Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old May 6th 07, 04:45 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default GM Benjamin's Complaint about the US Championship

The following is the letter from Joel Benjamin in which he sets forth
his objections to the US Championship.

It was copied by me into BINFO 200700775.

In reading this, please note that Joel Benjamin was the only
Grandmaster who expressed a willingness to play the US Championship
online, provided that the prizes were substantial:

At 11:38 PM 3/6/2007 -0500, Joel Benjamin wrote:

Dear USCF officials:

I am extremely distressed by the recent announcements for the 2007
U.S. Championship. Let me start by thanking Frank Berry for his
generosity. He and others in Stillwater are doing their best to make
something out of nothing. But the USCF is not doing its part.

The $65,000 prize fund (with players paying expenses) is grossly
inadequate. With 32 players (and possibly more) the average prize
will be around $2,000. This is in contrast to that figure serving as
the minimum figure last year!

The proposed $15,000 contribution from the USCF is embarrassing. The
"buy-in" plan makes a mockery of the tournament (though I expect very
few takers anyway). The disbursement of any extra funds generated by
this plan is completely unacceptable. It has to go directly to the
players! The line about "replacement of the $10,000 sanctioning fee"
is fooling no one. You have already announced that Anderson is
contributing $25,000. Does the USCF actually have the audacity to
pocket that money and try to turn a profit on this tournament? I
sincerely hope you reconsider this plan. You will only embarrass
yourselves and enrage the players.

I find it especially galling that some Board members were openly
hostile to Erik Anderson's attempts to organize the Championship,
likely sabotaging a $100,000 prize fund. If any of you thought you
could do better, the fiction is surely put to that notion.

I have played in 23 U.S. Championships, every one since 1981. I have
never declined an invitation, nor even considered not playing. But
this proposed tournament is so outrageous that I don't think I could
participate. Please go back to the drawing board and reconsider.
Don't make me fight you.

Sincerely,

Joel Benjamin

  #2   Report Post  
Old May 6th 07, 07:30 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
Rob Rob is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 1,980
Default Sam SLoan destroys US Open and post to "dead" newsgroup ,alt.chess

On May 6, 10:45 am, samsloan wrote:
The following is the letter from Joel Benjamin in which he sets forth
his objections to the US Championship.

It was copied by me into BINFO 200700775.

In reading this, please note that Joel Benjamin was the only
Grandmaster who expressed a willingness to play the US Championship
online, provided that the prizes were substantial:

At 11:38 PM 3/6/2007 -0500, Joel Benjamin wrote:

Dear USCF officials:

I am extremely distressed by the recent announcements for the 2007
U.S. Championship. Let me start by thanking Frank Berry for his
generosity. He and others in Stillwater are doing their best to make
something out of nothing. But the USCF is not doing its part.

The $65,000 prize fund (with players paying expenses) is grossly
inadequate. With 32 players (and possibly more) the average prize
will be around $2,000. This is in contrast to that figure serving as
the minimum figure last year!

The proposed $15,000 contribution from the USCF is embarrassing. The
"buy-in" plan makes a mockery of the tournament (though I expect very
few takers anyway). The disbursement of any extra funds generated by
this plan is completely unacceptable. It has to go directly to the
players! The line about "replacement of the $10,000 sanctioning fee"
is fooling no one. You have already announced that Anderson is
contributing $25,000. Does the USCF actually have the audacity to
pocket that money and try to turn a profit on this tournament? I
sincerely hope you reconsider this plan. You will only embarrass
yourselves and enrage the players.

I find it especially galling that some Board members were openly
hostile to Erik Anderson's attempts to organize the Championship,
likely sabotaging a $100,000 prize fund. If any of you thought you
could do better, the fiction is surely put to that notion.

I have played in 23 U.S. Championships, every one since 1981. I have
never declined an invitation, nor even considered not playing. But
this proposed tournament is so outrageous that I don't think I could
participate. Please go back to the drawing board and reconsider.
Don't make me fight you.

Sincerely,

Joel Benjamin


Sam should be very proud of destroying the US open

  #3   Report Post  
Old May 6th 07, 07:51 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 3,390
Default Sam SLoan destroys US Open and post to "dead" newsgroup ,alt.chess

On 6 May 2007 11:30:23 -0700, Rob wrote:


Sam should be very proud of destroying the US open



Don't you mean "closed" ?
  #4   Report Post  
Old May 6th 07, 08:19 PM posted to alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Sam SLoan destroys US Open and post to "dead" newsgroup ,alt.chess

Is this group dead??

Sam Sloan

  #5   Report Post  
Old May 6th 07, 09:09 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default GM Benjamin's Complaint about the US Championship

Take a look at what has happened. This morning, in response to a
question somebody asked about why Joel Benjamin is not playing in this
year's US Championship, I dug out a letter Joel Benjamin had written
two months ago on March 6, 2007 explaining his objections to the US
Championship.

