Don Schultz on USCF EB Elections - Endorsements
samsloan
Bill is one of the most outstanding USCF member/officials we have ever
had, chess is his life –BUT
I would vote for him ahead of anyone – BUT
BUT he is human, he does make mistakes.
A Board has a responsibility BUT the boards we have had, have been
composed of majorities who owe their allegiance to being on the Board
to Bill.
IMO, we need some voices on the Board who are there despite Bill not
because of him.
When he endorses someone and actively supports him/her they invariably
win.
Because of Bill’s dominance, IMO, major mistakes have been made, that
otherwise could have been avoided. For example, the choosing of an
unreliable outsourcing partner (TWO TIMES) for our B & E business.
We could deprive Bill the right to endorse candidates but that
obviously would be stupid to say the least. Bill has a right to
endorse whoever he wants. It’s not his fault that he has done so much
and is thought so highly, that his endorsement means so much.
Some blame OMOV for all our problems. However, limiting the voting to
the delegates or similar alternatives would not solve this particular
problem as Bill’s influence among the delegates is at least equal to
that among the members-at-large. The solution to this problem (having
a board so heavily indebted to one board member) is therefore not to
undo OMOV though other arguments against OMOV deserve consideration.
One solution, IMO would be to add two new members to the Board who
would owe their presence on the Board to no one other than themselves.
For example, have the existing US and US Women’s Champion automatic
Board Members with full Board rights.
Another way would be to get two high level, but interested-in-chess
(very prestigious) business executives on the Board. This idea has
been tossed around for years and unfortunately for a variety of
reasons has been too difficult to make happen.
Another way is to have all GMs vote for one of their own to be an
additional EB member and some other special interest group(s) to vote
among themselves for a sitting board member e.g. (presidents of
affiliated state associations or the CJA to vote for one of their own
to be on the Board.
There are many other ideas. If there is interest in my thoughts and
time permits me, I will privately solicit ideas to accomplish the
above and possibly, at future delegate meetings, make some specific
motions.
One man’s opinion,
Don Schultz
samsloan
endorse whomever he likes -- but that either
(a) he shouldn't be allowed to use CCA mailings to publicize those
endorsements, or
(b) he should be required to make the CCA mailing list freely
available to all registered candidates.
Those little colored postcards are, if not an outright conflict of
interest, a campaigning advantage that makes the playing field very
non-level.
[b][b]Don Schultz _ The mailing lists cards are effective but are
Bill's to do with as he pleases. Furthermore, they are NOT the most
important mailing lists. The most important list is the list of who
voted the last time and the time before and these lists are available
to all candidates for a reasonable fee.
The problem is Bill's excellent popularity and 100% honesty combined
with his overconfidence that he is always right or at least right on
those issues he focuses on, one of which is who should serve on the
next Board. Combine this with the feeling of allegiance and debt to
him by Board members for their election, creates a situation of one
man control which (unintentionally for sure) in turn stifles new
ideas, new initiatives, experiments and redirections that an
organization like the USCF needs to grow or move forward with changing
times.
I've offered a path to rectify this process by adding Board members
the election of which, Bill or the next Bill cannot influence. Another
completely different path to examine would be the checks and balances
between the ED and the President. This would be very hard to
accomplish because we want to avoid creating conflicts between the two
yet the ED needs more control and a complete overhaul of the
responsinilities of the entire EB and the ED would be a fundamental
first step in this direction. IMO and Bill Hall likely will not agree
with me but if Bill Goichberg and the EB kept their hands off the last
two B and E contracts, keeping their indovidual preferences to
themselves, I don't think the same contractor would have beeen chosen
and the USCF would be far better off than it is today!
I very easily could be wrong about all this but as a past president,
active in USCF affairs for the last half century, longer than most
including even Bill Goichberg, I feel obligated to express my views on
something, I believe is fundamental to the future growth of our
organziation.
Don Schultz
None
There are many other ideas. If there is interest in my thoughts and
time permits me, I will privately solicit ideas to accomplish the
above and possibly, at future delegate meetings, make some specific
motions.
One man’s opinion,
Don Schultz
Find out which members are gay and leak it to Sam Sloan. Thats what
weasels do you know.
None
I very easily could be wrong about all this but as a past president,
active in USCF affairs for the last half century, longer than most
including even Bill Goichberg, I feel obligated to express my views
on
something, I believe is fundamental to the future growth of our
organziation. --Don Schultz
See if you can weasel another bottle of Merlot. You've obviously
tossed the first one down too fast.
sd
> Another way would be to get two high level, but interested-in-chess
> (very prestigious) business executives on the Board. This idea has
> been tossed around for years and unfortunately for a variety of
> reasons has been too difficult to make happen.
