Problems with US Chess

 Yes.  I just like to play chess.  If I could find 20-30 local opponents, I wouldn't bother with tournaments.

Sorry, I need to clarify what I mean by the tournament formats. Prize structure is a part of it, yes. One of the biggest things I see wrong is too many sections in a tournament when the # of players simply dont warrant having so many sections. Its idiotic to have 5 sections with 40 players , don't you think ? If you are going to have a tournament of 5 rounds in which the Open section has 16 or fewer players why not make it 4 rounds instead of 5 ?  This would even save many players money as they might not have to spend more than one night in a hotel as opposed to 2. So.... if you insist on having Open sections with fewer than 20 players why not reduce the rounds to 4 for the Open section ?  Is there some USCF rule that forbids it ? Another thing that make for weird first round pairings is tournaments that allow re-entry. Is it fair to let some who lose in round 1 on fri evening have a " do over " when those who lose in rounds after round 1 don't get one nor do those who lose in round 1 on Sat am for example ?  The only reason this is done is greed... To avoid the very weird pairings that often accompany tournies that have an option of playing round 1 on fri evening or sat am I plan to just take a bye in round one... this will also save me one night in a hotel as I wont have to play until round 2 on Sat afternoon. The round 1 weirdness is even more weird sometimes due to re-entries..... 

 I play chess because I like the game.  Like you, I played in the 70's.  Unlike you, I reached my potential then, and my rating remains the same as it was then.  I continue my attempts at improving, but I am progressing very slowly.

Being older and on a limited budget, I am concerned about where my money is going.

@Reb

I think that you and I have found some common ground.  Having a lot of sections with a few players, or more rounds than is necessary to decide the tournament doesn't make sense.  Re-entry is just a way for the organizers to collect more money, and it isn't fair to the players who don't, or can't, take advantage of it.

I understand this and I understand that once an event is advertised as 5 rounds they probably cannot change it on a whim. However.... some events have been having Opens with less than 20 players in the Open section for years and I dont know why they continue to do it that way ? If you have 5 sections and 40 players that pretty much gurantees that all sections are gonna have 10, or fewer players. For that one section that may have more than 10 there will be one with 5 or 6 perhaps. 30 players = 1 section....... if your event last year drew only 50 players why on earth would you have more than 2 sections ? People who dont want to play stronger players should just NOT go to chess tournaments. 

 It's all relative.  If a 1000 plays a 1200, he is playing a stronger player.  If a 1200 plays a 1400, he is playing a stronger player.  If a 1000 plays a 2000, he is overwhelmed.

Also, if lower rated players don't go to chess tournaments, there will be no chess tournaments.

When does a 1000 play a 2000 ?  It used to be Open, Amateur and Novice/Booster/ Reserve sections , many were simply 2 sections : Open and Reserve , Open was often 1600 and up, Reserve under 1600 so a 1000 would never play a 2000 unless he elected to play the Open and even then its not very likely. GA has only 24 players over 2000 and even in the state championship they are lucky to get half of them to show up. So, if the Open is 2000 and up we are talking 12 players.... its simply stupid to NOT include the A class players in the Open and then they might get more than 20 players in the Open section for a reasonable section. The Alabama state chmp has 2 sections Open is 1500 and up, Reserve under 1500 . The event consistently has 30 to 40 players in both sections. Their tourney participation is up 25% over this time last year. Why cant neighboring states follow their model ? Ga and SC are two of the worst to have fewer than 20 players in their Open sections yet refuse to change their formats to draw more players... When I play a 2600 or 2700 player I feel pretty overwhelmed myself but its an experience of a lifetime . 

@Reb

I (1357) have been paired with a 2100 a few times.  That's not much different from a 1000 being paired with a 2000.  I was using an extreme hypothetical example to make a point, the class players do play stronger players.  Not just what you consider strong players.

Were you playing the Open section ?  Was it just a 1 section tournament ? 

 They were small one section tournaments.  I'll admit that it's not typical, but my point is that we class players do play stronger opponents (especially if we play up a section), just not what you consider strong opponents.

In my opinion, if I was a 2200 player, I would rather play people of my level and above and not have to beat players with ratings significantly below mine.

This would be fine with me IF there were 20 to 30 players my level shwoing up for the tournaments. There aren't though which means the Open section must include some class players unless they want to just start making round robins out of the open section... . 

 What you are in effect saying is that you are willing to play weaker players who have a 5% chance of winning their games with you so that your prize fund can be increased.  I doubt that you will ever see 20-30 players rated above 2000 in state and regional tournaments.

I dont know the exact % chance an 1800 player has of beating me but I know he has as good a chance of beating me as I do a 2600 player and yet I am forced to play in the same section with the 2600s if there are any there in most tournies... If I am playing a 5 round event I like to play in a section with at least 20 players in it... is that too much to ask/expect ? 30 players is even better, the larger # of players the more like a real tournament it is and the larger # of players the LESS chance I have to win..... actually 

With regard to earlier posts concerning the number of rounds in a tournament; we use to run concurrent tournaments, an open of four rounds with a time control of 40 in 2 (hours) and another section for under 2000 of five rounds in 40 in 90 (minutes). We usually had 50-80 players, usually < 20 in the open, with a prize fund between $1500-2000. It worked rather well for about 15 - 20 years.

The fact is that there is no good way to separate the classes.  If you divide them acoording to USCF classes, the higher rated groups will have few players.  If you divide them into equal groups, many players will be mismatched for the first 1 or 2 rounds.  Neither method is fair, but life isn't fair.

This is the way swiss system events are meant to be, were for decades in the US, and still are in Europe. Lower rated players get paired up in the first round , its the way the swiss system works. Even if each class has its own section the players in the bottom half of the section get paired with the players in the top half of the section to start with. 

The 2011 Ga state championship had Champ ( 2000 and up ), under 2000 and under 1600 sections. They actually had over 100 players turn out BUT the Champ section had 15 players in a 5 rounder, only one was an A player who elected to play up.  The under 2000 section had 27 players ( good ) but then the under 1600 section had 61 players !!  TOO MANY for a 5 round swiss.......What would I do about this ? The rating cutoffs have to be changed, make the A players play in the Champ (Open ) section and instead of under 2000 make it under 1800 and instead of under 1600 make it under 1400 or even 1300.  This would have made for more evenly balanced sections in terms of numbers. It seems to me that in this particular event they had a bunch of kids playing who should be playing in a separate scholastic section , paying small entry fees and gettin trophies for prizes. I saw too many ratings under 1200 in the under 1600 section for them not to be kids.... a bunch even under 1000..... 

 No.  The swiss system is a way of making pairings within a group (if the group rating range is small, the mismatch is small).  The composition of the groups is determined by the tournament organizers .  As I noted earlier lower-rated players, who constitute the majority of players, wanted separate sections, and the organizers accomodated them.