| |
Main
Date: 07 Nov 2007 15:15:13
From: samsloan
Subject: Ideas on the U.S. Men's and Women's Championships
|
[quote="Harry Payne"]Now this is just an Idea, so nobody crucify me.
And of course if you have variations please feel free to elaborate.
This is just a rough Idea.
What if there was a R.R. held before the US Championship
(excluding the present Champion) and then a match with the winner of
the R.R. and the present Champion. These matches could be held with
the R.R. in one city(just for example) Tulsa Ok. and the Championship
match in Stillwater or Oklahoma City. It might add some favor to the
U.S. Championships, bring in more sponsors, and have the opportunity
to make more revenue. As well as allow more people and media to have
excess to the matches. Just a thought that I an several others have
bantered around.
Maybe some other members have better Ideas.
Please no arguments, and no Hijacking!!! On Penalty of
death. :twisted:
Maybe some TD's have ideas or some board members. Thanks to all that
respond.[/quote]
Although your idea seems reasonable and has been suggested before, I
do not think it is workable, for several reasons:
1. The USCF already has trouble raising money for the USCF
Championship tournament every year. Under your plan, there would have
to be money raised for a qualifying tournament. There will be little
interest by the general public in this qualifying tournament, and the
players will not be especially interested either. You will have to pay
the top players substantial appearance fees or guaranteed prizes to
get them to play. Look at the letter Joel Benjamin had published in
"New In Chess" magazine in which he complained bitterly that the prize
fund in the US Championship in Stillwater, Oklahoma was "only"
$65,000.
2. The USCF was formed on December 27, 1939 for the purpose of holding
a US Championship tournament. Prior to that time, the championship had
been a match between the champion and a challenger. The challenger had
to raise the money for the match and there were few matches held. This
plan was obviously not very successful and I think it would be a
mistake to go back to it.
3. Several posters have written of a "media frenzy" when the US
Championship is held in a small town. I have been to many US
Championships. I do not recall a single one where there were more than
ten spectators. You were at the 2007 US Championship in Stillwater. I
think you were the only real spectator. Everybody else there was a
player or was there on business. Did the local newspapers in
Stillwater even cover it? I like to make jokes about Stillwater having
the highest paid college football team in the country. You would
imagine that there would have been some interest in a major chess
tournament there.
4. A motion similar to yours was made by Don Schultz when I was on the
board. The motion immediately got the votes of Don Schultz and Bill
Goichberg. A third board member was thinking of voting for it until I
shot it down with a letter to the board making many of the same points
as above. As a result, the Schultz motion failed. The board then
censured me for writing the letter.
The letter and the board motion censuring me for writing it was posted
on the USCF Website and it is attached here.
http://www.samsloan.com/sloan-censured-by-board.pdf
Will the board now censure anybody who disagrees with your idea?
Sam Sloan
|
|
| |
Date: 15 Nov 2007 01:53:25
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Ideas on the U.S. Men's and Women's Championships
|
On Nov 14, 7:25 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> this is somewhat abstract - for 99.9% of players it makes no difference if
> chess is 'solved' whatever that can mean - since no computer can claim any
> rating at all for playing without its book = on, which is not chess, its
> plain simple cheating
> Phil Innes.
Wrong, as usual.
Many chess computer programs have no book at all, yet they play just
about as well as computer programs with an extensive chess book.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 15 Nov 2007 01:43:06
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Ideas on the U.S. Men's and Women's Championships
|
[quote="tmagchesspgh"]I don't understand this trashing of "C" players
and the people who qualified for the US Championship. That is very
elitist talk. These players are the backbone of the organization
teaching kids, organizing events and spreading the gospel of chess to
the public. Why shouldn't they have the right in a democratic
organization to qualify for their country' championship? The people
who played in the US Championship worked very hard to get there.
Their efforts should not be demeaned as if they are unworthy.
Tom Magar [/quote]
This reminds me of the famous comment by U.S. Senator Roman Hruska
concerning the nomination of G. Harrold Carswell to the United States
Supreme Court.
In response to the complaint that Carswell had been a "mediocre"
judge, Hruska replied, "Even if he is mediocre, there are millions of
mediocre Americans, and they too deserve to be represented on the
United States Supreme Court".
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 14 Nov 2007 16:04:51
From:
Subject: Re: Ideas on the U.S. Men's and Women's Championships
|
samsloan wrote:
> On Nov 14, 5:47 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >
> > > Take a look at the list of qualifying tournaments.
