Problems with US Chess

This is exactly the kind of attitude I am talking about... jjust blow people off !  Dont like something ?  Dont play !  Want something different ?  Do it yourself !  This is NOT what paying members are paying for.... if I was gonna run/direct/organize I wouldnt have time to play and I certainly wouldnt have any need for USCF. When US chess is dead it will have been brought down , at least partly, by this kind of attitude. 

you are right Reb..and some day uscf will go down.they are top heavy.Too many people making too much, for what?what exactly is their service?ratings tables?that can be done online for free.A magazine that has 30 day old news and games which once again can be had online in real time.It is a dinosaur like the newspaper that has reached its end.Chess in america needs a reorganizing with the players in mind and not someone looking out for their salary and benefits.

...while I agree with some of what you have said here...the last part is exactly what the US is all about...salary and benefits...and we could add to that profits to include the most important sector of "business".

...everything in the US is the bottom line...no one does it "for the love of it" anymore...where are all the benefactors? (in the country with the riches individuals on the planet)...

...unfortunately Thor...oops, Magnus Carlsen is not an American...else you would be seeing a boon in chess in america currently...so I guess a very strong GM with WCC ability may provide the stimulation required...maybe the coming of "Naka" will provide same...

Oddly, most casinos have drinks, comfortable chairs, air conditioning, and so on. Hold that same poker tournament in a cramped hot room on inadequate chairs and see how long the run lasts. Oh, and anyone who wants to play in the tournament has to buy a US Poker Federation membership, a state poker association membership and membership in the local poker club before paying the tournament fees too.

Do you really think it would still be more popular than chess?

 The membership fees do not have to be paid for each tournament entered, they are once a year costs.  However, if the membership costs are a concern, local organizations could just hold unsanctioned tournaments. Then no USCF or State Organization membership would be required. 

The USCF and State Organizations exist because players like to have ratings, titles, etc., and umbrella organizations are needed to provide the administrative services.

You seem to miss the point, who's going to go "hmmm, I like chess I guess I might try an OTB tournament for hte first time?" And then, after looking into the local open finds they need to spend $120 to play even though the entry fee is listed as $40.

And for that $120 you can play in the nastiest hotel in town for a couple of days.

Compare that to the mentioned poker game, where you can show up, pay the advertised $20 and play sitting in padded leather chairs and have drinks delivered to your table.

Which one is giving the player more value?

Someone mentioned my return to otb chess after 14 years. This is true , partly. I have been playing otb FIDE rated chess these past 14 years but not in the USA nor USCF rated chess. I did play a couple of events in the US when visiting, including the 2008 Georgia state championship in Atlanta which is the most recent event I have played in the US. When I return ( plan to later this year ) I do plan to be as active as possible in chess, mainly as a player but am also planning to try and get an annual state championship for seniors off the ground and am willing to help in any way I can towards this goal but I also want to be able to play in it ofcourse. 

I dont think the USCF allows a TD to also play in an event they are officiating and they shouldn't because of obvious conflict of interests situations. A few decades ago USCF did allow a TD to play in their own event but then they changed and didnt allow it , now I do not know if they changed again ? Any currently active TD (uscf) should be able to tell us. 

Actually, Reb's friend did not tie for first place.  He was the top player rated less than 2200, a Class prize, in the open section.  The U-1400 player was first in the U-1400 section, a separate tournament.   The purse for the open section was $1200, the purse for the U-1400 section was $700. 

