| |
Main
Date: 09 Jan 2009 08:23:25
From: [email protected]
Subject: USCF secrecy and closed sessions
|
THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 129)
Lev Alburt was the first grandmaster elected to the seven member USCF
board of directors and soon became the odd man out. In this exclusive
interview he pierces the veil of secrecy and begins naming names.
After defecting from the USSR in 1979 he settled in Manhattan,
married, and quickly became a fixture in American chess. After
capturing our nation=92s highest title three times, he retired from
tournaments to write books and give lessons.
INTERVIEW WITH GM LEV ALBURT
EVANS: Lev, it=92s hard to believe that people who are supposed to
promote chess in America are actually holding back its growth.
ALBURT: I couldn=92t believe it myself. But I learned that everyone in
the business office and above all members of the board were interested
primarily in doing almost nothing. Nothing real. Nothing to promote
chess. When I get together with Allen Kaufman or Jimmy Sherwin of the
American Chess Foundation we usually discuss ways to promote growth
and emulate the success of England, which sprang from nowhere to one
of the top nations.
EVANS: Didn=92t the board discuss these things?
ALBURT: No. I was extremely surprised that such topics were never
addressed. Never, ever.
EVANS: What was their goal?
ALBURT: Let me continue. Even when we went to a restaurant I always
expected them to bring up the subject of what can be done to make
chess grow. But always the topics during our sessions was who should
run for the board next year, who should be awarded national
tournaments, or how to avoid being attacked by critics.
EVANS: Well, what did they get out of serving on the board?
ALBURT: Perks, of course. Free trips, and so forth. Some old timers
look upon the federation as their toy, their plaything. They hang
around people they chummed with for years. They love to give each
other awards. When I left they offered me a Certificate of Service,
but I said I wasn=92t interested in such things.
EVANS: The board voted to ban tape recorders from open sessions but
had to back down when Friends of the USCF blasted them in its
newsletter. Isn=92t the board spending more and more time in closed
session anyway?
ALBURT: They discuss a lot of things in private which to my mind don=92t
belong in closed session. They often use these sessions as an excuse
to say nasty things they would not dare to repeat in public. Sometimes
they knock people I respect and I challenge them to produce evidence
or shut up.
EVANS: So didn=92t they become more careful around you?
ALBURT: To some extent I think I spoiled the good feeling they shared
together=97the feeling that the less anyone outside knows, the better.
When someone new was elected to the board, they immediately closed
ranks and developed a bond. Even reform candidates wanted to become
one of the boys as soon as they were elected.
|
|
| |
Date: 13 Jan 2009 05:45:46
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: USCF secrecy and closed sessions
|
On Jan 12, 8:12=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Tell, us Phil: Are you now, or have you ever been, coherent?
That is a rhetorical question, isn't it?
|
| |
Date: 13 Jan 2009 04:40:19
From:
Subject: Re: USCF secrecy and closed sessions
|
On Jan 12, 8:12=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Jan 12, 5:28 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > > [email protected] wrote:
> > > > On Jan 12, 2:31 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > > > > [email protected] wrote:
> > > > > > I see that Chessville has repeated this extract in this weekend=
's
> > > > > > edition - and also invited responses from current board members=
to the
> > > > > > Evans & Allburt conversation.
>
> > > > > > NM board member Paul Truong has replied on the current state of=
the
> > > > > > board's activity.
>
> > > > > > see Alekhine's Parrot atwww.chessville.com
>
> > > > > > Phil Innes
>
> > > > > I read it. In the first place, the editor really ought to have po=
inted
> > > > > out that the interview took place almost 20 years ago.
>
> > > > I think the context was that nothing much seemed to have changed - =
but
> > > > by all means share your views with the editor.
>
> > > > > My real
> > > > > problem, however, is with Truong's reply. He wrote, "We asked Bil=
l
> > > > > Goichberg point blank if he was aware of bribe offers (hotel room=
,
> > > > > airline tickets, free entry fees, etc.) by his friends to bring
> > > > > various people to Dallas to be certified as delegates to skew the
> > > > > votes. He flat out said no when he WAS copied on many of these
> > > > > correspondences. He and Randy Hough also certified these individu=
als
> > > > > as delegates from their perspective states."
>
> > > > > Now, I don't know about New York, but as far as Southern Californ=
ia is
> > > > > concerned, this passage indicates either gross ignorance or gross
> > > > > dishonesty.
>
> > > > If its legal matters you address - are you declaring your own inter=
est
> > > > here?
>
> > > > > 1) Randy Hough was not the senior State Chapter official present,=
and
> > > > > so could not appoint anyone.
>
> > > > You mean, that some bye-laws would prohibit him from doing so? Or t=
hat
> > > > he did not? I don't know, and so I ask.
>
> > > > > 2) Of the five Delegates who represented S. CA (other than Hough =
and
> > > > > Hanken, who as Delegates at Large may not be substituted for), tw=
o
> > > > > were among the Delegates and Alternates elected by the members. A
> > > > > third was among the candidates who did not make the top six, a gr=
oup
> > > > > to which we almost always defer when appointing substitutes. (By =
"we,"
> > > > > I mean S. CA; I can't speak for other states.) He, by the way, wa=
s a
> > > > > strong Polgar supporter. The other two were ordinary tournament
> > > > > players. Note also that S. CA was entitled to six representatives=
, so
> > > > > if the Secret Masters were trying to pack the quorum they didn't =
do a
> > > > > very good job of it.
