Not as such. The closest might be this but it’s not complete. I’ve a couple more items to add, but I think I’ll have to research the subject myself if it’s going to be written.

“We are building up our chess history archive onto our web site, and everyone wants the type of info (the bios) you present.”

I’ve noticed that. Right now I’m on the trail of info about Hans Bruning, a concert pianist around the turn of the 20th century who won games against such lights as Pillsbury and Lasker in simuls. Then I have some interviews scheduled to pick up info about Avril Powers, a prominent master and champion who shared his home with visitors such as Reshevsky and Fischer. John Donaldson was after me to do a bio of Martz, so he’s on the list as well. But I’m only one man, so I doubt that’ll be forthcoming for at least a couple of years.

“Fred, Pearl and Arpad were probably taken for granted in WI, as George Sturgis (first USCF president) who implemented scholastic events in MA during the 1930’s (after the Milwaukee model, but not outside!) was here.”

Yep. In fact, I got into organizing events because of the void left by those, as well as Marshall Rohland. It’s my way of honoring their memory.

“Can we get more info on the greats (Cramer, Mann, Elo) as well as others (Thompson, Martz, Levit, yourself)or potential sources (anything sent to Cleveland Public Library?)”

I don’t consider myself among the “greats”, but aside from myself, I do intend to present more. I have the skeleton of a couple of “courses” that Martz taught at the local clubs, and I have other material from sources like “The Milwaukee Chess News” (where Martz was games editor) coming, as well as reprints from “Joyous Chess” (master Pete Webster’s journal, whose games always find it into collections of the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit).

“I also wish to ask about several others: George Carrian, who was the magazine editor during the mid-1980’s (who said that my marriage in 1985 would put my chess affairs in perspective),”

Haven’t seen George in years. He edited “Wisconsin Chess News”, is responsible for starting the Wisconsin Chess Tour, and continued on as a columnist for a while in Badger Chess. He dropped off our local radar a couple of decades ago.

“There is room on the new USCF website (set to launch about Sept. 1) for state and regional USCF history.”

Could very well be, but I’ve been banned from that territory. Policies at CL prohibit me from writing about the Western Open, and the fact I’m Publications Chair seems to have disqualified me from doing anything substantial for the website beyond pointing out obvious flaws. (I’m a web developer by trade and training; over a year ago I created a prototype for a game player that improved on the silly one they have — you can’t put comments or variations in the current one — and demo’ed it. But when I suggested I be compensated — at about 35% of, not off, my normal rates — for the work that was taking up my business time, they ran away and hid. They tried to blame Sam Sloan, claiming he would make it an issue as I was chair of the delegate’s committee that had the website within its purview, so I asked Sam point blank about it and agreed it was necessary and promised to hold his fire on the subject. Perhaps that was a mistake on my part, as they were focused on eliminating Sam at the time and it made me look like one of his allies, simply because I’ve known him for years and could talk to him about it. I dunno. I *do* know that my help with the USCF website is officially not wanted, to the point that when the last website contract was brought up, the Publications Committee was not asked to comment on it, and I was told in no uncertain terms that I should keep my hands off it and my ideas to myself. The only one at USCF that even talks to me about the website is Mike Nolan. And Jennifer Shahade will answer questions I ask, but doesn’t say much beyond that.)

“You should build on the stuff you have and make sure there is at least a link to the gems you have created.”

I have no power to do that.

“I attended the U.S. Open workshops/meetings in Cherry Hill, and saw the first “results” of your 12-06 postings on the election.”

As far as I can tell, there were no effects. The slate got elected. If there was any visible effect, I’d love to hear about them. I’ve been rather pessimistic about the USCF’s future of late.

“Most everyone in NJ (especially the locals) appeared tired, but most of the old organizers and politicians are just that, serving since 1960, 1970, a good crop from 1972. Is there anyone from this era left in WI?”

Me. Possibly Guy Hoffman. Pete Webster is an occasional, but with his health and his wife’s it’s not often. Mike Selig runs hot and cold as well.

“Anyone with fresh ideas for the future?”

As far as I can tell, the future of the USCF is scholastic chess. It’s not the best one, but it’s the only one people are willing to work for. “It’s for the children” seems to be the only battle cry that anyone is listening to. The rest of us will just dry up and blow away. When you observe that the number of adult players is independent of the number of scholastic players (the number of scholastic players at any one time doesn’t seem to have an effect on the number of adult members even two or three decades later) you are treated much like the addled uncle who gives out with embarrassing bodily noises. They mumble something about “all adult members were scholastic players once” and seem perplexed when you point out their statement doesn’t refute anything, and that in fact both conditions can be, and are, true they start screaming that you hate children, or some other such claptrap. Sigh.

As for the rest, well, I didn’t expect any different results from the election. Name recognition beats quality, every time.

What do I expect from this board? The same as I got from previous boards. Special attention to their particular interests (in this case scholastics) with complete neglect being bestowed upon every other area.

