Greengard's ChessNinja.com

AF4C Leaves US Ch

| Permalink | 41 comments

I've been following this developing story for months now, but it negotiations finally broke down and the New Year's deadline passed without a deal. America's Foundation for Chess, which has sponsored the US chess championship since 2000, will not be organizing this year's event. They have handed it back to the US Chess Federation, along with a $25,000 check from AF4C director Erik Anderson as a going away present.

I'd been receiving bits and pieces of an outline for the 2007 championship and now I'm glad I never put any of it on the official website. The biggest issue was whether or not there would be an online phase of the championship. The Internet Chess Club, a major sponsor of the championship in recent years, was asked to design a format for the event. Obviously it included starting with an online phase between those who qualified from the various major opens that count as qualifiers. The preliminary plans I heard about included regional online playing centers, then a final four (or eight) that met face to face in a KO phase. Then it was going to be a long break before a big final match in Las Vegas. A major corporate sponsor was lined up, but I don't know how close they were to signing the check before things melted down.

Such a circus was sure to cause controversy, but first there was the USCF board to deal with. It has been a circus of its own of late, mostly thanks to the predictably disastrous presence of Sam Sloan, who is to sleaze what Hershey's is to chocolate. (The best proof of this isn't the execrable content of his personal web pages but the fact that he didn't feel the need to remove it when he was elected to the board.) With some on the board favoring the AF4C agenda and others against, executive director Goichberg, who, I understand, didn't much care for the online idea himself, was in a tough spot. It all ended with a whimper as the deadline to close a deal expired.

One comment made to me was that the deal was broken when the corporate sponsor the AF4C had was checking around and found out about the erratic Sloan, who waged war to kick out the AF4C (as well as attacking other board members) and his pages of soft porn, but this sounds a little too convenient to believe. Plus, there are too many legitimate concerns about the format and future of the US championship to give the clowns center ring all the time. The bottom line is that the USCF is now accepting bids and the AF4C is out of the picture.

The crux of it is that there aren't big sponsors for traditional chess events in the US, so it's a question of how much the traditionalists (players, federation members, etc.) will stand from sponsors and organizers who come in with innovative (perhaps too innovative) ideas to present the game to an American audience. Or is it better to have no events at all, or little poor ones? There's no clear line here and there never will be. The two groups and final rapid match last year were too much for some people. Online play would have freaked out many others but engaged some as progressive and/or inevitable. Trying to "modernize" chess and chess events in various ways has been a back-and-forth struggle for a century. Time controls, shuffle chess, anti-draw rules, scoring systems, all are part of the debate.

When the AF4C stepped in in 2000 there wasn't going to be a US championship at all, but the event had been on life support off and on for years. Some of the top players didn't bother showing up to play a tough round-robin with a dismal prize fund. It's one thing to want serious events but it's another to make them happen and to get the top players to the board. The 1999 event (a KO, by the way, not a RR) had a $72,000 prize fund and a respectable $12K first prize, but when Interplay went away there was no one to step in who wanted to continue the invitational, GM-only events, at least not after the AF4C did the last one in 2000 before switching to the the qualifier and swiss system. (20 draws of 25 moves or less in 2000 didn't impress much either.)

Waiting for super magic angels who want to throw their money away on traditional events that receive no attention is not a plan. But when creative formats don't receive any more attention than the traditional ones, does that mean we should go back or go further? Resign ourselves to being a fringe sport or continue experimenting to popularize the professional game? It's a healthy debate, although this doesn't appear to have been handled in a salutory way, as is common with the impoverished and fractured federations running chess in most places, FIDE included. Regardless, many thanks to Erik Anderson and the AF4C for their years of support (that is, cash, but not just that) and hard work for chess at every level. Their successful First Move scholastic programs continue, of course.


Mig wrote:
The crux of it is that there aren't big sponsors for traditional chess events in the US, so it's a question of how much the traditionalists (players, federation members, etc.) will stand from sponsors and organizers who come in with innovative (perhaps too innovative) ideas to present the game to an American audience.

The most successful model for human pleasure and entertainment is the slow building of tension with a grand release at the end: a satisfying sneeze is like this, as is the NFL.

This same model is what the American NFL employs for its regular SEASON and its grand finale the Super Bowl. MLBaseball has its SEASON followed by the climax of its World Series.