> >
> > > Half were Goichberg tournaments.
> >
> > Goichberg runs some tournaments that are prestigious and draw
> > top competition, doesn't he? Why shouldn't they be qualifiers?
> >
> > > The remainder were tournaments by political allies such as the
> > > American Open, a minor league tournament organized by his friend and
> > > political ally Randy Hough, and national tournaments Goichberg could
> > > not ignore, including the US Open, the National Open, the US Junior
> > > and the US Senior.
> >
> > You are confusing the possibility of misuse with actual misuse. Do you
> > believe that there were better tournaments to use? If so, make that case.
> >
> > Before you were suggesting that players should have been able to qualify
> > by not playing at all, just by sitting on a ginal rating. That seems clearly
> > much worse than the tournaments used.
>
> Under the official USCF rules still in force, qualification to the US
> Championship is by rating plus there is an activity requirement.
>
> If Bill Goichberg does not like those rules, he should move to change
> them and not merely ignore them.
>
> Sam Sloan
Sam, are you a moron or just an amazingly lifelike imitation? Those
rules were changed years ago at the behest of AF4C. This was during
the Redman administration, and you'll have a hard time arguing that he
was acting at Goichberg's behest.
|
| |
Date: 14 Nov 2007 15:55:03
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Ideas on the U.S. Men's and Women's Championships
|
On Nov 14, 5:47 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > Take a look at the list of qualifying tournaments.
>
> > Half were Goichberg tournaments.
>
> Goichberg runs some tournaments that are prestigious and draw
> top competition, doesn't he? Why shouldn't they be qualifiers?
>
> > The remainder were tournaments by political allies such as the
> > American Open, a minor league tournament organized by his friend and
> > political ally Randy Hough, and national tournaments Goichberg could
> > not ignore, including the US Open, the National Open, the US Junior
> > and the US Senior.
>
> You are confusing the possibility of misuse with actual misuse. Do you
> believe that there were better tournaments to use? If so, make that case.
>
> Before you were suggesting that players should have been able to qualify
> by not playing at all, just by sitting on a ginal rating. That seems clearly
> much worse than the tournaments used.
Under the official USCF rules still in force, qualification to the US
Championship is by rating plus there is an activity requirement.
If Bill Goichberg does not like those rules, he should move to change
them and not merely ignore them.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 14 Nov 2007 15:11:43
From:
Subject: Re: Ideas on the U.S. Men's and Women's Championships
|
samsloan wrote:
> On Nov 14, 4:25 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Nov 14, 6:16 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> >> Please try to invite Ben Finegold, who was unfairly excluded from the
> > >> >> 2007 US Championship.
> >
> > >> >> Sam Sloan
> >
> > >> > How about just using the invitational formula and sticking to it...rather
> > >> > than trying to play favorites?
> >
> > >> > Eric Johnson
> >
> > > Ben Finegold is rated 2611 and is now the number 18 player in the USA.
> > > When the invitations went out earlier this year he was number 16. (He
> > > did not lose rating points. Two players edged him out by one or two
> > > rating points.)
> >
> > > Most of us (with the notable exception of Bill Goichberg) agree that
> > > invitations to the US Championship should be based on objective
> > > criteria. The official rule passed by the USCF Executive Board some
> > > years ago is that invitations to the US Championship are based on a
> > > weighted average between the player's USCF Rating and FIDE ratings.
> >
> > > However, this year the official USCF rule was ignored and substituted
> > > in its place was the Goichberg Rule which provides that Goichberg
> > > decides which tournaments organized by Goichberg and Goichberg allies
> > > and fellow board members such as Randy Hough are invited to play in
> > > the US Championship.
> >
> > Qualifying by doing well in tournaments is no less "objective" than using
> > ratings. Your description of what happened does not make it
> > sound that Finegold was unfairly excluded.
> >
> > Tournaments are less subject to being manipulated than ratings, so it
> > makes sense that they be used to determine the ginal players.
> >
> > The claim that Goichberg misused the qualifying process to boost
> > his own tournaments is just typical unsubstantiated Sloan nonsense.
>
> Why is that?
>
> Take a look at the list of qualifying tournaments.
>
> Half were Goichberg tournaments.
>
> The remainder were tournaments by political allies such as the
> American Open, a minor league tournament organized by his friend and
> political ally Randy Hough, and national tournaments Goichberg could
> not ignore, including the US Open, the National Open, the US Junior
> and the US Senior.
