Uniting ALL chess players (and NOT dividing)!
At the Polgar Chess Center, we run tournaments for adults, kids and mixed. There is no animosity between the two groups. The adult players help the young members and they respect each other. We have adults’ nights, kids’ nights and open nights. That is how things should be. There is no reason why everyone cannot get along with each other and respect one another.
Unfortunately, for some reasons, there is a big rift between the Adult and Scholastic groups within the USCF. This started from the top with some board members playing politics and taking sides. This has gone on for way TOO LONG and not too many people are doing enough to help solve this problem.
This is one of my missions if I am elected to the USCF Executive Board with the right team. In fact, I plan not only to promote adult and scholastic chess but also college, military, correspondence and Internet chess as well. The Susan Polgar Foundation has also supported many of these groups in the past.
The USCF CANNOT survive if we keep on attacking and destroying each other. All chess groups are important and they all deserve our attention and recognition. Even though the young players (under 16) cannot vote, we must listen to what the parents, coaches and players have to say and find a way to make things work.
I worked closely with ALL chess groups in the past. I made things work. Why can’t the USCF do the same? There should be no destructive and petty politics in chess. We also need to cut out the bureaucracy and we need to do what is right.
By promoting and increasing all types of memberships, we will obtain additional critical revenues that can solve many USCF problems as well as enhancing members’ benefits. Not only we need to balance the budget, we need to create surplus for the rainy days. It will work if we want it to work and I will make it work!
What is your take?
Here are a few issues I can think of based on experience. One problem is with kids that are noisy and disruptive. For many adults like myself, we have only a few hours a week to go out and enjoy the company of other adults, and the last thing we want to do is mind someone else’s kids. There are many kids who are great to be around, so at least for me it’s not their age that matters.
The political issue is tougher to deal with, I think. Many adults resent scholastic chess because they feel it pulls support away from “adult” chess, and in some cases, they are right. Then there are the “chess parents” that loudly push for more support for kids, especially their own kids. They think the rest of the chess population should drop everything else and help their kid be the next Fischer.
I don’t mean to tar all chess kids or chess parents with the same brush – most of them are just fine and great to be with. It’s the few trouble ones that seem to cause all the problems. You see stuff like this in other sports, but for some reason it seems especially bad in chess.
Good points and I appreciate your thoughts. I can tell you that this does not happen at my chess center because I do not let it happen. Somebody has to be in charge and run the ship.
The USCF has not done that. As I stated, my club has kids’ nights, adults’ nights and open nights. We cannot shove things at people’s faces. We need to understand what the other side want and need and work things out.
If my team and I will be elected, you will see many positive changes in this aspect.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.PolgarChess.com
What is the nature of the “drift” in the USCF between adult and scholastic groups.
Power, politics and ego. Marinello used scholastic to get elected. When she got on the board, she turned on them to advance her personal political career. Typical stuff. She even betrayed the USCF to get herself a position with FIDE.
SM
How is scholastic chess handled in other countries? Are they separate entities or are they one governing body?
I personally think there should be separate adult and scholastic organizations. However allow children to join the adult organization as a separate membership ans separate rating.
I believe no one who enters chess politics (USCF governing positions etc) is in it for the money as there isn’t any. They are in it for the good of chess. The problem lies in that it is possible to take opposing views on the same issue and still believe they are serving for the good of chess. Some believe there shouldn’t be class prizes. Others believe not only the total opposite but class prizes be increased even more. Some believe the elite should be supported as well as the new and young. Others believe only the new and young be supported at the cost of neglecting the elite because of few resources. Some believe the rating system should be tightened so that there is more respect for high ratings. Others believe it should be loosened to attract more players. And so on.
No one really knows what is the right position on any issue but each believe they are in the right and will fight hard for it.
And this is the problem: they all believe they are doing the right thing, whatever the issue. That is why the call for unity isn’t going to happen.
It would be condescending and presumptuous of me to tell you what to do but don’t take it that way: you have to stack every single position that has power in the USCF governing positions with people who have the exact same views as you on all the important issues to make things happen and happen fast. Otherwise you will be debating all day long on the most stupidest of minutiae.
