THE POLITICS BEHIND THE CHANNING FOUR

By Larry Parr


Fascinating politics lie behind the early
announcement of a ticket for the Executive Board
elections in 2007.

The ticket consists of celebrated Grandmaster
Susan Polgar, Paul Truong, Dr. Mikhail Korenman and
Randy Bauer. Bill Goichberg has indicated privately
that he will support and, indeed, work for the ticket.
My sources tell me that Joel Channing, the wealthy
Florida real estate developer and current USCF
Executive Board member, will finance the campaign,
promising an essentially open checkbook in return for
his becoming president, tossing over Mr. Goichberg.

A lot has been happening behind the scenes, and
the ticket is in part based on the fear that Sam Sloan
will win next year unless stopped by overwhelming
financial resources brought to bear.

One source states that Mr. Goichberg will be
telephoning potential candidates, offering inducements
to have them step aside for the announced Polgar
ticket. Several candidates from California and points
west of the Mississippi will be asked to defer their
candidacies in return for future support and,
possibly, special favors from the USCF office and
Chess Life.

A secondhand source, very close to one candidate
running on the ticket, told me privately that there is
NO INTENTION of permitting Channing to purchase the
presidency by supporting the ticket financially.
(Putting the knife into Channing by his allies will be
the first political doublecross after the elections,
if the ticket is successful.) Goichberg is understood
to be a carcass - a cross between a discarded appendix
and chopped liver - though he currently hopes that he
will carry on. If successful, the ticket members will
vote to elect GM Susan Polgar as the next USCF
president. Period.

Another source stated that Goichberg has, in
truth, little chance of convincing other candidates to
bow out and that there will be a fairly crowded field.
The anti-Sloan strategy may cause many voters to cast
their ballots for Sam for fear that a clique of
insiders is attempting a coup. Sam will trumpet
ethics, his successful discombobulation of Robert
Tanner, and the need for transparency against moneyed
insiders. It may prove a successful strategy against
heavy-handed political tactics.

Still, the announced candidates must be regarded
as the hot runners at this point. If the election
were held this Friday, all four would win thanks to
heavy support from the schlolastics community.

The factors favoring the ticket are lavish
financing from Mr. Channing, GM Polgar's name
recognition and favorable image, and the push by
scholastic types to assume control of the Federation
and fundamentally change both Chess Life and the
direction of the USCF.

At first reckoning, there is no roadblock - no
pothole along the political highway - that can upend
this electoral juggernaut. Yet excepting Dr.
Korenman, each member of the ticket has made quite a
few enemies, and the likelihood of a fairly crowded
field will discourage ticket voting. Too, the enmity
between several ticket members and Sam Sloan will
ensure a polemical battle royal.

Several members of the traditional organizer
class that has long controlled the USCF will campaign
against the ticket. These people believe that those
representing scholastic interests are making a major
push to transform the USCF into, when all is said and
done, an organization of students and their chess
coaches. They fear that the old structure that was
the Federation will go the way of the defunct
Manhattan Chess Club, a traditional haunt of New York
players, that was devoured hook, line and library by
the Chess in Schools program.

In the days before OMOV - one man, one vote -
the opposition of the organizer class would have been
decisive in holding off the Polgar ticket. Not so
today. The chances are at best even for the
organizers, assuming they can unite and find
financing. Still, if one or two members of the ticket
fail to win election, then the day of scholastic
reckoning will be put off for a few more years.

One senses that the combative nature of certain
ticket members will alienate some voters. Randy
Bauer, who is quickly becoming a traditional and
vicious candidate in the Robert Tanner mode, enjoys
his slings and arrows, though his chess political
career thus far suggests that he outrages fortune.
Paul Truong has conducted numerous long and
acrimonious debates in which, by and large, he has
been on the side of the angels, but the point here is
that these battles have given him political baggage,
some of which GM Polgar is also lugging around.

My prediction at this point: Polgar and
Korenman will win; Truong and Bauer will make new
enemies and rekindle old animosities. They might go down.

