Chess One wrote:
"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'.

Actually, I applauded and supported Don Schultz when he provided the
necessary leadership to reinstitute the BINFO system for communication
among the Board. I think the USCF forums are another excellent
opportunity for members and others to interact. It at least has, by
requiring members to post their ID numbers, prevented the spamming and
forgeries that plague this newsgroup.

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:-

I don't think the issues were connected -- in fact, just about every
Board member was vocal in their belief that Tanner should resign, and I
don't think any of them viewed it as anything other than what it was:
a real failing on Tanner's part and worthy of condemnation.

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!

I really don't know the answer to that question. However, in my
professional life, I've learned of people who get away with embezzling
millions of dollars without being detected for long periods of time; my
guess is USCF rating points aren't quite as valuable.

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'.

This was actually instituted in the State of Iowa while I worked there,
and, over time, it created a greater culture of accountability for
results. Mind you, we still had our failings, but there are several
independent observers who praised the overall effort. Somehow, we have
to get back to thinking about the USCF actually achieving things --
concrete things, positive outcomes -- and the staff (and the Board)
should be put in that position of being accountable.

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?

I think Susan Polgar has done more to market chess in this country than
any player in a long time. I don't know the percentage of credit Paul
should receive for this, but Susan suggests it is a lot. I would like
her to take on the responsibility for this aspect of the USCF's effort.
I have been a spokesperson for a large organization, and I am
comfortable in that role, but I am not a marketer by trade and would
prefer that others take the lead in this area. Regardless of Susan's
involvement, I think the USCF should be more active in this area.
However, rather than hiring a person, I think outsourcing makes more
sense -- quite frankly, I think there are a variety of professional
services where the current model suggests that entities of the size of
the USCF should outsource those functions that do not coincide with
their core competencies.

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]

It's all about providing something that people value, that is unique.
There are areas, such as Internet chess play, where I doubt the USCF is
going to be able to carve out a place from those who are further along.
However, given a strong scholastic presence, there must be
opportunities to continue to involve these players. I was one of those
strong scholastic players who ultimately stayed with the USCF, but the
chess playing world was a lot different then. Quite frankly, I think
the Board needs to dialogue with those who are the members, who may be
interested in paying for the USCF's services given their specific needs
and wants rather than thinking that they always know the answers.
While on the Board I suggested we need much better mechanisms for
collecting feedback from members, and I still believe it is worth the
investment.

(snip)

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.

That was a unique and very interesting time! At the same time, the US
was developing some strong GMs as well. No doubt, the UK experience
was much better per capita, but there are always countries who are
going to outperform the per capita statistics -- if not, the World Cup
and many Olympic events would be much less interesting than they
generally turn out.

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.

It's really not a subject where I have much expertise. I readily admit
that the area where I feel I can benefit the USCF is finance -- I know
how to balance a budget, we balanced the budget while I was on the
Board, I understand that choices have to be made and won't simply rely
on cooked revenue estimates to make the budget work, etc. That said, I
also have been a strong scholastic and adult tournament player as well
as an author so think I can help with general approach in these areas
as well.

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?]

It would be great if the USCF can continue to partner with other
agencies to fund things like national championships, and I think there
is greater opportunity to seek out funding from foundations,
governments, etc., even at the local level. This is an area where I
have some history, and I don't think we do as well as we should. At
the same time, the USCF has to be seen as a mainstream, viable
organization with its finances, market plans, and strategic plans in
place for many of these organizations to take the shot. That is
another area where I think, fundamentally, we have fallen down over the
last decade or so. I would want to work on those, and I would expect,
over the term of being on the EB, to be held accountable for results in
these areas.

I lived through this sort of accountability in the State of Iowa. I
was fortunate to work for a principled leader who instilled this
culture throughout government, and I believe we delivered. Budgets
were balanced for 8 years without raising taxes, and Iowa's tax revenue
as a percentage of personal income went from above to below the
national average. At the same time, K-12 test scores improved,
children with health insurance went up, per capita personal income
surpassed the national average, and employment hit record levels. I
doubt we could do the same/similar in terms of improvement for the
USCF, but I'd like to give it a try.

Cordially, Randy Bauer


Cordially, Phil Innes

On 11 Dec 2006 20:46:45 -0800, "Randy Bauer"
wrote:


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!

