This is a real situation and I would like to hear your feedback. Therefore, please comment on this. Thank you.
You are a chess Dad or Mom. You love your children and they love chess. You support them. You pay for their chess lessons. You take them to chess tournaments, first locally then state and finally national. You spend thousands of your hard earned dollars to support your children. Why? Because you love your children and even if you have to work overtime to make a few extra bucks, you would, so they can compete. Sounds familiar? This is what thousands and thousands of chess parents do every year.
Now, something different enters the picture. Company XYZ offers to sponsor a special annual existing tournament limited to only the top 50 young players. Company XYZ offers to pay for the accommodations and meals for the prestigious ABC chess tournament to the top 50 kids in the country. This event is 6-7 days long. The cost of the hotel is $125 a night (including taxes) x 7 nights + meals. That would be over $1,000 for each kid. They would even offer discounted prices for parents and coaches. On top of that, this XYZ company also offers a full college scholarship worth around $30,000 to the winner and other smaller cash scholarships and prizes.
The catch is company XYZ would like to have a permanent home to this prestigious annual ABC chess tournament at their incredible facility in Chicago, Salt Lake City or Boise, Idaho. This would be a win win situation because company XYZ would get the wonderful publicity and chess parents / young players would save $50,000 in expenses each year. This is how all sponsorships should be.
The down side is the USCF would lose about $2,500 in entry fees for these 50 young players which they normally would collect from them. The reason why the USCF would lose is there would be no entry fees to collect. But there is no down side for the players or parents.
So my questions for the chess parents are:
1. Would you vote for this sponsorship because of the $50,000 savings a year and zero negative to you or your children?
2. Would you vote against this sponsorship because the USCF would lose $2,500 in entry fees?
This is a poll for chess parents ONLY. Clarification, the ABC scholastic chess tournament would be something like a 50 player invitational event and not a part of any other national scholastic events such as the National K-12. A good example would be the Susan Polgar National Invitational for Girls. My vote is to take the sponsorship deal to save money for the parents and young players.
The $2500 in entry fees would EASILY be made up by increased participation resulting from such good, solid promotion. No doubt about it. On the surface, it looks incredibly small-minded and ridiculous to turn it down.
I must be misunderstanding the question. I’m not sure how the USCF loses $2500 in entry fees by my kid playing in a tournament. Even if this tournament is not USCF rated (which I infer from the question), it doesn’t seem to be a given that each one of those kids would be playing in a USCF tournament that same week, if they weren’t playing here. Does this tournament conflict with the National Scholastic Championship, or something?
I’m also not sure how I get to “vote” on it. XYZ is pretty high up on the Fortune 500. If they decide they’re having a tournament, they’re going to go right ahead with it no matter what I say.
Is this a trick question?
As a chess parent (not of a kid likely to qualify anytime soon, though it would sure be cool if he did), of course I would support this.
Yes, I vote for 1.
I know the USCF. They would say no because if Susan or Paul find this sponsor, they will just reject. Politics! Pure and simple.
Is this a joke? Has to be #1.
Not clear to me if the ABC event is
() standalone, or
() part of a larger festival, on the scale of the Burt Lerner Nashville event earlier this month.
Either way, the answer is yes: A standalone event does not detract from other tournaments (unless they would be the same week, elsewhere). A centerpiece tournament as a larger event would probably attract more to lower sections just by publicity.
[I’m not a chess parent, but my parents sure were!]
IM Ken Regan
Do not turn this down.
As a chess parent I’d want the best future for my kid no matter what amount of money.
And I should think $2500 per annum for USCF is like pocket change!
I agree with 2nd person posting.
It has nothing to do with USCF. The company can set up any tournament they want and invite whoever they want, and give the players as much money as they want.
One needs to consider long-term impact, not short-term. The immediate result is that USCF loses a couple thousand dollars, but the long-term result is that the USCF now has a good CORPORATE SPONSOR! That means better advertisement, better prizes… it’s a no-brainer. I choose option #1. And I believe Polgar, Korenman, Truong, and Bauer would choose option #1 as well.
