What are the top 3 things you would like to see the USCF improve as soon as possible?
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
- About Us
- Chess Improvement
- Chess Puzzles
- Chess Research
- College Chess
- General News
- Home
- Major Tournaments
- News
- Polgar Events
- Privacy Policy
- Scholastic Chess
- SPICE / Webster
- Susan’s Personal Blog
- Track your order
- USA Chess
- Videos
- Women’s Chess
- Contact Us
- Daily News
- My Account
- Terms & Conditions
- Privacy Policy
1. Training program for coaches like what the SPF has done.
2. More Free TLAs for state events and more coverage.
3. A more professional Executive Board.
Less politics. People like Sloan, Marinello, Lafferty, Quinn, Bogner, etc. have caused so much frictions within the USCF.
More assitance and promotion of states and affiliates activities and accomplishments.
More efficient website content. We live in the 21st century and the website is being updated too slowly. The Final Four and USAT were posted on this blog long before the USCF posted about them.
Thank you.
W
Better budgeting and reporting. I think Mr. Bauer will do a better job than Mr. Channing.
Stronger leadership. This board is too weak and they’re lack of direction. They wanted to have a forum but failed to set up strict rules. Now they have to clean things up. Too many bad or inefficient plans.
Strict punishment for rules breaker like Sloan. Posting porn links where children have access to should be automatic suspension. The board was afraid to touch him. Censuring him is a joke.
Do whatever it takes to increase the popularity of chess in this country.
Elect Polgar, Korenman, Truong and Bauer. That’s a good start.
Retire Sam Sloan, Marinello and Schultz.
Faster online coverage of events and better chess promotion.
Actually, I like Schultz. I just think it’s time for him to step aside and let more energetic people to take over. He’s done enough, good and bad.
The USCF needs to do much more promotion as well as better communication with the members.
Less politics and less internal fighting.
Top Three Immediate Actions:
1. Remove Sloan, Marinello, Schultz from the Board.
2. Update & Improve USCF Website: Greater number of interactive features, forums with clearly defined, and enforced rules.
3. Take a strong stance with anti-cheating measures and give full support to TD’s that need to both exercise and exorcise to reduce the problem.
1. Get rid of the forum. There are plenty of places for people to express themselves without implicit USCF approval.
2. Publicity – get a little TV time somewhere, anywhere.
3. Implement bylaws preventing convicted felons from serving on the board.
Less politics!
I have a lot of ideas, but, they all cost $$$$$$$ 🙂
1) I think the USCF should ENCOURAGE young players to get GM norms and the title. I think $50,000 (set aside) a year for this purpose would go a long way to getting a lot more GMs under age 25.
One idea I had was to give players under age 25, and over 2400 FIDE a stipend of, say, $1000 per event where GM norms are likely (World Open, Foxwoods, GM round robins in USA, Europe, and South America, etc).
Also, the USCF could retroactively give $1K to people who made a GM norm, and maybe $4K or so for people who get the title.
This would HELP see that TOP young players do not quit chess early and that the USA is more competitive in the Olympiad, as our top players, with the exception of Hikaru, are simply too old.
2) The US Championship, US Women’s, US Junior, and US Open should be given SPECIAL treatment, and a lot should be done to ensure good conditions and prizes. There are the three IMPORTANT Round Robins and ONE Open tournament in my mind.
Instead, it seems everything is last minute and haphazard much of the time. Of the four events I listed, it SEEMS to me the US Open has the most preparation, prizes, players, interest. To me, it should be 4th.
3) The USCF should have a MUCH MUCH MUCH better magazine. Chess Life is crap, and as a member of the ACBL (bridge) it appalls me to see such drek in our National mag. The solution, in my mind, is to have REAL top players write articles. If you look at the USA top 25 or so, and the World Top 50, how many write for Chess Life? Instead we get retired players who were PRETTY good 40 years ago. I would REALLY like to see articles written by Hikaru, Gata, Anand, Onischuk, Yermo, Shabalov, Kramnik, etc etc etc.
All of my suggestions cost $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$….so I suppose the first priority is fund-raising! 🙂
BPF
Establish clear qualification guidelines to play in the US Championship via Ratings, NOT qualifier events. Play this championship in a Major City that appeals to the potential entrants, and not in some podunk backwater in Oklahoma.
Establish the US Championship as a RR event. Drop the Swiss. We are the biggest, baddest country in the world and winning our National Championship should mean something to the winner, and entry into it not be up for ‘sale’ like it is now.
I would break up the Chess Life magazine into two ‘zines – one that is for scholastics, and one that is for the rest of us. Way too much scholastic stuff/junk/personal interest garbage in a magazine that I really don’t care about as an adult. Give me an option on my membership if I want the scholastic magazine if need be.
More coverage of the big events held in the US.
I get more out of ChessNinja in one *week* than a whole issue of Chess Life.