Benjamin sent that letter to me, to the other board members and to the
other grandmasters who had qualified to the US Championship, except
that he did not send the letter to Polgar, even though she is a
grandmaster who is qualified to play in the US Championship.

As a result, Polgar did not know about the letter until I posted it
here this morning.

Now Polgar has taken Benjamin's letter and posted it to her blogspot
in such a way as to create the impression that Benjamin wrote the
letter to her and that he endorses her for election.

Take a look he

http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2007...min.html#links

Already in just the five hours since I posted the Benjamin letter
here, there are 34 replies to Susan's blogspot. Many of these postings
attack Goichberg and Lux. Since it is well known that Polgar deletes
any letters she does not agree with, one must conclude that these
attacks on Goichberg and Lux reflect her views.

Incidentally, there is a secret letter by Polgar attacking Lux that
has been circulating during the past few days. I have not seen it, but
I have heard about it.

I do not know who Joel Benjamin is supporting for election but it is a
safe bet that he is not supporting Polgar. I believe that her use of
his letter is misleading.

Sam Sloan



  #6   Report Post  
Old May 7th 07, 09:59 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default GM Benjamin's Complaint about the US Championship

Quote:
Originally Posted by chessoffice
Quote:
Originally Posted by samsloan
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisfalter
To what
was Joel Benjamin referring when he wrote this?

I find it especially galling that some Board members were openly
hostile to Erik Anderson's attempts to organize the Championship,
likely sabotaging a $100,000 prize fund.

As I review the discussions in this forum, the only open hostility by
a Board member toward the AF4C's efforts that I find is Sam Sloan's
disparaging email of October 12, 2006. (The EB censured Sloan for
this email.) What other expressions of hostility toward the AF4C did
Joel have in mind? Or is it possible that Joel assumed incorrectly
that Board members other than Sloan were hostile toward the AF4C?

I should add that I agree with Joel that any hostility by
any Board member toward a long-time, exceptionally generous
sponsor is galling.
Many of the players and board members were hostile to the AF4C plan to
play the US Championship online, except for the final match.

Joel Benjamin was the only top player who expressed a willingness to
play the US Championship as a knock-out event online. However, he
wanted the prize fund to be at least $100,000.

Sam Sloan
Gata Kamsky also said that he would play under the online knockout
format. We had two positive and two negative responses to our inquiry
from active top players.

Bill Goichberg
Kamsky wrote that he would consider playing subject to the condition
that the complete event was played over a two week period and did not
stretch from March to November as announced and that it did not
conflict with his scheduled match with Etienne Bacrot for the quarter-
finals of the World Championship.

However, Kamsky also wrote than since his match with Bacrot conflicted
with the dates of the US Championship, he would not be able to play.

Thus, the only top player who said that he would both be willing and
able to play in the US Championship as scheduled was Joel Benjamin.

Sam Sloan

  #7   Report Post  
Old May 11th 07, 03:47 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2007
Posts: 7
Default GM Benjamin's Complaint about the US Championship

"samsloan" The $65,000 prize fund (with players paying expenses) is
grossly
inadequate. With 32 players (and possibly more) the average prize will be

around $2,000. This is in contrast to that figure serving as the minimum
figure last year!


And why should you losers get anything? Who knows or remembers the U.S.
Chess Champions of the past thirty years? Who cares? Outside of a few
pathetic geeks, nobody else could care less.

So if you want a bigger pot, increase the fees and let each prospective
champion put $2,000.00 into the kitty.


  #8   Report Post  
Old August 26th 07, 12:28 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 1,558
Default Sloan Destroys US Championship

Quote:
Originally Posted by tanstaafl
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsawmiller
... Heresay is not
evidence.
When a reporter quotes a source, that's not usually
called "hearsay". Mig Greengard reported speaking to Anderson
directly, Anderson is the person that had pledged the $25,000,
Anderson is the person whose organization was accused of using
pornography to raise funds (this part certainly isn't hearsay -- it
happened right here on this forum), Anderson is the person that
decided not to donate the money, and Mig Greengard (after talking to
Mr. Anderson) said these events are related.

Of course, *most* people wouldn't really need Mig Greengard to tell
them this -- cause and effect were pretty obvious. A followed B
pretty quickly and most people can put 2 and 2 together and get 4.

I'll admit that the goddesschess blog isn't a direct report, but it
does report (with Mig Greengard as the reported source) that the
information came to Mig Greengard FROM Mr. Anderson directly.

A direct statement from the sponsor to a reporter is about as definate
a source of information as we'll get.
Here is exactly the problem. It is actually Herbert Vaughn a/k/a
tanstaafl who keeps bring up this problem over and over again to the
embarrassment of Eric Anderson. Herbert Vaughn raised this issue again
at the delegates' meeting August 4-5, 2007 in Cherry Hill. I decided
not to respond because that would have just started a floor fight.