>
> > > > Yes - well, I don't think anyone is accusing anyone else of compete=
ncy
> > > > here.
>
> > > > > For some time, I had a degree of sympathy for Truong and Polgar, =
since
> > > > > I felt they were being railroaded by trolls like Sloan and Laffer=
ty. I
> > > > > still don't like the trolls, but Truong and Polgar have used up t=
heir
> > > > > credit.
>
> > > > Did you see what one of these Californians actually wrote of what
> > > > happened?
>
> > > > Phil Innes
>
> > > You're displaying your ignorance, Phil. Under the USCF Bylaws, the
> > > State Chapter President, or the senior officer present, appoints
> > > "replacement" Delegates. Randy Hough is not the SCCF President. The
> > > SCCF President was at the meeting. You could easily have checked this
> > > on line with even minimal editorial diligence.
>
> > you do not reply to my questions. you make an attitude about them,
> > while (a) not disclosing your OWN relationship to Jerry-Co, and (b)
> > not answering my last.
>
> > ROFL - in short - are you an involved party to the affair, and do you
> > know what your own Cali 'delegate' recuited the week before, actually
> > said?
>
> > i'm sorry, yours are responses not answers - and as such, i cannot
> > feel that you have informed the people here of anything honest in
> > relation to the issue
>
> > but i know more than this! you can't answer even this!
>
> > ROFL
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> > ps: you like 'Jerry-co?' as a name for your outfit? fitting, no?
>
> Typical Innes piffle. You asked why Randy Hough could not have
> "appointed" any Delegates. I told you,
No you didn't. You 'told' me why he would have been ineligible to
appoint delegates.
> though if you had any
> pretensions to journalistic integrity you would have looked all this
let's cut to the chase - you ignore what I wrote.
You also ignore the main charge - whoever appointed these delegates.
> up before publishing. Your other "question" was whether I had read an
> unidentified statement by an unnamed person.
I think that statement means no. You have not seen such evidence.
> Tell, us Phil: Are you now, or have you ever been, coherent?
You don't see things therefore they don't exist - is that your
'coherent' logic?
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 12 Jan 2009 17:12:30
From:
Subject: Re: USCF secrecy and closed sessions
|
[email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 12, 5:28=EF=BF=BDpm, [email protected] wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > On Jan 12, 2:31 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > > > [email protected] wrote:
> > > > > I see that Chessville has repeated this extract in this weekend's
> > > > > edition - and also invited responses from current board members t=
o the
> > > > > Evans & Allburt conversation.
> >
> > > > > NM board member Paul Truong has replied on the current state of t=
he
> > > > > board's activity.
> >
> > > > > see Alekhine's Parrot atwww.chessville.com
> >
> > > > > Phil Innes
> >
> > > > I read it. In the first place, the editor really ought to have poin=
ted
> > > > out that the interview took place almost 20 years ago.
> >
> > > I think the context was that nothing much seemed to have changed - bu=
t
> > > by all means share your views with the editor.
> >
> > > > My real
> > > > problem, however, is with Truong's reply. He wrote, "We asked Bill
> > > > Goichberg point blank if he was aware of bribe offers (hotel room,
> > > > airline tickets, free entry fees, etc.) by his friends to bring
> > > > various people to Dallas to be certified as delegates to skew the
> > > > votes. He flat out said no when he WAS copied on many of these
> > > > correspondences. He and Randy Hough also certified these individual=
s
> > > > as delegates from their perspective states."
> >
> > > > Now, I don't know about New York, but as far as Southern California=
is
> > > > concerned, this passage indicates either gross ignorance or gross
> > > > dishonesty.
> >
> > > If its legal matters you address - are you declaring your own interes=
t
> > > here?
> >
> > > > 1) Randy Hough was not the senior State Chapter official present, a=
nd
> > > > so could not appoint anyone.
> >
> > > You mean, that some bye-laws would prohibit him from doing so? Or tha=
t
> > > he did not? I don't know, and so I ask.
> >
> > > > 2) Of the five Delegates who represented S. CA (other than Hough an=
d
> > > > Hanken, who as Delegates at Large may not be substituted for), two
> > > > were among the Delegates and Alternates elected by the members. A
> > > > third was among the candidates who did not make the top six, a grou=
p
> > > > to which we almost always defer when appointing substitutes. (By "w=
e,"
> > > > I mean S. CA; I can't speak for other states.) He, by the way, was =
a
> > > > strong Polgar supporter. The other two were ordinary tournament
> > > > players. Note also that S. CA was entitled to six representatives, =
so
> > > > if the Secret Masters were trying to pack the quorum they didn't do=
a
> > > > very good job of it.
> >
> > > Yes - well, I don't think anyone is accusing anyone else of competenc=
y
> > > here.
> >
> > > > For some time, I had a degree of sympathy for Truong and Polgar, si=
nce
> > > > I felt they were being railroaded by trolls like Sloan and Lafferty=
. I
> > > > still don't like the trolls, but Truong and Polgar have used up the=
ir
> > > > credit.
