This question is for USCF members and for the people who have interest in the USCF. As you know, the USCF has had a lot of problems in many areas. The federation is constantly losing money, credibility, integrity, sponsors and supporters, etc. What would be the three to five most important things you would like to see change immediately?
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
Dump the entire Executive Board and start over.
New Blood
New Vision
New Face for US Chess
That’s what NEEDS to happen. Get that maniac Sloan back in jail where he belongs…
>>Dump the entire Executive Board and start over.>>
Though she didn’t state it explicitly, I think she was asking for useful comments.
New board
New marketing campaign
Stop wasting money
Ban Sam Sloan
Apologize to members and sponsors
I have no connection with Sam Sloan, and his website does seem to indicate a high degree of entropy and some track-record that would not encourage professional fundraisers and sponsors.
However, it’s not all about SS, and hopefully will not be about SS at all in the future.
In this blog, there is a lot of what I’d call ‘negative’ criticism rather than ‘constructive’ criticism of the USCF. Maybe this request for views is a ‘new leaf’ on the part of SP.
So … some priorities.
Clearly, number 1, the USCF has to get into a cash-positive state, so its costs and revenue-sources will need to be managed.
Not independently, number 2, the USCF should be clear on what difference it makes that is worth funding. This should define its aims in terms which are meaningful in both chess and non-chess terms. Is it trying to produce world-champions, trying to increase the generic vision- and mental-skills of the next generation, or what?
Third, it should define a limited set of ‘SMART’ objectives which it unambiguously delivers on.
Clearly, I’d like to see a more specific manifesto for the future from SP and ‘team’ than is in the candidate’s statements. I’m slightly concerned that there will be an SP-team within the Board which might subtract from the coherence of the Board.
>>I also agree. Dump the entire board. >>
In other words, you have no idea what needs to be done, but have faith that a random group of people would.
Not to be repetitive here, but I think she was asking for useful comments. If you have no idea, just say that you have no idea. Or say nothing.
Dump everything, start over.
>>Dump everything, start over.
One more vote for “I have no idea what to do, but I’m sure someone else would.”
Let’s try this one more time. When I say that Susan is asking for useful comments, that means she’s looking for ideas. Does that help?
1. Stronger sponsorship.
The USCF needs to increase ad revenue in Chess Life and also get bigger sponsorship at major tournaments.
2. Prestigious Tournaments.
The USCF needs to establish strong tournaments with a rich tradition. The USCF needs to create tournaments that rival the top tournaments in the world.
3. Retain youth.
The USCF needs to have a bigger percentage of youth continue on to play as adults. There is no reason the US can’t have a great group of natural born citizens with elite chess skills.
I have been in USCF as life member since Fischer days. I have seen 2 big problems that have never been solved.
1 has been a money problem. the USCF has gone up and down on this problem.
2 Getting sponsors and making chess professional. Nothing really noticeable has ever been done on this. This was a problem all during Fischer’s playing days and it almost seems much worse now that AF4C has left.
I must ammend the above statement. The one big thing that was done was the AF4C to be a sponsor and to professionalize chess. But the AF4C did it all on its own. They did not come about through the marketing efforts of the USCF. They came along because they saw how hopeless and helpless USCF could be in dropping the US Championships. So I want to give super credit to AF4C as the best organization and wonderful sponsor. And let it be known that USCF did nothing to deserve such a good sponsor.
I very much expect and hope that Susan will excell at helping chess get professional sponsors.
When we used to talk about this in the Fischer days we always wondered how come the USCF did not have a full time person out there trying to get sponsors. There are enough companies to contact and try to find some to help chess. One guy contacting all the companies in USA will be plenty busy. Of course it needs the “right” person. not everyone can accomplish this task.
The political parties have ways of raising money. Look at some of their methods. They reward successful money raisers. We need to get people excited about chess.
>>Jerry MacDonald said…
1. Stronger sponsorship.
The USCF needs to increase ad revenue in Chess Life and also get bigger sponsorship at major tournaments.>>
Good idea. Should we be looking for local sponsorship or nationwide? Should we be trying to get chess on TV, or focus elsewhere? IBM used to do a little on the local scene.
>>2. Prestigious Tournaments.
