On Jun 25, 1:00 pm, samsloan wrote:
On Jun 25, 11:01 am, The Historian wrote:

On Jun 25, 8:34 am, "Chess One" wrote:

shouting your mouth off on usenet in good old Sloan-style as if you, and you
alone, were the Lone Ranger...

I stopped posting here a while ago, but I thought I'd come back for a
visit. The Nearly an IM 2450 still has no sense of irony, I see.

Goodness. "The Historian" is back and Stan Vaughan too! I thought we
had finally gotten rid of both of them.

Please don't stay too long.

No, it's just a short visit. All the interesting posters have left,
probably to avoid the 'morning toast' that Innes and you routinely
leave floating behind. Mitchell is the little fish that likes to
nibble it.

On Jun 26, 4:03 am, The Historian wrote:
On Jun 25, 1:00 pm, samsloan wrote:

On Jun 25, 11:01 am, The Historian wrote:

On Jun 25, 8:34 am, "Chess One" wrote:

shouting your mouth off on usenet in good old Sloan-style as if you, and you
alone, were the Lone Ranger...

I stopped posting here a while ago, but I thought I'd come back for a
visit. The Nearly an IM 2450 still has no sense of irony, I see.

Goodness. "The Historian" is back and Stan Vaughan too! I thought we
had finally gotten rid of both of them.

Please don't stay too long.

No, it's just a short visit. All the interesting posters have left,
probably to avoid the 'morning toast' that Innes and you routinely
leave floating behind. Mitchell is the little fish that likes to
nibble it.

Really? gee.. already back and a response to a civil comment to you is
met with more venom. So predictable. Why should one expect your new
diet to have changed your disposition?

Chess One wrote:
What constitutes a real agenda for USCF's prime mission and reason
to exist?

Your subject line referred to an `Agenda for Chess', not an `Agenda
for the USCF.' Please bear in mind that chess is played outside the
USA, every once in a while. I hear there's even the occasional non-
American World Champion, these days!


Dave.

--
David Richerby Accelerated Carnivorous Boss (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a middle manager but it's
full of teeth and twice as fast!

"Rob" wrote in message
ups.com...

Really? gee.. already back and a response to a civil comment to you is
met with more venom. So predictable. Why should one expect your new
diet to have changed your disposition?

Just like the who cares for kids thread, Rob, you can see who wants to bury
that subject and this one too. And to be fair to anyone, they can be having
a bad year resulting from their complete narcissistic cynicism - but for 5
years?

Like Sloan, its not worth attending to such personalities [which is all they
want] except to contrast them with how much they bring to any subject - and
Usenet is a prime medium for cranks who hate other people's agendas since
they gave up on their own

I am, with grim amusement, observing who actually can bring themselves to
consider anything other than their own preferences and consider the welfare
of others - this is most marked when the subject of children in chess is
raised - but in almost all cases there is submerged personal ambition
inserted as substitute for what we normally call common decency.

Cordially, Phil

"David Richerby" wrote in message
...
Chess One wrote:
What constitutes a real agenda for USCF's prime mission and reason
to exist?

Your subject line referred to an `Agenda for Chess', not an `Agenda
for the USCF.' Please bear in mind that chess is played outside the
USA, every once in a while. I hear there's even the occasional non-
American World Champion, these days!

Read Nigel Short's comments about Fide internationally - I thought it worth
mentioning this Brit's opinion in the same place I wrote mine.

Phil Innes


Dave.

--
David Richerby Accelerated Carnivorous Boss
(TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a middle manager but
it's
full of teeth and twice as fast!

Chess One wrote:
Usenet is a prime medium for cranks who hate other people's agendas since
they gave up on their own


Irony alert.

--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

On Jun 27, 4:04 pm, Kenneth Sloan wrote:
Chess One wrote:
Usenet is a prime medium for cranks who hate other people's agendas since
they gave up on their own

Irony alert.

Yes, that's a good one. But this one is almost as ironic coming from
the Nearly an IM 2450:

"...there is submerged personal ambition
inserted as substitute for what we normally call common decency."

On Jun 28, 12:16 am, The Historian wrote:
On Jun 27, 4:04 pm, Kenneth Sloan wrote:

Chess One wrote:
Usenet is a prime medium for cranks who hate other people's agendas since
they gave up on their own

Irony alert.

Yes, that's a good one. But this one is almost as ironic coming from
the Nearly an IM 2450:

"...there is submerged personal ambition
inserted as substitute for what we normally call common decency."


I have often written about the failures of, say, the strongest
chess programs or for another example, Gary Kasparov, who
has a decided tendency to lie and cheat; but in every case
it must be understood that my pointing out these things in
no way implies that I am "superior" or "immune" to similar
blunders. Here we have a case where nearly-an-IM Innes has
made an astute observation, and yet is being chastised for his
hypocrisy; I wonder how much his message is being missed
for want of a "perfect" messenger?

This is a subject which has been touched upon before. A
while back, the 2450-rated nearly-an-IMpostor suggested
that his old pal, Larry Parr, was some sort of advocate of
what he liked to call an agenda; that the fellow simply did
what he does out of a strong desire to push for certain things
and further, to use LP's own words: "that's what serious people
do". Trouble is, a truly serious "advocate" would not want to
compromise his chances for success by bogging his agenda
down in petty personal attacks, which tend to muddy both
the adversary and his attacker. This is, in part, why I can't
take such arguments seriously, and why I don't consider
any of the Evans ratpackers to be serious "advocates", but
merely embarrassments to whatever side they choose to
take on a given issue.

