I just posted this message into a Paul Truong thread at USCF's forums -
which exists like other threads there to discuss board-aspirants. Phil Innes
-------------

I should like to make a personal statement at odds with some others here.

(1) The first comment is to address that 'everybody knows Mr. Truong is
difficult to work with', and I should like 'everybody' to know that I am at
least one exception to this. In fact, in exceptionally difficult
circumstances, at very high levels of chess engagement, and something not
attempted since 1947, Mr. Truong behaved in a stressful situation with
almost other-worldly calm, detachment and attention to what had to be done -
as indeed did a very complex crew with whom he worked, everyone behaving
with more cheer and mutual support than could be hoped for.

(2) A second point of three, is to merely point out his philosophy of chess
in a recent interview I was glad to conduct with him, which is available at
www.chessville.com in the '20 Questions' section and comprises the most
lengthy statement I have read by any candidate. While you or I, dear reader,
might agree or disagree with his comments, these generous answers are not
hiding his philosophy - which is right up front!

(3) Finally, I think it is important for all candidates [except one,
perhaps, see postscript] to understand that USCF has suffered overmuch by
personality politics in the past, and to compare this with the fact that
good businesses are run by good systems - and therefore clearer distinctions
might be made about policy issues, and stronger support offered to paid
staff to do their jobs properly and competently. If Mr Truong will excuse a
mention of another candidate in 'his' thread, I understand Candidate Bauer
has addressed these subjects in rgcp, and indeed, has made very much sense.

Cordially, Phil Innes

Postscript: The exception I would make to general board membership is in
respect of Susan Polgar, who has no need to strain after publicity, or
compete at a personality level, and indeed, most would grant her a
disinterested love of chess before any other person. As such, she /is/ the
product.

To properly engage such unusual talent for the benefit of USCF means that
sufficient discipline needs to be deployed at the board level, and in
organisational competencies like other businesses, specifically, Audit or
monies and how it is expended, and also Marketing & Sales. The two most
marked disciplines would appear to be on institutional competencies and
responsibilities, as already remarked for Mr. Bauer, and the 'third' arm of
any business which is Marketing/Sales, which I think is Mr. Truong's bag.

Getting these 3 aspects into right relation will perhaps turn USCF's
fortunes around, and I don't mean just financially, but as with Fide, it
suffers a lack of confidence before the chess public.

Well that's interesting. Looks like the entire forum area for discussing
anything other than running a chess club and tournaments has been
disappeared since this morning! Perhaps rgcp will see a few real
organisational posts now, since there are few other places to do it.

Phil Innes



"Chess One" wrote in message
news:TvMrh.14628$32.2477@trndny09...
I just posted this message into a Paul Truong thread at USCF's forums -
which exists like other threads there to discuss board-aspirants. Phil
Innes
-------------

I should like to make a personal statement at odds with some others here.

(1) The first comment is to address that 'everybody knows Mr. Truong is
difficult to work with', and I should like 'everybody' to know that I am
at least one exception to this. In fact, in exceptionally difficult
circumstances, at very high levels of chess engagement, and something not
attempted since 1947, Mr. Truong behaved in a stressful situation with
almost other-worldly calm, detachment and attention to what had to be
done - as indeed did a very complex crew with whom he worked, everyone
behaving with more cheer and mutual support than could be hoped for.

(2) A second point of three, is to merely point out his philosophy of
chess in a recent interview I was glad to conduct with him, which is
available at www.chessville.com in the '20 Questions' section and
comprises the most lengthy statement I have read by any candidate. While
you or I, dear reader, might agree or disagree with his comments, these
generous answers are not hiding his philosophy - which is right up front!

(3) Finally, I think it is important for all candidates [except one,
perhaps, see postscript] to understand that USCF has suffered overmuch by
personality politics in the past, and to compare this with the fact that
good businesses are run by good systems - and therefore clearer
distinctions might be made about policy issues, and stronger support
offered to paid staff to do their jobs properly and competently. If Mr
Truong will excuse a mention of another candidate in 'his' thread, I
understand Candidate Bauer has addressed these subjects in rgcp, and
indeed, has made very much sense.

Cordially, Phil Innes

Postscript: The exception I would make to general board membership is in
respect of Susan Polgar, who has no need to strain after publicity, or
compete at a personality level, and indeed, most would grant her a
disinterested love of chess before any other person. As such, she /is/ the
product.

To properly engage such unusual talent for the benefit of USCF means that
sufficient discipline needs to be deployed at the board level, and in
organisational competencies like other businesses, specifically, Audit or
monies and how it is expended, and also Marketing & Sales. The two most
marked disciplines would appear to be on institutional competencies and
responsibilities, as already remarked for Mr. Bauer, and the 'third' arm
of any business which is Marketing/Sales, which I think is Mr. Truong's
bag.

Getting these 3 aspects into right relation will perhaps turn USCF's
fortunes around, and I don't mean just financially, but as with Fide, it
suffers a lack of confidence before the chess public.

