My state chess federation, which is financed very well through club affiliate dues and individual members, has recently gotten involved in organizing and sponsoring chess tournaments that previously had been the domain of our state’s clubs. While I would agree that it is entirely appropriate for a state federation to organize and sponsor a state championship tournament which, in our state, comes about at the same time each year, I think that the state federation ceases to function in a support role for the state’s clubs by competing against them for space on their tournament calendar. Since the state federation tournament organizers (officers of the federation) have the ability to hold tournaments in the “backyards” of any club in the state, this raises an issue of intruding on the understood service area of our state’s small and struggling clubs.
I’m wondering if anyone else has experienced this with their state federation and could comment.
Depends. Are there a lot of tournaments in your state, or is there a dearth? How many tournaments does the state association run (or want to run)? It’s possible they just want to promote chess, and fill vacuums in various parts of the state.
So far they’ve run one tournament in the state’s largest city that has two clubs. They intend to make this an annual tournament and I’m pretty sure that they might do more. In the past the federation had been, and still is, a driving force behind scholastic chess tournaments but it is now getting into adult play as well. There is not a dearth of chess tournaments for adults. There’s a handful of clubs that run open tournaments roughly every three months or so…some more, some less. Our club runs one each year that attracts roughly 40 players from throughout the state as well as a few players from outside the state and we might have other smaller local tournaments every 3 or 4 months apart. We aren’t the largest or most active club in the state but we’ve been around a long time.
There was an individual effort to get the state federation involved in sponsoring adult tournaments last year and the membership went along with the idea. I voted for the proposal myself, actually, but now am having second thoughts. An increased involvement in my own club has made me think twice about this and I don’t think it’s such a good thing.
If they were going to sponsor tournaments in deprived areas in an effort to initiate chess interests in those areas and perhaps help kickstart a few new clubs then I could accept that but if they simply are going to compete against well established clubs in their “unwritten” but understood service areas then I have reservations about this activity.
Our state chapter runs the adult tournaments that confer titles (State Championship, Senior Open, and Class Championships). The rest we leave up to the local organizers.
There is a high level of cooperation between the clubs and the state chapter. The Atlanta Chess Center has on occasion changed dates of their events to accomodate us, and when the site planned for our State Championship became impractical at the last minute, they quickly agreed to let us hold it there. When you have that kind of cooperation things work a lot better. Many thanks to Thad Rogers!
Similarly, KidChess provided the site for our State Junior Invitational, the qualifying event for the Denker and Polgar, again when the scheduled site wasn’t usable. Many thanks to Justin Morrison!
I’m not sure there’s even a problem here yet. Since 2007 the state chapter has held scholastic tournaments in two cities where no other organizer has held events (Oxford and Greenville) and two events in Birmingham (which actually looks like a one-day scholastic event and a two day adult event in the same location), in a month in which no other organizer held any events in Birmingham.
These are also issues best resolved at the local level. Have you tried talking to the ACF leaders? It isn’t like this is some outside group that swooped in to run events, these are your fellow Alabamans.
In many cases, it isn’t so much an issue of dividing up the pie as making the pie bigger, having more tournaments often tends to to be good for all organizers in the area.
Next door, the Mississippi Chess Assn. runs more than its share of tournaments. When formed in 1973 the MCA put out a newsletter and in return for requiring MCA membership of in-state players would advertise tournaments and print games and the final crosstables–only running the state championship. In the mid 1980’s, new officers of the MCA were already active TD’s and organizers and when they ran an event it was hardly ever an “arm’s length” transaction (ignore the fact I’m the MCA president while I direct your tournament) and it seemed the MCA and it’s scholastic arm were running everything. While nothing stops a local club from having a tournament, it just doesn’t happen that often.
There is a saying that goes something like, “use it or lose it.” By this I mean that if clubs are not actively involved in promoting chess tournaments in their local area, another organization will provide for that if there is a market. The clubs should understand this. I believe that competition is fine as long as it comes from a local group.
I believe the proper role for the state federation is in supporting (not competing against) the state’s clubs in their chess promotion efforts. This might include freely advertising a club’s tournaments in the state chess newsletter or website (which they’ve done all along and should continue) or providing some level of sponsorship support for new clubs or existing ones that are struggling. Providing a tournament clearing house might also be a good way for the federation to recognize its potential. Promoting a chess program in the schools is an appropriate activity for a state federation also. Our state federation has been a scholastics supporter and I believe is being successful.
