A lot of players have brought up a very interesting point about the issue of support or not support professional players.
GM Gata Kamsky is the strongest player in America since Bobby Fischer. Earlier in his career, he was ranked in the top 3 in the world and challenged Karpov for the World Championship crown.
After a long layoff, he came back and once again becomes the top player in this country. He just completely outplayed GM Bacrot, France’s strongest GM. He is now facing GM Gelfand, Israel’s #1 player for the right to play in Mexico City in September for the World Championship.
But Gata does not have a second. He is facing some of the strongest players in the world by himself. He has virtually no support from the USCF.
IM Ben Finegold asked the following on the USCF forums:
“Does anyone know if the USCF is giving financial or other support to Gata in his quest to become World Champion? The USCF spends money on many events where US players go abroad (World Junior, Olympiads, World Team, Continental Champs, etc.). This would seem to be the most important of all, as a US World Champion would, in my opinion, give a great boost to USCF membership, and morale!”
I agree with Ben. This is the best shot any American has had in a long time and it could bring a boost to chess in this country if properly promoted. However, I think it is too late to do anything now since his match against Gelfand will start in less than 2 days.
I remember that after the 2004 US Women’s Olympiad team came home with the first ever Olympiad medals in US history (1 team Gold, 1 individual Gold and 2 individual Silver medals), we were warmly greeted by the USCF with a certified letter informing us that our Olympiad training program was officially cancelled.
We were told that the team did not deserve to be on the cover of Chess Life. Then we were informed that even though the members of the team dedicated nearly 2 years to train to proudly represent this country, the USCF will not pay the $5,000 bonus as stated in the players’ contracts which were created by the USCF. Some chess politicians even openly rooted for us to fail.
Imagine what kind of buzz our 2004 Olympiad medalist team could create for chess if we were allowed to actively promote chess for young girls. But the USCF felt that it was not necessary. When I try to do it on my own, instead of helping, they want to stop it.
I absolutely disagree with this mentality. I believe that we could have many good chess ambassadors such as Kamsky, Seirawan, Kaidanov, Ashley, Onischuk, Nakamura, Shabalov, Waitzkin, Irina Krush, Anna Zatonskih, Rusa Goletiani, Jennifer Shahade, etc. I am very disappointed that the USCF has done virtually nothing to enhance the image of chess and promote this game on a larger scale.
In every sport, the governing bodies are embracing their stars to promote their sports. They know that it is a win win situation for both sides. But in chess, this is not the case. Every time offers were made to help the USCF in this area, it was turned down. There is no interest whatsoever. It seems that some people would rather fight to be the King of the fish bowl instead of being a piece in the ocean.
This has been a very heated debate for a long time. Should the USCF support our top players? Should the USCF promote our top players a lot more to help make chess and the USCF more popular which in turn will bring in additional revenues in memberships, B&E income and sponsorships?
To me, support does not mean to throw money the way of top players money. We, as a federation, can provide plenty of opportunities for professional players to make money while helping US chess and the USCF at the same time. It is a winning situation for both sides.
Some feel that the USCF should not waste a penny. Others think that it is a disgrace that the USCF does not support its top players. What do you think? What is your opinion about this controversial topic?
Supporting Gata Kamsky would not be a waste. Dealing with potential sponsors in a professional manner is not a waste either.
I agree with Sam Sloan, Bill Goichberg and his slate. We shouldn’t waste a penny for professional players. Let them earn money own their own. We shouldn’t support scholastic or college chess either. We only need to focus on the magazine and the rating system.
You are absolutely correct! It is horrible that Gata Kamsky, potentially a World Champion candidate is getting ZERO support from USCF! It is also horrible what they did to your Olympic Champion team also! And speaking of not getting on the cover, when my team won the US Amateur Team Championship we also did not get on the cover or any recognition either. In fact, what they did this year to the South team which won the title instead they put the east coast team which got eliminated in the first round on the cover of the USCF magazine and not the champion South team just shows you how wrong USCF politicians are right now. If it were not for you Susan and your team of professional people promoting chess positively I also would quit USCF as many of my peers have already done for the last 10 years!
