US Chess Discussion

Welcome! This blog has no connection with the USCF. It's a blog where I provide chess fans with general information about US Chess as well as the USCF. It's also a site where everyone can productively discuss or ask questions about various USCF issues! Your contributions and comments are welcome! PLEASE KEEP IT CIVIL & RESPECT OTHERS! Enjoy! All posts that do not meet this guideline will be deleted -- WIN WITH GRACE, LOSE WITH DIGNITY!(TM) --- 2006 Susan Polgar©

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Open Forum


This is an Open Forum for USCF issues. Discuss any topic you wish but please just follow the blog rules.
Posted by Picasa

posted by Chess Daily News @ 1/10/2007 08:44:00 PM  

7 Comments:

  • At Wednesday, January 10, 2007 9:03:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Since I was away from the USCF for many years and my background is in finance, sales and operations (odd mix), I have a few comments:
    1. The Quick rating is useless. Clearly there should be an internet rating and a legitimate quick rating that is actually used at tournaments for pairing purposes.
    2. Clearly the USCF must align with a solid internet chess provider- US Chess Live does not suit this. There are only a few and I am sure you know who they are.
    3. Education is important. ChessLecture is great and there are others... need to get going on some internet learning options.
    4. I have no comment on correspondence chess (past format) but slow chess with an internet interface (i.e. like Chessworld.net) serves a terrific purpose. This should be considered.
    5. Re: OTB Tourneys. The HB Challenge was awesome and professional- this should be an event every two years. The National Open is the closest we have to a professional event today. We need more like this.
    6. It's all about the kids- but you know this as you are THEIR champion- keep up the good work.
    6. Politics- if we were all focused on the important issues, there would be no time for this.

     

  • At Wednesday, January 10, 2007 10:10:00 PM, Blogger Chess Daily News said…

    You made many good points. Thanks for sharing them with us.

    Best wishes,
    Susan Polgar
    www.PolgarChess.com

     

  • At Thursday, January 11, 2007 12:19:00 AM, Blogger HubDiggs said…

    1. Quick ratings are not useless. They measure how well players play Quick chess. However, I can respect the opinion that Quick chess skill is not of interest to everybody.

    2. The Internet is a great way for teams to play, especially when there is a great physical distance separating the teams. However, it is crucial to have a tournament director present at each site where moves are transmitted by the internet. Otherwise cheating is more difficult to prevent.

    3. I completely agree that chess lectures are wonderful and that they can be given on the internet. There are many who would pay a reasonable fee to view good live lectures on the internet.

     

  • At Thursday, January 11, 2007 8:25:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Yes, I would like to be able to choose good video chess learning at the time when I can use the internet. That is a great way to teach chess.

    ICC has some lessons every hour on the hour but they are not video. One has to read all the comments and the lectures are kind of too basic.

    Pete Tamburro has some fair lectures on openings. But he is a little simplistic on his approach.

    If I was at the correct spot I am not sure. But I saw a web site that does chess lessons but it was much too basic.

    another good item for learning is good puzzles on the internet. ICC has one play against the computer but there are lots of mistakes in the positions. But something along those lines with good teaching on the positions could really help build tactical skill.

    I think here we need a good number of simple tactical positions in one group. Then there will be room for more complex positions in another group. The computer can then become a great learning tool in these more complex positions. But first one has to do a good job on the more simple positions.

    I would like to see a minimum of 1000 of the simple positions. After working them all a few times I will be ready to move up to the harder ones.

    USCF really missed the boat on Internet chess. They could and should have been the leader today on this.

     

  • At Thursday, January 11, 2007 12:29:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I don't mean to disrespect the person posting above but I had thought you were not going to allow annonymous postings on this blog. That was one positive feature of the USCF forums; people may hide behind "handles" but they can't hide behind anonymity.

    Those were good points that the person made. I'm not questioning him/her, I'm just addressing the question of annonymous vs. identified postings.

     

  • At Thursday, January 11, 2007 2:40:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    The USCF announced Thursday that AF4C (American Foundation for Chess) has withdrawn it's sponsorship of the 2007 US Championship. They will contribute $25,000 towards the prize fund, however.

    In related news "the other candidate" is crowing on the rgcp site that "I sacked AF4C".

    Susan Polgar has supported strong, positive relations between the USCF and sponsors in the past. She strongly supported AF4C's sponsorhip of this event.

    So it looks like the belief system of Susan Polgar has sustained another setback. This is her second big loss in as many days.

     

  • At Saturday, January 13, 2007 6:08:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I think that it would be a good
    idea to be cautious about
    attributing quotes to "the other
    candidate".

    As far as I can tell, the I-sacked
    -AF4C quote was posted by
    samsloan@usa.com, who may well be
    someone posting notes that are not
    really by "the other candidate".

     

Post a Comment

<< Home