Retire the Tournament Clearinghouse

Running Chess Tournaments
1

When looking at the February 2005 Supplement, the listing of the membership of the ‘Tournament Clearinghouses’ has not changed much in years. Even with a online computer, most of the membership in the ‘Tournament Chearinghouses’ do not have a published email. Only some out of 41 members, have a email account published in the February 2005 Supplement. With 8 vacant out of 50 (one member holds two offices), with some being vacant for a number of years. Having 16% of the nation without an active tournament clearinghouse director, with a minority of the nation having a tournament clearinghouse director with a published email account.

Not sure how many directors use the tournament clearinghouse director. Since it has not changed since the 1970’s, it has failed to change to the online society. Since directors use the service of the state webpage (if the state association has one) for their announcement of their events. Or the state association published issues, with the announcement of their events. With emails, directors can email other directors to settle conflicting tournaments. With myself have settled the conflicting tournaments from September to December 2005, with just a few emails and face to face talks.

Since the tournament clearinghouse has not change since the 1970’s, should it be updated for the online society or retired as a program. Feel it should be a state association issue how they deal with conflicting events. As most state associations have moved to the online webpage, and a email society to deal with each other. With a majority of the area of the nation having to snail mail the director if they have one.

Since the federation has been pushing directors to use rating software, now with the online reporting as the mode. It has done nothing in the first stage of the tournaments. The federation been pushing directors not to use pairing cards or sending in tournament reports on paper. On the other hand its ok not to push the tournament clearinghouses to have a email account. Since it has not been updated, the tournament clearinghouse service is pointless. The federation has a choice, update the service or retire the system and let the states perform the duties to settle conflicting tournaments.

2

I think you misunderstand the nature of the clearinghouse. It is a state association issue – the various clearinghouse reps are recommended (essentially appointed) by the local officials, assuming there are any. The clearinghouse doesn’t have any “derived authority” from the USCF. If you don’t like the way your local clearinghouse is doing the job, suggest someone else or volunteer to do it yourself. A “top-down” reform is not going to work.

3

Do understand what it is, or what it use to be. I have no problem with the one that does the work in Michigan. As he does the work for the whole state not just the zip code.

If the clearinghouse was designed for a state, not the zip code would be much better. Having more then one clearinghouse director does not work as a unit, with the dealings of making sure the state itself does not have any conflicts. If it was only a state association issue, then it would not be published in the USCF rating list. Its’ true, a person that is a clearinghouse director is not an agent of the USCF. But has to sign a clearinghouse agreement.

If the clearinghouse is designed at the state association level, would it be best to assign it by state then the zip code? If I’m looking for the clearinghouse director, would it not be great if the director has a email account posted in the February 2005 Supplement?

It does not matter if the clearninghouse director is part of the state association or part of the USCF. It needs to be changed over to the state not the zip code. In fact it needs a new system or just be retired out.

4

The problem with this idea is that many states are too large or too small for it to work. A single clearinghouse for California would be useless. A separate one for Idaho or Montana would be pointless. When the program was invented, the ZIP codes were just a convenient way to break things down. It is possible that the Regions and States committee (or whatever it is called these days) should take another look at this and look for a better system.

5

The point is this, at the national level the clearinghouse system does not work. It could work as a system in New York or California, were there are huge areas of people. Would it work well in up state New York or northern California some what.

Tournaments only happen in small pockets in any given state. With any state, some parts of the state have very active directors, other parts of the state have nothing. When the clearinghouse came about, it was designed for what was active tournaments in a given area. People have moved, so have active directors as well.

The clearinghouse system was designed for a non-online society of chess players. It only worked in areas were there is a huge number of active directors. Since directors know each other and work with each other. With emails going from one director to the next. Knowing and communication with directors that could effect each other. Directors can with emails take care on their own conflicting tournaments.

