USCF Issues Forum: "February Board Meeting"

ICC-TD Duncan 12614202



Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 142
Location: Marina, California USA

PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 1:27 pm Post subject: February Board
Meeting Reply with quote
Could someone who was at the February 3-4 meetings please post a short
summary of what happened?

I'm particularly interested in the status of the US Championship
Qualifiers.
_________________
--Duncan R Oxley
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send email Visit poster's
website
nolan 10339324



Joined: 20 Dec 2003
Posts: 4399


PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:11 am Post subject: Reply with
quote
The US Championship has not been finalized yet, so I don't know what
the status of the qualifier events is.

The dues sale has been extended (at slightly higher rates) until the
end of December. I think the rates as of April 1st will be $41 for one
year, $76 for two years and $109 for three years.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send email
ICC-TD Duncan 12614202



Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 142
Location: Marina, California USA

PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:29 pm Post subject: Reply with
quote
nolan wrote:
The US Championship has not been finalized yet, so I don't know what
the status of the qualifier events is.

The dues sale has been extended (at slightly higher rates) until the
end of December. I think the rates as of April 1st will be $41 for one
year, $76 for two years and $109 for three years.


Thank you.
_________________
--Duncan R Oxley
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send email Visit poster's
website
nolan 10339324



Joined: 20 Dec 2003
Posts: 4399


PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 10:42 pm Post subject: Reply with
quote
Correction: $41 for one year, $76 for two years, $109 for three years.

The two preceding posts have also been corrected by the Moderator.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send email
samsloan 11115292



Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 1002
Location: Bronx, New York

PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 11:00 am Post subject: February
Board Meeting Reply with quote
ICC-TD Duncan wrote:
Could someone who was at the February 3-4 meetings please post a short
summary of what happened?

I'm particularly interested in the status of the US Championship
Qualifiers.

I made four motions regarding the US Championship. One passed and the
other three were voted down.

Fortunately, this was all done in OPEN SESSION on Sunday, so you
should be able to hear the debate when and if it is ever posted.

The motion I made that passed was that nothing regarding the US
Championship would be finalized without a vote by the board. At first
Bill Goichberg argued against it saying that in past years the board
was not involved in formatting the US Championship. However, that was
when the USCF had strong Executive Directors, such as Ed Edmondson and
Al Lawrence, or more recently when AF4C was the sponsor.

Finally, Bill Goichberg voted for my motion (as slightly amended by
Joel Channing) and it passed 6-0.

Do not be surprised however if Bill does not follow that.

Regarding the qualifiers and my other motions, I said that the Zonal
Tournament does not have to be the same event as the US Championship.
I therefore moved that the Zonal tournament be held as a 12 player
round robin with qualification determined entirely by rating and that
it be held in May or June before the World Open. My motion was voted
down.

I also said that I will play a chess match with Raymond Weinstein who
has recently been transferred out of that lunatic asylum and wants to
play chess again, and assuming that Weinstein beats me and anybody
else I can put up against him, I will recommend that he be given a
spot in the US Championship.

As Susan Polgar has already stated that she will not play in the US
Championship, her spot should not be filled or, if it is filled, it
should be filled by Larry Christiansen, who is the highest rated
player who has not qualified. Bill Goichberg said that a man should
not be given a spot reserved for a woman and therefore Rusudan
Goletiani, the highest rated woman, should be given that spot.

The purpose of my motion that passed is that these matters should be
decided by a vote of the board when the time comes, not by decree by
Bill Goichberg.

Sam Sloan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send email Visit poster's
website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
fpawn 12595730



Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 144
Location: Sacramento, CA

PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 11:32 am Post subject: February
Board Meeting Reply with quote
samsloan wrote:
The purpose of my motion that passed is that these matters should be
decided by a vote of the board when the time comes, not by decree by
Bill Goichberg.


Is this the same Board that allows one of its own to call 2300 rated
players "patzers"? I wouldn't mind if the person behind those words
was a GM or even an IM, but for a 1900 rated Board member to use the p-
word to describe a 2300 is just a little bit disturbing.