>
> Sam Sloan
False. Since you've been corrected on this several times, lie. There
were 11 "open" qualifiers. Four were CCA tournaments.
|
| |
Date: 14 Nov 2007 13:48:04
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Ideas on the U.S. Men's and Women's Championships
|
On Nov 14, 4:25 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > On Nov 14, 6:16 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> Please try to invite Ben Finegold, who was unfairly excluded from the
> >> >> 2007 US Championship.
>
> >> >> Sam Sloan
>
> >> > How about just using the invitational formula and sticking to it...rather
> >> > than trying to play favorites?
>
> >> > Eric Johnson
>
> > Ben Finegold is rated 2611 and is now the number 18 player in the USA.
> > When the invitations went out earlier this year he was number 16. (He
> > did not lose rating points. Two players edged him out by one or two
> > rating points.)
>
> > Most of us (with the notable exception of Bill Goichberg) agree that
> > invitations to the US Championship should be based on objective
> > criteria. The official rule passed by the USCF Executive Board some
> > years ago is that invitations to the US Championship are based on a
> > weighted average between the player's USCF Rating and FIDE ratings.
>
> > However, this year the official USCF rule was ignored and substituted
> > in its place was the Goichberg Rule which provides that Goichberg
> > decides which tournaments organized by Goichberg and Goichberg allies
> > and fellow board members such as Randy Hough are invited to play in
> > the US Championship.
>
> Qualifying by doing well in tournaments is no less "objective" than using
> ratings. Your description of what happened does not make it
> sound that Finegold was unfairly excluded.
>
> Tournaments are less subject to being manipulated than ratings, so it
> makes sense that they be used to determine the ginal players.
>
> The claim that Goichberg misused the qualifying process to boost
> his own tournaments is just typical unsubstantiated Sloan nonsense.
Why is that?
Take a look at the list of qualifying tournaments.
Half were Goichberg tournaments.
The remainder were tournaments by political allies such as the
American Open, a minor league tournament organized by his friend and
political ally Randy Hough, and national tournaments Goichberg could
not ignore, including the US Open, the National Open, the US Junior
and the US Senior.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 14 Nov 2007 09:11:06
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Ideas on the U.S. Men's and Women's Championships
|
[quote="Harry Payne"] Jim if you will notice there was
a thread started by myself long before Sam's. Sam pulled the posts you
are reading from that thread " Ideas for the Men's and Women's U.S.
Championships." As I have knowledge of the 2007 U. S. Championship I
can state that Frank and Jim Berry organized and ran the tournament.
Bill Goichberg may have given ideas but if Sam thinks Frank and/or
Jim would allow anyone to dictate to them about anything ,it is
because of his ignorance (true sense of the word "lack of knowledge")
of these two gentlemen. It just "hain't gona happn" as we say in
Oklahoma. :lol:[/quote]
Sorry, Harry, but you are not familiar with the facts.
The fact is that Bill Goichberg decided who got invited to the US
Championship, except that Frank Berry got to invite three of his own
people, one of whom was the Oklahoma State Champion who finished next
to last ahead only of one of the beautiful young girls that Goichberg
saw fit to invite.
This year, however, it seems that Frank Berry is taking charge of the
event and I applaud him for it. I do not know what will happen when
Goichberg starts insisting on a certain number of slots for Goichberg
people. However, Frank Berry has one advantage that we did not have
went I was on the board, which is that he has one fairly likely vote
on the board. I suppose that there is a good chance that his identical
twin brother will vote Frank's way. It is always possible, anyway.
When I was on the board there were three board members who were
strongly opposed to the Goichberg method, which was that Goichberg
decides who gets to play. However, there was a six member board. Too
bad that Tanner was chased off the board. It would have been good to
have him around to break ties. Goichberg had two rock-solid votes
which meant that the three non-Goichberg votes could never get more
than a tie vote and thus could not overturn anything. As a result,
Goichberg got to invite anybody he wanted and the rest of us could do
nothing about it.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 14 Nov 2007 08:25:14
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Ideas on the U.S. Men's and Women's Championships
|
--- In [email protected], FKIMBERRY@... wrote:
>
> Joel Johnson?? Can he beat Boris Gulko?
> I told GM Gulko he should enter the Senior Ch and try to qualify.? Same with Tony Saidy.