Your fame and popularity isn’t enough. Just ask Kasparov how much his fame, credibility, and popularity got him with his detractors. Stack the USCF with your people, imo. Call for unity won’t work.
Yes, so we should let people like SS and BM continue to destroy chess?
Well, Susan has made it work so far. All groups respect her. That’s why she’ll get my vote. I’ll also vote for her team as well. I like how she conducts herself.
I totally agree with Susan. We need to fix this problem and she can do it. No one else has been able to do it so far. They only made things worse. She deserves a chance to help us. Go for it Susan!
Main problem of US chess is that there is no link between scholastic chess and adult chess.
The kids are our future so we should support them, whereever we can and some of the adult membership fees has to go the scholastic.
But what happens, when the kids get out of school ? There are not many chess clubs which can provide the link and ensure USCF memberships after highschool. For me that is the key problem. Continue with the good scholastic work in the US, but give them a chess future after school.
Susan, you are on the right way and I like your engagement, congratulations. What I like to know how, what ideas you have turn around a big organization like the USCF. What’s working in NYC may not work in Oklahoma. Hope you are getting more concrete when it’s the right time.
Right On Susan :o)
I am spreading your ticket to all chessplayers I know. We need your vision in USCF today.
One thing that would help with political divisions in the USCF would be if stabilizing USCF finances and “increasing memberships” were not such ever-present concerns.
There are probably 20,000 schools with chess clubs and 500,000 scholastic players in the United States. Very few of the school clubs are USCF affiliates and probably only about 10% of the kids who play in a school club (or less) are USCF members. If USCF focuses only on services to the 50,000 kids who are members, they are irrelevant to 90% of the scholastic chess players.
Similarly, there are hundreds of thousands of adults who are interested in chess in the US but relatively few of them are USCF members. Unless someone plays in tournaments, which requires a USCF membership, or wants the magazine, there is no reason to join the USCF. The USCF rates tournament players and sells a a magazine, but it is just as irrelevant for the majority of adult chess players as it is with the kids.
At the USCF, outreach to all these different groups is always defined in terms of signing these people up as USCF members.
The aim of the USCF should not be simply to be a business that is aiming to increase its customer base (“members”), provide “services” to those members, and generate revenue.
The USCF should start operating as a non-profit organization that aims to create a vibrant chess culture in this country and reach out to all the individuals and groups that play a part in that culture, finding out what they need to thrive, and helping them to get those things.
Obviously, the USCF has to tend to its finances and what it can do is constrained somewhat by its budget. But there are many things that can be done by organization and volunteers that aren’t expensive. As long as the USCF defines itself as a kind of monopolistic chess business, more focused on its finances than its mission, there will always be arguments between different chess constituencies as to which of them should get the most USCF “services”.
I have hope that Susan sees all this, but I’m afraid that she and her “slate” will just get sucked into more inwardly-focused USCF internal politics. One can already see this a bit in her platform, which is very much a “fix USCF” platform.
She says she doesn’t want to run a negative campaign, and if you compare hers to the usual campaign, it is positive, in that she refrains, more or less, from personal attacks on the other candidates. (Although everybody understands who she is talking about when she criticizes “chess politicians”.)
This is a good start, but it shows how bad things are when simply refraining from specific ad hominem attacks is all that is required to be able to bill yourself as “positive”. A truly positive campaign would put forward specifics on programs and substantive policies and changes that she wants to implement — not just vague statements about elevating the “tone”, “uniting” people, and being “professional”, as nice as all those things would be.
The USCF will fix itself if people would start focusing on accomplishing parts of the USCF mission. And it would be nice to see Susan and her slate talk about what they are actually proposing to do and where their main priorities will be.
Why isn’t membership in the USCF free? Make USCF membership free. Sign people up on the web site, and keep in touch with an emailed newsletter. Let them participate in the on-line forums. Have someone in each state organization contact them and put them in touch with the local chess scene.
Let people who want to subscribe to a chess magazine pay a subscription fee. Let people who want a chess rating pay for rating services.
Wow, the last two posts….
That is the USCF of my dreams.
I have no doubt that kids can get along with Adults and Adults with kids. Its the politics that get in the way.
