Whether Chess is a sport, art or sciene, chess is a game that hundreds of millions of people around the world love, including millions in the United States. It is also an incredible activity that can help people of all ages. That is why I will do all I can to protect and promote it with passion and dignity.
That is why I vowed to restore the respectability, honesty, integrity and credibility back to the USCF and US Chess. That is also why I asked some of the most qualified and most honorable people to join me in helping the USCF. We, as a federation, can do better! We must do better! The same old status quo is no longer acceptable. The same old destructive politics must go.
I am looking forward to a much better 2007 and beyond for chess!
It is Saturday Open Forum! The forum is yours!
Susan,
You wrote:”The same old status quo is no longer acceptable. The same old destructive politics must go.”
I am sure that people inside the chess world know what you are referring to, but people who are just observing from the sideline, such as myself, may not know. Could you please provide some summary, or refer to some other place, internet link where such information could be obtained.
Thanks,
Big News on the USCF front
Disciplinary action taken. Friday the USCF announced that Sam Sloan’s posting privileges has been suspended for one week. Susan Polgar had sent the USCF Executive Board 3 public letters, the last one dated Jan 2 regarding “people who purposely post misinformation day after day.” She had complained about “lies, deceit, misinformation and personal attacks.”
USCF officials had indicated that they were working on the problem and would address these concerns at the next board meeting. Polgar had limited her appearances in the USCF forums due to the acrimony. “I will not participate in any discussion in this forum until serious actions are taken against such individual(s),” she wrote.
Sloan had ratcheted up his attacks to a fever pitch at the turn of the year. His allegations in the area of fiscal conduct alone had reached millions of dollars. He had also listed every check the USCF had issued to Susan Polgar for the last several years and had demanded an explanation for each one.
The disciplinary action was for 1 week because it was a second action. Officials indicated in the forums that future sanctions will be for more.
One quirk in this story was that the action was for publicly revealing information that was privileged to board members. This may have been a “Capone sanction”. (Al Capone was a famous crime boss who had murdered many people but was convicted on income tax evasion. Prosecutors at the time had cited the difficulty of making murder charges stick, so they used what they could to send him to prison.)
It does seem that Susan Polgar can claim a victory for her campaign to clean up US chess.
Have you seen Susan’s earlier posts? This blog has undergone some changes since it started in May, 2005. Back then Susan’s posts were mostly unaccompanied by pictures and consisted mostly about her observations on various aspects of the chess scene. Today each post has a picture and many of them only have a picture and a caption.
She’s added chess problems and news about chess competitions around the world as a staple of her blog. Her writings have become more chronicler rather than commentator. That’s why her earlier writings are so enjoyable to read, though. True, there was less chess in them but there was more Susan in them.
Someday I’d like to produce a set of “best of” links to Susan’s blog. There are many gems in there that have permanent value. In the meantime, I’d encourage Susan’s fans to go back and look over those earlier months.
Do you know what Susan’s 10 greatest chess moments were? She writes about them in this blog – somewhere. Treasure hunt. Go find it!
How about a literary contest? Who can write the best chess story? It must be exactly 6 words long, no more, no less.
Hemingway once wrote, “For sale: baby shoes, never worn.” This was his entire story and he is said to have called it his best work. So, can you write a story using only 6 words total? Recently a number of famous writers tried this for Wired Magazine.
(The link is http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/
14.11/sixword.html.)
Here are a few I liked:
A science fiction story:
TIME MACHINE REACHES FUTURE!!! … nobody there …
– Harry Harrison
A suspense thriller:
Easy. Just touch the match to
– Ursula K. Le Guin
A political story:
Bush told the truth. Hell froze.
– William Gibson
A romantic tale:
Longed for him. Got him. ####.
– Margaret Atwood
(#### = a profanity. Susan doesn’t like profanity, so I #### it out.)
I’ll try a couple:
1. e4; c5. Oh, no! What now?
Susan meets Sam. See Susan strangle.