The USCF needs to establish strong tournaments with a rich tradition. The USCF needs to create tournaments that rival the top tournaments in the world.>>
Well, we’ve got the US Open, the World Open, the National Open, the American Open, et cetera. Lone Pine was well thought of in its time. I guess you mean a supertournament, like Wijk or Linares.
The Church’s tournament was a good one. Too bad that was never repeated.
Focus on chess please! USCF should focus on giving chess a positive image. With that you can then
– Get sponsors
– Attract and retain youth
– Repeat the above in a reinforcing cycle
I don’t care anymore about the destructive politics nastiness. If the focus isn’t on results, who cares? So it is destructive anymore but we still have no sponsors and kids leaving chess and chess relegated to a backwater activity. Who cares then?
Everyone should stop the negativity NOW and focus on chess. This is starting to feel like a bad political election where both sides are sniping at each other and someone eventually wins but no solutions to problems are implemented since all the mental energy was on the wrong stuff.
I would love to see better response from USCF personnel. I recently E-mailed a request and have heard nothing back. They need to follw through on their initatives. The postage stamp competition is a perfect example. I had all my students send in ideas …not a single follw up article or note anywhere. They are unresponsive at best.
We need to get chess into the news media and TV so that sponsors will get good coverage. If the only people to know about a tournament are the few people who attend why should the sponsor care.
How about selling a year long “Official xyz of chess players” logo. for example. Red Bull which is strong caffeine might want to be the official drink of chess players. or coca cola or pepsi etc. companies can do like they do in the olympics. buy the official title of drink of chess. I hope you get the idea.
Official pizza at chess tournaments. some pizza place might like that. they then advertise on TV that they are the thinking mans pizza. etc.
Churches Fried Chicken used to sponsor chess.
Find out how the olympics sell to sponsors. Chess needs to break away from its own community and get into main stream america. A recent tournament ACP was sponsored by a Bank. look into that. First order of business is to find out what is working now and see it you can make it continue to work. then branch out into new ideas to get sponsors.
Greg Shahade should have some ideas. He is doing well with his chess teams. He might have some suggestions based on his work getting sponsors.
Get rid of KRAMNIK !!!
>>Get rid of KRAMNIK !!!
Kramnik’s in the USCF? Funny that people who hate him all seem to do so out of ignorance.
Jeez, I’m no USCF member, but I do know that you’re lucky to have Susan and you should get her on the damned board ASAP.
What chess needs more than anything else is presentable people with some idea about money. If they happen to have been world champion and one of the greatest female players ever, that kind of helps too.
Instead, last time you elected a self-confessed child molester and serial litigant.
Get a grip people.
Percy.
To continue with those questions about Susan’s goals.
Susan, I assume you are running for USCF President. That is why you are putting forward a four person slate. If all four are elected, that represents a majority on the Executive Board.
So here are the questions:
(1) Is everybody on your slate pledged to vote for you as USCF President, assuming you are all elected?
(2) Perhaps the entire won’t be elected. So, Susan, if you are on the EB and you are not elected as USCF President, do you intend to be a regular USCF Executive Board member and support the decisions of the President and the EB, even when you are in the minority? Or, are you going to go your own way somehow — for example, by trying to start a rival organization in scholastic chess or some other area of chess?
1) More support for local club play and ladders
2) More quick tournaments
The problem with chess is location, $$$ and time. You need to take off from work, travel to a different city (airfare, hotel, food) etc. Local clubs are evaporating. Those that do have very little activities. Some of the bigger cities are also dismal…but if you want to push and supporty chess, you need to spread out and make live play easy..
What are the biggest issues in the USCF? The people to ask are not here reading this. They are not in the chess newsgroups, and they are not in the chess forums.
They may be on ICC, FICS or Yahoo Chess.
They are the past members of the USCF. They are the people who’s needs were not met despite their love of chess.
I am one of them, and admittedly I can only speak for myself. However I would encourage the USCF to stop hearing what they want to hear and contact past members, adult, scholastic, and even the chess mom’s and dad’s. Why are you no longer involved? Then you will have a wonderful list of valid issues.
