Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old January 12th 07, 09:28 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2006
Posts: 444
Default OTOH


Chess One wrote:


You're more than welcome to discuss this at _www.uschess.blogspot.com_
(http://www.uschess.blogspot.com) . It is a blog to discuss USCF issues
and
especially about the upcoming USCF election. USCF memberships not
required.



After reading this at the website:

I apologize for asking this question again. What is your official policy
regarding deliberate lies, deceit, misinformation and personal attacks? As I
said, I will not respond to these outrageous, malicious and false charges
and I will not participate in any discussion in this forum until serious
actions are taken against such individual(s).

How many chances does one get before losing the privilege to post on the
OFFICIAL USCF forum?

Important issues are being drowned out because of the same nonsense daily.
Are we an organization of 83,000 members or just a few unethical and
unprofessional people? We are supposed to be a professional organization.
For the sake of the USCF and US Chess, can something be done please?

Thank you!
Susan Polgar

Here was the President of USCF's direct response:


My understanding is that the official policy is that such posts are not
allowed, and that they may be removed, and the poster ultimately banned from
posting on the forum.

However, in my opinion this policy has been insufficiently enforced. There
is an ongoing Board discussion and vote relative to this matter and I hope
that things will be different before too long.

Bill Goichberg

--

And there you have it! - a call to unity rejected, a call for honesty and
decency rejected, and even a willingness to ban such views from the public
gaze. For some time I have personally watched all sorts of people attempt
'reform', both at Fide and at USCF, and if I may publicly criticise Susan
Polgar, I would say that some of her attitudes are naive; that is, she seems
to be addressing other people who she assumes care for chess as a primary
activity, even if not quite as much as she does herself, but this is a
fantasy. It is not pleasant to come to this conclusion, yet any other
assumptions are more problematic.

In a book by James Clavell, 'Shogun' we have the English 'Anjin-San'
confronting a powerful Japanese Daimyo, and who does not agree that one
should always respect one's master, and there is one circumstance which
justifies revolt.

"What is that?" asks an angry Toronaga-Sama
"When you win" replies our Anjin-san.
Whereas Toronaga laugh out loud.

This indeed seems to be the choice facing GM Polgar, both a t Fide and with
USCF: to be a reformer, or to start anew.

After interviewing for Chessville her business manager and VP of SP
Foundation, Mr. Paul Truong, I sought advice and reaction from seasoned Fide
watchers. One said, 'start now', and the other said 'start over,' [meaning
to establish a new organisation]. These would appear to be the available
opportunities - neither of which include carrying so much ancient dead and
even rotten wood.

I think people should understand that this is a very pregnant moment in the
life and times of chess in the USA which had a fantastic start, and has now
lapsed into an obscure hobby, whereas other countries seem not to be
experiencing this problem, on the contrary, chess is booming!

But increasingly clear is a status quo whose activity and ambition represent
very moderate chess thinking in the USA and who are more than seemingly
content with the way things are. It seems preferable to negate the chances
of other board candidates rather than propose anything much which interests
players - even the continuous national fiasco of the national championship
could be described this way.

Therefore Susan Polgar has to assess if she can engroup a majority on any
future USCF board, and if even that is worthwhile when dragging the joint
anchors of a minority opposition plus existing corporate culture; anchors
indeed which stir up the mud of the past, and make steering the ship
uncertain when steerage is most necessary.

Current leadership has clearly spoken to the acceptance of these ideas, as
above - and even that that cannot be voiced to members, and to be fair to
the current president, he seems not much different than any other incumbent
these past 15 years.

Phil Innes
Vermont,
January 12, 2007



Goichberg and Channing should resign. Polger won't be elected. The USCF
rejected Seirawan and they'll reject her too. I predict Leroy Dubeck
will regain power with Marinello and me.

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



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:10 PM.

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