> Boris?lost all his recent rating points in Lubbock.
> If Ben Finegold wants to enter our "Qualifying Event" in late ch in Tulsa.. he's welcome....
> Frank K. Berry
Joel Johnson is the official US Senior Champion.
Please take a look:
http://main.uschess.org/content/view/7603/380
You should be proud to have such a great player as Joel Johnson
playing in your US Championship!
But, who is that sexy girl standing next to him? Perhaps you can get
him to bring her along too.
Sam
|
| |
Date: 14 Nov 2007 07:59:50
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Ideas on the U.S. Men's and Women's Championships
|
On Nov 14, 6:16 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> >> Please try to invite Ben Finegold, who was unfairly excluded from the
> >> 2007 US Championship.
>
> >> Sam Sloan
>
> > How about just using the invitational formula and sticking to it...rather
> > than trying to play favorites?
>
> > Eric Johnson
Ben Finegold is rated 2611 and is now the number 18 player in the USA.
When the invitations went out earlier this year he was number 16. (He
did not lose rating points. Two players edged him out by one or two
rating points.)
Most of us (with the notable exception of Bill Goichberg) agree that
invitations to the US Championship should be based on objective
criteria. The official rule passed by the USCF Executive Board some
years ago is that invitations to the US Championship are based on a
weighted average between the player's USCF Rating and FIDE ratings.
However, this year the official USCF rule was ignored and substituted
in its place was the Goichberg Rule which provides that Goichberg
decides which tournaments organized by Goichberg and Goichberg allies
and fellow board members such as Randy Hough are invited to play in
the US Championship.
As a result, Finegold was excluded. The general public does not know
this but during the one year that I was on the board, Bill Goichberg
made a strong effort to have Ben Finegold banned from competing for
the grandmaster title. Finegold is one of the highest rated non-
grandmasters in the world and he certainly deserves the GM title.
Finegold was also the highest rated player who did not get invited to
the 2007 US Championship.
I feel that when the US Championship is a 36-player Swiss, as it was
this year, it is ridiculous when the number 16 rated player cannot get
invited.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 14 Nov 2007 07:43:34
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Ideas on the U.S. Men's and Women's Championships
|
On Nov 14, 10:31 am, Kenneth Sloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> The Historian wrote:
> > On Nov 14, 6:16 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I do not agree with Eric that chess
> >> sponsorship is a philanthropic activity, only that it is usually so - and
> >> that is because, albeit USCF has a paid staff, money comes from media, and
> >> media savvy sux!
>
> >> Done right, just 1 hour of TV programming could fund the whole shebang.
>
> > I recall a TV program a couple of years ago broadcasting a match
> > between US and Russian players. If I remember correctly, Susan Polgar
> > played in it. Paul Truong and some non-entity were hosts. How much
> > money did that event make? Enough to fund a "shebang?"
>
> Not fair! He said that it had to be "done right".
I quite agree. My apologies to Mr. Innes for bringing up something
that he deservedly forgot.
|
| |
Date: 14 Nov 2007 04:20:22
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Ideas on the U.S. Men's and Women's Championships
|
On Nov 14, 6:16 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
I do not agree with Eric that chess
> sponsorship is a philanthropic activity, only that it is usually so - and
> that is because, albeit USCF has a paid staff, money comes from media, and
> media savvy sux!
>
> Done right, just 1 hour of TV programming could fund the whole shebang.
I recall a TV program a couple of years ago broadcasting a match
between US and Russian players. If I remember correctly, Susan Polgar
played in it. Paul Truong and some non-entity were hosts. How much
money did that event make? Enough to fund a "shebang?"
|
| | |
Date: 14 Nov 2007 09:31:30
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Ideas on the U.S. Men's and Women's Championships
|
The Historian wrote:
> On Nov 14, 6:16 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I do not agree with Eric that chess
>> sponsorship is a philanthropic activity, only that it is usually so - and
>> that is because, albeit USCF has a paid staff, money comes from media, and
>> media savvy sux!
>>
>> Done right, just 1 hour of TV programming could fund the whole shebang.
>
> I recall a TV program a couple of years ago broadcasting a match
> between US and Russian players. If I remember correctly, Susan Polgar
> played in it. Paul Truong and some non-entity were hosts. How much
> money did that event make? Enough to fund a "shebang?"
>
Not fair! He said that it had to be "done right".
