In addition to the following emails, please see my report (bottom of page) for discussion of the placement of the 2006 US Open.


In a message dated 11/18/2004 12:14:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, billbrock@billbrock.net writes:

 

Subj: 2006 U.S. Open
Date: 11/18/2004 12:14:48 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: billbrock@billbrock.net
To: chessoffice@aol.com
CC: sevanmuradian@hotmail.com, rogerdb9@earthlink.net, mike.maloney@sbcglobal.net, timjust@comcast.net, vinnyjh@hotmail.com, icb@mchsi.com, robertloncarevic@comcast.net, lscohen60@yahoo.com, hfried1@sbcglobal.net, ChessNehoc@aol.com, Dennis9942@wmconnect.com, kbachler@cavemanchess.com
Sent from the Internet



Mr. Bill Goichberg

Acting Executive Director

U.S. Chess Federation

 


Dear Bill:

 


Iím writing as a current member of the board of the Illinois Chess Association, and the probable ICA President for the 2005-06 term.

 


As of 2006, it will be twelve years since the U.S. Open was last held in Chicago.  It is my understanding that USCF has already obtained a financially attractive bid ($89/night, b/1000 room nights, plus a substantial rebate) from the Hyatt Regency Oak Brook (Oak Brook, Illinois).  At your request, the Illinois Chess Association has obtained another attractive bid ($95/night, b/1000 room nights) from the Sheraton Chicago Northwest (Arlington Heights, Illinois). 



While ICA understands that this decision is one for USCF to make, we all feel that the return of the U.S. Open to metropolitan Chicago is long overdue.  I guarantee that the board and members of the Illinois Chess Association will strongly support a 2006 U.S. Open held at either location.

 


Itís our turn.  We promise our best efforts to make this event a success for USCF.

 


Very truly yours,



Bill Brock

 




Bill Brock, CPA

mailto:billbrock@billbrock.net

William H. Brock, Ltd.

205 W. Randolph, Suite 400

Chicago, IL  60606

phone  (312) 252-1300

fax       (312) 252-1301


 




 


 
 

Subj: Re: US Chess Federation3
Date: 11/20/2004
To: res1yb6k@verizon.net, lwdubeck@aol.com
CC: beatchess@aol.com, timothyhanke@comcast.net, stephenshutt@yahoo.com, bradyfm@msn.com, chessdon, Randy.Bauer@iowa.gov, elizabethshaughnessy@hotmail.com, Chessoffice



In a message dated 11/20/2004 5:47:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, res1yb6k@verizon.net writes:

 

Subj: US Chess Federation3
Date: 11/20/2004 5:47:35 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: res1yb6k@verizon.net
To: lwdubeck@aol.com
CC: Chessoffice@aol.com, beatchess@aol.com
File: USChessFederation31.doc (697856 bytes) DL Time (31200 bps): <6 minutes
Sent from the Internet



Hello Leroy,
I have attached the contract for the Cherry Hill Hilton for the 2006 US Open.




I can't imagine why, as you know that I have been working on a Chicago area bid which is far better for USCF.  It is also much too soon to think about repeating Cherry Hill which had the Open in 2002.  And the Midwest has had only one US Open since 1994.


 

I feel this is a good contract, with appropriate space and considerations.



A $115 room rate is a good contract!?  You must be kidding.  The US Open has never had a three digit hotel rate, and having to pay so much for an event of many nights will hurt attendance.

 

I have also copied Bill for his signature, and Beatriz.
Please note the hotel is holding the space until Nov 30.



I will forward bids from two Chicago area hotels to the Board on Monday, along with my intended choice. In addition to satisfying our long established principle of US Open geographic rotation, both bids offer lower room rates than Cherry Hill, as well as requiring fewer room nights to avoid rent.  Of course, the Board can always overrule me, but in the absence of a Board vote to do this, I will not sign this Cherry Hill contract.

Bill 

 

Thank you, diane
Please let me know if you have any questions.....
Please note the one change I made at the last minute to the contract is the addition of the word "office"in part of the Crystal Room  (same location as last time)

Diane J. Reese
National Event Director
805-735-4405
845-661-3447 Cell
805-293-8533 FAX
diane.reese@verizon.net


 

 

Subj: Re: US Chess Federation3
Date: 11/21/2004
To: res1yb6k@verizon.net, LWDubeck@aol.com
CC: Beatchess@aol.com, timothyhanke@comcast.net, stephenshutt@yahoo.com, bradyfm@msn.com, Chessdon@aol.com, Randy.Bauer@iowa.gov, elizabethshaughnessy@hotmail.com



In a message dated 11/21/2004 3:34:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, res1yb6k@verizon.net writes:

 

Subj: Re: US Chess Federation3
Date: 11/21/2004 3:34:03 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: res1yb6k@verizon.net
To: Chessoffice@aol.com, LWDubeck@aol.com
CC: Beatchess@aol.com, timothyhanke@comcast.net, stephenshutt@yahoo.com, bradyfm@msn.com, Chessdon@aol.com, Randy.Bauer@iowa.gov, elizabethshaughnessy@hotmail.com, Chessoffice@aol.com
Sent from the Internet



Hello All, 
I was asked by Leroy to assist with the contract, and it was my understanding he had the nod of approval from the board.




I do not believe the Board has been consulted.  The ED has made such decisions for the past 10 years.  However, I have said that I will submit my decision to the Board and not proceed with a contract if they object.

 

Don, I cannot compare the financial situation with Chicago, I have not seen a bid. I do not feel, however that one of the locations in Chicago is large enough, which I did discuss with Bill.



You expressed doubts but after we went over everything carefully day by day, we concluded that we didn't even need all the space at the Hyatt (the Executive Training Center was not essential).  The Sheraton is another good possibility and has even more space; I haven't submitted details for your opinion yet as that offer was recently received.  I hope to submit both to you and the Board for comment tomorrow.

 

The bid that went to Delaware was costly for a number of reasons, really has nothing to do with the US Opens.  The National Tournament Agreement for Delaware stipulated the organizer would be liable for any financial loss.  As you know, that became a major bone of contention. (just for the record, I did not award the bid)

I had proposals from locations in Kansas City, and Louisville for 2006 US Open but stopped the process when Bill told me he wanted to place it in Chicago.



