I would not favor the Erik Anderson proposal to turn control of the
USCF over to a bunch of money-men. This proposal has been made many
times in the past and has always been rejected.

Changing the USCF from a 501c4 to a 501c3 has been on the agenda of
numerous boards. I do not know the reasons but it has been found
impossible to do.

Also, remember that there are a bunch of people and groups who have
been circling around overhead like vultures waiting to dive down and
eat up the pieces as soon as we die.

We should not be quick to give up on the USCF. It still has 86,000
members, $3.2 million in annual revenues and until 1999 it had $2
million cash and equivalent in the LMA. We have recently suffered from
bad management and bad boards but prior to that we had 60 good years.
We are still stronger and better off than any comparable organization
that I know of.

Sam Sloan

We should not be quick to give up on the USCF. It still has 86,000
members, $3.2 million in annual revenues and until 1999 it had $2
million cash and equivalent in the LMA. We have recently suffered from
bad management and bad boards but prior to that we had 60 good years.
We are still stronger and better off than any comparable organization
that I know of.

Sam Sloan
---
what are you doing posting in the middle of the night - you crazy?

OTOH, uscf has had no major sponsors for a long time, nor seems capable of
financially containing one [which might be Anderson's point] and as above,
is now very reduced in ready assets and influence. Moskow seems to think the
same.

According to Horowitz in 1968 [?] uscf was in greenwich village and had less
than 10,000 members. the 'boom' was entirely fischer-effect, which boosted
it to 50,000+ by mid-late 70s. the past 40 years have added about 30,000
members, and the main increment is from the high turn-over scholastic scene,
which in terms of membership is simply a ratings-market requirement

a failing therefore, is that in the 60 years cited above [more pertinently
the past 35 years] uscf has failed to be more than that outfit in greenwich
village, a devoted amateur level organisation

whether this means that another outfit is necessary to cogently contain and
process another level of chess, enabling it to escape its annual rotations
of members, without significant increase in numbers, all seem to be the
point these chess entrepreneurs are addressing

and indeed, that is the chat on 'the other circuit' to which uscf-only folks
are deaf, blind and dumb. it is not a raid on uscf resources as much as a
resource of necessity

phil innes
vermont

On Oct 20, 4:28 am, "Chess One" wrote:

whether this means that another outfit is necessary to cogently contain and
process another level of chess, enabling it to escape its annual rotations
of members, without significant increase in numbers, all seem to be the
point these chess entrepreneurs are addressing

and indeed, that is the chat on 'the other circuit' to which uscf-only folks
are deaf, blind and dumb. it is not a raid on uscf resources as much as a
resource of necessity

phil innes
vermont

Of course, Innes and his side-kick, Rob ("the Robber") Mitchell, are
just two examples of those "people and groups who have been circling
around overhead like vultures waiting to dive down and eat up the
pieces as soon as we die".

Innes and Mitchell are two examples of those who think that if the
USCF fails the former members will flock to join their organization.
They have as much said so in their postings to the New York Times
Gambit Chess Blog. However, I somehow do not see anybody flocking to
join them, no matter what happens.

Sam Sloan

On Oct 20, 8:04 am, samsloan wrote:
....[They] are two examples of those who think that if the
USCF fails the former members will flock to join their organization.
They have as much said so in their postings to the New York Times
Gambit Chess Blog. However, I somehow do not see anybody flocking to
join them, no matter what happens.

Sam Sloan

As I've pointed out before, the fact they don't have an organization
for people to flock to is a small flaw in their hopes. These
individuals don't have a clue about building one.

I think that everybody else but George recognizes that I am trying to
save the USCF, not destroy it.

The Fake Sam Sloan was elected to a four year term in August. If the
Fake Sam Sloan is allowed to sit on the board sending out dozens of
obscene and personal attacks on USCF members, every day for the next
four years, do you think the USCF will survive?

Sam Sloan

On Oct 20, 3:28 am, "Chess One" wrote:
We should not be quick to give up on the USCF. It still has 86,000
members, $3.2 million in annual revenues and until 1999 it had $2
million cash and equivalent in the LMA. We have recently suffered from
bad management and bad boards but prior to that we had 60 good years.
We are still stronger and better off than any comparable organization
that I know of.