Groan - the last time we had one of these types on the Board all he
knew how to do was spend the USCF's money and then he quit when they
wouldn't spend more on something frivolous.
The Historian
Also, consider just who is giving this advice. Have we forgotten
ChessDon's graphs and charts?
samsloan
honesty combined with his overconfidence that he is always right or at
least right on those issues he focuses on, one of which is who should
serve on the next Board. Combine this with the feeling of allegiance
and debt to him by Board members for their election, creates a
situation of one man control which (unintentionally for sure) in turn
stifles new ideas, new initiatives, experiments and redirections that
an organization like the USCF needs to grow or move forward with
changing times.
Don Schultz[/quote]
Nobody has commented on this and this is exactly the problem. We now
have a situation of one man rule where one man gets to select the
board.
Prior to 1999, the USCF had a rule that nobody could be re-elected to
the board, except for the Secretary.
Now, the rule is that a board member can be re-elected indefinitely.
It is obvious that Goichberg plans to stay on the board for the rest
of his life. This combined with his ability to decide who gets on the
board through his mass mailings of batches of 17,000 postcards each,
plus Goichberg's resistence to new ideas and his unwillingness to
accept or consider anybody's ideas other than his own, has led to
stagnation and decline of the USCF.
Sam Sloan
sd
> Now, the rule is that a board member can be re-elected indefinitely.
> It is obvious that Goichberg plans to stay on the board for the rest
> of his life. This combined with his ability to decide who gets on the
> board through his mass mailings of batches of 17,000 postcards each,
> plus Goichberg's resistence to new ideas and his unwillingness to
> accept or consider anybody's ideas other than his own, has led to
> stagnation and decline of the USCF.
You know, Stan Vaughn at least has the cojones to start his own
organization.
Why don't the rest of you who are dissatisfied try something similar?
The Masked Bishop
The most used and most abused non-riposte. Runs along the same lines
that if you criticize a movie, let's see you make a better one.
As dues-paying members, which I believe most of the dissatisfied here
are, we have every right to complain, carp, criticize and cajole about
our current organization all we want, without the requirement of
starting another one to lend merit to our pains.
I'm sure you've complained about one US policy or another in your
time, SD...do you think you should be told to start your own country,
or move out of this one, in response?
ChessFire
Because it takes 2 million dollars.
Given that USCF has wasted that amount of member's money over the past
10 years, it is still a pro-bono request for that amount of money.
And what is to be gained from it? An honest rating system with no
distorting floors, and , er...? What else to motivate a donor?
Certainly it can be done, but uncertainly to any effect more than USCF
have 'achieved'.
Phil Innes
sd
Oh certainly I've complained.
But if I was *that* dissatisfied, as some seem, yes, if I were that
dissatisfied, I would do something about it. Just as when I used to
complain about the textbooks in my discipline, especially those
dealing with radiation protection, I tried to write a better one. Or
when I thought my program wasn't meeting community needs, I tried to
improve on that.
But certainly this is a place for bitching, but if I want to bitch
about the bitching, and say "shit or get off the pot," I have just as
much right to do so. It really doesn't matter if you are a dues paying
member or not, but if you have no commitment to the solution, your
bitching sounds empty to me.
If 2 mill is all it would take, as Phil says (but consider the
source), it seems that a dedicated group could raise that, given
proper effort. The Trollgar camp has probably spent that on their
case, why not just start your own organization, especially if you are
really that extra special great thing for US chess some claim they
are?
Fake and humorless TMB, you can have all the opinions you want. I also
can consider them empty rants if I so wish. As can you mine.
So yes, if you don't like the movie, make a better one.
The Masked Bishop
fix what we have...or at least polish the turd...
As far as being fake, those who are attuned to writing styles can make
their own correct assessment on my provenance. I've been away for
awhile, and it's obvious that many here feel burned by so-called "fake
aliases," as if such a thing can exist on something as shadowy and
ridiculous as the usenet. That said, I did spend a brain-deadening
hour or two last night familiarizing myself with the Trollgar fiasco,
to get a better grip on the current gestalt of the board, and doing so
was like an oatmeal enema...kind of intriguing at first but finally
something you regret...
fight the power, SD...but don't believe the hype.
yours, TMB
parrt...@cs.com
Actress Morgan Fairchild plays chess. At a blitz event in Mexico
touted by FIDE prez Florencio Campomanes, Don Schultz and Yasser
Seirawan (1988?) wasn't she stiffed for her services as were the
prizewinners?