I don’t think scholastic chess and adult chess warrant separate organizations as has been suggested by some of the posts here.
For the most part, there are many important connections and links between the top players in any geographic area, adult chess and the junior/scholastic chess scenes— as I suggest in my most recent post at http://chessdad64.journalspace.com — ignore that stuff about the Bears.
We need to build on these connections, rather than looking to separate them.
Chessdad64
Two points.
First, just because there is little money in chess politics doesn’t mean people are in it for good reasons. Power is coveted. If frogs were willing to get membership cards for groups run by humans, there would be extensive political manouvering for control of these groups.
Second, I am appalled at these ideas of a “split.” Here in Pacific Northwest, there are no “adult” tournaments. There are scholastic touranments, and open tournaments. The open tournaments have between 25-50% young players. The few who complain about this are quickly seen for what they are; shortsighted elitists who want to have chess without a chess community. There is no community without children, and no future. These people have no place in chess politics here.
As for where to spend recruitment efforts, I can say, children need to be made aware of the chess world and telling them about it means nothing. There have to be hands on efforts to let them experience it. This is the way to improve the art of chess. People like myself who knew the moves as children but didn’t know about the community, can never contribute much more than some flag waving and entry fees at the weekend swiss, so advanced is this art. Furthermore, adults can figure out more easily how serious they are about chess, and don’t need the outreach.
And if recruitement is not to advance the game itself, what then is it for? What else does the number of USCF members mean? High scores for chess politicians, that is all. The only reason many of us hold memberships is because it’s required to play in the touraments.
I don’t care how many members there are, I only care how many show up for the weekend tournament. And that number continues to go down. People can play online to get their “fix” and so if it is inconvenient to play in the tourament, well, they’re not suffering such a strong withdrawal so they can do without it.
The only hope to reverse the trend is for the culture to become more interested. It is the youths that drive the culture. So the idea that the needs of adult players can be addressed other than by encouraging the children, is absurd.
I say as an adult player with no children, please encourage the little ones, so that when I am old, there will still be a weekend swiss waiting for me!! 🙂
The problems with the USCF have less to do with drama or infighting, and more to do with a lack of ideas or the time to implement them.
Who’s going to come up with these ideas? The same old board or the fresh talents like Susan and her team? I would go with the fresh talents.
Sim
Susan, I have to say I am a 21 year old man, and I’d probably be a moderate to low chess club player, even though I’m the top player/president in my club at college. I joined a USCF rated chess game in Billerica, Massachusetts, and I was paired against an 8 year old girl in one of my matches. Now, I knew not to underestimate her, as your children are great players at their ages, and as other now Grandmasters were. I’d have to say that by playing her, it made me realize that there shouldn’t be any kind of permanent age wall between players. Sure, there can be children against children, and adults against adults, but I like the format that your center has, where children can play adults, and each can learn from the other.
Oh, by the way, the 8 year old girl beat me when I had black in a Scandinavian with 2 …Nf6. :-p
-Eric
Go Susan! You need to fix this problem. Get rid of the ugly chess politicians.
Paris,
There, you see, you’ve proved my point. You feel strongly against the split and see those for the split as shortsighted elitists. I actually agree with you. However, the other side see differently. For one thing, it’s their membership money so they get to vote as they see fit. The call for unity means somebody has to give ground. It’s either you or them on not only this particular issue, but every major issue as well.
Susan’s running four candidates, herself, Paul, Randy Bauer, and Dr. Korenman. I’m pretty sure Susan and Paul will win, not so sure of the other two. There are seven positions up for grabs plus one non-voting position of the Executive Board. The terms are staggered which is too bad as that means getting things done right away is difficult because about half of the board is the old board. Not just the Executive Board but she needs support from the power grassroots, the organizers and tds who will bear the brunt of whatever policy. Even if she wins all four of her slate I’m not sure she’ll get much done in the first year.
Chess being so divided I bet dollars to donuts more than half of all organizers and tds are against anything Scholastic: subsidies (cheaper memberships etc), rating issues (adults refusing to play underrated juniors etc), already well-supported by A4C, juniors leaving chess when reaching college age, etc. She has to get her own people there.
