Response to Goichberg's Election Recommendations

[samsloan]

[quote="klizzaus"][quote="Joe Lux"]
Expect their last hurrah in numerous mailings, arriving in your homes,
during the next weeks. Emails as well, as both try to put their last
signature on the results of a USCF election.

Surprisingly so, both have endorsed Chuck Unruh of Oklahoma for the
Executive Board. They will agree to someone at the end:
amazing. :wink:

All the best, Joe Lux[/quote]

Bill Goichberg's newest endorsements are now available on http://www.checkmate.us
[/quote]

Thank you for pointing this out. I just finished reading Goichberg's
glowing endorsements of four candidates and vicious attacks on the
other two.

Goichberg should have disclosed that Mike Atkins is a long term
employee of Goichberg and many of the positions he cites were
appointed by Goichberg.

The main reason I am voting for Redman and Marinello even though I
opposed them when they were president is I am certain they are
independent of Goichberg. The ideal board from Goichberg's point of
view consists of himself and six sycophants. I am not accusing the
other four of being sycophants. However, since there has been total
secrecy from the current board I do not know whether they are or are
not.

Regarding Goichberg's attacks on Redman about what happened when
Redman was president in 2001, I attacked Redman for almost exactly the
same things when he was president and indeed tried to start a recall
campaign against Redman on these grounds. However, 2001 is a long time
ago. I am surprised that Goichberg cannot come up with something more
recent.

Also, many of the things Goichberg complains about were done by George
DeFeis, who was not appointed by Redman. The discovery of massive
fraud and financial irregularities under DeFeis was not discovered
until years later. We still do not know whether the disappearance of
over a million dollars in LMA Funds during the period 2000-2003 was
because of DeFeis or Niro, but we do know that both of them were bad.
I would hesitate to blame Redman for all of this.

The main point is Redman is not running for President this time and is
unlikely to become one again, as much as he may dream of a third
Redman presidency.

The attacks on Beatriz Marinello are way off base and some of them are
absolutely untrue. I am a personal witness to some of this because I
attended the FIDE Congress in 2010 in Khanty-Mansiysk, Siberia and the
2012 FIDE Congress in Istanbul, Turkey so I know that these things are
untrue. Goichberg had never in his life attended a FIDE Congress. He
has always claimed that FIDE is corrupt and he does not want to
participate, and does not go for that reason.

Since Goichberg knows nothing about FIDE, why does he make such
sweeping statements and why does anybody listen to him?

The statement by Goicberg that the USCF started an "arbitration
hearing seeking to have FIDE follow its own election rules" is an
oversimplification and misstatement. The Arbitration Hearing was with
Goichberg's backing. The purpose was to disqualify Beatriz Marinello
from running for FIDE Vice-President. Steve Doyle, who is no friend of
Goichberg's either, was previously FIDE Vice President and Goichberg
did not object that time. I said all along that the USCF was obviously
going to lose because FIDE meetings are conducted in accordance with
Roberts Rules of Order and anybody who knows Roberts Rules knows that
under various provisions the delegates attending the meeting can
change the rules on the spot.

FIDE has often ignored its own rules and the US has frequently
benefited from this. For example, several US grandmasters were awarded
the grandmaster title without making all the required norms or
qualifying under the rules. Basically, Goichberg was trying to win an
election campaign the American way, which is to disqualify the
opponent, the same way he prevented me from running for the board last
time.

Goichberg's plan was unsuccessful this time and Beatriz was elected
FIDE Vice-President.

Sam Sloan

[samsloan]

[quote="William H Stokes"]Just because a candidate offered money (and
nifty pens) to get members to register to vote does not mean that the
candidate will automatically be getting that vote. I believe that
members of our fine federation are not shallow enough to be bought for
five dollars. The honor system worked well at the World Team
Championship where this registration was held. I could have collected
the five spot but, being a registered voting member already, I didn't.
I believe the vast majority of the membership has integrity and the
ability to reason.[/quote]

This is an outrageous misrepresentation.

