Greengard's ChessNinja.com

Sleazy Until Proven Guilty

| Permalink | 149 comments

The reason I'm not covering this is the same reason I haven't covered just about any of the related Polgar/Truong/Sloan/USCF sleaze and idiocy for months. I don't care. It's boring. We don't know anything. The last time I felt forced to mention it -- because it was erupting in the comments like now -- I said I'd comment on it when there were final court decisions and/or convictions. An arrest is not a conviction. Start your own thread on it in the message boards if there aren't 10 already. Please leave this particularly noxious off-topic garbage to the Usenet and, of course, to the NY Times, where apparently it was the only thing on American chess fit to print that day. Nakamura's win in San Sebastian was the same day, but Times readers got this dribble. Maybe the US champ's big victory will make the cut next week, unless some USCF lawyer blows his nose.


How did some 1500-uscf so-so hack get the highly sought NY Times position? Why not Mig - the world's greatest Chess journalist by far (merely a statement of fact, not brownnose)? Why not some GM? (For some reason all GMs seem to write brilliantly, in that signature crisp style.)

remember your own ip research, which ended in a "planegate"? (Truong was in a plane when fake blog entries were written)

"Maybe the US champ's big victory will make the cut next week, unless some USCF lawyer blows his nose."
Ha, this is the paradox of mainstream media coverage of chess in a nutshell. We should hire a PR company to manufacture scandals every week, soon there'd be a 2 hours afternoon spot for chess on every TV station.

Susan's probably bored by the whole thing, too; nothing's up in her blog.

What is it with chess politics that attracts so many oddballs and misanthropes? Just when one thought FIDE was the nadir of maladministration along come the recent USCF drama.
I think reading stuff by and about Susan Polgar, Paul Truong, Sam Sloan etc is probably not going to attract anyone to chess, certainly not sponsors, especially upright people like investment bankers.And before the Europeans get uppity, you want to know the vile stuff that goes in the ECF.

Congratulations to Canadian GM Mark Bluvshtein, who takes first prize in the Open ahead of Shirov, Adams, Krush, Ganguly and others. The coverage blackout here actually was a good thing; the 2005 threads were kind of a drag.

Susan's probably bored by the whole thing, too; nothing's up in her blog.

Greg, you are great at sarcasm. Maybe one reason the NYT article didn't make it is because NYT is strict about copy paste from their site :)

More seriously, Polgar seems to allow anything critical or negative of her on her sites only if it is racist and/or misogynist.

I am not sure if this issue is any more boring than the discussions on the latest FIDE championship announcements or politics or the right WC format. Unless those threads where the same arguments or events are repeated ad nauseum, there seems to new twists in this saga every few weeks.

Do all GM's (every single one of them) write at all? I guess rather only those of them who enjoy it and have a bit of talent do write and find (or create) a forum for it.

Concerning the NY Times article, as far as I understand it was on the general pages, not in a dedicated chess column. This type of news may indeed be more interesting to the average reader "who doesn't even know how the horsie moves" (borrowing this from chesshire cat). I disagree with him that 'any news about chess is good news' (IF this was implied in his post) and rather agree with Hardy Berger that it damages the image of chess, particularly among (potential) sponsors.

That being said, I guess a story about Nakamura would also appeal to a wider public.

Slight nitpicking about Mig's title: Shouldn't this rather be "Sleazy UNLESS proven guilty"? In the meantime, I am waiting for the entry on Biel Round 1! ,:)

Dylan's a master, but that was a good troll, hcl.

Good to hear he's not the Dylan McClain listed at 354 ELO.


I just thouoght I'd politely round up to 1500. He didn't sound that bad of a player.

Thank you. I wish more media would follow your example. You report on the thing and then you report on the result. There's too much speculation out there (especially on things that aren't even worth a thought let alone hours and hours of airtime or blogspace) and not enough information.

I was already a fan Mig, now I am more so.

Here's the right link for Dylan's ratings. For some reason the USCF site (but not the FIDE site) have his last name spelled with a space between, i.e., "Mc Clain". No clue who the guy in hcl's link might be - probably just a kid who happens to have the same name.

USCF: http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12013830

FIDE: http://ratings.fide.com/seek.phtml?idcode=2011794&name=&offset=0

I've played him, and have the impression he is if anything, underrated.

While it is appropriate to rectify hcl's initial post (I will give him the benefit of doubt that he didn't deliberately provide false information), for the given piece McClain's rating is rather irrelevant. Anyone with a rating of 1300, 300 or "nothing at all" (not even knowing the rules of the game) could write such an article.

Btw, a GM title doesn't always guarantee 'good' chess coverage: Susan Polgar copies a piece by Kavalek in the Washington Post on the San Sebastian tournament, entitled "In Capablanca's Footsteps?". The title is still OK, at least he didn't forget the question mark ,:), but what about the following quotes?

"Several of the world's top players were missing in this year's tournament [correct would be: noone of the present top 10 participated], but the event was not easy. For example, the legendary world champion Anatoly Karpov finished last. [As the article is written for a general public, it is a bit misleading to omit his present world ranking?]"

This can still pass for US patriotism, but the last paragraph is simply wrong:
"His [Svidler's] victory against ... Vachier Lagrave ... presents a new challenge in a fashionable line of the Marshall Attack"
[the entire game was known theory, but Vachier-Lagrave mixed up the move order. Where on earth is the 'new challenge'?]

Come on we all know the public wants scandals to print not positive things like Nakamura's win.

"An arrest is not a conviction."

Correct. Sometimes the authorities have less of an interest getting a conviction than they do in exerting leverage to get the one arrested to talk.

But I should stop myself there. Mig, I commend your editorial stance. Wittgenstein famously said of certain issues that "What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence." He wasn't of course referring to situations where speechlessness arises from a combination of disgust and frustration, as is the case here, but his conclusion seems fitting nonetheless.

"Several of the world's top players were missing in this year's tournament"

Heh yeah, that's one way to put it, especially in the context of a comparison to San Sebastian 1911, which happens to be one of the strongest tournaments in chess history. We're supposed to get the impression that OK, maybe this year it was slightly weaker, "but still"..

Katalik: Susanpolgarblog is a censor blog

similar to eastern dictatur

Dear Calvin: Wow. Eloquence and intelligence in one posting! Worthy of Mig. (And, by now, possibly the Miglette!) In all seriousity, I was going to state the essence of your words, too. After reading yours I can only rave about your rant. Who has the frosting for these cupcakes?