In order for a call for unity to succeed she has to provide convincing reasons to all who oppose her. She has to explain why tds and organizers should invest in Scholastic when these guys know the kids will leave chess when they hit 18, for example. Or explain to adult players why juniors should play in their sections when juniors are underrated. I personally know of a few adults who would withdraw when paired against a junior (ridiculous, I know, but it’s their money). And then there are the pushy parents. In Canada, the parents were so pushy for subsidies that the CFC aquieced, began issuing iffy tax receipts (parents would donate to the CFC, get a receipt, then the CFC awards them a plane ticket to Olympics, World Junior, etc at a later date) and now are in hot water with Canada’s version of the IRS.
And this is just the split issue. There is a truckload of other issues players feel strongly about. The call for unity is just a slogan. Affected voters want specifics. I think it’s easier to just stack everything with her people, from the Executive Board, to delegates, to tds and organizers, and to USCF business activities. Looks like a lot people but maybe just a few key people to get the rest in line.
Yes, it would be very good to hear the actual positions that Susan and her co-slate members take on various issues, especially the divisive ones. At least some of the divisions in the USCF are due to the existence of divisive issues and not merely “politics” (although there is certainly plenty of politics, too.)
It is rather easy to take the high ground and call for unity, professionalism, and other motherhood items, when you aren’t taking positions on the things that divide people.
Apparently one of the main reasons that some adults don’t like to play in the same sections as juniors is the rating issue.
The scholastic players are perceived as underrated and as draining rating points away from adult players with more stable ratings, causing an adult’s rating to decline unreasonably when he loses to a junior player.
This isn’t an objection specifically to the youth of the scholastic players. Presumably someone from any clearly identifiable, underrated pool of players would encounter resistance from people outside that pool. If, for some hypothetical reason, players from California were all dramatically underrated,
non-Californians would suddenly develop a dislike for playing against people from California when rating points were at stake.
So this particular issue isn’t an adult/scholastic problem, and doesn’t have anything to do with how USCF allocates its resources between adults and scholastic players. That doesn’t mean there aren’t also issues regarding competition for resources, but this is a problem with the rating system.
If so, why not fix the rating system? Indeed, haven’t there already been reforms in the rating system during the last couple of years to deal with rapidly improving juniors and the fact that scholastic players are a somewhat isolated rating pool? Didn’t these reforms work? Why not?
If it is just a problem of perception (i.e. scholastic players aren’t really underrated), maybe something should be done to change people ‘s perceptions.
I have seen Susan in action in both worlds — adult chess and scholastic chess — and I have total confidence in her ability to transcend whatever differences there are. Indeed, she is probably the perfect person to do so as someone who has worked her way up to the heights of adult chess success and who is also the mother of a strong, scholastic player. She has been one of the best (if not the best) spokespersons for chess in our community. Those of us who love chess or whose children love chess have to feel frustrated with the narrowminded, petty politics of most of the USCF leadership. Where is the vision? They have this great product — chess — and they are so wrapped up in internal grudge matches that they can’t figure out ways to market it. I do think that there are some great young talents out there (and I’m not talking about purely chess talents but how they speak, write, present themselves, come up with innovative ideas) — Greg and Jennifer Shahade, Irina Krush, Hikaru Nakamura — just to name a few. I know that Susan will figure out ways to work with these and other young stars in our community.
Reading some of these posts has been interesting for me as the parent of a scholastic player. One adult player complains about “kids that are noisy and disruptive” and about “pushy” chess parents. Another points to the issue of “underrated scholastic players draining points away from adult players with more stable ratings, causing an adult’s rating to decline unreasonably when he loses to a junior player.” As to the first complaint (noisy and disruptive kids), I have no doubt that this exists but quite honestly on the few occasions that I have been to adult chess tournaments with my son, it is the adults who have behaved badly. I’ve seen adults throw tantrums when they are beaten by junior players. There are also some adults who appear not to have the highest standards of personal hygiene and/or bizarre habits such as muttering to themselves during a game. I think a lot of parents are reluctant to take their children to adult tournaments for these reasons but, unfortunately, once your child gets to a certain point (around 1500-1600), there aren’t many scholastic tournaments to accomodate them. I’m intrigued by the ratings issue. How widespread of a problem is this and is it just perception or reality? I know that in the scholastic chess community, when we go to the Nationals, there are always some states where the kids are perceived to be underrated because there aren’t that many tournament opportunities for them. It’s a bummer when your kid whose rating is 1300 loses to a kid from Delaware or Washingston State with an 800 rating but whatever rating points you lose, you gain back eventually. I would like to see more scholastic tournaments for elite juniors along the lines of the KCF quads in the NYC area.
