USCF Election 2011

I will run again for election for the USCF Executive Board in 2011.  Three seats are open, each having a three-year term.  I'd like to begin the 2011 campaign by quoting two former USCF Presidents from the past couple of days:

by redman on Thu Oct 21, 2010 1:14

* * *

Some may be surprised at the following.

I support enthusiastically Gary Walters in his bid for reelection to the Executive Board.

We were on completely opposite sides on the FIDE question in Irvine, but open and honest disagreement has never bothered me. Gary is exactly the kind of person we need on our EB.

Cordially,

Tim Redman
___________________________________________

by CHESSDON on Fri Oct 22, 2010

* * *

It seems to me we have some very good candidates including the three rollovers from the current board. One candidate I will definitely vote for and would like to see as a possible future president is Gary Walters!


Don Schultz

USCF Special Election 2010: John Hillery of Western Chess (Southern California)

John Hillery has recommended me and Mike Nietman for the Executive Board in the 2010 Special Election.  See his comments here.  USCF members should have their ballots by now. 

USCF Special Election 2010: Vote!

If you're a USCF member, in the next week to ten days you should receive your ballot for the 2010 Special Election. Three persons are running for two seats. I am one of them. More important than voting for me is that you vote. While it's generally true that voting rights should be exercised, here there's a specific reason to exercise your vote. The USCF adopted one member, one vote (OMOV) a number of years ago. This procedure gives USCF's members the right to elect the Executive Board. It's my belief that the USCF will be a stronger organization to the extent that its members have the right to vote, and they take some modest amount of time to inform that vote. Please know that OMOV is not universally popular, and many feel that the USCF is better off with state delegates making the Executive Board selctions. I don't agree. USCF governance decisions do impact the game of chess in this country and the USCF's members should have a say in those decisions. You may not feel governance decisions at the board when playing a game, but the choices matter. They may affect the forms of chess that are offered to you, the quantity of quality of the competitions available to you, the information you receive (such as on the website and in the magazine), and perhaps even the number of players registering in your tournaments. Critical to the game in the U.S. is a healthy national organization that is capable of promoting the game in creative and sound ways. You can impact that organization by selecting its leaders. I firmly believe that the EB should be selected by the members, and you have that right at present. Please help protect that right by voting.

If you want to know more about me, read this blog. If you want to cut straight to the election chase, hit any of the blue labels anywhere in this blog that say "election," including the one at the end of this post.

USCF Special Election: Candidate's 3rd and Final Statement

Below is my third and final USCF Special Election Candidate's Statement, scheduled for publication in the June issue of Chess Life. 

At the heart of the USCF is a great game. Nothing I or you do off the chessboard—and that includes participating in governance of the USCF—is going to change that. Put simply, the organization has a superb product, one that I spend a peculiar amount of time thinking about (according to some dear to me), especially since I’m not a professional and I derive none of my income from chess. Most of my time is spent thinking about such things as whether Black is busted in the Poisoned Pawn variation of the Najdorf and similar problems. I play a lot chess. Since early 2007, I’ve completed approximately 225 correspondence games in the USCF and ICCF, and I’ve played in OTB tournaments in Ohio, California, Florida, Connecticut, and New York. I am the 2009 Absolute co-champion. Beyond playing the game, I would like to help present the Federation in the best possible light to others who play the game, who might play the game, or who simply see the game as deserving of support. My goal is simple—get more people to play and enjoy chess under the best possible circumstances.

Governance of the USCF is critical to this goal. At present we govern and operate the USCF with an Executive Director, a professional staff, seven Executive Board members, more than 100 delegates, and countless volunteers. As is obvious, I’m running for one of the seven seats on the Executive Board. It is a volunteer position. My qualifications are straightforward. I’ve run large organizations in the Army as an officer, including in combat; I am a lawyer engaged in complex civil litigation every day on large cases, including representing Not For Profit organizations that you would recognize; I manage large budgets on cases where annual expenses substantially exceed the annual revenues of the USCF; and I believe in the game.

One of the central features of governance of the Federation at present is the concept of “one member, one vote” (OMOV). What that means is that USCF members (over sixteen) elect the seven Executive Board members. I support OMOV. Members have a voice in running the Federation because of OMOV. If you’re reading this, you’ve likely received a ballot. Please inform yourself and vote.

