Common Ground – Follow-up Discussion
from FM Movses Movsisyan’s
Oklahoma Chess Forum
The following dialog took place on the Oklahoma Chess Forum
at www.MovsesMovsisyan.com/Forum
during December. We thought OCB readers that don’t go to the Forum might be
interested in the discussion.
Posted Dec
15 2005, 02:02 PM
Alex (Relyea),
This message is in a new thread, since you keep steering the 6th Annual
Lindsborg Open topic away from simply promoting that event. Also, you’ve
repeatedly twisted and interpreted my messages into apologies and other
misrepresentations. This message is very direct and to the point to help you avoid
those tendencies.
Nothing was said in my posts about players being turned away from OCF events.
It’s interesting that you chose a 2-year window for not recalling this
happening. A slightly larger window would have indeed captured such misbehavior
toward an OCA officer. The USCF voted unanimously in
favor of an ethics violation against an OCF director for that one.
OCF officers have explicitly stated to OCA leaders that they would be “made to feel
unwelcome” at OCF events. This has indeed happened. The worst behavior was
probably directed against Jim Gray who, at some parents’ request, was at a Stillwater tournament to look after a youth player.
An OCF officer approached Jim and demanded he leave, shoved him and then threw
a cup of water on him without provocation. Witnesses will attest that Jim was
not causing any kind of disturbance, contrary to claims made in the most recent
OCQ’s attempted rationalization of this very event. In fact, Jim
didn’t even cause a disturbance or call the police when one could easily argue
that he had been assaulted. Yes, we do indeed believe we will be “made to feel
unwelcome” at OCF events.
ALL OCA members are mailed our OCB publication,
unlike the OCF which has withheld the OCQ from paying members. This was apparently
intended as punishment for those who also support the OCA or independent organizers, or simply
have a different opinion about Oklahoma chess. It’s amazing that the OCF
punishes well meaning people that want to be generous to the efforts of both
the OCF and OCA. For those who really want it,
threatening to notify the USCF and the US Postal Inspectors of the OCQ being withheld after payment has been a
successful approach to getting it delivered.
The OCA accepts other State Chapter Affiliate
memberships (OSA) of non-residents at all our events. This is unlike the OCF,
as chronicled by Ozzie of the Ozarks in the Arkansas Chess News and republished
in the May 05 OCB. Alex, if you move back to Massachusetts, we will gladly accept your MACA
membership to play in OCA events.
There is no basis for your assertions against Dunlap and Gray. The organizer is
responsible for prizes. John and Jim simply advised the SCC of the letter of the USCF rules. Your meritless prize payment accusation pales vastly in
comparison to the prize infraction to which I was really alluding. The OCF 2005
Gran Prix reportedly is refusing to pay a total of $1000 to three Oklahoma chess players. They were shown as winners
in the prior OCQ. Then these players were disqualified in
the most recent OCQ for daring to play in tournaments the OCF later deemed to be
unacceptable. Two of the players were apparently punished for choosing to play
in independent events run by people the OCF simply didn’t like. Pathetic…
Alex, it’s really sad that you seem to be jumping on the school yard bully
bandwagon that’s been attempting to vilify good people like Jim Gray and John Dunlap, whom you hardly know.
Your accusations relate to their volunteer help for the OU Sooner Chess Club by
directing an event you apparently wouldn’t support. This seemed to be the
club’s punishment for being unwilling to make a political choice. Well, the
tournament went on without you. Get a grip man. You’re not indispensable. No
club or player should have to choose between the OCF and OCA. As you well know, they are two
completely different things, a Club Affiliate and the USCF State Chapter
Affiliate, respectively. Most importantly, no TD should be vilified for helping
a club with a tournament. You certainly have no room to complain about this
event, since you weren’t even there. Nobody else has complained, so give it a
rest.
It’s also important to note that there was very little money and not much
celebrity in Oklahoma chess until 30 months ago. Then the OCF was formed by those
who refused to accept being in the minority on the OCA Board, resigned their positions and
reallocated many OCA assets on the way out. They then began a campaign to try and
“starve out” the OCA and destroy it. They threw large amounts of money into prizes and
GM appearances for tournaments that were scheduled in direct conflict with OCA and independent tournaments. Then the
2005 OCF Gran Prix was tantamount to paying players to not play in OCA events, and ultimately in independent
events either, even though the rules didn’t stipulate it. That dismal behavior
looked pretty desperate.
The OCA simply poked fun at the OCF money
hemorrhage. The people that OCF officers called freeloaders to their face 30
months ago were willing to accept the money, but may not have forgotten the
opinion expressed about them. In the end, it was a hopeless attempt to buy
friends in a futile effort to regain absolute control of Oklahoma chess. Oklahoma chess players may indeed have the
current OCA to thank for all of the money they
pocketed while it’s lasted.
One of your fellow OCF officers characterized another as being a little evil,
but very generous, as if this would somehow compensate for their poor
behaviors. Well, he didn’t count on Oklahoma chess players having more scruples than
that. Financially responsible OCA tournaments have repeatedly drew more Oklahoma players than the competing big money
events, truly in spite of OCF efforts. It seems that Oklahoma chess players prefer going to
tournaments that are simply fun. They want to play with people that are
genuinely friendly to them, regardless of their rating or where they played
their last tournament. They were not at all confused by the transparent attempts
to try and circumvent three USCF supported OCA elections. Oklahoma chess players wouldn’t let the OCA be starved out or allow control to be
bought.
