GM Benjamin's Complaint about the US Championship

Main

Date: 06 May 2007 08:45:35
From: samsloan
Subject: GM Benjamin's Complaint about the US Championship

The following is the letter from Joel Benjamin in which he sets forth
his objections to the US Championship.

It was copied by me into BINFO 200700775.

In reading this, please note that Joel Benjamin was the only
Grandmaster who expressed a willingness to play the US Championship
online, provided that the prizes were substantial:

At 11:38 PM 3/6/2007 -0500, Joel Benjamin wrote:

Dear USCF officials:

I am extremely distressed by the recent announcements for the 2007
U.S. Championship. Let me start by thanking Frank Berry for his
generosity. He and others in Stillwater are doing their best to make
something out of nothing. But the USCF is not doing its part.

The $65,000 prize fund (with players paying expenses) is grossly
inadequate. With 32 players (and possibly more) the average prize
will be around $2,000. This is in contrast to that figure serving as
the minimum figure last year!

The proposed $15,000 contribution from the USCF is embarrassing. The
"buy-in" plan makes a mockery of the tournament (though I expect very
few takers anyway). The disbursement of any extra funds generated by
this plan is completely unacceptable. It has to go directly to the
players! The line about "replacement of the $10,000 sanctioning fee"
is fooling no one. You have already announced that Anderson is
contributing $25,000. Does the USCF actually have the audacity to
pocket that money and try to turn a profit on this tournament? I
sincerely hope you reconsider this plan. You will only embarrass
yourselves and enrage the players.

I find it especially galling that some Board members were openly
hostile to Erik Anderson's attempts to organize the Championship,
likely sabotaging a $100,000 prize fund. If any of you thought you
could do better, the fiction is surely put to that notion.

I have played in 23 U.S. Championships, every one since 1981. I have
never declined an invitation, nor even considered not playing. But
this proposed tournament is so outrageous that I don't think I could
participate. Please go back to the drawing board and reconsider.
Don't make me fight you.

Sincerely,

Joel Benjamin

Date: 26 Aug 2007 13:32:22
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Sloan Destroys US Championship

Herbert Vaughn is connecting two entirely different things.

If Mig Greengard wanted to make the connection that he has made, he
would have written "Erik Anderson told me that XXXXX".

Kindly recall that Mig Greengard also reported on the same website
that Erik Anderson had given the USCF a check for $25,000 and we now
know that this statement was not true.

You criticize me for embarrassing Erik Anderson, but all you are doing
by repeatedly bringing up this subject is embarrassing him more.

Sam Sloan

Date: 26 Aug 2007 13:03:53
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Sloan Destroys US Championship

It looks like af4c has done it again.

Take a look at http://www.af4c.com

It says: "American Foundation For Chess, complete information on
playing chess for all levels of chess players."

However, it is owned by another company that is offering it for sale.

How long will it take before that site turns to #### as well??

However, the other af4c domain name, http://www.af4c.org , is still
working properly.

Sam Sloan

Date: 26 Aug 2007 06:06:26
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Sloan Destroys US Championship

After searching Mig Greengard's website, I have discovered that his
statement that he once spoke to Erik Anderson (but not on this
subject) and his statement that Alexander Shabalov spoke to Erik
Anderson and my replies have all been removed.

I suspect that the reason they were removed is that they were not
true. I am certain that Erik Anderson has never spoken to anybody,
other than Don Schultz, on this subject.

In addition, the name of Erik Anderson no longer appears as an officer
of the American Foundation for Chess on http://www.af4c.org .

It seems possible that he has dropped out.

Sam Sloan

Date: 26 Aug 2007 05:19:14
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Sloan Destroys US Championship

[quote="rfeditor"][quote="samsloan"] I never said that pornography was
on the website. Herbert Vaughn did.

Sam Sloan[/quote]

On March 26, Sam Sloan wrote on rgcp:
[quote]Now, the question remains that I was censured and suspended for
pointing out that the Seattle Chess Foundation had #### on its website
and for providing a link to it. [/quote]

This is too easy.[/quote]

Yes, but that was months later after everybody else had jumped in the
bandwagon and written about porn on the website.