My take on this issue is that Mr. Innes seems to exhibit
genuine concern, possibly on account of being a father and
thus feeling a bit protective. But being at best a mere
member of the USCF, what can he accomplish here? Not
much, apart from stabbing away at Sam Sloan, now and
again. If anything substantive is accomplished in this field,
I have a feeling it will be done by those with real power, by
someone like this Stan V. Mr. Sloan talks about, or a Bill
Goichberg type tournament organizer. Or maybe through
the federal government. The goings on here in rgc seem to
accomplish very, very little.

-- help bot

"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...

My take on this issue is that Mr. Innes seems to exhibit
genuine concern, possibly on account of being a father and
thus feeling a bit protective. But being at best a mere
member of the USCF, what can he accomplish here?

This is an honest question, but surely the question is what others are doing
writing 'here' in a chess politics newsgroup when they make no positive
contribution to the subject? Cynicism is an attempted means to negate a
subject by the writer - a pretence that they don't care ~ an obvious
nonsense since they care sufficiently to be negative all the time.

Rather than see myself as in any way eccentric, I feel I express what a
majority of people feel, and at least I can claim more readership than USCF.

Over the past year we [in these twin newsgroups politics and misc] have seem
off a bunch of dizzy people obsessed with their [usually] anonymous views,
mostly by challenging their absolute qualities, as their writers would
prefer them to be seen - usually to reveal that these are personal
preferences and ideosyncracies.

I have been writing about chess in the USA, and if USCF turns a blind eye to
any and all standards, then their are certain signs [even from within it!]
that next year there will be something to compare it to. Then USCF won't be
the only outfit around, and instead of My Federation Right or Wrong [an
infamous formation, not worth response] then its // behavior // can be
assessed in comparison to something else!


Not
much, apart from stabbing away at Sam Sloan, now and
again. If anything substantive is accomplished in this field,
I have a feeling it will be done by those with real power, by
someone like this Stan V. Mr. Sloan talks about, or a Bill
Goichberg type tournament organizer. Or maybe through
the federal government. The goings on here in rgc seem to
accomplish very, very little.

-- help bot

On the contrary - the goings on here comprises [despite all the 'noise'] the
only forum where there is no censorship - and lack of substantive
conversation only occurs to people who perhaps seem like they have nothing
to say?

Those who have would likely aver this preamble to the agenda I suggested, an
agenda actually generated by those who do care for American chess.

THIS YEAR'S ELECTION

With a month to go before the USCF Elections, the excitement is doddering.
But - there will be only one result, whichever way the election goes. If
things continue as they are, the future of USCF is grim indeed, especially
if the recharged interest from the chess public is not sufficiently
represented in the election - then USCF might find itself met with a
substantial competitor in a new rival organization. That's the context this
year; not for the business-as-usual next few years, but as the base for the
next few decades.
The current electioneering process goes like this: On the one hand there is
an incumbent board member who is content to raise no less than 3 scandals
/per day/ about other candidates, [and answer nothing about himself] and the
other board members who make statements to no one in particular as if
addressing questions put to them, but are really speeches which can only be
called 'cute' rather than 'compelling'.

On the other hand, there is a group who were content to discuss very
difficult questions about USCF's future, and answer in detailed writing;
questions that cannot be considered easy or convenient and which focus on
the foundations of American chess for the C21st, rather than any status-quo
issues, or about personalities.

Some incumbents seem to be running on their records - a rather dubious
strategy even though they say them about themselves in the best possible
light, considering two years of straight 6-figure loses, plus declining
memberships, and even loss of control of the two most important scholastic
events in the country to other groups who could do better for young players!

It must also be a considerable factor that the current board is too old -
and such ventures as they take on are on such a small scale as would be left
to the zest of a competent mid-level office manager in any normal business.

This year saw a last-minute save by Frank Berry of the national
championship, and it now seems clear that without that generous contribution
there would have been no championship at all, even though the writing was
clearly on the wall 12 months beforehand.

What constitutes a real agenda for USCF's prime mission and reason to exist?



Phil Innes

Here it is again - we have heard from the peanut gallery, elsewhere most of
these items are being taken rather more seriously wink I contend there is
nothing untrue in what follows, and as in the previous post suggest that if,
say, another organisation should adopt similar foundation stones, which
outfit would you join, given a choice ~other things being equal? // Phil
Innes



What constitutes a real agenda for USCF's prime mission and reason to exist?
The following factors seem like key elements in the mix:

1.. Penetration of the mainstream education market.

2.. Consistent entry into mainstream media attention.

3.. Successful partnering with sponsors and joint-initiative entities,
which are neither sacrifices, nor make a monkey of the game.

4.. Insulating paid staff from consistent invasive and secret meddling
from the board, and empowering them to do 'do-able' jobs competently.

5.. Clarification of the roles and responsibilities of staff and board,
especially the relationship between Executive Director and Board President.

6.. Serious attention paid to America's investment in its own chessic
future, which means attending to its chess youth by both making adequate
financial and pedagogic provisions for their study of the game.

7.. Instituting standards of personal behavior which would, at a minimum,
be necessary in any High-School background check - otherwise such persons as
would not pass that standard, or decline to be audited, should formally have
naught to do with young chess players.

8.. Formal dispute management resolutions should be objectivized by
inclusion of an independent Ombudsman to resolve conflicts between USCF
members and other contracting parties to the organization.

9.. Competency-testing standards should be instituted for paid and un-paid
staff alike, so that at minimum people understand and assent to what is
asked of them, and their performance can be assessed.

NONE of the above are in the least unusual in non-profit or for-profit
business, and NONE of the above currently exist at USCF.

As a platform for the future, making substance of these missing issues allow
American chess some real planks to stand on. The alternative is more a dizzy
tight-rope acts by would-be virtuoso personalities, and that stratagem is
now a failed one these past 25 years.