A Loose End

Last month, I learned from Hal Bogner that the principals to the Polgar lawsuits have the files on Chess Discussion.com. (Thank you, Hal!) This website had been run by Susan Polgar but has been taken down.

From Hal, I learned that the 3 top people (Susan, Paul, and Gregory) had a super-secret section on that forum just for themselves. I infer from Hal’s comments that this was where the lawyers’ interest lay. He quoted to me some of Gregory’s et al’s comments about me that were negative.

My reactions to these disclosures:

I do not mind top management having a discussion area of their own. This is a necessary thing in most companies.

Their negative comments pertained to their judgment that I was not politically reliable. I do not mind this, either because that judgment was true. I stated many times that I wanted the truth of all that mess. My continued support of them was based on continuing bad statements and actions of the USCF and their other detractors, while noting Polgar’s bad actions, too.

Controversies related to forum management: I would have preferred to have Lafferty, Mottershead, et al to have full access to the forum. During the time, I tried various work-arounds. I was persuaded to Susan’s point of view only by (a) her desire to have the forum as non-political as possible and (b) by their exclusive and negative political content. My changing position on this front was the result of evolution, not duplicity. However, in retrospect, my biggest regret was not coming down hard on Polgar’s political supporters much earlier than I did. The policy of discouraging political diatribes was not executed fairly.

Postscript: Brian Lafferty has stated that he intends to publish the entirety of the forum someday. Believe that? Use your own judgment

Walters' Campaign Blog

Earlier I had stated that Gary Walters, candidate for the USCF Executive Board, had done nothing in chess but put up a campaign blog after he began his electioneering. More on that in later posts, but on the blog issue John Hillery commented, saying that my characterization of his blog was unjust.

(Sadly the links do not show up in this blog very well. You have to move your cursor around to find them.)

I am not the only one who's saying this blog is for campaigning. This from the USCF's Forums, thread "I Will Only Vote Positively", post #180806, Gary Walters himself says,

I am also campaigning actively on my blog at http://graysonebc.blogspot.com/. You can find out more about me there.

This compares to Hillery's comment cited above:

"You failed to mention that he only started his blog after he launched his election campaign." [quoting me - JL]

That 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.

The point of all this is that what we have is a candidate who is not willing to work his way up but wants to start at the top. In order to make up for his lack of chess experience, he launches a blog so that he can have at least some chess thing to campaign on.

Let's face it. In a year with the USCF in a financial crisis, it is going to need a very active Executive Board, aggressively helping with fundraising and promoting. It's stuck with Walters because the alternative is so unacceptable. If the members expect this pol to be more than just a resume credential collector, they are likely to be disappointed.

Adventures In NY, Boston, and Elsewhere

Just learned of a new chess blog. Well, chess and lots of other stuff, too. Rather like my own at Jack Le Moine's Blog.

This blog is run by Erabin at Brandais University. Check his blog out and tell him Jack sent you!

Non-Chess Jack 3/9/10

What am I up to when I'm not playing chess and chess politics?

Yesterday, I read a book on Twitter. It was really an eye-opener for me. I did a little bit to my twitter site and my twitter practice. I went up from 6 to 65 followers. Here's my Twitter site, and check out the book, too.

- Yes, I know. You saw on the USCF's Forum this:

Big picture time here: I notice I have 63 followers on Twitter.

- Myself, Post 183785

Same terminology used by the Rev. Jim Jones. Scary.

- Another USCF poster, citing the leader of a famous mass suicide in the early 1980's, Post 183786

I had to inform the group that "followers" is the official term used by Twitter, Google (see the right panel here) and other major social internet sites. Why bother with such crazies?

Also:

Here's another installment of Herodotus on my History Blog. H was a tourist as well as an historian in the 5th. century BC, so his description of the ancient Egypt he saw takes us back in time 2,400 years.

Now, with securities prices low is the best time to invest. In my Finance Blog, I ruminate on wisdom I found from Rich Dad and others.

Health Care dominates the news on my Politics Blog but the most far-reaching news is Obama's cutting back on the Space Program. What are the Left's goals in Space?

and don't forget my first Youtube video ever!

Chess Blogging: Why So Little?