Chess instead uses a model of isolated tournaments that mean nothing beyond themselves. Each tournament builds a small amount of tension, but that tension all leaks away when the tournament ends. The next tournament starts from zero tension, and nothing ever accumulates.

Tennis and golf use the chess model. They also lack a season followed by a playoffs. But neither is as big as NFL or MLB.
Regardless, the fact remains the tennis/golf model has for decades Not worked for chess.


So it is time to try a CHESS SEASON.

Perhaps there could be a series of 8 tournaments each held in different USA cities. To create a visual for sports reporters, the first tournament could start in San Francisco. Each successive tournament could generally work its way toward New York, where the final US Champ match could be held.

Maybe along the way, each player could participate in as many of these tournaments as he desires, but only his points from his best 3 tourney results could be counted toward his chance to make it to some kind of finals.

(Note: For 2007, the folks who run four major European tournaments, such as Linares, have joined together to crown an overall winner. This is in strong harmony with the direction I would recommend. Their problem is the crown they bestow has nothing to do with the WCChamp title -- maybe Bessel Kok might like to change that?)


The direct goal should be MEDIA COVERAGE; as a means to increase USCF memberships and tournament participation by both adults and children.
I do not care who wins the US Champ title, nor whether the prize fund is large or tiny. I only care that these membership & participation goals are met.

It is not important that the best USA chess players participate. In fact it might be better if they did not, so that some USA born players could have a better shot of winning.

*** Or, we could make no changes, and just wish really hard.

Gene Milener

Well, I have seen many amazing decisions by USCF. However, what really worries me is FIDE. They do not have any rules in the central! Look what came through my reader just a few minutes ago.

So really Topalov and Danailov where right? Can't FIDE find a better excuse.....

What is the problem with Sloan?

The funding problem is something that needs to be solved in order to pay for a significant event like the US Championship.

I came up with a plan to finance a $50,000 GM Slugfest tournament that doesn't require any large sponsor, just 1,000 people to change their antivirus vendor. I know it is not a standard way of doing things, but the advantage is that with a core of 1,000 people, we can have a significant annual tournament.

With 10,000 people, the prize fund would be $500,000 each year. Details are on slugfest7.com


Happy New Year Mig! Best wishes to you and your family.

I also received very similar news about the reason.

Just one quick correction, Bill Goichberg is the USCF President and former ED.

Best wishes,
Susan Polgar

Well, be fair, marca. They can’t really say that if you think Kramnik’s going to play a toerag like you again after the way you’ve behaved you’ve got another think coming, and he certainly won’t be going anywhere near Sofia.

Although I do agree you’d think they could come up with a better excuse, for example the timing. But then everyone agrees that FIDE couldn’t manage it in a brewery, so what d’you expect?

It is the excuse that bothers me, it is more than clear that there will be no match. But use some existing rule for excuse, not saying "I don't like this bank"

GeneM misses something important, I think. There are several popular sports that have no discernible seasons, but merely a series of tournaments throughout the year. Tennis and golf spring immediately to mind.

Not to say I told you so, but I told you so. If you look in the threads post San Diego I said it was blatantly clear this was AF4C's last event.

Either way the gravy train is over. Sorry guys.

Gene M: “The most successful model for human pleasure and entertainment is the slow building of tension with a grand release at the end: a satisfying sneeze is like this…”

Leave it to a chess player to find a universal example of “human pleasure” described as a “slow building of tension with a grand release at the end” that his fellow chess players can relate to, and the best he can come up with is… a “sneeze”. I’m guessing the sponsor Mig mentions potentially lined up for a possible US Championship this year wasn’t Trojan. Perhaps it was match.com or something similar. Gene M’s website is called “Castle Long” - I suspect he likes to do his “castling” “by hand” more than the regular way if he still finds sneezes the pinnacle of human pleasure.

In a more serious vein, I had no idea that Sam Sloan was actually elected to the USCF board. I knew he was trying to get there by his hilarious candidate statements that came off as the ranting of a paranoid schizophrenic, and I thought for sure that anyone who could vote would see for that fact for himself. As Mig mentions, a casual search for more info on Sloan would lead one to his personal website, where some pretty sick sexual deviance is posted by him openly. I am not a USCF member, but I had no doubts that members couldn't possibly take him seriously. My new guess is that chess players in the U.S. are now so fed up with things that they finally elected Sloan out of spite. Pretty sad.

