Subject: [fide-chess] A Serious Problem with MonRoi and the US
Championship



Eric, you use chop logic. How can an organizer have a live broadcast by
Monroi without MonRoi knowing about it? You make things up to attack straw
men,
Even though I still like you I now must waste no more of my valuable time.
I now
will delete your posts without reading them. A person can't be educated if
he
simply refuses to open his mind. I am not sure you have ever even have
seen a
MonRoi. Its' your loss but what is really sad, its'; a loss for the
players
whom you confuse and mislead. So long for now. Too bad. We both dispise
the
Poltrong ticket! Jerry************************************** See what's
free at
http://www.aol.com.


Following Jerry Hanken's piece at USCF,

which is the article http://beta.uschess.org/frontend/news_7_332.php

the first letter published in response said this;-


"Shameless cross-promotional pimping of a device that makes cheating MUCH
easier (& the company the USCF cut a back room deal with) and then the
subsequent and thinly veiled masquerading of it as news is lame.

Where was the open debate on whether or not these devices should be allowed
at tournaments? Where was the vote?"



Our Jerry then dismisses /all/ critics of his actions here, and even mild
inquiries, completely ignoring their points of view, including the
unemphatic ones raised by Israel Silverman. There is not the slightest
concern shown to reporting how this effects the chess community, and no
embarrassment whatever that he has acted as a consultant during this
process, which raises /at least/ one ethical issue [!] of combining
journalism, with negotiations for apparently novel rights to Monroi, and
also getting paid along the way. Jerry, in very economic matter even makes
the matter political with his 'Poltrong' mention.



Earlier in this self-righteous and completely subjective tirade there was an
interception by Pete Tamburro on the fine basis of CJA's activities, as if
to recommend Jerry Hanken, which did not exactly answer even its own
officer's concerns over that organisation; did not address why its books are
not presented on demand as is an officer's right to request; nor why
previous ethical complaints of its members cannot be heard! Neither did it
deny anything was untrue, but instead concentrated on deprecating who was
asking [its own Vice President!]



Instead these 'journalists' avoid reporting the two issues which would
actually interest readers - (a) ie, per Joel Benjamin's comment, how come
the rule change came into being to accommodate MonRoi without sufficient
regard to chess playing, especially to Scholastics, and (b) these new
concerns regarding broadcasting rights and copyright.



It all began with assurances to trust Mr. Hanken, and ends with the
strangest scenario that even Mr. Silverman's mild inquiry on any objectivity
presented on these issues, is banished to outer darkness.



I think that by adding a few gratuitous comments with a stab at Paul Truong
and Susan Polgar "We both dispise the
Poltrong ticket!" at the end of his recent message, it also successfully
combines the politics of chess - and helps make clear for the forthcoming
election all by itself, a choice between the 'trust me!' recommendations of
good-old-boys, and other available options.



Phil Innes, Vermont

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 13:17:36 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:


Our Jerry then dismisses /all/ critics of his actions here, and even mild
inquiries, completely ignoring their points of view, including the
unemphatic ones raised by Israel Silverman. There is not the slightest
concern shown to reporting how this effects the chess community, and no
embarrassment whatever that he has acted as a consultant during this
process, which raises /at least/ one ethical issue [!] of combining
journalism, with negotiations for apparently novel rights to Monroi, and
also getting paid along the way.

Good point, Phil. If Hanken served as a paid consultant to MonRoi, he
was not the appropriate person to write such a glowing article in
"Chess Life".

Where did these readers' comments and responses by Hanken appear? I
can't find all of them.

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...

Where did these readers' comments and responses by Hanken appear? I
can't find all of them.

http://beta.uschess.org/frontend/news_7_332.php

that worked directly for me, but also try
http://beta.uschess.org/frontend/section_7.php
then select the article which is half-way down the [current] page - and I
see it is recent - posted 16 April 07

Both links worked this morning, 5am Apr 20, but the interview /time/ seems
undated, as do the comments attached but which I presume are after 16 April
when the interview seem to have been first published.

