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

Opinions and Reader Feedback
 

TheParrot Says…

6-28-2008

Shortest Squaaawk! ever, but here is why a rare chess picture has 2 girls in it:
 

Rare Chess Pictures:  If you didn’t catch it already, my Chessville colleague Jan Newton found this picture last week in her column Les Echecs des Femmes:

What I have done this week is try to investigate what goes on with the women’s game by way of asking questions of the US Woman’s Championship.  I also had correspondence with the top Englishwoman Cathy Forbes.

I hope the result will be something that enhances these young Canadian player’s future careers – even though progressing with those who rule over the rules, the “Monkey’s Helluva Rules”, is hard work!

To progress chess for future female players of it, the current generation of women are identifying certain aspects of their still and evidently 2^nd class status in chess.  But at least they are raising these issues and not hiding them away.  Cathy remarked that the women’s game will certainly benefit from the support of their ‘brothers’ in chess.

So… after an appalling week of miasmic responses from chess officialdom, this writer certainly has sympathy for the somewhat neglected 2^nd class citizens in chess.  To finish the week on another note entirely, just take a look at the picture, and do you see already that developed serious attention, that determination, and just plain sass of the future strong player?

Captioned are Canada’s Ten-year old Jackie Peng and seven-year old Janet Peng, who JanXena reports, will both be playing in the Canadian National Youth Championships in Quebec City, Quebec (Canada) July 14 - 17, 2008.  Winners from this Championship will compete for Canada in the World Youth Championships to be held in Vietnam in October.

You go girls!

Afore ye go: 

Next week, an introduction or two of new Chessville staff and their roles in enhancing our infrastructure on both the publishing and editorial sides.

If you too would like to work with us, drop us a line.

6-21-2008

Chess Deviants

I have strong up-front doubts about chess variants.  I am never convinced that those who propose them as a ‘cure’ have exactly exhausted the possibilities of classical chess, and rather wonder why they propose deviant forms of it?  The only straightforward response I have read is that the novelty is intended to obviate opening book knowledge.  Whether Ed Trice for Gothic Chess or Bobby Fischer for 960 or Fischer Random proposes the deviant version, I maintain my suspicions about their motives.

The implacable fact of the matter in my experience is that almost all chess players do not even know the first 12 moves of even common openings sufficient to identify departure from them.  A secondary fact is that while strong players know openings to often extraordinary depth, even innovating in them, the more pertinent fact is that they are playing out positions to a pattern rather than to a planned sequences - a similar distinction to that of pattern recognition to rote move-orders.

The shame of this is for classical chess, that active game-players become distracted by these novelties and deviations while still in Pilgrim-mode of the game; leaving chess before arriving at the Site of their own Reward for all that travel/travail in learning it - and then spend their active playing years in some back-water place, even losing the ability to discuss playing because their own variant form is typically no happy fit with the classical one, even in terms of discussing it.

Variant forms of chess would seem to appeal to those who like tactics only, or the sort of strategy that you discover on the fly while playing. This /divertisement/ removes a certain depth from the game which otherwise exists in classical forms - and remains as every player's promise of what they can attempt, and also appreciate when they see virtuoso's of the game perform.

And here is one from a reader:

It is difficult to believe that the UScf powers that be are so completely inept not only in running the UScf, but in at least keeping happy the silent unmoving and uncaring mass that allows/elects them to have power. I've seen in the 1970's the average player didn’t care at all about the politics, they just wanted to play so we got an administration built of people who did want to run things, and as long as they didn't make a lot of waves, kept publicly silent and treated the people they governed like mushrooms (you know, keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em manure) , they thought they could remain in power forever. Their main efforts seemed to be to remain in power nothing else.

Returning to chess after many years, as lots of others have, it is shocking to see how the UScf powers have forgotten how to avoid stirring up the masses who now leave an organization which is inept at best, without even considering any legal matters. They've killed the Golden Goose they were charged to take care of and now sit on the rotting corpse, jealously guarding it, ignoring anything except that corpse, while many of the UScf are only watching for the organization that springs up to fill the void.

Thanks for your Chessville reports and your support of chess (and thereby us chess fans),

-  Steven R. Barnes

Rare Chess Pictures:

After a successful gallery exhibition a collection of new chess paintings by a variety of artists is now available.

A few samples are ‘Scandinavian Opening” Painting by Karin Miedema, 29 x 47 cm, Acrylic on masonite.  Someone should snap up the rights to that one for a book cover.

"The puzzle of Shinkman", Painting by Tjerk Zijlstra, 50 x 100 cm, Oil paint on linen has some fine birds in it.

The Dutch company also sell chess sets, including one I played on last year – and here it is!  It was so hard to actually identify which Simpson character represented any chess piece, that only a pattern recognition of where they were on the board provided me enough clues – for example, the character on f3 is probably a knight?  Right?  Not recommended for Blitz.

Afore ye go: 

I am still not sure if there is a final final and absolutely beyond doubt final decision of the now infamous Armageddon final game.

Chessbase have published a series of letters from around the world, including those of tournament directors which are almost unanimous in deploring the situation, featuring such language as ‘demeaning and degrading’ the game and its players.

So why did it happen here?  And is the official silence on the issue really the last word?  I thought official isolation actually caused the situation in the first place.

As far as I am concerned I acknowledge the winner of the Women’s Championship to be US champion.  Except, not champion of chess, but whatever name we give that final game.

The Europeans writing at Chessbase didn’t seem to think it was anything to do with chess either.

6-14-2008

Chess Life Gone Out Of It.

Considering the past debt of about $100,000, and estimated $200,000+ this year, no equity yet in the new building, having exhausted cash reserves, and despite nonsense law-suits, serious new ones are appearing on the horizon, possible initiated by its only main partner, Chesscafe, encouraged and stimulated by Diplomat Bauer and Buffalo Bill in responses to Hanon Russell of ChessCafe, this sea of disasters hardly needs mention of the likely forthcoming counter-suit from Polgar & Truong... <gasp, pause for breath>

The unexplained 'award systems' catastrophe for the national rating system which are not just demonstrated to be without any quality assurance, but without any sense of needing any.

Confidential board memoranda are leaked to agents with no official role at USCF, and even personnel records show up on the internet.  ‘Unclear’ relations with long time cronies of board members seem to empower these un-elected outsiders to work directly against current board members in a world which is all politics.

Then there is, according to whatever the rules were, if any, and indeed if this was even chess at all - the resolution of the Women's championship this year.  Popular sentiment was that this was either cheating or 'monkey business' – degrading the national championship.  That's wasn’t true of the men's competition, but then again, many top players didn't even show up.

The discontinuance of the communication vehicle to USCF’s main market, scholastic chess, coupled with the proposition of Chess Life standing on its own commercial legs [pause for hilarity] are eye-wateringly bad decisions to not even serve those who are current members, never mind reaching out and checking someone…

Its sad when a long-time public institution goes under, usually.

But what America needs is an organization established to vigorously promote chess to the general public, to mainstream education, and to mainstream media.  That is in fact USCF’s own mission statement, but not its behavior, not this year, nor for the past 35.

All USCF’s current functions are duplicated by other entities on the chess scene – in fact some others seem to achieve more in popularizing the game and placing it into educational contexts than does USCF itself.  The very governmental functions that USCF could provide are the ones not present, and without any momentum in those directions, the organization is reduced to mere  maintenance and clerical activities, rather than planning national level management of chess for the C21st.

What is sad is that USCF who never address their own mission, has taken so long to fall over, and keeps both actively and passively getting in the way of those who do actually attempt promoting chess.

When winter comes, and the traditional revenue short-fall of January thru April hits home - it will likely be the home of USCF employees.  After all, $200,000 is about 7 office salaries, and that is to just stay even in current operating terms.

USCF want to soldier on regardless, even if they get down to 3 people like in 1968.  What will sink them is not their degree of worth in promoting the game, but the noise the gang of good ol’ boys create to those who are able to take things forward, by their meddling in typically secretive fashion.

The icebergs that will sink the ship are composed of very willful sailing into dangerous waters, causing current serious legal and financial position on all fronts, and collision with any single one of those ice mountains above will be completely fatal, beyond recovery, friendless and beyond help, and take place somewhere in the gloomy regions near one political pole or t’other.

And we all told them so.

Rare Chess Pictures:

After that scene of unrelieved gloom, here is a pretty picture!

The Association of Chess Professionals (ACP) happily sign a cooperative agreement with the Turkish Chess Federation. (TCF)

It’s a happy picture not just because of their intended work together, which they describe like this:

The ACP sees as very important to cooperate with the TCF, a very dynamic organization, which made tremendous progress by making Turkey one of the chess superpowers and developing chess in Europe.

But because Turkey has invested huge amounts of government money into its school system for the pursuit of chess and academics, and by all accounts, government is happy with the results.

It is a picture of success among at least 4 parties: Government, Chess Federation, Professional Player’s Organization, and of course, We, the Chess Players!

Afore ye go:  Thanks for reading 200 of these columns. The Parrot was interviewed this week on some of that, and the evolution of Chessville. Over the past 5 years our readership has more than doubled, and the range of writing about chess can now be called comprehensive [apart from a decent column on chess history – hint]

If you like reading here, chip in on either the editorial or publisher’s side of things. Its your game – run it!

6-7-2008

Why

USCF On-Line has repeated the “Monkeys” letter of Irina Krush about the play-off for the US Women’s title, as The Parrot last weekend stated, but with no definitive response published by officialdom.

Its almost two weeks now since the play-off, and without any other indication, shall we assume women players are, actually treated like this?  Like monkeys?

Never mind what anyone could see for them-selves in the play-off video, the usual official silence is itself a statement.

This is why, to many people’s mind, USCF have entirely lost the thread of common sentiments, of common decency, a sense of fairness, and seem so remote from us all.

