User:Bubba73/Michael Hoffer

Michael Hoffer

correspondence chess
The article says that he has a correspondence chess record of 61 wins & 9 draws. His USCF CC rating is 2037, which means that he wasn't playing against the top opposition. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 00:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that's a very charitable way to put it. Also note that the article was written by User:Chessmike4, which certainly smells like WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI.  I would support an AFD.  The subject doesn't seem to meet WP:ATHLETE.  Quale (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I hadn't noticed the "mike" connection. Also notice that chessmike4's only contribution has been this article.  I proded it, but it was removed.  Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 01:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And the user Yes2chess only contributed to this article. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 15:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Bubba73’s proposal to delete the page on Michael Hoffer is extremely biased and extraordinarily ignorant. With all of his impressive degrees, if Bubba73 has any sense, decency, or appreciation of the FAR superior levels of ICCF, correspondence chess or for theoreticians who have labored throughout their life to find truth and improvements in the openings, he will withdraw his narrow-minded objection. He ought to apologize as well! This is typical USCF bias of correspondence chess, which has removed Alex Dunne’s excellent column from their monthly magazine. Perhaps this is a reflection of Bubba73’s Georgia heritage, being one of the last states in America to grant equal rights to people of color.

How dare a low-level USCF director try to remove this page for insufficient notability just because rarely participates in USCF activities. USCF is not the end all of chess; nor is over the board competition. Incidentally, Mr. Hoffer first began playing USCF correspondence games in his youth winning every single game he ever played before he moved on to more serious competition well beyond the realm of USCF, which did not even have the right to sponsor the official US Championship! The rest of Hoffer’s games were played internationally with ICCF or with TCC which had the highest prize fund in the history of correspondence chess, far superior to USCF’s paltry prizes which are a joke.

Mr. Hoffer won arguably the strongest correspondence chess tournament ever played in North America with a score of twelve wins and one draw! He was chosen to represent his country in ICCF competitions, and the National Team Championship, never losing a game with a record of 61 wins, 9 draws, 0 losses.

Numerous Hoffer games have been published by the highly respected Dutch New In Chess Yearbooks in which he has contributed significant novelties and improvements in opening theory, particular for White against the Sicilian, such as his game vs. Johnson NIC #15; or his sacrifice of four pawns and the Exchange in which he won a tournament in the final round at Orlando. Grandmaster Stephan Djuric called it a brilliant conception and the greatest game he had ever witnessed! Numerous spectators hung around for over an hour after that tournament to watch the post-mortem including Djuric.

Bubba73 makes the outlandish statement that Hoffer “wasn’t playing against the top opposition.” While Mr. Hoffer prefers to save his lifetime of contributions for his current book project, most reputable players are aware the Wikipedia cited game vs. Doug Eckert (FIDE Master, several time Missouri state Champion, back-to-back winner of the US Junior Open Championship, led his team to the Midwest title in the US Amateur Team Championship, author of the book Sicilian Scheveningen: Keres Attack, and a finalist in the 8th USCC Championship) was a definitive improvement for Black that altered that entire variation by busting GM Joel Lautier’s analysis in Informant 46. The cited game vs. Ed Duliba was the first loss of Duliba’s career, which Hoffer won convincingly and with imaginative flair. The cited victory over Grandmaster Garcia was at a time Garcia had just won both the Colombian & Florida Championship. Hoffer’s recent victory over Grandmaster Yehuda Gruenfeld was a splendid study of perseverance in a variation long ago discarded as inferior for Black. Hoffer even won an award for the shortest mate in 1987 with his novelty in Cochranes’ Gambit. Hoffer has over 50 such notable games. Bubba73 is likely also unaware of Hoffer’s unheralded assisting a long time Grandmaster colleague with his preparation for the US Championship.

Is he not also deservingly notable for the eight junior champions and countless other children whose lives he changed during his tireless devotion to youth chess? These children went on to the finest universities and still consider their days with Coach Mike some of the most memorable of their lives.

