|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Chessville
Advertise to Single insert:
|
.jpg) TheParrot Squaawks….! Opinions and Reader Feedback
TheParrot Says… 8-5-2006 WHO CARES? Part 2. Our Children in Chess Jerry Hanken, President of the Chess Journalists of America, has suggested relieving a newsgroup ‘discussion’ with a serious address to the issues raised in it. I agree, or rather acknowledge that he seconds a widespread attempt to do so, which I raised here a few days ago. The fact that it does not seem widespread is that it is a dirty subject! And, since many people who read in that newsgroup also report chess, perhaps understandably they don't want to broadcast negative associations to do with chess. However oriented one may be to this topic I assert that a considerable sociological concern exists in the general public. We only see some surface factors represented - but the subject is a substantial one, and I hope that CJA will want to investigate this factor of decency properly in Chicago, for it seems to me to be a significant factor of the modern chess scene. I contrast this with any chauvinism or overly friendly approach to chess organizations, since, to paraphrase Susan Polgar, - it's about the welfare of children contacting the chess scene - a point quite distinct from the welfare of chess organizations or adults engaged in them. Two aspects seem necessary to properly address the issue: (1) The first must be to admit there is a problem! - and while I am aghast that the USCF board has not chosen to notice my letter to them [which contained several references to highly questionable standards of behavior, as well as sexually explicit ones], neither have I seen them address the issue with any other party. Does USCF actually care enough to act? (2) It is essential that the issue be depersonalized. A serious address to standards of behavior cannot be confounded with political differences or matters of personal taste relating to what is sometimes juvenile braggadocio, which is otherwise a legally permitted expression, no matter the age of the writer. A considerable psychological point is that people likely to occasion offense [to act on their fantasies] are not those most obvious persons who initially excite issues. Therefore standards are necessary which relate to all people, otherwise the result is that a stalking-horse for these issues will be transmogrified into a scapegoat for them - removing surface tension, but doing nothing to address what lurks beneath. ------- Those are some elements which I would hope CJA might discuss among themselves, and then press the attendees in Chicago to acknowledge then make response to. By doing so, CJA as a news organization reporting chess, would at least contact people’s interest! It is merely an aside, but I notice that in the newsgroup interchange, the question why SPF could initially [and regularly] generate the $300k for chess scholarships, and why USCF cannot, has been glossed as if of no importance. But I think it is one of the most important factors that USCF with all its resources and relatively huge staff compared to SPF, cannot even attract that sort of money, never mind deploy it better. I am suggesting the reason for this is the EVIDENT standards between the two organizations, and as they say, the sincerest form of flattery is money! As Larry Parr has often pointed out in this and other forums, the amount of money in the chess system is minute! Mainstream education where chess could be deployed is where the action is; but mainstream education has standards, entirely necessary standards, about the interactions of adults with all our children. Parrots Love Carrots Better than Bananas:
7-29-2006 WHO CARES? Months ago the Parrot wrote to the USCF board via Bill Hall Executive Director of USCF, asking after standards in place to avert offense to women and children in chess. These concerns, although according to Hall were delivered to the board, have not been addressed nor even acknowledged. Perhaps this is a cultural thing, but in some cultures is not dishonorable nor some game of politically correct words, to actively protect women and children from offence - in fact it is considered manly. The issues before the board were about the treatment of women and children, and the lack of standard evident in the works of USCF agents paid and unpaid – and who even sometimes wrote anonymously, but let it be known that they wrote as USCF agents. And what happens if you don’t … Now we have a collision of speculations about new board member Sam Sloan's standards with these non-existent USCF standards. Anyone with the slightest psychological nous can notice that some of Sloan's distracters seem far more into 'a little dirt' than he is himself. And actually as likely to act out their repressed adolescent fantasies by continuously exciting the subject. This is not quite the proper place to discuss such material – but a nod to the wise! Similarly, this is no endorsement of Sloan - and not a commentary on any specific individuals at all. So what is the point? ETHICS ANYONE? What is essentially addressed is the highly personalised culture in which chess operates in the USA. USCF could have acted to make standards that were observable by all - and to limit unwonted and gratuitous offense. But it shirked the task - and such people as mocked Larry Evans’ journalism, Jennifer Shahade's memoir on women in chess, now mock this care of women and children. Parrots Love Carrots Better than Bananas:
Carrot of the week J Congratulations to an aluminum factory in the Northern Urals! A friend who visited there several years ago for a previous tournament said it was a particularly remote place, on the edge of the Taiga. That it has become the place in the world for very high quality women’s chess is a remarkable achievement. The tournament is not so well known, but after the Parrot reported it last week, notably ChessBase have now run a report and more Europeans will take in the event. Are there no Aluminum factories in the USA?
A USCF member who ran for the election but failed in his bid has suggested overturning the OMOV provision [One Member One Vote] in future USCF Elections because, apparently, of intense dislike of elected one-year board-member-to-be, Sam Sloan of New York City. Why the board did not act in a timely way to establish ethical standards applicable to all instead of what now seems a political action in the scape-goating of the admittedly outré Sloan, is unknown. The same individual wishing to end this recent democratic trend has now proposed to scrap the entire executive board, and replace it with temporary proxies from the delegates.