> >
> > > Did you see what one of these Californians actually wrote of what
> > > happened?
> >
> > > Phil Innes
> >
> > You're displaying your ignorance, Phil. Under the USCF Bylaws, the
> > State Chapter President, or the senior officer present, appoints
> > "replacement" Delegates. Randy Hough is not the SCCF President. The
> > SCCF President was at the meeting. You could easily have checked this
> > on line with even minimal editorial diligence.
>
> you do not reply to my questions. you make an attitude about them,
> while (a) not disclosing your OWN relationship to Jerry-Co, and (b)
> not answering my last.
>
> ROFL - in short - are you an involved party to the affair, and do you
> know what your own Cali 'delegate' recuited the week before, actually
> said?
>
> i'm sorry, yours are responses not answers - and as such, i cannot
> feel that you have informed the people here of anything honest in
> relation to the issue
>
> but i know more than this! you can't answer even this!
>
> ROFL
>
> Phil Innes
>
> ps: you like 'Jerry-co?' as a name for your outfit? fitting, no?
Typical Innes piffle. You asked why Randy Hough could not have
"appointed" any Delegates. I told you, though if you had any
pretensions to journalistic integrity you would have looked all this
up before publishing. Your other "question" was whether I had read an
unidentified statement by an unnamed person.
Tell, us Phil: Are you now, or have you ever been, coherent?
|
| |
Date: 12 Jan 2009 16:39:28
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: USCF secrecy and closed sessions
|
THE 3-H CLUB
<ps: you like 'Jerry-co?' as a name for your outfit? fitting, no? > --
Phil Innes
Hanken. Hillery and Hough are known to insiders are the 3-H Club.
Note that Honest John Hillery makes no mention of the attempt of
Hanken and Hough to frame GM Evans for the hit-letter posted from San
Luis Obispo on the very day that Hough was driving along this route on
his way from Los Angeles to San Francisco to attend a wedding.
(Information provided by Tom Dorsch.) Both Hanken (who probably wrote
that letter) and Hough were members of the policy board that voted for
the Pinkerton investigation.
And so it goes.
[email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 12, 5:28?pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > On Jan 12, 2:31 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > > > [email protected] wrote:
> > > > > I see that Chessville has repeated this extract in this weekend's
> > > > > edition - and also invited responses from current board members to the
> > > > > Evans & Allburt conversation.
> >
> > > > > NM board member Paul Truong has replied on the current state of the
> > > > > board's activity.
> >
> > > > > see Alekhine's Parrot atwww.chessville.com
> >
> > > > > Phil Innes
> >
> > > > I read it. In the first place, the editor really ought to have pointed
> > > > out that the interview took place almost 20 years ago.
> >
> > > I think the context was that nothing much seemed to have changed - but
> > > by all means share your views with the editor.
> >
> > > > My real
> > > > problem, however, is with Truong's reply. He wrote, "We asked Bill
> > > > Goichberg point blank if he was aware of bribe offers (hotel room,
> > > > airline tickets, free entry fees, etc.) by his friends to bring
> > > > various people to Dallas to be certified as delegates to skew the
> > > > votes. He flat out said no when he WAS copied on many of these
> > > > correspondences. He and Randy Hough also certified these individuals
> > > > as delegates from their perspective states."
> >
> > > > Now, I don't know about New York, but as far as Southern California is
> > > > concerned, this passage indicates either gross ignorance or gross
> > > > dishonesty.
> >
> > > If its legal matters you address - are you declaring your own interest
> > > here?
> >
> > > > 1) Randy Hough was not the senior State Chapter official present, and
> > > > so could not appoint anyone.
> >
> > > You mean, that some bye-laws would prohibit him from doing so? Or that
> > > he did not? I don't know, and so I ask.
> >
> > > > 2) Of the five Delegates who represented S. CA (other than Hough and
> > > > Hanken, who as Delegates at Large may not be substituted for), two
> > > > were among the Delegates and Alternates elected by the members. A
> > > > third was among the candidates who did not make the top six, a group
> > > > to which we almost always defer when appointing substitutes. (By "we,"
> > > > I mean S. CA; I can't speak for other states.) He, by the way, was a
> > > > strong Polgar supporter. The other two were ordinary tournament
> > > > players. Note also that S. CA was entitled to six representatives, so
> > > > if the Secret Masters were trying to pack the quorum they didn't do a
> > > > very good job of it.
> >
> > > Yes - well, I don't think anyone is accusing anyone else of competency
> > > here.
> >
> > > > For some time, I had a degree of sympathy for Truong and Polgar, since
> > > > I felt they were being railroaded by trolls like Sloan and Lafferty. I
> > > > still don't like the trolls, but Truong and Polgar have used up their
> > > > credit.
> >
> > > Did you see what one of these Californians actually wrote of what
> > > happened?
> >
> > > Phil Innes
> >
> > You're displaying your ignorance, Phil. Under the USCF Bylaws, the
> > State Chapter President, or the senior officer present, appoints
> > "replacement" Delegates. Randy Hough is not the SCCF President. The
> > SCCF President was at the meeting. You could easily have checked this
> > on line with even minimal editorial diligence.