Rather than waste any more effort on the remaining long list of documented OCF
excrement, this general statement can sum up the current situation: “The OCF
can’t make big enough mountains out of OCA molehills to hide the huge piles of
unfortunate OCF behaviors.” The OCF keeps calling this a “war”. Well, you need
two aggressors to have a war. Otherwise, it really looks more like an
insurgency.
It’s safe to say that most chess players are fed up with all the OCF nonsense.
The OCA has always been willing to work together
with the folks that call themselves the OCF to normalize the situation, within
the USCF recognized systems. These systems are the State Chapter Affiliate
Elections and the USCF Oklahoma Clearinghouse for tournament scheduling and
coordination. The OCF has always been unwilling to accept anything other than a
completely inappropriate resignation of the OCA leadership and violation of the trust
that OCA members placed in us at the elections.
Let’s be absolutely clear on this point, WE WILL NOT DESERT OUR POSTS.
Proposals like “Common Ground” in the October
2005 OCB are a great deal for the OCF which you should seriously consider.
We have an opportunity for a fresh start in the new year.
Let’s begin by looking for the positive things that people have done or could do.
We’re both good tournament organizers and directors, as are the Berry brothers, John Dunlap, Steve Wharry, Jim Gray, Tom Braunlich, Charles Unruh and
several others. There’s no point in comparisons between those on the list or
having inflated egos for serving Oklahoma Chess players in this capacity. Jim Gray does a great job of managing finances
for the OCA, and much more. Frank Berry is capable
of some good chess reporting, as are others. Chuck Unruh helps a lot of players
to improve their chess skills and really does have good leadership abilities. OSCO is taking Oklahoma scholastic chess to new heights with a
volunteer organization dedicated to that purpose. Oklahoma is truly blessed to have all of this
chess potential and much more. If you look at things positively, the support of
chess in Oklahoma is much improved since Steve Wharry in his May 2003
President’s letter to the OCA membership lamented about the state of tournament directing and
organizing in Oklahoma.
Everyone concerned could benefit from considering reasonable proposals for Oklahoma chess organizers to work together, as
put forth in “Common Ground” from the October
2005 OCB . Anyone who considers that to be propaganda would seem to have no
real inclination toward diplomacy. Regretfully, recent OCF actions seem to have
already spoken quite clearly. You’ve scheduled a tournament in OKC only one
week prior to John Dunlap’s previously scheduled OKC Winter Open in January.
Also, the Phillips 66 is scheduled the same day in March as the previously
scheduled 2nd Enid Open by independent organizers. Unfortunately, it doesn’t
yet look like any “Common Ground” will be found in early 2006.
We keep hearing and reading about the OCF wanting “reunification” as the
salvation of Oklahoma chess. This would by all accounts thwart the past three
USCF sanctioned State Chapter OCA Elections. Well, that’s simply not going to happen. We have a
democratic process endorsed by the USCF and that is how the leaders of Oklahoma chess will be chosen.
Any OCA member is welcome to run for office in
June at the OCA elections for USCF recognized Oklahoma chess leadership. If you rejoin the OCA, you may present your views to the
assembled Oklahoma chess players and let them choose what is best for them.
They’re a very intelligent and fiercely independent electorate that doesn’t
need anyone to decide things for them.
Also, please do come to an OCA tournament to play or visit. Things are a bit different at our
events. Even though some there may have different opinions about Oklahoma chess, you will be welcomed and treated
with respect.
The bottom line is that the door is open for everyone to work together and take
Oklahoma chess to new heights. Or we can at least
reach some “Common Ground” that will represent a positive move. Or, if the OCF
chooses, we can have more of the same. It’s entirely up to them.
Hope to soon have some constructive dialog with you and see you at the OKC
Winter Open the last weekend of January,
Mike Swatek
********************
Posted Dec
22 2005, 01:59 PM
Mike,
First, let me thank you very sincerely for finally having this discussion with
me. I've been asking for it for a long time in this forum, and am pleased that
we'll finally be able to discuss this.
Second, I'm going to appeal to Movses to make sure that this is kept like a
discussion between adults. I think that we should agree not to use slander
anymore, or say anything that we can't back up. Movses, will you help to
enforce that?
Third, you've said far more than I can answer at one time, so I'll be dragging
out my responses.
Having said that, let's put the SCC Southwest Regional to bed. First of all, I never agreed to direct
that tournament. I attempted to sever my ties with the Sooner Chess Club for
personal reasons at the beginning of October 2004. I stayed on to direct the
tournaments that I had agreed to at that time, but the club continued to
arrange tournaments without having directors for them. I was worried that,
since I had been associated with the club, that USCF might hold me responsible
for its actions. Nevertheless, I was not responsible for this tournament in any
way.
