Today is the final day to submit petitions to run for the 2007 Executive Board Election. Here are the candidates so far in no particular order. Four people from this group will be elected to the next USCF Executive Board.
Susan Polgar
Mikhail Korenman
Paul Truong
Randy Bauer
Jim Berry
Mike Goodall
Don Schultz
Stephen Jones
Joe Lux and one other candidate
A few more petitions may come in at the last minute.
Before the field is even finalized, mud slinging, lies, deceit and personal attacks are rampant. Instead of discussing how each candidate can help the USCF in a positive way, the arguments have been about finding things to try to discredit the candidates. And if there is nothing bad, let’s make something up anyway. This is the typical USCF Chess Politics!
NO THANKS!
That is why I refused to enter this petty destructive political game. They can take all the cheap shots they want. They can lie all the want. I will talk things that CAN and WILL help the USCF and US Chess. People told me that this strategy is politically suicidal. Then so be it! I will step out in front and take the political bullet. I am not going to change my moral and belief for any political reason.
This is my way! This is my approach! Too bad if these people do not like it. If the USCF members like the same old ways then they are welcome to vote for others. If they want to vote for the people who have the proven professional experience and integrity to help the USCF and US Chess, they know who to vote for.
Welcome to the new and improve USCF!
I vow to restore the respectability, honesty, integrity and credibility back to the USCF and US Chess. My message is very clear. The USCF MUST change for the better! The current state of the USCF is not acceptable! Sponsors do not trust the USCF. Supporters do not trust the USCF. Too many board members have violated the members’ trust.
Here are some of my areas of focus:
– The respectability and credibility of the USCF MUST be drastically improved!
– The destructive Chess Politics MUST be stopped!
– The welfare of US Chess and the USCF MUST be the #1 priority!
– The level of professionalism of the USCF MUST be improved!
– The USCF budget MUST be balanced!
– The USCF MUST support and promote all its membership categories! A strong cooperation and partnership between adult, collegiate, youth and scholastic chess as well as military, correspondence, email and Internet chess, etc. MUST be established!
– The USCF MUST establish a strong Professional Marketing and PR system!
This election is NOT about me! This election is about the future of US Chess and the USCF for years to come. Thank you for your support! Together, we WILL change the USCF for the better!
As a chess player you almost have to admire the guile and cunning your enemies are bringing to the fight. No vision or passion – but wheelbarrows full of guile.
For those not in the know, here’s what is going on. Susan does all of these good works for the USCF and she gets paid for some of it – not what her work is worth, as I discussed elsewhere – but she gets paid something. So now, they’re saying that that’s conflict of interest and she should take a stand on it. To appreciate the trap they’ve laid for Susan, let’s consider her options.
Option A: The confrontational route. She intends to do the same work after going on the Board for the same price as before and she wants the rules changed to enable her to do so.
Opposition Response: attack on conflict of interest grounds. She’s greedy. Puts her own interests ahead of the USCF’s.
Option B: The surrender route. She renounces all income from the USCF while on the Board.
Opposition Response: attack on hypocrisy grounds. She’s scheming. She’s cutting off other chess professionals from leadership who aren’t as rich as she is.
Option C: The silence route. She ignores the issue.
Oppositon Response: Attack on stonewalling grounds. She refuses to discuss the issues. What is Susan hiding?
Other suggested courses of action are just variations of those three options.
This whole discussion reminds me of a smothered mate. She has done and is doing all of these good works but now her opponents have turned them from an asset into a liability. She’s stuck. She’s boxed in a political corner where anything she says will only open her up to further attack. And if she says nothing at all, she will still be attacked for that.
Personally, I think that Option C is her best choice.
So much for the politics. Now what about for after the election and she wins?
She’s running on a “clean up the USCF” campaign. She has already come out for changing the fundamental rules of governance. If she really means to do this, then I suspect that any controversy accompanying rules changes in the conflict of interest area will be drowned out by the larger controversies surrounding reforms on larger issues than this.
I don’t know her plans, but I really hope that when she gets into office she reforms these conflict of interest rules. Not just for her sake but for the sake of the USCF.
Thanks for the overview Jack.
Susan,
I applaud you for sticking to your guns. Part of the problem that I see is that there are many well meaning representatives in the USCF who don’t want to hear that their baby is ugly. Unfortunately when a bit of self introspection is needed they attack the messanger. Keep up the good fight, Susan. You will prevail.
Jack,
I do have a solid and comprehensive plan. I do campaign. I do talk to people.
In fact, I talk to thousands of people. I do have Q&A sessions about these issues. I can assure you that I meet and talk to more USCF members and chess players than most of them combine.
