Nov 16, 2009, 9:01 AM |

My post of Nov 11, 2009, Louisville Chess , was pulled by the moderators of the USCF forum. The reason given was: There is no place on this forum for pursuing personal vendettas.Tim aka Moderator7

Moderator #7 being tsawmiller.

My post stayed on the site for many days, with a few replys. Mr Lipman wrote that I "was obviously a disturbed and confused man." He did not like the fact that I had discussed his twelve year old son "on a national forum." I felt compelled to reply:

In answer to Mr Lipman's charge that I am "obviously a troubled and confused man" I would like to say that if I had posted something like that, my post would have been pulled in a heartbeat. This illustrates the arbitrary and capricious nature of the moderation of this forum.
I admit to being "confused" in that I only reported what was said to me by Mr Lipman. I discussed what was said later with Steve Dillard, who heard the one-sided 'conversation'. I also discussed it at the Highland Coffee gathering of chessplayers the next Thursday evening. The fellows with whom I discussed the diatribe laughed, finding it amusing I was so surprised by what the gentleman had to say. You see, they have encountered Mr Lipman's 'going off' previously, describing some of the things they had heard, and read, so they were not surprised. Being new to Louisville, I obviously do not know Mr Lipman as well as the natives.
I never said his son, Andrew, was "hyper-active." Mr Lipman said, " is hard to keep hyper-active children sitting and interested for 5 hours." He never said his son was one of the children, but he did say, "Andrew never plays well in tournaments with 'long' time controls."
A statement like that does 'confuse' me, as it is generally accepted most chess players produce better moves given more time to think. It could be that young players who only play these 'quick' time limit games do not know much about the endgame, where many games with longer time controls are decided. While working at the ACC I mentioned to a young man that he should study endgames. He responded with, "Why should I waste my time; I never get to an endgame!"
I will admit that what he had to say, and the way he delivered it, disturbed me. That is a far cry from being "disturbed."
As for not "...discussing my twelve-year-old son on a national forum," I would like to ask at what age is it appropriate to discuss a player in a state championship? Twelve-year-old, and younger, players pay their entry fee (or have it paid for them), play in, and win prizes of hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars, while professional players go home empty-handed; yet they cannot be discussed on a national forum? Is it appropriate to discuss a player when he becomes a teen? How about 16, when one can drive a car. Or, better yet, 15, when one can obtain a learner's permit, and drive if accompanied by an adult. Most of these players at chess tournaments are accompanied by a parent. If that is too young, what about 18, when one can be drafted, and sent to die for his country, for whatever dubious reason given by those in power. Or should the age be 21, when one can drink adult beverages legally?
I played Andrew in one of the G/30 tournaments, managing a draw, and thought so much of his play, I discussed him with Mr Dillard. From my observation, he seems to be a mild-mannered young man, and a strong chessplayer.
The fact is that the discussion was not about Mr Lipman's son, but about Mr Lipman, a member of the KCA board, and his opinion on faster time controls, which are well known. Left to him, all tournaments would be G/30. His motto must be: 'Think long-think wrong'!
It appears Mr Lipman likes firing off negative salvo's, but does not care for 'incoming'!

My reply did not stay on the website long. It was pulled for the aformentioned reason.
I must say that I have absolutely no 'vendetta' against anyone. I feel my questions are legitimate. Pieter Mioch prefaces his excellent Go articles, Daigo, on (  , with, "If you never question anything, you won't get very far".
Mr Lipman is on the board of the KCA, and, as such, is a public figure. His feelings concerning ever faster time limits are well known. Since he has stated that his son, Andrew, "Doesn't play well in longer games," I question what motivates his stated penchant for sppeding up the Royal game. Exactly how much is he motivated by self-interest?
I do not know Mr Lipman well, but I must say that I do admire the fact that he plays chess, attending tournaments regularly, and devotes considerable time to our beloved game. The USCF has become the USSCF, for United States Scholastic Chess Federation. Children outnumber adults by about 20-1 these days. It has not always been so. Many parents have gotten involved in chess because of their children. Most have little, if any, historical perspective. Am I, and others, wrong to question whether they have the best interests of ALL chessplayers in mind; or are they interested only in chess in relation to their children?
I had a father, who does not play chess, very involved in chess because of his son tell me that, "I don't know the difference between the King's and Queen's Gambit." Am I wrong to wonder what this man is doing and why he is so involved in chess?