The U.S. Attorney's Office press release notes bail was set at $100,000, which is not a trivial amount.


"...Alexander's next scheduled appearance is at 9 a.m. on August 3 for a status hearing before Judge Ronald M. Whyte."


That's aggravated identity theft, mind you, which is entirely in keeping with the aggravation caused by a cabel of Kirsan wannabees attempting to apply an Inverted Oriental Deathlock wrasseling hold on a smelly litigious tar baby.

Messy at best.

Assuming the evidence is there, Mr. Alexander's attorney will likely advise him to save as much of his own skin as he can by cutting a deal to testify against any presently unindicted co-conspirators.

That is interesting to me, but Mig, who is usually quick to latch onto other controversies (for example, those involving Danailov, Ilyumzhinov, etc.) says:

"I don't care. It's boring. We don't know anything. The last time I felt forced to mention it -- because it was erupting in the comments like now -- I said I'd comment on it when there were final court decisions and/or convictions."

Final court decisions and/or convictions could take many years. Your patience is remarkable.

I know, I know, it's Mig's blog, he can control it anyway he wants to, I can go start my own blog, yah, yah, yah. Still, Mig's reticence seems uncharacteristic of him.

It's cos he has already had enough to do on the subject, must be sick to death of it.

Indeed Mig's silence is very loud and uncharacteristic and I don't think he waited for 'final court decisions and /or convictions' before commenting on previous controversies and political issues. Perhaps he's fearful of getting mired in the orgy of lawsuits? Or just ashamed at the acrid odour that now surrounds US chess politics at the highest level? Who knows?

You're all missing the point of why Mig has no interest in this issue. Two points, really.

1) His interest (for this blog at least) is chess, not chess politics. Sure he writes with ardor about Kirsan's shenanigans, and Danailov's too. But Danailov's crap is always associated with positioning a player for advantage in a chess match. As for Kirsan, I don't think Mig shows much interest in FIDE politics EXCEPT on matters that involve tournament/match arrangements, the rules of the game (handshake, time controls, etc.) of other matters directly affecting top players.

2) His interest is confined to the affairs of top players - as is yours (nearly all of you who read this blog, that is). We're talking the world elite - top-10, top-20, maybe on a slow news day, top-100. For that reason, Mig long ago convinced himself that little if anything that takes place in the U.S. is ever worthy of his attention - even actual chess play, let alone matters only vaguely related to chess.

I think Mig is mostly interested in chess rather than chess politics (so am I). Controversies involving Danailov or Ilyumzhinov directly affect (top-level) chess: past, present and future WCh cycles, Grand Slam tournaments, doping tests, zero-tolerance forfeits, etc. .
As far as I am aware of (but anyone correct me if I am wrong), USCF quarrels do not affect OTB chess - other than damaging the image of chess and implications for (potential) sponsorship of events.
To me, it is also fair enough if Mig doesn't want to take sides in those controversies (or at least to face such accusations). It is more than fair if he does not want to be dragged into related lawsuits.

But what's the bottom line here -- are these mud fights driven by a bunch of sick egos only, or we're talking lot's of money, or what exactly?


"I think Mig is mostly interested in chess rather than chess politics" (Thomas)

"His interest (for this blog at least) is chess, not chess politics." (flyonthewall)

"His interest is confined to the affairs of top players - " (flyonthewall)

You are both probably correct. Unless Mig says differently, he's stated his case with "I don't care. It's boring. We don't know anything."

Mig's point, if I may be so bold, is that he prefers to live, as they say in the Matrix, in the "World of the Real". Real events, real chess, real fun stuff.

That's why we play these games.

It's amazing how much politics has absoultely nothing to do with the real chess that goes on, at least when it comes to the US. The USCF is involved in chess... where? The best events in the US historically have always been completely done outside the USCF (though in some cases, say the AF4C and Rex-run US Championships), they're "involved", but those who have been successful have kept the Federation (and all those associated with it) out.

Sure, politics is critical in chess, look at the World Championship or other FIDE events, but it rarely seems to be a positive influence. At best, the politicos don't hurt you, but that only happens a fraction of the time.

This shitstorm can best be summed up as one of the darkest moments in USCF history. This has been going on forever (I was highly involved in chess when this was first going on and I haven't even played a FIDE rated game in just over 5 years), and if true, has besmirched some really powerful people.

The usual anecdote of mud wrestling a pig comes to mind. Accusations have been flying for several years now, and Mig is only going to write about things once actual legal stuff happens.

The short of it? Someone hacked into someone's e-mail account for political purposes. Obviously, the DA saw enough evidence to persue a prosecution, and a grand jury found enough evidence to indict.

checked the IPs of this thread? Any Truong fake mail included?

In addition to ennui, there's also the fear factor, I think. Remember that very recently, Chessbase removed uncomplimentary references to Polgar WC claims allegedly under threats.

I think it also has to do with the other side. Both Polgar and Sloan are self-centred, self-promoting and disgusting. So which side does one take?

To be fair, Mig had been critical of Polgar in the past (such as when she posted nice things using her id and soon after an anon post was made from the same IP address making fun of his rating).

For those interested, a summary of all the cases is at:

In addition, there is supposedly a backruptcy fraud investigation against Troung.

"The suit was filed in federal court in New York, but dismissed due to lack of diversity jurisdiction. Mr. Sloan filed a motion to reconsider with the court, which was denied. He then filed a motion to reconsider the ruling on his motion to reconsider, which was denied. Currently, Mr. Sloan is appealing the dismissal to the federal circuit appellate court."

Thanks, Kapalik.

But why the hell didn't Sloan file a motion to reconsider the ruling on the motion to reconsider the ruling on the motion to reconsider?

Ellrond said on July 21, 2009 1:53 PM:
"checked the IPs of this thread? Any Truong fake mail included?"

There were a few postings in another thread that were quite reminiscent of the messages in question, both in tone and execution.

When the question was raised whether or not they were actually from those parties involved, they seem to have ceased.

Just an observation.


Mig is doing the smart thing: keep away from the slime. Regardless of his reasons, there is nothing to be gained by mingling with those low lifes.

Polgar's father truly destroyed his kids. So much for his 'experiment'...

Why is John Fernandez so down on USCF -- he says "The USCF is involved in chess... where?" as if he cannot see the forest for the trees.

USCF owns a collection of National Event properties -- about 40 of them -- and it works with local partners to run those events.

It is actually to the USCF's credit (and admittedly partly out of weakness) that is allows those partners to take most of the credit for those events. Maybe this is why JF doesn't "see" the hand of the USCF in those events.

