Seirawan on No-Confidence
Chessdon
discusses the results of the Ilyumzhinov no-confidence motion. Yasser gave me
permission to post it.
First though let me explain that Serge and Owen are associates of Bessel Kok
and World Champion Garry Kasparov respectively. For those that don’t know,
Bessel Kok is a former Chairman and Co-Founder of the Grandmaster Association.
He is a former President of SWIFT the organization responsible for virtually
managing virtuallly all international bank transfers. Several years back Bessel
organized the Multimillion dolllar Prize Fund World Cup with major sponsorships
from over a half dozen corporations.
From: yas...@insidechess.com (Yasser Seirawan)
Dear Serge and Owen,
Well a strange thing happened to our hoped for FIDE revolution, it failed.
Below is a message taken from a message group, rec[reational] games chess
politics, which reports on the USCF delegates meeting. The no-confidence vote
against Iljumzinov didn't "pass." The salient part of the report is:
"...FIDE:
There was a motion sponsored by Don Schultz to have the U.S. vote "No
Confidence" in Kirsan at the upcoming Olympiad in Istanbul. Naturally everyone
at the meeting feels that FIDE would be better served by new leadership.
People were torn between having us lead a no confidence motion that would have
no other country's support and would merely isolate us just when our FIDE
representatives appear to be gaining stature and credibility and may be able to
effect positive changes from within. Finally it was decided that the US will
begin developing a strong Presidential candidate to support in the next
election and will strongly press for reforms from within until the next
election occurs. Should that election not be satisfactory further measures will
be considered. Mr. Omaku was present at the Delegates' meeting..."
Hmm. A deliberate act of blindness? Our FIDE representative (s) include
having the FIDE Vice-Presidency for the last several years. Effect
positive change from within?... LOL.
Well if it wasn't so sad it would be funny. Without the no-confidence of the
USCF, a change of leadership plan is a bust. The USCF would have had to send a
very strong message of no-confidence which could have been built upon, without
it, there is no chance that a no-confidence vote in Istanbul would pass muster.
It seems we can go back to our comfortable lives and watch FIDE events
unfold. Sigh. A pity. I was hopeful that the USCF delegates would show
courage. It would have been an enjoyable fight.
I'd like to thank Garry for his agreeing to support new leadership for FIDE
and for taking a flexible position. Also to Bessel for considering the FIDE
Presidency, a thankless task to be sure.
Also, a special thanks to all who stood ready to make a positive contribution.
Toast!
Yasser
ASCACHESS
> There was a motion sponsored by Don Schultz to have the U.S. vote
>"No
>Confidence" in Kirsan at the upcoming Olympiad in Istanbul. Naturally
>everyone
>at the meeting feels that FIDE would be better served by new leadership.
Unfortunately, as noted, the motion was sponsored by Don Schultz and his
reputation has suffered among the delegates.
No longer are they sucked along by the country club charm.
They remember being fooled on the financials and they remember Schultz being
caught in a lie regarding the now ancient censure motion of a journalist in
FIDE.
While this has nothing to do with Kirsan or his evil acts, Schultz history made
the delegates leary of tying the hands of the US delegation in November.
The next time someone stand to accuse Kirsan, it should be someone who has
clean hands himself.
Richard Peterson
Richard Peterson
Chesspride
Had I been there...I would have said the following AGAINST the no-confidence
vote:
"Fellow delegates,
There is a motion on the floor to vote "no-confidence" in the current FIDE
administration.
I cannot support this vote.
Have we forgotten our recent history? In 1994...after the USCF's treacherous
vote to allow Campomanes to run once more for President...an action taken at
the behest of Kasparov....an action that took the winds out of the sails of the
likely winners of that 1994 election...the fortunes of FIDE reached a low ebb,
indeed.
It was OUR VOTE that put FIDE in the situation they found themselves in during
those dark days of 1995-96.
And yet...here is another "vote" through which we hope to influence FIDE
matters.
We must review the history carefully.
In 1996...FIDE faced tremendous problems.
1) FIDE still faced the problems of the 1993 breakaway by Kasparov and Short.
2) FIDE had yet to reach closure on the 1994 Candidates Cycle.
3) The Karpov - Kamsky match required a sponsor...and a site.
4) No plans for future world championship cycles were available.
It was under these circumstances...that K. Ilyumzhinov assumed the title of
FIDE President.
USCF had no plans to impact FIDE's situation in any positive way. USCF had no
financial resources to contribute. USCF had no personnel resources to
contribute.
USCF had no capability for hosting the Karpov - Kamsky match...despite the fact
that for the first time in over 20 years...a US player had reached the finals.
USCF instead continued to play the 1993 breakaway for all it was
worth...playing PCA vs. FIDE for its own advantage.
Under these perilous circumstances, FIDE did the following:
1) Arranged a site and a prize fund for the Karpov - Kamsky match.
2) Developed a new format for the world championship.
3) Organized the 1997/98 world championship cycle in Groningen and Lausanne.
4) Organized the 1999 world championship cycle in Las Vegas.
Over $10 million in prize money...and nearly $20 million in total
expenses...were involved in these and the other functions of FIDE's calender
over these periods.
$20 million.
Who else was willing to put $20 million into the world of chess?
Not USCF. Not the state associations who would be voting for this motion.
Is all right and perfect within FIDE? No...not by any means.
But to vote for this motion...is to conveniently forget our recent chess
history.
It is also to "conveniently forget" that it was a similar "action" by USCF
management that allowed events to unfold in this manner. Our previous vote
brought us to this point.
Instead of being a FIDE partner...USCF often acts like a FIDE critic....or FIDE
opponent.
A critic with a $20 million hole in one's pocket...and a very short memory.
Working to suggest an alternate set of candidates is fine. Even essential.
But a vote of 'no-confidence' at this point...has all the trappings of
organizational AMNESIA.
I intend to vote against this motion. I ask that my fellow delegates review
the facts...and do the same."
******
Fortunately, the motion failed.
I DO support the idea that USCF should work to support other candidates for
FIDE President.
K. Ilyumzhinov does not intend to be FIDE President forever. A replacement
team is needed.
But if USCF expects to be able to influence FIDE matters...it needs to 1)
repair its own house, 2) develop financial reserves, and 3) bring significant
financial resources to FIDE issues...so that it can begin hosting FIDE events.
One cannot snipe at the edges while others do the work...and provide the money.
If USCF wants to influence FIDE matters...it needs to be a partner who brings
real value to the table - not a beggar with a tin cup (as it was in Las Vegas,
1999).
Eric C. Johnson
Jane Adams
Isn't it just a little too late, and a little too convenient for your
filibuster now?
Jane
"Chesspride" <chess...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000816014318...@ng-ca1.aol.com...
phil
>
> The following is a copy of an email sent out by GM Yasser Seirawan which
> discusses the results of the Ilyumzhinov no-confidence motion. Yasser gave me
> permission to post it.
{snip}
> Hmm. A deliberate act of blindness? Our FIDE representative (s) include
> having the FIDE Vice-Presidency for the last several years. Effect
> positive change from within?... LOL.
{snip}
> I'd like to thank Garry for his agreeing to support new leadership for FIDE
> and for taking a flexible position. Also to Bessel for considering the FIDE
> Presidency, a thankless task to be sure.
> Yasser
he says what can be said. though this ain't the whole story, newsgroup
this is the 'chess politics' story
i would hope that new people can see the difference - more than that -
can respect the difference, and resume relations with chess players
(leaving fidé out of the discussion for a moment, it is not necessarily
the same thing)
otherwise it is not the content of the discussion which is amiss, it is
the context for this discussion, and after all these millions of words i
still resent centering the topic on chess politics alone, as if, despite
all evidence, it has not brought us to where we are
cordially,
phil innes
Bruce Draney
With all due respect, I don't really believe that Don had much to do
with the decision to vote against it. A number of Delegates were ready
to support the motion given the choice between doing nothing and doing
something to express our dissatisfaction.
What really saved FIDE was a substitute motion to reject the direct
confrontation that would lead a no-confidence vote and would surely fail
and weaken our hand. This motion was to apply pressure for change, was
to demand financial accountability and to prepare to back a strong
opposition candidate in the next election. This was also with the
understanding that further degeneration of behavior or shady actions
would lead to possible reconsideration.
The substitute motion appealed to a lot of people. It gave the
Delegates a choice of what course they wished to pursue. Was a full
frontal assault with all of its associated risks best? Was a firm but
more diplomatic approach better? Most delegates felt the Doyle
compromise offered a better alternative.
Don, Bill and other supporters tried to frame it as a "do this or we do
nothing" kind of choice, but most felt that a message of some kind was
necessary, but that no-confidence was too extreme.
It should also be mentioned that the USCF passed a major resolution
clarifying what we would or would not be willing to support with regard
to FIDE's Commerce proposal. At USCF insistence, nearly all of the
controversial aspects of this proposal were recently changed. Had we
voted no confidence, it's entirely possible that FIDE might have
retalliated by reinserting many of the objectionable items that we had
just succeeded in getting them to remove.
It was also argued that we were not exactly a model of governance
perfection ourselves given the past few years. It was pointed out that
there was nothing to replace FIDE presently except for chaos, had our no
confidence motion picked up enough support to oust Kirsan, which was
doubtful. According to Steve Doyle, there was not a single western
country that had offered to support a USCF no confidence resolution.
This basically meant that we would have been going out on a limb to make
a stand and then sawing off our own branch. It was pointed out that
presently Kirsan is the only thing separating international chess from
total chaos and absolutely no World Championships.
Kasparov's own unstable organizations have not particularly generated
any confidence in alternative solutions to Kirsan. I was particularly
impressed with our FIDE Representative, Bill Kelleher who spoke
eloquently at the meeting about how we can best push for the reforms
that everyone realizes are needed in international chess.
This debate reminds me in some ways of the debate over China. How does
the U.S. impress upon the Chinese government that we disapprove of their
policies? If we disengage and attempt to isolate them, we are merely
cutting off our nose to spite our face. If we had voted alone for
no-confidence in Kirsan and no other countries had supported us, Kirsan
would have emerged stronger and could thereafter thumb his nose at our
inability to get any other countries to agree with us. His control over
the organization could actually get stronger and our own position to
further influence events in FIDE political matters could have been
severely impaired.
Does this mean that we condone Kirsan's conduct? No. Does this mean
that we agree that holding the finals of the World Championship in Iran
is satisfactory? No. Does this mean that we feel that unpaid prize
money for WC participants is acceptable? No. Does this mean that we
don't want reform and possibly a complete change in leadership? No.
Does it mean we will tolerate much more from FIDE leadership? No. Does
it mean we will not try to mobilize western countries to demand major
reforms in FIDE? No.
Trying to always frame issues as black and white is difficult if not
impossible. There are many shades of gray. In my opinion the Delegates
did the right thing and pursued a slightly more conservative yet firm
approach to the problem.
Best Regards,
Bruce
Paul Rubin
> With all due respect, I don't really believe that Don had much to do
>with the decision to vote against it. A number of Delegates were ready
>to support the motion given the choice between doing nothing and doing
>something to express our dissatisfaction.