The US Amateur Team East was organized as usual my the New Jersey
State Chess Federation.

An official of that state chess federation offered $5 to any USCF
member who would register to vote.

Beatriz Marinello had nothing to do with this. However, she was a
player in the US Amateur Team East.

It so happened that none of the other five candidates are active chess
players and thus none of the others were present at the US Amateur
Team East.

It is a bit like when the Democratic Party goes into Black
neighborhoods to organize a voter registration drive. Even though the
organizers do not tell anybody how to vote, they know that Blacks
generally vote Democratic.

Thus, many active chess players will vote for Beatriz because she is
the only chess player who is running.

Is there anything wrong with that?

[samsloan]

The increase in TLA fees was one of many major mistakes by George
DeFeis. The most noteworthy fatality of these fees was Manhattan Chess
Club that stopped advertising as a result and then went out of
business and closed down.

However, it is wrong to blame Redman entirely for this. Again, you
were not there, I was there. At the 2001 Delegates meeting in
Framingham, DeFeis strongly defended these fees. After Redman was no
longer president, DeFeis continued to defend these fees. This proved
that these fees were the idea of DeFeis, not Redman.

Sam Sloan

[b***@gmail.com]

The increase in TLA fees was one of many major mistakes by George DeFeis. The most noteworthy fatality of these fees was Manhattan Chess Club that stopped advertising as a result and then went out of business and closed down. However, it is wrong to blame Redman entirely for this. Again, you were not there, I was there. At the 2001 Delegates meeting in Framingham, DeFeis strongly defended these fees. After Redman was no longer president, DeFeis continued to defend these fees. This proved that these fees were the idea of DeFeis, not Redman. Sam Sloan

DeFeis, Goichberg and I met for over an hour in Framingham after the U.S. Open concluded attempting to convince DeFeis about the stupidity of his proposed TLA fee increases. My recollection was that even after an hour of both Goichberg and I telling him why they were a horrible idea he still insisted they were a great idea.

My recollection (it was in 2001) is that Goichberg said the new fees would NOT be taking effect as long as he was on the board. I think they didn't take effect at least not the way DeFeis envisioned. My recollection is that eventually Goichberg came up with a better more reasonable set of rates.

[samsloan]

On Sunday, February 18, 2001 George DeFies was in a major car accident
in Parsippany, New Jersey, during the US Amateur Team Championship
East. DeFeis had just finished talking to me. He did not seem drunk at
the time but drinking may have been a factor. He ran a red light upon
leaving the hotel parking lot and was immediately hit by two cars
coming in opposite directions.

DeFeis was said to have suffered brain damage but was allowed to
return to work without a thorough checkup. This may have been a major
mistake.

Many of the bad things DeFeis did occurred after the car accident and
the brain injury. However, he was already bad in my opinion because
the subject we were discussing was some critical remarks I had made
about Redman, which he had not allowed me to mail to the voting
members on the USCF mailing list, until he had read them.

He admitted in our conversation that he had never actually read my
letter. This was a long term problem with DeFeis. He did not do the
required reading that any executive director is required to do. DeFeis
often made statements when he did not know what he was talking about.

You are correct that the solution would have been to fire DeFeis. Then
we could have gotten somebody really, really good like Niro earlier
than we did.

The truth is our last three executive directors have been disasters in
varying degrees. Firing one director just to get another one is not
necessarily a solution.

Although Goichberg complains NOW about the bad things that happened
while Redman was president, I did not see him complaining about these
things at that time. I was the one complaining about Redman, not
Goichberg. Now, however, I am voting for Redman.

