Letter to Bruce Draney

Dear Bruce Draney,

Having read your posts, I feel that you are missing all the major points. Here are a few examples:

On 19 May 1999 22:52:04 -0500, in rec.games.chess.politics Bruce Draney wrote:


> Just recognize the fact that this Board majority that has held power for >three years could have taken any number of steps to implement plans, >ideas and strategies that could have made our organization successful. >The two PB members from Northern California have been vocal but have not >passed any policies by votes of 2-5 that I know of. If the organization >is falling apart, its because of the policies and the plans of those who >have been running things. Bill must take some part of the >responsibility for our problems. >

Here, you seem to believe that the two Northern California PB members, Dorsch and Eade, are on your side, and the five other members, Schultz, Goichberg, Lieberman, Scott and Adams (now deceased) are against your ideas.

One political trick by Tom Dorsch is that he makes everyone feel that he is on their side. A lot of people have been misled this way. I encounter this all the time when I meet people who feel that Dorsch is on their side and I know for a fact that Dorsch is actually against them. Here is an example of this. You write:

> Do you really seriously believe that Bill could not have forced through a > dues reduction if he'd favored one? Do you really feel he would allow > members a new chess organization that he began to join for a low price? > > I'm hoping that we get someone in charge someday in the future that >will consider lower dues rates, that will consider optional Chess Life, >that will adapt to the changing world, that will be open to suggestions >to improve things without dismissing it out of hand because we've done >it a different way since 1973 and it always worked.

Here is a good example. You apparently believe that your men Dorsch and Eade are in favor of lowering the USCF dues of $40 and are in favor of making Chess Life optional, among other things.

However, as far as I am aware, none of the current members of the Policy Board are in favor of making Chess Life optional, nor are any of the 17 candidates for office in favor of making Chess Life optional.

Making Chess Life optional would weaken the organization, because then the organization would not be able to communicate with its members, plus it would not save money because the incremental cost of sending out one more copy of Chess Life is not that much.

Regarding lowering dues, that is not one of the options being considered. The choice is either to raise dues or to keep them the same. I want to keep dues the same. Dorsch has not clearly stated his position on this issue, as far as I am aware.

Here is another example:

> USCF would focus almost exclusively on holding its own through promotion > of the scholastics which is where the membership growth and most of the > money in OTB chess really is as we all know.

I personally am in favor of this. However, Dorsch, Eade and most of the others are not much interested in scholastic chess. It must be remembered that back in the 1960s, Bill Goichberg was by far the biggest and virtually the only scholastic chess organizer in the United States. Bill Goichberg founded and established the National Elementary School Championship, for example. However, when scholastic chess became profitable, the USCF took over and forced Bill Goichberg out.

I wonder why you think that once Dorsch gets into power, he will re-orient the USCF along scholastic lines. Nothing Dorsch has ever said has indicated to me that he would do this. However, if Goichberg were running the USCF, he might do this.

Here is another example:

> It is very doubtful in my opinion that Bill would find enough reasons to leave > the USCF regardless of whether or not Tom Dorsch was USCF President. > Bill would have to start up and maintain his own rating system. > If Bill has $500,000 that he wishes to invest in such an organization > or so, I'm betting he won't risk it, not just for a period of a few > years while a potentially unfriendly President holds office.

Again, you miss the point. Bill Goichberg does not want to leave the USCF. Tom Dorsch wants to force Bill Goichberg out of the USCF. Dorsch has been on this campaign for more than 20 years that I know of. If a Dorsch controlled board takes power in the USCF, it is a real possibility that Goichberg and his tournaments will be forced out. In that case, Goichberg will either have to give up chess altogether (which is what Dorsch seems to want) or he will have no choice but to go into competition with the USCF.

However, it is not clear to me that this would happen. Although there is a Dorsch slate running (nobody can agree on exactly who is on the slate) none of the other candidates, with the possible exception of Helen Warren, are so rabidly anti-Goichberg as to want to force him out of the USCF entirely. Only Dorsch wants such extreme measures, as far as I am aware. So, Dorsch may not be successful in his plans, even if he wins the election.

Sam Sloan

Here are links:
Sam Sloan's Chess Page

My Home Page

Contact address - please send e-mail to the following address: Sloan@ishipress.com