5 years ago in 2003, the U.S. Open drew big name GMs such as: Shabalov, Kaidanov, Yudasin, Wojtkiewicz, Sulskis, Minasian, Stripunsky, Ibragimov, Christiansen, Ehlvest, Granda, Akobian, Blatny, Lein, Browne, etc.
In 2008, only 2 GMs entered the U.S. Open: Shabalov and Yermolinsky.
The overall attendance took a downward trend: 543 players in 2006, 408 in 2007 and 379 in 2008.
The membership numbers also took a dive. In 2003, the USCF membership was around 95,000. In 2008, it is around 80,000.
What are some of the reasons for the dramatic decline? What do you think? What can be done to reverse this trend?
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
Too much fast food that kills brain cells. But at least you’ve got Phelps.
Chess sucks.
USCF sucks.
I totally agree with anonymous August 13, 2008 7:42:00 AM. The USCF does suck….and Chess Life magazine definitely does…I’ve been a US National Master for over 19 years…and I always thought that the USCF did little to nothing to promote chess the right way, their website is lame too…Chess-In-The-Schools was an excellent start to improvement, but young players would stop playing after they graduated….and Chess Life magazine has always been mediocre for instruction to say the least. I have been born in the wrong country chess-wise (US). Why can’t we have a magazine that can compare to New In Chess or British Chess magazine? By the way…I’m very grateful for this blog site, chessbase & twic. Over and out!
The players stopped playing after they graduated because they had no inspiration to continue playing in tournaments or be USCF members to the aforementioned reasons…we all love playing online…but few things can make a difference to make us play in OTB tournies..maybe Susan Polgar can make help make a real difference.
I chose not to renew my membership this year. My scholastic club will, for the most part, not renew their memberships. That’s a net loss of about 30 memberships right there. In my eyes, USCF’s scholastic membership provides 1)A rating system [I know how to work a spreadsheet, so big deal], 2)A magazine [that my kids regularly throw away, and I can’t say I blame them], and 3)The opportunity to play at rated events [we’re perfectly happy sticking with unrated events].
Now if I saw USCF as a charitable organization, that would be different. If my dues went toward promotion of the game, or helping low-income kids, I’d be happy to fork over the 40 bucks. But I simply don’t see where the money is going.
At the recent delegates meeting, the USCF has committed to spend $100,000 or more per year to get rid of GM Polgar from the board. They’ll continue to use members’ money to chase GM Polgar out of their USCF and the members have no say about it.
Travel expenses are higher than ever.
USCF is god’s gift to lawyers, not chess players.
Get rid of the USCF EB and hire real professionals to run USCF like a business, not a personal play-thing of mental patients.
As long as Goichberg is in charge, the USCF is doomed. He’ll destroy the federation to feed his ego.
We have people who are perfectly happy enjoying the game without dealing with the *COST* of joining the USCF and the *COST* of going to USCF events.
Suggestions to improve USCF membership and tournament participation:
1) How about a Free USCF Internet Chess Server for use by all chess players — not just USCF members?
2) How about not hiring columnists, etc. unless they agree to participate (play) in at least six USCF over-the-board tournaments each year?
3) How about ending the membership dues discrimination? A junior from a well-to-do family can better afford to pay than a middle-aged person who can barely feed herself. Make the fee as small as possible and equal for *all* members.
4) Hold more tournaments with lower entry fees. Primarily only sandbaggers and the wealthy are currently willing (or able) to play in the big money events.
5) End the tournament entry fee discrimination. Everyone should pay the same amount. If there’s prize money, make it based on the fees taken in from each prize section.
6) Don’t force the membership to pay for a magazine they don’t want. Offer the magazine as an optional subscription. Drop the magazine if too few want to subscribe.
7) Hold more tournaments with longer time controls. Give the players time to think and be original at-the-board. Don’t force them to memorize opening moves that get played without a thought.
There’s little if anything new in the above suggestions. We suggest, but nothing changes. When my membership expires I won’t renew — at least not until I have a good reason to renew.
There are many problems, but the bottom line is money, Money, MONEY. That, and changes tend to be too few and tend to take place too slowly.
In every corporation in the world that loses money for the shareholdres, the board is responsible. First the CEO has to go and if correction is not made then other members must resign.
The USCF should be held to the same standards. It continues to lose money, it does not grow but yet the board is still there.