Don also recruited millionaire Joel Channing for the board who
achieved what?
The Masked Bishop
Maybe the administration organization should be outsourced, to a non-
profit management service that knows zero about chess, but a lot about
running a non-profit. Especially troubling is putting Board members in
key positions like finance...that should be totally outsourced, and
not run by amateur chess players.
TMB
None
> CELEBRITIES AND CHESS
>
> Actress Morgan Fairchild plays chess. At a blitz event in Mexico
> touted by FIDE prez Florencio Campomanes, Don Schultz and Yasser
> Seirawan (1988?) wasn't she stiffed for her services as were the
> prizewinners?
>
> Don also recruited millionaire Joel Channing for the board who
> achieved what?
Bad attitude Larry. You're not a team player and therefore you will be
excommunicated from the old gang of theirs.
Have you forgot the CJA awards? Or the annual awards dinners? And what
about outing the sexual predilection of candidates? And Shahade? His
spreadsheets? And Moore? Shucks Don's goodness pops up everywhere.
Half a pound of tuppenny rice,
Half a pound of treacle.
That’s the way the money goes,
Pop! goes the weasel
None
The problem is letting people who are not independent of the results
of the financial decisions, make the financial decisions.
Bobcat
Hummmmmmm TMB
> We can't make a new movie...if the USCF dies, that's it. We need to
> fix what we have...or at least polish the turd...
Why NOT let it die?!? Short of total destruction and rebuilding it
from the ground up, what has happened in in the past, and is happening
today, is likely to continue indefinitely into the future. USCF is
ancient that it believes itself, like the pope, infallible. Whatever
the USCF declares, is law. USCF has NOT kept up with the times. The
reality is that ANY reputable ONLINE chess service could replace the
USCF almost overnight, provide a better and more meaningful rating
service, and provide better online content than the USCF currently
does at a far cheaper price, if not totally FREE. I suspect that
ONLINE chess sounds a lot better to many people that are sick of
paying USCF $42/Yr. for a "Premium" Adult membership that provides the
member with the following: 1) An "Official" USCF rating 2) The right
to play in USCF sponsored OTB tournaments 3) A hard copy of Chess
Life. Not much given that instead of providing the membership with
real value for their money, most of a member's money is spent on chess
politics and fighting frivolous lawsuits such as the one filed
initially by Sam Sloan who cried he was cheated out of a board
position by the posting of those nasty horrible FSS messages -- not
that he actually LOST because many people find him to be repugnant and
morally bankrupt. Even the NY judge pitched Sam out on his @$$ and
commented it was a frivolous lawsuit. Maybe *that* judge actually had
a CLUE about who Sam Sloan is. I would enjoy having people FIX the
USCF so that it works for EVERYBODY, but I sincerely doubt that will
happen, and no matter how hard you try, no matter how much polish you
use to shine and dress up a turd, at the end of the day you still have
a turd. The current leadership is CLUELESS. You could hit Bill
Goichberg up side the head with a Cluebat, and he still would not get
it. Unless there is RADICAL change I suspect that by 2015 the USCF
will be DEAD. Bill Goichberg and the entire board need to go; we need
to have Term Limits for anyone who serves on the USCF board, we need
to make USCF more responsive to ALL members, we need to adapt to the
Internet, and we need to become a more flexible organization that
members can configure to their lifestyles. In short the EXACT opposite
of what USCF is today. I don't see ANY of those things happening now
or any time in the near future. Indeed many view that USCF died a long
time ago and swallowed up by the CCA, which so happens to be run by
none other than Bill Goichberg.
sd
> it. Unless there is RADICAL change I suspect that by 2015 the USCF
> will be DEAD.
I heard the same thing in the 80s, the 90's and the 00s..... Same
complaints, same predictions of demise. Just like a stopped clock, the
chronic complainers will one day be correct, I suppose.
The only accurate comment I see here is that the USCF has failed to
meet the needs of a broad constituency, from those who have played
only online chess to professional grandmasters. That would be an
interesting discussion on how that could be done; we won't see it here
or amongst USCF insiders. We'll just see more bitching and whining
about old men, Sloan, and Goichberg.
