Feedback

I posted a link to the previous post on the USCF forum. It lasted about a nanosecond. I have received feedback via email, some of which I would like to share. The first one comes from a NM who shall remain anonymous:
Michael,
“One of the major problems connected to leadership,both politically and in the chess world(USCF)..is what exactly qualifies them for the office?..why should Haring be in charge of the USCF?….is she qualified because she plays chess?…Haring’s tenure as well as the USCF leadership over the last 30 years(maybe longer if you compare the prize funds of tourneys now to then!) have been a complete failure!…and yet just like in US Politics we keep electing the same less than “qualified” chess players to our leadership roles…we complain as we watch our noble game disappear as we have known it..do a search on whist..a VERY popular card game form the 1800’s…it does not exist anymore!…chess will survive,as a stunted hybrid of kiddie chess and chess poker-like hustlers…”

The second is from another regular reader with whom most readers know as the “Discman.”

“70,000 dues-paying female USCF members??

That’s not delusional, that’s grossly incompetent.

That’s like the GM of the Cubs saying he expects his team to win 211 games in 2014, evidently not knowing there are “only” 162 games in the season.

Anybody who says such a thing should immediately be dismissed from a leadership position.

Delusional would be doubling the number of female members; saying you’re going to get 70,000 is beyond ridiculous.”

Could not have said it better myself!