I did not start this discussion nor am I the person who keeps bringing
it up. The person who does keep bringing this up is Herbert Vaughn a/k/
a tanstaafl. He brought it up again at the USCF delegates meeting in
Cherry Hill.

I question Bill Hall's judgment in making tanstaafl a moderator.
Vaughn is the last person who should ever be made a moderator.

Sam Sloan

Date: 26 Aug 2007 05:02:48
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Sloan Destroys US Championship

[quote="tanstaafl"][quote="tsawmiller"]... Heresay is not evidence.[/
quote]When a reporter quotes a source, that's not usually called
"hearsay". Mig Greengard reported speaking to Anderson directly,
Anderson is the person that had pledged the $25,000, Anderson is the
person whose organization was accused of using pornography to raise
funds (this part certainly isn't hearsay -- it happened right here on
this forum), Anderson is the person that decided not to donate the
money, and Mig Greengard (after talking to Mr. Anderson) said these
events are related.

Of course, *most* people wouldn't really need Mig Greengard to tell
them this -- cause and effect were pretty obvious. A followed B
pretty quickly and most people can put 2 and 2 together and get 4.

I'll admit that the goddesschess blog isn't a direct report, but it
does report (with Mig Greengard as the reported source) that the
information came to Mig Greengard FROM Mr. Anderson directly.

A direct statement from the sponsor to a reporter is about as definate
a source of information as we'll get.[/quote]

I have just done a search of Mig Greengard's website and EVERYTHING
that Herbert Vaughn a/k/a tanstaafl writes above is a ###.

Nowhere does Mig Greengard ever state that he spoke to Eric Anderson
directly. In fact, he rarely mentions Eric Anderson at all.

I know of noone who has spoken to Eric Anderson on this subject and I
have asked around quite a bit.

Here is the only posting by Mig Greengard on this subject.

http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2007/01/af4c_leaves_us_ch.htm

Note the date: It was January 2007, months before the issue in
question arose. Also, the posting by Mig contains a number of errors.
It says that Eric Anderson handed the USCF a check for $25,000 as a
going away present. Of course, the USCF never received any such check.
The question is whether Eric Anderson ever promised this amount of
money. The only person who actually spoke to Eric Anderson about this
was Don Schultz and Schultz reported that Eric Anderson was vague
about it and did not make a firm commitment. Later, at Goichberg's
request, Schultz called back Eric Anderson and subsequently reported
that it was unlikely that Eric Anderson would be donating any money to
the USCF any time soon.

All this happened in January 2007, months before the issues that
Herbert Vaughn a/k/a tanstaafl raises occurred.

It is well known that Eric Anderson does not like to talk to Goichberg
directly. Those two have not spoken in a long time, perhaps in more
than a year. For this reason, Goichberg has to go through
intermediaries to communicate with Anderson. His two primary contact
persons are Don Schultz and Robert Tanner. We should really bring
those two back.

It is extremely unlikely that Anderson would speak to a muck-raking
journalist like Mig Greengard (who often gets his facts wrong) when he
is not even willing to speak with Goichberg.

As far as the "Chess Goddess" is concerned (Susan Polgar calls herself
a "Chess Goddess" on http://www.chessgoddess.com ) she makes no claim
to have received any information directly from any source. She just
repeats the hearsay that everybody else keeps repeating.

Sam Sloan

Date: 10 May 2007 22:47:55
From: Tommy
Subject: Re: GM Benjamin's Complaint about the US Championship

"samsloan" < > The $65,000 prize fund (with players paying expenses) is
grossly
> inadequate. With 32 players (and possibly more) the average prize will be
around $2,000. This is in contrast to that figure serving as the minimum
figure last year!
>

And why should you losers get anything? Who knows or remembers the U.S.
Chess Champions of the past thirty years? Who cares? Outside of a few
pathetic geeks, nobody else could care less.