Improve the quality and content even if you have to reduce it to 8 or 10 issues a year. I’ll survive.
If I didn’t have to be a member to play in tourneys I wouldn’t be one. I’m sure I’m not the only one that feels that way.
We can all thank Sam Sloan for that.
Drkodos? Do old alt.rec.climging tradsters never die? Sometimes methinks the intrardweb is too small.
Transform from a “problem” oriented culture to a “solution” oriented culture. I’m tired of all the politicking, word parsing and bickering, especially over unimportant minutiae.
EB stop micro managing. Just one example, a recent proposal was that if forum posters disagree with a moderator, they can appeal to the EB. Why on earth should the board do that in the first place, but even more importantly, why would they WANT to do that?? What a waste. They should be focused on the big picture — improving services (which in turn will increase membership and resources) and promoting chess to the general population.
Simplify and improve accounting systems. Not that $3 million is pocket change, but in the world of business the USCF budget isn’t THAT big, accounting and reporting shouldn’t be such an ordeal. (My impression is Joel Channing is trying to move us in that direction, whether he has done so perfectly or not)
Institute a nominating committee for EB members, with one proviso. I resent nominating committees which basically leave the voters with no choices. They should nominate 2 more candidates than there are openings.
1. Removal of Chess Life “dead tree format” subscription as requirement of membership.
2. In conjunction with #1, reduce membership fee and/or clarify purpose of fee.
3. Establish and clarify mission. Is the USCF intentions to benefit all members equally? Or is it for the whole field to support the professionals? Or is it for the abstract and maleable “benefit of the game?” The membership generally don’t see the USCF as being successfully focused on any of these. It’s generally believed it’s true purpose is simply and stupidly to retain it’s status.
The “remove politics” blah-blah is, amusingly, the current political issue and is therefore comically self-hating. If there was just as much “politics” and also effective leadership, we wouldn’t be talking about the politics. There is no leadership, so all that’s left is the politics, but that doesn’t mean the politics is really the problem. The problem of course is the leadership vacuum.
And of course posting porn to the forum isn’t politics, and should be able to be dealt with seperately in a non-partisan way.
1. Create atmosphere to give US 3 Top Ten Players in world such as Gata Kamsky is right now.
2. Maintain young people numbers as adult players in tournaments and local clubs!
3. We are missing 1/2 of population in chess landscape, the female species needs to be brought over in large numbers to our chess world.
When will the ballots come out?
1. A lower fee option for memberships.
2. Possibly a reduced fee for Affiliate Memberships. It seems a bit strange to me that I have to pay my membership, then pay an Affiliate Memberships to run tournaments that generate rating fees and more membership dues.
3. A no-magazine option for Affiliates and possibly members. I am now getting 2 copies of everything since I have an affiliate.
4. More opportunities for free or low-cost TLAs through activity means members, and make sure those are publiciced well.
1. have the US Championship as a double RR event for the top 15 players in the country who have earned their eligibility.
2. revoke the stupid and cash-driven rule change that stipulates that one cannot write down their move before playing it. This appeared like caving in to the desires to see one corporate sponsor give chess a lot of money at the expense of the players.
3. give us an executive board we can be proud of, and not one with sleeze artists and worn-out memoir-writers on it!
FINALLY:
Enhance the public visibility of the GREAT US Chess League and it’s cool players (GO KNIGHTS!!!!!)
American friends:
I was reading all your posts about possible ideas to improve the USCF.
But as Ben Finegold says,everything
cost money and many things a lot of money…
And for all that I am with Dan´s and David´s idea…you need publicity:because the publicity can find sponsors, publicity can increase the number of people playing and publicity can put more girls and children playing in your OTBs and clubs.
Ok,all of you spoke of big projects,but do not forget to save same money for publicity… with publicity you will have more money of sponsors and with that money you can do everything.
Good luck from Spain!
Well Ben Finegold as usual wants all the money to go to him and his friends at the top. And he does not acknowledge that the money comes from the bottom. Well that was his opinion on prize money.
I do not agree with Ben. Giving money is silly. No one is going to dedicate himself to become a GM for a few thousand dollars. What a life. Lets thow in an extra $5,000 every time you win a game.
What is needed is bigger prize money at the tournaments provided by SPONSORS.
Right now my only focus is to get Susan, Paul, Randy and Mikhael elected.
Chess Life is pretty good now. Upgrade is ok as time and money are available. But first we have to get some money into the bank. We need USCF on a sound financial footing and not let it slip back to near bankruptch again.
By the way every time we dig out of the hole someone steals the money again and we wind up broke. Have to stop the graft and stealing of the uscf funds. Well lets call it wasteful spending.
Ben Finegold has lots of Wasteful Spending Ideas. Say Ben how about USCF gives you $50,000 a year so you can study chess and play bridge.
“Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.”
Make it $60,000, and you got a deal!
