USCF Finances - A Summary

Yesterday I vetted my summary of the financial issues facing the USCF. The below is based upon what that, modified by pertinent critiques.

Appreciate the kind thoughts expressed in another thread about my summarizing the accounting issues facing the USCF.

I like the legal summary that Wick Deer put on his blog: http://wduscf.blogspot.com/
It would be nice if someone (like Jack LeMoine, for example) with an accounting background would post a summary of the financial issues facing the USCF.

Jim

Just off the top of my head are:

1) The accounting reports have improved since I saw them a couple of years ago.

2) The main problem accountingwise that the USCF faces is the inability to know how ahead or behind we are during the course of the year. However far behind we are mid-year, management always responds with first, "The second half of the year is always better" and "The auditors always make year-end accruals that could vary the bottom lines by many thousands of dollars".

3) The members badly need to know how much the average rate of increase the second half revenues are over the first half. This gives you an historical, verifiable, and measurable benchmark to project the annual result.

4) I wouldn't depend too much on comparing first half results with prior years. It is like comparing middle-game positions in a game of chess. You may have fewer pieces but still be ahead. There are other factors than just how many and what pieces you have. The same is true for comparing dollars to dollars mid-year. It is the end of the year that counts. Management is correct to point to annual results instead of interim results.

5) The problem of membership accruals at year-end needs to be addressed. I note that Mike Nolan has come out in favor of a database for this.

6) Various audit issues have been discussed at very great length on this forum. Amid all the drek, there's been some legitimate points raised. I have pointed out (see some of my earliest posts) that we have independent auditors and these issues ought to be taken up with them. I favor the Executive Board meeting with the auditors on an annual basis to discuss matters that have come up and to ask questions. Such questions could relate to findings that did not rise to the level of financial statement disclosure but that people would still be interested in knowing. (e.g. the infamous Susan Polgar laptop computer incident. Did the auditors look into this or did they not? If they did, what did they find? Another audit mystery is the documentation of the Crossville land and building valuation. Did the auditors examine them or did they not? How did they verify the valuations used?) Bill Goichberg opposed this; Randy Bauer hasn't taken a position.

7) Sevan Murdian brought up the subject of operational/internal audits about a year and a half ago. He offered his services for free and I had said I would help. Mike Nolan was right to say that these would only work if people did the work in Crossville. At this point, I'm unclear how this would help but perhaps it is worth looking into.

8) The unpaid post-employment money owed remains a critical issue. I am unsure why the USCF hasn't been sued over this. The money owed ought to be paid ASAP.

9) The invite to me to summarize the accounting issues was kindly appreciated and this was a quick and dirty response. The proper person who ought to summarize these issues is Randy Bauer, the USCF's Vice-President of Finance. Recently, we exchanged views on this forum on the matter. RB was quite adament that he no longer feels responsibility for discussing USCF Finances because of the lawsuits and because he is just a volunteer. (From his statements, I infer that he won't address USCF finances in any other manner, either, but I could be mistaken. He could still be functioning in some way. - Or not.) I believe he ought to reverse his position on this issue.

Note: After publication of the above on the USCF’s Forums, the VP-Finance broke his silence on USCF finances. His major points were:

USCF finances, through the first 8 months of the fiscal year, are remarkably on track with the budgeted amounts on the revenue side. In fact, the differences are so not material in almost every major category to be, well, remarkable.

That said, one expenditure area has a large variance from budget: professional services - i.e., legal fees. This is about $129,000 over budget.

The overall picture through 8 months has us about $246,000 ahead of budget, of which almost $400,000 is bequests. The difference between the two numbers is almost entirely additional legal fees.

Wow, that sounds like some serious mis-management. Got a blog post ready to go on that, Jack?
- Post 127870

And this:

I don't see any "accounting issues" to "clean up" - I think our current accounting processes are just fine and are now a lot more straightforward with reports developed straight out of the Peachtree accounting system.
- Post 127927

Management’s annual demurs about unknown year-end membership accruals usually comes around April and May. These accruals throw the final bottom line off by many thousands of dollars. The USCF looks to the auditors to calculate. This means that the USCF doesn’t know how it is doing until after the year is over.

Until then, the accounting is just fine. This has been management’s story for several years now.

Last Call for Feb. Chess Blog Carnival

The February Edition of the Chess Blog Carnival is just days away. Deadline for bloggers to submit their best article is February 15. Chessvine will edit and host this edition.

This is a tremendous opportunity for the chess fans to sample the best of the chess blogs that are active today. The internet contains many talented writers and analysts who are both famous and unknown. One of the exciting things about this project is that you may discover the earliest writings of one of the great players and/or pundits of the future. January saw a tremendous response. Even Susan Polgar was in on the action. Carnival articles include these categories:

• Annotated Games
• Book Reviews
• Chess Culture and Politics
• Chess Events
• Endgame Play
• Humor
• Improvement
• Opening Theory
• Position Analysis
• Strategic Concepts

Click on the logo for previous editions of the Chess Blog Carnival.

