These are exactly the points to which I object. Please note that we
are talking about the US Championship here, not the US Woman's
Championship.

A woman should not be invited to the US Championship just because she
is a woman. She should qualify in the same way that the men qualify.

Bill Goichberg insists that his list of qualifiers be allowed to play
in the US Championship. This includes three women who are not
otherwise qualified.

Bill goes further to say that inasmuch as the number #1 woman, Susan
Polgar, has already stated that she will not play, therefore the
number 4 woman, Rusudan Goletiani, should be invited.

I say that these 30 qualifiers on Bill's list were never approved by a
vote of the Executive Board and therefore we have every right to
ignore Bill's list. However, if we decide that we have a moral
obligation to honor Bill's list, that is the extent of our moral
obligation. If one of the players on Bill's list declines to play,
that spot should not be filled, because every additional player places
an additional financial burden on the sponsor (who has not yet
materialized) and on the USCF.

Furthermore, I state that if the spot created by the absence of Susan
Polgar is to be filled in order to create an even number of players,
then that spot should go to Larry Christiansen, who is the number 7
rated player in the US and who is not on Bill's list of qualifiers.

I expect that this decision is to be made by the board. I do not agree
that there is any "precedent" that a qualifier lower down on Bill's
list, who might be a very low rated player, should get to play in the
US Championship, rather than Larry Christiansen.

Therefore, I can now see that even though Bill voted in favor of my
motion, he believes that my motion had no effect and he can still use
his own ideas to decide who gets to play in the US Championship.

This situation may require another vote by the board.

Sam Sloan

--- In , "Chess One" innes8@... wrote:

Is the subject or topic of this message the US Women's Championship? Or a
combined US Championship? It presents a mish-mash of ideas.

If it is the woman's championship, how about inviting the top-rated 32
players to a Swiss. If a player declines, then restock the list with the
next highest rating?

What the following paragraph means is obscured by its words:

"But the precedent for replacing a qualifier
who declines his or her invitation is quite clear, and it would be
unfair to the players to change the procedure at this point."

1) what is the replacement precedent for 'a list' that is clear?
2) what 'precedent' is necessary?
3) why unfair to the players?
4) why 'at this point?'
5) what can be understood of the nature of 'Bill's list'? what is its basis?

Of course, if the idea is to combine the unfunded male championship with the
funded woman's competition, then by all means mish-mash as usual, since
there is ample precedent for such things as 'Bill's list'.

Phil Innes

This is for the US Championship, not for the US Woman's Championship.
The US Woman's Championship will be a separate event.

I agree that there is no such precedent. The qualifiers were
introduced in 2001 when Erik Anderson started sponsoring the US
Championship. Now that Erik Anderson had dropped out, there is no
validity to using these qualifiers. in March, 2006 Erik Anderson told
Bill Goichberg to stop collecting these qualifier fees. That was a
clear signal (one of many clear signals) that this system of
qualifiers was being abolished.

Bill Goichberg feels that if, for example, the top two players qualify
from the North American Open and one of those top two decline to play
in the US Championship, then the number three finisher in the North
American Open should get that spot.

I disagree. Since the USCF Executive Board never approved the North
American Open as a qualifier we do not need to seed the top two
players into the US Championship. However, in any case, the number
three player should not get to play in the US Championship.

As to Bill Goichberg's claim of "unfairness", if you will look in back
issues of Chess Like you will see that none of these tournaments were
advertised in Chess Life as qualifiers for the US Championship, except
for the first one. Therefore, it is not unfair not to allow these
players to play in the US Championship.

I maintain that now that Erik Anderson has dropped out, the US
Championship should be held in the traditional way. The USCF has its
own rules, which do not include qualifiers, and we should follow the
USCF Rules, not the Bill Goichberg Rules.

Sam Sloan

At 12:55 PM 2/10/2007 EST, wrote:


This current process where we are debating whether a tornament that is
being held later today or may already have started is a qualifier to
the US
Championship is outrageous, unprecedented and unacceptable.

Sam Sloan

It doesn't start for another two hours. The players, the state
associations and ICC will be pleased to hear that it has retained its
qualifier status in the event the 2007 US Championship is a Swiss or a
32-player knockout.

Bill Goichberg

What about the members? I always thought that the members should have
something to say about this, as, after all, they are paying for it.

Natutrally, the people who get in will be happy. What about the
grandmasters who are left out and must stand by and watch a bunch of
patzers play each other for the US Chanmpionship and for a slot in the
next world championship cycle?

I regard the vote that has just been taken as invalid and void and
without effect. The rules on email voting by the board require that
the vote is not final for five days. This is to give everybody time to
consider the issues and possibly to express, reconsider and changed
their votes.

Bill Goichberg made his motion to declare the ICC Touirnament being
held today as a qualifier to the US Championship on Fri, 9 Feb 2007
16:49:32 EST

Bill Goichberg declared that the motion had passed on Sat, 10 Feb 2007
15:07:33 EST, which was just 22 hours 18 minutes later, and before
Beatriz Marinello had come online to express her views and vote and
possibly join my request for a telephone conference call.

Thus, the motion passed illegally and Bill Goichberg's notification to
John Henderson to go ahead with the blitz tournament today as a US
Championship qualifier was a violation of our rules.

Since everybody is notified of this, I am hereby notifying everybody
that I do not consider the trournament taking place online today as a
valid qualifier to the US Championship. I will be filing an ethics
complaint against Bill Goichberg for his obviously unethical actions
and calling for his removal as president. I will object to allowing
the winner of this event to play in the US Championship.

Sam Sloan

On Feb 10, 6:06 pm, "samsloan" wrote:

[....]


Thus, the motion passed illegally and Bill Goichberg's notification to
John Henderson to go ahead with the blitz tournament today as a US
Championship qualifier was a violation of our rules.

Since everybody is notified of this, I am hereby notifying everybody
that I do not consider the trournament taking place online today as a
valid qualifier to the US Championship. I will be filing an ethics
complaint against Bill Goichberg for his obviously unethical actions
and calling for his removal as president. I will object to allowing
the winner of this event to play in the US Championship.

Sam Sloan

More questions from the Friends of the Friends of the USCF (hereafter
FOTFOTUSCF):

11. Do you agree that, on the basis of Goichberg's actions as cited
upthread, Sloan is correct to call for Goichberg's removal as
president?

12. Do you agree with Sloan that Goichberg's September 2006 public
motion (as referred to by Sloan below) "effectively force[d Sloan] to
reveal" his [alleged] prior relationship with S. Polgar?

In BINFO 200603590, dated September 25, 2006, Sam Sloan wrote:

I am deeply discouraged and disappointed that Bill [Goichberg],
acting like a bull in a china shop, has brought this into the public
forum by making a public motion and posting it to USCF BINFO System,
as
a result of which this matter will disseminated and the entire world
will know about it in due course.The fact is that my relationship with
Zsuzsa Polgar (who now calls herself Susan) was not entirely Platonic.
I have been discrete and have not revealed to anyone other than a few
close friends the true nature of our prior relationship, until now.
Now, Bill's public motion effectively forces me to reveal what really
happened those many years ago. This will do no good either to me,
Zsuzsa, Bill or the USCF, but it appears that now I will have no real
choice but to tell the whole story.

Sam Sloan