New Rumor about Beatriz Marinello
Sam Sloan
I heard this rumor about a week ago. I did not report it then because
I am unclear as to the source. I am told that the source is top-notch
and comes from Crossville, not from New Windsor.
Anyway, the rumor is that the reason Beatriz Marinello had a high
school physics teacher hired as the new executive director rather than
the better qualified former military officer who also applied is that
Beatriz herself plans to become Executive Director in August.
According to this source, Beatriz believes that if the candidates she
is backing are elected, namely Bauer, Shaughnessy, Shutt and John,
then they will agree for her to take over the job title of Executive
Director and, as this will happen in August, the high school teacher
will be sent back to teach high school with no hard feelings.
Sam Sloan
Randy Bauer
It doesn't make sense.
First, the new Executive Director has a two year contract -- and
actually wanted 4 years. That doesn't sound like somebody who
wishes to return to teaching "with no hard feelings." Second,
Beatriz has told the Board that she intends to finish her term as
President. I believe her. Third, I, for one, intend to support an
ADM that requires a one-year waiting period between Board service
and any paid position with the USCF. If it passes (and I believe it
will), the issue will be moot.
Randy Bauer
>
Sam Sloan
wrote:
I admit that the rumor seems flawed. I am not confident about it at
all. Also, has Beatriz even spent time in the Crossville office,
because I was told that the source is an employees or employees in
Crossville.
This is why I did not report it earlier. Still, it does seem to be in
the character of Beatriz and therefore I feel that it cannot be
discounted completely.
Sam Sloan
Mike Nolan
>First, the new Executive Director has a two year contract -- and
>actually wanted 4 years. That doesn't sound like somebody who
>wishes to return to teaching "with no hard feelings." Second,
>Beatriz has told the Board that she intends to finish her term as
>President. I believe her. Third, I, for one, intend to support an
>ADM that requires a one-year waiting period between Board service
>and any paid position with the USCF. If it passes (and I believe it
>will), the issue will be moot.
I haven't seen all the ADMs yet, but there will be at least one and
possibly two ADMs on the agenda dealing with this issue.
--
Mike Nolan
Randy Bauer
I believe the one I was referring to is sponsored by Mike Nolan; I am supportive
of itand will speak in favor of it at the Delegates meeting.
Randy Bauer
Jürgen R.
wrote:
You have spread quite a number of rumors concerning Beatriz Marinello
and every one of them has been false.
I think it's time for you to start digging up dirt about the Fuller
Brush man who became a schoolteacher. Go and check if he really
graduated from MIT. Think how much fun it would be if his diploma is a
fake!
Mike Nolan
>>I haven't seen all the ADMs yet, but there will be at least one and
>>possibly two ADMs on the agenda dealing with this issue.
>I believe the one I was referring to is sponsored by Mike Nolan; I am supportive
>of itand will speak in favor of it at the Delegates meeting.
Here's the text of that advance delegate motion:
ADM 05-________ (Nolan, NE):
Modify Article VI of the Bylaws to add the following section to the
Bylaws:
Section ___: Restrictions
Elected members of the Executive Board may not serve as paid USCF employees,
paid consultants or as vendors of goods or services to the USCF during
their tenure on the Executive Board and for a period of one year after
their board service ends. Except as noted below, this shall not affect
a board member's ability to organize or direct USCF-rated events or to
serve as an officer or owner of a USCF affiliate.
Elected members of the Executive Board may not serve as the chief TD for
USCF national events during their tenure on the Board and for a period of
one year after their board service ends.
Elected members of the Executive Board may not serve as the organizer of
a USCF national event (or as an officer or owner of a USCF affiliate
serving as the organizer of a USCF national event) during their tenure
on the Board and for a period of three years after their board service
ends unless the agreement to serve as the organizer of that national
event was signed prior to that person's becoming a candidate for election
to the Executive Board.
In unusual circumstances, Executive Board members may be assigned tasks
dealing with day-to-day operations of the USCF. No compensation for these
tasks beyond the reimbursement of direct out-of-pocket expenses may be
paid.
--
Mike Nolan
George John
My first impression is this is a good motion.
I am wondering about the restrictions placed on being Chief TD of
National events. Would you object to a Chief TD working for free or
reasonable expenses only (IOW, as a volunteer)?
Best regards,
George John
Fred Reynolds
Fuller
> Brush man who became a schoolteacher. >
You dumb Danes still have the Fuller Brush Man selling door-to-door and
taking care of business for the uber-heifers?
BTW, Sam did mention that Beatriz is a lesbian and that she often does not
wash and reeks of anchovie-odor. Those apparently are true.
Mike Nolan
>I am wondering about the restrictions placed on being Chief TD of
>National events. Would you object to a Chief TD working for free or
>reasonable expenses only (IOW, as a volunteer)?
I don't believe the chief TDs at our national events should be working
for free, so, yes, I would object to that.
The Board is in a position to influence the selection of the chief TD,
therefore members of the Board should not be in a position to be selected.
One area that I did not specifically address was paid contributors to
Chess Life. I'm open to prohibiting that as well.
--
Mike Nolan
George John
I have no problem at all with a Chief TD volunteering their time for a
national event provided they do as good a job as if they were paid.
Why do you think they should not? Do you object to Chief TD's working
for free in general or only for national events?
What if the TD agreed to donate their "pay" to the US Chess Trust?
Best regards,
George John
longlivedemocracy
none of your business who she sleeps with. Body odor and hygiene is a
different story.
Mike Nolan
>I have no problem at all with a Chief TD volunteering their time for a
>national event provided they do as good a job as if they were paid.
>Why do you think they should not? Do you object to Chief TD's working
>for free in general or only for national events?
I think we have enough active NTDs that we can afford to take one or two
names off the list of potential chief TDs for national events during their
time on the Board.
As proposed, my motion does not prohibit Board members from serving as
an assistant TD, even as the backroom chief. However, I personally feel
that if a board member is at a national event, he or she should be be there
to represent the USCF, not to work on the event staff.
--
Mike Nolan
George John
I remain interested in learning why you think Chief TD's should not
work for free at National events, but if you do not wish to answer that
is certainly okay with me.
I agree a board member should represent the USCF and not work an event,
but what about the year after their board duty is over?
Best regards,
George John
beat...@aol.com
the USCF.
Furthermore, I believe that Bill Hall will be growing into the job of
Executive Director and provide us with a good service.
This rumor cannot come from office in Crossville. The office in
Crossville is totally isolated from chess politics with the exception
of Grant Perks, who is a person of integrity. Grant Perks will never
spread rumors of any kind.
In any case, I appreciate that this rumor is out in the open, instead
of been used underground for political purposes.
I will also support the ADM that requires a one-year waiting period
between Board service and any paid position with the USCF.
The people who are spreading rumors do not seem concerned about Bill
Goichberg's huge conflict of interest, Robert Tanner making money from
the USCF by working as a Tournament Director, Joel Channing trying to
get even after not getting his bid to relocate the USCF office to Palm
Beach Gardens and Sam Sloan costing the USCF thousands of dollars in
legal fees.
Gregory Shahade is a good person, young and inexperience but he has the
interest of chess in his heart. I am just concerned that he will be
used by these people. When he realizes this it would be late to repair
the damages.
If Goichberg gets elected and they manage to get a board majority, be
sure the Bill Goichberg will become the next USCF President.
Bill Goichberg as USCF President will be the same than experiencing an
earthquake in NYC. A very scary thought.
Beatriz Marinello
Mike Nolan
>I remain interested in learning why you think Chief TD's should not
>work for free at National events, but if you do not wish to answer that
>is certainly okay with me.
What's wrong with paying people for their time? If we pay someone, we
also have the right to insist upon timely and satisfactory performance.
>I agree a board member should represent the USCF and not work an event,
>but what about the year after their board duty is over?
The whole point to the year delay is to make sure that the Board member
has not influenced the choice of the chief TD.