Well, when I see a 5 round tourney with fewer than 20 players in the Open section I won't be attending anyway. This is one of my biggest problems : too many sections for the number of players ! A 5 round swiss is perfect for 32 players and if you have a few more than 32 an accelerated swiss handles that very well. If you have 60 players then 2 sections might be ok but you need to get the rating cutoff right or you will end up with 15 in the open and 45 in the lower section. A cutoff of 2000 is ridiculous in the US Southeast . The Open ( decades ago ) used to be 1600 and up, then it changed to 1800 and up.... since it has gone to 2000 you get too few players in the Open. The open section simply must include the A class players and sometimes even the B class players... The Alabama state championship has 2 sections : Open and Reserve 1500 and up in the Open and the remainder in the reserve .... their most recent one had a few more than 30 players in both sections = perfect !  imo  Why cant others do this ?  To contrast... the most recent Southern Congress ( held in Ga annualy ) had a total turnout of 40 players with 5 sections !!?  The result for the Open (2000 and up ) ?!  The Open had 8 players and 3 of them were under 2000 ! This is absolutely absurd and I will never support such madness and Ga seems to have the "too many sections" disease the worst ! Result is I dont intend to play any events in Ga ...... NONE. I know others who live in Ga and play their chess in neighboring states and avoid Ga events for this very reason. In the majority of events in the US SE 2 sections is plenty and sometimes even one will do ok ... 3 is pushing it ( need 90 or more to warrant 3 imo ) and more than 3 is NEVER good except at really huge events like the world open and other national events. 

I agree that some tournaments have too many sections, and increasing the size of the sections (by reducing the number) will increase the purse in the section.  However, the bulk of the money will go to the first and second place finishers, and the Class prizes, if any, will be token amounts.

You still have the fact that the purse is derived from entry fees. If the tournament sections have equal numbers of players, higher purses for the open section will either require higher entry fees for the open section or the diversion of a portion of the lower section's entry fee to subsidize the open section's purse.

 I'm not exactly certain what we pay for, but it isn't to hold tournaments.  If it is, I want my money back, because the tournaments I attend have nothing to do with USCF, other than the ratings.

As another poster noted, there's no fee to hold a USCF tournament, other than the 25 cent per game rating fee.  The tournament has to be held by a USCF affiliate.  Being a USCF affiliate costs about 40 dollars per year.

As for the unconventional start time, USCF places no restrictions on start times or any other aspect of the tournament.  It has to be Chess, and everyone has to play by the same rules.  (Example, you could hold a "French Defense" tournament, where all games have to begin e4-e6, but you can't hold a tournament where players draw an opening from a hat.)

I played in the last tournament in which I was TD.  Of course, this was a small, local, tournament.  We had 11 players and I decided it was more important to avoid byes than to be present to adjudicate disputes.  That seems normal at the tournaments I attend, as well.  The TD often plays fi there's an odd number.  Obviously, if there were significant money on the line or a large number of players, a TD shouldn't play, but in a locally organized tournament that starts at 3:00 that won't happen.

In another post you asked about whether a club was allowed to hold unsanctioned tournaments.  That's a question I truly don't understand.  How would they stop us? 

Unfortunately, they do have us all conditioned to only play in sanctioned tournaments that include ratings.  Whenever I hold a tournament, I always have an unrated section where no memberships are required.  I haven't yet had enough people show up to actually play the section. (If anyone shows up to play, I buy a one day "tournament membership" for them.  If six were to show up, they would just play each other and I would save some money.)  I did play in an unrated section at a couple of tournaments I attended last year.  It was primarily a scholastic tournament, but there was a section for adults, and that section was unrated.  As best I could tell, the game we were playing was Chess, and it was exactly the same game as I played in rated tournaments, but the only people in attendance were a handful of parents.   The market demands ratings, I guess.

 Guilty as charged. 

When I first stumbled on organized Chess a few years ago, the first thing I did was sign on the the Michigan Chess Association web site to complain about high fees.  The second thing I did was to become a TD and host a tournament that had low fees.  (The third thing I did was wait until someone else also hosted a tournament with low fees, and played in it.  At the time I TD'ed my first event, I had never played a single game of rated chess.)

If you don't like something, change it.  It won't be easy, especially if what you like isn't very popular, but there's only so much you can do about that.  I keep trying to hold Shogi or Xiangqi sections alongside the Chess tournament, but I can't attract players.  I can't blame anyone else that no one wants to play my favorite variations.  Likewise, if not enough people want to start a tourney at 3:00, you won't be able to hold a 3:00 tourney, but that isn't the USCF's fault.