The comments are very mixed, but some are scathing of this combo-role of
consultant and journalist - with the general commentary that its not
journalism, but disguised advertising.

--------------

In the meanwhile Our Jerry has added politics to the mix, and managed to
involve a political plea against 'Poltrong' - to add to the all-in-one
consultant - journalist - politics mix. There will be more coverage of this
in the Parrot this weekend.

Apart from personality issues, there appear to be 5 separate complaints
about the entire MonRoi scenario, which are not as much anti-MonRoi, as
about how their device has been somewhat indiscriminately foisted onto us,
[in Jerry's case, that he was a paid consultant while also working as
journalist for CL - though more to the point, Jerry didn't deal with what
people are most concerned about - the rule change, cheating, and now
copyright claims for game scores serious enough for NY Times to back off].

In the FIDE group Jerry has dismissed all his 'critics' including people who
asked bland and civil questions, and did nothing more than raise their
virtual eyebrows - and stated he won't attend their messages any more.

Another CJA officer jumped in to defend Jerry on his record and personality
etc, while stating publicly that yet another CJA officer was
'inconsequential'.

I said I had been reading CJA correspondence for some time, [unwillingly, I
asked them to stop sending it], and had understood there were 4 unnaddressed
CJA issues, //raised by members themselves//, 2 about ethics, 1 about
non-presentation of their own financial books, and another on the selection
process of what gets an award.

At Chessville we made an editorial decision not to publish any of CJA's
self-generated scandal, but did off any and all sides of their issues the
opportunity to write at Chessville to state pov - with one condition! The
issues had to be of interest to the chess public. Maybe we will still see
something from CJA on their own implosion, but our condition may have
stumped them!

---

I simply ask how we should be asked to 'believe' anything, when faced with
these unresolved uncontested issues? And of course, that if Jerry is a
paid-agent for Monroi, should he not declare that to be the case, since then
he could appear as a spokesperson for them, rather than as 'journalist' -
which is a frankly farcical stance, and I wonder why USCF editorial policy
allowed it to occur?

---

The result of all, is that despite even the very strong comments USCFmembers
have made about this article, there are no adequate answers to concerns they
raised [the article seems to have amplified the issues], and in terms of the
chess public, nothing clear about the decision making process which has gone
into all the above, which is far from clarified, and even further obscured.

As usual, Official Secrecy is invoked, and we the chess public have to be
content to be told, rather than properly informed. 'Trust me!" Ha!

This issue, nor USCF's part in it, is not going to go away - and 'trust me'
Jerry just upped the ante and made it an election issue by volunteering [!]
the 'Poltrong' reference, as if to say, you like us, or you like them?

Phil Innes

writes:


Instead these 'journalists' avoid reporting the two issues which would
actually interest readers - (a) ie, per Joel Benjamin's comment, how come
the rule change came into being to accommodate MonRoi without sufficient
regard to chess playing, especially to Scholastics, and (b) these new
concerns regarding broadcasting rights and copyright.



Partly because USCF never brainstorms anything -- they do not have a
process for asking "what if" and "what could go wrong here" -- they go by
individual preference (usually a surface preference without deep thought).

ECJ


You have said it, Eric. Even the 'meet the critics' $10,000 party aimed at
sorting our admitted problems, seemed to invite the mildest of critics if
they can be called critics at all, since some are plainly sycophantic and
will settle for anything as long as they get a chunk of it, and at least one
'critic' who subsequently got a job.

Thinking is generally unwelcome, since any competent person could do it -
and then where would you be? You wouldn't be able to play politics with your
position without it being obvious you were doing so, and would be forced to
perform your governance role.

I see that at least one candidate for the board has strong views, not on
personality issues, but on replacing those good-old-boy ties, some of which
are very ancient indeed, with internal standards and procedures. This would
at least put into play the supportive process which could /implement/ the
resolve of those who could imagine what could go wrong, and more! It could
imagine what could go right, and better.