I never mentioned the name of Eric Anderson in that context. Herbert
Vaughn did. I never said that pornography was on the website. Herbert
Vaughn did. It is Herbert Vaughn that keeps bringing up this subject
over and over again and if anything that is what embarrasses Eric
Anderson.

Now, Vaughn is Moderator6. Will he allow his posting to stay up on the
USCF Forums? Will anyone be allowed to respond to his attacks?

Also, Mig Greengard did NOT report speaking directly to Eric Anderson
on this issue.

Sam Sloan
  #9   Report Post  
Old August 26th 07, 01:02 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Sloan Destroys US Championship

[quote="tanstaafl"]
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsawmiller
... Heresay is not evidence.[/
quote]When a reporter quotes a source, that's not usually called
"hearsay". Mig Greengard reported speaking to Anderson directly,
Anderson is the person that had pledged the $25,000, Anderson is the
person whose organization was accused of using pornography to raise
funds (this part certainly isn't hearsay -- it happened right here on
this forum), Anderson is the person that decided not to donate the
money, and Mig Greengard (after talking to Mr. Anderson) said these
events are related.

Of course, *most* people wouldn't really need Mig Greengard to tell
them this -- cause and effect were pretty obvious. A followed B
pretty quickly and most people can put 2 and 2 together and get 4.

I'll admit that the goddesschess blog isn't a direct report, but it
does report (with Mig Greengard as the reported source) that the
information came to Mig Greengard FROM Mr. Anderson directly.

A direct statement from the sponsor to a reporter is about as definate
a source of information as we'll get.
I have just done a search of Mig Greengard's website and EVERYTHING
that Herbert Vaughn a/k/a tanstaafl writes above is a ###.

Nowhere does Mig Greengard ever state that he spoke to Eric Anderson
directly. In fact, he rarely mentions Eric Anderson at all.

I know of noone who has spoken to Eric Anderson on this subject and I
have asked around quite a bit.

Here is the only posting by Mig Greengard on this subject.

http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/...aves_us_ch.htm

Note the date: It was January 2007, months before the issue in
question arose. Also, the posting by Mig contains a number of errors.
It says that Eric Anderson handed the USCF a check for $25,000 as a
going away present. Of course, the USCF never received any such check.
The question is whether Eric Anderson ever promised this amount of
money. The only person who actually spoke to Eric Anderson about this
was Don Schultz and Schultz reported that Eric Anderson was vague
about it and did not make a firm commitment. Later, at Goichberg's
request, Schultz called back Eric Anderson and subsequently reported
that it was unlikely that Eric Anderson would be donating any money to
the USCF any time soon.

All this happened in January 2007, months before the issues that
Herbert Vaughn a/k/a tanstaafl raises occurred.

It is well known that Eric Anderson does not like to talk to Goichberg
directly. Those two have not spoken in a long time, perhaps in more
than a year. For this reason, Goichberg has to go through
intermediaries to communicate with Anderson. His two primary contact
persons are Don Schultz and Robert Tanner. We should really bring
those two back.

It is extremely unlikely that Anderson would speak to a muck-raking
journalist like Mig Greengard (who often gets his facts wrong) when he
is not even willing to speak with Goichberg.

As far as the "Chess Goddess" is concerned (Susan Polgar calls herself
a "Chess Goddess" on http://www.chessgoddess.com ) she makes no claim
to have received any information directly from any source. She just
repeats the hearsay that everybody else keeps repeating.

Sam Sloan

  #10   Report Post  
Old August 26th 07, 01:19 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Sloan Destroys US Championship

Quote:
Originally Posted by rfeditor
Quote:
Originally Posted by samsloan
I never said that pornography was
on the website. Herbert Vaughn did.

Sam Sloan
On March 26, Sam Sloan wrote on rgcp:
Quote:
Now, the question remains that I was censured and suspended for
pointing out that the Seattle Chess Foundation had #### on its website
and for providing a link to it.
This is too easy.
Yes, but that was months later after everybody else had jumped in the
bandwagon and written about porn on the website.

I did not start this discussion nor am I the person who keeps bringing
it up. The person who does keep bringing this up is Herbert Vaughn a/k/
a tanstaafl. He brought it up again at the USCF delegates meeting in
Cherry Hill.

I question Bill Hall's judgment in making tanstaafl a moderator.
Vaughn is the last person who should ever be made a moderator.

Sam Sloan

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GM Benjamin's Complaint about the US Championship samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 22 August 26th 07 09:32 PM
USCF Issues Forum: "February Board Meeting" [email protected] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 February 10th 07 06:55 PM
Answer by Sam Sloan to Ethics Complaint by Grant Perks samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 1 January 27th 07 03:21 PM
Answer by Sam Sloan to Ethics Complaint by Grant Perks samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 January 27th 07 02:54 PM
Answer by Sam Sloan to Ethics Complaint by Grant Perks samsloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 0 January 27th 07 02:54 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017