The new USCF board

On Jul 30, 3:13 am, Bruce wrote:

Congrats to the winners. My big question is what exactly is going to
get better about USCF? I think the only thing that finally happened
that I can see is that USCF finally got out of upstate New York,
finally ditched the huge payroll boondoggle and finally started facing
reality that it is a mostly shrinking organization filled with mostly
people who think they are way more important than they really are.

Boy, you have been gone for a long time, have you? Otherwise you would
know that the payroll is higher in Crossville that it was in new
Windsor. In almost every case, the new hires in Crossville are being
paid most than the people they replaced who were laid off in New
windsor.

The political players now are the same ones mostly that have been
around since 2004 when I left here. Truong, Polgar, Goichberg. Even
Sloan and Bauer are political insiders now. I heard that Sloan won
because Leroy Dubeck backed him in the last election and everyone
thought let's give Sloan a chance what do we have to lose? So Sam got
the "What do we have to lose?" vote last year, but this year he got
the "What the hell were we thinking vote?"

Not true. The people who keep saying that are the people who dislike
me or Mr. Dubeck. I never spoke to Mr. Dubeck last year on any
subject. I was shocked when I heard through the grapevine that he had
recommended to the NJ State board that they vote for me. However,
looking at the election results it easy to see that at very most, Dr.
Dubeck's support got me 40 votes in New Jersey, which was not enough
to change the election results because I finished 80 votes ahead of
the third place finisher Mike Goodall and 250 votes ahead of the
darling of the insider establishment Grant Perks.

Sam Sloan

In answer to "Corplawyer", who wrote of rated and non-rated chess;-


U.S. Chess needs both categories:

The second, to keep it afloat.

The first, to make it interesting.

---
I agree - even if the first category of blitz or non-ratable chess serves no
other purpose than to get people into the ratable-category. Should we dare
separate chess playing from ratable chess, the ratios of interest approach
extremes. Larry Evans estimated that 40 million Americans play chess at some
sort of level - and the comparison is with [of adults] 15,000 who play any
rated chess, and only 7,500 who play more than at a provisional level.

Ratable chess isn't what even active and strong players do most of the
time - which is typically to play somewhat faster, at 20, 10 or 5 mins, at
clubs or on-line, and quite evidently [just from ICC's online membership]
the ratios are still extreme, of games played, being something in the order
of 1 :: 10,000.

Now - while I do not [please note] argue that rated chess is in any way
unworthy of our attention - in fact the opposite, see below: for any
federation to only base its fortunes on that horrible ratio, which is
incidentally a stable one, or even mildly declining, is not to place itself
anywhere near the centre of chess activity in the country, since 'serious
player' has at least the other meaning of those who play very much - and is
not even a fair indicator of playing strength.

NEW BOARD'S Re-ORIENTATION

Where I strongly support some of Delegate Johnson's ideas about the worth of
rated chess, is from the experience of that in England, which per capita,
has massively outperformed US in %age of active players, and all the rest,
including the generation of GMs. The distinction between US and UK is not
serious rated club-chess as such, but //interclub chess leagues//.

They hardly exist in this country [perhaps are even impossible?] and the
isolation of chess clubs with only internal formats for attendees does not,
by any evidence, produce or evolve home-grown talent. Furthermore, but
almost finally, federating the entire country's chess activity around this
very questionable foundation, is seen heretofore to be a POLITICAL means of
establishing individuals in national chess management, rather than any
objective form of worth as answer to the question; "What forwards us?"

Cordially, Phil Innes

On Jul 30, 7:38 am, samsloan wrote:
On Jul 30, 3:13 am, Bruce wrote:

Congrats to the winners. My big question is what exactly is going to
get better about USCF? I think the only thing that finally happened
that I can see is that USCF finally got out of upstate New York,
finally ditched the huge payroll boondoggle and finally started facing
reality that it is a mostly shrinking organization filled with mostly
people who think they are way more important than they really are.



Boy, you have been gone for a long time, have you? Otherwise you would
know that the payroll is higher in Crossville that it was in new
Windsor. In almost every case, the new hires in Crossville are being
paid most than the people they replaced who were laid off in New
windsor.

If it is.... prove it. Don't just spout it off without providing
proof.


The political players now are the same ones mostly that have been
around since 2004 when I left here. Truong, Polgar, Goichberg. Even
Sloan and Bauer are political insiders now. I heard that Sloan won
because Leroy Dubeck backed him in the last election and everyone
thought let's give Sloan a chance what do we have to lose? So Sam got
the "What do we have to lose?" vote last year, but this year he got
the "What the hell were we thinking vote?"

Not true. The people who keep saying that are the people who dislike
me or Mr. Dubeck. I never spoke to Mr. Dubeck last year on any
subject. I was shocked when I heard through the grapevine that he had
recommended to the NJ State board that they vote for me. However,
looking at the election results it easy to see that at very most, Dr.
Dubeck's support got me 40 votes in New Jersey, which was not enough
to change the election results because I finished 80 votes ahead of
the third place finisher Mike Goodall and 250 votes ahead of the
darling of the insider establishment Grant Perks.

Love it... the "what were we thinking vote" was one of the most
accurate descriptions I have heard. Voting in Sloan was akin to
applying "leeches" and "blood letting" of bygone days!