If it was designed by the Regions and States committee, a committee that past out of the federation years ago. If the tournament clearinghouse is that out dated, then its’ time for retirement of the system. As the tournament clearinghouse is designed as a way to communicate with each other in snail mail, with snail mail with directors and the clearinghouse director. When looking at the membership of the tournament clearinghouses, the only way to communicate with each member is a letter in the post (snail mail). Some have their emails posted, but all have their snail mail posted.

If the only way to send a letter to all the members of the USCF Executive Board, was by snail mail. Or the only way to send a letter to all the USCF staff, was by snail mail. The membership would be very upset, as the membership has gone online so has the USCF. With the tournament clearinghouse, for some directors in some zip codes. If they use the rating list, they will need to use snail mail to clear a tournament with any conflicting tournament. Since the USCF is asking and demanding directors to use computer software for pairings. Send in tournaments online as the mode for reporting tournaments, then sending them in as paper reporting. Have a computer to send in memberships, then sending them in on paper.

The push to use computers during the tournament and after the tournament. The push to have more directors use the TD/A, needing a computer with a active email account. If the director wants to use the tournament clearinghouse to make sure of no conflicting tournaments, for some directors in some zip codes its’ snail mail.

The reason why the tournament clearinghouse has not gone online, as directors never use the service of the system. Since it has not gone online, and tournaments still happen with or without the use of the system. It has not gone online, all the members of the clearinghouse do not have a email account posted in the rating list. It could be time the state association deal with their tournaments at the state level, as they have been doing that for years. How important can the tournament clearinghouse system be if it still use snail mail to contact all the membership?

6

Doug, I don’t think you have any knowledge about how well the clearinghouse system works except perhaps in your local area, and I’m not convinced you know if it works there either.

I know places where it works well, I know other places where it does not, mostly because certain organizers choose to ignore the clearinghouse, often because of local politics.

That’s the problem with a volunteer system, it only works if everyone wants to play along.

What’s your real beef here?

If nothing, why mess with something that doesn’t affect you?

I suspect more of the clearinghouse coordinators have e-mail than our records show, but out-of-date records is a situation that can be rectified without ending the clearinghouse system. And out-of-date records is a problem in more areas than just this.

7

Its’ a question of how the system works. If making the statement the records are old, and not updated with the clearinghouse directors information of emails and snail mail. Then why are the records are so outdated? If the TD/A, is designed to keep current information of directors email accounts. With other important information to keep the directors, able to send in online memberships and online tournaments.

When looking at the membership of the tournament clearinghouses (February 2005 Supplement), there are a number of the membership that has the only way to get contact with them is their snail mail. If the records are in that bad of shape. If it needs to be updated in the rating list, it would not take that long to get the new data from the members of the clearinghouse.

The goal of the clearinghouse is making sure the directors do not have tournaments conflict with each other, if they are going to have it the same day in the same area. Would not a computer program be able to do the same function as what a number of people do now. If a director use the TD/A, place into the system of having a tournament on such a date at such a zip code. If some other director place into the TD/A of having a tournament on the same date, but close to the other directors to cause a conflict. It could come as a warning statement to the director or organizer.

Very sure Nolan if you have the time and money, you could build a program that would do the same early warning system as the tournament clearinghouses. If the director/organizer understands there are no conflicting events in the, they can place the advertisment in the state assocation or the TLA. Since the federation is building or you Nolan are building this new system. The online reporting of events is something that will save time and energy. How hard would it be to build a program for a national clearinghouse, and a national webpage of local tournaments?

If there was a program, it could save time and energy for organizers and directors. If they can use this program in the TD/A to see or know of and conflicting tournaments in their area. The clearinghouses are out dated, they can be replace with a simple national computer program.

8

If I understand what you are saying, you are talking about a centralized clearinghouse for the entire country. This is a really bad idea. This is a local issue. It can – and should – be done by local organizers. A bureaucrat in New Windsor or Crossville knows nothing about what constitutes a conflict in Massachusetts or California. If you want to improve things in your own region, by all means do so. If it works, others will emulate you.

