2007 U.S. Championship-6

There's been a lot of interesting reading at Susan Polgar's blog and Mig's Daily Dirt blog lately. I read some things last night that explain a great deal with regard to certain posts I've read at both blogs, and need to clarify some statements I made in my prior entries here about the U.S. Chess Championships. First, Mig made it clear that AF4C did not "withdraw" from running (and getting sponsorship lined up for) the U.S. Chess Championships. The contract between AF4C and USCF had expired at the end of 2006; his statement was the first time I'd seen this explained. AF4C and USCF could not/did not reach a new agreement; this was in January, 2007. Second, Mig also made it clear that Eric Anderson (one of the founders of AF4C) had pledged to contribute $25,000 to USCF for the 2007 Championships, but before the contribution was paid the actions of a certain board member who posted on the USCF forum that AF4C was publishing pornography on its website (see comments in 2007 U.S. Chess Championship 2 and 5) led to Mr. Anderson reconsidering making a contribution to USCF while that certain person is on the Executive Board. No contribution has been made; therefore, the statements I made about the USCF and the $25,000 were incorrect. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The upcoming election for four seats on the USCF Executive Board is certainly fraught with drama. A few days ago Susan Polgar felt it necessary to impose moderator controls at her blog (frankly, I'm surprised she didn't do it much sooner - she has a much higher tolerance threshhold than I do, obviously). Then, she opened up a continuing topic about what's going on with the USCF and the upcoming election for Executive Board members. Reading some of the stuff posted there has been an education, to say the least. A lot of people post anonymously, which bothers me. I know it's silly to be bothered by such a thing since a person could call himself anything and make up ten different identities and post under all of them anyway, so why not just be anonymous? It could even be worse - I've seen one instance at Mig's blog where a poster was using a name made deliberately almost identical to the name used by a well-known chessplayer and making posts while "pretending" to be the well-known chessplayer. That's disgusting, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised. I've seen that kind of crap go on for years at the yahoo finance message boards, why should there be any less idiots on chess message boards? I don't know why I continue to be amazed at the level of venality that seems to exist in so many people (particularly on the internet), but I do continue to be amazed by it. Hmmm, I wonder what that says about me? Hopelessly naive? Hopelessly stupid? May the Chess Goddess smite all venal chessplayers (or venal people pretending to be chessplayers) who think they're being "terribly clevah" with the Chess Yips. One of the funniest things I read at Susan Polgar's blog this afternoon was a post done by "anonymous" stating that USCF should NOT moderate its forums, but if there must be a moderator the guidelines should be the least restrictive possible, because "Everybody who participates in that forum is a paid-up member of the USCF. It turns out that the ratio of social misfits and, worse, sociopaths is high amongst chessplayers, and therefore the forum is not very decorous." So, everyone knows that a lot of chessplayers are sociopaths (more sociopath chessplayers than sociopaths in the general population, I gather) and, therefore, why would anyone ever expect a chess forum to be conducted with decorum and civility? Ohmygoddess! I couldn't make this stuff up! I don't know how this election will turn out. My best guess is that the vast majority of USCF members who can vote in the election don't read the stuff at USCF forums or places like it and could give two hoots about chess politics, per se, but they do recognize Susan Polgar's name and will vote for her (and hopefully the slate of candidates she is backing) based on her standing in the game and her ability to get backing and prizes for scholastic tournaments. What could happen is that people vote for SP but not for her slate, and she ends up on the Board with people who have gone out of their way to try and ensure that she wouldn't get elected! Ohmygoddess!