In a message dated 3/19/2007 2:32:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
Sam has offered a point-by-point rebuttal of your claim that Sam
issued falsehoods. Now it's up to you to explain.
My replies are in bold.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 8:51 AM
Subject: "Firing shots at random"
I carefully reviewed the list of
falsehoods by Sam in your last e-mail. I don't see how any of
it "damaged" the USCF.
OK, we disagree. I believe that having a Board member who makes
reckless, unproven charges makes USCF appear ridiculous and makes it
more difficult to obtain sponsorship and other beneficial
relationships with other groups.
Sam takes the scatter-gun
approach, firing shots at random and occasionally hitting a
target. That puts him way ahead of most Board members, who
never say anything but are always polite.
What is our objective here, to "hit targets" or to provide proper
anaylsis of the problems facing the federation? If you judge a
Board member by how many targets he hits then Sam is quite good, his
machine gun is continually pointed out the window and is firing away
at legitimate targets and innocents alike, mostly the latter. If you
were one of the innocent people hit by this gunfire, perhaps you
might view things differently.
Sam is only one of seven (or is it
six?) members of the Board, which can reign in Sam if he gets
He has, and we have, but our time would be far more constructively
spent discussing constructive ideas for the improvement of USCF.
He's likely to be re-elected, even
with the awesome Goichberg machine against him. The members
perceive him to be a rebel, and any healthy organization needs a
It is indeed healthy to have some people speak out and make the
arguments for change in USCF policies. Whether they are right or
wrong, the resulting debate is often useful. But that is not the
same thing as "firing shots at random." In the discussion regarding
the best policies for USCF to adopt, Sam's random smear attacks on
people without evidence are part of the problem, not part of the
USCF President Bill Goichberg has been circulating a list of statements
made by Sam Sloan since Sam Sloan has been on the board which, according
Goichberg, were clearly false.
However, upon examining the list, is can be seen that none of the
statements were clearly false. Many were completely true. Many others
have not been answered and in other cases Sam Sloan opened the door to
inquiry which resulted in the development of new facts previously
or undisclosed to the membership.
Let us take a look at Goichberg's list. Please note that this analysis
not be posted on the USCF Forums because Goichberg has appointed
stooges as moderators of the forums (it is even being said that
himself is one of the moderators), as a result of which Sam Sloan has
suspended from posting to the forums. In addition, it is against the
of the USCF Forums to call a liar a liar.
First, here is a direct quote from Bill Goichberg,
"Don't like to repeat myself, but public false statements by an EB
damage USCF, and among those from Sam since he's been on the Board are
"Virtually all USCF financial records have been destroyed, Polgar
tournaments were rerated for political reasons, EB candidates were
to run without paying filing fees, Polgar/Truong stole a computer from
USCF, Polgar didn't pay her Gold Affiliate fee, Polgar never paid any
to USCF at all for anything, USCF paid Polgar over $13,000 in 2003 to
appear at the US Open, Grant Perks didn't want Sam elected because he
this would mean he would have to spend time in jail, Jay Sabine went to
Windsor and led a team of high school students who threw away USCF
Bill Goichberg pestered Erik Anderson to hold the US Championship but
didn't want to, the majority of US Championship qualifiers come from CCA
tournaments, only one of the US Championship qualifying tournaments held
2006 had a TLA in Chess Life, Bill Hall didn't send out the email
moderating committee appointees, the Board didn't vote to have such a
committee before members were nominated, the Board voted at Monrovia to
meet at the National Elementary, Dewain Barber didn't recommend at
that the Board not meet at the Elementary and must have been pressured
Polgar and Truong to say that, Bill Goichberg announced that the US
Championship would be in Oklahoma before the Board approved the bid, the
Board doesn't have the right to lower the dues, no audited financials
available at Oak Brook, and too many others to recall, all untrue and
unsupported by evidence.
"Also, Sam took an email from <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>email@example.com,
with Bill Hall's name and address at the end, altered it to be from
<mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>email@example.com with "Bill Goichberg" at
the end, and posted it in the Forums.
"I believe it is clear that all the Sam charges above are clearly
none are a matter of opinion.
Now. Let us take a look at the above list, point by point:
1. Virtually all USCF financial records have been destroyed
This was revealed by Bill Hall on August 14, 2006 at the first meeting
the board Sloan that attended after being seated on the board. Bill Hall
made this statement.
There is no evidence that Bill Hall made any such statement.