Regarding service on the Executive Board, my only interest is in advancing the game. My only affiliation with any other members of the USCF, or any of its present or past leaders, is in connection with the play of the game or with specific ideas and positions with which I agree. The best ideas and policy positions must be measured purely against what’s good for chess and what’s good for those members of the Federation who play, teach, learn, organize, and direct chess. In the end, we have to put aside any differences we may have and go forward maintaining and growing a healthy organization whose members enjoy the game. I’m not suggesting that’s always easy.


Please see my blog at http://graysonebc.blogspot.com/ for more.

USCF Special Election: Candidate's 2nd Statement

Below is the statement that will appear in the May issue of Chess Life, subject to editing. As you may or may not know, there is no time to collect feedback following publication of the statements before the next statement is due. Indeed, the first statement will be published about two weeks before the third and last statement is due to Chess Life. That said, your feedback is appreciated, and that's why I've posted the statement below well before its publication date in Chess Life. I have about 30 days before the next statement is due, and I'd like to be responsive. So please drop a comment below, or post to the USCF Issues Forum if you have comments or questions.

One of the critical challenges facing the USCF over the next several years is that of getting the organization onto fiscally stable ground. We’re presently financially strapped for various reasons, but the principal reason is that we’ve spent an enormous amount of money on lawsuits, and we still have substantial unpaid legal bills.

First and foremost, we need to play chess, and that means creating an environment in which our current members want to continue to play the game, and in which former and prospective members want to join to participate. Put simply, we need to pull together in the same direction and work toward growing the game. Revenues will grow along with the game. Some of our members will only play the game, and that’s fine. Others will do more. We need state organizations, clubs, delegates, and members to promote the game in all ways. The USCF must do its part by being responsive to the membership and providing what it wants. I envision our flagship events remaining to be classical over-the-board chess, but it doesn’t have to end there. We need to consider exploring and promoting chess in all its variants, including thinking creatively, and ensuring that we’re taking advantage of every resource, including the internet.

Second, national leadership must operate the Federation responsibly on all money matters. I think the current EB is making good strides in this direction. The budget must be realistic, and the Executive Director and Executive Board must ensure that we’re operating within that budget. Not only can we not exceed the budget, but we have to plan for some level of surplus. We need to be prepared for the next rainy day. It is unacceptable for the Federation to continue to face short term economic crises on a routine basis. Without any surplus, every unexpected non-budgeted event becomes an emergency. We should establish a goal for some amount of surplus to be accumulated for each year over the next five to ten years. The goal of attaining a surplus needs to become a budget item, given all the same attention as every other budget item.

Third, one of our goals should be to explore how to provide our members and potential benefactors with an easy route to charitable giving. We should give careful consideration to our status under the Internal Revenue Code. The game of chess has tremendous potential. We see some of that potential being realized in Super GM events, primarily in Europe, and even in some ways throughout this country. Scholastic Chess, for example, has had some extraordinary achievements. In short, the game has a quality about it that makes it a natural target for philanthropy. We have to ensure that our potential donors can give to the Federation with full economic advantage, and that once we receive those gifts, donors know their money will be watched over carefully and spent wisely.

USCF Politics: Who Should Select the Executive Board?

Below is a post I made today on the USCF Issues Forum. The post responds to various ideas of who should be on the Executive Board (EB) of the USCF and how they should be selected. A motion is being proposed for this summer that would change the composition of the board and potentially pre-select certain persons (such as perhaps the President of the Chess Journalists of America) to always be a member of the board. There are many other suggestions, including from one delegate or another that all or some portion of the board should be selected by the USCF's delegates rather than by the USCF's members. (As background, see the One Member, One Vote posts on this blog, or better, have a read on the USCF's Issues Forum.) Others are for having persons from private industry join the board. Some want the Dean of American Chess (Bisguier at present) and whomever is in that position to be automatically on the board. Some want 7 board members, others want 11, and there will be many other reasoned opinions of how many and who should be on the board. I'm not knocking any of these proposals, or the suggested people as EB members, and I don't really doubt that they would make good EB members. That's not the point....

The members of the USCF should select the USCF EB. It's not just that it's the members' Federation--it is--but it's that the best way to elect an EB that will serve the membership is to let the members select the EB. I, for one, want to vote for who will lead the USCF. I appreciate that there are many who don't want to vote, and that's their choice. I don't think I'm alone; however, because if the last election is any indication, there are several thousand members who wish to vote. If someone wants a particular person on the board, let them nominate that person, and let that person run for and win an election. The process requires the nominee to be introduced to the membership and allows the membership to hear why the nominee should be elected. Those are good things.

