Problems with US Chess

WhatCheck,

thanks for the comment, really. You got me thinking about what I can do, to promote chess. I am not interested in chess as an end in itself, but as a tool that can help our youth to improve in other areas. So, maybe the prizes for the kids could be some thing else, besides money.

At any rate, thanks again for the reminder that the solution is in each one of us.

Gracia & Paz

AlexV

 It costs 25 cents to rate a game.  No additional charge for dual ratings.  I don't know how that compares to the costs from pre-computer days.  That was before my time (in Chess).

As for cutting out USCF and keeping track of ratings in other ways, good question.   For some reason, people really are concerned with having that "official" rating.  I don't know why.  As I noted, when I played unrated Chess it was still the same game, but a lot of people who go to tournaments won't go to an unrated tournament.  I see the rating as a convenient method to provide reasonable pairings, but other people seem to see it as much more central to the game.

Even in unofficial venues, such as here, there's a need for a rating system to help provide reasonable pairings. So since there's an established mechanism to do that, no one has given any consideration to really building a duplicate structure to track ratings in a convinient manner.

However, it would be relatively trivial to do so. A server with a mysql installed and a few hundred lines of code would be able to do it well enough for the whole country. The ability to pull in and compare ratings from various sites and agencies would actually be a neat feature of such a beast as well.

1700 is an odd hour to eat, too early for dinner/supper and too late for lunch. I dont normally eat any meal at 1700, maybe you do ? I also dont go to bed at 18:30, I normally go to bed from midnight to 1 am , 0100 if you prefer. As for Fischer ( increment clocks) I probably use them more than you do since I have been playing almost exclusively in Spain and Portugal for the last 14 years. Keep guessing and being a clown...... you might guess something right eventually, I will let you know when you do... 

This is very sad . When I was a lower rated player I wanted a chance to play really strong players and it would be the highlight of the event for me if I got paired against a master or expert ! Now it seems most lower rateds would rather play among themselves and not play anyone who they might actually learn something from and improve. This only promotes sandbagging and stagnation and is a key reason why the US cant even come close to Europe in producing really strong players. 

 There is some merit to what you say.  I think that there are two types of chess players:  Those who play for recreation and are not interested in improving, and those who are trying to improve.  The former play within their class, the latter usually play up one or two classes. 

I love the chance to play people rated 200-300 points above me. I can learn something from them and enjoy taking the beating it costs me. I even manage to win one or two which is a nice boost to my own sense of accomplishment. But sitting down to play a master (500+ or more points above me) of any stripe doesn't do much for either my education or ego.

I know I'm going to lose. He knows I'm going to lose. And worse, I know he doesn't even need to pay attention to beat me. I get no enjoyment out of wasting anyone's time, and in an OTB competition, I'm a waste of the master's time. Moreover, I won't learn from what he does, because by and large it's going to be just me looking at the board thinking "well, I can resign now, or next move."

There's nothing wrong wtih wanting to be in a bracket where you are competative even if you're expected to lose. Playing up a bracket is great, playing against Master's when you're class C is not.

Yes, TD's can play in their own tournaments. It is suggested that a TD shouldn't play in their own tournament but the USCF takes the approach that if TD could not play in their own events then some tournaments (many smaller ones especially) wouldn't be held at all.

An assistant TD should be appointed so they can adjucate any issues in the TD's games though.

When I hold a tournment I have myself as the house player; I don't pay an entry fee and am not eligible for prizes if I score well enough (removing one potential for perceived conflict of interest). If there are an odd number of players I will be paired. If there are an even number, I don't play.

Actually, I know of one company that does provide an alternate rating mechanism; Chess Express Ratings. I don't really know a whole lot about them but I know they provide their own ratings infrastructure. Of course, since the USCF is the recognized FIDE federation for the US they are the only "official" rating.