Prospective Chessville Columnist explains strategy to a young girl. “I am not bananas” he explained, “I would also do this for peanuts.”
7-22-2006 The subject is Kamsky and Polgar coming 1 - 2 in the recently concluded Mayor's Cup in NY City. Alex Onishuk was incidentally #3, and I think it is a little significant when the current US Champion comes second to a female player in a strong tournament. Does anyone remember the last time that happened BTW? Has it happened very often?
When
interviewing J. Shahade on
the reception of her recent book,
Chess Bitch, I asked her if she thought it crazy to propose that a
female player would become the US Champ in the next 10 years. She didn't
think so. From a journalist's point of view this makes chess a very significant activity within any country's cultural life - and a small, or rather discreet enough, arena to observe. It can also lead to the country's financial health, since it is more fit to recognize and encourage talent from the entire population, rather than relegating half the population to some 'B" league. And certainly in this age of out-sourcing and fierce BRIC competition, USA cannot afford to throw away or under-utilize its resources of natural intelligence. I think too, that if more women challenged for the top spots, and especially if they were successful, then it would, [encourager les autres!] stimulate men to greater exertions! This is more a point of psychology than any sociology, and may seem small in the overall scheme of things - but notably such small things can be extraordinarily potent in the life of any culture, not unlike the yeast in the bread. Parrots Love Carrots Better than Bananas
1.1 million Euro Chess Center in Turkey The Turkish Chess Federation increased its membership from 3,000 to 150,000 and installed 12,000 chess teachers in schools. Now the TCF has moved into sparkling new quarters in downtown Ankara, called the Atatürk Chess Centre. The total cost for the establishment of the Center is €1.1 million.
In the same period of time the USCF went from 98,000 to 78,000 members under the presidency of Beatriz Marinello. Rare picture
7-15-2006 USCF Election Fiasco – Banana Republic News!
Then there is the board member who has joined Team-Kirsan, while US players voted otherwise – this position is still termed ‘representative’.
And on page six of ‘How to Run
a Banana Republic’ we notice the instruction to eliminate all critics,
and sure enough, the long-term and last authoritative critical voice for
democracy in Fide, GM Larry Evans, is officially gonzo. The cash-happy new
editor even paid for four months of Evans’ articles but printed a blank
space 7-8-2006 The Parrot engaged the CJA this week, and after some correspondence with its officers wrote about the New Yorker article and world chess politics to its Vice President who is seemingly at odds with President Hanken: Dear Daren Dillinger > Do you recall which issue that was? I missed that article. Its April 24th 2006, unknown if they make it available on-line after print publishing - journalist is Michael Specter.pp112-122 You can even read the fascinating concluding lines of why Kirsan will never give up control to anything as egalitarian as mere democracy, since "Tomorrow, aliens will fly down here and say, 'You guys are misbehaving', and then they will take us away from the earth." Apparently better than half the world voted for this guy.
---------
[on
Beatriz Marinello] 7-1-2006 And the moral of the story is… Give up or compete by the same means? Should the chess federations of the Western democracies simply out-bribe Planet-Kirsan? Is that really the choice here? Or should we all just shut up for another 8 or 12 years? Or... Is it time to take up something along the lines of Bessel Kok’s program for chess, and just do it? The great problem with Planet Kirsan is absolutely clear – no sponsorships. Whereas here in the West film production companies are putting million dollar production budgets together for… dominos on tv! Those of us with involvement in TV media and mainstream education are exploring opportunities ‘to proceed by other means’. ;) Why the richest country in the world is reduced to pleading on funds to one of the poorest is unknown. Several USCF members have defected from a general consensus that Planet Kirsan is very bad news, and are whole-hog for him, including the recently past USCF president Beatriz Marinello, and Bill Kelleher. The Parrot asks: Has nothing been learned from the C20th about conceding to dictators? WHAT is wrong with American know-how that they can’t put something together, instead of whining about how unjust it all is for another 8 years – 12 years? Forever? 6-24-2006 State of the Chess Nation In addition to very strange accounting practices and quantities of money currently being spent by the board – including a $10,000 retreat to meet with ‘critics’ while dismissing the last critic, GM Evans, from his column, add another $50,000 for magazine and web re-design, and another $650,000 [so far!] for a new HQ. Can a single dollar of all that money be shown to have been spent on promoting chess play in USA? That is, after all, the mission of USCF. Other countries don’t even require membership to play a rated game, and chess USA suffers the same fate as FIDE – no sponsorships have existed for a long time, and the result is an inert group of bureaucrats spending money on themselves. Meanwhile, in Mordor… Now there is a situation like the recently concluded Fide election; a thoroughly compromised process, and Bill’s Board struggle on with one board member openly siding with Ilyumzhinov’s Fide, and also acting to stymie the woman’s Olympiad squad by keeping the strongest player on the side lines – a person, not incidentally, who is the world’s most respected promoter of the game to young people. While the heavyweights in the free world, especially Europe, discuss the future of chess management and its bleak, Mordor-like fate while governed from Kalmykia, various American Hobbits are openly discussing alternatives at home. Whether you ever liked the personality aspect of the Larry Evans column in CL, now that that last voice which could call itself a player-representative has been summarily dismissed from USCF’s official magazine, there is even less attention paid to players. No surveys are planned; no real invitation extended to the movers and shakers on the US chess scene; no conferencing with top US players are in view. That is all, apparently, a matter of too much expense. We may not have needed Evans as some continuous Gandalf figure to play the wise old man of chess, but unless we replaced his efforts by our own collective ones, we have lost our compass entirely, and there is no way out of the Dark Wood except another completely unnecessary and expensive gamble - another flight in the dark. This very same blundering around without sage advice has virtually destroyed world chess. It not only can happen here, it has. 6-10-2006 End of an era? Demise of Russia Conversation with a Polish Correspondent (PC)