USCF is a governance organization. That means it is designed to do the things that the 52 state federations cannot. It guarantees that those National Events will be held, by partnering.

USCF's hand is behind the SuperNationals, where thousands of children play championship chess.

USCF's hand is behind the US Cadet, the US Junior (and Junior Open), the US Championship and US Women's Championship, the US Open, the US Class Championship, the smaller individual National Scholastic Championships, the US Amateur Championships, the US Amateur Team Championships, the US Blind Championship, the US Senior Open, and others.

Sure, the partners get the lion's share of the credit. There are good partners and there are partners who may struggle to run and event...but the point is the events get HELD.

Governance = the dirty job of making sure things run. Not run smoothly or optimally, but get run at all.

Governance = the rating system that is the glue that keeps tens of thousands of players involved and gives them a reason to keep playing in local club tourneys.

Governance = the uniform system of rules that events are run by in the US.

Can things be done better -- you bet.

But USCF is the glue that keeps my local club together. The rating system. The magazine. The sense of belonging to something larger than the local community (which is an important factor in bowling and golf and other activities -- not just chess).

JF asks "The USCF is involved in chess... where?" and I guess he doesn't see it because he doesn't "see" amateur chess. USCF governance matters MOST to amateur chess, to new players who are just starting out.

I love Mig's blog...but sometimes...just sometimes...there is a tendency to "forget" that it takes thousands of 1200s paying dues and generating revenue...to support even one 2600 GM. Amateur chess is -- frankly -- the core of the chess business. You are enjoying the fruit but you care very little about planting the next trees.

flyonthewall said:

"2) His interest is confined to the affairs of top players - as is yours (nearly all of you who read this blog, that is). We're talking the world elite - top-10, top-20, maybe on a slow news day, top-100. For that reason, Mig long ago convinced himself that little if anything that takes place in the U.S. is ever worthy of his attention - even actual chess play, let alone matters only vaguely related to chess."

I would disagree. Mig does a decent job covering the main tournaments and players in the US. At one US championship he had players submit blog entries (I think he bribed them with beer), and I recall he asked for donations from his readers, and matched them out of his pocket, for cash for a brilliancy prize (I think it went to Beccera over Nakamura).

So I would submit that Mig covers major chess events and players in the US. Perhaps what he considers major is different than what you would consider major.

Such things can pretty much be said about anyone's parents. Let's not make this more personal than the facts indicate.

I've been involved in amateur chess as an organizer, club director, and built stuff up from scratch. USCF wasn't anywhere but rating tournaments.

I also was heavily involved with organizing the 4 most highly publicized and successful events in the US over the past decade.

Again, USCF wasn't anywhere, except the politicos all running around talking about how great it is.

The national championships? Those could exist, be managed and organized without the politicos.

So, uh, no. Sorry, Chesspride. I don't see the USCF because the USCF isn't involved.

"USCF is a governance organization"

And an apologist is actually raising this point himself? Permit me to politely point out that the subject matter of this thread suggests to many of us that it isn't exactly the case that the USCF is to governance what Michelangelo is to ceiling painting.

JF, I think you are looking for a different type of "involvement" than what USCF, as a loose confederation of state federations and clubs, can provide.

"Involvement" isn't going to be a donation to a local event, or necessarily publicity or even a thank you.

You say USCF was nowhere to be seen in all of your amateur organizing and directing?

USCF has been everywhere in all of my 29 years of playing, directing, organizing, writing and contributing to chess.

USCF was there when I played in my first USCF-rated event (the 1980 National High School Championship). Yes, the individual event may have been run by CCA as a CCA-initiative, but the culture...the feel...the inclusion...was USCF. An OTB event. A rated event. An important event.

USCF was there when I played in other USCF-rated events throughout that first year and went from 1285 to 1541.

USCF was there whem my father drove me to the 1980 US Championship at Thiel College that year. My dear father, God bless his soul, who didn't know the refreshments were for the players, walked right up to GM Evans and had a coffee with him.

USCF was there when Ira Lee Riddle (God bless his soul) encouraged me to submit very amateurish articles for the Pennswoodpusher (the PA state publication).

USCF was there when I became a TD and ran our own local events.

USCF was there when I went to college at Univ of Pittsburgh and entered the Pittsburgh Chess League. Did USCF run it? No...of course not. Great people like Tom Magar and Tom Martinak did. But the organizers were pro-USCF people and the event was fun as a RATED event.

USCF was there when I beat my first 2200 at a US Amateur Team Championship.

USCF was there -- God bless them -- when I became a 2200 for that brief time in 1995. In a match played at the USCF offices. My master certificate, signed by Al Lawrence (thank you, Al), means a lot.

USCF was there...IS THERE...every week...when we hold our weekly tournaments. It is there -- for ratings, for magazines to players, forming the rationale for "why should I pay to play a silly game of chess with a timer."

USCF is there -- our web site at www.freewebs.com/allentowncentercitychessclub

shows a local club committed to USCF's brand of amateur chess.

JF, I know you feel a bit deserted by the organization -- that they didn't support your projects in the way you would like And I might even agree with you that some folks with power in the organization may well have been deceptive or less than upfront about certain things.

I know that. And I remember. And I hope we're still cordial acquaintances.

But...USCF does a lot for chess in the USA just be forming the framework by which OTHERS can..and do...create successful chess activities.

Like yours. Like ours.

Almost forgot.

The claim that others could run the national championships overlooks a very important factor.

Governance ensures that national events are held, held often, and are open to everyone.

Private ownership means private rules, irregular schedules, and players being locked out or blacklisted.

It means constant splintering of titles and multiple versions of events.

These are the very things governance is supposed to avoid by being the final (objective) arbiter of fairness.

So, no, national championships couldn't be run without an organization. Private world championship title, anyone?

Didn't think so...

Assume the following:

(1) the good folks at the St. Louis Chess Center host the championship again next year, adopt the same participation selection criteria, conduct the event in the same way, and offer the same prize money

(2) your lauded Great Governators at the USCF have nothing to do with the event whatsoever because they are completely preoccupied and/or broke dealing with a stupendous shitstorm of their own creation

Not only must one acknowledge the utter plausibity of this hypothetical, but I for one can't think of a single thing wrong with it.

The good folks at the St. Louis Chess Center (many thanks to Rex Sinquefield) may indeed have been responsible for sponsoring the event but the chairman of the organizing committee was Jennifer Shahade who is an employee of the USCF and is the online editor of uschess.org.

