Chessville
logo by
ChessPrints
 

Advertise
with
Chessville!!

Advertise to
thousands
of chess
fans for
as little
as $25.

Single insert:
$35
x4 insert:
@ $25 each.

From the
Chessville
Chess Store

From the
Chessville
Chess Store

TheParrot Squaawks….!
 

Opinions and Reader Feedback
 

TheParrot Says…

12-30-2006

Squaaawk! Cheating at home?

Bad things are also going on at Chess Journalists of America  [CJA] with complaints of ethics violations being personally dismissed by its President because people who have complained didn’t pay to join up!  If you find fault with a general contractor would you have to join the contractors association to voice a complaint?  I don’t think so!

But if you did pay, there would still be a problem, since CJA is keeping its accounts secret, and The Parrot understands they have not produced any for some time, even though obliged to by CJA’s own bye-laws, and even when a VP of CJA asked to see them.  In fact this person was relieved of his title after asking, by… you guessed it, a secret ballot of members.

12-23-2006

Time to take it back.  Bad things don’t just happen when you do something wrong, they often happen when you don’t do enough right.  This very much seems to be the state of world chess – and this is our fault.

The Parrot learned this week that ‘we’ are also prepared to do something about it, and rather than continue to curse the darkness, ‘we’ are prepared to light a candle.  A new chess organization with far-reaching goals is in the process of emerging, not as a reactionary force to what ails us, but more in the spirit of actively pursuing what forwards us.

Watch this space for further announcements.

12-16-2006

After the first five rounds of the Russian championship over 65% of the games had been drawzzz, and its interesting to compare with the results of world champion games, utilizing Garry Kasparov as a measure.

Here are the players who achieved more wins with black than Kasparov who has the base
number 40.8% from the data-set of 775 world champion games selected, percentages:

Steinitz 50
Lasker 49.7
Capablanca 49.2
Alekhine 56.1
Euwe 41.9
Botvinnik 42.1
Fischer 50.8

From the same data set Kasparov is clear 1st with white wins at 65.2%.  Other players scoring 60% or better are:

Steinitz 62.9
Alekhine 60.0
Fischer 62.1

In this same data set, Kasparov drew 47.3% of his black games, and 30.8% of his white games.

12-9-2006

David Bronstein wrote what is perhaps the most admired tournament report in all of chess writing.  If you don’t have his ’53, find a copy!  But its one of those chess books that chess players do not give up easily – so good luck!

I was telling a world champion chess programmer about Bronstein, that he was the first GM to play the first chess computer, but foolishly volunteered to give it Queen odds – and to his dismay, lost the game!  This was news to the programmer.

After insisting on a re-match Bronstein announced a mate-in-8 in the middle game.

“Oh, but I know all about that,” replied Dr. Hyatt, programmer of Crafty, “we still use it as a standard test for evaluating chess engines.”

From Russian sources, historians, and others who ‘were there’, they have said of David Ionovich that he was also known to be incorruptible, and perhaps the strongest player never to become a world champion – it is not good to say what is negative at such times, though this man’s integrity survived ambition at any expense is a remark I should like to make.  As Kasparov has noted, he brought not just great art to the chess-board, but occupied some realm beyond that, for which we, nor Kasparov, have no ordinary language to describe.

12-2-2006

The Parrot reported the USCF Ethics scandal last week and obtained a “what’s this got to do with the board?” response from a USCF board member.  Apparently this week, ethics are now a concern of the board, now that the issue is very public.  Especially since this concerns a USCF team-member who sits on FIDE’s own ethics committee.

11-25-2006

State of the Union Address by the Parrot

Last week the Parrot pitched a USCF delegate a crucial question about the future of chess, and USCF’s 10 year crisis of no sponsorship, a declining membership, and current red ink on the balance sheet – and compared USCF with more active and, by all accounts, more successful chess entities in the USA.

“If there is just one critical question you would ask of either group, would it be the same as mine?

“Which of you are going to do better with this
$100 bill to attract chess players and sustain their interest in the game?”

> I guess it depends on definitions -- if by "attract chess players" you mean "join USCF and play in tournaments" we agree.

DECLINE AND FALL

Perhaps this comment is the most significant indicator of USCF's decline.

A from of denial which is very willing to not understand the chess public's own choice of current actions.  OF COURSE it does not mean what this delegate writes.  It describes the choice any benefactor or investor in chess must consider to promote chess, not a bureaucracy fearful of answering such a central question as:

"Of the two organizations where is my hundred bucks better spent to attract and sustain interest in the game of chess?"

> If you mean something else, we don't.

CHESS MANAGEMENT HAS NO JOB #1

The delegate supplies a nonsense reply instead of an answer, about what was once a chess monopoly, and which now has all sorts of competition it doesn't even understand by virtue of its magnificent introversion, personality infighting, and increasingly vague meandering around the chess scene, which pointedly ducks the question of USCF's own stated purpose to exist, and how well it achieves that compared with other chess entities.

My question relates to the first stated reason for USCF's existence - to promote and sustain chess in the culture.  That must be job #1, and it must be measured for its effectiveness,

OR ...

If this Delegate’s response were made more widely public, it would ensure no sponsors for USCF - and pointedly - it has been public knowledge for about a decade, about as long as USCF have not had any sponsors!  What an amazing coincidence!  Even a 7 year old could connect the dots.

MEET SOME REAL CRITICS

Whether its this gaping void of sponsorship, or losing 10,000 member 2003/2004, the creation of ludicrous trading arrangements which destroyed the previous B&E market, or its increasingly secretive government riddled with very problematic ethical matters, and where no one seems to be steering the outfit anywhere that can be openly stated in a "membership organization" ...

but …I was encouraged by the initiative organized by board members Don Shultz and Joel Channing, a retreat and meet the critics to consider fundamental and admitted necessary changes at USCF.  The only element lacking were real critics who were replaced by a tamer species of associate who, by any visible result, achieved ... ?  Is it fair to say 'nothing'?

DO THE RIGHT THING?

With this sort of management style any real critic of the chess scene must necessarily take their energy and insight elsewhere, their dollars too, otherwise it is spent on perpetuating what looks like a failed organizational bureaucracy, not unlike FIDE itself, rather than any transparent method to help any sponsor, or any reader of this column, in deciding with some confidence the best place to spend their $100 in promoting chess.

11-18-2006

In sharp contrast to the SPF notice above, USCF are again embroiled in scandal – this time ethical – though there is apparently an official news black out about the issue. The charge is purportedly substantiated by a USCF Ethics Committee vote of 6:3.