>
> What really saved FIDE was a substitute motion to reject the direct
>confrontation that would lead a no-confidence vote and would surely fail
>and weaken our hand.
The substitute motion was to find and support another candidate for
FIDE president, IIRC.
Is there a betting window open yet, about whether Don will be the
candidate?
phil
>
> In article <399B5D...@novia.net>, Bruce Draney <bdr...@novia.net> wrote:
> > With all due respect, I don't really believe that Don had much to do
> >with the decision to vote against it. A number of Delegates were ready
> >to support the motion given the choice between doing nothing and doing
> >something to express our dissatisfaction.
> >
> > What really saved FIDE was a substitute motion to reject the direct
> >confrontation that would lead a no-confidence vote and would surely fail
> >and weaken our hand.
is our hand so strong that it /could/ be weakened? why is it currently
weak?
i respectfully say to bruce that he has not grasped the nettle in this
case. this discussion must begin with a frank appraisal of what fidé has
achieved, and what it has not - in fact we must also look at what it
suppresses
and such a discussion must also admit to the emotion that we feel -
sometimes revulsion, and put aside grasping politics for 10 minutes,
(didn't you hear what any of these players have recently said?!),
attempt to find a more wholesome sense for what we want our world body
to be
> The substitute motion was to find and support another candidate for
> FIDE president, IIRC.
>
> Is there a betting window open yet, about whether Don will be the
> candidate?
perfect!
phil innes
Robert Musicant
<20000816014318...@ng-ca1.aol.com>...
<big snip>
>One cannot snipe at the edges while others do the work...and provide the
money.
Eric -
Do you know anything about what the source of that money is?
Bob Musicant
Bruce Draney
>
> Paul Rubin wrote:
> >
> > In article <399B5D...@novia.net>, Bruce Draney <bdr...@novia.net> wrote:
> > > With all due respect, I don't really believe that Don had much to do
> > >with the decision to vote against it. A number of Delegates were ready
> > >to support the motion given the choice between doing nothing and doing
> > >something to express our dissatisfaction.
> > >
> > > What really saved FIDE was a substitute motion to reject the direct
> > >confrontation that would lead a no-confidence vote and would surely fail
> > >and weaken our hand.
>
> weak?
and has not been in order. We are not speaking from a position of
strength. We do not have consensus. We do not according to several of
our Representatives, have ANY support from ANY other major country.
Some countries are mad at us for our handling (mis?), of the World
Championship in Las Vegas last year. Kelleher and Eade are supposed to
be representing us. Should we merely send them home and secede from
FIDE? Will the game go on internationally without us? I suspect it
will, since virtually none of the money is coming from the U.S.. You've
no doubt heard of the revised "Golden Rule". He who has the gold, makes
the rules. If we take our ball and glove and go home, because we're
indignant, does FIDE come to us, begging our forgiveness and telling us
they'll do anything to get us back? Do Russia, Georgia and China
currently have as much or more influence in FIDE than we do? We could
start the "Civil War" of International Chess? Perhaps we could form
"still another" international chess organization a la, my "In the year
2000" post from a couple years ago. Will that help? Anyone know any
wealthy western entrepreneurs that want to fund World Championships for
chess. If so forward their names to the Board, and perhaps our decision
can be revised.
>
> i respectfully say to bruce that he has not grasped the nettle in this
> case.
Phil, sometimes reading your thoughts in these posts, I feel as if I
need a Captain Crunch Decoder Ring or something. I frankly speaking,
sometimes can't figure out what the heck you are talking about because
your prose is so cryptic.
this discussion must begin with a frank appraisal of what fidé has
> achieved, and what it has not - in fact we must also look at what it
> suppresses
>
> and such a discussion must also admit to the emotion that we feel -
> sometimes revulsion, and put aside grasping politics for 10 minutes,
> (didn't you hear what any of these players have recently said?!),
I haven't heard players speaking with a singular resounding voice. I
hear some saying FIDE is better than nothing. I hear others saying that
we must take a stand on principle regardless of the consequences. I
hear others saying we should make a measured response and press for
changes the only way that it is likely to achieve anything. In many
ways the players and the Delegates are in the same boat. There appears
to be no clear feeling that is shared universally by everyone or even a
majority.
Practically everyone at the meeting wanted something to be done.
Practically no one at the meeting wanted to do nothing to show our
disapproval. It really became a question of what was the best and most
effective way to proceed? The idea that a U.S. sponsored no-confidence
motion would help at all, was considered dubious.
> attempt to find a more wholesome sense for what we want our world body
> to be
>
> > The substitute motion was to find and support another candidate for
> > FIDE president, IIRC.
> >
> > Is there a betting window open yet, about whether Don will be the
> > candidate?
>
> perfect!
I don't believe the Delegate's would support Don for FIDE President,
but one never knows. The real problem will be $$$, as much as it is who
the leader is. Without money the organization will not do much of
anything. Without unification of the chess world, we'll most likely
continue to flounder.
>
> phil innes
Wish you would have been there.
Best Regards,
Bruce
rjp...@netnitco.net
Bruce Draney <bdr...@novia.net> wrote:
> Phil, sometimes reading your thoughts in these posts, I feel as if I
> need a Captain Crunch Decoder Ring or something. I frankly speaking,
> sometimes can't figure out what the heck you are talking about because
> your prose is so cryptic.
I'll second this, and I was fond of thinking I had an above-average
vocabulary.
Oh, and by the way, Bruce, what you need is a William F.
Buckley, Jr. decoder ring.
Randy
Randy
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
phil
> Are you asking for my personal opinion? I think our own house is not
> and has not been in order. We are not speaking from a position of
> strength. We do not have consensus. We do not according to several of
> our Representatives, have ANY support from ANY other major country.
> Some countries are mad at us for our handling (mis?), of the World
> Championship in Las Vegas last year. Kelleher and Eade are supposed to
> be representing us. Should we merely send them home and secede from
> FIDE? Will the game go on internationally without us? I suspect it
> will, since virtually none of the money is coming from the U.S.. You've
> no doubt heard of the revised "Golden Rule". He who has the gold, makes
> the rules. If we take our ball and glove and go home, because we're
> indignant, does FIDE come to us, begging our forgiveness and telling us
> they'll do anything to get us back? Do Russia, Georgia and China
> currently have as much or more influence in FIDE than we do?
this is not a perspective way of looking at things
the players don't like fide anymore - now, who are russia, china etc?
fide is a business, and a platform for prestige
it has been insufficient in holding the chess world together because it
now dictates relationships to its client states, and listens to nothing
much
it adopts commercial entities and ostracises others from a political
point of view
--are any of these things significant, do you think, to the great and
powerful united states, or is all we care about a little business and
some kudos with the big guy
> We could
> start the "Civil War" of International Chess? Perhaps we could form
> "still another" international chess organization a la, my "In the year
> 2000" post from a couple years ago.
if it organised chess, rather than business. i am only talking about
/the way in which chess is organised/
> Will that help? Anyone know any
> wealthy western entrepreneurs that want to fund World Championships for
> chess. If so forward their names to the Board,
ROFL! NO! i know both, and it is exactly because of the board that chess
is a poor man
> and perhaps our decision
> can be revised.
>
> >
> > i respectfully say to bruce that he has not grasped the nettle in this
> > case.
>
> Phil, sometimes reading your thoughts in these posts, I feel as if I
> need a Captain Crunch Decoder Ring or something. I frankly speaking,
> sometimes can't figure out what the heck you are talking about because
> your prose is so cryptic.
>
i must hide in plain site
other people cannot speak because they will lose their livelyhood, and,
in any case, have no taste for what has gone on in these threads over
the past few years
plain enough?
> this discussion must begin with a frank appraisal of what fidé has
> > achieved, and what it has not - in fact we must also look at what it
> > suppresses
> >
> > and such a discussion must also admit to the emotion that we feel -
> > sometimes revulsion, and put aside grasping politics for 10 minutes,
> > (didn't you hear what any of these players have recently said?!),
>
> I haven't heard players speaking with a singular resounding voice. I
> hear some saying FIDE is better than nothing. I hear others saying that
> we must take a stand on principle regardless of the consequences. I
> hear others saying we should make a measured response and press for
> changes the only way that it is likely to achieve anything. In many
> ways the players and the Delegates are in the same boat. There appears
> to be no clear feeling that is shared universally by everyone or even a
> majority.
churchill never agreed with 'rational' joe kennedy - thank god no-one
thought there had to be agreement to resist corruption
> Practically everyone at the meeting wanted something to be done.
> Practically no one at the meeting wanted to do nothing to show our
> disapproval. It really became a question of what was the best and most
> effective way to proceed? The idea that a U.S. sponsored no-confidence
> motion would help at all, was considered dubious.
why?
and more importantly, why does the debate have to be about the negative
influences of fide and not the positive contribution that can happen
from an open discussion hosted here in the us?
> > attempt to find a more wholesome sense for what we want our world body
> > to be
> >
> > > The substitute motion was to find and support another candidate for
> > > FIDE president, IIRC.
> > >
> > > Is there a betting window open yet, about whether Don will be the
> > > candidate?
> >
> > perfect!
>
> I don't believe the Delegate's would support Don for FIDE President,
> but one never knows. The real problem will be $$$, as much as it is who
> the leader is. Without money the organization will not do much of
> anything. Without unification of the chess world, we'll most likely
> continue to flounder.
the question is about partnerships - between one national organisation
and the world governing body, or between players and organisers not in
anyone's pocket
Bruce Draney
>
> Bruce Draney wrote:
>Snipped>
>
> this is not a perspective way of looking at things
> the players don't like fide anymore - now, who are russia, china etc?
Which players? All of them? Some of them? Yasser? Khalifman?
Salov? Do you mean a majority of them? Do you mean Garry? How about
Short? How about Anand?
Do you think the top 20 GM's favored dissolution of FIDE? Do you think
they want to vote out the deep pocket funding their paycheck?
>
> fide is a business, and a platform for prestige
> it has been insufficient in holding the chess world together because it
> now dictates relationships to its client states, and listens to nothing
> much
>
> it adopts commercial entities and ostracises others from a political
> point of view
Are you interested in idealism and the way things should be, or in
realism and the way things really are? Or perhaps there's some middle
ground between the indignant "Millions for defense, but not a penny for
tribute.", attitude, and the, "We'll take cash any day over principle.",
attitude.
>
> --are any of these things significant, do you think, to the great and
> powerful united states, or is all we care about a little business and
> some kudos with the big guy
>
> > We could
> > start the "Civil War" of International Chess? Perhaps we could form
> > "still another" international chess organization a la, my "In the year
> > 2000" post from a couple years ago.
>
> if it organised chess, rather than business. i am only talking about
> /the way in which chess is organised/
Come on Phil, let's get real. If you've got all of these players in
your camp waiting to join another organization, what the heck do they
need from a bunch of Delegates meeting in St. Paul anyway? What
difference does USCF make to their ability to make a stand for
themselves? Once the players are united, (something which USCF
Delegates will have no influence or say in), then FIDE either does what
they say, or FIDE dies.