Would you agree that there is the potential for something improper (or
at least the appearance of something improper, which is what avoidance of
a conflcict of interest is all about) if a Board member's term of office
ends in mid-August and he or she serves as the chief TD of the US Class
Championships two weeks later or the National Action tournament in November?
I could go further than I did in my motion.
Should Board members be prohibited from serving as officers of a state
chapter while on the Board?
Should a Board member who is a professional player should be permitted to
influence the selection criteria for the US Championship or the Olympiad
teams?
Should a Board member who is the parent of a highly talented scholastic
player be permitted to influence how we choose representatives to world
youth events or the All-American Team?
Should a Board member who is a scholastic chess coach be permitted to
influence the rules for the National Scholastics?
--
Mike Nolan
George John
Mike Nolan wrote:
Mike,
[SNIP]
> What's wrong with paying people for their time?
Absolutely nothing! And, nowhere do I think I have suggested there is
anything wrong with paying them.
But, why prohibit people who are highly qualified from working for
free? Some people wish to work as volunteers only, and DO NOT want to
be paid. Why eliminate them from consideration?
> If we pay someone, we
> also have the right to insist upon timely and satisfactory performance.
We have the right to demand that from a volunteer, too, if that is the
understanding. Being a volunteer does not excuse someone from the
requirement to do a good job. If I were to accept a volunteer for a
key position, I would need to know that they have a track record of
reliable performance as a volunteer.
[SNIP]
> The whole point to the year delay is to make sure that the Board member
> has not influenced the choice of the chief TD.
If money is involved, the conflict is clear. If no money is involved,
there could still be a conflict, but it's not immediately obvious to me
what it would be UNLESS the Chief TD decides who will work the event
for pay. Then there very well could be conflicts.
Upon reflection, I think what you have is fine.
[SNIP]
> I could go further than I did in my motion.
>
> Should Board members be prohibited from serving as officers of a state
> chapter while on the Board?
Good question. What do you think? I decided not to run again for TCA
President to avoid the possibility of that problem completely, and so I
could devote full attention to my USCF Board work.
> Should a Board member who is a professional player should be permitted to
> influence the selection criteria for the US Championship or the Olympiad
> teams?
>
> Should a Board member who is the parent of a highly talented scholastic
> player be permitted to influence how we choose representatives to world
> youth events or the All-American Team?
>
> Should a Board member who is a scholastic chess coach be permitted to
> influence the rules for the National Scholastics?
These are all good questions. I say when in doubt, recuse oneself.
And, if you think another Board member has a potential conflict,
discuss it with them, and suggest they recuse themselves.
Best regards,
George John
Louis Blair
> ... Joel Channing trying to get even
> after not getting his bid to relocate
> the USCF office to Palm Beach Gardens
> ...
_
What specifics are there to justify this
charge?
George John
If you are willing, the voters might benefit from your elaborating on
your concerns about Bill Goichberg being the USCF's next President.
My largest concern is the potential for conflict of interest (COI)
between his interests in the USCF and the Continental Chess
Association. SFAIK, Mr. Goichberg has not discussed prior COI
allegations made against him, nor has he stated how he would manage his
COI issues as the USCF's President.
I do have a couple more questions please.
You mentioned Robert Tanner making money from the USCF as a Tournament
Director. Doesn't the Executive Board "Standards of Conduct" prohibit
this? I quote:
"No Executive Board member, or a member of his immediate family, may
profit financially from organizing or directing a national tournament
or activity organized or co-organized by the USCF", [SNIP], if the
Executive Board or the USCF business office is involved in determining
the arrangements".
You mentioned Joel Channing "trying to get even". This causes me
concern. Why do you think he might do this, and what do you think he
might do to get even?
A note to the readers: Prior to voting in favor of moving to
Crossville in 2003, the McCrary Board voted in favor of moving to West
Palm Beach, FL. Joel Channing was involved in the WPB move. IIRC, the
proposed location for the new office was on property that Mr. Channing
owned and/or had a business interest in. Perhaps someone better
informed than I can explain why the McCrary Board shifted gears so
suddenly and within what I thought was a short period of time rejected
the WPB location, and chose Crossville instead.
Best regards,
George John
StanB
"Sam Sloan" <sl...@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:42a05f69...@ca.news.verio.net...
> New Rumor about Sam Sloan.
>
> I heard this rumor about a week ago. I did not report it then because
> I am unclear as to the source. I am told that the source is top-notch
> and comes from Salisbury Mills, not from New Windsor.
>
> Anyway, the rumor is that the reason Sam Sloan had a high
> school physics teacher become his latest wife rather than
> the better qualified former military officer who also applied is that
> Sam himself plans to become pregnant in August.
>
> According to this source, Sam believes that if the candidates he
> is backing are elected, namely Goichberg, Channing, Tanner and Shahade,
> then they will agree for him to take over the job title of Scholastics
> Director and, as this will happen in August, the high school teacher
> will be sent back to teach high school with no hard feelings.
> Sam Sloan
But will she have to pay child support?
RSH...@aol.com
an earthquake in NYC. A very scary thought. >>
Beatriz Marinello
==========
How so? I can never tell the good guys from the bad guys in the
affairs of chess.
Old Haasie
Chess One
"George John" <geo...@neosoft.com> wrote in message
news:1117837549....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Mike Nolan wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
> [SNIP]
>
>> What's wrong with paying people for their time?
>
> Absolutely nothing! And, nowhere do I think I have suggested there is
> anything wrong with paying them.
>
> But, why prohibit people who are highly qualified from working for
> free? Some people wish to work as volunteers only, and DO NOT want to
> be paid. Why eliminate them from consideration?
Because you can't contract with unpaid volunteers - all contracts have to
have a monetary or other substantive value, as 'consideration'. If the
position is important, and itself dealing with contractual matters with
others, you find yourself on legal ground as strange as the Crossville site.
This is often the idea of keeping executive officers seperate and distinct
from board-member contributions. An Ex Dir is contracted and formally
responsible to the organisation, and to the law of the land.
Volunteers at any level are only responsible for their individual
culpability, not corporate responsibility. USCF is a non-profit corporation,
no?
Phil Innes
WPraeder
Chess One wrote:
>
> Volunteers at any level are only responsible for their individual
> culpability, not corporate responsibility. USCF is a non-profit corporation,
> no?
>
> Phil Innes
>
Phil,
This may help:
http://128.121.194.245/cf-02.htm
Some good advice from up north:
http://www.law-nonprofit.org/261-trb.htm
and about the VPA:
http://www.eriskcenter.org/erisk.htm?pid=126
Regards,
Wayne Praeder
Louis Blair
14:03:01 -0700):
> ... Joel Channing trying to get even
> after not getting his bid to relocate
> the USCF office to Palm Beach Gardens
_
George John wrote (3 Jun 2005
15:53:01 -0700):
> This causes me concern. Why do
> you think he might do this, and
> what do you think he might do to
> get even?
_
Has there been any sort of answer to
this from Beatriz Marinello?
ches...@aol.com
"A note to the readers: Prior to voting in favor of moving to
Crossville in 2003, the McCrary Board voted in favor of moving to West
Palm Beach, FL. Joel Channing was involved in the WPB move. IIRC, the
proposed location for the new office was on property that Mr. Channing
owned and/or had a business interest in. Perhaps someone better
informed than I can explain why the McCrary Board shifted gears so
suddenly and within what I thought was a short period of time rejected
the WPB location, and chose Crossville instead.
First a smallfinancial interestin a point, the Florida bid was from
Palm Beach Gardens (PBG)not West Palm Beach. PBG is about 15 mils north
of West Palm Beach.
Second, Joel Channing had no financial interest in anything to do with
the bid. He rather used his influence with the city leaders to have
them help make the bid attractive.
Even though he was in the business, Joel steered clear of either
personally or through his company to have any financial interest in
any of the building contracts.
The reason the PBG bid was rejected is not clear to me but it was and
that is history and pointless to revisit..
Don Schultz
ches...@aol.com
"Joel Channing trying to get even after not getting his bid to relocate
the USCF office to Palm
Beach Gardens."
I missed this. Please explain!