A solution that consumers have is that if one is not happy with the product or service one can go to the competition, however, here we have a natural monopoly – their is no other official chess organization that can speak for the United States.
Solution: to start another one does not mean it will be achieve as much as this one has. Business people must run the administrative part of the USCF, not chessplayer business people. Chessplayers should run the operational part of chess while the business people run the administrative.
The CEO of a corporation does not work the line, his managers do.
USCF will not go away sadly to say.
signed
🙂
No, not only the ED and President are not held accountable, the ED will be awarded with a 2 year extension with a raise, courtesy of Goichberg and friends. Friends of the president are being taken care off financially. I don’t see any chance for Susan to go up against this Mafia like environment.
The idea of USCF may be outdated anyway.
Are the other places to play chess growing or shrinking?
– ICC
– Playchess
– Other
ICC, playchess and FICS go up. Other organizations also go up except USCF.
If I may offer an analogy (a poor one, but an analogy all the same). Major League Soccer lost $350 Million from 1996 to 2004. So why does it continue to exist? Because there are some high-dollar investors who are passionate about soccer, and are willing to pour money down that hole. They don’t expect a profit – they see it as a way to build community spirit and see the sport that they love thrive in the U.S.
USCF as a viable business may be impossible. But if there are people passionate about it, and willing to put money toward the cause, it could thrive under a similar model. But donors don’t want to be associated with such a hostile environment, much less get caught up in a lawsuit from either side. In order for the donors to come out, they need a business-friendly environment. The USCF should be run by business people, not by players, former players, or tournament organizers.
I realize that this position is about as popular as a ham milkshake, but it’s one of those hard facts we have to face. Drastic changes now, or find a good bankruptcy attorney. Only choices left.
Let the USCF officially die as it is no more than a overly perfumed corpse as is.
If no competent and responsible persons can be found for a successor organization then we should just go without.
If the vacuum doesn’t get filled then it wasn’t much of a vacuum.
The reason people did not attend the US Open has nothing to do with Goichberg, Polgar or any of the other politicians in the USCF. The political chaos is very sad, but most chess players don’t care one way or the other. Aside from ratings, publications, tournaments and the website, perhaps 90% of USCF members don’t care for more.
The turnout at the US Open has more to do with the 1. downturn in the economy, 2. increasing hotel costs (especially in 2007), 3. relative small prize fund compared to increasing expenses 4. remote location from population centers of chess players and 5. support from local chess players (items 3 and 4 were the problem in 2008).
The Chicago US Open in 2006 should be the model for success. The tournament attracted 530 players and about 20 FIDE titled players. Impressive, eh? Obviously, the success of Chicago was based largely on a familiar location for many active chess players, plus one that at least half of the tournament participants could drive to (and many could even drive home each night). The US Open should always be in metro NY or Chicago or California (2003 was a success in LA).
One last point: If the USCF can get a good deal, then it is possible to hold the US Open in a tourist destination such as Orlando or even Arizona. Case in point: besides visiting the 6th Floor Museum, I don’t know what else there was to do in Dallas (the tower was closed). Contrast that to Chicago, which itself is a fancy city with lots to see.
People need to understand that this was about the time that Bobby Fischer started getting sick and was treated unfairly by the US government. His last match was in 1993 against Boris Spassky and people were waiting for him to trounce Kasparov and Karpov in a match scheduled this year or next. Unfortunately, Fischer died plunging the US Chess scene into despair. It may be take decades for US Chess to recover with the rebirth of another Bobby Fischer or Paul Morphy. Sorry to say it, but I don’t see anyway out of it.
In the first issue of Chess Life that I have, there was a push to get to a membership of 12,000 within 12 months. Now the USCF has several times that number, but the average quality of players has gone way down.
I can’t blame Wojtkiewicz for not showing up this year given that he passed away. I think he made every effort though.
Location, money, publicity, and in-fighting.
I can’t see blaming money or location; Texas not only has a slew of chess players, but it also is in the middle of a tremendous economic boom.
It’s not a question of money; it’s a question of time. Why should a patzer like me spend 5 days away from my family to play all of 9 games of chess? And that’s the ABBREVIATED schedule. The number of players who appreciate a long time control could fit in a modest ballroom. The rest of us would be happy with a bunch of G/30 games spread out over a couple of days and then go home to play with the kids.