I just do not discuss it with the people who do not want the answers. I do not discuss with people who are rude and unprofessional. They just want to fight and engage in destructive politics.
Everything I say will be twisted. I answer one question and they will follow up with a thousand more without even a thank you.
If they cannot even respect me as someone who has done so much for the USCF and US Chess, who can they respect? None! I do not behave this way.
Someone was comparing me with any GM with the same rating. Sorry but I am a Classical World Champion and there are not too many of us around. I am also one of the most active people in the world promoting chess in a positive way. That alone should earn the standard level of respect.
Until they can learn to respect each other and discuss issues in a civilized manner, no thanks.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.PolgarChess.com
USCF needs to realize the magazine has to go. In the age of the internet who wants reports from tournaments months ago? Who needs more paper in their house that should be recycled?
Right now they are subsidizing the magazine by gauging money for rating chess games. They can – they have got the monopoly.
I did not renew my membership this year, to play in a local weekend tournament. $60 for software written long ago is a rip-off. I can fly to LA for less! ($10 for a domain name but $60 to rank a few chess games!)
what they should do instead
USCF should promote tournaments in vacation destinations, with very low prizes (or no prizes), low fees and deals with hotels.
For instance, the family goes to Disneyland or Vegas. and Dad plays in a small action chess tournament with no expectation of winning money, but no big fees.
Speaking just for myself, I don’t want to fork over an extra $120 to play long stressful games in a cheap hotel in the middle of nowhere with a bunch of hardcore players chasing rating points and prizes. Not to mention the one or two possible cheaters with thick sweaters and headphones.
Chess is great, but at this point in my life I just want it to be fun.
Greg Shahade followed the rules. Are these “opponents” willing to proudly hold him up as an example? Is the USCF better off now without him?
If Susan Polgar wins election, then many people believe that she has to stop writing her column or at minimum refuse payment for it. Would Chess Life be better off without her column?
Would Bill Goichberg have been such a strong candidate for Executive Board last year if he didn’t have some 20 years experience running major tournaments all around the country through his company?
Suffice it to say, the most qualified people tend have a few conflicts of interest. The rules must take that into consideration rather than forcing our most qualified leaders to stay out. Greg Shahade should recuse himself from discussions related to the website/internet. Susan Polgar (if elected) should recuse herself from discussions on the content of Chess Life. Bill Goichberg should recuse himself from discussions related to advertising rates. But these people certainly still contribute in so many other areas!
It is time to change the rules to reflect reality!
Michael Aigner
Susan,
I applaud your efforts.
You have my vote, and I will also vote for Paul Truong. But who else should we vote for? Are there others on the ballot that you feel will work with you, rather than against you? You might consider a slate of 4 candidates to suggest. Those of us who follow you know who Paul Truong is, but not everyone may know who Paul is, so it would be good to let them know who you support.
Good luck!
Sounds to me that chess which is suppost to be a gentleman’s/woman’s game has turned into a ego filled bombastic sport where the “I am better than thou” attitude is rampant not only in playing the game but also in the running of the organization that promotes the game. Sounds like these people are running for Congress. This is chess, people, a game. It’s a game that promotes productive thinking and creativeness which is great, but it’s still a game. Where can I find a humble chess champion or player who is looking to promote the sport rather than themselves?
SK
THIS JUST IN
The USCF Executive Board has just lifted the suspensions of Sam Sloan and B. Marinello. They also wiped Sam Sloan’s slate clean of past infractions.
In the past, Susan Polgar has sent three public letters to the Board asking them to take action to stop the lies and attacks. In the past, Sloan has also written that he will nullify any action taken against him
It is significant that Sam Sloan is now BETTER off than when the latest action was taken. Before the action, he had one prior sanction on his record. That sanction has now been wiped clean.
While I support Susan Polgar, any remotely objective analysis can only conclude that this event was a major victory of Sam Sloan and what he represents and consequently a major defeat for Susan Polgar.
Don Schultz and Sam Sloan are running in the next election. They chose to allow Sloan to attack Polgar so they can get re-elected. Politics as usual. Nothing new.
This is precisely why changes are needed. Even with all the illegal things Sloan has done, they chose to protect each other. Can this get any sicker?
I tried to write the above story as an objective journalist might. This is important news and people should know what’s going on.
As for my opinion, I cannot help but fail to express my outrage at this decision. The forces of evil have won a significant victory and the light of good in our game has been dimmed thereby.
These clowns on the board will do everything to keep their position. Let’s get out the votes and let’s send these clowns packing!
Two observations:
1. Please publicize when the election will occur so that if there is another ballot mistake people will call and ask about it and not read about it 6 months alter in chess life.
