The "July" issue of Chess Life, issued at the start of June, is out, and USCF VP of Finance Jim Pechac has scored a major coup over the other nine Executive Board candidates.

Pages 47 through 49 contain statements by candidates for the USCF Executive Board.  Each candidate obtained one-sixth of a page of space for this, except for Pechac, who was given seven times the space of any other candidate- almost as much space as every other candidate combined!

True, only pages 48 and 49 are labelled "Executive Board Candidate Statements."  The full page by Pechac on page 47 is called "across the board," a heading used for articles by Executive Board members.  But it is likely that many voters will not notice this technicality. 

During the past year and a half, most other EB members have written an "across the board" article. Under past Boards, these articles were written by the President only, and came out about once or twice a year.  I'm sure the membership would prefer to return to this policy, and read Tournament Life Announcements or annotated games rather than political propaganda.

USCF President Tim Redman has authored numerous "across the board" essays; my least favorite included a subhead with the inspirational message, "The decline of tournament chess."  Redman also said, "Large class prizes led to mega-events, such as the World Open.  For many, it seemed as if that era could never end.  Few noticed the beginning of FICS (the Free Internet Chess Server) and fewer saw where it would lead." This was clearly a declaration that the era of mega-Swisses was either over or about to end, to be replaced by online play.  Tell that to the players in the 2001 Chicago Open, which drew a record 916 entries last weekend, 150 more than the previous year.

One of the few EB members who did not previously participate in "across the board" was Jim Pechac.  Now suddenly, in the "Executive Board Candidate Statements" issue, published a month before the ballots are received, Pechac needs a full page, complete with his photo, to report "Recent USCF Financial News" to the members.  After almost two years as VP of Finance without issuing such a report, he writes one for  the election issue.  Pechac could have written such an article for any issue in 2000, or early 2001, or later 2001 issues which would not affect the election.  But no, out of over 20 issues that he might have selected, it was the one most likely to advance his candidacy.  What a coincidence.

Even if the Pechac page simply reported USCF financial news, its timing would be grossly inappropriate.  However, there is a bit more here than just finances.  For instance, Pechac defends current EB majority policies by saying, "The EB has taken several steps in an attempt to reverse the decline in regular members.  The addition of a free on-line chessplaying service to enhance membership value, an Internet pricing package for members not interested in the printed publication, anti-deflationary measures in the rating system, and changes to the look and feel of Chess Life to attract more casual players are expected to have long-range favorable affects on USCF membership."

Here we see Pechac defending his own policies, using space not available to candidates who wish to criticize those policies.  "The addition of a free on-line chessplaying service" has had a negative impact on USCF finances, without any noticeable effect on USCF membership totals.  Maybe this will change in the future, but I doubt it.  Using the previously accepted standard of 8 fast games or 6 slow games per month to indicate activity, over 95% of all USCF members are not active on USCL, despite substantial USCF expense for a barrage of USCL free ads for almost a year.  ICC is more than ten times the size of USCL,  and those unwilling to pay about $4/month for ICC can play free on FICS.  Players can even go through the CCA website at to find free online play, and this costs CCA nothing.

Changes to the look and feel of Chess Life such as less TLAs, less annotated games, and more "across the board" articles and other frills are expected to increase USCF membership?  Expected by who, other than Pechac and his three Board allies?  The "casual players" and "newsstand sales" emphasis has been tried by previous Boards and has always failed.  Yes, there are millions of "casual players" out there, but few are sufficiently interested in chess to consider joining USCF.  If we can find a way to turn some of them into more serious players, they will become potential members.  See the excellent article by John Hillery on this subject (, 1/17/01).

Pechac also states, "The recent change in Chess Life was accompanied by a significant price restructuring in TLA advertisements."  More to the point would have been to refer to this as a "huge increase" rather than a "restructuring."  Pechac voted to support this devastating increase, which has wiped out more than half of all TLAs, in October and again in April, and there is no hint in his essay that he might consider a fee reduction.

TLAs are probably of interest to at least ten times as many USCF members as USCL, so why do they have to cover all costs while USCL is heavily subsidized?  Reader surveys show that TLAs are one of the most popular features of the magazine, so why must they cover 100% of costs while such features as problems, articles about celebrities who play chess, letters to the editor, USCL promos, and "across the board" articles by EB members cover 0% of their costs?

I don't believe that USCF can be significantly promoted through newsstand sales.  But if we assume for a moment that such sales do have some importance, think about the message we are sending with Pechac's TLA policy.  Suppose a former USCF member in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana or Arkansas happens to notice the "July" 2001 Chess Life on a newsstand, and thinks, "I used to play in tournaments, maybe I should get back into it, I'll look through this Chess Life to see what's coming up."  What will he find in the Tournament Life section?  No tournaments listed for any of these four adjacent states!  Not only does his state have none, but there probably aren't even any he can easily travel to!

Am I discussing too small a market?  Well, California is hardly a minor state.  In the "July" Chess Life, if our newsstand reader seeks a tournament to enter in the San Francisco Bay Area, unless he's a child, he won't find one!  Southern California?  One tournament in Los Angeles is listed, but it's coming up very soon, June 15-17, and the reader may have already made other plans.  The "July" issue lists no tournaments in July or August for our nation's largest state, except for one in Sacramento and two scholastic quads in the Bay area.  I think this is a disgrace, but Jim Pechac apparently is happy, expecting "long-range favorable affects on USCF membership."

I expect "long-range favorable affects on USCF membership" to result from the "restructuring" of the USCF Executive Board by the electors to remove Jim Pechac. homepage