Sam Sloan

[samsloan]

[quote="jwiewel"][quote="samsloan"][quote="tanstaafl"]
[quote="samsloan"]...
You certainly were not at the 2012 FIDE Congress in Istanbul Turkey
nor at the 2010 FIDE Congress in Khanty-Mansiysk, Russia. I was at
those events and I am not aware of anything Beatriz did to "actively
work against the USCF's official position".[/quote]
It's funny, but a simple check on the history IN THIS VERY FORUM would
prove my point. Among other things, she actively worked agaisnt the
USCF's position in the FIDE presidential election before last at a
time when she had a USCF appointed position.[/quote]

If you mean that she supported Kirsan whereas the USCF had endorsed
Karpov, she had the right to do that. She was a private citizen and
the delegate from Chile and Chile had endorsed Kirsan.[/quote]
I think he was going back a little farther to the time when she was
officially representing the USCF and, apparently actively, asking
other countries to remain neutral betwen Bessel Kok, the person the
USCF was supporting for FIDE president, and his opponent. Afterwards
she was awarded a FIDE post (was it General Secretary for the
Americas?).
http://www.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1170&p=13925&hilit=+Marinello#p13925

Has she been given a spot as an official USCF representative since
then?[/quote]

If that is what TANSTAAFL is referring to, it was before he first
joined the USCF and thus he could have no personal knowledge of the
facts.

He and Harry Payne both have the annoying habit of claiming to speak
with authority over historical events that took place years before
they first joined the USCF and thus could have no knowledge of the
facts. They are trying to influence the results of this election
through their disjointed misrepresentations of the facts.

Sam Sloan

[samsloan]

[quote="tanstaafl"][quote="samsloan"]...
If that is what TANSTAAFL is referring to, it was before he first
joined the USCF and thus he could have no personal knowledge of the
facts.
...[/quote]
You're almost always wrong, so it's no surprise you're wrong again. A
person with your (claimed) knowledge should be able to look at my
membership number and know that I joined nearly 40 years ago, now. I
played in national tournaments more than 3 decades ago. AND I was a
member during the time period I was talking about.

Now, I WILL admit that I'm not sure if it was election-before-last
(which is what I said, NOT the last one) or if it was even the one
before that. I don't think it's that significant. It was within the
past few years and this was since she was last on the EB.[/quote]

So, you admit that you are not sure of the facts or even of the range
of years when these supposed facts took place, but you insist on
infecting members of this group with these supposed facts so that they
will vote against the candidates that you are attacking.

Sam Sloan

[samsloan]

[quote="tanstaafl"]I was right with my original statement. You were
wrong again. But I'm not running for office, so why don't you save
your remarks for something that's actually relevant -- all the
missteps that the candidate in question made AND all the things she
did right (because I've tried to keep a balanced, unbiased view and
recognize her real and notable contributions to the USCF)[/quote]

I have received the campaign letter sent out by Beatriz Marinello and
I find her statements to be accurate.

You have yet to specify what is wrong with her campaign statement.

Remember that I was the harshest critic she had during the years she
was USCF President so I can hardly be considered a friend, sycophant
or supporter of her.

Sam Sloan

[samsloan]

[quote="chessoffice"]If you wanted to see me complaining about the bad
things that happened while Redman was president "at that time," you
should have read http://www.chessnews.org. You can still do so as all
the posts are dated and still there today, just as posted during the
Redman presidency, usually at the time I became aware of new
developments. Nothing has been edited or removed since.

The enormous TLA fee increase, slashing B & E inventory without
cutting staff, wasting over $100,000 on Games Parlor, etc. were
serious mistakes, and cannot be blamed only on the ED, as the Board
oversees the ED, and the Redman Board voted to uphold the TLA fee
increase, to authorize the new B & E policy, and to approve the
relationship with Games Parlor. However, before we put Tim Redman back
on the Board, there is much more that we should be concerned about
other than mistakes.

The Redman Board operated through a political alliance resulting in a
series of 4-3 votes, and he and his team unfairly and viciously
attacked the three non-Redman Board members. See http://www.checkmate.us/Redman13.htm
and click the links for "Savage attacks by Redman and allies on former
USCF President Bob Smith" and "The Redman team plots to disgrace non-
Redman EB members and maintain complete control."

