The reason I ask, Ron, is because scooping up a 2100 player potentially keeps that player away from another university’s team. Of course chess is not a NCAA sport, but, IIRC, there are NCAA recruiting rules that address this situation, human nature being what it is. There is a corollary in the practice of law amongst some litigants who will have consultations with several law firms regarding potential litigation. The purpose of the consultations is not to hire the firm. Rather, the consulted firm not hired by them may not be subsequently hired by their adversary. Welcome to the real world, Ron.
Apples and oranges. Why on earth would a team with a dozen world class players feel the need to give a scholarship to a 2100 player to keep him from going to some other school. Said school would hardly be a threat to such a strong team. Meanwhile, a player got a scholarship that your hypothetical other school couldn’t have offered.
Many people have less than fond attitudes towards Polgar, and those of us not directly damaged cannot possibly fathom the extent to which the defendants were run through the wringer. Nevertheless, most of the others have managed to set their animosity aside enough to grudgingly acknowledge the positives, or at the very least have overcome the need to denigrate her when legitimate accomplishments are noted by others.
I do not have deep pockets, and I spent something like $15,000 defending myself against frivolous litigation in which US Chess was a codefendant. Without rehashing details, I believe that at least one of the parties mentioned in this thread was indirectly responsible.
After Sevan Muradian’s funeral, I was treated to sushi. Accordingly, I reduced my personal mental accounting to $14,960 receivable.
But that’s personal.
As members and volunteers, we are here on this forum to advance the mission of US Chess. To the extent that the Webster U program advances the mission of US Chess (or at least does not hinder it), live and let live is a good thing. There are many fine young people who have been in the Webster program.
-1. It’s just a question. I’d be a bit surprised if the poster’s 2100 friend might not have been offered a scholarship at one of the other universities offering them.
As to setting animosity aside, there are three or four posters on this thread who illustrate animosity, obsession and fixation that do nothing to advance chess or discussion.
It’s not relevant to the point I was trying to make, but for the record my friend ended up declining the Webster University scholarship for academic reasons. He enrolled at Auburn University sans any scholarship. That does not detract in the least from the magnanimity of Susan’s offer.
Thank you for your reply. I’m glad that your friend went to a university well above the academic level of Webster. I wonder, though, with a rating of 2100+ whether he might not have found a place to pursue his academic career and also receive scholarship money for chess. Auburn has an excellent reputation in a number of disciplines. While Auburn does have a chess club, it doesn’t look like they compete, at least not Pam Am-wise.
As for Polgar’s magnanimity, I spoke with two of my co-defendants in The Troubles litigation (not including Mr. Bauer), both of whom have serious doubt that Ms. Polgar is capable of such magnanimous acts. The AUG prevents me from repeating their assessments of Mr. Bauer. You and Mr. Bauer are certainly entitled to your opinions garnering a -2.
Regardless of Brian’s myopia, the OP is correct that Ms. Polgar’s specific act in this circumstance was magnanimous and supportive of US Chess’ mission. Funny how he wants to spout about lack of mission fulfillment in other instances but happily ignores it here. That, for those following along at home, is -1.
Meanwhile, I could not care less about Brian’s other assessments.
How does receiving a scholarship offer from one school prevent a student from receiving a scholarship offer from another school?
I think by now the readers can readily discern the extent to which individual posters views are or are not colored by their individual biases, I mean attitudes.