With Korenman

I'm on the left; Mikhail Korenman is on the right.
Mikhail is a candidate for the USCF Executive Board this year. I hope he wins. He's been on the Scholastic Committee and he has some great ideas.

This is another picture from last year's National High School Championships that I just discovered.

Bill Hall and Mike Mulford

That's Bill on the left and Mike on the right.
Another picture from the National High School Championship last year. Bill Hall is the Executive Director of the US Chess Federation. Mike Mulford was a friend of mine back in the 1970's. We played a match in his college dorm room in Seattle. He hired me for my first accounting job in 1983.

Mulford goes by the handle "Mulfish" in his internet chess postings. This picture was taken just after an impromptu meeting with us and Hal Bogner. Bill and Hal led Mike and me through the whole FSS/Mottershead Report scandal, how it first came to their attention and what they did. They were very nice and informative. They answered my questions as best as they were able to do, given the legal constraints that they were under.

Hal Bogner and Me

That's Hal on the left and myself on the right.
In the next few days I shall post some pictures from last year's National High School Championship. I was new to the digital camera game and I had thought that I had lost my pictures. I did find a few. Also, because I was a newbie, the date and time stamp are not reliable. I think it was on the 16th not the 14th that the picture was taken.

Hal Bogner has been active in chess for all his adult life. He was in on the ground floor of the Chessmaster computer playing program, ChessBase, the database program, General Manager of the Internet Chess Club, and currently a partner in The Chess Magnet School. We spent a great deal of time together. While we're in opposite camps as far as USCF politics goes, I don't see why he's such a bad guy.

I recommend his Chess Magnet School. Tell him Jack sent you!

Who Killed ChessUSA.Net?

As the chess world absorbed the news of the closure of ChessUSA blog, the mystery of who did it ricocheted around the chess forums like a bullet. Fingers first pointed towards the hated Susan Polgar. She said this:

I was just told that Mr. Steve Owens received a credible legal threat from an interested party in the upcoming 2009 USCF Executive Board election. I find this appalling. I do not agree with Mr. Owens’ view on many occasions but this is chess politics at its worst. This is wrong.

Best wishes,
Susan Polgar

The President of the USCF rejected this, however. He issued this statement to the USCF’s Forums:

. . . Where did Susan say it was not her? She said it was "chess politics at its worst" and "This is wrong," but where did she deny that it was her?

Remember, when Brian Lafferty asked Susan and Paul on this Forum about February 2007 if they were married to each other, their response was to ignore the question and attack Brian. Most posters saw this reaction as a "no" answer to the question, but it was not. In May it was learned that they were married in December 2006, but this info was not in the June Chess Life and had it been, Paul might not have been elected, as many voters feel it is improper for one family to control two votes (half the number of votes necessary to pass a board motion). Susan and Paul subsequently denied trying to hide their marriage, and they were apparently correct that they didn't say they were not married to each other, just gave that impression without saying so.

Bill Goichberg

This was a most serious comparison. My response to this comparison was censored off the USCF’s Forums and no further rebuttal to this has appeared on that venue by anybody else. This is what I wrote:

Bill Goichberg, in the dishonest way that has become the staple of discussion of anything Polgar by USCF’s leaders, said about Susan’s first statement that “This was wrong” did not constitute a denial and compared her statement to her earlier statement in 2007 regarding her marriage. To be honestly comparable, she would have to said her marriage was “appalling”; “it is chess politics at its worst”; and “this is wrong”. In fact, in her statement on her marriage, she only said that she found Brian Lafferty’s question rude and insulting and she refused to answer it. Reasonable people would find some degree of gap between one statement and the other.

As for Steve's case, I can’t help but wonder how Susan's lawyer would handle a case that his client had just publicly and on the record labeled “appalling” and “wrong”. I’m no lawyer, but if I had to and if I was allowed, I bet that even I could defend Steve and win!

A few minutes later, he posted this:

I didn't say that it was Susan, only that she has not denied that it was her.

"Chess politics at its worst" is not a denial. "This is wrong" is not a denial.

I suppose it could be someone else described in "This party has silenced opposition in venues under their control -- and that is their right." There aren't many who fit that description, but there might be someone else out there who operates blogs or groups on which opposition is silenced.

Following is the last post Steve made before announcing the closing of his blog. Did this post cause Polgar or Truong to threaten legal action? I don't know for sure, but see no reason to rule out the possibility.

Bill Goichberg

Here is the post BG quoted.

The inhabitants at the USCF’s Forums leapt to the conclusion that Susan and/or Paul Truong were the murderers.

Steve, in your post on ChessUSA.net you stated (1) that the people concerned are "interested parties" in the Executive Board election; and (2) that they have multiple online venues under their control in which they have also silenced opposition. Since you are using plural here ("parties", "their control", "they") we can also assume (3) that the threat comes from at least two people acting in concert and jointly controlling online venues.

In my opinion, the only people who fit this bill are Polgar and Truong. I hope you will correct me if I am drawing the wrong conclusion.

- Brian Mottershead

Since I was the one man who was at the intersection of the mystery, (partner in the deceased blog and also Moderator in Susan’s forum) I contacted Susan who replied by e-mail.