-------

I happened to look, and there appears to be a series of contrived tournaments involving an apparently closed group of players (who may also be contrived), which resulted in steady gains of rating from the 2159 to 2319 by Robert Tanner, during the period February 1992 through January 1993 (plus one cameo appearance in 1997).  There is nothing confidential about this data, and it's fully documented as to dates, places, affiliates, TDs, etc.  Here are some of the relevant URLs; I suggest that you view this while sitting down, and have smelling salts at hand:

If anyone is interested and has the time, clicking around through the rating histories and events of this closed circle of players is somewhere between fascinating and horrifying.

Unless there is some evidence to refute what appears to be prima facie evidence here of rating manipulation, I can only conclude with great disappointment that this man who many of us know and respect went horribly wrong for a time, and has hidden and had built upon this foundation ever since.

Today, we find him as the trusted Executive Board member who served as liason to Erik Anderson and AF4C as the current US Championship plans were constructed; who represents USCF in FIDE (now as Zonal President, and incredibly, as a member of FIDE's Ethics Commission, too - see http://www.fide.com/official/officials.asp?f=31) … as well as a Board member and formerly a member of the Scholastic Council, and who is now an NTD and an International Arbiter.

All politics aside, the degree of violation of trust that has occurred here is unprecedented.  I'm a life master and an IA, and I'm seriously offended.  I suspect that the Scholastic Council, the TDCC, many Masters, and those members of the FIDE Ethics Commission who deserve respect, will be, too - along with many other chess players.  Wrote life-master Hal Bogner.

Carrots and Bananas

Rare Chess Picture yet… There is a 50% chance of setting up a chessboard wrong – so why does it always seem 100% wrong in the movies? DaVinci Code grossed $750 million, but made not one, but two mistakes – points out Lawrence Totaro of Nevada. Here is the first, note the King/Queen set up in front of Tom Hanks. And the second has the same good-old wrong-color corner syndrome.

11-11-2006

Is Ree Right?  Halloween Special!

In an enjoyable ramble Hans Ree talks about Germany and Alekhine in his NiC 2006/6 column, including the death of Alekhine around which there has always been contention. He points out that the Canadian GM Kevin Spraggett who has been a long-time Portuguese resident thinks Alekhine was murdered, and even a Dutch player who said he met an old man in Estoril, who served at the Parque hotel in 1946, who reported that a German death-squad murdered Alekhine, his body was found in a corridor, and the famous death photo with greatcoat was posed, the coat hiding the bullet wounds.

The circumstances of Alekhine’s death have always been mysterious, and FIDE’s gravestone in Paris got both his birth and death dates wrong.  Ree says he doesn’t believe the sensational story, though for example the ‘usually sober’ Frederic Friedel of Chessbase does.

There are even wilder rumors that Alekhine survived the faked death.  I once wrote an outline of a chess novel on these themes, which are a conspirator’s dream.  If any reader has any more crazy Alekhine gossip – speak to the Parrot! Meanwhile below, listen to the voice of Alekhine from the recently recovered BBC archive, circa 1938.

Carrots and Bananas

11-4-2006

Despite the World Championship being ‘over’, there is hardly any sense of re-unification, and the somewhat controversial manager of GM Topalov, Mr. Danailov, made strong statements in the Ukrainian newspaper FAKTY ("Facts"), including on the atmosphere of the match, “Like a war.  A huge amount of police, military, army, FSB (ex KGB).  Ostensibly protection, but actually it was obvious that there is one aim: to return to Russia the chess crown at any cost.  In the words of the famous Russian song: ‘ We will not spare any price!’” and of FIDE, “Nowadays, this organization is very weak and dominated by the Russian chess federation, with its President, Vice-Premier of Russia Alexander Zhukov, who is the main Patron of Kramnik.”

So, what happens next?  Are [near] heads of State going to determine the chess crown?  Last week VP Zhukov seemed to rule out any rematch with World Champion Kramnik.

Fischer was bad, and sometimes very bad, but give me a bad American outlaw anytime who is prepared to battle it out at respectable length over the chess board, compared to playing in the middle of intimidating squadrons of secret police, and when a world champion needed to do more than play 11 games of classical then a mini-rapid tournament by a point.  Gosh! I remember when Fischer in Iceland relied on one genial ex-cop Icelander Saemi Palsson to be his ‘buddy guard’.

The royal aspect of the Royal Game has been replaced by political in-action committees.  After the toilet talk is forgotten, no one really seems to know what to think, since has thinking about the state of the world chess championship again become a redundant activity?

Carrots and Bananas

You know who you are – and you necessarily must be anonymous this week – but from all over the world a most gratifying response to a pro-bono-Caissa project to enhance chess for existing players, and way beyond that to mainstream education. Chessville hopes to make a substantial series of reports on a project furthering chess in the C21st in forthcoming articles, sharing the nature and extent of new research as well as inviting readers to take part.

The Chess Journalists of America [CJA] announced this week that they will only entertain ethics complaints if (1) you pay to join up, and (2) they have resolved that internet writing is not subject to their ethical considerations anyway.  This is a curious, and rather atavistic ruling, since the majority of chess writing now occurs on the net.  A further curiosity is that the president of CJA took over the ethical investigation to make these rulings.  I suppose this is as good a means as any to ensure the organization stays completely irrelevant to the chess scene by advancing no standards at all.

Rare Chess Picture yet… Both these pictures convey a successfully link of the new with the old.  This at least seems possible with actual players of the game, and perhaps we have too many ‘handlers’ to blame for the disrupted atmosphere elsewhere? (1) In her match with Victor in Mexico, Alexandra won 1.5 : 0.5. Victor doesn’t seem to mind too much! (2) The participants and guests of World U20 Championship put flowers in front of the 9th World Champion Petrosian's statue. Here are two images of real lineage for you.

10-28-2006

Dumbing down the Chess Crowns. Both GMs Evans and Short are very entertaining chess writers, and in their respective countries, very arguably the best there is in mainstream print media reporting on chess. They are both also very willing not to turn a blind eye to the level of political shenanigans which 'de-hance' the game.

Evans was fired from ChessLife, and like Short fired without any real plausible reason, least of all by any public demand and acclaim for these writers, since absurdly, they both genuinely seem to be massively popular!

Contrasting these firings and the remote and brief world championship at Elista, with the huge event taking in place in Mexico, are we dumbing-down the presentation of the Royal Game to such an extent that we have given up on the mainstream, to now only concentrate on preaching to the choir; the scholastic market in chess - if so we might simply repeat Horowitz and Reinfield for ever, both sound writers for beginners.

If not, then we shoot ourselves in the rook. ignotum per ignotius.