Trenchant observation. Did I say that the St. Louis Chess Center was solely responsible for the event this year?

I thought the name of this BLOG was "dailydirt". If you are not going to look into the Paul and Susan stuff maybe you should change to name of your BLOG.
I suppose your "dirt" means information on top flight chess events.

Russell Miller Camas WA

I don't blame someone for saying they don't want to touch the mess that is the USCF legal issues, because for one thing it's hard to follow, I mean how does this guy who was arrested fit in? Who is he?

Does anyone know why troung was excluded from the lawsuit? Wasn't he the one posting all those fake sam sloan messages?

From the December 1978 issue of CHESS magazine.

'Sperling headed a reform ticket which won every position on the governing policy board and swept from office the entire group which had developed during the past ten years...'

Widespread dissatisfaction with the management and financial practices dominated the election campaign. The federation's own Certified Public Accountants indicated that the accounts did not properly state the federation's affairs, that laibilities of some $400,000 were omitted, and that expenses were understated by large amounts.

Two years ago the federation still had large amounts of cash in the bank, little of which remains for the new board'.

It's the daily dirt, not the daily toxic waste.

Haven't gone through all the comments, but there's no profound motive about why I don't follow (and therefore don't write about) this saga anymore. I simply find it stupid, boring, and endless. Writing about it, as opposed to providing people with a space here to comment about it, which isn't what this blog is for, would require paying attention to it. The ceaseless filings, accusations, etc. Horrible. I'm not into just posting occasional updates without having an interest or opinion in the matter. This isn't a vanilla news blog.

I have very little time for chess these days, almost all of it dedicated to this blog. Spending any of that time on such pointless idiocy would be tragic. This isn't the result of an equation about categories of things I do or don't write about. I write about what interests me. Mostly that's beautiful chess and that means top-level international chess tournaments. I also cover things relevant to international professional chess, mostly on but sometimes off the board (drugs, gender issues, history, etc.). Some scandals and some chess politics do interest me. Fischer's arrest, FIDE corruption, a few other items I'm sure. But these things are relatively straightforward and don't take daily updates.

I did write about some of the early stages of a few of the ongoing USCF catastrophes. I even got vaguely involved, if only in a "giving enough rope to hang them" sort of way for my own purposes, since I was curious as to how far certain parties were willing to go and exactly how they were getting there. And at the time most of these scandals were novel and therefore interesting. Then they all became slime wars, legal battles, all potentially eternal and not of interest. If I were a lawyer or otherwise I felt I had insight to share on the topic, maybe I'd feel obliged to share it. But that's not the case either. And just making fun of them got boring long ago as well. It's too pathetic. Nor do I think so much of my thoughts as to believe my uninformed opinion on the matter would be useful or interesting.

I'm sure there must be sites, blogs, or other sources for those who want to follow every development in these USCF messes. Bon apetit!

not explicable that a woman like susanpolgar is in touch with a person like Truong.

But why the hell didn't Sloan file a motion to reconsider the ruling on the motion to reconsider the ruling on the motion to reconsider?

Probably incompetence. I believe he had a strong case but he messed it up by being delusional, long winded and bringing in host of unrelated issues and people into it instead of targeting Polgar/Truong.

However, the other issues like the bankruptcy fraud, illegal email access etc. wouldn't have happened/detected if not for the Sloan impersonation issue.

Why is everyone targeting the USCF in this? Isn't this mess because of Sloan and Polgar/Truong and the uncooperative attitude of the latter that forced the USCF to do the right thing? Somehow I feel it has become fashionable to criticize FIDE and USCF for everything in this forum no matter who is responsible.

They are/were USCF board members. An organization acts though individuals. If the individuals are bad actors . . .

last year, when Migs Planegate with Truong happened, i predicted Truong will have to face the court. All has become true.

Just an official document - no comment. Draw your own conclusions.

When did "Migs Planegate with Truong" happen? I would love to read this. Can you direct me to the thread/link or at least date of topic?


You did. That doesn't negate the fact that it was EB member Randy Bauer who approached and convinced Rex Sinquefield to host the event.

"I mean how does this guy who was arrested fit in? Who is he?"

He set up the Chess Discussion forum on Polgar's blog and serves as admin. A couple of years ago, he was a moderator on the USCF website.

"They are/were USCF board members. An organization acts though individuals. If the individuals are bad actors . . . "

... then maybe the voters ought to make wiser choices or at least vote to begin with. Democracy is a messy thing. If you manage to make up to four crosses on your ballot your vote actually counts regardless whether you have any clue what you are voting on. I don't see how ignoring the topic helps to ensure that better candidates get elected.

Perhaps you should focus on the words, "assume," "next year," and "hypothetical" and, though it apparently might be a strain for you, ponder the question again.

And "ignoring the topic" is not designed to advance the goal of getting "better candidates." It is aimed at advancing the goal of everyone I know -- which is to the greatest degree feasible ignore the USCF altogether. The fact that you are trying to pin responsibility for this shitstorm on every elo 1400 who wants a subscription to Chess Life is as shameful as it is symptomatic.

Well, you get for whom you vote for. What's your alternative? Ignoring the USCF is what 90% of the USCF members do biennially. That's fine with me just don't complain that you don't like the result.

"Well, you get for whom you vote for"

Well said. We'll leave it at that.

Mig: "Nor do I think so much of my thoughts as to believe my uninformed opinion on the matter would be useful or interesting."

Tsk, tsk, Mig. You'll never make it anywhere in the blogosphere with that kind of attitude!

People sometimes do bad things for (what they perceive to be) good reasons. Just as one can be sleazy without committing a crime, one might possibly commit multiple felonies without being sleazy. This would certainly not be an excuse, but might be a mitigating factor.

Speaking hypothetically, it would be particularly sleazy for principals to entice a well-intentioned agent into committing a crime.

Speaking hypothetically, it would also be wrong (though not sleazy) for Trivial Pursuit politicians to destroy the life of an otherwise decent person for a crime of this nature.

But enough of hypotheses. As long as folks are sharing links:


The first-named principal in the matter linked above has been used by more than one USCF president to attack political enemies.

There is dirt and there is filth. Mig has the wise sense to distinguish between the two.

Bill -

Why are you being so cryptic with the use of "one can be sleazy" and "one might possibly commit multiple felonies" and all of your hypotheses?

Why not just say what you think about specific people without resorting to all of this obfuscation?

I would prefer not to be elliptical, but there is a pending criminal matter.