>
> you do not reply to my questions. you make an attitude about them,
> while (a) not disclosing your OWN relationship to Jerry-Co, and (b)
> not answering my last.
>
> ROFL - in short - are you an involved party to the affair, and do you
> know what your own Cali 'delegate' recuited the week before, actually
> said?
>
> i'm sorry, yours are responses not answers - and as such, i cannot
> feel that you have informed the people here of anything honest in
> relation to the issue
>
> but i know more than this! you can't answer even this!
>
> ROFL
>
> Phil Innes
>
> ps: you like 'Jerry-co?' as a name for your outfit? fitting, no?
|
| |
Date: 12 Jan 2009 14:44:34
From:
Subject: Re: USCF secrecy and closed sessions
|
On Jan 12, 5:28=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Jan 12, 2:31 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > > [email protected] wrote:
> > > > I see that Chessville has repeated this extract in this weekend's
> > > > edition - and also invited responses from current board members to =
the
> > > > Evans & Allburt conversation.
>
> > > > NM board member Paul Truong has replied on the current state of the
> > > > board's activity.
>
> > > > see Alekhine's Parrot atwww.chessville.com
>
> > > > Phil Innes
>
> > > I read it. In the first place, the editor really ought to have pointe=
d
> > > out that the interview took place almost 20 years ago.
>
> > I think the context was that nothing much seemed to have changed - but
> > by all means share your views with the editor.
>
> > > My real
> > > problem, however, is with Truong's reply. He wrote, "We asked Bill
> > > Goichberg point blank if he was aware of bribe offers (hotel room,
> > > airline tickets, free entry fees, etc.) by his friends to bring
> > > various people to Dallas to be certified as delegates to skew the
> > > votes. He flat out said no when he WAS copied on many of these
> > > correspondences. He and Randy Hough also certified these individuals
> > > as delegates from their perspective states."
>
> > > Now, I don't know about New York, but as far as Southern California i=
s
> > > concerned, this passage indicates either gross ignorance or gross
> > > dishonesty.
>
> > If its legal matters you address - are you declaring your own interest
> > here?
>
> > > 1) Randy Hough was not the senior State Chapter official present, and
> > > so could not appoint anyone.
>
> > You mean, that some bye-laws would prohibit him from doing so? Or that
> > he did not? I don't know, and so I ask.
>
> > > 2) Of the five Delegates who represented S. CA (other than Hough and
> > > Hanken, who as Delegates at Large may not be substituted for), two
> > > were among the Delegates and Alternates elected by the members. A
> > > third was among the candidates who did not make the top six, a group
> > > to which we almost always defer when appointing substitutes. (By "we,=
"
> > > I mean S. CA; I can't speak for other states.) He, by the way, was a
> > > strong Polgar supporter. The other two were ordinary tournament
> > > players. Note also that S. CA was entitled to six representatives, so
> > > if the Secret Masters were trying to pack the quorum they didn't do a
> > > very good job of it.
>
> > Yes - well, I don't think anyone is accusing anyone else of competency
> > here.
>
> > > For some time, I had a degree of sympathy for Truong and Polgar, sinc=
e
> > > I felt they were being railroaded by trolls like Sloan and Lafferty. =
I
> > > still don't like the trolls, but Truong and Polgar have used up their
> > > credit.
>
> > Did you see what one of these Californians actually wrote of what
> > happened?
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> You're displaying your ignorance, Phil. Under the USCF Bylaws, the
> State Chapter President, or the senior officer present, appoints
> "replacement" Delegates. Randy Hough is not the SCCF President. The
> SCCF President was at the meeting. You could easily have checked this
> on line with even minimal editorial diligence.
you do not reply to my questions. you make an attitude about them,
while (a) not disclosing your OWN relationship to Jerry-Co, and (b)
not answering my last.
ROFL - in short - are you an involved party to the affair, and do you
know what your own Cali 'delegate' recuited the week before, actually
said?
i'm sorry, yours are responses not answers - and as such, i cannot
feel that you have informed the people here of anything honest in
relation to the issue
but i know more than this! you can't answer even this!
ROFL
Phil Innes
ps: you like 'Jerry-co?' as a name for your outfit? fitting, no?
|
| |
Date: 12 Jan 2009 14:28:58
From:
Subject: Re: USCF secrecy and closed sessions
|
[email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 12, 2:31=EF=BF=BDam, [email protected] wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > I see that Chessville has repeated this extract in this weekend's
> > > edition - and also invited responses from current board members to th=
e
> > > Evans & Allburt conversation.
> >
> > > NM board member Paul Truong has replied on the current state of the
> > > board's activity.
> >
> > > see Alekhine's Parrot atwww.chessville.com
> >
> > > Phil Innes
> >
> > I read it. In the first place, the editor really ought to have pointed
> > out that the interview took place almost 20 years ago.
>
> I think the context was that nothing much seemed to have changed - but
> by all means share your views with the editor.
>
> > My real
> > problem, however, is with Truong's reply. He wrote, "We asked Bill
> > Goichberg point blank if he was aware of bribe offers (hotel room,
> > airline tickets, free entry fees, etc.) by his friends to bring
> > various people to Dallas to be certified as delegates to skew the
> > votes. He flat out said no when he WAS copied on many of these
> > correspondences. He and Randy Hough also certified these individuals
> > as delegates from their perspective states."