Jack,

The first I heard about this was a few hours ago from one of the USCF members who alerted me about the wild accusations and speculations which surfaced on the net. Neither Paul or I have anything to do with this and we hope that Steve would go public with this information. In fact, I encourage him to go public with it for the sake of all USCF members.

Best wishes,
Susan

I also contacted Steve Owens, the legal owner of ChessUSA. He would not give more information to me beyond what he had publicly announced.

I felt like Lieutenant Columbo of TV Fame as I asked the chess players to look at the evidence instead of leaping to conclusions. Here’s a portion of what I said.

But anyway, what’s a few facts getting in the way of all the anti-Polgar mania? Well, let’s list a few facts, anyway.

Item: Bill Goichberg’s other piece of evidence was “Steve’s” last statement on the blog before he closed it. Very clever wordplay by the USCF’s President for sure. Yes, indeedy, the anti-Polgar post quoted by Bill G was the very last one done by Steve but it was not the last one done on the blog.

Item: The last one done on the blog was done by myself!!! It was a rebuttal of the last post by Steve. That last blog post defended Susan and attacked the USCF leadership.

Item: The post Bill G gave so much weight to, contained 4 comments which he did not quote. 2 were by me, one by Donna A, and one by Steve. 2 of those 4 comments (50%) were critical of the USCF leadership (Donna and me), 1 was neutral (me), and Steve’s was anti-Polgar.

Item: Since December 1, 2008 (last 2 months) there have been a total of 13 posts. 9 were by me and 4 by Steve. 4 posts attacked the USCF leadership while only 1 post attacked Susan – the one Bill Goichberg quoted.

Item: ChessUSA should be considered a Pro-Polgar blog by a 4 to 1 ratio in the last 2 months.

Query: In earlier months the ratio changed depending upon whether Steve or myself was active. So, why would Susan suddenly launch this kind of attack just when the ratio had swung decisively in her favor?

Query: If Susan had given any attention to what was on the blog at all, which I doubt, wouldn’t a better course have been to quietly encourage me to post more on it and turn it into an even more pro-Polgar bastion than it already was? - Especially in light of Steve’s reluctance to post on it, by his own statement as well as his history?

So, if the obvious suspect did not do it, then who did? As Lieutenant Columbo might have asked, as he gazed down at the murder victim, “Who dunnit?”

ChessUSA.Net – RIP

A mysterious litigator managed to close a chess site yesterday. Though I was a partner in that site, I was not legally one, so I don’t know anything beyond what was posted there. Nor, do I know what was written that triggered the lawyer attack.

This is now the second chess site that has been attacked in as many months. In the Chess Blog Carnival on Jan. 1, I wrote this:

2008 had too many stories of governments and other official bodies censoring, punishing, and other wise taking control of the internet. Here in the chess world the internet war between Susan Polgar and the US Chess Federation begat dangers for the rest of us. First came the accusation that SP had conspired to hack into a USCF leader’s e-mail account. The USCF then used that as a pretext to commence legal attacks on her websites, ostensibly seeking the data to verify this accusation. The legal tactic was to serve papers on the internet service providers. Once the “keys to the kingdom” were turned over to the USCF, it could then use them to get the IP addresses of anybody who had ever posted anything and then go after them. (They are suing Susan, Gregory Alexander, and 10 other “John Does”.) Both defendants deny having anything to do with this.

Up to this point, the chess world can say that this is just a personal problem of Susan and Gregory. But those John Does are what concerns the rest of us. If the USCF are just targeting Susan and Gregory just because of politics, then they could target anybody. Do any of you reading this want chess politicians who may not like you, tracking your internet surfing and then use that information to embarrass you? Do any of you want to be victimized by specious lawsuits? - Just because you rubbed someone in power the wrong way?

On the other hand, the chess world should not hinder legitimate investigations into actual wrongs done on the internet. What we need is a statement from the USCF telling us what their policies, procedures, and safeguards are in this area. In the USCF’s Issues Forums I posted extensively on this and the USCF roundly rebuffed this call.

In the future, we may see other authorities in other countries who may want to target chess bloggers. Sadly, these events mean that we won’t be able to look to the chess leaders of the United States for support.

Little did I expect that the next victim would be hit so soon or that it would hit so close to home.

Polgar Misrepresentations? Answer: No.

What is the difference between a report and an attack? Here’s an example of a report.

Quote from Susan Polgar:

According to the Chief Financial Officer of the USCF Mr. Joe Nanna, the US Chess Federation under the leadership of President Bill Goichberg, Vice President Jim Berry, Vice President of Finance Randy Bauer, and Executive Director Bill Hall, lost $419,968 in the first 6 months of this fiscal year. With the $374,626 bequests, the federation still lost $45,342 year to date! There are still 6 months left in this fiscal year!

Note the factual nature of the sentence. It states that the USCF lost $419,968 in the first half of the year. Note next how the fact was sourced: “According to the Chief Financial Officer of the USCF Mr. Joe Nanna”. This is how you’re supposed to report the news. Basic Journalism 101.