2. People active in chess often have business with the USCF and chess in general. That alone doesn’t mean that there is a conflict. Just be sure there is disclosure. For example someone who is a GM and who writes professionally can and should still write for the USCF and get paid to do so and continue to be active in the USCF so long as the people who are commissioning the articles aren’t directly supervised by this person. Just be open about what the relationships are so that there is no suggestion of a impropriety. Disclosure and transparency.
Schultz should not be elected again.
Didn’t Don Schultz and Beatriz Marinello voted to unsuspend Sam Sloan so he can attack the opponents? Interesting, isn’t it? Same old garbage has started again.
2 comments…
Susan, you may not have stooped to other levels, but you certainly leaned way over by not including *all* the candidates.
and to the poster who suggested getting rid of the magazine, thats one of the main reasons i’m a member of the USCF. Vacations as prizes do me no good because I don’t play many tmts and when I do, I have an the uncanny superpower of finishing 1/2 a point out of any money or prize.
Susan made a right decision by not including the name of a convited felon who lied about his criminal records. Bravo! This man doesn’t deserve to even be a USCF member. Time to throw him out the door.
I also agree with Susan’s decision not to include his name. That’s the right decision. Why should he get free promo?
well, I’m not voting for him. Nor defending him. I’m just point out that Susan doesn’t need to use *his* tactics to beat him.
*shrugs* Well, if someone is saying they want to be fair and above board and removed from deceptive practices, then I have the expectation that they are not picking and choosing when they are going to be this way. If not, then how are they different from what they are complaining about? Sure, there is the matter of degree, but that doesn’t make it right.
It’s right! It’s perfectly right. Susan is right. She’s standing up to the liars, criminals and bullies.
Susan,
I really would like you to succeed, I really do. So, I really hope I am totally wrong about what I am about to say.
Those people who come here regularly, and see your dedication, determination, focused desire to improve chess, can see the full picture. However, people who don’t, and/or don’t know you personally, who only read what you write about USCF and the people currently in control, may not see it the way they should. They see that you really put down the entire USCF, and almost hate them with passion, and want to get there, instead of them. I asked a couple of times to provide some specifics, but you really didn’t. Whether that was because you didn’t want to get into legal trouble, or because you wanted to time certain statements for the election, I don’t know, but if I would be a total outsider (but voting USCF member), seeing only your USCF putdown text, I wouldn’t be so sure that “they are the bad people, Susan and her friends are the good people”.
If I were you, I would tone down the passionate negative and amplify the passionate positive, with details. Among chess players your name is well known enough for you to tell what good you are planning to do. I really and honestly think that your passionate negative may hurt your chances to be elected. I only ran once for an elected position, on much smaller scale. I never mentioned the opposition, those already in, I simply stated what I will do, period. I reasoned that “if the way it is, is really bad, people should know that anyway”. I won that election. I am not saying that my method should be something absolutely followed, but I have a gut feeling that if things are really bad, it should work.
And really, I really hope you will succeed. Not for me, since I am not good enough of a chess player to be a USCF member, but for chess in general.
Gabor
Ps: the school chess club, which I initiated based on nothing else, other than seeing you passion for chess, so far doing well 🙂
Gabor,
Thanks for your input. As I explained before, there is a time and place when things will be done. This is a big task dealing with these chess politicians.
I cannot afford to make a mistake. They will not think twice about destroying my reputation and career for their own self interest and ego.
There are many months until the ballots will come out. I will not give these politicians any clue on what my strategy is.
I am doing countless Q&A and meetings in person. I am reaching out to the members and chess supporters. I am just not going to make my move too early online where they can twist what I say and lie about it.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.PolgarChess.com
Ah, I see that there will be no response to my post… I was waiting around to see if there would be.
You stated “Before the field is even finalized, mud slinging, lies, deceit and personal attacks are rampant. Instead of discussing how each candidate can help the USCF in a positive way, the arguments have been about finding things to try to discredit the candidates. ”
To me, it appears that you are just as guilty of this.
I hope you get elected! Your enthusiasm for the game alone is a wonderful asset to chess and you are a treasure. On the other hand, my enthusiasm for the whole campaign has wained, and I doubt I’ll continue following the elections or even bother to vote.
chess mom, very few bothered to vote last time. I think Sam won a seat with something like 1,500 votes out of 30,000 entitled to vote. The most votes ever for a candidate were about 4,500 or so. I think Susan may nearly double that. She’s facing a tough war because this bunch will do anything to destroy her. This is how they behave for decades. They chase every good person away. This is how they maintain their power and control the uscf and take it to the ground.