Subsequently Bill Hall backtracked somewhat. After
several weeks of arguing about this, Bill Hall stated that the records
not in the Crossville Landfill but were in 125 storage boxes in a
facility. The board then instructed Bill Hall to inventory what was in
those storage boxes and report back. Bill Hall agreed to do so.
Nothing further has been heard from Bill Hall on this subject. No
has ever been produced.
Bill Hall has reported to us that it does not appear that any
USCF financial records were destroyed.
It is known that some of the contents of the former USCF
Offices in New
Windsor NY were dumped in the New Windsor Landfill. It is said that
were just overprinted issues of Chess Life. The old building had 12,000
square feet. The new building has only 5,000 square feet. Obviously, not
everything could have been kept. We still do not know what has been kept
and what has been thrown out.
We know that it is false that "virtually all" USCF financial
records have been destroyed. We know that it is false that most USCF
financial records have been destroyed. Whether ANYTHING was destroyed I
can't say but I am not aware that anything in particular was.
For example, there was a binder in the cabinet near to Barbara Van Der
Mark's desk in New Windsor NY containing all of the contracts involving
USCF. The binder went missing during the move to Crossville and still
not been found.
Bill Hall would know better about these contracts than I, but
the contracts Sam asked to see have been located, though with some
delay. Even if some contracts cannot be found, which I don't concede,
this does not justify the charge that virtually all USCF financial
records have been destroyed.
As to why this issue has not been discussed recently, it has become
obvious that Bill Hall is falling further and further behind in his
current work. In spite of having a staff of 23 working under him in the
This issue has not been discussed recently because Sam was
proven wrong and has moved on to other false statements on other
Bill Hall cannot seem to get simple and trivially easy tasks performed.
For example, Donna Alarie spent three weeks asking Bill Hall to produce
a simple email. When it was finally produced, it was dated February
27, 2006. This was a task that should have required not more than 15
minutes. The board has created a list of Action Items which Bill Hall
has committed to the board that he will get done. New items keep being
added to the Action List. Almost none of the items on the list have ever
been done or, if they were done, they were done by somebody other than
Bill Hall. There are now more than one hundred items on the Action List.
In addition to Bill Hall not keeping up with the current work and in not
accomplishing any of the tasks on the Action List, he is often absent
from the office on one pretext or another. For example, in a board
telephone conference call on February 25, 2007, Bill Hall was directed
by the board to contact Erik Anderson and see if Anderson would be
willing to contribute to the US Championship Prize Fund. The board
postponed any decision on the US Championship for three days to give
Bill Hall time to perform this task.
All of this is irrelevant to the issue of whether virtually all
USCF financial records have been destroyed.
Instead, Bill Hall was out sick for the next week. As far as
the board is aware, Bill Hall never did discuss the subject with Erik
Anderson and still has not done so.
Bill Hall discussed the subject with Erik Anderson on the
following evening (Feb 27), as I reported to the Board. You have made
the false statement that he did not have such a discussion with Anderson
several times even though I have corrected your misstatement each time.
In view of these circumstances, the board in no longer pressing
Bill Hall for information about the old missing records, because it is
obviously more important for him to do the current work. We are hoping
that Bill Hall will not fall any further behind in the current work. We
have abandoned all hope of any reconstruction of the old missing
The Board is not pressing Bill Hall regarding "virtually all
financial records" being missing or destroyed because the Board knows
they are not missing or destroyed.
Bill Goichberg recently instructed Bill Hall not to attend the
National High School Championship in Kansas City but instead to stay in
the office and try to get some of the back work done.
I did recommend this, but the President doesn't have the power
to "instruct" the ED to do such a thing.
2. Polgar tournaments were rerated for political reasons
Several months ago, Mike Nolan started attaching a notice on the MSA to
tournaments after they had been rerated.
This notice has been there for almost a year.
It so happened that as Mike Nolan was doing this, I was looking at some
tournaments Polgar had played in in order to meet the activity
requirement to play on the US Woman's Olympiad Team. These were
tournaments where Polgar had played opponents rated around 1500 to 1600.
Naturally, Polgar had won all the games.
The date on the notice showed that these tournaments had been rerated
during the beginning of the USCF Committee Meetings at the 2006
Delegates meeting in Oak Brook IL. This led me to wonder whether this
was bring done to enhance the reputation of Miss Polgar. However, over
the next few days the same notice appeared on almost every tournament
report in the MSA.
