Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old July 9th 08, 01:50 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 BINFO 200803055 from Susan Polgar to the Rest of the Board

BINFO 200803055
Date 2008-07-01
From SusanPolgar
Status Standard Release
Release Date 2008-07-06
Subject Goichberg writes "The Answer(s) To The USCFs Problems"

* To: [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]
* Subject: Goichberg writes "The Answer(s) To The USCFs
Problems"
* From: [email protected]
* Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 10:31:18 EDT
* Cc: [email protected], [email protected], USCF BINFO System,
[email protected]
* Delivered-to: USCF BINFO Systemxxxxxxxxx
* Delivered-to: USCF BINFO System

Hiding the investigation from the other 6 board members, refusing to
step down from the subcommittee due to clear conflict of interest,
then declining to allow our experts the opportunity to inspect the
database to verify the data.

Refusing to take action against contractors who blatantly violated the
NDA, even after it was confirmed that the NDA was clearly violated
multiple times.

Leaking confidential and legal information to Jerry Hanken and others
by one of the board members (Joel Channing and Randy Bauer are
excluded). You even clearly stated that you're aware that Jerry Hanken
received confidential information and he used this to negotiate with
Sam Sloan.

Voting 5-0 to authorize the attorney to interfere with our legal
defense by contacting Chubb to try to cancel our insurance coverage
which is highly unethical.

Not stopping your attorney from trying to investigate the bogus claim
that Paul and I abused my children. These outrageous, vicious, and
damaging charges which were proven completely false were then sent to
multiple high level individuals at Texas Tech as well as the local
media by one of your supporters to try to get me fired from my job.

Please feel free to deny them just as Jerry Hanken.


In a message dated 7/1/2008 9:01:13 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
Chessoffice writes:

What "board act" do you have in mind?
  #2   Report Post  
Old July 14th 08, 04:50 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 BINFO 200803055 from Susan Polgar to the Rest of the Board

Please note that this posting, which merely copies without any changes
or comments a BINFO which is available to the USCF membership, has not
been allowed to appear on the USCF Issues Forum.

Sam Sloan
  #3   Report Post  
Old August 6th 08, 08:00 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 BINFO 200803055 from Susan Polgar to the Rest of the Board

On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 11:05:37 -0700 (PDT), Rob
wrote:

On Jul 9, 2:36*pm, "
wrote:


*refusing to step down from the subcommittee due to clear conflict of interest


This charge is still not clear, since we don't know what conflict of
interest accusation is being made. I see no obvious conflict of
interest here; Goichberg has no obvious interest in manipulating the
information regarding FSS. Being a political opponent/supporter of the
accused is not in itself a conflict of interest; everyone can be
accused of having some political bias.


### Note: If someone threatenes your livlihood by forcing a change in
proceedures at the board level, that might be a problem. Right?


What changes? Empty posturing doesn't count.

then declining to allow our experts the opportunity to inspect the
database to verify the data.


### Note: Does not the accused have the right to review the evidence
against them?


Aren't you confusing a court case with business practice?

Voting 5-0 to authorize the attorney to interfere with our legal
defense by contacting Chubb to try to cancel our insurance coverage
which is highly unethical.


### Note: It is also a violation of the law. Chubb cannot refuse to
provide them liability protection. The board cannot selectivly exclude
board members from coverage. Whoever suggested this is an idiot and
should have contacted me first. Or any insurance agent before stepping
into this.


Do you have any knowledge as to who was contacted? Why on earth would
they contact you? AFAIK, you have no standing in this whole procedure
and are a known SP/PT partisan.

...if the lawyers tell
you that the charges should be investigated, I would hesitate to say
it is wrong to allow them to follow what they tell you is standard
practice.


### Note: If it is despicible, and you seem to agree that it is, don't
back down from that. Lawyers would never tell you it should be
investigated, unless you are refrencing Lafferty as the attorney .


Not being an attorney, how would you know what sort of things should
be investigated, the extent of the investigation, or the reasons for
it. Has the reasoning behind it or the extent of it been disclosed
yet?

Those guilty of the
actions of attempting to personally and pubically destroy these two
fine people should suffer for their actions.


At last we agree on something. Pubic destruction is despicable and
prohibited under the Geneva Convention.

If Goichberg told the supporter to do this, I agree that it is
something to resign over. However, the fact that one of your
supporters did something nasty does not mean that you are guilty of
the nasty deed.


### Note: If you are responsible for that individuals actions by right
of an employee/employer relationship, you do have liability.


An employer is liable for something an employee does on his own
initiative on his own time using his own facilities? You say this
stuff so confidently, Rob.