Those who have wasted enough time on this matter should be able to follow what I'm saying. To those who haven't, I extend my assurances that there are better things to do with one's time. (I once tried to persuade Mig otherwise, but he has persuaded me.)

Here's another cheerful story of a life/reputation ruined over something utterly trivial (I stumbled upon it yesterday): http://www.clivejames.com/point-of-view/speedingjudge

Though I think the judge's previous reputation may have been better than in this case...

Ok, thanks. Maybe I shoud not say anything either, so I don't run the risk of being subpoenaed. ("Mr. Luke, what involvement do you have with the matter at hand and when and how did you first become involved? Answer the question!")

I think Bill Brock is being careful for a good reason to avoid legal tangles - people have been dragged in for far less and vaguer.

A related update is that the elections have been swept by Goichberg slate and Polgar slate did miserably as did Sloan. It seems that USCF voters don't take kindly to litigous folks or to violation of fiduciary duty. That could mean an early resolution of this messy affair.

Results discussed at - http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/browse_thread/thread/3a3f0b8761ff9d27#

People are welcome to sue me groundlessly: the child molester already has.

There are both slimy people & good people in all (most?) camps in this food fight.

Kapalik wrote (in connection with the USCF election outcome): "That could mean an early resolution of this messy affair."


The nearest I can come to disentangling the thought process behind that remark, is that you have the mistaken impression that Polgar and Truong themselves were candidates in this election, and failed to get re-elected. (In that case, they'd be off the board henceforth...which would remove the reason for 1 - that is, ONE - out of the 6 or 7 lawsuits related to "this messy affair.")

But Polgar and Truong were not running, so this election need not affect their continued presence on the EB. They were elected to 4-year terms in 2007, so they didn't need to stand for re-election this year.

Therefore, the only outcome that might have led to "an early resolution" would be if the results had turned out the opposite - if the Polgar slate had WON.

HER candidates were pledged to end the lawsuits immediately. (A "settlement" offered by Polgar provides that the USCF must admit fault, issue a public apology, and agree to pay all of Polgar and Truong's legal bills. But even that wouldn't resolve most of the litigation, because Polgar said that even if her demands were met, she would drop only the USCF as a defendant in her lawsuit....but would continue to pursue her legal claims against the individual EB members, who the USCF is obligated to defend and pay any judgments that might be entered against them.)

Good stuff. Thanks.

Truong and S Polgars reputation destroyed for all times

I used to be a big fan of S Polgar, thinking how wonderful she is and that she can do so much for US chess as well as the federation. However, all of the recent (more or less) information that has come to light has completely changed my view on her. My reasoning is based on carefully having read all of her own articles (on this topic, including one at Chesscafe) as well as various posts on the USCF forum.

My thoughts are this:

** The evidence that Truong made the 'fake' posts is pretty strong. If he was indeed innocent, why did he not cooperate with the investigation to clear his name? He has not acted like an innocent person.

** Even if Truong was innocent and Polgar had been treated unjustly by USCF, she still has shown that she is an absolutely selfish and self-centered person. here is why: she claims to love chess and wants to do what she can for US chess. Even if the USCF did screw her over, by suing the USCF she is slowing killing it off, and at the end she is really punishing all of its members. If indeed she loved chess and wanted to do good for US chess, she would just sacrifice her pride and walk away. The thought process is this: "yes, USCF screwed me over, but because I love chess and I am a giver, I will walk away. I will forgive USCF for the sake of all of the members who are innocet. I will just walk away from leadership in the USCF and try to make chess flourish in another way". However, the fact that she is suing the USCF for millions shows that she doesn't care at all about US chess. Redeeming herself is her #1 priority. She is selfish and self-centered.

** Here is another factor which really made me realize that Polgar is a liar and on the wrong side of the situation. I read her blog. I read the sections where the USCF/lawsuit is discussed. I saw hundreds of posts by various readers, most anonymous, taking Polgar's side, saying stuff like "unbelievable how disgusting the USCF is, how goichberg is blabla..." But out of 100s of posts in support of Polgar, there was not 1, seriously, not even ONE (!) post that was in any way defensive of the USCF of critical of polgar. Clearly this leads me to believe this: 1) she censors her site, and deletes any post that doesn't agree with her opinion and/or 2) a number of anonymous posts that support Polgar are posted by Polgar herself. Either way, that alone crosses into the 'pathetic' category. In fact, I would go as far as saying that she is psychiatrically sick and needs medical attention. Seriously, deleting any posts which disagree with her? At the very least she is doing this. Truly pathetic.

All in all, Polgar is a huge disappointment. Every time she claims how she wants to help chess I think, "yea right. anyone who has a decent heart and wanted to help chess would just walk away humbly instead of suing the USCF". A good person walks away humbly. That's the key.

"she is an absolutely selfish and self-centered person"

I agree. She calls herself "a true role model to millions of young people", and that speaks volumes about how she sees herself.

I believe people are making so many assumptions. Things like "she should walk away," "selfish" and other crap like "she's punishing members." Then Dr. Robert has the nerve to clinically declare that she has psychiatric problems. What kind of drivel is this?

Many have read various statements and were led to believe that Polgar is the main cause of the USCF problems. Blaming everything on the lawsuit is very convenient. Have we been pleased with the progress of the USCF in the past 10 years?
The USCF almost went under years back and the membership has been sagging for years.

Meanwhile, the U.S. has a young player who is now in the top 20 and nothing is being done to support him. That must be Polgar's fault too.

Hi Daaim -

"I believe people are making so many assumptions."

So what? And you don't?

"The USCF almost went under years back and the membership has been sagging for years."

So, let us not talk about Susan Polgar today, because the USCF almost went under years back. Pretty lame argument, professor.

I'll give you a break and not even point out the absurdity of your last statement concerning the poor, unsupported, young top-20 player.

To Mr. Daaim Shabazz,

You have failed to counter any specific points I made, instead concentrating on insignificant past events, such as "USCF almost went bankrupt years ago...". I'm not saying that the USCF is blameless. However, the USCF is an organization that clearly needs help, because indeed, as you say, it was in trouble. Polgar is not helping. She is hurting the USCF. Clearly, a 10-million dollar lawsuit (or whatever the large amount it) is draining the USCF. The USCF may have been in trouble, but there's no chance of pulling out of this mess while it has to divert all of its resources to defending such a lawsuit.

True, one may argue that the officers running the USCF are 'bad'. Though I don't take this position, due to lack of enough information, I am willing to acknowledge the possibility. But a true 'patriot' of chess (or US chess, to be specific) would voice his/her opinion on this, promote the 'facts' and due what he/she can to fix the situation. A 10-million dollar lawsuit is the last thing one would do if one were truly trying to help an organization.

