Rob wrote:
On Jun 28, 9:52*am, Mike Murray wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 22:38:47 -0700 (PDT), Rob
wrote:

If they were planing an event, a prudent organizer would have insured
his event and bonded the prize fund. The USCF did not require it and
the "endorsed" the event. Both the USCF and the organizer both bear
responsibility, IMO.

Nonsense.

In what appears to be your latest attempt at damage control for a
member of the latest Polgar "slate" by spreading the blame, you ignore
the very important concept of *relative* level of responsibility. *

That the USCF hasn't implemented your recommendation of a whole new
process requiring bonding of prize fund guarantees is in no way
comparable to an organizer failing to live up to his guaranteed prize
fund. *To even link the two is ridiculous.

As has been pointed out, many organizers "ate" their guarantees. *It's
the honorable thing to do. *It's the competent thing to do. *It's the
trustworthy thing to do. *

To implement a bonding requirement may be a good thing to do. *That it
hasn't yet been done is in no way comparable to an organizer weaseling
out of his guarantee. *

Mike,
I never said it was. What was pointed out by someone else was that
they did have a bonding requirement at some point but the decision was
made not to require it anymore. It was said some of the reasons given
was because it caused a financial hardship on some organizers. That
may be true. By eleminating an expense one also increases the
potential for profit with the organizer. This does not benefit the
player but does benefit the organizer.

A small organizer may not have "deep" enough pockets to "eat" a prize
fund. The bottom line is the USCF endorsed the event. The USCF had no
rules to guarantee a prize fund. There is no language from the USCF
stating that in the event of a reduced number of entrants the prize
fund cannot be lowered.

The promoter of the event should have bonded the tournament to make
sure this did not happen to protect their reputation and to build for
the future. The USCF should have acted as a real governance
organization like the PGA does. They have the ability and an
obligation to members to step up to the plate and enforce requirements
that are already on the books or to bring them back if they stopped
requiring them.

And Mike, I am not excusing anyone. Does the USCF have rules
concerning prize funds and the failure to pay the full amount?
Everything should be clear and cut and dried.


Of course it has. That's what the whole discussion is about. If you
don't pay a guaranteed prize fund without an adequate excuse (fire,
flood, earthquake, insurrection...), you lose the privilege of
advertising future tournaments in Chess Life. That's black-letter,
published in the Rulebook and in the Delegates' Call every year. Since
a large-prize-fund tournament not advertised in Chess Life is almost a
guaranteed failure, nearly all organizers abide by this. The problem
is that, for whatever reasons, the rule was not enforced here.

It is certainly possible that the USCF should adopt a stronger rule on
this, but keep in mind that the USCF is not a government. It has no
coercive power. All it can do is /revoke privileges./ Comparison to
something like the PGA is way off point, because the PGA makes money,
and can control how much of this trickles down. Chess tournaments are
not big money-makers for their organizers. There are fewer than half a
dozen tournaments each year that make a /significant/ profit. Maybe a
couple of dozen others make a marginal profit (we're talking minimum
wage here), with a risk of loss. All those organizers are independent
operators. The USCF doesn't control them, and it's not going to any
time in the foreseeable future.