I am still awaiting Mr. Sloan's apology for this below-the-belt remark
on Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:58 am. And I will continue to complain until I
get it.

Michael Aigner
USCF Life Master
Alleged Chess Patzer
_________________
USCF life master aspiring to the FM title. I am an active tournament
player, scholastic coach, and TD in California and Nevada.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send email Visit poster's
website
jacklemoine 10509327



Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 247
Location: Atlanta, GA

PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 11:53 am Post subject: Reply with
quote
Which brings up the question of forum moderation. When will we clean
up our act so people like Susan Polgar and others can get back in
here?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
fantasychess 12774242



Joined: 17 Apr 2004
Posts: 112
Location: Peabody, MA

PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 11:57 am Post subject: February
Board Meeting Reply with quote
samsloan wrote:
I also said that I will play a chess match with Raymond Weinstein who
has recently been transferred out of that lunatic asylum and wants to
play chess again, and assuming that Weinstein beats me and anybody
else I can put up against him, I will recommend that he be given a
spot in the US Championship.


Sam, amongst some ok comments, why did you have to interject this
garbage? I hope you didn't keep wasting everybodies valuable time at
the Board meeting with things like this. It makes the entire
organization look very unprofessional to read items like this in the
minutes.

samsloan wrote:
As Susan Polgar has already stated that she will not play in the US
Championship, her spot should not be filled or, if it is filled, it
should be filled by Larry Christiansen, who is the highest rated
player who has not qualified. Bill Goichberg said that a man should
not be given a spot reserved for a woman and therefore Rusudan
Goletiani, the highest rated woman, should be given that spot.


What US Championship? At this moment in time we do not even know if
there will be one. However, if and when a US Championships does
present itself, I would imagine that (after a Board vote?) official
invitations will be sent to those who have qualified, and only after
receiving official responses will you know whether someone will, or
will not, be attending.

Then, as per your passed motion, the Board will get to vote on the
matter, as nothing relating to the US Championship can be decided
without a majority vote by the Board.

Chris Bird
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
samsloan 11115292



Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 1002
Location: Bronx, New York

PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:12 pm Post subject: February
Board Meeting Reply with quote
fpawn wrote:
samsloan wrote:
The purpose of my motion that passed is that these matters should be
decided by a vote of the board when the time comes, not by decree by
Bill Goichberg.


Is this the same Board that allows one of its own to call 2300 rated
players "patzers"? I wouldn't mind if the person behind those words
was a GM or even an IM, but for a 1900 rated Board member to use the p-
word to describe a 2300 is just a little bit disturbing.

I am still awaiting Mr. Sloan's apology for this below-the-belt remark
on Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:58 am. And I will continue to complain until I
get it.

Michael Aigner
USCF Life Master
Alleged Chess Patzer

I have never called Mike Aigner or anybody else a "patzer".

However, at the 2006 US Championship, a player qualified with a 1672
player and another player qualified with an 1887 rating.

However, these were strong players, strong players all, as even the
player with a 1672 rating was in the top 1% of all chess players who
know the legal moves of chess.

I do not know why Mike Aigner thinks that I called him a patzer.

Sam Sloan

Last edited by samsloan 11115292 on Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:44 pm; edited 1
time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send email Visit poster's
website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
fpawn 12595730



Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 144
Location: Sacramento, CA

PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:28 pm Post subject: Reply with
quote
Perhaps I need to remind Mr. Sloan of my response to his insult. He
conveniently chose to ignore it on January 26 and never again posted
in the thread "2007 US Championship".

fpawn wrote:
samsloan wrote:
Every qualifier puts another patzer in the US Championship, and places
an additional financial burden on the USCF and on any organizer of the
US Championship.


Have I just been insulted by an official of the US Chess Federation?
If any single qualifier is a "patzer" then certainly the lowest rated
player (me) is one. Is 12-year-old FM Ray Robson also a patzer? He is
the second lowest rated qualifier. Certainly IM Ron Burnett is not a
patzer. He is the third lowest rated. I believe 27 of the 30 players
who qualified so far hold the GM, WGM or IM title.

Even the internet qualifier for state champions will likely result in
a GM or IM winner, such as GM Gregory Serper, IM Josh Friedel, IM Mark
Ginsburg or a few others.

