That's the problem. It's not going to just go away. So US players, especially top juniors, will just suffer.

QFT

So I'm guessing Susan Polgar wants to found a new national chess organization (have it be a FOR profit company) and just become mega-rich by nationalizing chess in the schools across the country?

One side is so 1000000% wrong in this argument and if you don't understand this or know it you really have no ****ing clue what's going on, nor do you know the true nature of the parties involved.

How about a test, why don't a few of you go to the USCF forums and try to post something in favor of Susan Polgar and the lawsuit. Then go to Polgar's blog and try to post favorable stuff about the USCF and how the lawsuit is wrong. Please get back to me on which one never sees the light of day.

The fall of the USCF would be a very bad thing for chess in the United States. Don't make such idiotic comments. You think that magically some other organization is going to materialize and do a better job? The USCF is far from perfect do but instead of crying like little babies, someone should get off their ass and try to do them outside of the USCF. Not everything needs to be done by the U.S. federation.

If you want to do something good for chess in the United States, you don't have any need whatsoever for the USCF, and it's absurd to put the entire burden of improving our chess culture on them.

Is this over the same multiaccounting that was discussed on chessninja a year or two ago.. that involved airports, texas, and pointed at polgar/truong?

It's remarkable to me how much this sounds like something I've said in other (that is, political) contexts.

People like to sit back and complain about the organization, but do people try to get involved, take leadership roles, and fix things?

wait, why can't they both be wrong?

I'd avoid making the argument more murky than it has to be. One side is trying to effectively destroy the USCF. The other side is perhaps behaving somewhat bad in defending the USCF and ensuring that those who are effectively trying to eliminate the USCF from existance aren't officers in the organization.

I'm going to make a comparison but I hate doing this kind of thing because the two circumstances aren't comparable but:

The U.S torturing suspected terrorists was very wrong

The terrorists who flew a plane into the World Trade Centers, killing thousands of innocent people, were much much more wrong.

Sure there are some bozos in the USCF, but they are a necessary part of United States chess and they are being attacked. Note that I don't even know if the USCF is doing something wrong as you seem to be implying, but if they are there is no possible way that it's on the same level of magnitude as someone actively trying to destroy the organization from within.

I've heard the USCF is doing some weird things like kicking them out of the organization, which I'm not sure that I agree with. However the difference in malicious intent between these two actions is on the order of many magnitudes.

Personally, I would like curtains to elaborate a little more on that subject. I highly value his opinion and knowledge of this situation.

What are we saying the USCF is wrong about? Any specifics?

I mean would you rather have someone trying to destroy the US Government in Congress, or would you rather have someone who perhaps stepped over the line in their attempts to stop these people, as part of Congress? Perhaps they are both less than ideal choices, but one side is much more wrong than the other.

What's the reason? (obv I know almost nothing about what's going on) Given Polgar's incessant branding of her name, etc, I assume she's working an angle for a significant amount of money?

Ok well the terrorists are nutjobs that think the US is godless/evil/ etc etc etc etc. what if the terrorists were right and the US really is this because imo thats Sam Sloan. He is the USA from the viewpoint of the terrorists only theyre right. lolz. Anyway I'm not defending Pulger/Troung. My stand on this is i KNOW Sloan is an insane *******. This does not excludes the possiblity of Troung/Polger being equal are even bigger *******s I guess. I guess I made the thread to learn more.

So curtains post annoyed me when he said 1 side is 100% right and 1 is 100% wrong with NO elaboration, i guess he did a bit later so whatever.

Pyramid,

Sloan is in general nuts, but he isn't the one trying to bankrupt the United States Chess Federation. I'm not sure why you keep coming back to him; it's not like the other non-Polgar members of the EB are supporters of his. They just dislike how Polgar+Truong are 1) trying to bankrupt the organization 2) doing illegal things (Paul Truong impersonating Sam Sloan).

how did Polgar/Truong end up on the USCF board?

Elections, I imagine. Nobody ever said democracy was perfect .

When ordinary people don't bother to show up for stuff, kooks prevail.

They both ran for USCF board and got elected. Truong mentioned how he worked for/consulted for multi-million dollar companies and "saved them" or "made them money" or something.

Later it came news to the public that he had recently filed for bankruptcy (claiming this wife Susan Polgar ONLY made like $800-1000 a month, I forget the exact number). And that he had previously filed bankruptcy in the late 80s or early 90s.

