The sponsorship idea could be interesting. I don’t care for the regional qualifier concept; my interest in national events is to see my chess friends around the county.
They aren’t mutually exclusive propositions. The limiting factor for most of us is cost, but that simply requires that choices be made which we all do constantly. I doubt that you do all of the national events available every year.
If we had regional senior qualifiers, you could decide whether or not to do the national if you qualified for it. If you didn’t, you could still do the US Open, World Open or any number of other large tournaments.
“If you qualified for it”. That’s the whole point - I’m never going to qualify for it by winning a regional. The whole point of an open for me is being able to play even though I’m an amateur. The regional concept is great for the amateur team tournament. It’s not so suitable for an event with an already limited population.
Anything is worth considering, though. I don’t pretend my views are representative of the senior population. If I am less interested and two others are more interested, it’s a net gain to try the new approach.
Another option is to have regional and national champions based on rating, Open, U1700, U1400. Whatever. That might draw more players into the pool. I’ll ask my fellow oldsters what it might take to get them to consider going to a national senior event. US Chess might want to survey it’s senior members to determine what they might be looking for.
This is from the US Chess press release for the tournament:
“(Crossville, TN) The U.S. Chess Federation (USCF) held its’ 27th U.S. Senior Open Chess Championship at the La Quinta Resort & Club located in La Quinta (Palm Springs), California under the direction of International Arbiter and Chief Tournament Director Carol Jarecki. This national titled championship started August 14 and concluded August 19, 2007. 45 “over 50” participated from all across the United States.”
I would argue that 2000 is totally unrepresentative of the event. That year the event was almost not run at all! Unlike other years where there were many months notice that the event would be held and where, the 2000 event had a very limited lead time for advertising/notice.
Looking to the past for data is interesting and helpful, but not really worth dwelling on, IMO. A couple of points looking to future events that occur to me are these:
A set date or month each year for holding the event should be implemented;
Find a site/city* and enter into a five year deal to hold the event in a consistent place to build awareness and allow players to make plans more than a year in advance with something (time and place) definite to look forward to and plan for;
Have Open and other categories to draw more players;
Find a multi year sponsor(s) to provide decent money prizes in each category as well as freebies and discounted product to attract players (earbud mfg., digital accessories like plycounter, software like Fritz Trainer, dgt);
Give competitors US Chess logo product like tote/chess bags, polo or tee shirts to increase visibility and desirability of being at the event and supporting US Chess;
Provide US Chess branded wood boards for all games played and sell them off at a discounted price to participants to take home and help build awareness of the brand and event (these boards are already in HoS inventory).
*As much as I love New Orleans, I’d not consider it as a venue presently due to the crime rate there which has gone through the roof. Friends who live there and who are lifelong residents are telling friends to not send their children to college at Tulane or Loyola due to the danger. As bad as it was in the 1990’s when I lived there, it’s now apparently much worse with roving gangs of youth robbing people in the Quarter, Uptown and Mid-City. The crime rate stats apparently do not reflect all of this because much of the crime is not being reported. My daughter wants to visit family friends in June who have told her not to visit.
I like the idea of getting a T-shirt or polo shirt with the event logo. As part of the entry fee for many of the local amateur tennis tournaments I used to play in when I was younger, it was common to receive a T-shirt. In the registration information was a request for shirt size. At the site there were more shirts if you wanted to buy them. At the scholastic events I run each year, we have a sponsor who gives T-shirts to the 80+ kids who participate. Each shirt has the year, all of the school names, and a sponsor logo. If there were shirts with tournament name and year on them at more tournaments as part of the advance entry, it would make the events more attractive to players.
I have a bunch of sets and vinyl boards with event name and logo on them. Some are from USCF sponsored events. A couple are from special tournaments or club board/piece combos. I would be more inclined to buy one of the vinyl boards and sets used at the tournament as a souveneir rather than a wooden one. Tough getting a wooden board on a plane and an extra expense to ship.
Unless the location is really special, I am not sure having a national event in one place for a number of years is very attractive. What is a great location as far as travel and expenses for one player is lousy for others. Unless you have some big sponsor that makes the cost for the entrant negligible, it is not going to get players enticed to come. For example, I might be interested in an event at the Gaylord Resort in Nashville TN, Hilton Head SC, or Washington DC in late spring, but if the site was in Kansas, Oklahoma, or Nebraska for several years straight, meh. You would need the Koch Brothers, T Boone Pickens, or Warren Buffett to pick up the expenses in order to get people to come. There are also many places that are fine to go to in the spring or fall, but lousy in the summer, which is the busiest season for chess.