– James L., Proud Chess Parent
Well I am not a chess parent (yet). But I would still like to comment on this interesting situation.
As a teenager my parents never supported me in my dream to become a serious and strong chess player. Everything I did in chess I had to do myself. I think this is a problem for many children and why they lose interest in the game once they grow out of the scholastic scene.
I also think that the USCF should take the loss to provide this great opportunity to children to allow them to follow their dreams. Another thing which was not mentioned is that maybe the USCF should open things up for donations from chess enthusiasts throughout the US. I am sure many chess players would be willing to donate into a fund for this type of activity.
Without the younger generations engaging in chess our wonderful game will disappear from the US. It is critical that we provide the younger generation with many opportunities to become successful with the game of chess.
If I ever become a parent and my child has an interest in chess I will support them 110% and do all I can to allow them to follow their dreams in chess as I did not have this opportunity as a young player.
The USCF’s mission statement is as follows:
“USCF is a not-for-profit membership organization devoted to extending the role of chess in American society.
USCF promotes the study and knowledge of the game of chess, for its own sake as an art and enjoyment, but also as a means for the improvement of society. It informs, educates, and fosters the development of players (professional and amateur) and potential players. It encourages the development of a network of institutions devoted to enhancing the growth of chess, from local clubs to state and regional associations, and it promotes chess in American schools.
To these ends, USCF offers a monthly magazine, as well as targeted publications to its members and others. It supervises the organization of the U.S. chess championship, an open tournament every summer, and other national events. It offers a wide range of books and services to its members and others at prices consistent with the benefit of its members.
USCF serves as the governing body for chess in the United States and as a participant in international chess organizations and projects. It is structured to ensure effective democratic procedures in accord with its bylaws and the laws of the state of Illinois.”
Now, they would be contradicting their own mission statement by turning down such a generous offer in my opinion.
Okay, I’ll bite. What did the USCF do this time?
As a Chess Parent I vote for number 1. This would increase participation in the qualifying events around the country which would increase USCF income. This is a no brainer.
Definitely a no-brainer. And you’d think the USCF Board has plenty of people qualified to make such decisions.
Susan, when this poll is done, how about doing a poll of just those NOT associated with scholastic chess. I’d imagine chess parents are going to be virtually 100% united on this one. Excluding the non-parents from this list denies us the chance to see whether other USCF members can also see this issue as a no-brainer. I’d bet about 90% would agree with the scholastic crowd.
GM Polgar, your question is loaded in such a way to make the answer obvious. Just a few items that you neglected: 1. This tournament being sponsored by XYZ might have a historical connection dating back many years with a USCF event, in such a way that many players attend both events. 2. The loss in entry fees exceeds $2500 because of entries by parents, siblings and coaches. 3. The loss to the USCF extends to other forms of income such as a hotel contract.
I am afraid that from the point of view of the USCF, this deal is a no-brainer. I see little for them to gain and a major blow to an event that is already struggling each year.
That said, the idea has some merit for these top 50 kids and their parents. My guess is that some would love the concept while others would decline to play in an event where they can’t face titled players at all. I am still undecided myself, although I would be directly affected by any changes.
Michael Aigner
Answer number one certainly would be a win/win/win situation, for the children, parents, sponsor, and would also be a long term investment in U.S. Chess.
Let’s also keep in mind that there are many of us who cannot afford to attend most events. That leaves out a lot of gifted kids. …Rich
Three more comments: 4. The historical connection between the event that XYZ corporation wants to sponsor and the associated major USCF event has another consequence. Specifically, for the top players it is important to be able to play in the USCF event as well, just for the competition. Some top players will decline to play otherwise. 5. A college scholarship means less to a strong academic student (many top chess players are) whose primary goal is to attend MIT, Harvard or Stanford. This was not meant as a slam against UMBC, UTD or TexasTech, but merely a statement of the reality of today’s competitive college environment. 6. The travel cost to parents is already mitigated by support from other entities such as state organizations. Most players receive a travel stipend ranging from $300 to $1000. Hence, the $50,000 total cost quoted in the story is high.