I completely agree that Messrs. Gray and Dunlap are not responsible for the
prizes not being paid as guarenteed. That is the
organizer's responsibility. Nevertheless, as you suggested in another thread,
this is the only case of a tournament in Oklahoma not to pay guarenteed
prizes in recent memory, at least as far as I know. If anyone knows of others,
please post here so that we can investigate. It should be noted that I was
hired to direct the SCC Tornado Classic on 6 March, and that one of my conditions for
accepting was that the organizer would pay 100% of guarenteed
prizes. I believe that that is important for the integrity of a TDs reputation.
Second, regarding prize money, can you please list the players who were
improperly disqualified from the OCF Gran Prix? I submit that anyone who was properly
disqualified should have known what they were getting into.
I have much more to say, but we'll have to wait for that.
Alex Relyea
******************
Posted Dec
22 2005, 03:55 PM
Hello all--Joe
Veal here. My question to Alex and Mike is who were the players that got
removed (Legally or illegally) from the OCF Grand Prix List? Inquring minds want to know.
Yours truly,
Joe Veal
******************
Posted Dec
23 2005, 08:27 AM
If you really must know who the 3 unfortunate players are, please
compare the Gran Prix winners in the last two OCQ or contact Frank. The latest Gran Prix
standings, stating that there were 3 exclusions, are also linked from Wharry’s website. I really prefer not to revisit this sad
episode and didn’t expect anyone to actually try and defend it.
My intent was to first paint a picture of how low the behaviors had sunk. The
message then goes on to present a vision of how together we might reasonably
return Oklahoma chess to some level of civility as a
minimum, or even to new heights. The hope is that any further discussion can be
about working in cooperation toward a better future, not about past behaviors
that can’t be changed and are pointless to defend. The former can produce
positive results and the latter can not.
Happy Holidays,
Mike Swatek
*********************
Posted Dec
23 2005, 06:04 PM
Gosh, Mike, does
that mean that you have absolutely no facts to back up the things that you've
alleged about the OCF?
Alex Relyea
*******************
Posted Dec
23 2005, 06:47 PM by Albert Rine
Sigh.
I wish all interested parties would go to the OCA Annual Membership Meeting and slug it
out for supremacy. Or better yet, make peace and share leadership in Oklahoma chess.
I'd be interested in seeing the leaders of Oklahoma chess get up in front of the assembled Oklahoma chessplayers and defend their actions
over the last few years, respond to questions, and present their vision for Oklahoma chess.
I suspect that a big sticking point is a fear that OCF supporters will be out-voted
by scholastic players. If that happened, there are plenty of ways to document
that fact and publish it for all Oklahoma players to see. After all, nothing
ventured, nothing gained.
The big question is, are there any leaders in Oklahoma chess who could be viewed by majority of
Oklahoma chessplayers as a unifying figure?
***********************
Posted Dec
23 2005, 08:01 PM
A few ramblings
on this topic:
DISCLAIMER: I was somewhat active in Oklahoma chess from 1982-1990. I have been active
in Oklahoma chess since January of 2005, and have no
personal knowledge of Oklahoma chess events since 1990. Since January
2005 I have been to four OCF tournaments and one OCA tournament, and attended the 2005 OCA Annual Meeting, and was entered in one
other OCA tournament but had to withdraw due to a
family emergency.
***I'm a OCA Patron. I am also an OCF member. Joined both organizations in January 2005. I have received
my copies of the OCQ on time. I have read the little comment in the OCQ about not deserving the OCQ if you support the OCA. Maybe whoever mailed me my copy gritted
their teeth as they sent it, but I definitely received the OCQ.
***I have felt welcome at OCA and OCF tournaments. If you go chat up one of the OCA or OCF leaders when they are not busy,
they will give you an earful, and some of them are relentless advocates of
their position, but I have never seen either side do or say anything offensive
at a tournament. Maybe these things happened in the past, but I do not see it
now.
***I think the OCA website is first-rate, and I congratulate Mike Swatek for his efforts.
***Every tournament I have attended has been well-run.
*** The use of the word "Weasel" is getting boring.
***Question: If you play in an OCA tournament, and you give it your all, do you consider your
efforts "relevant"?
***The OCA has elected leaders, and has an annual,
public meeting. The OCF is a private organization.
***The OCB and OCQ are both good publications as far as the chess goes.
The OCA has a budget, and tries to reduce costs
whenever they can. I remember hearing a similar lament about the cost of the
state publication in the '80's. Publishing a smaller OCB with expanded content
online is an imaginative solution.
I wish both sides would figure out a way to work together.
Albert Rine
*********************
posted Dec 24 2005, 06:04 AM
Thanks for your
ramblings Albert.
Alex, given yet another execrable fact that an OCF representative has already
sued an OCA officer over chess, my writings are very
well considered. Therefore, yes there is evidence to support my statements.
However, exhaustively exposing all of that vile stuff in the past is not the
point of this topic and I much prefer not to go there. It’s surprising that you
would want to go there, considering the short list of unfortunate OCF behaviors
mentioned to introduce my point were from a very very
long list indeed.
We have a new year approaching, so let’s try something new. Please help to keep
this thread on topic and discuss positive ways to take Oklahoma chess to new heights together.
Best Wishes for the Holiday Season,
Mike Swatek
**********************
posted Dec 24 2005, 08:54 AM
Mike,
Fair enough. I don't think that you have enough credibility to make wild,
unwarranted allegations without the faintest shred of evidence, and have them
believed. I don't think that I have that credibility, which is why I
choose to stick to facts that can be proved.