>
> > Will that help? Anyone know any
> > wealthy western entrepreneurs that want to fund World Championships for
> > chess. If so forward their names to the Board,
>
> ROFL! NO! i know both, and it is exactly because of the board that chess
> is a poor man
I'm afraid you've lost me somewhere. You've got wealthy entrepreneurs
and according to what you've stated earlier, you've got nearly unanimous
player support. Why the heck do you need the support of a bunch of
people who haven't a clue about what keeps FIDE and Kasparov from
patching up their relationship and restoring some credibility to
international chess.
Like a singular meaningless proposal for no-confidence in Kirsan is
going to make a whit of difference in whether he continues or FIDE
continues.
>
> > and perhaps our decision
> > can be revised.
> >
> > >
> > > i respectfully say to bruce that he has not grasped the nettle in this
> > > case.
> >
> > Phil, sometimes reading your thoughts in these posts, I feel as if I
> > need a Captain Crunch Decoder Ring or something. I frankly speaking,
> > sometimes can't figure out what the heck you are talking about because
> > your prose is so cryptic.
> >
>
> i must hide in plain site
> other people cannot speak because they will lose their livelyhood, and,
> in any case, have no taste for what has gone on in these threads over
> the past few years
>
> plain enough?
I understand that you can't use names, but I still don't understand
what you expect or want from 100 people who were meeting in St. Paul for
two days?
We weren't there to debate a motion about enfranchising GM's in
international chess. We were there to decide whether to make a full
frontal assault up Cemetary Ridge, or to plan an intelligent strategy
that might have a chance in hell of making an eventual difference in the
behavior and leadership of FIDE.
>
> >
> > I haven't heard players speaking with a singular resounding voice. I
> > hear some saying FIDE is better than nothing. I hear others saying that
> > we must take a stand on principle regardless of the consequences. I
> > hear others saying we should make a measured response and press for
> > changes the only way that it is likely to achieve anything. In many
> > ways the players and the Delegates are in the same boat. There appears
> > to be no clear feeling that is shared universally by everyone or even a
> > majority.
>
> churchill never agreed with 'rational' joe kennedy - thank god no-one
> thought there had to be agreement to resist corruption
There's lots of corruption around. If you're suggesting our
no-confidence motion would have made any difference other than to make
us all feel good until we were no longer a part of the organization and
it was still going on with the same leader only with a stronger position
than before because of having faced down the USCF in a staring contest,
then perhaps you were right. The vote was fairly close. It lost
narrowly, what can I say. I've attempted to explain why and how.
>
> why?
From an idealist's standpoint, we should have voted yes. From a
pragmatic or realist's standpoint, we did the right thing. Sometimes
idealistic goals can be achieved ultimately by pursuing realistic
measures. Sometimes pursuing idealistic measures to achieve idealistic
aims results in failure to achieve any idealistic results. For example,
let's eliminate poverty and hunger worldwide, within a year's time.
>
> and more importantly, why does the debate have to be about the negative
> influences of fide and not the positive contribution that can happen
> from an open discussion hosted here in the us?
I thought I covered this already, but a number of positive aspects were
brought up, including the fact that FIDE was going out of its way to
modify it's controversial commerce proposals to bring them much closer
to what we consider acceptable. They eliminated references to
censorship of free speech. They omitted the sections on copyrighting
game scores. If we anger the leadership, they may just figure, "what
the heck, the U.S. is against us anyway, let's just put those proposals
back in the pact and forget them."
>
>
> > > attempt to find a more wholesome sense for what we want our world body
> > > to be
> > >
> > > > The substitute motion was to find and support another candidate for
> > > > FIDE president, IIRC.
> > > >
> > > > Is there a betting window open yet, about whether Don will be the
> > > > candidate?
> > >
> > > perfect!
> >
> > I don't believe the Delegate's would support Don for FIDE President,
> > but one never knows. The real problem will be $$$, as much as it is who
> > the leader is. Without money the organization will not do much of
> > anything. Without unification of the chess world, we'll most likely
> > continue to flounder.
>
> the question is about partnerships - between one national organisation
> and the world governing body, or between players and organisers not in
> anyone's pocket
Yeah, right Phil. Pass the hat, get the players together and go for
it. What's stopping you? If you're successful, have the money and the
players, FIDE will be tagging along behind pretty quickly I imagine. We
both know of course that if you had the money and the players, we
wouldn't need to be talking about the wisdom of a no confidence motion
against FIDE's President.
Bruce Draney
>
> >
> >--are any of these things significant, do you think, to the great and
> >powerful united states,
>
> "great and powerful Oz."
LOL!.
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."
>
> We are $1 million in debt...compared to 4 yrs ago.
>
> We have ZERO FUNDS to help sponsor any significant chess...from FIDE's
> perspective.
>
> We could not even help fund...the world championship...when our own player
> (Kamsky) was playing!
>
> We are a beggar looking for droppings from Kasparov's lunch.
>
> What do you want to do, Phil? Pick up crumbs?
>
> The first responsibility of a FIDE member state...is to support FIDE policies
> (just as the first responsibility of a USCF state federation...is to support
> USCF policies).
>
> Have a vigorous debate BEFOREHAND. But once the member states of FIDE have
> voted...and a policy is in place...then get in line and support the policy.
>
> USCF refuses to do this. Therefore...it gets little support when times are
> tough.
>
> The paper tiger with 1) no cash, 2) no political will...unsurprisingly...is a
> sideline cheerleader in FIDE.
>
> Example: FIDE places world championship in US territory. USCF has no cash to
> spend...must beg FIDE for cash for promotions.
>
> What a way to throw one's weight around, eh?
Actually we're making some pretty good inroads considering the
condition of our own house at present. Throwing it all down the toilet
to take a position of indignation would have been counterproductive in
most people's view.
By the way, we managed to scrounge together $32,000 to send a team
to Istanbul. There was some consideration given to taking the $12,500
from the second half of the Grand Prix and adding that to the fund, but
we instead merely cut it completely.
>
> Eric C. Johnson
Best Regards,
Bruce
Bruce Draney
>
> Chesspride wrote:
> >
>
> LOL!.
>
> "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."
>
>Snipped<
> >
> > The first responsibility of a FIDE member state...is to support FIDE policies
> > (just as the first responsibility of a USCF state federation...is to support
> > USCF policies).
This is untrue. This is not the first responsibility of either a FIDE
member state or a USCF state federation. If this were the case nothing
would ever be changed for the better. The purpose of a FIDE member
state should be to pursue policies that it believes are best for the
organization, whether those policies are presently in force or not. The
USCF Delegation is perfectly within it's rights to ask that certain
principles be upheld such as modifications of the FIDE commerce
proposal. They should not in any way shape or form merely offer blind
support and obedience for whatever policies the leaders of the
organization throw out.
Having said that, there is the duty to act responsibly and to pursue
measures that will not ultimately harm our power or our prestige and
diminish our future influence in the organization.
> >
> > Have a vigorous debate BEFOREHAND. But once the member states of FIDE have
> > voted...and a policy is in place...then get in line and support the policy.
There is a difference between supporting the policy once it's been
enacted and supporting it just because it was proposed. You didn't make
that clear in your statement above which is why I find your reasoning to
be faulty.
I also do not agree that you cannot still pursue policies that you
favor in the future and continue to push for reforms or change. If the
policies become so abhorrent that no one any longer can support the
organization then it is probably best for the members to consider
dissolving the organization and forming a new one. Of course it's
perhaps none to bright to dissolve the organization and then just cease
to exist, because one has no money and no support of their own.
> >
> > USCF refuses to do this. Therefore...it gets little support when times are
> > tough.
> >
> > The paper tiger with 1) no cash, 2) no political will...unsurprisingly...is a
> > sideline cheerleader in FIDE.
> >
> > Example: FIDE places world championship in US territory. USCF has no cash to
> > spend...must beg FIDE for cash for promotions.
Paid for some nice hotel suites for some USCF execs anyway.
Michael Cummings
<rjp...@netnitco.net> wrote:
>
>Bruce Draney <bdr...@novia.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Phil, sometimes reading your thoughts in these posts, I feel as if I
>> need a Captain Crunch Decoder Ring or something. I frankly speaking,
>> sometimes can't figure out what the heck you are talking about because
>> your prose is so cryptic.
>
>vocabulary.
>
>Oh, and by the way, Bruce, what you need is a William F.
>Buckley, Jr. decoder ring.
It's not a matter of vocabulary, Randy, it's style. Phil's is very
obfuscatory. Straightforward prose isn't in Phil's nature.
--
,-----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
> Mike Cummings | "If I were two-faced, would I be wearing this one?" <
> mo...@drizzle.com | --Abraham Lincoln <
> ICQ #34152632 | <
`-----------------------------------------------------------------------------'
Chesspride
>--are any of these things significant, do you think, to the great and
>powerful united states,
The "great and powerful United States" (sic)... in chess terms...resembles the
"great and powerful Oz."
We are $1 million in debt...compared to 4 yrs ago.
We have ZERO FUNDS to help sponsor any significant chess...from FIDE's
perspective.
We could not even help fund...the world championship...when our own player
(Kamsky) was playing!
We are a beggar looking for droppings from Kasparov's lunch.
What do you want to do, Phil? Pick up crumbs?
The first responsibility of a FIDE member state...is to support FIDE policies
(just as the first responsibility of a USCF state federation...is to support
USCF policies).
Have a vigorous debate BEFOREHAND. But once the member states of FIDE have
voted...and a policy is in place...then get in line and support the policy.
USCF refuses to do this. Therefore...it gets little support when times are
tough.
The paper tiger with 1) no cash, 2) no political will...unsurprisingly...is a
sideline cheerleader in FIDE.
Example: FIDE places world championship in US territory. USCF has no cash to
spend...must beg FIDE for cash for promotions.
What a way to throw one's weight around, eh?
Eric C. Johnson
Chesspride
>state should be to pursue policies that it believes are best for the
>organization, whether those policies are presently in force or not. The
>USCF Delegation is perfectly within it's rights to ask that certain
>principles be upheld such as modifications of the FIDE commerce
>proposal.
Yes, but once the die is cast and the vote on a particular issue taken...
...it behooves member states to rally behind the decision.
There is little point in trying to undo every decision.
Eric C. Johnson
Bruce Draney
There is a difference between accepting a decision and following rules
once they are enacted and supporting the decisions. The word supporting
implies that you agree with it and follow it, while accepting allows
that you disagreed with the decision, but will in the spirit of
cooperation abide by it.
Did your mother ever say to you, "Eric, if Kirsan told you to jump off
a bridge would you do it?". If the answer is yes with the name changed
to whatever is appropriate for your childhood, what was your response?
Did you say, "Mother, Kirsan is my boss and if he tells me I must jump
then I must jump."? Or did you say, "Why no, I won't jump off a bridge
no matter who tells me to do it, because jumping off of a bridge is
potentially harmful to my health."?
Blind obedience to majority decisions even though they are foolish,
ignorant or immoral is not a decision that anyone should follow. On the
other hand, as Dirty Harry once said, "A man's got to know his
limitations."