> >
> > Now, I don't know about New York, but as far as Southern California is
> > concerned, this passage indicates either gross ignorance or gross
> > dishonesty.
>
> If its legal matters you address - are you declaring your own interest
> here?
>
> > 1) Randy Hough was not the senior State Chapter official present, and
> > so could not appoint anyone.
>
> You mean, that some bye-laws would prohibit him from doing so? Or that
> he did not? I don't know, and so I ask.
>
>
> > 2) Of the five Delegates who represented S. CA (other than Hough and
> > Hanken, who as Delegates at Large may not be substituted for), two
> > were among the Delegates and Alternates elected by the members. A
> > third was among the candidates who did not make the top six, a group
> > to which we almost always defer when appointing substitutes. (By "we,"
> > I mean S. CA; I can't speak for other states.) He, by the way, was a
> > strong Polgar supporter. The other two were ordinary tournament
> > players. Note also that S. CA was entitled to six representatives, so
> > if the Secret Masters were trying to pack the quorum they didn't do a
> > very good job of it.
>
> Yes - well, I don't think anyone is accusing anyone else of competency
> here.
>
> > For some time, I had a degree of sympathy for Truong and Polgar, since
> > I felt they were being railroaded by trolls like Sloan and Lafferty. I
> > still don't like the trolls, but Truong and Polgar have used up their
> > credit.
>
> Did you see what one of these Californians actually wrote of what
> happened?
>
> Phil Innes
You're displaying your ignorance, Phil. Under the USCF Bylaws, the
State Chapter President, or the senior officer present, appoints
"replacement" Delegates. Randy Hough is not the SCCF President. The
SCCF President was at the meeting. You could easily have checked this
on line with even minimal editorial diligence.
|
| |
Date: 12 Jan 2009 05:39:00
From:
Subject: Re: USCF secrecy and closed sessions
|
On Jan 12, 2:31=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > I see that Chessville has repeated this extract in this weekend's
> > edition - and also invited responses from current board members to the
> > Evans & Allburt conversation.
>
> > NM board member Paul Truong has replied on the current state of the
> > board's activity.
>
> > see Alekhine's Parrot atwww.chessville.com
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> I read it. In the first place, the editor really ought to have pointed
> out that the interview took place almost 20 years ago.
I think the context was that nothing much seemed to have changed - but
by all means share your views with the editor.
> My real
> problem, however, is with Truong's reply. He wrote, "We asked Bill
> Goichberg point blank if he was aware of bribe offers (hotel room,
> airline tickets, free entry fees, etc.) by his friends to bring
> various people to Dallas to be certified as delegates to skew the
> votes. He flat out said no when he WAS copied on many of these
> correspondences. He and Randy Hough also certified these individuals
> as delegates from their perspective states."
>
> Now, I don't know about New York, but as far as Southern California is
> concerned, this passage indicates either gross ignorance or gross
> dishonesty.
If its legal matters you address - are you declaring your own interest
here?
> 1) Randy Hough was not the senior State Chapter official present, and
> so could not appoint anyone.
You mean, that some bye-laws would prohibit him from doing so? Or that
he did not? I don't know, and so I ask.
> 2) Of the five Delegates who represented S. CA (other than Hough and
> Hanken, who as Delegates at Large may not be substituted for), two
> were among the Delegates and Alternates elected by the members. A
> third was among the candidates who did not make the top six, a group
> to which we almost always defer when appointing substitutes. (By "we,"
> I mean S. CA; I can't speak for other states.) He, by the way, was a
> strong Polgar supporter. The other two were ordinary tournament
> players. Note also that S. CA was entitled to six representatives, so
> if the Secret Masters were trying to pack the quorum they didn't do a
> very good job of it.
Yes - well, I don't think anyone is accusing anyone else of competency
here.
> For some time, I had a degree of sympathy for Truong and Polgar, since
> I felt they were being railroaded by trolls like Sloan and Lafferty. I
> still don't like the trolls, but Truong and Polgar have used up their
> credit.
Did you see what one of these Californians actually wrote of what
happened?
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 11 Jan 2009 23:31:01
From:
Subject: Re: USCF secrecy and closed sessions
|
[email protected] wrote:
> I see that Chessville has repeated this extract in this weekend's
> edition - and also invited responses from current board members to the
> Evans & Allburt conversation.
>
> NM board member Paul Truong has replied on the current state of the
> board's activity.
>
> see Alekhine's Parrot at www.chessville.com
>
> Phil Innes
I read it. In the first place, the editor really ought to have pointed
out that the interview took place almost 20 years ago. My real
problem, however, is with Truong's reply. He wrote, "We asked Bill
Goichberg point blank if he was aware of bribe offers (hotel room,
airline tickets, free entry fees, etc.) by his friends to bring
various people to Dallas to be certified as delegates to skew the
votes. He flat out said no when he WAS copied on many of these
correspondences. He and Randy Hough also certified these individuals
as delegates from their perspective states."
Now, I don't know about New York, but as far as Southern California is
concerned, this passage indicates either gross ignorance or gross
dishonesty.