One of the big draws for running 5K and other such events is getting the tee shirt. I like a polo shirt more than a tee shirt at this point in my life. IIRC, Rex has polo shirts available with the St. Louis club logo on them. Very professional looking.
As to boards, HoS does make nice folding tournament boards in wood that are really nice and could have the US Chess logo on them. They also used to carry really nice linen on masonite folding boards that would be less expensive and would look and play really well.
I agree about Kansas and Nebraska. I would suggest looking into a multi-year venue (3 to 5 years) in a centrally located market like Chicago or St. Louis. Memphis and Nashville also come to mind. (if New Orleans ever gets it’s crime situation under some semblance of control, I’d go there). The advantage of several years in the same place is ease of planning, but if we didn’t go that way, I’d still like to see advanced planning out a couple of years rotating central sites like those mentioned.
All of this cries out for a professional development person to coordinate with the US Chess ED and her staff. Hint…hint…
Not to be a wet blanket, but while hotels might consider multi-year agreements for large events, I don’t think an event that has yet to draw 100 players will attract them. Even if we get a sponsor, if the turnout in year 1 is poor a sponsor might withdraw, and if we have a multi-year hotel contract that could be an expensive proposition.
I do not think it is a good idea to put any event in the same location every year anyway. Having the event within driving range once in a while is important, and a midwest city may be within a two day drive for much of the east coast folks the same cannot be said for Californians. It’s easier to get away with that for seniors who have more money, but it’s not ideal.
If we get a sponsor, we don’t need the multi-year fixed location. If we don’t get a sponsor, a multi-year location won’t work.
It’s not what ‘a professional development person’ does. On the other hand, we already have a highly experienced Director of National Events - who is far more knowledgeable in this area than you or I. That, in our event planning and implementation model, is where this does and should reside.
A lot of what you want is fine, but it doesn’t really fit the circumstances of this (pretty minor, in terms of turnout and interest) event. OTOH, events like our scholastic tournaments - and Supernationals - are huge events that have sufficient turnout that we can plan them in advance. In the case of the Supernationals, it has, by default, become a ‘held in one place’ event because the Gaylord is one of the few places in the country that can house it all in one place. In those instances, we do, in fact, do a lot of coordinating in various areas.
As others have pointed out, you have to tailor the event to the audience and the realities that audience presents. It is not for lack of a ‘professional development person’ that the US Senior Open is what it is, and suggesting otherwise is a fairy tale.
Hotels will and do enter into multi-year meeting room deals with smaller groups all the time.
I would expect that a sponsor(s) would be sought who understands the recent relatively small turnouts and the desire to build and expand over several years with the help of the sponsor. Thus, up front, the sponsor withdrawal issue will have been addressed and dealt with.
I think it’s far more sensible to site an event in a major transportation hub like Chicago with easy air connections from anywhere in the US that to concern ourselves with drive times from East Coast or West Coast. Your analysis of why a multi-year venue won’t work does not appear to be supported by factual argument. Regardless, it’s worth looking into the possibility of a multi-year deal to see if there is an advantage in pricing to be had. If there isn’t, different venues each year could be fine provided they are selected and confirmed several years in advance to make logistics and planning easier for all concerned.
Your assertion that my analysis… is not supported by factual argument is itself not supported by factual argument. You saying it’s so doesn’t make it so. Neither does me saying it’s so. I think our Director of National Events knows a lot more than either of us.
I think a lot of your ideas might have greater applicability with the US Open, although picking one site and sticking with it is not one of them.
Professional development people do in fact work hand in glove with EDs and staff to develop events to create and promote the brand. The highly experienced National Events Director should be called upon to present ideas and alternatives. Nothing that I’ve suggested is particularly new. What is required is vision and multi–year advance planning with organizers and sponsors. The national event paradigm that US Chess has used for years needs some serious tweaking, IMO. Saying that the National Events director is far more knowledgeable than you or I is, IMO, a excuse for ceding responsibility for developing and providing the vision by which the ED, National Events Director and staff will be challenged and guided. Otherwise, it devolves in to the same old status quo with stagnation.
Lastly, I have not suggested that the failure of the Senior Open to grow is due to not having a professional development person. Such a person would be a valuable addition for sure. However, an EB and ED with visioning ability is far more important at present. I’ve seen little evidence of that vision on the EB which seems stuck in doing things the old, comfortable and familiar way(s) which is OK for some things, but not for all things, especially with the change to (c)3 status.
It doesn’t help to fixate on the multiple year, single venue model. That’s one possibility of the two that I’ve suggested. Both should be looked at with an eye to increasing participation, sponsorship and (c)3 brand awareness. There isn’t one simple formula for growth which is why I’ve made multiple, alternative suggestions to be looked at.
