Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Reshevsky Memorial at Texas Tech

The Reshevsky Memorial International Invitational Tournament, to be held at Texas Tech University’s campus in Lubbock, Texas, from November 9 to 16, 2007, has lost financial support from Dr. Eric Moskow. Dr. Moskow has chosen to renounce his prior sponsorship promise because of a law suit filed by Mr. Sam Sloan naming Susan Polgar, Texas Tech University and others as defendants, according to statements he made at The New York Times chess blog. See also http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2007/10/special-thank-you_23.html#links. Whatever you may feel about the relative merits of the situation, the players who have already committed to playing at this event are entirely innocent and deserve the support of chess fans. Why should they be punished by withdrawal of promised funding because someone decided to file a law suit that is wholly unrelated to the tournament? The Susan Polgar Foundation and Texas Tech University have chosen to honor their commitments to the players who have already accepted invitations to this event, which has been renamed The SPICE Cup in Memory of Reshevsky. Many other people and/or organizations and corporations have stepped forward to offer funding for the tournament, which has now been upgraded to a Category 12 event from Category 10. The Susan Polgar Foundation is asking for parties interested in providing sponsorship for this event to contact Ms. Polgar: We are still looking for more sponsors as we have not reached our goals yet. But we are getting there and it is real close. If you know of potential sponsors or would like to be a sponsor yourself, please contact me. All our sponsors will be listed in the special tournament Program Book as well as on a number of websites. Please see Ms. Polgar’s chess blog for more information.

10 comments:

Brian Lafferty said...

Apparently Dr. Moskow's withdrawal of sponsorship of this event and all other sponsorship to the Susan Polgar Foundation has a bit more motivation than just Mr. Sloan's legal action. Dr. Moskow posted the following on the NY Times Gambit Blog in his unique typing style:

i FOR ONE AM INTERESTED IN SETTING UP A MEETING TO START A NEW ORGANIZATION. iF INTERESTED EMAIL ME. eMOSKOW23@AOL.COM . sUSAN HAS REJECTED ALL MY PROPOSALS, BILL AND SAM WERE GENTLEMAN ,, UPFRONT AND HONEST. sUSAN IS SUPPORTING PAUL, PAUL NEVER EVEN CALLED. i AM NO LONGER INTERESTED IN THERE ISSUES AND HAVE WITHDRAWN ALL FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO THEIR ACTIVITIES. nO MATTER HOW THIS TURNS OUT, HAVING A HUSBAND AND WIFE ON A BOARD TOGETHER IS A RECIPE FOR FAILURE.

It would appear that Ms. Polgar's husband is a factor in Dr. Moskow's decision. Perhaps someone could ask Dr. Moskow.

Jan said...

I believe Dr. Moskow has made his position perfectly clear, Mr. Lafferty, in several statements he has made at The New York Times chess blog. I have read his comments and those of others and have reached my own conclusions about his motivations and his character. It is, of course, Dr. Moskow's right to choose not to honor his word after all.

Brian Lafferty said...

Jan, presumably you were referring to the following statement by Dr. Moskow on the Gambit Blog. I think perhaps the problem here is more Mr. Truong than Ms. Polgar:
-----------------------
well here is the skinny, bill was a gentleman in fact could not ofbeen more reasonable, articulate and and thoughtful, he agreed to resign is he was found to have set this debacle up,sam agreed to drop the suit under certain conditions all proposed byme and in fact he gavereasonable and well thought out positions. susan on the other hand despite my strong advice wouldnot give an inch, hence my support of her spiceand paul is finished. I am embarressed and depressed by her positions.The fact is I see little hope, and the conflict of related board members should never recur,the uscf is farworse off polarized than dominated by same oldsame old, in fact same old was reasonable. In the end quilty or not this regime has stained the uscf and driven away all sponsorship for the immediate future. Pathetic state of affairs, lets say mr anderson, mr eade and others were right and I was just a fool. shame on me.Susan you have your platform, and your actions will determine your destiny best of luck eric d moskow m.d
-------------------------
As I consider Ms. Polgar and her motivations, I can't help but think that as her friend you might want to give her a copy of Melody Beattie's book ,"Codependent No More....." or Hemfelt's "Love Is a Choice: The Definitive Book on Letting Go of Unhealthy Relationships"

Brian Lafferty said...

FYI--The latest posting by Dr. oskow on the NY Times Gambit Blog:


I would refer everyone to susans polgars blog. She conviently distorts the facts so I am now on the recieving end of hate mail. Let meset therecord straight again. I uscf fromnever pulledout. I offered to give the money directly to texas tech and did not want an association with bpaul given the hoopla, inconsistent behavior and vicious comments to sue goichberg and from susan. Furthermore, I do not support sam sloan in any way, I am umcomfortable with his blog, litiginous behavior etc. Than said I find Susans behavior, anger and destructive comments inconsistent with my support of her, my goals and find any association with paul given the current state of affairs unaceptable to me.Please not an alernative tourneysame dates in argentisponsored with me with greater expense too me.It is fair to say any misrepresentation of the facts by susan or paul or psuedo bloch publishers will be responded too by interviews, mailings and recall elections.Susan the truth is useful.eric d moskow m.d. Killing me with support is noless hurtful than viscious lies.good try.

