. Sam Sloan (by about 70 political lengths);


You are not a USCF member, so why should we care who you pick?
Of course you'll pick your buddy, Sam Sloan (why by the way has
horrendous body odor - further indicitive of his sloppy and lazy
personality), you have no meat in the game. Stick to picking
your nose instead. That's a good boy.

As a USCF member, I am not going to vote for Sam Sloan the asshole
pervert.


Yours, Larry Parr


No you're not.

On Jun 9, 2:25 pm, "Chess Freak" wrote:

Here are my picks for the Executive Board in the current
election:

1. Sam Sloan (by about 70 political lengths);

You are not a USCF member, so why should we care who you pick?

Who are the "we"?


Of course you'll pick your buddy, Sam Sloan (why by the way has
horrendous body odor - further indicitive of his sloppy and lazy
personality), you have no meat in the game. Stick to picking
your nose instead. That's a good boy.

As a USCF member, I am not going to vote for Sam Sloan the asshole
pervert.


Actually, as a mere USCF member, you can't vote
for anyone; unless they have dramatically changed the
procedures, only USCF *delegates* may vote.

-- help bot

help bot writes:
Actually, as a mere USCF member, you can't vote
for anyone; unless they have dramatically changed the
procedures, only USCF *delegates* may vote.

Welcome to 2007.

On Jun 9, 11:35 pm, Paul Rubin wrote:
help bot writes:
Actually, as a mere USCF member, you can't vote
for anyone; unless they have dramatically changed the
procedures, only USCF *delegates* may vote.

Welcome to 2007.

Are you saying that if I were to rejoin the USCF, I could
now vote to decide which idiots will run the show?

And is it really 2007 already? I thought something was
up when I noticed that the TV networks had finally stopped
showing reruns of Gilligan's Island, but I never suspected
we would actually make it to the new millenium, the age
of Aquarius. Does this mean they won't be bringing back
Hogan's Heroes or Green Acres either? Dagnabbit!

-- help bot

WELCOME TO 2007

Actually, as a mere USCF member, you can't vote
for anyone; unless they have dramatically changed the
procedures, only USCF *delegates* may vote. -- help bot

As many of us have discovered over the years, trying to educate Greg
Kennedy about chess is a well-nigh impossible task,

On Jun 10, 6:07 pm, " wrote:
WELCOME TO 2007

Actually, as a mere USCF member, you can't vote

for anyone; unless they have dramatically changed the
procedures, only USCF *delegates* may vote. -- help bot

As many of us have discovered over the years, trying to educate Greg
Kennedy about chess is a well-nigh impossible task,

I voted 11 times. Any USCF member can vote. If you don't like the
USCF, BUY MORE MEMEBRSHIPS.

Marcus Roberts
former USCF Vice President

On Jun 10, 9:18 pm, wrote:

I voted 11 times. Any USCF member can vote. If you don't like the
USCF, BUY MORE MEMEBRSHIPS.

How would purchasing more memberships in any way
aid someone who does *not* like the USCF?

IMO, that would only exacerbate the problem by
enabling the idiots who run the show via financial
aid. No, I am going to just continue my fight by
occasionally blundering, just as I always have.
This serves to promote weaker players unjustly,
and with weak players doing well, it is only a
matter of time before they take control of the
USCF. Once in power, the patzers will inevitably
*find some way* to destroy the USCF, just as
they inevitably find ways to destroy their positions
in chess games.

This is also why I am voting for Rob Mitchel and
Sam Sloan.

-- help bot

help bot wrote:

On Jun 10, 9:18 pm, wrote:

I voted 11 times. Any USCF member can vote. If you don't like the
USCF, BUY MORE MEMEBRSHIPS.

How would purchasing more memberships in any way
aid someone who does *not* like the USCF?

Are you really such a dufus 'cornbot'? it would seem that Mr.Multi is
insinuating the more memberships you buy the more entitlement you have
to vote this **** *in* or that **** *out* - no?..