I already think chess in the U.S. is a completely hopeless cause and follow its continuing downward spiral and the outside-of-reality zealots who cling to the sinking ship while relentlessly proclaiming a chess turnaround “just within reach” with great amusement. Normally I could laugh at the fact that US Chess has gotten to the point where a guy like Sloan is now in a position of power, but even my most cynical self finds this more disturbing than anything else. I don’t think US Chess is viable, but I don’t care to see it humiliated with its dignity totally shot on the way down either. Anyone know more about the story of Sloan and how he got elected? This should be a bigger story in U.S. chess than it currently is.

Former USCF President Leroy Dubeck (who's listed in the Cherry Hill NJ white pages--call him to show your love) wanted to punish Schultz and Goichberg for using leaks to Sloan for political purposes.

So he endorsed Sloan in order to destroy USCF.

Cui bono?

(Too many who deal with USCF live by Royko's "Ubi est mea?") http://www.whatthehelen.com/2007/01/ubi-est-mea.html

I think it's a sad day when the USCF is officially worse at running the US Championship than FIDE is at running the world championship.

Lest we forget which top GM actually endorsed Kirsan at the last elections?

But this bid was always going to fail because of the 5 months to organise it that FIDE have and the no 6 months before a world title event (Mexico).

The rules for the bids are in fact nonsense anyhow. If FIDE said the event could go ahead and they could organise it in less time then you could effectively have the match next week. That simply can't be right at all. The world champion is open to random bids to his title at no notice at all. If its to work they should say there is a gap in the calendar one year after the defence where anyone can challenge and bids can come in. Its certainly shouldn't be taking place between the same participants less than 6 months after the same players have played each other. That's silly.

And that's leaving aside the bad blood and really bad publicity the last one caused.

Regulations are here:

Key para which they could have used to reject it for the 5 month period, but using the bank guarantee is with the wrong bank is silly. Especially as Danailov could move it to the right bank and say we're starting next week. Then they'd have to go back to the insufficient time part of this clause.

2.4 The challenger’s side should present the bank guarantees, for the whole sums described in articles 2.1.a, 2.1.b and 2.2, at the same time as his proposal, after which FIDE shall organise the match within a 5-month period.

Sloan was elected because he not affiliated with a particular slate of candidates. Thanks to a lot of negative campaigning, the deficiencies of nearly all of the other candidates were well documented by the PR machine of the opposing slate. Sloan was always going to be a disaster, but at least he would be a disaster in unpredictable ways--he would vote his conscience (such as it is), rather than on the basis of voting bloc loyalty. Let's not forget that Sloan has exposed genuine wrongdoing on the part of other chess politicos, so the idea of electing a political gadfly without a partisoan agenda might have been appealing to some USCF voters.

With respect to the structure and format of the US Chess Championships--and to the idea of creating a chess season or play-offs: Such cosmetic changes will not make any difference in the popularity and funding of chess events.

I suppose that if you want to be "Sponsor friendly" you could adapt a Rapid chess format, and wrap up the tournament in one weekend. Less overhead, same amount of news coverage.

Actually, while the chances are exceedingly remote that it will happen, the best chance for chess to thrive is precisely for Mig's "Super Magic Angels" to arrive. That angel could be in the form of a Billionaire, or a Mega-celebrity, taking a keen interest in Chess.

As for the Bulgarian Banks: I can't really blame FIDE for being selective. In a place like Bulgaria, it is easy to imagine that some of the financial institutions are shady.

Given the ease of wireless transfers of money, I'm actually surprised that FIDE doesn't require the guaranteed funds to be first sent to some Swiss Bank, where the money can be held in escrow.

Obviously, the quick Topalov--Kramnik rematch will not, and ought not, take place. However, FIDE ought to have been more detailed when writing up the Challenge mach regulations.

Well I always thought that the purpose of the challenge match regulations was to have a formal OK for the challenge for unification between Kramnik and Topalov. And then that was going to be the one and only match of the type.

Then everyone seemed to feel it should be permanent. I thought the 6 month clause was put in for the express purpose of allowing time for only the one match, the unification match.

I also have always felt that if Topalov had lost with dignity and respect then he would have had a good shot at a return match. But his behavior is going to be a big brick wall to walk through.

If Topalov were to behave in a similar manner in a rematch it could be terrible for chess. He is simply too hot to handle. Far too big a risk in my mind.

