I have tackled the question in my latest post on the Armchair Warrior blog:
xpertchesslessons.wordpress.com/ … -friendly/
“When you become a teenager, you step onto a bridge. You may already be on it. The opposite shore is adulthood. Childhood lies behind. The bridge is made of wood. As you cross, it burns behind you." - Gail Carson Levine
Why not?? This is where the main competition is. And many very young
kids are absolutely ready for this competition. Really, we do need to move
beyond age brackets in defining chess tournament sections, and eligibility,
except for of course, scholastic, and senior events.
And comparing chess to poker, and insinuating that chess is gambling is ludicrous at
best. Although many of those completely clueless and uninformed have made such
ridiculous comparisons.
Rob Jones
As much as I dislike losing to underrated kids, I find that if they can defeat an adult they ought to be rewarded with gentlemanly behavior. My philosophy is that when a child is able to conduct themselves properly in an event with adults, then they are ready do so if their parents are willing to invest the money and the time necessary to facilitate it. However, I do not think it’s necessary to put them into big money events to gain the necessary experience to improve. They don’t need to be at the Millionaire Open to improve; a standard weekend swiss, perhaps playing up a section will suffice quite nicely.
Depends on how strong/large the local chess scene is. Local Chess Tournaments in CO usually have the Open/U1800/U1400 three-section model (some are Open/U1700 or Open/U1600) A 2000-rated junior (or any age of player) playing in a five-round tournament will typically get two, maybe three games against 2000+ competition.
If these players want to get tough competition every round, they have to go to a tournament (not necessarily the Millionaire Open) that has an U2000 section. Most of these tournaments are big money tournaments.
On the other hand, I live in NC now and there are several local tournaments that have EFs under $100 where there is an U2000 (or higher) under section within a few hours drive. NC Open, NC Class, LPO, Land of the Sky, Columbia Open, probably a couple others. So it depends.
Ah, that’s the kicker: “…conduct themselves properly…”. 
But, I can think of a few people who are chronologically adults about whom I could say the same thing.
Just “a few”?
I was being polite.
There ae quite a few kids, including a growing number of U18 GMs, IMs, FMs, NMs, experts,
etc. For these players, yes it is necessary to put them into the big money events for them
to improve, for these events are where the superior players to themselves participate.
And to improve, one needs to face strong competition.
Secondly, what business is it of anyone else, except perhaps that of organizers who may
wish to so age or ratings restrict, who plays in what section?? If playing kids bothers you
then do not participate in events they play in. Simple as that.
There really is no place except in specifically created adult only clubs, exclusive over 21
settings, etc, or senior events for this kind of exclusion. Chess should be for all eligible
according to ability, not age. Age for the most part is, and should remain a near total
non-factor.
Rob Jones
I don’t disagree with any of this. My main point is that most of the kids can gain all of the benefits of playing in the general chess world at a fraction of the cost at local and regional events. As a parent I wouldn’t shell out the money to send my kid to the Millionaire Open. Of course, I wouldn’t shell out the money for myself either. Obviously the stronger the player the less true that is, and age absolutely is not a factor then. Now I absolutely would not support restricting their entry; their parents can make that call.
Now I do agree with you here. It was amazing to me to watch a parent shell out a few
hundred extra to pay the premium for his U900 daughter to play in a 2000+ section
in a multi-day tournament. Parent told all-it will give her a good lesson on how the
top players play. Sure–here is the lesson for her: chess is no fun, and I hate getting
absolutely destroyed. For those she is playing–the thought is this: I traveled this far
to be paired against her?? What an utter waste of my time, and money to get here.
I do look at parents who make such decisions as disrespectful to their children, their
children’s opponents, and the entire USCF tournament process. What they tend to
accomplish more than anything else is burning out their kids from chess by being
overbearing parents.
Rob Jones
Gratitude and a reality check are called for in the situation where parents pay a premium for their child to play way way up. The conditions were known in advance and players who would be chagrined at having to play the dear child should have thought about the possibility of this happening before entering.
I write gratitude because the higher rated player should feel honored that the parent paid a large premium for their child to face them. The player should feel obliged to deliver a game that is the model of efficiency. I think this is called for in the rules somewhere…To play your best. Also this player will have more energy for their next battle.
I write reality check because if a player is facing this low rated player in a late round there could be a question of whether they themselves belong in the section they are playing in if the win/loss expectancy is holding up for their opponent. OTB chess is difficult enough without bad attitudes.
I had several reactions to the question posed in the title of this thread.
I’ve been running kids’ chess tournaments for 7 years, and I’ve never considered giving cash prizes, for several reasons: First, the only way to do that would be to charge an entry fee that was sufficient to cover the prize money, and this entry fee would be paid by all participants, even though only a minority would get a prize. Second, I don’t think a cash prize is as meaningful to most kids as a medal, trophy, or ribbon, since there are a number of ways a kid can get money (mowing lawns, shoveling snow from driveways, running a lemonade stand), but the only way to get a medal, trophy, or ribbon is to play in a tournament and win. Third, while an adult might see a cash prize as a refund of costs of participating in the tournament (entry fee, travel expenses, etc.), a kid usually isn’t paying those expenses.