My issue was that I wanted to play chess. I wanted a rating so I had a measure of my improvement. The only way to do so was tournament play, which because of prize money, was too expensive to justify. Add the price of USCF and State chess membership to the cost of playing a monthly tournament, and it was just too rich for my wallet.
I can think of no other “recreational sport” that insists upon cash for the winners. I wanted to play for the love of the game. The USCF was not the answer.
If Sam sloan and Susan Polgar are on the board together it will be a very interesting USCF!!!
I think Paul has a good point, and I hope Susan is listening.
The slow decline of the USCF seems to have coincided with a push to make tournaments about more than playing chess.
(1) Big-time tournaments that are more gambling than skill, with expensive entry fees and a few big prizes. These were always sold as a way to make chess seem important to outsiders, but it was not important to insiders and a few news articles did not make up for a decline in member interest.
(2) Kid’s tournaments that emphasize winning and not playing. As a 20+ year USCF member, with a 10-year old that plays chess, I do not care who wins or who is the 5th grade champ or how much they won as a scholarship. This is not important.
I do not feel important to USCF because I am not a kid and I do not want to pay $200 for a lottery drawing at a big check.
All I want to do, ever, is play chess.
Why isn’t that enough anymore?
At a high level, the main missions of the USCF should be
(1) to perform those chess functions that must be performed by a single monopolistic “official” national organization;
(2) to foster and support a wide and vibrant variety of other national, state, and local organizations and businesses to perform all other chess functions.
Accordingly, the USCF should reduce itself to being a small volunteer-run democratic organization that:
(1) is the authority for the laws of chess in the US. The current edition of the Laws of Chess should be available on the USCF a web-site for free, or should be purchasable in book form for low cost. The USCF should provide an easily accessible arbitration/judicial process for disputes that arise under the Laws of Chess.
(2) provides very low-cost national chess ratings to:
(a) club players, including school, military, etc clubs, for all clubs that wish to participate.
(b) tournament players.
(c) on-line players on all chess servers where the server operator opts in.
(d) correspondence players belonging to all CC organizations that wish to participate.
Rating fees should be paid by organizers of tournaments and clubs, not by the players. The ratings fees should be per rated game, and should be based on the cost. That cost should be much lower than the current cost per game charged by the USCF to tournament organizers. It should be on the order of 5 cents per game (not 5 cents per player per game. 5 cents per game.)
(3) is the FIDE affiliate in the U.S.. It should elect delegates to FIDE meetings and select the players and teams who will represent the U.S. in FIDE events, such as the various World Chess Championships and the Chess Olympics. The selection processes should be well-defined, rational, transparent, and where appropriate, democratic. It should help raise the travel funds and training for these players.
(4) Certifies national and international chess titles for players, tournament directors, and trainer/coaches.
The USCF should get out of the business of organizing tournaments, except for the “US Championship” in various categories, and the latter should for the most part be awarded to organizers and sponsors based on a well-defined and transparent bidding process.
The USCF should let other organizations represent the interests of American professional chess
players.
The USCF should not try to compete with other chess businesses and organizations, but rather support and encourage them. In general, it should not try to select one particular business or organization as the USCF “approved” one in any particular domain. In particular, it should not do this in return for a payment. If it does do so for any reason, the process for approval or certification should be transparent, documented, rational, and should be available on the same basis to all organizations that qualify. The USCF should never do “exclusive” deals with any organization for approval or certification.
For example, there should be no USCF-approved internet chess server. No USCF-approved tournament direction software, unless approval is available on the same basis to all chess servers and developers of TD software.
The USCF should get out of the chess magazine publishing business. If there is still sufficient demand for a chess magazine in the Internet age, a commercial publishing organization will do a better job. Look at, for example, New in Chess, or Europe Echecs, which are published by commercial companies.
The USCF should get out of the web-site publishing business, other than a small completely free web-site about chess events in the U.S, USCF activities, national ratings, and a organization directory.
The USCF should get out of the chess book and equipment business.
There should be two levels of USCF membership:
(1) A basic *free* membership, entitling the person to a national chess rating, and allowing access to a directory web-site, where other organizations and business can advertise their services, events. A “basic” member should also be able to opt-in to having his/her email address sent to interested organizations, businesses of various well-defined categories.