Posted by: DOug at January 12, 2007 15:19

How about Lennox Lewis or the Klitschko brothers, all of whom are pretty good chessplayers?! I'd think that, with their international reputations and fame, if they were willing to help promote a tournament (which I suppose would still need corporate sponsorship, but I'm thinking of the advertising/publicity angle) it would help glamorize the game, especially since the macho art of boxing might be seen as helping (in the public's eye, anyway) to de-sissify the classical American image of chess.
(I can see this is going to invite criticism, but I'm talking about the average person's uninformed prejudice about the game, not the reality)

Corus draw is up. Topalov has 7 whites including vs Anand & Kramnik. Anand only has 6 and is also black vs Kramnik.

I pick Topalov 1st, Anand 2nd and Kramnik not 3rd...

1st Fritz10/Topalov 2-3 Anand,Kramnik 4-7 Ponomariov,Shirov, Radjabov ... everyone else ... Last place: Navara.

"so the idea of electing a political gadfly without a partisoan agenda might have been appealing to some USCF voters"

Agree. Gadflies serve useful functions.

But a gadfly who's a convicted felon of questionable character?

Occasionally Sloan might serve a useful function, but the most of the time he does not, and the way he conducts himself at all times is deplorable. Someone else could fill the role in a much more respectable manner. As Mig and others have pointed out his choices and actions in other areas of life raise many questions. His conduct while being on the EB should be enough to get him booted from his position if not banned from the federation.

I know this thread is a bit dual. But the regulations were there so Topalov could take a relatively soft defence against Radjabov after he beat the out of form Kramnik.

How do we get Sloan off the board?

Glad to read John Fernandez's post. I was just about to remind people of his comments immediately after the last US Ch. So the current s**t is no surprise at all.

With EU and banking oversight, a bank gurantee in Bulgaria these days is more than a camel drawn in the sand... Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about the state of FIDE affairs where rules and contracts have as much value as camel dung. What we're seeing is camel trading, make no mistake about it. Danailov knows better than to think that a rematch is likely, even if he had a check from Her Majesty. But with Kramnik being as trustworthy as a pottery paddler from Tijuana, it's no doubt that all sides are "playing" Mexico2007. One thing though -- when it comes to camel trading, Kirsan certainly has a higher rating than the other two...


[quote="chessoffice"][quote="ken sloan"][quote="chessoffice"][quote="artichoke"][quote="chessoffice"]... Reneging on promised qualifier status would be no more ethical than reneging on guaranteed cash prizes and might even be illegal. Some players travelled to the qualifying tournaments only because US Championship qualification was advertised.[/quote]I'm not sure that the USCF as a whole defined these as qualifying tournaments. I think this reticence was because the arrangements for the Championship were never settled.

Going forward, we should define a process whereby USCF or a representative designated for that purpose has the clear authority to offer such invitations.[/quote]

Most or all qualifying tournaments stated "a US Championship Qualifier" in the TLA and/or display ad in Chess Life, including national tournaments such as the US Open, National Open. and US Masters. I don't see how USCF could possibly justify revoking the qualifier status of a tournament held by USCF and advertised as a qualifier in USCF's magazine.

Bill Goichberg[/quote]

Who was responsible for USCF making these promises in the first place?[/quote]

AF4C notified USCF regarding most of the qualifiers for 2007 in the fall of 2005 and these were routinely announced, as in previous years.

Bill Goichberg[/quote]
I have been avoiding the forum ever since Bill had me suspended from posting there, but I cannot let this one pass.

At a meeting in Seattle in February, 2006, Bill Goichberg was informed that AF4C was downgrading its involvement in the US Championship. Thus, Bill knew by that date that AF4C would probably not be sponsoring the 2007 US Championship.

According to the contract with the Seattle Chess Foundation, now the AF4C, they had 60 days after the conclusion of the 2006 US Championship to declare an intention to sponsor the 2007 US Championship. The 2006 US Championship concluded on March 12, 2006. Thus, AF4C had until May 12, 2006 to state that it would be holding the 2007 US Championship. When that date passed and AF4C had not exercised its option to sponsor and organize the US Championship, Bill knew that they would probably not do so.

At my first closed session of the board, which was on August 14, 2006, I learned from Bill himself that Erik Anderson was not returning his calls, not responding to his letters and Bill often did not even know where Anderson was, yet publicly Bill led the players to believe that AF4C sponsorship would still be forthcoming.

I have learned from a variety of sources that all along the relations between Bill and AF4C have not been good. Bill has been pressing AF4C to agree to more qualifiers. Realizing that each qualifier means more money that AF4C will have to pay, they have been resistant to agree.

