PROPERTIES DISCUSSED

Good post, Gerry (you lurker, you!)

You have it 99 percent right -- all except that "free entry to the US
Open" part. There is small stipend to each player for completing the
event (which I suppose might equal the EFs of prior US Opens, when the EF
was under $100).

If I were a player in the Denker...why would I want to go to a separate
location...when I could lobby my folks to take me to a much larger chess
festival (US Open)?
Your post lays out some really good points:

1. The Denker event was always conceived as being part of the US Open

2. It has been held that way for 2 decades and is cost-effective.

What it was, and what it is now, is very open to question and comparison!
And cost-effective means, of course, for USCF, not the players.

3. It is undeniably a USCF property -- as administered by USCF under
Arnold's guiding hand prior to his passing

There is no gain for USCF to allow the event to be separated from the US
Open..and I say that as someone who used to attend to the details of the
event.

PERCENTAGES, COMPARED

And there you have it! The subject is completely divorced from its
organisational function. Not a single word from either Gerry Dullea, to whom
Eric Johnson is praising, or the Delegate himself, on what best supports the
chess player.

100% of these messages are about what is best for USCF.

0% of comments have considered why the Denker want to investigate anything!

From my vantage point, this is another example of a weak USCF board
allowing committees to have too much power in the system. Yes, committees
are good for attending to details. But without a strong hand over
them...you get the sense that eventually the longstanding committee chairs
think they have complete say over their areas.

WHO'S RANTING?

Eric, Mr. Marketing, Johnson has now subscribed an investigation to
'complete say'. You would almost think that it was Eric and Gerry here who
wanted 'complete say', no? As if they had absolutely no curiosity why an
investigation is taking place, and somehow investigations of the quality of
the Denker = complete control.

Someone on the board needs to alert the Denker committee that this
"exploratory move" is not in the best interests of the USCF (owner of the
property)...and that this is true regardless of how much time and money
others have invested in the property up to now.

QUALITY CONTROL PROBLEM

I agree that someone on the board needs to alert Denker committee to these
opinions.

There is absolutely no way that Arnold could have joined this discussion
without taking the perspective of the chess player into account - and
indeed - is that not the central issue here?

Who is even going to look at it?

Some people think that if you do own things, then there is a concommitant
level of responsibility that goes with it. If there /is/ a current problem,
who is going to 'own' that? )))

WE OWN IT!

The quality of the experience of the players is in question for everyone
except USCF right-or-wrong we-own-it, types, which is so infamous a form of
argument, it does not deserve response, since the WELFARE of those taking
part is not owned as a topic even worth noting!

Something is wrong, and you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Johnson?

Phil Innes
Vermont

ECJ