MERLOT DRINKER ADMITS OBVIOUS, POURS PLONK

1999 saw the release of CHESSDON, a self-published memoir by Don Schultz, who as an official in both the U.S. Chess Federation and FIDE, has played an important administrative role in American and international chess over the past several decades. Written with no great skill, it was a jerky, rambling odyssey through Schultz's life and recent chess history, providing a platform from which he could promote himself and attack his rivals and critics. Though this reviewer panned it severely (see http://www.chesscafe.com/text/chessdon.txt), the heavily hyped CHESSDON seems to have validated Lincoln's dictum about who can be fooled how often, becoming enough of a commercial success that Schultz decided to bring out another book.

Not exactly a sequel, FISCHER, KASPAROV, AND THE OTHERS (hereinafter called FKO) is partly an abridged version of CHESSDON, partly an extension of it. The price, about half that of the 1999 book, struck us as a good omen, but the title, arguably the lamest ever put on a chess book, boded ill. Structurally it boils down to Person A, Person B, and Various Additional People. Something like, say, Return of the Chessdon Jedi would have at least been more dramatic, though not more accurate — if accuracy were the only criterion, various other titles come to mind, say, Admitting the Obvious, Skimming the Surface, Losing the Thread, or even Fudging the Facts. 

240 pages long to the earlier book's 355, FKO is about 70% recycled CHESSDON material, about 30% new, according to the author's preface. What matters is the nature of the cuts and additions, and the quality of the net result. Note: this review is not to be construed as a verdict on Schultz as a chess organizer or USCF officer. Your reviewer has no stake nor involvement in USCF politics, nor any partisan agenda to pursue. We are discussing Schultz as an author, not as a chess official.

That caveat said, we'll examine first what FKO leaves out from CHESSDON, then what it adds. The most obvious cut, the only one specifically mentioned in Schultz's preface, is the games. No great loss; few of the 32 were very important, the annotations were questionable, and the nine by Schultz himself (a sub-2000 player at the time) were at best fit for a regional newsletter.

Unmentioned, but much more significant, is the deletion of virtually all of CHESSDON'S attacks on various adversaries in the USCF, such as Al Lawrence, Frank Camaratta, Jim Eade and others. No less glaring for being tacit, this change was more or less forced on Schultz by facts already apparent to many in 1999 but now inescapable and obvious to all. CHESSDON portrayed other USCF administrators, often unfairly and inaccurately, as incompetent wastrels and scoundrels pushing the federation to the brink of disaster, while Schultz and his allies were white knights galloping to the rescue and leading the USCF into a bright future:

“As a result, office morale soared and monthly P&L statements began showing surpluses rather than deficits. Certainly, all the problems were not solved … Nevertheless, in less than a year, the foundation had been reinforced and confidence restored.” — CHESSDON, p. 310

Unfortunately for Schultz, the rosy picture painted in 1999 had no basis beyond wishful thinking. Now even he has been forced to admit it, as the comparable passage from the new edition shows:

“As a result, office morale soared and monthly P&L statements began showing surpluses rather than deficits. Still, what we did was nothing more than apply bandages. The shift by regular members away from rated over-the-board play to Internet play and a dues structure subsidizing scholastic and youth members would inevitably lead to red ink!” — FKO, pp. 189-190

Indeed it has, several hundred thousand dollars' worth of red ink beyond what 1999 had already seen, enough to make Lawrence's term as USCF Executive Director seem like a golden age by comparison. Missing from FKO also is the pseudo-statistical “evidence” Schultz mustered in support of his attacks, such as graphs and treasurer reports with unwanted data conveniently omitted.

What is left, then, is called by Schultz, more or less correctly, the “best of CHESSDON”: mainly his accounts of various chess-related matters from about 1960 on, some only minor local tournaments, others major: big US and international events, Olympiads, Fischer-Spassky 1972, FIDE elections, etc. Also portraits of important chess figures, such as FIDE President Florencio Campomanes, with whom Schultz gradually became disillusioned.

“Best” here, though, is a very relative term. While Schultz's topics are interesting, he has done little to improve CHESSDON'S inept, unfocused, disorganized writing style. He has corrected some of its many errors of spelling, grammar, and punctuation, but many remain, even some specifically pointed out in our review. His penchant for abundant redundancies continues in abundance, both old ones (“He had been a Thai Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs in Thailand”) and new (“The red wine served was an excellent Slovenian red.”). In at least one case, he has even added one to a sentence that was perfectly fine in the original edition:

“Unknown to Karpov, one of his opponents was a ringer; he had a FIDE rating of over 2400 — International Master strength!” — CHESSDON, p. 74

“But, unknown to Karpov, one of his opponents was a ringer whom Karpov did not know — a young man who had a FIDE rating of over 2400 (International Master strength)!” — FKO, p. 60

Yo, Don, quit the Department of Redundancy Department and get a good proofreader. Though he says (p. 153) “I enjoyed being part of the community of chess editors. I will always have a warm spot in my heart for editors of chess magazines,” Schultz shows little grasp of the editor's craft.