Best Regards,
Bruce
phil
>
> >
> >--are any of these things significant, do you think, to the great and
> >powerful united states,
>
> The "great and powerful United States" (sic)... in chess terms...resembles the
> "great and powerful Oz."
>
> We are $1 million in debt...compared to 4 yrs ago.
>
> We have ZERO FUNDS to help sponsor any significant chess...from FIDE's
> perspective.
>
> We could not even help fund...the world championship...when our own player
> (Kamsky) was playing!
>
> We are a beggar looking for droppings from Kasparov's lunch.
>
> What do you want to do, Phil? Pick up crumbs?
united states does not equal uscf
what you do eric,
is presume what i say
is your idea fixe
> The first responsibility of a FIDE member state...is to support FIDE policies
> (just as the first responsibility of a USCF state federation...is to support
> USCF policies).
>
> Have a vigorous debate BEFOREHAND. But once the member states of FIDE have
> voted...and a policy is in place...then get in line and support the policy.
get thee to a nunnery,
this is as wet as i have heard here
if its corrupt - and it fucking is
then say so
otherwise spare me the mealy-mouthed words
> USCF refuses to do this. Therefore...it gets little support when times are
> tough.
>
> The paper tiger with 1) no cash, 2) no political will...unsurprisingly...is a
> sideline cheerleader in FIDE.
>
> Example: FIDE places world championship in US territory. USCF has no cash to
> spend...must beg FIDE for cash for promotions.
>
> What a way to throw one's weight around, eh?
it stems from lack of (self) respect, this sort of whoring, don't you
think?
phil
> Eric C. Johnson
phil
> > this is not a perspective way of looking at things
> > the players don't like fide anymore - now, who are russia, china etc?
>
> Which players? All of them? Some of them? Yasser? Khalifman?
> Salov? Do you mean a majority of them? Do you mean Garry? How about
> Short? How about Anand?
i could name names - what of it?
> Do you think the top 20 GM's favored dissolution of FIDE? Do you think
> they want to vote out the deep pocket funding their paycheck?
i know what is true. but are you asking me a question or making a
rhetorical remark?
> >
> > fide is a business, and a platform for prestige
> > it has been insufficient in holding the chess world together because it
> > now dictates relationships to its client states, and listens to nothing
> > much
> >
> > it adopts commercial entities and ostracises others from a political
> > point of view
>
> Are you interested in idealism and the way things should be, or in
> realism and the way things really are? Or perhaps there's some middle
> ground between the indignant "Millions for defense, but not a penny for
> tribute.", attitude, and the, "We'll take cash any day over principle.",
> attitude.
you think being honest is 'idealistic?'
what middle ground is there between honest and anything else?
``````
> > if it organised chess, rather than business. i am only talking about
> > /the way in which chess is organised/
>
> Come on Phil, let's get real. If you've got all of these players in
> your camp waiting to join another organization, what the heck do they
> need from a bunch of Delegates meeting in St. Paul anyway? What
> difference does USCF make to their ability to make a stand for
> themselves? Once the players are united, (something which USCF
> Delegates will have no influence or say in), then FIDE either does what
> they say, or FIDE dies.
yes, this is the current discussion - and nothing to do with my pocket,
in any sense.
it is not as simple as you say:-
•using an existing infrastructure is easier than creating a new one
•chess still needs management, the discussion is about redistributing
the balance
> >
> > > Will that help? Anyone know any
> > > wealthy western entrepreneurs that want to fund World Championships for
> > > chess. If so forward their names to the Board,
> >
> > ROFL! NO! i know both, and it is exactly because of the board that chess
> > is a poor man
>
> I'm afraid you've lost me somewhere. You've got wealthy entrepreneurs
> and according to what you've stated earlier, you've got nearly unanimous
> player support. Why the heck do you need the support of a bunch of
> people who haven't a clue about what keeps FIDE and Kasparov from
> patching up their relationship and restoring some credibility to
> international chess.
i am afraid that you simplify the argument to cast an aspersion, and it
cannot be answered in your own terms;
the chess world is composed of:
top players
their managers
chess event managers
national federations
technological mangers
chess media
provincial managers
local enthusiasts, teachers
the chess public
and their parents
can you appreciate that all these people are involved in chess, but in
our discussions here on rgcp, how few of these respective elements are
represented?
> Like a singular meaningless proposal for no-confidence in Kirsan is
> going to make a whit of difference in whether he continues or FIDE
> continues.
this is your understanding? the german and swedish federations have
already asked unanswered questions. the brits are amused. is this
encouraging?
and, for god's sake, how you yankies no thoughts of your own?
~~~~~~
> > plain enough?
>
> I understand that you can't use names, but I still don't understand
> what you expect or want from 100 people who were meeting in St. Paul for
> two days?
> We weren't there to debate a motion about enfranchising GM's in
> international chess. We were there to decide whether to make a full
> frontal assault up Cemetary Ridge, or to plan an intelligent strategy
> that might have a chance in hell of making an eventual difference in the
> behavior and leadership of FIDE.
yes bruce. do you not see that you are part of the problem? jim eade
can't. he thinks i am rude to say so.
you can only talk about your own interests, insensible to why you exist
at all
> >
>
> > >
> > > I haven't heard players speaking with a singular resounding voice. I
> > > hear some saying FIDE is better than nothing. I hear others saying that
> > > we must take a stand on principle regardless of the consequences. I
> > > hear others saying we should make a measured response and press for
> > > changes the only way that it is likely to achieve anything. In many
> > > ways the players and the Delegates are in the same boat. There appears
> > > to be no clear feeling that is shared universally by everyone or even a
> > > majority.
> >
> > churchill never agreed with 'rational' joe kennedy - thank god no-one
> > thought there had to be agreement to resist corruption
>
> There's lots of corruption around. If you're suggesting our
> no-confidence motion would have made any difference other than to make
> us all feel good until we were no longer a part of the organization and
> it was still going on with the same leader only with a stronger position
> than before because of having faced down the USCF in a staring contest,
> then perhaps you were right. The vote was fairly close. It lost
> narrowly, what can I say. I've attempted to explain why and how.
>
> >
> > why?
>
> From an idealist's standpoint, we should have voted yes. From a
> pragmatic or realist's standpoint, we did the right thing. Sometimes
> idealistic goals can be achieved ultimately by pursuing realistic
> measures. Sometimes pursuing idealistic measures to achieve idealistic
> aims results in failure to achieve any idealistic results. For example,
> let's eliminate poverty and hunger worldwide, within a year's time.
i am not more 'idealist than realist'
is there some objection in principle to having open discussions about
what is practical?
simple, plain enough?
> >
> > and more importantly, why does the debate have to be about the negative
> > influences of fide and not the positive contribution that can happen
> > from an open discussion hosted here in the us?
>
> I thought I covered this already, but a number of positive aspects were
> brought up, including the fact that FIDE was going out of its way to
> modify it's controversial commerce proposals to bring them much closer
> to what we consider acceptable. They eliminated references to
> censorship of free speech.
now we have done away with joe kennedy, there is only chamberlain to
'accommodate'
"chess in our time!"
> They omitted the sections on copyrighting
> game scores. If we anger the leadership, they may just figure, "what
> the heck, the U.S. is against us anyway, let's just put those proposals
> back in the pact and forget them."
this is almost like a satire bruce
your country put men on the moon and wrote the bill of rights
> >
> >
> > > > attempt to find a more wholesome sense for what we want our world body
> > > > to be
> > > >
> > > > > The substitute motion was to find and support another candidate for
> > > > > FIDE president, IIRC.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is there a betting window open yet, about whether Don will be the
> > > > > candidate?
> > > >
> > > > perfect!
> > >
> > > I don't believe the Delegate's would support Don for FIDE President,
> > > but one never knows. The real problem will be $$$, as much as it is who
> > > the leader is. Without money the organization will not do much of
> > > anything. Without unification of the chess world, we'll most likely
> > > continue to flounder.
> >
> > the question is about partnerships - between one national organisation
> > and the world governing body, or between players and organisers not in
> > anyone's pocket
>
> Yeah, right Phil. Pass the hat, get the players together and go for
> it. What's stopping you? If you're successful, have the money and the
> players, FIDE will be tagging along behind pretty quickly I imagine. We
> both know of course that if you had the money and the players, we
> wouldn't need to be talking about the wisdom of a no confidence motion
> against FIDE's President.
i am not really sure why i write here
after all, i have no ambitions in chess
and take no money from it
perhaps it was because
some of these people
said they couldn't find an honest
man in the west
i do know some russians
from their writing
and fell, more or less willingly
into caissa's pit
incomprehensible, no?
phil
Bruce Draney
<Snipped>
Phil,
You wanted to know what happened and why? I tried to explain it to the
best of my ability. It's a shame you couldn't have been there. Let me
just say that those speaking in favor of the motion lacked a degree of
eloquence that perhaps you could have supplied. I will not delve any
further into this subject, but you can ask around and find out what I'm
talking about.
Despite their best efforts to convince me they didn't know what they
were talking about, I was ready to vote for the resolution. At that
moment Steve Doyle substituted the motion which the majority accepted.
Had you been there and spoken with passion about your personal contacts
with people and their feelings this might have swayed 4-5 Delegates
(including possibly me). This might have made the difference.
Unfortunately, you weren't there, those speaking against made the more
persuasive and reasonable case in my opinion.
Very few of the Delegates would have simply supported not doing
anything at all. A majority of them however felt that we could not
force our will with our own record in a shambles and with no power to
bring to bear. Perhaps we all underestimate our power, or perhaps you
and your friends overestimate it.
You speak of men on the moon, but I don't believe that USCF and USA
necessarily equate when it comes to world influence and power, in their
respective spheres.
Best Regards,
Bruce
Bruce Draney
>
> Bruce Draney wrote:
> >
> > Which players? All of them? Some of them? Yasser? Khalifman?
> > Salov? Do you mean a majority of them? Do you mean Garry? How about
> > Short? How about Anand?
>
> i could name names - what of it?
But you won't? Criticize us for our failure to stand on principle
while you represent people too cowardly to send their own message, or
let us know how many of them there are and why we should back them?
>
> > Do you think the top 20 GM's favored dissolution of FIDE? Do you think
> > they want to vote out the deep pocket funding their paycheck?
>
> i know what is true. but are you asking me a question or making a
> rhetorical remark?
You hide behind the support of the unknown. You claim they all wish
us to lead the way. Yet none of them will step out of the shadows to
show us their numbers. I guess we must take it on faith that the whole
chess world agrees with you and thinks we were wrong. They may be
right. It's a shame they had no way of expressing their dissatisfaction
since they knew the resolution would be coming up for consideration.
Generally it's not a real great idea to express indignation through a
third party.
> >
> > Are you interested in idealism and the way things should be, or in
> > realism and the way things really are? Or perhaps there's some middle
> > ground between the indignant "Millions for defense, but not a penny for
> > tribute.", attitude, and the, "We'll take cash any day over principle.",
> > attitude.
