Factors impacting the evolution of USCF Chess

All Things Chess
1

I thought this might be interesting and any additions , changes, criticisms etc. would be appreciated. It is a list of things that I have seen change, to varying degrees, the face of US chess:

Elo Rating: Just look around to see the tremendous impact ratings have had on the USCF. One not so recognized impact has the diminishing influence of the chess club. Local and national rated tournaments outside the chess club has become preeminent in activity and importance over the chess club which had been the focus of virtually all quality chess.

The Jet Plane: Perhaps the jet plane more than anything else has brought the world of chess together – It led to: more tournaments, more titled USCF players and coordinating playing and organization rules with other national federations.

Exodus of strong chess players from the Soviet Union: It has been said and I believe it that the emigration of Soviet GMs to the USA improved the play of our top stars. Led by Alburt, Korchnoi and eventually Kasparov, it raised the level of what it would take to win a major tournament and had a trickle down impact on our tournament players of all levels. More of our players played overseas and the USCF did most of the coordination and selection.

The demise of Soviet political influence: also had another effect. In the past international chess elections were dominated by the Soviet Foreign ministries applying pressure to governments of satellite and under developed FIDE nations. This anti-chess way of winning elections and deciding issues began a diminishing influence of USCF on FIDE politics and for a time made it much harder for our stars to receive international titles.

The Rise of Florencio Campomanes: As the Soviet domination of world chess was declining albeit in a limited way, their domination was replaced by one outstanding and controversial man - Florencio Campomanes. Under Campo, in terms of member nations, the world chess organization – FIDE became the second largest sports organization in the world. Part of his personal domination was partially attributed to questionable bribery. Personally I saw the bribery as secondary and very limited. His domination was clearly the result of his personal visitations to the countries and institution of special benefits to them such as chess equipment and GM simultaneous exhibitions arranged through FIDE.

The Chess Computer result ins the end of the adjourned chess game. This was highlighted in the playing of a decisive role in the Lyon/NY 1985 World Championship between Karpov and Kasparov. Both players used computers to analyze adjourned games. One player had access to an under-development computer program being written by Hans Berliner which was the superior program and helped decide the outcome of the match… My memory is a little foggy on the details here but for sure the rise of the computer usage put an end to adjourned chess games. In the Fisher/Spassky world championship match virtually every store window in Reykjavik had the position of the adjourned game asking what is the best move? That led to great publicity the likes of which is now lost forever.

The Internet: Its impact on USCF and world chess has so far been limited likely IMO will eventually have great impact.

Scholastic Chess growth and Chess in Schools: Due to some very dedicated and hard-working USCF organizers and teachers, Scholastic chess play has enhanced the image of chess in the US vastly expanded USCF membership.

2

When official USCF ratings appeared, the membership in the federation quickly grew from around 3000 to about 16000 in a few short years. The surge of interest in 1972 as R. Fischer clawed his way to the world championship inspired many amateurs to get a rating and see how far they could climb. The federation membership soared to over 70,000. So, ratings have had a major impact on the USCF and chess in general as it provided a quantifiable measurement for comparison of strength and individual performance.

I am not so sure that the existence of ratings has hurt chess clubs. Quite the contrary. The number of clubs organizing tournaments increased, and existing clubs had ratings as a marketing tool to use to encourage people to play. Yes, today there are more big tournaments to play in. What has hurt club formation and sustainability is the increasing cost of meeting and tournament sites. Players also now have an alternative in the internet gaming sites to sate their desire to play and get some form of rating w/o having to spend money on gas or membership dues to go to a club. However, I often see players in clubs work in study groups to examine openings or analyze positions. This study is used as preparation to play in club events as well as in the megatournaments. That type of camaraderie and intense focus is difficult to accomplish in the asocial confines of the internet. But to each his own. In short, ratings have not hurt clubs. Other factors are at work.

3

I doubt very much that the use of computers in adjournments were the decisive factor in the 1985 world championship. Karpov and Kasparov, or rather their entourages, might have had access to the programs. Having played against these programs, I can say with great certainty that they were nowhere near even weak GM level, especially in the endgame phase. While programs have made great strides since then, in the mid-80’s they were still in a primitive state compared to high level tournament chess. The best programs were in the 2400-2500 rating range. Do you really think that either Kasparov would stake their fortunes on the analysis of a machine or would they be more likely to turn to top level GM helpers and endgame materials that they had drawn on over the years? The endgame databases were just starting to be developed and were very raw.

By 2000, programs and the existence of the table bases made doing adjournments much easier for high level GMs. Trotting out memorized computer analysis in an adjournments took so much of the human quality out of endgame play that some felt it would kill interest in the game. Instead of pitting two human players in and equal competition, it would become a matter of who had the better program.

How does the existence of computers and computer programs affect the growth of US chess? While we have only about 45000 active tournament players, the game is played online by millions of amateurs and professionals. Someone is making money from this, just not the USCF. Perhaps the continued growth online and the sales of programs will result in more players wanting to test the waters of USCF rated tournament play. That still remains to be seen. I have friends who have never played a rated game but play chess using Fritz, Rybka, Shredder, and Stockfish as well as play on ICC, FICS, and other servers.

4

Chessdon: I need help on this because I was there and perhaps my memory is playing tricks but as i seem to recall, the last game was decided by a lengthy complicated draw and one sides computer predicated it and the other did not. I’lsign this getting older and lack confidence in by brain.

5

The exodus of strong players from the Soviet Union on the US was a mixed bag for US players. First, you have to define which wave of players you are talking about. Was it the emigres of the early 1980’s who were allowed to leave the USSR? Or is it the wave that appeared after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the USSR in the 1990’s? Or is the wave that came over in the post-2000 period to try to make a living here in the US? Each had its impacts.