It should be explained that like the National Scholastics, USCF does not request affiliates to bid for the US Open, rather the office places it in the best location considering both profitability and geographic rotation.  I recall you saying the Galt House in Louisville was interested and you are right that my response was tell them no because we will draw much better in Chicago.  I don't remember a hotel in Kansas City being mentioned but Chicago would easily outdraw that as well.


  Then I was asked to assist with getting the best contract possible with the Cherry Hill
 
Hilton.
That is where we are now

I was following directives.   Beatriz, Leroy, please respond!



As it is part of the ED's job to place the US Open, the President should not be issuing directives that it be placed at a certain location, especially without even communicating with the ED.  The Board is a different matter as it has the right to tell the ED anything, but there has been no Board vote on where to place the 2006 US Open, or any other US Open since 1994 for that matter.  Boards have avoided this type of micromanagement.

Bill

 

Diane

At 05:46 PM 11/20/2004, Chessoffice@aol.com wrote:
 
In a message dated 11/20/2004 5:47:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, res1yb6k@verizon.net writes:

 
Subj: US Chess Federation3
Date: 11/20/2004 5:47:35 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: res1yb6k@verizon.net
To: lwdubeck@aol.com
CC: Chessoffice@aol.com, beatchess@aol.com
File: USChessFederation31.doc (697856 bytes) DL Time (31200 bps): <6 minutes
Sent from the Internet



Hello Leroy,
I have attached the contract for the Cherry Hill Hilton for the 2006 US Open.



I can't imagine why, as you know that I have been working on a Chicago area bid which is far better for USCF.  It is also much too soon to think about repeating Cherry Hill which had the Open in 2002.  And the Midwest has had only one US Open since 1994.


 

I feel this is a good contract, with appropriate space and considerations.


A $115 room rate is a good contract!?  You must be kidding.  The US Open has never had a three digit hotel rate, and having to pay so much for an event of many nights will hurt attendance.

 

I have also copied Bill for his signature, and Beatriz.
Please note the hotel is holding the space until Nov 30.


I will forward bids from two Chicago area hotels to the Board on Monday, along with my intended choice. In addition to satisfying our long established principle of US Open geographic rotation, both bids offer lower room rates than Cherry Hill, as well as requiring fewer room nights to avoid rent.  Of course, the Board can always overrule me, but in the absence of a Board vote to do this, I will not sign this Cherry Hill contract.

Bill 

 

Thank you, diane
Please let me know if you have any questions.....
Please note the one change I made at the last minute to the contract is the addition of the word "office"in part of the Crystal Room  (same location as last time)

Diane J. Reese
National Event Director
805-735-4405
845-661-3447 Cell
805-293-8533 FAX
diane.reese@verizon.net

 

 



Diane J. Reese
National Event Director
805-735-4405
845-661-3447 Cell
805-293-8533 FAX
diane.reese@verizon.net

 

Subj: Re: US Chess Federation3
Date: 11/21/2004
To: res1yb6k@verizon.net, Chessdon@aol.com, LWDubeck@aol.com
CC: Beatchess@aol.com, timothyhanke@comcast.net, stephenshutt@yahoo.com, bradyfm@msn.com, Randy.Bauer@iowa.gov, elizabethshaughnessy@hotmail.com



In a message dated 11/21/2004 4:34:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, res1yb6k@verizon.net writes:

 

Subj: Re: US Chess Federation3
Date: 11/21/2004 4:34:13 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: res1yb6k@verizon.net
To: Chessdon@aol.com, Chessoffice@aol.com, LWDubeck@aol.com
CC: Beatchess@aol.com, timothyhanke@comcast.net, stephenshutt@yahoo.com, bradyfm@msn.com, Randy.Bauer@iowa.gov, elizabethshaughnessy@hotmail.com
Sent from the Internet



Bill did not tell me not to pursue the other midwest bids, he just said he wanted to put the us open in Chicago.



My understanding is there were no other midwest "bids" from affiliates, just hotels that were interested.  I recall just one hotel, the Galt House in Louisville.  I think this is a super site for a National Scholastic, but for the US Open I much prefer Chicago, as Louisville doesn't have many adult players.  I believe a US Open in Chicago will draw 550-650 while one in Louisville would draw 300-400, therfore I did tell you to tell the Galt House to forget it.  I wanted to put the US Open in a location that would both draw extremely well and satisfy geographic rotation considerations, and I believe only Chicago meets these requirements for 2006.



The floor plans for the Hyatt Oakbrook Bill and I discussed, and I gave him a detailed
 
report of my feelings about the space, not financial considerations as I did not know of them at all, just the space.  He disagreed and said it would be fine.  I asked if he wanted me to contact the hotel and work on the contract, he said no that he would.  So, I have not seen any financial details about any other contracts.



When we later went over the space in detail, though, you agreed it was sufficient.

Bill

 
What I did ask Bill, and he agreed, is to let me see any contracts before they were signed.  Too often in the past folks involved in the agreements are not aware of many small or large concessions we can get in the contract that will save us money. Also, the emphasis is on the Open itself, and space considerations must be made for Denker/Polgar, meetings, banquets, etc.

Again, I did was I was directed to do, first by not contacting Chicago, then by contacting Cherry Hill.

I agree we should have regional diversity, and was aiming for just that.

Diane

 

 

Subj: Re: US Chess Federation3
Date: 11/21/2004
To: Beatchess, res1yb6k@verizon.net, LWDubeck, ESDOYLE, Ippy1
CC: timothyhanke@comcast.net, stephenshutt@yahoo.com, bradyfm@msn.com, Chessdon, Randy.Bauer@iowa.gov, elizabethshaughnessy@hotmail.com



In a message dated 11/21/2004 4:44:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, Beatchess writes:

 

Subj: Re: US Chess Federation3
Date: 11/21/2004 4:44:18 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Beatchess
To: res1yb6k@verizon.net, Chessoffice, LWDubeck, ESDOYLE, Ippy1
CC: timothyhanke@comcast.net, stephenshutt@yahoo.com, bradyfm@msn.com, Chessdon, Randy.Bauer@iowa.gov, elizabethshaughnessy@hotmail.com



Dear Diane,

I can just imagine how busy you are with the US Championship and the K-12 National Grade Championship approaching in the next couple of weeks.  I would also like to thank you for calling me in regard of the incident in PA at the Action Tournament. You are doing an outstanding job and we appreciate it.

Concerning the 2005 US Open, the New Jersey Chess Federation has been working on this bid for quite a couple of months and thanks to your assistant the contract with the hotel has been improved.