Michael Aigner
michael, are you a chess dad? do you pay for your kids to compete? i do. i work hard for my money and i appreciate choice 1. the uscf should start thinking about us parents once in a while.
1 for sure. I will vote against any candidate who votes for option 2.
I would say more than $50,000. It would be $80,000 if you include the 50 girls. Maybe even $90,000 savings a year. This is a no brainer. Choice 1 all the way.
Why was this poll restricted to chess parents only?
I’m a chess parent and I help coach our school’s chess team. My vote is for sponsorship and foregoing the USCF.
–h
I saw this thread discuss on USCF forums. Sponor want to move tournament to their location, and pay for players expense. USCF officers objects because
1. US Open has the same location and the same day, so players play Denker will register for US Open to increase USCF revenue.
2. USCF can get better rate for hotel becasue more players (50 ) to stay in the hotel.
3. USCF argue that because state association pay portion of expense, so it is not expensive.
4. players lose chance to play on US open
From chess parents point of view, It is great that sponsor pay for the expense. There are other Open that players can attend that is close to home.
Chiiwen
I am a chess coach who attended the event in question last year. I can unequivocably say that my student last year would not have attended if the two tournaments were separated. As a master like him, it is important to get to play in the major USCF event that happens simultaneously.
Let me ask: Why is the New York representative a 2000 player? Of course, the top juniors from New York are 2400+ rated, but they’re not interested.
Michael Aigner
60% of the membership of USCF is scholastic. The USCF is afraid of the scholastic members. Oklahoma has 2 organizations. One more or less for adults and one with scholastics having more representation. the Scholastic one is the old and present official USCF affiliate. The adults did not like the scholastics having any say and started a new organization to try to crush the old one with scholastic representation. Of course the problem is that the old one is the official affiliate of USCF.
Have the sponsor donate $2,500 to USCF. Then they have no complaints. The $2,500 is minor cost.
Definitely go with the company. This is the kind of thing that chess needs. Real Sponsors doing something for chess.
I have another idea. company XYZ should take $50,000 and buy as many memberships as possible before the end of May and then vote the present USCF out of office.
Haha. That would teach them to be nice. I will not say anything negative about the present people who run the USCF. I will just have a good laugh.
The company should put on a competiting tournament and lets see which one the kids show up at.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Anonymous said…
Take the deal to save. Stupid not to.
Friday, May 25, 2007 9:22:00 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes it is stupid but remember this is the USCF.
more comments needed. haha.
>>>>>>>>>>>
Anonymous said…
michael, are you a chess dad? do you pay for your kids to compete? i do. i work hard for my money and i appreciate choice 1. the uscf should start thinking about us parents once in a while.
Friday, May 25, 2007 11:42:00 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No Mike is a great guy and a super chess coach of kids but he is not a dad. He really does not face the costs.
It is a major committment to pay out this kind of money for a tournament by most parents. We parents need help.
NOW THE KICKER.
If the USCF does not treat the Scholastic players better there is presently close to a revolution. Scholastic players and parents are not happy with the USCF and many are calling for the start of an independent chess organization for students. So if the USCF refuses to cooperate with the parents they face a possible revolution and breaking away of scholastic students from the USCF.
The present USCF wants total control. They do not want sponsors because the influx of money causes them to lose a little bit of their control. After all if someone spends $50,000 on a tournament they want some say in how it is run.
Watch out we are now seeing USCF politics at its dirtiest. The USCF will vote down any thing from Susan Polgar. They are petrified of Susan. They are scared stiff. They are losing control of their little $3 million dollar per year income to spend. The USCF control freeks are total selfish.
The powers that be at USCF are filling the forums with blasts at the scholastics. They want to stop “giving” the scholastics anything. They claim the USCF is not a scholastic organization. It is for adults and they want to take back total control. This is no laughing matter. These guys are serious.
