The 2003 U.S. Open in Los Angeles, sponsored by the Southern California Chess
Federation, had the following delegates/alternate delegates support the event
by either playing or directing.

The individuals who participated included
DELEGATES
Joseph Wagner (Executive Board member)
Jerry Hanken (delegate at large)
Randy Hough (chief TD)
Mike Nagaran
Michael Carr
ALTERNATE DELEGATES
Ben Nethercot
L. Gordon Brooks
Oscar Maldonado
Michael Jeffreys
Michael Purcell
Chuck Ensey

TOTAL = 11

Individuals not playing:
DELEGATES
Gerald Blem
Jay Stallings
Dewain Barber
Ron Rezendes Jr.
ALTERNATE DELEGATES
John Surlow
John West
Alina Markowski
Jack Peters
Cyrus Lakdawala
Barbara McCaleb
Chris Roberts
Elliot Landaw
Richard Rico
Fred Brock
David Saponara
Al Massip
Charles Rostedt

TOTAL = 17

DELEGATE SUPPORT = 11 DELEGATE NON-SUPPORT = 17

I'm sure the SCCF was expecting more support for this Open, especially from its
delegates/alternate delegates.

George Mirijanian

I didn't realize that playing/directing was the only form of support. Let's
see....

"Miriling" wrote in message
...

Individuals not playing:
DELEGATES
Gerald Blem
Jay Stallings

Operated B&E Sales for the event.

Dewain Barber
Ron Rezendes Jr.
ALTERNATE DELEGATES
John Surlow

Scholastic organizer

John West

Has two daughters playing in the event.

Alina Markowski
Jack Peters
Cyrus Lakdawala

Advance entry, cancelled.

Barbara McCaleb

Drove 4-5 hours to attend workshops.

Chris Roberts
Elliot Landaw

Has two sons that play, does not usually play himself. Sons not playing.

Richard Rico
Fred Brock
David Saponara
Al Massip
Charles Rostedt

I'm sure the SCCF was expecting more support for this Open, especially
from its
delegates/alternate delegates.

George Mirijanian

Sorry, these few were just those of whom I am aware, and I certainly don't
know all of these folks. I guess the point is that different people support
the event in different ways, not just by playing. It's enough to make me
question this census, though. It may accurately reflect a comparisonof the
delegate list to the entries, but is doesn't seem to be too meaningful in
indicating support.

David

David wrote:

I didn't realize that playing/directing was the only form of support. Let's
see....

"Miriling" wrote in message
...

Individuals not playing:
DELEGATES
Gerald Blem
Jay Stallings

Operated B&E Sales for the event.

Dewain Barber
Ron Rezendes Jr.
ALTERNATE DELEGATES
John Surlow

Scholastic organizer

John West

Has two daughters playing in the event.

Alina Markowski
Jack Peters
Cyrus Lakdawala

Advance entry, cancelled.

Barbara McCaleb

Drove 4-5 hours to attend workshops.

Chris Roberts
Elliot Landaw

Has two sons that play, does not usually play himself. Sons not playing.

Richard Rico
Fred Brock
David Saponara
Al Massip
Charles Rostedt

I'm sure the SCCF was expecting more support for this Open, especially
from its
delegates/alternate delegates.

George Mirijanian

Sorry, these few were just those of whom I am aware, and I certainly don't
know all of these folks. I guess the point is that different people support
the event in different ways, not just by playing. It's enough to make me
question this census, though. It may accurately reflect a comparisonof the
delegate list to the entries, but is doesn't seem to be too meaningful in
indicating support.

David

I agree that there are many ways to support USCF and agree that whether
a person played in the Open or not is not a good indication of whether
they are helping USCF. Opens are long drawn out affairs and do not fit
well with modern work schedules. Even the busy person schedule would
require major adjustments to play in, for the typical working adult.
For the most part the players are likely to be locals who can come and
play one round right after work, the retirees who no longer are working,
or the independently wealthy who are able to take 10-13 days off and go
play chess because they don't need to be punching a time card to support
their wife and kids.