She cannot change “how chess is … acculturated here in America” because, in a nutshell, she doesn’t control that and has very little influence over it. That’s up to the rest of the country, and however popular she may be in chess circles, 90+% of the US doesn’t care a fig about her or her ideas, because they don’t care about chess, and with all the attention being paid to scholastics, that won’t change; in fact, it’ll probably become worse because now they’ll also be sure chess is just a kid’s game.

I’d be interested in investigations into the fraud her group subourned in this year’s election. What fraud? The encouraging of people who are not chessplayers to buy memberships simply to vote in the election. I’m afraid her slate lost their integrity before the votes were even cast.

I wonder also, will they continue to accept the money from MonRoi to endorse a device which clearly violates the rules, and which will certainly become a vector for more cheating in the next few years? Betcha they don’t. (Yes, it’s clear the MonRoi is a violation of the rules; for one its visual display is usable as an aid to check your “scoresheet” for accuracy against the actual board position, and for another it will not allow you to make the most typical mistakes made while recording moves, that of entering a move for white in the black column or vice versa. Until the USCF changes its rules to make those mistakes not matter to paper scorekeepers, the MonRoi is clearly in violation of the rules. But as usual in the USCF, money washes away iniquity.)

Oh, and I have to deal with the USCF regularly, as a player, and organizer, and even as a committee chair. I heard a lot of guff about the corruption of the outgoing board, but frankly, they weren’t any more corrupt than most of their predecessors, and better than many. I haven’t experience with the new regime; we’ll see if they are any better. I don’t expect them to be, but I would love to be proven wrong.

Susan got, for the most part, what she wanted out of this election. Now it is a matter of effecting reform in what was, at best, a genuine mishegoss of an outfit. I get a sense of urgency from her, that she is itching to get it right and positively change how chess is run and acculturated here in America.

She is ambitious, and I sincerely hope she can balance her busy life to take care of it all. To her success! If not, it will come out in the wash and the next election.

For Tommy, all I can say is where he and I differ is not in our evaluation of Susan Polgar. I like her, I think she’s got some sense in her head. My problem isn’t with her. It’s with naming her (or anyone else, myself included) unquestionable dictator of the USCF. Of course her slate of candidates will work together co-operatively. That’s the definition of a slate; if they won’t work together they aren’t a slate, by definition. What I’m leary of, and why I oppose slates, is that I don’t have confidence they will work with anyone else.

And that’s the rub. When you give someone unchecked power, bad things always result. It’s not a condemnation of the character of the slate in question, it’s just the nature of human beings. It’s why “power corrupts” is a cliche; it’s so often true.

Change is necessary. No one’s disputing that. Nor do I dispute the idea that Susan sincerely wants to work for the betterment of chess. But a sincerely desire to do something, mixed with the unchecked power to do it, is a recipe not for success, but disaster. Real success comes from the melding together of lots of different ideas from lots of different sources.

I want give and take. As Bartlett said, “…I dream of a great discussion with experts and ideas and diction and honesty. And when I wake up, I think: ‘I can sell that.’” I’d rather have four honest, sincere, intelligent people who disagree with each other than four honest, sincere, intelligent poeple who agree. That way I know there will be discussion of and consideration for everyone’s point of view, rather than one person’s agenda. In the long run, that’s the way to a more solid footing.

My point is unless we can nip this idea of slates in the bud right now, Susan will have only two years to accomplish something. Then another instant majority will be elected and will stop her plans in their tracks, just as she will stop the current ones, and just as they have stopped previous ones. On the other hand, if we can have a frank discussion among intelligent opponents, we can hammer out a path that will be amenable to all, or at least most, and which can then hope to survive longer than to the next election.

For Wayne: “Single-mindedly implement” is a stronger term than I would use. No, I’m not saying office staff should be allowed to sabotage or retard progress toward the set goal. But I wouldn’t demand they agree with the goal, either. I’m ex-military, and the attitude I learned there is that you don’t have to agree with policy, you simply have to act like you agree. You’re free to dissent all you want when involved in setting the policy, but when the decision is made, you put aside your personal differences and get busy.

That’s an art that has disappeared, it seems, from modern life. Our board is unable to put aside personal differences and work. That’s why I distrust slates, and why I have declared war upon them.

Technically a slate is the people of a particular political affiliation who are trying to be elected to offices in an election. I generally agree with your message as corporate boards need diversity of points of view to set policy and direction that is in the best interest of the corporation and not that of any particular person or faction. The Executive Director and his/her staff should then single-mindedly implement that policy in an integrated teamed fashion.

Note strong members of a slate may tend to help weaker members of that slate get elected rather than the best possible talent that is offering to serve. Thus it may be best that each potential board member should state how they would handle a board presidency and how they would facilitate moving chess forward in America, as under the current USCF bylaws each Executive Board member is a potential president. We also would encourage moderated debates [online] with the candidates so they can be asked questions and we can see how they respond as individuals.