Several other candidates have come out strongly against scholastics. They must perceive that bashing scholastics right now is the way to get the vote. Remember right now the scholastics pretty much do not have the vote. So they are playing up to the adult members on the forums.
Unfortunately, Mike fpawn is correct. The USCF is not going to approve any such tournament. The powers that control are dead set against it.
I would vote for this sponsorship.
Dear Susan,
As others have said, it is a no brainer. I vote for #1, being a chess parent myself.
Any national chess organization should work towards making life easy for young chess players and their parents. I read somewhere that a young Indian GM’s family (he is only 13) spends nearly 30,000 USD per year on travel and tournament expenses. How many chess families in the US can afford that? If a corporate sponser is available for a chess tournament, USCF should go all out to get it, even if some politicians and political considerations should take a back seat.
Regards,
Ravi Kulkarni
I am guessing from reading the lines that the event is the Denker tournament. De-coupling Denker and US Open will likely hurt US Open financially, not just $2500 as you stated. I am no insider but I assume that the event is at best making even currently. The loss to USCF will likely be much higher.
Also, many Denker players played in both Denker and US Open and enjoyed the challenge. For instance, there were only 2 masters in Denker last year but many more in US Open. If you poll Denker players, many will tell you that they treasure the experience playing in both events. As fpawn have pointed out, most already have some financial assistence from their state federations.
Will the XYZ corporation consider holding a new invitational event with the blessing and endorsement of USCF? What about sponsoring Junior Closed, Cadet, and maybe a new Girls Closed (different from Polgar Iniviational)? I am sure USCF board will be more inclined to accept such sponsorships.
As a responsible board, they should consider and explore all possibilities. If you are involved in the proposal, you may want to work with XYZ corporation to come up with a proposal that is acceptable and beneficial to all. Don’t be tied down on a specific event.
Just imagine what USCF would do if some organization proposes to sponsor and take full control of future US Championships. You know the answer…
– a chess dad
Michael, I think her real question is whether it makes more sense to put kids and chess promotion first or to put the institution (USCF)first? Putting kids and chess first, the institution ultimately comes out stronger than it would if the institution takes priority. Who wants to be associated with an organization that puts itself above its constituency?
The manner that the description of events is related here is very unfortunate. I am astonished that GM Polgar would choose to stoop to this level. I had expected better.
Not only have I been a chess parent, I am now a chess grandparent, for whatever that matters.
Steve Owens in Tennessee
Susan;
I do not like this question. You obviously have a real situation in mind, and should just talk about it.
The conflict seems to be a good tournament sponsorship deal that cuts into USCF revenue and therefore hurts all members NOT going to this tournament.
Simple solution; sponsor must, to get all that marketing from hosting a USCF event, pay USCF the $2500. That is a small cost on top of the others.
Any competent board member would support this idea. Damaging USCF cash flow to benefit a small group is foolish when a simple solution is available.
Especially when that $2,500 is needed to deal with the most pressing problem facing USCF; loss of adult members due to excessive focus on children’s events.
Ken
fpawn stated “The travel cost to parents is already mitigated by support from other entities such as state organizations. Most players receive a travel stipend ranging from $300 to $1000. Hence, the $50,000 total cost quoted in the story is high.”
Why should state organizations have to shoulder that cost for a NATIONAL event when a sponsor could
help. Chess will never make it into
the big leagues if the USCF board continues to hunker down and have such a narrow view.
It’s not the responsibility of the parents or kids to support the uscf. It’s worse when Mr. Sam Sloan lied to the members and insulted the sponsors.
Stop taking advantage of the parents. Take this deal. We’re not cash cows for Mr. Goichberg.
Take the sponsorship. Mr. Sloan killed the AF4C and Mr. Goiberg killed Eric Moskow. Now he wants to kill this too. It’s 100% politics. I vote for 1.
Steve, you’re quite obnoxious, aren’t you?