Chess One wrote:
Well that's interesting. Looks like the entire forum area for discussing
anything other than running a chess club and tournaments has been
disappeared since this morning! Perhaps rgcp will see a few real
organisational posts now, since there are few other places to do it.

Phil Innes



"Chess One" wrote in message
news:TvMrh.14628$32.2477@trndny09...
I just posted this message into a Paul Truong thread at USCF's forums -
which exists like other threads there to discuss board-aspirants. Phil
Innes
-------------

I should like to make a personal statement at odds with some others here.

(1) The first comment is to address that 'everybody knows Mr. Truong is
difficult to work with', and I should like 'everybody' to know that I am
at least one exception to this. In fact, in exceptionally difficult
circumstances, at very high levels of chess engagement, and something not
attempted since 1947, Mr. Truong behaved in a stressful situation with
almost other-worldly calm, detachment and attention to what had to be
done - as indeed did a very complex crew with whom he worked, everyone
behaving with more cheer and mutual support than could be hoped for.

(2) A second point of three, is to merely point out his philosophy of
chess in a recent interview I was glad to conduct with him, which is
available at www.chessville.com in the '20 Questions' section and
comprises the most lengthy statement I have read by any candidate. While
you or I, dear reader, might agree or disagree with his comments, these
generous answers are not hiding his philosophy - which is right up front!

(3) Finally, I think it is important for all candidates [except one,
perhaps, see postscript] to understand that USCF has suffered overmuch by
personality politics in the past, and to compare this with the fact that
good businesses are run by good systems - and therefore clearer
distinctions might be made about policy issues, and stronger support
offered to paid staff to do their jobs properly and competently. If Mr
Truong will excuse a mention of another candidate in 'his' thread, I
understand Candidate Bauer has addressed these subjects in rgcp, and
indeed, has made very much sense.

Cordially, Phil Innes

Postscript: The exception I would make to general board membership is in
respect of Susan Polgar, who has no need to strain after publicity, or
compete at a personality level, and indeed, most would grant her a
disinterested love of chess before any other person. As such, she /is/ the
product.

To properly engage such unusual talent for the benefit of USCF means that
sufficient discipline needs to be deployed at the board level, and in
organisational competencies like other businesses, specifically, Audit or
monies and how it is expended, and also Marketing & Sales. The two most
marked disciplines would appear to be on institutional competencies and
responsibilities, as already remarked for Mr. Bauer, and the 'third' arm
of any business which is Marketing/Sales, which I think is Mr. Truong's
bag.

Getting these 3 aspects into right relation will perhaps turn USCF's
fortunes around, and I don't mean just financially, but as with Fide, it
suffers a lack of confidence before the chess public.


I just wonder if all the changes in administration are made and nothing
positive happens, what then?
How many times in the last 20 years has the USCF brought in a new group
of "reformers"? After bringing in these new "reformers" is the
organization any better off than it was 20 years ago? More
importantly, is the game of chess more or less generally regarded as an
activity worth expenditures of time or effort to enjoy by the mass
public?

Are we spinning our wheels? Is the patient still saveable?

Rob

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

Getting these 3 aspects into right relation will perhaps turn USCF's
fortunes around, and I don't mean just financially, but as with Fide,
it
suffers a lack of confidence before the chess public.


I just wonder if all the changes in administration are made and nothing
positive happens, what then?
How many times in the last 20 years has the USCF brought in a new group
of "reformers"?

I think the point of this post is that the board /are/ reformers, but not
performers - they do not actually do the work they direct. And there has
been much political grandstanding at the expense of building skills within
the organisation by those who must do the work.

But this time there will possible be a huge shift in chess - as we analysed
elsewhere, only 7,500 adults play at what is more than a provisional level
to get any rating, and of those, some are in clubs and some in tournaments.

No one at USCF seems able to say where these ratings emerge, overlap or
diverge, so as to quantify strength of clubs. eg. This is a rather important
factor since USCF used to be all about clubs.

It interested me recently that the very conservative commentator Joel
Benjamin wondered where on earth any new talent was to come from, since it
all seems to come from overseas. And this is the result of /other/ countries
chess clubs, and their systems of play.

In the same place, Jen Shahade's online CL, Jerry Hanken gets Nakamura to
speak to the future, and HN says that he can't see any young player with
similar talent or promise to his own anywhere on the scene, and whatever
system is currently in place, is depressing in this respect.

So a Polgar led baord is likely to go directly for the only active area of
regualr rated chess - the well populated but lower end - this will transport
USCF into USKidsF. But Kasparov's org are already pitching for it, and they
have plenty of money - and now Fide may come in and gobble up the spoils.

I think traditionalists will hate Polgar's approach! Larry Parr, who reads
here will hate it. But without renewing the foundation the situation will
never ever improve, and it will always be; 'immigrants dominate the game in
this country.' But I would say - with a passing swipe at Larry, Nigel Short
told me the same thing about Fide - complete negligence in not just
beginners chess in a few countries, but in a few continents! He mentioned
Africa in particular where Fide funding is now half what it was in Kirsan's
previous term. He also linked this with quantity of players and their
activity rate.

