Chess is my life! This is why it’s so important to me to help chess. Unfortunately for all chess lovers, the USCF has had many serious problems in recent years. I would like to help turn this federation around.
Here are some of the past major problems that need to be corrected in order for the USCF to prosper:
– Too many bad financial and business decisions
– Too many decisions made for political reasons instead of the best interests of US chess and the USCF
– Too much micromanaging of staff by the Executive Board
– Too much frivolous spending without long-term vision
– Too little effort to raise much-needed revenues to ensure the good health of this federation
– Too little focus on positive chess promotion in the United States
– Too little focus on many membership categories such as adult, collegiate, correspondence, and military chess
– Too little effort to retain our memberships, especially the scholastic members
– Too little integrity, honesty, credibility and professionalism by some board members
– Too little accountability of our board members
– Too little respect for our members, partners, supporters and sponsors
– Too little willingness to keep the USCF up with the times
The current state of our federation is not healthy! We’re losing money year after year while other chess organizations thrive. Sponsors don’t want to deal with us. Supporters are tired of our internal political destruction. Some board members have repeatedly violated the USCF code of ethics as well as the members’ trust. There is no end to this destruction in sight unless we demand positive changes by putting the most capable people in place.
Here are some of my areas of focus for the USCF if I’m elected:
– Restore respectability, integrity, credibility and professionalism to the USCF
– Reestablish a sound and balanced budget
– Develop strong cooperation and support for adult, scholastic, collegiate, correspondence and military chess
– Establish a strong professional marketing and PR system
– End the petty and destructive politics
I highly recommend three other candidates. Here are my reasons:
Paul Truong: He’s by far the most successful person in chess marketing, promotion and public relations. He can bring something to this federation that no one could in the past.
Mikhail Korenman: He has a strong record in promoting and organizing chess events. He’s a member of the USCF Scholastic Council. He’s well respected by many people, including former Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev, 7-time World Champion Anatoly Karpov, and many others.
Randy Bauer: He has had tremendous success as the budget director of the state of Iowa, dealing with a multibillion dollar budget. We need his financial expertise.
Please join me in this mission to reform the USCF. The future of the USCF is in our own hands. We cannot continue to status quo. It’s not working. It’s sinking this federation. In the upcoming months, I’ll discuss many important issues in detail at www.susanpolgar.blogspot.com and www.uschess.blogspot.com.
Thanks for your support!
Susan, we need fresh ideas and fresh blood. Schultz has been around forever and no new ideas. Sloan is a nut. Very few know who Lux, Jones or Goodall. Berry is good but too controversial. Therefore, you, Korenman, Bauer and Truong have my full support.
I agree with the last poster. I won’t vote for Don Schultz, Joe Lux, Stephen Jones, Mike Goodall or Sam Sloan.
I will vote for 4 of these candidates: Susan Polgar, Paul Truong, Jim Berry, Mikhail Korenman or Randy Bauer.
Schultz and Sloan are current board members. This board lost money. Why are they running again? Isn’t Sam Sloan a convicted criminal?
Sloan will get votes from Don Schultz, Leroy Dubeck, Hal Bogner, David Quinn, Brian Lafferty and Todd Miller.
Don Schultz has been a long time friend of Sam Sloan. It’s known that Schultz leaked info to Sloan to attack his political opponents for years. When Sloan was banned from the USCF forum, Schultz voted to reverse the penalty so Sloan can continue to attack other candidates. This has been the same old political games by Schultz for years.
NJ Player, I don’t know if it’s true or not. But it’s curious that Schultz refused to say anything bad about Sloan. Why would Schultz want someone like Sloan on the board? What kind of game is he playing? And why is he running again? Didn’t he say that he’s too old to run?
I like Schultz but it’s time to step aside and let others carry on. He’s been around too long already. Joe Lux has zero experience to be a good board member. Very few know who Stephen Jones is and he’s done nothing for chess on a national level. Goodall is another Sam Sloan, a total loser who can’t even carry a job. So what are we left with? Polgar, Berry, Korenman, Truong and Bauer.
Me too. I wish Schultz would step aside and endorse Susan and her team. He should stay focus on FIDE issues instead. Time to move on Don and give the young ones a chance.
Very powerful statement and right on the money!
You have ALL 4 of my votes.