The same notice was already there, you just weren't aware of
Therefore, I concluded that I was mistaken and it was just a
coincidence that the notice first appeared on a Polgar tournament I was
No you didn't, you went on the USCF Forums and made a post on
October 16, 2006 saying of a Polgar tournament, "It seems obvious that
this tournament was re-rated for some political reason." Many people
challenged your claim, but as usual you refused to retract it or
apologize. I am glad that you have finally concluded that you were
wrong, but you should have apologized to USCF staff for your outrageous
charge five months ago.
I subsequently mate a motion at the November board meeting in Stamford
CT that this notice be removed. Mike Nolan agreed to do that.
No he didn't, you withdrew your motion because no one else was
Instead, however, what he really did is just change the wording a little
bit. I still believe that the notice should be removed from the USCf
website. It now reads:
"The ratings shown on this page are not official published ratings
and may change from time to time. Using them for pairing purposes in
tournaments should only be done if this has been advertised in all
advance publicity and is announced to all players at the tournament."
I believe that this notice should be removed. I see no point in putting
USCF ratings on the USCF website and then telling the readers that these
ratings are unofficial.
I don't know anyone who agrees, but this is irrelevant to the
issue which is that you made an irresponsible accusation that a
tournament was rerated for political reasons.
Mike Nolan has done a wonderful job on the MSA and on the
various programs he is working on which have automated the labor
intensive office jobs involving ratings, memberships and TLAs which
previously had to be done by hand. This has greatly benefited the USCF
by giving the office staff more time to play pinochle. I only wish that
Mike Nolan would sometimes tell the board what he is doing so that we
would not have these surprises.
3. EB candidates were allowed to run without paying filing fee
One of the first things I did after I took office on the board was to
fulfill a campaign promise to demand a reconstruction of the USCF
Finances to enable a determination of why the USCF lost two million
1999 to 2005. Because of this, the office produced a CD showing the
general ledger accounts for that period.
I went through this entire records and I found a lot of questionable
things such as large checks written to Polgar for no apparent reason
plus checks Frank Niro wrote to himself plus a large going away present
check of about $3,000 that Frank Niro wrote to himself on his last day
in the office.
While I still have not found the missing two million dollars, one of the
odd things I found was that while checks representing candidate filings
were shown as having been deposited in January 2005 for six of the
candidates, the checks for the other three candidates were not shown as
having been deposited in the bank. The three checks for whom the $250
fee was not deposited were all insider approved candidates.
No credible explanation has ever been provided as to why these three
checks do not show up in the general ledger accounts. I eventually gave
up asking about this. I am still hoping someday to get the answer to
You asserted that these candidates were allowed to run without
paying their filing fees and USCF staff checked on this and confirmed
that every candidate did pay his or her fee. Why the checks weren't in
the ledger is a lesser issue and I don't recall the answer, but checks
were not required; candidates were allowed to pay by credit card.
4. Polgar/Truong stole a computer from USCF
I wonder why Goichberg puts this item on his list of charges that are
clearly false, when this one is clearly true.
So you have evidence that would convict them in court and send
them to prison? Have you presented this evidence to the police?
With regard to the question of Susan Polgar and Paul Truong taking the
USCFs laptop computer on August 20, 2003, we have the statement by Mike
Nolan that as he was leaving the USCFs offices to go back to Nebraska he
observed that the laptop computer was still sitting on the desk of the
missing Executive Director Frank Niro and that just as he was leaving
the office Paul Truong and Susan Polgar were arriving. We also have the
statement that when Beatriz Marinello and Tim Hsnke arrived in the
office a few minutes later the first thing they did was go to Frank
Niro's desk to look at the laptop computer and see what was in it, to
only to discover that the laptop was missing and Paul Truong and Susan
Polgar had just left the office.
We also have the statement by Susan Polgar admitting that she took the
laptop computer, but claiming that the board had authorized her to take
it. She has failed to identify which board, which board member or which
office employee authorized her to purloin the computer. What we do know
is that to this day the computer has never been returned.
Niro, Polgar and Truong say that the computer was personally
owned by Niro, not by the USCF, and that a USCF representative said it
was OK to remove it. It is always possible they are not telling the
truth, but since no question regarding its removal was raised for over
three years, it may be that no one remembers which USCF representative
authorized its removal. To say that they "clearly stole" the computer is
using a standard of guilty unless proven innocent.
