More contrasting examples
I woke up before 7 AM this morning, did LIVE blogging of the Corus Super Tournament for 15,000+ followers. Then I go to teach a group of young people at the Polgar Chess Center. After that, BBC will come to my chess center to film. That's just half the day and I have activities until midnight.
In the mean time, one of the candidates who is a current USCF Executive Board member spent his day posting lies, misinformation and personal attacks to harm the USCF, its sponsors and supporters. Welcome to the current state of the USCF!
Mr. Goichberg, President of the USCF, confirmed the rumors that have been floating around about the 2007 US Championship and AF4C. This is what Mr. Goichberg wrote on the USCF forum:
"... 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."
This is why changes are needed now in this election. People who have no integrity, honesty and moral should not be put in the position that can harm the USCF. This is why I kept stating some of the key areas I will focus on:
- 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 & PR system!
We will move forward to make this positive change! Thank you for your support!
posted by Chess Daily News @ 1/14/2007 11:59:00 AM
4 Comments:
At Sunday, January 14, 2007 2:06:00 PM,
Anonymous said…
I started playing chess 3 years ago at the age of 30. I was drawn into the game by not only the intellectual part of it, but also the romanticism. The world traveling to exotic locations, the stories, all this was interesting to me.
People like Jennifer Shahade and Josh Waitzkin appealed to me because I always thought of chess players as stuffy old men in smokey rooms. They on the otherhand were not only smart, but artistic in their play and philosophies.
As I got more involved in chess I learned a lot more of the politics involved. Since I can be very opinionated at times it was unavoidable that I would care about what goes on behind the scenes.
What has amazed me is how many kooks and crackpots are controling chess in the United States. I will pull no punches here. Too many of them are just plain crazy. I would not only never wish them to run an organiztion, I would never want to be alone in a room with them.
These people need to get their lives right, if possible, before they start trying to do things that affect other people lives.
Get out of the USCF. We don't want you!
Now it's refreshing to hear people like you, Susan, are going to make an effort to change this.
At Sunday, January 14, 2007 3:34:00 PM,
Anonymous said…
Notice how Susan repeats her Vision Statement at every opportunity. Of course, someone actually has to HAVE a vision of what they want to do before they can compose a statement to summarize it.
Recently, I opened a thread in the USCF forums inviting the candidates to share with the public their vision statements. At least some supporter of theirs can point people where on the web they could be found. As a supporter of Susan's I noted that she was no longer participating in the forums and that her statement could be found on her blog. I also noted that three candidates, Paul Truong, Randy Bauer, and Mikhail Korenman are on Susan’s team and hence should be itentifies with her statement.
Only two candidates responded. Joe Lux said that he would not post a statement unless Susan posted hers on the forum first. Sam Sloan responded that his vision was to have Susan return the computer she took from the USCF office.
At least they responded. Someone noted that perhaps the rest of the candidates don’t even know of the existence of the USCF forums. In any case, for those of us on the outside who don’t know what’s going on firsthand, here’s something concrete.
Susan and her team are the only ones to have put forth a summary of what they plan to accomplish if elected. That’s one piece of information we can see for ourselves firsthand. And it’s important.
At Sunday, January 14, 2007 4:28:00 PM,
Anonymous said…
I’m going to start a thread on the USCF forums called “The Case Against Susan Polgar”.
I am genuinely curious. Nobody’s perfect. Susan’s a human being, not God. Everybody in history has had SOMETHING wrong with them, even such a person as Mother Theresa – read Christopher Hitchen’s unfortunately titled book ”The Missionary Position”.
So what’s wrong with Susan? When we weed out all the attacks that are outright lies, attacks that are half-truths, and attacks about petty matters, what’s left? The trouble is that all of the foregoing constitute such a heap that it’s hard to lend credence to anything that’s left.
But is there anything in the case against Susan Polgar which we ought to be concerned about? Is there any there there?
Will my quest turn out any different than my past two quests? I had a quest to get Sam Sloan to come up with just one positive proposal for US Chess. That ended when Sam proposed a scheme for the US to take over the world ratings and go into direct competition with the FIDE. He said that this was only his first step to total world domination for the USCF. Even his own supporters turned against this one.
My second quest was to get any candidate to match Susan with a vision statement for what he wants to accomplish. No one gave one.
Now for my third quest. Amid all the avalanche of attacks upon her and her team, is there anything of merit there? Stay tuned. I’ll report anything important.
At Monday, January 15, 2007 4:03:00 PM,
Anonymous said…
Forgive me if some sentiment along these lines has been expressed in earlier, unread by me, threads.
I think part of the problem we're seeing with the "lies" that are being spread about Susan and other, and Susan's strong reaction to them, is the nature of online internet forums.
On the internet, discussions can take place that are entirely text based. This means that the nuance and tempering of tone of voice is lost. Not only does it take an artful and dedicated writer to maintain a tone which rankles few ears, if one is predisposed to be offended by any words which disagree with ones own point of view, then one is likely to read just into about any contradicting viewpoint a hostile tone. In other words, if you are on the opposite side of the political fence from a given writer, anything they write is liable to be read, in your "mind's ear" in a hostile tone.
Add to this the fact that internet messages able to be created, posted, and responded to with unprecidented speed- which leaves precious little time for reflection- and the mediuum is ripe for flame wars.
Unfortunately, I think it is in the nature of the medium to produce these types of discussions. It transcends subject matter. I have been privy to (and involved in) heated discussions on all manner of subjects since the internet became a primary means of public discourse. There are always a few bad apples, spreading bile and making the rest of the world misearable. However, I think it is difficult for any of us to be completely free of disproportionate sensitivity to text based discussion.
Post a Comment
<< Home