Finally, if anyone wants to change the way we select the EB, he or she should expressly state why we need change, and then explain how the proposed change to the selection process addresses the "why."

by Grayson on Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:09 pm #180034 [on the USCF Issues Forum]

If ten in the know persons were to identify the "factions" within the USCF and describe the tensions among them, the answers would be all over the map. Identify the problem(s) first...and accept that there will be some tensions between competing interests. I agree--to the extent anyone is saying it--that the persons elected to the board need to be able to work through these tensions for the good of chess.

The members elect the EB. While the delegates can change this, I'm not a fan of the change. Let those who have influence, and there are many who do, go out and educate and persuade the voters. The best ideas, and for that matter, people, should win. That's the proper role of influence.

There is likely a need for some structural change to the USCF's governance. It's not proper to suggest that change, however, without stating why the change is needed and how the change is going to respond to whatever that need might be. Put slightly differently, it is not correct to assume that the problems are fully understood and that any required change is obvious.

Note: I could have laced the above (and anything else I say or write) with "IMOs" and even "IMHOs," but I rather hope that all will understand that should be the case for everything written here.

Settlement of USCF Lawsuits

The following was posted on the USCF website this weekend:

By USCF Executive Board
January 23, 2010
The USCF announced it has agreed to a settlement with Susan Polgar and Paul Truong stemming from lawsuits filed by both parties. Polgar’s lawsuit, filed in August 2008, alleged libel, slander, defamation and other claims. USCF’s California lawsuit, adding claims against Susan Polgar in October 2008, alleged email hacking and wire fraud. The USCF also filed an Illinois lawsuit against Susan Polgar and Paul Truong to remove them as Executive Board members and end their relationship with the USCF for not acting in the best interests of the USCF.

Under the settlement agreement, all named parties except Gregory Alexander and Sam Sloan have agreed to dismiss all claims and counter-claims in the actions in Texas and California. The Illinois lawsuit will end with a judgment confirming that Susan Polgar and Paul Truong are no longer Executive Board members. The USCF’s civil case against Alexander for email hacking and wire fraud continues, and Alexander is also facing similar federal criminal charges in California.

As part of the settlement, Polgar and Truong have agreed to never contest the USCF Executive Board’s action in revoking their USCF memberships; acknowledge that they are no longer members of the USCF or members of the USCF Executive Board; agree to never seek, run for, or accept a leadership position in the USCF; and will never contest the Delegate’s actions that ratified the decisions of the USCF Executive Board at the August 2009 Annual Delegates Meeting.

Under the settlement, the USCF will allow Polgar and Truong to be playing, non-members of the USCF and will be listed as “Playing Non-Member Status.”

The USCF Insurer, Ansur America Insurance Company, a member of Frankenmuth Financial Group, has agreed to provide $131,000 to the USCF and $39,000 to Polgar’s attorneys.

The USCF is pleased that this matter is finally settled and that no USCF funds will go to Polgar and Truong. Additionally, the USCF receives $131,000 to agree to a settlement.



Unsurprisingly, some interested members are beside themselves because the legal actions weren't played out to the bitter end. Others are furious because the settlement wasn't achieved 6 months or a year ago. Some think that a portion of the actions should have never been undertaken, and yet still others think that some amendments to the by-laws might have averted the whole mess entirely. Mistakes were made. Money was wasted. Chess in the United States was not advanced.

At the core of this mess were some perverse and monumentally stupid postings, generally now known as the Fake Sam Sloan postings. The facts surrounding these postings are clear enough for me and can largely be found in the Mottershead Report. I am not surprised that it took hundreds of thousands of dollars to resolve the trouble these posts caused. But we cannot do this again.

The preventative solutions are likely complex, and some of these solutions will reveal themselves through comprehensive and thoughtful post mortems. The simplest answer, though, will reside in answering the question of how do we get good and talented people, who will put the game first, to serve.

One more thing. To our officers and staff, who were undoubtedly impacted plenty by all of this, and to those on the EB: Thanks for seeing this through.