>
> you think being honest is 'idealistic?'
What have I been dishonest about?
> what middle ground is there between honest and anything else?
Again, what have I been dishonest about? Dishonesty means
misrepresenting or spreading lies or falsehoods. Could you please tell
me what I misrepresented or what falsehoods I spread?
>
> yes, this is the current discussion - and nothing to do with my pocket,
> in any sense.
> it is not as simple as you say:-
Nor as simple as you say, I'm certain either.
> 埠sing an existing infrastructure is easier than creating a new one
> 苗hess still needs management, the discussion is about redistributing
> the balance
Hard to disagree. How would an unsupported no-confidence vote have
helped? How might it have actually done more harm than good?
>
I'm afraid you've lost me somewhere. You've got wealthy
entrepreneurs
> > and according to what you've stated earlier, you've got nearly unanimous
> > player support. Why the heck do you need the support of a bunch of
> > people who haven't a clue about what keeps FIDE and Kasparov from
> > patching up their relationship and restoring some credibility to
> > international chess.
>
> i am afraid that you simplify the argument to cast an aspersion, and it
> cannot be answered in your own terms;
I'm not intending to cast aspersions on anyone, least of all you, whom
I respect and admire. Can you answer the question about why the players
can't proceed without the support of a very weak USCF?
>
> the chess world is composed of:
> top players
> their managers
> chess event managers
> national federations
> technological mangers
> chess media
> provincial managers
> local enthusiasts, teachers
> the chess public
> and their parents
Which makes me reiterate my previous point. USCF isn't on the list.
What difference does it make what we do or don't do? Is everyone
afraid of Kirsan unless 100 Delegates from the USCF say something or do
something first?
>
> can you appreciate that all these people are involved in chess, but in
> our discussions here on rgcp, how few of these respective elements are
> represented?
Given.
>
> > Like a singular meaningless proposal for no-confidence in Kirsan is
> > going to make a whit of difference in whether he continues or FIDE
> > continues.
>
> this is your understanding? the german and swedish federations have
> already asked unanswered questions. the brits are amused. is this
> encouraging?
>
> and, for god's sake, how you yankies no thoughts of your own?
We've got thoughts Phil, perhaps they just don't agree with yours.
Most of the credible speakers were on the wrong side (as far as you
would be concerned).
> > We weren't there to debate a motion about enfranchising GM's in
> > international chess. We were there to decide whether to make a full
> > frontal assault up Cemetary Ridge, or to plan an intelligent strategy
> > that might have a chance in hell of making an eventual difference in the
> > behavior and leadership of FIDE.
>
> yes bruce. do you not see that you are part of the problem? jim eade
> can't. he thinks i am rude to say so.
Your quarrel with Eade had more to do with the issue of civility was my
recollection and had nothing to do with FIDE. I stand corrected if this
is not true.
>
> you can only talk about your own interests, insensible to why you exist
> at all
I am what I am.
> >
> > There's lots of corruption around. If you're suggesting our
> > no-confidence motion would have made any difference other than to make
> > us all feel good until we were no longer a part of the organization and
> > it was still going on with the same leader only with a stronger position
> > than before because of having faced down the USCF in a staring contest,
> > then perhaps you were right. The vote was fairly close. It lost
> > narrowly, what can I say. I've attempted to explain why and how.
> >
> > >
> > > why?
> >
> > From an idealist's standpoint, we should have voted yes. From a
> > pragmatic or realist's standpoint, we did the right thing. Sometimes
> > idealistic goals can be achieved ultimately by pursuing realistic
> > measures. Sometimes pursuing idealistic measures to achieve idealistic
> > aims results in failure to achieve any idealistic results. For example,
> > let's eliminate poverty and hunger worldwide, within a year's time.
>
> i am not more 'idealist than realist'
Perhaps you should e-mail and let me know exactly what you thought
should have been done, why and what possible good or bad effects might
have resulted.
>
> is there some objection in principle to having open discussions about
> what is practical?
>
> simple, plain enough?
>
> > >
> > > and more importantly, why does the debate have to be about the negative
> > > influences of fide and not the positive contribution that can happen
> > > from an open discussion hosted here in the us?
> >
> > I thought I covered this already, but a number of positive aspects were
> > brought up, including the fact that FIDE was going out of its way to
> > modify it's controversial commerce proposals to bring them much closer
> > to what we consider acceptable. They eliminated references to
> > censorship of free speech.
>
> now we have done away with joe kennedy, there is only chamberlain to
> 'accommodate'
>
> "chess in our time!"
I'm not sure if this qualifies under Godwin's Law, or not, but it
probably comes close.
>
> > They omitted the sections on copyrighting
> > game scores. If we anger the leadership, they may just figure, "what
> > the heck, the U.S. is against us anyway, let's just put those proposals
> > back in the pact and forget them."
>
> this is almost like a satire bruce
> your country put men on the moon and wrote the bill of rights
I don't think the Federation was involved.
> >
> > Yeah, right Phil. Pass the hat, get the players together and go for
> > it. What's stopping you? If you're successful, have the money and the
> > players, FIDE will be tagging along behind pretty quickly I imagine. We
> > both know of course that if you had the money and the players, we
> > wouldn't need to be talking about the wisdom of a no confidence motion
> > against FIDE's President.
>
> i am not really sure why i write here
> after all, i have no ambitions in chess
> and take no money from it
Join the crowd Phil. It's interesting and it's something to do.
>
> perhaps it was because
> some of these people
> said they couldn't find an honest
> man in the west
Maybe if they could come out of the shadows they could see better and
we could know how many hundreds of them there really are.
>
> i do know some russians
> from their writing
> and fell, more or less willingly
> into caissa's pit
>
> incomprehensible, no?
Gosh Phil, don't get so depressed about everything. We're all trying
to do the best we can. If we err, we're no different than other human
beings. I don't believe there are sinister motives at work, merely
honest disagreement on the best course.
>
> phil
Best Regards,
Bruce
Chesspride
>> Salov? Do you mean a majority of them? Do you mean Garry? How about
>> Short? How about Anand?
>
>i could name names - what of it?
His point is that when you say "the players" you really mean "some players."
There is a BIG difference.
Eric C. Johnson
phil
> > i could name names - what of it?
>
> But you won't? Criticize us for our failure to stand on principle
> while you represent people too cowardly to send their own message, or
> let us know how many of them there are and why we should back them?
the only thing i dont do is publicize specific connections
some of these may be known privately
when i ask 'what of it' this is a challenge to you - does anyone really
want to come to the table, or are you content with your delegates
meetings and proposals? all you chess managers, sans-players
ROFL
> You hide behind the support of the unknown. You claim they all wish
> us to lead the way.
no! but take an honest stance, out in the open
what is absolutely NOT OKAY is for chess managers is to continue to
dominate the game without real contact with players
this is very different from how you characterise what i have said
secondly, i propose nothing - if you have no interest in this yourself,
i have no wish to persuade you of anything, vote for fidé!
> Yet none of them will step out of the shadows to
> show us their numbers.
what? even recently we have public statements by miles, seirawan,
kasparov, short, karpov
> I guess we must take it on faith that the whole
> chess world agrees with you and thinks we were wrong. They may be
> right. It's a shame they had no way of expressing their dissatisfaction
> since they knew the resolution would be coming up for consideration.
> Generally it's not a real great idea to express indignation through a
> third party.
i only speak for myself. i don't speak for others, but about others
the shame is that very few think that chess politicians have any
interests other than their own fortunes - what evidence is there to
contradict this view?
look at this miserable shamble of lies and deceit here, all hedged
around by ambitious new climbers to the empty throne
> > >
> > > Are you interested in idealism and the way things should be, or in
> > > realism and the way things really are? Or perhaps there's some middle
> > > ground between the indignant "Millions for defense, but not a penny for
> > > tribute.", attitude, and the, "We'll take cash any day over principle.",
> > > attitude.
> >
> > you think being honest is 'idealistic?'
>
> What have I been dishonest about?
>
> > what middle ground is there between honest and anything else?
>
> Again, what have I been dishonest about? Dishonesty means
> misrepresenting or spreading lies or falsehoods. Could you please tell
> me what I misrepresented or what falsehoods I spread?
you made a distinction in your own paragraph above, as if to say that
idealism was naive and practicalness a preference. now you think i
attack you personally
> >
> > yes, this is the current discussion - and nothing to do with my pocket,
> > in any sense.
> > it is not as simple as you say:-
>
> Nor as simple as you say, I'm certain either.
>
> > •using an existing infrastructure is easier than creating a new one
> > •chess still needs management, the discussion is about redistributing
> > the balance
>
> Hard to disagree. How would an unsupported no-confidence vote have
> helped? How might it have actually done more harm than good?
stop looking at uscf looking inward
all the players are leaving, bruce
what is this introspective strategy,
how to organise the wake?
wake, wake, for pity's sake
> >
> I'm afraid you've lost me somewhere. You've got wealthy
> entrepreneurs
> > > and according to what you've stated earlier, you've got nearly unanimous
> > > player support. Why the heck do you need the support of a bunch of
> > > people who haven't a clue about what keeps FIDE and Kasparov from
> > > patching up their relationship and restoring some credibility to
> > > international chess.
> >
> > i am afraid that you simplify the argument to cast an aspersion, and it
> > cannot be answered in your own terms;
>
> I'm not intending to cast aspersions on anyone, least of all you, whom
> I respect and admire. Can you answer the question about why the players
> can't proceed without the support of a very weak USCF?
the alternatives are:
-another US federation
-an existing commercial entity
-something entirely new
the GMA fell over because it was unintegrated with existing structures,
although things could proceed without uscf, it probably cannot proceed
without the united states. there are advantages and disadvantages to
each of the above
> >
> > the chess world is composed of:
> > top players
> > their managers
> > chess event managers
> > national federations
> > technological mangers
> > chess media
> > provincial managers
> > local enthusiasts, teachers
> > the chess public
> > and their parents
>
> Which makes me reiterate my previous point. USCF isn't on the list.
> What difference does it make what we do or don't do? Is everyone
> afraid of Kirsan unless 100 Delegates from the USCF say something or do
> something first?
see my answer to eric. if what you say is true, i hope uscf dies soon
> >
> > can you appreciate that all these people are involved in chess, but in
> > our discussions here on rgcp, how few of these respective elements are
> > represented?
>
> Given.
>
> >
> > > Like a singular meaningless proposal for no-confidence in Kirsan is
> > > going to make a whit of difference in whether he continues or FIDE
> > > continues.
> >
> > this is your understanding? the german and swedish federations have
> > already asked unanswered questions. the brits are amused. is this
> > encouraging?
> >
> > and, for god's sake, how you yankies no thoughts of your own?
>
> We've got thoughts Phil, perhaps they just don't agree with yours.
> Most of the credible speakers were on the wrong side (as far as you
> would be concerned).
and i have been speaking about chess as if players matter...
> > > We weren't there to debate a motion about enfranchising GM's in
> > > international chess. We were there to decide whether to make a full
> > > frontal assault up Cemetary Ridge, or to plan an intelligent strategy
> > > that might have a chance in hell of making an eventual difference in the
> > > behavior and leadership of FIDE.
