Armed Forces Chess Championship
Mark Harrington
Championship. The national event was played over the Columbus Day weekend @
the US chess center. I've email the center's director several times for
input to no avail. In addition, I hardly see any coverage of the event in
the Chess Life (except for last year when it was 10 months after the event).
Any information would be appreciated.
Mark D. Harrington
mdh...@earthlink.net
Ofergneezy
This year's coverage in Chess Life is scheduled for one year after the
event. You can wait that long, can't you?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Tom Klem
shipped by Rider Truck to New Windsor, where they will be 'replayed' over
and over again, until Gore wins.
(sic)
"Ofergneezy" <oferg...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:907k0a$kbo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Ofergneezy
not Gore. But perhaps the Gore people can get some of the moves
disqualified.
In article <t2evd2s...@corp.supernews.com>,
"Tom Klem" <the...@endspamlvcm.com> wrote:
> Actually, the results aren't 'certified' yet, and, the moves are being
> shipped by Rider Truck to New Windsor, where they will be 'replayed'
over
> and over again, until Gore wins.
>
> (sic)
>
> "Ofergneezy" <oferg...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:907k0a$kbo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Chesspride
>Does anyone know what the results were for the Armed Forces Chess
>Championship. The national event was played over the Columbus Day weekend @
>the US chess center.
Just my two cents, but until the USCF office actually administers the bidding
process for this event, I don't consider it a National Event.
Eric C. Johnson
Paul Onstad
> >Championship. The national event was played over the Columbus Day weekend @
> >the US chess center.
>
> process for this event, I don't consider it a National Event.
>
> Eric C. Johnson
Have you been feeling particularly snotty the last week or so?
..Although I don't suppose, "Not recognized by E. C. Johnson," ever hurt
anyone.
-Paul
Chesspride
>
>..Although I don't suppose, "Not recognized by E. C. Johnson," ever hurt
>anyone.
It's a definitional thing.
Within USCF...National Events are events owned and operated by USCF.
If the bidding process is not administered by the USCF office, then it's not a
National Event...even if the previous editor liked to put the TLA under
"National Events" in Chess Life.
If I run "National Bird's Opening Championship" does that make it a natioal
event?
(Trick question, because use of the word "National" in TLAs is restriced by the
USCF office)
No, it's not me being snotty....but trying to pass along information (something
you rarely do).
Eric C. Johnson
Tom Klem
much like 1. b4!!, and I paraphrase, "Today in Florida ... Vice President
AlGore pulled ahead by five hundred [lawyers] over Governor Bush"
Says it all, no offense to our esteemed colleagues, Wick Deer, et al.
Thank you,
Tom Klem
"Ofergneezy" <oferg...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:9089ji$4c5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> As it's the Armed Forces Championship, it's likely the moves favor Bush,
> not Gore. But perhaps the Gore people can get some of the moves
> disqualified.
>
> In article <t2evd2s...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Tom Klem" <the...@endspamlvcm.com> wrote:
> > Actually, the results aren't 'certified' yet, and, the moves are being
> > shipped by Rider Truck to New Windsor, where they will be 'replayed'
> over
> > and over again, until Gore wins.
> >
> > (sic)
> >
> > "Ofergneezy" <oferg...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:907k0a$kbo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
RSHaas
I think the Russian Air Force handily defeated the Alabama National Guard.
Paul Onstad
Then I'll help out by bringing back some information:
"Does anyone know what the results were for the Armed Forces
Chess Championship. The national event was played over the Columbus
Day weekend @ the US chess center."
Nothing was said about USCF sanction, TLAs, National Bird's Opening, or even
National with a capital N.
Blow your nose, period.
-Paul
AlforChess
Championship. >>
Apparently the answer is "no."
As Willy Loman would say: "Isn't that remarkable?"
I haven't checked USCF's website for this info. Perhaps it's there someplace?
Regards, al
li...@ork.net
> << Does anyone know what the results were for the Armed Forces Chess
> Championship. >>
> Apparently the answer is "no."
> As Willy Loman would say: "Isn't that remarkable?"
> I haven't checked USCF's website for this info. Perhaps it's there someplace?
Would this comedy continue, unabated, unopposed, funded by ignorant (and
rapidly declining) adult members, were it not for the lack of OMOV?
Time for OMOV. Time for representation.
Peter C. Nixon
>US Chess Center
>2000 U.S. Armed Forces Championship
>October 7-9
>Columbus Day Weekend
>Air Force has won the team championship three years in a row.
I could not find any other results.
--
Peter C. Nixon
http://www.members.home.net/nixonpc/index.htm
<li...@ork.net> wrote in message news:3NzW5.1405$yA5.2...@news.shore.net...
> AlforChess <alfor...@aol.com> wrote:
> > << Does anyone know what the results were for the Armed Forces Chess
> > Championship. >>
>
TOMDORSCH
>Championship. >>
>Apparently the answer is "no."
>
>As Willy Loman would say: "Isn't that remarkable?"
>
>I haven't checked USCF's website for this info. Perhaps it's there someplace?
The good news is you can find the results at
http://www.chessctr.org/results.htm, the webpage
of the US Chess Center, the venue for the event.
The bad news is that they only list the results of
the 1996-1999 Armed Forces Championships.
While this alacrity is underwhelming, it does put
them four years ahead of the USCF website.