I had posted this on the USCF forums under “A Brief Interlude” and got some really clever responses. So now I’m wondering who can do better, the USCF Curmudgeons or the Polgar Bloggars? (Grin!)
How about I post the best entries in both places? Chess writers of the world unite!
I have never posted here before but I’ve been following Robert Tanner’s case for a while because I’ve known him for about thirty years. The facts are that Robert is guilty of pumping up his rating and in my direct experience and knowledge he is not fessing up to what he did or by any means all he did. Instead, I see news articles, weakly worded reprimands and people in these forums posting messages that are attempting to explain away or distract attention from the shallow investigation of Robert’s activities. I am sickened to see that so many people have tried to cover-up for him but I am not surprised.
In my opinion, most of these people do not care one bit about Robert who is being made a scapegoat for a much larger problem. All these people
care about, is that this goes no further than Tanner. If they can
protect him, then they will be less fearful that they will be exposed
and perhaps they will feel emboldened by their own dishonesty to continue doing the sorts of things that Robert did.
Robert is and has always been an excellent tournament director. What
Robert did is commonplace among coaches who attempt to make a living
playing chess or according to Sam Sloan those who attempt to occupy political offices. I guess they figure that having a higher rating or the
master title allows them to charge more or gives them greater job
security or credibility, and this can also be important in increasing
one’s status as a tournament director. In my view, they are playing
politics with our children who deserve honest and qualified
coaches–not frauds. As for the argument that they are doing it for
their families. What about the families of legitimate players who are
honest. Tanner got a lot of money that should have gone to someone
more deserving.
The USCF only investigated the online ratings. They didn’t go back through old rating supplements or ask people from the early 1970s to the present whether Tanner was doing the same thing for that entire period of time.
My inclination, at this point is for me to expose Tanner in regards to
everything he has done as perhaps it will cast a light on the larger
problem that so many want to cover-up or perhaps an alternative would be to begin admitting that what Tanner did is commonplace
What the USCF needs to do is draft are some guidelines for using titles to obtain teaching, political or tournament director positions. For me, that would be a positive step toward the healing process that Robert referred too. Robert could make a further step by explaining what he did and to explain exactly how long he was doing it for.
I would suggest the following ethical guidelines for those who use
ratings and titles for financial gain including teachers, coaches, politicians,
authors, tournament direction or any other business endeavor.
For the case when a person claims that they are a master, the person should
(1) have a current USCF rating over 2200.
(2) have obtained the rating playing in a variety of competitions and not just among a closed group of friends or political allies
(3) played in a tournament in the last three years in which they had a
performance rating over 2200 (if they played in more than one
tournament then their average performance rating should still be over
2200).
Alternatively, a person can use the title if they are a life master
under the old rules (300 consecutive games) or are a FIDE master.
Others who claim a rating (e.g., 1900 player) need to follow similar guidelines.
Furthermore, teachers should swear to an ethics statement that attests
that they do not have a criminal history, and have never attempted to have romantic/sexual relationships with individuals under the age of 18.
If a member of the chess federation violates this policy they should be
banned for life and a letter sent to their employers explaining what a master is and what they are.
That is, the USCF needs to protect the integrity of the master title.
It’s important to the integrity of USCF and chess teaching in general.
If the USCF continues to whitewash this, the longterm result is that
the USCF will destroy the credibility of all chess players, which will in turn destroy all the good that is coming from chess in the schools programs. Robert’s apologists, those who remain silent and Robert himself need to cease and desist. This issue is far more important than their petty personal
needs or their political fortunes.
The current situation is this. A number of chess teaching gangs have been formed around the country. If your a member of the gang, you can get away with anything. If you’re not you’re not going to teach. This is the inevitable result of having little USCF oversight or input into chess teaching. The USCF needs to define quality programs and what is not quality. They should develop their own curriculum. They need to help school districts understand what a quality teacher is. The same can also apply to politics and tournament directing.
We need ethics and standards or we will descend into chaos.
