- Joined
- 09 Aug 01
- Moves
- 54191
19 Sep 08
Originally posted by Fat Ladysusan polgar has initiated many chess promotions in america, so i give her alot of credit. the uscf has not done any chess promotions, so i have a poor opinion of that organization. in fact, one is surprised that susan remains associated with such inept people. it is an absolute truth that "the bad drive out the good." and let me be clear, susan has contributed so much to the usa chess environment both as a player and promoter. it's puzzling to hear ill will towards the only one doing good work promoting chess.
OK. I'll list some of them.
1) Susan Polgar regularly describes herself as a "Four times Women's World Champion".
I'm not even sure what she means by this. She won the Women's World Championship in 1996 and did not defend her title two years later.
2) In the biography on her site:
http://www.susanpolgar.com/susan-polgar-biography.html
she claims: ...[text shortened]... nished she has the nerve to remain as a member of the USCF, let alone on its board.
19 Sep 08
Originally posted by tonytiger41Should her ethical violations be ignored just because she is a good chess promoter?
susan polgar has initiated many chess promotions in america, so i give her alot of credit. the uscf has not done any chess promotions, so i have a poor opinion of that organization. in fact, one is surprised that susan remains associated with such inept people. it is an absolute truth that "the bad drive out the good." and let me be clear, susan ...[text shortened]... moter. it's puzzling to hear ill will towards the only one doing good work promoting chess.
- Joined
- 09 Aug 01
- Moves
- 54191
19 Sep 08
2 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambitviolation? it was a small unimportant technicality, wasn't it?
Should her ethical violations be ignored just because she is a good chess promoter?
anyway, fuss over emails seems insignificant as well.
this is more of a power struggle between polgar and the entrenched longtime board members. if you really are concerned about ethics, then you should look beyond the flaming headlines/charges.
so i ignore these charges when i question the motives of the board members who are inept and of dubious mgt/leadership skills.
19 Sep 08
Originally posted by tonytiger41What are you referring to when you say "it" was a small unimportant technicality?
violation? it was a small unimportant technicality, wasn't it?
anyway, fuss over emails seems insignificant as well.
this is more of a power struggle between polgar and the entrenched longtime board members. if you really are concerned about ethics, then you should look beyond the flaming headlines/charges.
so i ignore these charges when i question the motives of the board members who are inept and of dubious mgt/leadership skills.
As for the "fuss over emails" - this was nothing to do with a power struggle between Polgar, Truong and the longtime board members, but that is what Polgar / Truong have tried to turn it into rather than do the decent thing and own up to their bad behaviour when they were caught in the act.
It started off with Truong being caught red-handed sending the Fake Sam Sloan messages. The evidence that he did this is completely irrefutable to any rational observer.
So Truong was caught sending the obnoxious Fake Sam Sloan messages. He seems to have done this partly to wreck any chance the real Sam Sloan had of getting re-elected to the board (though frankly this seemed unlikely anyway) but mostly because he really detests Sloan!
What Truong should have done at this stage is 'fessed up, resigned from the board and worked behind the scenes supporting Polgar (who quite possibly didn't know what he had been doing).
Instead the pair of them, especially Polgar, starting making ludicrous claims that the evidence was faked, that everyone was out to get them because she's a woman and they're both foreigners, that the USCF wasn't being run properly and was going to go bankrupt etc. etc. Basically anything they could use as a smokescreen to the original charges.
Throw into the fix the various court cases and you've got the mess that the USCF is in at the moment.
Polgar seems to still have a huge number of supporters because she is a charismatic person, excellent at drumming up publicity and not at all bad at organising chess tournaments and other events.
I assume these supporters either don't know the facts or chose to ignore them because they think she is capable of doing so much for US chess. Personally I think they could well be right, who else is capable of generating so much interest in chess in the USA?
However it can't all be swept under the carpet. Truong needs to own up to what he did, promise to be a good boy from now on and then keep a much lower profile, or better still, bugger off out of the chess world altogether.
20 Sep 08
2 edits
The post that was quoted here has been removedyes beauty is certainly subjective but i could listen to Alexandras voice for ever, such a beautifully warm almost song like tone, almost reassuring in a motherly type of way, tainted with sophistication, but not overly so and intelligence but not for its own sake. it makes me want to relax and enjoy chess, not all stressed out as per usual, but foments a kind of self belief. I like her, and i must second your appraisal, for what does it matter is someone is gorgeous but has a self consumed and obnoxious personality, would you like to spend time with such a person, hardly!
20 Sep 08
Originally posted by tonytiger41First off, I agree with Fat Lady's response 100%. I will only add a couple things:
violation? it was a small unimportant technicality, wasn't it?
anyway, fuss over emails seems insignificant as well.
this is more of a power struggle between polgar and the entrenched longtime board members. if you really are concerned about ethics, then you should look beyond the flaming headlines/charges.
so i ignore these charges when i question the motives of the board members who are inept and of dubious mgt/leadership skills.
- I expect board members to behave ethically, even during 'power struggles' and even if their opposition is not behaving ethically.
- I have no objection to Susan Polgar continuing to promote chess, but I think that her actions on the USCF board show that she ought to stay out of chess politics. She'd be more effective if she just promoted chess on her own, and kept herself and her husband out of the petty personal squabbles.
20 Sep 08
Originally posted by tonytiger41You keep stating your opinion. Its time to get down to facts. A phrase I hear from youngsters would apply here if she was male... "get off Susan polgar's balls"
"it" was refering to marriage disclosure.
email incident is insignificant to me.
board member ineptmess is significant
any opiinion of sam sloan colorfu" background ?
20 Sep 08
2 edits
The post that was quoted here has been removedyes very well said, i myself was trying to make the point that there are sometimes much more appealing characteristics about a person simply than how they appear, and i think that the lady in question if she was plain and not so glamorous would still be very likeable, i dunno, its just that Russian lilt and its aesthetic lyrical quality, its mesmerizing, although i do not have to live with her imperfections and am quite sure she has her moments, as we all do!
21 Sep 08
The post that was quoted here has been removedlol, yes Duchess, it is true, alas she is just a dream and I but a dreamer. my only hope is to progress so fast that i will become world champion before she marries and then appeal to her intellect through my chess games hoping eventually to reach her heart!
there are many ladies who play chess, no doubt who are as equally as pretty, perhaps some even more so, who can tell, however its the whole person that matters and she just has something, its, i dunno, just refreshing to here someone talk about chess in a non egotistical manner and if you listen closely you will never hear her say things like, 'crushed', or, 'smashed', 'or ripped the kingside apart', its the moves that she discusses in an intelligent and informed way, shes a lady and far too sensitive for that nonsense, smitten, mmmm, more like sledge hammered!