Parrot napisal(a): 6-3-2006 What next for World Chess? Already speculations on a new international chess organization have begun to circulate, since the prospect of more nothing from a FIDE which is intellectually, financially and morally bankrupt, cannot be appealing to agents who want chess to be the world game in the C21st. The current organizational structure of FIDE has simply been unable to achieve international confidence – and nothing in the winner’s platform looks likely to bring that about. This is a very short Squaawk! about a very big issue, perhaps the big chess question of our times. 5-27-2006 The Fide election obviously dominates the news, together with activities of real chess players in the Olympiad at Torino. It is a sad contrast of our game as contested by its players proudly representing their national honor, with the machinations of what lies behind the curtains, which has all too often represented only individual greed and graft. The issues are very clear in both campaigns – this may be the last world-wide Fide Election. The mood in the Western democracies is entirely for a modern review of world chess as professed by Bessel Kok’s approach; by professional management, real chess educational for especially third world countries, transparency in government, plus confident partnering with sponsors; and above all, for decency. The real question about the split in world chess which apparently separates one group of nations from the rest of the world, and money for chess development, education, and Glasnöst too, is how many countries will break from Fide at a first stage. Surely, the way forward is clear enough, and a split in world chess is inevitable, since other factors are not reconcilable, thus ending Fide as a world organization, as inevitable forces of progress succeed in making a foundation for the C21st, rather than the C10th. 5-20-2006 Squawwk One! An Open Letter Americans for Kirsan USCF split over Fide Election. Don Shultz wrote:
“When
I read Beatriz Marinello's Open letter on Kirsan Ilyumzhinov's campaign
site, I saw a FIDE President pouring fuel on a dispute within one of FIDE's
member nations. Did Beatriz authorize him to use her letter? Yes, it was an
open letter but a FIDE President with character would have sought to heal
the differences in the member federation not Squawwk Two! Letter to the Parrot EVANS CHESS LIFE COLUMN CANCELLED New Chess Life
editor Dan Lucas informed GM Larry Evans that he would be cancelling the
5-time U.S. champion's question-and-answer column in Chess Life. The final
edition of his column will appear in the May issue.
There is something very wrong in American chess when the last public critic of what has often been disgusting political goings-on is dismissed without even an official goodbye, and the Americas officially sponsor a candidate who will vote for Kirsan. But these events are no coincidence of factors, they are logical processes which result from a system which operates in secrecy and can fire the last lion of American chess GM Larry Evans, and in the same season favor this friend of Saddam who runs world chess, but not for thee! 5-13-2006 Fundamental Change Group? Probably not… Whatever happened in Florida this week among a group of not-very-critics of USCF to effect fundamental changes, is unknown. Not even an agenda has been made available. More Secrets? Even the CJA President attended at the expense of CJA’s members and a contentious $600 expenditure, and will write his version for next June’s Chess Life. zzzzzzz Meanwhile USCF have pledged large support to the FIDE election campaign of Bessel Kok [but! See below]. You have probably not read about it, since it does not seem to appear in any actual writings anywhere. Last week the Parrot recorded a long conversation about the retreat and its aims with a board member – this week one shamefaced Parrot feels as though it betrayed what was to happen, to Parrot readers, which was not as much thunder and lightning and fundamental changes as more drizzle, obscuring the chess landscape in a 10,000 buck boondoggle mist. Meanwhile – all the happy-talk is not quite unified, and the General Secretary of Fide Americas had this to say: May 12, 2006 My friends: I am sorry to have to report disturbing news regarding the recent actions of the United States Chess Federation Executive Board regarding the upcoming FIDE Presidential elections. That Board, of which I am a member, voted early to support the candidacy of Bessel Kok for FIDE President. That is the right of the national federation. But things took an ugly turn recently.
My position has always been that FIDE's motto,
gens una sumus, we are one family, should guide us in our promotion of the
game we all love. Following that principle, I recently stated that no
matter who won the That statement did not sit well with the more fanatical Kok supporters on the U.S. Chess Federation, who demanded that I retract it. Unless I did so, they threatened punitive actions. The President of the board submitted the following motion: 06-064 - Goichberg - Whereas: 1. The USCF Executive Board unanimously endorsed the candidacy of Bessel Kok for FIDE President, and we feel that his election is very important for the promotion of chess in the USA and the world, . 2. The Executive Board subsequently, at its February meeting, endorsed the candidacy of Beatriz Marinello for FIDE General Secretary of the Americas,.