> >
> > yes bruce. do you not see that you are part of the problem? jim eade
> > can't. he thinks i am rude to say so.
>
> Your quarrel with Eade had more to do with the issue of civility was my
> recollection and had nothing to do with FIDE. I stand corrected if this
> is not true.
i said that any reformating of uscf would fail because the structure
itself is insufficient, and any amount of optimising current content
will fail
personally my opinion of jim eade is that he is a very intelligent man,
and an honest, dedicated one, nevertheless he seemed to lack perspective
on this issue perhaps because he was so immersed in zer struggles
> >
> > you can only talk about your own interests, insensible to why you exist
> > at all
>
> I am what I am.
>
> > >
> > > There's lots of corruption around. If you're suggesting our
> > > no-confidence motion would have made any difference other than to make
> > > us all feel good until we were no longer a part of the organization and
> > > it was still going on with the same leader only with a stronger position
> > > than before because of having faced down the USCF in a staring contest,
> > > then perhaps you were right. The vote was fairly close. It lost
> > > narrowly, what can I say. I've attempted to explain why and how.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > why?
> > >
> > > From an idealist's standpoint, we should have voted yes. From a
> > > pragmatic or realist's standpoint, we did the right thing. Sometimes
> > > idealistic goals can be achieved ultimately by pursuing realistic
> > > measures. Sometimes pursuing idealistic measures to achieve idealistic
> > > aims results in failure to achieve any idealistic results. For example,
> > > let's eliminate poverty and hunger worldwide, within a year's time.
> >
> > i am not more 'idealist than realist'
>
> Perhaps you should e-mail and let me know exactly what you thought
> should have been done, why and what possible good or bad effects might
> have resulted.
i already have too much chess e-mail
i am interested in an open discussion
here
> >
> > is there some objection in principle to having open discussions about
> > what is practical?
> >
> > simple, plain enough?
> >
> > > >
> > > > and more importantly, why does the debate have to be about the negative
> > > > influences of fide and not the positive contribution that can happen
> > > > from an open discussion hosted here in the us?
> > >
> > > I thought I covered this already, but a number of positive aspects were
> > > brought up, including the fact that FIDE was going out of its way to
> > > modify it's controversial commerce proposals to bring them much closer
> > > to what we consider acceptable. They eliminated references to
> > > censorship of free speech.
> >
> > now we have done away with joe kennedy, there is only chamberlain to
> > 'accommodate'
> >
> > "chess in our time!"
>
> I'm not sure if this qualifies under Godwin's Law, or not, but it
> probably comes close.
>
> >
> > > They omitted the sections on copyrighting
> > > game scores. If we anger the leadership, they may just figure, "what
> > > the heck, the U.S. is against us anyway, let's just put those proposals
> > > back in the pact and forget them."
> >
> > this is almost like a satire bruce
> > your country put men on the moon and wrote the bill of rights
>
> I don't think the Federation was involved.
they would have got lost in the Bronx?
sure, this is a slap in the face!
don't whimper, take it or fight
> > >
> > > Yeah, right Phil. Pass the hat, get the players together and go for
> > > it. What's stopping you? If you're successful, have the money and the
> > > players, FIDE will be tagging along behind pretty quickly I imagine. We
> > > both know of course that if you had the money and the players, we
> > > wouldn't need to be talking about the wisdom of a no confidence motion
> > > against FIDE's President.
> >
> > i am not really sure why i write here
> > after all, i have no ambitions in chess
> > and take no money from it
>
> Join the crowd Phil. It's interesting and it's something to do.
>
> >
> > perhaps it was because
> > some of these people
> > said they couldn't find an honest
> > man in the west
>
> Maybe if they could come out of the shadows they could see better and
> we could know how many hundreds of them there really are.
who wants to speak with them?
> >
> > i do know some russians
> > from their writing
> > and fell, more or less willingly
> > into caissa's pit
> >
> > incomprehensible, no?
>
> Gosh Phil, don't get so depressed about everything. We're all trying
> to do the best we can. If we err, we're no different than other human
> beings. I don't believe there are sinister motives at work, merely
> honest disagreement on the best course.
am i depressed? you're 'we all' is not my 'we all'
so don't speak for what you don't know
and what uscf doesn't know is rather calculated, no?
surely any respectable 'we all' must include more than chess politicians
and hacks like us?
cordially, phil innes
> >
> > phil
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Bruce
Bruce Draney
>
> Bruce Draney wrote:
>
> > > i could name names - what of it?
> >
> > But you won't? Criticize us for our failure to stand on principle
> > while you represent people too cowardly to send their own message, or
> > let us know how many of them there are and why we should back them?
>
> the only thing i dont do is publicize specific connections
> some of these may be known privately
You state that the players supported the No-Confidence motion. When
pressed you name three players, only one of whom wrote publicly and
passionately about it.
>
> when i ask 'what of it' this is a challenge to you - does anyone really
> want to come to the table, or are you content with your delegates
> meetings and proposals? all you chess managers, sans-players
>
> ROFL
I've never managed another player, unless coaching some elementary and
middle school children counts. I don't know of any Delegates who have
managed another player either. Perhaps there are some, but I believe
you mischaracterize Delegates as being anything other than players who
were voted to represent their state.
>
> > You hide behind the support of the unknown. You claim they all wish
> > us to lead the way.
>
> no! but take an honest stance, out in the open
What is more open than public debate at a meeting? What is more open
than going on record and voting for what one believes is best? What is
more open than publicly discussing what was decided and why on an
international chess politics newsgroup? None of this was done in
secret. None of the decisions are being hidden from you or anyone
else.
>
> what is absolutely NOT OKAY is for chess managers is to continue to
> dominate the game without real contact with players
Again, none of the people at the Delegates' meetings as far as I know
manage anyone. What is stopping the players from making their opinions
known to those who must vote? A list of Delegates is published each
year. It will soon be published on the USCF website assuming it's not
already on there. If Yasser or anyone else who has an opinion wishes to
send us letters, there is nothing stopping them.
>
> this is very different from how you characterise what i have said
>
> secondly, i propose nothing - if you have no interest in this yourself,
> i have no wish to persuade you of anything, vote for fidé!
So if you propose nothing what are the alternatives?
>
> > Yet none of them will step out of the shadows to
> > show us their numbers.
>
> what? even recently we have public statements by miles, seirawan,
> kasparov, short, karpov
How about Khalifman, and Salov? How about Anand and Kramnik? How do
they feel?
>
> > I guess we must take it on faith that the whole
> > chess world agrees with you and thinks we were wrong. They may be
> > right. It's a shame they had no way of expressing their dissatisfaction
> > since they knew the resolution would be coming up for consideration.
> > Generally it's not a real great idea to express indignation through a
> > third party.
>
> i only speak for myself. i don't speak for others, but about others
> the shame is that very few think that chess politicians have any
> interests other than their own fortunes - what evidence is there to
> contradict this view?
What evidence is there to support the view? How many players showed up
in Vegas last year? Were they complaining about being there? How many
boycotted it on principle? How many came to Groningen and Lausanne?
Was Karpov's indignation with FIDE a Saul on the road to Damascus type
of thing? I seem to recollect him grinning like a Cheshire Cat on the
cover of Chess Life the year before. He didn't seem to be too proud to
accept the money and the title from the same person and organization you
now say he indignantly opposes.
>
> look at this miserable shamble of lies and deceit here, all hedged
> around by ambitious new climbers to the empty throne
I'm not sure what you're referring to here? If you're referring to the
World Championship then I'm not sure what your reference is to. If
you're referring to the FIDE President, then there don't appear to be
large numbers of people waiting in the wings asking to replace what
we've got.
>
> > > >
> > > > Are you interested in idealism and the way things should be, or in
> > > > realism and the way things really are? Or perhaps there's some middle
> > > > ground between the indignant "Millions for defense, but not a penny for
> > > > tribute.", attitude, and the, "We'll take cash any day over principle.",
> > > > attitude.
> > >
> > > you think being honest is 'idealistic?'
> >
> > What have I been dishonest about?
> >
> > > what middle ground is there between honest and anything else?
> >
> > Again, what have I been dishonest about? Dishonesty means
> > misrepresenting or spreading lies or falsehoods. Could you please tell
> > me what I misrepresented or what falsehoods I spread?
>
> you made a distinction in your own paragraph above, as if to say that
> idealism was naive and practicalness a preference. now you think i
> attack you personally
You make it sound like taking any stand other than no-confidence is
unethical, deceitful or immoral. When framed that way it's difficult to
find any common ground on which to debate. It's either Phil's way or
Hell. I would just reiterate that there are many shades of grey in the
world, and it's often the most difficult decisions that involve trying
to find realistic plans to bring about highly desirable goals. We don't
appear to disagree about the goals. If there is no other solution other
than one that will not work and will make it worse, then there is little
point in discussing anything.
>
> > >
> > > yes, this is the current discussion - and nothing to do with my pocket,
> > > in any sense.
> > > it is not as simple as you say:-
> >
> > Nor as simple as you say, I'm certain either.
> >
> > > •using an existing infrastructure is easier than creating a new one
> > > •chess still needs management, the discussion is about redistributing
> > > the balance
> >
> > Hard to disagree. How would an unsupported no-confidence vote have
> > helped? How might it have actually done more harm than good?
>
> stop looking at uscf looking inward
> all the players are leaving, bruce
> what is this introspective strategy,
> how to organise the wake?
>
> wake, wake, for pity's sake
I'm afraid that USCF is and will always be my primary concern Phil. I
care about what happens internationally, but feel far less able to have
a major impact on forces which have been out of control before I was old
enough to vote. This really comes back to the players themselves. As
long as large numbers of them show up to play wherever and under
whatever conditions FIDE says, no one else is going to have much
sympathy. If they can unify and speak resoundingly for themselves and
what is right and what they really want, then people like the USCF
Delegates will only rubber stamp whatever they tell us. If they skulk
in the shadows and complain about our unwillingness to start their
revolution for them, then they'll continue to be dissatisfied with what
comes of it.
>
> > >
> > I'm afraid you've lost me somewhere. You've got wealthy
> > entrepreneurs
> > > > and according to what you've stated earlier, you've got nearly unanimous
> > > > player support. Why the heck do you need the support of a bunch of
> > > > people who haven't a clue about what keeps FIDE and Kasparov from
> > > > patching up their relationship and restoring some credibility to
> > > > international chess.
> > >
> > > i am afraid that you simplify the argument to cast an aspersion, and it
> > > cannot be answered in your own terms;
> >
> > I'm not intending to cast aspersions on anyone, least of all you, whom
> > I respect and admire. Can you answer the question about why the players
> > can't proceed without the support of a very weak USCF?
>
> the alternatives are:
> -another US federation
> -an existing commercial entity
> -something entirely new
And as I said before. If you get the players and commercial
sponsorship, all the rest will fall into place and we will gladly
approve whatever the majority of the players and the sponsors want.