Of course, if you hold a 3:00 tourney, and they make it too expensive to play with the required membership, that is their fault, but that's a different issue.

I have some questions concerning what the USCF charges to rate games: 

A)  what is the current charge ? 

B) Has it gone down since computers/technology make the task much simpler ? 

c) In dual rated events is the charge doubled ? Since two ratings are impacted in dual rated events do they charge double ? Is the charge the same or costs more but not double ? 

So, if USCF dues are NOT for tournaments and is basically to keep a rating and keep track of it ( isnt that what the per game rating fee covers ? ) Why is USCF membership so expensive ? 

Why cant states use an elo rating program and keep track themselves of the ratings for registered players in their own states and just cut USCF out completely ? Surely some of the membership dues are used for a few national events ?  US Open, National Open , etc ?  

Isnt this the way its always been done until, perhaps recently ? It seems to me part of the problem is that everyone thinks that weaker players should be winning just as much money as the stronger players but without having to face them. This is just WRONG . Many times when I see too many sections what I see for the lower sections is that they only play among their own "class" ... while the "Open" section players are from 2000 up...so if some 2600 and 2500 GMs show up thats a lot more than one class , thats 3 classes !  2000-2199, 2200-2399 ,  ABOVE !  Why am I expected to compete with players more than a class above me when the lower sections often don't ? 

The USCF is an umbrella organization that provides administrative services.  Local organizers conduct tournaments.

The USCF "supervises" about 20 tournaments a year.  Local organizers bid for the privilege of conducting the tournaments, pay the USCF a fee, and the USCF declares them official tournaments.  (This is overly simplistic and somewhat cynical, but it's basically the way it works)

USCF dues pay for salaries, office space, utilities, etc.

 Yes, this is the way it's always been done.  I don't think that weaker players should be winning as much money as strong players.  I just think that each section should supply its own purse.  I'm in favor of lower prizes and lower entry fees for the lower sections.

This simply isnt feasible in most states. Ga for example has only 24 players over 2000 with maybe 10 of them over 2200 . Even at the state championship maybe half of them come, thats 12 players. I many states its even worse . Alabama has only 10 or 11 over 2000 with 3 or 4 of them over 2200. Last time I checked MS had none over 2200 and fewer than 6 over 2000. Some states dont have any over 2000. I am in favor of having one section when possible with class prizes if there are a min per class to warrant them. That min would need to be determined. Sections should have a min of 20 players so that a 5 round swiss doesnt result in strange/stupid pairings.... 30 per section is great. Bama seems to have it right, imo, with several tournies in the state making the Open 1500 and above with below 1500s in a reserve section...... they get about equal number in both sections. They dont get more than 60 to 70 players so more than 2 sections isnt required......

Because classes aren't evenly divided in players. There are a ton of lower class players and only a few higher class players.

 The free market at work.  Lower rated players wanted their own section, and there are enough of them to make organizers comply with their wishes.

I'm not making an analogy.

The comment was made that chess is dying, and as evidence they pointed to a poker tournament at a casino where 30 people show up and compared that to a chess club or small tournament where hardly anyone shows up. My point is not to make an analogy between them, but to point out that there are reasons for the difference that have nothing to do with the game.

The pricing structure for tournament entry strikes someone who is unfamiliar with chess' organizational structure to feel like they are being ripped off. The environments are less than comfortable for the fees paid. And compared with some for profit environments, the consumer is going to wonder, rightly, if they are getting their dollar's entertainment value out of the purchase of all those memberships and entry fees.

I'm not even going to bother pointing out that tournament organizers do a horrible job of advertising their events to those who don't already attend chess events. And if they do think to put a flyer up in the local coffee houses, it's nothing more than the USCF notice which is unintelligible to someone who is not familiar with how to read the gibberish that is a tournament announcement.

The issues with event participation have very little to do with chess dying as a game and everything to do with incompitence and sloth on the part of organizers.

 Then higher rated players will have to accept the fact that their prize funds are a pittance.  You may not like the situation, but you get what you are willing to pay for.