“In every sport, the governing bodies are embracing their stars to promote their sports”
Yes but they do not pay them!
I think we need to be very careful here. Well paid stars in Football, Baseball, Golf etc are not paid by the NFL, PGA etc. They earn this money by getting sponsorship from companies because they are hugely popular e.g. Tiger Woods is sponsored by NIKE and probably (actually definitely!) receives more money from sponsorship than he does from winning tournaments. The tournaments are also not sponsored by the PGA they are sponsored by Buick, Chase Manhatten etc.
What you may be asking is should membership fees given by amateurs be paid over to people who want to be professionals but can’t find the sponsorship to generate enough funds. Hmm I’m not sure about this.
Many amateurs may feel the money would be better spent on improving the USCF magazine, more weekend tournaments in whihc they can participate etc.
Susan, chess professionals form a small minority of USCF members and giving relatively large amounts of money to them over other uses which might benefit a far larger number of players/members is a tricky issue.
I do agree that there is an argument that having sucessful players may entice more people into the game which could increse USCF membership etc. This issue requires sensitive handling. Good luck with it if you are elected!
Susan, Goichberg was right to cancel your program. Who wants to support a bunch of girls playing chess? We could use this money for more important things.
Nothing has changed since Bobby Fischer played for the world championship. Back then the USCF had all kinds of excuses why it could not help. But a few private individuals and sponsors did come forward to help a little.
I am not sure that the USCF should just hand Gata a chunk of money. However, they could and should supply a 2nd which would be expensive. But mainly they should have lots of corporate sponsors lined up to fund Gata.
Magnus has many sponsors. He always has a 2nd and a trainer. It is expensive for him to fly around the world. Again sponsors step in to help Magnus.
This help is missing for Nakamura. And we see the results. Nakamura is falling behind the rapid rise of Magnus.
I am disgusted with USCF and their baloney and excuses. If I owned the company called USCF, I would fire every last one of them politicians. Bunch of wasted humanity.
Susan you are the first person to come along since Bobby Fischer who understands the problems, the issues and you understand the solutions and best of all you want to impliment the solutions.
We have to find the corporate people in America who want to make us the best in chess. We need to show them how they will benefit by being lined up with the winning chess team. We should have a minimum million dollar war chest supplied by corporations to be used to support our best players like Gata and Nakamura and whoever else might make a serious run on the international chess scene.
We should have incentives for chess coaches who can perform on the world stage to help our players. Money should be no object. We need those corporations who want to fund a winner. Corporations who will greatly benefit from the publicity and good will they display to all Americans to make us the best in the world in chess once again.
The Yankees paid a pitcher $28 million dollars for part of this year. not even the entire season. And chess can not find a plug nickle. Obviously, the corruption at USCF headquarters is hurting all chess players in America.
Throw the Bumbs out. ( said to get a chuckle. But sort of true also. )
I would say to the previous poster that this is exactly why we need Susan Polgar on the USCF board. She is in the unique position of having personal knowledge and experience as a member of virtually every constituency of the USCF. She was an active elite player for many years and is familiar with the issue of those players. She runs a chess club that holds regular weekly (?)tournaments for adult players and monthly scholastic tournaments. She is a chess writer, teacher and coach and a chess mom. Right now, there is no one on the board who represents most of those constituencies. Frankly, I don’t know what constituencies they represent.
Vote for Susan Polgar, Paul Truong, Mikhail Korenman and Randy Bauer and Go Gata Kamsky!
Well, the PGA does promote it’s players. And it has reached a point where sponsorships provide for those players. Chess needs to start down that road. Yes there should be care in considering where the limited funds go. The promotion of the game, however should be one of those considerations. If not paid directly to a player like Gata, who is in a very good position to promote US chess right now, then how about helping to get those sponsors. Or setting up something with Gata to assist him and have him pay it back with promotion of US chess in some way. I think some creative thought with even the limited funds could go a long way. Besides, what are the USCF funds being used for now?
