On Nov 14, 6:16 am, "Chess One" wrote:
I do not agree with Eric that chess
sponsorship is a philanthropic activity, only that it is usually so - and
that is because, albeit USCF has a paid staff, money comes from media, and
media savvy sux!

Done right, just 1 hour of TV programming could fund the whole shebang.

I recall a TV program a couple of years ago broadcasting a match
between US and Russian players. If I remember correctly, Susan Polgar
played in it. Paul Truong and some non-entity were hosts. How much
money did that event make? Enough to fund a "shebang?"

"The Historian" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Nov 14, 6:16 am, "Chess One" wrote:
I do not agree with Eric that chess
sponsorship is a philanthropic activity, only that it is usually so - and
that is because, albeit USCF has a paid staff, money comes from media,
and
media savvy sux!

Done right, just 1 hour of TV programming could fund the whole shebang.

I recall a TV program a couple of years ago broadcasting a match
between US and Russian players. If I remember correctly, Susan Polgar
played in it. Paul Truong and some non-entity were hosts. How much
money did that event make? Enough to fund a "shebang?"

sod off, Eyeore!- stop polluting chess threads with your trashing of
everything you don't understand

pi

The Historian wrote:
On Nov 14, 6:16 am, "Chess One" wrote:
I do not agree with Eric that chess
sponsorship is a philanthropic activity, only that it is usually so - and
that is because, albeit USCF has a paid staff, money comes from media, and
media savvy sux!

Done right, just 1 hour of TV programming could fund the whole shebang.

I recall a TV program a couple of years ago broadcasting a match
between US and Russian players. If I remember correctly, Susan Polgar
played in it. Paul Truong and some non-entity were hosts. How much
money did that event make? Enough to fund a "shebang?"


Not fair! He said that it had to be "done right".


--
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://KennethRSloan.com/

On Nov 14, 10:31 am, Kenneth Sloan wrote:
The Historian wrote:
On Nov 14, 6:16 am, "Chess One" wrote:
I do not agree with Eric that chess
sponsorship is a philanthropic activity, only that it is usually so - and
that is because, albeit USCF has a paid staff, money comes from media, and
media savvy sux!

Done right, just 1 hour of TV programming could fund the whole shebang.

I recall a TV program a couple of years ago broadcasting a match
between US and Russian players. If I remember correctly, Susan Polgar
played in it. Paul Truong and some non-entity were hosts. How much
money did that event make? Enough to fund a "shebang?"

Not fair! He said that it had to be "done right".

I quite agree. My apologies to Mr. Innes for bringing up something
that he deservedly forgot.

On Nov 14, 6:16 am, "Chess One" wrote:
Please try to invite Ben Finegold, who was unfairly excluded from the
2007 US Championship.

Sam Sloan

How about just using the invitational formula and sticking to it...rather
than trying to play favorites?

Eric Johnson


Ben Finegold is rated 2611 and is now the number 18 player in the USA.
When the invitations went out earlier this year he was number 16. (He
did not lose rating points. Two players edged him out by one or two
rating points.)

Most of us (with the notable exception of Bill Goichberg) agree that
invitations to the US Championship should be based on objective
criteria. The official rule passed by the USCF Executive Board some
years ago is that invitations to the US Championship are based on a
weighted average between the player's USCF Rating and FIDE ratings.

However, this year the official USCF rule was ignored and substituted
in its place was the Goichberg Rule which provides that Goichberg
decides which tournaments organized by Goichberg and Goichberg allies
and fellow board members such as Randy Hough are invited to play in
the US Championship.

As a result, Finegold was excluded. The general public does not know
this but during the one year that I was on the board, Bill Goichberg
made a strong effort to have Ben Finegold banned from competing for
the grandmaster title. Finegold is one of the highest rated non-
grandmasters in the world and he certainly deserves the GM title.

Finegold was also the highest rated player who did not get invited to
the 2007 US Championship.

I feel that when the US Championship is a 36-player Swiss, as it was
this year, it is ridiculous when the number 16 rated player cannot get
invited.

Sam Sloan

--- In , FKIMBERRY@... wrote:

Joel Johnson?? Can he beat Boris Gulko?
I told GM Gulko he should enter the Senior Ch and try to qualify.? Same with Tony Saidy.
Boris?lost all his recent rating points in Lubbock.
If Ben Finegold wants to enter our "Qualifying Event" in late March in Tulsa.. he's welcome....
Frank K. Berry

Joel Johnson is the official US Senior Champion.

Please take a look:

http://main.uschess.org/content/view/7603/380

You should be proud to have such a great player as Joel Johnson
playing in your US Championship!

But, who is that sexy girl standing next to him? Perhaps you can get
him to bring her along too.

Sam

Sorry, Harry, but you are not familiar with the facts.

The fact is that Bill Goichberg decided who got invited to the US
Championship, except that Frank Berry got to invite three of his own
people, one of whom was the Oklahoma State Champion who finished next
to last ahead only of one of the beautiful young girls that Goichberg
saw fit to invite.

This year, however, it seems that Frank Berry is taking charge of the
event and I applaud him for it. I do not know what will happen when
Goichberg starts insisting on a certain number of slots for Goichberg
people. However, Frank Berry has one advantage that we did not have
went I was on the board, which is that he has one fairly likely vote
on the board. I suppose that there is a good chance that his identical
twin brother will vote Frank's way. It is always possible, anyway.

