Since I am currently interviewing 4 new board candidates - Polgar, Korenman,
Bauer and Truong, presenting them with substantial and rather difficult
questions on not just what the future should, but the method by which they
will achieve their goals, it seems pertinent to also ask those currently in
the driving seat similar questions.

But pointless to do so - there is no one home!

The general difficulty with this topic to-date is that it is about the USCF
forum, jovially known as Nolan-land, and who should speak - rather than what
is spoken about. I make this distinction since there is an inference that
free speech would have an [beneficial] effect on chess players in this
country. But this inference is potentially true, but actually false.

Its potential cannot be de-linked with subject matter, with current
responsibilities, or used as a diversionary device.

Only debating issues, prioritizing them with their concomitant viability in
terms of risk/benefit, rather than personality approaches and 'preferences',
will resolve anything to the general health of chess.

I suggest that current board members speak to the same issues as candidate
board members - but in this case, non-theoretically, since they have /a
current record/ to go on of their actual performance.

If this issue is important at all, it MUST revolve around subject matter -
even if that matter cannot be discussed at USCF itself - otherwise any
'free-speech' issue is entirely moot! To wit; qui bono?

No one has anything of substance to say which has to do with chessic health,
only who else should or should not be allowed to avoid this subject.

THE ISSUE for INCUMBENTS:-

I want to know who is responsible on the current board for the projected and
possibly lethal -$314,000 shortfall in revenue, which seems generously
spread over every USCF portfolio.

Since this has happened on the 'watch' of the current board, was anyone
actually 'watching' the store? Who will take responsibility?

OR...

Are current board members content to reconfigure the past, and make rather
theoretical issues of free speech, and watching over /other/ people?
Especially those who challenge the current board to their role in chess
management?

-------
The rest of this issue is something of an idée-fixe, and while it can be
attended to, it is very secondary business to what is actually happening at
USCF, and I think, a consciously diversionary activity by current board
members from their own performance.

Phil Innes
Vermont

PS: I have also lost a game to a 1700 player, and the last time I directly
watched Susan Polgar play it was a couple of games against a world champion,
Khalifman - and she did rather well, as indeed she did against another W Ch,
Karpov. I only mention these facts in case anyone should actually think the
1700 business is typical. In serious rated play I think S. Polgar's Olympiad
performance at board 1 for USA is an indicator of playing strength against
strong, determined opposition - if indeed this was the implicate question or
innuendo in what follows:

Sam,

Polgar played at the US Team two years ago...hardly a protected place,
whatever that means. Does she have to play there every year to be
"unprotected"?

That was the tournament to which I refer below. Take a look at:

http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain....13881-12452240

You will see that in the first round Polgar, player #91, lost to
Roberto Jose, player #385, who was rated 1796.

Since then, Polgar has never played in a rated tournament, other than
quick rated tournaments, except for the New York Mayor's Cup, a
tournament Truong organized for her. In the New York Mayor's Cup, she
refused to allow Hikaru Nakamura to play because he was a dangerous
opponent who would have beaten her and who could not have been bought off.

Perhaps you missed what I wrote about this at the bottom of my article:

"The last time Susan played chess in an open tournament was more than
two years ago and there she lost to a player rated 1700."

Sam Sloan

On Feb 20, 10:04 am, "Chess One" wrote:

Phil Innes
Vermont

PS: I have also lost a game to a 1700 player, and the last time I directly
watched Susan Polgar play it was a couple of games against a world champion,
Khalifman - and she did rather well, as indeed she did against another W Ch,
Karpov. I only mention these facts in case anyone should actually think the
1700 business is typical. In serious rated play I think S. Polgar's Olympiad
performance at board 1 for USA is an indicator of playing strength against
strong, determined opposition - if indeed this was the implicate question or
innuendo in what follows:

Sam,

Polgar played at the US Team two years ago...hardly a protected place,
whatever that means. Does she have to play there every year to be

"unprotected"?

That was the tournament to which I refer below. Take a look at:

http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain....13881-12452240

You will see that in the first round Polgar, player #91, lost to
Roberto Jose, player #385, who was rated 1796.

Since then, Polgar has never played in a rated tournament, other than
quick rated tournaments, except for the New York Mayor's Cup, a
tournament Truong organized for her. In the New York Mayor's Cup, she
refused to allow Hikaru Nakamura to play because he was a dangerous
opponent who would have beaten her and who could not have been bought off.

Perhaps you missed what I wrote about this at the bottom of my article:

"The last time Susan played chess in an open tournament was more than
two years ago and there she lost to a player rated 1700."

Sam Sloan

I am not saying that Polgar is not a strong player. She is indeed very
strong. In fact, she is rated number 21 in the USA.

However, she never plays in an event where she cannot control the
pairings. She only plays when she knows well in advance who her
opponents will be and prepare something especially for them.

