| |
Main
Date: 12 Dec 2007 18:51:03
From: samsloan
Subject: Truong's Proposal to Take Over the US Team Selection Process
|
Paul Truong has made a proposal on his own forum which is www.chessdiscussion.com
that basically he take over the US Team selection process. He claims
that the board should not do that because they lack experience in this
matter.
Truong's proposal is obviously objectionable for a number of reasons
but those who have commented thus far do not seem to realize it.
In the first place, it is not true that the board lacks experience in
this matter. Every two years for the past 67 years this issue has come
up and the board has had to decide it. Also, the board was elected and
experience shows that elected representatives are better than
appointed persons. That is why we have elections.
Also, all of the players on Truong's proposed committee are themselves
top players. Obviously, the top players should not decide which among
themselves are sent abroad to represent the US.
In addition, Truong cites his great experience he is always bragging
about regarding the 2004 Woman's Olympiad Team. As usual, he leaves
out the disasters and controversies about that. Much is always said
about the Anna Hahn affair. However, there is a bigger issue in my
opinion. When Truong formed this team, he deliberately excluded four
of the top US woman players, namely Elena Donaldson-Akhmylovskaya,
Anjelina Belakovskaia, Irina Levintina and Anna Gulko. All of them
were higher rated than some of the players on the Truong-Polgar Team.
Are we going to trust Truong and Polgar again to create such a biased
team? This does not even reach the fact that Truong and Polgar were
demanding to be paid $50,000 for "training" that team. The players who
have spoken about that since then have indicated that the training
sessions conducted by Polgar had little value. This is discussed in
the books "King's Gambit" by Paul Hoffman and "Chess Bitch" by
Jennifer Shahade.
Sam Sloan
Here is the posting by Paul Truong on this issue:
The selection of the US Olympiad team members (men and women) and
captains has too many times been a political process instead of doing
things for the best interest of U.S. Chess or this nation. Most board
members have no or little experience regarding this matter. There have
been proposals to make things even more complicated, more
controversial and perhaps more political. Here is the response from
one board member this morning regarding this matter. This was sent to
all board members, some chess politicians and many of the top U.S.
Grandmasters:
Dear all,
This is only my personal belief and I have not discussed with anyone
about this. I hope I do not offend anyone for making the following
suggestion:
I think there should be a professional Olympiad committee to explore
the various options. This committee should include 5 members, the most
successful / experience people in this area.
My recommendation is to ask 5 (or even 7) from the group below to head
up this committee. They all have strong Olympiad credential and
experience. At least two members of this committee should be women.
- GM Yasser Seirawan
- GM Joel Benjamin
- GM Alex Onischuk
- GM Susan Polgar
- IM John Donaldson
- GM Lubosh Kavalek
- GM Gata Kamsky
- IM Irina Krush
- GM Gregory Kaidanov
- IM Anna Zatonskih, etc.
(I did not put WGM Jennifer Shahade only because she is a USCF
employee and I am not sure of the conflict of interest issue)
Chess politicians and the EB should not be involved at all as they can
only make things worse, not better. Being on the EB does not give you
the qualification to make this kind of decision which could impact
U.S. chess for many years to come.
Even being the captain and business manager for the most successful
Women's Olympiad team ever in 2004 and also being a board member, I
would gladly yield to the people who are far more experience and
successful.
There is one thing I would like to caution everyone. We also have to
pay attention to the new Olympiad format. The team will now consist of
5 players (not 6 for men and 4 for women as in the past). There will
be 4 players competing in each match and there is ONLY 1 sub. There is
much less room to maneuver and the wrong fifth player WILL impact the
entire team negatively. The number of rounds has also been reduced.
Therefore, there is even less gin for errors.
One of the biggest problems in chess (especially in the U.S.) is there
are too many people who do not have sufficient knowledge / successful
track records in specific areas wanting to give their 2 cents. This is
the recipe for disaster as we have seen the results for years.
We should allow the professional players to have a strong voice in the
area that they know a lot about. The same goes with scholastic chess,
Internet chess, college chess or other areas of chess. The board
members should be the facilitators and not be political advocators. It
is time for a new USCF.
Best regards,
Paul Truong
|
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2007 17:51:52
From:
Subject: Re: Truong's Proposal to Take Over the US Team Selection Process
|
> Is there some system, cus,which promotes the best US team to
> international competition, that is independent of strength as measured by
> ratings? That is my [unanswered, thus far] question.