Promoting tournament play is a decent way for a club to advertise itself to the community and attract new members and provide its tournament players with opportunities for competition. It’s best to keep the emphasis on what the local chess clubs are willing to provide its immediate community and to emphasize to the state federation that their proper role is their traditional one as a support organization…“if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
I think it is appropriate if they want to take on the responsibility of organizing and sponsoring our state championship. If a tournament is designed to represent the best players a state has to offer, a state federation should consider that it is their responsibility to do more than just accept bids from the clubs to host and sponsor it. However, there should be a recognized limit to their other tournament initiatives. More offers by the state federation might result in fewer club organized tournaments. This doesn’t seem to me to be a healthy environment for the clubs.
I hope that federation members will recognize that there is a potential for excessive tournament activity on the part of the state federation that may result in tournament scheduling conflicts and low turnouts for club sponsored tournaments. So far that has not happened and I hope it doesn’t. Sometimes it’s best though to err on the side of caution.
Current economic restraints might force players to stay closer to home so it will be even more important for the local clubs to step up to serve their members and their local community with tournaments that appeal to them. These difficult times might just be the best thing that ever happened to local chess clubs but it also might mean that more players will turn to the internet for their dose of chess competition. This is a good time for the state federation to step up in every way possible and help the clubs.
Cooperation is key to a good relationship between the clubs and any state federation, whether the state fed is actively involved in organizing “common” tournaments or not. I’m glad to know that Georgia chess has a high level of cooperation between the state federation and the clubs and private tournament organizers in the state.
I’m also glad to hear that the Georgia Chess Association has been willing to run the state’s title tournaments. This is a good example for our state federation to follow. For years, our state federation only accepts bids from a state affiliate to host and sponsor the event…I’m speaking of our adult state championship. I also appreciate the fact that the Georgia association understands (my view) that it could very well be too active as a tournament organizer and take spots on the calendar that a club might need to promote chess tournaments in their own local area.
What happens when candidates for the elected Office are not active TDs and Organizers? Does that disqualify a worthy candidate from running ? I assume that the current Officers are also members of strong local clubs and, as such, could also bid on State sanctioned events through their clubs, which I feel is far better.
Define worthy. I don’t think they are disqualified, but the question would come up when they want to run of what do they have to offer?. When I was their editor in the 70’s I once reported, “The business meeting became a staring contest with the losers becoming the new officers,” but chess has come a long way in this state since then.
The MCA officers I know about are indeed active in the local club.
Sorry, I should have used a better word like “qualified” and explained that a candidate for Treasurer or Editor might not necessarily also be an Organizer or TD.
That’s where most of the candidates are generally going to come from, but why is it necessary (or even desirable) for any officer of a state chapter to be an organizer or a TD?
And I ask again, has anyone concerned about this actually TALKED to the officers of the state chapter in this situation? It sounds like that’s the first step.
If the State Affliate does both the organizing and directing of State sanctioned events rather than bidding them out, then it is desireable that they also perform that function.
Yes, so much TALK that the Forums were closed.
I didn’t want to respond to the question about whether or not anyone had talked to the members of the state board. Suffice it to say that there is a certain level of management that has chosen to respond inappropriately to alternate points of view on other meaningful subjects so there is not much hope that anything could be accomplished in the short term on this subject either.
Rather, my post was intended to learn from the experiences of other players in other states.
In Kentucky the state association has basically run the state scholastic team and individual championships and the major adult events - the Ky Open, Ky closed and a junior closed. According to prior votes fromt eh board and memebrs there are several other tournaments that are supposed to happen that haven’t happened int he last several years - adult team, blitz, G30 etc.
If the state officers are invovled in running other events that doesn’t mean the state association is running the event here. There are several organizers/active TD’s who are not state officers and there are some that are. we basically all work together, along with a few folks along the borders around us, so that events are not scheduled against one another as best we can.
And there are lots of regular weekly, monthly etc events going on for both scholastics, juniors and adults.
In my opinion when one little group tries to control it all it doesn’t work, when there is no coordiantion of events at all it doesn’t work either. And just for the record I’m the state association scholastic coordinator.
I’m all for strong, vibrant chess clubs that respond to the needs of their chess playing communities and a state organization that supports those efforts by providing a support structure that will help to coordinate the various activities of those clubs so that there will be minimal conflicts on the calendar. If a state organization cannot even provide that level of support then something is lacking. Generally speaking, I believe that local clubs must know their communities better than any state organization and that the state should not be involved in activities that compete or duplicate the activities that the clubs are better suited for.
It should also be pointed out that in some instances there is a likelihood that clubs that do not have sure goals or a proper management structure might suffer if the state federation gets involved in organizing events that the clubs should be doing themselves. If this be the case, the state federation would best serve those clubs by offering advice and support that may help to get those clubs to function better.
The Kentucky association, as has the Georgia association that I mentioned in an earlier post, should be congratulated for recognizing that their logical and most helpful role is to organize (sponsor?) state title tournaments and to (ala Greyhound) “leave the driving” to the state’s clubs.