Sam Sloan? He is in a far stronger political
position than ever before. He will be able to point
to numerous achievements in ferreting out corruption.
His censure at the precise moment that he brought down
Robert Tanner, one of the Board insiders, will get
played again and again - but by Sam. He will display
his censure - quite rightly, too - as a Badge of
Honour. He will note - quite truthfully, too - that
he paid a price for exposing corruption on the part of
a Board member who has NOT been censured or condemned
by his fellow Board members, even though forced to
resign in disgrace for serial cheating and, yes,
lying. Many voters will note the double standard and
the arrant hypocrisy.

In spite of the above, one figures that Sam will
get squeezed off the Board in the next election by the
Channing-financed ticket and by those traditional
organizers who will use guerrilla tactics in depleting
Channing's combat strength. Sam's vote total will be
respectable, but no better than that because political
physics next year will be written in unfavorable
formulae. Sam and other points of intellectual and
Caissic light will get sucked into an electoral black hole.

Every effort will be made by Bill Goichberg
and other insiders to discourage candidacies that
could muddy the effort to defeat Sam Sloan and to
elect the Channing Four. But the push to restrict
candidacies will fail because three of the four ticket
members have made enemies and because many deadenders
will man the barricades against a scholastic takeover
of the Federation.

Deadenders? Do they have any chance?

Don't forget that the anti-American insurgency
in Iraq was initially written off as comprised of a
few hundred deadenders. Sometimes, after deadenders
get organized, they outwork, outfight and outthink
members of conventional forces. Their numbers grow, too.

As in Iraq, one figures that political IEDs
will take a partial toll among the Channing Four.
Indeed, two of the four - but no more.

Maybe we can get Chessdon to confirm authorship and authenticity.

He LOVES ethics!

wrote:

My prediction at this point: Polgar and Korenman will win; Truong
and Bauer will make new enemies and rekindle old animosities. They
might go down.


Sam Sloan might go down, too.

Unfortunately, Norman Whitaker is no available for confirmation.

wrote in message
ups.com...
THE POLITICS BEHIND THE CHANNING FOUR

By Larry Parr


Fascinating politics lie behind the early
announcement of a ticket for the Executive Board
elections in 2007.

Let us inspect this analysis by Larry Parr by another perspective, which
will either add or subtract to his own comments, but fill in an overall
appreciation of what looks likely to be a major shift in USCF.

The ticket consists of celebrated Grandmaster
Susan Polgar, Paul Truong, Dr. Mikhail Korenman and
Randy Bauer. Bill Goichberg has indicated privately
that he will support and, indeed, work for the ticket.
My sources tell me that Joel Channing, the wealthy
Florida real estate developer and current USCF
Executive Board member, will finance the campaign,
promising an essentially open checkbook in return for
his becoming president, tossing over Mr. Goichberg.

While this may be a contributing factor in support of the 4, Polgar is
probably most exempt from a need for financial support, since she already
has a powerful and interactive communications network in place.

A lot has been happening behind the scenes, and
the ticket is in part based on the fear that Sam Sloan
will win next year unless stopped by overwhelming
financial resources brought to bear.

One source states that Mr. Goichberg will be
telephoning potential candidates, offering inducements
to have them step aside for the announced Polgar
ticket. Several candidates from California and points
west of the Mississippi will be asked to defer their
candidacies in return for future support and,
possibly, special favors from the USCF office and
Chess Life.

While that may have some impact on the 4, the worth of it for Polgar itself
may be doubled-edged.

A secondhand source, very close to one candidate
running on the ticket, told me privately that there is
NO INTENTION of permitting Channing to purchase the
presidency by supporting the ticket financially.
(Putting the knife into Channing by his allies will be
the first political doublecross after the elections,
if the ticket is successful.) Goichberg is understood
to be a carcass - a cross between a discarded appendix
and chopped liver - though he currently hopes that he
will carry on. If successful, the ticket members will
vote to elect GM Susan Polgar as the next USCF
president. Period.

Yes, I also think that's the size of it.

Another source stated that Goichberg has, in
truth, little chance of convincing other candidates to
bow out and that there will be a fairly crowded field.
The anti-Sloan strategy may cause many voters to cast
their ballots for Sam for fear that a clique of
insiders is attempting a coup. Sam will trumpet
ethics, his successful discombobulation of Robert
Tanner, and the need for transparency against moneyed
insiders. It may prove a successful strategy against
heavy-handed political tactics.