We should also be concerned about Redman's credibility. In the May
2013 Chess Life, he claims (regarding fiscal 2000-01): "Under my
predecessor we had run an operational deficit of $500,000. I cut that
back to $50,000 in one year." This claim is highly dubious, to say the
least, as the CFO under Redman failed to report over $100,000 in
accounts payable to the auditor (these invoices were found in his desk
after his departure), and other discrepancies were also discovered,
followed by the auditor reporting a prior period adjustment along with
the 2001-02 audit. This adjustment changed net assets as of June 1,
2001 from a deficit of $642,895 to a deficit of $911,248, a rather
significant change that Redman ignores. His year as President appears
to have shown a loss not of $50,000 but of over $300,000!

During the 2001 EB election campaign, Redman boasted that his
administration had achieved a surplus of $14,000. Fortunately, the
voters did not believe him, his VP of Finance was overwhelmingly
defeated, and no candidates he supported were elected.

Bill Goichberg[/quote]

If you want to talk about money wasted, what about the $50,000 that
was paid for a two page letter by a former editor of Encyclopedia
Britannica? This $50,000 was paid while Goichberg was president. The
$50,000 letter contained recommendations for the USCF website. None of
the recommendations have been followed. The letter was worthless.

Worse than that, the USCF paid more than $100,000 to have a bunch of
USCF Insiders flown to Florida for a "Retreat". Here is the picture.
http://www.chessdon.com/pictures.htm A total waste. Nothing of value
was accomplished during this retreat. Again, this happened while
Goichberg was president.

The story about the unpaid invoices found in his desk after departure
is also doubtful because the unpaid invoices were found by Frank Niro.
At that time, Niro had credibility and we believed him. Now we realize
that although DeFeis was bad, Niro was even worse. The financial
figures produced by both DeFeis and Niro proved to be purely
fictional, imaginary numbers unrelated to the truth.

You have not addressed the main reason I am voting for Redman. We need
to have diversity on the board. No longer can we have six Goichberg
sycophants on the board. Since 2007, no candidate for election has
been elected without being endorsed and supported by Goichberg. So,
basically, you have just been appointing the board members. Others
have just given up trying to run against your appointees.

It is most unlikely Redman will be elected to a third USCF Presidency,
so why should mistakes made while Redman was president in 2001 (twelve
years ago) be an issue in the election today?

Sam Sloan

[samsloan]

[quote="tanstaafl"][quote="samsloan"][quote="tanstaafl"]I was right
with my original statement. You were wrong again. But I'm not
running for office, so why don't you save your remarks for something
that's actually relevant -- all the missteps that the candidate in
question made AND all the things she did right (because I've tried to
keep a balanced, unbiased view and recognize her real and notable
contributions to the USCF)[/quote]

I have received the campaign letter sent out by Beatriz Marinello and
I find her statements to be accurate.

You have yet to specify what is wrong with her campaign statement.

Remember that I was the harshest critic she had during the years she
was USCF President so I can hardly be considered a friend, sycophant
or supporter of her.[/quote]
How can I refute her campaign letter when I haven't seen it? (You are
talking about something different than her official statement, right?
I'm guessing that because you call it a "letter" and said she "sent
out" the statement)

Since she's left her position within the USCF, though, you've been a
pretty constant supporter. In fact, as I remember the delegates
meeting a few years ago, didn't you introduce a motion to give her a
some money from the professional players benefit fund? Not that I'd
criticize that action -- as I remember, I was in favor of it.

Instead of attacking me, however, why don't you argue against any of
the points that have been made against her. Like the Natrol
Brainspeed fiasco -- that particular gem is all HERS as far as I can
tell. Everybody else, pretty nearly unanimously, complained about
that particular decision.[/quote]

I am surprised that even you would bring that up. No. I did not
introduce a motion to give her money from the Professional Chess
Players Health and Benefit Fund. I had doubts about it but did not
oppose it. She needed the money to pay for a kidney transplant to save
her life. If there ever was a case of real need this was it.

At the 2011 meeting in Orlando, I opposed a resolution to give money
to a chess player who is known to play the horses every day. I did not
feel that money from the Professional Chess Players Health and Benefit
Fund should be used to bet on the horses at the track. Apparently the
delegates disagreed as I was shouted down by Ken Ballou and the chess
player got the money.