In recent months, Bill has been reporting on his negotiations with John Henderson, implying that Henderson was the representative of AF4C. However, Henderson works for ICC, not for AF4C. We were led to believe that ICC was putting up $100,000 in sponsorship money. Now, with the announcement that AF4C would not be sponsoring the US Championship, Bill announced that ICC would still be willing to hold two online qualifiers free of charge. Thus, we find out that ICC was never planning to pay the USCF any money at all.

Several months ago Bill posted a list of qualifiers to the US Championship on the uschess.org website. He implied that this list had been provided and approved by AF4C. However, Bill knew that AF4C had made no commitment to hold the US Championship and that the USCF had no other sponsorship offers in the works.

In the last few days, Bill has suggested that it is because of Sam Sloan (me) that "we the people" and AF4C pulled out of the 2007 US Championship. However, neither organization had ever stated a willingness or had ever agreed to sponsor the US Championship.

I was publicly reprimanded by Bill Goichberg and two other board members, Joel Channing and Randy Hough, for stating facts in a private email to the board that were subsequently proven to be true. Go back and read what I was reprimanded for and you will be able to see that what I wrote was exactly correct.

Two weeks ago I was suspended from posting to the USCF Forum on the pretext that I had posted confidential information. Yet, the supposedly objectionable posting did not reveal confidential information or indeed any information at all. It simply asked a question. I have repeatedly asked what information did it reveal. Bill has refused to answer (claiming that the question has already been answered).

Now, the USCF faces a serious problem. Bill has qualified 18 players to play in the US Championship who are not qualified by rating. Bill insists that these 18 must be allowed to play. However, this will cost a lot of money and we do not have any. You cannot squeeze blood from a stone. Bill is demanding that any bidder for the US Championship must provide enough money to pay for these 18 players. This huge expense will drive away many sponsors and may kill the US Championship entirely.

Sam Sloan

Haha, I just spent fifteen minutes of my life unearthing the "soft porn" on Sloan's site. "Mara" wasn't worth it. Thanks for the tip, MIG.

Here's some more "soft porn" from the site of USCF Board member Sloan: the fictional cartoon character is twelve years old....


Weird congestion in Pono-Anand....

Great reporting overall, Mig (as usual) - but a few small notes:

ICC's major role, which came about when I was general manager over there (I've had no role there for a year and a half now), is as what they call a Founding Underwriter, a four-year, $100k commitment to provide general funds for AF4C's use, not as sponsorship of the US Championship. the title sponsorship for the Championship came from the folks who make ChessMaster, Mindscape.

Many, many thanks to Erik Anderson and his fellows for a great run - I attended the last four championships, two each in Seattle and in San Diego - and the money, the organization, the prestige, the feeling of something important taking place - it was all very cool. Erik gave very generously of his money and his time. Sadly, USCF acted as though he would do this forever, and it was not to be.

One can speculate as to the reasons for AF4C's declining interest (and I can think of various slights that make the Sam Sloan suggestion pale in comparison, such as the disenfranchisement of 2003 US Women's Champ Anna Hahn - winner of the 3-way playoff against Irinal Krush and Jennifer Shahade in Seattle - and the ensuing skipping of the "2004" year event by AF4C because of the "secret" Niro/Polgar agreement to create a new women's champ in time for the 2004 Olympiad), but we might pause and remember how AF4C came into being:

From http://web.archive.org/web/20021004202745/www.af4c.org/aboutus.asp
"two prominent Seattle entrepreneurs and a chess Grandmaster came together in June 2000 to create the Seattle Chess Foundation." The drive and the spark didn't just come from Erik and another businessman - it also came from Yasser Seirawan. And during the Seattle years, Yaz's wife, Yvette, organized the events. Perhaps with Yaz and Yvette leaving Seattle for Holland a few years ago, and the event leaving Seattle for San Diego, this was in the cards for a long time.

And JFern correctly refers to the most obvious sign: neither Erik nor any of his board members attended the closing day of the 2006 Championship and the ensuing ceremonies and party.

By the way, Clint Ballard has a tremendous amount of drive, and his ideas deserve some attention.


"Here's some more "soft porn" from the site of USCF Board member Sloan: the fictional cartoon character is twelve years old....


Weird congestion in Pono-Anand....
Posted by: Bill Brock - Chicago at January 13, 2007 09:01"Bill you just posted this because you're name is mentioned in the story!

