Problems with US Chess

also i think the women are hotter in the us and you have all the variety in the world if you want to see different scenerie, you still need to travel but everyone speaks english i think its not that easy in europe. I live in europe and i would love to go to usa.

Maybe there aren't many chess advantages in USA but the more impressive that the country has produced players like Morphy, Fischer, Pillsbury, Fine, Marshall and Nakamura. Italy, Spain and France were the leading chess countries a few centuries back but since Morphy's days few top players have come from that part of the world.

IMO, the opportunity to win $300 after paying an $80 entry fee doesn't seem like too much to ask for.  It's not like people play in tournaments for the purpose of subsidizing stronger players.  (I'm also not sure how an U2200 player qualifies as worthy of that, but that's another discussion.)

Unless you're world-class, chess is a hobby played for love of the game, not for money.  If you don't like it, you're welcome to sponsor a tournament yourself in which the top players will take home large purses, and everyone else nothing... just don't expect to attract a lot of players, or in turn to break even on your expenses.

One thing I prefer in US chess is that there is always enough space and there is always good central air and heat . In Europe I have often felt too crowded and played games in which the heat was so bad I thought I would pass out or have played through games in which I was shivering the entire game even though we were inside . Also, the pieces and boards used in US events are more often better quality than what is often used/supplied in Europe. This is true mainly because in the US players bring their own chess pieces, clocks, and boards and it seems very few like to play on crappy stuff...... 

I probably know the elo system better than you do. I wanted to know what your definition of "master level " is, not FIDE's. I dont think many Europeans consider 2100 to be master level as that isnt even enough to earn the " candidate master" title which starts at 2200 fide. I am sure most people consider IMs and GMs to be "master level" so your statement that none of them make a living/money playing chess tournaments simply isnt true because I personally know some who do. GM Kevin Spraggett comes first to mind. Ofcourse, your statement may be true if you dont consider IMs and GMs as "master level" but this would be odd indeed since you are saying 2100s enjoy such distinction. 

I yearn for the times when chess tournament prizes were non-cash, i.e. a pound of butter, a Moskvich car, a sewing machine, a sack of potatoes, a fountain pen, etc.

Ouch. Where is all of that membership money going? Certainly not into the tournaments and back to the players. "Pay us to be certified, then pay us more to join tournaments, and then pay us for any materials you need. We've gotta make a buck. You just might break even if you win." I really didn't think tourney pots would be on the point of begging for donations. No one appreciates it anymore :\

I do think that with proper advertising chess could become more popular to the masses again (ie: Finding Bobby Fischer 2: Found Him) which would fix the problem the brute force way, but that's just a bandaid effect that fades away. At the end of the day, I think the problem will always be that it's a lot easier to sell chess products than it is to sell chess.

With my luck I'll win the World Open the year Goichberg decides that first place should be a pound of butter...

It certainly is disheartening, I’ll give you that. IMO, a 1300 should not have the chance for winning more money than a master (2200 or above) UNLESS he somehow honestly beats the entire open section.  Then that individual is playing at master level or above themselves, and deserves the cash.  That is why sports teams have amateur, semi-pro and pro.  Nobody is going to offer someone in Little League a $2 million dollar contract, haha. 

The fact is that the lower-rated players provide the bulk of the revenue for tournaments, and you either have to provide large prizes to that group or offer them a lower entry fee.

The last tournament in which I played had 136 players.  Of these, 73 were rated less than 1400 and 12 were rated above 2000.  The prize fund for the high-rated group exceeded their collective entry fees, while the prize fund for the lower-rated group was far less than their collective entry fees.  Thus, the lower-rated group not only provided a portion of the prize money for the high-rated group, they provided the money to run the tournament.

Some questions about the event you refer to : 

How many played in the Open section ?  was the event a 5 round swiss ? Was the Open for 2000 and up or 1800 and up ?  What was the rating cutoffs for the lower sections ?  Under 1800 ?  Under 1400 ?  etc 

The reason I ask is I see a disturbing trend in my homestate of Georgia to have far too many sections in relation to the number of players so they end up having very weird "sections". They sometimes have only 10 to 15 players in the " Open " section when the lower sections will have maybe 20 to 30 , and sometimes even more. This results in very strange pairings sometimes and even weird things like the only IM in the event getting a full point bye !?  This is terrible imo and I dont plan to ever play in such tournies myself. Just wondering if other states are doing this too ? The Open should include the A class players and not be for 2000 and above and this would help solve the problem. When I was an A class player in Ga the Open did include A class players and I do not know why they have changed ?!  There are certainly NOT enough players above 2000 in the state to justify the change. 

The tournament was a class tournament.  Players could only enter the class associated with their rating.

Edit:  I've played in small local tournaments that have an "Open" and a "Reserve" section.  The same thing:  The majority of the players are in the "Reserve" section, but the bulk of the money goes to the "Open" section.