Is it correct to try to discredit someone because his lifelong private health issues (that are nobody’s business) affected his over the board play, especially when these issues were diagnosed as life-threatening? IM Rui Damaso has also had uneven tournament results due to his health. Does the Portuguese Federation spurn him? No they made him captain of their Olympic Team. Rather than trying to discredit someone for trying to rise above their physical disabilities and occasionally failing, we should encourage them for trying to courageously overcome adversity.

Over-the-board play is totally different from correspondence play due to the clock and rapid succession of games packed into one weekend. Correspondence has long been recognized as the highest level of chess. This is akin to comparing a sprint to a marathon. Does anyone care how quickly marathon champion Haile Gebrselassie can run in the 100 yard dash? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chessmike04 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * According to the ICCF (link in the article), he has played nine games with the ICCF and has no rating. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 00:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Those nine games are most likely the last active year and no rating given because it's not recent. The references in the article are for books/magazines. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, those might be the only games with the ICCF, and they require more games for a rating. I've written to the ICCF for clarification.  Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 01:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The ICCF requires 12 games for a published rating. On their top 200 list there are some players whose rating is unchanged for the last several years, so they must be inactive, yet they are still rated.  (Hoffer is not on that top 200 list.)  Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 01:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Michael Hoffer’s contributions to chess have been selfless and exhausting, with myriad opening novelties that have radically changed chess theory. His most notable accomplishments have been in analysis, journalism, correspondence chess, and coaching young players to at least eight National and State Championships. Hoffer was a fringe player as the youngest on the strongest team in NCAA history at the University of South Florida. (Christiansen went on to be US Champ and play in the Bundesliga. Henley went on to get a seat on the NYSE and become Karpov’s manager. Hoffer became a business entrepreneur and was content to coach children in Florida.) Hoffer was mentored and trained by the great Boris Kogan of Lviv, Ukraine and later Stone Mountain, Georgia. If you would like to verify his veracity, one need only consult any of the staff at New In Chess, or ICCF officials Max Zavanelli or Allen Wright.

It is amazing how you gentlemen look through rating reports like clerks instead calling legitimate sources or simply looking at the quality and beauty of Hoffer’s games. Most of you readily admit to be weak chessplayers. Nevertheless, are you really incapable of recognizing a beautiful game, ‘brilliant conception’ (as GM Djuric remarked), or theoretical novelty? This is certainly what is done by respected publications such as New In Chess. It is exceptionally difficult to have played any game worthy of NIC or the Informants. Unless you are qualified to make such judgments as to quality, are you really qualified to say Hoffer is good enough for NIC or Sahovski Informator but not Wikipedia, especially on the grounds you have directed a US chess tournament? The NIC standard is clearly much higher.

It is downright humorous how you continually debate whether or not Hoffer is for real because he doesn’t appear on your rating lists. Your conclusions are equally ludicrous. He does not have nine games pending as he had to cease correspondence play in 1996 and has not played correspondence since! Would it be appropriate to deny the works of Morphy or Pillsbury because they had short careers?

If Hoffer was not real, his games would not have made it into such publications and Grandmasters would not be adopting his novelties. Hoffer’s correspondence play was very short with USCF. It was so spaced apart over the years with ICCF that he may not have registered enough games at one time there to have gained an established rating (even though he never lost). The reason for this was Hoffer devoted most of his career to TCC (The Chess Connection) as this was by far the most profitable organization and the fastest way, as an affiliate of ICCF, to achieve his goal of qualifying for the World Championship. He had a family of four young children to feed at the time. Correspondence games often take over two years to complete. Many of the best North American players at that time joined TCC for their enormous prizes.

Hoffer was asked to represent his organization by those in the know and with power in correspondence. He won the strongest event ever played in North America, for Pete’s sake. North America is a big place. From at least 1989-1992, he was perhaps the strongest and most accomplished active correspondence chess player and journalist in North America. Just ask Alex Dunne of Chess Life Magazine “The Lost Tournament” (May 1996 p.22-24), if you need a USCF citation for verification.