### Note: If a board member used their position as a board member to
obtain sensitive information or if they conspired with an outsider
while they were an acting board member with an outside third party for
the specefic intent to drive the attacked person from the board or to
effect a change in board votes, that is a problem and there is a
liability there.


I'm glad to see you're starting to oppose Innes' ignorant nonsense
about the FSS' attempts to influence the board election as just a
juvenile satirical prank. Nice to see you finally developing your own
voice in these matters, Rob.

  #4   Report Post  
Old August 6th 08, 08:41 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: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,053
Default BINFO 200803055 from Susan Polgar to the Rest of the Board

On Aug 6, 2:00*pm, Mike Murray wrote:
On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 11:05:37 -0700 (PDT), Rob
wrote:

On Jul 9, 2:36*pm, "
wrote:
*refusing to step down from the subcommittee due to clear conflict of interest
This charge is still not clear, since we don't know what conflict of
interest accusation is being made. I see no obvious conflict of
interest here; Goichberg has no obvious interest in manipulating the
information regarding FSS. Being a political opponent/supporter of the
accused is not in itself a conflict of interest; everyone can be
accused of having some political bias.


### Note: If someone threatenes your livlihood by forcing a change in
proceedures at the board level, that might be a problem. Right?


What changes? *Empty posturing doesn't count.


We know that Susan and Paul werre coming in as reformers.

then declining to allow our experts the opportunity to inspect the
database to verify the data.


### Note: Does not the accused have the right to review the evidence
against them?



Aren't you confusing a court case with business practice?


No. In business you have to show cause for actions against someone.

Voting 5-0 to authorize the attorney to interfere with our legal
defense by contacting Chubb to try to cancel our insurance coverage
which is highly unethical.


### Note: It is also a violation of the law. Chubb cannot refuse to
provide them liability protection. The board cannot selectivly exclude
board members from coverage. Whoever suggested this is an idiot and
should have contacted me first. Or any insurance agent before stepping
into this.



Do you have any knowledge as to who was contacted? Why on earth would
they contact you? *AFAIK, you have no standing in this whole procedure
and are a known SP/PT partisan. *



I am an insurance professional. If they wanted advise they should have
consulted with someone prior to taking action. I have advised in the
past.

...if the lawyers tell
you that the charges should be investigated, I would hesitate to say
it is wrong to allow them to follow what they tell you is standard
practice.


### Note: If it is despicible, and you seem to agree that it is, don't
back down from that. Lawyers would never tell you it should be
investigated, unless you are refrencing Lafferty as the attorney .



Not being an attorney, how would you know what sort of things should
be investigated, the extent of the investigation, *or the reasons for
it. *Has the reasoning behind it or the extent of it been disclosed
yet?


While I am not an attorney, I do consult with them quite often. They
are generally very careful not to stray too far from the legal scope
of what they are charged to investigate or defend. Their personal
family life simply had no place in things.

Those guilty of the
actions of attempting to personally and publically destroy these two
fine people should suffer for their actions.


At last we agree on something. *Public destruction is despicable and
prohibited under the Geneva Convention. *


Not sure what legal in Geneva or Amsterdam. :-)

If Goichberg told the supporter to do this, I agree that it is
something to resign over. However, the fact that one of your
supporters did something nasty does not mean that you are guilty of
the nasty deed.


### Note: If you are responsible for that individuals actions by right
of an employee/employer relationship, you do have liability.



An employer is liable for something an employee does on his own
initiative on his own time using his own facilities? *You say this
stuff so confidently, Rob. *


I think you misunderstood what I said. Maybe I said it wrong.
If I hired a contractor to rewire my office for phones. While doing it
he tapped the lines and overheard that someone else in my office was
selling drugs. I told him to continue listening. I am as guilty of
wire tapping as he is. I am sure there are better analogies, but that
the gist of it.

### Note: If a board member used their position as a board member to
obtain sensitive information or if they conspired with an outsider
while they were an acting board member with an outside third party for
the specefic intent to drive the attacked person from the board or to
effect a change in board votes, that is a problem and there is a
liability there.



I'm glad to see you're starting to oppose Innes' ignorant nonsense
about the FSS' attempts to influence the board election as just a
juvenile satirical prank. *Nice to see you finally developing your own
voice in these matters, Rob. *


Mike, that has nothing to do with the FSS case. Please point out how
my paragraph has anything to do with the FSS?

Take care!
Rob
  #5   Report Post  
Old August 6th 08, 09:14 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 BINFO 200803055 from Susan Polgar to the Rest of the Board

On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:41:58 -0700 (PDT), Rob
wrote:

### Note: If someone threatenes your livlihood by forcing a change in
proceedures at the board level, that might be a problem. Right?


