Clarification on Leaving Chess Blogging

I've received several email and other inquiries about my decision to suspend my participation in ChessUSA and otherwise blogging about chess politics. Here is what I stated in Chess Politics Sickness:

Perhaps Jack wishes to blog some more here. For now, I do not. -- Steve in TN

I'm gonna go play some chess and forget about those people, those dirty chess politicians... Because, you know, in their words, all will be made clear in due time. I can wait. Don't enlighten me. I've had enough. Perhaps Jack wishes to blog some more here. For now, I do not. I'm disappointed, disconcerted, disillusioned, and disheartened. I'll keep this blog open in the hope that others of stronger constitution may wish to carry on. If you wish to blog, the invitation in the top left corner remains.

I intend to refrain from blogging about or otherwise being involved in any chess

I intend to refrain from blogging about [chess politics]...for the foreseeable future.

politics until the mess is cleared up regarding the lawsuits pertaining to the "RSS-FSS" issue. In fact, I had already stopped posting about that issue. Other than noting what others had blogged in the USA Chess Blog Watch entries, my last entry concerning this issue was on February 2, 2008. Since this blog's mission concerns informing the chess public about US chess governance and trying to facilitate the flow of information between regular members and governance, that means I won't be blogging here for the foreseeable future.

I told Jack that I would continue maintenance of the blog as long as there are bloggers wishing to contribute content, and I will. The invitation to those who wish to blog and will adhere to the CJA code of ethics remains and such contributions are welcome and desired. Contact information and a link to the CJA code are in the top left corner of the sidebar.

That said, adios y vaya con Dios, mi amigos. Hasta la vista!

Sphere: Related Content

Tax Season

I take just a couple weeks off to do tax returns (I'm a CPA and this is the height of my busy time of year) - where was I? Oh, yes! I take just a couple of weeks off to do tax returns and look at all the hell that breaks loose.

1) Susan Polgar issues a major statement about the stuff that has been going on. Sorry, Stevereno, but some of the things that you cited as facts and certainties may not have been true at all!

2) Joel Channing resigns from the USCF Executive Board over the cancellation of the internet insurance.

3) Our own Steve announces below that he's in effect resigning from this blog. Reasons cited is a thread in the Chess Discussion Forum. The killing of a child (albeit unintentionally) ought to not be downgraded to a mere "incident". The killing seems to me to be another example of the kind of reckless behavior that that particular politician has engaged in on his USCF activities the last few years and, hence, revealing. Hence, noteworthy. As was discussed last year regards Sam Sloan, someone who is irresponsible in their personal lives is likely to be irresponsible in their official chess duties, too. Within reason. When someone kills somebody, then that's worthy of note. And not some mere "incident".

Sphere: Related Content

Chess Politics Sickness

Those dirty chess politicians. They sneak around and infest our noble game with their filthy fingers of innuendo and sly winks. They meander along the periphery of Caissa sniffing the leavings of normal chess enthusiasts for morsels to feed their niggling interests, stuffing their egos with the destruction of sincere chess volunteers, and tainting the community to the point of acute repulsion.

"Dirty chess politicians" Now who had that as a campaign slogan?

So the world of chess governance has become. To maintain whatever power some think they have, the legitimate business of the USCF has been embargoed by disparate sets of "political" chess personalities over the past several years. Honest volunteers, interested and formerly enthusiastic about chess governance so that regular folks could play chess in a structured environment, have been bullied, assaulted, sued, and generally persecuted by those few egomaniacs and charlatans bent on petty domination and absurd games of gotcha.

A recent example of this is a thread, on the forum of a member of the Executive Board of the

Honest volunteers ... have been bullied, assaulted, sued, and generally persecuted by those few egomaniacs and charlatans bent on petty domination and absurd games of gotcha.

USCF, that was posted simply to embarrass a noted chess personality that is politically in opposition to that candidate. The story involves a tragic incident of eight years ago and is not relevant to chess or any current chess topic. It would seem that this board member, who has benefited extensively from the good will and protection from defamation and threats from chess governance volunteers in the past, including yours truly, would have immediately seen to the removal of this thread from that forum.

That board member did not. In fact, the board member simply stated that the matter was between the principles involved in the incident and that, "What matters to me is his current or recent conduct, not what happened 8 years ago." No words of disapproval, no instructions to the sysadmin to remove the thread, nothing. The sysadmin states that the thread addresses a "valid issue." Valid to what chess topic, I wonder? In typical conspiracy theory mode that sysadmin also alleges that the matter has been "hidden" for eight years. Hidden from whom? As posters on rec.games.chess.politics (excuse me while I wash my keyboard) note, the matter was discussed extensively on RGCP at the time of the incident.

The simple truth is that the thread has no place in discussions of chess or chess politics. Also noted by RGCP posters is the resemblance of this matter to another episode where a chess personality was falsely smeared during the 2007 USCF elections.