The Georgia Society of CPA's launched a blog last week and I contributed a few posts to help them get started. This one was about blogging versus chatting and I used the USCF's activities as an example of the behavior. As you can see, while USCF politics was discussed therein, it really wasn't about that. Rather, I addressed this question: why is it so hard for people to blog?

I think that this is especially of interest to the chess community. Chess in the US needs all the promotion that it can get.

Here's the link to the CPA Society's post: GSCPA

And don't forget about the Chess Blog Carnival coming up at the end of this month. (Plug!)

Footnote: While I did not mention names in that post, the chess community will recognize the references to Brian Lafferty and Brian Mottershead. Not important to the point of my posting, just FYI here in this forum.

2010 Chess Blog Carnival

A new year is upon us. Even if it is not regular, an occasional carnival showcasing the chess blogging talent out there is a good thing.

Here's the chess carnival's page. It also lists past chess carnivals. If you blog on chess, then showcase your work in the carnival. It will publish on 2/1/10.

----------

On a related topic:
If you blog on other subjects, then check out the many blog carnivals out there. These carnivals cover a broad range of areas of interest. Blog Carnivals have become one of the many resources for bloggers to promote their work and for the public to search for quality blogs.

I began the Chess Blog Carnival 2 years ago when I discovered that there was none for chess.

A Note to Mark Weeks

I sent this message to Mark Weeks on Facebook tonight and I thought I would share it here.

Mark, thanks for connecting to me. I really like your blog. You should put a link to it here. I am just sick about what happened at the USCF Delegate's meeting last month. I don't think that Paul and Susan were treated right at all. I ...especially dislike not being able to talk about it. - And poor Gregory Alexander! I just don't know what to think about that! I bet when the facts come out - and someday they will - history will take a dim view about what happened.

Even though I've become active in blogging again, is difficult for me to think of chess. It will take time for me to get over this.

Of course, Mark has nothing to do with the events I'm complaining about. I'm sharing this venting, because it summarizes my feelings and may help explain why I'm not so active in chess as before.

Mark is one of the premier chess bloggers out there. You should check out his blog, Chess for All Ages. Tell him Jack sent you!

---

P.S. Yes, that's the guy who is pictured under followers to the right.

USCF Finances - A Summary

Yesterday I vetted my summary of the financial issues facing the USCF. The below is based upon what that, modified by pertinent critiques.

Appreciate the kind thoughts expressed in another thread about my summarizing the accounting issues facing the USCF.

I like the legal summary that Wick Deer put on his blog: http://wduscf.blogspot.com/
It would be nice if someone (like Jack LeMoine, for example) with an accounting background would post a summary of the financial issues facing the USCF.

Jim

Just off the top of my head are:

1) The accounting reports have improved since I saw them a couple of years ago.

2) The main problem accountingwise that the USCF faces is the inability to know how ahead or behind we are during the course of the year. However far behind we are mid-year, management always responds with first, "The second half of the year is always better" and "The auditors always make year-end accruals that could vary the bottom lines by many thousands of dollars".

3) The members badly need to know how much the average rate of increase the second half revenues are over the first half. This gives you an historical, verifiable, and measurable benchmark to project the annual result.

4) I wouldn't depend too much on comparing first half results with prior years. It is like comparing middle-game positions in a game of chess. You may have fewer pieces but still be ahead. There are other factors than just how many and what pieces you have. The same is true for comparing dollars to dollars mid-year. It is the end of the year that counts. Management is correct to point to annual results instead of interim results.

5) The problem of membership accruals at year-end needs to be addressed. I note that Mike Nolan has come out in favor of a database for this.

6) Various audit issues have been discussed at very great length on this forum. Amid all the drek, there's been some legitimate points raised. I have pointed out (see some of my earliest posts) that we have independent auditors and these issues ought to be taken up with them. I favor the Executive Board meeting with the auditors on an annual basis to discuss matters that have come up and to ask questions. Such questions could relate to findings that did not rise to the level of financial statement disclosure but that people would still be interested in knowing. (e.g. the infamous Susan Polgar laptop computer incident. Did the auditors look into this or did they not? If they did, what did they find? Another audit mystery is the documentation of the Crossville land and building valuation. Did the auditors examine them or did they not? How did they verify the valuations used?) Bill Goichberg opposed this; Randy Bauer hasn't taken a position.