The missing laptop computer obviously would have contained the contracts
with Polgar, a record of the emails exchanged with Polgar and the
financial information concerning the large amounts of money that had
been paid to Polgar while Niro was Executive Director. This clearly
provides the motivation as to why Polgar would want to take that laptop
The evidence is clear that Susan took the computer since she admits to
having taken it and so far no evidence has been produced that she had
the right, the authority or the permission to take it.
Nor has evidence been produced that she didn't have the right or
permission. It will be difficult to find evidence at this late date,
and usually charges of theft are not made so long after the alleged
Clearly, the USCF membership has the right to know that Susan took the
computer. It is obvious that Bill Goichberg wants to ban me from the
USCF Forums so as to prevent the general membership from learning about
If the latter is true, why was your post alleging theft never
removed from the Forums, as I think it should have been?
5. Polgar didn't pay her Gold Affiliate fee, Polgar never paid any money
to USCF at all for anything.
The afore mentioned CD shows around 60 checks being paid to Polgar
entities such as Sysan Polgar Foundation, Polgar Chess Inc, and Susan
Polgar herself, but no checks ever being paid by Polgar to the USCF for
Take another look at that CD and you will find many payments by
Polgar for ads, rating fees, TLA fees. I don't remember if they were by
check or credit card but that doesn't matter. And the office has
confirmed that she paid the Gold Affiliate fee.
We have letters from Bill Hall admitting that as part of a settlement
after Polgar and Troung repe4eatedly threatened to sue that in addition
to giving money to Polgar, it also gave two and a half pages of free
Chess Life advertising to Polgar, a cover story in Chess Life to Polgar
and it paid Polgar for celebrity appearances where she had only to show
up and have her picture taken by Truong.
I have seen no such letters. There were some deals in which
Polgar got ads in place of cash, but this doesn't support your claim
that she never paid any money to USCF. Any cover story she received was
done because the Editor wanted her on the cover. And the appearances
USCF paid for were not just to have her picture taken, they were for
lectures, simuls, speaking with players, coaches and parents, etc.
The USCF also paid Polgar to promote her own book.
If Bill Goichberg wants to dispute the claim that Polgar has never paid
the USCF for anything, not even the rating fees for tournaments or
memberships, he should produce a copy of any check from Polgar. So far,
he has not produced one.
When you posted portions of that CD to the Forum, it included
payments by Polgar. I don't remember if they were by check or credit
card. Go back and read what you posted.
6. USCF paid Polgar over $13,000 in 2003 to appear at the US Open
In December, 2003, shortly after Bill Goichberg became volunteer acting
Executive Director, he paid $13,358.36 to Polgar. This payment was not
disclosed to the Executive Board. The board was vehemently opposed to
paying any money to Polgar. Tim Hanke, who was VP of Finance at the
time, stated that Polgar should not be paid a penny. This explains why
Bill Goichberg never told the board that he had paid this money.
The money was listed as accounts payable in October, before I
became Office Manager in November. I was never acting Executive
Director; I was Office Manager from mid-November 2003 to mid-January
2004 and Executive Director for the rest of 2004. Neither President
Beatriz Marinello nor the Board supported trying to stiff Polgar by
refusing to pay her for the national tournament appearances she had been
hired to do.
I discovered this payment on the aforementioned CD that was
provided to the board at my request. While it is true that not all of
the $13,358.36 was for showing up at the 2003 US Open in Los Angeles, a
considerable part of it was.
No more than a third was, and you posted that the entire amount
was and did not admit your mistake when it was pointed out.
Among the items that Polgar demanded payment for was airline tickets for
herself, Paul Truong, her two children and a domestic servant to take
care of the kids, plus 14 days in two hotel rooms in Los Angeles.
She also demanded payment for a celebrity appearance at a National
Scholastic in Nashville in which she demanded payment in the amount of
more than $4,000 for a one day appearance and $2 per book for book
signings in which she promoted her own book.
Nashville was a national scholastic, and all those were three
day appearances, not one day. The word "demanded" is out of place as
her compensation was determined by mutual agreement with the USCF
Executive Director. Granted that USCF was almost broke at the time and
could not afford Susan's services, but that is the ED's fault, not
Susan's. Also, the above does not justify posting that she was paid
over $13,000 for the US Open.
So, Bill Goichberg is corrects that the $13,358.36 was not only for
appearing at the 2003 US Open in Los Angeles (in which she did not play
but just attended the political meetings). It was for a few other things
Yes, it was, even though you at first charged that she did
nothing else at the tournament. In several issues of Chess Life before
the 2003 US Open, the TLA for that event stated, "GM Susan Polgar will
give lectures and simultaneous exhibitions."
