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.

Is Settlement on the Horizon?

USCF's attorneys in the Texas case have filed a paper with the court curiously entitled NOTICE TO THE COURT OF TENTATIVE, POSSIBLE, PARTIAL SETTLEMENT. (I am not sure guys, but could you put a few more qualifiers in that title?) The settlement would resolve all claims in the TX, CA, and IL actions except USCF v. Gregory Alexander (formerly in CA, but transfered to Texas) and Polgar v. Sloan (in Texas). The settlement would not have any effect on the Alexander criminal case. The document does not discuss terms.

For information about settlement, we need to turn to a bizarre filing by Sam Sloan. While Sloan's filing itself is hardly a reliable source of information, the emails between Sloan and the mediators indicate that the parties are agreeing to a mutual dismissal of the claims, without payment by either party. An email to Sloan from the mediators states:

You'll be surprised, and hopefully pleased, to know that the USCF & Susan Polgar have agreed to settle all of the current cases. Basically, both sides agreed to walk away & provide mutual releases back and forth.

Sam, in his inimitable fashion, has reacted to a proposed settlement by throwing a public snit fit. A less charitable mind than mine might form the opinion that Sam was trying to cause trouble in the hopes that one side or the other would pay him money to shut up and go away.

As to the settlement terms, as far as known, do not seem unreasonable under the circumstances. USCF has claims against Polgar which, if reduced to a judgment would be, at a minimum, very difficult to collect. Polgar's claims are flimsy and unlikely to prevail. Of course, the precise details of the settlement are unknown at this point.

There has been some speculation about possible settlement terms that do not strike me as reasonable. Sloan has claimed that Polgar and Truong would be restored to the board. Not bloody likely. First of all, I don't think the EB has the power to do that. Secondly, from USCF's point of view, the entire goal has been to eliminate potential liabilities arising from the FSS affair. Restoring Polgar and Truong to the Board would completely frustrate that goal. I just don't see any reasonable scenario where that could fly.

Some have made a claim about our FIDE affiliation. I don't see that as being realistically involved. Our FIDE affiliation is not ours to give. FIDE's affiliation belongs to FIDE, and FIDE can give it to whoever it wants to.

In all, it would prove to be a tragic waste of time, money, opportunity and potential, but, at least, it would all be over.

The Reti Opening

Get ready to play in a chess tournament this weekend.

Here's a little video to help you get your engine started. (-or to just learn a little more about the game.)



Flexible, versatile - okay, got it. B to g2. Got that, too. And possible c-4 for White. Too, bad he didn't show Reti's very odd looking Na3 and the long term plans that result from that.

This is the opening I used for both White and Black when I started tournament play years ago. It is still good. With this kind of opening set up, it is very hard for superior players to wipe you out in the first few moves. - Though I've seen beginners try it but forget to castle and get wiped out, anyway. Be sure to castle and also watch out for those rook pawn advances.

Chess events in your area . . . and visit jrobi who created these wonderful videos.

www.jacklemoine.com/

USCF Cancels Girls Championship

The USCF announced today that they have, in effect, ended the national girls champtionship. This event had been founded and organized by Susan Polgar. At their Executive Board Meeting, they chose to not renew the contract with Polgar. They have not announced a replacement event or the intent to put one out for bid.

Susan Polgar is allowed to hold a girls championship on her own, and the players will have their games rated by the USCF, but the event will no longer be recognized by the USCF as a national event.

-------------

In a related story, this brings to a climax a long controversy between myself and various figures within the USCF regarding how USCF politics ought to be reported to the outside world. I first broke this story last month when I stated that the USCF "may" not renew the Polgar contract. People took issue with this statement, saying that without any official announcement, such speculation was unwarranted. My position was (and is) that chess politics ought to be reported like regular politics: all factors ought to be taken into account when deciding on the merits of the story, not just whether or not officials have made a statement.

In any case, my story turned out to be true.

