This letter was published on Chess Today:
“Hi Alex,
Thanks again for all the work you and your team do to produce Chess Today. I very much enjoy reading it. I was struck by the reports of Nigel Short’s call for an independent committee of decent honourable people to investigate some of the various charges and counter charges of chess cheating. I was, however, even more forcibly taken by the reactions to that call, specifically the idea expressed in CT-2279 that such people are in increasingly short supply in the world of chess.
I served from 1996-1999 on the USCF’s board and was the USCF Zone President in FIDE from 2000-2002. I traveled to those meeting at my own expense, because the USCF was in dire financial straights during that time. Nevertheless, I was accused of various “dirty deals” and routinely lied about. I never experienced anything remotely like it in my professional career. It was done with a viciousness and maliciousness that transcended “politics as usual”.
I hasten to add that I met a number of decent honourable people during my time in the USCF and in FIDE. Yet, it seems to me that the environment has degenerated to the point that peopleinterested in service to organized chess are less and less likely to become involved. More and more, we are left with those whose primary aim is to manipulate the system for their own profit.
They are the only ones who would be willing to put up with such treatment. Thanks again for Chess Today. I’d much rather try to solve the “Test Yourself!” problems than those of organized chess.
All the best,
Jim Eade, USA”
AB: I always thought that chess politics is usually worse than ‘normal’ politics, which I do not hold in high esteem. Too often I saw people in chess organisations who did not achieve much elsewhere – and were busy ‘making up time’ for that in chess politics. However, unlike my colleague Mikhail Golubev, I believe that there are still many honest and admirable people in chess. I just hopethat one day they will prevail!
As you can see, there are many people who feel this way. I am not the only one. This is why so many good people walked away from sponsoring and supporting chess. They are so sick and tired of the “chess politics” as usual mentality. Some of these chess politicians would not think twice about attacking, insulting and demeaning chess sponsors and supporters for political reason.
This is also precisely why I am giving it everything I have to help the USCF by running in the upcoming USCF election. But it has not been easy. I have been the biggest target for attacks on both personal and professional level because I do not want to be affiliated with any chess political groups. I want to do good things for chess and end this destructive behavior. It has not been easy but I am so appreciative of the kind words of encouragement from many of you. We can only succeed if we work together for the common good of chess. Thank you!
What I want to know is what is Susan going to do to fix this problem if elected? Anybody can curse the darkness, but who’s going to light a single candle?
You can say she can’t do anything in USCF because she’s not elected yet. Fair enough, but how about cleaning up this place, just to show how it’s done?
On this blog, people can and do tell the most outrageous lies with impunity. Kramnik cheated, Kramnik asked Breutigam to write his article, Topalov broke into Radjabov’s room, yada, yada, yada. Very little seems to be deleted, and since people can post anonymously, there’s no way to identify and avoid the most outrageous posters. The lack of censure just encourages them to be worse.
How about making this place into a model of the way things should be, and then Susan can say that if elected she’ll do the same thing to USCF.
How is that worse than Topalov and Danilov stating that the Russian Secret Service and Putin were in cahoots to see that Topalov lost? Or that Kramnik’s moves matched those of Deep Fritz?
How is that worse that Nigel Short accusing Danilov and Topalov using hand signals to cheat a Corus?
What about when Korchnoi accused Karpov of using flavored yogurt to cheat in the Philipines?
Or when Spassky accused Fischer and the CIA of using a mind disrupting technology, causing them to dismantle the light fixtures?
Are you for censuring Topalov and Danilov? Korchnoi? Spassky? Fischer? And Nigel Short, also?
Or maybe this blog should not carry any news about those individuals for a year after they make such accusations?
For example:
XXXXX XXXXX vs. Peter Leko 0-1
Peter Svidler vs. Vassily Ivanchuk 0-1
Magnus Carlsen vs. Vishy Anand 1/2-1/2
Alexander Morozevich vs. Levon Aronian 1/2-1/2
Jim Eade came in for some criticism when he represented the USCF at FIDE because he was a strong proponent of chess’ inclusion in the Olympic Games, which would have brought IOC rules about drug-testing into chess. A lot of people didn’t agree with this.
Eade also ran afoul of Sam Sloan. Much of his complaining about “destructive” chess politics really comes down to Sloan and a couple of other people. In this, Eade’s complaining about chess politics is similar to Susan’s.
