They used the same format last year and had more than 30 players in both sections. Attendance at tournaments in Bama is up 25% from last year so it seems they are doing something right.....
Problems with US Chess
Sort:
Jul 11, 2011
0
#123
I think that you would still be left with the fact that the first prize money in the lower section will be higher than the class prize money in the upper section. The total purse for the three sections was $2600. If you split the groups evenly, both sections should have a purse of $1300 (assuming an equal return of entry fees)with the bulk of the money going to the first and second place finishers.
In order to give the upper group more prize money, you have to take it from the lower group.
Jul 11, 2011
0
#124
Note that in the Alabama tournament, the Class prize in the Open section is less than the first prize in the Reserve section. I think that's the situation that started this thread.
solomonben wrote:
woton wrote:
Note that in the Alabama tournament, the Class prize in the Open section is less than the first prize in the Reserve section. I think that's the situation that started this thread.
But the real problem with Reb is that he is just a complainer, he will not do anything to change anything.
He is just here to waste time tipying on his keyboard, because he doesn't want to take responsibility, organize a tournament or many as example of what he thinks is right.
He will not go around to find sponsors, he will not pass a TD exam, he will not do anything, just complain, and criticize.
FYI I did take and pass the TD exam decades ago , since moving to Europe ofcourse I havent kept it current. I am a player, first and foremost, I dont have much interest in directing or organizing as I prefer to play. This does NOT mean I forfeit any right I have to complain if the complaints are warranted/legit. As for you ...... YOU are the only one in this thread that I have seen wish death on others and this shows how low you are.
When I return to US chess I do intend to help get some activity for seniors as the only ones who care about seniors are other seniors... obviously.
Reb wrote:
When I return to US chess I do intend to help get some activity for seniors as the only ones who care about seniors are other seniors... obviously.
I don't think that's the case at all. At least not from what I've seen locally. I know the folks around here would love to see a healthier mix of older players at events, but they just don't show up in any numbers.
I understand that numbers is a problem when trying to have a seniors event. In the US SE the best senior state championship I have seen is TN and their most recent one had 29 seniors I believe. A few of those were from out of state. Ga and SC both tend to have 20 or less show up for theirs and I have a friend that has gone to all 3 of them. He said the TN senior event is by far the best of the 3 . If I can get a senior event going I will model it after the TN senior event. I noticed at the most recent US Seniors championship in FL there were about 50 players total and more than 20 were FL seniors yet I dont believe FL has a seniors state championship.
i won a tournament with a 24-1 record, just sad... ;)
and your friends case is just plain stupid. he deserves more money than $100
Gladiator chess?? Perhaps? The loser is impaled on the opponents K, or Q, or B. Just thinking outloud here.
Jul 12, 2011
0
#130
I think that US chess has more problems than lack of events for seniors and the distribution of prize money. I think that there is a general lack of interest in the game.
For example: My local chess club consists of two of us who occasionally meet at the library and play two or three games of chess (the local population is 25-30,000). I have to drive 100 miles to the nearest tournament site, and sometimes it is questionable whether there will be a sufficient number of players to hold the tournament (so far, enough have surfaced at the last moment). The USCF's data show that there are only 13,000 adults who play in at least one tournament a year. That's not a lot for a country with a population of 300 million.
woton wrote:
I think that US chess has more problems than lack of events for seniors and the distribution of prize money. I think that there is a general lack of interest in the game.
For example: My local chess club consists of two of us who occasionally meet at the library and play two or three games of chess (the local population is 25-30,000). I have to drive 100 miles to the nearest tournament site, and sometimes it is questionable whether there will be a sufficient number of players to hold the tournament (so far, enough have surfaced at the last moment). The USCF's data show that there are only 13,000 adults who play in at least one tournament a year. That's not a lot for a country with a population of 300 million.
I don't know if I'm just lucky or what, but I seem to live in a chess hotbed. Hannibal, Mo. (population about 20k), has a weekly chess club that meets at the local library and hosts two free, unrated tournaments a year. The weekly meetings draw about a dozen people, and the last tournament drew about about 20. Just a few miles across the river is Quincy, Ill., which has a population of about 40k, hosts a similar chess club that draws about 8-12 people each week.
The weird thing is that the area used to host USCF tournaments, but the organizers quit doing it because it was hard to draw people when they had to pay for tournament entry+USCF membership. Fortunately, there are three sites within 100 that regularly host tournaments, and several of us drive to those, but it'd be nice to get some hosted in-town.
woton wrote:
I think that US chess has more problems than lack of events for seniors and the distribution of prize money. I think that there is a general lack of interest in the game.
For example: My local chess club consists of two of us who occasionally meet at the library and play two or three games of chess (the local population is 25-30,000). I have to drive 100 miles to the nearest tournament site, and sometimes it is questionable whether there will be a sufficient number of players to hold the tournament (so far, enough have surfaced at the last moment). The USCF's data show that there are only 13,000 adults who play in at least one tournament a year. That's not a lot for a country with a population of 300 million.