3. Beatriz Marinello had voted for the Board
endorsement of Bessel Kok. However, on April 4, she wrote to the Board
about the FIDE election, "I will remain neutral and willing to work with the
administration that 4. USCF policy, as recently reaffirmed by the Executive Board, is that our FIDE representatives are required to support USCF positions on FIDE issues. 5. We believe that in a democracy, supporting the best qualified candidate in an election is appropriate and does not constitute a refusal or inability to work with a different candidate, should the one we are supporting fail to be elected. 6. We believe that to have a USCF representative advocating a neutral position in discussions with representatives of other federations will undermine our support for the candidacy of Bessel Kok. Therefore, we ask Beatriz Marinello to consider accepting one of the following two positions: A) She agrees to affirmatively advocate the candidacy of Bessel Kok, to the best of her ability, in any election discussions she may have with the representatives of other federations. B) She withdraws her offer to represent USCF at the upcoming Turin FIDE meeting and her candidacy for General Secretary of the Americas. In the event she chooses not to attend these meetings, USCF will reimburse her for any nonrefundable travel expenses.
If Beatriz does not endorse one of these
positions within three days of the passage of this motion, the USCF
endorsement of her candidacy for General Secretary of the Americas is hereby
rescinded, and FIDE shall After extensive discussion the motion PASSED 3-0-2 with Beatriz Marinello and Robert Tanner abstaining. During the discussion Joel Channing, one of the members of the board called me a "piece of crap" and he compared me with North Korea, because I said that I will not change my position. Lately in other Internet postings Mr. Schultz, another board member said as following: "why is the press so silent and seemingly indifferent on the FIDE elections? Why no words on the Israeli Chess Federation's endorsement of Ilyumzhinov, a man who is a friend of Saddam Hussein, who in turn launched missles (correction "missiles") against Israel and is also responsible for the deaths of many Americans-- Don Schultz " I am deeply offended by the personal attacks, and the fanatical and irrational comments made by my fellow board members. These statements speak for themselves. Please do not think that this mentality reflects the thinking of the USCF members, these are comments coming from fanatic extremists who do not understand world politics nor are willing to engage in a democratic and clean campaigning to advance their political agendas. Furthermore, If the USCF Executive Board moves forward to cancel my nomination as General Secretary of FIDE Americas, I will appeal this decision to the General Assembly.
Yours for Chess, Beatriz
Marinello 5-6-2006 Squawwk! The Parrot has an ad hoc interview with Don Shultz, Secretary of USCF. Your response caught me at a good time and I would like to address your points.
> The truth is that there are more people
promoting chess outside the tent Glad to see the word also. We are arm and arm together with Bessel. I am the official USCF liaison to his campaign. His four position papers -Chess in Schools, FIDE and Information Technology, Organization and Services and Training the Trainers are gems. We can learn a lot from our good friend Bessel.
I respectfully disagree. Of cause I don't mean not engage with the playing community. What I mean is that we have stepped back and are about to contemplate The First Move of hopefully a winning combination that will change the face of US Chess and that is what the Retreat is all about. Present will be the top dogs in virtually every major US Chess organization with each attendee representing a segment of US chess e.g. scholastics, professional players, journalists etc. Control of the meeting is in the hands of a professional facilitator who comes highly recommended. Let's wait until next week before we decide whether it was worthwhile. Kok's group are making The Right Move for FIDE, Kirsan's moves have been the hallmark of The Kirsan Error!. We have gone back to square one and are making The First Move in what we hope will be a winning combination.
You are suggesting to go outside one of your two tents and ask those out their what to do. Not much different from our approach except you are ahead of us in your thinking. But past decisions have put us in a precarious financial situation where The First Move has to also be the The Right Move. We cannot make The Losing Move as there is not enough time or money for another game. (Please excuse my overuse of these move analogies but they seem to make sense and I am enjoying throwing them in.)
We
Ahh,
The Better Move,
it certainly is hard to question such a move. So you clearly make a very
good point. But tell me The Better Move implies there is an actual move for
comparison. But we haven't yet made
The First Move.
The Retreat is really not a move
but a step backward to get the leaders of the entire USA chess community
involved in our game plan.
Actually the Retreat includes leaders outside our tent - perhaps you don't know the makeup of the Retreat participants.
In return, I challenge you to describe how worth
while changes can really be Most of the participants in the Retreat are not representing USCF and likely many of them are not even USCF members. We are either doing what you are criticizing us for not doing or not doing what you are criticizing us for doing.
What follows are supplemental notes only, and
more personality based than an We advertised for new editors and reviewed the responses then selected the one that was best in our opinion. the second is also a new venture, So what is wrong with new ventures particularly the TV Reality Chess Serial that has been handed to us on a silver plate. and the last unexampled in effect.
The last was the FIDE election. I can
give you dozens of examples of what we are doing. I personally spend at
least two and a half as much time working on it as you would believe. - but
it is true! No, no come hither more: It is time to make: "The Historic Move" join with us in making that move..