You've more or less provided the ultimate solution to all of the
problems. They don't lie with trying to put out a forest fire with a
squirt gun. They lie with joint, unified actions that are backed by the
major players and some major sponsors. That is what will ultimately
make the difference.
>
> the GMA fell over because it was unintegrated with existing structures,
> although things could proceed without uscf, it probably cannot proceed
> without the united states. there are advantages and disadvantages to
> each of the above
I think anything can succeed if it's got near universal support by the
players AND it's got financial backing. If it doesn't have either of
those two things it will fail regardless of how great it sounds on
paper.
Fair enough. I offered. Suit yourself.
>
> > >
> > > now we have done away with joe kennedy, there is only chamberlain to
> > > 'accommodate'
> > >
> > > "chess in our time!"
> >
> > I'm not sure if this qualifies under Godwin's Law, or not, but it
> > probably comes close.
your country put men on the moon and wrote the bill of rights
> >
> > I don't think the Federation was involved.
>
> they would have got lost in the Bronx?
> sure, this is a slap in the face!
> don't whimper, take it or fight
Actually I think it's pretty funny.
>
> > > >
> > >
> > > i am not really sure why i write here
> > > after all, i have no ambitions in chess
> > > and take no money from it
> >
> > Join the crowd Phil. It's interesting and it's something to do.
> >
> > >
> > > perhaps it was because
> > > some of these people
> > > said they couldn't find an honest
> > > man in the west
> >
> > Maybe if they could come out of the shadows they could see better and
> > we could know how many hundreds of them there really are.
>
> who wants to speak with them?
Those who you now casitigate for apparently voting against what they
supposedly wanted but didn't tell us.
>
> > >
> > > i do know some russians
> > > from their writing
> > > and fell, more or less willingly
> > > into caissa's pit
> > >
> > > incomprehensible, no?
> >
> > Gosh Phil, don't get so depressed about everything. We're all trying
> > to do the best we can. If we err, we're no different than other human
> > beings. I don't believe there are sinister motives at work, merely
> > honest disagreement on the best course.
>
> am i depressed? you're 'we all' is not my 'we all'
> so don't speak for what you don't know
> and what uscf doesn't know is rather calculated, no?
If you don't feel that you qualify under the umbrella statement of "We
all", then consider it to merely refer to me and exclude yourself. I
sometimes err, and I am no different than other human beings. I am
trying to do the best I can.
>
> surely any respectable 'we all' must include more than chess politicians
> and hacks like us?
Please don't include me in the hacks category. I'll admit to being
human (some might argue), I'll admit to making mistakes, I'll admit to
trying to do the best I can.
phil
> You state that the players supported the No-Confidence motion. When
> pressed you name three players, only one of whom wrote publicly and
> passionately about it.
if i stated it, quote me -
please don't paraphrase what thou think i have said
quote it, and we can go from there
> >
> > when i ask 'what of it' this is a challenge to you - does anyone really
> > want to come to the table, or are you content with your delegates
> > meetings and proposals? all you chess managers, sans-players
> >
> > ROFL
>
> I've never managed another player, unless coaching some elementary and
> middle school children counts. I don't know of any Delegates who have
> managed another player either. Perhaps there are some, but I believe
> you mischaracterize Delegates as being anything other than players who
> were voted to represent their state.
what i am ROFLing about is the absense of PLAYERS REPRESENTATIVES at the
meeting - we seem to be in agreement that there were none
i am saying that this is a very strange situation - for a national chess
federation to not include PLAYERS or their REPRESENTATIVES
not strange - perverse, wierd!
> >
> > > You hide behind the support of the unknown. You claim they all wish
> > > us to lead the way.
> >
> > no! but take an honest stance, out in the open
>
> What is more open than public debate at a meeting? What is more open
> than going on record and voting for what one believes is best? What is
> more open than publicly discussing what was decided and why on an
> international chess politics newsgroup? None of this was done in
> secret. None of the decisions are being hidden from you or anyone
> else.
but the debate Bruce, has been conducted by people, as you say above,
who are well-meaning local chess folks. the debate i am interested in is
between these people and actual PLAYERS - certainly at a national level
what disgusted me about the level of information offered the delegates
and general membership as issued in chess life is that Tim Redman had to
draw back his very, very mild comment, so that it only said "hey, we
have a few problems" whereas, it must be evident to anyone reading here
for 10 minutes, that we all fear a fatal tail-spin
> >
> > what is absolutely NOT OKAY is for chess managers is to continue to
> > dominate the game without real contact with players
>
> Again, none of the people at the Delegates' meetings as far as I know
> manage anyone. What is stopping the players from making their opinions
> known to those who must vote? A list of Delegates is published each
> year. It will soon be published on the USCF website assuming it's not
> already on there. If Yasser or anyone else who has an opinion wishes to
> send us letters, there is nothing stopping them.
and there hasn't been. he has done so.
who represented his point of view at the delegates meeting?
answer me that
perhaps he is not important enough?
> >
> > this is very different from how you characterise what i have said
> >
> > secondly, i propose nothing - if you have no interest in this yourself,
> > i have no wish to persuade you of anything, vote for fidé!
>
> So if you propose nothing what are the alternatives?
i propose nothing to an indifferent audience
the alternative is that uscf will die
> >
> > > Yet none of them will step out of the shadows to
> > > show us their numbers.
> >
> > what? even recently we have public statements by miles, seirawan,
> > kasparov, short, karpov
>
> How about Khalifman, and Salov? How about Anand and Kramnik? How do
> they feel?
i know. do you?
is this a rhetorical question?
i knew what khalifman thought before his WC title, because i worked with
him. he thought it was a shambles, and heavily loaded for insiders. I
have not worked with anand.
`````
> > i only speak for myself. i don't speak for others, but about others
> > the shame is that very few think that chess politicians have any
> > interests other than their own fortunes - what evidence is there to
> > contradict this view?
>
> What evidence is there to support the view? How many players showed up
> in Vegas last year? Were they complaining about being there? How many
> boycotted it on principle? How many came to Groningen and Lausanne?
> Was Karpov's indignation with FIDE a Saul on the road to Damascus type
> of thing?
laugh - it will surprise you to know that he is a human being - he wrote
10 years ago about the top chess scene, and its giddying effect - and he
wrote long and honestly about it - so your comment is an empty one, in
fact, in place of known facts
i have already written about khalifman. better to talk abnout your own
principles than those others should have, no?
obviously no-one who went to LV complained about being there. to
complain is to be out! get it? this is very clear from the great fidé
encyclical - didn't you understand what this OPEN threat to players
meant? and the less-open situation has been like this for years,
years!!!
what the hell would you know about it?
> I seem to recollect him grinning like a Cheshire Cat on the
> cover of Chess Life the year before. He didn't seem to be too proud to
> accept the money and the title from the same person and organization you
> now say he indignantly opposes.
chesslife offered him the title? shit-by-association? bruce - have
another go.
> >
> > look at this miserable shamble of lies and deceit here, all hedged
> > around by ambitious new climbers to the empty throne
>
> I'm not sure what you're referring to here? If you're referring to the
> World Championship then I'm not sure what your reference is to. If
> you're referring to the FIDE President, then there don't appear to be
> large numbers of people waiting in the wings asking to replace what
> we've got.
uscf, i'm talking about where you guys are at, and whatever you know or
care about, and here! right out in the open
> > you made a distinction in your own paragraph above, as if to say that
> > idealism was naive and practicalness a preference. now you think i
> > attack you personally
>
> You make it sound like taking any stand other than no-confidence is
> unethical, deceitful or immoral.
your words, not mine
what distinctions are you making?
> When framed that way it's difficult to
> find any common ground on which to debate. It's either Phil's way or
> Hell.
discussing stuff with players is "phil's way or hell?"
> I would just reiterate that there are many shades of grey in the
> world, and it's often the most difficult decisions that involve trying
> to find realistic plans to bring about highly desirable goals. We don't
> appear to disagree about the goals. If there is no other solution other
> than one that will not work and will make it worse, then there is little
> point in discussing anything.
settle for grey bruce, you deserve it
````````
> > the GMA fell over because it was unintegrated with existing structures,
> > although things could proceed without uscf, it probably cannot proceed
> > without the united states. there are advantages and disadvantages to
> > each of the above
>
> I think anything can succeed if it's got near universal support by the
> players AND it's got financial backing. If it doesn't have either of
> those two things it will fail regardless of how great it sounds on
> paper.
i am unsure which vector you have chosen here - i am saying, can
player's interests be channeled through existing organisations?
answer can be yes or no
``````
> > i already have too much chess e-mail
> > i am interested in an open discussion
> > here
>
> Fair enough. I offered. Suit yourself.
don't pout bruce!
i want to have an open discussion here - if you don't like that, run for
office or something 'normal' then you can characterise my views as those
of the wild outsider, ranting on about chess players, completely
indifferent to the practical necessities of saving uscf
``````
> > who wants to speak with them?
>
> Those who you now casitigate for apparently voting against what they
> supposedly wanted but didn't tell us.
ah - those people - sound pretty screwed up, don't they? forget it
`````
> > surely any respectable 'we all' must include more than chess politicians
> > and hacks like us?
>
> Please don't include me in the hacks category. I'll admit to being
> human (some might argue), I'll admit to making mistakes, I'll admit to
> trying to do the best I can.
this is not an answer. if the best that can be done hasn't worked,
perhaps it will occur to the ultra-wise to talk.....
> >
> > cordially, phil innes
>
> Bruce
Bruce Draney
>
> Bruce Draney wrote:
>
> > You state that the players supported the No-Confidence motion. When
> > pressed you name three players, only one of whom wrote publicly and
> > passionately about it.
>
> if i stated it, quote me -
> please don't paraphrase what thou think i have said
> quote it, and we can go from there
Acknowledged. You seemed to me to be saying.....
>
> what i am ROFLing about is the absense of PLAYERS REPRESENTATIVES at the
> meeting - we seem to be in agreement that there were none
>
> i am saying that this is a very strange situation - for a national chess
> federation to not include PLAYERS or their REPRESENTATIVES
>
> not strange - perverse, wierd!
So is this the fault of the Delegates? Yermolinsky, Serper, and
Shabalov were in St. Paul. Do you find it strange that none of them
came within a floor of the Delegates' meetings? Did they make efforts
to engage or even approach Board members or representatives from their
states? I'm relatively certain that ANYONE (players), that wished to
speak for or against the motion would have been gladly allowed to. They
weren't playing games at the time, so I wonder why they didn't bother?
Joel Benjamin wasn't present. Yasser wasn't there either. Yasser
himself would have made a HUGE difference I would bet. I'll bet he
could have swayed 5 people just by speaking.
>
> > >
> > > no! but take an honest stance, out in the open
> >
> > What is more open than public debate at a meeting? What is more open
> > than going on record and voting for what one believes is best? What is
> > more open than publicly discussing what was decided and why on an
> > international chess politics newsgroup? None of this was done in
> > secret. None of the decisions are being hidden from you or anyone
> > else.
