Since the Delegates elect the board, here is a conversation with one:-
---------------

Desperate stuff! Why has Nakamura said that there are no promising young
players emerging in the US? Can you think that they don't get the right
sort

of encouragement and quality of training?


Perhaps because they look to the wrong source -- USCF is a direct mail
company supporting (primarily) amateur chess and amateur chess clubs.


Exactly the point! If USCF is, or behaves like, a direct mail company, what
claims does it have on 'National' titles or even concern over evolving
chess?

USCF does spend a percentage of its annual receipts on top-level chessl --
by
having a championship, by being part of FIDE, etc.


Did it actually contribute to the Championship this year? I understand Mr.
Berry made a $50,000 contribution, and Erik Andersen chipped in a good will
$25,000, making $75,000 of which $50,000 was awarded as prizes.

Did the other $25,000 go to USCF, rather than from it?

The precise extent of USCF's relations with Fide are even more mysterious!

But it seems automatic that top players -- once they start receiving some
funds from USCF -- they want more.

In specific terms though, what did USCF contribute this calendar year?

And many of them (not all) fail to understand the nature of the
organization....which leads to frustration.

I myself think that a mail order organisation - which is your own term -
describes very little, and am similarly confused. I don;t even know what it
sells - can it be those boards with USCF printed on the side, which you can
get for half as much anywhere else - or the Chinese plastic sets, bundled
with board for $29.95 which costs you 5 minutes of googling and $12.95
elsewhere?

These factors are in support of USCF or the mission of USCF, which is the
chess community?

It would be as if a person who likes camping...and who received a small
stipend from their local Boy Scout Troop to go on a special trip...

I don't know much about camp, as such. But isn't USCF a national
organisation, not a local youth org for kids like to wear uniforms and march
up and down in the woods?

then started
railing against the BSA for not helping them become a professional
woodsman.

Again you seem not to understand the /reason/ for the suggested change in
procedures for Denker and Polgar. A more apt analogy would be for kids who
can't afford to go camp in the woods or to get to the woods in the first
place, or in effect, a $1,000 camp for a week.

These has naught to do with professionals, but children's access to the
game, and to potential help in /their/ subject of interest. If USCF actually
did anything along these lines, it would be very difficult not to send a
check for triple the membership fee. As it is, I'll use my money and time
locally for those who need it, and where I can see it goes directly to them.

Phil Innes

Wrong point of view.


ECJ

Delegate conversations, continued
---------


How odd that this is what USCF /was/ established to do, to promote chess
for the benefit of the chess public. Its not at all odd that financial
backers are now holding off, since it seems directly related to this
issue.



I wasn't aware that helping players -- in some cases really obnoxious
ones --
to enrich themselves -- was part of the program.


Eric inserts his judgement on who should receive 'help' while not actually
mentioning what help he has in mind

Benefit of the chess public can be as simple as "proving a framework
(magazine and ratings) to allow a network of clubs to exist."

By 'allowing' he presumably means that USCF does not obstruct their
existence. Since what prevents their formation and networking. There is NO
USCF employee currently deployed to cater to clubs.

USCF fulfills its mission in that respect -- even if it ended every other
program. I am not advocating it...just pointing it out. Innes (who knows
nothing of the organization and does not participate in its programs) is
willfully ignorant on this point.

I know more than delegate Johnson, who doesn't even go to meetings
Eric continues to argue for USCF to abandon its mission, become a direct
male company [pun intended] and to hypothetically cater for the network of
clubs, whereas no actual catering takes place.

In another post, the same delegate who argued for USCF-brand ---NB
ratings, now object to Fide-brand ratings.

So the sort of mail-order company operating as a non-profit for 1,200 chess
clubs is also a monopoly, in his view.

Phil Innes

More scintillating logic from a Delegate!~
----
Is there 'a record' of who did win the championships in question? In
other
words, is the 'most interesting' inquiry answerable?

Phil Innes



I won the Biafran championship of 1968 -- when Biafra seceded from Nigeria
in a 3-year (unsuccessful) civil war.

Fortunately, there is no record of who did win such championship...so I am
free to claim it.

QED (per Phil Innes)

ECJ

Eric smells an Erat!

He confuses the issue of claims and proofs, so that if no record exists,
then neither claim nor question to non-existent record can be proved by
access to the Demonstrandum, the non-existent record.

That's what's Quod.

Phil Innes

He confuses the issue of claims and proofs, so that if no record exists,
then neither claim nor question to non-existent record can be proved by
access to the Demonstrandum, the non-existent record.

That's what's Quod.

Phil Innes

Yes but the burden of positive proof rests with the claimant, not the one
questioning the claim...so your defense of Truong falls flat.


Of course, if Eric had not snipped the context, then it could be seen that
he would like to see proof from a record which no one can cite, since there
is also no proof that such a record exists.

If indeed it does exist after all, what I wrote in the first place is, 'what
does such a record say?'. And this is the question I asked Mr. Minh.

That, Eric, is a formal quod erat demonstrandum ad demonstrandum, de minimus
non curat lex.

Phil Innes

ECJ

On Jun 10, 12:18 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
He confuses the issue of claims and proofs, so that if no record exists,
then neither claim nor question to non-existent record can be proved by
access to the Demonstrandum, the non-existent record.

That's what's Quod.

Phil Innes

Yes but the burden of positive proof rests with the claimant, not the one
questioning the claim...so your defense of Truong falls flat.

Of course, if Eric had not snipped the context, then it could be seen that
he would like to see proof from a record which no one can cite, since there
is also no proof that such a record exists.

If indeed it does exist after all, what I wrote in the first place is, 'what
does such a record say?'. And this is the question I asked Mr. Minh.

That, Eric, is a formal quod erat demonstrandum ad demonstrandum, de minimus
non curat lex.

Phil Innes

ECJ

If the USCF is a small "mail order" company... they do a lousy job. If
they are an organization which cater's to the needs of affiliate clubs
then they need to allocate manpower to that. If they are an
organization that wishes to develop scholastics, then they need a
better vetting and training process. If they are an organization that
wants to promote professional chess playing, then they need to develop
an aggressive marketing plan and develop son "vision".
If they don't know where they are going how will they know when they
get there?
Rob