(2) A Sustaining membership allowing the person to vote and run for office in the USCF. This should cost $200 per year Chess businesses, organizations, and individuals should be permitted to become “Sustaining” members, but only individuals should be allowed to vote. A sustaining membership would also allow the organization or person to be listed in the USCF official directory web-site mentioned above and to have access to the opt-in mailing lists.
Regarding cash prizes, I agree.
Because of the lack of sponsors, and the niche status of the game, we’ve evolved a chess culture in the U.S. where amateur players are expected to fund prizes for professional players.
The effect is (a) tournaments are expensive for amateur players; (b) despite the occasional big payday, it is a lottery even for the top players, and there isn’t really enough money in the game to allow chess professionals to make a living. At many of the big opens, the money is going to foreign players, which hardly makes sense at all.
By having a lot of sections and larage section prizes the tournament organizers can attract players and stage a few big tournaments per year. The lottery aspect of the large section prizes attracts some people, but also engenders sandbagging and, even, other types of cheating. These are big problems.
There should be two types of tournaments in the U.S.
Professional tournaments with large cash prizes, either invitationals or open tournaments. The expectation should be that the prize-winners will be top players, probably professionals. The prizes should come from sponsors. Entry should be free, and indeed in some cases the players might be paid to appear. The tournament format should be designed to be internet and sponsor / media-friendly.
Amateur tournaments with minimal or no prizes other than medals, trophies, and titles (such as Massachusetts Chess Champion). Players should expect to pay a small fee to enter to cover costs, in addition to paying their own travel costs, if they need to travel.
There is no reason why these different types of events should not be combined into large omnibus events with multiple sections, as is frequently done in Europe with chess “congresses”, “festivals”, etc. In those, there are one or more professional sections and numerous other “class” sections and events, including usually many for amateurs. Sometimes, the professional sections are technically open, but only a top player has a chance of winning. There might be a minimum rating required to enter an “open” section with a substantial prize.
When I was living in France, I loved playing in festivals. They are great fun, and not expensive. Normally, they are in the summer in seaside resorts, etc. I never won anything. I was never in a section where I could have won any serious money. And I never paid more than about 200 francs to enter. At the time, that was about $30. I never saw one of these festivals that was like the World Open with a $350 to $400 entry fee, or even the USCF-sponsored US Open with an onsite entry fee of $180. Those entry fees seem absurd to me. Is it any wonder that there aren’t very many tournament players?
Yet at these tournaments, I got to see Karpov, Kasparov, and a lot of other top players compete. In a lot of chess events in Europe, the audience that you see in the videos actually consists of amateur players who are also playing in the lower sections of the tournament.
Having said all that, this isn’t primarily a USCF issue. The USCF doesn’t organize many tournaments. If you want to change chess tournament culture in the U.S., you have to get the message to chess organizers.
The big part that the USCF has to play in this is to try to reduce the various USCF taxes that it imposes, which drive up costs, and to help get sponsors for tournaments. Then the financial drag on tournament players, who are today funding chess prizes for professionals , and lottery prizes for sandbaggers (and occasionally another amateur) will be smaller.
Of course, you can’t expect the USCF to change this as long Bill Goichberg is the President of the USCF. He’s the head of the Continental Chess Association, and makes his living organizing those big, expensive, lotteries … I mean chess tournaments.
Many of the comments simply call on the USCF to raise more money and attract more sponsors. As one who has actually had to try to do that in other fields, let me caution that finding sponsors is a time-consuming and difficult task. Although I agree that the USCF has not recently done this well, it is important to realize the problem of the times in which we live. Corporate sponsors do not give their money away. When they sponsor sporting events, they hope that patrons (and viewers) will be aware of their sponsorship and buy their products. American chess, at the moment, offers few events from which serious sponsors would expect a bounce in sales.
I suspect that a serious marketing professional would quickly identify the online world as the realm of greatest future growth in chess. As it is plainly too late for USCF to offer, on its own, a leading chessplaying venue on the Web, it must (as many have said) partner with an existing one. But, like it or not, USCF would be the weaker party in such a partnership, and the existing venue must be persuaded that USCF can bring added value to the venture.