We don’t need to hang Robert Tanner. What we do need is to have guidelines and standards that we actually enforce. If the USCF refuses to do that, then all the wonderful work that has come from chess teaching will go up in flames. The newspapers will begin to report on all the ‘Bobby Fischer’s” who have invaded our schools and how chessplayers cannot be trusted to teach our children.
Of course, there is also the second problem type of problem chess teacher. This is the professional school teacher that wants to make money from popular chess classes but hasn’t bothered to learn the game themself. They frequently claim that their “teaching skills” are what makes them qualified. That is, they claim they can’t teach themselves to play chess but they have teaching skills that they claim give them the ability to teach others to do something that they cannot do themselves. The USCF also needs to educate school districts about this fallacy, which of course will be very difficult because many administrators like to use their own favorite teachers just like the USCF has its own favorites.
oldtimer
Susan: I am friends with some of the board members and concering the problem child, they want him out also at the end of his one year stint! You will be a BIG POSITIVE force in USCF chess and you already are in USA chess. Professional Team is what you will bring to USCF chess. The future looks bright thanx to your efforts.
Can you list some of the people that will help you once elected to the USCF board? Do you have a list of names you’ve thought of and what skills do they bring to the table?
Gabor, Mayan and Jack,
Thanks for your comments. Here is my take. There are some very devoted board members. I consider some of them friends. As individuals, they are assets for the USCF.
The problem is each of them has a long political history, some good and some bad. The other problem is they also have political enemies.
Look at the last election. It had nothing to do with election the best or most qualified candidates. It was about revenge and getting even. The political parties hated each other so much that they were willing to campaign, endorse and vote for a convicted felon with a long destructive history for US Chess and the USCF. Why? Just to get back to other side.
I have seen a long history of voting on issues to harm the political opponents instead of for the best interest of the USCF. The level of unprofessionalism, trust and mutual respect has been virtually nil. Some of the actions and behaviors were the direct cause in losing supporters and sponsors. Sometimes they sit and not take actions because that would benefit their own political parties and harm the other. This destructive war just does not end.
I am a professional. I never attend any USCF event without a prior agreement / contract. I gave the USCF substantial discounts with only TWO conditions. I ask them to honor what they sign and keep all contracts confidential. I sometimes give discounts for various reasons. But that is not something I advertise. These chess politicians violated just about every agreement they made with me, other professionals, sponsors and supporters. They have no respect for the word confidential.
I am NOT interested in taking sides. I am NOT interest in revenge. I AM only interested in the welfare of the USCF and US Chess. Members from all chess political parties asked me to run for the board for many years. I have turned all of them down. I do not want to join any slate. I want to work with everyone. Throughout my life, people told me that some things just cannot be done. I proved them wrong. I will prove them wrong again this time.
Destructive politics WILL stop. It is time to put the most passionate and most professional people with the highest level of integrity and honesty in the positions where they can help the USCF and US Chess.
These politicians have lied about me and people who are affiliated with me. They have zero evidence to back up what they say but they continue to throw out lies to stop me from reforming the USCF. They do not want to lose their power. They have attacked me relentlessly. I have yet to respond and I will not respond. I will continue to promote and protect the USCF and US Chess.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.PolgarChess.com
If we all promote your team at our local clubs as I read someone suggested I think it is a good grass roots approach to back your team.
I sent you a news article I hope I had your email address correct.
Thank you! I saw that yesterday and I got it.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.PolgarChess.com
I am so proud of Susan. We in USA all need to be proud of Susan. I have never met Susan but I am very sharp on knowing a really good person. I think most people spot the really good people. Susan is one of them. I am so proud to be a member of USCF and to have the opportunity to partake in the positive growth of chess in USA under her guidance. I have waited for this day for some 35 years. Finally I see it coming. I am very happy that Susan is running for the executive board.
I also will make a committment to drum up votes at all the local chess clubs closer to the time of the election. I plan on visiting every chess club within driving distance at least once. I will also go to some scholastic tournaments and see if there are voters present. The parents have a great desire to see a good honest USCF support their children.