Unless the OCA by-laws have been revised since the last
annual meeting, your statement that all OCA members are eligible to stand for office
is completely untrue. According to the June 2005 by-laws, not even all OCA members are eligible to vote, they have
to jump through complicated hoops to do so.
If you're afraid of justifying your outrageous half-truths and innuendoes
because of some lawsuit (I'd assume that any lawsuit is of public record, so
you could disclose the parties of such a lawsuit, if in fact there is one that
exists. I'm aware of none.), then I'm not sure what progress we can
make.
Can you at least tell us what the rights and responsibilities are of the state
chapter affiliate as opposed to any other affiliate? Certainly it is a
misrepresentation to suggest that any other Oklahoma-based affiliate is
subordinate to the OCA, as you have repeatedly.
As far as tournament scheduling is concerned, suffice it to say that the OCA's actions have kept more than half of Oklahoma chessplayers from playing in either OCA events or OCF events. Unfortunately, the
same can be said about OCF's actions. The end result
is that there is almost no crossover between the two. I seriously doubt that
there would be more than five players who would play in both my OKC tournament
and the OCA OKC tournament whether scheduled as they
are now, or if they were six months apart.
Please note that my tournament does not happen to be at the same time as the OCA OKC tournament, as you pointed out.
However, you asked me not to schedule it so close to a major OCA tournament. Last year this tournament drew no
masters, one expert, and two A players out of a total
of twenty. This can hardly be considered a major event by any standards.
As far as suggestions to find common ground, I haven't seen any. Can you point
out your suggestions again?
Thanks,
Alex Relyea
**********************
Posted Dec
24 2005, 09:16 AM
Albert,
Thanks for your thoughtful suggestions. Let me try to respond to them in a way
that makes sense to people who have been following this whole thing with the
seriousness that it deserves, and not as though it is a matter of life and
death.
First of all, there are many members of the OCF who feel that the OCA is tainted. They don't want control of
it back under any terms. This is a not small barrier to your suggestion of OCF
members going to the OCA meeting and "slugging it out". Perhaps some of the
readers of this forum don't know this, but the OCF supporters held three of the
seven seats on the OCAPB, and chose to resign them in protest. Any compromise
has to take into account the fact that there is simply too much bad blood over
personal issues for most of the people on the two sides to work together. Three
seats on the OCA board have been offered, both officially
and unofficially, to the OCF in the time since, although possibly without Mike Swatek's knowledge. I'm not really sure how the
internal politics of the OCA works. OCF has not been interested in a minority position on the OCA board. OCF does most of the heavy
lifting where it comes to chess in this state, and it is only natural that they
want to get the credit for it.
Next, as you suggest, there is nothing in OCA's carefully crafted by-laws to prevent
them from bringing in easily brainwashed children to the meeting in sufficient
mass to ensure the election of whoever they want. This is a reasonable fear, and
has been done before, although OCA has been effective enough denying it that some people seem to
believe it didn't happen.
As far as I know, there is really only one person in Oklahoma who has any organizational experience
who is not considered to be horribly biased on one side or the other. I believe
that Antonio Reis has opted out of serious chess at this point, but I
think that he's the only person who is experienced at organizing chess and
considered neutral.
Alex Relyea
************************
Posted Dec
27 2005, 05:32 AM
Alex, all of my statements in this forum have been factual. Those
who’ve objectively followed chess politics in Oklahoma the last couple of years will know this
to be so. Some of the worst and most well known offenses of the OCF were
briefly referenced to emphasize points. These were chosen to avoiding the need
for belaboring the sad details in this holiday season. If you choose not to
accept that these things have happened, it’s unlikely that any amount of
evidence is likely to sway you. Therefore, let’s once again move on to a more
productive discussion about a positive way forward.
Two OCA elections have passed since the generous
offer of three seats on the OCA Board to restore the minority position that was resigned. That
offer has long since expired. In consideration of the OCA members that participated in the
elections, the OCA election process is now the only way to enter the leadership of
mainstream chess in Oklahoma.
You’ve asked several times about the State Chapter Affiliate responsibilities.
They’re most comprehensively stated by the first sentence in the USCF Bylaws,
Article VIII, Section 2: “Each State (Chapter) shall
guide the chess activity within the state in a manner that provides
representation to ALL groups of chessplayers within its state.” I emphasized the word ALL, because that is precisely the issue
that distinguishes the OCA from the OCF.
Let’s face it, scholastics is the 300 lb chess gorilla in the room. This will
remain true as long as the USCF indicates by the word ALL that the State Chapter is responsible
for them too. There are 439 current scholastic (K-12) Oklahoma USCF members of
which 417 have played in the last 2 years. Another 316 Oklahomans are current
USCF members, of which only 167 have played in the last 5 years.
Here is what Oklahoma chess really look like. There are a little over 1300 Oklahoma chess players with rated tournament
participation in the last 5 years. If we dismiss the scholastic players rated under 900, we’re left with 650 players with an average
rating of 1233 and a standard deviation of exactly 400. Scholastic players
begin to drift toward open tournaments for all ages at a rating of about 900.