GO SUSAN GO
Let me say this about Jim Berry. He is certainly a good guy. However and I think this is super important. I would be much happier if Jim Berry had found a corporate sponsor for the US Championship. It is nice that he and his brother donate $50,000 as a one shot deal for the tournament. However, chess needs many corporate sponsors to become professional. It really would have been better for the Berry brothers to find a corporate sponsor.
When the chess people are working on donations we are doing it the amateur way. This wonderful generous donation is the amateur way of solving a problem. What happens next year.
How many sponsors has the Berry brothers brought into chess. Probably none. None of the EB is bringing in Corporate sponsors. Susan will do that.
I am strongly in favor of Susan and her team. Jim Berry is a wonderful guy but we need to make a big jump to PROFESSIONALISM. This means we need to find a large number of big time corporate sponsors who will make long term committments.
Please do not vote for amateur solutions to long term problems.
Anyway, my vote is not for sale for a $50,000 one time donation to the US Championship. But I do think they are good people and I hope they continue to work for chess after Susan is elected. And I hope they support Susan after she is elected.
GO SUSAN GO
Jim Berry did not donate. His brother donated the $50,000. There is no mention of Jim Berry in the announcement.
Bill Goichberg making the announcement on uscf forums quote below:
The USCF Executive Board has approved a bid by Frank K. Berry to hold the Frank K. Berry US Championship May 15-23, 2007 as a 9-round Swiss at the Holiday Inn in Stillwater, Oklahoma. The vote was 3-1 with Sloan opposed and Channing and Marinello abstaining.
At least $65,000 will be available for prizes and/or player expenses; it has not yet been determined whether money towards expenses will be paid separately, or in the form of prizes to all players. Frank K. Berry has contributed $50,000 and may raise or donate more, and USCF has committed to raising or donating $15,000.
the announcement continues but does not talk about what we are discussing. The announcement ends with:
The Tournament Directors will be Frank K. Berry, Jim Berry, and Alex Relyea, all of whom are donating their services. The organizing committee consists of Frank K. Berry, Jim Berry, John Donaldson, Bill Goichberg, Bill Hall, and Jerry Hanken.
This is another inwardly-focused “fix the USCF Executive Board” platform.
The biggest problem with the USCF is that it has focused for years on the problems of the USCF (membership, its finances, etc.) The health and continuation of the USCF is not an end in itself. The USCF is supposed to be a non-profit organization that promotes chess in the United States. “Chess in the United States” and the “United States Chess Federation” are not equivalent.
Here’s a crazy idea: since focusing inwardly on itself and its own problems hasn’t done anything for the USCF and its reputation, perhaps it should try actually doing something for chess. Financial support and membership would flow to an organization that was seen as a positive force for chess in the United States. In the end, who cares about the USCF, except as a means of furthering chess in the country?
So, what are the actual issues/problems with chess (note: chess, not the USCF) in the United States, and what does Susan believe the USCF should concretely be doing about those problems/issues?
I’m fed up with people running on “fix the USCF” platforms. I don’t care about the USCF. I care about chess. I’d like to hear what Susan and her slate are going to concretely do for chess in the United States. Doesn’t Susan have any positive ideas on what the USCF should be doing for chess in America?
If she doesn’t, then my reaction to her “throw the bums out” platform is that those bums were also elected on “throw the bums out” platforms, and she hasn’t shown that she isn’t just more of the same.
Imagine the Super Bowl lost a corporate sponsor and had to look for a $50,000 donation to be held. Football might have been in that situation 100 years ago. But now it is professional. Today $50,000 might get you a group of tickets to the game.
It will be best if Susan has the votes to get things done. She can not do it all alone. Support for Susan must translate into support for her slate so she has the votes to get things done.
Susan is a wonderful Workaholic. She is a Dynamo. She always gets the job done. There are a few people like her. They just get things done.
Just look at this chess blog. This is my favorite chess site. She has done this in no time at all. For very low cost.
The uscf has a web site they have been in business for ages and have nothing on their web site. they spend money on it and have full time web person. No efficiency. They spend money and get nothing accomplished.
to the 2nd person posting here. the first person did not say he supported Berry but said that Berry was controversial.
On uscf website there is a very long thread on Oklahoma issues involving Berry.
http://www.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2048
you probably have to be registered to read the thread. However, I will try to summarize some parts of the posting that began the thread.
Apparently Oklahoma chess has bitter fighting going on. The uscf does not need more fighting. anyway. Oklahoma now has 2 chess organizations OCF and OCA. here is a quote.
