Q: Will you work with Bill Goichberg, Randy Hough and Joel Channing if you’re elected?
Yes, absolutely. They have done a lot for chess and I respect them. Unfortunately, some politicians tried to divide the leadership of the USCF by spreading false rumors. I have criticized the USCF as a whole, for its inefficient structure, less than desirable results, and petty politics. These problems have gone back for decades. This election is about new direction, new vision and helping the USCF. This election is not about us versus them.
Q: Why haven’t you responded to the countless unfair and vicious attacks against you in the USCF forums and on various news groups?
Well, I can’t say that many of the comments are not hurtful or even harmful. However, for the sake of the USCF, I will bite my tongue and not respond to any of them. Otherwise, we would be back to the same problems of the USCF that I vowed to change. If I respond, they will counter with something else and we will just be going back and forth without an end result. This is how hatred and animosity started with many chess politicians in the past. I want to unite everyone and therefore, I must make that sacrifice. I will lead by strong positive examples. I just hope that the voters will understand the truth from the lies.
Q: Some people have tried to use your recent marriage against you. Why did you decide to announce it in Texas?
This is the unfortunate part about chess politics. Some chess politicians will say whatever they want without regards to the truth. What can I do about it? Some of these people should be ashamed of themselves for behaving this way.
First of all, the media in Lubbock, Texas announced my marriage a few months ago when I was there to discuss with Texas Tech officials about SPICE. Our families and probably hundreds of friends knew about it.
Secondly, I consider this my personal affair and it is none of their business. I really do not care if they feel differently. Do they even think about what they are doing to my sons who are 6 and 8 years old? Is this the price we have to pay to do good things for chess?
I married my long time best friend. My children love him. I hope that everyone could experience true love. I am very happy with my life right now and I am looking forward to doing even more for chess in the future. And these chess politicians want to politicize this? Shame on them!
Q: What do you think about the candidates in this election?
I believe there are 7 candidates with strong credentials. It is unfortunate that there is no debate or discussion about the experience and accomplishments of these candidates. I am sure many voters would like to know what each of the candidates has done for chess in the last 12, 24 or 36 months. It is easy for people to make false promises when it comes to election time. The truth lies in their real accomplishments.
Out of the 10 candidates, I see only 5-6 candidates doing many positive things for the USCF in the past 3-5 years. It is up to the voters to decide if they want to vote for people who have made a difference or the people who promise they will make a difference.
Q: Some of your opponents stated that you, Mr. Truong or Mr. Korenman do not have to be elected to help the USCF raise money or find sponsorships. What is your thought about that?
Again, people can twist things anyway they want. Their analysis is completely flawed and this is a perfect example to illustrate the reason why the USCF has very little success in this area. Imagine if someone comes to you and tell you that a Knight is worth more than a Queen in starting position. What would you think about this comment? I sometimes wonder about their motives for wanting to retain the status quo.
The bottom line is we have repeatedly offered to help. Our phones never rang once. No one from the Executive Board called us for help. We have no authority to do anything without the consent of the USCF and we do not have that consent. In fact, some board members even purposely tried to create a hostile environment for sponsors and supporters.
In addition, why would any sponsor want to deal with the USCF when we have chess politicians including board members insulting, attacking and demeaning our sponsors, supporters and members? This is precisely the reason we kept losing one sponsor after another. This is also precisely the reason why the USCF ED Bill Hall stated in the delegates’ meeting last year that the USCF was having a hard time giving away free ad space in Chess Life to corporations. Many companies do not want to associate themselves with this federation.
Let me be as blunt as possible. The USCF has a serious problem with its image and reputation. This is why I am running. I want to change this image. I want to restore the respectability, integrity, credibility and professionalism to the USCF. Without this, I cannot work miracles. No one can. The bottom line is the USCF needs a new makeover and a new direction. Without the proper professional people, nothing will change.