One Member, One Vote: Again

Joe Lux has stated in the USCF's Issues Forum that he will present a motion  this summer calling for the USCF's Executive Board to be elected by the delegates.  He has made his arguments for this motion in the Forum.  He has also issued a challenge that if 30% of the USCF membership turns out in the June election, he will withdraw his motion.  I've responded as follows in the Forum:

This is where Joe and I agree: Get the membership vote out...at least to the point of the membership exercising their vote and selecting the EB in an informed way.

I'm not looking to turn all of the members into politicians. Nor am I wanting to distract them from playing chess. But I got involved because a Chess Life arrived at my house with Candidates' Statements in it, and because I received a ballot. I took a little time--too little as it turned out--to google some names and make some selections. Later I became incensed when I learned of additional information and of how legal events unfolded. And then I got further involved.

Let there be no mistake about it. I got involved because of OMOV. Because of OMOV, I can air my views out and attempt to persuade others my way. Everyone's views hold sway, and let the best ideas win. Everyone gets exactly one vote. The odds are strongly in favor that a more involved membership will lead to a stronger Foundation. You can hypothesize otherwise, but the more members who get involved in the governance of the USCF, and even begin to understand the issues, the better the organization will be.

You can also worry about some distortion in the system of one type or another. Such distortions will always be present in different ways, such as from a real or perceived large influence of this or that person or organization (and you can question whether all that seeming influence is deserved), or perhaps it's in the power of name recognition had by certain candidates. These types of problems will always be present. If you want to overcome these problems, you have to communicate and persuade.

I'm going to avoid for the present explaining my view of the alternative system, and how I might try to impact a small, select group of decision makers, many of whom have some portion or all of their livelihood tied to the game. Suffice it to say under such a system, there's an overwhelming chance that I would never become engaged.

As for Joe's challenge of helping to turn out 30%, I commend it, and I plan to do my part. As for rolling over and conceding should less than 30% turnout, of course I decline. I have to do what I think is right for the Federation. Even if 10% turn out, it'll be several thousand members exercising their voice in the governance of the Federation.

Finally, I have the utmost respect for Joe Lux. I've told him so. We respectfully disagree on this point and there's nothing wrong with that. Hopefully, he'll come around.

One Member, One Vote: OMOV

A discussion has begun on the USCF Issues Forum suggesting that One Member, One Vote ("OMOV") is the problem underlying most if not all of the USCF's woes at present.  What OMOV means in the USCF is who will elect the seven members of the Executive Board.  The issue is important.  The change desired by some, and the system of election to which the opponents of OMOV suggest the USCF should return, is one in which the delegates (plus likely a few other influential members, such as past Presidents) would elect the Executive Board members.  The argument runs that only in this way will the Executive Board be responsive to the delegates and will the multi-million dollar USCF have proper oversight.  The opponents to OMOV point to a small voter turnout in the last election, for example, to show that the USCF membership is apathetic and only the delegates are properly informed to make the EB member choices.  (4,000 + members voted.)  Moreover, if the EB members know who's the boss, they'll act right.  I have a few points to make here:

1.  Some of the finest USCF members in the history of the Federation have been and are tireless delegates.
2.  A substantial number of delegates aren't involved in USCF governance.
3.  An active and competent Executive Board is critical to the USCF's success.
4.  There is a weak cause and effect connection between OMOV and any of the USCF's present problems.
5.  The USCF's future health will be directly related to the efforts made by all of its leaders and members.
6.  The overstated downside of delegate elections is that chess insiders will govern the USCF with their interests foremost in mind.
7.  The overstated downside of member elections is that the elections will turn into popularity contests resulting in bad choices. 
8.  The delegates have a constituency of local members to whom they owe a modicum of service. 
9.  The members should take an hour or two out of their year to listen to their delegates, tell their delegates what they think, inform themselves to their own satisfaction on the candidates, and vote for the Executive Board members with the interests of U.S. chess in mind. 
10.  An informed membership engaged briefly (by voting) will go further toward improving the USCF than any other single measure. Put simply, the USCF will benefit enormously by a modest increase in informed voter turnout. 
11.  The delegates are critical to informing the membership.
12.  The USCF needs some level of governance overhaul, but the answer is probably not to be found in taking the members' right to vote for the Executive Board.

This summer three candidates will appear on the ballot to fill two vacant seats on the Executive Board.  I wish there were more candidates.  I am one of the three, with Mike Nietman and Sam Sloan being the other two.  The five already on the Executive Board appear to me to be good, competent people.  Look for your ballot prior to June, I believe, and when you get it, if you haven't already, take a small amount of time to inform your choice and vote. 