Beatriz has admitted that the Natrol sponsorship was a mistake. She
thought it was to be used for elderly patients to combat Alzheimers.
She did not realize that advocates would propose to use it on
children. Everybody makes mistakes.

Sam Sloan

[samsloan]

[quote="wilecoyote"][quote="samsloan"]At the 2011 meeting in Orlando,
I opposed a resolution to give money to a chess player who is known to
play the horses every day. I did not feel that money from the
Professional Chess Players Health and Benefit Fund should be used to
bet on the horses at the track. Apparently the delegates disagreed as
I was shouted down by Ken Ballou and the chess player got the money.[/
quote]

Mr. Sloan, I am not aware that standing at the microphone to speak
against your motion and then stating "I move to postpone indefinitely"
constitutes "shouting down." But, then again, I am not convinced you
and I refer to the same dictionary. My dictionary of choice is the
Oxford English Dictionary (the unabridged edition, if you please).[/
quote]

At the last meeting of the USCF Delegates in Vancouver, Washington,
the entire last day of the meeting was devoted to motions by Ken
Ballou, all of which were voted down.

In other words, all of the delegates could have gone home one day
earlier than they did were it not for the motions by Ken Ballou.

On the other hand, when I tried to raise a perfectly valid issue about
a chess master with a known compulsive gambling habit who is perfectly
100% healthy and who wanted $10,000 from the Professional Chess
Players Health and Benefit so that he could use it to try to recover
his gambling losses, Ken Ballou jumps up and said "move to table".

Because of Ken Ballou doing this, that chess player got his $10,000
and therefore another chess player who really has a legitimate for the
money will not get it.

Sam Sloan

[samsloan]

[quote="Grayson"][quote="samsloan"][quote="wilecoyote"]
[quote="samsloan"]At the 2011 meeting in Orlando, I opposed a
resolution to give money to a chess player who is known to play the
horses every day. I did not feel that money from the Professional
Chess Players Health and Benefit Fund should be used to bet on the
horses at the track. Apparently the delegates disagreed as I was
shouted down by Ken Ballou and the chess player got the money.[/quote]

Mr. Sloan, I am not aware that standing at the microphone to speak
against your motion and then stating "I move to postpone indefinitely"
constitutes "shouting down." But, then again, I am not convinced you
and I refer to the same dictionary. My dictionary of choice is the
Oxford English Dictionary (the unabridged edition, if you please).[/
quote]

At the last meeting of the USCF Delegates in Vancouver, Washington,
the entire last day of the meeting was devoted to motions by Ken
Ballou, all of which were voted down.

In other words, all of the delegates could have gone home one day
earlier than they did were it not for the motions by Ken Ballou.

On the other hand, when I tried to raise a perfectly valid issue about
a chess master with a known compulsive gambling habit who is perfectly
100% healthy and who wanted $10,000 from the Professional Chess
Players Health and Benefit so that he could use it to try to recover
his gambling losses, Ken Ballou jumps up and said "move to table".

Because of Ken Ballou doing this, that chess player got his $10,000
and therefore another chess player who really has a legitimate for the
money will not get it.[/quote]

This needs support in the worst way: "...and who wanted $10,000 from
the Professional Chess Players Health and Benefit so that he could use
it to try to recover his gambling losses...."[/quote]

All chess players know exactly to whom I am referring so it is not
necessary to repeat his name.

Since you do not play the game of chess, you alone do not know to whom
I am referring.

Sam Sloan

[samsloan]

[quote="Grayson"][quote="samsloan"][quote="Grayson"]
[quote="wilecoyote"][quote="samsloan"]At the 2011 meeting in Orlando,
I opposed a resolution to give money to a chess player who is known to
play the horses every day. I did not feel that money from the
Professional Chess Players Health and Benefit Fund should be used to
bet on the horses at the track. Apparently the delegates disagreed as
I was shouted down by Ken Ballou and the chess player got the money.[/
quote]

Mr. Sloan, I am not aware that standing at the microphone to speak
against your motion and then stating "I move to postpone indefinitely"
constitutes "shouting down." But, then again, I am not convinced you
and I refer to the same dictionary. My dictionary of choice is the
Oxford English Dictionary (the unabridged edition, if you please).[/
quote]

The notion that Ken would shout someone down is humorous. Ken is not
bashful about asserting his positions, but he's the height of decorum
when he does.[/quote]

You were on the board and you voted to give this chess master that
$10,000.