Now this is an example of an attack:

In RGCP Randy Bauer notes in closing, "I'm truly saddened by Susan's attacks. They do not help US Chess." Indeed. So why is she doing it?

Now as to the issue, let’s cut through the fog. Revenues for the first half are down 9% over the first half of last year. As for projecting the second half, the correct way to do that is to take the historical average of second half gain. Not politician’s spinning; not budgets; but the historical percentage.

As for Susan’s figure $419,968 loss, this came from the reported loss through December adjusted for the special bequests.

Would that the Vice-President for Finance and the rest of Susan’s attackers respond to the substance instead of playing politics. “I’m truly saddened by Susan’s attacks.” I like this. Attack, defense, and evasion – all wrapped up into one simple sentence.

This essay first appeared in ChessUSA.Net and responds to a post there.

Quote for the Day 1/12/09

According to the Chief Financial Officer of the USCF Mr. Joe Nanna, the US Chess Federation under the leadership of President Bill Goichberg, Vice President Jim Berry, Vice President of Finance Randy Bauer, and Executive Director Bill Hall, lost $419,968 in the first 6 months of this fiscal year. With the $374,626 bequests, the federation still lost -$45,342year to date! There are still 5 months left of this fiscal year.

- Susan Polgar, in her Chess Discussion Forum.

Uh, Susan, there's 12 months in a year, not just 11.

USCF VP-Finance Deserts

Amid the fallout from the destruction of ChessUSA.Net, attention turned to the last topic on it: USCF finances.

*** UNDER CONSTRUCTION ***

Next Chess Blog Carnival 2/15/09

The next Chess Blog Carnival will be posted at Chessvine. Submit at the submit link on the picture. Deadline is February 14.

The past edition is here.

Chess Blog Carnival 1/09

For Chess Blogs and Websites, 2009 opens with both new opportunities and threatening clouds on the horizon. New opportunities include new chess discussion and networking sites; new threats include attacks on chess sites by authorities (e.g. the US Chess Federation). More on this at the end. A few housekeeping points:

1. The general rule is one article per blog but since it has been S-O-O long since the last edition, I’m allowing multiple entries. Readers be aware that the blogs showcased here have many good articles to read, even if they submitted only one article herein.
   
2. I didn’t send rejection e-mails to the many sites that submitted non-chess related material, so I’ll explain here. This Chess Carnival is devoted to the game of chess. While I appreciate your interest in other games (poker, etc.), we’re keeping the Chess Carnival focus on chess. And while I am aware that many people are sincere in their beliefs in mind-expanding drugs and I see the claims that the particular ones discussed are legal, the tie-in to chess is just too indirect for inclusion here.
   
3. If anybody wants to do another one of these chess carnivals soon, please drop me an e-mail. I’ve set up all the tools. There’s no use reinventing the wheel. You can have anything you need.
   

So, how does chess blogging look like at the beginning of 2009? Let’s check it out.

ANNOTATED GAMES
Let’s start with the grand daddy of all chess matches, and a gem of chess history courtesy of John Hillery: La Bourdonnais - McDonnell, 21st Match Game, 1834 posted at Western Chess.

From Susan Polgar’s Chess Discussion Forum come these analyses of the games from the 2008 World Championships. These positions use her chess viewer feature, so you will have to enable Java to see them.

BOOK REVIEWS
Do you want to read "How Life Imitates Chess" and Vice Versa? Read his review first and post a note and tell him Jack sent you. Jim West On Chess.

This discussion on the Best Endgame Books at the USCF Forums morphed into a general discussion of the best books for E/D players.

CHESS CULTURE
Say it ain’t so, Mark! Chess for All Ages: Some Chess Players Fib About Their Birthdays posted at Chess for All Ages.

Tom Panelas presents New York in Nine Hours posted at The Knights of Castle Kimbark. This is a tour of the chess places in NYC.

CHESS POLITICS
Naditha Amarakoon presents Chess and Drugs posted at A Chess Player's Rumblings. Don’t you just hate this topic? The blogger makes distinctions between stimulants and narcotics in the issue of how chess authorities test for them.

The larger chess world probably does not know just how bad a shape the USCF is in. There are multiple lawsuits; major chess events, such as the US Junior Championship is being botched; the USCF’s leaders are preoccupied with their feud with Susan Polgar. Chess Life, the USCF’s magazine is going down: (1) pages were cut and (2) it has been downgraded to optional status. Here’s a couple of articles I wrote:

From Chess USA, devoted mainly to US Chess Politics, here’s a dark piece on 2008 USCF Highlights. Be sure to read Steve’s comments to the essay.

From this blog, here’s Turning Point which I modestly believe is all you need to know about the USCF’s lawsuits vs. Susan Polgar and hers’ versus them. Not that there’s so much more to tell, but what has been written has been mostly false. The rest is trivial. You have better things to read than this stuff, anyway. Thus, the basis of my claim.

Though if you want to follow all the lawsuits, see John Hillery’s Nut Cases posted at Western Chess.

ENDGAME PLAY
James Stripes presents Elementary Positions posted at Chess Skills.