I will post time to time here on this blog on this issue between now and the vote this summer.  If you'd like to know more, and I can appreciate that you may not, sign into the USCF Issues Forum on the USCF website.  You need only be a member.  Be prepared for a substantial amount of crap on the Forum, but if you cut to the chase, you'll find the debate laid out well from every perspective.

2010 USCF Special Election

I have completed the formal nomination process for entering the 2010 USCF Special Election.

Settlement of USCF Lawsuits

There's some concern on the USCF Issues Forum regarding the prospects and terms of the settlement between essentially the USCF, on the one hand, and Polgar and Truong, on the other hand. The issues being raised include:
1) Should we at least wait for summary judgment before agreeing to settle?
2) Should we call for an emergency delegate vote to approve the settlement and avoid future conflict concerning the terms of the settlement? and
3) Is the current EB conflicted because three of the five members have been sued personally and may simply be too interested in resolving the litigation on less than the best terms for the USCF?

Please sign in and read all of the posts (if you're interested at all). I've posted the below today in response to the above issues.

I see nothing to suggest that the current EB does not have authority to settle these lawsuits. Of course, it is possible that the EB could enter into an agreement that contained a provision exceeding its power. I think returning the ousted members to the board would be such a decision. That would be a problem. Such an outcome seems so remote, that I'm already done being concerned about it.

Brian Mottershead has done a good job of explaining the ratification process. Many seem to think that ratification is necessary to give force to the EB's decisions. It is not. The ratification process only pertains to actions that are ultra vires. Unless there's a real question of authority, ratification is not an issue. Of course someone somewhere could raise such an authority issue. I'm going to trust that the collective wisdom of the delegates will not allow the issue of authority to rise to a critical level. In other words, the EB will act competently, and the delegates will, too. If one or the other doesn't, we have larger problems.

It is not necessary to ask the delegates to approve any settlement in advance. It's debilitating and it's not their role. The delegates should expect the EB to act within its authority, just like they do every day.

To answer a question above, summary judgment is possible before trial. In fact, summary judgment decisions are made in the vast majority of cases, and when they are, those decisions are invariably prior to trial. That's the point of the word "summary." Generally, the only exception to summary judgment decisions is when the case is so laden with disputed facts (and which must be decided by a factfinder--jury or judge in a bench trial) that there's no hope of a summary decision. Judges will often tell the parties when he or she won't entertain summary judgment motions because of disputed facts. I'm not aware of that in these cases. Please keep in mind that for a party to prevail on summary judgment, the judge must conclude that there are no material facts in dispute. All that said, settlement always takes into account the hazards of summary judgment. In other words, the parties estimate their chances and the dynamic of their competing views enters into the negotiating process. No one ever says "let's put aside our respective chances on summary judgment" before negotiating. If either of the parties' estimate of their chances is unrealistic, settlement is usually undermined.

As for the conflict of interest, the unstated assertion is that the EB members who have been personally sued will potentially do what's good for themselves over the interests of the Federation. Or perhaps better, the mere possibility of them doing so will taint the decision to settle and leave it open to attack. I'm aware of no law that prevents the EB members from voting on settlement where their interests are aligned with the corporation. I'll leave that to the USCF's lawyers. The lawyers initially concluded there was no conflict between the EB members and the Federation or else they wouldn't have taken on the representation of both. As for the idea that the board members may be overly interested in settlement because of their own involvement, first, I'd say there's no indication that any EB member's assets are at stake, and no reason to believe that they would not fulfill their fiduciary obligations to the Federation. Finally and again, this is an issue for the USCF's lawyers to guide the EB through and should they advise a contortion like asking the delegates to cast an emergency vote, then it would be worth considering. Sometimes, though, the cure is worse than the disease.

Finally, regarding the delegates' knowledge of the settlement agreement, I believe they likely should know the details in due course. They can hear about them at their next meeting, and they can be bound to any confidentiality provisions contained in the settlement. I disagree with Sam above regarding whether any future delegates or EB members can be bound to confidentiality. To the extent that any future delegate or EB member learns of the settlement's content, in fact, they will be bound by its confidentiality provision.