It is interesting note however that for years the assumption has been
made that our primary purpose is to rate tournaments. Unfortunately,
although many may think this has been our primary purpose in the past,
data put forth by Mike Nolan over the past couple years, have shattered
myths that the majority of even adult members are joining USCF to play
in tournaments. I never can remember the exact figure, but when Mike
looked at rated games played by adult members, he found that only about
40% of the adult regular members actually play in a rated tournament
game during the time they are members. Why are they shelling out $49.00
to join if they're not apparently interested in playing in tournaments?
For example, Mike himself last played a rated game (I think) in the
Kona, Hawaii U.S. Open in 1998.

Many Life Members have not played games for many, many years. Bill
Goichberg has not played rated games for some time (at least last I
knew), yet I hardly doubt that anyone would accuse Bill of not
supporting the USCF.

Some people direct. Some people love the governance aspect of USCF and
just like to be a part of that. Some people join to keep connected with
the chess world (odd as that may seem). Some enjoy being a member of an
organization like USCF for its own sake. Some want to collect the
entire collection of every Chess Life ever written. Some people want to
keep current, because their kids are members. Some want to sell chess
equipment and without a membership their connection with rated chess
players is greatly diminished.

What is unfortunate, and I have commented on this before, is that the
vast majority of delegates represent primarily two distinct groups of
people. Life members tend to be overly concentrated among the
delegates, and they have a significant interest in seeing the
organization adequately funded, lest they lose their lifetime investment
and ride on the gravy train. Scholastic coaches and equipment sellers
also tend to have a large presence at the meetings, since many of them
fear that their low dues rates and fees will be changed if they don't
show up every year and rattle a few sabres and threaten to secede, if
dues rise one more dollar.

The regular, ordinary, red blooded, adult regular member is in short
supply at these meetings and is often the one that gets dumped on with
extra fees and extra dues increases. The Delegates then bless one
another and exclaim how much good will there was, particularly amongst
the Life Members and the Scholastic coaches and equipment sellers,
because they were able to reach an accomodation with one another not to
raise one another's dues for another year.

Best Regards,

Bruce

On 15 Aug 2003 10:28:12 -0500, Bruce Draney wrote:

Life members tend to be overly concentrated among the
delegates, and they have a significant interest in seeing the
organization adequately funded, lest they lose their lifetime investment
and ride on the gravy train.

I find it hard to believe that someone would take on a bunch of
organizational responsibilities and extra work to preserve an
investment worth about fifty bucks a year. There's hardly enough
gravy on this train to stain your shirt on a daily basis.

Mike Murray wrote:

On 15 Aug 2003 10:28:12 -0500, Bruce Draney wrote:

Life members tend to be overly concentrated among the
delegates, and they have a significant interest in seeing the
organization adequately funded, lest they lose their lifetime investment
and ride on the gravy train.

I find it hard to believe that someone would take on a bunch of
organizational responsibilities and extra work to preserve an
investment worth about fifty bucks a year. There's hardly enough
gravy on this train to stain your shirt on a daily basis.

Well, I think it's not the money so much as the pride, ego, tradition
and the sense that this organization is theirs for life and that others
will come and go, but they've made a lifetime commitment. The old adage
about the politics being so nasty because the stakes are so small, comes
to mind. They are fiercely defensive, when the issue is raised, yet
their actions speak for themselves, as they have repeatedly raised dues
on the group not well represented at the meetings.

I'm not claiming it's necessarily rational, but human beings are often
not rational. My point was that the poster was ripping Delegates for
not playing, but playing in the Open is very difficult for the modern
working person, even one, that lives within 50 miles. I know a lot of
players who work nights and weekends. They can't even play in a two or
three day weekend Swiss, let alone in a 10-13 day long event, unless
they rearrange their work schedules, take vacation time, or go to a lot
of trouble. The Delegates' meetings are on the weekend however, and do
not take a huge time commitment. This also does not take into account
that the entry fee for the Open is fairly significant. Certainly it is
worth it if you don't have to miss half the rounds due to work or other
commitments, but the meetings don't cost anything and they are also a
different group of people who are interested in attending the meetings.

