USCF Online Chess

All Things Chess
21

I’m not sure what things are like in Mr. Milener’s part of the country, but where I live, most TDs are volunteers, working for expenses or sometimes not even that. Organizers don’t make a lot, either. In fact, most of the tournaments I organize lose money. In short, I’m saying that finances don’t seem to be the reason it’s difficult to get TDs to direct this type of events. In fact, I seem to recall former USCF president Jim Berry played a match with a club in another state, and probably either he or his twin brother was the TD on the Stillwater end.

I guess the big question here is why Mr. Milener doesn’t get his club TD certification and get some friends over to his house, and match up with that group in Anaheim. It should be noted that for the past two years I’ve directed the New Hampshire vs. Maine match. I’ve been paid the rating fee ($5) both times, which hardly covered expenses, much less made a huge profit. You’d have to ask the players why they preferred to meet on the border of the two states rather than play online.

Also, another good question is “Why isn’t the USCL rated?”

Alex Relyea

22

There have been online events rated, probably more than the ones we know about.

There’s really no way for the USCF to check whether an event was played online or not. The new editing form ASKS if the event was played online. We may use that information to relax or alter the potential ID error checks at some point. (A match with players from two distant states might be more likely to trip the checks.)

There is no reason why league matches could not be submitted for USCF rating, providing they meet USCF rules, including membership requirements.

Online play can be rated under current USCF rules. See chapter 10 of
uschess.org/docs/gov/reports … hanges.pdf

Aside from some procedural issues dealing with the mechanics of Internet chess (how to deal with the clock, etc), the requirements are fairly similar to OTB tournaments in that there must be a certified TD present at (each) playing site, preferably a non-playing director. (The duties of the on-site TD in an Internet event are enough that perhaps playing TDs should be disallowed completely.)

23

USCF is a sanctioning body. Therefore it makes sense to hold sanctioned onlin e tournaments on as many reasonable sites as wil have them. Use the quick rating for the online events.

24

I love all the replys to the subjet I started was suprised :slight_smile:. I agree with most points about how USCF needs more time to make this happen but also agree that they need to bring more to the table “so to speak” that will make people who play online move to USCF. Maybe a merger or partnership of another online IE…“Freechess.org” or “ICC” would be cool. Maybe putting together some free online chess classes or videos that members can download. Being in the IT field I do not have alot of time to OTB and would embrase the online play. Yes i could go to other free online sites but would like to see USCF grow more.

25

I may be wrong, but Alex Dunne mentioned the server in his monthly “Check is in the Mail.” I don’t know for sure, but I’m thinking that it will make Correspondence Chess more playable for USCF members, the same as when we use the web server on ICCF. Anyway, I welcome the server idea, and I’m sure it will prove to be good for the USCF and its members.

Don

26

Good question. In the early 2000s, there was much talk of rating the Internet Collegiate Chess League (ICCL) played online. The USCF policy allowing online play to be quick rated (only!) came from this discussion. However, the implementation failed miserably when most of the top players (masters and up) refused to participate. Why?

  • Concerns about collaboration and cheating.
  • Psychological effect of not sitting across from opponent.
  • Technical issues, including disconnections, mouse slips, relay errors.

The US Chess League (USCL) faces some of the same issues. Without rating points at stake, league players say they actually feel more willing to play creative, and sometimes risky, moves.

Michael Aigner

27

The USCF should have gone in this direction a decade ago when it began dabbling in online chess. Unfortunately, the federation partnered with a start-up service that never found traction while competing with existing sites.

The Northern California High School Chess League (organized by the kids!) plays weekly on FICS. Since it is not USCF rated, non-members are welcome. The league has about a dozen teams and over 60 players, including some of the highest rated.

Michael Aigner
fpawn.blogspot.com/

Disclaimer: I am a current ICC administrator and a former FICS administrator.

28

How bout they just put in the ability for USCF members logged in to play some games, like, just for fun? Reading the above posts, you know, every improvement to the site doesn’t need to be the Great New Idea that is going to save USCF and generate huge income. I think it would be great to have the option of playing a few blitz games while checking up on the USCF news, and for once to see USCF actually spend my dues on customer service instead of legal fees, or paying GMs travel expenses.

29

I do not understand why the USCF would “partner” with any online chess playing website that is free. There would be no reason even for the USCF to tell FreeChess.org that the USCF was organizing team or league play to occur on FreeChess.org; not that the USCF would mind if FreeChess.org knew.

When the world wide web burst onto the scene 15 years ago it seemed a 100% certainty that the digital sport of chess would thrive on the web, and that naturally the USCF would be a significant part of web chess in the USA. Today we know that, as was easily predicted, most chess games are played on the web, but also that the USCF is 0% of the web chess scene: this was unforeseeable to me, and it still amazes me. It amazes me how happily the USCF delegates accept this absence.
There can be only one reason for this acceptance: $.

Tournament Organizers and Tournament Directors do not see how they can make as much money from web-based chess as they do from in-person chess. I have never organized nor directed a chess tournament, so I cannot argue with TO’s and TD’s who have made this monetary prediction.

But the USCF is faaar behind where it could be if it provided rating and organizational services, either directly or through proxy TO’s and TD’s, to the huge number of online web chess players; they being potential members.