If you believe in Susan then make a pledge to visit at least one chess club to talk about the election. Every vote counts. This is going to be history making and if Susan does not win the election remember it will be because you and I did not get out the vote. So lets do it.
I am taking the pledge today. And I am asking everyone to take the pldedge to work for a better USCF for yourself and the kids and get Susan elected.
Most uscf members do not vote. we need to get them to vote. Not voting was what allowed Sam to win last time. Let us not make that same mistake this time.
I’m confused. Susan says she turned down earlier requests to run for the board because she doesn’t want to join any slate, and yet she is running as head of a slate of four people, enough to dominate the board. That seems inconsistent.
Don’t get me wrong. Although it’s premature to commit until I see the candidates, I am more or less certain I will be voting for Susan and at least one other member of her slate. I am equally certain that I will not vote for all four, because I strongly believe we are better off with no faction in control. The other thing I’m certain about is that I will not be voting for Sam Sloan.
My biggest concern with this approach is that votes will be split between all the other candidates and Sloan will still finish in the top four. If we knew who the top four candidates were, it would be possible to plan to vote for those four even if we preferred a minority candidate. Anyone have an idea on how to accomplish this? Or is this look too much like “collusion”?
In my opinion, job 1 is to make sure Sloan loses. I’d be happy with any four reasonable candidates, even if Susan isn’t one of them, as long as Sam is ousted. I suspect most of the posters on this site would agree with that, no matter how much they love Susan. Heck, Susan might even agree with that. She never ran before until Sam’s election made it clear to all that we need to go to great lengths to clean up chess.
Sorry anon, I don’t agree. If Susan doesn’t win, I’ll walk from the USCF. I’m not going to vote for the same old people who destroyed the USCF.
Susan, your team is the best in a long time. I’ll vote for you and your team.
If Don Schultz is a winner, anon has a point, because he is obviously part of the old guard. Randy Bauer, who has served in the past, is not someone I consider part of the problem, and obviously Susan agrees with that. Joe Lux has been out of it so long he doesn’t seem tainted, and Mikhail K. is new. Thus if Randy, Joe, and Mihail won but Susan didn’t, I’d still feel we did a good job of getting fresh blood on the board. I wouldn’t see any reason to leave USCF in that scenario.
But all of this is academic. I can’t imagine Susan not being the top vote-getter.
That’s not the point. The point is Susan is the best leader in the USCF history who brought the most business experienced team. Joe Lus behaves the same way as Sam Sloan on the USCF forum. Don Schultz is part of the old guard. I’ll vote for Susan and the other 3 that she asked to run.
I’m voting for Susan and her team too. I’m tired of the old guard. Changes are needed and Susan can make it happen.
Go Susan!
I would have voted for Susan, if i was living in USA!!
G.N 🙂
Norway
It’s not too late for you to move over here….
Today’s forum seems to be 100% politics. (Sigh!)
I fear from some of the posts above this one, that expectations are getting unrealistic. Susan on the Board will have only 1 vote out of 7. Would any of you willingly go into a chess endgame with 1 pawn vs. your opponent’s 6?
I submit that the proposal to deliberately vote against Susan’s choices for the other slots is very poor planning.
One may play with my metaphor and say something like Susan is a queen and a queen is a Queen while a pawn is just a pawn. Sure and a Polgar is a Polgar, too. But at the end we must come down to earth and the Executive Board must vote and then a vote is just a vote.
If we want all of those fine sentiments stated in all of those postings above to succeed, we must not only elect Susan, but we must give her a working majority, too. This means that we must not only vote for her, but we must also vote for those other candidates she asks us to vote for, too. Otherside, we are just setting ourselves up to fail. It is just as simple as that.
I agree with Jack Lemoine. Why would you vote for her and not her team? She can’t change a thing with just 1 vote. That’s not a smart move. I’ll vote for Susan and her team and I’ll campaign for Susan and her team.
I didn’t see anyone say they were going to vote against all of her other choices. I saw one person say they weren’t going to vote for all four of them. That’s hardly the same thing.