Mr. Daaim Shabazz, you disagreed with what I had to say, saying that I made assumptions, and that what I wrote was drivel. But do you honestly disagree with my position on Polgar's lawsuit? Do you truly feel that someone who sues the USCF for 10 million is someone who can be believed when she claims she is out to help US chess?

She indeed may have done a lot as far as scholastic events and certain futurities in TX, etc. I am not saying that she has done no good. However, in history we can name plenty of people who did a lot of good while having their hands drained in blood.

Well this all just confirms what has been obvious for a long time: what a nasty piece of work Polgar and her odious husband are. Her sisters must be squirming at the dysfunctional behaviour of their sibling. Of course Migs blog is about beautiful top level chess not Gary and that naughty Mr Putin


No assumptions.

I'm not saying there is no debate here. I'm saying that all this talk about Polgar sinking the USCF is an overexaggeration. Yes... a $10 million lawsuit is serious, but I know someone who sued the USCF for (gulp!) $100 million. You all didn't know about that one I suppose.

I'm not sure what you are saying is absurd... that the USCF doesn't support this player or that he is not a top-20 player.

Robert White,

I only take offense at you declaring Susan Polgar mentally unstable and possessing psychiatric problems. Don't you think that is a bit much? What gives you the gumption to declare someone mentally sick on a public forum? Even if you are a medical practitioner that is very unprofessional.

"But out of 100s of posts in support of Polgar, there was not 1, seriously, not even ONE (!) post that was in any way defensive of the USCF of critical of polgar. Clearly this leads me to believe this:"

They censor it. Try it. I tried several times. Needs seconds to be deleted.

Mr. Shabazz,

With all due respect and honor, please read Ellrond's post (right before mine, unless someone else sneaks one in quickly while I am typing this one). This is why I declare her to have psych issues. I am not a medical practitioner, but I stand behind my words that Polgar has deep issues. Now, why she has those issues or from what or when they stem, I cannot say. This would, indeed, be unprofessional of me to declare.

Furthermore, I strongly believe that many of the posts of affirmation on her blog are those of her own, a further sign that she has deep-rooted problems. I don't think it takes a genius to realize that someone who censors anything in disagreement and poses as fake 'supporters' has psychological problems, if at least (but not limited to) some sort of extreme power hunger and higher self-esteem desire.

Again, not to take away that Polgar is a fantastic chess player, has done a lot for children's chess, etc...but I still stand behind my statement(s).

Not only is it well known that most of the rabid, slimy posts on Polgar's blog that insult Polgar's various bogeymen (Goichberg, Bauer, Lafferty, Mottershead, Sloan etc. etc.) are written by a sock-puppet - the same person using different handles, most probably Polgar's husband Paul Truong - but that same technique has been used by Truong right here, on Daily Dirt.

Remember about two years ago when a series of posts appeared here by someone claiming to be a female Japanese chess fan visiting the US as an exchange student? These posts all pleaded Polgar's case and attacked her adversaries. If memory serves, a few other highly partisan pro-Polgar posts also appeared here with different handles around the same time.

Mig identified all of them (by IP address, I presume) as not just coming from the same person, but from someone directly associated with the controversy. He didn't name Truong, but that seemed to be Mig's (veiled) meaning.

None of this has gone unnoticed by the USCF officials - or their lawyers. The apparent spamming / trolling by a Polgar supporter using multiple handles here on Dirt, and an earlier, similar incident on Monokroussos' The Chess Mind, have been discussed on USCF Forums. It wouldn't be surprising if this behavior has been cited in the USCF's legal filings, as well.

I don't think it signifies psychiatric problems. More likely it's part of a well-calculated PR campaign to both intimidate opponents and make it appear that Polgar has a broad base of passionate supporters, when in fact she may have little or no support for her political ambitions.

The campaign worked for a long time. That it seems to have gone off the rails just now, doesn't mean it was crazy for her to ever think it would work.

I can think of another belligerant figure from the past (not a chess figure) who won victory after victory through brutal tactics, becoming a dominant force in the world over a period of a decade or so, only to lose in the end after overreaching. People still debate whether he had psychiatric problems or was merely a lightning rod for the emotional complexes that motivated all his countrymen. Whether he was crazy or not, his initial victories were quite real...which means his initial strategy of aggression was well calculated.

It wasn't me I tells ya!

That was Adolf 'One ball' Hitler

I hesitate to write anything here, as the thread has long since ceased to be about The Times and the coverage of the indictment, or the chess column. But, for the benefit of anyone who may still be reading this thread, here is the chess column for The New York Times from July 25:


Just for further clarification, Mr. Alexander was indicted and arraigned on Friday, July 17, and the story appeared in Saturday’s paper (July 18). There is no column on Saturday, only on Sunday. As for why the column of July 19 (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/crosswords/chess/19chess.html) was not about Nakamura’s victory, it has to do with the deadline for when the column is due.

Those posts were NOT by Truong, but by the Polgar Pixie.

"I can think of another belligerant figure from the past (not a chess figure) who won victory after victory through brutal tactics, becoming a dominant force in the world over a period of a decade or so, only to lose in the end after overreaching. People still debate whether he had psychiatric problems or was merely a lightning rod for the emotional complexes that motivated all his countrymen."

Tamerlane, right?

First any idiot who pays for this dirt is getting their money's worth. Mig whoever he is,has he done anything for chess???is just a hypocrite.How dare he critisize chess politics when he runs behind Kasparov with a pooper-scooper or flying penis sucker more to his job description. He also crtisizes Russia for having their number one export be mail order brides but marries a blind women cause anyone with eyesite would never talk to the ugly fat bald-headed sleazy narcissist. Does the truth hurt,yes it does to liars.

You forgot to mention Mig's greatest crime against chess: maintaining a soapbox for the free use of any halfwit pudwhack deutschebank.

But in any case, as Mig's providing you a free forum to enlighten the chess world, as he's currently teaching his little daughter to read on daddy's blog, and as a simple courtesy, you might want to tone it down just a tad.

This can´t be Luke , he is not that stupid.

Can somebody translate "give children hot sauce" to german? I can't find a good german translation.

I wonder what finally evolved with Mottershead and his report. Last time news came from
Theodulf | November 9, 2007 7:44 AM | Reply

I could give it a try, but I am unfamiliar with that phrase in English. Could you put it into some context (whole sentence or paragraph)?