Regards,
Tom Dorsch
ASCACHESS
>the 1996-1999 Armed Forces Championships.
>
According to Eric Johnson, the Armed Forces Championships are not an "official"
national championship because no one in New Windsor said so.
It is curious that members of the armed forces are treated with less financial
courtesy than criminals.
Let us not further alienate them by challenging the legitimacy of their
national championship.
Richard Peterson
TOMDORSCH
"official"
>national championship because no one in New Windsor said so.
>
>It is curious that members of the armed forces are treated with less financial
>courtesy than criminals.
>
>Let us not further alienate them by challenging the legitimacy of their
>national championship.
>
>Richard Peterson
It is a shame that our men and women in the
Armed Forces don't get the respect they deserve.
Why don't we just pay Goichberg $10K? Doesn't
that automatically make the events credible and
worthwhile?
Regards,
Tom Dorsch
RA19801821
Member of the 1968 Armed Forces
Championship Team
RSHaas
national championship because no one in New Windsor said so.
Not that my opinion matters much... but I wouldn't designate the Armed Forces
Championship as a national title event. Its OK as just an Armed Forces title
event.
Chessdon
chess and at least one other area is the subject of an editorial I am currently
researching and may have a report on before year-end.
I am talking about the apparent pre Chess-in-the-Schools one-million dollar
Thomas Emory bequest to the American Chess Foundation and the Fred Cramer
quarter-million dollar bequest to the American Chess Foundation.
Don Schultz
>Subject: Re: Armed Forces Chess Championship
>From: tomd...@aol.com (TOMDORSCH)
>Date: 12/5/00 2:16 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20001205021625...@ng-fp1.aol.com>
Chesspride
>According to Eric Johnson, the Armed Forces Championships are not an
>"official"
>national championship because no one in New Windsor said so.
>
Well, neither is the All-America Cup, right Richard?
Because it is *your* property and not bid out of New Windsor.
That's the reason...private events are private events.
The World Open is a private event.
The Armed Forces Championship is a private event.
The All America Cup is a private event.
National Events are created, bought, or recognized by the EB ...AND...bid out
by the national office.
The Armed Forces Championship as run by the US Chess Center was never bid out
by the office. It was never approved by the ED or EB. The US Chess Center
just decided one day to run it.
I cannot help it if the former editor of CL opted to run the TLA under National
Events...even though I advised him that no bidding process for the event had
occurred.
Can I run a "national" (sic) event on my own...with no input from the office or
EB...and just "expect" it to appear in the National Events listings?
That is not how it works...and that is what I am pointing out.
>
>Let us not further alienate them by challenging the legitimacy of their
>national championship.
Fine..but again, the distinction is between a private championship (run by
anyone) and a "national event" which signifies that the USCF *owns* and *bids
out* the property.
Eric C. Johnson
ASCACHESS
>
>The Armed Forces Championship is a private event.
>
>The All America Cup is a private event.
>
>National Events are created, bought, or recognized by the EB ...AND...bid out
>by the national office.
The Armed Forces Championship is a private event?
It is like the Greeks calling everyone else barbarians.
Either New Windsor owns "it" and has sanctioned it or it does not count?
Right?
New Windsor does not own "chess" or the title "national championships".
Your bizarre attitude that all "official" recognition must come from the USCF
insiders and employees is just nonsense.
FIDE sanctions USCF. USCF sanctions FIDE. Capone sanctions Lucky Luciano.
USCF has made their own bed, now they must lie in it and oh how they have lied.
This is a clear case of consent of the governed where the tide is turning
against the oppressive bureaucrats.
We no longer consent, so you bureaucrat types won't be allowed to govern those
who actually do the promotion and the work.
We will see which organization goes bankrupt first:)
Richard Peterson
Chesspride
>The Armed Forces Championship is a private event?
Yes, David Mehler decided to run it.
I think I may decide to run one with the same title here in Allentown....does
that make it a "national event"???
>
>New Windsor does not own "chess" or the title "national championships".
As usual, context is important, Richard.
The context here is "what counts as a 'national event' within the framework of
the US Chess Federation"....
>
>Your bizarre attitude that all "official" recognition must come from the USCF
>insiders and employees is just nonsense.
It is not bizarre at all to say that USCF *owns* the properties that are called
national events.
USCF *owns* the 4 major scholastic championships (National Elementary, National
High School, National Jr. High, and National Scholastic K-12 Grade Chp.).
USCF *owns* the junior chess congress name.
USCF *owns* the invitational events such as US Cadet, US Junior, US
Championship, and US Women's Championship.
USCF *owns* the National Open...the US Open...and the other events it bids out
and/or administers.
THAT is *precisely* what makes these events "national events"...the
recognition/ownership/administration by the federation.
If there is no biddiing...no administering...no EB or ED decision-making...then
(almost by definition) the event is not USCF-owned or USCF administered.
And therefore..not a National Event.
Post all you like...but them's the facts.
>
>We will see which organization goes bankrupt first:)
>
>Richard Peterson
I'm voting for yours...for that distinction.
Eric C. Johnson
Kenneth Sloan
>
> THAT is *precisely* what makes these events "national events"...the
> recognition/ownership/administration by the federation.
Recognition, yes.
Ownership/administration, no.
It's not necessary to own the event in order to recognize and sanction
it. (but, I can understand why some might think so - I simply think they
are wrong.).