If we dismiss all of the K-12 players from this group, we’re left with 442
players having an average rating of 1354 and a standard deviation of 397, of
which only 57 are A Class and above players. Therefore, Oklahoma rated chess
looks a lot like a D Class player, give or take a couple of classes, with a
very small fraction of high rated players.
You indicate that the number of A players and above is
the criteria for a major tournament in Oklahoma. This is a really weak and transparent
rationalization to use for disregarding the long scheduled OKC Winter Open and
scheduling your OKC tournament a week prior. A lot of high rated players is not what Oklahoma chess looks like. A major tournament for
Oklahoma is any well promoted event that is
expected to draw a significant number of active players from Oklahoma, regardless of their rating.
You also seem to be confusing “heavy lifting” with the OCF “heavy spending” on
prizes and high rated player stipends, which began with resignation of the OCA Board minority position by those who
formed the OCF. If anyone is doing any heavy lifting in Oklahoma chess, it’s those who organize and
direct the OSCO tournaments which have had an average of 180 players at its
last 4 events. Directing and organizing the open tournaments for all ages like OCA and OCF events is like a relaxing walk
in the park, compared to the large OSCO scholastic events. Also, promoting
chess to school administrators, faculty, parents and kids to build the next
generation of tournament chess players for the OCA is a lot of heavy lifting. You have to
do heavy lifting to build things as OCA and OSCO have been doing the last few
years. It takes far less lifting to knock things down.
There’s really nothing complicated about becoming an OCA member and being eligible to vote. Due
to OCA member concerns expressed about
non-players voting, everyone now must also be an USCF member to vote, which
seems reasonable. The OCA Bylaws today require that members join 10 business days prior to
the meeting, or at the OK Open upon registration to play. This is simply to be
able to have an accurate record of eligible voters at the election, so that all
voters can be properly validated. A list of the participating validated voters
is available after OCA elections today, in case there are any more ridiculous false
claims about large numbers of 4-year old voters.
Today the OCA is all about inclusiveness and
visibility to how the organization is being responsibly run, in order to
maintain a high standard of integrity with its members. You and every USCF
member are welcome to join 10 days prior, or as a player at the Oklahoma Open,
to be included in the OCA democratic process. However, please keep in mind that this is
truly an open democratic process for the Oklahoma chess population described above.
Regardless of credentials or rating, demonstrating a willingness to serve a
large enough portion of ALL Oklahoma chess players in a positive way is likely to be
important for success.
You presented some figures about the reduction in the OCA and OCF combined tournament
participation. Given this, do you really think that what the OCF has done
because of an inability to accept a minority position on the OCA Board has been worth it? There is
absolutely no way to convincingly argue that the numerous predatory OCF actions
have been good for chess in Oklahoma.
Alex, you make a good point about neutral events being a possible way forward.
The OCA is actively encouraging such events,
like the 2nd Enid Open. I applaud you serving again as TD for the OK-TX
Shootout in April. To further the spirit of neutrality and goodwill maybe an OCA officer could serve as OK Team Captain.
Believe it or not Alex, I still believe that you and others in the OCF camp can
become mainstream leaders of chess in Oklahoma. It all boils down to this. Are you
going to follow those who simply want, by any means necessary, control over ALL Oklahoma chess players and recognition
as being among a self-rationalized elite few? Or are you able to be your own
person and a true leader that recognizes service to ALL others for whom you have accepted
responsibility is among the highest callings?
Wishing you the happiest of new years,
Mike Swatek
***********************
Posted Dec 27 2005, 12:59 PM
Mike,
I, as others, really do appreciate your positive attitude about staying
"on topic" regarding common ground. In that spirit, I would also like
to emphasize the neutral nature of the 2nd Enid Open (wasn't sure if this
should be a new thread or not). I would be thrilled to see some OCF folks come
and play. Chuck Unruh has expressed an interest in playing which could make for
some extraordinarily interesting chess.
We are particularly interested in putting out the welcome mat for all Oklahoma
players in this event since there are two events scheduled for that same
weekend, which I hope will not have too much of an affect on the Enid
tournament. Although the 2nd Enid Open has been listed in the clearinghouse
since Harold's schedule of 15 September, it appears that Steve Wharry has
scheduled his Phillips 66 Classic in Bartlesville for that same weekend in March. The last
Phillips 66 Classic was held in early April, so we thought we were safe with
March again. It appears not, now. But no hard feelings.
We've already paid for the Chess Life TLA, and we will make the best of it in
an optimistic fashion.
In any case, the Enid Open would be a great opportunity for people who have not
played together in awhile to enjoy a very welcoming and friendly experience,
and perhaps rekindle some acquaintances.
Happy holidays, everyone
Jim Rairden
**********************
Posted Dec 27 2005, 03:57 PM
Jim,
I'm sorry. I really have trouble seeing where Mike is looking for finding
common ground, other than his suggestions that OCF roll over and become subsurvient to the OCA.
As far as the 2nd Enid Open is concerned, do you have any idea who the director
is going to be?