There is nothing really wrong with this. However, when she was a
rising star in the chess world about 20 years ago she was one of the
very few top players who would play in open Swiss events and take on
all comers. Now, she is just the opposite, playing only against
carefully selected opponents.

Sam Sloan

"samsloan" writes:
However, she never plays in an event where she cannot control the
pairings. She only plays when she knows well in advance who her
opponents will be and prepare something especially for them.

She crushes masters in simultaneous exhibitions all the time.

On Feb 20, 10:42 am, Paul Rubin wrote:
"samsloan" writes:
However, she never plays in an event where she cannot control the
pairings. She only plays when she knows well in advance who her
opponents will be and prepare something especially for them.

She crushes masters in simultaneous exhibitions all the time.

Can you provide an example of this? Has a master ever played her in a
simul?

In any case, a master would be rated 300 points below her.

"samsloan" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Feb 20, 10:04 am, "Chess One" wrote:

Phil Innes
Vermont

PS: I have also lost a game to a 1700 player, and the last time I
directly
watched Susan Polgar play it was a couple of games against a world
champion,
Khalifman - and she did rather well, as indeed she did against another W
Ch,
Karpov. I only mention these facts in case anyone should actually think
the
1700 business is typical. In serious rated play I think S. Polgar's
Olympiad
performance at board 1 for USA is an indicator of playing strength
against
strong, determined opposition - if indeed this was the implicate question
or
innuendo in what follows:

Sam,

Polgar played

hey! you sam slaon cut everything but the postscript! why is that?

let's say you are now publicly on record as ducking losing $314,000 on your
watch

and lets say your personal obsession with watching S. Polgar, who is not
just a very strong player and chess advocate to the community at large, but
a candidate board member, stands in place of watching this catastrophic loss
across every USCF portfolio

let's say you would rather speculate on past issues, than answer any of the
questions i posited about your own current board responsibility

and let's also say you are no worse than any other politico, since a mere
third of a million dollars is no skin off their nose, its just members
money - why discuss it at all? someone else must be responsible

but lets finally say that this incestuous personality trashing does
absolutely nothing for chess in the usa, rather the opposite - and in a real
sense we are all looking for that someone else who /can be responsible/

phil innes

and not that /this/ is relevant to what i ask Sam Sloan to answer, but in
terms of playing strength Susan may be on the same order as her sister
Judit, who is what? #8 in the world? i don't say better than, but of their
personal encounters at the chess board, its not Judit who is ahead

at the US Team two years ago...hardly a protected place,
whatever that means. Does she have to play there every year to be

"unprotected"?

That was the tournament to which I refer below. Take a look at:

http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain....13881-12452240

You will see that in the first round Polgar, player #91, lost to
Roberto Jose, player #385, who was rated 1796.

Since then, Polgar has never played in a rated tournament, other than
quick rated tournaments, except for the New York Mayor's Cup, a
tournament Truong organized for her. In the New York Mayor's Cup, she
refused to allow Hikaru Nakamura to play because he was a dangerous
opponent who would have beaten her and who could not have been bought
off.

Perhaps you missed what I wrote about this at the bottom of my article:

"The last time Susan played chess in an open tournament was more than
two years ago and there she lost to a player rated 1700."

Sam Sloan

I am not saying that Polgar is not a strong player. She is indeed very
strong. In fact, she is rated number 21 in the USA.

However, she never plays in an event where she cannot control the
pairings. She only plays when she knows well in advance who her
opponents will be and prepare something especially for them.

There is nothing really wrong with this. However, when she was a
rising star in the chess world about 20 years ago she was one of the
very few top players who would play in open Swiss events and take on
all comers. Now, she is just the opposite, playing only against
carefully selected opponents.

Sam Sloan

**If any single incident could illustrate as many issues gone wrong, it is
contained in this post, which is a response to a Sam Sloan message.

Well, at least she hasn't sued us. And, by the way, I believe our
legal bills from defending ourselves against you exceed the $13,000 in
payments you have recently continued to question, even after they were
explained.


**Vision statement: a personal obsessionalism, and introverted attention to
the past.

Joel Channing[/quote]
The move to Crossville has proven to be a financial disaster. On just
one item alone, employee salaries and benefits, the USCF is spending
around $200,000 more per year on employee costs than it spent in New
Windsor.

**Remakble how 15 /less/ staff can cost more, moving from urban New York, to
rural Tennessee!

Perhaps more importantly, the new employees are more likely
to make mistakes, such as all the problems and errors in the TLAs
which have caused our local tournament directors, the life blood of
the USCF, to lose a lot of money and in some cases to go out of business.