On the other hand, the $13,358.36 was just one of many questionable
checks Polgar received, including a check for $2500 for a simultaneous
exhibition at the Newburgh Rotary Club.
Why was the latter questionable? Are you suggesting she didn't
give that simul?
7. Grant Perks didn't want Sam elected because he knew this would mean
he would have to spend time in jail
I did not make this statement and I did not call Grant Perks a criminal.
Following is your exact statement:
"The same questions must be asked of Grant Perks, who was Chief
Financial Officer at the time. Perks has been extremely upset at the
results of the election just concluded. Perks has been doing everything
in his power to stop Sam Sloan from being certified as a member of the
board. Now we understand the reason. Perks does not want to spend time
in prison and he obviously realizes that once Sam Sloan gets on the
board he is going to find out about this and make it public."
I did however say that many things that Grant Perks did were illegal
such as paying $7500 in per diem allowances in violation of IRS rules.
There is a difference between saying that something is illegal and
saying that something is criminal. For example, castling a king out of
check in chess is illegal but one will not go to jail for that (unless
possibly it was done to win the $25,000 first prize in a Goichberg
I stand by my statement that many improprieties were committed by Grant
Perks during the two times that he was Executive Director. I did not
call him a criminal, however.
Grant Perks was never Executive Director, though he was once in
charge of the office. I didn't say you called him a criminal, but you
implied that, and I described what you said (and now apparently don't
Incidentally, it is now clear that Grant Perks is one of the
anonymous moderators to the USCF Forums. He is probably Moderator2. This
explains why my postings to the Forum keep being deleted and why I have
been suspended from posting there.
What proof do you have of this?
8. Jay Sabine went to New Windsor and led a team of high school students
who threw away USCF records
It was widely believe that this was exactly what had happened. One
former board member and one current board member told me that this had
However, it has since been explained that although this was a proposal,
it was never carried out. Jay Sabine and his team of high school
students never even went to New Windsor.
I promptly publicly apologized to Jay Sabine for making this statement.
I do not understand why Bill Goichberg keeps bringing this up months
later. Jay Sabine has never complained about this. Meanwhile, there is
still no explanation as to what happened to the financial records or
whether they are in storage boxes or in a landfill.
I will give you credit, you did actually apologize for this one,
but you never should have said it without checking with the Board or ED
first. Regarding where the records are, Bill Hall has explained many
times that they are in storage boxes. Why do you persist with this
8. Bill Goichberg pestered Erik Anderson to hold the US
Championship but Erik didn't want to
Because Bill Goichberg refused to keep the board informed as to what was
going on and conducted one-man negotiations for the US Championship, we
do not know and probably will never know what went on. However, the
following facts are known:
a. At a meeting in Seattle in February 2006, Erik Anderson stated that
in the future he would be providing little if any of his own funds to
sponsor the US Championship. The money would have to come from other
Exaggerated. Erik stated that he had been donating $200,000 per
year and wished to donate less. "Little if any of his own funds" is not
the impression those at the meeting obtained.
b. Erik Anderson did not show up at the prize award ceremony at the
March 2006 US Championship in San Diego and did not announce any future
US Championships. In all previous years, Erik Anderson had personally
handed out the prize checks and had announced the details for the next
c. Shortly thereafter, Erik Anderson told Bill Goichberg to stop
collecting qualifier fees for the US Championship and to stop publishing
announcements in Chess Life referring to tournaments as US Championship
qualifiers. As a result, by the June issue, no tournaments were listed
as being qualifiers
to the US Championship.
In early April, Erik told me that the qualifier tournaments
would continue without fees being required. In late April, Erik
told Robert Tanner that USCF should suspend all mention of qualifying
tournaments because he needed more time to work out the US Championship
format. As a result of what he told Tanner, the June Chess Life removed
all mention of qualifying tournaments.
d. Erik Anderson had an option to hold the next US Championship but that
option expired in May 2006. Erik Anderson never asked for an extension
and never stated that he was going to organize the next US Championship.
He stated repeatedly to me, Don Schultz, Robert Tanner and
possibly others that he was going to organize the 2007 US Championship.
I never "pestered" him to hold the Championship.
e. At the board meeting in August 2006, Bill Goichberg admitted
that in spite of persistent efforts he had not been able to reach Erik
Anderson in a long time and did not even know where he was.