>> Frank Berry refers to OCA members as “weasels” and has used the term “Swasteka” to refer to Mike Swatek on more than one occasion. No where does Jim Berry, that I could find, state an objection to the terms nor did I find anywhere he actively condoned them. >>
This is an opening statement. The discussion goes on arguing for some 5 pages. I did not read them. My feeling is that we do not need people on the EB that want to come there to argue and fight.
Apparently this fight centers around Adult chess and Scholastic chess. Apparently the scholastic came into chess and voted out the adults and took over. then the adults started their own organization.
I remember a discussion here on susan polgars about letting the parents of scholastic students vote in this coming election. Well here is a history where that backfired. The scholastic people came in and took over and then changed the rules to keep the former adults out. Then the adults started a new organization. This is not good for chess. Let us work together in unity not splitting up into warring factions.
I say vote Susan in with all her slate to give her the votes to get things done. Then I intend to hold her responsible for what she accomplishes. But if we give her the job and not the power to carry out the job then we are just part of the problem.
Susan doesn’t actually say in her platform that increasing corporate sponsorship is one of her goals.
It is there indirectly perhaps in that she says she wants to start a “professional Marketing and Public Relations department” at the USCF, and she has made it clear elsewhere that she thinks increased corporate sponsorship is a critical goal.
However, more corporate sponsorships is not in the platform. Why not? Because if it were in the platform, Susan might actually have to put forward ideas on how she is going to get corporate sponsors, or commit to getting more corporate sponsorships. In the future somebody might even look at how many corporate sponsors she had brought in. How many corporate sponsors does Susan have for her own Polgar Chess Center programs?
Her platform is silent on corporate sponsorship. But she is implicitly making the argument that the reason there are no corporate sponsors for chess in the US is that the USCF is “unprofessional”. We only have to elect Susan and her team to make the USCF more “professional” and suddenly corporate PR departments are going to start pulling out their wallets and writing checks to tournament organizers and professional chess players.
Well I don’t think so, and it isn’t even obvious to me that more corporate sponsorship of chess is all that desirable. Yes, corporate sponsorships would bring more money into chess, which would increase the income of chess professionals and businessmen.
But the vast majority of chess players, including USCF members, are not chess professionals. They are kids playing in school clubs or scholastic tournaments, or adults playing in clubs, weekend tournaments and on the Internet. In the U.S, chess is an amateur activity, almost exclusively. Why is that bad? What do the vast majority of chess players in the U.S. have to gain from corporate sponsorship of chess? Do chess players need corporate sponsorships and advertiser-supported chess programs on TV in order to have their interest in chess validated somehow?
Anyway, even assuming that increased corporate sponsorship were a good thing, I seriously doubt that the main impediment to corporate sponsorship is USCF “destructive politics” or “unprofessionalism”. It is because chess is a marginal activity in the country, and an election to the USCF Executive Board isn’t going to change that very soon, no matter what its outcome.
more from that thread on Jim Berry candidacy. Steve posts.
I think this one issue of his candidacy deserves a separate thread. When one considers his side lost the 2003 election, had subsequent efforts to overturn the election fail, failed in an ADM attempt to get the USCF to nullify his opponents, and has tried to eliminate his opposition by forcing players to take side one has to be concerned that his candidacy is not for the betterment of the USCF, but to continue the war against the OCA.
This is a legitimate question, the validity of which has been heightened by the attitude Jim and Frank Berry have shown thus far.
_________________
Steve in Tennessee
I’m tired of reading about Don Schultz and Sam Sloan. They’ve been in chess for years and they accomplished little. They also wasted a lot of money from this federation. It’s Schultz who chose to pay off Paul Hoffman, Greg Shahade and Jennifer Shahade $90,000 for the new website. Is that the best you can do for $90,000? Schultz has a pattern of wasteful spending and putting the USCF into bankruptcy. No more Don! Bow out gracefully please. Sloan, on the other hand, is a criminal and pervert. He’s an embarrassment to chess and the USCF. He should be committed to a mental institution.
On Corporate Sponsorship
Susan has brought plenty of sponsorship into chess through her Susan Polgar Foundation. No one else has any sponsorship.
Will corporate sponsorship be good for the little chess player. YOU BET.