>
> Phil Innes
>
Phil,
The ratings systems are generally rigged. What you want is a corrupt,
dishonest rating system
where your business friends can extort money, make death threats, and
talk about how
st they are. Susan Polgar might as well have a fake rating.
It is quite easiy to hold a tournament for the purpose of selecting an
Olymapid team. But, you want
to use that bitch to EXTORT and make death threats. So, I don't think
I am going to help the chances
of allowing an Olympaid to occur in the first place.
Just hold a tournamnet, instead of using your friends to take bribes
by secret committee where the money
can be laundered.
cus Roberts
|
| | |
Date: 14 Dec 2007 08:46:23
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Truong's Proposal to Take Over the US Team Selection Process
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:bc232bda-cc4a-4e92-8c01-42c113d5db83@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Is there some system, cus,which promotes the best US team to
>> international competition, that is independent of strength as measured by
>> ratings? That is my [unanswered, thus far] question.
>>
>> Phil Innes
>>
>
> Phil,
>
> The ratings systems are generally rigged. What you want is a corrupt,
> dishonest rating system
> where your business friends can extort money, make death threats, and
> talk about how
> st they are. Susan Polgar might as well have a fake rating.
You allow me to interupt a moment, cus?
You see, I cannot connect what I wrote about a SELF-SELECTING system by
rating, with even the POSSIBILITY of rigging it. Therefore, it is surprising
that you can understand what I say to mean the complete opposite.
> It is quite easiy to hold a tournament for the purpose of selecting an
> Olymapid team. But, you want
> to use that bitch to EXTORT and make death threats.
I also do not remember raising those subjects. But maybe I was too busy with
a colleague raising money for our latest chess scam? We are selling
time-shares on Io. As you know, this is a moon of Jupiter, a perfectly
respectable planet, and this moon has superb views! Especially since we are
also building one of the largest golf-courses there in the known universe,
87 kilometers long! We got sand-traps, lava-traps, a mini-volcano, the
works. And you could hit your tee-shot 3 klicks with a 9-iron!
> So, I don't think
> I am going to help the chances
> of allowing an Olympaid to occur in the first place.
>
> Just hold a tournamnet, instead of using your friends to take bribes
> by secret committee where the money
> can be laundered.
I never understood that. If you put money in a laundry, doesn't all the
green stuff come off? Then you don't know if you got a one or a ten.
Now, cus, my comments above are as 'freely-related' to your message
as yours are to mine.
The crux of it is: who needs any selection committee at all? And if there is
no committee, then how can anything be rigged? While I haven't read all the
posts here, so far no-one has suggested a reason for a committee to exist or
what problems such a group are proposed to solve.
Phil Innes
> cus Roberts
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2007 13:46:58
From:
Subject: Re: Truong's Proposal to Take Over the US Team Selection Process
|
On Dec 13, 9:31 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:36ea1a1f-74e7-4278-95f0-26139e8cf10c@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > JKH IS RIGHT
>
> > This controversy was aired in letters to the editor of CHESS LIFE in
> > April 1986 when GM Larry Evans said "Funding Yes! Selection No!"
>
> > In response Allen Kaufman of the American Chess Foundation backed a
> > selection committee, stating: "We agree with Mr. Evans that teams
> > should be picked solely on merit, not on money or politics... .As for
> > Mr. Evans' point concerning the separation of selection and funding:
> > the ACF has a one third voice on the whole committee. Why should we be
> > disenfranchised from participating to this limited extent just because
> > we provide most of the money?"
>
> > EVANS' REBUTTAL WAS IN THE SAME ISSUE OF CHESS LIFE (page 40)
>
> > If the ACF agrees with me that teams should be picked solely on merit,
> > then why don't they let merit prevail?
>
> Can someone splain to me why, given sufficient 'activity' and valid
> citizenship, why the best players by rating are not the selectees?
>
> This procedure seems to be a self-selecting procedure, and as objective and
> impersonal a measure as could be wished for. [Can anyone, BTW, not in the
> USA state what their own countries do in terms of selection, and why?]
>
> I further presume that the posited 'committee' have some reason to exist
> which covers a difficulty with self-selection based on ratings. What is that
> difficulty?