Carrots and Bananas

The good news: Mexico put on the show, and achieved world media coverage with 14,000 players taking part in a staggeringly large event. See pictures below. [Anybody interested in doing this north of the border, write to this Parrot.]  See also: Festival de Ajedrez, Ciudad de Mexico 2006.

The bad news: Dumbing-down the Chess Press in the UK. Bad Nigel, Fired Again! GM Short was recently fired by the British Telegraph newspaper, so took a column with the Guardian, from where, it is just announced, he has been fired again. Ostensibly this was to re-format the newspaper, but in fact the GM with perhaps the most entertaining column anywhere has been replaced by a sort-of chess learners column. He learned of his forced departure while winning the recent event at Liverpool. Short made these comments to Chessbase: Do you have any new offers? Not yet, the news about my termination by the Guardian is just out. Should any newspaper, in any country, think there is still a place for informed and authoritative chess coverage, they are welcome to contact me. Any newspaper, anywhere? The New York Times? The Beijing Daily? Pravda? Yes, any newspaper that is interested in chess as an international sport, played by literally hundreds of millions of people in over 150 countries worldwide.

Rare Chess Picture yet… Mexico is nutz@! for Chess Here are two pictures of a massive 14,000 player turnout for a simul, also attended by A. Karpov, A. Kosteniuk, and V. Korchnoi.  The left picture shows detail of one of the red squares, and the right picture all the squares.  Seven simuls took place in each square.  GM Karpov also achieved a Guinness Record for most books signed.

10-21-2006

A perhaps tongue-in-cheek question from the Russian weekly "Arguments and Facts" to Dumas Vice President Zhukov - "Any thoughts about awarding Kramnik, like in the Soviet era?" was answered without irony:  "I had thoughts... but not like in the Soviet era."

I hope that makes clear to Chessville readers that world politicians agree with Chessville’s advisors, in short - no way will there be a Kramnik-Topalov rematch.

Now that there is a ‘reunification’ of the chess title, it remains to be seen if this means no more chess?  Or only chess somewhere in the Russias?  Where is the next Bobby Fischer when you need him?  The world needs chess… but not like in the Soviet era.

Carrots and Bananas

	The Carrot represents what furthers us in chess.  This week’s hands-down winner is the AICFB and GTL Foundation [see report above], who clearly advance our art by incrementing chess play for the unsighted.
	And Bananas go to what sets us back.  This week two national politicians weighed in to the World Championship affaire, one from Kalmykia and the other from Russia – to the effect that although Russia supported Kirsan for the election, the spirit of re-unification in chess seems to have actually endured an entire week.  Welcome to World chess!  But let’s not have World Chess 1984 or even 1948!

10-14-2006

Playing chess for $10,000 per hour must be fun for world champion candidates.  After 11 games of chess for the world title, we had a 25 minute per game play-off championship.  Not exactly Fischer v Spassky or Alekhine v Capablanca is it?

So what is it, exactly?

If the Kalmykia Circus is the price of re-unification, I could have stood the tension of disparity a little longer waiting a match of respectable length.

I am not sure any journalists used the term “The Royal Game” at this event, which suggests a dignity in what transpires and a respect between the participants, now entirely lost.

Carrots and Bananas

Famous Indian Sports Columnist HARSHA BOGLE addresses AICFB at a press conference. Kudos to a main stream journalist for taking the games seriously: "I was asking a lot about how visually challenged play chess, coz you would have thought that it would be very difficulty for them to do that, like I know how they play cricket for example but I didn’t know how they play chess. But the more I heard about it the more fascinated I was, I said I’m coming here unless I know how its done. And that’s why I came here see how they are playing.  It was fascinating to see the fingers roll-over to touch and discover which is black piece, which is the white piece and I was particularly fascinated about the pace at which they were playing.  You would have thought that the speed would be a little slower but the pace was fantastic.  And it’s been an eye-opener for me and hope it turns out to be a eye-opener for a very very large number of people.  Because I think if India is progressing towards certain wealth everybody has to share that everybody has the right to look forward to things how many other sports do we see India no.1 to 8 sitting next to you.  I think it is important to recognize that India no1 to India no8 in this sport is just as curtail as India no1 to India no8 in any other sports.  And these are people who have done outstanding things.  I was checking out what kind of rating there are and they are slowly moving up the Elo rating as well.  And as he said the only things they lack is international exposure then I think it’s our job whatever we can’t move mountains, well it’s our job to ensure that is available.  But what’s more fascinating is that people who are visually challenged are able to compete with people who are not visually challenged in the same sports, and I’m trying to imaging in how many sports that would be possible."

Rulemakers at USCF have adopted a FIDE code requiring players not to write their move before they play it. Previously it was optional. In any dispute the arbiter is summoned and shakes the 8-ball to determine what the player intended. Apparently, writing one move is ‘taking notes’.

10-7-2006

This seems like a good week to shut up! If this, the flagship chess event of the year, can be produced as A Day at the Races, but without the slightest Marx Brothers humor, then perhaps the best thing of all would be for everyone else to shut up too? Otherwise this may be the first world title achieved by petition and psyching-out activities away the chessboard, by participants and organizer alike.

Carrots and Bananas

My wholehearted respect and admiration goes to the person who wrote...  "It gives me immense pleasure to note that the XI Individual World Chess Championship for the Blind will be held in my country, India.  Chess is one of the few games where the battle takes place in the mind of the individual.  I play one blindfold event every year and for me that is the most daunting format.  My wholehearted respect and admiration goes out to these players.  Chess by itself is a complex game and these individuals have taken human calculation to a new level."  ...in support of his country’s hosting of the XI International Tournament for the Blind. Well said, Mr. Anand!

The almost universal condemnation, disappointment and scorn by the worlds chess community; seasoned senior commentators and grandmasters alike, over FIDE’s Reunification Match, is the vox populi Banana choice: “and the silence became still deeper, more bitterly cold” reported Yevgeny Zamyatin.

9-30-2006

Who Cares? Part 8: It’s not over ‘til…

After abandoning this subject last week, correspondence on the subject revived, with the following results, not only in chess, but of other American youth institutions.

The serious issues of abuse troubling the scholastics world in chess, and indeed in very many forms of youth leadership in American life, which have been addressed by USCF’s pundits only to the degree of organizational liability - and addressed with a misplaced confidence and assurance - since there are existing lawsuits with Little League and the Boy Scouts which have found against these institutions, either in neglecting their charges entirely, or for failing to deploy existing safe-guards.

In the chess world there is virtually no address to this subject from the abused person's point of view, as if the scholastic scene in chess were nothing other than a market to which businesses make money, and have no other responsibility toward.

It is harder for non-profits to claim the same limited [and false sense of] liability, yet in other forums this is precisely the case that has been made for USCF itself, it being argued to be a business, and that it should proceed in respect of the scholastic community only as a market as other businesses do, and that it has no other obligations whatever.