I really don't know the answer to that question. However, in my
professional life, I've learned of people who get away with embezzling
millions of dollars without being detected for long periods of time; my
guess is USCF rating points aren't quite as valuable.

Let me offer some observations in defense of the USCF ratings people,
on how Tanner could stay under the radar.

(1) It wasn't like Tanner *only* played in the little closed-circle
events. He played in quite a few normal ones, interspersed with the
closed circle ones.

(2) Evidently, he maintained a mid-level Expert's rating for some time
before beginning the suspicious events. So, it wasn't like he was
jumping multiple classes.

(3) None of the suspect events brought him any prize money or directly
qualified him for anything at the time. The key result the event that
bumped him over 2300, which gave him a 2200 floor under the rules of
the time. After that, collecting games toward the LM title was just
cruising. How many players have performance results well under their
floors? Probably quite a few.

Makes me more impressed at how Sloan and his sources dug into this in
the first place.

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

Actually, I applauded and supported Don Schultz when he provided the
necessary leadership to reinstitute the BINFO system for communication
among the Board. I think the USCF forums are another excellent
opportunity for members and others to interact. It at least has, by
requiring members to post their ID numbers, prevented the spamming and
forgeries that plague this newsgroup.

Let me just amplify on some of these themes, and with some other
perspectives, not necessarily head-on ones, but tangential. I will not
introduce new material, but use some news to illustrate points already
raised:-
--------

I looked at the USCF site this morning and reported on the $10,000 'award',
which is this week's scandal, and also how it was treated at the Nolanland
forum by a moderator - which even a Rhino's skin would register as rash and
offensive abuse of speech.

I also noticed the less-than-honest reporting about Tanner, which had no
mention at all about an ethics scandal, and its far better psychologically
to pre-empt criticism by admitting a problem, especially since this was yet
another 'award' to insiders.

If it isn't openly admitted, it is safe to assume that nothing at all will
happen to obviate future occurance.

--------

I think Susan Polgar has done more to market chess in this country than
any player in a long time. I don't know the percentage of credit Paul
should receive for this, but Susan suggests it is a lot.

Yes, I think 'a lot' is correct. In fact last year 50 mainstream media
mentions compared with 2 for USCF. That, as my wife says, 'is not nothing.'

--------

It's all about providing something that people value, that is unique.
There are areas, such as Internet chess play, where I doubt the USCF is
going to be able to carve out a place from those who are further along.
However, given a strong scholastic presence, there must be
opportunities to continue to involve these players. I was one of those
strong scholastic players who ultimately stayed with the USCF, but the
chess playing world was a lot different then. Quite frankly, I think
the Board needs to dialogue with those who are the members, who may be
interested in paying for the USCF's services given their specific needs
and wants rather than thinking that they always know the answers.

the 'old fashioned' sense of 'marketing' was purely analytical, and was
indifferent to result - that is, it was not prescriptive, and the entire
goal was to find where people were spening their money and where people
would spend their money

----

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.

That was a unique and very interesting time! At the same time, the US
was developing some strong GMs as well.

The per capita rate is interesting, and if extrapolated here would have
produced 80 GMs. I think actual production in the same period was for
home-grown GMs, UK = 20, USA = 2. Meanwhile Poland has produced 20 GMs from
an even smaller pop. than UK since the wall came down.

What is peculiar about these statistics is that there is rarely any
curiosity about them - and they are most often met with passive-aggressive
responses, like 'what's your point' as if people were too thick to notice
the scale of the diference, or resented feeling that something was at all
amiss here in sleepy USA.

No one seems interested in learning anything about the UK club system, or
whatever they did in Poland/

No doubt, the UK experience
was much better per capita, but there are always countries who are
going to outperform the per capita statistics -- if not, the World Cup
and many Olympic events would be much less interesting than they
generally turn out.

A leading UK newspaper, the Independent, this week featured an article by
its political correspondent [I am not sure that its true! I should like to
understand more of it] that chess is second only to football [soccer to you]
in the UK. !!

---

And I think below you write sensible things, to which I would only add that
they need to be seen in the context of USCF's history and current fiscal
practices - illustrated by the actual practice as illustrated by 'these
bastions of free expression', and since this is where I think you would
outshine all other candidates, and also is 'the other hand' of marketing,
then a suggest that making constructive means to implement these factors,
especially considering the consdierable political graft and cronyism that is
not only in place, but has become institutionalised, absolutely deflating
any positive expectations that might result from it.