Surely the highest rule of all is the spirit in which the game is played?

Afore ye go:

Thank you everyone who has responded to our appeal at Chessville to help out with what we do. We have found some good editors and reviewers among our readership. We still have 3 big needs to fulfill, each only a few hours per week – here they are:

1) We need an assistant publisher, reports directly to Chessville’s publisher, David Surratt.

2) We also need an editor to tackle all sorts of issues to do with chess writing, reports to the senior editor, Kelly Atlkins.

3) We also need a link-meister to continuously update our links, reporting to the publisher.

If you like our site, and can give a few hours per week, give us a call. We are a big family of chess fans here, and we say we are,

“Of the Players, for the Players.”

If you can dig that spirit, then that is the main qualification. If you can also commit to only a couple of hours per week, then you might like to investigate joining the most ‘successville’ US-based chess site; Chessville.

5-31-2008

Why Chess Life Magazine doesn’t hit any spot.

 Here is a cogent argument from CJA Member John Hillery which deserves consideration, since it seems at the core of many USCF problems. The Parrot responds (lettered notes) :

> 1) If your premises were correct, then yes, your conclusions would
> follow. However, while it galls me to agree with Larry Parr, the fact
> is that something like half the regular members rarely or never play
> in tournaments. Nevertheless they continue to be members. Since Chess
> Life is the only other major benefit provided, it is hard to escape
> his conclusion that they continue to renew because they want the
> magazine.

a) Yes - there is no other reasonable conclusion - and therefore this addresses about 15,000 people.

> 2) There is absolutely no chance of getting a consensus among those
> (hypothetical) 4,995,000 chess players. Except perhaps at the lowest
> common denominator of paying nothing, getting nothing, and that's not
> a useful model. You have, however, hit upon an important question:
> Should the USCF act in the interest of its members, or of that
> hypothetical group of "all chess players"?

b) An excellent Question! Though what quality of attention do we pay any Answer?

> It's certainly possible to
> argue the latter, but I don't buy it. The federation should provide
> what its members want.

c) Ah! but what a conclusion! Let me leave aside that imperative 'should' for a moment, and ask instead what model we are discussing here? Is it indeed like a private members club? In which case John Hillery's imperative 'should' is absolutely correct. CL would owe no explanations to anyone other than its membership. But USCF is not a private members club as constituted, its first stated reason to exist is to expand the game to those other [5 million ~ whatever number] of players - in which case restricting what is in its communication vehicle to said 15,000 /non/-playing adult USCF members is a precisely opposite orientation to its own stated mission.

d) the issue is not whether the group of 'all chess players' are hypothetical; the issue has to do with the content of the magazine which addressed /actual/ chess players and chess playing across the spectrum of their skills.

> If the members did not want what the USCF is
> offering, they wouldn't have joined.

e) in a virtual monopoly situation of having to join USCF even to play in a weekend rated tournament once per year, that statement is more than a little risible.

I do not see joining USCF as a comment on the content of the magazine - in fact, if the bulk of adult membership and CL readership are non-players of the game [or only play a few rated games in any year, and are in effect provisionally rated] then perhaps we have arrived at the real crisis point: the crux of the matter is that the content of the magazine does NOT reflect the views of active chess players.

> So as far as I'm concerned, all
> these radical restructuring proposals -- as distinct from tweakings to
> pay the bills, like the Goichberg plan -- are non-starters.

f) USCF is content with the stance of publishing a chess magazine for inactive players of the game, while at the same time enjoying its sheltered status as a non-profit, paradoxically established to broaden the game.

g) Real conversations on the content on publications have yet to begin. That conversation will resolve around the issue of USCF acting as a private-members' club, as John Hillery prefers, and those active chess players who want to read stimulating material in support of their chess play, a vast range from 1000-level beginners to 2000+-level tournament players, and middle ground club membership, something like 1300-1700.

h) Quite evidently no one publication, CL as is, or any future single variant of it, can on paper provide materials for that range of chessic skill without wasting most of the magazine on redundant skill ranges. Therefore, is it not a more cogent idea to discuss the alternative to 'private member club' which is...

i) Market orientation.

j) I /do/ agree with John Hillery and with Larry Parr that /something/ needs to move on paper between organization and membership, but that is not real market orientation, it is something that needs to occur /as well as/ addressing the real world of real chess players and what they want to read.

k) And, say, you wanted to advertise a new chess clock - would you put it in CL which admits half its adult readers do not play rated chess, and of those that do, most will already have a clock, and half of those don't even play much so can't be considered in the market at all. Therefore, only 7,500 adults could be said to be a potential market since they play 10+ games a year. Will three-quarters of them own their own clock? I would think so. And I would think that buying space-advertising advertising to less than 2,000 players not a very good idea.

l) TO CONCLUDE: A variant of CL is a necessary vehicle for any organization, but the current one does not address (1) USCF's Mission, (2) does not address the 5 Million~ active players in the nation, and (3) is unconvincing to any advertiser. In terms of content it also does not (4) address any specific market segment of chess player, whether at 1000 level, typical club level, or Tourney Tyro's.

Those are terrible indictments of each necessary factor to produce a successful publication. Without a publication the organization will certainly become extinct, or worse, stay as it is, an irrelevant obstacle encountered by We, the Players.

Rare Chess Pictures:

Afore ye go:  “Clock punching monkeys”, concluded Irina Krush. What are reader’s views on how a national championship should be resolved?

And in terms of a USCF print magazine:  Do you want one?  What should be in it?

Write to TheParrot.

5-24-2008

Not Rosy, Red

A past-president* of USCF had this to say about the current financial crisis:

On December 23 after members of the LMA Committee reviewed the six-month financials, I sent our analysis to President Goichberg and others. We predicted a fiscal year loss in the $100,000-$200,000 and a serious cash crunch in the summer. We recommended immediate cost-cutting measures in Crossville. Bill chose to take the advice instead of two undoubted financial experts in the Federation who projected a much rosier scenario.

Unfortunately weeds came in where the roses were supposed to be.

The new dues plan is fatally flawed for several reasons:
1) it is way too complicated and confusing.
2) It is not price-point sensitive.
3) It will lead to the demise of one important and tangible benefit, Chess Life. I think something like half of our renewing regular members don't play in rated tournaments in any given year**.
4) It will lead to declining revenues.

Cordially, Tim Redman

* Dr. Redman once told we that past-presidents preferred the term ‘ring-wraiths’.

** [Editor’s note] Actually half USCF’s adult membership do not even play a single rated game in any given year, and of the remaining group of 15,000 only half of them play 10 or more rated games.

Rare Chess Pictures:

Afore ye go:

Yet another new columnist with a very promising brief appeared at Chessville last weekend.

To support the evident high quality of current chess writers we will soon publish a list of support activities and also typical time requirements for each task.  Most support positions are only about two hours per week – if you are interested, drop the Parrot a line.

5-17-2008

Core Chess Service Has Holes, Big Holes

[Note: USCF have been asked about the issue of their own officiating of ratings, and anyone claiming responsibility for it will be equally reported here.]

Having interviewed the head of another ratings service recently, the unresolved issue of USCF’s own quality control problems continues – in this instance by ‘shooting the messenger’. The following is sparked from a newsgroup discussion:

>> You confuse quality control with fraud detection.

'Confuses?' Asked the Parrot.

Doesn't lack of control data quality actually permit fraud? In this instance, not only was there no quality control whatever, but an award was made to a politico for what you prefer to call 'fraud'.

For the first issue, clearly Tanner is responsible, but USCF's ratings department is as responsible, since after all, if you keep getting rated by chess officials, can you be doing anything wrong?

But the 'fraud', as you term it, is the responsibility of the 'awards' system. Not only for Tanner, but for the gent writing to in the NY Times about getting his own award, with no apparent invigilation whatever - no questions, no data gained him a master title and rating floor.

What you say you want is for the public to invigilate the ratings of others - rather than officials - but you do nothing at all to challenge USCF about why it ain't so.

When I suggested that another ratings agency did exactly this, allowed public access to very much broader data on ratings [and much cheaper] - people cried it down here.

Do even //paid// chess officials have any responsibility? Apparently not.

Can unpaid chess politicos casually over-rule them and 'overlook' playing records entirely [as in both examples above], thus deliberately engaging in what you call 'fraud'? Apparently so.

I remember Randy Bauer using that as his main plank in the election in his interview right here at Chessville - what is generally known elsewhere as competency testing.  And what has Mr. Bauer done while in  office in terms of ratings?  Apparently nothing.

Rare Chess Pictures:

I know I presented a picture of the great Piatigorsky Cup a month ago, but I never saw this image before. Care to identify those present?

Answers: Players names are, from left to right:- Najdorf, Fischer, Portisch, Larsen, Ivkov, Unzicker.

Afore ye go:

Various indicators from website measurement services show Chessville gaining vast momentum since our January down-time, and indeed, overhauling other US chess reporting sites to become #1.

We are not a for-profit group, do not especially hire GMs to report for us, [though some GMs are rather good reporters!] and are generally open about our processes and aspirations.

But we are suffering from our recent successes and the chess public’s tribute to new 2008 columnists, by reading their stuff. Everything from JanXena’s innovative column on women in chess [about time! And its good stuff too], to Andy’s ‘Whites Of Their Eyes’ column, which [he is too modest to say so himself] I was pleased to note received substantial acclaim from a strong chess player and teacher, appreciating the need for cogent tactical materials…

And that is to mention 2 from 4 new columnists.  Gosh – I didn’t even mention Lawrence Tamarkin’s reports from the Marshall in New York or that chess publisher fella whose name I forget. 

At a management level we are now describing to ourselves what support services we need to deliver you these services consistently, especially in maintaining the quality these chess journalists are achieving. We will share this aspect of our ‘business plan’ with you all in terms of specific roles we think need filling when we have hashed it out, then we will ask you if you want to join with us and play your own part in our chess adventure in chess publishing.

