Problems with US Chess

At least in NJ, there are tournaments like this, and they do attract good numbers. About 15 minutes away from me, there are quads that regularly attract 40+ people. They're held in a YMCA, with a very laid back and friendly atmossphere.

There's a $20 entry fee ($15 for members), you play three G/45s, and if you win the quad, you get $50. The system works.

 Sounds a lot like my tournaments.

You could always host one.

WELL I PRAY TO THE GODS, PLEASE DONT LET BLITZ BE THE FUTURE OF CHESS. 

 A great description of why we play Chess.

to be verry honest i always have more fun win money is involved. dont get me wrong im not talking big money but a a few dollars already make everything more fun. well i think everything in life gets more fun with money. even if the price is only 20 bucks and the fee 1 dollar, only problem is the cheating then. 

Let's be careful not to color all of Europe with the same brush

The British Isles certainly isn't the chess paradise you guys make it out to be

The Little League analogy is a useful one, but the difference is that the Open section at a local US tournament isn't making $2 million either.  MLB players make millions because people pay to go to the games, to watch them on TV, to buy their jerseys, to have their ads at the ballpark, etc.  There's a significant revenue stream coming in as a result of the games, which funds their salaries.  It's NOT paid by Little Leaguers who just want to play themselves.

In chess, that sponsorship exists (to a lessened degree), but for the truly world-class players.  Sorry, but a couple of NMs at the tournament down the street doesn't qualify -- no one's simulcasting that live on chess.com with David Pruess leading the commentary.  Frankly, lower-rated players don't even come to tournaments to see that; they come to play.

A better analogy would be saying that the kids in the Little League don't deserve trophies, and their entrance fees should be funneled to the beer-league softball team down the street for THEIR trophies.  No one disputes that the softball team would beat the kids if they played, but so what?  That's pretty irrelevant to why the kids play the game, and why their parents pay the entry fee.  It's also worth noting that those softballers stand little better chance than the kids against the truly elite players that people DO pay to watch.

All the events our USCF affiliate has run thus far have been 1 day; originally it was 5 G/60 and then I went to 4 G/60 to hopefully entice some players from farther away to attend and still have time to get home at a decent hour.

We normally have tried to keep the entry fee at $10 too, though finding a very cheap or free location isn't that easy, so it is likely we will have to start charging more for that. Our last event was a $30 entry, primarily to try and cover the room cost and provide a decent prize fund; turnout was too low and we ended up eating our reserves and I had some out of pocket expenses, even with reducing prizes (we had based-on prizes and didn't have that many people)

I would love to run a two-day event but there just hasn't been enough of a turnout in one-day events to pay for a room for two days and still provide any kind of prize fund.

That said, my goals when running tournaments are to get enough in entry fees to pay for the room (if I have a cost there), pay to get the games rated, and maximize turnout by having a large enough prize fund and a low enough entry to pull in the most people. I have also tried to make enough on each event to cover the affiliate fees for the year (1/4 of the fee each event -- when running 4 a year), though I have been eating that cost personally the last couple of years.

As a player, I like one-day events for the reasons you mentioned. I do play in some two-day ones but generally can't afford the expense involved for too many.

It would be awesome to find the exact combination of conditions to increase the amount of people that come to events in our area. Still haven't found that or some patrons willing to sponsor events consistantly.

How much does it cost for uscf to rate the games ? Since its much easier now, with technology, you would think that cost would have gone down but I bet it hasn't ? 

Since I am now a senior it is difficult for me to play more than 2 serious games a day , I no longer even consider going to events in which I am required to play more than 2 a day. ( classic games ) I can play more rapid/action games a day , but not classic. In Portugal I am used to playing in 7,8 and 9 round G/20 rapid tournies. After round 7 though I am running out of gas..... 

It is $0.25 per game for ratings when submitted online. Luckily, that is the lowest cost involved for the tournament.

I'm not a senior but I find myself starting to run out of gas on the 4th and 5th games of one-day tourneys (G/60). The 3rd game in a G/120 is also pretty taxing many times.