Which is to say, you will need to convince people not that you have a will
to do it, but a means to do it.

Cordially, Phil Innes


It would be great if the USCF can continue to partner with other
agencies to fund things like national championships, and I think there
is greater opportunity to seek out funding from foundations,
governments, etc., even at the local level. This is an area where I
have some history, and I don't think we do as well as we should. At
the same time, the USCF has to be seen as a mainstream, viable
organization with its finances, market plans, and strategic plans in
place for many of these organizations to take the shot. That is
another area where I think, fundamentally, we have fallen down over the
last decade or so. I would want to work on those, and I would expect,
over the term of being on the EB, to be held accountable for results in
these areas.

I lived through this sort of accountability in the State of Iowa. I
was fortunate to work for a principled leader who instilled this
culture throughout government, and I believe we delivered. Budgets
were balanced for 8 years without raising taxes, and Iowa's tax revenue
as a percentage of personal income went from above to below the
national average. At the same time, K-12 test scores improved,
children with health insurance went up, per capita personal income
surpassed the national average, and employment hit record levels. I
doubt we could do the same/similar in terms of improvement for the
USCF, but I'd like to give it a try.

Cordially, Randy Bauer


Cordially, Phil Innes

Geez, Phil, it's been a long time since I found myself in agreement
with many of the things you write -- maybe I'm mellowing with age.
Please note responses below.

Chess One wrote:
"Randy Bauer" wrote in message
ups.com...

Actually, I applauded and supported Don Schultz when he provided the
necessary leadership to reinstitute the BINFO system for communication
among the Board. I think the USCF forums are another excellent
opportunity for members and others to interact. It at least has, by
requiring members to post their ID numbers, prevented the spamming and
forgeries that plague this newsgroup.

Let me just amplify on some of these themes, and with some other
perspectives, not necessarily head-on ones, but tangential. I will not
introduce new material, but use some news to illustrate points already
raised:-
--------

I looked at the USCF site this morning and reported on the $10,000 'award',
which is this week's scandal, and also how it was treated at the Nolanland
forum by a moderator - which even a Rhino's skin would register as rash and
offensive abuse of speech.

I also noticed the less-than-honest reporting about Tanner, which had no
mention at all about an ethics scandal, and its far better psychologically
to pre-empt criticism by admitting a problem, especially since this was yet
another 'award' to insiders.

Well, my perspective is a bit different here; I think the USCF website
in general is meant to promote the USCF -- and chess -- in general. If
there is a need for discussion of the issues you describe, which would
be governance in nature, I would expect to see them either in the
members only sections or governance.

I'm not sure that I would describe spending $10,000 on fundraising as a
'scandal' although I think it's very fair to question whether any value
came from that expenditure. I do think that is an area where the Board
should be held accountable for it, but sometimes you do take risks that
don't pan out.


If it isn't openly admitted, it is safe to assume that nothing at all will
happen to obviate future occurance.

--------

I think Susan Polgar has done more to market chess in this country than
any player in a long time. I don't know the percentage of credit Paul
should receive for this, but Susan suggests it is a lot.

Yes, I think 'a lot' is correct. In fact last year 50 mainstream media
mentions compared with 2 for USCF. That, as my wife says, 'is not nothing.'

Agreed.

--------

It's all about providing something that people value, that is unique.
There are areas, such as Internet chess play, where I doubt the USCF is
going to be able to carve out a place from those who are further along.
However, given a strong scholastic presence, there must be
opportunities to continue to involve these players. I was one of those
strong scholastic players who ultimately stayed with the USCF, but the
chess playing world was a lot different then. Quite frankly, I think
the Board needs to dialogue with those who are the members, who may be
interested in paying for the USCF's services given their specific needs
and wants rather than thinking that they always know the answers.

the 'old fashioned' sense of 'marketing' was purely analytical, and was
indifferent to result - that is, it was not prescriptive, and the entire
goal was to find where people were spening their money and where people
would spend their money

Yes, but I think a member organization has to be held to a slightly
different standard. That was why I opposed the Natrol marketing, for
example.

----

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.

That was a unique and very interesting time! At the same time, the US
was developing some strong GMs as well.

The per capita rate is interesting, and if extrapolated here would have
produced 80 GMs. I think actual production in the same period was for
home-grown GMs, UK = 20, USA = 2. Meanwhile Poland has produced 20 GMs from
an even smaller pop. than UK since the wall came down.