--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Nov 2007 00:25:12
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Ideas on the U.S. Men's and Women's Championships
|
>>
>> I wonder what would happen if a similar tournament was held in the USA?
>> In terms of interest, there would be so many underdogs with good
>> performances,
>
> But in chess terms, it would make lousy press...because we have a rating
> system and if you have a system where the top players don't win almost
> every time...people blame the system instead of applauding underdogs.
what does this writer know about mass ket media? what 'people' will say
is that underdog bites top players, no?
> Many people thought the FIDE KO formula was poor for this reason (though I
> was not one of them -- I think such a formula saves chess as it gets
> closer to being solved and so becomes more of a technique exercise and
> less trial and error science).
this is somewhat abstract - for 99.9% of players it makes no difference if
chess is 'solved' whatever that can mean - since no computer can claim any
rating at all for playing without its book = on, which is not chess, its
plain simple cheating
but let us not diverge too far into this sideline based on what ' 'many
people' according to the delegate will think.
> If you have too many underdogs winning in a system where people think you
> have a "scientific" way of already knowing who *should* win, then the
> result gets junked.
the delegate argues that against the results of employing the top 100
players are 'junk' - really? as if Americans also think the favorites in a
contest will win, and that is why they watch? - he does not accord with
Adorjan, a W Ch candidate who thinks otherwise!
> That's another reason why an open Swiss isn't so hot for a title tourney.
> Great for an annual prize affair, poor for title transfer.
Presentation of a large open Swiss 'is not so hot' for whom? for God's sake!
This sort of vague depressing of chess prospects in this country suffers
from the usual and vague apprehensions and fears, by people who do not know
enough to suggest otherwise, is nothing to any point. The current writer has
no experience with media, and cares to know nothing.
Mr. Berry who wrote here before might also care to name his pronouns, lest
he side one side of the defeatist fence, or the other.
If he did care to encourage money into chess, he needs to liven up his
ideas, lest they become confused with Eric Johnson's here, and a 23 person
staff who have achieved less in mainstream media than the people who do
dominos.
Phil Innes.
> ECJ
|
| | |
Date: 14 Nov 2007 14:17:51
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Ideas on the U.S. Men's and Women's Championships
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Nov 14, 6:16 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I do not agree with Eric that chess
>> sponsorship is a philanthropic activity, only that it is usually so - and
>> that is because, albeit USCF has a paid staff, money comes from media,
>> and
>> media savvy sux!
>>
>> Done right, just 1 hour of TV programming could fund the whole shebang.
>
> I recall a TV program a couple of years ago broadcasting a match
> between US and Russian players. If I remember correctly, Susan Polgar
> played in it. Paul Truong and some non-entity were hosts. How much
> money did that event make? Enough to fund a "shebang?"
sod off, Eyeore!- stop polluting chess threads with your trashing of
everything you don't understand
pi
|
| |
Date: 13 Nov 2007 09:34:35
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Ideas on the U.S. Men's and Women's Championships
|
Frank Berry wrote:
> This last paragraph below is total baloney because NONE of Goichberg's tourney will be used for qualification spots for the two 2008 FKB US Championships.....
> As usual Sam is wrong in his criticisms, postings and conclusions.? Very Wrong. Also GM Gulko?told me yesterday he VERY MUCH wanted to qualify to play in the FKB US Championship.? VERY MUCH.? Sam is wrong to say nobody wants to play in the event anymore.? Very Wrong again.... as usual.
> Frank K. Berry
Dear Frank,
Thank you for your comments and your update.
Of course, I was referring to the 2007 US Championship, not the 2008
US Championship which has not even been announced yet.
I am sure that you will do a better job and I hope you will be
successful in keeping Bill Goichberg's intrusive fingers out of the
event. Tell him to get a board resolution for any changes he tries to
insist upon.
Please try to invite Ben Finegold, who was unfairly excluded from the
2007 US Championship.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 14 Nov 2007 11:16:29
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Ideas on the U.S. Men's and Women's Championships
|
>> Please try to invite Ben Finegold, who was unfairly excluded from the
>> 2007 US Championship.
>>
>> Sam Sloan
>>
>>
>
> How about just using the invitational formula and sticking to it...rather
> than trying to play favorites?
>
> ECJ
For a change I agree with Eric. In fact, so does A. Adorjan - several GMs
have contributed questions to a current interview of Mickey Adams, and
Adorjan asked very directly and succinctly [I paraphrase] if the top 100
players by rating in the world were all thrown together in a 13 round Swiss,
do you think the top ratings would win? With an additional note that maybe
the top 50 players in the world earn 95% of all prize money. It will be
interesting to read Adams' reply.