It’s not really a primary matter at Chessville of planning everything, its more a sense of exploring and creating things in tune with a C21st chess public – and the founder of Chessville, David Surratt, should now and again be mentioned in his current role of publisher – a tough job with all of us opinionated and ambitious people! He didn’t chose ‘boring’ for the quality of his confederates.

So, David, after a tough week in chess, and inside Chessville, this one’s for you!   ;)

From your friends and colleagues in chess and in Chessville’s planetary scope, Pablo, Kelly and Phil.

5-10-2008

Parrot calling!

A Q&A telephone interview with Russ Mollot examining the idea of chess metrics – what they are, how much they cost, their international scope, and what’s next  for CRX.

Q: What does this new TSI service provide that good old ratings do not?

A: Tournament Significance Index is an indication of the event's importance in the overall chess playing population. Thus, an event involving 25 players is generally more "important" than a Quad.   An event with 100 players is generally more important than one with 25 players, and so on.   Also, an event among high-rated players is considered more important than one (all other things being equal) than one with low-rated players.   An event with more rounds (more games played) has more significance than one with fewer rounds (all other things being equal).   Finally, an event with a slow time control would generally be considered more important than one with a fast time control.

Q.  Who should use this service?

A. Any TD to attract players to their event, for example, to choose players who previously achieved a 1^st place and how difficult that even was; and any player could estimate for themselves the suitability of attending a potential event by its TSI. These measurements are coupled with another new service to be announced which essentially will be an unbiased means of awarding scholastic titles.

Q. How expensive are these new services?

A. They all come as part of the basic service of CXR.

Q. Why did you create these services to chess players?

A. I can’t understand anything much about a player by simply reading one number associated with a name. In the computer age it is appropriate to expect more information – like the highest rated opponent defeated, or scores with white or black, or in fact, a host of other factors. We are about to make another press release on Scholastic Titles, where the importance of these services is comprehensibly explained.

Q. But are these ratings legal?

A. We use the same formula as Dr Arpad Elo, and slightly simplified math which has stronger emphasis on recent performances. In the spirit of his original idea we also have no rating floors and no ceilings! So yes!

Q. This reminds me of the English system, which also weights recent performance.

A.. We intend our system to be international.

Q. Is it already used internationally?

A. Yes! In England IM Adam Hunt uses it, and we have affiliates in Canada and Mexico, with new ones now emerging in Australia, in Egypt and in India.

Q. This all sounds like a big increment to assessing chess players – so how much does it cost to provide all this material?

A.. Through our affiliates, the cost is $5 a year for students and $12 a year for adults.

Q. Is that a competitive rate worldwide? Compare it to the USA.

A. There are several plans for Juniors in the US, but typically it costs $17 a year. For adults competitive services cost $40 a year.

Q. Just to make sure I have this correct, your rates for 30 different measurements instead of just one are approximately 1/3 of typical US rates – do I understand you correctly?

A. Yup!

And then the conversation went much deeper than any telephone Q&A interview could capture, but the result was that the Parrot suggested to interviewee Russ Mollot [here captioned, he says of himself, losing a league game] that he write with Chessville’s Senior Editor Kelly Atkins and tell Chessville’s readers in a series of articles why he began his company, the historical background of the mathematics of ratings systems including what skews them, and also to explain further the type of metrics he proposes for chess players in the 21^st Century.

To which he agreed, and which Chessville readers can assess for themselves over the next couple of months.

If you can’t wait that long, call him yourself: (866) 486-4333 toll-free.

I also independently checked out reviews of CXR, and found a group of testimonials at … Chessville.  Pete Blanchette conducted an independent review for us back in 2003.

Rare Chess Pictures:

Source: http://www.chess-shop.com/detail.aspx?ID=427

Afore ye go:

Chessville is still recruiting several positions: Assistant Publisher and Editors [two types].

People who should not apply:

I recently discussed an editorial position with a current columnist who really wanted to do it. “Can you write your long, and very well-received column, while editing other people’s work, besides working for a living, without losing your current quality?” I asked.

“No,” he said.

That was easy, but the people we do want are those who can give a few hours per week on a regular basis; who don’t need to be in the front lines with their own material; who want to work with a team of others who, first and foremost, like chess.

That you?

5-3-2008

An Encounter with ex-USCF board member, Mr. Sam Sloan

In a public newsgroup following a discussion on varieties of ways to evolve chess to the general public, specifically the respective directions of SPICE and the Kasparov Chess Foundation [KCF],  ex USCF board member, Mr.  Sam Sloan uttered these challenginging remarks, challenging that is to anything normally considered consecutive or logical thinking… but also clarifying the role of USCF’s historical activities and orientation;  what it does, and what it does not intend to do.

Sam Sloan began with;-

> Do you feel that by posting thousands of obscene and pornographic
> messages from "The Fake Sam Sloan" and by posting similar obscene
> messages on her own blog at http://www.susanpolgar.blogspot.com ,
> Susan Polgar has been "eliminating gender-bias from the inside".

To parse that sentence, I first notice it is not an answer to anything I wrote, and then there is the usual Sloan-ism of relating thousands of obscene messages from the FSS with 'those similar', according to Mr. Sloan’s estimation.

The comment also addresses gender bias, as if this also related to either of the items he mentioned.

> Do
> you feel that her personal attacks on rival female chess grandmasters
> has helped by "actually encouraging self esteem in young women"?

What does Sam Sloan mean by 'attack'? If I state my opinion and it is not the same as, say, Larry Parr's, do I 'attack' him? Answer this question since otherwise we have so far 4 unrelated but cobbled together factors within a few sentences, indicating either a short-hand version of what 'everybody knows' [which is often itself shorthand for, 'who knows anything?'] or a suggested but contra-intuitive connection to all of them?

> If you have such strong opinions on this subject,

Which of the 4 subjects?

> why do not you
> actually come up with some money and join the USCF?

A 5th subject! All logically linked? Listen Mr. Sloan, they make more sense in Ward 6, when the Count of Montezuma discussing stuff with the Lord of Mars, Jupiter and sundry Moons, attempt more connectivity in their observations.

> Why is it that her
> biggest supporters and our biggest critics are non-members such as
> Phil Innes, Rob Mitchell and Taylor Kingston?

Biggest supporters? Quite apart from the 'members' who voted her into office, the issue for myself [let other people say their own orientation] is not chasing the pretty chess skirt, but in support of everyone who attempts to promote chess out of the grave USCF has dug for it in America.

> If you are so interested
> in the welfare of the USCF

Did I say I was? I am interested in promoting chess, what has that to do with the resolutely maintenance-oriented USCF?

> (instead of trying to destroy it which is
> what you seem to be trying to do)

I only seem to be trying, or seem to be successfully making a distinction between chess maintenance and chess promotion?

> why not join our organization?

If I want to vote for Senator Obama and whatever he represents to me, should I join the Republican Party?

USCF have nothing to do with promoting chess, have not ever done so, and have simply ridden the Fischer-boom to their current $300,000 deficit, by favoring friends of family, who glean a small income if they make no trouble, raise no issues, and critique nothing at all.

If Sam Sloan wants to support the maintenance activity of USCF, which is the rating system, perhaps he could have while in office done something about the obviously perverted award system for 'friends of family'. But he did not do anything to correct the system which brought board-member Tanner down, other than announce it the corruption.

Mr. Sloan  must have read about another genuine US Master who wrote in the NY Times Chess Blog recently that he was appalled that he asked for a Master title and rating floor, and was simply given one, without needing to sign anything, or even show any game records - and USCF couldn't check them since they had thrown anything pre-1990 away!!

If Mr. Sloan wants to protect and preserve USCF, let him do it. Not talk about it or what others should do about promoting chess.

Let him not pretend to any stance that he can present the game to a broader public, nor criticize those who can if relatively simple maintenance activities are beyond his wit. Mr. Sloan's potential role is a relatively modest [if necessary] role. If he can't do that, then he might button up on other subjects, since mouthy New Yorkers are merely perceived as arrogant people who think because they are accustomed to bitch at extraordinary length at other’s expense, that is somehow significant or impressive to people in the rest of the country.

But I don't think so. I think there are 2 discreet subjects here, and if you can’t do the simple one of maintenance well, then wanton criticism of those who could project chess to a greater public in the media and in education is not only unwarranted, it is patently insincere and obsturctive of that effort.
 
> Sam Sloan

Rare Chess Pictures:

One of the rarest pictures of all time!

To the left we have a very eminent Astrophysicist indeed, next, an unnamed man in a t-shirt without a tie, then Grandmaster Susan Polgar, then Chessville’s Senior Editor Kelly Atkins.

Why, you may properly ask, is this a rare picture?

Because the unnamed person-without-a-tie has probably taken more pictures of chess players than any other human being, ever.

And since this section of the Parrot features rare-chess pictures, perhaps in a 1000 years, future editorial writers of this column, re-titled “The Galactic Parrot” will wonder who he is, and since his evident Asian origin, it can’t be from Tie-land.

That’s a poor joke, but its short.

Afore ye go:

With the English Chess Federation suffering the same circumstances as the USCF, essentially balking activities of a new board to do what they were elected to achieve - to get things moving again - the final word spoken about 20-years ago goes to:

“The small-minded leaders of the Unites States Chess Federation
try to keep it an amateur game and must be purged like
entrenched Communist Bureaucrats.”  - Garry Kasparov.

4-26-2008

Make luft, not war.

“For the last three weeks we have been meeting with school managers and we have jointly agreed on including chess lessons in schools academics,” ...said Somali Chess Federation President Dr Ahmed Abdi Hassan during an exclusive interview with the Somali chess website http://www.somchess.com/.