The USCF spent over $100,000 for the redesigned Chess Life, USCF retreat for chess policians, and of course the new website which doesn’t work and now they’re paying Hal Bogner a lot of money to fix it again. And by the way, there were no open biddings for these positions. I guess it’s good to know the right people.
How come Goichberg doesn’t want Paul Truong to help the USCF in these critical areas? Anybody?
I would apply the Standard Anonymous USCF Board Member Criteria:
My reasons are as follows:
Gata Kamsky is not the highest rated ACTIVE player in the United States because he did not choose to participate in the 2007 United States Chess Championship. He is also not likey to improve being as old as he is.
Gata is 33 years old, which makes him much older than Magnus Carlsen and Teimour Radjabov. It is likely that these boys will be able to catch him or pass him in the next several years.
His name is difficult to pronounce and remember. Frankly, most of the other top players have very pronounceable or spellable names. At least, I cannot remember how to spell Gata and have to look it up every time.
He has a bad name for chess. Imagine being Kamskied by Bonekammer Kamsky.
Gata has a litigious and legalistic personality. He is feared by all who know him. He is a lawyer making him prone to be involved in disputes or controversies of all kinds. He probably won’t stay clear of politics or of any sort of political involvement like past
Russian World Chess Champions.
It does not help that Gata is not as attractive as Brad Pitt who is an astoundingly handsome and attractive actor.
In short, Gata Kamsky is the perfect role model of a person, who we don’t want to support as World Champion. A middle aged man is obviously not a good role model as a hunky Norwegian teenager.
As to the timing of this decision, I believe that now is the right time to cut off all support and funding. If we wait until Gata Kamsky wins the World Championship it will be more controversial and politically contentious to claim credit for his victory than to not spend money on his expenses. I have considered waiting until the September tournament in Mexico City but I believe cutting off all non-existent funding for Gata Kamsky will have more adverse political ramifications if done then.
Accordingly, I propose that we cut off all funding for Gata Kamsky who we were not planning on funding anyway as soon as possible.
I hope that this motion can be passed quickly so that an announcement can appear in Chess Life magazine in August before the World Championship in Mexico City, Mexico.
Not a USCF Board Member
I think we first have to resolve the issue if chess is a sport or a game. The olympic federation feels chess is not a sport. If chess is a sport, what about checkers, go, bridge and poker? Where do we draw the line?
The USCF shouldn’t support Susan or Gata. They’re both in their 30’s. That’s too old. We also shouldn’t support non-American born players. Why should we?
There was a phrase in there, that seems to be lacking from most political discussions…
Win-Win.
The proper use of the USCF, and all the people that want to interact with the USCF, is wealth building. Creating a bigger pie. This is kinda like activity means membership. You know like having scholastic chess in the far west.
Anyways, for some reason, politicians are treating chess management and promotion like a zero-sum chess game. When it should be a responsible win-win, pie growing game. A wealth generating game. With a proper set of vision and goals, we wouldn’t be fighting over the penny-ante stuff. But until the conversation moves to growth, then we get stuck in zero-sum game, and then it is a matter of fighting for pennies.
But everyone needs to play. Everyone needs to get better. Scholastic, professional, amateur, USCF, Sponsors, and Organizers. At the end of the day, everyone should be doing better because of chess. And when that happens, all the rest kinda stops.
Hello Susan and all commenting parties. There were two opinions that had valid points on both sides. One the opinion of anon at 8:52 pm about giving USCF money to professionals is a tricky issue. I will not rehash anon’s points. On the other hand is the need to support our chess competitors who vie for the world championships, Olympiads, or the Grandmaster title, i.e Irina Krush. Well Susan in my humble opinion If you are not sucessful in your bid to right the USCF by electing your team to the board. I suggest you start a professional organization with the above goals. Separate and not bound by the USCF, with the express purpose of bringing corporate sponsorship to players and making our country into a powerhouse again. I must say that history has shown us that separation usually weakens us because the incumbent organization will attack us and we do not have its support. Another thought, I wonder how much China invests in their players. Of course they have the full weight of the state behind them but could such a program work here( with different funding)? We certainly have a lot kids who need direction. I dont think the answer is a two tiered educational system which our illustrious NYC Politicians have proposed. A Chess School..hmmm! Okay I have rambled enuff!!!