Look, I don’t mean to be such a repeat poster here, but this point is absolutely critical. It is the difference between success and failure.
Do you want to go into an endgame with an advantage in pawns or not?
In vote after vote on the Executive Board, do you want to send Susan in there with only enough strength to try to hold a draw or do you want to give her enough votes to go for the win?
Even if she sweeps all four positions in this election, she STILL will have only a one vote advantage. Remember there will STILL be 3 other EB Members, no matter how the election turns out.
This is why I am responding to the anon poster above. Sure, folks may want to just send her in down 1 vote or 2, but just like in chess, whether it’s votes or pawns, when you’re down by 1 or 2 you are fighting an uphill battle.
Readers, think what you want of me and posting too much (and Susan pls delete all of my other posts if that will help) just don’t confuse me with this point. IT IS VITAL!
We simply must give her enough end game strength to go into that Board Room and fight for the win.
P.S. If we fail to send Susan in with enough votes on the EB to push her programs through, then it will not be Susan’s fault when (not if – when) she fails; it will be ours.
I was really turned off by last year’s election results and the endless bickering on the USCF website and was really happy when I heard that Susan was running for Executive Board. I am the parent of a scholastic player and didn’t realize that scholastic memberships don’t carry voting rights so I went ahead and joined the USCF so that I could vote in the next election. I urge other chess parents to do the same. In addition to being able to vote, you will receive all 12 issues of Chess Life instead of (or in addition to) 6 issues of Chess Life for Kids. You can also take out a Family Membership which also carries voting rights and is cheaper than a separate scholastic and adult membership.
Gabor,
I will give you another incredible example. The father of one of our young talented female players Tatev Abrahamyan just passed away while accompanying her to a chess tournament in Las Vegas.
I sent her $500 and I posted about it on my blog to ask others to help her family. I did the same on the USCF forum. I was attacked because I wanted to help a young lady and her family.
She did not ask me to help. Another fellow player from California told me about it and I call her party to offer my condolences. How many of these politicians even bother to call?
The politicians made it sound like I was soliciting money for myself. This should have NEVER been an issue. It is the right thing to do. These are the kind of sick individuals that must be shown the door and away from the USCF governance. They only care about themselves and their politics instead of having compassion for a fellow chess player and a human being.
I am truly disgusted with behaviors like this. This is why I am willing to make big sacrifices to run for the board. I want to restore credibility, integrity, honesty and respectability back to the USCF and US Chess.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.PolgarChess.com
You guys say Susan Polgar got Sloan suspended. Not True!
You need to thank forum members like tanstaafl, stevetn, nemmers, and several others who I have forgotten.
That is right. Plain old regular members pressured the executive board and Mike Nolan to stop Sloan’s attacks.
This is the power of the people, and those guys have battled Sloan’s attacks point for point, and not just attacks on Susan Polgar. They have used the power of the people when most others have shrunk from Sloan’s attacks.
Sloan has been censured and now temporarily silenced because of the efforts of regular patzers, not because of famous GMs and chess politicians.
Also thank Donna Alarie who has taken the initiative to start a recall of Sloan.
Rex Arturis
Actually, when I heard about Ms. Abrahamyan’s tragedy, I thought to myself that the USCF should have a scholarship fund to help talented players who are in financial need. Does something like that exist?
Rex Arturis, thank you and please thank all those USCF members who stood up to protect the integrity of the USCF and its members.
Anon, no, the USCF has no such scholarship funds. But the Susan Polgar Foundation has programs to help.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.PolgarChess.com
Mike Nolan posted the following on the USCF forum:
“When the note was posted Thursday night, I initially removed it from the public areas of the Forums and sent a note to the Board and to Susan Polar about it.
Four members of the Board responded that they thought this was not an improper use of the Forums. Sam Sloan’s note was the sole exception. (All of these emails were not coded as confidential so they will be available on the BINFO system in a few days.)
When I talked to Bill Hall about it Friday morning, he also agreed that solicitations for charitable donations in special situations such as this should be allowed, and the post was restored to the USCF Issues Forum”.