“One of the most ravaging civil wars in the world devastated our country
and we intend to use the sport as a device of ending the long running wars
and we hope our chess federation will lead the new initiative,”

... the president said.  “At least 2 persons in every family go to school each morning and we want them to bring back the knowledge of chess to their families so that at least one person experienced in chess may be found in every house.”

Bringing it All Back Home: I remember Garry Kasparov asking last year, “what do American teenagers do with their aggression?”  Which is a statement the great Konrad Lorenz would have appreciated.  So what do we do?  What comes between the impulse and the action?

Chess has been described as being a war-game, but not well-described that way.  It is a culturally acceptable means of expressing ritual aggression; a check between that impulse and the trigger-finger, or for ‘older children’ the bombers.

This year in the US it was reported that for the first time the ratio of citizens incarcerated reached one in a hundred.  Isn’t that approaching the level of an undeclared civil war –against youth?

This year I also listened to a psychologist discussing who was most likely to wind up in prison.  She said they were likely males under the age of 17 or 18, when the last stage of frontal development takes place in the brain, that part which lets us objectively assess and check our impulses.

She was discussing various wild behavioral patterns, but I immediately thought of chess, and also that she, and now Dr Ahmed Abdi Hassan, both know something that we don’t care to look at too much.

But maybe we should take this cultural aspect of chess more seriously – since once you begin to consider the question above, and ask yourself about your own neighborhood, and kids you know; what actually is the answer to the [healthy! Says Lorenz contradicting Freud] need to express aggression?  Obviously the high school football team isn’t cutting it.

Good initiative, and good luck from all of us.  Go!  “Wataac”

Rare Chess Pictures:

4-19-2008

A Defining Moment in US Chess – Standards of Not?

The Parrot sent the following letter to the USCF board plus some 30 other strong players, writers and organizers last Tuesday April 15^th 2008.

I beg you to indulge me in reading one final message, since I have received a private Hanken-gram, which leaves me in no doubt about anyone's character.  I should simply like to tell you all about my associates, and then I will go away.

1)  One character I spoke with last week runs the biggest marketing company on the planet; then there is the person responsible for marketing an entire car company; another is the financial guru for an airline; and finally there is the second-to-head honcho of the biggest insurance company on the planet.

All are Americans and represent American interests.  All are in-laws.

Their conversations in terms of what is investible has always to do with standards - financials ones, plus those un-compromised and clearly decent to invest in.

2)  I am also involved in chess and formal education of the mainstream type, and those people also stress formal standards that must necessarily be observed in order to even look at any organization. This includes background checks on officers and boards of various entities. That USCF has had board members who could not very evidently pass a High School background screening, and 'friends' whose standards are demonstrably at odds with what they profess about themselves, eliminates the organization from consideration.

If a board member with business sense actually quits his association with USCF over the liability of what he considers poor choice of actions [again to do with decency in public expression], just think what objectively cool persons as in the four categories above might think.  And they do think!

I have not liked from the start - let us continue to be frank - the obvious proxy political attacks which attend this board, and just as frankly continue to be shocked by those who operate in that vein, and the nothingness which emerges from their task-masters behind the scenes.

I simply wish you all to know that in the matter of standards and especially in the arena of public decency, this is a defining moment for USCF.  I am not the least resistant to directing money to what can be seen to be good, which has standards, which has transparent processes, and which attempts the mission!  If that is abandoned, as perhaps it should be, then USCF is exactly akin to a private member club, since the very reason for its non-profit status is to promote the game, pro bono Caissa.

But there is not the slightest chance that you all can possibly be recommended.  The misogyny recently exhibited is a little eye-watering, bringing people's children into the picture to further scandalize affairs is infamous.  And these are now become common anecdotes in national newspapers.

---

My original inquiry here was simple: to do with plain ordinary decent standards which exist in our culture, and to ask those who would advocate or represent any point of view to declare their own interest [financial or other area of gain] in the matter.

I say again that that is a normal standard in American culture.  Not only did I receive private mail which could be said to avoid those standards, in fact, to haughtily dismiss them, I also received silence from [most] others here - which itself is an answer to anyone's intent to act decently.

I do not have billions, and not even millions to throw at chess.  But of the 4 little problems:

I have this pencil.

Caption: Marcel Duchamp (1887 - 1968) Study for chess players (1911)

Rare Chess Pictures:

No, its not Da Vinci,

Manuscrit du roman Guiron le Courtois de Rusticien de Pise
(1370 - 1380)
Arthur jouant aux échecs

Source : Paris, BNF, Manuscrits (n.a.f. 5243 f° 3 v°)

Illustration courtesy: http://www.jmrw.com/Chess/Tableau_echecs/index.htm

Happy Birthday Susan!

4-12-2008

Foreigners, Power, and Two Missions

This is a complex subject, literally so; it is composed of various factors in interaction. I should like to add a note to each paragraph from ‘Zarathustra’message, which in turn replied to ‘a complaint’:

The topic of Are race and gender an issue to you? is a well written topic dealing with race and gender during the 2008 Presidential election. The topic above is a little disturbing to me as I really had the belief that chess as an intellectual game was past the era of hatefulness dealing with people of different cultures and gender.

It does give me a question, is the hatefulness with Paul Truong and Susan Polgar and the possible recall election has something to do because they were not born in the United States. In my judgment, the reason with the hatefulness does have something to do with that subject. That hatefulness was clear and present before the election and after the election.

The dictionary definition of 'racist' is someone who sub-divides human beings into 'races', rather than the more distinctive biology sense of race as being either, human, fish, dog. The interesting thing about playing chess, or reading a chess score, is that I can't tell any subdivisions of 'human' that way - I have no idea if the player is Chinese, or Female, or aged 15 or 60.

WAS MORPHY NOW POWER

To the second point - the original message [which I do no repeat here] talked of people who were originally American citizens running chess in this country, and their 'investment' in it, gaining them 'power.' Now - there is another 'complex' of factors for you. But it must also be said that before the age of chess federations there was Morphy, then the school-of-Marshall around NY City, and even that group of players who won 4 Olympiad gold medals in the 30's against all the world. Then again, there was Fischer who accepted help from individuals in the Federation, but hardly endorsed it! The native born Americans listed in the previous message do not seem to have advanced the game in general popularity, into mainstream media, nor into education to any noticeable effect throughout the entire post-Fischer era in American chess.

A DISTINCTION WITH A DIFFERENCE

I do not object to this, since what that group have performed is an essential maintenance activity, but what especially Susan Polgar and Paul Truong have been seen to achieve, both inside and outside the federation is not maintenance of chess, but advancement of chess.

I suppose that those people who do not like to see chess advanced by USCF are therefore within their rights to object to changing the focus of the heretofore maintenance activities performed by it. Perhaps that is the only role a federation can play and American players are content with it? If so, then at least the players themselves should be canvassed for their views [rather than have chess burocrats speak of each others ‘fortunes’ in it].

SO WHAT?

And if the Federation sensibly decides this way that it does not wish to promote chess, then two things may then occur. Another organisation can be established to do so, and in no competition with USCF who, after all, declined to take part in promoting the game. The second thing to occur is that USCF should redefine its non-profit mission statement to maintain rather than to promote chess, which is its current leading statement of its reason to exist.

Rare Chess Pictures:

Now Showing … http://www.agopb.com/

"Your Move" at the Chess Collector's International Biennial Auction

Exotic chess sets from around the world will cross the block May 1 when Auction Gallery of the Palm Beaches hosts the CCI Auction.

(WEST PALM BEACH, FL) – In conjunction with Chess Collectors International’s 13th Biennial Convention in Boca Raton April 29 – May 4, Auction Gallery of the Palm Beaches will host the CCI Biennial Auction of chess sets, memorabilia and related ephemera from around the world on May 1, 2008.

This will be the first major chess set auction in the United States since the last CCI Convention in the U.S. in Philadelphia in 2002. This Convention and auction will be will be held in conjunction with U.S. Seniors Open Chess Tournament to be held in Boca Raton. The sale will consist of over 140 lots of antique and modern chess sets and related items consigned by members of CCI and members of the public. Consignment is open to the public as is the auction.

The inventory will include lots like an 18th century Burmese carved figural set, an English 19th century turned ivory set , a 19th century English bone traveling set and an elaborate 18th/19th century French/German Dieppe style carved bone figural set with leather hats. Also included will be a Russian carved mammoth ivory “Knights” figural chess set by Russian sculptor Oleg Raikis, a J. Jaques boxwood and ebony tournament play set from Frank Marshall, U.S. Chess Champion from 1909 to 1936, an exotic Egyptian carved ivory “Pharaoh” figural set, a rare Dominican carved amber “Medieval” figural set, a German 19th century wood, plaster and lead “medieval” figural set and a 19th/20th century Chinese export carved ivory figural set.

The sale will be carried live online by LiveAuctioneers.com and Auction owner Brian Kogan says this may turn out to be one of the largest online chess related sales in history. Extra phone lines will be installed and absentee bids are welcomed. Preview for the sale will be April 29 – May 1 at the Gallery located at 1609 South Dixie Hwy, Suite 5, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401.

A catalog with approximately forty illustrations will be available. For more information about this sale call (561) 805-7115, email info@agopb.com or visit the website at http://www.agopb.com/.

Written by: Fred Taylor

And finally of all:

‘by chessplayers, for chessplayers’ is Chessville’s official motto.

The unofficial one is ‘it takes a [Chess] Village to raise a Patzer.’

That got a few laughs last week, and also a couple of offers to help out writing and editing at Chessville.

We are still looking for an assistant publisher, and another infra-structural person, as well as more editorial support. Consider investing a few hours per week in the game, and send the Parrot a note if you would like to explore your options with us, and meet the Chessville team [caption; CV editorial meeting.]

4-5-2008

Official Secrets
Further Adventures of the KID

A conversation with a correspondent…

You wrote "from black's point of view you see, Max Euwe had almost killed the KID." Not sure I understand what you mean.