You mean the 2006 US Open.  Despite the improvement in the Cherry Hill bid, the room rate is still $16 per night more than any previous US Open, and more room nights are required than at either Chicago area hotel.  Also, no US Open in over 50 years has gone back to the same location after only four years. 

 

I have not seeing a bid from Chicago, although I am familiar with the hotel in which Bill Goichberg is proposing to host this tournament.  Years ago, Al Losoff organized a K-12 in this location, I remember the two of us tossing around different ideas for solving the problem with space.



Yes, it must have been quite a problem for that 1200 player event.  However, the US Open does not draw anywhere near that number of players, nor does it have as many spectators (parents and coaches).

  I completly agree that the space is not appropriate for this event which
 
includes our annual convention.



There is more than ample space for tournament plus convention at the Hyatt, and we don't even need all their meeting rooms!  Also, there is still more space at the Sheraton which is also making a proposal.

 

In addition, the New Jersey Chess Federation raised the point of conflit of interest relate with Bill Gocihberg using this hotel for CCA events.  In my view, this is a valid concern.  



USCF has used the Hyatt in the past too.  This concern seems paranoid to me, but if the Board wants to veto a good bid out of fear that I am being secretly paid off by "my hotel," there is also the Sheraton, where I have never held a tournament.

 

Please do not feel that you need to take a position as an Event Manager, your contributions are valuable and we would not like to see you involve in a political battle. 

Therefore, in the following communication I suggest removing your e-mail from this exchanges and we will communicate to you the Executive Board final decision.



I will continue to copy Diane as it is part of her job to provide input on all the various hotel possibilities.

Bill


 

All the best,

Beatriz Marinello



In a message dated 11/21/04 3:34:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, res1yb6k@verizon.net writes:

 
Hello All, 
I was asked by Leroy to assist with the contract, and it was my understanding he had the nod of approval from the board.

Don, I cannot compare the financial situation with Chicago, I have not seen a bid. I do not feel, however that one of the locations in Chicago is large enough, which I did discuss with Bill.

The bid that went to Delaware was costly for a number of reasons, really has nothing to do with the US Opens.  The National Tournament Agreement for Delaware stipulated the organizer would be liable for any financial loss.  As you know, that became a major bone of contention. (just for the record, I did not award the bid)

I had proposals from locations in Kansas City, and Louisville for 2006 US Open but stopped the process when Bill told me he wanted to place it in Chicago.  Then I was asked to assist with getting the best contract possible with the Cherry Hill Hilton.
That is where we are now

I was following directives.   Beatriz, Leroy, please respond!

Diane
 


 
Subj: Re: US Chess Federation3
Date: 11/21/2004
To: Beatchess, Chessdon, res1yb6k@verizon.net, LWDubeck, ESDOYLE, Ippy1
CC: timothyhanke@comcast.net, stephenshutt@yahoo.com, bradyfm@msn.com, Randy.Bauer@iowa.gov, elizabethshaughnessy@hotmail.com



In a message dated 11/21/2004 5:34:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, Beatchess writes:

 
Subj: Re: US Chess Federation3
Date: 11/21/2004 5:34:29 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Beatchess
To: Chessdon, res1yb6k@verizon.net, Chessoffice, LWDubeck, ESDOYLE, Ippy1
CC: timothyhanke@comcast.net, stephenshutt@yahoo.com, bradyfm@msn.com, Randy.Bauer@iowa.gov, elizabethshaughnessy@hotmail.com



Don,

The bottom line is that we do not have information on the Chicago Bid, besides knowing the hotel which Bill is proposing to host the event.

In my opinion the space is not enough in Chicago, the Event Manager feels the same way.  At the same time, the concern here is the conflict of interest of hosting this 2005 US Open in a hotel in which CCA runs events.

Bill said in a previous e-mail that if the USCF gets a better deal there is not conflict.. I am looking forward to see the proposal from Chicago, but I will not support it just because Bill Goichberg wants to have event in that location.

I am willing to make an objective assessment of the situation, taking into consideration all the factors. 

Bill knew that the New Jersey Chess Federation was putting together a proposal before he proposed the Chicago location.  I do not know what is the his problem with this location.



That is incorrect.  I have been working on having the 2006 US Open in the Chicago area since about March, many months before I heard of the offer from NJSCF.  I received several proposals from the Hyatt which had problems and have had these corrected.  At the Chicago Open this May, I discussed having the 2006 US Open in Chicago with ICA President Larry Cohen.  Larry brought up the idea at an ICA meeting several weeks later and it was unanimously approved.  Since then, Bill Brock, who will be Larry's successor as ICA President, has been helping me try to find an even better site and that lead to the recent proposal from the Sheraton, which has certain advantages over the Hyatt but overall I feel is probably not quite as good.

I will try to submit both proposals in detail tomorrow.

Bill

 

Beatriz Marinello


In a message dated 11/21/04 5:12:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, Chessdon writes:

 
Beatriz, the Executive Director is in charge of chossing the site for US Opens.

The Board, of course, can overrule the ED.

From what I can see here, the politics are going the other way.

The simple fact, from what I can see, is that the Cherry Hill bid is a lousy bid for the USCF in a marginal hotel and in the wrong geographical region.

Don Schultz

 


 
Subj: Re: US Chess Federation3
Date: 11/21/2004
To: Beatchess, res1yb6k@verizon.net, LWDubeck, ESDOYLE, Ippy1
CC: timothyhanke@comcast.net, stephenshutt@yahoo.com, bradyfm@msn.com, Chessdon, Randy.Bauer@iowa.gov, elizabethshaughnessy@hotmail.com



In a message dated 11/21/2004 5:48:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, Beatchess writes:

 
Subj: Re: US Chess Federation3
Date: 11/21/2004 5:48:00 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Beatchess
To: Chessoffice, res1yb6k@verizon.net, LWDubeck, ESDOYLE, Ippy1
CC: timothyhanke@comcast.net, stephenshutt@yahoo.com, bradyfm@msn.com, Chessdon, Randy.Bauer@iowa.gov, elizabethshaughnessy@hotmail.com



In a message dated 11/21/04 5:41:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, Chessoffice writes:

 

Please do not feel that you need to take a position as an Event Manager, your contributions are valuable and we would not like to see you involve in a political battle. 

Therefore, in the following communication I suggest removing your e-mail from this exchanges and we will communicate to you the Executive Board final decision.



