A Chess forum. ChessBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ChessBanter forum » Chess Newsgroups » rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Reds/Blacks etc...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 22nd 03, 06:29 PM
Don Mihokovich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Reds/Blacks etc...

I think I'm getting a fairly decent picture of the Red vs. Black et
al. color scheme, but would someone who has been around longer than me
please give a clear explaination?

KidDon
  #2  
Old July 22nd 03, 06:59 PM
Tim Hanke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Reds/Blacks etc...

"Don Mihokovich" wrote ...
I think I'm getting a fairly decent picture of the Red vs. Black et
al. color scheme, but would someone who has been around longer than me
please give a clear explaination?


Don,

I have hung around this street corner for years, off and on, and I have
never known or really cared who the "reds" and the "blacks" were. It's not a
life or death item of information.

On the other hand, if I lived in South Central L.A., I would definitely want
to know who the Crips and the Bloods were.

Tim Hanke


  #3  
Old July 23rd 03, 02:16 AM
Bruce Draney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Reds/Blacks etc...

(Don Mihokovich) wrote in message . com...
I think I'm getting a fairly decent picture of the Red vs. Black et
al. color scheme, but would someone who has been around longer than me
please give a clear explaination?

KidDon


Okay, here's the scoop. In 2000-2001, Tim Redman and his Board
majority based everything they did on finishing "in the black", thus
all people associated with the Redman wing of USCF became known as
"Blacks".

In the meantime, during Don Shultz's and Bob Smith's administration we
lost hundreds of thousands of dollars for whatever reason in
operations, hence because we bled "red" ink, those who supported the
Schultz/Smith wing of USCF became known as "Reds".

As Bill Smythe has occasionally pointed out, neither group has held
sway continuously for long periods of time, partly because neither
faction truly knows what they are/were doing, nor did either ever show
that had it had any clue in what was wrong with USCF or how best to
fix it.

Those who hate Redman believe his policies destroyed a potentially
profitable B&E business and got us into a horrid contract with Games
Parlor. Those who hate Don Schultz believe our serious financial and
organizational problems stem from 1996, when Don was elected President
and had enough votes to pass whatever policies he wished to
effectively run the organization, yet our financial status worsened
dramatically. Since most people believe that Don was close friends
with Bob Smith who succeeded him in 1999 as USCF President and is also
from Florida, the Red label was applied to Smith as well and also to
Smith's allies on the current Board who were swept into power in a
landslide in 2001.

OMOV has obviously changed the entire equation and new coalitions and
alliances may (hopefully) be forthcoming as the Board stops worrying
about Red vs Black and begins worrying more about everybody grabbing a
bucket and bailing like hell.

Best Regards,

Bruce
  #4  
Old July 23rd 03, 02:51 AM
ASCACHESS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Reds/Blacks etc...

As Bill Smythe has occasionally pointed out, neither group has held
sway continuously for long periods of time,


Huh?
Schultz/Smith was four years. Reds

Then one year of Redman. Blacks

Then two years of McCrary. Reds


  #5  
Old July 23rd 03, 03:19 AM
RSHaas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Reds/Blacks etc...

The only red and blacks I know about are those scappy Georgia Bulldawgs. How
'bout them Dawgs!!
  #6  
Old July 23rd 03, 06:46 PM
sandirhodes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Reds/Blacks etc...

"Bruce Draney" wrote in message
(Don Mihokovich) wrote in message
I think I'm getting a fairly decent picture of the Red vs. Black et
al. color scheme, but would someone who has been around longer than me
please give a clear explaination?

KidDon


Okay, here's the scoop. In 2000-2001, Tim Redman and his Board
majority based everything they did on finishing "in the black", thus
all people associated with the Redman wing of USCF became known as
"Blacks".