It's not necessary to administer the event in order to recognize and
sanction it (but, I think the case is a bit stronger here - I'm be
generally unhappy if USCF were to sanction "national" events without at
least a modicum of control. However, there are occasions when my
happiness is not the most important issue.)
In my model of the world, it is MUCH more important for the USCF to be
firmly in control of *recognition and sanctioning* than it is for the
USCF to be involved (at any level) in *ownership*. Administration falls
squarely in the middle - I find it difficult to understand sanctioning
and recognition with NO administrative control. I can easily
understand a model where the USCF itself *owns* NOTHING (except the
right to recognize and sanction)
--
Kenneth Sloan sl...@uab.edu
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/info/faculty/sloan/
Tom Klem
Tom Klem
"Chessdon" <ches...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001205074225...@ng-fd1.aol.com...
> The possible misdirection of earmarked financial support away from armed
forces
> chess and at least one other area is the subject of an editorial I am
currently
> researching and may have a report on before year-end.
>
> I am talking about the apparent pre Chess-in-the-Schools one-million
dollar
> Thomas Emory bequest to the American Chess Foundation and the Fred Cramer
> quarter-million dollar bequest to the American Chess Foundation.
>
> Don Schultz
>
> >Subject: Re: Armed Forces Chess Championship
> >From: tomd...@aol.com (TOMDORSCH)
> >Date: 12/5/00 2:16 AM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <20001205021625...@ng-fp1.aol.com>
> >
Paul Onstad
Like it or not, the Armed Forces have their own jazz bands, chess
competitions, and a lot of other things. They're not unionized yet.
-Paul
Art Wang
Originally, the Armed Forces Championship was an individual round robin
semi-invitational event run by the military. Any active duty personnel could
apply and the top rated were selected if their unit would let them go.
Thomas Emory donated the trophy and Col Ed Edmundson helped get it off the
ground.
I think the 1st event was in 1959 won by Army Pfc Arthur Fuerstein. 1960 was won
by Air Force Capt John Hudson. I played in 1961 finishing 3rd, I think, and Capt
Hudson won again. It was a very pleasant event with each of the 11 rounds hosted
by a different miltary installation in the Washington DC area (Ft McNair, Ft
Myers, Andrews Air Base, etc.)
Art Wang
SamKCon wrote:
> Eric or anyone who might know-
>
> If the Armed Services Championship is a private event that David Mehler
> "decided" to run, who ran it prior to David?
>
> I seem to remember seeing a listing of Armed Services Champions listed in
> several issues of the USCF Annual Yearbook over the years. In fact, to guess
> from one of Tom Dorsch's posting there were Armed Services Championships back
> into the 1960's.
>
> Does this mean that it is simply out there for anyone to run that wants to?
> Has it always been a "private event" or was it once a USCF event?
>
> Sam Conner
> Burke, VA
SamKCon
Chesspride
>Eric or anyone who might know-
>
>If the Armed Services Championship is a private event that David Mehler
>"decided" to run, who ran it prior to David?
>
This is where the history gets hazy, Sam C.
AFAIK...the various branches of the armed forces ran their own event...which
was then halted for various reasons (possibly funding).
USCF *may* have recognized the event back then...
...but the event STOPPED for several years.
The US Chess Center...on its own initiative..starting running an event with
that name.
>
>I seem to remember seeing a listing of Armed Services Champions listed in
>several issues of the USCF Annual Yearbook over the years.
Indeed, the editor chose to put the TLA for the Mehler event under "National
Events"...even though there was no bidding process in place for the event. Mr.
Mehler (a very nice fellow, let it be said)...simply decided, on his own, to
restart the series.
AFAIK...events gain "national event" status when the EB either recognizes or
takes action to acquire the property. National Events are supposed to be bid
out and handled administratively by the federation office. Private events do
not meet such criteria.
>In fact, to guess
>from one of Tom Dorsch's posting there were Armed Services Championships back
>into the 1960's.
Indeed, there were (operative word: were).
>
>Does this mean that it is simply out there for anyone to run that wants to?
AFAIK it is not a "singular" event..inasmuch as the armed forces used to hold
it themselves and now do not do so.
In the vacuum, the US Chess Center ran the event. That..in and of
itself...does not make the thing a national event...anymore than it would make
the World Open a national event if CCA stops holding the World Open...and then
the US Chess Center decides to do so...
>
>Has it always been a "private event" or was it once a USCF event?
AFAIK it was always a private (i.e., not bid out by or owned by USCF) event.
Recognized at one time, perhaps...but not owned by USCF.
And I think it is very confusing to list it as a National Event..as it gives a
false impression that it is a federation property held to federation rules for
bidding.
Eric C. Johnson
TOMDORSCH
>out
>by the national office.
>I cannot help it if the former editor of CL opted to run the TLA under
National
>Events
Eric, perhaps the former editor realized, as you do not,
that appreciating the Armed Forces Championship as
a national event was not just a favor done by USCF for
the Armed Forces Championship, but that it was also
a favor done by the Armed Forces Championship for
the USCF.
It's the type of classy event that the USCF should
embrace--not as a gift to them--but as a promotional
opportunity for itself.
Regards,
Tom Dorsch
Member of winning team
1968 Armed Forces Championship
Regards,
Tom Dorsch
TOMDORSCH
>to?
>Has it always been a "private event" or was it once a USCF event?