What is peculiar about these statistics is that there is rarely any
curiosity about them - and they are most often met with passive-aggressive
responses, like 'what's your point' as if people were too thick to notice
the scale of the diference, or resented feeling that something was at all
amiss here in sleepy USA.

No one seems interested in learning anything about the UK club system, or
whatever they did in Poland

I'm not sure I buy your claim of only 2 US GMs - off the top of my head
(maybe the years are wrong) wasn't there Rogoff, Tarjan, Soltis,
Fedorowicz, Benjamin, DeFirmian, Christiansen, Rohde, Henley, Ashley,
Sherzer, Tisdall. Plus, Seirwan, while not born in the US, was clearly
a product of US chess -- in some respects so was Browne. I probably
missed a few also.


No doubt, the UK experience
was much better per capita, but there are always countries who are
going to outperform the per capita statistics -- if not, the World Cup
and many Olympic events would be much less interesting than they
generally turn out.

A leading UK newspaper, the Independent, this week featured an article by
its political correspondent [I am not sure that its true! I should like to
understand more of it] that chess is second only to football [soccer to you]
in the UK. !!

---

And I think below you write sensible things, to which I would only add that
they need to be seen in the context of USCF's history and current fiscal
practices - illustrated by the actual practice as illustrated by 'these
bastions of free expression', and since this is where I think you would
outshine all other candidates, and also is 'the other hand' of marketing,
then a suggest that making constructive means to implement these factors,
especially considering the consdierable political graft and cronyism that is
not only in place, but has become institutionalised, absolutely deflating
any positive expectations that might result from it.

Which is to say, you will need to convince people not that you have a will
to do it, but a means to do it.

That's entirely correct and a fair point. That is why I've pledged to
support any other reasonable candidates with the background,
temperment, and ability to work collectively for change. I'm not
interested in serving on another board that is sharply divided. I
think that I can work with Bill, Joel, Don, etc. and I pledge to do so
if I'm elected.

Cordially, Phil Innes


Randy Bauer

"Randy Bauer" wrote in message
ups.com...
Geez, Phil, it's been a long time since I found myself in agreement
with many of the things you write -- maybe I'm mellowing with age.
Please note responses below.

sssh, people will suspect i am brown-nosing, in hope of fure preference -
whereas you know i am a son of a bitch and i don't like anyone i like -
that is to say, if one couldn't disagree, what is agreement worth?

-------

I also noticed the less-than-honest reporting about Tanner, which had no
mention at all about an ethics scandal, and its far better
psychologically
to pre-empt criticism by admitting a problem, especially since this was
yet
another 'award' to insiders.

...

I'm not sure that I would describe spending $10,000 on fundraising as a
'scandal' although I think it's very fair to question whether any value
came from that expenditure. I do think that is an area where the Board
should be held accountable for it, but sometimes you do take risks that
don't pan out.

Sure, and its other people's [members] money anyway and who has been
counting or measuring anything before? Might as well do 10 grand as 1. Who,
after all, is accountable - apparently and as usual, no one.

---------

Yes, I think 'a lot' is correct. In fact last year 50 mainstream media
mentions compared with 2 for USCF. That, as my wife says, 'is not
nothing.'

Agreed.

Including one of two films now.

You know, the thing with S. Polgar is that she loves the game. She is
devoted to it, mand needs no other qualifications at all! Whereas the rest
of the candidates need to state their cases, et ca. People admit this of
Polgar since she demonstrates it beyond any personal intriguing or benefit.
It has been something missing from American chess, a sort of
immigrant-purity factor, that simply loves the game regardless of how others
behave - and this, by all accounts, is completely winning.

You, OTOH, must work at it, like all the other candidates. And to you must,
Randy, ask more pointedly about these 'awards' of big chunks of cash,
without bid, and without measure, scandals if conducted with govt. money
[though common as muck!] if you want to hold what any marketeer can garner
for you.

This, I suggest, is your metier.

------


the 'old fashioned' sense of 'marketing' was purely analytical, and was
indifferent to result - that is, it was not prescriptive, and the entire
goal was to find where people were spening their money and where people
would spend their money

Yes, but I think a member organization has to be held to a slightly
different standard. That was why I opposed the Natrol marketing, for
example.

You should perhaps think think of member organisation only as a potential
sort of entity, whereas the truth of it is that board influence supercedes
any member influence. That is the rough truth of it.