I wonder what would happen if a similar tournament was held in the USA? In
terms of interest, there would be so many underdogs with good performances,
it would make for good press. I do not agree with Eric that chess
sponsorship is a philanthropic activity, only that it is usually so - and
that is because, albeit USCF has a paid staff, money comes from media, and
media savvy sux!
Done right, just 1 hour of TV programming could fund the whole shebang.
This is not a fling at USCF, but it is a notice that it is a sinking pool
for ideas relating to sponsorship. If it could keep its [political] hands
out of the till, no reason why it couldn't still affiliate itself with such
a venture.
Phil Innes
Vermont
|
| |
Date: 13 Nov 2007 09:21:19
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Ideas on the U.S. Men's and Women's Championships
|
[quote="Harry Payne"]I can absolutely not see how the continued
attacks on Bill Goichberg, is adding to this conversation in any
meaningful way. We are looking for ideas to help make future U.S.
Championships better. So Sam I am going to ask you to confine your
comments to the topic ,or do not post on this thread again. Thank
You .[/quote]
Bill Goichberg's name is mentioned because he organized the 2007 US
Championship the same way he organized the World Open.
At the World Open, Bill Goichberg decided the playing dates, the time
control, the number of rounds, the entry fees, the prizes for each
section, the special rules and in short everything about the
tournament.
He was able to do that because he owns the tournament. It is his
personal property. I believe that he has a registered trade name for
the tournament.
That is fine and nobody will object because everybody knows that he
owns the tournament.
However, Bill Goichberg does not own the US Championship. The members
do. Nevertheless, he ran the US Championship the same way that he runs
the World Open, deciding whom to invite, who got in for free, who had
to pay an entry fee and how much, the format of the event, the time
control and everything else about the tournament.
I was on the board at the time and neither I nor any other board
member was ever consulted about these decisions. The first we heard
about them was when we read them on the uschess.org website.
However, everybody naturally assumes that these decisions were made by
the board. As a result, when anything goes wrong, we get the blame.
Witness for example, Joel Benjamin's letter published in "New In
Chess" magazine in which he blames all the problems with the US
Championship on me, Sam Sloan, when I had nothing to do with any of
it.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 13 Nov 2007 03:07:22
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Ideas on the U.S. Men's and Women's Championships
|
[quote="George"] I really feel sorry for AF4C. They put up a lot of
money and watched it get wasted.
They sat there while watching class "C" players play against the top
Grandmasters. I feel the problem was the organizers like Goichberg
who wanted to fatten up the participation at their personal
tournaments by making them a qualifier for the US Championship. It is
the "hidden" silent way to strip money and value out of the USCF.
Stripping value from the prestige of the US Championship and allowing
the "qualifying" tournament organizers like Goichberg make profits
quietly and hidden.
Then what happened is that the AF4C donated huge amounts of money and
got very little value for their donation. The USCF ran the tournament
for their own personal benefit and not for the benefit of picking the
best player to be the US Champion.
I am still unhappy and frustrated by what happened. It was obvious at
the time and it is still obvious.[/quote]
On these points, I agree completely with George. In the 2006 US
Championship, a player rated 1672 got in, not because she beat
somebody, but because she was the only woman willing to pay the $75
qualifier fee.
In 2007, Bill Goichberg raised the bar slightly and the lowest rated
player was a woman rated 2188.
The reason that in past years the top players almost always accepted
invitations to the US Championship was that there was prestige
associated with being in the US Championship. Now, there is no longer
any prestige. Anybody could have played in the 2007 US Championship
merely by paying the $25,000 entry fee. Two players did buy their way
into the 2007 US Championship. One paid $4,000. The other paid $5,000.
Basically, our US Championship has been sold out just to increase the
revenues of Bill Goichberg, who collects the entry fees of those
seeking to qualify from his tournaments.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 12 Nov 2007 18:30:08
From:
Subject: Re: Ideas on the U.S. Men's and Women's Championships
|
samsloan wrote:
> Prior 2000 the US Championship was a 16 player Round Robin usually
> held in New York City with a $25,000 prize fund.
>
> All the top players played. It was rare for a top player to turn down
> an invitation.