To help clarify your detective work on Mr. Hoffer, he first began correspondence play with USCF, winning every game and moved on to ICCF. I believe he briefly participated in ICCF in 1974 and reemerged in 1985, also winning every game. In 1987 an organization based in Cleveland called The Chess Connection offered by far the largest prizes in correspondence chess history. Hoffer became a charter member and took this league by storm. Not only did he become TCC Champion, he was also selected to be the chief columnist and games editor of their International magazine for three years.

This was when his games and analysis began to appear around the globe, especially in publications based in the Netherlands and Eastern Europe. At that time, it was typical for these references to ask American ICCF chief Max Zavanelli if it was alright to republish Hoffer’s analysis, which Zavanelli granted freely and without Hoffer’s approval, not that Hoffer minded. The point is Hoffer did nothing himself to promote his games being published in such esteemed references such as the New In Chess Yearbook.

Hoffer dropped every other venue of play to concentrate on winning that North American title and to write quality analysis that was nothing short of brilliant and entertaining. He was asked by ICCF official Allen Wright to coauthor all future books on the ICCF US Championships. Hoffer was also asked to participate in the first and only National Team Championship, which was an ICCF rated event in which Hoffer went undefeated with the best result on his team. A serious medical issue in late 1992 involving two surgeries forced him to cut back his workload. By 1996, his health problems became so severe he was had to abandon all chess activity and was granted a special withdrawal by ICCF’s Allen Wright from the 13th US Correspondence Chess Championship. He never played another correspondence chess game.

Due to his limited play with USCF & ICCF, it is irrelevant to include those external links unless it is the purpose of Wikipedia to insult the subject of these articles for things they have not even tried to do.

Here is a direct quote from Wikipedia “ICCF USA History”: USPCF under the direction of Max Zavanelli organized the First National Team Championship Tournament early in 1991. USCF, CCLA, APCT, TCC, and NOST each entered a team on 50 boards. Dr. G. S. Benner, ICCF International Arbiter, was the Tournament Secretary. The event was won by APCT. This was a one time event because The Chess Connection had financial problems and ceased operation during the event.

It was in fact due to TCC’s difficulties that Mr. Hoffer was robbed of his promised automatic qualification into the elimination cycles leading to the World Championship. This was a very bitter pill to swallow after all of his years of dedication and hard work. [Chess Life Magazine “The Lost Tournament” (May 1996 p.22-24).] His subsequent severe health issues sealed the deal on future correspondence play.

Nevertheless he has devoted his spare time to coaching children and with rewarding success.

While totally irrelevant, I will address your concerns over the USCF OTB issue. Hoffer’s private health issues have created wildly uneven results. He has great difficulty maintaining his health and stamina for a perfect score during a weekend Swiss. It has been very frustrating for someone of such creativity to almost inevitably and seemingly childishly have at least one wretched round that costs him a tournament. We can personally tell you we have never seen him lose a game to a superior opponent and challenge you to find anyone who has seen this. In fact, when he loses, he is always ahead in material, loses focus and beats himself. In his own words, his nervous energy is lifted in a mundane won position, and he turns into an idiot. USCF TDs Thad Rogers and Ralph Whitford have witnessed this frustrating spectacle, particularly of opponents wanting Hoffer barred from play in class sections, calling him a sandbagger. Due to his medical afflictions, and as it does not violate USCF rules, Hoffer has certainly guarded his choice of entering OTB tournaments in order to get paid before raising his OTB rating. He finished ½ point out of 1st at the 1993 World Open when he blew a ridiculously won game in time trouble. We have suggested he give in to these objections and play in open sections as he would likely win most of his games and blow at least one game in most any section he enters! When lack of quality sleep and time pressure are not factors, he plays remarkably well. From the comfort of his own home and not having to immediately play another round, he has defeated over 50 GMs & IMs on the Internet.

Mr. Hoffer is stubborn if nothing else. The stamina issue extends well beyond the chess board and into the business world. He is very high functioning in confined spaces of time, and then often has to rest for days. Due to his age, his health issues have become life threatening and are currently being vigorously addressed. The plan is for him to finally get some radical surgical procedures that may potentially and completely alleviate these issues. While these operations are scary, we are encouraging him to proceed.