>
> This is not a challenge to funding agencies to provide money, impersonally
> distributed, however mcuh they wish, nor is it a challenge to USCF to
> perform whatever management activities it must, including the presumed
> function of asking top-rated players if they wish to take part, and if not,
> substituting next-highest rating into the pool.
>
> Phil Innes
> Vermont
>
> [Psotscript: The tendency for organisations to take over the /orientation/
> of national representation is well known, and that subject is good for
> another message. This one is entirely straightforward attempt to understand
> the need for anything other than self-selection by merit.]
>
>
>
> > Under the guise of patriotism,
> > the ACF politicized a fair selection process that worked. It worked so
> > well, in fact, that the 1982 team chosen by the rating computer
> > outscored the 1984 team chosen by the selection committee. This was in
> > spite of the ACF doubling its cash incentives if our players improved
> > on the previous result. What is this committee's great success? It
> > handed out plums to its favorites and antagonized many of our leading
> > players, who are too poor and too disorganized to protest publicly.
>
> > On January 19, 1984, Jack Peters wrote to Mr. Kaufman that the members
> > of the Masters' Affairs Committee "unanimously opposed a selection
> > committee," while his survey of top players showed ten opposed and one
> > in favor [me]. Yes, I then naively believed that politics could be
> > excluded. The shabby treatment of Seirawan -- depriving him or more
> > than $10,000 in grants -- is a very good reason that this ruthless
> > clique should not meddle in team selection. As Seirawan said bitterly,
> > "It's tough enough playing against the Soviets without fighting your
> > own friends."
>
> > The ACF has a tax-exempt mandate to administer funds in the service of
> > American chess. Period.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Phil
Becasue you are not a USCF member to help guide all of us sinners.
I must say while that I agree, discussing what happened in 1984
doesn't
mean that much. This comes from a 1990's officer, the 1980's is gone.
Our political history comes from current events, not 1984.
I agree that the system tends to "line the pockets" of Bill
Gocichberg,
The more power you give him, the more favors he is owed.
cus Roberts
|
| | |
Date: 13 Dec 2007 17:24:22
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Truong's Proposal to Take Over the US Team Selection Process
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:77b18036-343c-43a2-a39f-94a0dd05534f@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> Becasue you are not a USCF member to help guide all of us sinners.
I am not a member for ethical reasons.
> I must say while that I agree, discussing what happened in 1984
> doesn't
> mean that much.
I did not mention 1984
> This comes from a 1990's officer, the 1980's is gone.
> Our political history comes from current events, not 1984.
>
> I agree that the system tends to "line the pockets" of Bill
> Gocichberg,
> The more power you give him, the more favors he is owed.
Is there some system, cus,which promotes the best US team to
international competition, that is independent of strength as measured by
ratings? That is my [unanswered, thus far] question.
Phil Innes
> cus Roberts
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2007 06:51:30
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Truong's Proposal to Take Over the US Team Selection Process
|
[email protected] wrote:
> samsloan wrote:
> > Paul Truong has made a proposal on his own forum which is www.chessdiscussion.com
> > that basically he take over the US Team selection process. He claims
> > that the board should not do that because they lack experience in this
> > matter.
> >
> > Truong's proposal is obviously objectionable for a number of reasons
> > but those who have commented thus far do not seem to realize it.
> >
> > In the first place, it is not true that the board lacks experience in
> >
>
> You are misstating the situation (as does Truong, by the way). For
> most Olympiads in the last 20 years or so (I won't say "all," since
> you might be able to find an isolated exception), the teams have been
> chosen by pre-announced selection criteria. It is true the the PB/EB
> had to approve the formulas, but that's a far cry from "deciding" the
> team. (Even if they wanted to, ratings could change before the
> deadline.) The only time there was any talk of a "selection committee"
> was during the first Redman administration, around 1984, when the ACF
> tried strongarm tactics. There was so much opposition that Redman and
> the ACF backed off.
>
> Truong is probably correct that the USCF should take another look at
> the selection criteria in light of the new format, but turning it over
> to a committee (either of politicians or of players) is most likely a
> non-starter.
JKH IS RIGHT
This controversy was aired in letters to the editor of CHESS LIFE in
April 1986 when GM Larry Evans said "Funding Yes! Selection No!"