>
> Then in 2000 AF4C came in, made it into a Swiss with qualifying
> tournaments, mixed the men and women's championships and offered a
> $100,000 prize fund.
>
> In 2006, AF4C put up a record $250,000 prize fund and then was
> attacked by those such as Susan Polgar who complained on her blog that
> the prizes were "too small".
>
> In 2007, Frank Berry put up $50,000 of his own personal money and Joel
> Benjamin refused to play, citing the low prize fund.
>
> In say, go back to the traditional round robin. The Goichberg-style
> Big Swiss format is not working.
>
> Sam Sloan
[quote="rfeditor"][quote="samsloan"]Prior 2000 the US Championship was
a 16 player Round Robin usually held in New York City with a $25,000
prize fund.
Sam Sloan[/quote]
"Usually held in New York City"? There were 25 U.S. Championships
between 1973 and 1999. 22 of them were not in New York City. (Unless
you're counting Parsipanny 1996, which would probably annoy the
citizens of New Jersey.) One -- 1973 -- was in NYC. I'm not sure about
1993 and 1994, and can't be bothered to look them up just now.
It's also not true that the tournament was always a 16-player round
robin. The number of players varied from12 to 18, and it was run as a
knock-out four or five times.
If you're trying to make a serious argument (with which I agree, by
the way) for a "traditional" RR-format U.S. Championship, these kinds
of silly mistakes will only serve to discredit your argument -- and
you.[/quote]
|
| |
Date: 12 Nov 2007 16:08:46
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Ideas on the U.S. Men's and Women's Championships
|
Prior 2000 the US Championship was a 16 player Round Robin usually
held in New York City with a $25,000 prize fund.
All the top players played. It was rare for a top player to turn down
an invitation.
Then in 2000 AF4C came in, made it into a Swiss with qualifying
tournaments, mixed the men and women's championships and offered a
$100,000 prize fund.
In 2006, AF4C put up a record $250,000 prize fund and then was
attacked by those such as Susan Polgar who complained on her blog that
the prizes were "too small".
In 2007, Frank Berry put up $50,000 of his own personal money and Joel
Benjamin refused to play, citing the low prize fund.
In say, go back to the traditional round robin. The Goichberg-style
Big Swiss format is not working.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2007 03:51:30
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Ideas on the U.S. Men's and Women's Championships
|
On Nov 8, 4:36 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 8, 12:13 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Remember that the most famous match ever played in the USA was the
> > match between Fischer and Reshevsky and no title was at stake, only
> > prize money.
>
> Highly debatable. World Championship matches held on US soil have
> included Steinitz-Zukertort 1886, Steinitz-Gunsberg 1890-91, Lasker-
> Steinitz 1894, Lasker-shall 1907, Kasparov-Karpov 1990, and
> Kasparov-Anand 1995. It's not clear what Sloan means by "most famous,"
> but I would think that at least some of these, perhaps all, were/are
> more famous than Fischer-Reshevsky, especially in terms of the
> attention they garnered from the chess world as a whole, as well as
> from the American public.
Sloan means 'most famous since 'real chess' was played, which started
at my birth.'
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 13:36:18
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Ideas on the U.S. Men's and Women's Championships
|
On Nov 8, 12:13 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Remember that the most famous match ever played in the USA was the
> match between Fischer and Reshevsky and no title was at stake, only
> prize money.
Highly debatable. World Championship matches held on US soil have
included Steinitz-Zukertort 1886, Steinitz-Gunsberg 1890-91, Lasker-
Steinitz 1894, Lasker-shall 1907, Kasparov-Karpov 1990, and
Kasparov-Anand 1995. It's not clear what Sloan means by "most famous,"
but I would think that at least some of these, perhaps all, were/are
more famous than Fischer-Reshevsky, especially in terms of the
attention they garnered from the chess world as a whole, as well as
from the American public.
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 19:12:29
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Ideas on the U.S. Men's and Women's Championships
|
On Nov 7, 11:38 pm, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\""
<[email protected] > wrote:
> > Remember that the most famous match ever played in the USA was the
> > match between Fischer and Reshevsky and no title was at stake, only
> > prize money.
>
> I think shall-Lasker was a little more famous.
