In answer to "Corplawyer", who wrote of rated and non-rated chess;-


U.S. Chess needs both categories:

The second, to keep it afloat.

The first, to make it interesting.

---
I agree - even if the first category of blitz or non-ratable chess serves no
other purpose than to get people into the ratable-category. Should we dare
separate chess playing from ratable chess, the ratios of interest approach
extremes. Larry Evans estimated that 40 million Americans play chess at some
sort of level - and the comparison is with [of adults] 15,000 who play any
rated chess, and only 7,500 who play more than at a provisional level.

Ratable chess isn't what even active and strong players do most of the
time - which is typically to play somewhat faster, at 20, 10 or 5 mins, at
clubs or on-line, and quite evidently [just from ICC's online membership]
the ratios are still extreme, of games played, being something in the order
of 1 :: 10,000.

Now - while I do not [please note] argue that rated chess is in any way
unworthy of our attention - in fact the opposite, see below: for any
federation to only base its fortunes on that horrible ratio, which is
incidentally a stable one, or even mildly declining, is not to place itself
anywhere near the centre of chess activity in the country, since 'serious
player' has at least the other meaning of those who play very much - and is
not even a fair indicator of playing strength.

NEW BOARD'S Re-ORIENTATION

Where I strongly support some of Delegate Johnson's ideas about the worth of
rated chess, is from the experience of that in England, which per capita,
has massively outperformed US in %age of active players, and all the rest,
including the generation of GMs. The distinction between US and UK is not
serious rated club-chess as such, but //interclub chess leagues//.

They hardly exist in this country [perhaps are even impossible?] and the
isolation of chess clubs with only internal formats for attendees does not,
by any evidence, produce or evolve home-grown talent. Furthermore, but
almost finally, federating the entire country's chess activity around this
very questionable foundation, is seen heretofore to be a POLITICAL means of
establishing individuals in national chess management, rather than any
objective form of worth as answer to the question; "What forwards us?"

Cordially, Phil Innes