Sam Sloan
---
what are you doing posting in the middle of the night - you crazy?

OTOH, uscf has had no major sponsors for a long time, nor seems capable of
financially containing one [which might be Anderson's point] and as above,
is now very reduced in ready assets and influence. Moskow seems to think the
same.

According to Horowitz in 1968 [?] uscf was in greenwich village and had less
than 10,000 members. the 'boom' was entirely fischer-effect, which boosted
it to 50,000+ by mid-late 70s. the past 40 years have added about 30,000
members, and the main increment is from the high turn-over scholastic scene,
which in terms of membership is simply a ratings-market requirement

a failing therefore, is that in the 60 years cited above [more pertinently
the past 35 years] uscf has failed to be more than that outfit in greenwich
village, a devoted amateur level organisation

whether this means that another outfit is necessary to cogently contain and
process another level of chess, enabling it to escape its annual rotations
of members, without significant increase in numbers, all seem to be the
point these chess entrepreneurs are addressing

and indeed, that is the chat on 'the other circuit' to which uscf-only folks
are deaf, blind and dumb. it is not a raid on uscf resources as much as a
resource of necessity

phil innes
vermont

Phil

You wrote

"what are you doing posting in the middle of the night - you crazy? "

The status of Permanent Delegate of St Kitts and Nevis to FIDE means
that I sometimes need to post in the middle of the night. If you look
at a globle, you will see
that the sun is always UP in some part of the world. I freqently send
e-mails to ASIA and EUROPE. So, if I post in the middle of the night,
please excuse me. If you
deal with FIDE, you will be up all night more than one night, reading
e-mails from all over the world.

There is going to be a FIDE Ethics investigation if St Kitts and Nevis
gets admitted. We went to WAR over Paul Troung.

Marcus Roberts

whether this means that another outfit is necessary to cogently
contain and
process another level of chess, enabling it to escape its annual
rotations
of members, without significant increase in numbers, all seem to be the
point these chess entrepreneurs are addressing

and indeed, that is the chat on 'the other circuit' to which
uscf-only folks
are deaf, blind and dumb. it is not a raid on uscf resources as much
as a
resource of necessity

phil innes
vermont

Of course, Innes and his side-kick, Rob ("the Robber") Mitchell, are
just two examples of those "people and groups who have been circling
around overhead like vultures waiting to dive down and eat up the
pieces as soon as we die".


**Pieces of what? Vultures want to know. Will we know you from the pieces?
BTW, Mitchell prefers to be called Lex, as in Luther.

Innes and Mitchell are two examples of those who think

**We thank you for noticing, someone has to do it

if the USCF fails the former members will flock to join their organization.

**What organisation? True, we go to Super-Heroes Anonymous, [mostly to be
able to get into the old tights again, and do a bit of chest beating with a
couple rare steaks] but those are public meetings and anyone can fly in,
free of charge

They have as much said so in their postings to the New York Times

**As much? But I didn't know Lex had been posting there - now I'm good and
angry - he was supposed to be taking over a small central American country
this weekend - according to Plan #7.

Gambit Chess Blog. However, I somehow do not see anybody flocking to
join them, no matter what happens.

**Eagles don't flock? Since this latest [hilarious] reporting by Sam Sloan
on our attempt to take over the known chess world [no quotes of course] I
think it is entirely justified to ask Mr. Sloan to flock off.

**Sincerely, Phil Innes,
Fortress of Solicitude,
Vermont
---



Sam Sloan

OTOH, uscf has had no major sponsors for a long time, nor seems capable
of financially containing one [which might be Anderson's point] and as
above, is now very reduced in ready assets and influence. Moskow seems to
think the same.


*** 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?

*** My local club has no sponsors, yet has done fine for 17+ years on a
"pays its own way" basis.


Just like a pizza joint!

*** The single largest source of fund-raising for a membership
organization is...the membership!

But if the pizza-hut or chess-hut is self sustaining, what fund-raising
needs are there? In fact, why have a central Chess-hut at all, since
pizza/chess is fine all by its own?