Don
ches...@aol.com
perspective. It is the text of an email I just sent to Beatriz:
Beatriz, I noted on rgcp that you made the statement below on rgcp:
"The people who are spreading rumors do not seem concerned about Bill
Goichberg's huge conflict of interest, Robert Tanner making money from
the USCF by working as a Tournament Director, Joel Channing trying to
get even after not getting his bid to relocate the USCF office to Palm
Beach Gardens and Sam Sloan costing the USCF thousands of dollars in
legal fees."
I highlighted the part above where you refer to Joel Channing.
Please explain the basis for that part of your statement. I believe it
has no basis but is merely conjecture on your part but that is not how
you presented it. So, if that is all it is, I urge you to clarify your
rgcp statement.
Getting even?? You know full well that Joel just helped out getting
good terms for the Crossville bank loan - that is not getting even that
is putting the past in the background and working for the good of the
organization.
Goichberg's conflict of interest charge is being fully debated and no
comment is needed. As for Tanner's TD fees; lots of people get TD fees;
the fact is Tanner is not a member of the EB. What standard are you
holding him to that he should not have been allowed to be a TD for the
USCF?
Don Schultz
StanB
<ches...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1117910744.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Second, Joel Channing had no financial interest in anything to do with
> the bid. He rather used his influence with the city leaders to have
> them help make the bid attractive.
>
> Even though he was in the business, Joel steered clear of either
> personally or through his company to have any financial interest in
> any of the building contracts.
>
> The reason the PBG bid was rejected is not clear to me but it was and
> that is history and pointless to revisit..
I believe you Don. I mean, why would you lie?
The Historian
Force of habit?
StanB
<ches...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1117923123.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
It speaks for itself. He probably started telling Camaratta and McCrary this
about that. Call it, a clash of the giant egos.
whoc...@registerednurses.com
THEM ALL.
whoc...@registerednurses.com
Louis Blair
> "Joel Channing trying to get even after
> not getting his bid to relocate the USCF
> office to Palm Beach Gardens."
Chessdon wrote:
> I missed this. Please explain!
StanB wrote:
> It speaks for itself. He probably started
> telling Camaratta and McCrary this about
> that. Call it, a clash of the giant egos.
_
Beatriz didn't explain the evidence.
ches...@aol.com
> "Joel Channing trying to get even after
> not getting his bid to relocate the USCF
> office to Palm Beach Gardens."
_
Chessdon wrote:
> I missed this. Please explain!
_
StanB wrote:
> It speaks for itself. He probably started
> telling Camaratta and McCrary this about
> that. Call it, a clash of the giant egos.
I have no idea what you r talking about.Are you seriously sugesting
that your erroneous speculation is at all meaningful in this
discussion.
Don
StanB
<ches...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1117934750....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Beatriz wrote:
>> "Joel Channing trying to get even after
>> not getting his bid to relocate the USCF
>> office to Palm Beach Gardens."
>
>> I missed this. Please explain!
>
>> It speaks for itself. He probably started
>> telling Camaratta and McCrary this about
>> that. Call it, a clash of the giant egos.
>
> I have no idea what you r talking about.Are you seriously sugesting
> that your erroneous speculation is at all meaningful in this
> discussion.
Are you saying you know it to be erroneous? Please explain!
RSH...@aol.com
informed than I can explain why the McCrary Board shifted gears so
suddenly and within what I thought was a short period of time rejected
===========
Perhaps they read that global warming will put all of coastal
Florida under 30 feet of salt water in the next hundred years or so.
That ought to bring Florida's soaring housing prices back in line, too.
New Orleans will be the first big city to go under. Just think of the
many skindiving junkets to explore the French Quarter.
Old Haasie
Greg Shahade
One thing you absolutely need not worry about is that I will be "used"
by anyone, and anyone who really knows me should understand this pretty
well. Thanks for the other comments though.
Sam Sloan
>If Goichberg gets elected and they manage to get a board majority, be
>sure the Bill Goichberg will become the next USCF President.
>
>Bill Goichberg as USCF President will be the same than experiencing an
>earthquake in NYC. A very scary thought.
>
>Beatriz Marinello
In fact, if I am elected I intend to vote for Bill Goichberg for
president, even though this year, as in every other year, he opposes
my election.
Had it not been for the strong opposition of Bill Goichberg, it is
obvious that I would have been elected several times in the past.
Nevertheless, Bill Goichberg deserves the job. Bill has been directly
informed with the USCF for 41 years since 1964. Bill set up the USCF
rating system, which should really be called the Elo-Goichberg System
rather than the Elo System. More than anybody else, Bill Goichberg
made the USCF the organization it is today and nobody has a stronger
interest in the ultimate success of the organization than does Bill
Goichberg, unlike Beatriz Marinello and others who are pushing for the
demise of the USCF so that they can start their own organization.
Finally, it was Bill Goichberg who actually saved the USCF recently,
not Beatriz Marinello.
Sam Sloan
StanB
> More than anybody else, Bill Goichberg
> made the USCF the organization it is today and nobody has a stronger
> interest in the ultimate success of the organization than does Bill
> Goichberg,
No argument there. We're still trying to dig out from the mess Don and he
made of the organization.
beat...@aol.com
Joel Channing trying to get even after not getting his bid to relocate
the USCF office to Palm
Beach Gardens
Ok Don, I would speak my mind. I do not like to waste my time being
negative. In the last couple of days, I have been crossing the line by
responding to Bill Goichberg, because he did two mailings plus he
posted information in his website in which he is directly attacking me.
Joel Channing: I got to know him a lot better in Florida, Channing has
good intentions but he is sour about the fact that he did not get the
bid for PBG, when I was in Florida I thought it was some value to his
arguments that he did not get it for political reasons, but then later
on I found out he was trying to get a deal what was not that good for
the federation. So then, I decided to support the ratification of the
relocation to Crossville which IMO is solid a viable option.
You told me that you will losing Joel forever if I supported Crossville
instead of PBG. I said to you, I have no other interest on this than
doing what is best for the federation.
I am not supporting Joel Channing because I do not think he is
independent enough. You are his campaign's manager. If Joel gets
elected he is your sure vote. The people I am supporting, are
independent enough that can make their own minds. Shahade is the only
one in your slate that is independent enough that can make his own
decisions. Although, I now for a fact that Bill Goichberg reviewed this
candidates statements for Chess Life's magazine.
The following e-mail was sent to me: True or false, it's up to you to
make the case.
"As for the conflict of interest issue, how did you guys ever miss the
potentially gross conflict of interest involving Schultz, Channing, and
the Channing Corporation's bid for the move to Palm Beach Gardens?
Schultz is a good friend of Channing.
Channing owned the property (to the best of my recollection) that would
house the USCF offices (to be rented) in Palm Beach Gardens.
A zoning change would be required to zone the land for the proposed
purpose (to the best of my recollection).
The zoning change would increase the value of the land (so I was told).
Channing was on the Zoning Board (to the best of my knowledge).
According to the WPBG proposal, they could evict the USCF after 3 years
and sell the property or rent to someone else.
Schultz was up to his arse in conflicts of interest here, and so would
Channing if he were to be elected to the Board and used that position
to adversely influence the move to Crossville in favor of WPBG.
Something to consider and investigate to confirm."
Joel Channing was not in the EB when he submitted this bid. Therefore,
I do not see a conflict in this involvement with this bid. However,
it's clear that he did not get the bid. It's logical to question his
motivations for seeking a position in the Executive Board. Don't you
think??
Beatriz Marinello
ches...@aol.com
character of Joel. Posting this has cost me two glasses of wine as u
know, one for u and one for me - as u were right that I would respond.
C'est la vie! (I don't know Spanish - sorry. Actually my French and
English are not so good either. But I do know my wine and that will be
very good wine we will have in Phoenix!
Don
beat...@aol.com
posted something that he will be have to respond. The bet was a glass
a wine in Phoenix. Of course, I won the bet.
I am so tired of all these negative postings, the only point I made in
my previous posting is that Joel Channing is not independent enough. I
may be wrong, but I doubt it.