Did you realize that you were giving money to a chess master with a
known compulsive gambling habit who is perfectly 100% healthy and who
wanted $10,000 from the Professional Chess Players Health and Benefit
so that he could use it to try to recover his gambling losses?

Since you are such a wealthy person, why do not you reimburse the
Professional Chess Players Health and Benefit Fund for that $10,000 so
that a professional chess player who really needs the money can get
it? (The original money is of course long gone.)[/quote]

I've got a better idea. How about I alert him to this thread and
point out the defamation?[/quote]

Go ahead! He will say that he cried all the way to the bank.

Sam Sloan

[samsloan]

[quote="chessoffice"]Yes, Tim, the financial record under your
presidency was audited and reported in 2001. But the auditors ALSO
reported a "prior period adjustment" for fiscal 2001 in 2002, saying
that due to "Certain discrepancies, resulting in the understatement of
the reported net loss in the Federation's previously issued financial
statements," the deficit at the close of the 2001 fiscal year was
greater by more than $260,000 than they had previously reported.

You now claim that the correct 2001 audited result was reported in
Chess Life in 2005. However, the 2005 Chess Life article ignored the
2002 prior period adjustment! This error was corrected in a 2007 Chess
Life article, which you refer to as "highly political."

Why is it "highly political" to reflect the auditors' prior period
adjustment, but acceptable to ignore the auditors when they report
"certain discrepancies, resulting in the understatement of the
reported net loss in the Federation's previously issued financial
statements?"

Bill Goichberg[/quote]

Assuming that Frank Niro's statement is true that unpaid invoices were
found in a desk drawer, how can Redman be blamed for this? Assuming
that George DeFeis and Frank Niro were both crooks, as seems to have
been the case, how can Redman be blamed for this? Redman was an unpaid
volunteer president who met with the other board members once every
three months. He was not involved in the day-to-day operations of the
USCF.

On the other hand, you Bill Goichberg were very much involved in the
day-to-day operations of the USCF. You even bought an empty lot near
the USCF office in New Windsor so that you could visit the USCF every
day. You are far more responsible for the things that went wrong with
the USCF during this time period than Tim Redman is.

Of course, George DeFeis and Frank Niro were not really crooks in the
traditional sense. They were not stealing money. Rather they knew that
if they reported the huge losses the USCF was suffering at this time,
they would be fired and replaced. So, they hid the losses and reported
profits. Both George DeFeis and Frank Niro claimed that the USCF was
profitable under them. It was not until much later that we found out
the truth.

Sam Sloan

[samsloan]