*** Why are there no fund-raising campaigns -- in a time of financial
need --
asking the members to contribute?

Because surely the members have no idea what any money has been spent on
since there are no published financials. But that isn't the main reason!

When I was the publisher at the World Learning Institute we had lots to do
with Save The Children [administering, supporting or otherwise coordinating
some of their programs, etc] and SAVE had a countribution to overhead of
29%. That was the lowest of all major NGOs in the US and in the world.
People gave to the kids, often disaster related, but no one ever made a
grant to the organisation itself. The 29% was the most compelling factor in
chosing an NGO [Catholic Relief, BTW, are also very good].

USCF's C-to-A must be in the 90th percentile.

That's why people don't give to organisations - and what major donors and
foundations look at when they make their decisions of disbursement of
grants.

Not a passive advertisement in the magazine, not a "buy a brick" for the
building" but a real "we need you now" financial campaign. Burn up th
phone lines and call the members and the affiliates. Rebuild the LMA by
RENAMING it the USCF endowment fund. 100,000 members each sending $10 is
$1 million.


The beneficiaries of the LMA are? We seem to have departed from our
pizza-hut analogy, which was self sustaining by direct user support. Now - I
do not disagree with you that major funding would help chess in the USA,
funding for which is flat. But just like venture capital, people do not give
to ideas - they give to amplify an idea that is already proved to work, so
that it can work at a greater level.

No such organisation feature now exists to so sustain any major grant of
money, nor any general fund contribution from members. As I understand him,
this is what Mr. Anderson indicated with his references to type of 501
structure.

Secondarily, post Fischer boom, 35 years is a bit sleepy-headed to get that
together, no?

According to Horowitz in 1968 [?] uscf was in greenwich village and had
less than 10,000 members. the 'boom' was entirely fischer-effect, which
boosted it to 50,000+ by mid-late 70s. the past 40 years have added about
30,000 members, and the main increment is from the high turn-over
scholastic scene, which in terms of membership is simply a ratings-market
requirement


**** Which tells me that people need to adjust their notions of "success"
and "failure" accordingly.

according to... ? who actually thinks that 3 nice ladies, almost anywhere
couldn't run the ratings system with a couple of computers and an 8 ball?

a failing therefore, is that in the 60 years cited above [more
pertinently the past 35 years] uscf has failed to be more than that
outfit in greenwich village, a devoted amateur level organisation

whether this means that another outfit is necessary to cogently contain
and process another level of chess, enabling it to escape its annual
rotations of members, without significant increase in numbers, all seem
to be the point these chess entrepreneurs are addressing


""How can I join Phil Innes' organization?

What implication does 'join' have in your sentence? Do you mean you agree
with the goals stated above, and take your own advice and send in a cheque?
Or do you mean you would use the services resulting from this organisation.
After all, one 'uses' pizza-hut, one doesn't join it.

How many members does it have?

You mean, like, don't go into an empty restaurant - there is a reason its
empty?

But if we posit a new organisation for the specific purposes stated above
[which are incidentally similar to USCF's own mission, but suitably
structured to execute that mission] wouldn't it need users more than
members? In other words, starving children are not 'members' of Save the
Children, they are beneficiaries of it

What events does it run? What are its annual revenues? Hmmmm I thought
so.

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.

and indeed, that is the chat on 'the other circuit' to which uscf-only
folks are deaf, blind and dumb. it is not a raid on uscf resources as
much as a resource of necessity

phil innes
vermont



**** There is no "necessity" to raid a membership organization's assets.

I personally don't want a penny of USCF's money, I want to get after its
mission - which it has abandoned - very largely because it would rather ****
about with boy-wonder here, Sam Sloan the Hero, and his tragic attraction to
you know who )))

If there is such a need, go raid the National Geographic Society


Thank you. But there is no necessity to continue business as usual, and let
us have some light and air, and even ethics too!

Phil Innes


ECJ

Please stop crossposting material to rec.games.chess.computer that
has nothing to do with chess computers.

--
Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/

Guy Macon wrote:
Please stop crossposting material to rec.games.chess.computer that
has nothing to do with chess computers.


Lead by example.

--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/