So in fact only abt. 7,500 adult members play 10+ rated games in any one
year. That is, for better or worse, the state of USCF's union!



Only 12 people play -- they just use different names.


Impossibly, but I see that this 7,500 active-player frequency is composed of
both club players and tournament players, and not the size of clubs alone,
which is necessarily less than that. And therefore to return to the subject
of marketing, we have established the size of the active adult player
population in the USA.

This might be taken into acount when numbers like 80,000 are thrown around
as if they were an homogenous constituency, since for example, media are
interested in 17-35 year olds as target markets, and here we would have much
less than even 10% of 80k representing active adult players.

In fact the numbers are so low that it is a wonder that they can still be
seen as critical or central to general chess activity requiring central
support - since after all - it is not /necessary/ to have an affiliation to
run a chess club, and as any 'brand' with such low numbers after 30 years of
evolution, can be considered a failed brand.

I am in fact not arguing against club chess at all - or against Eric
Johnson's sense of its worth, but point that inter-club chess fueled British
generation of GMs [and IMs and Masters and A players... all in proportion]
and in fact there are more active adult players in England than in the
United States!

If clubs relatively local to each other do not organise themselves to play
rated games against each other, and USCF doesn't perform that function
either... then on all this evidence, whatever is valued in any USCF-brand is
left to seek.

When it really comes down to it, ECJ has nothing to offer on this subject
other than a quip, even though this subject is 'core-market' material to
chess organisations all round the world - and there is a direct relationship
to chess health and playing serious organised chess.

Phil Innes