Cleaning the stables? Someone had to do it, though it is a somewhat
indiscriminate cleaning, so it seems to me, and he is too personally wrapped
in personality matters to cry foul that other people resent his own [fairly
and unfairly]. I had rather hoped that he would escape this factor, and, by
weight of office, grow up! Whatever airing he has achieved can so easily
devolve into re-writing the past, a habit of politicians who back into the
future, and whose use is up.

Still, the announced candidates must be regarded
as the hot runners at this point. If the election
were held this Friday, all four would win thanks to
heavy support from the schlolastics community.

The factors favoring the ticket are lavish
financing from Mr. Channing, GM Polgar's name
recognition and favorable image, and the push by
scholastic types to assume control of the Federation
and fundamentally change both Chess Life and the
direction of the USCF.

At first reckoning, there is no roadblock - no
pothole along the political highway - that can upend
this electoral juggernaut. Yet excepting Dr.
Korenman, each member of the ticket has made quite a
few enemies, and the likelihood of a fairly crowded
field will discourage ticket voting.

Mikhail is indeed a very sober fellow, unemphatic but very sound. There are
not many people who will stand around with you for an hour and a half before
breakfast and talk pedagogics. In plainer language, process of education.
While the Polgar chess curriculum has achieved large success recently around
the world, it is still a million miles from engageing main-stream
educational concerns, and allying with Dr. K. will be just the ticket to
take it the [huge] next step.

Too, the enmity
between several ticket members and Sam Sloan will
ensure a polemical battle royal.

....snips....

My prediction at this point: Polgar and
Korenman will win; Truong and Bauer will make new
enemies and rekindle old animosities. They might go down.

First to praise Randy Bauer for something - he is willing to show up in
public and argue his point, not just state it, but pursue it with some
conviction and determination - I would only wish his point were sharper! But
rather than admit faint praise, he does not suffer from fear-of-the-public,
which practically all other members of the board do, and as direct result of
not-testing their precious opinions, are more-or-less intelligent thereby.
What 'our' Randy needs to do is not run on his record of the past, but run
on a program for the future. That, IMO, will decide his fate.

Paul Truong has recently written widely enough so that his opinions can be
seen to expand beyond the immediate realm of Susan Polgar Foundation and
into the promotion of larger sections of the chess scene. While his
inclusion as perhaps the best chess publicist in the USA [no competition
really] will provide the board with a strong stimulus not to sit in its
cave - I am less sure that he is well placed to /pursue/ marketing of chess
as a non-Executive person, but in any case, would need to ally with a
competent and very able staff director to do the same for USCF as he has
done for SPF.

...

In spite of the above, one figures that Sam will
get squeezed off the Board in the next election by the
Channing-financed ticket and by those traditional
organizers who will use guerrilla tactics in depleting
Channing's combat strength. Sam's vote total will be
respectable, but no better than that because political
physics next year will be written in unfavorable
formulae. Sam and other points of intellectual and
Caissic light will get sucked into an electoral black hole.

He has not shown much other feature than an ability to bite people in the
arse. In most cases they definitely needed biting, but this alone won't play
well in an election. On the down side, and while I am personally very
liberal in terms of personal expression [as liberal as the law itself!],
that is no endorsement of his qualities to attend to other matters.

In our society the law describes a minimum level of acceptable behavior, yet
our society suffers increasingly from a need to rise above that minimum
standard, which is everywhere abbreached, and here and there invaded
entirely. Specifically, in the realm of scholastics and in both sexual
predatorial activity against children, and in offering affront to the
gender, a higher level than minimum is strongly indicated. I do not think
he will gain sufficient trust on either point to allow him to engage with
the subject and achieve the confidence of others.

Of course, I have this reservation about other USCF officials too, and it is
no singularity.

Every effort will be made by Bill Goichberg
and other insiders to discourage candidacies that
could muddy the effort to defeat Sam Sloan and to
elect the Channing Four. But the push to restrict
candidacies will fail because three of the four ticket
members have made enemies and because many deadenders
will man the barricades against a scholastic takeover
of the Federation.