There is clearly bad blood between Sloan and Susan, and I reckon most people probably sympathize with Susan. But if the “destructive chess politics” issue comes down to “defeat Sloan”, then it would be good to say so. Besides Sloan, everybody else running satisfies the condition of not being Sloan. Susan is not unique in this regard. In fact, every USCF member except one has this particular qualification.
Susan hasn’t said who else besides Sloan is being tarred with her “destructive chess politics” brush. She leaves the impression it is everybody running except for herself and
her slate. That is not fair.
She also has not said what she will do about the “destructive chess politicians”, Sloan in particular. She seems to assume that it is not possible that *both* she and Sloan or any of the other “destructive chess politicians” might be cohabiting the USCF Executive Board. I hope she is right, but I’d be interested in hearing what she would do about Sloan. He has been plaguing the USCF for years, and even if he isn’t elected again to the USCF Executive Board, he isn’t going away. When he was torturing Jim Eade, he wasn’t on the Executive Board.
@ the 12:39 anon: “XXXXX XXXXX vs. Peter Leko 0-1”
The “non-person” approach is a bit too Soviet. From what we know now, it’s not improbable that XXXXX XXXXX 🙂 received outside help during San Luis. But that accusation is so serious that one should err on the side of assuming guiltlessness.
Back to the topic:
I’ve finally given up on USCF. I’d be delighted to be shown that my despair is misplaced, and wish Susan and all others who intend to play a constructive role the best of luck.
Sam Sloan isn’t a very savory character, but one of the reasons that people regard him as “destructive” is that he does not hesitate to publish information on his web site and in forums that puts people involved in the USCF into a negative light.
People feed Sloan information and he publishes it. Sloan doesn’t always confirm all the information that he is given, and he often finds himself back-pedaling and correcting himself. This is part of the “destructive chess politics” dynamic in the USCF.
In the case of Eade, Sloan accused him of doing back-room deals, using his position as FIDE Zonal President to pressuring USCF officials to let him sell steeply discounted USCF scholastic memberships to kids in the N. California tournaments that Eade was organizing. These deals weren’t made available to anybody else. Sloan never said where he got the information, but his source had to be someone else inside the USCF. (At the time, Sloan was an outsider.)
Getting Sloan off the Executive Board would probably be a good thing for chess in the US. But, if people hadn’t been doing sleazy back-room deals, then Sloan wouldn’t have had grist for his mill.
I find all the above postings to be very interesting reading.
I fully intend to vote for Susan and her friends. They seem to me to be the best chance for making a difference. Something has to change and Susan is the best bet that I can find.
If we have problems with Susan then we certainly would have had problems with anyone else. If Susan does not make things better then I will consider giving up on USCF also.
Susan, You are my last hope. I just know you can make a difference. No one else has come here with your energy to help chess. Just hang in there Susan. There really is no one else to vote for and you are going to win.
Then will come the scary part for you. Actually being on the EB will be different. But you can and will succeed.
>>How is that worse than Topalov and Danilov stating that the Russian Secret Service and Putin were in cahoots to see that Topalov lost? Or that Kramnik’s moves matched those of Deep Fritz?
>>
Somebody missed the point…
I agree that this site needs some cleaning up at times. Perhaps she does not babysit it as well as she should.
For starters, you can have only registered users comment in the blog. This would weed out the chaff, and make people accountable (on a very small level) to what they write.
>>Mark said…
I agree that this site needs some cleaning up at times. Perhaps she does not babysit it as well as she should.>>
Well, that’s a lot of work, so maybe there’s a way to kind of delegate part of it.
No anonymous comments would be a good first step. People tend to say any old thing if they know they won’t have to answer for it. Only posts from registered users.
Maybe some kind of rating system for posters, similar to what Google groups has. 1Any poster can give another poster a rating, of from 1-5 stars, but you’d have to give a reason to be able to rate someone 1 or 2.
Maybe a checkbox to be able to “Mark as inappropriate”, similar to what YouTube has. Susan can’t police every single post, but the ones that come back with a dozen complaints or so could get top priority.
>> The “non-person” approach is a bit too Soviet. From what we know now, it’s not improbable that XXXXX XXXXX 🙂 received outside help during San Luis. But that accusation is so serious that one should err on the side of assuming guiltlessness. >>
No it is not necessary to err. If he did it then let us proclaim it to everyone. No need to be bashful about it.
Let us gather the proof so we will know the truth.
No need to err.