If you haven’t sampled one of the famous Mark Dvoretsky’s works, try last month’s Extra Pawn on the Side from Chess Café. This online magazine is one of the best chess sites ever.

EVENTS
Ryan Emmett presents Chess Ratings: A Necessary Evil? posted at SonofPearl.

From Chessvibes via Polgar Chess Daily News and Information comes a selection of Susan’s podcasts from the Dresden Olympiad. Watch for Boris Spassky’s interview for the eyewitness point of view to history.

The Boyleston Chess Club has long supported chess bloggers. For the Harry Lyman Memorial, here’s a memorial of the local hero himself.

HUMOR
Chess bloggers are funny people. Lots of submittals to the humor category.

George Duvalpresents You’re (still) a Mean one Mr. Grinch posted at Blunder Prone ... the troubled Knight.

James R. West presents My 59 Memorable Philidor Counter Gambits"

The community at Chess.Com presents two items for your consideration:
(1) polleke presents Bad behavior posted at Final Moves and

(2) David Evans presents Chess blindness or neuronepaenia? saying, "Chess blindness may be only a warning that something much more sinister is wrong with the way we play..."

IMPROVEMENT
Ivan Wijetunge is still Getting to 2000. Here’s the Last round loss from the Wisconsin Memorial.

Naditha Amarakoon presents Play To Improve While You Can posted at A Chess Player's Rumblings.

Chessvine has a short post on using the computer for tactical chess training.

OPENING THEORY
Fajarowicz TN is a theoretical novelty but is it sound?

Anindya presents The Ruy Lopez for White - an Introduction Chess Blog The Pulse of Chess posted at Chess Blog The Pulse of Chess, saying, "This is the introductory article on Ruy Lopez. Deeper analysis of different variations were done on subsequent articles." Here’s essays on the Berlin Defense, Part 1 and Part 2 .

The The Kenilworthian presents two articles: (1) Bird's Defense Bibliography (C61) and (2) The Left Hook Grand Prix Revisited. This last is an analysis of the line 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.a3!? d6 6.Bc4 e6 7.O-O Nge7 8.d3 O-O 9.Qe1.

POSITION ANALYSIS
Polly Wright presents Castling Queen Side: Chess Survival posted at Castling Queen Side.

Blue Devil Knight of Confessions of a Chess Novice is probably going to get all over me for this but I grabbed this entry at the last minute because it is so very good. Safety First!.

STRATEGIC CONCEPTS
Finally, here’s Mark Weeks again, a support beam of the chess bloggers. This is more a chess variant than strategic but here it goes. A Database of Chess960 Start Positions I like the idea of comparing the database of alternate starting positions to the standard start position. Do you notice that the middlegame strategic concepts remain the same? (e.g. center control, kights in the middle, knights in closed positions, etc.)

AFTERWORD
Storm clouds and opportunities. First the bad stuff.

2008 had too many stories of governments and other official bodies censoring, punishing, and other wise taking control of the internet. Here in the chess world the internet war between Susan Polgar and the US Chess Federation begat dangers for the rest of us. First came the accusation that SP had conspired to hack into a USCF leader’s e-mail account. The USCF then used that as a pretext to commence legal attacks on her websites, ostensibly seeking the data to verify this accusation. The legal tactic was to serve papers on the internet service providers. Once the “keys to the kingdom” were turned over to the USCF, it could then use them to get the IP addresses of anybody who had ever posted anything and then go after them. (They are suing Susan, Gregory Alexander, and 10 other “John Does”.) Both defendants deny having anything to do with this.

Up to this point, the chess world can say that this is just a personal problem of Susan and Gregory. But those John Does are what concerns the rest of us. If the USCF are just targeting Susan and Gregory just because of politics, then they could target anybody. Do any of you reading this want chess politicians who may not like you, tracking your internet surfing and then use that information to embarrass you? Do any of you want to be victimized by specious lawsuits? - Just because you rubbed someone in power the wrong way?

On the other hand, the chess world should not hinder legitimate investigations into actual wrongs done on the internet. What we need is a statement from the USCF telling us what their policies, procedures, and safeguards are in this area. In the USCF’s Issues Forums I posted extensively on this and the USCF roundly rebuffed this call.

In the future, we may see other authorities in other countries who may want to target chess bloggers. Sadly, these events mean that we won’t be able to look to the chess leaders of the United States for support.

Let’s end on a more positive story. The opportunities.

There’s three opportunities for specifically CHESS bloggers to network:

A new Facebook Chess Community has recently formed. Ask this fellow about it.
A new MODERATED Google Chess Forum although this concerns USCF Chess.
Chess Networking Site

Here’s past Chess Blog Carnivals. Click on the Past Posts tab.

Happy new year!

USCF's Faction Attacks Democracy

The worst threat is not the demand in the lawsuit that SP and PT be removed; it is the demand that they cannot be elected again. This affects everybody's right to vote. The EB is demanding that whatever your opinion of SP/PT may be, it shall never count. You may never be able to vote for or against them.

This is a very high price for the chess community to pay in order to keep one faction in power.

