The United States Chess Federation (USCF) is in a financial crisis.
This news was recently broken to the general membership in an editorial
by Executive Board member Tim Redman in the January 2000 issue of
Chess Life. The problem was announced at the annual Board of Delegates
meeting in Reno last August. At that meeting, "we learned that things
were seriously wrong," Redman wrote.
Auditors reported an operating loss of $335,000 for the previous fiscal
year. "In response to the crisis," Redman wrote, "the Board of Delegates
mandated an austerity budget."
The most prominent feature of this new austerity budget is the
cancellation of the 2000 U.S. Championship "unless substantial funding
can be found."
The inner workings of the chess political machinery is usually of no concern to most chessplayers. But the cancellation of the U.S.
Championship has brought the incompetence of the USCF executives to the attention of the general membership.
One must assume that the reason no one wants to sponsor the U.S. Championship is because the USCF bigwigs have antagonized and
alienated all the usual funding suspects. Maybe they should consider a telethon.
What is Jerry Lewis doing this time of year?
As grandmaster Ron Henley wrote on his website
www.smartchess.com,
"This is a sad indictment of the apparent mismanagement of American Chess in recent times."
When the politicians screw up, who is first on the cutback list? The best
players in the country, the top grandmasters, who cannot be pleased that they have one less paycheck coming to them thanks to the experts at headquarters. Chess professionals know they are a low priority, and
when things go wrong, they know the politicians will find a way to
interfere with their ability to eke out a meager existence playing
chess. And it is the fault of the politicos that the professional
players have it so tough in the first place.
American chess is built on a shaky foundation. As Henley wrote,
"Compare this to the development of strong infrastructures and league play
in countries such as England, France and Germany." What is preventing
the USCF from learning a few lessons from Europe?
The objective of the USCF seems to be to drive away chess professionals.
A number of promising players have pretty much given up on making a living from chess and have left the game for other pursuits: Gata Kamsky, Ilya Gurevich, and Patrick Wolff, to name a few.
Henley believes there is a "Missing Generation" of American chess
talent, and a lack of development of young players. "The reason for this is
simple," Henley wrote. "There is insufficient inducement for American players to make the sacrifice and expend the energy required to become a world class player."
Why are professionals who spend their lives climbing Caissa's summit held in such low regard by the USCF? Why can't the politicians develop ways to assist them instead of spending so much of their time bickering with each other? The answer is because too many of the wrong sort of people become involved in the USCF administration. They have the wrong priorities.
Tim Redman wrote in his editorial that the USCF saw the Internet coming
years ago, but didn't have the "will" to be a leading Internet venue.
"Now we're forced to catch up," he wrote. That's the problem. Our fearless leaders have an idea of what should be done but just can't bring themselves to do it. It's all about attitude. We're the USCF! Everyone else has to
follow us. Yeah, right.
The avocation of a professional chessplayer in the U.S. is still something of a renegade/frivolous/alternative lifestyle, and that is because the USCF hasn't shown the leadership needed to gain respect for the game and its leading exponents.
| Bad Blood and Dark Secrets |
The troubles of the USCF are heatedly debated on
rec.games.chess.politics.
Anyone who reads this newsgroup can see at a glance what's wrong:
finger-pointing and recriminations dominate the discussion. Attaching blame to one's enemies is more important than finding a workable solution.
Score-settling and mud slopping seem to be the calling of many politicos
who show little interest in anything else. What about improving U.S. chess? Not much of that on anyone's agenda.
No one agrees on what the USCF's finances really are. Former President
Don Schultz refuses to believe there is any problem. "Why did the
Executive Board cancel the 2000 U.S. Championship...when the USCF is
running far ahead of what is projected by the budget?" he asked on
the Internet. Tim Redman responded that Schultz is not reading the numbers correctly, and that there are unexpected expenses to consider.
What are the real numbers and what do they really mean?