I predict a visit from the Polgar Pixie, if not the three-time winner of the [Yugoslavian] Chess Oscar herself.

Not that I like promoting Sloan in any way, but I think its important for chess players to know who they are dealing with. No one has yet pointed to the most offensive bits on Sam's site:


and for the truly rambling and bizarre:

It's not just the subject matter, it's the complete incoherence that one might question the stability of the author. Just a cursory glance should be enough to see for yourself.

That's all very well about Sam Sloan's interesting character.

But isn't it just SO TEMPTING to vote for Susan and Sam to be on the board together??


David Quinn thinks Sloan's molestation of children is amusing.

I don't.

I doubt that Sloan is mentally unstable. He probably just enjoys being a class-A pervert and utterly unrestrained about it. Shouldn't be on the USCF board, but amusing as a "dirty old man" spectacle.

The class A pervert is also a virulent racist. I'm sure his supporters enjoy race hatred as much as Sloan does:


(interesting reference to MLK Day as "C**n Day")



There are more....

My apologies for the offensive links, and I would certainly understand if Mig wishes to remove them.

I'll stop after this one...honest!


Holy cow! I didn't know you could still do this sort of thing in the US while running for public office, at least not national office - certain parts of certain states, maybe.

Are those for real? If so I'm surprised Daiim Shabazz hasn't had more to say at thechessdrum for a start - or perhaps he has?

If these links truly are to postings of an elected member of the USCF Board then US chess has some serious, serious problems. And folk are posting agonising about some chess game finishing in a draw and what can be done about it?!

I mean, leaving all other considerations aside, confessions of paedophile assaults, even in Thailand, would see you in jail in this country. Isn’t that so in America?

Like most people I like to think I don’t shock easily, but the voters of the USCF have just managed it.


Your reaction is more or less the same as mine. Sad situation, isn't it? But AFAIK, there's nothing in Illinois law or the USCF Bylaws that explicitly bars Sloan from serving. I talked to several attorneys (including several in the chess community well aware of our subject's depravity) & the Illinois AG's office. USCF got the same opinion from its counsel.

"Are those [links] for real? If so I'm surprised Daiim Shabazz hasn't had more to say at thechessdrum for a start - or perhaps he has"

Folks only have so much energy in life. People like Daiim don't deny the existence of evil, but they prefer to accentuate the positive: I have no problem with that. If everyone stopped doing the good things they're doing in order to rid USCF of Sloan, then the enemies of USCF would win again.

Having said that, I am however *really* ticked off at Board members who've ignored the ethics issues raised by Sloan's presence on the Board, notably Goichberg & Schultz. Joel Channing is the one current Board member who's trying to address the Sloan problem.

"Like most people I like to think I don’t shock easily, but the voters of the USCF have just managed it."

In the special election for the two open Board seats, the field was unusually weak. Sloan's candidate statement was well-written, issue-driven, & accompanied by a photo of the candidate w/ wife at side & youngest daughter on lap. Many voters didn't simply know, & made the decision based on the info available to them.

If Sloan wins re-election, USCF Delegates may wish to throw in the towel, dissolve the Board, and effectively hand the keys over to AF4C. USCF will never obtain serious sponsorship for professional events with him around.

But the AF4C solution creates its own problems--does the org then become all kids, all the time? Do the professionals lose again, just as they did when ACF became Chess in the Schools?

OK, I fibbed. One more, only because I'm amazed by the depths to which Sloan and his defenders (here, Larry Parr and Phil Innes) will sink:



The fact that Sam Sloan is a pariah and quite unfit to hold any respectable office should be public knowledge by now, but it unfortunately was not when people were voting for the USCF board. Not many in the NYC chess community have forgotten his very public pining for a then-12 year old girl, and such a circumstance is not an isolated incident in the life of Sam Sloan. Many a parent have I heard at the Marshall Chess Club tell their daughters to steer clear of that man, and yet, he sits on the board of the national federation today. When a slanderous, libelous pedophile is the best a national federation of any sort can do, it is clear enough that the end times for said federation are upon us unless it can reverse course swiftly and decisively.



Twitter Updates

    Follow me on Twitter



    About this Entry

    This page contains a single entry by Mig published on January 11, 2007 10:22 PM.

    Melting Chess was the previous entry in this blog.

    Corus Wijk aan Zee 2007 is the next entry in this blog.

    Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.