What changes? *Empty posturing doesn't count.


We know that Susan and Paul werre coming in as reformers.


Unless you can cite something *specific*, then, as Spinrad wrote,
"being a political opponent/supporter of the accused is not in itself
a conflict of interest".

### Note: Does not the accused have the right to review the evidence
against them?


Aren't you confusing a court case with business practice?


No. In business you have to show cause for actions against someone.


Does showing cause require giving the accused access to the evidence?

Voting 5-0 to authorize the attorney to interfere with our legal
defense by contacting Chubb to try to cancel our insurance coverage
which is highly unethical.


### Note: It is also a violation of the law. Chubb cannot refuse to
provide them liability protection. The board cannot selectivly exclude
board members from coverage. Whoever suggested this is an idiot and
should have contacted me first. Or any insurance agent before stepping
into this.


Do you have any knowledge as to who was contacted? Why on earth would
they contact you? *AFAIK, you have no standing in this whole procedure
and are a known SP/PT partisan. *


I am an insurance professional. If they wanted advise they should have
consulted with someone prior to taking action. I have advised in the
past.


I'm assuming they had consulted attorneys provided by the insurance
company and were proceeding upon their advice. Aren't you a field
agent? Did you provide advice on matters in litigation?

While I am not an attorney, I do consult with them quite often. They
are generally very careful not to stray too far from the legal scope
of what they are charged to investigate or defend. Their personal
family life simply had no place in things.


Now, weren't you singing a different song when it was Sloan's personal
family life, and court actions resulting from it a few years ago?
Anyway, if the USCF did this investigation upon advice of their legal
counsel, are you suggesting their counsel wasn't following standard
practice?

Those guilty of the
actions of attempting to personally and publically destroy these two
fine people should suffer for their actions.


You know, Rob, changing the spelling in QUOTED MATERIAL is
considered a no-no. Here's what you originally wrote:

"Those guilty of the actions of attempting to personally and pubically
destroy these two fine people should suffer for their actions."

You can't go back to the past and change what you published. Even if
your name is Paul Truong, you can't do that. If you could, it would
ruin my joke.

An employer is liable for something an employee does on his own
initiative on his own time using his own facilities? *You say this
stuff so confidently, Rob. *


I think you misunderstood what I said. Maybe I said it wrong.
If I hired a contractor to rewire my office for phones. While doing it
he tapped the lines and overheard that someone else in my office was
selling drugs. I told him to continue listening. I am as guilty of
wire tapping as he is. I am sure there are better analogies, but that
the gist of it.


How close is your analogy to the way it happened?

### Note: If a board member used their position as a board member to
obtain sensitive information or if they conspired with an outsider
while they were an acting board member with an outside third party for
the specefic intent to drive the attacked person from the board or to
effect a change in board votes, that is a problem and there is a
liability there.


I'm glad to see you're starting to oppose Innes' ignorant nonsense
about the FSS' attempts to influence the board election as just a
juvenile satirical prank. *Nice to see you finally developing your own
voice in these matters, Rob. *


Mike, that has nothing to do with the FSS case. Please point out how
my paragraph has anything to do with the FSS?


Much of what the FSS wrote had "the specefic [sic] intent to drive
the attacked person from the board or to effect a change in board
votes, that is a problem and there is a liability there."


  #6   Report Post  
Old August 6th 08, 09:39 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: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,053
Default BINFO 200803055 from Susan Polgar to the Rest of the Board

On Aug 6, 3:14*pm, Mike Murray wrote:
On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:41:58 -0700 (PDT), Rob
wrote:

### Note: If someone threatenes your livlihood by forcing a change in
proceedures at the board level, that might be a problem. Right?
What changes? *Empty posturing doesn't count.

We know that Susan and Paul werre coming in as reformers.


Unless you can cite something *specific*, then, as Spinrad wrote,
"being a political opponent/supporter of the accused is not in itself
a conflict of interest". *

### Note: Does not the accused have the right to review the evidence
against them?
Aren't you confusing a court case with business practice?

No. In business you have to show cause for actions against someone.



Does showing cause require giving the accused access to the evidence?


Yes.

Voting 5-0 to authorize the attorney to interfere with our legal
defense by contacting Chubb to try to cancel our insurance coverage
which is highly unethical.


### Note: It is also a violation of the law. Chubb cannot refuse to
provide them liability protection. The board cannot selectivly exclude
board members from coverage. Whoever suggested this is an idiot and
should have contacted me first. Or any insurance agent before stepping
into this.