The issue as I see it is that there is a significant difference between sponsors wanting to sponsor a national championship for kids and a US Open tournament.
The problem is that by being associated with the USCF, scholastic and junior chess is limiting its ability to generate sponsorships.
In one case, the sponsor wants to associate itself with a group of 50 talented junior players.
In the case of the USCF, hardly anyone wants to associate with them.
As far as the kids are concerned, option #1 is far superior.
The answer is there needs to be a completely separate organization for scholastic and junior chess and someone needs to take advantage of the marketing appeal of such an organization. Let the USCF have its named tournament if it won’t give it to you. I’m sure that someone will donate their name to this tournament and the financial aspects of it will attract the players.
I would like to see a break up of USCF budget v/s the reveneue by segment. It would be interesting to see how much scholastic segment contributes to USCF and what percentage is spent on events scholastic. Does anyone have these numbers?
Ravi
heirThe $2500 should not come into play per se. But, the national organization, should be involved, lend credit and prestige, and participate in the sponsorship (meaning they get paid), just like in other major sports.
This should be a partnership between the USCF, and the sponsor, and the winners should be everyone. The sponsor, the kids, AND the USCF.
For me personally the $2500 dollars means more than the scholarship. I am a chess parent. I do all the things you ascribe. However, I am not a parent of one of those kids. So the missing $2500 has a direct affect on me.
However, if the organization gains prestige, the sport gains prestige, and everyone gets paid for the effort, including the kids. It is a good deal. This really shouldn’t be couched as an either/or question.
Unless the question is, should we do this without USCF involvement AND take away the entry fees.
And then, seriously, why?
I think I just realized that unless I take a third job, I can’t afford to be a chess parent.
I believe by first promoting the games & players…the games organization will soon after benefit. A good product will provide a handsome return for everyone.
MY understanding is that the kids play 2 tournaments at the same time. the Denker in the morning and the US Open in the afternoon. That is a difficult schedule for them. They are not able to concentrate on either tournament and get to tired to win.
The object of the Denker is to get the best kid to win. To accomplish the task the students should play only the Denker with full concentration on the tournament.
Then on another weekend or week they can play the US Open and concentrate on that.
The real problem is that the US Open is a dinosaur and a losing tournament because it is structured wrong. It is one game a day for a long period. Thus hotel expenses are double a normal tournament. In this case even more because the hotel is very expensive.
So what the USCF did was to get a captive audience of 50 players to help fund the US Open. These 50 players are the State Champions. This adds 50 players of whom maybe 30 play in the US Open.
The data is all confused. The uscf claims they need these 30 players and that they do a favor for the kids. But in reality the huge expenses to the parents are now shining forth. The errors in the logic of the US Open are coming out. The entire mess at the USCF is focused here. The adults are against scholastics. The adults hold the power and are screeming against the scholastic players. They would like to get rid of the scholastic players but they covet the income from them. The USCF makes a big profit off the scholastics. 60% of the membership but they rate all the games and right now scholastics are playing all the games. I would not be surprised if 90% of the rated games are scholastic.
Scholastics are a big cash cow and the scholastics have almost no representation at USCF. There is a big movement to break away from the USCF.
Now we see how the selfishness of the USCF interfers with doing the right thing for scholastics.
My opinion is that Susan and her team will treat scholastics fair and square. The other candidates fear scholastics. They even fight not to spend the money on scholastics that is paid for by the scholastics.
For example the entry fees at some big tournaments were raised by $10 so that the $10 would be put aside for the scholastic needs. The USCF agreed to do that. Then candidates like Sam Sloan get on and try to talk everyone into keeping all the money and stiffing the scholastics.
If you are not a member of USCF then you can join on line for immediate membership. If you do this before the end of May, you are eligible to vote. Many are joining now to get the vote. Make sure you vote for Susan and her team.
Susan wants to unite the USCF and provide fair service to all aspects of chess. Scholastic and Adults will be treated fairly if Susan and her team is elected. This is an important election. We do not want to split up chess players into a Scholastic Federation and an Adult Federation.