To mistake the nature of how "fundamental
changes" need to be
Bessel is a wise man. He will see that the all
the moves we discussed here are The
Same Move so long as we all avoid
The Losing Move.
Yes, he will usually make
The Obvious Move. Don Dear Don, As you say, let's see what comes as a result from your meeting, and give it a fair chance - especially if its essence can be reported and some measurement on what a fair chance constitutes. While your message is encouraging as a response to criticism that there is a strong need to change the basis of USCF's role in chess in the United States, it remains to be seen if you will really bite the bullet and achieve a foundation for 'fundamental changes'. Conferencing with members of the chess community is strongly to be desired, but much more frequently, and is a welcome change from decision made in the dark without coherent or objective explanations, like firing one of the most popular chess columnists in the world. 4-29-2006 The lonesome Parrot checks out in Bureaucratic encounter! After writing in USCF’s forum this original message:
In 3 days and 26 responses later… [A correspondent] wrote "If the USCF decided to start publishing only golf news in its magazine, that certainly will not affect you as a USCF member, because you are not a member by your own choice. Maybe you should now mind your own business instead of the USCF's and its members." So what really is “The Business”? Does this response get at it? In 26 responses to date, no one has provided any information to address my original post - which has veered off-topic to such alarming degree that strong and negative personal reflections are allowed to be published in response. The writer above, as example, has reduced the topic to a strange analogy of publishing golf in CL! USCF's reason to exist as established in its mission statement is to promote chess to the mainstream culture. If it fails to address that, then it certainly is my business to address these issues - since then it represents no one but itself as a set of organizers, rather than the entire constituency of chess players. As Mr. Alexander points out in respect of promoting college chess, non-members have pro-bono done rather more than USCF has. But, I do not wish to continue writing here without actually addressing any information relating to the original topic, rather than what has become purely personal commentary, indeed, ad hominem, nor replying in kind. It seems worth putting all these concerns in context: So I will leave by expressing an idea of 'what minding the business' is:
And so in some disgust - I leave you to your own peculiarly inert 'business'. 4-22-2006 Authors and Reviewers have a big fight in public: In Chess newsgroups this week discussions of chess books continue, with book authors [mostly grandmasters] striking back at the quality of reviewer’s own understanding of the books they review. Comments have included specific reviews which feature a game, but fail to notice that one side is completely cooked, and which also overlook one-move refutations, as being reviews written by chess players who are too weak to understand the chess in the books they review. This echo’s other concerns by GMs that the content of their books are not even being read! GM Adorjan was compiled a list of reviews of his books which is hilarious –quite obviously demonstrating that some reviewers never read past the introduction! Elsewhere the publisher is at fault for falsely describing on the covers what the book contains, including actual cover statements like ‘thorough education on gambit play, whereas on the inside the poor author only used the word ‘sketch,’ and on the cover ‘wild and aggressive chess’ but inside the author is at pains to describe sensible and calculated basis of investments, in a way like good accounting practices! Selling at $20 for 128 pages, only a candid and independent review can reveal the truth and actual worth of such a title. In some instances book reviewers have been writing long catalogs of author’s faults for years – and harping back 15 years in some instances, but many of these faults do not seem to be worth celebrating when they are further examined, and turn out to be petty comments – missing the main worth of the book by a mile! Some examples from ‘serious’ reviewers are no less funny than Adorjan’s list, including in one case a comment on ‘Kasparov’s Introduction to BCO’ when he didn’t actually write one. In other cases, the reviewer’s work is carried in a publication, printed or electronic, which does not permit the author to reply to what they perceive as mischaracterizations of their work. In the relatively limited market for chess materials a few distributors have a lot of power to determine which books the public can read. Sometimes not individual titles, at others all the works of an author are banned, or even entire publishing houses are not represented, despite the evident commercial appeal of the banned material elsewhere. There are still questions about USCF’s policy regarding its own fulfillment house ChessCafe – which in effect has banned authors and publishing houses, but from no objectively commercial standard – and books banned have been American classics which are no longer published in America and are otherwise unavailable to the public. USCF have refused to comment on their practice of book banning, and in fact, on any of their policies of late. It ain’t a pretty picture, when book reviewing itself becomes the only objective measure to determine where you can best spend your chess dollar, and authors, mostly Grandmasters, say reviews are often atrocious, misleading, contain no chessic intelligence, or worse – the reviewer hardly noticed the contents of the work before writing to you, the chess public, sinc ethe ‘bottom line’ is where you should spend your money, and also where to invest your time studying chess. 4-15-2006 Internationally, will chess players around the world be content with the way chess has been managed by FIDE, or will they vote on the record of the challenger’s activities in Europe? In the USA the same question of who is responsive to what chess players want is also the issue. In order to say you are representative of any constituency, isn’t there a need to actually engage with them, and be able to say you understand what they want by virtue of repeating their concerns to their satisfaction? Of course, not everything that people want is possible. But nothing people want is possible without paying them attention. If FIDE and USCF act only as administrative bureaucracies, without public surveys, and indeed, even shunning GM perspectives, they are in danger of becoming anachronistic forces in the world of chess – and natural abhors a vacuum. 