I don't think a USCF rating means anything to FIDE. When I moved to Europe in 97 I was over 2200 (uscf) but in my first fide rated events had to start over as an unrated player. Also, I believe if a player has both a fide rating and a uscf rating I have heard different things about which rating is used. I have heard that the higher of the two is used. I have heard that the fide rating is used. I have heard that if the event being played is fide rated the fide rating MUST be used, regardless of which is higher. I have heard if its a uscf event that is not fide rated the USCF rating is used , regardless of which is higher. If you play a uscf event and have no uscf rating but do have a fide rating they will use your fide rating...... who knows ? 

The old NW ratings are long gone. While a bit inflated, we got our ratings updated monthly instead of relying on quarterly USCF updates to chart our progress. We also heard some absurd things like a USCF class A claiming to be a Northwest Expert, as if that was something real.

We still have some regional scholastic rating systems.

I like the K factor that fide uses . Maybe states should take over tracking ratings from USCF and model theirs after the fide formula ? If players could stop paying USCF ( for nothing ) they could afford to pay a tad more to their respective state organizations ?  To have to pay both on top of entry fees, hotels, meals out, gas going up will eventually kill otb chess tournies in the US. I like that most (all ? ) states do honor memberships from other states though so that when you travel to another state you dont also have to join that state's organization... 

 I don't think that a $30-$40 per year for a USCF membership will kill OTB chess.  My typical expenses for a weekend tournament.  Gasoline: $30; Entry fee: $60; Hotel: $100; Food: $50.  I play in about 10 tournaments a year (Most are one day tournaments.  Thus, I only have the gasoline cost and the entry fee[typically $20]), so the cost of the USCF membership per tournament is $3.60 (I get the senior rate).  This is chump change.  Also, for most tournaments, new players can purchase a tournament only membership, which will be applied to their yearly membership if they decide to join later.

I have thought about playing in one of the major tournaments in Chicago.  The hotel bill alone will cost $500-$600.  This time, the cost of the USCF membership is really chump change.

Chess is declining in the US because of a lack of interest (perhaps because of the high cost of entry fees, gasoline, hotel bills, and food).

The players I know that have stopped playing or play half as much as they used to have cited the two main reasons for them are the ever escalating costs of going to tournaments combined with tournament formats that they dont like. Granted , I am speaking of players rated over 2000 , I am sure class players are more pleased with current tournament formats than higher rated players. 

You are already a committed tournament player. The issue here is not maintaining the hardcore players. It's trying to attract the casuals to the experience.

$32 USCF membership

$20 equipment

$XX state membership

$XX entry fee

Just to play in your first tournament is a bit much.

 By tournament format, I assume that you mean the prize structure.  There are 1800 active USCF members rated over 2000; there are 32,000 rated under 1357 (I'm ranked 12,600  out of 45,000).  Without donations from sponsors, the prize fund for strong players will alway be small (we lower rated players can only afford limited subsidization).

If you were me, wouldn't you resent supplying the bulk of the prize fund and receiving only a pittance.

 The best way to attract casual players is to hold unsanctioned tournaments.  A few of the players may get hooked and move on to sanctioned tournaments.

As a aside, I am not a committed tournament player, I am a casual player.  I play in tournaments because there is nothing else available (I've only been able to find one local opponent).  I would actually prefer to play in local unsanctioned tournaments and avoid the additional costs.

If the costs were more moderate, would that still be your preference?

Actually, no. I was at your level back in the early to mid 70s and there were no big prizes for class players. Ofcourse they could enter the Open and compete against better players and IF they won they would get whatever 1st place was. Even at 2200 there were tournies I attended in the US where I had NO Chance of winning any of the first 3 prizes because of GMs and IMs playing and NMs over 2300 and in most of those there was no under 2300 or under 2400 prize I had a shot at. I played in Benasque 2004 and rated a little over 2200 FIDE was only player 99 or so on the wall chart and there were a few more than 400 players. Everyone played in one section but it was a 10 round swiss..... GM Pavel Eljanov ( Ukraine ) won that event. The event had more than 30 GMs and more than 30 IMs playing... I wasnt concerned where my entry fee was going and knew I didnt have a chance in the world at any prize, but I play chess to try and improve, why do you play ?