One interesting fact about Don's book was to contrast what happened to US
Chess clubs when weekend swisses arrived all over the place coupled with
introduction of the ELO system - an unintended effect, he says, was that
very many people, especially the stronger players, abandoned chess clubs
and

just went to the very weekend tournaments that Eric Johnson here
describes.


Bcause the clubs didn't run events -- clubs that run events do not have
this
phenomenon.

Skittles clubs died out.

This is to misunderstand the issue twice - if clubs /did/ run events then
players would attend /only/ those, and typical in my experience is that
stronger players enter tournaments rather than weaker players, and so clubs
were stripped of their natural mentors - mentors bored with being top dog
year after year with no real challenge - not even playing the equivalent
top-dog in another club on a regular basis to sustain their interest in
chess.

Hence the decline in frequency rate of serious rated play, and rather than
skittles clubs dying out, it made existing clubs more skittle-like.

This refusal to look at the real state of chess health in USA is a problem!
And not one that can be engaged properly in public debate when people excuse
it, and gloss it, as if it were not true, or they could dispense with it
with a quip.

USCF is /not/ an amateur organisation, not by definition. There are 30
people /paid/ to do their work [used to be 50!], and the measure of their
efficacy must be termed 'chronic', since this state of affairs would be
laughable in any mature organisation.

An average paid staff of 40 people at $25k, for 20 years is $20,000,000.

Money well spent?

Phil Innes

ECJ