I will continue to copy Diane as it is part of her job to provide input on all the various hotel possibilities.

Bill


 



Bill,

I guess you can overrule the President and do what you want. Is it something wrong with this pattern??

Beatriz Marinello

PS: If you disagree with me its fine, but I do not believe that you just say I will do it anyway..




Beatriz, existing practice has been for the ED and Events Manager to work together on bid awards, which means we should copy each other on relevant emails.  I am not going to stop copying Diane on emails just because you say so.  The Board can overrule me if it wishes to further escalate the existing micromanagement in this way, but I don't believe that you ALONE have the right to tell me to stop copying Diane on emails regarding 2006 US Open bids. 

Bill
 

Subj: Re: US Chess Federation3
Date: 11/21/2004
To: LWDubeck, res1yb6k@verizon.net
CC: Beatchess, timothyhanke@comcast.net, stephenshutt@yahoo.com, bradyfm@msn.com, Chessdon, Randy.Bauer@iowa.gov, elizabethshaughnessy@hotmail.com, ESDOYLE, Ippy1, LWDubeck, Chessoffice



In a message dated 11/21/2004 10:12:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, LWDubeck writes:

 

Subj: Re: US Chess Federation3
Date: 11/21/2004 10:12:56 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: LWDubeck
To: Chessoffice, res1yb6k@verizon.net
CC: Beatchess, timothyhanke@comcast.net, stephenshutt@yahoo.com, bradyfm@msn.com, Chessdon, Randy.Bauer@iowa.gov, elizabethshaughnessy@hotmail.com, ESDOYLE, Ippy1, LWDubeck



I just read about 10 e-mails concerning the 2006 US Open bids.
 
1. The statements from Don Schultz about the New Jersey bid are outrageous.
The $5,000 sponsorship for the 2002 US Open did not materialize because of the USCF Office mismanagement and refusal to meet with the sponsor, John Hancock. Ask the then NJSCF President Herman Drenth or Glen Peterson about the USCf's INCOMPETENCE. Not only did their behaviour cost that $5,000 but  a good chance for a further $25,000. New Jersey did not complain about the USCF then: the thanks we get is to be attacked by Don Schultz now for USCF's stupidity. This time we will not go quietly into the night.
 
2. The Cherry Hill hotel has spent millions of dollars refurbishing all its hotel rooms.
 
3. The $115 per night for up to 4 people in a room are less than the room rates on your national scholastics--read the November Chess Life where the room rate for the Supernationals in 2005 is $129 single-quad!



The $115 rate is $16 higher than any previous US Open and much higher than the Chicago area hotels.  National Scholastics tend to have high rates as they are held at enormous hotels, many kids stay 3-4 to a room, and players stay only a few nights.  For the US Open many adults stay 1-2 to a room for many nights and it can get very expensive.  


 

4. Diane Reese did a fine job of improving the offer that the hotel had made to me. It is in the interest of USCF to make every bid as advantageous as possible from USCF's viewpoint.
 
5. Bill  does have a conflict of interest whne he deals with a hotel that he uses for CCA tournaments. I can't believe that you cannot see this, Don.



Sorry, I can't see it either, unless you are suggesting I have a secret deal with the hotel to get some sort of kickback.  I don't, and why would this be any more likely than you getting a kickback from the Cherry Hill Hilton?

 
 
6. The NJSCF loaned USCF $5,000 when it needed it. Being attacked for wanting a disinterested party to make the US Open decision as being a "political payback" by Don is a nice way of thanking us.
 
7. Let me remind you that Chicago held a US Open (Helen Warren was the orgainzer) in 1989. In 1994 it was in Rosemeont, Illinois. No one complained about it being in the same state only 5 years apart. Now however, Mr. Goichberg not only opposes New Jersey holding it in 2006 but also in a written memo to NJSCF President Joe Ippolito Goichberg opposed New Jersy hosting the US Open in 2007, the exact same 5 years apart that Illinois held US Opens. So much for Brady's suggestion to consider 2007.



5 years apart is the minimum past waiting period, and very unusual.  USCF was still calling for affiliate bids in 1994, a practice since abandoned, and Chicago had little competition for 1994.  Now that USCF does not invite affiliate bids and can place the tournament anywhere, such a situation is impossible.  Cherry Hill is more appropriate for 2007 than 2006, but it should be an outstanding bid to be considered that soon after 2002.  There will likely be many hotels in other cities that can beat a $115 rate, and other major areas that are long overdue for a US Open (for example, Texas).

 

When he advocated considering the Louisivlle bid for the USCF office, Mr. Goichberg also was all for putting in Louisville many USCF national tournaments, including "the US Open (1200 room nights), which could be there at least once."  That wording (from a Goichberg
e-mail that I have) suggests that a US Open could have been placed in the same Louisville hotel more than once in the 10 year period.



I was thinking 7 or 8 years apart, and only because USCF would need the room nights.

Note that Mr. Goichberg estimates 1200 room nights for a US Open in Louisville, but is
 
concerned about a 1215 room night guarantee for the Cherry Hill hotel--anyone see a little difference in his judgement when it comes to New Jersey??



Anyone see a big difference between estimated room nights and required room nights?  Yes, 1200 is a good estimate for NJ as well, but if we come up short, it can be expensive.  The Chicago hotels have lower room night requirements, decreasing the chances of such an unpleasant surprise.

 
 
8. Something else to consider. If the $500,000 Maurice Ashley's open tournament is as much of a success as some think it will be in 2005, it will surely be repeated in 2006, in the midwest. Does anyone seriously think that such a mega open event will not have an impact on all other open tournaments in that region, including the US Open? If you think it will not,  would anyone like to wager that the 2005 event will not decrease the attendance at Goichberg's Chicago Open?  Dr. Leroy Dubeck



This is certainly a novel argument- even though the US Open has been in the Midwest only once since 1994, Chicago should not obtain the tournament because maybe a 2005 tournament a few months earlier will be repeated in the Midwest in 2006, and maybe that tournament will hurt US Open entries. 

I agree that the HB tournament a week before the 2005 Chicago Open is likely to hurt entries in the latter event (though I expect many more GMs), but it is unlikely that a 2006 HB event in May, which isn't even certain to be held, will seriously hurt entries at a 2006 US Open in August.  On the other hand, the prospect of paying $115 per night for up to 9 or 10 nights is not a pair of maybes, it is a reality which will certainly hurt entries.