So if you want a bigger pot, increase the fees and let each prospective
champion put $2,000.00 into the kitty.

Date: 07 May 2007 14:12:57
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the pivot
Subject: GM Benjamin's Complaint about the bastard Sam Sloan

So you're the asshole who fucked things up. What can anyone expect
from a fucking loser like yourself? The only thing you're good at is
fuck young girls and make babies.

Date: 07 May 2007 14:12:24
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the pivot
Subject: Re: GM Benjamin's Complaint about the US Championship

So you're the asshole who fucked things up. What can anyone expect
from a fucking loser like yourself? The only thing you're good at is
fuck young girls and make babies.

Date: 07 May 2007 13:59:16
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: GM Benjamin's Complaint about the US Championship

[quote="chessoffice"][quote="samsloan"][quote="chrisfalter"]To what
was Joel Benjamin referring when he wrote this?
[i]
I find it especially galling that some Board members were openly
hostile to Erik Anderson's attempts to organize the Championship,
likely sabotaging a $100,000 prize fund.
[/i]
As I review the discussions in this forum, the only open hostility by
a Board member toward the AF4C's efforts that I find is Sam Sloan's
disparaging email of October 12, 2006. (The EB censured Sloan for
this email.) What other expressions of hostility toward the AF4C did
Joel have in mind? Or is it possible that Joel assumed incorrectly
that Board members other than Sloan were hostile toward the AF4C?

I should add that I agree with Joel that [i]any [/i]hostility by
[i]any [/i]Board member toward a long-time, exceptionally generous
sponsor is galling.[/quote]

Many of the players and board members were hostile to the AF4C plan to
play the US Championship online, except for the final match.

Joel Benjamin was the only top player who expressed a willingness to
play the US Championship as a knock-out event online. However, he
wanted the prize fund to be at least $100,000.

Sam Sloan[/quote]

Gata Kamsky also said that he would play under the online knockout
format. We had two positive and two negative responses to our inquiry
from active top players.

Bill Goichberg[/quote]

Kamsky wrote that he would consider playing subject to the condition
that the complete event was played over a two week period and did not
stretch from March to November as announced and that it did not
conflict with his scheduled match with Etienne Bacrot for the quarter-
finals of the World Championship.

However, Kamsky also wrote than since his match with Bacrot conflicted
with the dates of the US Championship, he would not be able to play.

Thus, the only top player who said that he would both be willing and
able to play in the US Championship as scheduled was Joel Benjamin.

Sam Sloan

Date: 07 May 2007 04:40:43
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Sloan Destroys US Championship

On May 6, 10:38 pm, JohnnyT <n...@home.com > wrote:
> Rob wrote:
> > On May 6, 6:51 pm, JohnnyT <n...@home.com> wrote:
> >> Rob wrote:
> >>> Sam Sloan has destroyed the US Open
> >> You are ranting again...
>
> >>http://www.uschess.org/tournaments/2007/usopen/
>
> > JT,
>
> > o rants here. It is a fact that AF4C pulled out because of Sloan. The
> > paltry amount for a prize is an insult. Sam is who we have to thank
> > for that.
>
> Sam did NOT let the domain expire...
>
> But more importantly... THIS IS NOT THE US OPEN

US Championship... Whatever! Give me a break. Sam chose to post
pronography in the USCF Forums in an attempt to embaris Eric Anderson.
You see what his effots got the USCF.

Date: 07 May 2007 17:24:34
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Sloan Destroys US Championship

I see my colleague Rob [which Rob Mitchell?] Mitchell is drawing
considerable flak over his recent posts in resentment of the activities of
Sam Sloan. And rightly so.

Sam Sloan has the right to promote and expose any issue which he thinks
consequent to the governance of the USCF, and that is why he is a board
member and why indeed he was elected, and he has raised numerous issues
which shame the institutional culture of the national non-profit to further
chess to the general community.

Mitchell is at fault for not completing his own criticism of Sloan's
activity - since merely raising these issues is entirely Sloan's right -
more so, it is his responsibility to raise them.

