USCF Going Down

This concerns the first post pulled by deputy Schulte on the USCF forum. I was responding to comments made by another deputy dawg, Boyd M. Reed, who wrote, “It should also be noted that the economic crisis triggered by the Lehman collapse did not discriminate based on age. My portfolio bears sorry witness to that fact.” Many books have been written refuting the comments made by Mr. Reed. I thought he might read an article or two in order to educate himself, but I could have been mistaken. Some people would rather hold onto their fallacious beliefs, spoon-fed by the corporate controlled media, rather than search for “the truth”, which is, as Mulder told Scully, “out there.”
Re: Should Children Play in “Big Money” Events?
Sent at: Sat Aug 09, 2014 7:30 pm
From: mfschulte
To: nocab Moderators
Mr. Bacon,
The below post has been pulled. Specifically, the AUG discourages posts unrelated to chess, and in this case, there is a lot in your post on politics, which can particularly make other members uncomfortable or unwelcome. Please do confine the discussion to chess.
Thank you.
nocab wrote: I have been a fan of baseball about 44 years. There is only one baseball World Series. Although I have played poker, I am not, and never have been, a fan of the game in the same way I have been a fan of baseball, and chess. I would like to thank you for picking that particular nit, as I now know much more about the WSOP than I need to know.
I would suggest to anyone who would write, “… the economic crisis triggered by the Lehman collapse,” do a search on http://www.startpage.com and type in the name, Matt Taibbi, and read anything and everything the man has written on the so-called “economic crisis.” Begin with his most famous article, “The Great American Bubble Machine: From tech stocks to high gas prices, Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression — and they’re about to do it again”
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne … z39vy95uJc
“The now famous Rolling Stone magazine article in 2009 by Matt Taibbi unforgettably referred to Goldman Sachs, the world’s most powerful investment bank, as a “great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.”
At the time, Taibbi was describing Goldman’s role in the 2008 financial crisis and the speculative bubble of mortgage-backed securities assets which later came crashing down.” http://www.forbes.com/sites/jakezamansk … n-sucking/
If you do not have time to read everything he has written on the subject, then after you read this famous article, skip to his last one,
“The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks’ Most Devious Scam Yet”
Banks are no longer just financing heavy industry. They are actually buying it up and inventing bigger, bolder and scarier scams than ever
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne … z39vsE5Opq

If one takes the time to do this, he will never again be naive enough to write, “… the economic crisis triggered by the Lehman collapse.” He will have a much better understanding of why I say we were Bushwhacked by the Banksters.

Specific to this discussion, more nuclear waste is being produced. This isn’t a bad thing. The more difficult proposition is disposing of said waste material. However, the more waste produced, the more likely it is that someone will come up with an idea as to how we dispose of the waste material. (This was written in response to this, written by Boyd Reed: “Times have changed a bit since 1970. Specific to this discussion, more children have gravitated to chess. This isn’t a bad thing. The more difficult proposition is keeping them involved with chess in general, and USCF in particular, as they become adults. However, the more children one can get involved in chess, the more likely it is more children will make chess a lifelong avocation.” It has been a quarter of a century since USCF was diverted to become the United States Scholastic Chess Federation and the pooh-bahs keep saying things like “the more children one can get involved with chess the better the odds are that one day, hopefully soon, some of those children will stop dropping out of chess before puberty.”)

The thread to which I refer is: MonRois and how they are used…tournament question for TDs!
Postby RayKinStL on Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:38 am #140440

It is possible that the comments by the fellow who started the above thread I mentioned were on the forum of the St. Louis Chess & Scholastic Center, which no longer exists, and not on the USCF forum. (This is in response to Boyd Reed, who wrote, “I sorrowfully confess that, despite my best efforts, I can’t seem to find a Forums thread within the last five years that references such castigation and/or vilification. I would be most grateful if Mr. Bacon could direct me (and others) to the thread in question.”)

I apologize if any of my comments have offended any of the badge men. My friend Mulfish elucidated me in a private email as to the relationship of the sheriff to the USCF.

Equating how a child is treated in school bears absolutely no relation to how a child is treated at a chess tournament because the child MUST attend school. The government has laws forcing children to attend school. The government will not arrest a parent if he does not make his child attend a chess tournament. (This was a response to one “tmagchesspgh” aka, Thomas Magar, who wrote, “In schools, a parent may request to come into a classroom to observe his/her child. The school in turn may reject that request. There is no absolute right that the parent be allowed in the same room as the child. Doing so might be distracting to the learning process for the other children. It also bums out the kid who is really embarrassed by the overbearing parent. Just because you have an interest does not mean that you have a right to interfere with administration.”)

