| |
Main
Date: 19 May 2007 23:45:33
From: Chess One
Subject: www.chessville.com this weekend
|
dear chess fans,
this weekend we have a blockbuster guest editorial by susan polgar - i think
i have not read its like in 10 years of observing chess commentaries on the
net
we also have a review by 'our own' stephen dowd on MAMS - a highly technical
appreciation of man / computer interactions in chess - the first of two
reviews of the same title 'How to Fool Fritz', both reviewers have PhDs, and
write of issues with substantial technical interest to chess computing
then there is a new interview with randy bauer, a current uscf board
candidate who answers long with 1300 words on specific and testing questions
put to him about his goals, aspirations, and how he intends to go about
achieving them?
then... then [!]
then there is kasparov and adorjan in deep artististic appreciation of the
art of chess - 4,000 words of response to garry's questions on the artistic
precepts for foundations for Predecessor VI - amazingly good writing by
adorjan, who speaks the same direct anguage to his public as found in his
books, to his former pupil, GK - maybe even more forthright!
plus the appearance of regular columnist ray keene, who always seems to
bring chess to life with a resulting sense of feeling enriched after reading
his materials - hardly matters what his chosen topic is - ray keene is one
of the consistently best chess writers in the world
but not to bury the lead - Susan Polgar says very very much in this issue, i
don't think any reader will have read anything quite like this before, and
IMO, not read anything so important - look for her guest editorial
cordially,
phil innes
business manager
www.chessville.com
|
|
| |
Date: 19 May 2007 17:57:23
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: www.chessville.com this weekend
|
On Sat, 19 May 2007 23:45:33 GMT, "Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net >
wrote:
>dear chess fans,
>
>this weekend we have a blockbuster guest editorial by susan polgar - i think
>i have not read its like in 10 years of observing chess commentaries on the
>net
I take it it's not there yet ?
|
| | |
Date: 20 May 2007 01:18:00
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: www.chessville.com this weekend
|
"Mike Murray" <mikemurray@despammed.com > wrote in message
news:u67v439fnred9njvgkr4rla9f9anpgovqj@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 19 May 2007 23:45:33 GMT, "Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>>dear chess fans,
>>
>>this weekend we have a blockbuster guest editorial by susan polgar - i
>>think
>>i have not read its like in 10 years of observing chess commentaries on
>>the
>>net
>
> I take it it's not there yet ?
usually end of Sunday Mike, or as soon as we put it all together. if you get
the subscribed, tho free, newsletter, it cues you to the edition
sometimes it s monday morning - and i get up early 5:00 am to discover
publisher still at it where he is at 2:00am
ha!
phil
|
| | | |
Date: 20 May 2007 20:13:52
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: www.chessville.com this weekend
|
On Sun, 20 May 2007 01:18:00 GMT, "Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net >
wrote:
OK, I've read the editorial and it contains some comments I find
disturbing.
Let's follow the money for a while.
Getting chess formally into the schools is a potential gravy train for
people who want to be coaches and administrators. You want to make a
living at chess without competing for prizes or selling books and
sets? Having trouble getting students because your rating is under
2300? Become a chess coach, salaried by the state, the feds, private
schools. Jobs will open up at the grammar school, high school, and
college level. And you don't have to be a Grandmaster to get one of
these jobs, any more than your average high-school basketball coach
has to be an NBA vet. But you will have to be certified.
Who controls access to that gravy train? Those who own, control or
manage the certification program for chess coaches. Salaries ought
to be pretty good for those positions, especially if they grow into
tenure track jobs at the college level.
Says Korenman: "The certification program... if applied correctly,
should help to clear the problem who can and can not teach chess at
schools....Not everyone can coach basketball or tennis at schools, but
anyone can be a chess coach. It should be changed."
But you better tread lightly when dealing with the certification
folks:
Says Korenman: "USCF should use the organizational right to take
membership away from people who proved to be problem-makers."
Says Polgar: " In major sports such as the NBA, NFL, MLB, etc., if
players say derogatory things about other players, about league
officials or the sponsors, the players would get fined and sometimes
even suspended."
If you tick off the power structure, you can be kicked out of the
USCF, can't play in tournaments, can't teach. Is that what this
means?