Alex Relyea
*****************
Posted Dec 27 2005, 05:05 PM
Alex,
Just before our local club president left for vacation, he suggested that he
had a volunteer to direct, but it was unclear to me whether they had dried the
ink on that, so I don't know if I'm at liberty to announce anything. The
tournament is being completely organized by our neutral club president, Dave
Scroggins. I believe the TLA will also have advance entries mailed to Dave. I'm
sure Dave would at least entertain any volunteers for consideration, but I
don't want to speak for him. He'll be back by Friday. Are you interested in
directing it? Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with you, Charles Unruh,
Frank Berry, Jim Berry, Mike Swatek, Jim Gray, or anyone else who has a certification.
Bottom line, I must defer to the organizer. I will be a mere participant.
Jim Rairden
***********************
Clipped a few off topic
posts here
*************************
Posted Dec
28 2005, 06:07 AM
Alex, based on your last post in this topic it
appears we’re not making any progress on common ground. This is really
unfortunate. You’re a very capable fellow. I understand that we don’t agree on some
things. This is true with regard to some of my fellow OCA Board members too. However, people with different perspectives working together as a
team that respects each other and the joint outcome is the process that
ultimately delivers the best results. My hope was to maybe have the opportunity
to work with you in this way for the betterment of Oklahoma chess. Even some improvement in terms of
tournament schedule cooperation and/or mutual involvement in neutral events
like the OK-TX Shootout or 2nd Enid Open would be a step forward to develop a
positive working relationship.
Please keep in mind that the door is always open to explore any level of
cooperation in the new year. You will certainly be
welcomed if you change your mind about participating in the OCA election. Lacking any indication of some
possible opportunity for cooperation, this will probably be my last post in
this thread.
Happy Holidays,
Mike Swatek
***********************
posted Dec 28 2005, 08:58 AM
Mike,
Let me make sure that I am understanding correctly. Is your idea for common
ground simply for the OCF officers and members to participate in the OCA elections?
Alex Relyea
***********************
Posted Dec
28 2005, 12:24 PM
Alex,
Common Ground was essentially a request to begin normalizing Oklahoma chess with mutual cooperation on the
tournament schedule through use of the USCF Clearinghouse. At least two or
three weeks between significant events will help all to be more successful for
the benefit of organizers and players alike.
An even further improvement beyond Common Ground would be for all Oklahoma chess players interested in becoming
active in chess leadership to join the OCA and participate in the Annual Election.
Naturally this would include you and others who might also happen to be OCF
members. The USCF has been encouraging this for a couple of years and so does
the current OCA leadership.
Thanks for asking,
Mike Swatek
**********************
posted Dec 30 2005, 05:45 PM
I'm back--looks
like we had some good mudslinging between Swatek and Relyea and an unusual
fight between doink and chesssgt.
I hope that doink and chesssgt
have made up even though I am with the doink camp. It
is not a good time to return to competitive chess in Oklahoma--too much politics.
Since the forum is about finding "Common Ground", I have a few
questions for Mike and Alex. To Mike, what is with the new requirements in
order to vote in the OCA elections? Any neutral observer would think that these
requirements are intended to prevent the revolution of which your scholastic
group OSCO was involved in with the infamous OCA elections. Why is this not so? To Alex,
who are the three people that got barred from receiving their prize for winning
their section of the OCF Grand Prix. To me, this seems
to be pretty petty, To Mike and Alex, what is the constant belittling of the
other organization's chess tournaments. From what I see, OCA through OSCO has provided a service that
had been missing in the Oklahoma chess scene for twenty years(Longer that I had been playing the game)-the nurturing
of scholastic chess. Those tourneys are bringing future chess stars so somebody
will replace us . Unlike some, I choose to believe
that this is a good thing until future evidence proves to the contrary. OCF
through the Berrys and others has provided some OUTSTANDING
adult tournaments in the last year(Dream Team
challenge, NAO, July 4 which I had to miss). For those who played,these were great chessic
treats and I do not care if top players received appearance fees or not to participate.
In my opinion, Oklahoma had an opportunity to grow into one of the biggest USCF
states due to several factors(Burgeoning scholastic
scene, excellent tourneys, stable state federation). Unfortunately due to the
split, that opportunity seems to be evaporating.
Joe Veal
**********************
Joe,
The changes to the OCA bylaws regarding elections were put in place 7
March 2004 per
the OCA Board meeting held that day. The minutes of that meeting published on the OCA website state the following:
*****
Due to concerns expressed by some members since the last Annual Election on
6-28-03, there was extensive discussion concerning voting privileges of the
General Membership at the Annual Meeting. The concerns are twofold: (i) that OCA members entitled to vote must also be USCF members; and (ii) so
as to facilitate verification of OCA and USCF membership without detracting
from or delaying the time scheduled for the Annual Meeting, that OCA membership must be made current prior to
the date of the Annual Meeting - either by registering and playing in the State
Championship or by submitting current dues at least 10 business days prior to
the first day of that State Championship tournament. It was moved and seconded
that Bylaw III.2 should be amended so as to encompass these two conditions. The
motion passed unanimously.
*****
Considering the fact that 90% of all those who vote in the OCA elections are also players at the
Oklahoma Open State Championship, there is no impact on the vast majority of
players. Those players who don’t play at the OK Open and want to vote will need
to join the OCA 10 business days prior and be a member
of the USCF at that time, to get on the list of eligible voters to be used for
validation purposes at the election (just like when you register to vote for
public offices).