Good luck to all the candidates in the upcoming election. Of course, I
wish that Randy Bauer, Elizabeth, Steve Shutt and George John will win.
But its up to the votes to decide.
Actually in Chile, people say C'est la vie o Asi es la vida..(not la
vida loca)
I am proud of my Latin roots and the fact that I am bicultural.,
bilingual and I have been making a different in chess in the USA.
All the best,
Beatriz Marinello
PS: I am looking forward to enjoying my glass of wine paid by Don
Schultz. Don just bet me that I will not reply. I am about to win a
second glass of wine. One glass in my limit, so I may give the second
glass to Tim Hanke.
parrt...@cs.com
Beatriz Marinello: "We shouldn't move into somebody's house or
somebody's facility when we can afford to buy our own place."
"Beatriz's way is the only way -- USCF must remain an independent
group, not one with obligations to others." Stan Booz, her spokesman
and chief advisor.
So, then, the new argument is that we become a trailer-court
federation to keep our "independence."
Some "independence."
Once again, the Federation refused to give a reputable
business man such as Erik Anderson, who has pumped enormous amounts of
money into chess, two weeks to make a deal with billionaire Gerry. This
same Board majority, if it felt that independence was being undermined,
could have REJECTED the deal. But they couldn't wait two weeks!
The whole independence argument is absurd.
The Board feared that Anderson would come back with a deal too
good to turn down and that his influence would grow in the USCF
thereby. Also taking the deal wouldn't provide Beatriz Marinello with a
job as a volunteer COO (whose expenses are still undisclosed)
supervising the move to Crossville.
That is why the majority rejected a deal. Instead, the
Federation has a piece of land that it may be attempting to give back
to Crossville because of radon and topography concerns. It is now in
the middle of nowhere in a church basement in the process.
The Great Giving Up.
ches...@aol.com
paid by Don
Schultz. Don just bet me that I will not reply. I am about to win a
second glass of wine. One glass in my limit, so I may give the second
glass to Tim Hanke.
I applaud Beatriz's deep understanding. She knows very well that one of
my objectives when I joined this Board was to convert Tim Hanke to
favoring wine as his drink of choice. Some headway has been made but
there is a way to go and sharing our wine (Tim u can have one of my two
glasses as well) will help. I have two years of service left to achieve
this goal.
Don
ches...@aol.com
Your posting shook me to the core and I feel compelled to confess. My
life's work - learning a profession, building a business, the public
service - all of it has lead me to this moment. I stand poised to
savor my life's ambition: to be the pawn of Don Schultz.
Joel
Louis Blair
17:47:08 -0700):
> the only point I made in my previous
> posting is that Joel Channing is not
> independent enough.
_
Beatriz Marinello did not just write about
independence. She wrote about "Joel
Channing TRYING TO GET EVEN".
(Emphasis added.)
_
If there is evidence for this, where is it?
If there is no evidence, where is the
apology?
The Historian
LOL! I thought your life's ambition was to ruin sick elderly men.
StanB
<parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1118020816.2...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> "Beatriz's way is the only way -- USCF must remain an independent
> group, not one with obligations to others." Stan Booz, her spokesman
> and chief advisor.
If it wouldn't be too much to ask perhaps you could document this quote. Or
admit you made it up.
parrt...@cs.com
THE CONFUSION IS DUE TO BOOZ HIMSELF
>Beatriz's way is the only way -- USCF must remain an independent group, not one with obligations to others. Stan Booz, her spokesman and chief advisor.
<If it wouldn't be too much to ask perhaps you could document this
quote. Or admit you made it up.> Stan Booz
Here is the posting Mr. Booz sent to the FIDE newsgroup. I apologize if
I misquoted him, but it's unclear whether he is speaking for himself or
quoting someone else.
Subj: RE: [fide-chess] Re: Difficult position
Date: 6/5/2005 6:45:05 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: stan...@comcast.net
Reply-to: fide-...@yahoogroups.com
-From: fide-...@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fide-...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of chess...@aol.com
In a message dated 6/4/05 2:13:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Rec...@aol.com writes:
Beatriz Marinello: "We shouldn't move into somebody's house or
somebody's facility when we can afford to buy our own place."
Beatriz's way is the only way -- USCF must remain an independent
group, not one with obligations to others.
Would you move back home to live with your parents? Or would you makedo
with a smaller place on your own? The answer is obvious.
Does Bill own a house? I heard he lived in his mother-in-law's house.
Is that true?
The spectre of the Manhattan Chess Club should guide us -- they
"trusted"another group to give them a home, and when the composition of
that groupchanged, the promises vanished. By that time, the MCC's will
to live independently had atrophied, and they died.
No sponsor...should be trusted to the point of giving up USCF's
independence.Any deal that has even a whiff of that scent, should be
turned down immediately.
Yes but if AF4C took over Don Schultz would have got a seat on the AF4C
board. And that's a fact.
Beatriz is right. Bill is wrong.
ECJ
-----------------
Forwarded Message:
Subj: apparently ECJ posted it on the FIDE newsgroup
Date: 6/5/2005 7:56:20 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: Chesstours
To: binker...@yahoo.com
Subj: RE: [fide-chess] Re: Difficult position
Date: 6/5/2005 6:45:05 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: stan...@comcast.net
Reply-to: fide-...@yahoogroups.com
To: fide-...@yahoogroups.com
Received from Internet: click here for more information
-----Original Message-----From: fide-...@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:fide-...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of chess...@aol.com
In a message dated 6/4/05 2:13:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Rec...@aol.com writes:
Beatriz Marinello: "We shouldn't move into somebody's house or
somebody's facility when we can afford to buy our own place."
Beatriz's way is the only way -- USCF must remain an independent group,
not one with obligations to others.
Would you move back home to live with your parents? Or would you makedo
with a smaller place on your own? The answer is obvious.
Does Bill own a house? I heard he lived in his mother-in-law's house.
Is that true?
The spectre of the Manhattan Chess Club should guide us -- they
"trusted"another group to give them a home, and when the composition of
that groupchanged, the promises vanished. By that time, the MCC's will
to live independentlyhad atrophied, and they died.
No sponsor...should be trusted to the point of giving up USCF's
independence.Any deal that has even a whiff of that scent, should be
turned down immediately.
Yes but if AF4C took over Don Schultz would have got a seat on the AF4C
board. And that's a fact.
Beatriz is right. Bill is wrong.
ECJ
Greg Shahade
It is true that I sent Bill (and quite a few other people) a copy of
my very first candidate's statement, although I don't believe I sent
him my second one, and am positive I didn't send my third. I basically
wanted to have a few people look at them, especially the first one, as
I had never had to write something of this nature before and wanted to
be sure the material was appropriate.
However this doesn't mean anything other than that I respected Bill's
opinion enough to send him a copy and ask what he thinks. Again there
is at least one person in the "slate" that I'm not supposed to be part
of, with whom I've talked quite a bit about the election, the USCF
political situation and shared some ideas with.
Sorry if I make such a big deal out of this, but I just want to make
sure that everyone knows that I ran in this election for my own
personal reasons. I've always wanted to do my part to help American
chess and there are many others in my situation who would like to as
well. Unfortunately most of these people don't have the time to be part
of the USCF board or perhaps they just want to stay out of the
limelight and political atmosphere. I just wanted to be different and
actually try to do something instead of complaining behind the scenes.
I have taken issue with the USCF's decisions on many instances in the
past, thus for anyone to assume that I'm running as part of a slate is
misguided. I am quite positive that I will have some pretty strong
ideas or opinions that neither "slate" currently believes in.
Thinking of this election in terms of a slate seems so silly to me.
There are so many decisions to make, and not all of them will be
identical. To believe that one group of people will always vote one way
whereas the other group will always vote the other seems somewhat
absurd to me. Perhaps on one or two key issues one will see the
differences between the two "slates", but there should be plenty of
other issues in which such perceived allegiances don't have any
coorelation to the actual voting. If there is a trend of one "slate"
voting in one direction for every single issue, then it's probably
clear that there is a problem or that some board members are being
consistantly influenced by others.