I don't think this scenario is necessary here, just likely! a Kids-Only
concentration, but it is the first thing that needs attack, and if something
can be done for adult chess, then good - but I tell you Rob - a close look
shows massive erosion of the structure which used to prop these things up.

And as for the people currently at the helm - they don't care at all.

After bringing in these new "reformers" is the
organization any better off than it was 20 years ago?

In numbers, 10,000 less. In terms of infrastructure - now poorer, more
remote from the hottest chess areas around NY city, and seemingly without
the ability to run a national championship.

Added to which is losing control of B&E is such a way as it is no longer
recoverable.

More
importantly, is the game of chess more or less generally regarded as an
activity worth expenditures of time or effort to enjoy by the mass
public?

I do not know any writers who think it is not a valuable cultural artifact,
to young and older people alike.

Are we spinning our wheels? Is the patient still saveable?

Probably the same amount of work as for a start-up. This is absurd with such
a mature organisation, but there is much cleaning of the stables necessary,
and an organisation which pointedly has had no sponsors for a long time.

Even if SP can generate substantial enthusiasm, and PT can amplify it
through main-media, money needs security, which is something perhaps Randy B
can bring home, otherwise money will stay home.

But that is the same uphill scenario as if they started over!

Cordially, Phil Innes

Rob

Chess One wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
ups.com...

Getting these 3 aspects into right relation will perhaps turn USCF's
fortunes around, and I don't mean just financially, but as with Fide,
it
suffers a lack of confidence before the chess public.


I just wonder if all the changes in administration are made and nothing
positive happens, what then?
How many times in the last 20 years has the USCF brought in a new group
of "reformers"?

I think the point of this post is that the board /are/ reformers, but not
performers - they do not actually do the work they direct. And there has
been much political grandstanding at the expense of building skills within
the organisation by those who must do the work.

But this time there will possible be a huge shift in chess - as we analysed
elsewhere, only 7,500 adults play at what is more than a provisional level
to get any rating, and of those, some are in clubs and some in tournaments.

No one at USCF seems able to say where these ratings emerge, overlap or
diverge, so as to quantify strength of clubs. eg. This is a rather important
factor since USCF used to be all about clubs.

It interested me recently that the very conservative commentator Joel
Benjamin wondered where on earth any new talent was to come from, since it
all seems to come from overseas. And this is the result of /other/ countries
chess clubs, and their systems of play.

In the same place, Jen Shahade's online CL, Jerry Hanken gets Nakamura to
speak to the future, and HN says that he can't see any young player with
similar talent or promise to his own anywhere on the scene, and whatever
system is currently in place, is depressing in this respect.

So a Polgar led baord is likely to go directly for the only active area of
regualr rated chess - the well populated but lower end - this will transport
USCF into USKidsF. But Kasparov's org are already pitching for it, and they
have plenty of money - and now Fide may come in and gobble up the spoils.

I think traditionalists will hate Polgar's approach! Larry Parr, who reads
here will hate it. But without renewing the foundation the situation will
never ever improve, and it will always be; 'immigrants dominate the game in
this country.' But I would say - with a passing swipe at Larry, Nigel Short
told me the same thing about Fide - complete negligence in not just
beginners chess in a few countries, but in a few continents! He mentioned
Africa in particular where Fide funding is now half what it was in Kirsan's
previous term. He also linked this with quantity of players and their
activity rate.

I don't think this scenario is necessary here, just likely! a Kids-Only
concentration, but it is the first thing that needs attack, and if something
can be done for adult chess, then good - but I tell you Rob - a close look
shows massive erosion of the structure which used to prop these things up.

And as for the people currently at the helm - they don't care at all.

After bringing in these new "reformers" is the
organization any better off than it was 20 years ago?

In numbers, 10,000 less. In terms of infrastructure - now poorer, more
remote from the hottest chess areas around NY city, and seemingly without
the ability to run a national championship.

Added to which is losing control of B&E is such a way as it is no longer
recoverable.

More
importantly, is the game of chess more or less generally regarded as an
activity worth expenditures of time or effort to enjoy by the mass
public?

I do not know any writers who think it is not a valuable cultural artifact,
to young and older people alike.

Are we spinning our wheels? Is the patient still saveable?

Probably the same amount of work as for a start-up. This is absurd with such
a mature organisation, but there is much cleaning of the stables necessary,
and an organisation which pointedly has had no sponsors for a long time.

Even if SP can generate substantial enthusiasm, and PT can amplify it
through main-media, money needs security, which is something perhaps Randy B
can bring home, otherwise money will stay home.

But that is the same uphill scenario as if they started over!

Cordially, Phil Innes

Rob


It's obvious to me based upon the interest expressed in this thread by
others(Mr. Innes and myself excluded) noone wants to discuss this topic.