When I was on the board there were three board members who were
strongly opposed to the Goichberg method, which was that Goichberg
decides who gets to play. However, there was a six member board. Too
bad that Tanner was chased off the board. It would have been good to
have him around to break ties. Goichberg had two rock-solid votes
which meant that the three non-Goichberg votes could never get more
than a tie vote and thus could not overturn anything. As a result,
Goichberg got to invite anybody he wanted and the rest of us could do
nothing about it.

Sam Sloan

On Nov 14, 4:25 pm, "David Kane" wrote:
"samsloan" wrote in message

oups.com...



On Nov 14, 6:16 am, "Chess One" wrote:
Please try to invite Ben Finegold, who was unfairly excluded from the
2007 US Championship.

Sam Sloan

How about just using the invitational formula and sticking to it...rather
than trying to play favorites?

Eric Johnson

Ben Finegold is rated 2611 and is now the number 18 player in the USA.
When the invitations went out earlier this year he was number 16. (He
did not lose rating points. Two players edged him out by one or two
rating points.)

Most of us (with the notable exception of Bill Goichberg) agree that
invitations to the US Championship should be based on objective
criteria. The official rule passed by the USCF Executive Board some
years ago is that invitations to the US Championship are based on a
weighted average between the player's USCF Rating and FIDE ratings.

However, this year the official USCF rule was ignored and substituted
in its place was the Goichberg Rule which provides that Goichberg
decides which tournaments organized by Goichberg and Goichberg allies
and fellow board members such as Randy Hough are invited to play in
the US Championship.

Qualifying by doing well in tournaments is no less "objective" than using
ratings. Your description of what happened does not make it
sound that Finegold was unfairly excluded.

Tournaments are less subject to being manipulated than ratings, so it
makes sense that they be used to determine the marginal players.

The claim that Goichberg misused the qualifying process to boost
his own tournaments is just typical unsubstantiated Sloan nonsense.

Why is that?

Take a look at the list of qualifying tournaments.

Half were Goichberg tournaments.

The remainder were tournaments by political allies such as the
American Open, a minor league tournament organized by his friend and
political ally Randy Hough, and national tournaments Goichberg could
not ignore, including the US Open, the National Open, the US Junior
and the US Senior.

Sam Sloan

samsloan wrote:
On Nov 14, 4:25 pm, "David Kane" wrote:
"samsloan" wrote in message

oups.com...



On Nov 14, 6:16 am, "Chess One" wrote:
Please try to invite Ben Finegold, who was unfairly excluded from the
2007 US Championship.

Sam Sloan

How about just using the invitational formula and sticking to it...rather
than trying to play favorites?

Eric Johnson

Ben Finegold is rated 2611 and is now the number 18 player in the USA.
When the invitations went out earlier this year he was number 16. (He
did not lose rating points. Two players edged him out by one or two
rating points.)

Most of us (with the notable exception of Bill Goichberg) agree that
invitations to the US Championship should be based on objective
criteria. The official rule passed by the USCF Executive Board some
years ago is that invitations to the US Championship are based on a
weighted average between the player's USCF Rating and FIDE ratings.

However, this year the official USCF rule was ignored and substituted
in its place was the Goichberg Rule which provides that Goichberg
decides which tournaments organized by Goichberg and Goichberg allies
and fellow board members such as Randy Hough are invited to play in
the US Championship.

Qualifying by doing well in tournaments is no less "objective" than using
ratings. Your description of what happened does not make it
sound that Finegold was unfairly excluded.

Tournaments are less subject to being manipulated than ratings, so it
makes sense that they be used to determine the marginal players.

The claim that Goichberg misused the qualifying process to boost
his own tournaments is just typical unsubstantiated Sloan nonsense.

Why is that?

Take a look at the list of qualifying tournaments.

Half were Goichberg tournaments.

The remainder were tournaments by political allies such as the
American Open, a minor league tournament organized by his friend and
political ally Randy Hough, and national tournaments Goichberg could
not ignore, including the US Open, the National Open, the US Junior
and the US Senior.

Sam Sloan

False. Since you've been corrected on this several times, lie. There
were 11 "open" qualifiers. Four were CCA tournaments.

On Nov 14, 5:47 pm, "David Kane" wrote:
"samsloan" wrote in message


Take a look at the list of qualifying tournaments.

Half were Goichberg tournaments.

Goichberg runs some tournaments that are prestigious and draw
top competition, doesn't he? Why shouldn't they be qualifiers?

The remainder were tournaments by political allies such as the
American Open, a minor league tournament organized by his friend and
political ally Randy Hough, and national tournaments Goichberg could
not ignore, including the US Open, the National Open, the US Junior
and the US Senior.

You are confusing the possibility of misuse with actual misuse. Do you
believe that there were better tournaments to use? If so, make that case.

Before you were suggesting that players should have been able to qualify
by not playing at all, just by sitting on a marginal rating. That seems clearly
much worse than the tournaments used.

Under the official USCF rules still in force, qualification to the US
Championship is by rating plus there is an activity requirement.

If Bill Goichberg does not like those rules, he should move to change
them and not merely ignore them.

Sam Sloan