The goal has always been to have the corporation sponsor tournaments. Then how would you like to see a million dollar prize fund that only cost you say $10 entry fee. Would that be good for chess. You bet. the tournaments will be full of people wanting to play and win those big prizes.
Right now chess is based on an amateur idea that the participants pay all costs for everything. Chess will never get anywhere that way. No wonder chess tournament play is going down hill. Not many can afford $100 entry fee plus expenses to win tiny prizes.
Bowling has a professional circuit. Sponsors hold a week long bowling tournament ending in a big prize fund. The entrants pay nominal fees. Most players have sponsors that pay expenses.
It is not fair to say that Susan can heal all the errors of a century of bad management her first day on the job. Given time she will accomplish it. But corporate sponsorship takes long term committment. A corporation usually approves funding a couple of years in advance. It might take say 3 years for a corporation to make a multi year committment. They are going to go over everything first. like check to see if people like sam are on the EB. that kills all good deals.
Lets say susan works hard on 10 good company sponsors. All of it takes time. Maybe it will take a year for a few of them to express interest. Then a year to get a plan that fits the company. then you might have to wait one to 2 years for funding.
Football laid the groundwork over say a 75 year span. We have to start the ball rolling. Right now no one has even talked about doing the job except Susan.
Susan meets many big name people. the doors open to her as World chess champ. She will definitely find corporate sponsorship. But one can not say exactly how it will all turn out in the future. That is hard to predict when no ground work has been laid and in fact everything has been so negative for chess with sam around.
I have total faith in Susan. I ask everyone to vote for her and all her slate so that chess can move out of this malaise and into the professional ranks.
This election is a no brainer.
Vote for more mess or
Vote for a New Beginning.
I vote for the New Beginning.
here is a posting by Frank Berry himself in that thread. He is at war for sure. They refuse to send their newsletter to members who have anything to do with the other organization. they call it their choice.
here is the quote:
If you knew the whole story about how the old guard had re-vitalized the state chapter affiliate then this new group comes in with voting kids to kick us out you might agree that:
1. It’s demeaning to the weasel animals to compare them to the OCA.
2. If people make a choice not to receive the quarterly then that’s their choice and you can’t make them read it.
3. see # 1 … above. Thank you for your concern, Frank K. Berry
I think I am like most chess players in saying that a once per year week-long tournament on the other side of the country with thousands of players, a “million dollar prize fund”, and a $10 entry fee underwritten by corporate sponsors is financially only marginally different than the same thing with $100 entry fee and no corporate sponsors.
If the only difference the corporate sponsorship makes is a savings of $90 on the entry fee, I’m not impressed because I’ll be going to tournaments like that only once every few years, if that. The travel costs and the time commitment are more important factors for that once-per-year tournament than the entry fee.
Besides, chess life revolves around the local weekend tournaments and clubs, not the big-money once-every-few-years mass tournaments hundreds of miles away.
And I’m not interested at all in making chess another vehicle for corporate marketing. I don’t like the trend towards higher and higher entry fees in order to support bigger prize funds for the top players and the sandbaggers. But corporate sponsorships aren’t necessary to reduce entry fees. Just smaller prize funds.
It seems the argument goes like this:
(1) Top players will only play for big money.
(2) Everybody wants to play in a tournament with top players, even if they aren’t good enough to play against the top players themselves.
(3) Therefore, you have to play in a tournament with a big prize fund.
(4) The prize fund must come from either the entrants or sponsors, and if there aren’t any sponsors, the prize fund must be provided by the entrants.
(5) Therefore entry fees must be high; that is, regular players have to pay the top players to play in the same tournaments.
The way out of this is deemed to be corporate sponsors. But there is another way out: disappoint the top players who will only play for big money. Too bad for them. Maybe the tournaments would be better off without players in it only for the prizes. Where did the idea get started that playing chess ought to pay? It’s a game and most people play it for fun.
In other threads on this blog, we have people carping about “only” $50,000 being raised for the U.S. Championship, and that this isn’t enough to get top players to compete. If the title of U.S. Champion, plus expense money, isn’t enough to get top Americans to compete in the US Championship, I don’t see why that is a problem making it necessary to turn the championship over to corporate marketing types. If the pro players don’t want to compete for that title, then it becomes an amateur title. How is that bad?
If somebody thinks that there is money to be made from playing chess professionally with corporate sponsorships, TV contracts, etc, let him start a professional chess league, or whatever, and attract sponsors and an audience.