Mitchell might have mentioned that raising the issues as a board member has
the implicit aspect that something would be done about ill corporate
culture, and inquired deeper into what has transpired as result.

Isn't that why we applaud opening up USCF's Vale of Secrets? We expect
something to come of it. As a journalist I challenge much about USCF's
activity, often citing others of the same opinion and then seeking response
from officials to their own responsibility.

---

Now, of course, nothing is so simple, and Rob Mitchell /has/ asked for
accountability in office, and given specific instances - while himself
displaying his own impartiality by his immediately defending Sloan against
unfair actions at Wikipedia - and this immediately resulted in Rob Mitchell
being banned from Sam Sloan's forum.

And of course, it also ignores the fact that for every Dark Secret Sam Sloan
raises, he also suggest 5 other ones which a child of 8 would laugh at as
being based on self-important bombast and ambition.

---

The key 2 issues for candidate Sloan is if (a) he can do other than suggest
his own brilliance by actually deploying remedies for the ills he sees, by
convincing others of their worth. I have not seen any activity on this
front.

The second issue is about (b) his own personal behavior which he will not
even acknowledge achieves substantial resentment when transported to the
public realm - does he even acknowledge that free speech is no synonym for
resposnible speech? Very far from any sense of looking at himself, I say
again, he will not even /acknowledge/ any challenge.

---

What Sloan can do about (a) is a matter of record, which is to say, so far,
nothing.
What Sloan can do about (b) is Rob Mitchell's fault - obviously, since
rather than deal with such matter Erik Anderson &c have raised, Mitchell is
eliminated from consideration for mentioning it.

---

In the little time left in the election process we must therefore assess
Sloan as ineffective as with (a) a polititian, and (b) indifferent to social
effectiveness when it might be he that causes offense.

Phil Innes
Vermont

Date: 07 May 2007 11:55:52
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Sloan Destroys US Championship

On Mon, 07 May 2007 17:24:34 GMT, "Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net >
wrote:

>I see my colleague Rob [which Rob Mitchell?] Mitchell is drawing
>considerable flak over his recent posts in resentment of the activities of
>Sam Sloan. And rightly so.
...
>Mitchell is at fault for not completing his own criticism of Sloan's
>activity - since merely raising these issues is entirely Sloan's right -
>more so, it is his responsibility to raise them.

More importantly, criticisms should be well crafted, written with care
reflecting clearly worded and accurate accounts of properly labeled
events. Common writing tools are available to help with spelling and
grammar. Stick to the facts and eschew empty legalistic threats. That
is, if one wants to be taken seriously.

Now, if one doesn't mind looking like a nut....

Date: 07 May 2007 19:11:37
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Sloan Destroys US Championship

"Mike Murray" <mikemurray@despammed.com > wrote in message
news:3psu33tvjq7ej5s2jpveabvbot9j15g80f@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 07 May 2007 17:24:34 GMT, "Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>>I see my colleague Rob [which Rob Mitchell?] Mitchell is drawing
>>considerable flak over his recent posts in resentment of the activities of
>>Sam Sloan. And rightly so.
> ...
>>Mitchell is at fault for not completing his own criticism of Sloan's
>>activity - since merely raising these issues is entirely Sloan's right -
>>more so, it is his responsibility to raise them.
>
> More importantly, criticisms should be well crafted, written with care
> reflecting clearly worded and accurate accounts of properly labeled
> events. Common writing tools are available to help with spelling and
> grammar. Stick to the facts and eschew empty legalistic threats. That
> is, if one wants to be taken seriously.
>
> Now, if one doesn't mind looking like a nut....

One?

And 'looking like' for some gallery?

The substance of the issue is evaded, and that is standards of public
behavior, and personalities 'looking like' are not any default for objective
standard. This ain't sufficient as a response, Mike.