One of the reasons uscf is losing adult players/members ( or many arent active ) is that the USCF is more concerned with scholastic stuff and kids than the adults. Its easy to verify this just by checking the number/frequency of scholastic events compared to adult events in any state you choose. A friend of mine that was complaining to USCF about games from G/30 to G/60 being dual rated was basically just told if he didnt like it he didnt have to play. They werent even interested in listening to him. Like me he thinks the practice of dual rating games is not a good idea and his suggestion was that players should be able to choose which of their ratings they would prefer be adjusted from such events and they jjust blew him off. They did the same with him when he suggested evening games for seniors were not ideal as seniors tend to get tired/sleepy rather early in the evening and he is right. My least favorite time to start a serious game of chess is the evening, my first choice would be to start 3 or 4 in the afternoon and second choice would be to play in the morning. They werent even interested in listening. With the approach they have exhibited with him I expect them to keep losing adult members.
There are a variety of problems. Off the top fo my head and in no particular order:
- Cost: having to pay USCF membership + State club membership + hosting club membership + tournament entry fee in some instances is ludicrous. There's no reason that USCF membership without the magazine should cost more than $10 a year for the privilige to have one's rating tracked. The USCF should have a barebones membership that will allow for entering a first tournament for $5. That would get nothing more than the ability to track OTB rating for a year and play in tournaments, but it would lower the bar to entry.
- Quality of facilities: My local chess club is in a hot, poorly ventilated space. It lacks any real amenities. For what membership costs the return is very poor. They would do much better to partner with some other recreational facility or community center to obtain a site that is clean, welcoming and inviting. Tournaments held in the cheapest hotel in town don't come off as high caliber events.
- Publicity: If you aren't an active chess tournament player, it's very unlikely you'll find out about a local chess tournament. All of the advertising (to the extent that there is any) is aimed at people who are already going to be there.
A cheap, tournament-only, adult membership would be amazing. I'm not going to be one of those people who doesn't understand an organization's finances and just says "They should make their stuff cheaper!!!!!" but telling people they have to pay $32 *before* tournament entry fees is a huge barrier.
Given that the only cost to having a member that USCF incures is the initial data entry, $10 is more than sufficient for them to make money at it. Particularly given that they pushed the data entry out to the consumer with the web front-end. It's only when they start adding onto the "benefits" that their costs go up. And since tournaments pay to have the rating adjustments done, that cost is covered as well.
And I agree, the up-front money is a big reason why people don't participate in USCF events. My kid's chess club had a long, long discussion about if they should enter any USCF events this year, and if so how to handle the finances. With schools cutting back on budgets, and those costs getting pushed onto parents, scholastic chess has the potential to fall next too.
A solution we use around here is to get five players together, each kick in $20, play a 4 round RR, with the split $60 first, $40 second. You don't get rating points, but you can't eat rating points, either.
Jul 12, 2011
0
#138
dashkee94 wrote:
A solution we use around here is to get five players together, each kick in $20, play a 4 round RR, with the split $60 first, $40 second. You don't get rating points, but you can't eat rating points, either.
You can't eat money either, if you want to be technical about it 
But it's certainly preferable to work with the chess community over chess organizations. Now to just figure out a way to coordinate them worldwide ^^
Perhaps you could band a bunch of clubs together and start, I don't know, a national chess federation . . .
Jul 12, 2011
0
#140
Reb wrote: One of the reasons uscf is losing adult players/members ( or many arent active ) is that the USCF is more concerned with scholastic stuff and kids than the adults. Its easy to verify this just by checking the number/frequency of scholastic events compared to adult events in any state you choose. A friend of mine that was complaining to USCF about games from G/30 to G/60 being dual rated was basically just told if he didnt like it he didnt have to play. They werent even interested in listening to him. Like me he thinks the practice of dual rating games is not a good idea and his suggestion was that players should be able to choose which of their ratings they would prefer be adjusted from such events and they jjust blew him off. They did the same with him when he suggested evening games for seniors were not ideal as seniors tend to get tired/sleepy rather early in the evening and he is right. My least favorite time to start a serious game of chess is the evening, my first choice would be to start 3 or 4 in the afternoon and second choice would be to play in the morning. They werent even interested in listening. With the approach they have exhibited with him I expect them to keep losing adult members.
I don't think it's fair to hold the USCF responsible for these issues. The USCF doesn't hold tournaments, or at least holds very few.
If your friend wants a tournament that starts at 3:00, he should hold a tournament that starts at 3:00.
For me this format is much more preferable and is one of the few tournies in the US southeast that I would go to.
http://www.uschess.org/tlas/7672.ctla