That doesn’t sound quite consistent with Susan’s complaint about the “politicians” in this matter. It sounds like Nolan removed it, consulted the politicians, and they said this post was OK.
Mulfish
mulfish, she talked about Sam Sloan complaining about her post. Mike Nolan also complained about it. He only put it back after the board and the ED told him to do so. Even with that, he fought on but eventually restored her post.
Why didn’t Mike Nolan take such a strong stance against Sloan? Why to Susan Polgar who merely tried to help a young girl who faces a tragedy?
This was very poor judgment from Mike.
USCF Lifer
I agree with you, USCF Lifer. My only point was that it was Mike Nolan who made that judgment, and the non-Sloan politicians were on her side. I consider Nolan more of an administrator than a politician. That doesn’t mean the politician’s skirts are clean, just that this isn’t the best example.
Mike Nolan is definitely a politician. He’s a bigger politician than even some members of the board. He’s good with what he does but he’s also very political. As a moderator, he should have never taken jabs at Susan and board members. That’s just wrong.
Yet another post by me but things are happening right now and some of these comments are of the highest importance.
Rex is right. Others are doing their best under trying circumstances. I’ve gotten real active in those forums, so I know the sheer work is involved just writing the posts. The guys you mentioned do that day after day under the other side’s threats of lawsuits and whatall. I tried to keep my original USCF post brief so I didn’t mention that. Those guys deserve our deepest appreciation.
Now, Sam is defying the USCF suspension and has for all practical purposes resumed posting on the forums. Proxies are doing it for him. I do not know what kind of collusion is involved but it is hard to conclude, given the lengthy and detailed nature of Sam’s statements that have been posted today that they do not know what is involved.
While giving all due respect to the good people who are trying so hard to clean up the USCF, the situation at the end of the day remains as it was before: Susan’s question about whether the USCF will continue to allow the “lies, deceit, misinformation and personal attacks” remains very much unanswered.
Clearly if you vote for Susan you trust her to do the BEST job to improve the USCF. Therefore you trust her to know who else should be on the board to accomplish her goals and our goals.
I don’t agree that voting a straight “Polgar Party Ticket” is the right way to select the candidates you vote for. You should vote for the 4 best and most qualified candidates. That may turn out to be the same thing, but not necessarily.
Even if one (or more) of these candidates fails to win, that doesn’t mean that Susan won’t have a clear majority on a good many issues. Some of the existing EB members are good people that will make good decisions.
Even if all four candidates do get elected, they aren’t going to vote the same on every single issue. I’m sure they agree on several issues, but they all have their own views.
Hi Tanstaafl,
I really respect you because I’ve seen what you’ve done on the forums. And I also appreciate your work in defending the USCF on this blog the other day.
And yes, refer to my comment on all the good people just a couple above this. Goichberg has a track record that goes back decades. Where would American chess be today without him? And I really appreciate Joel Channing’s good humor on “Interlude” (on the forums, for you non USCF viewers). Hough, I don’t know what his handle is, so I can’t comment.
But Tanstaafl, my worldview of chess was severely shaken tonight. First, because an official USCF disciplinary action that was so urgently needed and repeatedly requested was so quickly and openly defied and second by the flip answer the moderator gave.
Now I don’t mean to make Susan Polgar and her work the ground zero of US Chess, but how can key people at the USCF be as unaware as that of this blog and that matters of the highest importance are being discussed here? How can people in such key positions of responsibility be that ignorant?
I had thought that at bottom the sentiments you expressed were right and that chess was one big, happy family. Okay, maybe not so happy – fighting and struggling, perhaps – but with an overall sense of community.
But now I know that for certain key people, that is definetly not so.
The main issue now is that the USCF has officially suspended Sam Sloan’s posting privilidges for one week but nobody knows if they are going to enforce that suspension or not. Pro-forma yes, but de-facto, who knows?
I meant what I said over there. I’m sure I’m not the only one. 3 different open letters from a World Champion to an Executive Board – that’s a lot. You have to only look at the posters above here to get an idea of the feeling – you know more than I do.