Well perhaps she will, and a lot of people will vote for her anyway because she and her candidates certainly can’t be any worse than the people in office now, and if there is any hope that Susan et al will be better she will get votes.
But it sure would be nice to replace general optimism/hope that Susan and her team will be able “to work things out”, with some concrete evidence that she has ideas and plans that will resolve the major issues that are blocking unity and progress. I don’t think it is too much for her to ask her to do this.
In one of her Chess Cafe columns Susan put forward the following specific proposals:
– create a professional Marketing and Public Relations department at USCF to negotiate with sponsors. This is fairly concrete, and I agree with it.
– adopt and enforce a “strong” code of conduct for everybody officially connected with the USCF, including the board, delegates, etc. I have serious misgivings about this, since it could easily mean suppressing criticism and disagreement. There are hints in Susan’s conduct that she considers disagreement and criticism to be disunity and unprofessional. Everybody should act nice and wear a suit. But the USCF is a membership organization with officials democratically elected by the membership, not a business corporation. I’d like to see Susan’s proposed code of conduct and the proposed enforcement mechanisms.
– More cooperation with sponsors and supporters. Susan says the USCF has “ruined” relationships in the past, and that personal interests should be set aside. Sure, cooperation is motherhood. Who would be against it? As for the rest, there are no specifics, and there probably aren’t going to be, because it would be “negative” and “unprofessional” to mention them.
– More cooperation with professional players to promote chess. She says there are a lot of top players who will help USCF free of charge. If so, great. In fact, there are a lot of people at all levels of playing ability who would like to help chess in the US. Many of them are already doing so, without waiting to be asked by the USCF. Susan herself, for example. They need leadership and organization. But, again, this is motherhood, and not very concrete.
Susan says in her latest Chess Cafe column that she is going to discuss issues on this blog. I hope that this particular post of hers isn’t an example of discussing issues, because she needs to get a good bit more concrete than this.
It is up to you to vote for me and my team or not. As I said before, I am NOT going to have a negative campaign.
I have seen so much division already. I am not going to point fingers at anyone. It will not change anything and it will only create more anymosity and hatred. When will it end?
I pointed out the problems and I said what I am going to do if I am elected. Back and forth attack as in the USCF forum will do nothing for chess.
When the right time comes, I will say how I am going to do it. I am not going to reveal anything now so these destructive chess politicians will spend the next 5 months attacking it instead of focusing on the real issues.
In July, everyone will know if my strategy will work or not. No one has ever run a campaign like this before. We will find out if I am doing the right things or not.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.PolgarChess.com
As a parent of two juniors who have played chess in Canada I just find addressing the rift impossible in Canada.
Too many players and organizers without the slightest sense of family or children are heavily involved in chess. They lack the sensibility to be flexible and allow those who are capable in these areas to make things happen. They often post false statements on the internet to support their ideas ( see the tax receipt post on this thread and note that it is wrong in so many ways – how do we deal with such slander ? ).
People can talk about cooperation and listening to different groups but until you reign in the renegade players and politicians nothing is going to happen. These guys really have no interest in diversity in chess. They want people to be just like them, follow their orders, and can’t understand why the chess organizations can’t find tens of thousands of players just like them to keep the whole thing afloat.
I’m involved with numerous sports and quite honestly the environment for chess is caustic for parents.
Where else can you be chief sponsor, have to deal with such a weak organization, and yet be stigmitized by ( often ) very mediocre people every step the way ? People should look at rhe rampant cheating in chess, the frequent put downs of kids who seek to excel in the game, and ask why should parents put up with this without taking a strong stand. Ultimately, however, one also has to ask is chess really a healthy environment for their kids. A very complex question and possibly this dilemma is what makes many parents very unhappy with chess beyond scholastic.