Politico Al Lawrence recently posted, "Does anyone know where reasonably
up-to-date USCF financials are posted?" Truly amazing. Not only is there
intense disagreement on financial numbers, many people haven't even seen
them. But once they're seen, how to interpret them correctly?
The USCF is traditionally secretive about exposing its financials
for the world to peruse. It seems to operate like the Freemasons or the
Knights Templars. Even political insiders don't know what's going on.
Jim Pechac, the new Vice President for Finance, will supposedly post a
financial report shortly. Pechac seems to be the person officially designated to announce what the figures really are and what they really mean.
This report is not for the faint of heart. Anyone sensitive to the sight of blood should avoid it. Apparently it will show a huge financial loss in the neighborhood of $179,000. Al Lawrence said, "The new Board
inherited a financial powder keg...The USCF can't go on losing
hundreds of thousands per year."
But will everyone believe Pechac's numbers? Bruce Draney recently
posted: "Frankly speaking there has been so much misinformation in the past
year whether accidental or deliberate that I have little faith any
longer in: a) USCF releasing any accurate membership or financial figures
and b) Should figure be released anytime soon by USCF that they can in
fact be believed or relied upon given past behavior."
The bleak outlook is underlined by a statement from former Board member
Jim Eade: "We will almost assuredly run another operational deficit during a year that we expressly concentrated on generating a surplus for in order to pay down our debt. Adult dues paying membership continues the pattern of stagnation and decline and sales are not making ends meet. No new revenue sources have been developed."
Is there any hope for the U.S. Championship? Redman seemed to leave the door slightly ajar, and Al Lawrence claimed that "there's a good chance that the new Board will put together some kind of championship if it's willing to compromise on a smaller than normal one. They have several offers of financial help."
Redman asked this question on the Internet: "Should the Federation cut back the pages of Chess Life to 48 (from 72) to hold the U.S. Championships?"
If this is a real choice,
there is no reason to cancel the U.S. Championship. Are we to believe that instead of cutting back the pages of Chess Life and holding the tournament, the Executive Board is keeping the magazine at the same size and cancelling the U.S. Championship??
How does this serve the best interests of U.S. chess? The news of the
cancellation has been a public relations black eye for the USCF.
Now everyone in the entire chess world knows the people running things
have clogged things up so much they can't even hold a national championship. And the undercurrent of hostility toward those who would participate in the U.S. Championship can't be ignored.
One of the core
activities of the USCF is holding a national championship. That's one of the primary reasons the USCF exists. Why not
have both the tournament and the magazine instead of cutting one out
entirely?
Can the USCF save itself? Or will it, like Poe's House of Usher, collapse from within and disintegrate? A new Executive Director, George L. De
Feis, was recently appointed. He is a chess outsider, which is very good news, considering recent history.
But even if he proves to be a positive source of leadership and inspiration to the USCF, what about all the rot surrounding him? What about all the decay and all the acrimony and all the wrongheaded-people around him?
The entire organization is starting to smell like a decomposing corpse. Former Board member Tom Dorsch wrote,
"Everyone agrees that the last two Policy Boards were dysfunctional, with excessive infighting and suboptimal performance."
What needs to be done? Al Lawrence suggested, "For this Board to turn things around, it has to start from square one on sponsorship, reinvigorate a neglected sales program, and turn away from the somewhat elitest membership objectives of the past."
Anyone who can save this sinking Titanic should be elected to the Chess Hall of Fame. But this is unlikely. The USCF may need to be scrapped and a new organization inserted in its place. Or perhaps, as has been seriously suggested, the IRS needs to be called in to investigate the USCF's activities.
Answers certainly will not come from within, but only from chess outsiders.
There is too much internal damage for the long-term politicos to save the USCF and themselves. And the old politicians shouldn't be saved--they should be
thrown out entirely so someone else can come in and save U.S. chess from its official persecutors.
- Stephen Leary
|
|