Each week, I will continue to publish 5 questions and answers about election issues. If there are questions you would like to ask, please feel free to post them. I will choose the 5 most relevant questions each week to respond.
Excellent answers! Thank you for being so candid!
I know what you think of Sam Sloan personally, but what do you think of his goal of increasing the USCF to 1 million members? Can it be done? What steps would it require and how long would it take? I have my own answer but wonder what yours is.
I think he is totally unfit to serve on the board of the USCF, an organization with over 40,0000 young members.
As long as Mr. Sloan is on the board, there is no need to discuss 1 million scholastic members because it will never happen. Some schools would actually pull out if they know about him.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.PolgarChess.com
Susan and Paul request that thecandidatesstate what they have done in the last 3 to 5 years for USCF. Okay, fair enough, though I think contributions over a lifetime better tell the full story What I have done in the last five yearfollows. It is of in no particular order of importance and is not complete as Ijust did a bit of rambling without consulting with notes etc.
I produced a successful chess book: Fischer, Kasparov and the Other’s
I organized one of the highest quality USA Senior Open Chess Tournaments ever held in the USA. It included a commemorative 90th birthday party for the Dean of American Chess GM Arnold Denker, a great lecture on chess history by GM Yuri Averbach, a wonderful lecture on teaching the teachers by Canadian Senor Master Roman Pelts and an International Press Conference on the state of World Chess with GM Jan Timman, FIDE Honorary President Florencio Campomanes and numerous other Chess dignitaries participating.
Together with Joel Channing and Paul Truong organized a world record breaking simultaneous exhibition by Susan Polgar.
Won a one on one chess match with my good friend chess philanthropist Dato Tan Chin Nam of Malaysia.
Begun work on a TV Chess Series titled Checkmate.
Recommended to the Cramer Committee the establishment of the Gallery of Distinguished Chess Journalists. This has been very successful supported by the Chess Journalists of America and has become the Hall of Fame for Chess Journalists.
Sought out new blood for positions of importance in US Chess. Personally responsible for bringing in Joel Channing, VP of Finance and Dan Lucas, Chess Life Editor.
Was the catalyst for reactivating the BINFO system.
I gave talks on the world of chess to various business and snior citizen organizations in Florida.
Served as Vice President of the United States Chess Federation and conferred with USCF President Bill Goichberg on key issues confronting our organization.
Represented the US Chess Federation in Bessel Kok’s attempt to unseat Kirsan Ilyumzhinov as president of FIDE. As a result of Bessel’s strong showing, FIDE Global Inc. has been formed. We will hear much more about this in the year’s ahead as they begin taking over all commercial ventures of FIDE. As a result of my help with Bessels’ campaign USCF is starting off with excellent relations with this new entity.
Saw to it that the members of the US World Youth Team had USA jackets. This has been poo-pooed as a small insignificant accomplishment. It may seem that way to many but not to those who regularly attend International competition. The jackets highlight team togetherness, Each member of our Youth team is an ambassador of our country to the international arena in which they represent us.
We have excellent scholastic coaches and I recommended a significant contribution be given to help support them. And it was.
I could list much more. Being retired I have full time to devote to the organization I love, the USCF. Some say my time has passed. To that I will answer: I work as hard as anyone and seriously doubt any volunteer puts the hours into the job that I do. I have experience and knowledge that often is invaluable in EB discussions.
I did say I did not intend to run again and changed my mind. I did that because I knew I still could contribute. Win or lose, I will still work for USCF but serving on the Board makes my promotional ventures easier and increases their chance of success. We have many strong capable candidates and if I lose I will know that I lost to a fellow supporter and lover of the USCF.
Some criticize my campaign theme; “The best is yet to come” Well as I look about all the good work, good people (10 candidates for the Board) etc. I think my campaign theme may be wrong after all. It might read: “The Best has Just Begun.” Never before have we had so many highly qualified god people fighting to lead our organization to a bright future.