Sam-
The year our team won it, I believe it was sponsored by
someone in the USO organization who was receiving
funding from the ACF.
There are no prizes, but there is a perpetual trophy in
honor of Thomas Emery, and there was a very nice
dinner honoring the participants, full of generals and
admirals who made pleasant speeches.
I played in 1968, and I am sure that it precedes that date
by at least ten years.
Don Schultz has written that Emery (and others) endowed
the event through the ACF, and he is probably right.
Regards,
Tom Dorsch
Chesspride
>>National Events are created, bought, or recognized by the EB ...AND...bid
>>out
>>by the national office.
>
>>I cannot help it if the former editor of CL opted to run the TLA under
>National
>>Events
>Eric, perhaps the former editor realized, as you do not,
>that appreciating the Armed Forces Championship as
>a national event was not just a favor done by USCF for
>the Armed Forces Championship,
>but that it was also
>a favor done by the Armed Forces Championship for
>the USCF.
>
You mean US Chess Center, don't you, Tom?
And..quite frankly, I think it causes many more problems than it solves. It
causes confusion about what makes an event a "national event" and it spreads
confusion about USCF ownership rights with regard to the other national event
properties.
We already have too many people who are confused about these ownership
rights...and who think the local organizing partner "owns" the particular USCF
National Event properties that they run.
IMHO...it does nobody any good to take actions that continue to perpetuate this
misleading sense.
USCF National Event properties belong to the *federation*...they are held in
trust for all the members..and are assets that need to be put to work for the
good of the organization.
Any action...well-intentioned or not...that blurs the line between private
events and USCF National Events...is simply not a good thing. Period.
>
>It's the type of classy event that the USCF should
>embrace--not as a gift to them--but as a promotional
>opportunity for itself.
>
The short-term gain is not worth the long-term cost.
In a few years...when the SCF effectively "owns" the US Championship...maybe
we'll learn the bitter lesson.
Protecting USCF National Events...is not a choice...but an obligation.
Properties such as the four big National Scholastic events are important
federation assets.
Definitions such as "what makes an event a USCF National Event" are not
trivial. They strike at the core of what protecting these important federation
assets means.
I do not mind if the federation wishes to take the Armed Forces Championship
and determine it to be a national event.
But if they do so, they *must* open it to competitive bidding...that's a
delegate mandate.
Similarly...since it is clear that no such bidding process can be done for the
Armed Forces Championship - as USCF does not own it - then, by definition, it
ain't a USCF event.
Eric C. Johnson
Chesspride
>>Does this mean that it is simply out there for anyone to run that wants
>>to?
>>Has it always been a "private event" or was it once a USCF event?
>
>The year our team won it, I believe it was sponsored by
>someone in the USO organization who was receiving
>funding from the ACF.
>
>
>There are no prizes, but there is a perpetual trophy in
>honor of Thomas Emery, and there was a very nice
>dinner honoring the participants, full of generals and
>admirals who made pleasant speeches.
>
>I played in 1968, and I am sure that it precedes that date
>by at least ten years.
>
>Don Schultz has written that Emery (and others) endowed
>the event through the ACF, and he is probably right.
>
Tom's background information makes it clear the event is not a USCF National
Event.
Eric C. Johnson
Mike Murray
>In a few years...when the SCF effectively "owns" the US Championship...maybe
>we'll learn the bitter lesson.
>
>Protecting USCF National Events...is not a choice...but an obligation.
But "protecting" an event by not having it doesn't seem particularly
effective.
Phil Innes
chess...@aol.com (Chesspride) wrote:
> Fine..but again, the distinction is between a private championship (run by
> anyone) and a "national event" which signifies that the USCF *owns* and *bids
> out* the property.
>
> Eric C. Johnson
this was never the criteria for national chess organisations, eric
not even with fidé - after all, they took over the WCh, and managed its
cycle, rules, contender selection, purses, etc, - but they never created
them
there are pluses and minuses to this - the champion is no longer the
controller of what happens, potentially an independent organisation can be
this process has now failed because fidé (for example) consider the title a
'property' of their own, and have overmanaged affairs to the degree that
they have squeezed all the life from it, and players feel disenfranchised
uscf need not become this sort of python
cordially, phil innes
Kenneth Sloan
>
> But "protecting" an event by not having it doesn't seem particularly
> effective.
Surely the military will understand that "sometimes it's necessary to
destroy the tournament in order to save it"
ASCACHESS
>trivial. They strike at the core of what protecting these important
>federation
>assets means.
>
>I do not mind if the federation wishes to take the Armed Forces Championship
>and determine it to be a national event.
>
>But if they do so, they *must* open it to competitive bidding...that's a
>delegate mandate.
>
>Similarly...since it is clear that no such bidding process can be done for
>the
>Armed Forces Championship - as USCF does not own it - then, by definition, it
>ain't a USCF event.
>
>Eric C. Johnson
>
>
Eric,
You can take what is simple and take it over the top.
I must say that I am pleased that you have stopped defining all national
championships as "USCF".
As you have pointed out many times, there is a brand value in USCF name. What
ever that value is defines the worth of the title.
Which is worth more?
The US Armed Forces Championship or
USCF Armed Forces Championship?
I wasn't even aware USCF had an Army.
I suspect the Generals and Admirals would chuckle if they knew USCF was bidding
out their championship.