It will be a good idea to restrict posting to registered users to get rid of these anonymous postings
Women’s chess is a joke. There’s no reason to waste a penny for it. Goichberg was correct to cancel the women’s olympiad program.
I hope Joe Lux, Mike Goodall, Don Schultz and Stephen Jones will continue this tradition. We can’t waste money for this ridiculous program.
The board recently approved $125,000 for the world youth. That’s also ridiculous. If these rich kids want to go to Turkey, they should pay their own ways.
If true, I’m appalled that USCF has provided Kamsky with no support in Elista. That’s disgraceful.
I think USCF should support Gata Kamsky NOW. In his match against Gelfand, if that would help. It’s not often that we have someone with a shot for the World Championship. Maybe about once every 25 years. I’m the one who said he’s the best since Fischer.
Gata’s a very special case. Frankly, the women’s team championship isn’t comparable, regardless of what should or did happen there. Please don’t mix the two.
I like what artichoke has to say. Say yes to Kamsky. Say no to women’s chess! Right on brother! U da man for speaking up!
Should USCF support Kamsky? I don’t know. Is Kamsky an American citizen? If yes, then yes, if no then yes again. USCF should award Kamsky with 50.000 $ for thrashing Bacrot (who I never heard of before this match, by the way) and making USCF more famous than ever before in the near past. Kamsky should be given free access to all Chess Encyclopedias and literature and software. USCF should give him the strongest laptop on the market. In return, Kamsky should win a match or two more and promote USCF even when sleeping. Cheers to all anons.
This is a “no-brainer” question!
The USCF should strongly support USA chess players and teams who compete in major world chess events. The USCF and it’s members should have a sense of pride and patriotism for the country and the chess players who represent it.
It makes me sick to my stomach every time I hear about how the USA Women’s Olympic Team was treated by the USCF politicos after their great achievements.
What’s up with all this anti-women’s chess talk?!
There are a great number of women chess players who are excellent players…take, for instance, Susan’s sister, Judith.
If we want chess to become more popular (i.e., respected) we have to start respecting our own first, regardless of gender.
I think some of the problem is that some male chess players are scared of the thought of a women being cleverer (more intelligent) than them.
Keep this rule of thumb, as long as there are women out there who can kick your butt in chess, then don’t make a asinine comment like “women’s chess sucks.”
If Gata can hold out for 2 more months and you get elected Susan, then I think one of the first priorities has to be finding support for him.
Should the USCF support Gata? Of course they should, as part of popularizing the game of chess. But we should keep our expectations realistic. For chess-playing (as opposed to teaching) to flourish as a profession, the top players will need to band together with organizers to create events and sponsorship specifically for professionals.
Take a look at golf. The USGA focuses on popularizing the game among the general population. The PGA is an association of NON-PLAYING professionals, such as teaching pros, golf shop owners and managers, equipment manufacturers & sales people, etc. Then you have the PGA Tour, which broke away from the PGA in 1968, and facilitates the series of big money professional tournaments that we are all familiar with from TV.
Gata needs an agent, (or a better one!), and he needs to go after sponsorship money directly.
Perhaps the way to go for chess is to follow the golf model, with separate organizations for:
a)professionals (players, teachers and organizer/promoters)
b)amateurs, i.e people who don’t earn a living from the game
c) scholastics (maybe)
That way each organization can pursue its main priorities, while working with the others as appropriate.
The USCF also makes the Local Tournament Director test to hard (the questions are not in the rulebook)so….no new directors and very few new members!