Phil

Date: 26 Aug 2007 11:28:04
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: Sloan Destroys US Championship

Date: 07 May 2007 07:24:46
From: JohnnyT
Subject: Re: Sloan Destroys US Championship

Rob wrote:

> US Championship... Whatever! Give me a break. Sam chose to post
> pronography in the USCF Forums in an attempt to embaris Eric Anderson.
> You see what his effots got the USCF.
>

Sam did not chose to post pornography.

The AF4C site let their domain expire, it was taken over by
pornographers. This happens all the time.

Sloan did, unfortunately, post a tricky post to encourage people to
press on what was a chess link that became a pornography link.
Certainly not work safe behavior, and definitely in not the best way to
do so in that forum.

This is not in anyway near the same as what your condensed version would
have people believe. It would be better if you were *at least* as adult
as Sloan was. But what would be even better, be more adult.

And those that communicated to AF4C directly, could have been better in
correcting the site and managing the relationship.

But again this is a problem with broken organizations that don't have
trust. You DO have to walk on egg shells with your relationships, you
have to go that extra mile. Because people are looking for any reason
to bolt. You are not helping. Really.

Date: 07 May 2007 06:58:47
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Sloan Destroys US Championship

On 7 May 2007 04:40:43 -0700, Rob <robmtchl@msn.com > wrote:

>> But more importantly... THIS IS NOT THE US OPEN

>US Championship... Whatever! Give me a break. Sam chose to post
>pronography in the USCF Forums in an attempt to embaris Eric Anderson.
>You see what his effots got the USCF.

Rob, get your facts together.

Sam didn't post pornography on the USCF Forums.

He posted a link to the Seattle Chess Foundation site which had been
domain-hijacked by a pornography outfit. I read his post as a
smart-ass attempt to call their attention to it, maybe with the aim of
getting them to do something about it, maybe just to raise a ruckus.

If he had posted something like, "The Seattle Chess Foundation's web
site has been taken over by pornographers", I suspect almost as many
people would have googled the link and clicked on it.

From what I've read, Anderson went into high dudgeon because a later
Sloan comment (after the porn had been removed) implied that the
Seattle Chess Foundation had been using the porn to generate revenue.
This, IMO, was clearly sarcasm on Sloan's part. Ill-advised, sure, at
least in retrospect, since Sloan was a USCF director when he made the
quip. After all, the rich are not like you and me -- they can take
away large sums of money when their feelings are bruised.

Date: 06 May 2007 21:12:57
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Sloan Destroys US Open

On May 6, 6:51 pm, JohnnyT <n...@home.com > wrote:
> Rob wrote:
> > Sam Sloan has destroyed the US Open
>
> You are ranting again...
>
> http://www.uschess.org/tournaments/2007/usopen/

JT,

o rants here. It is a fact that AF4C pulled out because of Sloan. The
paltry amount for a prize is an insult. Sam is who we have to thank
for that.

Date: 06 May 2007 21:38:37
From: JohnnyT
Subject: Re: Sloan Destroys US Open

Rob wrote:
> On May 6, 6:51 pm, JohnnyT <n...@home.com> wrote:
>> Rob wrote:
>>> Sam Sloan has destroyed the US Open
>> You are ranting again...
>>
>> http://www.uschess.org/tournaments/2007/usopen/
>
> JT,
>
> o rants here. It is a fact that AF4C pulled out because of Sloan. The
> paltry amount for a prize is an insult. Sam is who we have to thank
> for that.
>

Sam did NOT let the domain expire...

But more importantly... THIS IS NOT THE US OPEN

Date: 06 May 2007 16:28:18
From: Rob
Subject: Sam Sloan," Come on Down"

Whoever knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any
individual to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or in
anyTerritory or Possession of the United States, to engage
inprostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be
charged with a criminal offense, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than five years, or both.18 USCS @ 2422 (1994) @
2422. Coercion or enticement of female "Whoever knowingly persuades,
induces, entices, or coerces anywoman or girl to go from one place to
another in interstate orforeign commerce, or in the District of
Columbia or in anyTerritory or Possession of the United States, for
the purpose ofprostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral
purpose, or with the intent and purpose on the part of such person
that suchwoman or girl shall engage in the practice of prostitution
ordebauchery, or any other immoral practice, whether with orwithout
her consent, and thereby knowingly causes such woman orgirl to go and
to be carried or transported as a passenger uponthe line or route of
any common carrier or carriers in interstateor foreign commerce, or in
the District of Columbia or in anyTerritory or Possession of the
United States, shall be fined notmore than $ 5,000 or imprisoned not
more than five years, orboth.". 1988. Act Nov. 18, 1988 substituted
"or foreign commerce" for "of foreign commerce".