Sam Sloan

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 07:07:19 -0700, Rob wrote:

On Jul 30, 7:38 am, samsloan wrote:
On Jul 30, 3:13 am, Bruce wrote:

Congrats to the winners. My big question is what exactly is going to
get better about USCF? I think the only thing that finally happened
that I can see is that USCF finally got out of upstate New York,
finally ditched the huge payroll boondoggle and finally started facing
reality that it is a mostly shrinking organization filled with mostly
people who think they are way more important than they really are.



Boy, you have been gone for a long time, have you? Otherwise you would
know that the payroll is higher in Crossville that it was in new
Windsor. In almost every case, the new hires in Crossville are being
paid most than the people they replaced who were laid off in New
windsor.

If it is.... prove it. Don't just spout it off without providing
proof.


The political players now are the same ones mostly that have been
around since 2004 when I left here. Truong, Polgar, Goichberg. Even
Sloan and Bauer are political insiders now. I heard that Sloan won
because Leroy Dubeck backed him in the last election and everyone
thought let's give Sloan a chance what do we have to lose? So Sam got
the "What do we have to lose?" vote last year, but this year he got
the "What the hell were we thinking vote?"

Not true. The people who keep saying that are the people who dislike
me or Mr. Dubeck. I never spoke to Mr. Dubeck last year on any
subject. I was shocked when I heard through the grapevine that he had
recommended to the NJ State board that they vote for me. However,
looking at the election results it easy to see that at very most, Dr.
Dubeck's support got me 40 votes in New Jersey, which was not enough
to change the election results because I finished 80 votes ahead of
the third place finisher Mike Goodall and 250 votes ahead of the
darling of the insider establishment Grant Perks.

Love it... the "what were we thinking vote" was one of the most
accurate descriptions I have heard. Voting in Sloan was akin to
applying "leeches" and "blood letting" of bygone days!


Sam Sloan

'Leech' isn't an accurate description for Sloan - 'Dung Beetle' is
much better.

On Jul 30, 7:00 am, "Chess One" wrote:
Anyone who can write about "Bob Dyland" is excused any blame ))

He wrote "Mr. Tamburine Man" for the Birds, a bad chess opening but a
Beatles' inspired pop song.

Hey Jude, imagine across the universe, here there and everywhere
Michelle, Eleanor Rigby, Julia, lovely Rita, Mrs. Vanderbilt, lady
madonna, Sgt. Pepper and Lucy in the sky with diamonds twist and shout
give peace a chance, come together... let it be.

On Jul 30, 7:00 am, "Chess One" wrote:
Anyone who can write about "Bob Dyland" is excused any blame ))

He wrote "Mr. Tamburine Man" for the Birds, a bad chess opening but a
Beatles' inspired pop song like the following:

Hey Jude, imagine, across the universe, here there and everywhere
Michelle, Eleanor Rigby, Julia, lovely Rita, Mrs. Vanderbilt, lady
madonna, Sgt. Pepper and Lucy in the sky with diamonds, twist and
shout,
give peace a chance...come together...let it be.

On Jul 27, 1:28 am, " wrote:
POLITICAL ANALYSIS

I have been on the transpacific blower and
exchanging e-mails with some Federation politerati.
Here is some of what I have heard:

1. A long-time California USCF observer figures
that the schism among members of the oligarchy or, as
he puts it, "the club," had everyone fighting so much
that they failed to notice an invasion from outer
space. In this rendering, Susan Polgar and Paul
Truong are the space invaders.

2. This same California observer believes that
Bill Goichberg could win reelection as president,
though Jim Berry is a definite candidate for the
office. \o bet on either Goichberg or Berry -- a view
that I also heard from an observer in New York, who is
on the inside.

3. What about the Polgar-Truong mandate? I buy
Sam Sloan's analysis that Randy Bauer and Jim Berry
owe a lot to Polgar. Their victories, though they
would rightly insist on serving as their own men,
reinforce rather than detract from the Polgar-Truong
mandate.

My New York observer states that the mandate will
be ignored COMPLETELY by a Board majority. Bauer has
pledged not to support anyone as president who has not
previously served on the Board, which likely
eliminates both Polgar and Truong from the presidency.

4. A third observer, who is friendly enough with
the Polgar-Truong couple, states that neither is
interested in the post of vice president or secretary.
That leaves only the treasurer's position, which
Randy Bauer will likely assume.

5. Neither Polgar nor Truong will hold office on the
new Board, though they are the clear winners of this election.

6. The California observer says that this is the
first election in which the Old Guard has been unable
to keep events under control. (Not quite true. 1990
and 1991 were other examples.) He attributes the sea
change to OMOV.

7. One more election necessary? There is
general agreement that Polgar-Truong are here to stay,
and they will eventually put together a Board majority
in the next election or the one following. They are
the products of OMOV, which this writer and Larry
Evans did so much to bring about and which has
empowered those with reputation and enormous energy.

8. Two personal observations:

A. For once, an election result ought to be respected, and Susan or
Paul Truong should be offered the presidency, if they want the office.

B. The victory of Randy Bauer bodes ill for those favoring free
speech
and basic decency in chess affairs. He is a censorship type who
will maneuver behind the scenes with a political knife to ban writers
and
purge dissidents. He will work hard to ingratiate himself with the
FIDE
types, including Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, who is accused by human
rights organizations of both torture and murder. Such is the nature
of the Bauer person.

Yours, Larry Parr

Larry,

Kirsan is accused of political murder of opposition figures, not just
murder. If you post out here about it, you might get killed, becasue
you are part of the opposition. Don't make it sound like a carjacking
or home invasion murder. This is murder to silence questions about his
budget...............................

Marcus Roberts