Perhaps the membership, unwilling to force change, is more at fault
than Sloan or Goichberg.
raylopez99
> On Jan 5, 11:08 pm, Bobcat <swbob...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > it. Unless there is RADICAL change I suspect that by 2015 the USCF
> > will be DEAD.
Wait, isn't Don Schultz dead? Didn't he pass away last year? Thought
I read his obit by SS Sam Sloan in this NG. Why is he still on the
ballot?
Just curious, I'm not a voting member.
RL
Bobcat
sd, sad to say I tend to agree with you especially when you say
> Perhaps the membership, unwilling to force change, is more at fault
> than Sloan or Goichberg.
Unfortunately the chess politicians have stacked the deck in their
favor so it is almost impossible to get rid of them, and the
atmosphere is so poisonous that any one who tries to change the system
gets stomped upon, so you get bottom feeders such as Goichberg, who
wants to use USCF to build a power base for his CCA, or some repugnant
and morally bankrupt person like Sam Sloan who runs not to improve
USCF, but rather to inflate his already over inflated ego. The history
of the USCF is littered with the bodies of those who *tried* to bring
change. To that list we can now add Susan Polgar who won handily over
Sam Sloan, who then launched his rather frivolous lawsuit. No if
change is to come about Sam Sloan needs to have his membership revoked
so he can't launch even more frivolous lawsuits in the future ever
time he loses an election.
> That would be an
> interesting discussion on how that could be done; we won't see it here
> or amongst USCF insiders. We'll just see more bitching and whining
> about old men, Sloan, and Goichberg.
Agree, that would indeed be an interesting discussion, and you're
right we will not see it here. That said I think that the atmosphere
is SO bad now that members are starting to leave, they simply fail to
renew their memberships. The cost of being a member in the USCF
continues to skyrocket, yet what one actually receives is almost
nothing: You get an "Official USCF Rating" [ WOW!! ], the right to
play in "official" USCF sanctioned tournaments [WOW!! ] and IF you pay
a little extra they throw in a hard copy of a magazine -- in short you
get almost nothing for your membership dollars, which are then spent
on politics and litigation. I suspect that all the litigation is the
straw that broke the camels back, add to that ever increasing
membership fees, and a bad economy, and a viable alternative in online
chess which can cost next to nothing, if not totally FREE, and the
scenario is set come renewal time when the member asks himself/herself
if they might not want to pocket that $42 and spend it on something
they need or want more. IF -- a BIG IF -- the current trend between
2008 - 2009 continues which saw a net LOSS of 2344 members from Apr.
to Apr Yr./Yr. as technology advances I would expect to see those loss
numbers accelerate.
The unknown here is so-called "Scholastic" membership in USCF. IF the
economic recovery is slow or prolonged families are likely to spend
disposable income elsewhere. Indeed I would expect the same would be
true not only for chess but most extracurricular activities. The
advent of the internet is likely to make a big impact as online gaming
continues to grow.
I compare the leadership of the USCF to the dinosaurs: large, slow
moving, and equally stupid. The comet has hit and they are failing to
notice and adapt to change -- in this case economic, technological,
and social -- believing they will go one forever. We know what
happened to the dinosaurs.
parrt...@cs.com
The sale of a free and clear building in New Windsor and the absurd
move to Crossville which a number of us strongly opposed at the time.
When the mortgage was paid off in New Windsor members were PROMISED
that it would remain the permanent home of American chess.
ChessFire
> On Jan 6, 4:01 am, sd <sdowd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 5, 11:08 pm, Bobcat <swbob...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > it. Unless there is RADICAL change I suspect that by 2015 the USCF
> > > will be DEAD.
>
> > I heard the same thing in the 80s, the 90's and the 00s..... Same
> > complaints, same predictions of demise. Just like a stopped clock, the
> > chronic complainers will one day be correct, I suppose.
>
> > The only accurate comment I see here is that the USCF has failed to
> > meet the needs of a broad constituency, from those who have played
> > only online chess to professional grandmasters. That would be an
> > interesting discussion on how that could be done; we won't see it here
> > or amongst USCF insiders. We'll just see more bitching and whining
> > about old men, Sloan, and Goichberg.
>
> > Perhaps the membership, unwilling to force change, is more at fault
> > than Sloan or Goichberg.
>
> sd, sad to say I tend to agree with you especially when you say
>
> > Perhaps the membership, unwilling to force change, is more at fault
> > than Sloan or Goichberg.