7) Sevan Murdian brought up the subject of operational/internal audits about a year and a half ago. He offered his services for free and I had said I would help. Mike Nolan was right to say that these would only work if people did the work in Crossville. At this point, I'm unclear how this would help but perhaps it is worth looking into.

8) The unpaid post-employment money owed remains a critical issue. I am unsure why the USCF hasn't been sued over this. The money owed ought to be paid ASAP.

9) The invite to me to summarize the accounting issues was kindly appreciated and this was a quick and dirty response. The proper person who ought to summarize these issues is Randy Bauer, the USCF's Vice-President of Finance. Recently, we exchanged views on this forum on the matter. RB was quite adament that he no longer feels responsibility for discussing USCF Finances because of the lawsuits and because he is just a volunteer. (From his statements, I infer that he won't address USCF finances in any other manner, either, but I could be mistaken. He could still be functioning in some way. - Or not.) I believe he ought to reverse his position on this issue.

Note: After publication of the above on the USCF’s Forums, the VP-Finance broke his silence on USCF finances. His major points were:

USCF finances, through the first 8 months of the fiscal year, are remarkably on track with the budgeted amounts on the revenue side. In fact, the differences are so not material in almost every major category to be, well, remarkable.

That said, one expenditure area has a large variance from budget: professional services - i.e., legal fees. This is about $129,000 over budget.

The overall picture through 8 months has us about $246,000 ahead of budget, of which almost $400,000 is bequests. The difference between the two numbers is almost entirely additional legal fees.

Wow, that sounds like some serious mis-management. Got a blog post ready to go on that, Jack?
- Post 127870

And this:

I don't see any "accounting issues" to "clean up" - I think our current accounting processes are just fine and are now a lot more straightforward with reports developed straight out of the Peachtree accounting system.
- Post 127927

Management’s annual demurs about unknown year-end membership accruals usually comes around April and May. These accruals throw the final bottom line off by many thousands of dollars. The USCF looks to the auditors to calculate. This means that the USCF doesn’t know how it is doing until after the year is over.

Until then, the accounting is just fine. This has been management’s story for several years now.

Last Call for Feb. Chess Blog Carnival

The February Edition of the Chess Blog Carnival is just days away. Deadline for bloggers to submit their best article is February 15. Chessvine will edit and host this edition.

This is a tremendous opportunity for the chess fans to sample the best of the chess blogs that are active today. The internet contains many talented writers and analysts who are both famous and unknown. One of the exciting things about this project is that you may discover the earliest writings of one of the great players and/or pundits of the future. January saw a tremendous response. Even Susan Polgar was in on the action. Carnival articles include these categories:

• Annotated Games
• Book Reviews
• Chess Culture and Politics
• Chess Events
• Endgame Play
• Humor
• Improvement
• Opening Theory
• Position Analysis
• Strategic Concepts

Click on the logo for previous editions of the Chess Blog Carnival.

With Korenman

I'm on the left; Mikhail Korenman is on the right.
Mikhail is a candidate for the USCF Executive Board this year. I hope he wins. He's been on the Scholastic Committee and he has some great ideas.

This is another picture from last year's National High School Championships that I just discovered.

---

See also http://www.jacklemoine.com

Bill Hall and Mike Mulford

That's Bill on the left and Mike on the right.
Another picture from the National High School Championship last year. Bill Hall is the Executive Director of the US Chess Federation. Mike Mulford was a friend of mine back in the 1970's. We played a match in his college dorm room in Seattle. He hired me for my first accounting job in 1983.

Mulford goes by the handle "Mulfish" in his internet chess postings. This picture was taken just after an impromptu meeting with us and Hal Bogner. Bill and Hal led Mike and me through the whole FSS/Mottershead Report scandal, how it first came to their attention and what they did. They were very nice and informative. They answered my questions as best as they were able to do, given the legal constraints that they were under.

---

Jack Le Moine
http://www.jacklemoine.com

Hal Bogner and Me

That's Hal on the left and myself on the right.
In the next few days I shall post some pictures from last year's National High School Championship. I was new to the digital camera game and I had thought that I had lost my pictures. I did find a few. Also, because I was a newbie, the date and time stamp are not reliable. I think it was on the 16th not the 14th that the picture was taken.