Nobody feels any pain - and some writers have committed thousands of words to trivialize and divert the issue, and suggest why offenses should not be fairly assessed, by actually looking at the extent and momentum of abused women and children.

Carrots and Bananas

As the reader can see from any chess reporting the entire international news this week is dominated by the world championship.  Perhaps Ray Keene deserves the Carrot, since he not only predicted this fiasco if enacted in Kalmykia, but he also qualified the current event by speaking of the very great possibility of Kasparov being able to defeat both contenders – a comment unique to our times since previously the world champion proved himself best living chess player, in the pre-political age.

After 5 (or is it 7?) years without an uncontested world champ, FIDE has to get the major bananas for this farce of a world championship.  Perhaps Dylan Loeb in the New York Times might take note of this comment, rather than putting a polite face on it, and tell the general public what the chess public actually thinks?

9-23-2006

Who Cares?  Part 7 - Lay down your weary head.

After writing for 2 weeks in public and private newsgroups about the perils of scholastic chess, as illustrated by recent events, there appear to be two schools of thought concerning future action: (1) the first is concerned with the liability of the organization which sponsors, promotes or advertises scholastic teachers, and (2) the second centers on the welfare of the child, itself.

Viewpoint #1 is characterized by very sensible and practical concerns, which seek to reduce liability, especially over things which it views, rightly or wrongly, as beyond its control.  The result of this policy of inaction is to secure the chess organization, but completely at the expense of what is addressed by Viewpoint #2, the young chess-player.

Arguments for #1 utilize a business model of restricted liabilities to its main market, the scholastic one.  Arguments for #2 suggest that non-profits are established for something beyond strictly business functions, and for the benefit of the chess community – therefore Qui Bono?

Does anyone benefit from this divorce between functionality and ethical concern?  If anyone did care – anyone with deep pockets – they might consider conferencing on this subject, not only on predators in the chess community, but on broader aspects of integrating chess into mainstream activities, in schools and in the media.

As chess players we all know the certain benefits of the activity, and have read hundreds of pages of encouragement and recommendations which are pro-chess as a healthy social activity, especially for children.  But what is the current state of the game?  Are social benefits to the child so completely divorced from the social responsibility of organizers?  Apparently so.

If Mr. or Ms. Deep Pockets is reading this, and feels moved to engage this topic further, please send the Parrot a line or two, otherwise this series of inquiries titled Who Cares? about the welfare of children on the chess scene, can lay down its weary editorial head, and we can all continue with business as usual.

Carrots and Bananas

Lazslo Nagy seems to be running the only regular, affordable and popular norm-getting tournaments in the world. He has also been doing this for as long as I’ve known him, some 10 years. About 5 years ago there were at least 3 Americans in Budapest seeking master norms, and they would have met 5 Chinese players also there at the time, one of whom was young Bu, who obtained the GM title there, aged 14.

How many norm tournament opportunities are there in the USA every year?  How much does it cost to show up and try, or to put on the show?  Who knows?

9-16-2006

Who Cares?  Part 6

Cassandra here!  And reporting horrible news – do we admit a problem yet?  You don’t have to like reading the following, or like the reporter for speaking of it, but if you like kids you really do have to read it :

13 September, 2006: An organizer who had just recently [August] advertised in Chess Life Magazine [name and location of accused suppressed by the Parrot], is a teacher and faces 30 Charges of Incest and Rape.

The head of ** High School's math department, and a prominent chess player, has been ordered held on $1 million bail today after being arraigned on 30 felony rape and incest charges.  The accused was arrested Tuesday on 19 counts of incest and 11 counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault.  He is accused of sexually assaulting three young women, two now in their teens and one in her early 20s.  Police said one of the women had reported that ** began assaulting her five years ago when she was 10.

In addition to teaching, ** organizes chess tournaments around the region, and runs the high school's chess club.  His daughter and two sons all are nationally ranked chess players, according to various chess Web sites.  The accused has a doctorate.

Carrots and Bananas

Usually when strong players become chess administrators their game suffers, and I groaned when Nigel Short took over the Commonwealth Chess Association immediately after playing an active role in Bessel Kok’s campaign for FIDE president, and I thought, “that’ll be the last of him!”  But Nigel seems able to accommodate high performance at chess and world-wide chess administration. In the USA, top marks this week to Susan Polgar, another high-performing player and chess administrator for recognizing the value of Shenk’s new book at her blog site:  http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/. And top marks to another individual, Rob Mitchell of Tennessee, who is engaging mainstream education with a well-tested Chess&Math curriculum, on a Canadian model.  Read; A Call To Action: Math and Chess For Our Children at http://worldofchess.blogspot.com/.

And isn’t that combination of high level chess experience and management vision what we want, both at FIDE and in our national chess federations? What players say [in private] is that they can’t stand all the politicking that goes on and more or less abandon chess development, with the result that the game remains as we know it, a sort of intellectual oddity for most people – a game not taken seriously for its merits by the general public – and this is why stimulating books such as David Shenk’s remain more as complaints and potentialities, rather than active platforms to evolve our chess future into the mainstream. Banana this week to USCF for failing to ever organize any conference with top players, with real critics, with mainstream educators, with object authors…

9-9-2006

WHO CARES? Part 5

According to Jim Hopper, Ph.D. who is a researcher and therapist with a doctorate (Ph.D.) in clinical psychology, for Federal fiscal year 2004, an estimated 3 million children were alleged to have been abused or neglected and received investigations or assessments
by State and local child protective services (CPS) agencies. Approximately 872,000 children were determined to be victims of child maltreatment. This means that on average, 50 children per DAY per STATE are upheld in their complaint.

These abuses are not necessarily sexual in nature and may simply involve beatings or sufficient neglect [often starvation] that causes authorities to hear and to investigate.

So to whom are you entrusting your children? Do these people in chess teaching and mentoring have background checks? After several successful prosecutions in the past few years of sexual predation in chess mentoring/tutoring activity including that of a Grandmaster there is a mixed reaction from various agencies concerned with this issue, as well as in the consideration of denigrating treatment of women in chess. Some people ask, “problem, what problem?” and decline to look. A majority of rated chess players are in the ‘Scholastic’ age group.

And to reiterate: 4 months ago I made a specific complaint to the board of USCF and was assured by the Executive Director in an hour-long conversation on the telephone that it had been placed before the board, and zzzzzzzz … not even an acknowledgement. Perhaps these things are only resolved in court-rooms these days?