What would the added value be? The answer suggests itself. USCF would offer to bring in advertisers to offer a presence on the partner chess server. People young and old spend hours and hours a day on ICC or Playchess. Both are doubtless working on ways to become advertiser-supported platforms without distracting from the play. If they beat USCF to the punch, I fear our beloved Federation (I am a life member) will wind up with little to offer the sponsors we all agree we need.
I think I have read some interesting ideas here, but I would offer one thought: The USCF Executive Board Needs to become independent overseers. There are and have been too many agendas present and numerous conflicts of interest.
The integrety and objectivity is crucial for credibility and any sustainable growth. The EB must rise above the snakes and deliver a real vision and strategy. Stop the outflow of money into these peoples pockets.
I am perpetually frustrated as each new savior comes forth and pillages while six figures become misplaced and missing.
You would think if someone is being compensated to market chess, that we would have some sponsorships like..Smartwater, or some energy drink that would want to feature the US Chess champion prominently…….
Just a few thoughts for now
The USCF is a non-profit 501(c)(3) tax-exempt entity organized for charitable, educational, or scientific purposes. It isn’t a business. It emphatically should not be doing “deals” with any one chess server for the purpose of generating revenue.
If the USCF involves itself in online chess, it should do so because it has something to provide and it should work with all online chess servers that want to be involved on an equal footing.
The only thing that I can see the USCF offering in the internet chess space is a national chess rating that is portable between different servers and comparable in some systematic way with OTB ratings.
I am not sure that most online players will find that of interest, but if the USCF gets involved in that, it should offer it on the same basis to all online chess servers that meet some rational, fair standard.
And that standard shouldn’t be how large a bribe the chess server company is prepared to pay.
I’m fed up with the USCF operating as a business and doing sleazy deals, abandoning the non-profit purpose of the organization. Who wants to support that?
This has come about because the USCF is perpetually in a financial hole and hunting for money, and the main reasons for that are (1) financial mismanagement; and (2) they insist on continuing to publish, at a loss, the world’s highest-budget, and worst, chess magazine.
I agree. And how is working with chess server operators to introduce advertising on currently advertising-free servers, providing a public benefit?
Let’s keep in mind that USCF is a supposed to be operated in the public interest.
If it can’t operate in the public interest and remain financially viable, then the alternative isn’t to start operating as a business in its own interest. The alternative is to shut itself down.
Susan’s question is profoundly unproductive since it’s directed at USCF members, of which there are about 100,000, rather than US chess player in general (potential USCF members), of which there are something like 40 million. Trying to do what’s best for chess shouldn’t ignore 99.75% of the players.
I myself quit the USCF many years ago. In its current form, it’s a useless bureaucracy, and all the minor changes being discussed will keep it a useless bureaucracy. It needs absolutely radical re-envisioning and re-invention to achieve the kinds of goals Susan wants. That is why I think getting involved with it and running for EB are a waste of Susan’s talents and energy. The USCF is controlled by vested interests deriving income from a tiny and not-that-worthwhile segment of chess, but that segment has the support of most members because those are the 0.25% of players who haven’t quit or declined to join in the first place. It’s better to just dump the USCF and its useless hacks, and start over, aiming at the other 99.75%.
The USCF has focused on services to its members for a long time rather than on how it can advance the scope of chess as a positive cultural force in the United States.
It always interprets the question of how to make progress in American chess solely as how USCF membership can be increased and how USCF financial stability can be achieved. One wonders if it has occurred to any USCF members, or Susan even, that American chess and USCF are not synonymous.
In any event, the USCF is a very inwardly-focused organization — so much so that one wonders if its status as a tax-exempt charitable and educational organization is really warranted. The tax laws specifically say that an organization cannot be tax-exempt if it only focuses on providing a benefit to its members.
Tax laws aside, the only reason to support such an organization is if you happen to be a satisfied customer for its services. How many of those are there? Of course, if you are making money somehow from USCF, that is another reason to be involved.
I don’t know if the USCF can be turned around, given its self-inflicted financial problems and dysfunctional politics. (And to be honest I don’t see Susan as very different in this regard.) But if it is going to turn around, then it will only be by shifting its focus outward — to the millions of people in the country who are interested in chess, not the few tournament players and magazine subscribers it currently serves.