Nevertheless, he was
convinced that Erik Anderson would do something. (The tape of that
meeting still to this day has not been posted to the website, in
violation of the by-laws.)
e. In October, 2006 Bill Goichberg posted on the USCHESS.ORG website a
list of qualifying tournaments to the US Championship. These included
five Goichberg Tournaments,
Four were my tournaments and all four had been qualifiers in the
past at Erik Anderson's request. Foxwoods was authorized by Erik in the
fall of 2005 and had already been held. The World Open was authorized
by Erik in the fall of 2005, removed from the June issue at his request,
publicized again as a qualifier when Erik approved this in early June,
and had already been held. Two future tournaments, National Chess
Congress and North American Open, were authorized by Erik in October
one tournament organized by his political ally Randy Hough, and the
Grand Prix Winner which is usually won my a winner of Goichberg big
money tournaments. Goichberg made this announcement without informing
the board and without any vote by the board. At that time, Bill
Goichberg had still not concluded a sponsorship deal to fund the US
No vote by the Board had ever been necessary to authorize
qualifying tournaments in the past; since that system began in 2001 USCF
just accepted whichever events AF4C designated, which were virtually
always the open tournaments offering the largest prizes.
f. At a board meeting on November 17-18, 2006, It was pointed out that
the AF4C website still and no mention of a US Championship, in sharp
contrast to previous years when AF4C had blasted all over everywhere
that it was sponsoring the US Championship. Bill Goichberg admitted that
he still had not concluded any deal with Erik Anderson to sponsor the US
Championship. The board gave Bill Gioichberg a firm deadline of December
31, 2006 at midnight to conclude a deal or otherwise open the US
Championship to bidding.
g. On December 27, 2006, Bill Goichberg posted a list of 30 players who
had qualified to the US Championship, without a vote or permission from
the board to post this list and still having not secured the sponsorship
or the money to hold the US Championship.
This informational post was labeled as unofficial, and almost
all these players already knew they had qualified.
h. On December 31, 2006 the board gave Bill a one week extension to
secure sponsorship for the US Championship upon a representation by Bill
that he was on the verge of concluding a deal.
i. On January 7, 2007, Erik Anderson called Don Schultz (but did not
call Bill Goichberg) to inform him that AF4C would not be sponsoring the
2007 US Championship.
j. Shortly after the announcement of this, Bill Goichberg posted and
continues to post that it was all because of Sam Sloan that AF4C would
not be sponsoring the US Championship this year.
I posted that Sam's internet posts were a reason for this loss
of sponsorship, but not the only reason. Certainly Erik Anderson's
diminished interest in donating his own money was also a reason.
Several people associated with AF4C have mentioned Sam's posts as
causing AF4C's main sponsor to withdraw, and Erik Anderson himself told
the New York Times that one of the reasons his sponsor pulled out was
internet posts attacking the planned event.
9. The majority of US Championship qualifiers come from CCA tournaments.
Although a majority do not come from CCA tournaments, Bill Goichberg,
owner of the CCA, made the list of qualifying tournaments.
Erik Anderson made this list, as in previous years. You
previously posted that a majority of the qualifiers come from CCA events
when actually less than a third do.
The list includes five CCA tournaments with two qualifiers each, meaning
that the players must pay
entry fees to Bill Goichberg if they want to qualify to the US
Actually four CCA tournaments. During the period when Erik
couldn't decide on the format, the Chicago Open lost its qualifier
status after having long advertised it, but Foxwoods made up for that by
obtaining four qualifiers at the last moment (literally a few hours
before round one).
Two more qualifiers come from Randy Hough, a Goichberg ally and
organizer of a minor tournament that would never otherwise be on the
Erik has been pretty consistent about using the tournaments with
the largest prize funds. The American Open is not a "minor tournament,"
it is the largest annual open tournament in California, both in terms of
prizes and number of entries. In 2006 this event awarded about $24,000
in prizes. Can you name a tournament that awarded more and was not a
one comes from the Grand Prix winner who must play in Goichberg
tournaments to have a chance to win. Most of the rest are from major
tournaments that Goichberg cannot ignore such as the US Open and the
National Open. Big tournaments like the New Jersey Open and other
major-non-Goichberg tournaments do not make the list.
The New Jersey Open is a great old traditional tournament (I
tied for first in it in 1967), but in 2006 it drew 90 players less than
the American Open, and awarded about one-third as much in prizes. If
the New Jersey Open is a "big tournament," how can you call the American
Open a "minor tournament" ?
