454 entries so far for the Open…congratulations. Looks like a very solid turnout. All that’s missing are a few more GMs/IMs - but plenty of time for those to show for the shorter schedules. I also looked at a few of the resources Russell Miller provided, and I can’t wait to see the Vancouver/Portland area.
A huge “thank you!” to WA/OR players…255 entries and counting. I’ve always thought that the local area has to draw at least 200 players for a US Open to get decent attendance. The locals have definitely delivered, IMHO.
203 on the traditional schedule wallcharts and 184 on the 6 day schedule. Appears a number of Denker and Barber players are not in the US Open. Still
the 4 day folks to show up on Thursday. Two GMs in the 6 day schedule. I thought there was going to be more but it appears what I was told as Tuesday arrival was really Thursday. Blame that on my bad hearing. On a personal note the TDs finally gave me some one I could beat in round 4.
The three crosstables total 518. Might be a few more. More than double the number in Seattle of 201 in 1966 and not quite as many as Portland in 1987. Think there might be more Washington and Oregon players than attended in 1987.
Various conversations I had during the weekend seem to indicate that USCF may be looking at returning the US Open to the area within the next 10 years. Speaking for myself, I support the idea. I was extremely impressed with the site, the organization, the atmosphere and the local turnout.
The only thing I would have changed would’ve been moving the August 11 round of the US Women’s Open out of the main room, so the players wouldn’t have had to contend with the noise from the concurrent blitz tournament. But that’s really just a nitpick, and may not have been possible anyway.
My sincere thanks to the US Open Committee, to Pat Smith and the national office, and to our gracious hosts.
But seconding the motion does not qualify as debate (speaking either in favor of or against the motion). In fact, seconding a motion does not indicate the seconder is in favor of the motion. It only indicates that the seconder believes the motion is worthy of discussion by the body.
I do not believe the standing rule prohibiting calling the question after speaking for or against the motion would apply.
Probably because it is a lot of work. Walter Browne in the USCF office I beleive does this work. Probably lots of new FIDE numbers to be assigned. I don’t really know anything about the process. Seems like there was a list at the tournament site of players with FIDE ratings.
Walter was at the tournament, so he probably didn’t get back to the office until Tuesday.
It takes about two weeks for Walter to get the World Team (USATE) ready to submit to FIDE, and the US Open had over 500 players in it, or nearly half the size of that event.