In the past 10 days or so, I have received over a hundred messages and email from friends, colleagues, parents, coaches and fellow bloggers urging me to recruit 2 additional strong candidates to run for the upcoming USCF Executive Board election. The election is for 3 seats.
These people want to see the integrity and reputation of the USCF restored, especially with what happened in the last election. The problem is I have no interest in chess politics. Neither are the top notch people I associate with. We all love chess but we do not love chess politics.
Can non chess politicians like me change the USCF ways? I have no tolerance for dirty, ugly and destructive behind the scene politics. I have no patience for the status quo. I detest unprofessionalism. Can the USCF really be saved? I am busy as it is now with countless chess activities. What is your opinion? Should I even consider this or should I forget about it?
Don’t run unless you are ready to find yourself dealing with politics, with all the dirt attached. As a chess mom, I’d like you to be involved in the USCF, but the only way to be good at this is to want to do it.
Don’t do it.
Don’t do it, unless you and your friends can take over the entire board. Otherwise, you’ll end up with dirt all over you. You have your critics now (I’m sometimes one of them), but at least I respect what you do even if I don’t always agree with your promotional methods. However, if you go into the politics, you may find your reputation will be damaged, and people may not even respect you.
It may also not be possible to make any worthwhile changes with just two or three honest professionals being elected to the board. You’d need a majority of honest professional people who are dedicated to putting the interests of players and chess above their own petty interests.
In the end, you have to decide if you can make a bigger difference doing what you do now, or getting into the politics. A difficult decision. Good luck with it.
–Daniel J. Andrews
Susan I am sure you will get elected. I am sure you will change things.
Sometimes our path in life is different than what we plan.
I think overall it will be good for you and for the Susan Polgar Foundation and it will be good for chess for girls and for young players. It will also be good for older players.
I am sure your children will be proud of you.
It is like becoming a world champion all over again. It is like stepping up to the plate to take on a whole new and different world. It requires you to grow with the task.
I know you can do it. I know you will be glad you did.
But the decision has to come from inside of you. It has to be your choice. You must be willing to do what it takes to succeed.
It has been the same old junk at USCF for over a lifetime. I think it will be easy for you to win.
Look at it this way Susan, If Sam Sloan can win, you can blow them all away.
If you do not want Sam Sloan on the board then get on it yourself. Take his seat away from him.
get rid of Beatrice Marinello also.
yep looks like a good idea.
It is a axiom in America that changes to governmental bodies should be changed from within. It’s part of our belief in democracy. In this case, I think thats dead wrong. The USCF is a mess and has been for a very long time. I really think change must be forced from without. I understand your fellow chess professionals being reluctant to get involved. It is even (in a way) a credit to their character. But if not them (and you) then who? The truth is the USCF needs chess professionals, and not the other way around. Who’s on the Board to re-arrange the deck chairs is irrelevant. The greatest problen for chess is that so few people play. The greatest part of THAT is that half the human race (the cuter half) has always hdad little or no interest in the game. Your work in changing this is of more value than giving the Sam Sloan’s of the world a run for their money.
Susan,
That is a tough question. Politics is the method our society uses to get things accomplished – without resorting to open conflict. When a group of people meet politics will arise. Saying you don’t want to be a politician, yet hold a public office, is akin to saying you oppose exchanging pieces in chess, or playing aggressively when you need to.
This reminds me of what Theodore Roosevelt once said: “It is easier to be a harmless dove than a wise serpent.” He was initially skeptical of politics himself but finally learned that politics are quite necessary: “Like most young men in politics, I went through various oscillations of feeling before I “found myself.” At one period I became so impressed with the virtue of complete independence that I proceeded to act on each case purely as I personally viewed it, without paying any heed to the principles and prejudices of others. The result was that I speedily and deservedly lost all power of accomplishing anything at all; and I thereby learned the invaluable lesson that in the practical activities of life no man can render the highest service unless he can act in combination with his fellows, which means a certain amount of give-and-take between him and them.”
The person who has the greatest chance of effecting change at USCF will be the best politician. If you don’t like politics that should give you pause for consideration.
Bill
Two Jewels have done more for chess in the USA than any other people or organization including the USCF(United States Chaos Federation)…..
Bobby Fischer and Susan Polgar
Please Susan, as fischer did…
Stay out of politics.
Polin.
Susan,
What is your opinion? Should I even consider this or should I forget about it?
Forget about it. People with good intentions, no matter how smart they are, no matter how right they are, usually swept away inside of such organization. Such matters are never changed from inside, rather changed from outside, EXACTLY the way you are doing it now. For you (in my opinion) it would be a waste of time, even if you succeed to make a small dent. From outside you can (and do) make a far bigger dent.
Another angle: once inside, far too many people would only know that “Oh, even Susan Polgar now part of that group. Too bad, she used to be…….”.
You know what I mean?
Some, a few would know the truth, but most wouldn’t. Just being part of them would decrease your fantastic reputation. I don’t think it worth it.
Gabor
I agree with what seems to be the majority verdict here, don’t do it. I think you are able to do far more from the outside. That’s not to say that you cannot put your considerable weight behind supporting 3 honest candidates in their efforts to be elected. Then once elected their efforts to bring about change.
The problem is I have no interest in chess politics. Neither are the top notch people I associate with. We all love chess but we do not love chess politics.
And thus the small world of chess shows how democracy can fail: when the people with the most talent refuse to get involved, thus leaving the field to the petty and the venal. This decision of course is yours, Susan, but I’d hope you’d consider running as part of a slate with the goal of kicking out the petty factions that have poisoned the organization over the last 15 years.