Last September I started this blog with the hope that it would grow into a vehicle to help inform chess players in the US about the governance that represents them and to facilitate the exchange of ideas between governance and membership. I had hopes that the blog would grow beyond me and become a community effort to bridge the information gap that impedes the effective operation of the USCF's new One Man One Vote mode of governance.

Back then I thought a new day had dawned with the removal of one undesirable chess personality from USCF governance. Our federation had withstood the blockade of distraction that had disrupted the business of the board for a year. It was time to get on with the industry of growing the federation and the game of chess in the US. Many of us enthusiastically made plans and began initiatives believing that the lost year was just a hiccup, a temporary interlude of waste, and that the new board members just elected and the old members that remained would form a team to lead the USCF into the twenty first century internet enabled world.

By the end of September we had been disabused of that notion. By the end of December, the levels of depravity and selfishness displayed had me sick to my stomach. The embargo on USCF governance remains, enforced by the peccadilloes of a new set of "leaders." The federation wobbles and flounders, the leadership rendered impotent by past prurient acts, and present juvenile denials of the obvious.

And now they want to shut down the USCF Issues forum, that hot bed of dissent that pesters them so...

Games of gotcha are played by all sides, accusations with no substance are hurled to splatter all, involved or not, particularly those of good repute who simply strive to right this yawing ship. Drive-by slanderings assassinate the character of innocent volunteers, forcing them away from the business of maintaining our federation.

I'm gonna go play some chess and forget about those people, those dirty chess politicians... Because, you know, in their words, all will be made clear in due time. I can wait. Don't enlighten me. I've had enough. Perhaps Jack wishes to blog some more here. For now, I do not. I'm disappointed, disconcerted, disillusioned, and disheartened. I'll keep this blog open in the hope that others of stronger constitution may wish to carry on. If you wish to blog, the invitation in the top left corner remains.

Sphere: Related Content

Susan's April Fools

She's quitting the USCF and moving to Hungary! See it here:

http://www.chessville.com/misc/PolgarQuits.htm

Paul and Susan got me real good! - And in case you are wondering, too - than they got you as well!

Sphere: Related Content

Bobby and Susan

Bobby and Susan at the Polgar's summer home in Hungary shortly after his 1992 match with Spassky. The lady on the right is Susan's mother.

Source: Susan Polgar's Chess Blog. Used with permission.

Sphere: Related Content

The FSS Scandal

Here's a few random thoughts on the ongoing scandal.

1) Paul Truong is accused by Brian Mottershead of posting a number of offensive statements and assuming Sam Sloan's identity to do it.

2) The evidence that carries the most weight (allegedly) pertains to activity after the USCF election. When Sam Sloan had been decisively defeated and Paul Troung triumphantly elected. What was PT's motivation?

3) We are expected to believe that while PT was covering the World Championship in Mexico, he was spending his time composing his FSS posts. What kind of person would be more interested in Sam Sloan than Vishy Arnand, Vlad Kramnik and the other top players of the world? I try to imagine myself in Paul's place at such an event with such responsibilities for it as he had, and tearing my mind away from all these chess greats to post on Sam Sloan but I just cannot. This part of the story streatches credulity and breaks it.

4) Sam Sloan has filed suit against the USCF and the Board members as well as some others (including the Federal Government). He posted his complaint for all to read. This clearly not a serious suit. Or a serious case. However, others in the USCF are using it to bludgeon Paul. He is alleged to not properly assisting the USCF in defending the suit. But what amount of defense is needed to such a complaint as the one Sloan wrote?

5) The author of the Mottershead Report was not an objective, dispassionate person towards Paul Truong. He rejoined the USCF after a long absence and instead of going to chess tournaments, he immediately went to the USCF Issues Forum to attack Paul Truong and Susan Polgar. After months of unrelenting attacks, he highpointed the campaign with "The Mottershead Report". This has turned out to be the most deadly attack of them all.

Sphere: Related Content

USA Chess Blog Watch: March

ANNOTATED GAMES

IM Mark Ginsburg presents four annotated games of his from the recent Foxwoods event. Jim West brings us an annotated Pirc. John Hillery relays several annotated games from the classical era here and here.

EVENT REPORTS

Areoflot

Alex Cherniack concludes his coverage if the Aeroflot Open with his third report at Boylston. Included are annotated games of his final rounds and his experiences traveling to sightseeing locals. On interacting with local Russians, Cherniack lamented:

Walking around, I felt a strange sense of loss and nostalgia. The people in the USSR I had visited 20 years ago loved meeting Americans, even if I was only a means to an end in receiving goods and ideas that they couldn’t find at home. Now that Russians can buy the same things in Moscow that they can in the West, Americans are no longer special, and the only thing we seem to be good for these days is practice for their English.

And, on how to prepare for this tournament:

Prepare hard, and arrive warmed up and ready to go, because the players here will light you up like a Christmas tree. In terms of real strength, add about 100 points to their FIDE ratings to get some idea how strong they’d be in the United States. Most of the organizers and players speak a little English, but a little Russian here goes a long way.