**Plus of course competition, since in my own case more people read at the
site I write at than the entire USCF membership every month, and its cheap -
or even free! Its always on-time, and its easy for everyone to do, by
design. USCF's design, $50,000 later, is ... well, lacking any benchmarks of
performance saving a napkin schematic, and no bidding. In short, an 'award'.
Money didn't fix that problem.

The former experienced employees who on average had worked for the
USCF for seven years were working better and cheaper than the new staff.


**I think its clear that this board member is exculpating himself from any
responsibility for the projected loss of $314,000. No other board member
seems interested in owning the issue either. If the delegate in question had
not raised the issue after some substantial amount of work we would have
another Tom Dorsch situation, where the board were amazed to learn they were
operating deeply in the red - and in fact, in denial of it. Dorsch proved to
be right, but it cost him a shoo-in vote for President of USCF.

Worse yet, we are stuck in Crossville. We can never leave. It is like
the Hotel California where, "You can come any time you want, but you
can never leave."


**While Crossville is known as the methamphetamine capital of the South, I
do not tire of pointing out the rejected options - none of which are
superior to the unconsidered options! My little town has 4 Nobel prize
winners living here, 1 international college, 1 liberal-ivy college, 2 best
prep schools in USA, several nation-wide specialty colleagues [Austin for
the deaf, and also Landmark for dsylexics &c], PhD programs in medicine, 2
international music festivals, and now a national literary festival. On an
interstate, and reasonably near 2 large airports [1 Int'l], it regularly
features in the 'best cities' in USA list. [BTW, Kipling did some of his
best writing here too - loved the place.]

**The kicker is that for the cache of a Vermont address, where people really
want to live for almost every category reason there is, could be had in this
town for the INTEREST on the sale of the NY building.

Had I won the suit, which I lost only because the defendants were
evading service of process and refused to address the merits, I would
have saved the USCF from the financial disaster it is now experiencing.


**My idea would have worked the same way. Unfortunately neither of us can
fix the past. While it is pertinent for me as a chess journalist to rub the
noses of chess-politicians in the results of their secret processes for what
is purported to be a public charity to benefit the chess public, it is
'perspective' [as my Russian friend likes to say] for current politicians to
deal with the world as they find it. Or get out.

**Phil Innes

Sam Sloan

"Chess One" writes:

**Remakble how 15 /less/ staff can cost more, moving from urban New York, to
rural Tennessee!

Actually, the word you should use is 'impossible'.

**I think its clear that this board member is exculpating himself from any
responsibility for the projected loss of $314,000.

There is no such projected loss.
--
Mike Nolan

"Mike Nolan" wrote in message
...
"Chess One" writes:

**Remakble how 15 /less/ staff can cost more, moving from urban New York,
to
rural Tennessee!

Actually, the word you should use is 'impossible'.

**I think its clear that this board member is exculpating himself from any
responsibility for the projected loss of $314,000.

There is no such projected loss.

ROFL.

You are paid to do what, Mike? Who is Donna Alarie?

PI

--
Mike Nolan

"samsloan" writes:
She crushes masters in simultaneous exhibitions all the time.
Can you provide an example of this? Has a master ever played her in a
simul?

I remember one from a couple months ago, she swindled a master into an
endgame where it looked like the master was completely winning but she
had a trick combination that defeated him. It was on her blog.

"Chess One" writes:

**I think its clear that this board member is exculpating himself from any
responsibility for the projected loss of $314,000.

There is no such projected loss.

ROFL.

You are paid to do what, Mike? Who is Donna Alarie?

Donna, like me, is a member of the Finance Committee.

The key word is PROJECTED. The financial reports themselves do not
contain any projected results, though they do show some budget figures
for the full fiscal year.

Through December the USCF was well ahead of the (cash based) budget.
Comparisons to an accrual-based budget were not made, since we don't
have an accrual-based budget for the current fiscal year, but in my
section of the Phase I report (available on the website, even to non-members
such as yourself) I noted that current year revenue was slightly ahead of
last year's pace, as was deferred revenue. The latter is due to
increased multi-year membership sales.

Moreover, the budget was based on membership revenue of $1.7 million,
a $50,000 decrease in membership revenue compared the 2005-06 fiscal
year results. Depending on what happens with memberships in the next
3 1/3 months, we could actually top $1.8 million in memberships collected
during the current fiscal year.

The group that met in Crossville in January did come up with a projected
result, their consensus range was that the USCF would finish the year
somewhere in between a $50,000 loss and a $10,000 profit. Looking at
the 8 month numbers, we still appear to me to be on pace to achieve that.

Nobody has ever denied that the results through 7 months (now 8 months)
are in the red. That's due to the seasonal nature of the USCF's
two main revenue streams, memberships and tournament entry fees.

We're in the best months of the year for membership revenue now (Nov-April)
and the best months for tournament revenue are yet to come: March and April.
--
Mike Nolan