In response Allen Kaufman of the American Chess Foundation backed a
selection committee, stating: "We agree with Mr. Evans that teams
should be picked solely on merit, not on money or politics... .As for
Mr. Evans' point concerning the separation of selection and funding:
the ACF has a one third voice on the whole committee. Why should we be
disenfranchised from participating to this limited extent just because
we provide most of the money?"
EVANS' REBUTTAL WAS IN THE SAME ISSUE OF CHESS LIFE (page 40)
If the ACF agrees with me that teams should be picked solely on merit,
then why don't they let merit prevail? Under the guise of patriotism,
the ACF politicized a fair selection process that worked. It worked so
well, in fact, that the 1982 team chosen by the rating computer
outscored the 1984 team chosen by the selection committee. This was in
spite of the ACF doubling its cash incentives if our players improved
on the previous result. What is this committee's great success? It
handed out plums to its favorites and antagonized many of our leading
players, who are too poor and too disorganized to protest publicly.
On January 19, 1984, Jack Peters wrote to Mr. Kaufman that the members
of the Masters' Affairs Committee "unanimously opposed a selection
committee," while his survey of top players showed ten opposed and one
in favor [me]. Yes, I then naively believed that politics could be
excluded. The shabby treatment of Seirawan -- depriving him or more
than $10,000 in grants -- is a very good reason that this ruthless
clique should not meddle in team selection. As Seirawan said bitterly,
"It's tough enough playing against the Soviets without fighting your
own friends."
The ACF has a tax-exempt mandate to administer funds in the service of
American chess. Period.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Dec 2007 10:31:30
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Truong's Proposal to Take Over the US Team Selection Process
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:36ea1a1f-74e7-4278-95f0-26139e8cf10c@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> JKH IS RIGHT
>
> This controversy was aired in letters to the editor of CHESS LIFE in
> April 1986 when GM Larry Evans said "Funding Yes! Selection No!"
>
> In response Allen Kaufman of the American Chess Foundation backed a
> selection committee, stating: "We agree with Mr. Evans that teams
> should be picked solely on merit, not on money or politics... .As for
> Mr. Evans' point concerning the separation of selection and funding:
> the ACF has a one third voice on the whole committee. Why should we be
> disenfranchised from participating to this limited extent just because
> we provide most of the money?"
>
> EVANS' REBUTTAL WAS IN THE SAME ISSUE OF CHESS LIFE (page 40)
>
> If the ACF agrees with me that teams should be picked solely on merit,
> then why don't they let merit prevail?
Can someone splain to me why, given sufficient 'activity' and valid
citizenship, why the best players by rating are not the selectees?
This procedure seems to be a self-selecting procedure, and as objective and
impersonal a measure as could be wished for. [Can anyone, BTW, not in the
USA state what their own countries do in terms of selection, and why?]
I further presume that the posited 'committee' have some reason to exist
which covers a difficulty with self-selection based on ratings. What is that
difficulty?
This is not a challenge to funding agencies to provide money, impersonally
distributed, however mcuh they wish, nor is it a challenge to USCF to
perform whatever management activities it must, including the presumed
function of asking top-rated players if they wish to take part, and if not,
substituting next-highest rating into the pool.
Phil Innes
Vermont
[Psotscript: The tendency for organisations to take over the /orientation/
of national representation is well known, and that subject is good for
another message. This one is entirely straightforward attempt to understand
the need for anything other than self-selection by merit.]
> Under the guise of patriotism,
> the ACF politicized a fair selection process that worked. It worked so
> well, in fact, that the 1982 team chosen by the rating computer
> outscored the 1984 team chosen by the selection committee. This was in
> spite of the ACF doubling its cash incentives if our players improved
> on the previous result. What is this committee's great success? It
> handed out plums to its favorites and antagonized many of our leading
> players, who are too poor and too disorganized to protest publicly.
>
> On January 19, 1984, Jack Peters wrote to Mr. Kaufman that the members
> of the Masters' Affairs Committee "unanimously opposed a selection
> committee," while his survey of top players showed ten opposed and one
> in favor [me]. Yes, I then naively believed that politics could be
> excluded. The shabby treatment of Seirawan -- depriving him or more
> than $10,000 in grants -- is a very good reason that this ruthless
> clique should not meddle in team selection. As Seirawan said bitterly,
> "It's tough enough playing against the Soviets without fighting your
> own friends."
>
> The ACF has a tax-exempt mandate to administer funds in the service of
> American chess. Period.