I have seen players be begged to serve as Delegates and just shake
their heads and say, "no way", even if it meant their state would not be
fully represented at the meetings. This is one of the reasons why USCF
allows states to name Delegates that don't live in the state if they
can't find any Alternate Delegates present that are willing or able to
serve.

I have been to two Delegates meetings and have been seated as a
Delegate from Northern California both times even though I live in
Nebraska. Mike Nolan has also served as a Delegate from a different
state on more than one occasion. In St. Paul, there were actually three
Nebraskans serving as Delegates and only one of them was actually
representing Nebraska.

I think Stan Booz was seated as a Delegate in St. Paul, but was not
representing Pennsylvania. If I'm wrong here, Stan will I'm sure
correct me.

Best Regards,

Bruce

Subject: Southern Calif. delegates who supported U.S. Open

On 15 August 2003 "David" replied in
Message-id:

I didn't realize that playing/directing was the only form of support. Let's
see....

"Miriling" wrote in message
...

Individuals not playing:
DELEGATES
Gerald Blem
Jay Stallings

Operated B&E Sales for the event.

Dewain Barber
Ron Rezendes Jr.
ALTERNATE DELEGATES
John Surlow

Scholastic organizer

John West

Has two daughters playing in the event.

Alina Markowski
Jack Peters
Cyrus Lakdawala

Advance entry, cancelled.

Barbara McCaleb

Drove 4-5 hours to attend workshops.

Chris Roberts
Elliot Landaw

Has two sons that play, does not usually play himself. Sons not playing.

Richard Rico
Fred Brock
David Saponara
Al Massip
Charles Rostedt

I'm sure the SCCF was expecting more support for this Open, especially
from its
delegates/alternate delegates.

George Mirijanian

Sorry, these few were just those of whom I am aware, and I certainly don't
know all of these folks. I guess the point is that different people support
the event in different ways, not just by playing. It's enough to make me
question this census, though. It may accurately reflect a comparisonof the
delegate list to the entries, but is doesn't seem to be too meaningful in
indicating support.

David


Thanks for clarifying how these other delegates/alternate delegates supported
the Open. I was not privy to information regarding their activity at the
tournament. Nevertheless, I'm sure the sponsoring SCCF was expecting more
support, i.e. actual playing, on the part of more players from the Greater Los
Angeles area. One important criterion in judging the success or failure of a
U.S. Open is the participation or lack thereof of the "local players." Many
judge the success of a tournament like the Open by how much profit it made, but
the number of locals who played should also be factored into the equation.

George Mirijanian

"Miriling" wrote in message
...

Thanks for clarifying how these other delegates/alternate delegates
supported
the Open. I was not privy to information regarding their activity at the
tournament. Nevertheless, I'm sure the sponsoring SCCF was expecting more
support, i.e. actual playing, on the part of more players from the Greater
Los
Angeles area. One important criterion in judging the success or failure of
a
U.S. Open is the participation or lack thereof of the "local players."
Many
judge the success of a tournament like the Open by how much profit it
made, but
the number of locals who played should also be factored into the equation.

You're welcome.

I'm curious about the reference to SCCF as the sponsor for this. The
tournament website lists the USCF as the sponsor. The local organizer is an
individual, Jerry Hanken. The SCCF website lists itself as sponsors for 1983
and 1991 Opens, but not for this one. What am I missing?