I, for one, take a diffent tack than most people on this subject.  The existence of a cash prize is a real turnoff and a powerful disincentive for me to play in a tournament.  I know that prize is coming from my entry fee.  I feel like I'm bribing the better players for the opportunity to play against them, or maybe just play in the same room with them.

I once observed that paying a fifty dollar entry fee in a tournament is like going into a pool hall, watching someone rack the balls and run the table, and then accepting his offer to play for money.  Why would I do that?

I play in tournaments that have low fees, 15 dollars or less.  That implies they also have low or no prizes.  I'm ok with that.

If there was some sponsor willing to donate the prize so that I could have a low entry fee and still have a cash prize, that sounds like a perfect situation, but I haven't figured out how to get people to part with their money so that I can play a game and have a chance of winning it.  I've heard of it happening, but I've never figured out why.

If I had money to invest in sandbagging, maybe I'd devote more time to studying chess.

the usa need 1or 2 big players to break europes hold on chess. then companys will put money in chess or may be  europe is to good at the moment.

I find myself drawn to this way of thinking.  Just how many of us amateurs actually play for this cash prize?  We all want that rating number to go up ... we want to take home games we are proud about, to scalp that stronger player we've been gearing up to beat and of course, to find that once-in-a-lifetime combinational shot over the board that makes us love this pathetic game even more.

If you had a venue such as a local club that was paid for by membership dues, you could have weekly swiss events with zero to near-zero entry fees and no prize payouts.

If a sponsor pitched in for prizes, it would be gravy :)

The problem isnt only the cash prizes involved but the fact that tourney organizers/directors are also trying to make a profit. When you add these two things to the fact that meals out, travel costs and hotel prices are always going up and they NEVER go down its becoming more and more difficult for most chess players to justify participating, and this is especially true for those who have NO chance at even breaking even by winning a prize big enough to pay their expenses. When I first started playing the prizes were only trophies and people still came to play. The entry fees were usually $5. to $10 and the games were often all played in 1 day, 3 or 4 rounds of G/1hr which used to be the fastest time control USCF would rate as standard chess. This meant players also didnt have to stay in a hotel even one night ( unless they came from a very long way ) and wouldnt have to eat more than one meal out. I sometimes yearn to go back in time where chess is concerned...... maybe it was better back then ? 

The future of chess, if there is one, is in blitz.  It has an actual chance to be media friendly, and as something media friendly, has a chance to offer legitimate professional participation to more than just a handful of people worldwide.

If poker can be turned into something that captivates a home television viewer, and golf can, and bowling can (TEAM bowling, for god's sake!), then surely chess can as well.  All it needs is a little action, and a little drama.

Action happens as THINGS happen.  And things happen a hell of a lot more often in blitz games.  Simple as that on that front.

Drama happens as skilled, quick-thinking, quick-on-their-feet, witty, insightful, passionate commentators bring the home audience into the scene.

So have big "qualifying tournaments" that are, in essence, little different than current tournaments, but with the top eight moving on to the broadcast finals, paired off in quarterfinals.

They play each other in home-and-aways, with each taking a color, and if either player achieves a score advantage after two games, that player moves on.  If not, play another two.  Edit it down to the exciting stuff for TV, like they do with poker and golf.

Sponsor big online amateur play-in tournaments once in a while, to bring in the frenzied crowd, Pokerstars style.  Yeah, people will cheat.  So what?  They'll get crushed like insects by Nakamura on TV and go away in shame.

Create separate rankings from the outdated and irrelevant FIDE (American Blitz Chess Association, or whatever), get sponsors for the thing, and let it rip.

The chess powers-that-be have really missed the boat on embracing both speed and technology as a way to turn chess from a dorkish intellectual fringe sideline into something mainstream.

What's fundamentally different between other "spectator fare" vs. chess is that even with blitz, you need to know this game decently well to understand the chances for both players in a position well before the combinational shot happens. 

This game has vast skill level which is not easy to gauge/measure when a layperson watches.  When I was a 1100 player, I thought Masters were just better at tactics than I was!

With poker, a layperson lazily sprawled on on his couch watching TV can  see pocket Aces or a good pair  and instantly gauge what's going on. Not so easy to do with chess, even with expert commentary / live engine evaluation scores.

I think people have been conditioned to expect cash prizes as the draw to play in chess tournaments. I've talked to TDs in my area, and they all say the same thing: The lower the entry fee, the lower the prizes, the fewer people show up.

Our local chess club has given up on hosting tournaments due to low attendance for their $50 entry fees. Despite the fact that several of us drive 50+ miles to attend the closest tournaments we can find, I'm having trouble drumming up interest in organizing a simple, cheap quads event so we can all play some rated games and not have to spend so much gas money.

I've played in three USCF tournaments: A $119 entry fee with large prizes, a $20 entry fee with small prizes, and a free tournament with no prizes. I had an equally fun time at all three. I wish more people felt the same way.