What someone above said is true. The other candidates are taking a strong stand against Scholastics to get the adult votes since the scholastics basically have no vote. This can not last very long.
I am strongly in favor of supporting those sponsors who want to support chess in America. I would not give a permanent right to the Denker but a 5 or 10 year agreement is ok. Maybe in 5 or 10 years another company will want to bid on the Denker and the USCF can allow them to auction it off to the highest bidder. This is the way the USCF should be handling its assets.
My prediction is this.
If Susan’s team is elected then everything will go smooth on the proposal from the sponsor. All scholastic chess parents will benefit and adult members will benefit.
If Susan and her team is defeated then the USCF will refuse the sponsor and another opportunity to infuse money into chess will have been lost.
You do not have to be a chess player to vote. You simply have to pay the cost of adult membership to vote. The cost of membership and your vote might just save scholastic parents a lot more money in the long run then the cost of membership. Get represented join up and vote.
Susan, Paul, Randy, Mikhail are the team.
How about persuading company XYZ to host the US Open, too? So what if it’s in the same city every year, that hasn’t hurt attendance at the World Open.
XYZ doesn’t have to sponsor the US Open in the sense that they make it a free ride like they do for the 50 scholastics. They simply help guarantee a prize fund and do a profit-share with the USCF from the entry fees.
It would be a win-win.
This is the most loaded question I have ever seen. I am a father of 3 chess players. My chess playing wife and I believe that this question can only be about the Denker/US Open. We believe that the desire to split them is never going to be a convenience for this chess playing family. It’s not about the money, Susan. It’s about control. Who has the control, and who wants the control.
I am a chess parent as you describe, but my children are not in the top 50 nor are likely to be in the top 50.
I’m not sure I see the problem here, but perhaps I don’t understand the politics. I would vote for the sponsorship, but since the $2500 in entry fees lost to the USCF is such a small number to the rest of the numbers Susan mentions – why not have XYZ just give that amount to the USCF as “entry fees” to make the event official, and make the event win-win for both. How is this different from what the CCA does for its large tournaments, which are traditionally held at the same place each year?
Chris
Steve Owens, you may be a chess parent and a grandparent, but please don’t forget that most of us are middle class citizens who can appreciate financial relief from a corporate sponsor.
It’s bad enough that gas prices are stinging the wallet these days.
As a chess dad myself, potential scholarships and boarding relief are welcomed with open arms.
Also, hypothetically speaking, if my child were to win a scholarship from a university that endorses chess, what harm would it do to take the basics the first two to four years, enjoy chess while at it, and then transfer to a college like Harvard or MIT if need be. If my child were fortunate enough it would be awesome if he could get the best of both worlds.
Bottom line – I vote for #1
Victor Flores
Well said Mr. Flores. We all need to think about all the parents and not just a select few. It would be a tragedy if Mr. Goichberg and Schultz refuse this deal.
It is well known that the scholastic portion of USCF can get more corporate sponsorship. However, it is the scholastic portion that does not allow USCF to get some of the non-scholastic sponsorship. For example, no beer or cigarettes ads. The scholastic lobby also cried out when a ‘brain pill’ sponsored the National Open.
So if the scholastic lobby does not allow the non-scholastic tournaments to get some sponsorship, should they at least not move until after 2008. I think hotel contracts for the US Open are signed until 2008.
Susan, what do you think about beer companies sponsoring chess?
As the parent of a Polgar Invitational player, i’m certainly in favor of the sponsorship deal. I think it’s great that Fortune 500 companies are starting to recognize the prestige of chess and are offering to sponsor/help/reward the intellectual potential of the top 50 future leaders of America.
It’s very expensive for a player to represent their state at these events. Hotel/food/airfare for participant & family for the 6 day event runs into the thousands. It would be so nice if the $100 stipend rewarded to all the players completing all 6 rounds were to be enhanced by an XYZ company.