I demand a retraction of this outlandish statement by Sam Sloan.

Michael Aigner, USCF 2308
Original Life Master


To the above I add one additional statement. Even the internet
qualifier for women would likely feature strong players such as
Rusudan Goletiani, Camilla Baginskaite, Katerine Rohonyan, Tatev
Abrahamyan, Batchimeg Tuvshingtugs and Laura Ross, all rated between
2250 and 2400. If someone outside of this group wins the qualifier,
then likely she would have to defeat several of the above.

Mr. Sloan, who EXACTLY are the "patzers" that you are worried about
qualifying in the US Championship? We're talking 2007 here, not last
year.

Michael Aigner
_________________
USCF life master aspiring to the FM title. I am an active tournament
player, scholastic coach, and TD in California and Nevada.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send email Visit poster's
website
fpawn 12595730



Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 144
Location: Sacramento, CA

PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 3:23 pm Post subject: Reply with
quote
Interesting, Mr. Sloan posted in the "2007 US Championship" thread
exactly 11 minutes after I wrote my last statement in this thread. His
new post indirectly addresses what I wrote here, but he chooses not to
apologize. Coincidence? Or maybe he's avoiding me once again.

I'm pretty good at being patient. Maybe that's part of why I'm a Life
Master.

Michael Aigner
_________________
USCF life master aspiring to the FM title. I am an active tournament
player, scholastic coach, and TD in California and Nevada.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send email Visit poster's
website
artichoke 10167825



Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 971
Location: Connecticut

PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 3:37 pm Post subject: February
Board Meeting Reply with quote
fantasychess wrote:
samsloan wrote:
I also said that I will play a chess match with Raymond Weinstein who
has recently been transferred out of that lunatic asylum and wants to
play chess again, and assuming that Weinstein beats me and anybody
else I can put up against him, I will recommend that he be given a
spot in the US Championship.


Sam, amongst some ok comments, why did you have to interject this
garbage? I hope you didn't keep wasting everybodies valuable time at
the Board meeting with things like this. It makes the entire
organization look very unprofessional to read items like this in the
minutes.


Whoa listen a second ...

We have no idea how Mr. Weinstein will play now. Maybe he'll forget
how the horsie moves. But he used to play brilliantly, and this is a
zonal year. We should be looking for "option value" or "upside
potential" -- players who have any chance of going far in the WC
cycle.

Maybe it's a wild idea and was deservedly voted down, but it's not a
mindless idea!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
snits 12652674



Joined: 03 Mar 2004
Posts: 126
Location: Tempe, AZ

PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:02 pm Post subject: Reply with
quote
Where are the meeting minutes located?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
samsloan 11115292



Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 1002
Location: Bronx, New York

PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:48 pm Post subject: Reply with
quote
snits wrote:
Where are the meeting minutes located?

The minutes will be posted when Myron and Rachel have them ready,
which will probably be about two months from now.

However, had I been elected Secretary instead of Randy Hough they
would have been posted within a week.

Sam Sloan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send email Visit poster's
website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
jacklemoine 10509327



Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 247
Location: Atlanta, GA

PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:12 pm Post subject: Reply with
quote
So what did happen with forum moderation? Do we have a moderator? Do
we have a moderation committee?

mnibb 12818435



Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Posts: 595
Location: Illinois

PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:12 pm Post subject: Reply with
quote Edit/Delete this post
samsloan wrote:
snits wrote:
Where are the meeting minutes located?

The minutes will be posted when Myron and Rachel have them ready,
which will probably be about two months from now.

However, had I been elected Secretary instead of Randy Hough they
would have been posted within a week.