I'm not sure I buy your claim of only 2 US GMs - off the top of my head
(maybe the years are wrong) wasn't there Rogoff, Tarjan, Soltis,
Fedorowicz, Benjamin, DeFirmian, Christiansen, Rohde, Henley, Ashley,
Sherzer, Tisdall. Plus, Seirwan, while not born in the US, was clearly
a product of US chess -- in some respects so was Browne. I probably
missed a few also.

their are 11 of 'em
but not quite synchronous with the period cited above, which as mentioned
would have produced 80 from the UK system

-----

Which is to say, you will need to convince people not that you have a
will
to do it, but a means to do it.

That's entirely correct and a fair point. That is why I've pledged to
support any other reasonable candidates with the background,
temperment, and ability to work collectively for change. I'm not
interested in serving on another board that is sharply divided. I
think that I can work with Bill, Joel, Don, etc. and I pledge to do so
if I'm elected.

Bad idea!

What you must do, is serve the constituency of players for whom Bill, Joel
and Don are merrily innocent, since these are the folks who have never
conducted a survey of US members on anything significant matter, and can
arrange a meet the critics meeting with critics who can't say dickey-boo.

You need your own plank - and you don't get it yet. You need to be a right
******* about spending money in accountable ways, and your experience allows
you to do that, and you have no competition whatsoever!

As someone who is indifferent to liking or not liking you, this is my
opinion. Ask 'uncle Larry' who is much the same, and although he actively
doesn't like you, he can still overcome his own liking or disliking to offer
disinterested and very practiced advice.

But I shove my opinionis at you too hard, and you will have to tolerate me,
perhaps because I will not be insistent that you do these things, but that
someone, for gawd's sake! does.

Phil Innes



Cordially, Phil Innes


Randy Bauer

Chess One wrote:
"Randy Bauer" wrote in message
ups.com...

You know, the thing with S. Polgar is that she loves the game. She is
devoted to it, mand needs no other qualifications at all! Whereas the rest
of the candidates need to state their cases, et ca. People admit this of
Polgar since she demonstrates it beyond any personal intriguing or benefit.
It has been something missing from American chess, a sort of
immigrant-purity factor, that simply loves the game regardless of how others
behave - and this, by all accounts, is completely winning.

It's very true. When I was elected the last time, Susan sought me out,
and we had a conversation that lasted at least 30 minutes (keep in mind
we had never met before) about a variety of chess topics -- she is very
passionate about building chess in this country, and it was obvious to
me that she would provide the energy, drive, determination, etc., to
get it done. You're right that we should focus on results, and she has
delivered.

You, OTOH, must work at it, like all the other candidates. And to you must,
Randy, ask more pointedly about these 'awards' of big chunks of cash,
without bid, and without measure, scandals if conducted with govt. money
[though common as muck!] if you want to hold what any marketeer can garner
for you.

OK, but we must also be willing to take risks from time to time. On
the USCF forum, Mikhail Korenman's successes, both in securing
additional funding for chess and other activities were listed, and it's
pretty darn impressive. Here is what Paul Truong listed:

Fundraising:

2003 - Received a grant from the State of Kansas for $251,000 to
operate the Karpov International School of chess in Lindsborg, KS

2005/06 - Raised $150,000 for the Chess for Peace program featured
former President Mikhail Gorbachev, World Champions Anatoly Karpov and
Susan Polgar and a nationalwide scholastic group trip to Moscow for a
match with Russian scholastic players

For the USCF sponsored activities:

2003, 2004 - Raised over $15,000 for the Final Four College
Presidential Cup (officially sponsored by USCF! With $0 support in 2003
from USCF)

2004 - Raised $3,000 for GM Karpov inauguration to the Hall of Fame
(USCF sponsored $1,000)

2005 - Raised $3,000 for GM Karpov participation at the SuperNational
in Nashville, TN (USCF support - $0)

Chess Organizer:

· 2004 U.S. Junior Open
· 2004 U.S. Junior Championship
· 2004 U.S. Cadet Championship
· 2004 Pan American Intercollegiate Championship
· 2003, 2004 Final Four Presidential Cup
· 2001-2004 Lindsborg Rotary Open
· 2002-2005 Lindsborg Open
· 2003 Lindsborg Invitational
· 2004 Lindsborg Knock-Out
· 2003, 2004, 2005 KS Open
· 2004, 2005 Anatoly Karpov - Susan Polgar Match
· 2001-2006 Scholastic tournaments
· 2005 KS Scholastic Grade Championship
· 2001-2006 Summer camps
· 2003-2005 Seminars for Educators
· 2006 Illinois Championship

Awards:

2006 USCF Special Service Award
2005 FIDE International Organizer
2005 Community Service Award (Lindsborg)
2005 Rotary International Service Award
2004 USCF Chess Organizer of the Year

Dr. Korenman is also an important member of the USCF Scholastic
Council. He is well respected by many people including former WC
Anatoly Karpov, former Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev, Susan
Polgar and countless others.