>
> but the debate Bruce, has been conducted by people, as you say above,
> who are well-meaning local chess folks. the debate i am interested in is
> between these people and actual PLAYERS - certainly at a national level
>
> what disgusted me about the level of information offered the delegates
> and general membership as issued in chess life is that Tim Redman had to
> draw back his very, very mild comment, so that it only said "hey, we
> have a few problems" whereas, it must be evident to anyone reading here
> for 10 minutes, that we all fear a fatal tail-spin
Again though Phil. Who should you really be directing your anger and
frustration at? If the players don't show up or otherwise lobby for
what they want their national federation to do, how is the national
federation to know what course to pursue?
> > Again, none of the people at the Delegates' meetings as far as I know
> > manage anyone. What is stopping the players from making their opinions
> > known to those who must vote? A list of Delegates is published each
> > year. It will soon be published on the USCF website assuming it's not
> > already on there. If Yasser or anyone else who has an opinion wishes to
> > send us letters, there is nothing stopping them.
>
> and there hasn't been. he has done so.
Yes, I said Yasser sent a strong letter denouncing FIDE. We all know
that Yasser has been a leader with the courage to state how he feels
openly. He didn't come to St. Paul however. He didn't speak. Neither
did any other GM, American or otherwise.
> who represented his point of view at the delegates meeting?
> answer me that
> perhaps he is not important enough?
Don Schultz, Jerry Hanken and Bill Goichberg.
>
> > >
> >
> > So if you propose nothing what are the alternatives?
>
> i propose nothing to an indifferent audience
> the alternative is that uscf will die
I think perhaps you use the more derisive term "indifferent" because
you are mad at the decision.
>
> > >
> > > what? even recently we have public statements by miles, seirawan,
> > > kasparov, short, karpov
> >
> > How about Khalifman, and Salov? How about Anand and Kramnik? How do
> > they feel?
>
> i know. do you?
Does it matter? If they didn't write to us, inform us or make their
opinions known to us, it matters not a whole lot if you know how they
feel.
> is this a rhetorical question?
No.
> i knew what khalifman thought before his WC title, because i worked with
> him. he thought it was a shambles, and heavily loaded for insiders. I
> have not worked with anand.
Perhaps Khalifman and Karpov have exchanged sides of the aisle.
> >
> > What evidence is there to support the view? How many players showed up
> > in Vegas last year? Were they complaining about being there? How many
> > boycotted it on principle? How many came to Groningen and Lausanne?
> > Was Karpov's indignation with FIDE a Saul on the road to Damascus type
> > of thing?
>
> laugh - it will surprise you to know that he is a human being
Something which applies to all of us, including those who disappointed
you with their vote.
- he wrote
> 10 years ago about the top chess scene, and its giddying effect - and he
> wrote long and honestly about it - so your comment is an empty one, in
> fact, in place of known facts
Not an empty one at all. His opposition to FIDE is now directly
related to his disagreement over the greater frequency of the WC having
to defend his title. I don't disagree by the way that the WC is
becoming devalued, but to say Karpov NOW favors reform brings a bit of a
chuckle.
>
> i have already written about khalifman. better to talk abnout your own
> principles than those others should have, no?
No need. I can sleep at night. I feel we took the best course given
the limited options available to us.
>
> obviously no-one who went to LV complained about being there. to
> complain is to be out! get it? this is very clear from the great fidé
> encyclical - didn't you understand what this OPEN threat to players
> meant? and the less-open situation has been like this for years,
> years!!!
I understand it quite well. This is one of the thing that irritates me
is that people want us to lead a revolution while they sit safely in the
shadows. Here pardner. Here's a gun, you go on out there and kill them
varmints and we'll be right behind you backing you up (or burying you),
100%.
>
> what the hell would you know about it?
Apparently nothing. You have spoken and you are much wiser than all
the rest of us. There is no need to say more.
>
> > I seem to recollect him grinning like a Cheshire Cat on the
> > cover of Chess Life the year before. He didn't seem to be too proud to
> > accept the money and the title from the same person and organization you
> > now say he indignantly opposes.
>
> chesslife offered him the title? shit-by-association? bruce - have
> another go.
I call it opposition for convenience sake. In the circle and happy to
be there one year. Out of the circle and indignant the next.
>
>
>
> uscf, i'm talking about where you guys are at, and whatever you know or
> care about, and here! right out in the open
Yes, we've got problems. We've had problems for several years. We're
trying to solve those problems. We may or may not be able to do it.
>
> >
> > You make it sound like taking any stand other than no-confidence is
> > unethical, deceitful or immoral.
>
> your words, not mine
Kind of a Clintonesque response I'd say.
>
> what distinctions are you making?
>
> discussing stuff with players is "phil's way or hell?"
>
>
> settle for grey bruce, you deserve it
Fair enough Phil. If you don't like the message or the explanation, go
ahead and shoot the messenger.
> ````````
>
> > I think anything can succeed if it's got near universal support by the
> > players AND it's got financial backing. If it doesn't have either of
> > those two things it will fail regardless of how great it sounds on
> > paper.
>
> i am unsure which vector you have chosen here - i am saying, can
> player's interests be channeled through existing organisations?
>
> answer can be yes or no
I believe yes. Can it be done while the players remain hidden in the
shadows in fear? Probably not.
> > Fair enough. I offered. Suit yourself.
>
> don't pout bruce!
I'm hardly pouting.
> i want to have an open discussion here - if you don't like that, run for
> office or something 'normal' then you can characterise my views as those
> of the wild outsider, ranting on about chess players, completely
> indifferent to the practical necessities of saving uscf
Phil, I would never characterize your views as anything but reasoned
and passionate for what you believe. I thought our discussion is pretty
open here on RGCP.
Those who you now casitigate for apparently voting against what they
> > supposedly wanted but didn't tell us.
>
> ah - those people - sound pretty screwed up, don't they? forget it
LOL !! I saw a Kreskin's ESP game today for sale, perhaps I should
have sprung for it and we could all decide how to vote next time by
using it.
> >
> > Please don't include me in the hacks category. I'll admit to being
> > human (some might argue), I'll admit to making mistakes, I'll admit to
> > trying to do the best I can.
>
> this is not an answer. if the best that can be done hasn't worked,
> perhaps it will occur to the ultra-wise to talk.....
I'll talk to anybody who wants to talk. If Yasser, or anyone else
wants to write to me, I'll read it and discuss it with him. I probably
greatly exaggerate my own importance in the universe. I'm just a humble
chess player from Nebraska.
>
> > >
> > > cordially, phil innes
>
>
Best Regards,
> > Bruce
Bruce Draney
>
> > I'm relatively certain that ANYONE (players), that wished to
> >speak for or against the motion would have been gladly allowed to. T
>
> discretion of the chair and/or the delegates (by vote).
>
> Eric C. Johnson
Yes, but the chair was being quite generous and was friends with the
sponsors of the motion. A non-delegate USCF member asked to speak and
was allowed to. He was from Illinois. A few years ago, it's my
understanding that Gata Kamsky was allowed to speak. Immanuel Imoku was
allowed to speak both this year and in 1998 in Hawaii. Last I knew he
wasn't a Delegate.
Best Regards,
Bruce
BobChess
Do you consider YOUR hands to be clean?
REgards,
Bob
Chesspride
ASCACHESS
>> answer me that
>> perhaps he is not important enough?
>
> Don Schultz, Jerry Hanken and Bill Goichberg.
>
>
I believe I mentioned previously that because Seirawan's stand was championed
by the aforementioned denegrators that the delegates acted as they did.
It is hard to swallow words of integrity and honor from the minus million trio.
In this case, I think the delegates burped just in time.
Richard Peterson
ASCACHESS
Yes Bob, My Hands ARE clean.
But let us look at yours again.
Let us see how you wasted tens of thousands of dollars of USCF funds for purely
political reasons.
Let us see how by not reading information which your own advisor provided to
you.
You (X President Bob Smith) sent a man named John L White to the USCF office.
On September 21st of 1999, he reported to you as follows,
"The board should be aware (it is my understanding) that no tournament
accounting has been done since about the first of the year. (This sentence was
underlined for emphasis) The auditors worked with the current bookkeeper to
close out last years tournaments as best possible. And, not any accounting has
been done on tournaments as of my visit. Does someone think this is not
important? Why?"
Your own man said, "DOES SOMEONE THINK THIS IS NOT IMPORTANT?"
USCF had produced directly conflicting financials on July 20th, 1999, but
neither was correct because "no tournament accounting" had been done.
Yet, they produced the false financials for trial, but not the report that said
no tournament accounting had been done.
USCF was required to disclose this report, but did not.
Smith did not listen to his own advisors and proceeded to lie in writing during
the settlement.
Bob and his handlers wasted 10s of thousands of USCF funds.
His resignation was most appropriate and Nixonlike.
Richard Peterson
Jane Adams
Jane
"ASCACHESS" <asca...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000819221756...@ng-ca1.aol.com...
phil
> I'm just a humble
> chess player from Nebraska.
they'd talk to you bruce, because you are honest
phil
Bruce Draney
>
> phil
Why thank you Phil. I try. Please give them my e-mail address if you
feel they would like to communicate. If they can write me in English, I
will certainly do my best to listen and write back to them. I speak
'un peu de Francais', but probably not enough to effectively
communicate.
As far as I'm concerned, I intend to watch very closely to see what
kinds of progress if any is made this year, and if there is no progress,
there is a very good chance that I will be standing on the other side
of the microphone next year, emphasizing the fact that perhaps it's time
to reassess our previous actions or policies.
Of course, I'm only one vote. It would help a lot if Joel, or Yasser,
or DeFirmian, or Yermolinsky or ANY American GM's would be willing to
share their true feelings (at least privately with the Delegates or the
Board).
Best Regards,
Bruce
Michael Cummings
You do realize your schoolyard taunting is making you look like a jackass,
don't you?
--
,-----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
> Mike Cummings | "A great many people think they are thinking <
> mo...@drizzle.com | when they are merely rearranging their prejudices." <
> ICQ #34152632 | --William James <
`-----------------------------------------------------------------------------'
phil
> > they'd talk to you bruce, because you are honest
> >
> > phil
>
> Why thank you Phil. I try. Please give them my e-mail address if you
> feel they would like to communicate. If they can write me in English, I
> will certainly do my best to listen and write back to them. I speak
> 'un peu de Francais',
la vāche!
> but probably not enough to effectively
> communicate.
ha ha ha
<lost it>
> As far as I'm concerned, I intend to watch very closely to see what
> kinds of progress if any is made this year, and if there is no progress,
> there is a very good chance that I will be standing on the other side
> of the microphone next year, emphasizing the fact that perhaps it's time
> to reassess our previous actions or policies.
>
> Of course, I'm only one vote. It would help a lot if Joel, or Yasser,
> or DeFirmian, or Yermolinsky or ANY American GM's would be willing to
> share their true feelings (at least privately with the Delegates or the
> Board).
it might actually be beneficial to have a knowledgable outsider chair an
international summit of organisers and players, and other strange
people.
what you thinking Sir Thim?
moy knets prednachertanniy blizok
phil
> Best Regards,
>
> Bruce