L. Thad Rogers ... haven't seen that name in a long time... 

No... I last played in Kennesaw back in '92.  So Thad is still around?

I have bemoaned the sorry state of American chess since the "big drop-off" back in the 70's, after the you-know-what fiasco of '75. I guess I'm partley to blame since I haven't played in tournaments since that fateful decade. But please enlighten me as to what may be going on here: Is the increased number of sections an attempt to attract more players? If so, why are some players, like NM Reb, not participating for that very reason? And if not, what is the reason for so many sections?.......Some people like to blame video games and other contemporary distractions for chess's decrease in popularity, but the lack of interest goes further back. In 1960, the US Chess Federation had only about 4500 members......In a country of 180 million! There are the oft told tales of Fischer's financial difficulties early on in his career, even after he became a teen-age chess celebrity.... Maybe Bill Maher is right; Americans just love watching a "bunch a' red-necks turn left" (NASCAR, biggest spectator sport in America).

Isn't expert/master strength still fairly mediocre in the greater scheme of things? (i.e. it's all relative)

Reb, I have no problem playing people who are better than me. Indeed, I like doing that for a game or two. But if for us mediocre players not having multiple sections means we tend to see only 1 or 2 competitive games in a tournament and the rest are either us getting smashed or smashing someone else. 

If I want to beat on a kid rated 600 points lower than me, I can stay home and play my son. If I want to be pounded on by someone 600 points higher than me, I can pay my coach for a teaching game for a hell of a lot less money. 

My ideal tournamnet is one where all 5, 6, 7 or however many games have me playing someone within a few hundred points above me. I can learn from the game, but there's still a reason to play it. 

And yeah, sorry if I'm not entirely interested in funding prizes I have no hope of ever winning. Lately I've been seeing tournaments listed that allow titled players to play for free -- yet they get the biggest prize funds. But I haven't seen you complain about that practice.

The presence of titled chessplayers attracts more untitled participants and of course there will be one or two more spectators as well. chess.com applies this as well and it works

 Thanks. I see your point. According to the logic of these players, the best of all worlds would be to play in a section with only one other player, and a lower- rated one ta' boot! But if this arrangement drives away better players, it's just "dumbing down" the quality of play. As to heinzie's comment, I'm not sure what he means....."the greater scheme of things" is not the issue here. Expert/master strength players are not mediocre compared to A or B class players. Too many sections "dilutes", so to speak, the strength of players in any one section. But as I suggested earlier, perhaps they do it to attract more entrants: more prizes, more chances to win. So,what's the record? In tournaments with sections up the ying-yang, do they have more players, bigger turn-outs?

i don't go to a tournament because there is a titled player there. I go to play competative chess. Giving titled players a free ride, and then allowing them to win prizes dillutes my entry fee. Asking on top of that for there to be fewer sections to ensure a larger prize for the top is just insulting. 

But I guess instead of just having 3 sectiosn like Reb wants, the GMs, IMs, and NMs can just get a bunch of baseball bats and mug the class players as they come through the door. That way we'd get to meet them personally while they pick our pockets.

Class players are not under an obligation to pay the master's way.

First, I have never won a prize in a tournament. Ever. I'd love to have it happen once, but I doubt it will. To suggest that my attitude about wanting to be able to play competative games is due to greed is insulting and arrogant on your part. Particularly when your recent complain was all about how the poor suffering titled players aren't making enough money off the class players because there are too many sections. 

Second, I'm 45 years old and rated 1400. I gave up on the idea of getting TO class A let alone above it a long time ago. I'm not that good. I still work at the game. I study it practically every day because it's a fun intellectual challenge for me. I play regularly. I pay a titled player to work with me on my game. Your attitude towards people who simply started later in life or aren't as talented as you are is pathetic. 

I love how you insist on continually overtly insulting class players and then crying because we don't voluntarily give you more of our money. And then you say it's us who are ruining chess? I show up at every tourny in driving range of my house. I don't check before hand to see if it's worth my time to go based on how many classes there are or how many entrants there are or if the prize fund is big enough in my section. I just go and play. I have played in a town with a population of 400 people and had a great time. I have played in the US Open when it was near me and had just as good a time. I've shown up and the 5 round swiss was turned into a double round robin because there were only 6 of us. And I don't see chess as being "ruined" in any of those cases because I'm more interested in playing competative games than in making money off of lower ranked people.

 This is way over-the-top! Not to mention a bit extreme. But that baseball bat thing would probably draw a lot of spectators......Seriously, though, this seems to be getting off-topic. The problem implied by the initial post, the degeneration of chess "then and now", particularly in the US, is the at the core of this situation. The very idea of more sections and prizes to attract more players seems to be back-firing. Though some people like it, like daw55124, overall attendance is down. And the quality of play? Dubious, at best. So, any better, more practical ideas to beef-up chess in the US? Just look at the explosion of chess-interest in China, India and other countries! Are we just fated to go the way of our own economy and technology, taking a back seat to the competition?

"I don't go to a tournament because there is a titled player there."

No, but a tournament gains more credibility if there are strong players hanging around every year, which in itself will attract more participants in future editions. It's the word-of-mouth-marketing stuff. "My friend played there last year and he had a good time, the playing conditions were good, now I want to play there too." (even if he didn't even actually play against any of the stronger players)

Just like on chess.com, which advertizes with many titled players and interaction, but how many actually write in the forums? (only a few NMs like Reb and Tonydal) How many actually actively play? Has anyone in here ever gotten the chance to play with any of them? There are dummy accounts for Nakamura, Polgar...does it matter that they aren't so active? :) No, it does not matter... simply their presence is enough to count on a broad endorsement.