Which "major non-Goichberg tournaments" do not make the list? I
believe that every tournament in the country that guaranteed $20,000 or
more in 2006 was designated by Erik Anderson as a qualifier except for
three: the Kings Island Open, Continental Open, and Pacific Coast Open.
All three are my tournaments.
10. Only one of the US Championship qualifying tournaments held in 2006
had a TLA in Chess Life
After the US Masters in which promising junior player 15-year-old Daniel
Ludwig was excluded from playing in the US Championship only because he
had failed to pay to Goichberg the $75 qualifying fee,
Goichberg!? Daniel Ludwig never had the option of paying the
qualifying fee to Goichberg. The local organizers in North Carolina
sent the qualifying fees to AF4C.
Erik Anderson told Goichberg to remove all mention of US Championship
qualifying fees from Chess Life magazine.
As a result, by the June 2006 issue, all reference to qualifier
tournaments had been removed from Chess Life. I failed to realize that
WITHOUT PERMISSION OF ERIK ANDESON, Bill Goichberg put all these
announcements back in subsequent issues of Chess Life.
This is an utterly preposterous brand new false statement, even
though it is in all caps! I spoke to Erik Anderson a few days before
the National Open, pointing out that they had advertised a qualifier in
many issues of Chess Life prior to June, and he agreed to two qualifiers
each for the National Open, World Open and US Open.
Let's get back to the ridiculous claim that Sam posted. He said
that only one of the qualifying tournaments was announced as such in
Chess Life, and went on to argue that it was therefore OK to renege on
the promise made to those players. Actually, ALL NINE open qualifying
tournaments were announced as such in their Chess Life TLAs: US Masters,
Foxwoods, National Open, World Open, US Open, Western States Open,
American Open, National Chess Congress, North American Open.
11. Bill Hall didn't send out the email proposing moderating committee
appointees, the Board didn't vote to have such a committee before
members were nominated.
It is perfectly obvious that the list of mostly hand picked Goichberg
stooges was selected by Bill Goichberg.
Sam, Bill Hall sent out the email proposing moderating committee
appointees. You changed his email address to mine, changed his name to
mine, and then posted this forged, altered email on the Forum. That's
Bill Hall is on thin ice right now. Almost the entire board has lost
faith in him. After almost two years on
the job, it is difficult to think of anything that Bill Hall has
accomplished. So, Bill Hall has to do whatever Bill Goichberg tells him.
The only reason Bill Hall still has a job is that it is so close to
election time that the board is too chicken to make changes.
I disagree, and you should allow the Board to speak for itself.
Attacking Bill Hall does not change the fact that he sent out an email
and you claimed that I sent it.
What was discussed and voted in at the meeting in Los Angeles was
completely different from what has taken place. In Los Angeles, it was
supposed to require a vote by two moderators to remove a posting from
the Forums and the committee was supposed to provide appellate review.
Requiring two moderators to agree was never discussed; listen to
You claimed that it was improper to nominate a
moderation committee when the Board hadn't approved the idea of having
such a committee, and your claim was clearly wrong.
Instead, what has happened is that the committee members are
also moderators and any one of the 13 people who are either committee
members or moderators can remove a posting and there is no way to get it
False. The committee can restore a post by majority vote, and
no committee member by himself can remove a post. The plan was that it
would take three committee members to remove a post, but it sounds like
the committee may be considering changing this, whether to more or less
I don't know.
The claim by Bill Goichberg that the board voted to approve this is
The Board voted that there would be a committee and appointed a
subcommittee to propose members. The subcommittee did so and the Board
approved the members. The Board did not vote on further details but if
we don't like how the committee is operating, we can move to change
12. The Board voted at Monrovia to meet at the National
I did not write that. What I did write was that all of the members of
the board said that we wanted to meet next at the National Elementary
Championship in Nashville on May 11-13, with the exception of Bill
Goichberg who said that he wanted one week to think about it.
As you write this above, you are correct. When I posted that I
was opposed to agreeing to meet at Nashville and needed time to think
about it, you accused me of lying, apparently not realizing that being
opposed to an immediate decision to meet there was not inconsistent with
needing time to think about it.
13. Dewain Barber didn't recommend at Monrovia that the Board not meet
at the Elementary
That is correct. Dewain Barber made no such recommendation and said
nothing about this subject. The tapes of this meeting are available on
line, the first tape of any board meeting since Bill Goichberg became
president. Play the tape and see if you can find Dewain Barber making
any such statement.
He definitely made that statement, so unless the recorder
malfunctioned, it should be there.