Gotta be right, it's some other bitter regular taking a pop under Luke's name. Even Luke has never yet reached such lows.

Context: Spolgar claims in her blog, that she was accused "to give her children hot sauce". I don't know what is false with this? Cold Sauce would be bad. We, in Germany, eat the souce always "hot", not "cold". Any other habits overseas?

In this case, "hot" (English usage) can also mean spicy ["scharf" in German] - as in the band name "Red Hot Chili Peppers" ,:). Initially I thought there must be some hidden meaning, as in the English phrase "you are pulling my leg" [German equivalent: "Du nimmst mich auf den Arm"].
However - after googling for 'Susan Polgar hot sauce' - it seems like the statement should be taken literally: She was accused of forcing her children to drink tabasco or some other hot sauce because they misbehaved!? I couldn't say if the accusations are true or not, apparently this was discussed in court ... .
Anyway, this topic (the entire thread) is more boring to me than the relative merits of Na1 ,:) - Mig seems to agree with me.

On second thought, another possibility could bbe that the Polgar-Truong couple simply cooked Hungarian or Vietnamese food for their children. To the best of my knowledge, this isn't illegal by American standards - and would make the whole story rather ridiculous ... .

Just in case anyone mistakes Thomas and Ellrond's satirical comments about the hot-saucing allegation as meant seriously, here is the background: Forcing young children to ingest hot-sauce (Tabasco or some other brand) is a widely used form of punishment. I'm not sure if it's associated with a particular culture, or not. It's probably favored because it doesn't leave marks on the skin. (inter alia, another intrafamily torture method, said to be popular in the American South, is forcing the child to kneel on a hard floor covered with raw grains of rice for an hour or so. See for instance, The Secret Life of Bees.)

Polgar claims that her many "enemies" in and around the USCF leadership publicly alleged that she and/or Truong "hot-sauced" one or both of her young children as a punishment. She's produced no details to support her accusation, as far as I know. Those she accuses say that the original "hot-saucing" allegation appeared in divorce or child-custody papers filed by Polgar's ex-husband some years ago, and they deny ever re-broadcasting these allegations themselves.

addendum on hot-saucing: Only a few months ago I recall reading a news story where a mother was indicted for murder because her 2-year old died after being "punished" by being force-fed a huge amount of hot-sauce.

¨(inter alia, another intrafamily torture method, said to be popular in the American South, is forcing the child to kneel on a hard floor covered with raw grains of rice for an hour or so. See for instance, The Secret Life of Bees.)¨

I am from South America and never heard of such methods , you should be more careful before spreading such idiotic predjuices.

This is from the book ¨Education¨ (Felix,Carlson)

¨A JAPANESE student wrote that for breaking school rules, TYPICAL punishments included being forced to kneel on grains of rice during recess ,¨

Clarification: My post wasn't meant to be satirically. Indeed, "hot-saucing" (in the sense of my first post and flyonthewall's reactions) is a serious issue. But I would say the 'Polgar case' shouldn't be discussed over the Internet, as there are little if any hard facts or solid evidence around. And I think Ellrond seriously, and quite simply, didn't know the double meaning of "hot" (temperature or pepper content).

Yes, the odd thing is that Polgar accuses her "enemies" (btw, as far as I could find, without giving names) of accusing her - and that's how or why the story remains in the public domain. While I am an outsider from the other side of the Atlantic Ocean: quite revealing for the level of USCF-related 'discussions' - this would be nothing but a chap soap opera, if it didn't divert so much time, money and energy which should rather be devoted to chessic issues.

Finally @Manu: I guess "American South" means Texas, Alabama, Georgia, ... rather than South America - so no need to feel personally insulted. But "predjuices" is a quite funny word invention or typo ,:).

Yes, Manu is quite the clown. He is full of such little subtle bits of humor, which likely skip right over the radar of most of us less-sophisticated readers of the Dirt.

Like pretending to confuse the "American South" with "South America," and then writing "predjuices"!

There's probably a chess connection here somewhere...or maybe a hot sauce connection.

From Gail Collins' column in today's NY Times:

Diplomats in New York can get away with leaving their parking tickets unpaid because of diplomatic immunity. A study of unpaid diplomatic parking tickets was recently made. The Kuwaitis average 246 unpaid tickets per diplomat per year; the Swedes average zero.

Ok , i thought you were talking about South America (it is a Japanese tradition anyway but nevermind).
You should read some psycological studies about people who chose the word ¨clown¨ as an insult , the explanation is really sophisticated, you will like it.

What clowns think about using the word "clown" as an insult is even more sophisticated, if possible.

Susan Polgar is at the Arctic Chess Chalenge in Norway. She is not playing of course, but the website says she is their "guest of honour".

But the psychologists' diagnosis of people who rave in public about imagined insults ("I am from South America and never heard of such methods, you should be more careful before spreading such idiotic predjuices."), based connections that exist only in their own mind ("American South = South America"), is downright humdrum.

I wasn´t talking to you , but anyway : clown is a profession , i don´t feel insulted at all .
Although as pointed before i really doubt you would have the guts to try to offend me face to face ...
Because regardless of your profession you are a coward with big issues in real life , aren´t you?
That´s why you come here to vomit your frustration on others.

I already said i thought you were talking of South America , remember that only people from USA call himselfs ¨Americans¨ , for the rest of the (american) countries America is just the continent we live .
But in spite of being (wrongly) offended by your statement i didn´t insulted you , but you did it almost instantly , so please STFU.

Seems to me that every thread over a certain number of posts explodes. Sometimes you can nearly hear it ticking.
I wonder what would happen at the end of the night if every poster sat down for a beer evening together. How many paramedics would be required?

Not as many as you think , people who like calling names are usually cowards .

I would recommend cold sauce rather than cold beer ,:).

July 14: You are really a poor person. --manu

July 14: ...pathetic freak. --manu

July 20: Actually, i write only while at work, it helps release some stress... --manu

July 24: What a stupid person you are. --manu

July 24: And here comes the help the retarded was asking for... --manu

July 24: Another idiot trying to pick up a fight... --manu
August 6: ...people who like calling names are usually cowards. --manu

Interesting enough all of those were answers to insults from you and Luke , most of them when i was not even part of the conversation...
But you might want to re read what i wrote > i said those who LIKE calling names , and that would be you, greg ...

And since you are quoting me , i don't get why would you edit the quotes ..
For example July 24 went like this>

" And here comes the help the retarded was asking for ...,greg koster!
Another idiot trying to pick up a fight against someone who is not even interested (or talking!) in the ongoing discussion ."