Don Schultz
Susan, you mentioned that there are seven candidates that you think are qualified for the Executive Board and with whom you can work. Obviously, this includes the “Fantastic Four” that make up your team. And you’ve said before that Jim Berry is somebody you respect and can work with.
That means that there are only three candidates who you think are unqualified and with whom you would not like to work.
One of those, obviously, is Sam Sloan. Can you mention the names of the other two in this category, and, why? I don’t ask you to make negative statements about them. Just general indications as to the things that disqualify them in your eyes.
You’ve endorsed Randy Bauer and Mikhail Korenman, and they have endorsed you. Together with yourself and Paul, those are the four names you are recommending to voters, ahead of the other three names that you also like. Have Randy and Mikhail also endorsed Paul Truong, and vice-versa, so far as you know?
Finally, have any of the other candidates besides Randy and Mikhail endorsed you or Paul?
I will not mention any name. I think it is very wrong for people to personally attack each other.
There are 9 people who are productive members of the USCF. Out of the 9, there are 7 people with good credentials to be on the EB. However, out of the 7, only 5-6 have done positive things for chess in the past 3-5 years.
We do not seek or even publish endorsement from anyone, including the Chief of Staff of the Treasury Department.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.polgarchess.com
Ok, well I suppose we’ll have to guess. What about the other questions?
Have Mikhail and Randy also endorsed Paul, and vice-versa?
And who else on the Board, or among the candidates has endorsed you and/or Paul (besides Randy and Mikhail, of course)?
I just just explained to you. I am not seeking any endorsement from anyone. Neither do some other candidates.
I do not believe in endorsements. It is a political game that I do not wish to be involved with. If the members feel that I have not done enough for chess or not qualified enough to help this federation then so be it.
I simply recommended 3 individuals because I feel that they best fit the needs of the USCF now. I also explained my reasoning.
We all run on our experience, knowledge, credentials and record of success. It is up to the voters to decide who are the best candidates to serve the USCF this time.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.PolgarChess.com
OK, Susan. But, to be honest, it is sort of confusing for you to say that don’t believe in endorsements, and to adopt a kind of anti-endorsement position, when you have given so much prominence to your endorsing three other candidates, and them having endorsed you.
If you haven’t endorsed the three other candidates that you mention so frequently on this blog, and they haven’t endorsed you, then I’m kind of getting lost as to what your slate or team is, exactly.
(It isn’t too clear to me also whether the three of them have endorsed each other, but I’ll guess I should ask them.)
Maybe you should say something more like you’ve endorsed your preferred candidates and been endorsed by them, and that you aren’t seeking or giving any more endorsements.
Cheers,
Ma’am,
This is a good question in this article. It is probably wise not endorse others as you suggest.
It is nice to know that you care enough about chess to desire to improve upon the USCF as an organization that is devoted to helping people grow learning about chess. I just hope you find ways to do this that become available to you.
I see a lot of chess potential in communication advances, more efficient use of the existing resources, and improving internet chess network capability that brings people together.
Kosmiceggburst
Ma’am,
This is a good question in this article. It is probably wise not endorse others as you suggest.
It is nice to know that you care enough about chess to desire to improve upon the USCF as an organization that is devoted to helping people grow learning about chess. I just hope you find ways to do this that become available to you.
I see a lot of chess potential in communication advances, more efficient use of the existing resources, and improving internet chess network capability that brings people together.
Kosmiceggburst
Susan,
It’s unfortunate that the political climate of USCF has been poisoned for so long. However, there’s nothing inherently dishonorable about the political process. Done right, it’s one of the most honorable things possible.
I find it problematic that Messrs. Goichberg & Schultz tolerated the poisonous atmosphere when it was in their interest to do so. (Notably, Bill Goichberg declined to distance himself from Sloan after the 2005 election because Stan Booz had in his opinion been equally unconstrictive; I did not follow this logic.) I don’t think it’s fair for others to hang the same label on Messrs. Hough and Channing.
