Since Susan Polgar and Paul Truong were forced off last year, their seats are vacant. This July the members will elect 2 people to replace them. 3 candidates have filed:
1) Mike Neitman, who has served for a very long time in Scholastic Chess Committees and has a long record in USCF affairs.
2) Gary Walters, who has no record at all but has played a few rated games in the past few years. He has also posted 300+ times on the USCF's forums, mostly attacking yours truly.
3) Sam Sloan, who has a very long record in USCF affairs but it is really bad. He served 1 year on the EB in 2006-2007.
Of the candidates, Neitman is a lock, so the real election is between Walters and Sloan for that last seat. Because Sloan is so unacceptable, people are trying to pump up Walters by exagerating his qualifications and downgrading the qualifications expected of an Executive Board Member.
I shall provide much more explanations of this short summary in the future.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that's extremely unfair to Gary Walters. Besides being an OTB player when he has time, he's a very active (and strong) postal player, and an active writer about chess on his blog. To say that his posts on the USCF Forum have "mostly" attacked you is claim worthy of Sam Sloan himself, unless you want to argue that anything critical of Polgar or Truong was an attack on you. It his true that his qualifications as a lawyer would have been a bigger deal in the last election, but they certainly don't hurt. It is also true that, if there were another serious candidate with chess-organizational experience, Gary's inexperience would be a legitimate issue. But there isn't, and to put him even remotely in the same category with a joke candidate like the egregious Sloan seems absurd.
ReplyDeleteYou failed to mention that he only started his blog after he launched his election campaign. An election vehicle is not the same thing as a permanent blog. Note what happenned to the Lafferty and Mottershead blogs after the election.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, since that blog is so central to his claim of activity, don't you think he ought to keep it up more regularly?
Re: GW's USCF Forum postings. Okay, he attacks Polgar and Truong more than me. My comment was directed more towards the idea that candidates for national office ought to be more than just attack dogs. Sadly, this guy has no knowledge of chess issues or interest in learning about them. When he does leave off attacking to comment substantively, well . . .
ReplyDelete1) Remember his comment that organizers have nothing to do once their chess tournaments start - even at the largest ones on the calendar?
2) Remember your own comment regarding my reporting on the Polgar National Girls Championship? - That I had based my story by a few postings in the USCF's Forums from "persons of absolutely zero influence"? - That was how YOU charactized GW then, not me.
I understand that now GW is the anti-SS but do you guys really need to exagerate his qualifications, much less than reverse your previously expressed opinions of them?
"You failed to mention that he only started his blog after he launched his election campaign."
ReplyDeleteThat would be a fair point if his blog were primarily (or even significantly) about politics. It isn't. It's a chess news and analysis site, and a good one.
"Remember his comment that organizers have nothing to do once their chess tournaments start - even at the largest ones on the calendar?"
I actually had some sympathy for that view, but since it was clearly a shot a Truong I didn't feel like getting involved. It's also a complicated question not readily discussed in soundbites. As a TD, I don't like an organizer getting in my way after the tournament starts. Of course, they are often the same person, which cuts down on the clutter.
"I understand that now GW is the anti-SS but do you guys really need to exaggerate his qualifications, much less than reverse your previously expressed opinions of them?"
I'm not "exaggerating his qualifications." Read what I said about the election on my blog. I am simply saying that he is a respectable candidate. Sam Sloan is not. You might as well say you voted for McCain because Obama and Lyndon Larouche were equally unacceptable. I'm hardly one of Obama's fans, but they don't belong in the same box.
For the benefit of our readers, will you please provide the link to your blog post? Thank you!
ReplyDelete"For the benefit of our readers, will you please provide the link to your blog post? Thank you!"
ReplyDeletehttp://westernchess.blogspot.com/2009/12/neverending-story.html