USCF Special Election 2010: What the USCF Should Be Doing

I posted the below on the USCF Issues forum earlier today. My comments are somewhat out of context, as I generally don't want to post comments by others made on that restricted site here on this open site. The core content of my comments comes through nevertheless. I encourage anyone who has an interest in the election process to sign into the USCF Issues forum and have a read. You need only be a USCF member.

I feel compelled to interject, somewhat off topic. I'm pleased to have Bill Goichberg's support. I'd also be pleased to have the support of Joe Lux and Harry Payne. As for slates, I'm about as independent as they come. I have no connection to USCF politics, or more generally, chess politics, other than jumping in during the process last year to voice my opinion about the last election. Should this experience work out, both in terms of the election and the year of service, I will also plan to run in the next election. The only agenda I have is the game. Foremost to all of the below is a stable and capable EB. If that comes without me, I'll be just fine and so will chess.

1. Rank & file tournament experience.
2. Rating system.
3. Growth (members and chess knowledge).
4. Philanthropic support. (501(c)(3)?)
5. National chess information.
6. Infrastructure for professional support: players, teachers, directors/organizers.

Harry, I wasn't sure about your statement above. Please know that "Grayson" whom you've said you're supporting, and "Gary Walters," whom Bill G. has said he is supporting, are one in the same. Grayson is a handle that Gary Walters (me) has used on various chess sites for a long time; however, I would put out the caution that there are "Graysons" that aren't Gary Walters.

USCF Executive Board 2010 Election: Mike Nietman Will Run

The following was posted by Mike Nietman and Bill Goichberg on the USCF Issues forum today:

Mike Nietman wrote:

I am announcing today that I am a candidate for the Executive Board in the 2010 election. As the long time Wisconsin Chess Association President, USCF Delegate and Scholastic Council Co-Chair, I believe I have the experience to serve the EB well. Leadership and integrity are what is needed to lead the USCF out of its current crises. That alone will lead to great opportunities including sponsorships.

Shortly I will forward my nomination papers to the office. I look forward to the race. Good luck to all that choose to run but I hope I can earn your support!

Thank you,

Mike Nietman

Bill Goichberg replied to the post:


Mike is a well qualified candidate, and I intend to support his candidacy, as well as that of Gary Walters, for the two available seats on the Executive Board.

Bill Goichberg

I have heard nothing but good about Mike Nietman, and I'm pleased to have Bill's support.

Women's Chess Titles: Reprise

Alexandra has posted below in the comments section regarding women's titles. I've pasted it here for convenience's sake. Let me say first that I'm a fan, and I'm flattered that she's visited this blog. More importantly, she has posted thoughtfully and long on the subject of women's titles on her own blog as shown below. If you have any interest in this subject, please read her comments. I believe that we are in agreement, although she's more certain.


Alexandra Kosteniuk said...
Hi Gary!

You may want to have a look at my long article on this issue at
http://www.chessblog.com/2009/10/abolish-womens-itles-ridiculous.html

Best chess wishes to you!

John Hillery Almost Endorses Gary Walters

The below is from John Hillery's Western Chess Blog. See Neverending Story. I don't know John other than by his posts on the USCF's Issues Forum, and at Western Chess. From those, I think I can safely say that John is irrascible, curmudgeonly, stubborn, and highly opinionated. He's also smart, and as far as I can tell, cares deeply about the game. I respect him and his enormous contribution to chess. I'm taking John's comments as pretty high praise.

"The USCF has issued a call for nominations for a special EB election to fill the positions formerly held by Susan Polgar and Paul Truong. Personally I think five is already too many Board members, but perhaps the EB wanted to close off any chance of P&T making a comeback (dig a hole, fill it up). So far the only announced candidate is Gary Walters of Ohio. He's an active Class A player (well, he took off from 1994 to 2007, but never mind) and correspondence player. He's also a lawyer, whose USCF Forum posts on the Polgar litigation were unusual in that venue for showing good sense. Whether I will vote for him depends on who else is running. Very likely Sam Sloan will slither from under his rock and run again; whether I will vote for him will not depend on who else is running."


John updated his remarks here in this blog. You can see for yourself in the comments to my 3d Candidates Statement above, or save the time--here is the comment:

John Hillery said...
Gary, although I've had no more to say about the election since the irascible and curmudgeonly post you quoted earlier, I've been favorably impressed by your qualifications and campaign statements. I don't agree with you on every issue, but I plan to vote for you, and would do so even if the alternative weren't the egregious Sloan. Good luck.