As for participation from the G. L.A. area, I think that anyone expecting a
greater turnout doesn't understand the geography of Southern California.
SCCF has roughly 500-600 members, a figure that I confirmed with one of the
tournament directors at the Open. As SCCF membership is required for most
weekend tournaments, this is a reasonable representation of the maximum
number of members who have played in a sizable event over the past 12
months. Because of the distances involved in the region, and the traffic,
"local player" becomes a relative term, and it is a subset of SCCF. For
example, I live 50 miles from the site. I was unwilling to fight the 2+hour
commute to the event for each of 12 days, plus another hour home at night.
Despite being an SCCF member, I would not consider myself a "local player,"
because I would have had to stay on site to play. I might as well live in
Columbus.

David

In article , Bruce Draney wrote:

They can't even play in a two or three day weekend Swiss, let alone in a
10-13 day long event, unless they rearrange their work schedules, take vacation
time, or go to a lot of trouble. The Delegates' meetings are on the weekend
however, and do not take a huge time commitment.

Hi Bruce:

Please check your logic. You state that players can't get free for a weekend
but the concientious Delegates can get free for Wed. - Sunday to attend the
workshops and meetings. Even if the Delegate is not willing to do the work
necessary to make them an informed and participating member, why is it that
they can attend a 2-3 day event while the players can't.

We have lots of weekend events. We also have events like the World Open which
is a 5-7 day event and is quite well attended. The US Open as a 9 or 12 round
event is a historical tournament unlike anything now run in the US. Perhaps
even with multiple schedules, it will not draw as many players as we would
wish. There are players who are quite pasionate about the 1 round a day
schedule. If we can afford it, I want to see it continue. Those who can't get
off for either 9 or 12 days plus travel can participate in the 5 and 6 day
schedules. By the way, if you check my record, you will see I rarely play so
this is not self-interest, it is concern for those who do enjoy the event and
don't want their play limited strictly to the typical weekend Swiss that they
can attend every weekend.
Regards, Ernie
Ernest W. Schlich

In article , Bruce Draney wrote:

I have seen players be begged to serve as Delegates and just shake
their heads and say, "no way", even if it meant their state would not be fully
represented at the meetings. This is one of the reasons why USCF allows states
to name Delegates that don't live in the state if they can't find any Alternate
Delegates present that are willing or able to serve.

You are correct that this mechanism exists to insure we can get a quorum.

Another reason is to deal with the situation when someone is at the Open, is
interested in participating as a Delegate, but cannot vote because their own
state has its full complement, I believe it is a good idea to have a mechanism
for them to participate. You will see that Jay Stallings represented Virginia.
I added him to our list and was happy to have someone interested enough in the
USCF to want to spend 16 hours participating in what many would find is a
boring meeting.

This is frequently a problem in the smaller states. Both Hal Terrie and I
attend most Annual meetings. I like to think that we both offer valuable
contributions to the USCF's political process. Unfortunately, NH has never had
more than one Delegate slot and while I was living there, we had to use the
current process so we could both participate. There are perhaps several states
with only 1-2 slots but 2-4 very interested and dedicated individuals. I feel
it is important to our organization's health to have a process so these
individuals can participate.
Regards, Ernie
Ernest W. Schlich

Dear George:

Please do not judge the non-playing/non-directing Delegates of the SCCF as
non-participants in the US Open. If you were at the Denker Reception I hosted,
you did not introduce yourself to me. I am pleased to have introduced over 38
of the finest young chessplayers who were champions of their state. Each
received a medallion and recognition that they deserved at the reception that I
paid for (approx. $1,000). What amount of financial support did you personally
provide to your state's Denker representative?
In addition, I attended the Finance, Chess Trust, Scholastic, Chess in
Education, Denker/Polgar, President's reception, Executive Board open meeting,
Hall of Fame, Denker Awards Ceremony and every minute of the two day Delegates
meetings. Not every Delegate or Alternate Delegate can play or direct after
arriving each day at 8 AM and departing at 11 PM having attended multiple
Delegate workshops and Committee meetings as well as many casual meetings.
Finally, I look forward to your financial support of your Denker
representative as well as your attendance at the Denker Reception in Ft.
Lauderdale, FL.

Best regards,
Dewain Barber
One of several
sponsors of
the Denker
Tournament