>
> Unfortunately the chess politicians have stacked the deck in their
> favor so it is almost impossible to get rid of them, and the
> atmosphere is so poisonous that any one who tries to change the system
> gets stomped upon, so you get bottom feeders such as Goichberg, who
> wants to use USCF to build a power base for his CCA,
And from the very beginning some of us asked is there not a conflict
of interest here?
If Goichberg earns a $100k per year from CCA, is not USCF and others
in competition for those tournament profits? That is a conflict of
intererests, no?
> or some repugnant
> and morally bankrupt person like Sam Sloan who runs not to improve
> USCF, but rather to inflate his already over inflated ego.
One doesn't need a grey beard and to come from Vienna to say so! But@
and its a big American But@ personalities have always driven the chess
scene here, good ones and bad ones. Any science or method hardly comes
into it.
So a Sloan can presume to eminence, and real promoters of chess go to
the wall.
> The history
> of the USCF is littered with the bodies of those who *tried* to bring
> change. To that list we can now add Susan Polgar who won handily over
> Sam Sloan, who then launched his rather frivolous lawsuit. No if
> change is to come about Sam Sloan needs to have his membership revoked
> so he can't launch even more frivolous lawsuits in the future ever
> time he loses an election.
Probably an unconstitutional measure, by USCF's own charter of who
they will admit to their board. Though an undertstandable sentiment,
considering the majority of USCF members are juniors.
I have never been able to obtain from the Sloan a straight answer that
if a person couldn't achieve a local high-school background check,
should they be eligible to vote on national issues for the majority of
US members of USCF?
> > That would be an
> > interesting discussion on how that could be done; we won't see it here
> > or amongst USCF insiders. We'll just see more bitching and whining
> > about old men, Sloan, and Goichberg.
>
> Agree, that would indeed be an interesting discussion, and you're
> right we will not see it here.
And nowhere else either. USCF are not interested in discussions, only
passive-aggressive commentary about themselves. Not even the Chess
Journalists of America [CJA] has asks a terse question of USCF this
past decade.
> That said I think that the atmosphere
> is SO bad now that members are starting to leave, they simply fail to
> renew their memberships. The cost of being a member in the USCF
> continues to skyrocket, yet what one actually receives is almost
> nothing: You get an "Official USCF Rating" [ WOW!! ], the right to
> play in "official" USCF sanctioned tournaments [WOW!! ] and IF you pay
> a little extra they throw in a hard copy of a magazine --
In short a rating by fixed fee, no matter how many games you play. 50%
of USCF members NEVER play a rated game from one year to the next.
In other country's you pay per rating, usually a small amount even for
active players, not exceeding USCF's amount.
Therefore by the mere act of playing chess for official ratings you
are not part of any politics or 'membership'. You did not have to
compulsorily buy a magazine, however good that magazine was.
>in short you
> get almost nothing for your membership dollars, which are then spent
> on politics and litigation.
Massively recently on litigation = and against the very people who
could expand membership dramatically. Certainly by virtue of web and
blog sites, a substantial increase in viewing chess*
*USCF refuse to admit how may people attend its on chess blog site,
but pay one person there more than $40,000 a year to lead it. Those
are not the only costs.
> I suspect that all the litigation is the
> straw that broke the camels back, add to that ever increasing
> membership fees, and a bad economy, and a viable alternative in online
> chess which can cost next to nothing, if not totally FREE, and the
> scenario is set come renewal time when the member asks himself/herself
> if they might not want to pocket that $42 and spend it on something
> they need or want more. IF -- a BIG IF -- the current trend between
> 2008 - 2009 continues which saw a net LOSS of 2344 members from Apr.
> to Apr Yr./Yr. as technology advances I would expect to see those loss
> numbers accelerate.
Having watched the very successful growth of ICC, and also been the
main agent at Chessville which reached 60,000 chess fans a week, I
would agree with you.
The odd thing is that when chess politicos read these numbers and
comments they merely hiss at you. They do not say their own
numbers :) As if they didn't care what they achieved with member's
money, if anything.
> The unknown here is so-called "Scholastic" membership in USCF. IF the
> economic recovery is slow or prolonged families are likely to spend
> disposable income elsewhere. Indeed I would expect the same would be
> true not only for chess but most extracurricular activities. The
> advent of the internet is likely to make a big impact as online gaming
> continues to grow.