BPF
Their Online chess play site. I think there are about 3 members online and at any given time. Pathetic!
Surprisingly I find myself agreeing with Ben, sort of. His ideas are good ones, and I would support them. Only, I don’t think that the USCF should undertake the initiatives that he suggests. A separate organization, created by the top US chess players themselves, teaming with sympathetic organizers, would be the ideal vehicle to raise funds for and operate such a program. The USCF should focus its limited resources on grass roots popularizing of the game – scholastic, collegiate, and amateur adults. While there is a relationship between the two, the needs of professional and amateur chess are too different to be successfully fulfilled by the same organization. Trying to do so results in mediocrity in both areas.
Most people I talk to only want two things from the USCF.
1) Rated events and rated in a timely manner
2) A good chess magazine
The USCF has improved #1 in the last few years (online submissions have helped), although I cannot say the same thing about #2 (not sure how others feel).
I organize and direct a lot of local events for scholastic and adult players (I am a Senior TD, as well as an IM). A lot of locals want more rated events for kids and adults. Of course, different parts of the country have different numbers of events, BUT, everyone gets a magazine (although many believe a separate mag for scholastic players, which was the norm a while back is needed).
One of the problems Susan points out often is all the “hating” going on in the online politics of the USCF.
When I post on a blog (here, my own, or chessninja.com) I always get hate hate hate. Occasionally I am praised as well, however, in this instance, I was simply answering a question Susan posed. I gave my opinion of what I thought the USCF should do to improve things. I do not think the reader should attack my ideas, but instead post their own ideas, and people can decide for themselves which are best. I have seen a lot of excellent ideas posted here by people who have better writing skills and have more well thought out ideas. Kudos to everyone who is positive and wants to help the organization improve.
Perhaps constructive suggestions, instead of, ‘Ben Finegold is stupid, etc etc’ is needed 🙂
I gave my suggestions, and many others have given good ideas as well.
The USCF has deficiencies in a lot of areas, and suggestions for improvement should be taken as constructive, not in a mean spirited way.
BPF
Ben Finegold Said…
“One idea I had was to give players under age 25, and over 2400 FIDE a stipend of, say, $1000 per event where GM norms are likely (World Open, Foxwoods, GM round robins in USA, Europe, and South America, etc).
Why? Is this a standard procedure in other national chess federations? I could understand perhaps an invitational RR event and provide expenses, but to categorically give out X$$ to GM’s just for participating in the World Open or Foxwoods is wasteful spending of tight USCF dollars, obviously.
Also, the USCF could retroactively give $1K to people who made a GM norm, and maybe $4K or so for people who get the title.”
Again, Why? No other national federation I know of does this. Why should we spend tight USCF $$ on such a program?
You say you want to control wasteful spending yet turn around and propose two wasteful spending ideas!
We need to AVOID such ideas, reconstruct the E.B. with membership that is business-savvy, and rebuild the federation and it’s resources from the bottom up. We do NOT need to ‘gift’ to titled players ridiculous amounts of money as if it is some trophy.
Real players play for the love of the game. If you are getting your GM title, then you are hitting the board in your tournaments and cashing in on the way. You do not need the USCF to subsidize out of their already tight budget. The money can be spent much better elsewhere.
Play this championship in a Major City that appeals to the potential entrants, and not in some podunk backwater in Oklahoma.
Mark:
May I remind you that the Lone Pine chess tournaments — which many chess players such as myself consider among the best ever — was played annually in a “podunk backwater” town as well.
I think we should be thankful that someone such as Frank Berry came forward to save the U.S. Championship from potential cancellation. It is better to have the championship in a hospitable place like Stillwater, Oklahoma, than to not have the championship at all.
Wow. Okielawyer and I normally don’t agree on much, but he’s spot on this time. Let’s not criticize someone for making the effort – that just makes timid people sit things out.
I grew up in the real sticks, in the deep South. I know Po-dunk, and Stillwater ain’t it. If you come to Stillwater, I think you’ll like what you see. And this coming from a Sooner.
GM tournaments can be played anywhere as long as there is internet coverage.The Lone Pine,CA tournaments are great example and that was BEFORE the internet! Mike Tubbs
I still can’t believe Chess Life didn’t cover the 2006 Kramnik-Topalov match and the Kramnik-Deep Fritz match with annotated games and photos!We deserve a better magazine!
Actually, I think the USCF should eliminate the magazine entirely. There is no need for it whatsoever, and nearly two-thirds of the USCF budget goes into that alone.
Eliminating the magazine would allow the USCF to reduce membership fees dramatically. I think the USCF should aim to offer at least one class of membership which is completely free. The free membership should entitle one to play in tournaments and to have a national rating.
Make memberships free and the number of members of USCF would increase into the millions almost immediately.
I reckon most of the problems of the USCF would be solved by aiming to reduce the revenues and the size of the paid staff.