PARROT:  Black found it generally untenable to play the KID, since Euwe beat it up so much with White, says Cozens.

I found the statement you refer to. "It was Euwe who drove it [the KID] out of fashion in the 1930s, and probably Bronstein and Boleslavsky, in the late forties and early fifties, who did most to bring about the renaissance which still persists today." -- The King Hunt in Chess, page 51

Checking my database, Euwe certainly does seem to have done well as White against the KID.  In 16 games played 1920-1940 that began 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6, he scored +12 -3 =3 (though some of these are Grünfelds), beating among others Alekine, Botvinnik, Mikenas, and yes - Yates.

The Parrot’s Commentary:
Official Chess Secrets

Its also notable, therefore, that Russian efforts to revitalize the KID did not show up in Europe in the years immediately before the war.  Euwe was in Russia in 1934 before any new KID material appeared - but even after the war the work by Korn, Griffiths and Sergeant, appearing in 1946 had no glimmer of any analysis by Rauzer or Boleslavsky.  Similarly, Soviet theoreticians on the French Defence are entirely absent, and these would be from Botvinnik, Konstantinopolsky, Belavenets, Rauzer and Kan.

Similarly the Queen's Gambit and Indian defenses lacks mention of Levenfish, Bondarevsky, Ragozin, Makogonov &c.

Now - the thing of it is, although these became a plaint by Soviet chess propagandists on the worth of Western chess literature about the poverty of its researches, it was nevertheless not a naive elimination - it was a deliberated one on the part of the Soviets not to share information.

This situation continued until approximately 1961, and even then Soviet publications on chess were hardly candid - suggesting some dead-end lines, while ignoring ones with more prospect.  The infamous forward to The Soviet School of Chess, Kotov and Yudovich, even warns the reader both about the Soviet political spin, but also that the variations in the book are ‘spun.’

REAL STATURE OF FISCHER

If anyone really wants to comprehend the real stature of the chess-art of Robert James Fischer - then they must appreciate this fact, that to very large degree Western chess literature was hardly sustainable at GM first-tier levels.

Perforce, when more Soviets began to play in the West the cat was out of the bag, and Western players were stimulated to look much deeper, indeed, to look directly at the Russian literature on chess. Not even the main journals, but those obscure little technical bulletins, signaling, for internal use, that there was something worth exploring.

This stimulus to investigate in the 60's and 70s, brought about perhaps not as high scoring Elo's as today, but arguably a necessarily greater level of creative play than current era players achieve.

Rare Chess Pictures:

Out of the (Blue) Bag

After last week’s April fool’s ‘episode’ in collusion with Paul Truong and Susan Polgar, I hesitate to report something he told me some time ago – but its true!  He said that Susan Polgar had also played Deep Blue.

“But you can’t talk about it,” he said.

“O!  Thank you very much!”  I replied tartly.

Anyway, I asked after her results, and he laughed and said ‘quite good.’

I see that the Susan Polgar Blogspot has now mentioned some of the facts, therefore, so can I, and here is the proof.  Looks like she is exercising her favorite Colle-Zukertort.

Perhaps one day we will learn the result of the games and even see the game scores?  I wonder if she did better than Garry?

And finally of all:

‘of the players, for the players’ is Chessville’s official motto.

The unofficial one is ‘it takes a [Chess] Village to raise a Patzer.’

If you too would like to support our game, via Chessville’s global village, then write to this Parrot, and indicate if your interest for a few hours per week is editorial, working with our Senior Editor, or infra-structural support, working with the Publisher.

As for columnists, the Parrot would like to hear from chess writers in India and China about representing chess in their respective countries by publishing here at Chessville. I understand that Chinese access to western web-sites seems to come and go, and welcome reader’s comments on these initiatives which would engage 3/5ths of the world’s population.

3-29-2008

Best Chess Book Ever?

Of course these things are intensely personal, but having encountered Bob Long last week, I thought I should mention he published my personal favorite.  An indication of the range of the book is its index; so that in ‘D’ you have, da Vinci, De Jong de Sade, Dickinson, E, Domanski, Donins, Donner, J, Dostoyevski, Dryden, Dunne, A, Eckert, Einstein, A, Ek.

For ‘K’, Kacian, Kafka, Karch, Karpov, Kasparov, Kavalek, Keene, Keres, Keynes, J, Khayyam, Kierkegaard, Kilmmre, King Paramount, Kipling, R, Kirc, Kito, Klovan, Kmoch, Knaack, Kopec, Kord, Kotov.

Here is a book by a 2400-rated correspondence player which is not just about chess – although its games are adventurous, varied, well-informed, and presented with an almost unequal wit, indeed, sometimes they are Suttle! – no, this is a book about a feeling intellect who chucks in often self-deprecating and wry comments by such as Dostoyevski and Kafka as the games progress.

This is a book about chess playing by someone who loves the game.

Some overall sense of it is its rara avis honesty about how the player sees the game during its progression, which is formally rendered every dozen moves or so by his sense of his estimate of chances to win, draw or lose, measured as percentages.

No simple précis of this kind can do this book justice, but what I want to know from Bob Long in our interview is how this book came about; which parts of it are purely “Mr. G” and which himself. And why, why, why, there is so much junk in print about chess, and why, why, why, we do not see more of this quality of chess title as is Journal of a Chess Master.

Rare Chess Pictures:

Stephan "Mr. G" Gerzadowicz

Stephan spent his first 53 years in rural Massachusetts where he ran nine marathons, wrote five books, and became a Correspondence Chess Master.  He played in five USCF Absolute Championships and one USCCC.  He has ranked as high as #10 on the USCF Top-50 List.

He has been president of both the Massachusetts and the New England Chess Associations.  While in Massachusetts he inspected snow storms and rain storms and otherwise emulated Henry David Thoreau.

In 1998, Stephan relocated to Princeton, NJ.  There he taught chess as part of the regular curriculum in a small elementary school, his students winning numerous New Jersey Scholastic Championships.

"Mr. G" left Princeton after three schools years there.  Since then he has lived and taught in New York, Florida, Tennessee and Texas.  He has been a tournament director at The Denker Tournament of High School Champions, The U. S. Blind Championship, the Tennessee Open Championship, and the Final Four of College Chess.

One More Thing:  Or, as President Clinton used to say, ‘and finally of all.’ Thanks to you people who are pitching in to help us produce Chessville – we still have a couple of slots open for those who can afford a few hours per week, some infrastructural and some editorial. write to TheParrot if you are interested.

Recently volunteers have helped with marketing, and also re-formatting our chess town – results viewable soon!  I’m not really sure Chessville has a mission statement, [actually we do, but its one of those pompous sounding things made up by the publisher in case Bill Gates chances by] but our motto is ‘Of the Players, For the Players.’

3-22-2008

Drugs in the Rugs.  EPO’s and Elo’s.

You think drug testing in chess is nutz?  What about in Billiards?  Associated Press Reported: DUESSELDORF, Germany (AP) - Germany's first case of doping in billiards was announced Monday after national champion Axel Buescher tested positive for an EPO masking agent.  Buescher's positive test came at November's German championships, where he captured the carom billiards title, the German Billiard Union said.

The Union suspended Buescher for one year and stripped him of his title after he passed on his right to have the "B" sample tested.

EPO is a blood booster most closely associated with endurance sports, such as cycling, where it has played a central role in several Tour de France scandals.

Obviously endurance is a major factor in chess, especially when playing the Guicco Pianissimo on a wet weekend in Wilkes-Barre, so will USCF sign us all up soon, in case perhaps during a scholastic tournament your daughter is suspected of taking steroids and gets caught talking EPO instead of Elo.

Officially the answer is ‘no’, but then again, USCF also objected to any of its players being tested – and when Susan Polgar was tested at the last round of the 2004 Olympiad, not a peep out of them.

Would they do it if there was Olympiad money in it?  While the board say no, previous delegates to FIDE only whisper no, or is that really a no?  Can’t tell, its all so ssssh!

Rare Chess Pictures:

3-15-2008

Keres & Botvinnik Revisited

Contemporary importance of chess history.
A public conversation with ex-Chess Life editor Larry Parr and The Parrot.

I wouldn't worry too much about the Keres-Botvinnik materials being lifted from those archives.  We chess people are simply not important enough in the perspective of Weltpolitik to merit  searching and scourging of multiple files. That takes a lot of costly manpower.

One day, possibly in our lifetime, those archives will come open.  Odds are we will then find out in some detail precisely what happened.

If true, then the content of your suggested East-West dialogue would be an exercise in refining those findings.  Moreover, when one considers the revival of Russian historiography in the post-Soviet period, the Western input would be sensibly less.

Yours, Larry

Here above is the main perspective, from Larry Parr.  I didn't read it before saying something similar by other means, in my a-to-d sequencing and deconstruction of the discussion on Keres & Botvinnik.  Mr. Parr allows the issue to remain with the primary charge, (a), and does not diverge into commentaries and reactions to them.

As I believe I said before, 'records' in any archive may themselves be sophisticated, and the Russian gentleman, a GM historian, I believe I mentioned privately certainly has the goods on the whole 9 yards of Soviet invigilation of chess, after 30 years of witnessing it, including the interesting subject of who has gone on the record, but who may not be entirely honest, being, you see, a bit culpable!

Taimanov managed to extract at least some of his /own/ KGB file.  But getting this other gent on the record about the wholesale systemic 'invigilation' is very difficult ~ and to his credit, he does not want to celebrate any scandal for its own sake.  Though, beyond scandals there is another apt point:

I think the pity of suppressing that point of view is now become clear - and less for Western benefit than for Russians themselves - with media in Russia now becoming state controlled again; did they get enough sense of themselves and the world in the interim since the Wall came down to actually experience what light and air, and living without fear [!] of social censorship, and personal psychological censorship [!] to be able to now make a choice of one thing over another?