Deadenders? Do they have any chance?

This is an important point about 'the salt', the inert mass who resist
change on principle. Quite how much of it survives is a good guess, but a
substantial amount seems present. It s most recent manifestation was the
complete and utter denial of any responsibility at USCF ratings department,
or its supervision, of the Tanner affair. Although people are paid, they are
not paid for competent response - and shining a light at that subject will
occassion a big fight - but, IMO, in terms of picking your battles, a very
useful engagement.

Don't forget that the anti-American insurgency
in Iraq was initially written off as comprised of a
few hundred deadenders. Sometimes, after deadenders
get organized, they outwork, outfight and outthink
members of conventional forces. Their numbers grow, too.

As in Iraq, one figures that political IEDs
will take a partial toll among the Channing Four.
Indeed, two of the four - but no more.

Since Larry Parr has concentrated so much on what is almost a single plank
campaign, scholastics, I should like to ask some questions about it, which
stand independent of these appreciations of individual merit to administer
it. I'll do that in a new thread. I have two concerns, turnover, and also
activity level.

I have disagreed with Larry Parr on several issues here, but I think not so
much at 180 degrees, though sometimes come at things at right angles to his
own perspectives. Whatever the result of this conversation, the result of
the election will be enormous for the USCF, and indeed, as an outsider to
its recent 'activities' I am with Yamamoto, though not in a rueful sense, in
speaking of "waking the sleeping giant' of world chess.

Phil Innes

Very excellent post, keen insight. Thank you, Larry Parr.

Old Haasie

wrote:
Very excellent post, keen insight. Thank you, Larry Parr.

Old Haasie

Thankee Larry, for them's analosis of this here electorial. Meaty
tatoes. Y'all about th' onliest poster here that give me the hard-on
that won't quit and I thankee for't. Read all you's words, though you
be a prevert jus' like you twin Sammi.

Ancient Haasie

wrote:
THE POLITICS BEHIND THE CHANNING FOUR

By Larry Parr


Fascinating politics lie behind the early
announcement of a ticket for the Executive Board
elections in 2007.

The ticket consists of celebrated Grandmaster
Susan Polgar, Paul Truong, Dr. Mikhail Korenman and
Randy Bauer. Bill Goichberg has indicated privately
that he will support and, indeed, work for the ticket.
My sources tell me that Joel Channing, the wealthy
Florida real estate developer and current USCF
Executive Board member, will finance the campaign,
promising an essentially open checkbook in return for
his becoming president, tossing over Mr. Goichberg.

That is not how things have unfolded. I talked with Susan a couple
weeks back and urged her to run -- I am 99% certain she will be elected
and 100% certain she will be an outstanding addition. She is smart,
energetic, and committed to growing chess activity in the US. I agreed
to run but also said that I didn't want to turn this into a race of
competing slates.

I think that is divisive and did not serve the USCF well in the last
general election. I pledge to support any qualified, capable candidate
who is committed to working with all members of the Board in a
collegial, constructive manner. I think Don Schultz may run, and I
would support his candidacy for the same reason -- while we were
supporting opposing slates last time, he and I worked together on many
issues, and I know he cares about and is committed to constructive
change for the USCF.

While I think that Joel supports my candidacy (and probably Susan's as
well) he in no way has promised financial support, nor has he been the
one pushing this particular group of candidates. There also is no fait
accompli regarding the presidency, at least as I know it. I think Bill
has done a good job and wouldn't/haven't make any promises on support
of any particular person.

A lot has been happening behind the scenes, and
the ticket is in part based on the fear that Sam Sloan
will win next year unless stopped by overwhelming
financial resources brought to bear.

It's not my fear. I think Sam was elected last time because there
wasn't much interest in the one year positions (for one thing the Board
majority wasn't going to be impacted). I think Sam has provided
abundant evidence that his "bull in the china shop" approach isn't
suited to the Executive Board, and I think the membership will
recognize that, regardless of the financial resources brough to bear.
I know I've finished far ahead of him in both of the races we've
contested, and I see no reason for that not to be the case this time.