There have been gaps in years of his life where either his businesses have taken the place of chess to feed his family, or his health has caused years of inactivity from both. Nonetheless, chess has always been on his mind. He is currently at work on three book projects. One of them is a compilation of his Internet victories titled Winning Internet Chess, which is a popular activity that has not been discussed in books. Another contains opening novelties. He’s in the production stage of a series of instructional DVDs and trying to expand Hoffer’s Chess Academy to a franchise level. We would like to encourage him to get his life back, rather than for people like you to decide he is not worthy. It would be an inspirational story for him to be able do so at the age of 53. That is why some of his friends have nominated him for a Wikipedia page, feeling he has already had notable accomplishments deserving of such recognition.

To further illustrate:

Hoffer - Throne-Holst, B50 Sicilian Anti-Najdorf, Orlando, 1989

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Be2 Nf6 4.c3 Nc6 5.d4 cxd4 6.cxd4 Nxe4 7.d5 Qa5+ 8.Nc3 Nxc3 10.Nxe5 Qxc3+ 11.Bd2 Qxe5 12.0–0 Qxd5 13.Rb1! a6! 14.Bf3 Qxa2! 15.Rxb7!? Bxb7 16.Bxb7 Rb8 17.Bc6+ Kd8 18.Qg4! e6 19.Qg5+ f6 20.Qe3! Rb1 21.Be1!! Hoffer-Throne-Holst, Orlando 1989 21...Kc7 22.Be4 Rb6™ 23.Bb4!! d5™ 24.Bxf8 Rxf8 25.Qc5+ Kb7 26.Qxf8 dxe4 27.Qxg7+ Ka8 28.Qxf6± Qc2 29.Qh8+ Rb8 30.Qxh7 a5 31.Qh5 a4 32.Qa5+ Kb7 33.h4! Kc8 34.Qa6+ Kd7 35.h5 Rb1 36.Rxb1 Qxb1+ 37.Kh2 Qd1 38.h6 Qh5+ 39.Kg1 Qd1+ 41.Qb5+ Ke7™ 42.h7 Qa1+™ 43.Kh2 Qh8™ 44.Qb7+ Kf6™ 45.Qxe4 a3 46.Qf3+ Kg7 47.Qxa3 Qxh7+ 48.Qh3± This is still not an easy endgame. White has winning chances if he can shelter his King from checks while the Black King has nowhere to hide. If White does trade pawns, he must be sure to end up with the f-pawn because a g-pawn plus Queen vs. Queen is a known draw.

GM Gruenfeld,Yehuda (2513)-Hoffer,Michael (2741), C89 Ruy Lopez Herman Steiner, Internet 2009

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0–0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0–0 8.c3 d5 9.exd5 e4 10.dxc6 exf3 11.d4 fxg2 12.Qf3 a5! 13.Bf4!? a4 14.Bc2 Be6 15.Nd2 b4 16.Ne4 a3 17.b3 bxc3 18.Rad1 Nd5 19.Be5 Ra6!?“ 20.Qd3! f5! 21.Qxa6 fxe4 22.Bxe4 Bh4 23.Bg3 Qf6 24.Qe2 Nf4 25.Qc2?! Nh3+ 26.Kxg2 Nxf2–+ 27.Qxf2 Qxf2+ 28.Bxf2 Rxf2+ 29.Kg1 Rxa2 30.d5 Bf2+ 31.Kh1 Bxe1 32.dxe6 Bh4 Yehuda gracefully resigned rather than play out 33.Rd7 c2 34.Bxc2 Rxc2 35.Rxc7 h6 36.Rc8+ Kh7 37.c7 Be7 38.h3 Bd6 0–1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chessmike04 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Legitimate and reliable sources qualified to clarify this page
I felt it was best to stay out of this discussion, yet it seems time may be of the essence. People who care about me have gone to a lot of trouble to post this page about me. I do not see the point of deleting anyone who has won major championships, made several contributions to theory in New In Chess (and other sources), and dedicated his life to this endeavor by mentoring numerous young champions. I also do not see the point of denigrating these credentials with incomplete ICCF data or irrelevant USCF info. For ICCF background, why not contact Max Zavanelli, the head of ICCF in the US at He is well aware of how I devoted my time to TCC, which was an affiliate of ICCF. As for USCF, I have been told that Ralph Whitford, perhaps the most respected USCF TD in the America, has sent material to Chessmike04. I hope it gets posted in time. Before deleting this page, why not contact Mr. Whitford at If anyone has any questions, please feel free to contact me:. Michael Hoffer Yes2chess (talk) 06:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What you suggest would constitute original research. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and relies on materila already published in verifiable, independent reliable sources. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 08:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