Perhaps it is more famous now through Fischer-colored retrospecs, but
the chess literature I won from around that time seems to indicate it
was a match of great interest to the chess playing public both before
and after the match. I wonder what sort of "spectator base" shall-
Lasker had? In those days, it seems there was something of a "chess-
going public."
|
| | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 12:05:12
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Ideas on the U.S. Men's and Women's Championships
|
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 19:12:29 -0000, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
>On Nov 7, 11:38 pm, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\""
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Remember that the most famous match ever played in the USA was the
>> > match between Fischer and Reshevsky and no title was at stake, only
>> > prize money.
>> I think shall-Lasker was a little more famous.
>Perhaps it is more famous now through Fischer-colored retrospecs, but
>the chess literature I won from around that time seems to indicate it
>was a match of great interest to the chess playing public both before
>and after the match. I wonder what sort of "spectator base" shall-
>Lasker had? In those days, it seems there was something of a "chess-
>going public."
My impression from reading older literature is that the "chess-going
public" of yore (say, pre-1940) was, in general, more affluent and
influential than today. Of course, such a generality admits many
exceptions. What do you think?
|
| |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 21:13:39
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Ideas on the U.S. Men's and Women's Championships
|
[quote="CHESSDON"]Dear Harry:
I have the same idea and I continue to work on making it happen. I
suggested several times to Erik Anderson that AF4C sponsor a match
between Nakamura and Kamsky and get the winner to be sanctioned as the
official US match champion.
I now have the thought that the match be in 2008 and in 2009 the
winner of the match play the winner of the US championship for the
2009 US Championship - no 2009 US Championship tournament - but a
tournament to see who challenges the champions for a match. You would
then have tournaments and matches on alternate years.
And Sam - your memory fails you. Bill Goichberg does not like Harry
and my idea at all. He favor a large Swiss that allows qualifiers from
all the major tournaments. I am running this years US Senior
Championship and clearly see the value of qualifiers. Nevertheless I
favor the matches and Bill just as strongly favors tournaments. These
are legitimate differences of opinion and deserve constructive
dialogue. Sam is right in that my enthusiasm for the match approach
didn't go very far - I don't remember anyone preferring it.
Don Schultz[/b][/quote]
Dear Don,
Glad to hear from you as you have been away for a while I believe. I
understand
that you have just had your 50th wedding anniversary. Congratulations,
but I do have a question. It must cost a lot of money to have 50 wives
and a wedding anniversary for each one. How can you afford it?
I am glad that you pointed out the differences between you and Bill
Goichberg. As you correctly point out, Bill always favors big Swisses,
or Frankenswisses as Tom Dorsch used to call them. Bill is entitled to
his opinion, but I strongly object to the way he organized the US
Championship in Stillwater, deciding on the format and inviting the
players that he wanted to invite without consulting the board or even
telling us what he was doing. Then, we got blamed for all the problems
he caused. Witness for example the article published by Joel Benjamin
in "New in Chess" magazine in which he blamed me, Sam Sloan, of all
people for all the problems with the US Championship when I (and for
that matter you) were left out of it in the cold and had nothing to do
with it.
For example, Bill Goichberg decided that he wanted four women in the
tournament, for what reason I do not know. When almost all of the top
women declined, Bill just kept going down the list inviting lower and
lower rated players. He finally found two experts, Iryna Zenyuk rated
2184 and Chouchanik Airapetian rated 2188, who were willing to play.
Meanwhile, Ben Finegold, a legitimate contender for the US
Championship and rated 2611, could not get an invitation.
Regarding the benefits of a match over a tournament, I wish to remind
you that in 1995, there was a title match between Kasparov and Anand
for the World Chess Championship held in New York City's World Trade
Center. In spite of being located in the media center of the world,
this event received almost no publicity.
However, I like your idea of a match between Nakamura and Kamsky. This
would be exciting to me because they are by far our most promising
players and each is a potential contender for the World Championship.
However, I do not think it needs to be a match for the US
Championship. Just a match between the two top players is enough.
Remember that the most famous match ever played in the USA was the
match between Fischer and Reshevsky and no title was at stake, only
prize money.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 00:38:37
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Ideas on the U.S. Men's and Women's Championships
|
> Remember that the most famous match ever played in the USA was the
> match between Fischer and Reshevsky and no title was at stake, only
> prize money.
I think shall-Lasker was a little more famous.
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
This group will be restricted to 5,000 members. All new theory from the
creator of the PIVOT!
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
have been rendered worthless through mainstream media exposure. It really
is game over for community material. Beware of Milli Vanilli gurus who
stole their ideas from others!
http://moderncaveman.typepad.com
The Official Ray Gordon Blog
|
|