The question of course, is whether the USCF is worth saving. I think it is, but only if the right people run for office.
Good points by Mr. Andrews and Gabor. My gut feeling: don’t do it! “That way lies madness”.
If you said that you *really want* to run for USCF office, I might hold my nose and say “OK”. But I get the impression you are leaning against it, in which case going into politics as some kind of altruistic gesture is almost certain to lead to disappointment, unhappiness and problems.
Thank you for all your advices so far. Yes, I WANT to chess the USCF and US Chess for the better. No, I DO NOT like mudslinging and other typical political nonsense.
If I decide yes, it will be 150% like everything else I have done. If I decide no, there will be no regret.
Thank you again!
Susan Polgar
http://www.PolgarChess.com
I would go as far as you can go on your own unless there is no doubt in your mind that joining USCF would work to Chess advantage. To me you are doing well by your own initiatives. The USCF can keep being and embarrassment or learn from their debacles and your example. Eventually they might become obsolete or they might rival or surpass your own initiatives. Either way is good because it advances the field for “good” initiatives only. I personally rather have quality than quantity first; you are achieving quality, maybe they can work on the quantity. The other thing would be a compromise if you could continue with your own initiatives and also be a member of the USCF, not sure how that would work. Best of decisions to you. I enjoy your blog.
You have nothing to lose so I don’t see why not.
Susan,
I think the first thing to do is to draw up a list of what the functions of the USCF are. If they are in line with your own goals, draw up a “balance sheet” of pros & cons of joining the political battlefield. Only if this gives a “net profit”, consider becoming a politician.
To my mind, the larger part of a politician’s compensation for his effort is in monetary and power terms. I don’t think you are about that. The wielding of that power is always tainted by compromises. For the honest person that means you may achieve what you want, but you go to sleep with an uneasy conscience.
You may have more power to change the US chess scene for the better in a decision-making position.
But the variations are unclear… Running for the board is probably evaluated as “!?”, you just have to hope there will be positional compensation.
You rock either way.
Any governing body is only as good as those within in. If you are a good fit for the job and you want USCF to be a good organization, do it. If you dont want USCF to do well, dont.
You would be a GREAT ASSETT to USCF organization, but one person will not be able to defeat a political machine without encountering great resistance by those who want the status quo to perservere. I personally think Chess will benenfit better by you doing what you are doing and not getting involved directly with the USCF only on a need to basis as you do now.
Hi Susan,
Whether or not you join the USCF, or not; you are already an eminent leader in US chess and will continue to have positive impact on the game. Personally, I hope that you do get involved, I think that your influence will improve the USCF.
Sincerely,
Gregory Alexander
My feeling is that you should approach this as a process. you will get 3 votes. just place your votes. then when the next election comes up you get more people for that slate. then you will have some experience and enough votes to really run the organization.
you can delegate the top job to someone else. just see to it that the proper people are in there.
You do not have to do all the work. Learn to pick good people and delegate the work.
we dont need for you to get so involved that you are making all the minor decisions. just help get the right people elected so after 2 elections the group you put together will have the votes to run it without corruption.
Be a recruiter. You know people all over the country. Find the good ones and convince them to help chess in the usa by working on the USCF.
My guess is what you dont like about the politics is some of the day to day details. but you do not have to get involved in that. Use your leadership to find the people to run it correctly.
I know you can do it Susan. We need your help. do not listen to the negative people. Find a way to succeed never think failure.
Susan,
I think you could make a difference on the USCF board. I think you would get more people interested in voting if you ran (instead of the Tweedle Dee v Tweedle Dum we’ve had to put up with lately).
I say go for it!
My name is Peter Harris, and we have met briefly a year ago in Texas.
My opinion is that neither you nor I should run for office. It’s not that you are not qualified (or I am not qualified — I have a pretty good opinion of my talents, and yours far exceed mine), but I think USCF has such a bad reputation that people are compromised by leading it, with the exception of Bill Goichberg. It wasn’t always that way to the naked eye, but I can trace problems with USCF back into the 1970s, soon after the “Fischer boom.” I saw many scathing critiques in the pages of what was then Chess Life and Review, and some of those critics are still around (Larry Evans, Jerry Hanken).
Re another subject raised in Chess Life (almost every article by Jerry Hanken addresses this, and you yourself did in June 2005), I agree that grandmasters (both men’s and women’s) need compensation for traveling to big events and need to be treated well. But I’d expand that to include IMs, FMs, NMs and anyone seeking to push forward in chess. There are some ways to do that, but they require tremendous cash infusions. Unless you find an extremely wealthy patron who is willing to sponsor something like Lone Pine all-master tournaments, ultimately you have to rely on the so-called weekend warriors, the class-prize players. These people are almost 100% certain to have job and family obligations outside of chess, and something should be done to attract them and get their support.
If a class-level player is encouraged to work for the betterment of chess (through starting a club, organizing tournaments or assisting USCF in some way), it is better for chess than most things I see proposed. The sharp membership decline at USCF seems to me to be due to the loss of class-level players tired of hearing grandmaster complaints. That is extremely unfortunate if true; I know that I left USCF for 11 years because of it.
If I should become extremely wealthy, I will try hard to organize tournaments for grandmasters and other masters — but not yet.
As a side note, under what conditions would you yourself return to open play? How many other grandmasters and other masters might choose those same conditions? It would be interesting to find out.
— Peter Harris