Now, if I were a funder presented with this history, I might think it
worth a $10,000 investment. That said, I agree with the basic point,
that the USCF EB is not Santa Claus, and we should expect a return on
our investments and hold people to specific tasks and quantifiable
deliverables.

You may know that I've moved into the world of consulting, and that is
what my clients demand of me -- I am more than willing to expect the
same for the USCF.


(snip)

Which is to say, you will need to convince people not that you have a
will
to do it, but a means to do it.

That's entirely correct and a fair point. That is why I've pledged to
support any other reasonable candidates with the background,
temperment, and ability to work collectively for change. I'm not
interested in serving on another board that is sharply divided. I
think that I can work with Bill, Joel, Don, etc. and I pledge to do so
if I'm elected.

Bad idea!

What you must do, is serve the constituency of players for whom Bill, Joel
and Don are merrily innocent, since these are the folks who have never
conducted a survey of US members on anything significant matter, and can
arrange a meet the critics meeting with critics who can't say dickey-boo.

It's a cogent point, but I don't think our positions aren't mutually
exclusive. The last time I served on the Board, I was supported and
aligned with a Board majority with whom I parted ways on several
important occasions. I worked to sway their votes, and sometimes I was
frustrated by what I perceived to be an "us versus them" mentality.
That is what I would work to eliminate from the Board's deliberations.


At the same time, I think it is important, once the Board has a made a
decision to constructively support the decision. Granted, there are
obviously exceptions for things like malfeasance, but when it's on the
margin, the Board needs to project itself as a team working for common
goals and objectives. That was my approach last time -- while I did
not agree with the decision at the time to select Crossville, I worked
to make it a success and argued for the good aspects of the decision.
I still think that is the right approach.

There are, however, some places where I went along last time where I
would now make more of a stand. I think that comes with experience and
with understanding your role. I like to think that I wouldn't need on
the job training.


You need your own plank - and you don't get it yet. You need to be a right
******* about spending money in accountable ways, and your experience allows
you to do that, and you have no competition whatsoever!

See the paragraph above -- I am happy to fulfill that role. The joke
in the Vilsack Administration when I was budget director was that the
Governor got to say yes, and it was my job to say no. I've practice
plenty in front of mirrors, and I can say no to just about anybody.

As someone who is indifferent to liking or not liking you, this is my
opinion. Ask 'uncle Larry' who is much the same, and although he actively
doesn't like you, he can still overcome his own liking or disliking to offer
disinterested and very practiced advice.

Thanks Phil -- although I think your indifference is more to the point
than Larry's.

But I shove my opinionis at you too hard, and you will have to tolerate me,
perhaps because I will not be insistent that you do these things, but that
someone, for gawd's sake! does.

Phil Innes

Randy Bauer

Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT):

7 ... I looked at the USCF site this morning and reported on the
7 $10,000 'award', which is this week's scandal, and also how
7 it was treated at the Nolanland forum by a moderator - which
7 even a Rhino's skin would register as rash and offensive
7 abuse of speech.

_
Is Phil Innes claiming that the moderator treated the subject
with "rash and offensive abuse of speech"? If so, where are
the examples?

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT):

7 I also noticed the less-than-honest reporting about Tanner,
7 which had no mention at all about an ethics scandal, ...

_
What "reporting" is Phil Innes writing about? Phil Innes
wouldn't want us to think that he was being deliberately
vague, would he?

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT):

7 ... The per capita rate is interesting, and if extrapolated
7 here would have produced 80 GMs. I think actual
7 production in the same period was for home-grown GMs,
7 UK = 20, USA = 2. Meanwhile Poland has produced 20
7 GMs from an even smaller pop. than UK since the wall
7 came down. ...