It was also not privy to the USCF members that Truong and Polgar were married when they were up for election. I'm sure a number of members would have only voted for one of them if they knew, as it's a pretty serious conflict of interest to have 2 married parties on the USCF Board. In fact, I read on the internet that in one case, a judge said about them being married that "Only one should be on the board, and the other should resign."

I believe that the success of ICC is evidence that chess can be monetized. They have what, somewhere around 50k paying members? At around $50 per year? That's 2.5million revenue, compared to the reported $~3million revenue for the entire USCF whose scope should be massively larger than that of ICC's? I feel that if the USCF were to fall they would be quickly replaced, but as is, their mere existence gets in the way of other entrepreneurs. Just things like thinking a half-hearted launch of USCL was a good idea make me feel like there's a pretty good chance that the guys in charge of the USCF couldn't tell the difference between their ass and a hole in the wall. And how do they manage to so seriously blow it everytime we've had an opportunity to bring chess more into the mainstream, particularly with television?

Cliff notes of rant:

1. Entrepreneurs go where the money is.
2. There is money in chess in the US.
3. USCF is blocking chess entrepreneurs in the US.

In my own case, I love chess. I subscribed to the USCF for one year and immediately canceled it since it amounted to little more than an overpriced subscription to some terribly lame magazine and some tournament discounts.

How does the USCF block anyone from investing in a chess venture here? What compels anyone who starts up a chess business in the US to seek out or get help or approval from the USCF for anything?

What do they claim to have chess patented or trademarked? :-)

Btw I don't think Sloan really has anything major to do with the whole situation.

I don't mean local chess shops or whatever. I mean organizing chess and chess players, advocating chess, etc. Doing what the USCF should be doing but has shown themselves completely unable to do.

Point being that I believe the USCF dying would quickly result in their being replaced. But the people that would be willing to replace them are likely not going to be the same type that would be interested in trying to become part of the USCF bureaucrazy to remedy their current problems.

Eh. I don't know much about anything, but that there was some relationship between Polgar and Truong should have been obvious to anyone. They were writing articles together for Chess Life at the time, in addition to their names arising together in many contexts. I don't know anything about conflicts of interest, but I'm not terribly surprised to learn that they were married. I'm pretty sure that they were known to be business partners.

As to how they got elected: when you have people like Sloan running, it's nice to be able to vote for people who one knows are interested in US Chess. I don't remember who was running then, and the candidate statements are basically worthless, but I did know that Sloan was a nutjob, Goichberg ran a lot of big tournaments, and Polgar ran a chess club in Queens and promoted women in chess. I doubt I would recognize more than one or two other names on the executive board.

I have no idea whether I'm a typical voter, but that's my impression. All of the nonsense with lawsuits came afterward as far as I know, so the fact that Polgar got elected doesn't surprise me. If there were warning signs ahead of time, they weren't apparent to me in 2007.

Some tournament discounts? More like the ability to play rated OTB chess tournaments against strong players.

So many warning signs it's not even funny, but not stuff that the regular joe would know about. To be honest, even though I knew that PT could be very dangerous and cause trouble (the number of random lawsuits that have been threatened by him over the years....I ****ing hate when people threaten lawsuits at the drop of a hat for complete random bull****. Also the internet impersonation act and alter egos have been going on for a very long time.), there is also no denying that they have done a great deal of good for chess, so I thought it might even be a worthwhile gamble to have them on the board. Obviously was wrong about that.

I didn't believe this until I googled up the world open. The USCF is even more of a joke given that membership is required of these relatively large tournaments and they still can't get anything going for them.

I just found this page in my googling: http://uschess.blogspot.com/2009/04/...p-numbers.html

It breaks up the USCF membership by ages:

12/below: 31170
13-15: 9078
16-19: 6703
20-24: 2256
24-64: 28307
65+: 5857
total: 83371

Further evidence of just how broken this organization is. Their primary demographic isn't even aware of the concept of value. And I'd expect a huge chunk of the 24-64 demographic is from obligatory registration at events. It's no wonder they haven't bothered trying to actually give people a reason to want to voluntarily become a part of the USCF. This organization just reeks of complete ineptitude.

I really can't picture all these problems being solved by changing around the bureaucrazy.