Post by samsloan
[quote="tanstaafl"][quote="samsloan"][quote="tanstaafl"]I was right
with my original statement. You were wrong again. But I'm not
running for office, so why don't you save your remarks for something
that's actually relevant -- all the missteps that the candidate in
question made AND all the things she did right (because I've tried to
keep a balanced, unbiased view and recognize her real and notable
contributions to the USCF)[/quote]
I have received the campaign letter sent out by Beatriz Marinello and
I find her statements to be accurate.
You have yet to specify what is wrong with her campaign statement.
Remember that I was the harshest critic she had during the years she
was USCF President so I can hardly be considered a friend, sycophant
or supporter of her.[/quote]
How can I refute her campaign letter when I haven't seen it? (You are
talking about something different than her official statement, right?
I'm guessing that because you call it a "letter" and said she "sent
out" the statement)
Since she's left her position within the USCF, though, you've been a
pretty constant supporter. In fact, as I remember the delegates
meeting a few years ago, didn't you introduce a motion to give her a
some money from the professional players benefit fund? Not that I'd
criticize that action -- as I remember, I was in favor of it.
Instead of attacking me, however, why don't you argue against any of
the points that have been made against her. Like the Natrol
Brainspeed fiasco -- that particular gem is all HERS as far as I can
tell. Everybody else, pretty nearly unanimously, complained about
that particular decision.[/quote]
I am surprised that even you would bring that up. No. I did not
introduce a motion to give her money from the Professional Chess
Players Health and Benefit Fund. I had doubts about it but did not
oppose it. She needed the money to pay for a kidney transplant to save
her life. If there ever was a case of real need this was it.
At the 2011 meeting in Orlando, I opposed a resolution to give money
to a chess player who is known to play the horses every day. I did not
feel that money from the Professional Chess Players Health and Benefit
Fund should be used to bet on the horses at the track. Apparently the
delegates disagreed as I was shouted down by Ken Ballou and the chess
player got the money.
Beatriz has admitted that the Natrol sponsorship was a mistake. She
thought it was to be used for elderly patients to combat Alzheimers.
She did not realize that advocates would propose to use it on
children. Everybody makes mistakes.
Sam Sloan

This is an example of the problem with the USCF Issues Forum.

I am attacked every day, several times a day, by Harry Payne and
Robert Vaughn.

Yet, the above posting by me has been pulled with the following
explanation:

"This post has been pulled because it violates the AUG of the USCF
Forums."

"Mr. Sloan, you're well aware that defamatory posts, as well as posts
alleging unethical or criminal activity that are unaccompanied by
specifically identified substantial proof, are not allowed under any
circumstances. Please refrain from doing that again."

"Posts that quoted this post, in full or in part, have also been
pulled, since the original post is no longer available."

Boyd M. Reed
Eastside

[samsloan]

[quote="jwiewel"][quote="samsloan"][quote="jwiewel"]
[quote="samsloan"]...
If you mean that she supported Kirsan whereas the USCF had endorsed
Karpov, she had the right to do that. She was a private citizen and
the delegate from Chile and Chile had endorsed Kirsan.[/quote]
I think he was going back a little farther to the time when she was
officially representing the USCF and, apparently actively, asking
other countries to remain neutral betwen Bessel Kok, the person the
USCF was supporting for FIDE president, and his opponent. Afterwards
she was awarded a FIDE post (was it General Secretary for the
Americas?).
http://www.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1170&p=13925&hilit=+Marinello#p13925

Has she been given a spot as an official USCF representative since
then?[/quote]

If that is what TANSTAAFL is referring to, it was before he first
joined the USCF and thus he could have no personal knowledge of the
facts.

He and Harry Payne both have the annoying habit of claiming to speak
with authority over historical events that took place years before
they first joined the USCF and thus could have no knowledge of the
facts. They are trying to influence the results of this election
through their disjointed misrepresentations of the facts.[/quote]
If you had simply read the link provided you would have seen that it
was related to a letter Beatriz sent out on May 6, 2006 (included in
the first post of the linked topic) and which TANSTAAFL referred to in
his May 12, 2006 post. Also TANSTAAFL joined the forums in 2005.

So your statement that TANSTAAFL could have no personal knowledge of
the facts is false. Your statement that it happened years before he
first joined is false. Your statement that he is trying to "influence
the results of this election through ... disjointed misrepresentations
of the facts" is speculative and, since there was no misrepresentation
done, false.[/quote]

With the benefit of hindsight, most observers now believe that Bessel
Kok would not have been a good President of FIDE. He had already
pretty much dropped out of chess by 2006 and nothing has been heard
from him since.

Beatriz was under no obligation to commit political suicide by
actively supporting a candidate who was a sure looser.

The board at that time consisted of people like Goichberg and Channing
who have never in their lives attended a FIDE meeting and who know
nothing about how FIDE works. They keep on saying that FIDE is a
"corrupt regime". How is it corrupt? On what basis do they make these
statements, since they know nothing about it?

Sam Sloan