StanB
like I wrote the words that he wants to come out of my mouth? These are the
only comments I had in that post:
" Does Bill own a house? I heard he lived in his
mother-in-law's house. Is that true?"
" Yes but if AF4C took over Don Schultz would have got a
seat on the AF4C board. And that's a fact."
<parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1118031810.5...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Mark Houlsby
>Had it not been for the strong opposition of Bill Goichberg, it is
obvious that I would have been elected several times in the past.
ROTFLMAO!!
George John
An old expression is "if you aren't part of the solution, you are part
of the problem". I appreciate your willingness to become part of the
solution.
This reasoning is in part what has motivated me to become involved in
chess governance (where I have seen many opportunities for
improvement), which I have done, for example:
1) attending five USCF Board of Delegate meetings (1998, 1999, 2000,
2001, and 2002)
2) serving on USCF Board Advisory Committees (an example is six years
on the Internet/Computer Committee, where I was Chair for four of those
years)
3) discussing the issues on rgcp (my post count is 4542 and dates back
to 1997)
4) serving at the state affiliate level, which I have done as the Texas
Chess Association's Secretary, Treasurer, and currently in my second
term as its President.
As an aside, I am very proud of what the chess professionals and many
devoted volunteers have accomplished in Texas. Texas is second only to
the state of California for total USCF members, and we have the largest
number of scholastic members.
My main point is, if you are not elected, I truly hope you will
continue with your efforts to make a difference in chess governance.
You can do that by becoming involved (or more involved) with your USCF
state affiliate, attend Board of Delegate meetings, serve as a
volunteer on USCF Executive Board advisory committees, and posting on
rgcp and other chess online chess forums. I truly hope you will do so.
Best of luck with your Internet league, too!
Best regards,
George John
Sunny
credentials I think.
"Greg Shahade" <gregs...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118057693.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Taylor Kingston
Sam Sloan wrote:
> Had it not been for the strong opposition of Bill Goichberg, it is
> obvious that I would have been elected several times in the past.
From tonight's David Letterman show, our Top 10 people with election
chances better than Sam Sloan's:
10. Harold Stassen for US President
9. Ralph Nader for Chairman of General Motors
8. Ozzie Osbourne for head of the WCTU
7. David Duke for President of the NAACP
6. Al Sharpton for KKK Imperial Wizard
5. Rev. Ian Paisley for Pope
4. Paris Hilton for President of Yale
3. Louis Farrakhan for Prime Minister of Israel
2. Osama bin Laden for Prime Minister of Israel
1. Osama bin Laden for Miss America
StanB
"Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1118093219.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
David Kane
"George John" <geo...@neosoft.com> wrote in message
news:1118071624....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> As an aside, I am very proud of what the chess professionals and
many
> devoted volunteers have accomplished in Texas. Texas is second only
to
> the state of California for total USCF members, and we have the
largest
> number of scholastic members.
Texas (pop. 22.1 million) has around 6300 scholastic members.
Washington (pop. 6.1 million) had 4654 scholastic players
playing in rated tournaments (outside of the USCF) this school year.
(6300/22.1)/(4654/6.1)= .37
So assuming that Washington represents the natural rate of
interest in tournament chess and that Texas does not have
significant non-USCF scholastic tournament play, you and
your devoted volunteers appear to be responsible for
driving approximately (.63/.37)*6300 = 10623 Texas
school children out of tournament chess this year.
Congratulations!
George John
Clearly, I must have done something previously to irritate you, because
these negative comments about Texas scholastic chess are most puzzling
to me (or are you simply anti-USCF?). You are welcome to negatively
comment on me as much as you like, but these comments about Texas
scholastic chess I must take exception with because the apply to a
large number of outstanding chess professionals and volunteers, who,
IMHO, deserve nothing but praise.
Without regard to the specific merits of most of your post, you would
be incorrect to assume that Texas does not have significant non-USCF
scholastic tournament play. For example, in Houston (where I live)
most scholastic tournaments have USCF-rated and unrated sections.
There is an organization in Houston which started in the 1960's called
the Houston Chess Association (now the Houston Scholastic Chess
Association) which only in the past few years started having USCF rated
sections. For most of its history it had only HCA (local) rated
sections, and NO USCF rated sections. This organization has been
extremely popular in Houston with its monthly events attracting as many
as 400 students.
My son started his tournament chess play in non-USCF rated, HCA
sections in 6th grade, and until 8th grade played mostly non-USCF rated
chess. I have directed for free at many of these events, as well as at
the Houston Independent School District chess championship, where the
$13 USCF membership would be prohibitively expensive for many families
who participate in this event.
I recognize the value of both non-USCF and USCF rated play. Currently,
in Houston, USCF rated sections are significantly more popular than
non-USCF rated, but that has not always been true. Currently, our
students seem to value the USCF rating more so than the HCA rating.
Nevertheless, the non-USCF rated sections are a good starting point for
many of our students.
SFAIK, there has never been a demand or any interest in a statewide
rating system in Texas, and provided the USCF can keep its costs
reasonable, I doubt there will ever be such a demand. I certainly do
not see the lack of a statewide system as deterring anyone from playing
in scholastic chess tournaments in Texas.
But, if your statewide system is working well for you, that's great!
There is more than one path to the top of the mountain.
Sincerely,
George John
Paul Rubin
> Without regard to the specific merits of most of your post, you would
> be incorrect to assume that Texas does not have significant non-USCF
> scholastic tournament play. For example, in Houston (where I live)
> most scholastic tournaments have USCF-rated and unrated sections.
What's the total number of scholastic players playing rated events in
Texas, whether rated by the USCF or some other entity?
I think the point that David is trying to make is that Washington has
been more effective than other states in getting scholastic players
into rated events, by running its own free rating system instead of
making kids wanting ratings pay to join the USCF. So I'd interpret
his post as generally opposing USCF practices rather than personally
directed against you. I am mostly in agreement with his view on
ratings.
David Kane
> Without regard to the specific merits of most of your post, you
would
> be incorrect to assume that Texas does not have significant non-USCF
> scholastic tournament play.
My response was directed at your post which boasted about
rates of activity that are low. If my (clearly stated) assumption
was incorrect, then I'm happy that my conclusion doesn't
follow.
What percentage of scholastic tournament play in your state
is USCF rated?
George John
I was not boasting about rates. I was stating facts about USCF
membership numbers. In fact I said nothing about rates, and to compare
USCF membership numbers to participation in all scholastic tournaments,
including non-USCF rated, is an apples to oranges comparison.
Texas is considered by many to have some of the more successful
scholastic chess programs and events in the country. I will gladly
boast about that; although, it was not my intent to say that Texas is
the best in the country for scholastic chess; although, some argue that
it is, particularly when the college scholarship opportunities, that
potentially exist for those who are outstanding at chess and have
demonstrated academic excellence, are included.
I do not know what percentage of play is rated, since I don't know how
much is unrated. The percentage of unrated activity in Houston used to
be very high. Now it is much less, SFAIK, with much more USCF rated
activity than we once had. I don't know about the rest of the state,
but if you are sufficiently interested I can try to find out. I'm
interested in learning more about this, too.
Best regards,
George John
David Kane
> I was not boasting about rates. I was stating facts about USCF
> membership numbers. In fact I said nothing about rates, and to
compare
> USCF membership numbers to participation in all scholastic
tournaments,
> including non-USCF rated, is an apples to oranges comparison.
Your stated fact contains little information given that
different States have different populations. Rates are
a meaningful measure. Looking at how various models
affect chess participation rates in different states *is* a
valid comparison for someone who cares about chess.
*You* might consider driving people out of chess to
be a reasonable price to pay in order to support a
remote chess bureaucracy, but not everybody does.
Greg Shahade
If people think the fact that I am a professional poker player or the
fact that I didn't finish college (I left school to accept the Samford
Chess Fellowship) will somehow make me less able to perform as a member
of the USCF board than so be it.