Richard Peterson
Chesspride
>> Fine..but again, the distinction is between a private championship (run by
>> anyone) and a "national event" which signifies that the USCF *owns* and
>*bids
>> out* the property.
>
>this was never the criteria for national chess organisations, eric
>not even with fidé - after all, they took over the WCh, and managed its
>cycle, rules, contender selection, purses, etc, - but they never created
>created
>them
Phil,
I am pointing out the USCF rules...if you wish to dispute it..or work to change
it, so be it.
USCF considers events to be National Events if it owns/administers/bids out the
event. Period.
But if I tell you that the sky is blue...and you say it is green...what then?
Eric C. Johnson
Chesspride
>I must say that I am pleased that you have stopped defining all national
>championships as "USCF".
Obviously not.
If YOU decide to run a "national championship" you may do so...but you won't be
getting a TLA under "National Events" (and if you use the word "national" you
may not get a TLA at all - it is a restricted word).
But again, the context is "within the world of USCF"....
>
>Which is worth more?
>The US Armed Forces Championship or
>USCF Armed Forces Championship?
>I wasn't even aware USCF had an Army.
Nor does USCF have a "USCF Armed Forces Championship", which is the entire
point. No such event exists.
There *is* an Armed Forces Championship...a private event run by David Mehler's
US Chess Center...and THAT event should not be getting National Event TLA
status.
That's the point, too.
They can have a TLA...I'd be happy for USCF to send equipment to the event (we
did so in several of the past years..sending free copies of Informant or NIC to
the participants).
But a National Event? It doesn't qualify..as it is not an administrative
property of the USCF.
Is this really so hard to understand? Do people have this hard a time
understanding definitions of federation property vs. private property?
Eric C. Johnson
Phil Innes
chess...@aol.com (Chesspride) wrote:
>>
>>> Fine..but again, the distinction is between a private championship (run by
>>> anyone) and a "national event" which signifies that the USCF *owns* and
>>*bids
>>> out* the property.
>
>>
>>this was never the criteria for national chess organisations, eric
>>not even with fidé - after all, they took over the WCh, and managed its
>>cycle, rules, contender selection, purses, etc, - but they never created
>
>>created
>>them
>
> Phil,
>
> I am pointing out the USCF rules...if you wish to dispute it..or work to
change
> it, so be it.
indeed, i have already done so
pointedly saying that national organisations need to be a bit transcendent
otherwise they squish, then piss off, then strangle their members
> USCF considers events to be National Events if it owns/administers/bids out
the
> event. Period.
an emotional decision then? how quaint!
> But if I tell you that the sky is blue...and you say it is green...what then?
i will tell you that you have falsely anticipated my opinion for reasons
best known to yourself, but possibly in your preference to the normally
agreed colour of the sky (blue) and your projected aspersion to 'my' green
you seek to disparage my opinion by eccentric analogy, and that you engage
the subect spuriously
how now?
phil
> Eric C. Johnson
Chesspride
>> USCF considers events to be National Events if it owns/administers/bids out
>the
>> event. Period.
>
>an emotional decision then? how quaint!
No, a question of organizational assets.
Saying that USCF "owns" two magazine brands (Chess Life and School Mates) in no
way "squishes" local groups who may publish their own magazines.
Nor is it "quaint" or "emotional"...it is a mere statement of organizational
property/assets.
USCF's assets include its magazines, its office building, its rating system,
its membership lists, and its catalog business.
AND the tournament properties that it OWNS.
The fact that it chooses to bid these properties out...looking for local
partners...rather than running them all internally is irrelevant to this point.
The events are federation assets...they belong the organization.
Again...the question becomes "which events does USCF own..and which does it not
own."
This is not a trick question, nor is it emotional.
But I suppose the very fact that people have such a hard time with it tells us
that the organization is in deep, deep trouble.
Few other businesses that manage/run events have such trouble distinguishing
which ones they "own" from which ones they do not "own"...etc.
From this we can deduce that USCF is an incredibly weak organization.
Eric C. Johnson
Neil Brennen
chess...@aol.com (Chesspride) wrote:
> Saying that USCF "owns" two magazine brands (Chess Life and School
Mates) in no
> way "squishes" local groups who may publish their own magazines.
Thank God for that!
--
Sincerely,
Neil Brennen
Editor and Publisher, DELAWARE VALLEY CHESS
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Phil Innes
>>
>>> USCF considers events to be National Events if it owns/administers/bids out
>>the
>>> event. Period.
>>
>>an emotional decision then? how quaint!
>
> No, a question of organizational assets.
>
> Saying that USCF "owns" two magazine brands (Chess Life and School Mates) in
no
> way "squishes" local groups who may publish their own magazines.
>
> Nor is it "quaint" or "emotional"...it is a mere statement of organizational
> property/assets.
let me just break in at this point - could be anywhere - i was only
wondering eric what the link is between what uscf does and the use of the
term 'national' that is any different from anyone else's use of the same
terms
eg; i have a tournament here in vermont, and allow any americans to come
play in it 9not just vermonters, or humble village folk where the toruney is
held) and advertise it as 'national maple syrup chess-fest'
phil
Chesspride
>eg; i have a tournament here in vermont, and allow any americans to come
>held) and advertise it as 'national maple syrup chess-fest'
OK...so by now I gather you understand that the term "National Event" is a noun
denoting a specific type of event (i.e., a USCF-owned or administered event).