I think you ought to take a chill pill, be less pugnacious and have an easier life. When you realized that you'd mistaken American South for South America, a simple apology was required.

If i got chiller than this i get into a coma..
I recognized my mistake but i wont apologize to someone who called me a clown.
But greg , well , he is just waiting for the oportunity to jump into a 2 to one fight , like he did with Luke and such , that is what cowards do .
Interesting that you chose to ask me to calm down , though.

Where is Dr. Knup?

In fact if you look at each of the quotes he posted (above) you will find that the guy is almost stalking me ..with the help of his little helper Luke .
Like in this very thread , were he entered the argument just to insult me ...
He may feel that atacking me, brings Vlady one step closer to the title or something like that.

Manu's remark about Greg (described as just waiting for a chance to trip Manu up) applies equally well to at least 4 other people posting on this thread ...thus far.

Of course, I include myself in that number. Having previously watched Manu succeed in turning a number of other threads that started out having something to do with chess, into mass referendums on Manu's degree or socialization (or lack thereof), I too have been eager to see his inane, pugnacious and self-obsessed posts once again draw the mass scorn they so richly deserve.

I don't know what the ultimate result of these spontaneous interventions will be. But I like to think the sort of vigilante justice embedded in such concepts as "what goes around, comes around" and, "a porcupine caged among his fellows gains nothing by rattling his quills," ultimately might bring a degree of civility to even freewheeling Internet forums like this one (i.e., by incenting people like Manu to either invest some small effor to learn and adhere to routine norms of social interaction...or else stop posting altogether).

¨(i.e., by incenting people like Manu to either invest some small effor to learn and adhere to routine norms of social interaction...or else stop posting altogether).¨

In other words , your routine norms of social interaction seem to include lynchs and strong censorship...

¨I too have been eager to see his inane, pugnacious and self-obsessed posts once again draw the mass scorn they so richly deserve. ¨

Do you realize that you keep insulting a person who didn´t insult you?
It takes 2 to tango , if you want a rest , let it rest ...

¨Having previously watched Manu succeed in turning a number of other threads that started out having something to do with chess, into mass referendums on Manu's degree or socialization (or lack thereof),¨

This thread is not about chess , genious.
Posting here has nothing to do with my degree of socialization , this is more like a training to me .
Long ago i discovered that engaging in discussions in other languages (english and portugues) helped to improve my writing in Spanish , i am not only a film editor but a script writer too.
Arguing with people like you is just a fantastic exercise for my work , specially for writting dialogs .
An open forum is the ideal place for phrase hunting , but don´t worry , nothing that you wrote worth something.
Take it easy , copper.

"Luke, no matter how much rubbish you post, you will not fulfil your attention deficit/low self esteem needs on this blog. Engage a little more with the real world, or else seek professional help.
Your naked cries for attention are increasingly painful to behold, and I say that in all kindness.
You are not doing yourself any favours." chesshire cat

Someone just proved my point.

" Usually the two most partisan groups on the Dirt are, mutatis mutandis, those on the side of Topalov and those who take the side of Kramnik. Thanks to Luke the two have merged, but it does not feature teeth-gnashing fistpounders -- they unite in ridicule. Doesn't Luke see people are laughing at him? Doesn't he get the trick he's playing on himself, starting a joke that got the whole world crying and all that?"

Someone just proved my point again.

" Don't worry Manu, Luke just isn't very bright. He's a bandwagon rider who knows next to nothing about chess."

" Luke's just a mediocrity with the volume turned up full blast, grazing among dozens for a dime."

Again, and again, and again. Give up Manu, you have no hope.

¨Luke, your comments often border on the manic, they invoke concern.¨¨

¨This site would be so much better if Luke would STFU. I mean that in the nicest possible way.¨

I always tend to be a neutral and quiet observer of the blog. But now I want to say something.
Some people here are mean and stubborn, ironic and humorous or a combination. Others contribute with interesting information or clever analysis right or wrong. Some might post too often.
But your actual comments and too many of the pas, are just the contrary of smart. If someone would say idiotic I could easily agree.
I really hate being inpolite to anyone.
But I wish you would shut up.¨

Manu, is that all you've got?

¨Hey Luke - Couldn't have said it better myself, I'm proud of you. By the way, behavioral psychologists will tell you that repeating one's self is a sign of insecurity and lack of self control... 12 Monkey-Poo's? Guess I hit a sore point with you... lol¨

Fishing around at the bottom of the barrel? You need to go wash up now.

While Manu is fishing around in his barrel, the Arctic Challenge website reports that Susan Polgar and Paul Truong "made the best possible impression."

Sorry , i was on a presentation ,some of us have jobs...

¨Luke should retire from the Chessninja community and think about doing something with his life. His "let's insult the grownups" technique has run its course. ¨

I believe one can find atacks or hate quotes directed to most of the active posters here , but noone collects as many comments involving concern and genuine disgust as you do , Luke.
Think about it , im done with you for the time being.

"im done with you for the time being."

Thank you.

The Delegates of the USCF annual meeting passed votes today to revoke the membership of Polgar and Truong (technically speaking they rejected the appeal to revoke the memberships by roughly a 2:1 margin).

You are unclear.

Sorry. 30 days ago the Execute Board (well, the majority at least) in a special meeting moved to revoke/suspend the memberships of GM Polgar and FM Truong. The timing of this motion was such that the Delegates could hear the appeal of this decision. The Delegates (they meet once a year and are apparently the Board of Directors of the USCF) heard the appeal and rejected by 58-16 (Truong) and 55-21 (Polgar). Unless I am mistaken this means that they are no longer USCF members and subsequently can no longer serve on the board. But I am sure there are more developments coming in the days/weeks ahead.

Thank you.

Next move will be to purge all the photographs.


Don't you recognize that it's correct time to receive the loan, which can make your dreams come true.

I visited this page first time and found it Very Good Job of acknowledgment and a marvelous source of info.........Thanks Admin! http://www.bestphonelookup.com

Don't want to destroy A+ deploma and don't know a way to accomplish good Shakespeare essays? I state that it is not a big problem, simply because the professional essay writing companies would surely assist.

Twitter Updates

    Follow me on Twitter



    About this Entry

    This page contains a single entry by Mig published on July 20, 2009 5:56 AM.

    Bielieve It or Not, It's Biel 2009 was the previous entry in this blog.

    Reappearing Moro Leads Biel is the next entry in this blog.

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