(I do also teach at IS 318, the US Junior High School
champion/co-champion for the past 2 years)
Greg Shahade
Thanks for your consistant kind words, I appreciate your general tone
and attitude on these boards as well, and although I don't know you
personally I have a hard time believing that you wouldn't be a solid
board member.
Even though I don't play chess as much as I used to, it will always
have a big place in my life and I'll try to do what I can for the game
whether it be playing, organizing, teaching or something of a more
"political" nature.
Sam Sloan
wrote:
> However this doesn't mean anything other than that I respected Bill's
>opinion enough to send him a copy and ask what he thinks. Again there
>is at least one person in the "slate" that I'm not supposed to be part
>of, with whom I've talked quite a bit about the election, the USCF
>political situation and shared some ideas with.
You must be referring to Steve Shutt, who was once your teacher years
ago.
While Steve seems to be a nice guy, he has been very harmful to the
federation. Steve's brainchild has been the $13 no magazine
membership, which has been terrible for the USCF because it means that
the USCF cannot communicate with its members. Because of Steve Shutt,
most new scholastic members are joining at the $13 no magazine rate
even though $17 with a magazine is a much better deal. This is a
disaster for the USCF in every way.
More recently, Steve Shutt has become a member of the Marinello group,
which is strrange because he was strongly opposed to Marinello during
the first year of her presidency.
Steve Shutt does not read or respond to emails. Nobody knows what he
is thinking or why he is doing the terrible and extremely harmful
thngs he is doing. The only way to find out is to find him at a
tournament and ask him.
I can tell you that several people have told me that they will not
vote for Greg Shahade because of your close association with Steve
Shutt. Since it sems that you have some way of contacting him, why
don't you try to talk some reason to him or at least find out why he
is doing the things that he is doing.
Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan
wrote:
>An old expression is "if you aren't part of the solution, you are part
>of the problem". I appreciate your willingness to become part of the
>solution.
George John is not merely part oif the problem. He is the problem.
>This reasoning is in part what has motivated me to become involved in
>chess governance (where I have seen many opportunities for
>improvement), which I have done, for example:
>
>1) attending five USCF Board of Delegate meetings (1998, 1999, 2000,
>2001, and 2002)
When he was running for election or trrying to gain political power.
>2) serving on USCF Board Advisory Committees (an example is six years
>on the Internet/Computer Committee, where I was Chair for four of those
>years)
Thosde were the years when the USCF lost $1.7 million, primarly
because of George John.
George John gave Mike Cavallo the impossible to meet deadline of one
month to complete the upgrade of the USCF computer system, forcing
Cavallo to spend a lot of money trying to meet this deadline, then had
Cavallo (who was by many accounts the best and most successful
executive director the USCF ever had) fired because he could not meet
the one month deadline. Then, after having gotten rid of Cavallo, for
the next several years did nothing absolutely nothing to upgrade the
computer system which previously was so important.
George John then brought in US Chess Live which infected our
computers with Spyware and caused the USCF to lose more than $100,000.
George John has a lot of nerve to run for election in view of the
terrible, horrible things he has done to the USCF. The best thing he
should do is just go away and not bother us any more. Take up scrabble
or something.
In this election year, there is no candidate for elkection who is
worse than George John. George John has no ethics, no morals, and no
real interest in chess. George John is the only candidate for election
who does not play chess at all. George Joihn is running because he
wants to be President. The election of George John would be a disaster
for the USCF.
Sam Sloan
Mark Houlsby
>>On 6 Jun 2005 08:27:04 -0700, "George John" <geo...@neosoft.com>
wrote:
>>An old expression is "if you aren't part of the solution, you are part
>>of the problem". I appreciate your willingness to become part of the
>>solution.
>George John is not merely part oif the problem. He is the problem.
So, are you suggesting that if the USCF gets rid of George John, all of
the USCF's problems will disappear?
That's what your statements mean, literally.
Do learn to read, Sam.
Mark Houlsby
Greg Shahade
Just because I am close with Shutt doesn't mean that I agree or
disagree with his political viewpoints or actions. I do respect him,
it's hard not to considering the job he has done with the Masterman
chess program for so many years and for what I believe is no monetary
reward. If someone doesn't want to vote for me because I am close with
another candidate then there's nothing I can do about that. If they
think that because I'm close to this candidate that it means I will
always share the same viewpoints as them on important matters, then
they are sorely mistaken.
I honestly had no idea that Steve Shutt's actions in particular were
so heavily protested. I've heard nothing about this aside from this
post, so I really don't have much to say about it. I just know that he
is a more than reasonable person in every dealing I've had with him for
my entire life, and it seemed from talking to him about USCF politics
that he would be in this sphere as well.
Mark Houlsby
You may find that *reality* and *Sam Sloan* are total strangers to one
another.
That's free advice.
Best regards,
Mark Houlsby
Jürgen R.
wrote:
>
> If people think the fact that I am a professional poker player or the
>fact that I didn't finish college
Thanks for the information; it would certainly keep me from voting for
you. Even though I think there should be a couple of competent chess
players on the board, being a strong chess player is neither necessary
nor sufficient, but this seems to be your only qualification.
Anyone who professionally engages in such a mindless activity as
playing poker is unlikely to have the required mental faculties.
Dropping out of college doesn't improve the picture.
David Kane
"Mike Nolan" <no...@gw.tssi.com> wrote in message
news:d8464b$f7b$1...@gw.tssi.com...
> "David Kane" <david...@comcast.net> writes:
>
> >Your stated fact contains little information given that
> >different States have different populations.
>
which
> organizers and coaches are cooperating with each other is a MUCH
bigger
> factor in local participation rates than whether or not USCF
membership
> is being required and games USCF rated.
Well I do not have enough information to give a definitive answer but
my
suspicions are different from yours. How could sending money to some
distant locale in return for next to nothing possibly help the local
chess
environment? It defies common sense.
> Add up the total amount of money being spent on a per-player basis,
> entry fees, getting players to sites, meals, etc. and I would hazard
a
> guess that you would come up with a much higher amount than the cost
> of USCF membership dues.
I agree, but your point is lost on me. The question is whether
we have a true national chess federation "extending the role
of chess". If the current organization is a drag on chess
(as the evidence suggests) then we don't.
Paul Rubin
> Anyone who professionally engages in such a mindless activity as
> playing poker is unlikely to have the required mental faculties.
Don't knock it til you've tried it.
StanB
set of misrepresentations you've posted yet.
"Sam Sloan" <sl...@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:42a584bc...@ca.news.verio.net...
Larry Tapper
Yes, his campaign slogan was "Vote for Pat Paulsen --- he's not
insane". These days, I'd say that counts as a good platform.
Mike Nolan
>Your stated fact contains little information given that
>different States have different populations.
I suspect that population differences, especially the extent to which
organizers and coaches are cooperating with each other is a MUCH bigger
factor in local participation rates than whether or not USCF membership
is being required and games USCF rated.
Add up the total amount of money being spent on a per-player basis,
entry fees, getting players to sites, meals, etc. and I would hazard a
guess that you would come up with a much higher amount than the cost
of USCF membership dues.
--
Mike Nolan
Mike Nolan
>Well I do not have enough information to give a definitive answer but
>my
>suspicions are different from yours. How could sending money to some
>distant locale in return for next to nothing possibly help the local
>chess
>environment? It defies common sense.
It isn't a distant locale if you use ANY of the resources the USCF
provides. You have already acknowledged that you do utilize some of
those resources, you just don't want to pay for them.
I've been active in scholastic chess since the mid 1980's and have had
the opportunity to meet with or work with scholastic chess supporters
around the country.
In the past 20 years I've seen literally dozens of cases of cities
or entire states having BOOMING scholastic progams. Some of them have
required USCF membership, some have not. I don't think requiring USCF
membership is all that significant compared to the total cost of becoming
an active tournament player.
What IS important is the amount of support that the program has from
teachers, coaches, parents, organizers TDs and other volunteers. If/when
the volunteer pool loses focus, the program suffers.
