Great article.
Rex Sinquefield is one of the more brilliant people I’ve ever had the pleasure to know. He is also a visionary - and I suspect he put on a bit of his ‘aw shucks’ demeanor for the author. My read on the situation: if Rex ever is quoted as saying ‘I didn’t have a clue’ he is being self-deprecating.
Interesting article. The question not really addressed is how this new era of American chess revival should be defined. Clearly, Rex has done a great service for chess in St. Louis. For the rest of the country, including growth and development of US Chess and it’s new mission, not so clear what big money to attract top GMs to the US has really done for the lumpin chess players of the nation or US Chess. Time will tell. Focusing on the elite hasn’t always worked well in sport.
I didn’t notice when the article was published, but isn’t Randy no longer on the US Chess board?
You obviously know the answer to that question, Brian - what’s the point of raising it? When the conversation took place that the author references, I was, indeed on the Executive Board - and for most of the remaining period up to the time of the article.
I received an email today from a business contact with no involvement with US chess. He had seen the article and explained that his father in law is a chess player in Missouri who had told him about the great things going on in St. Louis related to chess. Just because you don’t see it from your Vermont mountaintop doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.
Never said that, Randy. re-read what I wrote, to wit, “Clearly, Rex has done a great service for chess in St. Louis.” How would you measure the alleged American Renaissance? Us Chess is still poking along trying to define its 501 (c)3 mission. US chess memberships are still essentially stagnant and US Chess is dependent on the yearly flow of new scholastic members to maintain the blance sheet.
Rex’s money has done a good deal for the chess scene in St. Louis, but that does little to nothing helping promote and develope clubs in other areas of the country. Frankly, I’d be much more impressed by Rex if he would seed the hiring of a full time professional fundraising/development person for US Chess giving them a five year salary guarantee with incentives for performance.
Here in the valleys of Vermont, where most of us live, chess is slowly growing without any real help from US Chess or any discernable Rex effect. I did see Krush, Lenderman and a few other GMs playing for prize money in Sturbridge two weekends ago. Some of the GMs and IMs who regualrly play such events have been doing so for many, many years. I doubt that they would call their constant struggle for prizes to put food on the table a Renaissance of any sort.
Actually, I didn’t know the answer to that question when I posted. I was having coffee and a scone in a Panera Bread shop and was on my tablet. I read the article and then went back to the US Chess forums. I had to run to a meeting and just didn’t have time to wait for the Forbes piece to go through its ad phase and then load the article.
I think the author should have changed serves to served in the following quote: Bauer, as it turns out, is a National Master who had once won the Iowa Chess Championship, and serves on the board of the United States Chess Federation. Which was, at the time, looking for a place to hold the U.S. Chess Championship.(sic)
Nice article!
This is getting into very murky ethical grounds for fundraisers. The definite no-go is to tie compensation directly to a percentage of the funds raised. When you start talking about incentives, you have to tie them to some metric and very soon you are talking about basically the same thing. There continues to be passionate debate in my profession about where the lines are, and if we are creating convoluted compensation structures for the sake of getting around those ethical guidelines, what was the point in pretending to care about them to begin with?
United Way, as an example, puts a great deal of pressure on their development people to perform. There are incentives and disincentives that can be used. Meeting set goals can result in promotions. But, you are correct that there are lines not to be crossed. I recall one person years ago who wanted a finder’s fee for any foundation grants he was able to secure. 
As to Rex, I would hope that he would consider funding a US Chess development position at around $100K per year for five years. That is certainly well within the $$ ballpark of much of his philanthropic giving. It’s an investment in US Chess that has potential to pay terriffic dividends.
I’ve removed multiple posts having to do with Rex Sinquefield’s non-chess activities and political views. Please keep the discussion here focused on the Forbes article and related chess topics.
Well done - let’s keep it to chess-related subjects, shall we?
Does that include the bald assertion by Mr. Bauer that Rex is a brillian person in the non-chess area of finance? 
The parents are back.
As you are fond of saying, try reading for comprehension. Randy did not specify finance.
Recollecting for comprehansion, I recall that Bauer didn’t say he was brilliant in chess, but that Rex was/is brilliant in finance, or an aspect of finance. It doesn’t really matter to me because I don’t think Rex is brillant in anything. Successful, yes; brilliant, no. Your opinion may vary.
This thread reminds me of Groundhog Day.
“deja vu all over again”?
A puff piece. The real center of US chess was in Nashville last weekend as over 2500 kids competed in Supernationals VI. There the future of chess and our country was on display. The cream of America’s young talent played for their schools and for individual honors, but mainly they played for fun. This is the direction US Chess is heading, extolling the virtues of chess as an educative tool and a pastime for life. More chess was played in Nashville than will ever be played in St. Louis. The kids will go home and take their experience with them to promote the game further among friends and family.
Chess is popping in a number of areas in the country with the help of dedicated volunteers and chess enthusiasts who do not have the luxury of millions of dollars to spend on fancy chess tables, big screen TVs, and elite tournaments. The article assumes there will be a trickle down affect from the activities happening in St. Louis. When the patronage spigot turns off in St. Louis, the GMs, IMs, et al will wander off looking for a new patron.