Women's Chess Titles

Jennifer Shahade has raised the issue recently of whether we need women's titles. It's a good question. The WSJ featured an article on the subject, quoting Jennifer, and I also note that ChessVibes and ChessBase tied into the issue. Opinions on the question are unsurprisingly all over the map. Here's how I see it in a nutshell:

1. The argument for reverse discrimination (or affirmative action, or "benign discrimination") is that it attempts to speed up the repair of the long term bad effects of prejudice. The theory (almost indisputable) is that societal forces have acted differently on men and women in many endeavors, leaving men over-represented in areas we tend to think of as important (e.g., math, sciences, and other higher order intellectual pursuits such as chess). By changing the otherwise natural results in favor of the class discriminated against--women--we believe we can speed up getting the playing field back to level, as well as directly affording opportunities to some who would have had the opportunities but for the discrimination. Sounds complicated. It is.

2. The argument against reverse discrimination is that it's still discrimination. Calling it "benign" discrimination doesn't help much. Its ill effects are felt by both those who aren't eligible for the special treatment because they're of the wrong gender, and also by women who although benefitted by the reverse discrimination find their accomplishment diminished. Are you a GM or a WGM? To paraphrase a well-known jurist, if you want to stop discrimination, stop discriminating.

My take. I want to hear much further from two groups: (1) those who have studied the supposed effects of the action or inaction proposed by the two sides, and (2) women. I'm undecided, but if we're going to err, let's do so on the side of the titles for now. This isn't like Bakke, where one takes an admission to medical school away from the better qualified applicant (referring to the U.S. Supreme Court case involving the University of California), but rather women's titles are almost entirely affirmative (and not at the expense of others), and thus if they come at a price, it's largely to women themselves. Let's ensure that the titles aren't making a contribution in the balance right now before eliminating them, a day that we should all look forward to. Once they're gone, it's likely they're gone for good. When women begin to decline the "W" titles with a "no thanks" in significant numbers and press on toward the GM and IM titles, we'll have a further clue.

Support for Executive Board Candidacy

I announced my candidacy for the USCF Executive Board on the USCF Issues Forum on November 12. I have been a regular reader and poster on that Forum since May 2008. The below excerpts appear in the Forum.

Joe Lux: "You have a long trail of posts on the forum to your credit. I will be proud to collect signatures for your campaign, as you asked. We can certainly use a lawyer on the EB. If you can spend a fraction of your time that you put towards correspondence chess, you will be an active Board member."

Brian Lafferty: "You have my vote."

Bill Brock: "Very impressive and very sensible. You would be an excellent addition to the Board."

Rob Sturgeon: "You have my vote also."

T.P. Griffin: "Agreed. Thanks for stepping up! (Both here, and in Kuwait.) Good luck."

Bill Goichberg: "I look forward to having you join our Board."

Ben Bentrup: "I always love your posts for being down-to-earth, impartial, logical, and helpful. You've done a great job trying to deflate a tense situation. I, too, would be happy to vote for you."

Brian Mottershead: "Not the first time I've agreed with Bill Goichberg, nor probably the last, but when Bill and I can easily agree on something, it means we have a sure winner."

Mike Murray: "I'm climbing on the bandwagon. You have my vote."

Harry Payne: "You can count on my vote, and any support I can give. I will start calling members in Oklahoma, and the surrounding states as soon as it is official. Thank you for your, efforts and willingness to volunteer. Also, your voice and correspondence chess experience needs a place in the Government of the USCF. Good Luck, Just my take on it."

Mark Nibbelin: "Grayson, great candidate statement, a very refreshing change."The "game" begins with the rank and file player who plays in weekend events. These players (for the most part you and me) are critical to raising chess to its highest potential, which certainly includes developing young players who will enjoy the game beyond their school years, and affording the most talented players the opportunity to play full time with minimal distraction. We must present to all a professional, reasonable, and capable leadership if we are to advance chess in the United States and tap into resources, yes, including money, that will allow chess to be viewed as the intellectual pursuit that it is. We don't always have to agree with one another, but we do need to work together to advance the game."We have a ways to go - good luck."

Tim Redman: "I agree that Grayson seems to be a very good candidate."