Hal Bogner has been active in chess for all his adult life. He was in on the ground floor of the Chessmaster computer playing program, ChessBase, the database program, General Manager of the Internet Chess Club, and currently a partner in The Chess Magnet School. We spent a great deal of time together. While we're in opposite camps as far as USCF politics goes, I don't see why he's such a bad guy.

I recommend his Chess Magnet School. Tell him Jack sent you!

---

Jack Le Moine
http://www.jacklemoine.com

Who Killed ChessUSA.Net?

As the chess world absorbed the news of the closure of ChessUSA blog, the mystery of who did it ricocheted around the chess forums like a bullet. Fingers first pointed towards the hated Susan Polgar. She said this:

I was just told that Mr. Steve Owens received a credible legal threat from an interested party in the upcoming 2009 USCF Executive Board election. I find this appalling. I do not agree with Mr. Owens’ view on many occasions but this is chess politics at its worst. This is wrong.

Best wishes,
Susan Polgar

The President of the USCF rejected this, however. He issued this statement to the USCF’s Forums:

. . . Where did Susan say it was not her? She said it was "chess politics at its worst" and "This is wrong," but where did she deny that it was her?

Remember, when Brian Lafferty asked Susan and Paul on this Forum about February 2007 if they were married to each other, their response was to ignore the question and attack Brian. Most posters saw this reaction as a "no" answer to the question, but it was not. In May it was learned that they were married in December 2006, but this info was not in the June Chess Life and had it been, Paul might not have been elected, as many voters feel it is improper for one family to control two votes (half the number of votes necessary to pass a board motion). Susan and Paul subsequently denied trying to hide their marriage, and they were apparently correct that they didn't say they were not married to each other, just gave that impression without saying so.

Bill Goichberg

This was a most serious comparison. My response to this comparison was censored off the USCF’s Forums and no further rebuttal to this has appeared on that venue by anybody else. This is what I wrote:

Bill Goichberg, in the dishonest way that has become the staple of discussion of anything Polgar by USCF’s leaders, said about Susan’s first statement that “This was wrong” did not constitute a denial and compared her statement to her earlier statement in 2007 regarding her marriage. To be honestly comparable, she would have to said her marriage was “appalling”; “it is chess politics at its worst”; and “this is wrong”. In fact, in her statement on her marriage, she only said that she found Brian Lafferty’s question rude and insulting and she refused to answer it. Reasonable people would find some degree of gap between one statement and the other.

As for Steve's case, I can’t help but wonder how Susan's lawyer would handle a case that his client had just publicly and on the record labeled “appalling” and “wrong”. I’m no lawyer, but if I had to and if I was allowed, I bet that even I could defend Steve and win!

A few minutes later, he posted this:

I didn't say that it was Susan, only that she has not denied that it was her.

"Chess politics at its worst" is not a denial. "This is wrong" is not a denial.

I suppose it could be someone else described in "This party has silenced opposition in venues under their control -- and that is their right." There aren't many who fit that description, but there might be someone else out there who operates blogs or groups on which opposition is silenced.

Following is the last post Steve made before announcing the closing of his blog. Did this post cause Polgar or Truong to threaten legal action? I don't know for sure, but see no reason to rule out the possibility.

Bill Goichberg

Here is the post BG quoted.

The inhabitants at the USCF’s Forums leapt to the conclusion that Susan and/or Paul Truong were the murderers.

Steve, in your post on ChessUSA.net you stated (1) that the people concerned are "interested parties" in the Executive Board election; and (2) that they have multiple online venues under their control in which they have also silenced opposition. Since you are using plural here ("parties", "their control", "they") we can also assume (3) that the threat comes from at least two people acting in concert and jointly controlling online venues.

In my opinion, the only people who fit this bill are Polgar and Truong. I hope you will correct me if I am drawing the wrong conclusion.

- Brian Mottershead

Since I was the one man who was at the intersection of the mystery, (partner in the deceased blog and also Moderator in Susan’s forum) I contacted Susan who replied by e-mail.