Those OCA members most adversely affected were
non-USCF members that now are unable to vote. This was enacted to address
member concerns expressed about non-players (parents, 4-year olds, wives,
girlfriends, passers by, and others…) alleged to have voted in the 2003
election. Those who ran that election had no list of who voted to support or
refute any claims about the vote. The only evidence was a video tape that
panned the room several times during the elections, which doesn’t resemble OCF
claims about the election. Beginning in 2004 we know exactly who voted and all
were validated as proper voters. We hoped this would help build confidence so
that those concerned would again participate.
The OCF does indeed run some outstanding tournaments. It’s very unfortunate
that three issues have caused them to lose the stature they deserve. First, OCA officers have been explicitly told that
we are not welcome at OCF events, and actions have clearly supported these
words. Second, many events appear to have been organized in a predatory manner
in terms of scheduled date, location and prize fund with intent to harm OCA tournaments. Third, the OCF has not
respected the USCF given right of the State Chapter Affiliate OCA to conduct all State Championships. What
a pity for such unfortunate behaviors to destroy the reputation of otherwise
outstanding OCF tournaments. It would be much better to have a situation where
the OCA could help promote such events, instead
of completely ignoring them.
I agree with your assessment and would like to believe that Oklahoma still has an opportunity to grow into
one of the biggest USCF states. However, only the OCF can decide to normalize
the tournament situation into something resembling civility as suggested in
Common Ground. This seems like the best first step toward your vision that can
hoped for at this time. Any suggestions are welcome.
Lastly, if you choose to avoid all of the politics, we understand and support
your decision. If you play in an OCA tournament, we’re not going to push
politics on you. Honestly, we don’t care where you played your last tournament
or why. Our tournaments are simply about chess competition and fellowship.
Visit or play in an OCA tournament or one of the independent tournaments listed on our
website sometime and see for yourself.
Happy New Year,
Mike Swatek
**********************
posted Jan 1 2006, 06:37 AM
It would be interesting
if one of the Berry's would express an opinion...I suppose they have in the
quarterly pub...however, it would be nice to see "unweasel"
fresh approach...how about it, guys...! you have had
some good comments on your tournaments...and Joe Veal is correct...and we miss
you Joe
Skip Fritz
**********************
posted Jan 1 2006, 02:52 PM
Skip,
I agree with you on your point about the Berrys publicly revealing their thoughts here.
Maybe include Chuck Unruh also. Many of us are not privy to the OCF's Quarterly, so we don't really know what is being said
in that forum. This just seems like an ideal place for it.
I mentioned briefly in another thread that it appears only the lieutenants are
exchanging views here (e.g., Alex). I have no doubt that there have been some
face-to-face and email exchanges over the past few years; but let's let the
general membership hear it all. I've raised some questions of my own at this
site that appear to be selectively ignored (such as why I was sent a note
telling me to not renew my OCF membership because it was the desire of the
membership, whether some vote was taken on that, and does that mean that I
cannot play in their tournaments).
Nothing wrong, I suppose, with just the lieutenants wading in. Perhaps even just a coincidence. However, I cannot help but
observe that this is a common military and corporate strategy: let the
right-hand men roll up their sleeves while the senior leaders hang back and
watch for weaknesses and strengths.
Anyway, as usual, there is no intent to offend anyone by my comments. Just observations. I wish us all.....the OCA, the OCF, and everything inbetween.....a very happy new year.
Jim Rairden
**********************
posted Jan 2 2006, 05:06 PM
Jim,
I'm honored by your request, but I'm afraid I must decline. After all, I
decided to leave the Sooner Chess Club after it was made clear to me that my
presence there was contributing to the OCA boycott of the club. I'd hate to have
the same thing happen to the Enid club.
I do have a suggestion, though. If you want people to consider this tournament
independent, make sure that you get a TD who is neither on the policy board of OCA or OCF, and announce the TD fully. No
one will think that a tournament directed by Frank Berry is an independent event,
whether you charge OCF dues or not. The best thing would be for either you or
Mr. Scroggins to apply for certification yourselves, perhaps both. I'd be
willing to buy you a rule book if that is what's keeping you from
certification. Certainly northern Oklahoma could use another TD. Email me privately
with your postal address (or Mr. Scroggins') if either of you is interested.
Alex Relyea
**********************
posted Jan 2 2006, 05:15 PM
Joe,
Please forgive me, but I don't understand why you are asking me this.
Mike is the one that suggests that this happens. If it happened, I don't know
who was effected. Perhaps Mike would like to take the
opportunity to show that something that he said about the OCF was true. Sorry,
but I'm not going to go through my back issues of the OCQ on the hope that I can verify Mike's
hysterical rants.
Alex Relyea
**********************
posted Jan 2 2006, 06:39 PM
Alex,
Still trying to figure out the mechanics of this site, will eventually learn
how to put that little "quote box" inside my replies. :-)
Anyway, per your post above:
I do not know who all is on the policy boards for OCA or OCF, and I don't believe that it will
be a deal breaker for the tournament organizer anyway. Frankly, neither Dave
nor I know any tournament directors who are 100% completely neutral, but we
will respect anyone who does direct and simply appreciate their
"individual" support 'cause Lord knows we need it.