The Lawsuits

I have posted extensively on many facets of the Lawsuits on the USCF Issues Forum. My position has been and is pretty clear. I support the USCF and its co-defendants in these actions. I find no merit to the cases that have been filed against the USCF. It goes without saying that the USCF cannot afford this litigation. Unfortunately, the USCF can neither afford not to defend itself vigorously.

I think that these Lawsuits are amenable to settlement, and any settlement should be made taking into account economics, the likelihood of sucess on the merits, and the likelihood of collecting should the litigation be played out to a victory in the end. There is risk in all litigation, and the USCF should be risk averse. I do not believe that we should or need to worry about the reputation of the USCF or any party related to the USCF in these actions, as I think the filings against the USCF are obviously without substance. In short, the USCF's and its allies' good names are intact, and we do not need to spend USCF dollars further proving so. In settling the cases, however, we do not need to make any concessions to those who've sued the Federation. There's no need to apologize and no need to pay $1. If given, it is likely both of these concessions would be used against the USCF for years to come.

I am aware that some want to play the cases out for the sake of justice and to recover the USCF's expenses. These two points should resonate in some degree with just about everyone. Nevertheless, my view is that playing the cases out is not necessary, entails risk, and may mean spending money that will not be recovered. I want the USCF's dollars to go toward furthering chess. We're an NFP organization. We should not be afraid to defend ourselves, but scorched earth litigation is not what we do.

I believe that the bringing of a lawsuit by a former member of the USCF EB was a monumental mistake, and that the course that has been run by the USCF has been a good and decent one. The resolve of the USCF has been demonstrated, and the EB elected most recently appears ready and able to move forward with the business of chess. I think that the conclusion of the cases should be left in the hands of our present leadership and the USCF's attorneys. Anyone who has a view on how the cases should be concluded should make his or her opinion known. I know that many in a leadership position read the Issues Forum on the USCF's website.

[My comments above do not apply to the Book & Equipment (B&E) dispute. There's not sufficient publicly available information for me to make a meaningful comment.]

USCF Special Election for Executive Board 2010

I am running for one of the two open seats on the USCF's Executive Board in the 2010 Special Election. Below is an introductory statement (500 words), and I will post here from time to time on issues that I think are important, as well as on issues of interest to others.

I began playing USCF chess in junior high school in Columbus, Ohio in 1969 and became swept up in Fischer's run to the World Championship. I played throughout high school, tying for first in the Central Ohio School Chess Association (COSCA) championship as a senior (2nd on tie breaks), and playing for the first-seeded team in the state championship. Following high school, I began a military career that took me away from organized chess for years. Although I played casually, and even returned to rated chess during two more quiet stateside military assignments, it was only upon departing the military that I was able to return to chess with a renewed passion. I am currently, in my own words, one of the country's more devout correspondence players. In addition, I use the majority of my vacation time to play in OTB tournaments. Over the past three years, I've played in California (twice), Connecticut, Florida, New York, and Ohio. During this time I have played approximately 120 USCF correspondence games and a similar number of games in the ICCF. I've almost completed the 2009 USCF Absolute tournament, and I'm one of 15 finalists in the 18th United States Correspondence Chess Championship. I have lived in New York, Georgia, Colorado, Kansas, Texas, Missouri, and Ohio, as well as in Germany. I have a B.A. from Auburn University in English literature, a Masters from the School of Advanced Military Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and a law degree from Cornell Law School. I was awarded the Silver Star as an infantry company commander during DESERT STORM in Kuwait. For the past decade I have lived in Cleveland, Ohio where I work as a civil litigator focusing on complex commercial cases. I became drawn deeply into USCF issues off the chessboard upon learning that an Executive Board member had sued the USCF. This appeared so fundamentally detrimental to the USCF that I began reviewing the various cases, and engaging in discussions (as "Grayson") on a wide variety of subjects in the USCF's Issues Forum.

What can I bring to the USCF? I bring a passion for the game. The game must come before personal viewpoints, political power, and pecuniary interests. The "game" begins with the rank and file player who plays in weekend events. These players (for the most part you and me) are critical to raising chess to its highest potential, which certainly includes developing young players who will enjoy the game beyond their school years, and affording the most talented players the opportunity to play full time with minimal distraction. We must present to all a professional, reasonable, and capable leadership if we are to advance chess in the United States and tap into resources, yes, including money, that will allow chess to be viewed as the intellectual pursuit that it is. We don't always have to agree with one another, but we do need to work together to advance the game. I think I can help.

Gary L. Walters