_
"In Europe, playing chess professionally is a
viable occupation." - Jennifer Shahade

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT):

7 ... No one seems interested in learning anything about
7 the UK club system, or whatever they did in Poland/ ...

_
"What can the USCF do about this?" - Louis
Blair (30 Mar 2006 07:16:13 -0800)

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

Chess One wrote:
"Randy Bauer" wrote in message
ups.com...

You know, the thing with S. Polgar is that she loves the game. She is
devoted to it, mand needs no other qualifications at all! Whereas the rest
of the candidates need to state their cases, et ca. People admit this of
Polgar since she demonstrates it beyond any personal intriguing or
benefit.
It has been something missing from American chess, a sort of
immigrant-purity factor, that simply loves the game regardless of how
others
behave - and this, by all accounts, is completely winning.

It's very true. When I was elected the last time, Susan sought me out,
and we had a conversation that lasted at least 30 minutes (keep in mind
we had never met before) about a variety of chess topics -- she is very
passionate about building chess in this country, and it was obvious to
me that she would provide the energy, drive, determination, etc., to
get it done.

**She is an Ailein Duinn! Which is to say, the soul of it, which cannot be
reduced, though rather evidently, it can be forgot that we have souls!

You're right that we should focus on results, and she has
delivered.

**And all that needs grounding and securing. In the group role-play, that is
what is also missing and the necessary complimentary factor, and a function
that is heretofore not as much forgot, since there has been so very little
to secure, as unpracticed.

You, OTOH, must work at it, like all the other candidates. And to you
must,
Randy, ask more pointedly about these 'awards' of big chunks of cash,
without bid, and without measure, scandals if conducted with govt. money
[though common as muck!] if you want to hold what any marketeer can garner
for you.

OK, but we must also be willing to take risks from time to time. On
the USCF forum, Mikhail Korenman's successes, both in securing
additional funding for chess and other activities were listed, and it's
pretty darn impressive. Here is what Paul Truong listed:


... snips

**Yes I know him. I would also mention that he seems able to talk about the
pedagogical aspects of chess - which no one has secured enough to go where
the real money is, mainstream education. I talked with him for hours about
it. As a group-role in your mix of 4, that would be the prime prospect for
Michael, IMO.

---

Now, if I were a funder presented with this history, I might think it
worth a $10,000 investment. That said, I agree with the basic point,
that the USCF EB is not Santa Claus, and we should expect a return on
our investments and hold people to specific tasks and quantifiable
deliverables.

**Yes - no need to not recognise talent and the best chance of a return, but
some accounting is necessary too. I think especially the EB hasn't noticed
that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done. And to skip that
step of transparency you must be superb! So that your work speaks for
itself. But the board is composed of regular mortals, and they mostly
certainly /need/ to be reminded of the fact.

---------
Bad idea!

What you must do, is serve the constituency of players for whom Bill, Joel
and Don are merrily innocent, since these are the folks who have never
conducted a survey of US members on anything significant matter, and can
arrange a meet the critics meeting with critics who can't say dickey-boo.

It's a cogent point, but I don't think our positions aren't mutually
exclusive. The last time I served on the Board, I was supported and
aligned with a Board majority with whom I parted ways on several
important occasions. I worked to sway their votes, and sometimes I was
frustrated by what I perceived to be an "us versus them" mentality.
That is what I would work to eliminate from the Board's deliberations.

**I personally think some bad habits are so entrenched, and all swinging
together will be nigh-on impossible with the current crew. And they are also
too old! You are not just dealing with a few years of board activity but the
fixed corporate culture of 20 years. Even well-meaning people need to be
left behind if they can't go faster than 2 mph, since the prevailing
head-wind is 3 mph. [I also consult]

----

As someone who is indifferent to liking or not liking you, this is my
opinion. Ask 'uncle Larry' who is much the same, and although he actively
doesn't like you, he can still overcome his own liking or disliking to
offer
disinterested and very practiced advice.

Thanks Phil -- although I think your indifference is more to the point
than Larry's.