Here were the numbers:
Hough 1403
Sloan 1194
Goodall 1113
Perks 942
Schlich 811
I think approx. 30,000 members are allowed to vote.
Susan would get 6,000 easily. That’s my prediction. Her team will get around 4,500 – 5,500 each.
Schultz will finish 5th. Sloan will be next to last.
Susan,
How do you make a living out of chess ? Even some FIDE 2700+ (which is 150 points higher than you have ever achieved) active GM’s are having difficult time in terms of finance.
I make my income from teaching, writing (books and columns), DVD sales, and appearances.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.PolgarChess.com
Susan,
Don’t take USCF and in general chess in US too seriously. As most of us know, other than Nakamura chessmasters are imported from other countries (mostly ex-USSR) and they are getting old. Chess does not go very well with the American culture where some tricky businessman like Edison who was unaware of the simplest trigonometrical equations used to model electrical circuits can ruin the reputation of a genius like Tesla.
I don’t see anything positive happening to US chess no matter who is in charge of USCF. It is simply not in the culture.
Sam Sloan should have been banned from the USCF long ago. It’s people like Schultz and Dubeck who protect him and feed him garbage. As long as they’re in charge, nothing will change.
How did Edison and Tesla get into the picture?
javier,
The situation (number of people voting) is even worse than the 1,500 (votes for sloan) and 30,000 (total that could vote) would indicate. Actually, Sloan’s 1194 votes were only about 2.5% of those that could have voted. It’s not just “regular” members that can vote — scholastic members can vote if they are at least 16 years old. So can young adult, senior, and prison members.
The most important thing we can do for the upcoming election is getting out the vote. Encourage everybody to vote! I’d even go so far as to encourge parents of scholastic players to sign up for family memberships just so the two parents can vote.
deleted again…you just lost my vote. You’re no different than Sloan.
Anonymous, as I told you, if you cannot behave and post in a civilized and respectful manner, your post WILL be deleted, especially when the post came from an anonymous. This is not the USCF forum. There are rules here.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.PolgarChess.com
and the rules are agree with susan or your post will be deleted
This is another evidence to show that some will say whatever they wish and if they throw enough garbage out there, something will eventually stick.
Many people have disagreed with me and other posters in the past. But their posts stayed because they do it respecfully and properly.
All rude and obnoxious posts will be deleted automatically regardless if you do or do not agree with me. If posters do not like these rules, they are free to go to rec.games or the USCF forum where people can lie and post personal attacks without any consequence. Those things will not be tolerated here.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.PolgarChess.com
Susan:
Pardon me if this has been addressed elsewhere.
One of hte reasons Ibelieve we are where we’re at is because most members of the USCF are chess players. The politics of the USCF is secondary to their enjoyment of the game. However the recent election brought forth candidates which are distasteful to many. This is because our local chapters did not endorse any of the candidates, and they were unknown to many of us.
You stated the following:
“Four people from this group will be elected to the next USCF Executive Board.
Susan Polgar
Mikhail Korenman
Paul Truong
Randy Bauer
Jim Berry
Mike Goodall
Don Schultz
Stephen Jones
Joe Lux and one other candidate.”
So my question is this… can you endorse a slate of candidates from this list who have similar goals as you do so that we, the chessplaying voters know who to vote for? I believe this kind of guidance is necessary.
Chess politics is truly secondary to me… I just want to play. But I also want to belong to an organization I can be proud of. So to you, who can you endorse here to join you on the board?
P.S.: You an I met at the Open in Chicago last year… I handed you some artwork… it was a pleasure meeting you.
Erik Anderson heard from his major sponsor that they had done an internet search, found objectionable posts by Sam Sloan and others, and were very concerned. A few days later, it was announced that by mutual agreement between AF4C and USCF, AF4C would not fund the 2007 Championship.
Bill Goichberg, USCF President
1/13/07
As jack says: “…you almost have to admire the guile and cunning your enemies are bringing to the fight. No vision or passion – but wheelbarrows full of guile.”
However, all I’ve seen on Susan’s so far are vague generalities accompanied by her cheer-leading (and unmistakably Truong’s influence) and NO clear plan of action.
I.e. show us the specific flaws/faults in the USCF board and why they are harmful to it, and then tell us your specific plan to correct these flaws/faults.
Finally, Susan is Jack Le Moine your legal representative and/or campaign manager or is he a concerned chess player? Perhaps his postings would serve Susan’s campaign better if posted as platform rather being coached into this environment as they are.
Disclaimer: I am neither Susan Polgar nor any of her relatives, nor Paul Truong, nor any past or present USCF board member or any of their relatives, business associates, or other representatives, nor Jack Le Moine. However, I am a concerned USCF member.