Carrots and Bananas

Viktor! Absolutely remarkable performance to win a strongish tournament at age 75. See more in rare Photo’s, below. Top board results [from 131 participants] Final 9th Round:  Rk.   Name FED Rtg Pts.  TB1   TB2   TB3  1 GM Korchnoi Viktor SUI 2600 7.0 37.5 0.0 39.5 2 GM Tiviakov Sergei NED 2668 7.0 37.5 0.0 42.0 3 IM Lapshun Yury USA 2452 7.0 36.0 0.0 38.0 4 GM Hillarp Persson Tiger SWE 2549 7.0 35.5 0.0 40.0

If single signed photos of Capa are going for the [ridiculous] price of $20,000+, is there anything in those 100 boxes of USCF’s archives worth looking for?

9-2-2006

The Lion & the Parrot - A Jungle Morality Tale

In the warm morning sun The Lion lay idly about, picking his teeth with a sliver of gazelle bone, left over from last night's feast.  The Parrot fluttered to a stop on a nearby branch and squaawked, "Hey, Leo!  Seen my latest special report - Who Cares? - Women and Children in Chess?  Squaawk!!  It's terrible, some of the things that go on."  Not even pretending to stifle a yawn, The Lion muttered, "Well, it is a jungle out there."

"Squaawk!  Perhaps this is a cultural thing, but in some cultures it's not dishonorable, nor some game of politically correct words, to actively protect women and children from offence - in fact it is considered manly."

The Lion rolled over and looked squarely at The Parrot, beginning to be annoyed.  "Hey, what's all this all of a sudden?  It's like Tuohey said about Klaus Junge: "Unlike, however, the Nazis, or the Soviets, or, in fact, certain people today, I personally refuse to mix chess and politics.  Klaus Junge was an outstanding chess talent, and I recognize him as such."  So even though some of these guys were what you & I might agree to be evil, we can look at their chess side separate & distinct from the rest, while still detesting what they may have stood for away from the chessboard.  Right, birdbrain?"

"Squaawk!  I think there's good and evil in everyone, like Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and chess sometimes brings out the best and the worst in us.  Like that Junge character you mentioned, or that evil Satanist, Aleister Crowley.  Squaawk!  I tried for some time with a few of these guys, knowing their pre-dispositions, for some sort of 'constructive engagement' with them, since isolation may be even worse than suffering the jungle-dung; but in honoring them in public and not noticing the ugliness of the private side, do we choose not to look into the cattle cars, while admiring how smoothly the time-table is run?"

Gggrrrrrrrr!!!!!  The Lion was already starting to his pads, leaning menacingly forward.  "It's a tough question, ya see.  There ain't no easy answers," he barked.  "What are you, some sort of small-minded bigot, ya can't see both sides of the issue?  Dang fly-by-night feather brain, anyhow!  Ya aughtta go read Chess and Politics, which I wrote a few years back."  He started pacing back and forth in the small clearning, his pad-falls inaudible amidst the jungle cacophony.  "Everywhere I turn, I get these political pronouncements: television, print journalism, even my email inbox fills up with these things!  If you are conscious, and don't have your head in the ground, you simply can't avoid hearing or reading about the politics.  I can easily get all of that I want somewhere else.  Chess, for me, is a recreation; chess is an escape, a "place" I can go to and get away from all of the everyday cares of life.  I don't want to read about the politics, morality arguments or any of the other issues of real life, when I am recreating!  That's why I recreate!!"

The Parrot said nothing, just sat there in the sun, blinking, watching.  A sharp, deafening sound, like a mighty tree snapping in two, split the growing silence between them.  The branch on which The Parrot sat fell sharply away, clattering to the jungle floor with a thud.  Startled, The Parrot flew higher, taking refuge on the other side of the tree.  The Lion, meanwhile, dropped to the ground and froze, his mighty eyes sweeping the jungle for any signs of what had made the terrifying sound.

He didn't have long to wait, as soon two bumbling big-city types, out on a safari vacation, stumbled noisily into view.  Not seeing either of our heroes, however, they soon receded back into the jungle, hopefully not to enter our story again.

The Parrot swirled back down towards The Parrot.  "Squaawk!  Are you alright Leo?"

"Yeah, fine!" snapped back The Lion.  He looked thoughtful though, staring off into the inky blackness of the surrounding jungle.  I was going to tell you that my friend Dan Triplett, of Chess Chat, puts it another way, "It's so obvious that the two, chess and politics, shouldn't mix.  People come to ChessChat to discuss chess.  Occasionally there are topics that get folks red, but for the most part, topics are tame.  Politics and religious discussion don't belong anywhere in chess."

"But I'm starting to realize now, now that I'm over my annoyance at you," he craned his neck to stare directly into The Parrot's eyes, "that it all depends on your perspective, doesn't it?"

"Squaawk!  That's right!  If you're the 8-year old joining a chess team coached by a pedophile, or the woman who has to endure the stares and whispers, the come-ons and so forth that happen at every mixed tournament, if you're the Jew being herded into the cattle cars, or the black guy hanging from a tree in the Old South, your perspective is a whole lot different.  Squaawk!  Even if you're the king of the jungle."

"Ya," mumbled The Lion, "Maybe I'll go read Who Cares? - Women and Children in Chess after all."

8-26-2006

Who Cares? Part 4. Women and Children in Chess

1)  An ethical issue I anticipated 4 months ago about the /then current/ lubricious activity of certain USCF officers was ignored by the USCF board. Therefore current comment in respect of new board member Sam Sloan's moral stance are confounded with his recent political success, to the degree that they become inseparable.

2)  I should like to suggest that the basis of resolution for these issues be attended to by these means: that the perspective taken be by persons affronted by lubricious materials - and I understand these to comprise the constituencies of (a) women in chess, and (b) children in chess. Women should of course speak directly to the issue themselves, but as with a general orientation in our society I understand that they resent inclusion and representation of themselves from an [immature] male point of view, and particularly dislike being represented as sex-objects.

3)  I should like to add a further point which has to do with Scholastic chess where, over the past few years, we have witnessed solicitations of chess scholars for sexual purposes by relatively strong players who were also USCF members, but who were successfully prosecuted in courts of law for illegal solicitation of minors.

I should like USCF and any other chess organization, to consider a formal requirement that scholastic teachers and also administrators in scholastic chess be required to undergo background checks – and clearly represent in public if they have or have not undergone such a test - as indeed one is required to do simply to run a chess club in a public school.

4)  In all, I separate the issues of what is legal from what is ethical, and further suggest an ethical basis be determined by who is most affronted by unwonted activity, which might be described as that which inhibits any constituencies in chess from (a) joining the chess community, or (b) remaining in it.