1) Randy Hough was not the senior State Chapter official present, and
so could not appoint anyone.
2) Of the five Delegates who represented S. CA (other than Hough and
Hanken, who as Delegates at Large may not be substituted for), two
were among the Delegates and Alternates elected by the members. A
third was among the candidates who did not make the top six, a group
to which we almost always defer when appointing substitutes. (By "we,"
I mean S. CA; I can't speak for other states.) He, by the way, was a
strong Polgar supporter. The other two were ordinary tournament
players. Note also that S. CA was entitled to six representatives, so
if the Secret Masters were trying to pack the quorum they didn't do a
very good job of it.
For some time, I had a degree of sympathy for Truong and Polgar, since
I felt they were being railroaded by trolls like Sloan and Lafferty. I
still don't like the trolls, but Truong and Polgar have used up their
credit.
|
| |
Date: 11 Jan 2009 14:01:10
From:
Subject: Re: USCF secrecy and closed sessions
|
On Jan 11, 11:49=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> WITCH HUNT
>
> (Thanks to Phil Innes for providing the link.)
>
> =A0NM Paul Truong, USCF Board Member
Here is the full text, unedited:-
This is exactly how things work today. It has not changed much since
GM Alburt was on the board. And it will never change as long as the
same people and their political allies are on the board. Many of the
votes will go straight party line regardless of the merit of the
motion. Is it a coincidence that the same Bill Goichberg, Randy Hough
and Jerry Hanken launched a baseless political investigation against
GM Larry Evans some years back using members=92 money? You decide.
We asked Bill Goichberg point blank if he was aware of bribe offers
(hotel room, airline tickets, free entry fees, etc.) by his friends to
bring various people to Dallas to be certified as delegates to skew
the votes. He flat out said no when he WAS copied on many of these
correspondences. He and Randy Hough also certified these individuals
as delegates from their perspective states. In one correspondence, it
was stressed specifically that they MUST sign up this non-USCF member
before August. Otherwise this person could not become a delegate.
Instead of focusing on how to sustain the membership or how to make
chess so much larger with new members, benefits and revenues, the
board majority abuses members' fund for their own political motive. It
is especially irresponsible in this economy. They will do everything
in their power, legal or not, to oust their political opponents. The
same board members are using members=92 money to defend the wrong doing
of non-board members.
I believe the USCF is losing more than $330,000 this year so far. This
number will escalate dramatically by the time this fiscal year ends.
The same people are doing everything they can to hide the facts from
the members. The USCF just received $400,000 bequests. How much of it
will be left by the time they are done playing politics?
Susan and I have repeatedly offered to open up all confidential BINFO
and closed session recordings. We requested to have our experts
examine the USCF database. The same board majority rejected these
ideas. They also purposely hide critical evidence from everyone,
including the court.
A lot of the facts will come out shortly in the proper venue. I do not
believe they can continue withholding information.
----
Here below is [extract] what Larry Parr writes about the previous
issue:
> Poor Judgment?
>
> GM Evans and others have criticized Goichberg's judgment in light not
> only of =A0Evans' exoneration but also of Goichberg's methodology.
> States Evans, "I also
> received a hit letter from San Luis Obispo and simply took the
> envelope to a
> photocopy store and asked a clerk if the label was an original or a
> copy. The clerk answered in about five seconds -- it was an original.
> Then, I contacted an eminent police documents examiner and received
> his opinion that it was an original. The cost was only $50 -- not the
> $670 billed to the USCF!"
>
> Goichberg critics argue that before pressuring the Policy Board to
> undertake what turned out to be a baseless and, they say, embarrassing
> investigatioon, he ought to have done his homework like Evans did.
> Says Goichberg in reply, "I acted on the basis of a reasonable theory.
> The theory was obviously mistaken, but there was no attempt to
> manufacture evidence."
I just interrupt to note those phrases:
"a baseless and, they say, embarrassing investigation,"
followed by what Goichberg said then:
"I acted on the basis of a reasonable theory. The theory was obviously
mistaken, but there was no attempt to manufacture evidence."
So much for theory! And this time, the very heart of it all is the
last phrase, "there was no attempt to manufacture evidence."
> One Goichberg supporter says, "Look, Bill got caught up in Jerry
> Hanken's witch-hunt hysteria. McCarthyism has no place in chess.
Gosh - I note I am not the first to use the term McCarthyism in terms
of USCF activity 0 I hadn't noted that before.
> I
> know that. But Goichberg is an institution, and he shouldn't be judged
> by this single lapse any more than we should condemn Denis Barry for
> once opposing no-smoking rules in tournaments."
> -- Larry Parr
So... when might Gocihberg be judged? If this is no longer a single
act?
We cannot know since the very material in question is claimed to be
secret by USCF - since its apologists say it is now de jure - the vry
matter of the law suits.
A legal tautological argument, and too infamous to comment upon eh?
Readers should note that the entire context here - initially from
Evans, then from Alburt, as consistently raised by Larry Parr, and in
this instance by myself, is the one of openness or transparency.
I think it is not even so that we who ask for transparency can judge
things - but that all members of USCF and its delegates around the
country can make up their own minds.