You...as a private person...are free to run any event you wish..and name it as
you like.
But if you seek to run it under USCF rating conditions...to advertise it under
USCF's TLA system...then you also must recognize that the term "national"
carries a specific meaning (apart from the general meaning). In the context of
advertising, it is a restricted word.
Any group can run a "national" event (small n) but in the USCF
world...National Events (big N) are those recognized, run, owned and/or
administered by USCF.
Thus "national maple syrup chess-fest" would run afoul of these
advertising/recognition rules. And for good reason, for it would lead readers
to believe that your private event was a USCF endorsed and owned property.
This is also true at the state level...where USCF endorses the primacy of state
federations in terms of the word "state" or the actual name of a state (e.g.,
Pennsylvania).
If the Pennsylvania State Chess Federation grants permission for a group to run
a "state championship", they may use that wording in a TLA. The TLA clerk is
supposed to verify just such permission if a "state championship" style event
is submitted. If PSCF does not give such advance approval, then the
independent group cannot run such a TLA - they would be advised to drop the TLA
or change the name.
For example, I cannot run a "Pennsylvania State Chess Championship" here in
Allentown under current TLA guidelines without first getting approval of the
PSCF.
I can do so as a private event...with no USCF connection, of course. But if I
seek to have it USCF-rated and advertised..I must get state approval to use the
restricted word "state" or "Pennsylvania"...(at least in theory).
Why? Because then we'd have half a dozen events all claiming to be "state
championships" for certain states (sound familiar?)...
That's part of USCF's function too...to endorse the recognized role of state
federations in keeping unity in terms of state championships. In effect,
USCF's national advertising forum is a watchdog for the STATE FEDERATION'S
tournament properties!
Again....this discussion spun out of control because folks missed the idea that
"National Event" was a very specific term....with a precise meaning (i.e., a
USCF asset).
Eric C. Johnson
Phil Innes
chess...@aol.com (Chesspride) wrote:
>>
>>eg; i have a tournament here in vermont, and allow any americans to come
>>play in it not just vermonters, or humble village folk where the tourney is
>>held) and advertise it as 'national maple syrup chess-fest'
>
> OK...so by now I gather you understand that the term "National Event" is a
noun
> denoting a specific type of event (i.e., a USCF-owned or administered event).
um...
> You...as a private person...are free to run any event you wish..and name it as
> you like.
yup
> But if you seek to run it under USCF rating conditions...
i never mentioned either
> to advertise it under
> USCF's TLA system...
not neither
> then you also must recognize that the term "national"
> carries a specific meaning (apart from the general meaning). In the context
of
> advertising, it is a restricted word.
uscf have restricted the use of the word national, not because the event is
national or not, but because the uscf system is a national one...
> Any group can run a "national" event (small n) but in the USCF
> world...National Events (big N) are those recognized, run, owned and/or
> administered by USCF.
we should send this in to the 'x' files, sort of parallel universe thing
see- there are these administrators, and there is tom klem, and there is me
and you
what happens is; i want to run a chess tournament, and you and tom show up,
you are telling me that it can't be really National, but i have already
printed all the material (fortunately all in lower case) so tom steps in and
says ...
> Thus "national maple syrup chess-fest" would run afoul of these
> advertising/recognition rules. And for good reason, for it would lead readers
> to believe that your private event was a USCF endorsed and owned property.
i never even mentioned uscf! anyway, what are you going to do about it?
> This is also true at the state level...where USCF endorses the primacy of
state
> federations in terms of the word "state" or the actual name of a state (e.g.,
> Pennsylvania).
'struth! there are a bunch of players in burlington, vermont, about three
hours north of here on a good day, about three days in winter - they always
win the state championship because none of us southern vermonters ever go up
there
> If the Pennsylvania State Chess Federation grants permission for a group to
run
> a "state championship", they may use that wording in a TLA. The TLA clerk is
> supposed to verify just such permission if a "state championship" style event
> is submitted. If PSCF does not give such advance approval, then the
> independent group cannot run such a TLA - they would be advised to drop the
TLA
> or change the name.
its more complicated than a bake sale, isn't it?
i only know about some international gigs - i could never make a go of it
here (should have done apple pie championship?)
> For example, I cannot run a "Pennsylvania State Chess Championship" here in
> Allentown under current TLA guidelines without first getting approval of the
> PSCF.
but could i run a penn state championship here in vermont?
> I can do so as a private event...with no USCF connection, of course. But if I
> seek to have it USCF-rated and advertised..I must get state approval to use
the
> restricted word "state" or "Pennsylvania"...(at least in theory).
this answers my previous question
> Why? Because then we'd have half a dozen events all claiming to be "state
> championships" for certain states (sound familiar?)...
who else has a maple-syrup championship? perhaps i should write to tim
redman? although he seems a bit intellectual, maybe a 'maple-syrup and
marcel proust championship' ?
> That's part of USCF's function too...to endorse the recognized role of state
> federations in keeping unity in terms of state championships. In effect,
> USCF's national advertising forum is a watchdog for the STATE FEDERATION'S
> tournament properties!
this redman guy already owns my tournament?
