*** My local pizza store has no sponsors -- it does just fine on a "pays
its
own way" basis.

Well that is very nice Eric. But does it get on national tv, into
mainstream education, or 'push-pizzas' for their no doubt efficacious
merit, to the nation? You see, that is the function of a non-profit
organisation for chess [not for pizzas]. And while being a private
member's club is very well, would you mind if anyone else had a bash at
the Mission Statement?


You have an odd idea of USCF's mission statement. It says nothing about
"going on TV" or "pushing chess" or anything about the actual mechanics of
how it promotes chess as part of American culture.


Neither do /you/ say anything about the mission statement! - of course what
I suggest are the /means/ by which it can fulfill its mission, and what you
write below are your ideas on the same subject.

What I completely fail to understand is why you object to anyone else doing
things that USCF does not do, and which technically it cannot well perform
with its current structure.

It fulfills its mission by publishing a magazine, running a rating system,
holding a national championship, holding a major open tournament, and
related activities. It fulfills its mission by *being* a national
membership organization -- just as National Geographic sells "memberships"
and publishes a magazine and does good deeds to fulfill its mission.

Your beef is that USCF doesn't do things *you* want it to do. What it
*does do* is quite sufficient to satisfy its mission.

That is not my beef - it is yours! Your orientation is only to USCF, even if
USCF can't do something. Mine is to include those areas where USCF have
failed and given up trying to perform, as well as things it never attempted.

What I want to know is why you constantly object to anyone doing more than
what you personally are happy with - either within USCF or outside it?
Period.

Because you can't address that subject honestly, and the board can
[literally] address nothing in a cogent way, other people are simply
pointing this out in a National newspaper - including Moskow and Anderson -
who, so it seems to me - would both be happy to fund something that is not
currently happening. If you are not interested in that, why object to other
people doing it?

In Sloan-parlance, what I write is to 'attack' USCF, which is the attitude
you yourself adopt. But the attack is not so much for what it does, but for
what is not happening in chess in the USA. And there need be no necessary
conflict here - since obviously USCF can hardly object that anything is
being taken away from it, since there is nothing to take from it in the
potential areas of investment.

Phil Innes

ECJ

On Oct 22, 7:20 am, "Chess One" wrote:

That is not my beef - it is yours! Your orientation is only to USCF, even if
USCF can't do something. Mine is to include those areas where USCF have
failed and given up trying to perform, as well as things it never attempted.

Then do something other than spout off on newsgroups about it.

"The Historian" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 22, 7:20 am, "Chess One" wrote:

That is not my beef - it is yours! Your orientation is only to USCF, even
if
USCF can't do something. Mine is to include those areas where USCF have
failed and given up trying to perform, as well as things it never
attempted.

Then do something other than spout off on newsgroups about it.

Talking about something real on usenet is really to some people's interest -
and after all, what I wrote above on chess management could not appear on
the US chess management forum.

Why don't you do something other than bitch at people who do something?
Dickens, so Jane Smiley says, walked 20 to 30 miles day, and at the rate of
about a mile every 15 minutes. Try that, and lose another 300 lbs?

The benefit, she said, is that he was then able to create such a prolificate
range of characters, and to describe the life of his times, better than
anyone before him, and indeed, he was for her, the first modern novelist.

The point, you see, is that he did not live vicariously, but sought out his
own experiences and deep responses to them, rather than received knowledge
from within institutions.

What 'everyone knew' was very little, and they could express even less. That
is the dumbed-down stale arena which is still, we are asked to notice, 'not
ready to die'.

Phil Innes

You thought USCF annual revenues can make Anderson and Moskow [to name
but 2?] You think it would run interesting events - heck, lets have
another Lone Pine or Cambridge Springs -the world used to show up here
for those. And that I think would produce revenue from expenditure.



You think those events *made* money? LOL.

Yes, let's **** more money away on prize checks to a few dozen
players...and spend nothing on organizational infrastructure, advertising
or long-term financial health.

Wait...didn't Mr. Anderson just **** away $1million-plus doing just
that --
flashy events not related to his organization's needs or goals?

Yes - as ani ful no - people with lots of money are fools with it! That's
how they got their money, and that's how they get rid of it - folly!

What Eric suggests above as '****ing away' is the right presentation of
America's top chess talent to the rest of the country. He objects to this
because his own analogy of USCF is like a 'self-sustaining' pizza store.

How shameful people like Anderson get to have all the money, while true USCF
geniuses and visionaries of this calibre are allowed to go moldy on the
shelf ;((

Phil Innes

Yeah.