This subject has been attacked non-stop by people in this newsgroup
who, in my experience of raising the issue elsewhere, to more people
than even read chess life, resent members knowing anything, and hence
cannot ask their delegates to act for their interests.
In short, cynical writers here, and only here =3D about 10 of them =3D act
to represent a minority view so small that it hardly represents any
measurable opinion. Is it necessary to even illustrate their owen
standards?
Parents who would care for who decides what for their children in
chess are all 'bible-thumpers'.
We also here about transparency, who not in this issue! I failed to
attach any individual comment to someone running for the board about
their own transparency in 2 examples of their own behavior.
Reading these newsgroup one might think this representative of some
public opinion generally, but the truth of it is that this is the only
place left to represent such opinion, since it has been rejected in
moderated forums.
Those still caring to speak here are derided for their opinion as in
the 'bible thumping' charactgerization, whereas one was merely
mentioning those who would actively and passively diddle with our
chess kids.
Phil Innes
> [email protected] wrote:
> > I see that Chessville has repeated this extract in this weekend's
> > edition - and also invited responses from current board members to the
> > Evans & Allburt conversation.
>
> > NM board member Paul Truong has replied on the current state of the
> > board's activity.
>
> > see Alekhine's Parrot atwww.chessville.com
>
> > Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 11 Jan 2009 08:49:59
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: USCF secrecy and closed sessions
|
WITCH HUNT
(Thanks to Phil Innes for providing the link.)
NM Paul Truong, USCF Board Member
This is exactly how things work today. It has not changed much since
GM Alburt was on the board. And it will never change as long as the
same people and their political allies are on the board. Many of the
votes will go straight party line regardless of the merit of the
motion. Is it a coincidence that the same Bill Goichberg, Randy Hough
and Jerry Hanken launched a baseless political investigation against
GM Larry Evans some years back using members=92 money? You decide.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
From: Larry Parr
Date: 1998/04/24
Subject: Goichberg's Poor Judgment
[The following item appeared in the USCF Delegates Newsletter, an
independent publication of the Friends of the USCF (Volume 2,
number 1, May-June 1993.]
GOICHBERG DEFENDS PERSONAL JUDGMENT -- PROMISES MORE OF SAME
NEW WINDSOR, N.Y., APRIL. 12--In a telephone interview of April 11,
USCF
presidential candidate William Goichberg denied using poor judgment
when
pressuring the USCF Policy Board to allocate up to $1,000 to
investigate five-
time U.S. chess champion Larry Evans. If elected, Mr. Goichberg
pledged to
employ the same standards of judgment on other questions.
"The only thing that I would do differently," said Goichberg, "is to
investigate suspects at private expense, since we felt obliged to
reimburse the USCF for the Pinkerton bills after the findings
disproved my theory about Evans."
Questions about Goichberg's judgment have arisen after a USCF-funded
Pinkerton
investigation concluded that mailing labels on an anti-Semitic hit
letter from the Eddis-Schultz campaign were NOT photocopies of labels
used by Grandmaster Evans in a mailing of his own.
"What set the whole thing off," said Vice President Frank Camaratta,
chairman of the committee that investigated GM Evans, "was Bill
Goichberg insisting these were copies. The way he presented it, it was
difficult to turn your back on that."
Poor Judgment?
GM Evans and others have criticized Goichberg's judgment in light not
only of Evans' exoneration but also of Goichberg's methodology.
States Evans, "I also
received a hit letter from San Luis Obispo and simply took the
envelope to a
photocopy store and asked a clerk if the label was an original or a
copy. The clerk answered in about five seconds -- it was an original.
Then, I contacted an eminent police documents examiner and received
his opinion that it was an original. The cost was only $50 -- not the
$670 billed to the USCF!"
Goichberg critics argue that before pressuring the Policy Board to
undertake what turned out to be a baseless and, they say, embarrassing
investigatioon, he ought to have done his homework like Evans did.
Says Goichberg in reply, "I acted on the basis of a reasonable theory.
The theory was obviously mistaken, but there was no attempt to
manufacture evidence."
One Goichberg supporter says, "Look, Bill got caught up in Jerry
Hanken's witch-hunt hysteria. McCarthyism has no place in chess. I
know that. But Goichberg is an institution, and he shouldn't be judged
by this single lapse any more than we should condemn Denis Barry for
once opposing no-smoking rules in tournaments."
-- Larry Parr
[email protected] wrote:
> I see that Chessville has repeated this extract in this weekend's
> edition - and also invited responses from current board members to the
> Evans & Allburt conversation.
>
> NM board member Paul Truong has replied on the current state of the
> board's activity.
>
> see Alekhine's Parrot at www.chessville.com
>
> Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 11 Jan 2009 05:06:42
From:
Subject: Re: USCF secrecy and closed sessions
|
I see that Chessville has repeated this extract in this weekend's
edition - and also invited responses from current board members to the
Evans & Allburt conversation.