Suppose instead that the USCF website directed its resources at creating the infrastructure for web-based league, team, and regular Swiss-style chess tournaments — all to assist TO’s and TD’s who might then test the web’s potential for rated tournament play. Could such infrastructure favorably shift the $ analysis that apparently has long kept TO’s and TD’s from organizing serious web-based events?

http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8023

2012/March/25
These days, as the Internet has opened its borders and the entire globe has become so close, it is not a surprise that organizing Internet chess events is one of the most exciting ways to promote connections, not only among countries, but also among schools. Last Thursday two elite schools, one in Germany and one in Israel, played a match on five boards on Playchess. GM Boris Alterman reports.
…
Dr. Dov Orbach, the principal of the Shevah Mofet School introduced, his School Chess Academy, and proposed playing a friendly match via the Internet, which was happily accepted. Dr.Noack informed us that the chess team of his school was ready to start its preparation for the competition.
…
said that even though the score wasn’t successful for his team, it was a pleasure for all persons and players, and a nice boost for the school chess activity. Both teams would like to thank Holger Lieske and the Playchess/ChessBase team for great help in organization of the event.

Four months from now chess’s US Open begins in Vancouver WA, “only” a 2.5 hour drive from my house near Seattle. Shall I spend $110 * 8 days for hotel, plus re$taraunt food costs, to play one rated game per day?: Maybe, as there is occasionally place for such events.
Yet judging by their complete absence, there is no place at all in the USCF for convenient cost-efficient web-based rated play events. Truth is stranger than fiction.
.

30

Is this a serious statement?

Alex Relyea

31

I don’t see how it can be. I hardly think I’m alone as an organizer that, on net, has lost money on the tournaments I’ve run.

32

I think he is overlooking that a much more likely reason is the lack of oversight at all sites players are playing from. Whether or not somebody actually is cheating, the number of accusations of cheating will almost certainly increase by a couple of orders of magnitude. For that matter, the number of cases of actual cheating will almost certainly increase as well, to an ever greater extent if they are not found and stopped (very difficult to do if a TD is nowhere near the player).
Combatting the oversight issue can be done by doing something like the USAT playoffs or USCL matches, but that requires a TD at each site (gets more than a little expensive as the number of sites increases).

Software on the computer used does not detect a chess engine running on a different nearby computer (easy enough to manage at normal tournament time controls). A camera on a player does not detect a confederate signalling moves from out of range. Unless there actually is a TD at each site some people will be CERTAIN that some of the opponents are cheating (just a couple of possibilities have been mentioned), and then that becomes justification to “equalize the playing field” by cheating right back (or at least that is what will be thought even if the opponent wasn’t actually cheating).

One time a parent at a scholastic tournament complained about a clear touch move violation performed at a board 40 yards away with multiple intervening tables (and not a case of somebody moving a piece and then putting it back and making a different move, but rather somebody simply touching a piece and then moving something else). I’ve occasionally had difficulty determining whether or not a barely brushing touch occurred from even 4 feet away so I’m sometimes in awe of the visual acuity of somebody who can determine that from 30 times as far away.

So tournaments with minimal or no prize fund would be possibilities for on-line play (reduce the reward for cheating) but their very lack of serious prize funds may make other people figure that cheating doesn’t really hurt anything big. And that doesn’t even address the issue of people having an incentive to cheat purely to manipulate their ratings (an expert can charge more for lessons than an A-player, and a master more than an expert - also some state organizations give subsidies or free lessons/entries to players in the top 100 in their age group).

If a good method is found that can address the suspicion of cheating then on-line USCF play could really take off.

33

Seriously lacking in an understanding of what drives most organizers and directors, perhaps.

34

USCF should focus on providing services that are not already available and successfully executed by others. Playchess and ICC are fun places to play with lots of free education (at least ICC, if you pay your dues). FICS for the freebie crowd is also quite acceptable. Not to mention the slow chess servers.

Focus on player development, USCF. That’s our future, not another playing server.

35

Hear, hear.

36

The plus I see is that all players on the USCF online Server ( hopefully available very soon ) are USCF members and not anon players and many play OTB and we may get to know them as chess friends even better.

37

Do you have a strategy for addressing the sharp drop-off in USCF members in middle and high school? By the time they get to college, 90% of scholastic members have moved on, or are inactive.

Do these players still play chess? Many do, especially those who achieved a certain level (say 1600) before quitting over-the-board tournaments. They play blitz, bullet and bughouse at FICS, Chess.com, ICC, PlayChess, ChessCube and even Yahoo.

The USCF actually does a good job of creating new members for these online sites. That’s why it was so important in the early 2000s to establish an online server. It failed. And now it is possible that the opportunity has passed us by.

Achieving critical mass will be the big test for a server restricted to only USCF members.

Michael Aigner
Volunteer administrator at ICC

38

Can you quantify what critical mass might be with modest assumpions that only 5% or less of our members elect this service at a modest additional fee?

39

USCF used to have 90k members a few years ago, so I will use that number. 5% of 90k is 4,500. Not all of these players will be online at any time, or even every day. Unless there is a special event like a World Championship match, you will rarely see 10% of members online at the same time.

Granted, 450 would still be a respectable crowd, more than US Chess Live ever got on a consistent basis. But for much of the day, the server would feel empty with maybe 100-200 logged in. Waiting for the kind of game you want will require loads of patience. By comparison, Chess.com Live has 7000, ICC has 1700 and FICS has 1300 at about 8pm EDT. It is relatively easy to get a game at each site.

Michael Aigner

40

Would USCF need a fully dedicated server? Maybe our players would want to schedule their games with friends or have club matches and not just be looking for quick G/5. Perhaps only certain time controls might be appealing to the USCF crowd. Is a certain level of use required to cover marginal costs?