Jack,

The first I heard about this was a few hours ago from one of the USCF members who alerted me about the wild accusations and speculations which surfaced on the net. Neither Paul or I have anything to do with this and we hope that Steve would go public with this information. In fact, I encourage him to go public with it for the sake of all USCF members.

Best wishes,
Susan

I also contacted Steve Owens, the legal owner of ChessUSA. He would not give more information to me beyond what he had publicly announced.

I felt like Lieutenant Columbo of TV Fame as I asked the chess players to look at the evidence instead of leaping to conclusions. Here’s a portion of what I said.

But anyway, what’s a few facts getting in the way of all the anti-Polgar mania? Well, let’s list a few facts, anyway.

Item: Bill Goichberg’s other piece of evidence was “Steve’s” last statement on the blog before he closed it. Very clever wordplay by the USCF’s President for sure. Yes, indeedy, the anti-Polgar post quoted by Bill G was the very last one done by Steve but it was not the last one done on the blog.

Item: The last one done on the blog was done by myself!!! It was a rebuttal of the last post by Steve. That last blog post defended Susan and attacked the USCF leadership.

Item: The post Bill G gave so much weight to, contained 4 comments which he did not quote. 2 were by me, one by Donna A, and one by Steve. 2 of those 4 comments (50%) were critical of the USCF leadership (Donna and me), 1 was neutral (me), and Steve’s was anti-Polgar.

Item: Since December 1, 2008 (last 2 months) there have been a total of 13 posts. 9 were by me and 4 by Steve. 4 posts attacked the USCF leadership while only 1 post attacked Susan – the one Bill Goichberg quoted.

Item: ChessUSA should be considered a Pro-Polgar blog by a 4 to 1 ratio in the last 2 months.

Query: In earlier months the ratio changed depending upon whether Steve or myself was active. So, why would Susan suddenly launch this kind of attack just when the ratio had swung decisively in her favor?

Query: If Susan had given any attention to what was on the blog at all, which I doubt, wouldn’t a better course have been to quietly encourage me to post more on it and turn it into an even more pro-Polgar bastion than it already was? - Especially in light of Steve’s reluctance to post on it, by his own statement as well as his history?

So, if the obvious suspect did not do it, then who did? As Lieutenant Columbo might have asked, as he gazed down at the murder victim, “Who dunnit?”

ChessUSA.Net – RIP

A mysterious litigator managed to close a chess site Friday. Though I was a partner in that site, I was not legally one, so I don’t know anything beyond what was posted there. Nor, do I know what was written that triggered the lawyer attack.

This is now the second chess site that has been attacked in as many months. In the Chess Blog Carnival on Jan. 1, I wrote this:

2008 had too many stories of governments and other official bodies censoring, punishing, and other wise taking control of the internet. Here in the chess world the internet war between Susan Polgar and the US Chess Federation begat dangers for the rest of us. First came the accusation that SP had conspired to hack into a USCF leader’s e-mail account. The USCF then used that as a pretext to commence legal attacks on her websites, ostensibly seeking the data to verify this accusation. The legal tactic was to serve papers on the internet service providers. Once the “keys to the kingdom” were turned over to the USCF, it could then use them to get the IP addresses of anybody who had ever posted anything and then go after them. (They are suing Susan, Gregory Alexander, and 10 other “John Does”.) Both defendants deny having anything to do with this.

Up to this point, the chess world can say that this is just a personal problem of Susan and Gregory. But those John Does are what concerns the rest of us. If the USCF are just targeting Susan and Gregory just because of politics, then they could target anybody. Do any of you reading this want chess politicians who may not like you, tracking your internet surfing and then use that information to embarrass you? Do any of you want to be victimized by specious lawsuits? - Just because you rubbed someone in power the wrong way?

On the other hand, the chess world should not hinder legitimate investigations into actual wrongs done on the internet. What we need is a statement from the USCF telling us what their policies, procedures, and safeguards are in this area. In the USCF’s Issues Forums I posted extensively on this and the USCF roundly rebuffed this call.

In the future, we may see other authorities in other countries who may want to target chess bloggers. Sadly, these events mean that we won’t be able to look to the chess leaders of the United States for support.

Little did I expect that the next victim would be hit so soon or that it would hit so close to home.