Bill Goichberg

 

Subj: Re: US Chess Federation3
Date: 11/21/2004
To: Chessdon, LWDubeck, res1yb6k@verizon.net
CC: Beatchess, timothyhanke@comcast.net, stephenshutt@yahoo.com, bradyfm@msn.com, Randy.Bauer@iowa.gov, elizabethshaughnessy@hotmail.com, ESDOYLE, Ippy1



In a message dated 11/21/2004 10:54:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, Chessdon writes:

 

Subj: Re: US Chess Federation3
Date: 11/21/2004 10:54:37 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Chessdon
To: LWDubeck, Chessoffice, res1yb6k@verizon.net
CC: Beatchess, timothyhanke@comcast.net, stephenshutt@yahoo.com, bradyfm@msn.com, Randy.Bauer@iowa.gov, elizabethshaughnessy@hotmail.com, ESDOYLE, Ippy1



Leroy blames Defies for the $5,000 fisaco and gives Herman Drenth and Glenn Peterson as first hand witnesses. I refuse to defend DeFeis, he was an abomination; so score one for Leroy.
 
I don't at all see Bill using a hotel he does business with in Chicago to get a better deal for USCF as anything but helpful. In any event Bill seems to have indicated the Sheraton in Chicago will give only a slightly worse deal with USCF and he has never done business with them.
 
I have stated, Leroy as a US Chess leader or the NJ Chess Federation both have every right to challenge Bill's decision but that is unnecessary at this point as the consensus of these dialogues seem to be having the EB decide. I'll save my critic of Leroy's other arguments below for that Board discussion.
 
Beatriz, I think it a wise idea to have both Bill and Leroy participate in what looks like a forthcoming EB teleconference to decide this.




I disagree.  National tournament awards have long been an ED decision, and after all the info is sent to the Board, if no EB member objects to my intended decision, it should stand.  If there is objection, then I will respond to the objection, possibly with a revised intended decision.  Only if I am unable to submit an intended decision that produces no objection should there be a conference call.

Bill

 
 
In a message dated 11/21/2004 10:12:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, LWDubeck writes:

 
I just read about 10 e-mails concerning the 2006 US Open bids.
 
1. The statements from Don Schultz about the New Jersey bid are outrageous.
The $5,000 sponsorship for the 2002 US Open did not materialize because of the USCF Office mismanagement and refusal to meet with the sponsor, John Hancock. Ask the then NJSCF President Herman Drenth or Glen Peterson about the USCf's INCOMPETENCE. Not only did their behaviour cost that $5,000 but  a good chance for a further $25,000. New Jersey did not complain about the USCF then: the thanks we get is to be attacked by Don Schultz now for USCF's stupidity. This time we will not go quietly into the night.
 
2. The Cherry Hill hotel has spent millions of dollars refurbishing all its hotel rooms.
 
3. The $115 per night for up to 4 people in a room are less than the room rates on your national scholastics--read the November Chess Life where the room rate for the Supernationals in 2005 is $129 single-quad!

4. Diane Reese did a fine job of improving the offer that the hotel had made to me. It is in the interest of USCF to make every bid as advantageous as possible from USCF's viewpoint.
 
5. Bill  does have a conflict of interest whne he deals with a hotel that he uses for CCA tournaments. I can't believe that you cannot see this, Don.
 
6. The NJSCF loaned USCF $5,000 when it needed it. Being attacked for wanting a disinterested party to make the US Open decision as being a "political payback" by Don is a nice way of thanking us.
 
7. Let me remind you that Chicago held a US Open (Helen Warren was the orgainzer) in 1989. In 1994 it was in Rosemeont, Illinois. No one complained about it being in the same state only 5 years apart. Now however, Mr. Goichberg not only opposes New Jersey holding it in 2006 but also in a written memo to NJSCF President Joe Ippolito Goichberg opposed New Jersy hosting the US Open in 2007, the exact same 5 years apart that Illinois held US Opens. So much for Brady's suggestion to consider 2007.

When he advocated considering the Louisivlle bid for the USCF office, Mr. Goichberg also was all for putting in Louisville many USCF national tournaments, including "the US Open (1200 room nights), which could be there at least once."  That wording (from a Goichberg
e-mail that I have) suggests that a US Open could have been placed in the same Louisville hotel more than once in the 10 year period. Note that Mr. Goichberg estimates 1200 room nights for a US Open in Louisville, but is concerned about a 1215 room night guarantee for the Cherry Hill hotel--anyone see a little difference in his judgement when it comes to New Jersey??
 
8. Something else to consider. If the $500,000 Maurice Ashley's open tournament is as much of a success as some think it will be in 2005, it will surely be repeated in 2006, in the midwest. Does anyone seriously think that such a mega open event will not have an impact on all other open tournaments in that region, including the US Open? If you think it will not,  would anyone like to wager that the 2005 event will not decrease the attendance at Goichberg's Chicago Open?  Dr. Leroy Dubeck
 


 


 
Subj: Re: 2006 U.S. Open
Date: 11/21/2004
To: Beatchess, timothyhanke@comcast.net, stephenshutt@yahoo.com, bradyfm@msn.com, Chessdon, Randy.Bauer@iowa.gov, elizabethshaughnessy@hotmail.com
CC: Chessoffice



Dear Board:

Following is a recent email I received from Bill Brock, who is expected to be the next Illinois Chess Association President, in support of having the 2006 US Open in the Chicago area.

I believe that this decision can probably be arrived at without a conference call, but if such a call is deemed necessary and Leroy Dubeck is invited to participate on behalf of NJSCF, then Bill Brock should be allowed to do so as well on behalf of ICA.

Bill


In a message dated 11/18/2004 12:14:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, billbrock@billbrock.net writes:

 
Subj: 2006 U.S. Open
Date: 11/18/2004 12:14:48 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: billbrock@billbrock.net
To: chessoffice@aol.com
CC: sevanmuradian@hotmail.com, rogerdb9@earthlink.net, mike.maloney@sbcglobal.net, timjust@comcast.net, vinnyjh@hotmail.com, icb@mchsi.com, robertloncarevic@comcast.net, lscohen60@yahoo.com, hfried1@sbcglobal.net, ChessNehoc@aol.com, Dennis9942@wmconnect.com, kbachler@cavemanchess.com
Sent from the Internet



Mr. Bill Goichberg

Acting Executive Director

U.S. Chess Federation

 


Dear Bill:

 


Iím writing as a current member of the board of the Illinois Chess Association, and the probable ICA President for the 2005-06 term.