Learning to dislike children at an early age saves a lot of expense and aggravation later in life. – Robert Byrne

Deputy Schulte writes, “…which can particularly make other members uncomfortable or unwelcome.”

It has been my experience on the USCF forum that one is made welcome by the people who have written extensively on said forum only if one toes the party line. As soon as anyone expresses any idea that is opposed to the politburo, the nit-pickers and nay-sayers come out in force, singing, “Don’t worry, be happy,” and “Everything is beautiful in its own way.” I am reminded of the scene in the movie, “Titanic,” when the band keeps playing as the ship is going down…
Speaking of going down…Last month there was a gathering at the huge World Congress Center of Telegu people from the southern part of India who are living in Atlanta. One of the speakers was a man known to be their financial “guru.” He created a firestorm when he told the gathering there was an economic tsunami coming, and to not purchase a house here, but rent. One assumes that is so they can “get outta Dodge” ASAP when the crisis hits. This was before the financial wizard, George Soros made news when he decided to “double-down” on an economic collapse. Anyone involved with chess knows there is a plethora of Indian children playing the game. If they were to leave USCF…Oh well, the band will continue to play while the ship of chess goes down.
And if reading this makes you uncomfortable, good! Chess does not exist in a vacuum. What happens in other parts of the world affect the Royal game. For example, the headline today reads, “FIDE rejects Carlsen’s request to postpone match.” (https://chess24.com/en/read/news/fide-rejects-carlsen-s-request-to-postpone-match)
And with headlines like this, found on the Drudge Report, “NATO: ‘Alarming’ build-up of Russian troops on Ukraine border…
‘Invasion’…
Russia firing artillery within Ukraine…” who can blame the World Human Chess Champion for wanting to postpone the match? My advice to the young man, Magnus Carlsen, is the championship belongs to you, not FIDE. Those crooked bastards can take it away from you in name only. They need you; you do not need them, and even ET and Rootin’ Tootin’ Putin know this fact. You will still be considered the World Human Chess Champion no matter what the corrupt FIDE rules!

Jeff Beck Group – Going Down

Joe Bonamassa, Dusty Hill, Derek Trucks and Billy Gibbons – Going Down (HD)