One source states that Mr. Goichberg will be
telephoning potential candidates, offering inducements
to have them step aside for the announced Polgar
ticket. Several candidates from California and points
west of the Mississippi will be asked to defer their
candidacies in return for future support and,
possibly, special favors from the USCF office and
Chess Life.

A secondhand source, very close to one candidate
running on the ticket, told me privately that there is
NO INTENTION of permitting Channing to purchase the
presidency by supporting the ticket financially.
(Putting the knife into Channing by his allies will be
the first political doublecross after the elections,
if the ticket is successful.) Goichberg is understood
to be a carcass - a cross between a discarded appendix
and chopped liver - though he currently hopes that he
will carry on. If successful, the ticket members will
vote to elect GM Susan Polgar as the next USCF
president. Period.

Fiction, at least as I know it. I like and respect Bill, Joel, and
Susan, and the "knifing" etc. you described is not contemplated or
expected.


Another source stated that Goichberg has, in
truth, little chance of convincing other candidates to
bow out and that there will be a fairly crowded field.
The anti-Sloan strategy may cause many voters to cast
their ballots for Sam for fear that a clique of
insiders is attempting a coup. Sam will trumpet
ethics, his successful discombobulation of Robert
Tanner, and the need for transparency against moneyed
insiders. It may prove a successful strategy against
heavy-handed political tactics.

I plan to talk about finance -- ya know, the fact that the Board I was
on balanced the budget -- member service, and the need for the Board to
be able to work together. Sam Sloan trumpeting ethics is delicious
irony for one who had his securities license yanked and... well, you
know.

Randy Bauer

Chess One wrote:

First to praise Randy Bauer for something - he is willing to show up in
public and argue his point, not just state it, but pursue it with some
conviction and determination - I would only wish his point were sharper! But
rather than admit faint praise, he does not suffer from fear-of-the-public,
which practically all other members of the board do, and as direct result of
not-testing their precious opinions, are more-or-less intelligent thereby.
What 'our' Randy needs to do is not run on his record of the past, but run
on a program for the future. That, IMO, will decide his fate.

First, thanks to Phil for pointing out that I have been, even while on
the Board, willing to discuss and debate on RGCP. My time here has
been limited somewhat of late, because I think the fakes and trolls
have severely reduced the opportunity to have fair discussion of
issues. While I don't support Sam Sloan's candidacy or position on the
Executive Board of the USCF, I also do not support the fake postings
that he has been subjected to for the past year or so.

As to Phil's point about the future rather than the past as the focus,
I agree -- fair enough. I plan to run on strict adherance to financial
responsibility, improvement in member service (I think EVERY employee,
from the Executive Director on down, should have a performance plan
that is developed and reviewed on an annual basis and focused on their
contribution to membership service), better marketing of chess in this
country, and a firm foundation for the things the USCF should be
expected to provide -- national championships, support for state and
local affiliates, an honest, accurate and timely rating system, and top
notch magazines and other forms of communications with its members.

Randy Bauer

"Randy Bauer" wrote in message
oups.com...

Chess One wrote:

First to praise Randy Bauer for something - he is willing to show up in
public and argue his point, not just state it, but pursue it with some
conviction and determination - I would only wish his point were sharper!
But
rather than admit faint praise, he does not suffer from
fear-of-the-public,
which practically all other members of the board do, and as direct result
of
not-testing their precious opinions, are more-or-less intelligent
thereby.
What 'our' Randy needs to do is not run on his record of the past, but
run
on a program for the future. That, IMO, will decide his fate.

First, thanks to Phil for pointing out that I have been, even while on
the Board, willing to discuss and debate on RGCP. My time here has
been limited somewhat of late, because I think the fakes and trolls
have severely reduced the opportunity to have fair discussion of
issues. While I don't support Sam Sloan's candidacy or position on the
Executive Board of the USCF, I also do not support the fake postings
that he has been subjected to for the past year or so.

As to Phil's point about the future rather than the past as the focus,
I agree -- fair enough. I plan to run on strict adherance to financial
responsibility, improvement in member service (I think EVERY employee,
from the Executive Director on down, should have a performance plan
that is developed and reviewed on an annual basis and focused on their
contribution to membership service),

O! This is rare, after reading your comments Randy, I was about to ask, 'how
are you going to actually do what you aspire to' which is a fair question to
any politician! But you did it!