Paul Truong states the USCF shouldn't control certification -- this
should be left in the hands of one of the various private foundations:
Truong: "In regards to developing standards and certifications for
chess teachers, I do not think the USCF should be investing the time
and resource to do this.... it is better to reach out and partner up
with organizations like the AF4C, the SPF or the Karpov School of
Chess, etc. It is better to leave it to the hands of the experts."
|
| | | | |
Date: 21 May 2007 10:21:36
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: www.chessville.com this weekend
|
"Mike Murray" <mikemurray@despammed.com > wrote in message
news:s512539hdqqdhutcaej810s89d0i0fad17@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 May 2007 01:18:00 GMT, "Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> OK, I've read the editorial and it contains some comments I find
> disturbing.
Mike, there are two pertinent interviews - I think the one you selected was
the initial interview offered to all board candidates who were prepared to
write their answers. In effect all board candidates answer same questions.
The new interview is with Randy Bauer [RB], who Answers individualised
questions posed to him. Mikhail Korenman has also done the same.
The Susan Polgar article is not in response to questions, and is a guest
editorial.
Perhaps in RB's Answers there is more detail, or address, to your comments
below? I think you raise some interesting points, and in fact, the question
sets were designed to get at them, since they are all important issues which
rarely achieve more than sound-bite answers. I think at least we can review
what individual candidates think on each one, from their own perspectives,
and also the variety of opinions and options expressed.
I hope the Question and Answer sets will stimulate more public dialog -
because, you see, these questions have been ignored by politics-as-usual,
who either make long speeches about their past records [sometimes on related
subjects] which are responses rather than answers - or as in one case, a
politico became angry with me because I didn't want to report his response
about 'jackets'. [The questions was why Scholastic members don't stay in the
game] But at least talk of jackets was something - mostly these questions
are entirely buried or lack any response, since no one seems to believe
there IS a future that is worth attending to in such detail - especially
established politicos ;(
Phil Innes
> Let's follow the money for a while.
>
> Getting chess formally into the schools is a potential gravy train for
> people who want to be coaches and administrators. You want to make a
> living at chess without competing for prizes or selling books and
> sets? Having trouble getting students because your rating is under
> 2300? Become a chess coach, salaried by the state, the feds, private
> schools. Jobs will open up at the grammar school, high school, and
> college level. And you don't have to be a Grandmaster to get one of
> these jobs, any more than your average high-school basketball coach
> has to be an NBA vet. But you will have to be certified.
>
> Who controls access to that gravy train? Those who own, control or
> manage the certification program for chess coaches. Salaries ought
> to be pretty good for those positions, especially if they grow into
> tenure track jobs at the college level.
>
> Says Korenman: "The certification program... if applied correctly,
> should help to clear the problem who can and can not teach chess at
> schools....Not everyone can coach basketball or tennis at schools, but
> anyone can be a chess coach. It should be changed."
>
> But you better tread lightly when dealing with the certification
> folks:
>
> Says Korenman: "USCF should use the organizational right to take
> membership away from people who proved to be problem-makers."
>
> Says Polgar: " In major sports such as the NBA, NFL, MLB, etc., if
> players say derogatory things about other players, about league
> officials or the sponsors, the players would get fined and sometimes
> even suspended."
>
> If you tick off the power structure, you can be kicked out of the
> USCF, can't play in tournaments, can't teach. Is that what this
> means?
>
> Paul Truong states the USCF shouldn't control certification -- this
> should be left in the hands of one of the various private foundations:
>
> Truong: "In regards to developing standards and certifications for
> chess teachers, I do not think the USCF should be investing the time
> and resource to do this.... it is better to reach out and partner up
> with organizations like the AF4C, the SPF or the Karpov School of
> Chess, etc. It is better to leave it to the hands of the experts."
>
>
|
| | | | | |
Date: 21 May 2007 06:35:51
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: www.chessville.com this weekend
|
On Mon, 21 May 2007 10:21:36 GMT, "Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net >
wrote:
>Mike, there are two pertinent interviews - I think the one you selected was
>the initial interview offered to all board candidates who were prepared to
>write their answers. In effect all board candidates answer same questions.
I did read the Polgar guest editorial, but it seemed to rehash
comments she has made on her blog and other places. The threats to
her and to her familiy are, of course, criminal, and should be handled
by law enforcement.
|
|