Sam Sloan


Sam. is there any reason we should believe this post as opposed to the
promise you made at the delegates meeting regarding the content of
your web site?
_________________
12818435
Mark Nibbelin
Fellow Life Management Institute
Chartered Life Underwriter
Scholastic Chess Organizer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
artichoke 10167825



Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 971
Location: Connecticut

PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:36 pm Post subject: Reply with
quote
samsloan wrote:
The minutes will be posted when Myron and Rachel have them ready,
which will probably be about two months from now.
I guess Myron and Rachel are still working on the November meeting
minutes?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
snits 12652674



Joined: 03 Mar 2004
Posts: 126
Location: Tempe, AZ

PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 6:12 pm Post subject: Reply with
quote
Are the minutes transcriptions from the recordings?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
nolan 10339324



Joined: 20 Dec 2003
Posts: 4399


PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 6:51 pm Post subject: Reply with
quote
The Minutes for the November meeting were posted on January 2nd.

Go to "About the USCF" on the website, then "Governance", then
"Executive Board" then "Board Meetings".

You'd have to ask the Lieberman's exactly how they prepare them, they
take extensive notes during the meeting but I believe they also use
their video tape of the meeting to make sure they have the details
right.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send email
ICC-TD Duncan 12614202



Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 142
Location: Marina, California USA

PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:50 pm Post subject: Reply with
quote
nolan wrote:
The Minutes for the November meeting were posted on January 2nd.

Go to "About the USCF" on the website, then "Governance", then
"Executive Board" then "Board Meetings".

You'd have to ask the Lieberman's exactly how they prepare them, they
take extensive notes during the meeting but I believe they also use
their video tape of the meeting to make sure they have the details
right.


That is a complicated way of navigating to the Board Meetings page. It
took me a few tries
(even with looking back and forth at your directions!) to get there.

Looking at it again it actually does make sense though. It's just that
it took me some hunting.
I almost gave up and went to the search box.

Here's a direct link:

http://beta.uschess.org/frontend/section_107.php
_________________
--Duncan R Oxley
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send email Visit poster's
website
chessoffice 10088887



Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 230


PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 8:54 am Post subject: Reply with
quote
jacklemoine wrote:
So what did happen with forum moderation? Do we have a moderator? Do
we have a moderation committee?


The idea of appointing a moderation committee was approved and a
subcommittee of Bill Hall, Bill Goichberg and Randy Hough appointed to
nominate the members. We continue to have an anonymous moderator.

Bill Goichberg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jacklemoine 10509327



Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 247
Location: Atlanta, GA

PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:28 am Post subject: Reply with
quote
So when can we assure Susan and other disaffected members that the
USCF has taken control of this forum and that it will be policed
properly from now on?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
samsloan 11115292



Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 1002
Location: Bronx, New York

PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:33 am Post subject: Reply with
quote
jacklemoine wrote:
So when can we assure Susan and other disaffected members that the
USCF has taken control of this forum and that it will be policed
properly from now on?

Yes, when can we assure Susan that nobody will write anything of a
negative nature about Susan, while continuing to allow Susan free
license to attack her political opponents?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send email Visit poster's
website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
chessoffice 10088887



Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 230


PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:33 am Post subject: February
Board Meeting Reply with quote
samsloan wrote:
ICC-TD Duncan wrote:
Could someone who was at the February 3-4 meetings please post a short
summary of what happened?

I'm particularly interested in the status of the US Championship
Qualifiers.

I made four motions regarding the US Championship. One passed and the
other three were voted down.

Fortunately, this was all done in OPEN SESSION on Sunday, so you
should be able to hear the debate when and if it is ever posted.

The motion I made that passed was that nothing regarding the US
Championship would be finalized without a vote by the board.


Sam did make this motion but it was modified before passage to remove
the "nothing" part and specify that the board would place the
tournament and decide the format. As in the past, invitations will be
handled by the office based on established criteria and the board is
not likely to vote to invite specific players.


Quote:
At first Bill Goichberg argued against it saying that in past years
the board was not involved in formatting the US Championship. However,
that was when the USCF had strong Executive Directors, such as Ed
Edmondson and Al Lawrence, or more recently when AF4C was the sponsor.


No one appeared to support Sam on his "nothing" idea, but I did not
argue against the board deciding the format. Sam seemed to want the
board to vote on specific players, saying it was OK for the #4 rated
player overall to move up to #3 (a qualifying spot) because #3 is the
defending champ, but not acceptable for the #4 woman to move up to #3
(a qualifying spot) if the #1 woman declines her invitation.