I remember a certain board-aspirant in a past election talking of greater
transparency at very great length, but he wasn't able to say exactly how he
would go about achieving it. But in this message you engage the topic of
'how', which is, IMO, of much greater weight than lots of 'whats'.

Elsewhere I just criticised both the current board and Sam Sloan for mixing
up a censure of Sloan for unwarranted speculations with this other topic of
revealing rating corruption - and said that the /apparent/ effect would be
to now view Sloan as being censured for outing the corruption, rather than
as the omnibus criticism it was intended to be. This rather clouds a more
important issue, IMO:-

What has still not really been answered from USCF's camp is how the accussed
got it through the ratings department in the first place, and then, without
apparent invigilation, the accused was awarded a life-title. Questions on
the extent of this problem have been, of course, dismissed, which is the
exact opposite of calling for performance measurements!

While I do not expect you to answer those specific questions from other than
general knowledge, or at all, I do admit a liking for this idea of yours of
asking department heads [and 'on down'] to have some performance criterion
for their pay - which I should like to call that by the normative phrase
'competency testing'.

better marketing of chess in this
country,

First time I've heard that in a while. Is there an operations person
currently employed at USCF to do this? If not, or if the person would not
have sufficient experience or competence to do an enhanced task or marketing
as you would wish, would you hire someone to become 'marketing manager'? In
other words, how will you deploy a marketing effort? As someone interested
in marketing, would you neverthless cede the board marketing role to Paul
Truong, a fellow board-aspirant?

Here is an older question which I agreed with Beatriz was important, nay!
crucial! during our interview - how are you going to retain more scholastic
players? The numbers indicate the same number in and out every year,
without significant or even measureable growth over 7 or 8 years [in fact a
skippage of almost all the cheap ticket memberships, as many as 10,000! of
them lost]

In another thread I asked for playing-rate of members, and I don't think
anyone knows the Stats for scholastic players who also cares to write them
here. It seems that 12,000 from 30,000 members conducted at least one rated
game in the past 12 months. So I wondered how many games-in-all they played?
Was it just one weekend tourney a year? Who knows? Can anyone say for those
12,000 what is the average number of games they played, and how many played
less than 10 rated games per year?

I also asked the same about rated-games for scholastic players.

These are two vital statistics to the health of USCF and US chess, so it
seems to me, and I compare them with UK stats from 35 years ago, when UK
chess was about to birth some 20 GMs from its national club system.

I am also writing to a PhD doctorate aspirant on these themes; someone who
lives in a substantially more populated country than USA, and he asks some
similar questions about ratings & membership [which is mostly an American
requirement for rating chess] and chess activity - to wit; what is that
relationship?

If you can help me with these datum I should be obliged, as well as perhaps
engaging us with your opinion on this subject independently as a factor of
the health in US chess.

and a firm foundation for the things the USCF should be
expected to provide -- national championships, support for state and
local affiliates, an honest, accurate and timely rating system, and top
notch magazines and other forms of communications with its members.

Which of those are money-dependent [in the sense that USCF needs to partner
with other agencies to fund them?]

Cordially, Phil Innes

Randy Bauer

wrote:


Sam Sloan? He is in a far stronger political
position than ever before. He will be able to point
to numerous achievements in ferreting out corruption.
His censure at the precise moment that he brought down
Robert Tanner, one of the Board insiders, will get
played again and again - but by Sam. He will display
his censure - quite rightly, too - as a Badge of
Honour. He will note - quite truthfully, too - that
he paid a price for exposing corruption on the part of
a Board member who has NOT been censured or condemned
by his fellow Board members, even though forced to
resign in disgrace for serial cheating and, yes,
lying. Many voters will note the double standard and
the arrant hypocrisy.


As far as I know, ferreting out Robert Tanner is the only thing Sam has
been right about and he made his complaint before he got on the board.
I figure he can comb the MSA for evidence of ratings fraud without
filling a slot that might be occupied by someone who does not
hallucinate phantom high school students destroying records.