The normal process of kids growing up means that the volunteer pool needs
to be continually refreshed.
--
Mike Nolan
George John
David Kane wrote:
> "George John" <geo...@neosoft.com> wrote in message
> news:1118119099....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I was not boasting about rates. I was stating facts about USCF
> > membership numbers. In fact I said nothing about rates, and to
> compare
> > USCF membership numbers to participation in all scholastic
> tournaments,
> > including non-USCF rated, is an apples to oranges comparison.
>
> Your stated fact contains little information given that
> different States have different populations. Rates are
> a meaningful measure.
I think both are "meaningful" measures, and both should be considered.
Rates are a more meaningful measure WRT how well potential is being
realized. But, actuals are ultimately what count. If I had the same
advertising revenue, and knew it would gain me 10% of a market with 10
million people or 20% of a market with 1 million people, which should I
choose? The 10% market of course.
> Looking at how various models
> affect chess participation rates in different states *is* a
> valid comparison for someone who cares about chess.
The quality of play is also a factor. It has been my *personal*
experience that USCF-rated tournaments tend to offer a better product
than those that are completely non-rated. YMMV.
> *You* might consider driving people out of chess to
> be a reasonable price to pay in order to support a
> remote chess bureaucracy, but not everybody does.
What makes *you* -smile- think I want to do that? I have already
stated that I support non-rated play; although, I do prefer rated play
over unrated for those families who can both afford and benefit from
it. In Houston and many other cities in Texas we give people a choice.
We do tell people that rated play is preferred by us and why, but
there is no stigma attached to anyone who does not join the USCF or
participate in the USCF-Rated sections, and most certainly no one's arm
is being twisted. SFAIK, no one has been driven away. And, if they
have, I would like to know about that please.
Best regards,
George John
Mark Houlsby
>Anyone who professionally engages in such a mindless activity as
>playing poker is unlikely to have the required mental faculties.
Playing poker is not "mindless", you dolt.
If that were true, then lots of "mindless" people would make small
fortunes playing poker. DUH!
Taylor Kingston
Hmmm -- the Firesign Theater used the "not insane" slogan too. Did
they get it from Paulsen, or vice versa, or both just independently, I
wonder?
On their otherwise forgettable album "Not Insane" was the memorable
slogan "One Organism, One Vote!". Probably not a viable option for USCF.
David Kane
> "David Kane" <david...@comcast.net> writes:
>
> >Well I do not have enough information to give a definitive answer
but
> >my
> >suspicions are different from yours. How could sending money to
some
> >distant locale in return for next to nothing possibly help the
local
> >chess
> >environment? It defies common sense.
>
> It isn't a distant locale if you use ANY of the resources the USCF
> provides. You have already acknowledged that you do utilize some of
> those resources, you just don't want to pay for them.
A more accurate description would be that the
USCF gives me no mechanism to support the
small percentage of useful things that it does,
without also supporting those things that hurt
the game. I spend lots of money on chess
and would love nothing more than to support
a national federation that helped grow chess.
> I've been active in scholastic chess since the mid 1980's and have
had
> the opportunity to meet with or work with scholastic chess
supporters
> around the country.
>
> In the past 20 years I've seen literally dozens of cases of cities
> or entire states having BOOMING scholastic progams. Some of them
have
> required USCF membership, some have not. I don't think requiring
USCF
> membership is all that significant compared to the total cost of
becoming
> an active tournament player.
>
> What IS important is the amount of support that the program has from
> teachers, coaches, parents, organizers TDs and other volunteers.
If/when
> the volunteer pool loses focus, the program suffers.
>
> The normal process of kids growing up means that the volunteer pool
needs
> to be continually refreshed.
Your description of scholastic chess above does
not include a single way in which the USCF helps.
At best you seem to argue that the USCF should
not be too much of a drag on the game. Can't you
imagine a better way?
Mike Nolan
>A more accurate description would be that the
>USCF gives me no mechanism to support the
>small percentage of useful things that it does,
>without also supporting those things that hurt
>the game. I spend lots of money on chess
>and would love nothing more than to support
>a national federation that helped grow chess.
Gee, and NO OTHER ORGANIZATIONS OR GOVERNMENTS have that problem, do they?
You can't have a cafeteria plan national organization any more than you
can directly choose what taxes you want to pay or what government services
your taxes go to.
In the case of the USCF, how would you have it fund those activities you're
willing to pay for but not those you don't want?
If you don't like specific things that the USCF does, or want it to do
things it currently does not do, BECOME A DELEGATE and help set policy,
or contact your state's Delegates, just like you would do your city
council members or your congressionial representatives. I suspect you'll
find your Delegates far more willing to listen to you than the latter.
--
Mike Nolan
Paul Rubin
> The quality of play is also a factor. It has been my *personal*
> experience that USCF-rated tournaments tend to offer a better product
> than those that are completely non-rated. YMMV.
I've found the same thing, but USCF-rated tournaments are the only
type of rated tournaments I've played in. So I don't know whether the
quality difference is coming from "USCF-rated" or merely from "rated".
FIDE players would probably say FIDE-rated tournaments tend to be
better than USCF-rated tournaments. I'd be happy leaving out "USCF"
or "FIDE" and just saying: rated tournaments are better than nonrated.
David Kane has been discussing rated tournaments with the ratings
coming from his WA state org rather than from the USCF or FIDE. How
do those compare with USCF-rated tournaments? I can't say from direct
experience but I don't see why I should expect them to be any worse,
since they're organized by the same people who might otherwise be
running USCF events.
David Kane
>
>
> David Kane wrote:
>
> > Looking at how various models
> > affect chess participation rates in different states *is* a
> > valid comparison for someone who cares about chess.
>
> The quality of play is also a factor. It has been my *personal*
> experience that USCF-rated tournaments tend to offer a better
product
> than those that are completely non-rated. YMMV.
I *was* considering only rated tournament play
(on the assumption that that correlates highly with
USCF scholastic membership, the original number
you were touting as a success.)
I do not discount the value of other types of chess
playing but it is harder to quantify. At our
elementary school this year, 40% of the
students play in the after school chess club,
17% played in at least one weekend
tournament, and about 10% are the hard core
who attend tournaments regularly and go to
the State championship. So even with barriers
near a minimum level, it's a minority who want to
spend a day at a chess tournament. However,
it is reasonable to assume that this phenomenon
is not dependent upon which state you're in, in
which case looking at tournament participation
rates is meaningful.
George John
Sorry, I have been sloppy with my terminology. When I have been saying
"non-rated", I should have said "non-USCF-rated".
My experience in Houston since 1994 has been that USCF-rated scholastic
events offered in Houston and elsewhere have in general been
significantly better quality than the non-USCF-rated (locally rated
only) scholastic events held in Houston. YMMV.
Best regards,
George John
David Kane
> You can't have a cafeteria plan national organization any more than
you
> can directly choose what taxes you want to pay or what government
services
> your taxes go to.
Why do you assume I want that or that other
national organizations operate that way?
The important question is what the USCF's
role in chess is. If the net impact of the
organization is negative, shouldn't *anyone*
who cares about chess (especially knowledgable
people like yourself) do everything possible
to avoid contributing to those negative
consequences?
Mike Nolan
>My experience in Houston since 1994 has been that USCF-rated scholastic
>events offered in Houston and elsewhere have in general been
>significantly better quality than the non-USCF-rated (locally rated
>only) scholastic events held in Houston. YMMV.
I suspect there are a few factors here, and that USCF membership or
being USCF rated are not the biggest of them:
1. The USCF rated events may have a more experienced organizer and TD
staff.
The worst tournament I've ever been directly involved in was a
non-rated event that was organized by someone who had no clue what
he was doing and brought in a few TDs, myself included, less than
a week before the event. (He didn't even know who to contact locally,
he called the USCF office and they gave him the names of the senior
TDs in the state.)
Registration was a disaster, there was NO advance registration and
he signed up over 150 kids before the first round was scheduled.