There are no more reliable sources than New In Chess Yearbook or Chess Life. Very few players have any games in New In Chess (the subject has several) or articles written about them in Chess Life (a USCF publication). Those sources alone easily verified this article until Bubba73, a local-level USCF TD, made wild accusations and inaccurate conclusions about my limited participation in Bubba73's federation - USCF, because he could not understand why I moved on to ICCF and then to TCC (an ICCF affiliate), when TCC offered the largest prize funds in correspondence chess history! The phenomenon of rival federations occurs in many sports, including chess. From 1993-2006, the FIDE World Chess Champions were clearly not as strong as Kasparov & Kramnik. Before Bubba73, a local-level USCF TD who has access to the White Pages, tries to discredit someone who has impeccable sources with his incomplete sketchy sourcing, he might contact National USCF TD Ralph Whitford in Jacksonville, or ICCF US Chief Max Zavanelli of Orange City, FL who approved the publication of Hoffer games in Europe at an international conference, or ICCF official Allen Wright of Tarpon Springs, FL. (Thank you, Jezhotwells, for removing their contact number and email address. I am sorry I was so careless with them.) Yes2chess (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

USCF ANTD Ralph Whitford email message
"If this helps in the fight to save Michael’s Wikipedia page, please use it. During the 80’s and 90’s when I was becoming active in directing chess tournaments, I observed Michael’s game quite often. He played very interesting positions, which is one reason I watched his games.  The other reason is that he would catch up to me later during the tournament and tell me what went right (or wrong) with his game.  In order to discuss his game intelligently, I made a point to look at the game in progress whenever I had a moment.  His worst enemy was time management.  He would be playing a beautiful game, but being short on time, mess up and lose.  Poor time management cost him quite a few dollars by keeping him out of the winnings.  I knew he did correspondence chess.  He shared some of the games with me at tournaments.  Knowing that he was a strong player, if he had enough time to work out each move, it was no surprise to me that his CC rating was hundreds of points higher than his OTB rating. The bottom line is, Michael is a real person. Perhaps Bubba73 would like to correspond with myself or with Michael if he doubts the existence of Michael. I would be glad to help in any way to reconcile the differences between these people." Yes2chess (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No one is doubting your existence, However, Wikipedia has a a number of policies regarding notability, verifiability and reliable sourcing. In addition, editors with a conflict of interest are encoraged to read our guidleines on that. If reliable sources can be added to the article that demonstrate the subject's notability. I have have removed the email address as Wikipedia is highly visible and leaving contact details here is likely to lead to spam attacks. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 08:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (1) I have no doubts that Michael Hoffer exists. (2) My reasons for nominating the article for deletion have nothing to do with the fact that I am a USCF tournament director. (3) My reasons for nominating the article for deletion have nothing to do with my "bias" against correspondence chess. I played CC almost continuously from 1971 to about 1988, becoming a candidate master in that period.  (4) My reasons for nominating the article for deletion are as stated - the person is not sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article.  Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 02:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * And as far as ChessMike04's charge that I am biased against Hoffer because I live in Georgia "being one of the last states in America to grant equal rights to people of color." - I have no idea whether Hoffer is black or not. It never entered my mind and it has no bearing on the AfD.  Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 03:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)