Welcome to the South, Mr. Sloan

Date: 06 May 2007 16:20:33
From: Rob
Subject: Sloan Destroys US Open

Sam Sloan has destroyed the US Open by posting pornograaphy and now
seeks to diverte blame from himself.

He thinks the Mr. Benjamin sent an email only to him and that he is
the only source GM Polgar could have gotted the information. What an
ego inflated bag og beetlejuice.

You are far from the only source of information Sam. And everything
that has happened in the last 50 years in the world of chess did not
revolve around your petulant self.
Rob

Date: 06 May 2007 16:51:24
From: JohnnyT
Subject: Re: Sloan Destroys US Open

Rob wrote:
> Sam Sloan has destroyed the US Open

You are ranting again...

http://www.uschess.org/tournaments/2007/usopen/

Date: 06 May 2007 13:09:26
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: GM Benjamin's Complaint about the US Championship

Take a look at what has happened. This morning, in response to a
question somebody asked about why Joel Benjamin is not playing in this
year's US Championship, I dug out a letter Joel Benjamin had written
two months ago on March 6, 2007 explaining his objections to the US
Championship.

Benjamin sent that letter to me, to the other board members and to the
other grandmasters who had qualified to the US Championship, except
that he did not send the letter to Polgar, even though she is a
grandmaster who is qualified to play in the US Championship.

As a result, Polgar did not know about the letter until I posted it
here this morning.

Now Polgar has taken Benjamin's letter and posted it to her blogspot
in such a way as to create the impression that Benjamin wrote the
letter to her and that he endorses her for election.

Take a look here:

http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2007/05/chilling-statement-by-gm-joel-benjamin.html#links

Already in just the five hours since I posted the Benjamin letter
here, there are 34 replies to Susan's blogspot. Many of these postings
attack Goichberg and Lux. Since it is well known that Polgar deletes
any letters she does not agree with, one must conclude that these
attacks on Goichberg and Lux reflect her views.

Incidentally, there is a secret letter by Polgar attacking Lux that
has been circulating during the past few days. I have not seen it, but
I have heard about it.

I do not know who Joel Benjamin is supporting for election but it is a
safe bet that he is not supporting Polgar. I believe that her use of
his letter is misleading.

Sam Sloan

Date: 06 May 2007 12:43:46
From: Ambassador
Subject: Re: Sam SLoan destroys US Open and post to "dead" newsgroup ,alt.chess