USCF Chooses Lawyers Over Delegates

Who needs those pesky USCF Delegates anyway? Since they voted Susan Polgar’s way instead of the way the anti-P’s crowd’s way*; the anti’s have now decided to dispense with the whole Board of Delegates voting altogether. They used their control of the USCF to have it file suit today to have an Illinois judge throw Susan Polgar and Paul Truong out of USCF office and bar them from further running for USCF election again.

- Yet another lawsuit! How many are there? A half dozen? I’ve lost count.

As for pesky things like elections – ugh! Who needs them, whey the powers in control can just use it to hire lawyers and file lawsuits?

Now we see the reason why the anti’s haven’t been sweating effort analyzing the tactics of new recall efforts and Board of Delegates Meetings. They’ve decided to bypass the USCF’s Delegates altogether. Not to mention democracy.

* See the previous post regarding the decisive Polgar vote at the USCF’s August Delegates’ Meeting.

2008 USCF Highlights

2008 is over and it is a good time to look at the most important event in the USCF for the year: the failed recall of Paul Truong. According to the anti-Polgar crowd, the failure was due to bad tactics and strategy, not a bad case. So, let’s make like chess players, and do a post-mortem analysis on the event.

The first striking thing is this: My, what a difference one vote makes! Compare the anti’s comments about Delegates Meetings now to what they said last year on the 2007 thread The Delegates Meeting:

Then: The Delegates were well informed and dedicated as evidenced by their attending workshops for three days before the meeting.

Now: Here’s an example of the new party line:

(Quotes are from the USCF’s Forum)HT’s Post 119888

Yes, preparation of a written summary might have been a good idea, However, I would point out that Donna Alarie DID prepare a summary of the charges against Truong for her recall petition, which included numerous internet URLs to original source materials, such as the Mottershead Report. She mailed it to every single Delegate months before the annual meeting. Despite this, something like half the Delegates arrived at the meeting in August with not the slightest clue what the issues were.

From informed and dedicated to clueless in just one vote!

Regarding the Ethics Committee, consider this:

The preparation of such a report for the Delegates is beyond the normal scope of the Committee's duties. The Delegates could have assigned it such a task but not until they met in August. The Committee DID receive a complaint related to this matter but ruled that it did not have jurisdiction. So there was no possibility of involving the Committee further before August.

Wups! The Ethics Committee had gone defunct during the year. They had not done anything at all – about anything! And nobody noticed. Moreover, when the Committee did finally do something, after the Delegates Meeting, they “declined jurisdiction” – a very different ruling, indeed!

This whole matter (1) the Committee going defunct; (2) nobody noticing it; and (3) this declining jurisdiction thing reflects on the competence of the leadership qualities of the anti-Polgar crowd.

Yes, it might have been a good idea to send a mailing with a statement from the EB majority backing the summary of facts and supporting their recall ADM. However, as I noted above, when a previous summary was sent out by a private individual basically nobody bothered to read it. As far as a Forum discussion goes, most Delegates don't visit it. Maybe a personal mailed appeal from the EB would have increased that number, I don't know.

Yet another comment on how the rest of the chess world views the denizens of that forum. Moreover, this is another comment on the leadership and judgment of the anti-Polgar forces.

Are you kidding? Most of the Delegates don't even fly into town until Friday! It is possible that a special workshop could have been squeezed in on Thursday and might have drawn enough Delegates to be useful. I don't see that Friday would be possible though, as four hours on that day are already committed to the important Bylaws and Finance workshops.

Oh, well! So much for all that hoo-rah last time about all those days of workshops that the Delegates attended.

As they say, hindsight is 20/20. It is just a fact that none of those in charge of preparing the presentation for the Delegates Meeting expected, in their wildest nightmares, that fully half the Delegates would not even have heard of the FSS issue, much less be informed about it.

Okay. So, just how ignorant of the chess players of America is the leaders of the anti-Polgar crowd? Let’s examine the elements of the strategic position.

Total vote pool is around 400 people. The year is 2008. Cell phones, faxes, e-mails, wireless. Recall has support of President and majority of EB of the USCF. Also, the ED.

These elements add up to a formidable strategic position. If a position in “Reassess Your Chess” were equivalent to this political position, Mr. Silman would just dismiss it as a matter of technique.

The key fact that stands out is that over half of the Delegates attended the meeting WITHOUT EVEN BEING AWARE OF THE ISSUE (per above). Phone-calling 400-500 people would have been a job, but it is a doable job. Sales people make those kind of calls all the time. People in multi-level marketing do this on the side, while maintaining a full-time day job. (Side note: Federal do-not call lists do not apply to this. The USCF’s members are fully entitled to call their national Delegates.)

So, why weren’t these people called? All that yak about working night and day on the recall campaign – and this? They couldn’t even lift a telephone and make a call?

Once the Delegates arrived at the meeting, it was time for the anti-Polgar forces to make their case. Their presentation, to say no more, was bad. They blame the defeat on the lawyer. Okay but why didn’t they coordinate their motions with the lawyer – at least so they wouldn’t speak at cross purposes. Were the Delegates to not pass judgment on PT (the motion) or was PT guilty (lawyer and ED)? Who knew?