Turning to the new material in FKO, it deals mainly with FIDE and USCF politics and administration since 1999. As with the USCF, Schultz has had to make a major reversal about FIDE, in particular about Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, its president since 1995. In 1999, Schultz wrote:

“I first met Ilyumzhinov at the 1998 FIDE Executive Council meeting in Bled, Slovenia. I liked what I saw. He wasn't an intimidating know-it-all trying to impose his will on how FIDE ought to be run.” — CHESSDON, p. 314

A remarkably naïve statement at a time when more perceptive observers already considered Ilyumzhinov a clown, charlatan, madman, and/or tyrant, and noted that with FIDE he had done little else but impose his will on it. Now, belatedly, the rose-colored glasses have fallen (at least partially) from even Schultz's eyes, and he too finally admits the obvious:

“Despite the prestige of a ‘Head-of-State' he brings to FIDE, world opinion of FIDE has never been lower. Ilyumzhinov contributes millions of dollars to FIDE, yet FIDE is on the verge of financial collapse.” — FKO, p. 9

Schultz goes on to describe such bungling that one doubts FIDE's current leaders could organize a church picnic, let alone properly direct international chess. For example, the following passage describes how FIDE's 75th Anniversary turned from festivity to fiasco:

“Announced plans that included a parade through the streets of Paris and attendance by a wide range of public celebrities were continually aborted or scaled down. There was no parade. There were no celebrities. The feature event, the evening banquet, was snubbed by FIDE World Champion Alexander Khalifman in protest over FIDE's failure to pay him his prize money … When the mayor of Paris was asked to come to the mike to welcome the group, it turned out she wasn't there … Earlier in the day the 1:00 p.m. buffet luncheon had been aborted, there was no official notification and guests lingered about waiting for the lunch.”

Still, despite Schultz's partial awakening, his accounts of post-1999 history in FKO are still as spotty, slapdash, and unsatisfactory as was the pre-1999 history in CHESSDON. Schultz mentions important issues: world title fragmentation, drug testing, player grievances, arbitrary time-control changes, bounced checks, broken promises and double-dealing by FIDE, etc. etc., but fails to examine them in any meaningful way, instead usually contenting himself with a superficial, chatty, inconclusive discussion. An example is this passage, describing the 2002 FIDE Congress:

“One of the best chess talks I ever heard was … given by Garry Kasparov at the Bled Congress … ‘By signing the Prague document, all parties agreed that FIDE owned the World Championship.' He went on to say that as long as the Prague agreement is honored, from a historical viewpoint the matter is settled.”

Yet of course the matter is not at all settled, and the Prague agreement is in shambles, virtually none of the signatories having lived up to it. But does Schultz say anything about this? No — instead of discussing the aftermath of Prague, he goes off on an irrelevant tangent about what an attractive subject Kasparov is for photographers. 

This inability of Schultz to distinguish between the important and the trivial, the relevant and the tangential, surfaces again and again, turning what had at least an outside chance to be halfway decent history into fluff and blithe chit-chat. Along with his habitual redundancy and poor punctuation, this is most maddeningly evident in his discussion of the 2003 USCF elections near the end of the book:

“Tim Hanke had been an outsider to USCF politics. He was a proponent of dramatic change and correctly sensed that this was the time to begin those changes. He came to me and said: ‘Don, it is time for a dramatic change in the organization; I have a proposal. Are you interested?' I said sure let's talk about it over a glass of Merlot. I was at first a bit taken aback when I found out Hanke preferred beer to wine. Nevertheless, I decided to hear what he had to say. Tim brought Beatriz [Marinello] over to our table and showed me a piece of paper with his hand written notes on it. Tim proposed that I support Beatriz for President and him for Vice-President, Finance. We discussed what they thought they would accomplish. I liked what I heard, lifted my wine glass and proposed a toast to USCF's new Madame President; after all, unlike Hanke, Beatriz knows her wines and, like me, prefers a good Merlot.” (p. 218)

A paragraph of staggering insignificance. Primed to hear Hanke's ideas for “dramatic change,” what do we learn instead? Beverage preferences. And that Schultz is a wine snob. Future historians owe him an incalculable debt.

We would not be surprised to see that last sarcasm quoted by Schultz as a positive review, since in FKO he's still up to the same old self-serving tricks he pulled in CHESSDON. A very obvious instance is his discussion of a 2002 French Chess Federation press release sharply critical of Ilyumzhinov:

“I not only was in full agreement with all these concerns but had grave concerns about Ilyumzhinov's friendship with Saddam Hussein and his two older sons.”

He then cites a 1996 Ilyumzhinov interview praising Saddam, making it seem like his far-sighted “grave concern” went back at least that far. Right. We quote again CHESSDON, page 314: “I first met Ilyumzhinov [in] 1998 … I liked what I saw.” (Which, interestingly, is echoed by “I liked what I heard” from FKO, p. 218, quoted above. Perhaps this too will be reversed in a future CHESSDON III, if the current USCF administration founders.) 