Point is, the director position is negotiated by the tournament organizer (our
club president, Dave Scroggins) on behalf of the Enid Chess Club, and that
director will not establish how we do business in Enid, nor will that tournament director
promote their own organizations at "our" tournament. Politics will
not be allowed in our playing hall, and all are welcome. If people chose to
perceive otherwise, it is just going to happen.
I am trying to give Dave some elbow room here to organize the tournament, and I
caution myself against speaking on his behalf. He's getting it done. As I said,
he has spoken with a volunteer, and he will get the word out appropriately. I
just want to make my position clear as a club "member" and a
tournament "player." I am neither a club officer nor the tournament
organizer. Just a very interested party.
Your suggestion about Enid developing its own tournament directors is a good one, and
it has already been discussed down here. Thanks for your offer of help. We do
already have the USCF's requirements in our files,
and I have had a USCF rule book for as long as I can remember (including the
current 5th Edition). I believe Dave owns one also.
Again, I do appreciate your comments and suggestions. Nevertheless, it is
always distressing to read about politics interfering with playing (i.e., your
reference to the Sooner Chess Club). Down here in Enid, we like to see ourselves as just a
bunch of pleasant folk who like to play chess, and are excited about promoting
the game in our town. Politics, whatever they are, are our least concern.
Perhaps you will tag that as naive, but as an old friend of mine always said,
"Sometimes, naivete is the mother of
contentment."
In the spirit of this thread, I like to see the Enid tournament as an opportunity for common
ground. There are always going to be those who will call it another way no
matter who is directing. I hope not. Come and play. We'd like to see you there.
My dream is to see OCA and OCF members in the same room just playing that game that, as
an acquaintance--and hopefully a friend--of mine often says "is addicting
to us all."
Jim Rairden
**********************
posted Jan 3 2006, 05:48 AM
Alex,
I’ve really tried very hard to avoid getting hysterical in this thread,
seriously hoping we could mend things at least a little bit for the New Year. Unfortunately,
it doesn’t seem like any Common Ground is of interest in the OCF camp.
Inaccurate statements projecting OCF behaviors on others (like boycotts of OCA tournaments as published in the OCQ) certainly aren’t helping. So, its time
to get a little hysterical, or at least point out something that I consider to be so. 
It looks like we’ve inadvertently found a little more Common Ground, or at
least something we both agree on. You, an OCF VP, don’t want to leaf through
the OCQ. Like me, you seem reluctant to expose
yourself to the occasional vile encrusted pages it contains, which can
certainly be understood. They do take so much away from what might otherwise be
a very nice chess publication.
Courtesy of Steve Wharry, the final OCF Gran Prix standings are available
on-line as published in the OCQ. Everyone can see it by clicking HERE. The comments at the bottom include “3 players were
ruled ineligible”. Could that possibly be another incorrect OCQ statement? In this rare case, I hope so.
It seems that there’s a growing list of people not receiving the OCQ, even if they were allowed to join the
OCF, along with those being asked not to join the OCF at all. Considering the
apparent size of the exclusionary list, it can be understood if several reading
this forum don’t have access to the OCQ. The issues I see are 2nd hand at best
and held only briefly.
Alex, here’s something else we should be able to agree on. There’s a lot less
in the July 2005 OCQ for you to be offended by than I (assuming a copy could be
found). So please put on your personal protective gear 
, take a quick peek and report back who the 3
excluded ones were with the class prizes they were “ruled ineligible” for.
Inquiring minds should be allowed to know.
Happy New Year,
Mike Swatek 
alt=smile.gif v:shapes="_x0000_i1027">
**********************
posted Jan 4 2006, 06:29 PM
Hi Mike,
Since you have repeatedly refused to justify your accusations of the imporper awarding of the OCF Gran Prix, but gave me places
to look, I found that Messrs. Joy, Baxter, and Harvey were indeed disqualified.
Are these the three that you are claiming were imporperly
disqualified? If so, I'm including a link to the OK Class Championship.
http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200511131381
Notice that all three played in the M-C section.
Once again, we are left with Messrs. Gray and Dunlap being the only TDs in Oklahoma that did not pay announced prizes. Is
this not correct?
I'm waiting for your apology to Frank Berry.
Alex Relyea
**********************
posted Jan 4 2006, 09:45 PM
Alex,
The OK Class Championship was held in November, a full month AFTER the
disqualifications announced in the October OCQ. Is Frank now predicting the news? 
All GTD prizes were indeed paid at the SW Regional that you keep bringing up
almost a full year later. TDs Jim and John correctly advised the organizers of
the USCF rules regarding prize payments. The organizer then paid the proper
prizes. The discrepancy that you incorrectly claim in that case is a full order
of magnitude less than the 2005 OCF Gran Prix prizes reportedly not paid!
Trying to project this poor OCF behavior on others as a smoke screen just isn’t
going to work. Regardless of what tournaments a player may have participated
in, OCA or not, withholding Gran Prix payment
seems pretty pathetic.
Thanks for looking up the names and reporting back,
Mike Swatek