Here's the version from Share the Facts:
A fact checker ought to notice the problem right away. Indeed, the average reader likely sees a big hint about the problem in the Share the Facts version. The key part of the fact check is outside the quotation marks denoting what Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said.
We presume the fact check more than adequately shows that the United States boasts multiple Grandmaster level chess players. We question whether PolitiFact established as fact that Trump said the United States has no Grandmaster chess players.
Here's what Trump said, via PolitiFact (bold emphasis added):
Trump was in the midst of criticizing international trade agreements, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership. He said he supports the idea of bilateral agreements, saying that such deals would make it possible for the United States to threaten to withdraw, then renegotiate on more favorable terms before the agreement expired.Before fact-checking this statement from Trump, one must figure out what he meant. Was he saying that the United States has nobody evaluating its trade deals with skills parallel to a chess Grandmaster? Or was he saying the United States boasts no citizens who have attained Grandmaster rank in chess?
Trump went on to say that with multilateral pacts like the TPP, "you can't terminate -- there's too many people, you go crazy. It's like you have to be a grand chess master. And we don't have any of them."
If Trump had added something like "Bobby Fischer was the last one," it would have gone a long way toward confirming what Trump was saying. But how can a fact checker justify assuming the "them" in Trump's statement refers to literal chess players and not figurative ones involved in international trade on the behalf of the United States?
PolitiFact routinely finds its way toward favoring one interpretation over others without bothering to acknowledge the other possibilities and without justifying its choice.
It's one approach to fact-checking that fact-checkers ought to avoid.
Is this fact check the best one ever on chess? If it's the only one, then we suppose we won't argue Adair's claim. But it's not a good political fact check if we value fairness, accuracy, relevance, and non-partisanship.