NM board member Paul Truong has replied on the current state of the
board's activity.
see Alekhine's Parrot at www.chessville.com
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 10 Jan 2009 06:41:14
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: USCF secrecy and closed sessions
|
THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans. (page 129)
"Is what Alburt had to say in 1989 after completing a three-year stint
on a dysfunctional policy board still pertinent today?" -- GM Evans
P.S. We can thank Harry Sabine, who then served on the board (and was
defeated in 1990 for USCF president by GM Maxim Dlugy) for the
bonehead move to Crossville. Sabine's son apparently needed a job and
was hired by the USCF shortly after the move.
samsloan wrote:
> On Jan 9, 11:20?pm, Randy Bauer <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jan 9, 8:48?pm, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > > Mike Murray wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 08:23:25 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
> > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > > >INTERVIEW WITH GM LEV ALBURT
> >
> > > > Who else was on the Board at the time of this interview ?
> >
> > > I'm not sure exactly when the interview took place, but in 1989
> > > (Alburt's last year on the Board) the other members were Harold
> > > Winston (President), Harry Sabine (VP), Ed Butler (Secretary), Anthony
> > > Cottell (Treasurer), Jim Rachels and David Saponara (Members-at-Large).
> >
> > Wow, that is relevant. ?So typical of Liarry.
> >
> > Randy Bauer
>
> Right. That was back in the Bad Old Days when the USCF was profitable
> and made money, and so is totally irrelevant to the current situation.
>
> Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 10 Jan 2009 01:50:22
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: USCF secrecy and closed sessions
|
On Jan 9, 11:20=A0pm, Randy Bauer <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 9, 8:48=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Mike Murray wrote:
> > > On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 08:23:25 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > >INTERVIEW WITH GM LEV ALBURT
>
> > > Who else was on the Board at the time of this interview ?
>
> > I'm not sure exactly when the interview took place, but in 1989
> > (Alburt's last year on the Board) the other members were Harold
> > Winston (President), Harry Sabine (VP), Ed Butler (Secretary), Anthony
> > Cottell (Treasurer), Jim Rachels and David Saponara (Members-at-Large).
>
> Wow, that is relevant. =A0So typical of Liarry.
>
> Randy Bauer
Right. That was back in the Bad Old Days when the USCF was profitable
and made money, and so is totally irrelevant to the current situation.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 09 Jan 2009 20:53:29
From: Rob
Subject: Re: USCF secrecy and closed sessions
|
On Jan 9, 10:20=A0pm, Randy Bauer <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 9, 8:48=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Mike Murray wrote:
> > > On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 08:23:25 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > >INTERVIEW WITH GM LEV ALBURT
>
> > > Who else was on the Board at the time of this interview ?
>
> > I'm not sure exactly when the interview took place, but in 1989
> > (Alburt's last year on the Board) the other members were Harold
> > Winston (President), Harry Sabine (VP), Ed Butler (Secretary), Anthony
> > Cottell (Treasurer), Jim Rachels and David Saponara (Members-at-Large).
>
> Wow, that is relevant. =A0So typical of Liarry.
>
> Randy Bauer
I think Mike asked who was on the board, if thats what you were
responding to? SOmetimes it's hard to keep these posts straight.
Happy New Year!
Rob
|
| |
Date: 09 Jan 2009 20:20:35
From: Randy Bauer
Subject: Re: USCF secrecy and closed sessions
|
On Jan 9, 8:48=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Mike Murray wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 08:23:25 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >INTERVIEW WITH GM LEV ALBURT
>
> > Who else was on the Board at the time of this interview ?
>
> I'm not sure exactly when the interview took place, but in 1989
> (Alburt's last year on the Board) the other members were Harold
> Winston (President), Harry Sabine (VP), Ed Butler (Secretary), Anthony
> Cottell (Treasurer), Jim Rachels and David Saponara (Members-at-Large).
Wow, that is relevant. So typical of Liarry.
Randy Bauer
|
| | |
Date: 09 Jan 2009 21:04:58
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: USCF secrecy and closed sessions
|
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 20:20:35 -0800 (PST), Randy Bauer
<[email protected] > wrote:
>> > >INTERVIEW WITH GM LEV ALBURT
>> > Who else was on the Board at the time of this interview ?
>> I'm not sure exactly when the interview took place, but in 1989
>> (Alburt's last year on the Board) the other members were Harold
>> Winston (President), Harry Sabine (VP), Ed Butler (Secretary), Anthony
>> Cottell (Treasurer), Jim Rachels and David Saponara (Members-at-Large).
>Wow, that is relevant.
>Randy Bauer
Seems at least partly relevant. Wasn't it Winston who Polgar wanted
to mediate (or was that meditate?) ?
|
| |
Date: 09 Jan 2009 18:48:04
From:
Subject: Re: USCF secrecy and closed sessions
|
Mike Murray wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 08:23:25 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> >INTERVIEW WITH GM LEV ALBURT
>
> Who else was on the Board at the time of this interview ?
I'm not sure exactly when the interview took place, but in 1989
(Alburt's last year on the Board) the other members were Harold
Winston (President), Harry Sabine (VP), Ed Butler (Secretary), Anthony
Cottell (Treasurer), Jim Rachels and David Saponara (Members-at-Large).
|
| |
Date: 09 Jan 2009 09:49:47
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: USCF secrecy and closed sessions
|
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 08:23:25 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
>INTERVIEW WITH GM LEV ALBURT
Who else was on the Board at the time of this interview ?
|
|