-------------

And in yet another story related to this, a plethora of challenges were raised to my after-the-fact questioning of the USCF Board's official actions. USCF folks didn't want this story to come out before the event and they opposed the story coming out after the event, too.

Footnote: The announcement.

The contract between USCF and Susan Polgar to recognize the Polgar Invitational as a national event expired with the 2009 tournament. This has been a fine event, has an outstanding sponsor in Texas Tech, and we hope that it will continue. Even though it is no longer a national, Susan Polgar has the right to organize it, as well as other tournaments, as USCF-rated events.

Bill Goichberg

Lamer than lame

Ms. Polgar's attorneys filed their response to some of the summary judgment motions today. In yesterday's filing, there is a claim regarding the alleged defamation by the CCA that boggles the mind. The brief filed by Ms. Polgar's attorneys states:

10. Defendant Continental Chess, in two postcards, accused Plaintiff of violating fiduciary duties to the USCF and working for the destruction of the same. See Exhibit D, Appx. pp. 15-16. Each of these statements constitutes a purported statement of fact about Plaintiff, which is false and defamatory. Further, each statement is defamatory per se, in that it imputes a crime, injures Plaintiff in her occupation as a chess personality and USCF member and Board member, and impeaches her honesty, integrity, virtue, and reputation. Thus, injury to Plaintiff’s Reputation is presumed.

What did the postcards actually say:

USCF has been sued for $10 million by a member of its executive board, and $20 million by a board candidate. Executive Board members have a fiduciary duty to work for the interests of their organization, not for its destruction, and I find these lawsuits outrageous.

First of all, the statement is a response to the lawsuit. Suing someone for defamation and then basing the claim on statements made only after the lawsuit was filed is dirty pool.

Secondly, there is nothing even remotely defamatory about the statements.

Finally, and most importantly, the statements are true.

Once More into the Breach . . .

I suppose that it is time for yet another update of the USCF litigation follies. There have been some . . . interesting developments, so let's get started.

After a flurry of repetitive, tiresome briefing, Judge Patel had a hearing on Polgar's motion to disqualify Kronenberger. As predicted, it was denied. Judge Patel, then, after chewing out both attorneys, sua sponte, ordered the matter transferred to Texas.

If I were Judge Cummings, in Texas, I'd be sorely tempted to send the case back to her with a box of chocolates; however, it is probably for the best that the matters be consolidated. The interaction of the discovery in the two actions was cumbersome and awkward at best. Both sides should be able to realize a substantial savings in attorney's fees.

Meanwhile, in Texas, in the course of some discovery fighting, Ms. Polgar's deposition entered the public domain. Despite a an amusing, but worthless snit by Whitney Leigh, it remains so. Despite several attempts, I have been unable to wade through the entire deposition, but I didn't see anything in it that has much effect on my opinion of the value, or lack thereof, of her claims. The deposition was also taken of a Mr. Williams who had written a letter implying that the publicity about the cases lead to the cancellation of a business venture with Polgar. At his deposition, Williams admitted, in essence, that his letter was complete bullshit. There was no prior agreement. There was no agreed upon renumeration. There was no company in business to pay the money, and Williams wasn't even really authorized to act for the company anyway. Other than that . . . it was a great letter.

Truong was also deposed, finally. No information about that deposition has made it into the public domain as yet.

The deadline for the disclosure of experts has come and gone. USCF designated Mottershead and Dr. Frederick Cohen. I discussed Cohen's findings in an earlier post.

Meanwhile, a cavalcade of summary judgment motions has begun. Jim Berry's was the first, followed quickly by several of the other defendants. Plaintiff has responded only to Berry's at this point, and I found the response to be shockingly lame.

Another Example of How to Promote Chess

The sound track speaks for itself. Too bad the still photographer stepped in front of the video camera.*

As for the general idea of recognizing top chess players, this is the kind of thing that ought to be done at universities throughout the country.

------

* Footnote: Susan should have had an assistant on the field to properly manage the still and video photography. Paul, where were you?