> Again....this discussion spun out of control because folks missed the idea
that
> "National Event" was a very specific term....with a precise meaning (i.e., a
> USCF asset).
they should have consulted with you first - i certainly intend to before
proceeding further with my idea, and silly ideas of how to proceed with it
thank you eric
cordially, phil
> Eric C. Johnson
TOMDORSCH
>that
>"National Event" was a very specific term....with a precise meaning (i.e.,
>a
>USCF asset).
Yeah. Part of the confusion stems from the fact that
some people use words like "World" instead of
national, and there are dummies out there who do not
realize that "National" means something different and
better than"World."
Their confusion is compounded when this "private"
event gets more coverage in Chess Life than any
"national" event or "USCF property."
In fact, there is further confusion that FIDE allows
the word "World" to be used willy-nilly, while the
USCF ferociously enforces use of the word "National."
Someday, when CL publishes an obit on the USCF,
this will all have to be explained by some old fogey,
like ECJ, who was around twenty years ago.
I'm sure there will be great interest.
Regards,
Tom Dorsch
lta...@my-deja.com
"Phil Innes" <in...@together.net> wrote:
> >events all claiming to be
> >"state championships" for certain states (sound familiar?)...
>
> who else has a maple-syrup championship? perhaps i should write to
> tim redman? although he seems a bit intellectual, maybe a
> 'maple-syrup and marcel proust championship' ?
>
Phil,
Should you organize such an event I'd do my best to play. We've had
sponsorship from the poultry industry --- maybe Recherches des Temps
Perdue is a possibility?
A research question: it seems to me that in old issues of Chess Life I
used to see armed forces events featured more prominently than they
have been recently. Also, IIRC, lists of previous armed forces
champions used to appear in the yearbooks (I think the list included
such players as Emory Tate, Russ Garber, maybe Bill Gray). Can anyone
confirm this?
Regards, Larry
Chesspride
>Someday, when CL publishes an obit on the USCF,
>this will all have to be explained by some old fogey,
>like ECJ, who was around twenty years ago.
OK Tom...all our local events will be called "Universe Opens" from now on.
Eric C. Johnson
Warren Porter
> A research question: it seems to me that in old issues of Chess Life I
> used to see armed forces events featured more prominently than they
> have been recently. Also, IIRC, lists of previous armed forces
> champions used to appear in the yearbooks (I think the list included
> such players as Emory Tate, Russ Garber, maybe Bill Gray). Can anyone
> confirm this?
When I played in the 1972 event, the crosstable appeared in Chess Life (or
was it CL&R then), but I'm not sure it was in the Yearbook issue.
--
Warren Porter Remove digits
Phil Innes
> In article <8pXX5.4486$g77.3...@nntp2.onemain.com>,
> "Phil Innes" <in...@together.net> wrote:
>> >events all claiming to be
>> >"state championships" for certain states (sound familiar?)...
>>
>> who else has a maple-syrup championship? perhaps i should write to
>> tim redman? although he seems a bit intellectual, maybe a
>> 'maple-syrup and marcel proust championship' ?
>>
>
> Phil,
>
> Should you organize such an event I'd do my best to play. We've had
> sponsorship from the poultry industry --- maybe Recherches des Temps
> Perdue is a possibility?
Lük! i find you jest with me sir, which is cruel coming so soon after the
sobr response from Lord Dorsch & i have come over all depressed, especially
after Eric-Vader has just patiently explained at such length why such a
championship is impossible
proust may be pushkin it - so! you know gogol? (maybe a ninja-gogol-syrup
festung) he would like this (although this would immediately eliminate Tim
Redman who hasn't read anything written after 1637)
otherwise i will try to arrange for sam to become a country - situated only
in a dozen taxis which could park in some lot down there in the bronx and
magnetic boards and bottles of pper-vodka could be passed from window to
window
although this corres may seem absurd, if you mess around with international
events it is very often like this...
may the farce be with you
phil
lta...@my-deja.com
"Phil Innes" <in...@together.net> wrote:
> In article <90r4bk$p51$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> , lta...@my-deja.com
wrote:
>
> > In article <8pXX5.4486$g77.3...@nntp2.onemain.com>,
> > "Phil Innes" <in...@together.net> wrote:
> >> >events all claiming to be
> >> >"state championships" for certain states (sound familiar?)...
> >>
> >> who else has a maple-syrup championship? perhaps i should write to
> >> tim redman? although he seems a bit intellectual, maybe a
> >> 'maple-syrup and marcel proust championship' ?
> >>
> >
> > Phil,
> >
> > Should you organize such an event I'd do my best to play. We've had
> > sponsorship from the poultry industry --- maybe Recherches des
Temps
> > Perdue is a possibility?
>
> Lük! i find you jest with me sir, which is cruel coming so soon after
> the sobr response from Lord Dorsch & i have come over all depressed,
> especially after Eric-Vader has just patiently explained at such
> length why such a
> championship is impossible
Lük? You shouldn't be depressed, there are far worse things than maple
syrup.
>
> proust may be pushkin it - so! you know gogol? (maybe a
> ninja-gogol-syrup
> festung) he would like this (although this would immediately
> eliminate Tim Redman who hasn't read anything written after 1637)
>
> otherwise i will try to arrange for sam to become a country -
> situated only
> in a dozen taxis which could park in some lot down there in the bronx
> and magnetic boards and bottles of pper-vodka could be passed from
> window to window
The country of Slon, then.
>
> although this corres may seem absurd, if you mess around with
international
> events it is very often like this...
>
> may the farce be with you
>
> phil
>
Thanks.