 


As of 2006, it will be twelve years since the U.S. Open was last held in Chicago.  It is my understanding that USCF has already obtained a financially attractive bid ($89/night, b/1000 room nights, plus a substantial rebate) from the Hyatt Regency Oak Brook (Oak Brook, Illinois).  At your request, the Illinois Chess Association has obtained another attractive bid ($95/night, b/1000 room nights) from the Sheraton Chicago Northwest (Arlington Heights, Illinois). 



While ICA understands that this decision is one for USCF to make, we all feel that the return of the U.S. Open to metropolitan Chicago is long overdue.  I guarantee that the board and members of the Illinois Chess Association will strongly support a 2006 U.S. Open held at either location.

 


Itís our turn.  We promise our best efforts to make this event a success for USCF.

 


Very truly yours,



Bill Brock

 




Bill Brock, CPA

mailto:billbrock@billbrock.net

William H. Brock, Ltd.

205 W. Randolph, Suite 400

Chicago, IL  60606

phone  (312) 252-1300

fax       (312) 252-1301


 




 
Subj: Re: US Chess Federation3
Date: 11/22/2004
To: Beatchess, Chessdon, LWDubeck, res1yb6k@verizon.net
CC: timothyhanke@comcast.net, stephenshutt@yahoo.com, bradyfm@msn.com, Randy.Bauer@iowa.gov, elizabethshaughnessy@hotmail.com, ESDOYLE, Ippy1



In a message dated 11/21/2004 11:52:22 PM Eastern Standard Time, Beatchess writes:

 
Subj: Re: US Chess Federation3
Date: 11/21/2004 11:52:22 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Beatchess
To: Chessoffice, Chessdon, LWDubeck, res1yb6k@verizon.net
CC: timothyhanke@comcast.net, stephenshutt@yahoo.com, bradyfm@msn.com, Randy.Bauer@iowa.gov, elizabethshaughnessy@hotmail.com, ESDOYLE, Ippy1



In a message dated 11/21/04 11:17:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, Chessoffice writes:

 

I don't at all see Bill using a hotel he does business with in Chicago to get a better deal for USCF as anything but helpful. In any event Bill seems to have indicated the Sheraton in Chicago will give only a slightly worse deal with USCF and he has never done business with them.

I have stated, Leroy as a US Chess leader or the NJ Chess Federation both have every right to challenge Bill's decision but that is unnecessary at this point as the consensus of these dialogues seem to be having the EB decide. I'll save my critic of Leroy's other arguments below for that Board discussion.

Beatriz, I think it a wise idea to have both Bill and Leroy participate in what looks like a forthcoming EB teleconference to decide this.




I disagree.  National tournament awards have long been an ED decision, and after all the info is sent to the Board, if no EB member objects to my intended decision, it should stand.  If there is objection, then I will respond to the objection, possibly with a revised intended decision.  Only if I am unable to submit an intended decision that produces no objection should there be a conference call.

Bill

 


Bill,

This kind of confrontational approach

does not lead us in a positive direction.  Being able to be

 
flexible and being willing to listen to other points of view encourage cooperation.



And you view "If there is objection, then I will respond to the objection, possibly with a revised intended decision" as indicating unwillingness to be flexible and listen to other points of view!?  I believe the decision can be made by mutual agreement, and only failing that is a conference call needed. 


  The USCF is not a private corporation, accepting cooperation
 
from our State Associations its part of our core mission.
Don Schultz is proposing a reasonable approach.  Other people may have other ideas.



As you can see from my previous email, I have been working with ICA, which is also a State Chess Association.

The idea behind my suggestion was to avoid a further expansion of Board micromanagement, while still retaining Board control of the decision.  Do you really want the Board to do all the awards for national tournaments?  Already this Board is involved in far more non-policy decisions than any in the past, and it is impossible for the ED to know in advance which are his decisions and which will be made by the Board. 

For the past eight months I have proceeded on the belief that this was my decision, as other national tournament awards have been, and as a result I told ICA people that the tournament would be in the Chicago area.  It is still not clear to me why the US Open is suddenly a Board decision when I have signed past contracts for larger, more profitable events without Board involvement.  Note also that when we discussed which contracts required Board approval, it was specifically mentioned that national tournament contracts did not require it.  

Bill    


 

Beatriz Marinello



 
Subj: Re: 2006 U.S. Open 
Date: 11/22/2004 2:41:14 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: Beatchess
To: Chessoffice, timothyhanke@comcast.net, stephenshutt@yahoo.com, bradyfm@msn.com, Chessdon, Randy.Bauer@iowa.gov, elizabethshaughnessy@hotmail.com

Bill,

I do not think is wise for the Executive Board to be in between two State Associations.  I already expressed my concerns, now its up to you to make a decision.  Although, your situation is quite different from other EDs since you are stepping out on December 31, 2004.

This situation is not about winning or losing, its about making the best possible choice for the federation.  I do not have any personal interest besides making sure that we are fair to the NJ Chess Federation and the Illinois Chess Association.

I have to express my disappointment and distress over our lack of mutual understanding and cooperation.  I am willing to share part of the responsibility.

Good Luck in the upcoming election and in making this important decision.  I do not know how other Board members feel, but I will not do anything that create a polarize situation between two State Associations.

Beatriz Marinello


In a message dated 11/21/04 11:37:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, Chessoffice writes:
 
Dear Board:

Following is a recent email I received from Bill Brock, who is expected to be the next Illinois Chess Association President, in support of having the 2006 US Open in the Chicago area.

I believe that this decision can probably be arrived at without a conference call, but if such a call is deemed necessary and Leroy Dubeck is invited to participate on behalf of NJSCF, then Bill Brock should be allowed to do so as well on behalf of ICA.

Bill

 


Subj: Re: 2006 U.S. Open
Date: 11/22/2004
To: elizabethshaughnessy@hotmail.com, Beatchess@aol.com, timothyhanke@comcast.net, stephenshutt@yahoo.com, bradyfm@msn.com, Chessdon@aol.com, Randy.Bauer@iowa.gov

In a message dated 11/22/2004 6:42:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, elizabethshaughnessy@hotmail.com writes:
 

Subj: Re: 2006 U.S. Open
Date: 11/22/2004 6:42:45 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: elizabethshaughnessy@hotmail.com
To: Beatchess@aol.com, Chessoffice@aol.com, timothyhanke@comcast.net, stephenshutt@yahoo.com, bradyfm@msn.com, Chessdon@aol.com, Randy.Bauer@iowa.gov
Sent from the Internet




Dear board,

We are all busy. I hate to be testy, but I really have heard enough about
the bids for the 2006 US Open.