I think one reason why tournaments aren't supported enough  has been the USCF's goals. Their primary goal has been to keep their budget in the black, however (somehow) they actually managed to pull it off this year. (See June's issue of Chess Life)

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that, since they accomplished that, they'll turn more of their attention to the development of chess in the coming years.

Fascinating glimpse into the world of chess tournaments in the US. 

I think the federation wants to (or wants us to think they want to), but I get the impression that they're still recovering from all those lawsuits a couple of years back. Of course, I've only been playing for, I don't know, three years, so I'm looking at that mess through the lens of whatever random accounts I've seen online.

Was economic viability always the USCF's only aim? This is more addressed at those who have been around a while. Did the USCF try, at one point, to draw people into tournament play, and chess in general? Did they ever really work to develop the talented kids that people always complain about losing to?

I'm asking specifically about the USCF. I know there have always been outside efforts; chess was heavily promoted during Fischer's heyday (by many groups other than the USCF), and we hear about things like this often.

A plug for John Cordisco! I enjoy his Binghamton, NY tournaments. His core group of players are nice people and very helpful to new players. If you are in the area, check it out some Sunday.

 Think of all the hog soap he could buy with that.

Just glancing over the TD requirements, sheesh. No wonder it's hard to find small, cheap tournaments.

Let's say I wanted to help my club host some small quads once in awhile.

I of course have to be a USCF member, so that's $34/year.

$40 to register a club (yearly cost)

$20 for a rule book

$10 for miscellaneous supplies

A couple bucks to submit the tournament for rating online.

So even if I have a place to host the tournament for free, I'm out $100+. Ick.

 I partly agree, except.

If you're inclined to run tournaments, you are probably a USCF member already.

There are probably USCF affiliates willing to let you work under their banner, so that isn't a big deal, either. 

The others are legitimate costs, but you don't have to charge much to cover those costs.  The venue is the big thing.  You have to find a friendly library, school, community center, or church.  That can be difficult.  Your real costs are venues and prizes.

A much bigger problem that the USCF creates is that everyone playing has to be a member.  That means adding 34 dollars to the entry fee of anyone playing in his first tournament.  I'm trying to attract people who would be willing to spend as much on a Chess tournament as they would on a movie.  Mandatory membership makes that impossible.  I get around that by holding unrated sections if there is enough interest.  Unfortunately, so far, there hasn't been.  What that means is that I take the entry fee for the unrateds and apply it toward a USCF tournament membership, and swallow the extra cost myself.  Not fun, but it's a chance I'm willing to take.  So far I've lost a few personal bucks on every tournament I've thrown.  Oh, well.  I can live with it, but I admit I would prefer not to.

In my humble opinion, the way to solve the problem from the OP is grow Chess at the base.  Attract more casual players to simple, low cost,  tournaments.  Some of those will want to go on to the fancier, hhigher priced ones, and they will be willing to pay the higher fees necessary to make the prize structures work.  As it is, almost all of the low level players are squeezed out by high fees.

1pawndown

I'll give my second "post and plug" for John Cordisco.  As you know, there is no one in the Southern Tier that is doing as much as he is doing for chess.  It's a shame that he can only draw a dozen or so players to his events.  Back in the 70's-80s, Ron Milliken used to draw 30-40 players for the same events, but I guess it's a sign of the times that Cordisco draws 1/4 of what Milliken used to.  I feel that the ease of online chess has at least a little to do with this, but that alone cannot explain the lack of participation--economics, the price of gas, of eating out, etc., all contribute to this stagnation.  And, of course, the pettiness of local politics that some people won't play at John's, while others won't play at the Cyber Cafe--I mean, let's just play chess, right?  Maybe (at 54) I'm still too idealistic, but shouldn't the game come first amongst chess players?  But, here's to John anyway--I just wish my disabilities would allow me to play in more of his events.

That's what good editing and good commentators are for. You don't have to play blitz chess to speed the game up for television viewers. Just edit the games the same way poker shows edit the hands that are played.