Do you have any knowledge as to who was contacted? Why on earth would
they contact you? *AFAIK, you have no standing in this whole procedure
and are a known SP/PT partisan. *


I am an insurance professional. If they wanted advise they should have
consulted with someone prior to taking action. I have advised in the
past.



I'm assuming they had consulted attorneys provided by the insurance
company and were proceeding upon their advice. *Aren't you a field
agent? *Did you provide advice on matters in litigation?


To my knowledge they consulted with no attorney prior to taking the
action.
I do provide opinions on insurance to attorneys concerning coverages
under policies and limitations and extent of liabilities.

While I am not an attorney, I do consult with them quite often. They
are generally very careful not to stray too far from the legal scope
of what they are charged to investigate or defend. Their personal
family life simply had no place in things.



Now, weren't you singing a different song when it was Sloan's personal
family life, and court actions resulting from it a few years ago?
Anyway, if the USCF did this investigation upon advice of their legal
counsel, are you suggesting their counsel wasn't following standard
practice?


I am saying it is my belief that none of these actions looking into
and broadcasting of their personal information was the result of any
communication with an attorney. Any information about Mr. Sloan was
taken from statements he himself broadcast as public knowledge. There
is a difference.

Those guilty of the
actions of attempting to personally and publically destroy these two
fine people should suffer for their actions.


You know, Rob, changing the spelling *in QUOTED MATERIAL *is
considered a no-no. *Here's what you originally wrote:

"Those guilty of the actions of attempting to personally and pubically
destroy these two fine people should suffer for their actions."

You can't go back to the past and change what you published. *Even if
your name is Paul Truong, you can't do that. * If you could, it would
ruin my joke.



Mike.. I reserve the right tospell check! LOL :-)

An employer is liable for something an employee does on his own
initiative on his own time using his own facilities? *You say this
stuff so confidently, Rob. *


I think you misunderstood what I said. Maybe I said it wrong.
If I hired a contractor to rewire my office for phones. While doing it
he tapped the lines and overheard that someone else in my office was
selling drugs. I told him to continue listening. I am as guilty of
wire tapping as he is. I am sure there are better analogies, but that
the gist of it.



How close is your analogy to the way it happened?


I suck at analogise. Thats why I said you could probably find a
better one. :-)

### Note: If a board member used their position as a board member to
obtain sensitive information or if they conspired with an outsider
while they were an acting board member with an outside third party for
the specefic intent to drive the attacked person from the board or to
effect a change in board votes, that is a problem and there is a
liability there.


I'm glad to see you're starting to oppose Innes' ignorant nonsense
about the FSS' attempts to influence the board election as just a
juvenile satirical prank. *Nice to see you finally developing your own
voice in these matters, Rob.

*
Mike, that has nothing to do with the FSS case. *Please point out how
my paragraph has anything to do with the FSS?



Much of what the FSS wrote had *"the specefic *[sic] intent to drive
the attacked person from the board or to effect a change in board
votes, that is a problem and there is a liability there."


That would be assuming the FSS was on the board at the same time as
SLoan and there were other board members doing it. Are you saying the
FSS was someone on the board at the same time as Sam? If that were the
case, someone would have to either have knowledge of how to make
posting appear they came from somewhere else or directed someone else
to change them after the fact?
If that were the case it could not have been Paul, could it?
  #7   Report Post  
Old August 6th 08, 10:31 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 BINFO 200803055 from Susan Polgar to the Rest of the Board

On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 13:39:35 -0700 (PDT), Rob
wrote:


Much of what the FSS wrote had *"the specefic *[sic] intent to drive
the attacked person from the board or to effect a change in board
votes, that is a problem and there is a liability there."


That would be assuming the FSS was on the board at the same time as
SLoan and there were other board members doing it. Are you saying the
FSS was someone on the board at the same time as Sam? If that were the
case, someone would have to either have knowledge of how to make
posting appear they came from somewhere else or directed someone else
to change them after the fact?
If that were the case it could not have been Paul, could it?


Is there a significant difference between (a) someone ON the board
sabotaging a candidate, (b) someone RUNNING FOR the board sabotaging a
candidate, (c) an agent of either of these two sabotaging a candidate?
  #8   Report Post  
Old August 6th 08, 10:40 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: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,053
Default BINFO 200803055 from Susan Polgar to the Rest of the Board

On Aug 6, 4:31*pm, Mike Murray wrote:
On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 13:39:35 -0700 (PDT), Rob
wrote:

Much of what the FSS wrote had *"the specefic *[sic] intent to drive
the attacked person from the board or to effect a change in board
votes, that is a problem and there is a liability there."