All of this raises the gravest questions about the basic competence of the USCF’s leadership. Failure to properly contact the Delegates; failure to properly organize the Delegates Meeting; failure to coordinate and present the case against PT at the meeting; and on and on.

- - - - -

And in other news:

Almost none of the top players attended the US Junior Championship and the US Cadet Championship this year. The USCF failed to send invitations timely. Also, the USCF scheduled the Championships opposite the Kasparov Chess Camp in New York. Since, the players didn’t receive their invitations; they opted for the KCC instead.

In addition, almost no expense money was available and cash prizes were minimal (maybe because lawyers cost lots of dough). The result was that instead of the normal ten players, the US Junior had 6 and the US Cadet had 5. These were not the best players; only the best of what was left.

I asked the USCF’s leaders why the invitations were not issued in a timely manner and this was the reply: (post 118643)

Good golly, you're right! I must have missed that in the "Executive Board duties and responsibilities" chapter. I'll get right on that, as well as issuing the invitations for the US championship, US women's championship, US senior championship, US Armed Forces Championship, US left handed chess player's championship, and US blind squirrel's championship. Am I missing any? I do want to make sure the Executive Board is meeting your expectations.

- Randy Bauer, Vice-President, Finance

Normally, the US Junior Championship and the US Cadet Championship are two of the most prestigious tournaments held in the US, because that is where we see our future grandmasters. The U.S. Junior is a closed event, open by invitation only to the top players under the age of 21. The U.S. Cadet is a closed event, open by invitation only to those under the age of 16. At least, that’s what they used to be.

Two Big Chess Books

1) John Watson's Mastering the Chess Openings trilogy concludes with Flank Openings. These are probably the best books on the opening currently out - with all the limitations on the print medium. The author stated in Chess Life that some important openings were left out of Volume 2 "only because of lack of space". This is a significant statement. An important function of these books is that he gives discussion of the theory and principles in actual words inside actual sentences with subjects, predicates, nouns and verbs as opposed to lists of variations with symbols. Now, if there could only be a Volume 4 to cover all of the important openings he left out . . .

To give you an idea of the scope of this series, I listed the games of Volume 1. Yes, they are this many. It is not too much to say that these books can double as game collections, too.

---

2) The core of Mark Dvoretsky's reputation as a chess coach and author has been in the area of analyzing positions. So that's what makes his book on the subject so huge. The other books in his series of chess instruction have been well received.

This is a very hard book to go through. The thing is, that if you think that chess is fun, then plowing through all of these variations is fun, too. It is like watching a hockey game. I may not be able to do all that skating and drills that the hockey player can do, but I still like watching them do it. The frustration for the reader may come from the feeling that he may never be able to calculate all of this stuff for himself. Just like the rest of sport, there is nothing wrong with sitting in the stands and letting a master take you along for a ride. That's the thing about hard chess books like this one.

And who knows? Just following along may make you a better player, anyway.

Basic Chess Library

This is from a discussion on the USCF's Forums.

--------------------

I agree. You can't go too far wrong with Silman's books. I would add a good game collection book, too. Just to get a feel for master-level chess, if nothing else. My favorite is Understanding Chess Move by Move - by John Nunn.

Here's my problem with book recommendations. I think people recommend and buy too many books - and then they don't read them. It becomes a mountain too high to climb. I think a library should contain the basic 4 books: an opening book, a general theory book, an endgame book, and a game collection. This covers theoretical knowledge. Then a good collection of tactical problems for practice.

One other point: I'm not sure that printed books is the best medium for chess communication going forward into the future. My objections: 1) User-friendly. You have to constantly shift your attention from the printed page to the chess board. 2) Lack of coverage/lack of space issues. Publishing costs prohibit complete coverage of many issues. 3) Cost. Chess books are too thin and too expensive. (I exempt from that criticism the books recommended above.)

I think that software is the medium of the future. Software programs do address the problems of (1) and (2) above. Not 3 yet. The problem here is that software and books are comparable priced and both are too expensive in my opinion.

09 Chess Blog Carnival

It's been a long time since anybody has done a round-up of what's being published in the chess blogosphere. A year ago, I attempted to start a regular outing but I fell flat.

A new year is upon us. Even if it is not regular, an occasional carnival showcasing the chess blogging talent out there is a good thing.

Here's the chess blogger's page. It also lists past chess carnivals. The Blog Carnival label also shows the history of this.

That Zany Ethics Committee

Well, now the USCF Ethics Committee managed to get the conclusion right but in the wackiest way possible.

They were asked to take up the matter of Paul Truong and the FSS case against him. They "declined jurisdiction". Huh? Well, now what that means in plain English that they decided to not consider the case.

But what is this "declined jurisdiction" stuff? Either a body or a court has jurisdiction in a case or it does not. For example, if I am a state judge in Georgia and I am asked to consider a case in Illinois, I state that Illinois is outside of my jurisdiction. I don't decline jurisdiction; it is not mine to decline. Either I have it or I don't. I decline to consider a case; I don't decline to make Illinois a part of Georgia.