(Registration was 9:00 to 9:15, first round was at 9:15.)
Many other aspects of the tournament design were also flawed, like
the prizes offered, which had little resemblance to the players who showed
up. Most of the flaws were ones that an experienced organizer or
TD would have known to avoid. For example, the tables were too small
(maybe 18 inches deep) and were arranged badly. There was NO announced
time control, no tiebreaks, no place for wall charts, etc.
2. Having USCF ratings tends to produce better pairings, especially in
short events. However, a well-run local rating system should have
similar benefits.
3. Not requiring USCF membership may bring in more people who are
not experienced tournament players and thus more likely to be
involved in problem situations. I can say from first-hand experience
that when I've had events with half or more of the field being
first-time players that I have had to work much harder to keep
problems from occurring. Most of this is teaching the players (and
sometimes their parents) what kinds of things to expect and how to
behave.
--
Mike Nolan
Mike Nolan
>"Mike Nolan" <no...@gw.tssi.com> wrote in message
>news:d84ket$ore$1...@gw.tssi.com...
>> You can't have a cafeteria plan national organization any more than
>you
>> can directly choose what taxes you want to pay or what government
>services
>> your taxes go to.
>Why do you assume I want that or that other
>national organizations operate that way?
Tell me what national organizations you belong to, I'm sure all of them
do things you find a waste of your dues but others consider vital.
--
Mike Nolan
George John
I guess I'm missing something here. What does the USCF do, in your
opinion, that is negative to chess? Certainly, the USCF could do much
better in promoting the mission, has needlessly wasted a good deal of
money, offered less than a stellar value, etc., but I'm interested in
hearing from you what it does that is clearly harmful. For example, if
the USCF were to shut down tomorrow, why would chess, overall, be
immediately and tangibly better off?
My overall *personal* experience with the USCF has been excellent. For
example, without the USCF my son's experience with chess would have
been casual at best. Around the time he graduated from High School his
rating was 2348. I don't remember his local rating at all. YMMV.
Best regards,
George John
Tommy Turner
the memorable slogan "One Organism, One Vote!". Probably not a viable option
for USCF.
>
I imagine the only reason they would let you vote is because you count as an
organism.
David Kane
The standard I put forth is whether the
*net* impact of the organization is positive
or negative. Finding a small positive in the
USCF or a small negative in other
organizations doesn't make your case.
Jürgen R.
<mark.h...@eudoramail.com> wrote:
Playing poker as a gambling game is stupid - playing poker accurately
is unbearably boring.
Paul Rubin
> Playing poker as a gambling game is stupid - playing poker accurately
> is unbearably boring.
I don't have the skill to play the game myself without losing my
shirt, but when I've watched strong players in action, it's been very
exciting, and the skills aren't that much different from (say)
backgammon, which in turn are not that much different from chess.
David Kane
"Paul Rubin" <http://phr...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7xk6l69...@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
The suggestion that non-USCF ratings somehow
lowers the quality of chess overall is ridiculous
and not supported by any evidence. A WA
school just won Nationals, e.g.
Here, there are only a few USCF-rated
scholastic tournaments. They are usually
affiliated with adult tournaments and tend
to be much smaller than typical scholastic
tournaments. They do attract a stronger
field, but are still filled with players who
also play in non-USCF-rated events.
politi...@gmail.com
> Just because I am close with Shutt doesn't mean that I agree or
> disagree with his political viewpoints or actions. I do respect him,
> it's hard not to considering the job he has done with the Masterman
> chess program for so many years and for what I believe is no monetary
> reward. If someone doesn't want to vote for me because I am close with
> another candidate then there's nothing I can do about that. If they
> think that because I'm close to this candidate that it means I will
> always share the same viewpoints as them on important matters, then
> they are sorely mistaken.
>
> I honestly had no idea that Steve Shutt's actions in particular were
> so heavily protested. I've heard nothing about this aside from this
> post, so I really don't have much to say about it. I just know that he
> is a more than reasonable person in every dealing I've had with him for
> my entire life, and it seemed from talking to him about USCF politics
> that he would be in this sphere as well.
Very reasonable response, Greg. I voted for both you and Shutt, as
well as for a couple other folks.
I would encourage other voters to ignore the announced slates and vote
for the *individuals* they feel are best qualified.
StanB
"Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1118162988.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Larry Tapper wrote:
>> Stan B> You forgot Pat Paulsen.
>>
>> Yes, his campaign slogan was "Vote for Pat Paulsen --- he's not
>> insane". These days, I'd say that counts as a good platform.
>
> Hmmm -- the Firesign Theater used the "not insane" slogan too. Did
> they get it from Paulsen, or vice versa, or both just independently, I
> wonder?
Did Nick Danger ever locate NANCY? I wonder.
George John
Greg Shahade wrote:
Greg,
[SNIP]
> I honestly had no idea that Steve Shutt's actions in particular were
> so heavily protested.
I had no idea either, and I attended the meeting where the $13 no
magazine membership passed. It was part of a motion that changed dues
in all categories, and was sponsored by Frank Niro, John McCrary, Steve
Doyle, Harold Winston, Tim Redman, Leroy Dubeck, Bob Smith, and Don
Schultz. Do you see Steve's name there? I don't. Amazing what power
he held over all those USCF Presidents. -big grin-
Please keep in mind the source, who in my experience, especially when
it involves a political opponent, expresses mostly fiction, and very
little fact. The one he posted today about me is an outstanding
example of that. I once was bothered by it, but this has been going on
for so long, I now simply ignore it. It becomes pointless to keep
refuting the same fictions over and over, except perhaps for the
benefit of newbies. Newbies, consider yourself warned.
The bottom line is, the 2002 USCF Board of Delegates passed the $13 no
magazine option (and by doing so likely prevented a much greater loss
of scholastic memberships than what we have recently experienced).
Steve, like me, is not all-powerful. -grin-
[SNIP]
> I just know that he
> is a more than reasonable person in every dealing I've had with him for
> my entire life, and it seemed from talking to him about USCF politics
> that he would be in this sphere as well.
I have found Steve to be extremely reasonable in all regards. He is
intelligent, very experienced, listens well to others and values their
input, and has his heart in the right place. I'm glad he decided to
run again, and I will be very glad if he wins his bid for a second
term.
Best regards,
George John
Ray Gordon
> sure that everyone knows that I ran in this election for my own
> personal reasons. I've always wanted to do my part to help American
> chess
Like converting the Samford Fellowship into an IM title five years after
receiving it?
Who needs Fischer when we have that?
--
Ray Gordon, Author
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Four FREE books on how to get laid by beautiful women
http://www.cybersheet.com/chess.html
Free Chess E-book: Train Like A Chess Champion
Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.
Ray Gordon
> fact that I didn't finish college (I left school to accept the Samford
> Chess Fellowship)
And five years later, he's an IM.
Sam Sloan
wrote:
>
>Greg Shahade wrote:
>
>Greg,
>
>[SNIP]
>
>> I honestly had no idea that Steve Shutt's actions in particular were
>> so heavily protested.
>
>I had no idea either, and I attended the meeting where the $13 no
>magazine membership passed. It was part of a motion that changed dues
>in all categories, and was sponsored by Frank Niro, John McCrary, Steve
>Doyle, Harold Winston, Tim Redman, Leroy Dubeck, Bob Smith, and Don
>Schultz. Do you see Steve's name there? I don't. Amazing what power
>he held over all those USCF Presidents. -big grin-
>
>Best regards,
>
>George John
You must have been asleep then. The $13 no-magazine membership was
100% Steve Shutt's idea. Nobody else wanted this. However, the others
did want a dues increase, which was difficult to get passed.
Therefore, to get the dues increase passed and to insure that the
entire scholastic lobby, which Steve Shutt claimed to represent, would
not vote against the dues increase, they allowed Steve Shutt to
blackmail them by putting in the $13 no magazine membership.
The dues increase barely passed even with Steve Shutt's support.
The $13 no magazine membership is by far the most harmful thing ever
to get passed by the delegates in recent years.
Sam Sloan