That would be assuming the FSS was on the board at the same time as
SLoan and there were other board members doing it. Are you saying the
FSS was someone on the board at the same time as Sam? If that were the
case, someone would have to either have knowledge of how to make
posting appear they came from somewhere else or directed someone else
to change them after the fact?
If that were the case it could not have been Paul, could it?



Is there a significant difference between (a) someone ON the board
sabotaging a candidate, (b) someone RUNNING FOR the board sabotaging a
candidate, (c) an agent of either of these two sabotaging a candidate?


Looking strictly from an insurance liability issue, yes. Actions while
not a member of the board would have no coverage under the GL policy.
In A) both the board member could be sued as well as the organization
and the GL would defend. In B) there is no coverage.
  #9   Report Post  
Old August 6th 08, 11:02 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 782
Default BINFO 200803055 from Susan Polgar to the Rest of the Board

On Aug 6, 4:40*pm, Rob wrote:
On Aug 6, 4:31*pm, Mike Murray wrote:





On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 13:39:35 -0700 (PDT), Rob
wrote:


Much of what the FSS wrote had *"the specefic *[sic] intent to drive
the attacked person from the board or to effect a change in board
votes, that is a problem and there is a liability there."
That would be assuming the FSS was on the board at the same time as
SLoan and there were other board members doing it. Are you saying the
FSS was someone on the board at the same time as Sam? If that were the
case, someone would have to either have knowledge of how to make
posting appear they came from somewhere else or directed someone else
to change them after the fact?
If that were the case it could not have been Paul, could it?

Is there a significant difference between (a) someone ON the board
sabotaging a candidate, (b) someone RUNNING FOR the board sabotaging a
candidate, (c) an agent of either of these two sabotaging a candidate?


Looking strictly from an insurance liability issue, yes. Actions while
not a member of the board would have no coverage under the GL policy.
In A) both the board member could be sued as well as the organization
and the GL would defend. In B) there is no coverage.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


I don't understand insurance, but if somebody was FSS both before
serving on the board, and while serving on the board, what would that
mean for insurance purposes? I have only a very weak analogy here; I
know that insurance companies have avoided payments in medical
operations citing an unrevealed preexisting condition.

Jerry Spinrad
  #10   Report Post  
Old August 7th 08, 12:13 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
Rob Rob is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,053
Default BINFO 200803055 from Susan Polgar to the Rest of the Board

On Aug 6, 5:02*pm, "
wrote:
On Aug 6, 4:40*pm, Rob wrote:



On Aug 6, 4:31*pm, Mike Murray wrote:


On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 13:39:35 -0700 (PDT), Rob
wrote:


Much of what the FSS wrote had *"the specefic *[sic] intent to drive
the attacked person from the board or to effect a change in board
votes, that is a problem and there is a liability there."
That would be assuming the FSS was on the board at the same time as
SLoan and there were other board members doing it. Are you saying the
FSS was someone on the board at the same time as Sam? If that were the
case, someone would have to either have knowledge of how to make
posting appear they came from somewhere else or directed someone else
to change them after the fact?
If that were the case it could not have been Paul, could it?
Is there a significant difference between (a) someone ON the board
sabotaging a candidate, (b) someone RUNNING FOR the board sabotaging a
candidate, (c) an agent of either of these two sabotaging a candidate?


Looking strictly from an insurance liability issue, yes. Actions while
not a member of the board would have no coverage under the GL policy.
In A) both the board member could be sued as well as the organization
and the GL would defend. In B) there is no coverage.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


I don't understand insurance, but if somebody was FSS both before
serving on the board, and while serving on the board, what would that
mean for insurance purposes? I have only a very weak analogy here; I
know that insurance companies have avoided payments in medical
operations citing an unrevealed preexisting condition.

Jerry Spinrad


No act prior to actually being on the board would be covered. The GL
policies cover officer and directors for act,errors and ommissions
resulting from actions during their term of service. the is trailing
coverage after they leave the board for activities during their term
of service.
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
NY Times -- Susan Polgar's remarks about Lawsuit, Husband, Recall, & `Departure' - rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 2 April 7th 08 01:00 PM
Response to Ethics Complaint by Herbert Rodney Vaughn samsloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 2 January 14th 07 01:41 AM
Sam Sloan censured by Executive Board Duncan Oxley rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 30 December 8th 06 12:22 PM
The 4 Polgar Proposals: To which did the Executive Board agree? Sam Sloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 1 February 27th 06 12:41 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:28 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