Hear him! But here us 8 years ago too. We, who were here said the
same. But where was USCF? [in New Windsor, not the new Meth capital of
the South, Crossville]
> I compare the leadership of the USCF to the dinosaurs: large, slow
> moving, and equally stupid. The comet has hit and they are failing to
> notice and adapt to change -- in this case economic, technological,
> and social -- believing they will go one forever. We know what
> happened to the dinosaurs.
Nature did not as much put them down, as prefer other creatures, in a
Darwinian sense, to promote?
Cordially, Phil Innes
micky
.
>We know what happened to the dinosaurs.
---
Yeah ! They became fossils - like Larry Parr ...
___
The Masked Bishop
in anyone's eyes is the rating.
If you can come up with a service that can fairly rate OTB
chessplayers and keep a decent database that is easy to use and
accessible to anyone who subscribes to it, the USCF can die, quietly
and unmourned.
But since you aren't going to do that, and neither is anyone else, the
USCF will march on. None of the rest matters. The magazine, the Board,
the members, the clubs, the affiliates, the tournaments, the
grandmasters, the lifers, the dipshits, the psychos, the lawsuits, the
museums, the Fischer freaking, the crap you can order...all of it is
INCIDENTAL.
First principles, Clarisse. It's the rating. That is the only reason
any of us are members. Tell me that ain't so, and if it ain't, then
why exactly are you here?
TMB
None
First principles, Clarisse. It's the rating. That is the only reason
any of us are members. Tell me that ain't so, and if it ain't, then
why exactly are you here? --TMB
The problem with the principles is the principals.
samsloan
Are you the real NONE or the Fake NONE?
Bobcat
TMB You have expressed it in a nut shell when you say:
> The only thing, and I mean the ONLY thing, that keeps the USCF valid
> in anyone's eyes is the rating.
HOWEVER.... there is an inflection point coming when the COST of
membership -- vs -- the benefits of having a rating needs to be
examined. Before I comment further I need to remind everyone, once
rated, always rated. Thus should you let your membership lapse like I
have on purpose, you still maintain your rating. Thus the ONLY reason
to maintain your membership in USCF is so one can continue to play in
USCF sponsored OTB tournaments wherein rating points are won or lost.
Now Onward.....
CNNMoney today is reporting they feel that 7 MILLION jobs have been
PERMANENTLY lost post Great Recession. That is a lot of jobs. The
Price of gasoline hit a 15 month high, and expected financial recovery
is expected to remain weak. In short the question remains how many
USCF members might feel they need to tighten up their wallets. Is the
cost of maintaining membership in the USCF justified when most of the
person's dues, which is getting higher and higher and is being wasted
on things such as frivolous lawsuits, politics, etc. ? At which point
does a person say, "I've had enough", or, "I can't afford it anymore"?
And the ONLY thing that keeps USCF valid is a person's OTB Rating, as
online rating systems do exist and work quite well, some even better
than the USCF's OTB rating system. If there were an alternative to the
USCF OTB tournaments and rating system, I think the exit from the USCF
membership would be higher than it is now. That said there is an
inflection point coming when the costs of membership are out weighed
by Economic reality: given that the AVERAGE USCF member might enter
into 1 or 2 tournaments per year at what point will people simple
close their wallets and head for the doors? If things get better they
can always rejoin and they will still have their USCF rating waiting.
In the meantime there are many online chess sites that cost little to
nothing to join, and in which you can earn a rating in, and are
flexible and configurable to the member's wishes, flexibility which is
still missing in the USCF. USCF needs to modernize, update their
ratings systems to reflect the membership -- right now rating
deflation is a problem due to the high influx of UNDER RATED
Scholastic members -- give each member the right to chose how they
want to be rated in so-called duel rated tournaments, etc. If USCF
does NOT modernize, become more flexible, and more competitive, any
disposable income I might have, might get spent on something I REALLY
want rather on the USCF, which returns nothing to me. A USCF rating
*IS* important to me, it is just NOT that important given how much it
costs, how much I get in return (almost NOTHING), and how my money is
being spent.
None
I am none of the NONE's.
None
> STRAW THAT BROKE THE CAMEL'S BACK WAS....
>
> The sale of a free and clear building in New Windsor and the absurd
> move to Crossville which a number of us strongly opposed at the time.
> When the mortgage was paid off in New Windsor members were PROMISED
> that it would remain the permanent home of American chess.
>
One shouldn't feed the trolls but hear goes:
One might contend that if we hadn't moved from the building that
secured a mammoth credit line, we'd be out of business by now. Tell
the weasel I said that.