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2007 06:45:57
From:
Subject: Re: Truong's Proposal to Take Over the US Team Selection Process
|
> > samsloan wrote:
> > > In addition, Truong cites his great experience he is always bragging
> > > about regarding the 2004 Woman's Olympiad Team. As usual, he leaves
> > > out the disasters and controversies about that. Much is always said
> > > about the Anna Hahn affair. However, there is a bigger issue in my
> > > opinion. When Truong formed this team, he deliberately excluded four
> > > of the top US woman players, namely Elena Donaldson-Akhmylovskaya,
> > > Anjelina Belakovskaia, Irina Levintina and Anna Gulko.
Frankly that entire affair a tragedy, one that convinced me not to
renew my
USCF membership and I have remained a non-member ever since as a
result.
For what it's worth, the Only percieved benefits I was recieving as a
member
were a second rate magazine published at erratic intervals an a good
feeling
that I was doing at least a small bit to support chess in the US. The
blatent
abuse of process in that incident which resulted from politics and
favoritism
entering into the selection process was just disgusting.
As a non-member I can't expect my opinion to have any weight but for
what
is worth I think that the Only fair and reasonable selection criteria
should be
based on Quantifiable Performance Metrics publicised Far In Advance
with
no wiggle room whatsoever. These criteria should be published for
review
prior to implementation and would be designed to be a measure of
proven
ability not some theory based on personal views regarding potential
results
in the event or personality issues.
If a trainer or trainers are desired these should be selected from
among the
many options available with a eye toward avoiding individuals with
political
ambitions or other agenda beyond preparing the team for the
competition.
The same would apply to coaches and other support people as well.
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2007 21:17:32
From:
Subject: Re: Truong's Proposal to Take Over the US Team Selection Process
|
On Dec 12, 10:35 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> samsloan wrote:
> > Paul Truong has made a proposal on his own forum which iswww.chessdiscussion.com
> > that basically he take over the US Team selection process. He claims
> > that the board should not do that because they lack experience in this
> > matter.
>
> > Truong's proposal is obviously objectionable for a number of reasons
> > but those who have commented thus far do not seem to realize it.
>
> > In the first place, it is not true that the board lacks experience in
> > this matter. Every two years for the past 67 years this issue has come
> > up and the board has had to decide it. Also, the board was elected and
> > experience shows that elected representatives are better than
> > appointed persons. That is why we have elections.
>
> > Also, all of the players on Truong's proposed committee are themselves
> > top players. Obviously, the top players should not decide which among
> > themselves are sent abroad to represent the US.
>
> > In addition, Truong cites his great experience he is always bragging
> > about regarding the 2004 Woman's Olympiad Team. As usual, he leaves
> > out the disasters and controversies about that. Much is always said
> > about the Anna Hahn affair. However, there is a bigger issue in my
> > opinion. When Truong formed this team, he deliberately excluded four
> > of the top US woman players, namely Elena Donaldson-Akhmylovskaya,
> > Anjelina Belakovskaia, Irina Levintina and Anna Gulko. All of them
> > were higher rated than some of the players on the Truong-Polgar Team.
> > Are we going to trust Truong and Polgar again to create such a biased
> > team? This does not even reach the fact that Truong and Polgar were
> > demanding to be paid $50,000 for "training" that team. The players who
> > have spoken about that since then have indicated that the training
> > sessions conducted by Polgar had little value. This is discussed in
> > the books "King's Gambit" by Paul Hoffman and "Chess Bitch" by
> > Jennifer Shahade.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> > Here is the posting by Paul Truong on this issue:
>
> > The selection of the US Olympiad team members (men and women) and
> > captains has too many times been a political process instead of doing
> > things for the best interest of U.S. Chess or this nation. Most board
> > members have no or little experience regarding this matter. There have
> > been proposals to make things even more complicated, more
> > controversial and perhaps more political. Here is the response from
> > one board member this morning regarding this matter. This was sent to
> > all board members, some chess politicians and many of the top U.S.
> > Grandmasters:
>
> > Dear all,
>
> > This is only my personal belief and I have not discussed with anyone
> > about this. I hope I do not offend anyone for making the following
> > suggestion:
>
> > I think there should be a professional Olympiad committee to explore
> > the various options. This committee should include 5 members, the most
> > successful / experience people in this area.