5)  I will editorially continue to state here that the USCF board did nothing to act on the previous complaints [which were not confounded by the personality of Sam Sloan, nor the election] and precipitated this inevitable crisis onto themselves by their inactions. It would be a mediating comment to be able to state that these ethical issues are now to be taken seriously, and what activities are being undertaken to resolve them.

6)  Four months after raising the issue, no action has been taken to even acknowledge the complaint.

Carrots and Bananas

	Chinese women!  A huge and convincing win over Russia.  When the world championship migrates to a country, you think – great player!  When team events such as this are concluded, you know an epoch of domination is over, and Chinese success lies not just in a surface genius, but goes deep.
	Well, the USCF records are safe in some warehouse, so are 25 years of chess history.  Its not exactly an archive, and may not even be indexed, (who knows?) and the ‘collection’ is jovially known as ‘the morgue’ at USCF.  Does anyone actually care what happens to it, or can it molder in boxes for another..?

8-19-2006

In related Banana-News below, we note it appears much of USCF’s financial records have wound up in the landfill, and while this may have some legal implications for a corporation, a larger question must be about the historic records spanning the past 40 years?  The Parrot understands that very little of it was digitized, and paper copies of tournaments, photos and what is essentially a national archive of chess, no longer exists.

The USCF board have made no official comment on what happened in transit between the New Windsor NY site and the new Crossville, TN location, except that the Parrot understands that they did not hire professional movers, and the entire paper record was far far greater than the transportation sent to move it.

Carrots and Bananas

	Has to go to Harikrishna, and fighting chess. Read an interview with the player by following the link www.chesstigers.de in German and English languages.
	Dumpster News: USCF Executive Director Bill Hall says that virtually nothing from the former USCF office in New Windsor New York had ever reached the new USCF office in Crossville, TN, and went into the dumpster, including virtually all paper copies of USCF financial records and contracts.

8-12-2006

Who Cares? Part 3

What we need to do about chess education in the US and worldwide is to have a debate and a conference to confront some current issues in chess education and chess-culture in by a series of discussion I here propose would involve the active agents of scholastic encouragement in this country and overseas – and these people would be called the kids, with some wise old owls who previously encountered all these issues, and who would reflect and feed-back on the efforts of the 'kids'.

Kids team: to include Susan Polgar, Sunil Weeramantry, Maurice Ashley, Joel Lautier, Nigel. Short [who currently heads up the Commonwealth Chess Scene.]

Owls team: Ray Keene, Larry Evans, Sam Palatnik, T. Braunlich, Bessel Kok and Mikhail Kornenman & Anatoly Karpov.

Carrots and Bananas International Special

	This week’s carrot goes to China! For challenging the Russians and expecting to win! The third edition of the China-Russia Chess Contest, slated for Aug. 10-20, opened Thursday at the newly constructed Mongolian Camp, near the Chinese side of the border with Russia, with 20 grandmasters from the two countries facing off against each other.
	Goes to Turkey and the hand-shake with Kirsan. Even though Mr. Nihat appeared on Bessel Kok’s election team in strong and fundamental opposition to the Fide status quo, he seems to have now made unconditional friends with Mr Ilyumzhinov. Didn’t any of the campaign planks actually matter?

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?

Banana of the week L

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.

Rare Chess Pictures

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.

So the recent result has an interesting sociological element. What is the result of having women players successfully challenging for the top chess spots - in countries like Georgia, for example? Sociologically I would say the result extends far beyond chess to other competitive arenas, even competitive or creative scenarios in the work place where women typically get some 15% less than men for the same work.

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

Carrot of the week J

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.

Banana of the week L

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!

Well, no news is exactly the news from USCF at the new $50,000 made-over site to improve communications, and even the CL on-line report isn’t updated this week because of “technical problems”. The poor Parrot struggles on and updates about 1,500 words a week of chess action in the US and from around the world, and for chicken feed!

What with illegal ballots being sent out, and not-employees [which would be illegal] but sort-of-full-time contractors running for the board, in an election managed by a board member… we only lack a hand-full of bananas to declare a full fledged banana republic.

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 instead of the column.  They say that the best way to compete with a banana republic is to set up decent standards in the country next door, then the brightest citizens – or at least those sick of bananas, will migrate.

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.

---------

> Karpov has been taking more of a western slant in his political direction, leaving the chess oligarchy of years gone by.

It is more than a little remarkable that at a political level the Russians do not attempt control of Fide via Karpov, by to the Khan - incidentally Ilyumzhinov compared George Bush to Genghis Khan, in an approving sense.

----------

[on Beatriz Marinello]
> She knew well, the repercussions of her actions!  Who would have expected her to act this  way?

If that's a serious question, me.  I never saw such an auto-didact in my life.  Having wrecked the US woman's Olympiad chances by excluding the player who just finished above Alex Onishuk in NY, I don't think there is any intention to represent anyone, not unless we place 'represent' in inverted commas.  The same nonsense occurred with Jim Eade 'representing' US interests to Fide, by doing the exact opposite of the delegates intent on drug testing and actually advocating for it.

----------

[on Evans] by  all accounts most popular columnist ever,

> I truly liked the Evans' column very  much.  It's tried and true format seemed inclusive of players from every  skill level and every background.  However I am pretty sure it was the U.S.  Open Championship he won 4 times.  He was American Chess Champion five  times, I'm pretty sure.
>
> . . . . and the first person to win the U.S.  Championship as a teen ager.

The important point seems to be that as a /qualified/ critic by virtue of what he demonstrated at chess, he was the last voice allowed at USCF to comment on chess management [or politics].

----------

> It was remarkable that Evans lasted in his  Chess Life column as long as he did -- when you consider he was in the nest  of his political adversaries.  In a way . . . This is a tribute, that chess  aficionados of every political persuasion, have interest to read of  his chess ability and connection with chess history.

I think my point, although qualifying Evans as a fitting voice to speak of the art of chess playing, is somewhat stronger than any personality issue - so I would choose to re-stress that what has been banished is also the ROLE of independent critic with a player's perspective.

> To ice this  sickly cake, there was even a $10,000 party thrown to meet ostensible  'critics' of USCF, but which had more the atmosphere of a Sesame Street  party, with no actual critics invited, and pointedly excluding Evans.

> Yes, the May 6th & 7th USCF retreat in  South Florida.

I know Jerry Hanken attended.

> The CJA was invited to send a  representative.  Required by our Constitution and By-laws, ALL of our  officers are supposed to conference and choose who our representative would  be to send, and how much funding to provide, and perhaps what message from us to  represent.  President Hanken ignored the process and stepped forward to accept $600 funding, Keep this secret (he is real good pals with the CJA  treasurer) for weeks and get on the plane to fly there.