Jurisdiction may be conceptually limited. For example, a judge may only be allowed to hear misdomeanors but not felonies. Same thing.

Leave it to the USCF to come up with a brand new legal concept never before seen on land, sea, or sky. - And doesn't make any sense, either

Turning Point 6

Consider this particular post to be like an appendix at the back of the book. It’s purpose is to document exactly what was said, so that those readers who want to, can journey through all the verbiage and decide the merits for themselves.

We start with the big ambush:

Wasn't it also Jack who suggested here that {edit}* might be a terrorist just because he changed his federation to Palestine?

Then when a few of us called attention to that offensive post and it was duly pulled, Jack acted all, "Who me? I wasn't casting any aspersions, all I did was ask a question."

My recollection is that was Jack (but I didn't save the posts and since they were pulled, I can't be sure). If so, his protestations now about being sanctioned for making good-faith, non-insulting, fact-based posts, should be taken with several bricks of salt.

I edited out the name. Like I said in the original post of the series, it is unfair to the person named. He didn’t ask to be dragged into this controversy; he was just selected to be the victim. A second reason, of course, is that I had never used the name myself – at all. I had never accused the individual of anything.

Now, my response:

Johhnybear, I must REALLY take exception to your statement. I NEVER stated, implied, or inferred that the person was a terrorist. There was never anything I ever wrote that ever had anything to do with that.

Your statement is a flat out {edit}. See revised comment below. I demand a retraction.

I recall the issue and I recall how people began sticking words in my mouth. And I remember protesting at the time.

For new people who never saw the thread in question, the issue was about chessplayers flying flags of convenience and the USCF representing them. What some said, following Sam Sloan's lead on this, was that since the individual had chosen the Palestinian State as his particular FIDE Federation, any criticism of Sam Sloan's proposal was tantamount to calling the individual a terrorist. (Sloan's proposal was that since the Palestinian Chess Federation was unable to effectively represent him and since the person resided in Connecticut and had no visible ties to that country, the USCF should pick up the slack and represent his interests to the FIDE.)

What particularly outrages me about the attack on me, was that I had stated at the time was that the proposal had merit, but on balance we ought to not encourage chess players to do this sort of thing.

It amazes me that after all that went down, this terrorism smear stuck with some people like Johnny.

This last exchange reminds me of why, despite all the hue and cry, I still support Paul and Susan. Like the McCarthy Era in the 1950's, this shows how mud gets hurled and people will believe it no matter how innocent the person may be.

P.S. I did ask why, of all the nations in the world that a person living in Connecticutt could have chosen to represent, the choice was the Palistinians. And yes, I did note the terrorist history of Yasser Arafat, then the leader of that country, and yes, I did state that was also of concern. Was the choice a political one or not and was the USCF being sucked into a political agenda? If not, then fine. There's lots of other considerations that a person can make other than making a political statement. I thought then and still think that if the USCF must expend resources and time on this, then it has a right to know.

Even after taking the worst possible interpretation on this, there remains a vast difference between calling - or even implying - that a person is a terrorist and raising questions of (1) encouraging/enabling US players to play for foreign countries with USCF still being responsible for them and (2) encouraging/enabling US players to use this kind of practice to make political statements that the USCF could be tied to.

- - - - -

Revised comment: my attention has been brought to the following passage of the AUG:

Do not accuse anyone of lying, telling a lie, or being a liar. This is considered a personal attack, even if true. Do not speculate regarding the motives of others. You can get the point across just as well by saying the person you think is lying is wrong, mistaken, incorrect, careless with facts, etc.


My revised sentence should therefore read: The statement is a flat out wrong, mistaken, incorrect, careless with facts, etc.

Best regards, Jack

And then:

Johnny, this was a low blow. That the forum police went along with it at the time, discredits the whole premise of this thread. Nothing this egregious would ever happen at Chess Discussion Forum.

Like I said. Big mistake. There’s just no arguing with these people.

Your post back then, as I recall, made specific reference to Hamas.

Aside from omitting that, the brief "P.S." in your comment above states all the pertinent facts about your post from last year that I just brought up. And it seems to confirm everything I just said about that earlier post. So I don't see how you can say what I said was a "lie."

Had your earlier post simply argued that the USCF shouldn't go to bat on chess matters for American players who choose to change their FIDE affiliation to a foreign federation, that would have been a perfectly acceptable thing to say, and obviously the post woud not have been pulled or even criticized.

But, as I said then, your throwing in a politically laced commentary about the specific federation the guy chose, was/is offensive to the point that it borders on racism (given the likelihood that the player in question was motivated by his own ethnic heritage. He changed his name around the same time he changed his federation. Whether his motivation might have been political as well as cultural/ethnic identification is none of our business.)

There follows some snarky comments none of which were critical of the attacker, just of me.

I direct the reader’s attention to the above statement: “. . . the brief "P.S." in your comment above states all the pertinent facts about your post from last year that I just brought up.” Significant. So, from that we get racism?

Turning point: If people are willing to go over the top with such thin soup as the above, then do they behave any differently towards Paul Truong?

--------
See the original post below.