ECJ

On Oct 22, 9:01 am, "Chess One" wrote:
You thought USCF annual revenues can make Anderson and Moskow [to name
but 2?] You think it would run interesting events - heck, lets have
another Lone Pine or Cambridge Springs -the world used to show up here
for those. And that I think would produce revenue from expenditure.

You think those events *made* money? LOL.

Yes, let's **** more money away on prize checks to a few dozen
players...and spend nothing on organizational infrastructure, advertising
or long-term financial health.

Wait...didn't Mr. Anderson just **** away $1million-plus doing just
that --
flashy events not related to his organization's needs or goals?

Yes - as ani ful no - people with lots of money are fools with it! That's
how they got their money, and that's how they get rid of it - folly!

What Eric suggests above as '****ing away' is the right presentation of
America's top chess talent to the rest of the country. He objects to this
because his own analogy of USCF is like a 'self-sustaining' pizza store.

How shameful people like Anderson get to have all the money, while true USCF
geniuses and visionaries of this calibre are allowed to go moldy on the
shelf ;((

Phil Innes



Yeah.

ECJ- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

http://forums.delphiforums.com/chessville/messages

What I completely fail to understand is why you object to anyone else
doing things that USCF does not do, and which technically it cannot well
perform with its current structure.


I don't have any such objection --

O!

but I do object when folks drag the USCF into their enterprises (even if
USCF has told them "no" repeatedly). I also object over spurious mission
statement claims by such folks -- when it is clear that USCF fulfills its
mission statement through its narrow (and should be even narrower) course
of action.


What I am saying is that if USCF fulfills its mission as it currently does,
are you objecting to people fulfilling a similar mission in other ways?

Start a new group with an impossibly broad mission if you wish, but stop

I am not asking for your idea of what is possible! I am also not asking for
permission. I am just clarifying that doing something USCF does not
currently do is NOT an attack on USCF.

attacking a 60+ year group with a successful program....just because you
1) want that program expanded, or 2) wish to exert influence over that
program.


Just to be absolutely clear - you don't mind then if there is an attack of
expanding the mission beyond wherever USCF has taken it these past 60 years?
Since it seems to me that you have previously thought that an attack and a
threat, too.

That goes for you and others, Phil. When you attack "USCF" you are really
attacking all 90,000 members and 1,500 affiliated clubs and
organizers....who willingly join and participate.

" I don't have any such objection --" Eric Johnson. See above.

So in fact you /do/ feel attacked by changing the status quo in chess, by
anyone else doing what USCF doesn't currently do. It doesn't make sense, but
I am simply trying to understand what the word 'attack' means, as used by
yourself and Sam Sloan - and since your message is a direct address to that
subject, it includes resenting everything that other people do, whether it
involves USCF or not.

Phil Innes

ps: 82,000 members, 1,100 affiliates [welcome to the C21st]

ECJ

I respectfully submit that if he didn't think he ****ed it away, he'd
still
be doing it.

Marketing types like to run events -- because they don't have to worry
about infrastructure. Fortunately, other parts of a business tend to
restrain marketing spending.

"Sponsors" want value for money spent. Is that particular foundation a
"sponsor" - if so, they would expect value. I assume it 1) thought that
running the event would generate even more donations to the foundation, 2)
allow it to fulfill its necessary spending pledges -- as foundations must
spend x amount each year on their purpose.

One can only assume that # 1 is the rub -- the additional torrent of money
did not flow in after givng a few dozen folks a paycheck.

This lesson is repeated every 5-10 years with a new crowd.


This is a bit like Republicans saying government doesn't work, because
their's doesn't.

What you have to do with any Sponsor is ask them straight what they expect?
Say if you can or cannot do it, tell em straight. But USCF gave up on their
own responsibility in allowing a false expectation to survive. That is
amateur business practice.

It should not be a guide for serious praxis.

Mr. Innes is correct, however, that USCF folks tend not to raise enough
money from the membership. He is incorrect that somehow by spending money
on tourneys and prizes that anyone -- USCF included -- would be building
infrastructure.

Since those are not my sentiments, I am not correct! I said that because
USCF had failed to achieve expanding their own infrastructure over some 35
years, this is no indication that the task can't be done, albeit not by
committees of well-meaning folk, but by ordinary business practices.

Infrastructure is built by running sustainable programs and events -- NOT
million-dollar one-shots (GM Ashley's event comes to mind -- boy, that
really built up chess in the US, right?).

Yes, there are endless reasons why it is not possible for most people to
succeed in much - though we have to think here what is being attempted -
what is the 'it' in my sentence?