On May 6, 1:30 pm, Rob <robmt...@msn.com > wrote:
> On May 6, 10:45 am, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > The following is the letter from Joel Benjamin in which he sets forth
> > his objections to the US Championship.
>
> > It was copied by me into BINFO 200700775.
>
> > In reading this, please note that Joel Benjamin was the only
> > Grandmaster who expressed a willingness to play the US Championship
> > online, provided that the prizes were substantial:
>
> > At 11:38 PM 3/6/2007 -0500, Joel Benjamin wrote:
>
> > Dear USCF officials:
>
> > I am extremely distressed by the recent announcements for the 2007
> > U.S. Championship. Let me start by thanking Frank Berry for his
> > generosity. He and others in Stillwater are doing their best to make
> > something out of nothing. But the USCF is not doing its part.
>
> > The $65,000 prize fund (with players paying expenses) is grossly
> > inadequate. With 32 players (and possibly more) the average prize
> > will be around $2,000. This is in contrast to that figure serving as
> > the minimum figure last year!
>
> > The proposed $15,000 contribution from the USCF is embarrassing. The
> > "buy-in" plan makes a mockery of the tournament (though I expect very
> > few takers anyway). The disbursement of any extra funds generated by
> > this plan is completely unacceptable. It has to go directly to the
> > players! The line about "replacement of the $10,000 sanctioning fee"
> > is fooling no one. You have already announced that Anderson is
> > contributing $25,000. Does the USCF actually have the audacity to
> > pocket that money and try to turn a profit on this tournament? I
> > sincerely hope you reconsider this plan. You will only embarrass
> > yourselves and enrage the players.
>
> > I find it especially galling that some Board members were openly
> > hostile to Erik Anderson's attempts to organize the Championship,
> > likely sabotaging a $100,000 prize fund. If any of you thought you
> > could do better, the fiction is surely put to that notion.
>
> > I have played in 23 U.S. Championships, every one since 1981. I have
> > never declined an invitation, nor even considered not playing. But
> > this proposed tournament is so outrageous that I don't think I could
> > participate. Please go back to the drawing board and reconsider.
> > Don't make me fight you.
>
> > Sincerely,
>
> > Joel Benjamin
>
> Sam should be very proud of destroying the US open- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I am going to cause DRUG TESTING in the US Open. No more POT at the US
Open. Hookers are ok, just no pot. Got it? I am destying the US Open
becasue the American FIDE Vice PResident to try to make us all pea in
a cup. Your national fired first. The USA attacked St Kitts and Nevis.
It's chess war. Now, drop your PANTS AND PEA!

Marcus Roberts

Date: 06 May 2007 11:30:23
From: Rob
Subject: Sam SLoan destroys US Open and post to "dead" newsgroup ,alt.chess

On May 6, 10:45 am, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com > wrote:
> The following is the letter from Joel Benjamin in which he sets forth
> his objections to the US Championship.
>
> It was copied by me into BINFO 200700775.
>
> In reading this, please note that Joel Benjamin was the only
> Grandmaster who expressed a willingness to play the US Championship
> online, provided that the prizes were substantial:
>
> At 11:38 PM 3/6/2007 -0500, Joel Benjamin wrote:
>
> Dear USCF officials:
>
> I am extremely distressed by the recent announcements for the 2007
> U.S. Championship. Let me start by thanking Frank Berry for his
> generosity. He and others in Stillwater are doing their best to make
> something out of nothing. But the USCF is not doing its part.
>
> The $65,000 prize fund (with players paying expenses) is grossly
> inadequate. With 32 players (and possibly more) the average prize
> will be around $2,000. This is in contrast to that figure serving as
> the minimum figure last year!
>
> The proposed $15,000 contribution from the USCF is embarrassing. The
> "buy-in" plan makes a mockery of the tournament (though I expect very
> few takers anyway). The disbursement of any extra funds generated by
> this plan is completely unacceptable. It has to go directly to the
> players! The line about "replacement of the $10,000 sanctioning fee"
> is fooling no one. You have already announced that Anderson is
> contributing $25,000. Does the USCF actually have the audacity to
> pocket that money and try to turn a profit on this tournament? I
> sincerely hope you reconsider this plan. You will only embarrass
> yourselves and enrage the players.
>
> I find it especially galling that some Board members were openly
> hostile to Erik Anderson's attempts to organize the Championship,
> likely sabotaging a $100,000 prize fund. If any of you thought you
> could do better, the fiction is surely put to that notion.
>
> I have played in 23 U.S. Championships, every one since 1981. I have
> never declined an invitation, nor even considered not playing. But
> this proposed tournament is so outrageous that I don't think I could
> participate. Please go back to the drawing board and reconsider.
> Don't make me fight you.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Joel Benjamin

Sam should be very proud of destroying the US open

Date: 06 May 2007 11:51:46
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Sam SLoan destroys US Open and post to "dead" newsgroup ,alt.chess

On 6 May 2007 11:30:23 -0700, Rob <robmtchl@msn.com > wrote:

>Sam should be very proud of destroying the US open

Don't you mean "closed" ?