But I don’t see that it should be a major goal of the USCF, a non-profit organization with mainly amateurs as members, to make chess a professional sport in the US with big-money tournaments, corporate sponsors, advertising, and TV contracts.
I’m very disappointed in Don Schultz for protecting Sam Sloan and refusing to speak out against him. For this reason, I can’t vote for Don. He could have been a good member. But now he’s part of the problems.
He’s part of the problem simply because he won’t join the mob in attacking Sloan?
His remaining indifferent makes him an enemy somehow?
Is it possible that you are being somewhat irrational and over-reacting?
I apologized for some of these outrageous posts. They came from Mr. Sam Sloan and his supporters. They know that he has no chance to win. Therefore, the best strategy for them is to lie and hijack threads. They will all be deleted. The posting IPs matched the same few people.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.PolgarChess.com
As a business man I think posting contracts is a fools game. who has allowed sam sloan to make a fool of USCF again. this is going to do great harm to uscf. what are corporations going to think when they find out contracts of USCF are publicly posted on the internet.
People when they sign contracts expect them to remain private between the signers.
Get rid of Sam Sloan. like most Trolls ignore him. He is a troll of the first order and people are allowing him to make fools of everyone.
The only way to handle trolls is to ignore them.
I can not believe that you allow sam sloan to blow the AF4C sponsors and now you continue to kiss up to him and do what he wants by posting official contracts on the internet publicly. at least if it was published in this restricted forum only members would have access. Now who knows who will make copies and what the results will be in the future.
I am floored by this insanity. total insanity. crazy. what is happening here. who is in charge. it seems sam sloan runs the place. sam does what he wants and everyone watches him destroy the place. get rid of sam immediately.
The uscf can not sustain any more insanity and survive.
Professional Chess
Support Susan Polgar for electioin.
Get rid of the amateurs that are ruining USCF and chess.
Your heart is in the right place. Presentation suggestions :
(1) a short list is better than a long list (last items might not be read or heard).
(2) politics/polls : emphasis on what the voters care about most. Then relate to your quals/experience.
Good Luck!
I would vote for you
Anonymous Frank
“Too little focus on many membership categories such as adult, collegiate, correspondence, and military chess”
military chess??
Why should or shouldn’t I(adult male)join the USCF? tia
An interesting commentary by the Oklahoma USCF State Chapter President and Delegate Chuck Unruh about candidate Jim Berry is HERE, with lots of other mentions in the same forum. Additional information is available on the OK State Chapter website HERE
Hi Susan!
First my kudos to you for not only putting up this blog, but for all of your contributions to the game of chess over the years, along with your 2 other sisters.
To the anonymous poster above who questioned the wisdom of making chess a “professional sport” by bringing in corporate sponsorships:
I’ve been playing the game of chess for the past 35 years. I first started learning chess back in 1972 from my friend next door when it seemed like – at that time – the whole world (even non-chess enthusiasts) was caught up in Fischer’s infamous match with Boris Spassky.
During that time period, membership in the USCF exploded, as a lot of folks envisioned themselves as the next Bobby Fischer. Chess became a popular pastime during this period and gained a lot of national attention, which eventually led to a lot of clubs and tournaments being formed over the next 3 1/2 decades to satisfy the needs of both the serious as well as casual social player.
Prior to 1972, chess was pretty much considered to be a game for the elite socialites and those who were just downright nerds. After Bobby Fischer’s victory, chess came more into the mainstream and enabled the game to achieve more prominent status amongst the everyday common person – all this despite Bobby’s hard-line personality and controversial remarks over the years following his world championship victory, and him eventually thumbing his nose at the very game that he himself was responsible for making so popular here in the states.
Focusing on bringing corporate sponsorship into chess, thus making more prize money available to USCF rated tournaments, is definitely the answer to inceasing chess to the next level of popular acceptance, much the same way as currently exists with a major professional sport such as baseball, football or basketball. In those latter sports, millions of kids over the years have played them just for pure enjoyment and fun, mostly because they envision themselves to be the next Mickey Mantle, Julius Erving, Magic Johnson, Joe Montana, or other popular idols that have existed in these sports over the years.
Sorry for my wrong word choice above.
I mentioned that the 1972 Fischer-Spassky match was “infamous”, falsely inferring that I thought the match was bad for chess, according to the definition of that word.
I actually meant to use the term “famous”, rather than “infamous”.