The 1980’s group were a bit of shock. Their professionalism and preparation made an impact on the tournament scene for a while. Some of our top players and young talents found it difficult to compete with them and the moved on to other fields. The Fischer bust and the 1980’s doldrums had already made it hard to make a living as a professional; having to compete for the few crumbs of tournament prizes made their decision to quit chess for more lucrative work easier. However, those who hung in there became more disciplined and hit the books harder. They caught up quickly to this group of aging Russians.

The effect of the post-1990 waves are still difficult to assess. Did they really make US players better or did they just end up adding too many players chasing the all too few dollars in the tournaments? How many US chess teachers found themselves having to compete with Russian masters for students? Did they really have some secret formula to turn kids into great players or was it merely the cachet of being an exotic person with an accent? Competition, envy, and economics are the issues to address when dealing with these waves. On the whole, they provided opportunities to grow chess, especially among the scholastic community. US players had to sharpen up and turn to technology to keep up with the analytic foundations the Russian emigres grew up with as schoolboys. Surprisingly though, many of the Russians stayed in the major cities and only a few spread out to the rest of the country to set up chess programs. They filled a need where there was a vacuum.

6

[quote=“tmagchesspgh”]
The exodus of strong players from the Soviet Union on the US was a mixed bag for US players. First, you have to define which wave of players you are talking about. Was it the emigres of the early 1980’s who were allowed to leave the USSR? Or is it the wave that appeared after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the USSR in the 1990’s? Or is the wave that came over in the post-2000 period to try to make a living here in the US? Each had its impacts.

Chessdon: All groups impacted US Chess Evolution

7

TMAGchesspgh wrote:

How does the existence of computers and computer programs affect the growth of US chess?

Chessdon: The existence of computers brings more people into the fold.
They also caused the demise of adjourned games at the professional level.

8

Don, you’re thinking of the 16th game (not the last) of the 1990 match, which was the one divided between New York (first half) and Lyons. Kasparov won with an extra Exchange on the 102nd move, allegedly due to his superior computer.

9

IMO, since few non-Master players had more than one or two adjourned games, the greater impact of the computer on USCF tournaments was how tournaments were run and processed.

I remember at one recent tournament whose hotel was experiencing spotty Wifi prior to round 1, players were asked to complete a Pairings card as a backup – I was one of the dinosaurs who remembered the old days. Now, an added 15-30 minutes has been allowed for on-site tournament registrations, and Pairings software has resulted in fewer disputed pairings and pairings that do require repair can be done so quickly. Tournament performance ratings and Upset prize leaders can be displayed after each round, as well as FIDE norms chances/achieved. Tournament crosstables are submitted electronically, as well as posted on the USCF/State federation/Club website.

And computers likely hastened the transition from Descriptive to Algebraic notation, more so than say, the Chess Informator books.

10

Thanks u r right!

11

Don, here are some other factors which impacted the evolution of USCF chess to add to your list:

The Continental Chess Association - Created a number of high level tournaments around the country. This gave access to a wider number of players across the country to compete. The CCA tournament schedule is in many ways the professional circuit of chess in the US. Many of the events are FIDE rated. The CCA also initiated a number of major scholastic tournaments. These became models for other organizers as well as the USCF to follow.

Interstate Highway System - connects major cities to each other. Older players told me that before the 1950’s, the difficulty and expense involved in playing out of state or even across the state were immense. Players tended to just stay in their own city or small town to compete. If you were a chess player, you had to hope that there was an active chess club in your town. There were very few major tournaments. The US Open was the main event, one that most players found out of reach. They said that chess grew as the interstate highway system began to interconnect the country making more areas accessible to cars.

12

Good points. Bottom line is that it is difficult but not impossible to predict how such future developments impact the evolution of uscf chess. Any predictions?

Don Schultz

13

I question the premise of thread. Has the USCF been evolving or is it in a state of chaos or devolution?

14

What is evolving is our understanding of what chess is. It is a game that exercises our brain in abstract and complex problem solving. If done right it can improve intelligence.

15

Chessdon: Yes,over the years it has evolved considerably!
e.g. ratings, titles - see my oriiginal posting.

16

Chessdon: You are one or two steps ahead of me. A future change could be keeping the mind of the elderly active, -and increase their life span. This is a worhy objective to pursue. GM Arnold Denker once told me he never knew an active GM that had Alzheiners. l

Looking back at what caused USCF to evolve in the past may be a way to not only recognize the past factors but help influence future evolutions in a psoitive way!

17

Looking at how chess has expanded in the USA and throughout the world with the advent of the internet in relationship to the stagnation and decline of an aging membership base, the USCF is simply not evolving. It is rapidly going theway of the dodo bird. I suggest that the present corporate structure of the USCF exhibits a general failure at adaptation necessary for survival. How many millions of people regularly play chess but do not have or care about ratings or rated tournaments? And we have a declining, aging membership base of <100 thousand members. Evolve or die. Right now we’re dying.

18

A look at computers shows that Leonardo Torres y Quevedo demonstrated the first chess computer in 1914.
The USCF uses computers for record keeping. Others like Hal Bogner and Chess Magnet School use
computers to teach chess like the Khan Academy teaches math.

19

Yes they did and they do. And your point regarding the “evolution of USCF Chess” is?

20

Mr. Anthony’s post was part of a separate conversation going between him and Mr. Schultz that is happening in this thread. It looks like he was just amplifying part of that previous conversation.