Actually, I don’t find it very positive to continually refer in a general way to “those destructive chess politicians”, with no specifics, and no discussion until the last weeks of the campaign of any issues.
That seems pretty negative to me, saved only by refusing to name names, which in itself can be regarded as innuendo, even more negative in a way than naming names. At least if you give names and incidents, people can decide for themselves whether you are right about “destructive chess politics”. Is there anything more to this than Sam Sloan?
If you put forward specific ideas and plans, then yes, your opponents may disagree with you put forward arguments against your ideas, and give reasons why their ideas are superior to yours.
But that is called “discussing the issues”, and is generally what people mean when call a political campaign “positive”. It most emphatically not “destructive chess politics”.
It seems like your concern is that if you discuss the issues prematurely, those destructive chess politicians will really be evil and … discuss the issues back.
Regarding the issue of underrated juniors (or anyone else for that matter), I believe the problem is real. Your rating is supposed to reflect your ability as a player. If you play a lot of games that are not hooked into the rating system, your rating will probably be inaccurate.
We have juniors who play a lot of scholastic chess and since their scholastic games don’t get counted for in their “adult” ratings, and players of all ages who play on the internet. One obvious solution is to merge the scholastic and adult rating systems to take care of the problem with juniors. But for internet play, there are all sorts of issues with cheating and such, so perhaps we can’t do anything about it yet. Maybe internet play isn’t such a big issue since nearly everyone plays on the net, so everyone’s rating is to some extent undervalued.
I for one am against having separate scholastic organizations–chess would be far better off having one larger group than two smaller groups that are naturally disconnected and weaker. I can appreciate why the split occurred, but perhaps it’s time for rational people with a common cause to band together.
I’m confused by the last post which addresses the supposed issue of underrated juniors and states that their scholastic games don’t get counted in their adult ratings. Where do you live? Here in NYC, it is true that very young/inexperienced players play in unrated “novice K-1 sections” but by the time that most kids start playing in adult tournaments, they have played in many rated scholastic tournaments. It is true in both scholastic and adult tournaments that you can’t account for the kid or adult who has never played in a tournament but plays on the ICC for 4 hours a night. He enters his first tournament without a rating and goes 4 and O and leaves a bunch of shell shocked opponents in his wake. But that’s life.
I feel I must clarify my post dated Feb 7, 2007 at 1:38 am.
The part regarding the tax receipts is misleading and could have been misread to read as all pushy parents were the sole reason and sole receipient of those tax receipts. That is incorrect.
It is fact that the CFC is in trouble with the CRA (Canadian tax guys). It is fact that iffy receipts were issued. It is fact that some parents benefited. However, some players who have absolutely nothing to do with Scholastic Chess also benefited. It is also true that only some, or more accurately, few, parents benefited.
I mention this only because one of the posters felt “slandered.” However, I stand by the idea that some parents were indeed pushy, but want to make clear that not all were pushy.
Thanks.
Some chess kids have pushy parents and some adult chess players are smelly. Does anybody know of an activity with only polite, nice-smelling people?
On the Canadian receipt issue, it was a case of inexperienced chess administrators offerring programs to innocent participants without due diligence. No parents were involved in designing the program beyond the junior coordinator of Canada. It is unclear if he was involved either.
My observation in Canada is opportunities that should be excellent and an earned reward for excellence get botched up frequently. Sooner or later both player and parent have to ask why do they bother investing valuable resources and time in an activity that is often this way. And in turn, if the very best players are treated badly, what can this do to the dreams of other juniors who would like to follow their lead ?
Talented players will find other avenues to be involved with very quickly if they are treated like they are nothing when they play chess.
Blaming parents of course is a convenient way to avoid dealing with the true problems in current North American chess. Blaming juniors is even worse, as one person observed adult players are more often disruptive then juniors at events. Juniors sometimes get out of hand but usually it’s because the organizer has no proper rules in place and the whole tournament hall gets too casual.
The real shame is today’s young people can be great for promotion and helping improve the image of chess here. Time to get past all these stereotypes and make chess more attractive to all.