Recent Hall of Fame inductee GM Joel Benjamin wrote the following when asked why so many top American GMs declined their invitations to participate in the US Championship:
“The U.S. Championship took a big hit when it lost the sponsorship of America’s Foundation for Chess (AF4C). Frank Berry’s generous support has kept the tournament going, but with a substantially smaller prize fund. The AF4C Championships rewarded players for staying active by providing a big financial opportunity once a year. The U.S. Championship is still a pretty good event, but when you factor in expenses and lost income over two weeks most players will post very little profit if any at all.
The market for professionals is very gloomy these days, and many players no longer play full time. Christiansen, de Firmian, and myself are now more involved in other aspects of the chess business.
I don’t presume to speak for them, but Kamsky and Nakamura are world-class players and may be looking for better conditions when they play.
During dark days in U.S. Championships past, the USCF tried to make the tournaments as interesting for the top players as possible, even if the prize fund was unimpressive. The competition in the round-robin events of the 80s and 90s was stimulating enough to help us overlook small prizes. A round-robin event (say ten players, or slightly more depending on the prize fund) would suit the top players better. I would certainly be more inclined to play in that case.
The current approach is to make the tournament an attainable objective for second tier players and juniors. It’s a noble goal to offer opportunities to such players to become grandmasters. We have other tournaments that serve that purpose, however, and no events that are purely for the elite. Obviously there is no consensus on what the function of the U.S. Championship should be, but in my opinion we have gone off the right track.”
I will write about this at length in my upcoming article in Chess Cafe. For now, all I can say is when an American GM who played in more than 20 consecutive US Championships declined his invitation, I would want to know his opinion. But what do you think? What would be the best, most exciting, and most efficient format for the US Championship?
We hope one day Susan Polgar, Joel Benjamin and all the top US players will come back and compete for the US Championship. Susan, what conditions do you think would be reasonably fair to get you to play for your 1st US title, wheather it be the mens or womens championship?
How much money would it take for both events to attract top talent?
Susan said that it takes about $50,000 to organize the 2008 Category 15 (10 player) SPICE Cup.
$250,000
Does the economy of scale work with tournaments? If a tourney has 10 people, how much more will it cost to run for 10-20 more? Is it linear?
Why not seek to do both – promote top level play and open up opportunities. Have 3 sections.
Section 1 – 10 people, 9 round round-robin. Based on top 8 by ranking or some other combination plus two qualifiers from last year’s open tourneys.
Section 2 – Next 10
Section 3 – Next 10
Winner of Section 2 is invited to next year’s section 1, and so on.
$250,000
I’d rather see hungry children from Hungary get this kind of money.
“Winner of Section 2 is invited to next year’s section 1, and so on.”
You are the saviour of US chess. Write to proper authorities, and you will be credited. If you’re jobless, you will be offered a contract based on your contributions of invaluable value, in the blog here.
In my humble opinion, I think the U.S.Championship should be a limited tournament for only the Top Rated men and women players in the U.S.A.; It should be held in one of the ten largest cities in the United States so that many chess players and fans can attend it in person. It should be well advertised and promoted on TV and newspapers throughout the U.S.A.; Top Grade facilities and accomodations for the players should be provided by the Sponsors. The arrangements for the playing area should be reviewed and approved in advance by the players or their representatives.
The Championships should be ten player, round robin format; one for the men and one for the women.
Prize money for the Men’s Event should be $250k and $200k for the Women’s.
Small round robin for the top players; let’s say 8 player 2RR. The previous champion is automatically seeded, then the 5 top rated players by rating, then 2 wild card slots for winners of a big open Swiss. If there is not enough money to give this a good prize fund every year, then have it every 2 years (or maybe every 3 years so it’s also a FIDE zonal). Women’s, junior, and senior championship should be similar but if necessary smaller (like 5 players 2RR).
Also, the USCF sucks in general. It should quit the whole magazine business and concentrate on running the ratings system and the championships and a few open swisses.
“The current approach is to make the tournament an attainable objective for second tier players and juniors. It’s a noble goal to offer opportunities to such players to become grandmasters. We have other tournaments that serve that purpose, however,” – Joel Benjamin
Although this is a good point, in practice, it is false. The main alternative is to hold Futurities for promising juniors. Other methods, such as big Opens, are too random and disruptive if the TD does something stupid like using creative pairings to maximize title chances. The Futurities are expensive to organize, even as expensive as the Nationals if big names are invited, and if an organizer fails to find sponsors for a National, what hope is there for a Futurity?