>
> > My recommendation is to ask 5 (or even 7) from the group below to head
> > up this committee. They all have strong Olympiad credential and
> > experience. At least two members of this committee should be women.
>
> > - GM Yasser Seirawan
> > - GM Joel Benjamin
> > - GM Alex Onischuk
> > - GM Susan Polgar
> > - IM John Donaldson
> > - GM Lubosh Kavalek
> > - GM Gata Kamsky
> > - IM Irina Krush
> > - GM Gregory Kaidanov
> > - IM Anna Zatonskih, etc.
> > (I did not put WGM Jennifer Shahade only because she is a USCF
> > employee and I am not sure of the conflict of interest issue)
>
> > Chess politicians and the EB should not be involved at all as they can
> > only make things worse, not better. Being on the EB does not give you
> > the qualification to make this kind of decision which could impact
> > U.S. chess for many years to come.
>
> > Even being the captain and business manager for the most successful
> > Women's Olympiad team ever in 2004 and also being a board member, I
> > would gladly yield to the people who are far more experience and
> > successful.
>
> > There is one thing I would like to caution everyone. We also have to
> > pay attention to the new Olympiad format. The team will now consist of
> > 5 players (not 6 for men and 4 for women as in the past). There will
> > be 4 players competing in each match and there is ONLY 1 sub. There is
> > much less room to maneuver and the wrong fifth player WILL impact the
> > entire team negatively. The number of rounds has also been reduced.
> > Therefore, there is even less gin for errors.
>
> > One of the biggest problems in chess (especially in the U.S.) is there
> > are too many people who do not have sufficient knowledge / successful
> > track records in specific areas wanting to give their 2 cents. This is
> > the recipe for disaster as we have seen the results for years.
>
> > We should allow the professional players to have a strong voice in the
> > area that they know a lot about. The same goes with scholastic chess,
> > Internet chess, college chess or other areas of chess. The board
> > members should be the facilitators and not be political advocators. It
> > is time for a new USCF.
>
> > Best regards,
> > Paul Truong
>
> You are misstating the situation (as does Truong, by the way). For
> most Olympiads in the last 20 years or so (I won't say "all," since
> you might be able to find an isolated exception), the teams have been
> chosen by pre-announced selection criteria. It is true the the PB/EB
> had to approve the formulas, but that's a far cry from "deciding" the
> team. (Even if they wanted to, ratings could change before the
> deadline.) The only time there was any talk of a "selection committee"
> was during the first Redman administration, around 1984, when the ACF
> tried strongarm tactics. There was so much opposition that Redman and
> the ACF backed off.
>
> Truong is probably correct that the USCF should take another look at
> the selection criteria in light of the new format, but turning it over
> to a committee (either of politicians or of players) is most likely a
> non-starter.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
(I did not put WGM Jennifer Shahade only because she is a USCF
employee and I am not sure of the conflict of interest issue)
Well, if this is an issue so is Shahade's boobies. Paul talked over
and over about her boobies, so why can't she
be on this special committee? Are her boobies too small?
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2007 20:35:38
From:
Subject: Re: Truong's Proposal to Take Over the US Team Selection Process
|
samsloan wrote:
> Paul Truong has made a proposal on his own forum which is www.chessdiscussion.com
> that basically he take over the US Team selection process. He claims
> that the board should not do that because they lack experience in this
> matter.
>
> Truong's proposal is obviously objectionable for a number of reasons
> but those who have commented thus far do not seem to realize it.
>
> In the first place, it is not true that the board lacks experience in
> this matter. Every two years for the past 67 years this issue has come
> up and the board has had to decide it. Also, the board was elected and
> experience shows that elected representatives are better than
> appointed persons. That is why we have elections.
>
> Also, all of the players on Truong's proposed committee are themselves
> top players. Obviously, the top players should not decide which among
> themselves are sent abroad to represent the US.
>
> In addition, Truong cites his great experience he is always bragging
> about regarding the 2004 Woman's Olympiad Team. As usual, he leaves
> out the disasters and controversies about that. Much is always said
> about the Anna Hahn affair. However, there is a bigger issue in my
> opinion. When Truong formed this team, he deliberately excluded four
> of the top US woman players, namely Elena Donaldson-Akhmylovskaya,
> Anjelina Belakovskaia, Irina Levintina and Anna Gulko. All of them
> were higher rated than some of the players on the Truong-Polgar Team.