9

Having a centralized system could work. The clearinghouse system is just a guide to provent a conflict in tournaments. It has no authority to provent having tournaments on the same day in the same city. A national clearinghouse system will inform all the directors, of a possible conflicting in tournaments in the state and all the bordering states around it. It could tell the director/organizer of a possible conflict in a tournament in say a 200 mile area. With myself would not want a conflicting tournament within 50 miles from my area.

10

As a Clearinghouse Coordinator I have found that most local people contact me if they are having a USCF tournament. The only people that do not contact me are the directors of the two very large annual tournaments, who presumably feel it is unneccesary to communicate with the local Clearinghouse, even if it means stepping on the toes of the planned “local” tournaments (e.g. when one of the large annual tournaments moved from its usual date in March to June).

I wish there was a suitable way to “force” people to notify the Clearinghouse of their planned tournaments. Even if they refuse to move their tournament at least the other conflicting tournaments could be notified about it!

Regards,

Chris

11

Its not so much the problem of the small local tournaments, that the local Clearinghouse Coordinator has any problems. Its’ the larger tournaments that hurt the clearinghouse. Take for example the ‘Chicago Open’, were people from all over the midwest comes to the event. For a few years Michigan had the ‘U.S. Amateur North’ in Detroit. The reason why the ‘U.S. Amateur North’ in Michigan was a huge flop (last one), it was on the same weekend as the ‘Chicago Open’. The very strong players, and the very active players went to the ‘Chicago Open’.

From Detroit to Chicago is around a six hour drive. Is the clearinghouse system able to deal with a large tournament like that – no. As local players are willing to drive a whole day, making the zip code system a little pointless. Having the ‘10th U.S. Amateur North’ on the same weekend as the ‘Chicago Open’, the ‘10th U.S. Amateur North’ only had 37 players. The clearinghouse system is unable to deal with large events, as the large events go past the territory of the Clearinghouse Coordinator.

12

The online TLA feature (if it ever gets past the administrative hurdles) would have information on a nationwide basis, so it could be used as a reference guide for potentially competing events, even though it is not intended to serve as a clearinghouse or replace the regional coordinators in any form.

Having been a clearinghouse coordinator for several years myself, the local organizers DID ask me to check the calendar well before booking sites, and there was some occasional negotiation on dates between organizers.

13

I think the Clearinghouse system is broken in my area. The last time I tried to reach the 386-392 clearing house person the phone number didn’t work.

The only place I really have conflicts with that I worry about a clearhouse at all about is when we have tournaments in northern Mississippi and Memphis at the same time, so I just coordinate with the President of the Memphis club.

It seems silly to me to not have some kind of web site built at a national level where a clearinghouse for the whole country can operate. (Silly if you are against the concept, of course this might not the place we need to focus our resources at this exact moment.)

14

A central computerized clearinghouse would include reams of data useless to almost everyone (no one in California cares about tournaments in New York). It would be slow and clumsy. There would be no informed review of the contents (some organizers schedule a tournament every weekend just in case, the “dog in the manger” technique).

One suggestion made above was that it be tied to on-line TLA submissions, but this indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of what the clearinghouses are for – by the time you send in a TLA, it is too late for the clearinghouse to do any good.

Simply put, if you can’t do it yourself, you shouldn’t expect someone else to do it for you. This is a job for the state chapters.

15

For the local tournaments, it should go with the local state associations. Mr Stewart is the President of the Mississippi Chess Association. Mr Stewart is the most active director in the state of Mississippi. Very sure he knows and understands who is a director in his state. Could even say he knows all the directors in his state, and has the phone numbers and emails of all the directors.

In any given state, there are very few active directors at any given time. For some directors, they only will be the director for only the state association sponsored tournaments. Other directors, they have tournaments each and every month. There are other directors, starting out for the first time, pop on the radar screen, then burn right out. There are directors, that had a number of tournaments in the past and burned out years ago.

The state associations know who is active and who is not. If someone plans to be a active director, the first goal is understanding who is also active at the same time. Just in Michigan, can point to the cities of Warren and Flint having one or more tournaments a month. Can point to Lansing, always having one tournament a month. Cities with tournament history has there own local customs.