I’ve said it many times to many people, and I’ll say it again: every chessplayer who wants to improve should have his or her head smashed in every 18 months. Such tournaments always make me want to be a better chessplayer. I was OK in the openings, but was repeatedly outplayed in the middlegame. The only way for me to get better in this phase of the game is to practice more, I guess.

Also, try to keep a sense of humor if your results go really south, and explore as much as Moscow as you can. Despite the radical cultural differences, this city has stuff worth seeing that is in the same league as London, Paris, and Rome, and is much more difficult to visit affordably without a package such as Aeroflot’s. It’s a bracing alternative to the US Amateur Team Championships in Parsippany.

U.S. Championship Qualifier

Dana Mackensie provides a first hand report from the U.S. Championship Qualifier in Tulsa, Oklahoma that includes a small controversy.

In the game between Todd Andrews and Alexander Ivanov on board two, Ivanov stopped keeping score during the time scramble. Andrews claimed that he had to keep score because it’s not a sudden-death time control. In a time control like this one, where both players get 30-second time increments every move, the usual rule (which says that you don’t have to keep score when there are less than five minutes on your clock) does not apply.

I had never heard of this new variation on the scorekeeping rules. In fact, in my second-round game I stopped keeping score with less than five minutes left, and thought nothing of it. I didn’t realize I was breaking a rule. My opponent did the same in the first round. My feeling is, what difference does it make? The real reason for requiring people to keep score is to make it possible to prove claims like threefold repetition, the 50-move rule, etc. Once you stop keeping score, you forfeit the right to make that claim. If this is a “crime,” the only victim is yourself.

Nevertheless, Andrews protested to the TD, who told Ivanov that he had to keep score. But he did not forfeit Ivanov, which is apparently what Andrews wanted. Eventually, Ivanov reached a won position in the endgame. Andrews tipped over his king, said “Cheater,” and stomped off in a huff.

Who’s in the right? I don’t know. I overheard Alex Yermolinsky talking about it with a couple other people, and he wasn’t buying Ivanov’s innocent act. ”He’s played in enough international tournaments, he knows the rules.”

Michael Aigner is also playing in the qualifier and has posted two reports here and here.

GENERAL INTEREST

NACA continues providing a primer of sorts for organizers with entries on staffing events and holding one day events. Glenn Panner discusses various rulings that appear at events for TDs.

Whate defines insufficient material? John Hillery explores that question and how FIDE and USCF both define the term.

A moderately obscure rule which has come up a few times recently is that of insufficient material. This is really two different questions – insufficient material to continue the game, and insufficient material to win on time.

GrandPatzer relates his find of an ERROR in L. Polgars' Chess: 5334 Problems, Combinations, and Games.

I was going over some of the basic endgames from L. Polgar's Chess: 5334 Problems, Combinations, and Games. The book's analysis for Position #5113 is incorrect: Black surprisingly can draw! The provided solution is 1.e8=Q, followed by 1...e1=Q(?) 2.Kf6+ and White wins.

However, Black has a surprising draw if instead they play 1...Ke3!

At Boylston, Mike Griffin eulogizes club player Paul Winkle by noting his enthusiasm for the game and wonders if chess can continue to attract lower rated players to fill out tournament brackets. Griffin also explores the link between Chess and Gambling in another item.

Dana Mackenzie explores how ratings effect players' ability and enthusiasm for the game.

Now about ratings more generally… In some ways they are a curse. I think that they affect most players’ psychology much more than they should. When you play someone rated above you, it’s very hard to avoid the mindset that you’re probably going to lose somehow, and that even a draw is a good result. As a result, ratings become a self-fulfilling prophecy. There was one year in Reno when the higher-rated players scored an absolute clean sweep in round 1 — 26 games, 26 victories. And this was in the open section, where even the weaker players are experts or masters, and should have been able to pick up a few draws. The only explanation for such a clean sweep was psychology: most of those experts were beaten before the games even started (including me!).

IM Mark Ginsburg weighs in on the Nicholas Nip title controversy.

Here is something we should definitely nip in the bud.
As GM Hikaru Nakamura correctly pointed out on ICC and in his blog, there is no way matches should be counted if someone is trying for a youth/rating record. He nails the issue on the head - it’s all about the integrity of the record. A nine year old should be able to do good things via rated tournament games and not need that extra “boost” for a mad record rush. Unless, of course, the nine year’s old relatives are trying to short-circuit the system in order to gain, yes, you’ve guessed it, the time-dependent record. And how to short-circuit the tournament system? Simple: sprinkle in a few matches. After all, if a kid needs some points pronto, all the “sponsoring relative” needs to do is find a “friendly” match opponent in the rolodex for just such an emergency. Readers: I heard disturbing and disgusting reports that Nip’s coach paid the match opponents. I can only hope it’s not true. Can anyone verify? If so, all the matches should be tossed out.

Sphere: Related Content