Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old February 28th 06, 12:58 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
Chess One
 
Posts: n/a
Default From the USCF Forum - Susan Polgar All-American Girls Program


"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...
PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 12:56 am Post subject: Reply
with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post
SusanPolgar wrote:
Eric,

I completely fail to understand your #3 point. The USCF would not pay
a single penny. It costs nothing to put information on the web. The
USCF owns the Scholastic Magazine and Chess Life. This would be in the
best interest of the USCF to stop losing young female members and help
improve the playing strength of many of these young ladies.


This is a very silly argument. It costs money to print Chess Life. If
Chess Life publishes an article about how the Polgar Foundation is
awarding Polgar Chess Jackets, that costs money.


WHO AM I?

It already costs money to print Chess Life. Someone remind me why the USCF
exists? Isn't its very identity to promote the game?

At the same meeting of the Executive Board, Tim Redman appeared with
his proposal/demand that EVERY ISSUE OF CHESS LIFE MAGAZINE contain a
full page of about College Chess. This is a silly idea which I am sure
will be rejected.


Another example of promoting chess into the community is called silly. What
sort of organisation is Sam Sloan trying to perpetuate?

There is another college league which we have helped promote on the web,
which has received no help from anyone else. Colleges are where players
often drop out of chess completely... I don't understand the objection.

When Redman was President he required Chess Life to
publish an article about the chess program at the University of Texas
at Dallas in every issue of the magazine. This is one of the reasons
why the entire Redman slate was defeated in the 1999 elections and
Redman will probably never be elected to anything again.


I think only publishing U Texas articles would make no particular sense
/now/, but then it was the only educational outfit doing substantial things
for chess. Even so, this criticism has some merit, or maybe the editor had
none, but if its intent was to stimulate college chess, then... tell me what
the objection is again?

BTW: Tim Redman told me a couple of years ago that past presidents do not
like to be referred to as such, and they prefer the term 'Ring Wraiths.'

Now, you want Chess Life magazine to give free publicity to the Polgar
chess jackets awarded by the Polgar Foundation. Why don't you pay for
these ads as the other grandmasters do who are as prominent as
yourself?


I wonder who these other 'as prominent' GMs can be? SP got 60 mentions in
mainstream media last year. I would have thought the benefit of the
association would be /at least/ mutual.

When I interviewed Beatriz she affirmed that retaining juniors in chess was
once of the highest priorities of her administration. Unfortunately she had
no plan to implement her highest priority, so it is rather strange to read
here that she now seems to resent others trying to keep juniors in chess.

Quote:


Now do you understand why so many potential sponsors would stay far
away from this federation for years? Who on earth would want to go
through this? As a friend of mine often said this about the USCF: "No
good deed for the USCF would ever go unpunished."


What is the established reason for USCF's existance? It is to promote the
game into the mainstream. I wonder if anyone will take my notes here and
post them into the USCF forum, as a challenge:

CHALLENGE

Who does more to actively promote chess into the mainstream? USCF or Susan
Polgar Foundation?

The reason I write here and not at the USCF site is that I am interested in
promoting chess to the mainstream, and answered for myself the question
posed above several years ago.

I only add a few notes below on the sad reception and confusion of the board
on receiving the proposal.

Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
www.SusanPolgarFoundation.org
www.SusanPolgar.com
www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com


Paul, when your proposal was presented on February 20, you made no
mention whatever of the fact that you wanted your program to be
publicized in Chess Life. Had the board known what you wanted they
would never have agreed to your deal, at least not without further
explanation. In fact, of the board members, Bill Goichberg wanted to
referred to the scholastic council and the woman's committee, Joel
Channing wanted it kept confidential,


Yet another request for official SECRECY -

Roberty Tanner expressed grave
doubts about it, and Don Schultz said that he was pushing it only
because he promised you that he would. Finally, Beatriz Marinello was
completely against it.


See above - is the board actually AGAINST all initiatives to promote chess
to the mainstream? This proposal may have needed further elaboration, but
compared with doing nothing, it really does 'sound like' resentment.

Finally, it was passed only with the proviso added by Joel Channing
that the deal would be kept confidential. This makes it obvious that
the board had no intention of publicizing your deal in Chess Life.


We hear about the board's determination not to do anything, but not what the
board was thinking in order to come to their conculsions. Was there any
thinking, a such? Or does Sam Sloan simply not report it here - or is it
even secret?

Now, it was YOU who broke the confidentiality by complaining about it
on the forum.


It doesn't seem to me as though Paul Troung ever intended his proposal to be
SECRET, or is the euphemism 'confidential'? Seems like he was trying to make
an above-the-table proposal. Is this really being criticised?

Now, you are complaining by writing, "Now do you
understand why so many potential sponsors would stay far away from
this federation for years?", when actually you were the one who broke
the agreement.


This last paragraph is a keeper. The USCF should add up its sponsor dollars
over the past few years and see if making secret deals has really been to
any sponsor's taste. They might then compare the in-plain-view open proposal
made by Troung who is a very successful fundraiser for SP Foundation, with
the official secrets policy of the chess federation, and see if any thoughts
occur to them...

I do not expect any. Instead I imagine the USCF forum would rather resent
this note.

Phil Innes.
Vermont.


Sam Sloan



Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
From the USCF Forum - Susan Polgar All-American Girls Program The Historian rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 4 March 2nd 06 07:06 PM
The 4 Polgar Proposals: To which did the Executive Board agree? Sam Sloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 February 27th 06 03:48 PM
The 4 Polgar Proposals: To which did the Executive Board agree? Sam Sloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 February 27th 06 03:48 PM
The 4 Polgar Proposals: To which did the Executive Board agree? Sam Sloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 1 February 27th 06 12:41 AM
The 4 Polgar Proposals: To which did the Executive Board agree? Sam Sloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 1 February 27th 06 12:41 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:21 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