Even though chess seems like small beer, if the relative innocence of issues in chess cannot be aired, then the fatuity of attempting more socially dynamic discussion is rather moot, no?

How sad the Russians had not understood what the Founders in the US knew the new country must do!  And which Europe had failed to achieve - you cannot have greater outward democracy, than you have inner conscience.  Without permitting the fluency of an inner state, the outer one will be similarly crabbed.  This indeed is the origin of the Idea of Free Speech, which was not to talk about what ever came into your silly head, but to speak one's conscience without fear of reprisal from the State.

Rare Chess Pictures:

Given all the hoo-hah in mainstream press about the DaVinci [?] materials, here are the two pages:

3-8-2008

Future Perspectives; USCF at the Crossroads
Nice job at USCF?

Just a little while ago a friend applied for two positions at USCF.  A past board member has seen fit to blast this personnel information all over the internet.

Now, while that my be reprehensible, and perhaps illegal on the part of the past-board member, an inquiry on the this subject to USCF’s Executive Director, Mr. Bill Hall has received no reply.

Therefore, should anyone with a current job wish to apply to USCF for a position in chess, then that person should be aware of this circumstance, since USCF are apparently not too careful about personnel material and the law of the land, nor have any apparent procedures in place which oblige current or past board members to observe it.

A message to the board two weeks ago did not receive even any acknowledgement by the Executive Director nor the President of the USCF, Mr. Bill Goichberg.

What affairs this crew dice with! Seemingly even Federal law is nothing to them, in their certainties. The Parrot called for the ex-board member, Mr. Sam Sloan who promulgated this information, to be removed from USCF membership, including his current delegate status.

Alternatively, prospective applicants should be advised in advance that their application will be public nor private.

No answer was received from anyone on the USCF board, and methinks this will be another lawsuit – for a change not between board members - but with the Feds.

I rather wonder if the gentleman who wrote the Letter of the Week would countenance this sort of in-activity in anything he thought would progress table tennis?

The Parrot understands that after forwarding this current message to the USCF board as fair notice of intended editorial comment, it reflects a majority opinion only, Susan Polgar responding strongly to resent the above and similar practices.  At time of press no other opinion has been received, even though the initial complaint is some three months old.

Rare Chess Pictures:

3-1-2008

Future Perspectives; USCF at the Crossroads

The issue for USCF is that it behaves like a private-members’ club with only the guise of promoting chess, but actually just attending to maintenance activities of existing members - utterly indistinguishable from a private-member's club.

A LOSING BATTLE

USCF's maintenance activities to members are, by large agreement, those which would demand the energies of about a dozen people in any efficient and competent private business - and incidentally most of that by tele-commuting, requiring no HQ nor mortgage. This staffing level would not reduce current services to existing members at all. But USCF employs [including contractors] twice as many people as that - which it plainly cannot afford to do, and needs to drop not just one staff position but half a dozen.

If it loses 'at least $100,000' this year [President Goichberg] then shall we think it could really be 150k or 200k, plus last year's losses? That's worth half a dozen staff salaries, just to stay afloat. And the real question has been for the past 10 years why USCF just doesn't do that - since if members don't suffer, and it floats the boat, then...

This was written before the information in the How Bad is Bad? side-bar ‘surfaced’.

A BORED BATTLE

...then, why is any board necessary to run a 12 person office of principally clerical activities in a maintenance relation to chess? Given normal competencies, that is. If USCF wanted to partner with chess promoters, by all means add an extra staff person as coordinator with chess developers to make 13, and 'do a Fide' with it, which is to take a few percent or even 10 to cover costs, or even cost-plus - but not too much!

And since not just this board, but boards for the past dozen years have failed to do anything for chess which increases any perceivable quality of chess for players, or quantity of players beyond the natural population growth of the 50,000 Fischer 'surge' 1970-1972, what do they actually do? Are we bored of these boards?

REAL WORLD, REAL PLANKS

If USCF seriously retrench, which seems an inevitable situation to confront in the next 12 months, to a dozen or so folks, sell the building, and move back all the way to where they came from, a little office down in Greenwich Village, and settle down to the relatively simple tasks of administering to the nuts and bolts activities of the maintenance in chess in the USA - then there is utterly no need for a board to decide over 'policy', since there are no policies!

Instead, a board can come into being made of real planks: to progress chess in the USA, to American mainstream media, to US Education, and to its social life. This board need have nothing other than a liason relationship with SmallTent USCF [ChessHut!] and can actually be constituted on entirely different - and entirely normal - lines.

For example, if you want big Media and you want big Education, admit appropriate people from those sectors of life to the board. This group could actually perform the tasks of assessing what is needed looking forward in the C21st, and exciting or anticipating interest from others, as well as cogently and openly operating pro-bono Caissa as a true non-profit aught. That is how the real world works, and comparison with the mish-mash of activities of the current board is simply to note how utterly hopeless and compromised they are as a group to represent us, the chess public, in forwarding chess.

PRINCIPIA, NON HOMINES

And thereby, by clarifying goals; distinguishing one thing from another, especially maintenance from promotion, right-sizing staff levels, justifying being non-profit, rather than whatever the current and more than somewhat compromised relationships are; by, in short, describing the principals and systems of how chess is to be maintained and promoted, then the cult of personality is entirely done away with and chess is re-established on sound forward-looking lines, not obscene and retrograde ones, ad homines, and in all, given a chance to work and succeed!

Rare Chess Pictures:

Second Piatigorsky Cup - 1966

Boris Spassky held off a late charge from Bobby Fischer to win the 2nd Piatigorsky Cup in Santa Monica, California.  The event took place in the Starlight Ballroom of the Miramar Hotel from July 17th to August 15th, 1966.  The prize money was twice that of the inaugural tournament and the number of participants was increased from eight to ten, with the same double round-robin format of play.  The $20,000 purse was enough to lure Fischer to the tournament, as he had previously chosen not to participate in the 1st Piatigorsky Cup in 1963.

Caption from left to right, Boris Spassky, Mr. and Mrs. Piatigorsky, Bobby Fischer.

These images are from the chess site http://www.rookhouse.com/events/piat1966.html

FINAL RESULTS

http://www.chessgraphics.net/index.htm

2-23-2008

Future Perspectives; Whither USCF?

Here is a blast from the past; a letter to the Parrot from a correspondent who recorded our conversation from 2004:

From Alekhine's Parrott; 12-5-2004

A discussion currently developing among some of the newsgroups, important enough to reprint parts of here:

"The AF4C, KCF, SPF, and many other organizations have done so much for US Chess in the past few years. In the mean time, some of these same people continue to complain, whine, insult and attack and they will never stop. Unless the current structure of the USCF is changed, the same problems will occur."  - Paul Truong

"Dear Paul Troung, today on a public newsgroup, was the first broach to any seriousness in these matters, and I repeat below an exchange with Rob Mitchell from Tennessee." - Phil Innes

Rob Mitchell (RM):  Phil, My dear friend.  I was shocked at the sheer number of 501(c)3 organizations in the US promoting chess. As I see it, there should be one coherent plan of action regarding these organizations. I do not know if that is currently the case. Does the USCF communicate or attempt to coordinate programs thorough the other organizations?

Phil Innes (PI):  I would say that there is 'theory' and then there is practice. The practice is 'no.'

RM:  If not, perhaps this is what the Russians meant.

PI:  Not only Russians, but others have commented on speed, issues of competency, and a general aliveness and receptivity to ideas.

RM:  If a strong central power were to act with vision to coordinate the disparate actions of the various organizations; perhaps the "sleeping giant" would awaken?

PI:  And here begins a potential discussion of the role of USCF in America and in World Chess.

For some time I have be writing with Kaarlo Shepel in the Netherlands who has wished to reform Fide, and also with some chess players prominent in world chess. Not simply to change the figurehead, but to examine the basis of future needs. Perhaps this may be some sort of guide to domestic arrangements of chess?

I think we have currently resolved that there are two large categories, one is Chess Management, and another is Chess Development. In the world, as in the US, these two categories are quite divorced from each other, and suffer no cohesive organization at all.

USCF is squarely in the Chess Management arena; that is, it manages ratings, certification of TDs, rule systems and arbitrations, and is the nominal point-of-contact for domestic and international event management.

All the parties to the larger discussion do not dispute the need for good management practices, however, all parties also agree that Chess Management does very little to initiate big chess programs, to support professional players, to financially sponsor chess, to support new initiatives, and in general, promote it to the larger culture. These activities are undertaken by Chess Development folks, who are more dispersed and form ad hoc groupings to achieve these goals.

A significant weakness to any better integration of affairs is one of 'ownership'. In USCF's case there is very little coordination with Chess Development, since USCF does not act to simply coordinate the management of an event, but seek to take it over, and indeed, to own it. I believe the result of this practice is that USCF currently have no sponsors at all, do not initiate or even take part in new projects, and do not attain a level of confidence by Chess Developers whereby useful conversations could take place.

That is actually something of an understatement.

Previously these sorts of comments have been met with 'send us a proposal' which <laugh> does not quite appreciate the point that Chess Developers prefer to development their own Management in preference to engaging USCF, who hadn't even admitted any interest in the subject but who seek to take it over, and who besides, think themselves to be the persons to whom others should 'submit.'

RM:  That is my hope. That is my vision. I would like to become a part of that.

PI:  I would also welcome greater national cohesion with the national chess managers. But it is no USCF policy nor practice to achieve it [!] and where elsewhere, I have talked of a strategic plan, this would certainly be a major element of any plan - some intelligent partnering.

As for Crossville as a future site, I have no objection whatever to moving from a metropolitan to a rural location [although I understand that Larry Parr and Sam Sloan do have reservations].

