USCF Mission
USCF is a not-for-profit membership organization devoted to extending the role of chess in American society.
USCF promotes the study and knowledge of the game of chess, for its own sake as an art and enjoyment, but also as a means for the improvement of society.
It informs, educates, and fosters the development of players (professional and amateur) and potential players. It encourages the development of a network of institutions devoted to enhancing the growth of chess, from local clubs to state and regional associations, and it promotes chess in American schools.
Does the USCF follow its own mission? Is there a need for major positive changes or the USCF is fine the way it is right now?
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
Are you kidding? The USCF only follows the mission of Goichberg, Schultz and company. They don’t care about the USCF mission. That’s why changes are needed. No one in their right mind would send out a deplorable post card and email like Goichberg did and Schultz and company support it.
No, the USCF forgot this mission long ago. Yes, changes are needed FAST!
The USCF doesn’t follow its mission. We need to allow the professionals to lead, not the chess politicians.
There is ALWAYS a need for positive changes in the USCF. Hopefully with the USCF executive board election some positive changes can be made.
The USCF has always cut two ways.
Yes, the USCF is a not-for-profit membership organization.
The USCF’s devotion toward extending the role of chess in American society has always been questionable. In parts of this country it’s not possible for some people to play tournament chess unless they’re members of the federation. The cost of membership on top of other expenses have prevented and still prevents some people from enjoying American chess.
The USCF has never pulled out all the stops concerning the promotion of chess study and knowledge. The “secrets” of chess improvement have been hidden from the rank and file for decades. Only after the proliferation of the Internet have some of those secrets managed to trickle out to a larger number of players. This has made the higher levels of chess accessable primarily to those wealthy enough to afford private lessons. This has stifled the growth of America as a world chess power.
The USCF has not “fostered the development of players” excepting a very select few. The stongest players in this country have come here from other lands. There’s absolutely no reason that this country could not have developed its own, home-qrown crop of world-class players.
Frankly, I know of no candidates for the executive board who have shown much interest in changing any of the above.
I can recall when the Montana Open (and state championship) was a non-USCF event. I was present when Montana’s chessplayers voted to make this event a USCF event. From that date onward Montana’s 2nd strongest chessplayer (second only to Peter Lapiken) was blocked from playing the tournament chess he loved so much.
The USCF’s monopoly on tournament chess in this country has not been healthy. Either the USCF needs to drop its ($$$) membership requirements or this country needs a strong, less expensive, alternative chess organization.
I’m tired of hearing about how the nation’s top players and scholastic players (special interest groups) are treated. It’s time to also address the plight of the average adult player — a class that gets no price cuts on membership — a class that includes players of ALL income levels.
Are there any candidates that share any of these concerns? I have my ballot in hand. At present I’m leaning toward voting for two “Polgar team” individuals and two others. History has shown that monopolies, sooner or later, tend to become self-serving entities.
Anon above.
If you want to break the monopoly then it will take all 4 of the polgar team to break the present monopoly. You seem frustrated with the present situation but unwilling to vote for 4 people that it will take to change things. It will take all 4 to make the votes to make the changes.
Read that again.
It will take 4 votes of the 7 members of the EB to make a change.
Right now 4 are up for election. The other 3 are entrenched attacking Susan and Paul trying everything possible to stop her from making changes.
Vote the complete Polgar Team or sit there for 4 more years of a mess.
I am a uscf life member for 30 years and it has always been a mess. Susan is the first person to come along who wants to make some changes. Let us not miss this opportunity for positive change.
My vote is already mailed in. I voted for Susan and Paul along with Mikhail and Randy.
The old guard is fighting hard. They realize it is not easy to get 4 people elected to the EB. But we need all 4 so we can have the votes to make the changes.
I support Susan 100%. If she wants the other 3 elected then I am going to vote for them. Susan needs full support to make a difference.
I think the current USCF Board is perfect. The only improvement that could be made is adding Bobby Fischer as a director. With Bobby Fischer’s voice along side that of Sam Sloan, et.al. the USCF will finally get the headlines it craves.