— Posted by eric moskow

Jan said...

Interesting - Dr. Moskow is now a victim of adverse publicity. He's received hate-mail, has he? He published his email for all the world to see when publicly announcing that he had pulled funding from the Reshevsky Memorial. He provides his rationale for what he did, but the bottom line appears to be that what he did and how he did it upset a LOT of people. It doesn't take a genius to predict what the reaction would be. And yet he didn't consider that his actions might engender negative consequences once publicized? And here I thought I was the only naive person left in the world.

For the record, in response to your prior post, I am not a personal acquaintance of Ms. Polgar, and it would be a gross impertinence to send her either of the publications you mentioned in any event. I honor someone who honors their commitments, Mr. Lafferty.

I let your post stand, Mr. Lafferty, because I think it reveals something telling about your character, which may not be so well known to the people who read this blog but do not read other boards and blogs where you have been quite prolific in expressing our opinions. I feel free to tell you that I will make no bones about deleting any posts you might feel the need to make here in the future - depending upon content, of course. After all, I do like a gentleman.

Anonymous said...

Dr moskow is quite capable of defending himself and needs no help from ill informed outsiders.1.I went on record with a reporter prior to doing this at the n.y. times in the event that their was a backlash. 2. i offered to pay texas tech directly. 3. Ijust did not want pauls name and mine in any emails, pr or interviews as an association. No other strings that was rejected. Clearly a formal press release and interview will now be needed.Also I have no history chess politics and no prior motiviations other than playing and becoming an IM. I am not naive andnegative response but texas tech never called me and susan posted this on her blog so you tell methe story.No good deed goesunpunished.Also mr sloan did not cause this paul and susan could of prevented it and dealt with mr sloan behind court doors. I furthur brokered a solution rejected by susan and paul. The loss of funding was there choice not mine. Also,why did paul need or want to use me in this process????Again, if texas tech ever wants to right the shipmy door is open, my issue is pauls public credibility nbattle, notwanting an association with sloan ,or any of the chronies in this horrible childish squabble, itsw not my fight.eric moskow

Brian Lafferty said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jan said...

I'm not "ill informed", Dr. Moskow, unless you've been less than 100% truthful in your reports in various blogs and to the media. I've read what you wrote, and what you've been quoted as saying. It is upon this information, and this information alone, that I have formed my opinion of you. And it's not a very good opinion.

If you had really wanted to give money to Texas Tech, you could have just donated it to the University with any strings - or none - that you wished to have attached to it; I'm sure TT would have been pleased to accept the funds directly from you. As I said in my prior post, you doth protest too much.

Brian Lafferty said...

Jan wrote:
"If you had really wanted to give money to Texas Tech, you could have just donated it to the University with any strings - or none - that you wished to have attached to it; I'm sure TT would have been pleased to accept the funds directly from you. As I said in my prior post, you doth protest too much."

Jan, perhaps you missed Dr. Moskow's point. He apparently did not/does not want any donation to Texas Tech to be associated in any way with Paul Truong's name. The fact that he tried to broker a settlement that would remove Paul Truong from the USCF board while keeping Susan Polgar on the board and continue funding of her events, albeit not through the SPF, runs counter to your interpretation of Dr. Moskow's published remarks. The problem here, which an increasing number of people are coming to recognize, is the issue of Paul Truong's character. The question still begs. Why is Susan so apparently willing to let Paul drag her down into the muck with him?
Best regards,
Brian Lafferty

Jan said...

Mr. Lafferty, I reiterate what I wrote in my prior post: Dr. Moskow could have attached any conditions - or none - to donating the money to Texas Tech to advance the tournament. He chose not to do this. He chose, instead, to believe unsubstantiated reports on the internet about Mr. Truong's "guilt" - without the benefit of a single court hearing or the ultimate determination of fact in the United States - a trial. Instead of acting in an honorable manner and standing by the financial commitment he had made to the Reshefsky Memorial, he cut and run, thereby potentially damaging parties who have nothing whatsoever to do with the controversy. Given Mr. Sloan's prior history, I would suspect that he is rubbing his hands in glee, and laughing behind his hand at Dr. Moskow.

You too, have tried and "convicted" Mr. Truong and, by extension, Ms. Polgar, on the basis of internet reports and the "consensus" of the equivalent of an internet lynch mob. You are an attorney, Mr. Lafferty - you of all people should know better than to fall into such a trap. However, it seems you have chosen to ignore your legal training and experience in practicing law. Given your prior history of animosity toward Ms. Polgar and Mr. Truong, I can only conclude that you fell most willingly into the trap. It is too bad. You are well-spoken and no doubt very good at the art of practicing law, Mr. Lafferty, as witness your attempts here to turn the focus to the "character" of Ms. Polgar and Mr. Truong. But the issue raised in this thread - and I remain on point - is Dr. Moskow's act in revoking his sponsorship of the Reshefsky Memorial and what that says about his character. I expressed my opinion; you have expressed yours; Dr. Moskow has expressed his.

This thread is now closed.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...