This is all well-known. But although I have have made an initial impression otherwise, I am not trying to attack CJA nor scandalise you, and your organisation is your own business - what I have felt to be lacking is some scale of address to current world events.

I can tell you that there is great anger in Europe over the election - people are mad as hell, and feeling more than betrayed, there seems to be a mood not sympathetic to accepting rule-by-Khan. This is to some degree
occasioned by the lack of reporting on chess and its current modus operandi. The very same issues seem present here in the US where politicos have acted more secretly than ever before in making massive organisational changes without any evident address to the mission of USCF stated in terms of player-benefit.

Having overly-friendly or even captive journalists reporting the scene is obscene - this is not journalism, it is hagiography, and very far from a critical approach. The odd thing about the USCF 'retreat' is that Don Shultz wrote here affirming something I wrote and that 'fundamental changes' needed to be made.

Yet when I look at the retreat participants I zzzzzzzz pass out with boredom, not because I don't know what each and every one might usefully contribute [Mikhail Korneman for example could make a massive contribution to the pedagogy of chess learning - and might well be coupled with someone not attending, Sam Palatnik who ran the highly successful Ukrainian chess program. Karpov too has some substantial experience from his chess schools around the world].

But in terms of fundamental changes I look for something else in participants, nothing so comfortable as this group. I look for real irritants on the chess scene, for without them acting as a form of yeast in the bread, there is no sufficient and /vital/ stimulus, and the resulting loaf is incapable of 'rising', [and may prove indigestible too!]

> With no notification to the vice-president, (  and others?)  I happen to find this out as Hanken was on the plane flying  there.  By hook or crook, Hanken was our CJA  representative, I would have liked to have given him some ideas to consider  putting on the table, with all of the important eyes and ears turned his  direction.
>
> Issues like working with the Cramer committee  opening up the national chess book awards to major publishing houses publishing  chess books.  The major publishers hardly know of CJA or that our  annual awards even exist!
>
> Also issues related to out reach to major  non-chess publications on organized chess activities.  Some of us are  working on a Media kit and a training module for chess organizers to better  do positive and effective P.R.

That's good!  That's a necessary attitude.  Overall, mainline print media have dropped chess specialists reporting chess events [Reuters dropped it 2 years ago citing Fide's pathetic organisational skills as being too much a waste of time] and the few resulting pieces I have read by at large reporters, might as well have been written about dominos.

> Hanken chose to keep his selection and funding  a secret until he left.  Since I live in Florida, I almost made the  three hour drive to give him a hand delivered list of projects for him to  represent our CJA interest, not just his.
>
> If you look at the cover of the June issue of  the Chess Journalist magazine posted online, you will see the picture of all who attended the retreat.  Hanken is not in the picture, for he had to leave  early.  I am told he missed the whole 2nd day of the two day conference,  but he denies it.  Maybe he was hanging around feeding the ducks, when the  picture was taken.

While I think this is a proper concern for CJA, it is not my business to interrogate your process. In my own message here I rather hoped instead to engage your overall orientation.

> Now - I  have said that I do not wish to continue making these comments as a form of inquiry into or of CJA, but I do wish to reference the fact that some quintessential factor of journalism has been eliminated from the US chess  scene.  Not as much the person of Evans, but the role that Evans has played  in chess reporting, which not incidentally requires a certain authority.
>
> I can relate to that.

I have taken some active measures to ensure that the /role/ of commentary on these matters continues, and if not by Evans, then by someone of equal authority to address the subject. It is probably premature to make an announcement.

----------

> Allowing creative ideas to at least come  to the surface to be voted on and considered -- is good.  Of course, those chess  oligarchies running their own fiefdoms, may only bring people into the decision  making process who agree with them in the first place.
>
> Carry on,  Daren  Dillinger

There are very large challenges ahead in taking what has been a past-time, and viewed [justifiably in many ways, especially if you had read the New Yorker article] as an eccentric one, and boosting into into the primetime arena utilising modern media.

> PS  There are a lot of good people working  for chess.  We should strive to seek them out and network with  them.

Yes, that's not the plan, that's the current activity. It is not an  emulation of action by means of talking about what may be, its the real goods networked with people who have both fire and persistence in them.

Cordially, Le Parrot Libre!

> Rock 'n' Roll !    D.D.

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
after 50 years of chess domination:

Conversation with a Polish Correspondent (PC)

Parrot  napisal(a):

> > So you predict a new era of chess, an Armenian Era ? ;-)
>
> This is a highly interesting question, not as much about Armenia, but about the Russian 'defeat' at team-level. I think this will be a shock for Russian chess at home.
>
> Some 7 or 8 years ago all State money for the women's competition disappeared, and in about 2000, the last of it for the men too. Here is the result of that removed support system working out, and now the playing field is more nearly level compared with other countries. Additionally, so many Russian players have left the country in order to seek their chess fortunes elsewhere, even taking other nationalities, that those who remain are not quite the national "A-team", as might be true of other countries.
>
> Of course, this seems to slight Armenia, who had a magnificent series of games across all boards. But we should also note the other country who has improved rapidly - the Chinese men [the women already did it], and there are now vast numbers of Chinese players of western chess.
>
> It is interesting to reflect that in the 1930's the USA held the top spot in world chess for 4 Olympiads with 4 golds - as a team they were formidable.  Post WW2, or at least from 1950 for half a century there has been straightforward Soviet dominance of chess. What has just happened really ends an epoch spanning half a century.
>
> Now, with all props to previous success removed, its over, and there is strong competition from half-a-dozen countries.

Of course there is a simple explanation why Soviet era of chess has ended: simply USSR has disappeared from the Earth and many strong chess-countries emerged after that collapse :-)

> You are ambitious! That's good. I remember you said that Poland used Russian and Ukraine training systems. Young Karyakin had one advantage, his youth - which is often an asset in sheer stamina in late rounds. No doubt younger Polish players will use this experience as a foundation for next time - whether they won or lost, playing so many games against the very highest quality of world opposition must their encourage confidence for the future.

Of course young Polish players lacked experience even compared to young Karyakin. However I think that in the next championships they will have all chances to play better :-)

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
use them for an election campaign in which he is already claiming victory.”

Squawwk Two! Letter to the Parrot

EVANS CHESS LIFE COLUMN CANCELLED
By Larry Parr

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.

Editor Lucas said that he was acting based on recommendations in Paul Hoffmann's lavish $50,000 redesign plans and, in any event, he or Mr. Hoffman believed that the Q &A format "has played itself out."

Over the last many years, the two most popular columns in Chess Life, as measured by reader surveys, have been "Larry Evans on Chess" and Andy Soltis' "Chess to Enjoy." Thousands of readers have vouchsafed their opinion about what they enjoy in the pages of CL. Evans and Soltis always were at the top.