In particular, I think Joel Channing would make a fine USCF President. You would, too, but it’s good to get factions working together.
I’m not certain that Joe Lux is one of the four best-qualified candidates, but I consider him qualified.
Now this arch-liberal must go to lunch with archconservative friend….
Mr. Brock,
What qualification does Mr. Channing have to be the President? He has no experience in the International chess scene. He has no experience with scholastic chess. He has no experience with internet chess. He has very limited experience with chess in general.
What qualification does Mr. Lux have to be on the EB? Because he’s a TD? Does he have any management experience? I met Mr. Lux about a dozen times. He is a nice man but he seems clueless in many other areas. His biggest downfall is he is hot headed and very political.
He has a tight relationship with Leroy Dubeck and other politicians. That is why they got him to run. A vote for him is a vote for the agenda for Mr. Dubeck. Just look at the example of Sloan.
What do think about the slate of Lux, Jones and Schultz as recommended by President Goichberg?
Back from lunch….
Joel Channing is one of the few people on the current Board who understands how the world works. Competence in the chess world is indeed an asset; however, a proven track record in the business world even more so. (There’s been no shortage of chess folks on prior boards–their track record speaks for itself.) There always has to be a core of ppl on the board who understand chess; but project mgmt, fundraising, nonprofit (etc.) skills are essential.
While I too have a low opinion of Mr. Dubeck as a result of his current support of Sloan (just as I do of Mr. Schultz for his past use of Sloan), I would certainly not extend this low opinion to all those backed by Mr. Dubeck. Life is messy that way.
AFAIK, Mr. Lux has done nothing to support a Sloan candidacy. Were I a USCF member, I probably would not vote for Mr. Lux because I don’t find his qualifications outside of chess compelling–but that’s a judgment call for others to make. I knew Mr. Lux slightly when I was a teenager: he was honest, ethical, competent, and a decent chessplayer.
Mr. Jones strikes me as extremely well-qualified for Board membership.
Mr. Jones, Lux and Goodall have done nothing to warrant my votes. I like Mr. Schultz but I would like this federation to head to a different path. Mr. Sloan is out of the question. Therefore, I narrowed it down to 5 candidates and I’m leaning toward GM Polgar, Mr. Berry, Mr. Truong and Mr. Korenman.
Just my 2.5 cents.
Joel Channing openly admitted that he’s Don Schultz man. He’ll do anything Don says. A vote for Joel Channing is a vote for Don Schultz. Sorry but that won’t do. I hold people to their words and Don Schultz said to please not vote for him if he runs again. I will certainly accomodate his request.
I’ll vote for Polgar, Schultz, Truong and Korenman.
I like Randy Bauer. But I’m very worried about his association with Beatriz Marinello. I like Don Schultz. But I’m worried about him leaking info to Sam Sloan. Jones, Goodall, Lux and Sloan won’t get my vote. They’ve done nothing to convince me that they will be successful as board members. Jones has one big strike against him for his association with Hal Bogner. I haven’t decided but these are all serious factors.
Excluding those cases in which unethical conduct is involved, to say that X is suspect merely because s/he is associated with or supported by Y is plain silly.
Judge the candidates on their character, their accomplishments, their ability, and their platform.
It does no good to win an election and disrupt Board comity in the process. I think this thread is a healthy step in the right direction.
I like Bauer, Polgar and Truong. I have a problem deciding the 4th.
Korenman is one candidate.
Jones is a potentially good one. However, his connection with Brian Lafferty and Hal Bogner is a big ? for me. Both men have threatened to sue the USCF and its members and Jones has said nothing about this matter.
Schultz is also a potentially good one.
Lux came on the uscf forums and started to attack people including Polgar. He later apologized for getting his information wrong by Leroy Dubeck’s camp.
Berry is good but he needs to clean up Oklahoman chess.
Goodall is just as bad as Sloan.