There are two things I hope for in the future:

1.  The President and the CEO work together in harmony for the good of the
organization.

2.  That we never again have to deal with the "just another two weeks"
syndrome. We have a bid from New Jersey. We do not have a bid from Chicago.


Elizabeth, it might be better not to jump to conclusions when you don't have the facts.

The bid from the Hyatt Oak Brook arrived in the office Nov. 8.  The bid from the Sheraton Arlington Heights arrived Nov. 18.  The bid from Cherry Hill arrived Nov. 20.

Why did I not forward the Oak Brook bid to the Board?  Because part of it was a letter and not an email, so I asked them to put it all in email form so it would be easier to forward.  The Sheraton bid was quite recent and I just haven't found time to do much with the bids lately, other than conducting a debate with Leroy Dubeck that should not have been necessary.
 

Oh, but it is coming and what's more I have lobbied the Illinous Chess
Association President to lobby the USCF board even though there is as yet no
bid.




The suggestion that I had to lobby anyone in Illinois is outrageous.  Everyone I have spoken to in ICA is very enthusiastic about having the US Open in Chicago and this idea was unanimously approved at an ICA meeting in June, as I have stated (but you apparently choose to ignore).

Note that the email from Bill Brock was written two days before I received the very surprising Cherry Hill contract.


Reminds me of Crossville v wherever.  Let's hire a ED in January who
 
does not play politics to get his/her way.

Who is playing politics?

The ED has awarded national tournaments for about ten years.

The Board discussed contracts this spring and told the ED that no Board approval was needed for tournament award contracts.

The ED properly worked on this one for eight months, coordinating with the ICA.

Suddenly, the Events Manager who is supposed to be under the ED, and who knows the ED has put a lot of effort into a Chicago US Open, draws up a New Jersey contract with a much higher hotel rate, more room nights required to avoid rent, and in an unprecedented fashion, in the same city that had the tournament four years before the date in question.  This is done with no discussion with or notice to the ED.  When the ED complains, the Events manager says she was led to believe Cherry Hill had Board approval.

The ED says, wait a minute, I've been working on Chicago for a long time and we have two very good possibilities, both better than Cherry Hill.  Then a Board member who has yet to see these bids says the ED is playing politics!?

There may be some politics being played here, but as you will see when you receive details of the bids, it's not Chicago which needs any political activity to appear to be the correct choice.

Bill

 

Elizabeth


 
Subj: Re: 2006 U.S. Open
Date: 11/22/2004
To: Beatchess, elizabethshaughnessy@hotmail.com, timothyhanke@comcast.net, stephenshutt@yahoo.com, bradyfm@msn.com, Chessdon, Randy.Bauer@iowa.gov


In a message dated 11/22/2004 8:35:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, Beatchess writes:
 
Subj: Re: 2006 U.S. Open
Date: 11/22/2004 8:35:35 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Beatchess
To: Chessoffice, elizabethshaughnessy@hotmail.com, timothyhanke@comcast.net, stephenshutt@yahoo.com, bradyfm@msn.com, Chessdon, Randy.Bauer@iowa.gov



Bill,

For the record, you knew about the NJ bid for a long time.  Diane spoke with you months ago, your reply was I am working on a proposal in Chicago because the US Open has been placed in the Midwest for a long time.
Yes, I knew NJ was interested a few months ago, but at that time I had already done a lot of hotel negotiating and gotten the ICA to approve.
 


Diane, then called Leroy and Leroy called me.  I spoke with you about it and you did not say much.

I said that Cherry Hill was unsuitable due to the rotation issue, and that the Chicago bid was very favorable financially for USCF.

  I also informed Don Schultz that the NJ Chess Federation was upset
 

about this.

If they were upset it may have been because they thought we had called for bids.  We don't invite bids for the US Open and at the time they expressed interest, I already had enough in writing from the hotel plus agreement from ICA so I considered Chicago definite, just a matter of working out final details.
 


Now, a couple of months later Diane sent her e-mail with a copy of the contract from New Jersey.

I am willing to move on, I understand you are busy and this is your area of expertise.  But, something has be clear that the NJ Chess Federation did the same thing that they did to get the 2002 US Open...

That may be the problem, USCF policies changed since the 2002 event was awarded.  In 2001 boxes appeared in Chess Life saying the following:

UPDATE ON SELECTED NATIONAL BIDS

USCF will no longer be accepting bids on the National Elementary, National Junior High, National High School, National K-12 or U.S. Open tournaments.  Expressions of interest in suggesting cities and providing local arrangements, in coordination (and agreement) with USCF are welcome.  USCF Headquarters will be managing these events directly...

Bill


 

I agree this is your decision and sometimes people see things in different ways. 


Beatriz Marinello

 


Subj: 2006 US Open summary
Date: 11/22/2004
To: Beatchess, timothyhanke@comcast.net, stephenshutt@yahoo.com, bradyfm@msn.com, chessdon, Randy.Bauer@iowa.gov, elizabethshaughnessy@hotmail.com
CC: res1yb6k@verizon.net, Chessoffice

COST TO PLAYERS:
Including tax, Hyatt $95.58, Sheraton $105.45, Hilton $131.10.
Many players play the full 9-day schedule.  If staying 9 nights, costs are:
Hyatt $860, Sheraton $950, Hilton $1180.
Big edge to Chicago hotels, especially Hyatt.

COMMISSION TO USCF:
Hyatt $8.90 per night, estimated 1200 room nights, $10,680 to USCF. 
Others, no commission.
Big edge to Hyatt.

ROOM NIGHTS REQUIRED TO AVOID RENT:
Sheraton 1000, Hyatt 1040, Hilton 1215.
Sheraton and Hyatt are both virtually risk free.  With Hilton there is significant risk, especially since the higher rate could mean fewer room nights.

REQUIRED FOOD FUNCTION REVENUE:
Sheraton 0, Hyatt $2200, Hilton $5000.
Some risk at Hilton.