14. Bill Goichberg announced that the US Championship would be
in Oklahoma before the Board approved the bid
That is right and here is the announcement which was made before the
voted even knew about it. The announcement was made on February 21,
2007. Both Don Schultz and I immediately protested and demanded a
conference call on this issue:
"To: USCF Exec Board
"This E-mail is confirm $50,000.00 donation from Frank Berry to be
toward sponsoring the 2007 Frank K. Berry US Chess Championship.
"The event is planned as a 9-SS May 15-23, 2007 to be held in
"Details will be determined later by the Organizing Committee and
"Members of the Organizing Committee are as follows: Frank K.
Berry, Jerry Hanken, Bill Goichberg, John Donaldson and Bill Hall.
"Frank Berry hopes to make an additional $150,000 donation, but only
$50,000 has been delivered. If this additional donation does not occur,
Frank would like for the USCF to contribute $15,000 to the tournament in
order to make it a more prestigious event. If Frank's additional
occurs, part of the money would be for a US Women's Championship to be
in Stillwater this summer.
"The Organizing Committee reserves the right to add as many as 3
players to the May event.
"Frank K. Berry
"12:32 pm CST
Note that this is an email forwarded by me, not one I wrote.
The subject of the email, which you omit, was "Bid FW: 2007 Frank K
Berry US Championship." And the previous day, I wrote the Board saying
that I would soon forward an email from Frank Berry containing his bid.
Of course, the bidders have no right to approve their own bid and they
should have said "If this bid is accepted, the following conditions will
apply," but the Board understood that this was a bid and not an
announcement, and a week later voted to approve the bid.
15. The Board doesn't have the right to lower the dues
This is a questionable interpretation of the by-laws by Bill Goichberg.
The by-laws state that only the Delegates and not the board or the
office can change the dues. Bill says that this means that the board
cannot raise the dues but that it can have a long term dues-sale which
has the effect of lowering the dues.
I did not object because I have long felt that the dues were too high
and I wanted them lowered. However, I question Bill's interpretation of
It has long been established that the Board has the right to
lower the dues in the form of promotional memberships. Each year the
Delegates pass a motion saying they have reviewed the promotional
memberships offered by the Board and authorize their continuation. At
the 2004 delegates meeting when Harold Winston moved to refer a motion
to lower dues to the Board, he pointed out that the Board had the right
to use a promotional membership to lower dues, and no one questioned
this. At the 2006 delegates meeting when I withdrew my motion to lower
dues and said that the Board might lower them anyway by using a
promotional membership, no one questioned this. So I was disappointed
when Sam, a longtime supporter of low dues, would not back my effort at
Monrovia to retain our $39 adult dues, and when he later said he thought
the dues sale was not legal.
16. No audited financials were available at Oak Brook
I was mistaken about this because nobody gave me a copy of the
Did you ask for a copy? Did you complain to the Board about no
audited financials being available before you posted this on the
I did not make it to the early committee meetings in Oak Brook because
Bill Goichberg had told the office not to provide me with the travel
expense money to attend the meetings.
I did not say any such thing. The only question I was asked by the
office was which nights at the hotel USCF paid for, and my answer was to
follow past procedure. We followed the usual procedures which are that
Board members submit expense requests after the meeting. Apparently you
were unable to attend without receiving payment in advance, and this was
not understood until shortly before the meeting. Now that we know this,
no one on the Board has objected to your getting advance payment of
expenses to attend meetings.
I finally made it to the delegate meeting in Oak Brook Illinois entirely
at my own expense.
Thus, it can be seen that almost all of the statements by me which Bill
Goichberg claims were "clearly false" were in reality substantially
At the US Amateur Team East on February 17-18, 2007 in Parsippany NJ, I
was presented an award for being the "Shining Light on the US Chess
Federation", precisely because of my emails and postings which have
revealed what is going on in the inner sanctum of the US Chess
Federation which no insider has ever revealed before.
That "award" was provided by your major supporter Leroy Dubeck
solely, in my opinion, to help your re-election campaign.
Bill Goichberg, who arrived at the event shortly after I was presented
with this award, protested vehemently but it was too late as I had
already received the award.
I only complained to Frank Brady, who Leroy got to present the
award, telling Frank that I was concerned people might interpret his
participation as reflecting support for your campaign. Frank assured me
that his involvement did not indicate such support and said he thought
"the whole thing was a lark."
In a message dated 3/19/2007 11:27:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time,