Quote:
Finally, Bill Goichberg voted for my motion (as slightly amended by
Joel Channing) and it passed 6-0.

Do not be surprised however if Bill does not follow that.

Regarding the qualifiers and my other motions, I said that the Zonal
Tournament does not have to be the same event as the US Championship.
I therefore moved that the Zonal tournament be held as a 12 player
round robin with qualification determined entirely by rating and that
it be held in May or June before the World Open. My motion was voted
down.

I also said that I will play a chess match with Raymond Weinstein who
has recently been transferred out of that lunatic asylum and wants to
play chess again, and assuming that Weinstein beats me and anybody
else I can put up against him, I will recommend that he be given a
spot in the US Championship.

As Susan Polgar has already stated that she will not play in the US
Championship, her spot should not be filled or, if it is filled, it
should be filled by Larry Christiansen, who is the highest rated
player who has not qualified. Bill Goichberg said that a man should
not be given a spot reserved for a woman and therefore Rusudan
Goletiani, the highest rated woman, should be given that spot.

The purpose of my motion that passed is that these matters should be
decided by a vote of the board when the time comes, not by decree by
Bill Goichberg.

Sam Sloan


If Polgar (#1 rated woman) declines her invitation, established policy
is that the highest rated woman not already qualified will do so, and
I expect the office will follow this precedent with no board vote
necessary. Certainly there will be no decree by the President.

If the board desires to add another player or players to the
Championship, then a board vote to decide based on rating, or some
other way, is possible. 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.

Bill Goichberg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
samsloan 11115292



Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 1002
Location: Bronx, New York

PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:48 am Post subject: February
Board Meeting Reply with quote
chessoffice wrote:
No one appeared to support Sam on his "nothing" idea, but I did not
argue against the board deciding the format. Sam seemed to want the
board to vote on specific players, saying it was OK for the #4 rated
player overall to move up to #3 (a qualifying spot) because #3 is the
defending champ, but not acceptable for the #4 woman to move up to #3
(a qualifying spot) if the #1 woman declines her invitation.

If Polgar (#1 rated woman) declines her invitation, established policy
is that the highest rated woman not already qualified will do so, and
I expect the office will follow this precedent with no board vote
necessary. Certainly there will be no decree by the President.

If the board desires to add another player or players to the
Championship, then a board vote to decide based on rating, or some
other way, is possible. 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.

Bill Goichberg

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send email Visit poster's
website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
samsloan 11115292



Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 1002
Location: Bronx, New York

PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:03 pm Post subject: Reply with
quote
--- 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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send email Visit poster's
website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
seki 10470218



Joined: 28 Feb 2006
Posts: 61


PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 4:43 am Post subject: Reply with
quote
I'm with Sam.

The US Championship should be about excellence and not about qualifier
fees or sex or age. We already have a US Womens Championship. In the
future, no one should be seeded into the US championship on the basis
of sex or age. We don't seed players into the US Championsip on the
basis of race or religion.

In the future, the US Championship should be the top nn players based
on current USCF rating with nn rated games within the last twelve
months.

If we are going to keep the current system, I propose we sponsor a
Woman's Championship, a Men's Championship and a Players-Picked-On-The-
Basis-Of-Sexist-Attitudes-And-Other-Strange-Factors Championshp.
_________________
seki

10470218
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
artichoke 10167825



Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 971
Location: Connecticut

PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 10:39 am Post subject: Reply with
quote
Agree completely with Seki on this one.

There's a rumor that Bill G. is trying to go ahead with the speed-
chess online qualifier tournament, to be held TODAY on ICC. This is
really no way to do business.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SteveTN 12467003



Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 338
Location: Nashville, TN

PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 10:45 am Post subject: Reply with
quote
I'm on ICC right now and I see nothing listed in events about your
rumor. Can you be specific about the name of the rumored event?

----
Sat Feb 10, 0800 - SIMUL 45 30 U2200 ch 3 IM Alex Lenderman "finger
manest"
Sat Feb 10, 1300 - SIMUL 30 60 ch 3 IM Vojislav Milanovic "finger
voja"
_________________
Steve in Tennessee