The decision to cancel GM Evans' column comes, quite frankly, as no surprise. That was always in the cards, the moment the costly redesign was announced. GM Soltis' column, which is seldom controversial given its intent, will remain. The magazine cannot afford to lose both of its most popular writers.

Editor Lucas' explanation that the Q &A format "has played itself out" really will not do, though he may honestly believe it.

Question and answer formats never play themselves out in hobbyist magazines. There is no doubt that after a decent interval -- or a not so decent one, in any event -- the format will return. The only issue is who has been selected by the politicians to replace GM Evans who never spouts the party line.

Mar-22-06 whiskeyrebel : I'm disgusted. There'd better be a good explanation for this, besides the likely scenario that the space and $$$ will go to somebody's hand-picked buddy. Larry Evans breathes life into the game which is more than can be said about a huge regular portion of Chess Life which on the whole has been a cold hamburger for years. I'm not against change..it's overdue. Sacking Larry Evans is like yanking out one of the last remaining solid teeth in your rotting mouth. It'd be like an unprofitable restaurant eliminating it's most popular menu item. If there are writers lined up capable of topping Evans column quality wise, let's SEE 'EM. Where are they? Who are they? It's a bad day for American chess...

Squawwk Three! Decency anyone?

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
FIDE presidential election, I would work with them for the betterment of chess.

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
wins." On April 6, she wrote, "I view my position as someone who is acting in the best interest of the organization. Maintaining a neutral position, in my opinion does not affect the votes of other federations." On April 9 she wrote, "I do not believe that the USCF position is to obligate people to actively campaign for a particular candidate."

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
be notified that we oppose her nomination.

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
USCF Executive Board Member
USCF Past President
General Secretary de FIDE Américas

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. 

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
> brought in the best people we could get and hired a highly  qualified
> facilitator to run the meeting. What's wrong  with that?

Good Question! I hope I can offer a good answer!

The very things that most need addressing are not present at the meeting to
"determine fundamental changes." As I wrote before, most critics of USCF's
policies no longer attend on USCF. So instead of viewing my comment as a
criticism of the retreat, I would invoke the chess axiom, "See a good move?
Don't make it! Maybe there is a better one?"

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.

I suggest better means to conference with those who are outside the tent,
rather than seek more accommodations with the very narrow slice of chess
life already in it. This sort of conference may not solve anything, but it
would certainly be a conference which would identify what 'fundamental
changes' were necessary.

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
surfaced without a much broader constituency of interest being present - and
while I agree with you entirely that changes are necessary, how USCF can
involve other people in making the changes if it won't fairly address its
critics.

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
address to the systematic problem of 'not enough oxygen in the tent.

> New ideas are being pursued. A new Chess Life is no small step. Our work
> on a TV Reality Celebrity Serial for chess is moving along at a brisk pace.
> Our very pro-active participation in the FIDE elections is another step
> forward,  IMO.

While these issues are well and good, the first seems to have taken place as
result of a lurch by a newcomer without any objective surveying,

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!

> To critics: I say: Please don't tell us we are  lost - you
> are smart people, know chess - do as Mikhail Korenman  is doing and yes Susan
> Polgar too and show us by example what can be  done.

What is missing are ways of engaging USCF - who are in retreat. Most efforts
are rebuffed, and a 'come hither' approach to USCF is to merely continue as
before, and

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
evolved - and I refer you to Mr. Kok's sense of those as a real partnership
under modern management conditions.

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.

> As for a long term insider’s viewpoints and contributions. He is a hard
> dedicated worker, who has a great deal of knowledge and experience.  He has done a
> lot of good for chess. BUT, IMO his viewpoint on the role of  the USCF is far
> more narrow than I view it.

And this is my ultimate criticism – this insider at least has the courage of
his convictions - but what you hear about at your retreat is very largely
determined by such narrow views as his [though not so publicly expressed.]

Yes, he will usually make The Obvious Move.

Forgive me for overdoing the move bit:

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:

May I ask why there has been no announcement in these forums nor in ChessLife that 3 GM columnists have been fired by a consultant/contractor who receives $50,000 for redesigning ChessLife and USCF's website without undertaking a competitive bidding process?  The fired GMs include Larry Evans. The firings do not appear to be based on the popularity of the columnists, and no objective surveys have been made in order to make these draconian decisions.

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:

Just as the players in the Olympiad squad represents the country, they do not represent USCF at all!  USCF only administers the process of selection of the squad.  But the players represent the entire country.  It is fitting to reflect on the role of chess administrators in any context of what furthers us and what ails us - and if what is represented is reduced to needs of administrators rather than of all players - and if other parties do as much, or even more to further the same idea of promoting chess as is stated in USCF's mission statement - then this is but to notice that a serious divorce has taken place in Chess USA, and where an excess of personal commentary of who should speak replaces what might be discussed.

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

The parrot is just aghast!

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:

(1) Why are no properly vetted ethical standards in place at a national level for chess education of scholastic students [minors]? and

(2) what is the basis of the curriculum if a teacher scarcely higher rated than the average scholastic student can hang out a shingle? Why is there no national educational program for chess studies?

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 9^th 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
            Lose = 0 points
            Draw = 1 point

Readers say:

• Sorry, but the idea of having wins count as 3 points while draws count only 1 point, simply won't wash. That idea has been brought up before, and some people will point out that it would only encourage fixed games.  The reason is simply that if two players reach a position in a game where winning chances for either side are almost nonexistent, they might secretly agree that one of the players will "blunder" so that the other player wins. That means the "winner" gets 3 points rather than the 1 point that a draw would have given him. And that means any additional prize money he "wins" can be split between him and his fellow conspirator.  Can you imagine what could happen in the last-round of a tournament (especially a Swiss where there's often a logjam of players vying for the top prizes) where every point is crucial? Rather than two players' agreeing to a draw and grudgingly settle for 1 point each, they might be tempted just to fix the game result where one player "wins"--it would be more profitable for BOTH players.  To take it a step further, the "winner" of the fixed game could return the favor to the other player the next time they meet in a tournament. In other words, the other player would be allowed to "win" and pocket 3 points.  Howard S. Sample

• TheParrot Squaawks Archives - 2004

• TheParrot Squaawks Archives - 2005

The
Chessville
Chess Store
 

Advertisement

Reference
Center
 

The Chessville
 Weekly
The Best Free
Chess
Newsletter
On the Planet!

Subscribe
Today -
It's Free!!

The
Chessville
Weekly
Archives

Discussion
Forum

Chess Links

Chess Rules

Visit the
Chessville
Chess Store