My objection is that the organisation seeks to make a major move, and literally cement that move in a new building, without any open discussion of what functions it will support for US chess in the future. I submit to you that the current status-quo of partnering and generally relations which USCF enjoys and practices, has almost killed it. To simply plow ahead, as if there were nothing to discuss about its future role seems absurd, and the people making these decisions are not more experienced nor 'immersed' in chess than their critics.

The current legal proceedings are so much fiddle-faddle, and essentially a red-herring. They mean nothing other than a current excitement about the scandal of the month. What about the next 60 months? Where does the organisation see itself supporting chess in America at that time, and //how// will it partner with others?

Your note is encouraging the point that a real consequence is at stake here for chess in the country, rather than a 'if you are not for us, you're against us' attitude, which has successively marginalized over the years, much of USCF's potential worth.

Rare Chess Pictures:

This week we feature some chess couples beginning with Tolstoy playing chess against an unknown opponent:

I remember playing a few games of blitz down there in the winter of 1982 against a fellow from South America.  We had been playing for perhaps half an hour when I asked him if I could buy him a cup of coffee?

"¿Qué?" he replied.  But that’s the beauty of chess; chess is a language of its own.

These images are from useful chess site http://www.chessgraphics.net/index.htm.
 

2-16-2008

A few weeks ago the natural Chessville ‘office’ conversation was to scrap the, United States Chess Federation.

Not only does it not seem to represent or partner anyone actually promoting chess, it is fatally introverted, internally contentious to the level of law-suits, lo longer follows its star – the mission statement, and also broke!

Whether a new organization emerges or USCF slims down to essentials, our conversation was to do with what functions any chess federation should provide, as well as what it should not meddle with! Three editorial types therefore came up with something like this list of essentials as the maximum scope of the organization’s functions:

1. Rating System. Staff needs; 2 people [could be outsourced]

2. A monthly print-magazine for Juniors. Staff needs; 1 person

3. A weekly on-line magazine for adults: Staff needs; 3 people, who additionally provide ‘best of’ articles for an [optionally subscribed] quarterly print publication, with a spine, and with an index.

4. Event Organizer; Junior. Staff needs; 1 person

5. Event Organizer; Senior. Staff needs; 1 person

6. Arbiter/TD to liaise on new rules and disputes, and certify new TDs. Staff needs: 1 person.

7. Accounting, Payables and Receivables: Staff needs; 2 people

8. Business Manager & Staff Coordinator: Staff Needs, 1 person

Which brings us to a grand total of 12 people.

[You might ask where the subscriptions department is, but the answer would be, subscriptions to what? Isn’t that a completely automated on-line function these days?]

Until quite recently USCF employed nearly 50 people! Since the move to Tennessee this has been radically slimmed down to about half that number, and the question really must be asked, should it be cut in half again? In terms of what members actually want, The Parrot thinks that the a-h list covers it all, and in fact these are the approximate functions currently provided by USCF.

Why then, is staffing twice the size that it needs to be?

One other question that the Chessville-3 threw around was the role of the board and ‘chess politics’. I think any reader could assess that the ‘small office’ staffing above has absolutely no need of either. So what in fact does the USCF board do, if anything?

Another way to put it, we said to ourselves, is what would be like a board to do…? but that is a tale for another day.

Rare Chess Pictures:

The caption is of Queen Isabella of Spain in whose time the first female ‘queen’ appeared on the chessboard.

Women in chess have come a long way, well…? The abysmal New York Times, February 14th, 2008, reports:

Like most chess clubs, the one at Public School 29 is composed of nearly all boys. Marlene Hochman, the coach, wants to change that and in a most unusual way: with dolls.

At a meeting Thursday, she unveiled what may be the world's first Barbie chess set. For the white pieces, Ms. Hochman, a doll collector and author of ''The Doll Hospital Directory,'' glued the heads of Barbie dolls onto the pawns and queen, and Ken onto the king. For the opposing pieces, she used Barbies with black wigs for the pawns and the doll's ''African-American friends,'' Steven and Shani, as king and queen.

''I believe with this Barbie set I can teach any girl how to play,'' said Ms. Hochman. Fortunately, no picture is available. Whether this favors the advancement of women in chess is an opinion best left to a woman!

In Pythonesque vein; now for something completely different!

Somewhat more interesting is an image from an old colleague, Chistophe Bouton, “Mato Damjanovic (né en 1927).  Joueur croate. GMI depuis 1964 Vainqueur des tournois de Kecskernet (Hongrie) 1964, Zagreb (Croatie) 1969, Bad Pyrmont (Allemagne) 1970 et Virovitica (Croatie) 1976. Wolfgang Uhlmann, (né en 1935).  Joueur allemand (RDA).  GMI depuis 1959.  Candidat au championnat du monde en 1971.  Huit fois champion de RDA.  Vainqueur de très nombreux tournois.

II perdit en quart de finale des matchs des Candidats en 1971 contre Larsen a Las Palmas (+2, -4, -3).”

The person in dark-glasses looking on is le Prince Rainier de Monaco.

Or how about this one of Fidel Castro? Or this one? of Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara

Or even this one? What is Bobby saying to Fidel?

Source

2-9-2008

A tragedy for film fans… but also for chess fans.

The much-in-the-news demise of a 24 year-old director early this week in New York City, who was making a film based on that very interesting indeed compelling script from 1983, “The Queen’s Gambit.”  I note in looking at my own copy of the book that the lead comment was by Martin Cruz Smith, author of Gorky Park:

“More beautiful than any thriller I’ve seen lately; more than that, beautifully written.”

In case there is dispute about the worth of Walter Tavis, and the hype of blurbs, he did write ‘The Color of Money’, and also ‘The Hustler.’

Chess lost something here, and the question always is; better to promote chess in mainstream media, or promote chess to mainstream education?

In this Parrot’s opinion, media leads our attention so powerfully, that – you will already know of whom I speak – and maybe appreciate what, post-Fischer, we have as a lost opportunity in making a mainline feature on chess.

Rare Chess Pictures:

Lenin playing Gorky.

2-2-2008

Who is clean, and who is not.
And will it even matter next year, since USCF is broke?

A week is a long time in chess politics.  But the past week merely seems like an extension of the first week of the current USCF’s board tenure, and again nothing happened, for chess players – but some board members did vote to eliminate the titles of others.

Stop the online distribution of free content from recent issues of Chess Life.  Bill Hall says that action to do this will occur next week.  As Mike Nolan has pointed out, why should people pay for this content if they can get it free?

The Parrot must note that the salary attributed to ChessLife OnLine is $40,000 per year, for a weekly output rather less than this Parrot column.  But that is just money – how will prospective members know anything about USCF if they have to pony up $30 or $50 to do so?  If its just $7, the questions remains – right?

I think this change has to help membership, though Bill Hall is skeptical that it will have much effect.  Unless proven otherwise, I think we should assume that the freebies may be a major factor contributing to our recent poor membership numbers…

I think we were better off at $39 and that the change to $41 has hurt membership more than expected.  All major classes of membership but...

Bill Goichberg

A note: CL-Online seems already Offline, and has had no new material since Dec 30^th, 2007.  So it seems as if a decision has already been made.

Because of these circumstances I have reviewed and slightly updated Chessville’s files on presumed cause of death:

USCF's OBITUARY NOTICE - File Copy

You reduce all other assets to leave yourself in this endgame:

Basically you sell your sole remaining asset, a building - take a mortgage on a new one which costs much more, but spend the cash balance differential on operations.

You also gaily forgive $100,000+ debt to a for-profit, then renew and extend  their contract as your sales agent - for a trading entity you previously possessed which used to turn as much as $3,000,000 a year in gross revenue.

You pay $40,000 a year salary for an on-line editor whose output is less than my own column, and whose readership is less than half of half of that.

Additionally you pay $50,000 for a site-overhaul which doesn't work, but which seems to have no performance criteria at all, and which was un-bid.  Unless I am incorrect about this, and the contract is secret, so secret we are not allowed to know if it exists.

Then you invest in huge amounts of insurance for a forum which even ex-President Redman said is entirely political - which is to say, its not about chess for members and players, its about chess by and for politicians.  You then persist with the politi-forum until a law-suit emerges over a scandal of identity where you have to obtain even more insurance and new legal fees - thus fracturing your base of further decision making, the board.

Cause of death was unclear.  The last known photograph featured the expired USCF board playing chess with one of those large sets.  Rumor has it that the organization died trying to swallow a Chess Queen [chips of dead Queen were found in its maw] but conspiracy theorists think the photo was staged.

The monument will quote the first line of USCF’s Mission Statement: USCF is a not-for-profit membership organization devoted to extending the role of chess in American society.

The Memorial Service will be held in the parking lot outside ChessHut on date ________ , and an auction of contents proceeding immediately afterwards.  Remaining friends ask that no flowers be sent, but instead send 10 bucks to anyone you can think of, who does actually promote chess.

Editor's Note:  A late-breaking development:

> _The latest nonsense by the subcommittee_

> (http://chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=741#p4377)

> (http://chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=4377#p4377) by

> _SusanPolgar_

> (http://chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=56)

> on Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:07 pm

> This email was just sent to the board by VP of Finance Randy Bauer:

> Committee members, Given the current legal issues surrounding Paul and the USCF, I make the following Committee motion and vote yes:

> I move that the Committee recommend that Paul Truong's title as Vice President Marketing and Communications be removed.

> I further move that the Committee recommend that Paul Truong be removed as liaison to any and all board or delegate appointed USCF committees.

> Randy Bauer

This was [Susan Polgar's] response:

> You have no sufficient evidence for any of these charges. After more than four months of investigation and wasting tens and thousands dollars of USCF money, you still have nothing. The evidence which was sent to Mr. Kronenberger was more than enough to show that the report had the wrong conclusion.

The board majority refused to allow our experts to examine the data for more than 4 months.