Well someone has a sense of humor.
Thanks for a good laugh.
Bye the way Susan I forgot to say in the posting on the Texas Tech sponsorship that I have already voted for you and your friends.
Keep up the great work.
Jimmy
No, the USCF doesn’t follow its own mission. They follow the interest of Goichberg, Schultz and their fellow board members. This is the most unethical, most unprofessional and most incompetent board in a long time.
I think the USCF could do better at fulfilling its mission. I wouldn’t go so far as being extremely critical of Goichberg, Schultz and company, but I honestly think they could do better and that others could also do much better based on recent history.
I think at the present time, USCF needs to focus as much as possible on promotion of chess and help to bring it into the mainstream of American Live. That will take promotion, and Susan, I think you can and should be a huge part of that.
I don’t know what we do about the hatred that seems to come out in elections. People are saying things I hope they don’t believe and certainly attempting to only people who have votes. That is leaving a huge part of the USCF underserved.
Susan,
A perspective on this topic can be found at http://members.aol.com/wpraeder/purpose.htm
Regards,
Wayne Praeder
The USCF has long been dysfunctional.
The world’s wealthiest country could not even manage to send a team to the 1939, 1954, and 1956 Olympiads.
In the 1945 and 1946 matches versus the USSR, the USCF insisted on having Denker on top board, above Reshevsky and Fine, simply because he happened to be US Champion at the time (and this from a 1944 tournament that Reshevsky didn’t even participate in!). The Soviets found the situation so ridiculous that in 1946 they ‘promoted’ Smyslov to top board above Botvinnik and Keres, so that these two could play the opponents they were supposed to be playing.
In the 1960’s, ‘Chess Review’ was a brilliant magazine. About 1970, it was merged with ‘Chess Life’ under the USCF. Within a few years, it had become a horrible thing with little content. I stopped subsrcibing.
In 1986, they helped FIDE push through the absurd ruling that increased all women’s FIDE ratings by 100 points, except Susan’s. Not only was this completely unfair to Susan, but it surely also helped fuel the inflation of FIDE ratings which took off about this time.
And they’ve lost 3 big sponsorship opportunities in the last 6 months alone??
Time for a complete cleanout. Let’s be rid of these clowns and have some professional people in place who know what they’re doing, and are there for the good of chess, not themselves.
“In the 1945 and 1946 matches versus the USSR, the USCF insisted on having Denker on top board, above Reshevsky and Fine, simply because he happened to be US Champion at the time”
Are you saying that national titles are meaningless? There was no rating system at the time. What’s the point of even having a championship if the winner isn’t really the champion?
To Anonymous 8:26 AM:
No, I am not saying national titles are meaningless. But they don’t mean everything either. If the strongest players do not participate in a Championship (for whatever reason), then the winner of that event is by no means necessarily going to be the strongest player of the country. When Reshevsky did take part in the US Championship in 1946 (which occurred after the 1946 USA-USSR match), Reshevsky finished 4 points above Denker!
And there can be other reasons, such as a fluke win (which Denker’s partly was).
In 1972, Savon was a surprise winner of the Soviet Championship. But the Soviets certainly didn’t put him on top board for the 1972 Skopje Olympiad! They put him in as second reserve. (He was a disaster even there, nearly costing them first place.)
In 1970, Wade won the British Championship. The British Chess Federation didn’t even select him for the 1970 Olympiad team! This was being absurd to the other extreme. Wade should certainly have been part of this team, though not at first board. (And in fact, this was the second occasion the BCF had not selected their national champion for the Olympiad team.) The USCF is not the only incompetent outfit around!
One didn’t need a rating system to know at the time that Reshevsky and Fine were far and away the two strongest American players in the 1940’s. They were the two Americans to be selected by FIDE for the 1948 World Championship tournament. No other American, including Denker, came remotely into consideration by FIDE (or the world in general) for selection to this.
Obviously, common sense and rational assessment needs to be applied in situations like this, something which the USCF is unfortunately rather short of.