COMP/REDUCED PRICE ROOMS (assume 1200 room nights, comp rooms used 9 nights):

Hilton 1 per 50 plus 2 comp suites and 10 rooms at 50% off= 42 nights comp, 10 rooms at $65/night including tax.

Hyatt 1 per 40 plus 1 comp suite= 39 nights comp.  No reduced price rooms but the Chicago area has a huge number of qualified TDs, no non-Chicago TDs are needed, so not much need for staff rooms.

Sheraton 1 per 50= 24 nights comp, same comment as above.

Hilton would have edge but with all Chicago TDs, maybe not.  Sheraton is inferior here.

SIZE OF LARGEST ROOM:
Hilton 11,334 sq ft, Sheraton 9,432 sq ft, Hyatt 7,500 sq ft.
Edge to Hilton, with Hyatt weakest.

YEARS SINCE US OPEN LAST IN AREA:
Chicago 12, Cherry Hill 4.
Big edge to Chicago.

NUMBER OF RECENT US OPENS IN REGION:

                Last 5 years     Last 10 years      Last 15 years
Midwest:         0                    1                    3                   
Northeast:         2                    3                       4
Big edge to Chicago.


OVERALL:

It's nice to have as many players as possible in the main room, but not crucial, as the US Amateur Team East has shown by its great success despite being split up into many rooms.  The Hyatt main room will hold most US Open players, especially before the merge. Other factors overwhelmingly favor the Hyatt. 

I hold two tournaments each year at the Hyatt.  I don't see this as a conflict of interest, rather it may be this helped me get a better offer for USCF.  I have long experience working with the people at the Hyatt and find them very cooperative.  There are not likely to be unpleasant surprises at this hotel.

My intention is to sign the Hyatt contract by Wednesday, but I await your comments.

Bill


Subj: More on Hyatt Regency Oak Brook
Date: 11/22/2004
To: Beatchess, timothyhanke@comcast.net, stephenshutt@yahoo.com, bradyfm@msn.com, Chessdon, Randy.Bauer@iowa.gov, elizabethshaughnessy@hotmail.com
CC: res1yb6k@verizon.net, Chessoffice

Note that there are some errors in the Program of Events.  Refences to "Banguet Rnds 10" table setup should be ignored, this will be changed to regular chess setups with 6x30 tables.  The number given for "Attendance" is usually wrong, sometimes too small and sometimes too large.

The Regency Ballroom, 75 x 100 with excellent lighting, will be the main tournament room.  At the Chicago Open this room has been comfortably set up for 340 with two demo boards.  For the US Open, let's assume four demo Boards and 320.

The second largest room is the Oak Brook Ballroom, 40 x 80 with OK lighting, on the same floor but a pretty long walk away.  This has acceptably held up to 180 players in the past, 9 rows of 5 tables, but let's assume the more comfortable 9 rows of 4, or 144 players.

One flight down by a short escalator from the Regency is the lower level, including the Hunt, York and Kent Rooms, each 58 x 25.  Each holds 72 players comfortably and is very well lighted.  These rooms are an easy walk from the Regency, quicker than the Oak Brook Room.

The above rooms total 680 players capacity, more than we are likely to attract.  At the Chicago Open, we have drawn over 800 several times and have put 36 more in Oak Brook and used many of the 24 person downstairs rooms for play, and there have been no space problems.

Also on the lower level is the Essex Room, 57 x 45.  It's the first room at the bottom of the escalator and is thus conveniently located, and ideal for B & E sales, which it has long been its function at the Chicago Open. 

There are six smaller rooms on the lower level as well- Cermak, Ogden, Windsor, Camden, Butterfield, and Harger.  Each is 18 x 25 and well lighted, seating 24 players for chess.  These are good rooms for most workshops as well as lectures, skittles, side events, etc.  Larger workshops and Denker/Polgar can go in Hunt, York, Kent or Oak Brook, which won't be needed for US Open play during the day as Regency should be sufficient for the alternate schedules.

Across from the Oak Brook is the Spring Room, listed at 38 x 60 and well lighted, but somewhat odd shaped.  It holds about 100 for chess but I figure it as a skittles room and a banquet room.

The County Boardroom, 17 x 22, is a skittles room close to the Regency, holding 20 people.  Next to it are the State Boardroom, 15 x 22 and Executive Boardroom, 15 x 26.  The Boardrooms have fixed tables which limits their usefulness for skittles but they still have some value in this regard.  They are also good for EB meetings or other small meetings.

The Coat Room close to the Regency is not shown on any diagrams, but I have found it extremely valuable at the Chicago Open as its location and structure make it a perfect TD room.  A Director or two can sit at the window handling questions or registration, while two other TDs can do pairings in the rear of the room.

The Delegates Meeting should probably be in Regency, though Oak Brook might be adequate.  The tables would remain in tournament setup but the chairs would need to be reset.  This sort of thing has been done at many other US Opens.

There is also another room, the Executive Training Center, 37 x 46, that I don't think we need.  It's one flight down, but you need to go further than the Oak Brook room to get there.

The room rate of $89 with a 10% commission is a great deal, especially for a hotel of the quality of a Hyatt Regency.  Compare to the previous five years, assuming 1200 room nights:

          Room rate      USCF commission
2001      $94                   0
2002      $99                   0
2003      $89                   0
2004      $90                   0
2005      $99                   0
2006      $89               $10,680

Also, I believe the requirement of only 1040 room nights to avoid rent is lower than any of the 2001-2005 events.  And the tournament did have to pay rent in 2003, if not other times.

Parking is free, and there is a 100-store shopping center across the street.  One slight drawback is that a cab ride is needed to get to the nearest train station for sightseeing in downtown Chicago. 

Bill


Subj: RE: 2006 US Open summary 
Date: 11/22/2004 11:48:39 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Randy.Bauer@iowa.gov
To: Chessoffice@aol.com, Beatchess@aol.com, timothyhanke@comcast.net, stephenshutt@yahoo.com, bradyfm@msn.com, Chessdon@aol.com, elizabethshaughnessy@hotmail.com
CC: res1yb6k@verizon.net
Sent from the Internet (Details)


This looks like a reasonable analysis to me; if others disagree, please provide similar side by side comparisons.

I agree that the New Jersey association has been a loyal supporter, and I greatly appreciate it.  At the same time, we need to keep working to improve the bottom line, and so far, Chicago seems to provide a better opportunity in 2006.

Randy Bauer


Back to Report to the Members                Top of page                Vote for Channing, Tanner and Shahade