If the EB does not enforce it’s suspension and with teeth – AND THAT MEANS SANCTIONS AGAINST THOSE PEOPLE WHO WILL SERVE AS SAM SLOAN’S PROXIES DURING THE SUSPENSION PERIOD, then I must conclude – as must any rational person must – that the USCF leadership lacks credibility.
And I really don’t want to conclude that. I really want to believe the sentiments of your post, Tanstaafl – though I still believe in the necessity of supporting Polgar’s candidates. We can have an honest disagreement over that but over whether the suspension should be enforced or not, I’m afraid no honest disagreement is possible.
P.S. I regret the tone that I’ve taken at forums over the suspension issue but I regret the necessity for it even more.
What’s artichoke problem? Is he son of Sam? He sounds just as dangerous as the person he defends. Thank God people like him have no power to chess except to shoot his mouth off like a fool.
Jack Lemoine, you don’t need that person to spread the stupidity of Sam Sloan. You already have artichoke.
Let’s be civil please. As I said before, no matter how many times some people decide to lie and maliciously attack me and other good people, I will not stoop to their level. Their lies do not warrant a response. Responding to them only make things worse.
The ugly and destructive USCF politics have gone on long enought. It is time to clean things up.
Thanks!
Susan Polgar
http://www.PolgarChess.com
I am just a quiet USCF member who reads these forums out of interest in the federation. I’ve been a member since 1993 and am active in my state organization. I have even posted here a few times, but for the most part I am merely an observer.
Recently, I have been observing the many controversial posts pro and con Sam Sloan. Moreover, I look up the USCF ID numbers of each new author on the MSA pages. One trend deeply troubles me: Many of the most hostile posts are written by people who have played in a handful of tournaments since 1993. Some of few of these individuals may be active in ways other than playing in tournaments (e.g. organizing events, state governance, correspondence chess), but most are now retired from serious chess. This trend raises two questions in my mind:
1. What qualifications do people who serve little active role in chess today have to pass judgement on the future of the modern USCF? I don’t think the federation of the 1970s and 1980s is the same as today.
2. Do people who are no longer active in serious chess tournaments have less incentive to watch their mouth and, consequently, are more willing to make hostile remarks? Now that they are retired, do they have any stake against seeing the USCF crash and burn?
The federation is largely made up of young people and yet, in my humble observation, many of the (self-proclaimed) political experts are life members whose activity has dwindled since the 1980s. I dare say that the USCF is out of touch with its membership!
Moreover, the ongoing dialog between supporters and opponents of Sam Sloan is not helping one bit by scaring away any potential fresh blood. Greg Shahade has moved on. Gregory Alexander shows interest in these forums but hasn’t taken the next step. There are other young people who just haven’t stuck out their neck out for fear of hateful trash by the old-school establishment. How can we get out of this mess?
Now that I have angered nearly everyone on these forums, let me don my flame suit. I fully realize that what I just wrote is not “politically correct.” Excuse me.
Michael Aigner
Michael:
You are not just an average USCF member. You are one of the best players in the country. But I have to say that what you wrote struck a real chord with me. I am not a chess player, just the mother of a very enthusiastic scholastic chess player who plays in two to three tournaments a month. I followed the threads on the USCF issues forum for a while over the summer and had the same sense that a lot of the people involved in the controversy (particularly on the pro-Sloan side) were not particularly active in chess anymore. I also found that there was a lot of anti-scholastic bias in some of the comments. I stopped paying attention to the issues forum because I have a lot of other things to do with my life. But I did join the USCF so that I could vote in the next election and I am urging all of my chess parent friends to do the same.
Thanks for your post.
i keep hearing sam sloanes name mentioned around here. is susans problems with the uscf or sam sloane in particular. i ask this because i really dont know what has happened to cause the problems. is there no reasonable people at the uscf. what if some bad people like sloane were thrown out. could the uscf be restored or do most of the uscf need to be discarded and a completly new team be brought in to replace them.
wolverine