Cheers, Larry
P.S. Now I see you're a southerner, but do you happen to know any good
chess coaches for children in Montpelier? A friend was asking.
TOMDORSCH
>
>Eric C. Johnson
>
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I'm humbled.
Regards,
Tom Dorsch
Chesspride
Oh...did I tell you we would be registering the name...and then sending you
cease and desist orders?
That's part of the deal, too.
Eric C. Johnson
Phil Innes
>>
>> phil
>>
>
> Thanks.
>
> Cheers, Larry
>
> P.S. Now I see you're a southerner, but do you happen to know any good
> chess coaches for children in Montpelier? A friend was asking.
>
montpelier is full of politicos and those really 'up' coffee joints
no-one in their right mind goes there
your friend should take note
there are a bunch of chess players in burlington that would know the north
of the state and (if any) chess players in it - e-mail taylor kingston
ps: sam has gotton back to me on the country of slon thing - he would rather
do it all from a bus and asked me to start raising subscriptions
i said i'd do it if he would ride all the way to mexico with eric driving
tim redman has already sent me 50 bucks, and tom dorsch wrote me one for 250
but it bounced
cordially, phil
Chesspride
>>
>> THAT is *precisely* what makes these events "national events"...the
> recognition/ownership/administration by the federation.
>
>
>Recognition, yes.
>
>Ownership/administration, no.
>
>It's not necessary to own the event in order to recognize and sanction
>it. (but, I can understand why some might think so - I simply think they
>are wrong.).
Are you making a strictly logical argument here, Ken...or are you talking about
how things are NOW.
Right NOW (thank goodness)...USCF recognizes AND owns/administers all National
Events. There are no private owners.
Each National Event is bid out through the USCF office. (For a helpful
brochure on this topic, check the USCF website or call the office - all the
events listed in the brochure are not only recognized by the federation, but
are also OWNED by the federation).
>It's not necessary to administer the event in order to recognize and
>sanction it (but, I think the case is a bit stronger here - I'm be
>generally unhappy if USCF were to sanction "national" events without at
>least a modicum of control.
Thank you. Control is the key that keeps us from having situations like 3
different US Cadet Championships....or 4 different US Class Championships.
>
>In my model of the world, it is MUCH more important for the USCF to be
>firmly in control of *recognition and sanctioning* than it is for the
>USCF to be involved (at any level) in *ownership*.
In the case of national titles...it behooves the office and the delegate body
to get this one right.
Ownership = control.
Without control of the properties, the private owners can tell the organization
to go up a tree.
And in some recent cases, the local partners have tried to pull just such a
stunt. It is bad policy to allow private ownership of National Event
properties....at any level.
>Administration falls
>squarely in the middle - I find it difficult to understand sanctioning
>and recognition with NO administrative control. I can easily
>understand a model where the
>USCF itself *owns* NOTHING (except the
>right to recognize and sanction)
Um...well how on earth can you de-recognize or de-certify a private event?
If you do, and the event goes on anyway...and the world "ignores" your
decertification...doesn't the USCF as an organization suffer?
Far, far better to establish the principle that the USCF must own and
administer all USCF-rated National Events....so that nobody tries the recent
stunts of trying to run things their own way for such important properties.
That is part of why the federation paid for the title rights to the National
Scholastics in the 1980s.
I would hope that a majority of the delegates would agree that it is vital to
avoid such costly battles over ownership/recognition. The way to avoid it is
to spread the principle far and wide that USCF *owns* the National Event
properties it recognizes, that it bids them out, and that it recognizes no such
properties that it does not own.
One way to avoid conflicts over ownership rights is to capitulate...a policy
that seems to stand behind Ken S.'s "reasonable" position here.
But capitulation or other signs of weakness are precisely what must be avoided.
Far, far better to agree from the start that National Events are properties
owned, administered, bid out/run, and recognized by the federation office.
The other road...though sounding reasonable at first...leads to a position of
grave weakness. It would be the first step toward prying away valuable
National Event properties from the federation.
Example: A prominent organizer runs the National Open...yet recognizes that he
must secure the rights through bidding. The bidding right now is mostly de
facto, but without the ownership issue...this organizer could tell the office
to go stuff itself, run the event anyway, and effectively "take" the property.
Is that what we want?
A prominent state organizer often threatened to run "his" event anyway...even
if USCF withdrew recognition and awarded the bid to another group...thus
"prying" away the property. Is that what we want?
A prominent scholastic organizer could try to run a "National Elementary
Championship"...as a private event...effectively taking the property. If the
organizer is allowed access to USCF's advertising and rating system for this
private event...the taking is complete. Is this what we want?
A prominent foundation could "take" the US Championship by securing
"recognition" for a few years and then tell the office to go stuff itself and
then run the event independently, without even a formal nod about bidding or
recognition. Is this what we want?
Let us be clear...by separating "recognition" and
"ownership/administration/bidding"...we go down the road of weakness and
getting smaller and smaller each year.
And if National Event properties are seen as important federation assets, ones
capable of generating positive revenue streams, then for any subset of
delegates to start us down the road of "recognition, not ownership" is to allow
an important set of federation assets to be lost. It would be deriliction of
duty...just as bad as if they sold off the Chess Life brand for $1 or traded
the office building for a pack of smokes. In short, it would be malfeasance.
Eric C. Johnson