4-1-2006 On the firing of Larry Evans: "Your long position seems to be that it's just fine for the USCF to be a complete failure at promoting chess, so long as it survives. Sad." -- David Kane to USCF Finance member Bill Brock. Some valid questions on USCF publishing policy, if indeed there is any policy: Do you (a) fire people, then think of a plan, or (b) think of a plan for articles then negotiate with columnists to write them? And to add a (c) if the new plan has anything to do with board policy, since it appears that to believe their own words, board members did not even know of the firings until they read of it in a public newsgroup, but perhaps they are content to let the editor create USCF's policy as he goes along? Last week the Parrot reported a rumor about the demise of Chess Live as reported by its past CEO, now head of ICC. Essentially, is Chess Live dead? The current acting CEO of Chess Live has written to the Parrot to say that “As of our last GameParlor board meeting, no decision has been made of any kind to substantiate any such rumor”, which the Parrot noted in return, is not in itself a denial of what the rumor addresses. The Parrot has invited further comment from GameParlor ChessLive, which had not been received by publishing deadline. Readers Say: Sir, I think first a letter of introduction is necessary. My name is Chris Fitzgerald, acting CEO and Head administrator of the Chess Live chess server. I am concerned about he posting found in you Chessville letter, of the column posted below. It seems a former employee who disgruntled and fed through speculation has been running around starting rumors of our demise here at Chess Live. We are currently seeking a retraction from a posting from The World Chess Network of our going out of business, and are asking the same from you. As of our last GameParlor board meeting, no decision has been made of any kind to substantiate any such rumor, and these posting now being found of said rumor are causing more undo hardship to our user base. I would ask that you please print a retraction. Thank you so much for your time. - Chris Fitzgerald 3-25-2006 After so much confusion on who knows what, is doing what, firing whom, and who said so, no further commentary might be necessary. Except that USCF is charged under the terms of its incorporation as a non-profit with expanding the game to the general public. After all this time, its is evident that it doesn’t even know how many current members play chess, and demographically adjusted for population growth since 1970, if any more players at all actively play rated chess, or if USCF has had implemented its mission statement to any degree whatever. New Editor fires established chess authority, or three, without board knowledge, and not from any stated re-orientation plan for the future. Too much operating in the dark has dumbed-down even the most obvious of errors, and the USCF board not only doesn’t appear to be interested in vital statistics to do with playing chess, they don’t even know when radical changes occur in their own organization. That’s the one that is supposed to represent you and me, and be promoting chess in this country. Its like that car rental ad. “Not exactly.” 3-18-2006 So many chess events this week, including phantom Hungarian tournaments occupy all the space! Instead of a squawk form the Parrot, this week a Guest Squawk about a chess player: Ali Nihat Yazici, who is a Candidate for Deputy FIDE President on the Bessel Kok ticket, had this to say about Miss Hou Yifan last year:
Currently Miss Hou Yifan is currently playing in the Women’s World Championship, and has succeeded to the last 16. 3-11-2006
Topalov displays, demonstrates and demands our attention! From the bottom to the top of the table from the half-way mark to near the finish. No drawish play for him! Champion-like play is the spirit that is currently being demonstrated at Linares, seemingly an effortless procession scything through 2700 level opposition as he feels like it. Brava! Brava! Brava! 3-4-2006 More Scandal at USCF. Mission Statement & Scholastics, Who Cares? In a proposal by Susan Polgar Foundation [SPF] to USCF this week, the board seemed to reject an offer to partner in scholastics development in the USA. TheParrot understands that no finances were involved, and the SPF only requested one page of coverage in Chess Life. Subsequently in an altercation at USCF’s moderated forum an administrator expunged Susan Polgar’s writing about the subject. The Parrot asked a past-president of USCF about what challenges she saw ahead, and she commented that a major challenge for USCF was to keep the vast majority of scholastic players in the game for more than their initial sign up year, and this was a most concerning factor. It is unknown what better plans USCF have to remedy this situation than the SPF Initiative proposes, since the USCF Forum doesn’t mention any. Its one thing to attract young players - but if they are being put-off or not sufficiently turned-on to chess, more lively minds have wondered if even a small criticism of the failed scholastic policy can be admitted? The problem isn't small, but at the very least, it could be admitted to being a problem. The only problem here is small minded people scattergunning resentment from their small tent. What is the right basis for going forward in chess for the C21st? These scholastics players are the future chessic wealth of the 280 million people living in the USA, which has otherwise only produced 13 native born GMs in 35 years. A comparison would be with tiny Poland with only 38 million population, who have produced 20 GMs in the past 15 years. If something is wrong – let us look at it, and if the world-acknowledged scholastics advocate is to be shunned from participation and constructive dialog – can it be asked if USCF gave up on building the right basis for chess in the C21st? 2-25-2006 Its Fide Election time. Re-unification or Bust? In the strangest political news of the week, the Russian Federation seemed to have mysteriously endorsed the current president of Kalmykia, Kirsan Illyumzhinov, and not Anatoly Karpov who was previously thought to be their major candidate. What Karpov’s chances as an independent candidate can be without the traditional support of his own federation is unknown, as is why the Russian Federation has made this choice. Meanwhile another candidate, Dutch businessman Bessel Kok says he would move FIDE HQ to France and has so far his programme has attracted endorsements from 18 chess federations worldwide, including USCF. Elections will take place in Turin in June, 2006. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of the history of FIDE over the past years will understand what is at stake in these elections. The crucial matter is regaining the trust of the players and reunifying both the world championship and also national federations in chess. If the right candidate is not selected on a credible unification basis TheParrot anticipates that several important national federations will leave FIDE entirely, and then establish another world organization for chess. At least, this is the insider’s talk. What has been broken for a long time does not look likely to be fixed by more of the same. 2-18-2006 Drug Testing of Chess Players is still out there. The Parrot is not at all convinced that unfair advantage is provided to chess players by taking any substance at all, and neither are doctors - everyone knows that if you drink one beer you play much better - but is this really an objective measure, or do you just feel like the world champion, and your game only seems better to you? On beer #3 your folly is revealed to you. When substances are proved to provide unfair advantage at chess let’s have rules against taking them, if we agree to do so. The current rule is a metaphysical one - no one actually can prove any unfair advantage at chess - but at the same this same ‘no one’ is still accusing players of cheating, which is a presumption of guilt. It is a very serious charge, especially since the penalties are very harsh indeed, and the process to determine the substances indecent, demeaning and in fact unnecessary. This is why some ownership of perspective is necessary in chess, otherwise the rule book and how to administer the rules will exceed the current 400 page edition [which does not even include all the druggist procedures] as well as the procedure to drug test being a severe inhibition to players, physically and psychologically. The rule seems to exist for something that is not a problem in chess but can be seen to be avoiding problems arising from the Olympics in the shot-put. Furthermore, the rules and procedures on drugs suggest that there is a problem of drugs in chess, and rather than proclaiming chess as a drug-free environment suitable for all ages of people – the very extent and draconian measures to monitor and punish ‘drug abuse’ is highly suggestive that there is a problem to be dealt with. From the player's point of view it is unfair to have a rule whose consequence can eliminate the result of their game, can occasion fines and out of competition testing, and even complete banning from the game, //without a shred of medical evidence// that the substance causes any unfair advantage or physical harm. How fair is that? It must be admitted that the number of rules, and their interaction together, can itself cause problems, and some rules which solves one problem can cause others. When there are draconian rules which do not address actual problems in chess then they should be challenged as intrusions. The point of asking people to own their perspective, and not write metaphysically, when discussing rules is that, in this case, a New Jersey chiropractor Dr. Press has proposed them on behalf of FIDE [see Drug Use in "Intellectual Sports"] based on WADA's recommendations for sporting activities in the Olympics. Not only is chess not in the Olympics, nor is ever likely to be, there is no medically proven problem either. Yet somehow we have rule adoption and a 'medical commission' to create new banned substances, plus a kangaroo court to dispose of dissenters. Your scarce chess funds at work! Of its type it is the worst rule ever foisted on chess players, but when chess politicos and administrators act without input from the playing community, this is the result. 2-11-2006 What’s the matter with US Chess? Why has the USA only generated only a dozen native born GMs in the past 30 years, when the UK has produced about twice as many, and pro-rated per capita the US should have produced something like 5 times as many at the same rate as UK, or 10 x 12, 120 GMs? If the issue is “what would promote chess in this country for the future?” then certainly USCF's contribution must be assessed as part of that equation, from its past to its future part. Alternatively; I record that some people view that promoting GM chess was never USCF's function, then nor now, and its mission statement does not link GMs to the promotion of chess to the mainstream. An important area of investigation remains in addressing the fact of how to reestablish chess on this continent, from its early sustained promise and demonstrated excellence, which achieved 4 Olympiad Gold Medals from 4 tries in the 1930’s, to some format and foundation suitable for the Twenty-First Century. This, The Parrot suggests, is a worthy topic of national conversation by everyone connected with the game. 2-4-2006 Is your child safe in chess? A few weeks ago the parrot asked why USCF active adult membership hadn’t changed since 1970 at approximately 10,000 players, [current number of adult players with at least one rated game in the past 12 months is 10,500] and additionally what USCF has ever done to further its mission statement. Specifically, in its entire history if it had ever conferenced with the people who are engaged in every area of chess in the USA, in order to call itself ‘representative’ of them in chess on this continent. The answer is a resounding ‘no’. It has also not succeeded in any formal or pedagogic approaches to get chess programs into the schools or even onto any national educational agenda. This week another chess teacher was accused of improper relations with a minor, making 3 instances in the past 18 months. The Parrot wonders why no national program to educate properly vetted teachers has ever taken place? The latest episode of someone accused, but not yet proven, of illegal sexual activity with minors, revolves around a chess ‘teacher’ whose chess rating appears never to have been higher than 1200 – so the questions must be asked:
USCF have been so inert to recent questions that the Parrot understands that they have not seen fit to return calls to the Governor on Tennessee on the subject of scholastic chess, in the same state as ChessHQ now resides. If the organization deserves its non-profit status, should we not hear about how it intends to go about its own mission statement for the C21st, or do we want a ChessHut instead of a ChessHQ? 1-28-2006 Last week the Parrot suggested a conference on what furthers us in chess, led by USCF, but with an agenda developed with all constituencies of the chess world. The results of the conference would form a real basis for Chess USA in the C21st. Paul Troung in his Chessville piece on marketing chess wrote a few weeks ago about a suggested national training program as a basis for scholastics. Amplifying that idea to the proper vetting of chess teachers, and also ensuring that they are capable teachers, able to provide a uniform curriculum for chess anywhere in the country – was an idea met with great disapproval by USCF boosters. In one conversation with an ex-USCF employee and current delegate, there was an expression of a alternate future vision which put aside the mission statement entirely and only attend to chess clubs, and put it this way: “The role of members, affiliates and state federations inside the organization is to PUT MONEY INTO USCF, NOT TAKE MONEY OUT OF IT.” Which is not exactly an idea that is likely to attract mainstream educational funding for the national non-profit organization for chess, whose mission statement specifically addresses that USCF was established to expand chess to the general culture in these words: “devoted to extending the role of chess in American society” USCF are unlikely to take the lead in coordinating chess activities in this country, or taking the lead in any activity. The Parrot would like to know “who should?” 1-21-2006 Anyone needing a perspective on all this players & politicians stuff? A recommended read is from GM Larry Evans titled DILEMMA OF PROFESSIONAL CHESS. This article was first copy-righted in the year 2000 – not much has changed, and is worth a re-read since Evans nails the main issues, supplemented by quotes from the world’s leading players. Russians have just conferenced on the future of chess in their country. In the West, no-one can remember any get together of key elements which influence the popularity of the game: the fortunes of national chess organizations, nor the careers of players – not even a conference about teaching chess to juniors, nor the standards for chess teachers, both chessic and ethical! Did we all give up? Give up waiting for our National Federations to organize anything for us that truly represents the four corners of chess, or did we simply abandon our expectation for any concerted approach via the national organization USCF, who seem not only to be a little out of touch, but deliberately so. 1-14-2006 A very heavy mailbag has occasioned Special Reports on USCF’s role in selecting what books the public non-profit represent to the public. Most USCF members seem not to be aware that any vetting is taking place, and objective analysis cannot show that the banned book are not commercially viable ones. So what is the basis for the excluded books? GM Raymond Keene of England writes on the book banning of chess publishing house Hardinge Simpole, and also of specific authors such as Eric Schiller (see USCF's Fingerfehler). AND USCF’s deal with Chesscafe (see The USCF's Book & Equipment Deal with Chess Cafe) and the missing $250,000 [?] continues to excite comment. Apparently even USCF delegates were not made aware of the default of payment at the June meeting, and the account not even placed into default – in fact it is hard to find anyone who claims to have been aware of the earlier $170,000 default, either in the finance committee or on the board – even though an inevitable cash-crunch-crisis occurred as result of non-payment. Meanwhile… renewed contractual arrangements for book vendors were taking place in secret session by USCF’s board. A statement at USCF’s website does not clarify these issues as much as talk around them, and does not address any specifics about why other vendor’s bids were rejected, even though they were better bids than Chesscafe’s bid, and also secured, as Chesscafe’s was not. One delegate wrote that he did not see why any amount of the debt should be forgiven. Is USCF’s board now operating entirely on its own terms without reference to even national delegates? And Finally of All, as ex-US Pres Clinton would say – who is addressing the issues raised by Paul Troung on what really furthers us in chess in the C21st? Its not the current USCF board, who are addressing nothing and nobody at all. Since Paul Troung is a formidable player in his own right, manager of the acknowledged leading chess personality in the USA in the development of chess, and also the team manager of an historic women’s Olympiad silver medal… … If it came to it, where would you want to park your chess dollar to best further the game? That’s the question, folks. On present evidence… it’s a no-brainer. 1-7-2006 Last Week the Parrot noticed the last 6 rounds of the Russian championship had no wins for Black. Lawrence Totaro of Las Vegas, NV writes: I agree with what you have written in the previous article on the Russian Championships. "Chess isn't dead.....chess is booooooring!!!" This week we witness Board 1 at Hastings arriving at a draw between the two leading players after White’s 9th move. Now… shall we use the F-word? F as in Fixed? Of course, obtaining a draw maintains both players at the top of the table, and in the money, but booooooring? Yes sir! Over the years all sorts of attempts have been made to reduce draws, including ‘no draw offers before the main time control’ which is technically defeated by players repeating moves and claiming a draw without anyone offering one. There have also been suggestions that either White or Black should be given 15% more time, but in the event of a draw the player with more time loses – but this is a more complex issue, since if White starts with more time, it is Black who can make a 3-fold repetition for a win! SO… How about not changing any rules, but changing the scoring in chess?
Win = 3 points Readers say:
|
Advertisement
The Chessville
The
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
The
parrot is just aghast!