Now, we seem to have some thread-drift here, since CJA were introduced in
the mix - but I have not seen a single word from any CJA member which
addresses anything critical about any of these issues - nor even
acknowledges that the chess public is concerned and angry at even more
insider trading and reporting. That isn't journalism, it is literally,
nothing.

Phil Innes

The need that this device purports to meet for tournament chessplayers is
keeping track of the moves.

I'm not quite sure why the device needs to have ten times the range of Wi-fi
and have a special operating system which makes the the price be many
hundreds of dollars.

How many chessplayers who play tournament chess asked for such features?

----

The answer lies in the details:- I am unsure who wrote this screed, but it
simultaneously insults chess playing at two levels, by suggesting that it is
a response to cheating - and secondly the fatuous idea of grandmasters
passing notes to each other about single moves! I know it is all the rage to
be nysterical about cheating at the moment, but again - notice the detail of
the language

-- "Cheating was brought up" and we have to ask by whom? and to what extent
it is claimed that these hypothetical grandmasters are passing notes?

-- "move first, write later" for those of us who are youths playing in the W
CH, "could have issues" - which is as vague a comment as could be made. It
does not say these bright young thingd /do/ have "issues".

-- Secondly, the "move first write later" is a new rule deployed by Fide
which suffers the same criticism as Benjamin has noted - it is /not/ such a
good practice especially for young players, many top trainers do /not/
recommend it, and also, there is no proof of your intended move if their is
a dispute. This Fide rule was raised by Guert Gijssen since he thought
writing one move was making 'notes', and as far as I can see, without demand
from other players or officials - and creates more problems than it solves.

--finally, "15A was not changed to due to the MonRoi PCM." is a problematic
statement, since it can be argued that adoption of 15A was precisely to
accommodate MonRoi's system - and 15A is admitted to be an underthought-out
rule, which senior players and trainers find wanting! Indeed, the mandatory
nature of the new rule does not allow for any options - and creates problems
where none existed before.

--I want to end this screed by saying that this is no criticism of MonRoi,
but it is a criticism of the deployment of the e-device in chess, and that
is a mutual responsibility between that company and rule-makers. Though not
'responsibility' to chess players - rule makers in t his instance have been
in fact completely unresponsive to the players of the game, even top
players.


Phil Innes
Vermont
-------

There was a
discussion on 15A rule, which was changed to move first  record
later. In regards to 15A rule change the USCF Delegates voted to
change this rule in August 2006, due to numerous reasons. Cheating was
brought up. A player could write down the move first, show this note
to his fellow grandmaster passing by, and receive help. Also when
youth players are sent to the World championships, players need to
adhere to FIDE rules move first, write later and could have issues
if they are instructed differently. The MonRoi PCM license requires
moving first and record later. 15A was not changed to due to the
MonRoi PCM.

Cheating was
brought up. A player could write down the move first, show this note
to his fellow grandmaster passing by, and receive help. Also when
youth players are sent to the World championships, players need to
adhere to FIDE rules move first, write later and could have issues
if they are instructed differently.

This affects perhaps 200 players out of a population of 80,000. Not a
good reason to change rules.


Only about 12,000 adults play more than one rated game per year. Only 7,000
play 10+ rated games per year. It effects the core USCF market, the 40,000
scholastic members, to much greater extent. And this is the precise
constituency that Benjamin said would suffer more.

The new rule is literally an elitist one, though not even responsive to what
trainers of the elite have said!

The Fide rule is itself objectionable, and a hysterical response to
'cheating' by writing one move, and now we see that hysteria repeated with
the farcical 'fellow grandmaster passing by' anecdote. )

All these measures are PROFOUNDLY out of step with the chess playing
community, and all to do with the commercial community combined with USCF's
hapless advisors, at least one of which is a paid agent of MonRoi, but none
of which can answer the chess public why the new rules came into being,
except by trivial response.

Phil Innes

ECJ