In the meantime, during Don Shultz's and Bob Smith's administration we
lost hundreds of thousands of dollars for whatever reason in
operations, hence because we bled "red" ink, those who supported the
Schultz/Smith wing of USCF became known as "Reds".

snip
Best Regards,

Bruce


We need to come up with a new party. "Greens" comes to mind. Spend it if
you have to (reimbursements? moving?), build it when you can (investments?).
And don't be afraid to spend it to make it (upgrades?).

Non-profit doesn't meant you don't make a profit -- it means you don't keep
any profits -- you can still grow and prosper.

sandirhodes


  #7  
Old July 30th 03, 04:14 PM
ASCACHESS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Reds/Blacks etc...

For what it is worth, the term "reds" and "blacks" appears to be a fairly
recent and artificial distinction used by some on the RGCP forum. Not
everyone
who has served on the Board has been a member of one of these groups.
However,
the way I understand it, the mythology of USCF political factions dates back
to
various power struggles between New York and Illinois leadership. New Jersey
had joined the fray around 1970, I believe, and eventually generated a
splinter
faction. All the groups have caused red ink to flow for the USCF while
carrying
out their agendas serving on the USCF Policy/Executive Board. Currently those
in a strong New York, Florida, and Southern California coalition have been
referred to as the "reds" political faction. The other two factions
consisting
of those originally hailing from Illinois, New Jersey, and Northern
California
are referred to as the "blacks." The "blacks" who were very influential in
the
80's have had problems maintaining a collation between their two major
factions
which have made them less effective than the "reds" for the last decade. Even
though still very influential, it does not appear any major faction has the
clout to hand pick the Policy/Executive Board anymore.

Regards,
Wayne Praeder


This is a pretty good analysis.

One of the differences between the reds and blacks has been the total lack of
ethics in their business dealings that Red Management brought to the table
while they were in power. There seemed to be a prime directive that whatever
made the Reds look better was OK, no matter who it hurt.
The justification for their position seemed to be that since USCF was in
trouble (of their own making) that anything they could do to hurt anyone
outside their own group and which even marginally benefited the organization
was good policy. We are about to see if that is really good policy.

Rp


  #8  
Old August 1st 03, 03:37 AM
WPraeder
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Reds/Blacks etc...

This is a pretty good analysis.

One of the differences between the reds and blacks has been the total lack of
ethics in their business dealings that Red Management brought to the table
while they were in power. There seemed to be a prime directive that whatever
made the Reds look better was OK, no matter who it hurt.
The justification for their position seemed to be that since USCF was in
trouble (of their own making) that anything they could do to hurt anyone
outside their own group and which even marginally benefited the organization
was good policy. We are about to see if that is really good policy.

Rp


Richard,

I would generally agree.

From My perspective, both groups ("reds" & "blacks") wrote the book on lack of
ethics during the 1980's (see the article entitled ChessGate).

During the 1990's the behavior of both groups were similar but I would agree
that the "reds" appeared to be more ruthless. I don't know if this was a a
result of a shift in ethics or just a representation of the then level of
organization of the groups.

One of my favorite stories from early 90's is when I asked the "red" leadership
why GM Larry Evans was the target of a motion by the board (PB93-27)
authorizing $1000 for the Pinkerton Detective Agency to investigate him
regarding the Prentice affair. The reply was he brought it on himself by
writing an article called POISON PEN PLOT.

Provided we can maintain a bit more openness, let's hope the bad old days of
fists up/pants down USCF politics will eventually be a thing of the past.

Regards,
Wayne Praeder


  #9  
Old August 1st 03, 05:08 AM
ASCACHESS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Reds/Blacks etc...

From My perspective, both groups ("reds" & "blacks") wrote the book on lack
of
ethics during the 1980's (see the article entitled ChessGate).


Wayne,
Where would I find "ChessGate"?

Thanks
Richard Peterson
  #10  
Old August 1st 03, 08:33 AM
WPraeder
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Reds/Blacks etc...

Wayne,
Where would I find "ChessGate"?

Thanks
Richard Peterson


New In Chess, No. 5 1987

Regards,
Wayne Praeder

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2017 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.