The board majority refused to investigate wrong doings by the USCF contractors and members of the board majority.

The board majority refused to investigate leaks of confidential information as well as the "unauthorized secret negotiation" between Jerry Hanken and Sam Sloan using confidential board information in the middle of a lawsuit.

The board majority refused to open up all records for independent investigation.

The USCF is losing money and we have financial problems. Instead of focusing on promoting the USCF positively to gain more members and raise much needed revenues, you want to focus on this complete garbage.

But if this is the game you want to play, you may as well vote to remove my title as Chairman as well. If this board passes this motion to remove Paul and not me, I will also step down as Chairman since I am involved in this legal situation just like all seven members of the board including you.

I will help you publicize your votes since I am sure you want all members to know about your plans. While you are at it, do you want to vote to exclude us from the board meeting tomorrow and Sunday? What is next? You cannot have a double standard unless you know something I do not.

> Susan Polgar

> The USCF members will clearly see how the board operates and why so many  members are disgusted with the USCF.

> Randy Bauer voted yes.

> Randy Hough voted yes.

> I voted no (but I may not even be allowed to vote).

> Bill Goichberg voted yes.

> (http://www.susanpolgarblog.com/)

Rare Chess Pictures:

Here is something ‘novel’.  Follow this link and review all the images yourself.  The site is intended as a free chess tutorial for kids.

'« Caissa and Kids »' is born from the encounter between myself (Michel Bruneau the "Chess-Theory" Webmaster) and the talented French Artist Etienne LEROUX from Grenoble,  Painter, Photographer and Designer.  “We started the creation of  this  Comic Strip on June-July 2007 and this piece of work is now achieved, only since two or three days (exactly on Monday, January 28, 2008).

Etienne is the author  of near 70 fine pictures (constituting the Comic Strip strictly speaking) and I am myself the Script Author. The challenge was to write a rather substantial chess learning based on a 62-Pictures Comic Strip!. It's a priori near impossible. Also, I was obliged to reinforce the Dialogue Tutorial by adding a significant number of texts, tables and diagrams.”

1-26-2008

Who is clean, and who is not, and who will ever know?

USCF were given 7 days to make their own reply to Susan Polgar’s letter, published here last week – which disputes the material published in the New York Times as being, well… untrue. Essentially the Polgar letter said; open everything up and let the members decide ‘who is clean and who is not.’

The Parrot sees that Ron Suarez has made a comment; “I really like Susan's latest suggestion regarding the total opening of all "confidential" things so that the evidence will show what matters and what doesn't. 
So, I guess there is and has been a lot of arguing and debate going on, while the chess wheels have either slowed extremely or even stopped in a lot of areas.”

In the past 7 days Chessville has requested and obtained a statement from USCF in response to GM Polgar’s letter, a somewhat predicted letter according to the Grandmaster Chairman of USCF, to which she makes a further reply.  Read all about it in this Parrot Special Report.

In other writing this past week there has been strong support for this idea of opening the doors, and letting chess players make their own assessment of things, rather than the current situation, where lawyers do. After the chess community has had a chance to read the 3 statements published here this week, then it will be time for more comment on a situation which seems to have completely frozen any chess activity or dialog in official chess circles. But enough words – read the exchanges and tell Chessville and this Parrot what you really think!

Rare Chess Pictures:

My favorite chess site for pictures continues to be Tableaux ayant pour sujet les échecs.

The picture of the week is from this site, as are both thumbnails in the Parrot’s diary.

The caption for this modern painting, is:

Nicolas Sphicas
(b 1961)
From the game Spassky-Petrossian1969
(1992)

1-19-2008

Guest Squaaawk!  By GM Susan Polgar

Liars Rule?  Following this letter received Wednesday Jan. 16th from Susan Polgar, the Parrot adds a few comments of his own.  The following was issued by the majority of the USCF Executive Board last night to the NY Times:

"In asking for Mr. Truong’s resignation, the statement did not say whether the four members agreed that he had done what Mr. Sloan claimed. Instead, the board said Mr. Truong had not cooperated with a lawyer retained by the federation."

This is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts.  Answers and evidence were submitted to the USCF attorney.  I was on the phone with the USCF attorney for a considerable length of time to discuss this matter and to answer his questions.  If additional information was needed, we should have been asked.  No one asked.  I have an email from the USCF attorney confirming that he received the evidence.  We were under the impression that everything was fine until last night after the statement has already been submitted to the NY Times.  I can clearly document the time line step by step.

I cannot discuss this matter in details due to the pending legal issues.  We followed the instructions of our attorneys, including the one who was assigned to us by the insurance company.  All evidence will come out in due time.

Lastly, there have been numerous leaks of board confidential information from the 5-member sub-committee to various unauthorized people which can severely harm this federation in many ways.  Some of the confidential information was told to Sam Sloan which can clearly effect the case for the USCF.  These are the information that only the other 5 board members and their attorneys would know.  We did not even know about it until after various stories were leaked out.

We will make an official motion to investigate this type of inappropriate actions by board members shortly.

Best wishes, Susan Polgar"

And now to what we, The Parrot, and you the chess community, think of all this, and we must think much!  Firstly, if Susan Polgar has misrepresented this issue to me, she should immediately resign from her position as Chairman of USCF.

But if she has not misrepresented the situation, and it is as she says – shall we apply the same condemnation to the USCF board, and even apply equal censure to the New York Times ‘reporting’, as it is called?
Chessville asked USCF, January 18th, two things: (1) if they wish to make an official reply in these pages, and (2) if they will do as Susan Polgar suggests, open up and allow members to make their own assessment.
What is the cost of this continued negative speculation to all parties to it?  Currently the only cost seems to be to her husband, who is much accused on much less evidence. This has been a game played out for seven months now, and no one had yet dared speculate publicly, that if, for example, what Susan Polgar claims above is true, what the motive is for – let’s say it – lying on this occasion, and before?

No curiosity and no consequences for a continued McCarthyite campaign, even unto the pages of the New York Times!  That is hardly decent, legal, honest nor truthful.

So let’s see who wants to talk about secret matters, and who is content that you, the chess player, reviews the materials and make up your own mind! USCF were given seven days to make a reply – and the result will be published right here next week.

Editor's Note:  A late breaking addition to the story, from J. Polgar:

This is a response from Bill Goichberg to a USCF member:

"Specifically, the USCF asked Paul Truong to provide, by December 7, 2007, the following:

1. Formally admit or deny, in writing, whether he was involved in the "Fake Sam Sloan" postings, or had knowledge of who made such postings; 2. Provide the IP address of all his home and work Internet connections since 2005, or provide consent for the Board to obtain and cooperate in the Board obtaining, such IP addresses from ISPs and other entities; 3. Provide all information that would support his argument that he was not located at his computer(s) at the time of alleged Fake Sam Sloan postings, to include information relating to his travel.

To date, the USCF has not received a formal response to items 1 and 2 and incomplete information relating to item 3."

The response we received to #1 was: Susan said that Paul had already written, two months before, that he was not involved in these postings.

This appears true, but is not the formal denial requested of Paul.

The response we received to #2 was: Susan said that we would receive an answer after the Sloan lawsuit was resolved. This was quite unhelpful, especially as one of the reasons we needed a response was to help us defend the Sloan lawsuit.

- Bill Goichberg

This is my [Susan Polgar] response:

This is another blatant misrepresentation of the facts. This was Paul's exact quote, the same which was sent to the board and lawyer:

"Do I know who did it? Absolutely no. Did I have anything to do with it? Absolutely no."

Can this be any clearer? If they wanted it in a different format, they should have officially informed or explained it to us.

As for #2, both Paul and I asked the board not to include Bill Goichberg in the sub-committee at the last board meeting in Crossville. I am sure that it is on the tape in one of the sessions.

Things would have gone a lot smoother and faster if Bill is not in the sub-committee. The reason is clear. Since there are a lot of potential legal issues involved in a number of possible cases, we consider it a direct conflict of interest for Bill to have privilege information. He should not be privy to them. We told this to the entire board. In fact, we feel that a full investigation should have been made about this matter which effected many USCF members.

After the board ignored our request and went ahead to form a committee of five members AFTER we left the last board meeting in Crossville (we only knew about it after we were back in Texas), we once again asked Bill to step down from the sub-committee to expedite all matters. A sub-committee of the other 3-4 board members would have been fine. Bill and the other board members refused.

A lengthy response to #2 was given to the board and lawyer.  Unfortunately, there has been much misinformation and many false rumors circulated.

This is why I asked the board and their attorney(s) to consent to and authorize all correspondence in the confidential BINFO from August 2007 be released to the public. This should include the correspondence of all seven board members, the ED, the attorneys, and all parties relating to this case.

In addition, please grant us consent and immunity to release all information and board member correspondence and NDAs related to this case. We recommend that all confidentiality clauses are waived in order to make the case clear and in order to expedite its conclusion.  We propose to show all USCF members any evidence we have of who leaked what to whom, who made what deals under the table and for what reasons, etc. We give consent to the board and their attorneys to publish all information they have about us relating to this case.

Everyone can then decide who is clean and who is not. Why not let the USCF members decide what the facts are? The offer still stands. Now the problems are further compounded for the USCF due to the latest fiasco last Monday.

- Susan Polgar

Rare Chess Pictures:

Mir Sultan Khan (1905-1966) (lijevo, igra crnim figurama) i Theodore H. Tylor (1900-1968) (desno, igra bijelim figurama). Medju posmatracima su Sir George Thomas (1881-1972) (skroz lijevo) i Arthur J Mackenzie (1871-1949) (skroz desno).  Worcester, 1931 [below, left].  Miguel Najdorf [below, right].

• TheParrot Squaawks - 2004

• TheParrot Squaawks - 2005

• TheParrot Squaawks - 2006

• TheParrot Squaawks - 2007a

• TheParrot Squaawks - 2007b

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