Despite this attempt at revising history, Schultz still really can't bring himself to repudiate Ilyumzhinov, finally waffling by labeling him “an enigma.” As with many important matters, Schultz just talks around the edges.

While that bit of rhetorical subterfuge was easy to spot, we suspected that, as in CHESSDON, a more extensive and subtle smokescreen might surround Schultz's discussion of recent USCF business and politics. Therefore we solicited comments from past USCF officers Frank Camaratta, Frank Niro, and John McCrary. The main topics were (1) USCF's financial status, and (2) the proposed move of its offices from New Windsor, New York, to one of several candidate cities, which included Miami, Palm Beach Gardens (both in Florida), and Crossville, Tennessee. Below are various excerpts from FKO, each followed in rebuttal by Camaratta, Niro, and/or McCrary.

Schultz: “[J]ust prior to the USCF Annual Convention [of 2003], the USCF audited reports were released. USCF was in deep trouble. Earlier reports of financial solvency were wrong. The USCF was on the verge of bankruptcy.” (p. 217)

McCrary: “In fact, this is not true, since we owned a $650,000 building (appraised value) without lien, and we had only $240,000 in payables, a normal level (per the auditor) with nothing overdue. Our Board had inherited a bigger mess than his did, with huge payables topping at $654,000 by the end of 2001. Much of that mess started with the Schultz administration.”

Schultz: “The USCF was on the verge of bankruptcy. Niro did not show up at the convention but instead notified the Board of his resignation by email. McCrary would resign from the board a month later.” (p. 217)

McCrary: “Don misrepresents my resignation, by implying contextually that it was related to things that had nothing to do with it … a falsehood of which Don is fully aware.”

Schultz: “Looking back, I simply cannot recall what brought Palm Beach Gardens into the [relocation] process but once involved there was no question that Niro encouraged Miami/PBG competition.” (p. 213)

Niro/Camaratta: “He intimates that the consideration of Palm Beach Gardens (PBG) was Niro's idea — this is simply not true. This was Don's idea from the start, which he pursued relentlessly, calling every Board member numerous times during this period.”

Schultz: “The chance to be the home of USCF appealed to the PBG city leaders … Joel Channing and I were named to co-chair a committee to put together a proposal … Joel also put together a White Knights' program which would, over a five-year period, provide USCF with upwards of $250,000 in cash. Each of at least 20 white knights would commit to donate $2,500 every year for five years.” (p. 213)

Niro/Camaratta: “This is a complete fabrication. The EB never saw a single commitment from any ‘White Knight' during the entire negotiation process.”

Schultz: “Well we were blind-sided, despite all of Niro's assurances and guarantees of individual Board Members, the EB voted to switch the move to Crossville. We were indeed disappointed over the Crossville announcement …” (p. 217)

McCrary: “Don had been told repeatedly that the Palm Beach Gardens bid was too costly, both short- and long-term. Thus, Don should not have feigned ex post facto surprise to hear of financial issues related to our concerns about his bid ... Also, Don does not mention the following: That there was a huge bi-partisan outcry about his Palm Beach Gardens bid. Some of our most moderate Delegates were outraged by their perception that he had improperly used influence with the Board.”

Niro/Camaratta: “In the end, PBG would not meet the USCF requirements and the alternate site, Crossville, was chosen. What Schultz conveniently neglects to mention is that Crossville offered us a prime piece of real estate, a couple of acres near town center, worth in the vicinity of $250k to $300k (incidentally more than what the imaginary White Knights were supposed to donate) plus they located office space for the USCF, free of charge, until the proposed building was completed.”

Your reviewer does not claim to know all the facts in these matters (USCF politics is an especially tangled mess these days), so we will not endorse any particular side or statement; we have presented the opposing views in the interest of balance. However, as with CHESSDON, it seems clear that Schultz at the very least shows some bias, probably not small, in his portrayal of these matters. Camaratta puts it more strongly: “Fundamentally, the book is the chess world through Don's eyes. We see what he wants us to, he remembers what is convenient, and either forgets or misrepresents the rest.” McCrary adds: “That is one problem with Don's book; he does not tell ‘the rest of the story.'”

Even if Schultz has been factually accurate in most details, FISCHER, KASPAROV, AND THE OTHERS is still a bad book on so many levels: stylistically, organizationally, grammatically, and especially in its avoidance of real focus and substance in favor of extraneous miscellany. Like its predecessor, it can at worst be considered the conceit (or deceit) of a self-promoting propagandist, at best a superficial, amateurish attempt at journalism.

Schultz's preference for Merlot is quite fitting; Merlot is a somewhat bland, non-committal wine little prized by connoisseurs and used mostly for blending; on its own it is usually not very substantial, just like Schultz's writing. Though to be fair to Merlot, the term that probably comes closest to Schultz's style is “plonk,” British slang for something below vin ordinaire, i.e. simply not very good wine. Therefore, finally settling on a title, we suggest changing FISCHER, KASPAROV, AND THE OTHERS to NEW BOTTLE, SAME OLD PLONK.