> Are we going to trust Truong and Polgar again to create such a biased
> team? This does not even reach the fact that Truong and Polgar were
> demanding to be paid $50,000 for "training" that team. The players who
> have spoken about that since then have indicated that the training
> sessions conducted by Polgar had little value. This is discussed in
> the books "King's Gambit" by Paul Hoffman and "Chess Bitch" by
> Jennifer Shahade.
>
> Sam Sloan
>
> Here is the posting by Paul Truong on this issue:
>
> The selection of the US Olympiad team members (men and women) and
> captains has too many times been a political process instead of doing
> things for the best interest of U.S. Chess or this nation. Most board
> members have no or little experience regarding this matter. There have
> been proposals to make things even more complicated, more
> controversial and perhaps more political. Here is the response from
> one board member this morning regarding this matter. This was sent to
> all board members, some chess politicians and many of the top U.S.
> Grandmasters:
>
> Dear all,
>
> This is only my personal belief and I have not discussed with anyone
> about this. I hope I do not offend anyone for making the following
> suggestion:
>
> I think there should be a professional Olympiad committee to explore
> the various options. This committee should include 5 members, the most
> successful / experience people in this area.
>
> My recommendation is to ask 5 (or even 7) from the group below to head
> up this committee. They all have strong Olympiad credential and
> experience. At least two members of this committee should be women.
>
> - GM Yasser Seirawan
> - GM Joel Benjamin
> - GM Alex Onischuk
> - GM Susan Polgar
> - IM John Donaldson
> - GM Lubosh Kavalek
> - GM Gata Kamsky
> - IM Irina Krush
> - GM Gregory Kaidanov
> - IM Anna Zatonskih, etc.
> (I did not put WGM Jennifer Shahade only because she is a USCF
> employee and I am not sure of the conflict of interest issue)
>
> Chess politicians and the EB should not be involved at all as they can
> only make things worse, not better. Being on the EB does not give you
> the qualification to make this kind of decision which could impact
> U.S. chess for many years to come.
>
> Even being the captain and business manager for the most successful
> Women's Olympiad team ever in 2004 and also being a board member, I
> would gladly yield to the people who are far more experience and
> successful.
>
> There is one thing I would like to caution everyone. We also have to
> pay attention to the new Olympiad format. The team will now consist of
> 5 players (not 6 for men and 4 for women as in the past). There will
> be 4 players competing in each match and there is ONLY 1 sub. There is
> much less room to maneuver and the wrong fifth player WILL impact the
> entire team negatively. The number of rounds has also been reduced.
> Therefore, there is even less gin for errors.
>
> One of the biggest problems in chess (especially in the U.S.) is there
> are too many people who do not have sufficient knowledge / successful
> track records in specific areas wanting to give their 2 cents. This is
> the recipe for disaster as we have seen the results for years.
>
> We should allow the professional players to have a strong voice in the
> area that they know a lot about. The same goes with scholastic chess,
> Internet chess, college chess or other areas of chess. The board
> members should be the facilitators and not be political advocators. It
> is time for a new USCF.
>
> Best regards,
> Paul Truong
You are misstating the situation (as does Truong, by the way). For
most Olympiads in the last 20 years or so (I won't say "all," since
you might be able to find an isolated exception), the teams have been
chosen by pre-announced selection criteria. It is true the the PB/EB
had to approve the formulas, but that's a far cry from "deciding" the
team. (Even if they wanted to, ratings could change before the
deadline.) The only time there was any talk of a "selection committee"
was during the first Redman administration, around 1984, when the ACF
tried strongarm tactics. There was so much opposition that Redman and
the ACF backed off.
Truong is probably correct that the USCF should take another look at
the selection criteria in light of the new format, but turning it over
to a committee (either of politicians or of players) is most likely a
non-starter.
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2007 19:55:58
From:
Subject: Re: Truong's Proposal to Take Over the US Team Selection Process
|
On Dec 12, 8:51 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Paul Truong has made a proposal on his own forum which iswww.chessdiscussion.com
> that basically he take over the US Team selection process. He claims
> that the board should not do that because they lack experience in this
> matter.
>
> Truong's proposal is obviously objectionable for a number of reasons
> but those who have commented thus far do not seem to realize it.