By previous argument 'it' is not the self-sustaining chess club, which works
like a pizza joint.

I have suggested both mainstream education and mainstream media as other
'its'.

And I really don't mind if other people don't want to do that, but why they
should so continuously feel threatened by 'it' is entirely obscure.

Phil Innes

ECJ

Just to be absolutely clear - you don't mind then if there is an attack
of expanding the mission beyond wherever USCF has taken it these past 60
years? Since it seems to me that you have previously thought that an
attack and a threat, too.


Expanding USCF's mision -- in other words, bullying USCF to do things
beyond

ROFL. Delegate Johnson continues to argue against a proposition he can't
understand. He has yet to say he understands what the mission /is/ or even
if he knows what it is. So I ask him if he minds if /others/ have a go at
what USCF has not achieved in 60 years, and the reader will assess for
themselves if the self-sustaining small-tent member-supported like-a-pizza
joint outfit - does in fact object.

its means? Yes, I object to that. I object to anyone (e.g. Innes) who
publishes screeds saying that USCF is not doing its mission because it
fails to do this or that...when it is clear that USCF fulfills its mission
by the many things it *does* do.

If it is a comment on asking /how well/ USCF supports its own mission
statement? then it is true.

So the delegate not only regrets that others should do things USCF should
not, he also permits no questions of how well USCF performs what they
actually do.

It does not (and cannot) do everything (but -- and this is important --
most chess groups can and should join USCF as affiliated groups in support
of the things USCF has *chosen* to do).

I have no objection to the hundreds of chess groups who pursue
chess-related missions without trying to force USCF to do their work for
them.

Force! And 'their work for them'? A couple of odd things to volunteer. Who
has raised this subject? Not I.

I specifically said if others try to do what USCF does not - is that an
attack?

So, I object to your years-long attacks on USCF, yes...in part, because
you seem to do nothing else.

At least we now defined the term attack is what shrinks call
'passive-aggressive'. So we can return to the point. Remember the point!

PRIVATE MEMBER'S CLUB?

Eric Johnson argues, rightly, that no-one has any business telling others if
they can buy a pizza, or how to make the things. That is a matter of market
forces, and like any private member's club of people who like pizza,
collective pizza concerns can charge whatever rate they can get away with,
and serve up whatever quality of pizza it wants if it achieves a public
health minimum. Fine!

But that is /not/ the USCF mission as a non-profit - which is /not/ a
private member club oriented to the benefit of private members! Or is it? Is
it a public mission supported by all people offering it tax-relief by way of
501?

When any issue of assessing /to what degree/ USCF contributes to its own
mission, and is compared with others who do the same, or who elect to try to
expand that mission beyond any plans USCF have, and with abilities greater
than USCF has - then this is resented.

But the resentment is as if someone says 'don't meddle with my business' -
when the enterprise is actually publicly supported by its 501 status - and
/is/ public business.

And that is the discussion at the root of much trouble with USCF, today and
in years past. I have said before it is not a necessary conflict of
interests, nor the actions of other entities in chess unsympathetic or
unsupportive to USCF. Indeed, if USCF unmixed its own blend of activities,
and became a true umbrella organisation for chess in USA, then

more power to it!

Yet USCF seem to continuously make itself inert and uncombined with any
other entity except short-term exigencies, usually from those who add money
to it. And we all win or lose, thereby.

That, at least, is the big job on the board, if the delegates actually
support that vision of USCF. Otherwise it will ever feel itself attacked,
even by those who do /not/ duplicate its own services.

ENTER ENTROPY

The rule of nature is; adapt or die. The state of the art today is that
Entropy Rules - and insiders do not wish to upset the delegate-delicate
balance in case the whole things goes under faster than what is strictly
inevitable according to nature.

USCF is three pawns down, but with opposite colored-lawyers, hopes to make a
draw zzzzzzzzzz

Phil Innes

ECJ

By previous argument 'it' is not the self-sustaining chess club, which
works like a pizza joint.

I have suggested both mainstream education and mainstream media as other
'its'.


Sure, you are free to try to capture those sources of revenue.

Well, thank you, but no buts!

But do it with your own resources, Phil...NOT the limited resources of an
organization I've been part of for 27 years (and one which you are *not* a
member).


Hooray!

The delegate has almost understood what I wrote in the first place, and
except for his but, this would be a straightforward answer. I hope he will
extend the same consideration to all others who 'try to capture' and even
those who try to engage.

Phil Innes

PS: The delegate continues to argue that USCF is a private-member group.
That is /his/ insistence. And since he has written it in newsgroups for
years and without contradiction from anyone, is it?

ECJ