|
Hi Leland, I like to keep up with the latest chess news, even idle chatter and gossip. Accordingly, I regularly look at your message board. While I do not always find your brand of medicine palatable, you usually make some valid points that nobody else has the guts to voice. This reminds me of my own father, a fellow military man, who was equally lavish in his criticism and praise. He had a tendency, though, to find more fault than necessary—a character flaw which I no doubt picked up from him. I think you are going overboard in your criticism of Victor Beaman. Your remarks have gone beyond constructive criticism, and since Victor has chosen to ignore your verbal lashings, I feel that someone has to offer a modicum of rebuttal. First, though, I must address Patrick McCartneys characterization of the NCCA as a corrupted organization. If Patrick wants to level a charge of corruption, it implies intentional misuse of NCCA funds. If he has evidence of such corruption, I hope he will share this with the group. Perhaps by corrupted he means dead and lifeless, which is much less serious. If his meaning was the latter, one might argue the merits of this point with examples. As to the general gripe that Victor is young and inexperienced, perhaps you are right. He still has enough idealism to believe things can change for the better, and I guess you could say he is naive enough to think that a good idea is better than no ideas. Perhaps if enough people pile on, this quickening can be extinguished before something actually gets done. I mean, really, how dare Victor actually try something? Victor knew that the being NCCA President would be a thankless job, but should he have expected to be greeted with a hail of bullets? Where was such public criticism for past NCCA Presidents? I remember specifically proposing that a NC Grand Prix be revived at an NCCA meeting several years ago. This was voted on, and approved, but never acted upon. I remember specifically calling on the NCCA to make the constitution public. This simple matter took years, and more than one President to ever get done. Perhaps you have the idea that Victor will be more susceptible to criticism, and will wither under your unprecedented barrage. You may want to debate a perfect Grand Prix plan ad infinitum, but such an endeavor will not fill one seat at a chess tournament. I sent you copies of our email discussions regarding the NC Grand Prix in the beginning, and these were in plain text. I never heard any remarks from you regarding these plans, except for public sniping and griping. It would have been all too easy for Victor to snipe back, but I am glad he chose to not engage on that level. Had I run for President as you suggested, the other cheek I turned might have been one you did not care to see. Meanwhile behind the scenes, things have gotten done. After about two months into the Beaman/Newsom administration, the NCCA has finally gotten the by-laws and corporate charter posted on the website. We have (after significant debate) agreed upon a framework for the NC Grand Prix, and the first two NC Grand Prix events have been huge successes. While the published NC Grand Prix details could use some grammatical and definitional tweaking, it is a solid effort with real promotional benefit. Where is the beef? I am glad you asked. The Asheboro Open 41: 44 players including 4 Masters, 20 NCCA memberships (most not simple renewals), $900.00 in prizes. The Reverse Angle 12: 56 players including 4 Masters, 10 NCCA memberships, $910.00 in prizes. TACO: TBA Wilder Wadfords Land of the Sky, NCs largest and most prestigious tournament, is on board as a NC Grand Prix Event. Players will be able to earn triple points at any of NCs Big Three events: LOTS, LPO, and NCO. The total prizes for the 2009 shortened season should be close to $1000.00. The purpose of the modern NC Grand Prix as envisioned by Victor, Gary, and myself is to promote chess in North Carolina by generating excitement, and rewarding both performance and participation. A careful examination of the point system will make it evident that the advantage to Master level competitors such as yourself is not overwhelming. Top Sections players only earn 20% more than Second Section players. In smaller events, a second section winner may be a 1600, and a top level may be an 1800. So the system has an ingenious way of rewarding players who consistently participate, regardless of rating. It also offers distinct advantages to participants at smaller events. Scholastic members may participate fully if they pay NCCA membership dues. Victors list of participating tournaments is not restrictive, since you are eligible to participate with your Quark. Victor, Gary, and I agreed that allowing weeknight tournaments to participate would be a bad idea for several reasons. First, such events tend to be dominated by a few players, and sometimes require memberships other than USCF and NCCA. Second, it would give a large advantage to those fortunate enough to live in big cities which can support weeknight events. Third, it would be easy for someone with less than the proper motives to organize a weeknight Quad, and game the system. I do not have a PhD in math, nor do I own a Cray Computer, but I dont have any problem understanding the point system. While Victor did most of the work on it, he gladly accepted input and suggestions. I myself debated with him over the need for something simpler, but Ive come to appreciate the merits of his framework. It is not as complicated as it seems at first glance. I find it ingeniously fair, taking into account tournament size, payouts, finishing place, and ultimate fund distribution. Your assumption that it will take Victor copious amounts of time to calculate the points is incorrect, since he is using a spreadsheet. I personally watched him calculate the points for The Asheboro Open, and it took less than five minutes. While the points have not been published yet, this is due to procedural issues and snail mail not difficulty calculating the results. This spreadsheet will be available to everyone soon, but the calculations arent that involved, even with a simple calculator. Your assumption that Victor did no research is incorrect as well. He contacted many of the top tournament directors in NC, and extended a hand to you as well which you promptly bit. He and I had lengthy discussions on the matter before he even became President. So the notion that he is going off half-cocked is ludicrous. All due respect, but your system of 25 years ago is dated. Regardless, the 2009 Grand Prix is already underway. You have said that the current NCCA administration is crawling. From where I sit, it is running wind sprints around previous administrations. None of us are perfect, and we should take care before judging others too harshly. I recall the Woody Allen quote that 90% of
success is just showing up. The
Asheboro Open 41 was January 3rd,
and guess who showed up? Victor Beaman and Gary Newsom. The
Reverse Angle
12 was January 10th, and again Victor showed
up all the way from Greenville. This
tells me he is serious about getting the
job done. I think he deserves a
chance. |