>
> In the first place, it is not true that the board lacks experience in
> this matter. Every two years for the past 67 years this issue has come
> up and the board has had to decide it. Also, the board was elected and
> experience shows that elected representatives are better than
> appointed persons. That is why we have elections.
>
> Also, all of the players on Truong's proposed committee are themselves
> top players. Obviously, the top players should not decide which among
> themselves are sent abroad to represent the US.
>
> In addition, Truong cites his great experience he is always bragging
> about regarding the 2004 Woman's Olympiad Team. As usual, he leaves
> out the disasters and controversies about that. Much is always said
> about the Anna Hahn affair. However, there is a bigger issue in my
> opinion. When Truong formed this team, he deliberately excluded four
> of the top US woman players, namely Elena Donaldson-Akhmylovskaya,
> Anjelina Belakovskaia, Irina Levintina and Anna Gulko. All of them
> were higher rated than some of the players on the Truong-Polgar Team.
> Are we going to trust Truong and Polgar again to create such a biased
> team? This does not even reach the fact that Truong and Polgar were
> demanding to be paid $50,000 for "training" that team. The players who
> have spoken about that since then have indicated that the training
> sessions conducted by Polgar had little value. This is discussed in
> the books "King's Gambit" by Paul Hoffman and "Chess Bitch" by
> Jennifer Shahade.
>
> Sam Sloan
>
> Here is the posting by Paul Truong on this issue:
>
> The selection of the US Olympiad team members (men and women) and
> captains has too many times been a political process instead of doing
> things for the best interest of U.S. Chess or this nation. Most board
> members have no or little experience regarding this matter. There have
> been proposals to make things even more complicated, more
> controversial and perhaps more political. Here is the response from
> one board member this morning regarding this matter. This was sent to
> all board members, some chess politicians and many of the top U.S.
> Grandmasters:
>
> Dear all,
>
> This is only my personal belief and I have not discussed with anyone
> about this. I hope I do not offend anyone for making the following
> suggestion:
>
> I think there should be a professional Olympiad committee to explore
> the various options. This committee should include 5 members, the most
> successful / experience people in this area.
>
> My recommendation is to ask 5 (or even 7) from the group below to head
> up this committee. They all have strong Olympiad credential and
> experience. At least two members of this committee should be women.
>
> - GM Yasser Seirawan
> - GM Joel Benjamin
> - GM Alex Onischuk
> - GM Susan Polgar
> - IM John Donaldson
> - GM Lubosh Kavalek
> - GM Gata Kamsky
> - IM Irina Krush
> - GM Gregory Kaidanov
> - IM Anna Zatonskih, etc.
> (I did not put WGM Jennifer Shahade only because she is a USCF
> employee and I am not sure of the conflict of interest issue)
>
> Chess politicians and the EB should not be involved at all as they can
> only make things worse, not better. Being on the EB does not give you
> the qualification to make this kind of decision which could impact
> U.S. chess for many years to come.
>
> Even being the captain and business manager for the most successful
> Women's Olympiad team ever in 2004 and also being a board member, I
> would gladly yield to the people who are far more experience and
> successful.
>
> There is one thing I would like to caution everyone. We also have to
> pay attention to the new Olympiad format. The team will now consist of
> 5 players (not 6 for men and 4 for women as in the past). There will
> be 4 players competing in each match and there is ONLY 1 sub. There is
> much less room to maneuver and the wrong fifth player WILL impact the
> entire team negatively. The number of rounds has also been reduced.
> Therefore, there is even less gin for errors.
>
> One of the biggest problems in chess (especially in the U.S.) is there
> are too many people who do not have sufficient knowledge / successful
> track records in specific areas wanting to give their 2 cents. This is
> the recipe for disaster as we have seen the results for years.
>
> We should allow the professional players to have a strong voice in the
> area that they know a lot about. The same goes with scholastic chess,
> Internet chess, college chess or other areas of chess. The board
> members should be the facilitators and not be political advocators. It
> is time for a new USCF.
>
> Best regards,
> Paul Truong
I am not so certain there are going to be Olympaids in Dresden,
Germany to play in. I have taken a position to halt the Olymapids
on the grounds that they violate Article V of the Olympic Charter. In
your words Sam, FIDE will not all "nig***s or black players."
cus Roberts
Permanent Delegate of St Kitts and Nevis to FIDE
|
|