**that quote's a keeper!

**but i hope you understand me - there /is/ good will to evolving chess
across the spectrum of opinion, independent of personal likes and dislikes,
and you will be lucky indeed to work only with those you personally find
congenial. good advice has been kept at arms-length for a long time at USCF,
and I would say there are many more out than in - and few who are out are
pleased with the old gang and its routines, and it is pointless asking for
their trust - if that is to be regained it that has to be resubstantiated by
demonstration, not talk

**As chess players this is easy to understand, since isn't it the first
reaction to any claim to say "show me, don't tell me".

o hi shiubhlin leat, Phil Innes

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
ups.com...
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT):

7 ... I looked at the USCF site this morning and reported on the
7 $10,000 'award', which is this week's scandal, and also how
7 it was treated at the Nolanland forum by a moderator - which
7 even a Rhino's skin would register as rash and offensive
7 abuse of speech.

_
Is Phil Innes claiming that the moderator treated the subject
with "rash and offensive abuse of speech"?

Is Louis Blair asking me if he can understand what I wrote? I think he is
asking me that. OTOH, he could be asking me if I 'claim' I wrote what I did.

If so, where are
the examples?

Louis Blair doesn't understand where these examples are from what I wrote,
even though I wrote Nolandland, which he forgot to snip ;(

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT):

7 I also noticed the less-than-honest reporting about Tanner,
7 which had no mention at all about an ethics scandal, ...

_
What "reporting" is Phil Innes writing about? Phil Innes
wouldn't want us to think that he was being deliberately
vague, would he?

Luois Blair, or Blairs, speaking in the plural, has done his usual thing of
cutting text then asking a question about it, and unusual for him, or them,
has come immediately tot he point. 'Vague' he says. Telling me that I would
hate to be thought of as vague by them.

Perhaps the answer is at the USCF website, or the backside of the moon?
Perhaps 'we' could think which of those are more likely locations, but most
likely 'we' won't and instead 'we' will demand to know what text 'we' cut,
and whooppee! I can definitely keep this sucker going til christmas and win
another $5 bet.

Cordially, The M*asked V*rmont*r.



_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT):

7 ... The per capita rate is interesting, and if extrapolated
7 here would have produced 80 GMs. I think actual
7 production in the same period was for home-grown GMs,
7 UK = 20, USA = 2. Meanwhile Poland has produced 20
7 GMs from an even smaller pop. than UK since the wall
7 came down. ...

_
"In Europe, playing chess professionally is a
viable occupation." - Jennifer Shahade

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT):

7 ... No one seems interested in learning anything about
7 the UK club system, or whatever they did in Poland/ ...

_
"What can the USCF do about this?" - Louis
Blair (30 Mar 2006 07:16:13 -0800)

Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT):
7 ... I looked at the USCF site this morning and reported on the
7 $10,000 'award', which is this week's scandal, and also how
7 it was treated at the Nolanland forum by a moderator - which
7 even a Rhino's skin would register as rash and offensive
7 abuse of speech.
_
I wrote (13 Dec 2006 20:01:22 -0800):
7 Is Phil Innes claiming that the moderator treated the subject
7 with "rash and offensive abuse of speech"? If so, where are
7 the examples?

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:21:30 GMT):

7 Is Louis Blair asking me if he can understand what I wrote?
7 I think he is asking me that. OTOH, he could be asking me
7 if I 'claim' I wrote what I did.
7
7 Louis Blair doesn't understand where these examples are
7 from what I wrote, even though I wrote Nolandland, which
7 he forgot to snip ;(

_
Only Phil Innes can identify what he considers to be a
specific example. He, of course, prefers not to.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:25:41 GMT):
7 I also noticed the less-than-honest reporting about Tanner,
7 which had no mention at all about an ethics scandal, ...
_
I wrote (13 Dec 2006 20:01:22 -0800):
7 What "reporting" is Phil Innes writing about? Phil Innes
7 wouldn't want us to think that he was being deliberately
7 vague, would he? ...

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:21:30 GMT):

7 Luois Blair, or Blairs, speaking in the plural, has done his
7 usual thing of cutting text then asking a question about it,

_
Nonsense. I quoted the text that I was asking about.
See above, where it is quoted again.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:21:30 GMT):

7 and unusual for him, or them, has come immediately tot
7 he point. 'Vague' he says. Telling me that I would hate to
7 be thought of as vague by them.
7
7 Perhaps the answer is at the USCF website, or the
7 backside of the moon? Perhaps 'we' could think which of
7 those are more likely locations, but most likely 'we' won't
7 and instead 'we' will demand to know what text 'we' cut,
7 and whooppee! I can definitely keep this sucker going til
7 christmas and win another $5 bet.

_
It, of course, is not a surprise that Phil Innes also does not
want to be specific about this matter.