THIS EVENT IS CHILD FRIENDLY

The title of this post was found at the website of the “Millionaire Chess Open” (http://millionairechess.com/about-us/).
What, exactly, is meant by an event being friendly toward children? This could, obviously, be interpreted in many different ways. I would ask GM Maurice Ashely to clarify exactly what is meant by “This event is child friendly.”
I must make an assumption because I am unsure of the meaning. Rob Jones, has wrote this on the USCF forum, “Today, 2014, kids make up about 70 % of the regular tournament participants.” (by DENTONCHESS on Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:05 am #282711; http://www.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=20350&sid=81c0e47d4f09f31850f80b8d5eb5d0c7)
It is obvious from the above that the Millionaire Open will fail unless it attracts a large percentage of children. The possibility of failing could be the reason for informing the world the event is friendly toward children. It is also apparent the people behind the Millionaire Open need children for the tournament to be successful. It would be honest to say the organizers need the money of the parents of those children in order to be successful. Such is the state of chess these days, for without children there are no longer enough adults to support big money chess tournaments. My question is, “Should children be allowed to play for large cash prizes?”
What amount of cash is considered “large?” Definitions will vary, but for the sake of argument I am going to consider the Millionaire Open to fall into the category of “large.” If your young Spud wants to play and you have faith in Spud going up against the adult wiley ol’ veterans, should you “ante up?”
If your little Spud played poker extremely well and wanted to enter the World Series of Poker he would not be allowed to play unless he was twenty-one years of age. Period. At the WSOP (http://www.wsop.com/) a player pays his money and takes his chances. He will sit down with the big dogs and play a game of skill until there is only one player, the winner, left standing.
If one enters his precocious Spud into the Millionaire Open, he will sit down to play a game of skill, hoping to win a large cash prize. Why is a child allowed to enter one, but not the other?
I am no lawyer, although I have previously done investigations for a one. I have no idea what the law is in the matter of children playing in big money chess events. I also know the law is subject to change at the whim of lawmakers, as happened when the Unlawful Internet Gambling and Enforcement Act of 2006 was passed, wreaking havoc and sending shock waves into the poker world from it has yet to recover.
“…the UIGEA was really the brainchild of two conservative senators-Bill Frist, a Republican from Tennessee, and Jon Kyl, a Republican from Arizona- who’d come up with the ingenious plan of attaching it as a last-minute amendment to the Safe Port Act-no matter that Internet gambling had nothing to do with protecting U.S. ports from terrorists. The two antigambling senators, who had run for their positions on morality platforms, knew that trying to take down a pastime that millions of Americans were already enjoying was too difficult, so they’d concocted what was essentially a sneak attack.” Taken from the book, “Straight Flush: The True Story of Six College Friends Who Dealt Their Way to a BILLION-DOLLAR ONLINE POKER EMPIRE-and How It All Came Crashing Down,” by Ben Mezrich.
Children have been allowed to play, and win, what is considered “big money” in the world of chess. What the chess world considers “big money” is considered “chump change” in the real world. It has not been enough to interest any self-serving politico, but that could change with the Millionaire Open. And if you do not believe even a politician would stoop to such a level as to use a child winning “big money” to his advantage, from what other alternate universe do you come?
I must leave the legal aspect alone because I do not have enough information on the subject. I do know there are fifty states, all with their own laws pertaining to this matter, and in addition, Federal laws, which constantly change. For example, during the Viet Nam conflict the eighteen year old boys (men?) rebelled against the law which prevented them from drinking alcoholic beverages until they reached twenty-one years of age, and because they did, the law was changed in many states, including the Great State of Georgia, allowing one to drink an “adult beverage” upon reaching the age of eighteen. After the conflict moral Republicans took control and changed it back to twenty-one, which is where things now stand.
The question I am posing is more of a “moral” question. Scientific studies, too numerous to site, have proven that a child’s brain is not yet fully developed. Should that child be allowed to battle grizzled ol’ veterans with fully developed brains? What effect does doing so have on the child? I am unaware of any studies on this subject. Young players, like World Human Chess Champion Magnus Carlsen, and Hikaru Nakamura, are exemplars of the efficacy of having precocious young boys participate with adults in the chess arena. What about all of those who do not make it? How are the ones who have left the arena affected? No one knows because nothing is heard of them once they have left the arena.
Bill Goichberg, owner of the Continental Chess Association, deems a player a “professional” as a player who has attained a rating of 2209 (or is it 2210?). What is a “professional?” I decided to check the dictionary and found this:
pro·fes·sion·al (pr-fsh-nl)
adj.
1.
a. Of, relating to, engaged in, or suitable for a profession: lawyers, doctors, and other professional people.
b. Conforming to the standards of a profession: professional behavior.
2. Engaging in a given activity as a source of livelihood or as a career: a professional writer.
3. Performed by persons receiving pay: professional football.
4. Having or showing great skill; expert: a professional repair job.
n.
1. A person following a profession, especially a learned profession.
2. One who earns a living in a given or implied occupation: hired a professional to decorate the house.
3. A skilled practitioner; an expert.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/professional
As I read the definition it seemed as though things were clear until the very last part. How does one define a “skilled practitioner” in the world of chess? Compared to the average Joe playing chess, a tournament player, such as the VP of the GCA, triple-digit rated Ben Johnson, may be considered by some to be a “beast” because he plays, or thinks he does, tournament chess. Then again, maybe not…How about the Prez, Fun Fong? He is about a 1400 player who has been known to pay his money and take his chances. Some would consider Mr. Fong to be “a skilled practitioner.” I am not one of them. How about yours truly? I somehow managed to crawl over the threshold into the “Expert” category. Should I be considered a “professional?” I think I can answer the question. I have known, and played, professional chess players. Some have been friends of mine, and I am here to tell you I am no professional. Yet, according to the definition I, or any other player who has crossed the 2000 threshold, could conceivably be considered a “professional.”
Regardless of his rating, is a ten year old “Spud” who has his entry fee paid by his parent(s) considered a “professional?” What about a fifteen year old? Years ago there was a young fellow, nicknamed “Hayseed” by the man from High Plains (not the Ironman as previously, and mistakenly, written) who won money in every section until he met his match in the class “A” section. Was he a “professional” chess player?
I do not have answers to these questions. I have often wondered why the question is never asked, much less discussed. As I sit here punching & poking at the keyboard the people who will have to decide these questions are gathered in Orlando at the US Open where the business of USCF is discussed. I cannot help but wonder how many of them have even entertained the question.