Tournaments only happen in small regions like a city or a community. If its’ just a local tournament, it will only bring in the local community. It will be the same in any state, or parts of a state. The problem with the clearinghouse system as being a zip code. Some cities will always have tournaments month after month, year after year. Other times it will be dead for years to come.

The clearinghouse system wass designed for all regions having equal amount of tournaments. Can make a statement that tournaments always happen in New York and California, with the Rockey Mountain states having tournaments some times less then 20 in a given year. Times have changed, were tournaments happen all the time in the 1970’s is not the same spots as now. Players are able to travel longer and faster then they did in the 1970’s. There are now tournaments that come every year that never came about 30 years ago.

With the 1990’s till now, the USCF has been building new relationships with organizers at the national level. The Continental Chess Association, has picked the major cities for there national tournament schedule. Even Cajan Chess has been building there schedule in the deep south.

The tournament clearinghouse system needs major work done, or large organizers and the directors will give up on it. The system is old, it has not changed in decades when everyone else has.

16

CCA and Cajun Chess are two organizers about whom there have been charges over the years that they don’t pay any attention to the clearinghouses. (There are a few others, but those are the two largest organizers of ‘regional’ events.)

How accurate those charges are is a separate discussion entirely

At times, local political disputes have resulted in the clearinghouse being used as a source of ammunition for the warring factions, ie DELIBERATELY scheduling competing events rather than trying to avoid them.

I agree with John that by the time an event is at the TLA stage it is long past the point where any clearinghouse system will do much good.

Perhaps after we get the offices moved we can send out letters to all the clearinghouse coordinators asking them to update their contact information. That’s something we may be able to have them do online.

17

Mr. Forsythe seems to have many complaints about the current system, which I have found useful, especially when directing a tournament in a new area. I would like to know what his suggestions are to improving it. Certainly nolan’s suggestion about asking the clearinghouses to update their information is a good one (I recently contacted a clearinghouse which informed me that he was no longer the clearinghouse, but forwarded my message) but what else does Mr. Forsythe suggest?

Alex Relyea

18

This is just a idea, one of many that will come around and not the final goal. The ‘Tournament clearinghouses’ were designed during the era before internet access. It was build under the zip code system, and when people had less access to travel from one state to the other. It was designed as a snail mail system, when directors had limited understand of one director to the other.

The first goal. Anyone that is a certified tournament director will be issued a email account with the United States Chess Federation. It does not matter if the director is at the club level or as a international arbiter. The mail box address will not be @uschess.org but some other name. Making sure of the security of the directors being on the list, a letter will be mailed to all current certified directors with the information needed to activite the account.

The second goal. Since tournaments have become more organized over the years, with organized tournaments crossing state lines. With some states having a large grouping of directors and some not. With players and directors willing to drive a few hours, crossing over the state lines. It would be foolish to design each organized cell at the state level.

Example, the New England States can be place into one internet group. The directors in that group will be able to use the internet to post messages in that group. It would be like a yahoo group but more organized. They can post messages, they can communicate with each other on the dates they want to have as a event. If someone came to their tournament, information on a new member that went to some other directors tournament, could be settled with a email. They can post information of new members after the tournament, a director can look it up new members with a email The directors can settle membership issues between each other. The directors can post notes, like wanting a assistant for a tournament, or willing to be a assistant for a tournament. It could be a way to find other directors in the community, able to pool close directors in the same affiliate to grant online access to rate tournaments with a affiliate.

The third goal. Since directors do have tournaments in their local area, more so with the club and local directors. The USCF should place a national map, for the directors and the players knowing where a director lives at the county level. It will not give out data of the persons snail mail. If the annual list can show my state, it can also show the county as well. Having a national map, will show pockets of directors and pockets were there is no directors. With the data of this list, organizers in the internet group can work on finding new directors in the pockets of the state or regions were there are none. Teaching a new director, finding a new director, supporting a new director in a area were there has not been any tournaments in that region of the state will improve the whole state.