But, granted that there are tournaments that give cash prizes, should a child be excluded from such events? I don’t think this is a question that can be answered generically. It depends on what child we are talking about. There are some children who aren’t ready yet to be participating in any tournament, and I’ve had such kids attend a tournament I was directing, lose all their games, end up in tears, and never participate in another tournament.
At “big money” events, there are a few participants who are going to get the big money, while the rest are going to get the experience of playing someone who’s significantly better than they are. If a child goes into the tournament realizing that it is likely to be a learning experience rather than a winning experience, no harm is likely to be done. Some children have the maturity to look at it that way, and some don’t. And some adults have the maturity to look at it that way, and some don’t. You can ask whether they couldn’t learn just as much by playing in a lower level event, and the answer is that for most kids that’s probably true. But there are other kids who are playing at a very high level for their age who may benefit from being matched against better players. And, of course, it may be exciting for a kid just to participate in an event where there are famous grandmasters playing.
Bob
As I noted in another thread:
Seniors were the smallest age group. I wonder if that’s happened at the US Open before?
Now, opinions may vary as to whether the US Open still qualifies as a ‘big money’ event. 
Now that I have this information I do not know what to do with it…I am glad to see, though, that it is considered important enough to have been considered a major priority of staff time. It was interesting to read that “Allen Priest had an informative slide at the Finance workshop, a pie chart showing USCF revenue sources.” Were there no “8×10 color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one?”
As it happens, the Legendary Georgia Ironman called a short time ago mentioning his estimate of how many children he thought may have played in the USO from looking at the crosstable. I stopped him, telling him Mike Nolan had posted some kind of breakdown on the forum recently. I found it and read him the breakdown. He said, “Why did he break it down that way?” I wondered the same thing. For example the first category is “12 and under.” Since most children under six do not play, I will assume that to be 5 years. Next we have 13-15, or 3 years; followed by 16-19, or 4 years; 20-24, which is 5 years. Then comes ages 25-64, which is THIRTY YEARS! This is followed by the 65 and over group, which could encompass many years, but still be a small group because of things like serious illness and death. So that looks like: 5-3-4-5-30 & ? Which one does not fit?
Mr. Nolan noted on the forum today, “Seniors were the smallest age group. I wonder if that’s happened at the US Open before?” Once again I assume Mike means “Seniors” to be those over 64. 65 is the age when a Senior gets a slight $6 discount on membership, although a 50 year old is eligible to play in the US Senior. Why not a breakdown of 50+? Since a citizen is considered to be an adult at the age of 21, why not a division at that age?
I have been ill this week and have not had the energy to post on the Armchair Warrior blog. During this time I received an email from someone who had been in Orlando in which he mentioned that I have been wrong about what the chart published in Chess Life by Ruth Haring shows. He maintains that although the graph shows a huge spike for the preteens, and a lesser “bump” for Seniors, it is not the children (maybe he should have said their parents) who are supporting the USCF, but the Seniors, those 50 and over, because they pay a membership fee of almost THREE TIMES what the parents of children pay. The chart would look much different if the money contributed were shown in lieu of the number of members. He goes on to write, “No organization can last long depending on Seniors unless it is a health care business, or some other kind of business catering exclusively to older people. The children who drop out of chess can be replaced, but not the “Fischer boomers” because there are not enough members in the 40-49 age group to replace them. The Seniors will leave the chessboard with no one to replace them. In just a few short years there will be a major crisis and I do not see how USCF survives.”
Unfortunately this makes sense. This man looked at the same chart as I, but looked at it in a different way. It could well be that I was wrong. I will leave the question for others to decide.
The writer, who wishes to remain anonymous, mentioned something that hit me hard when he wrote about “…a decade from now.” It is most probable I will not be alive a decade from now. The problems USCF, and chess in general (Kirsan, again? Oh no, Mr. Bill!) is experiencing will have to be addressed by those much younger than am I. Good luck with that!
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” - Mark Twain
The breakdowns more or less correspond to our membership categories, and we’ve been reporting data in these age group categories for a number of years:
12/under: Scholastic Memberships
13-15 - Youth Memberships
16-24 - Young Adult memberships (separated into 16-19 and 20-24 to make comparisons with previous age cutoffs easier)
25-64 - Adult memberships
65+ - Senior memberships.
For the purposes of sending email blast we have the ability to separate out 25-49 and 50-64, but we don’t do so in the official age category reports.
The monthly membership by age report that Ruth used for her report doesn’t break out memberships by type, we’ve got over 10,000 life members and many of them, like me, are relentlessly approaching the 65+ age group.
As of the end of the latest fiscal year, here’s the breakdown by age group and membership type:
[code]May 2014 (Most Recent Month End)
Type Total % Reg 12/below 13-15 16-19 20-24 25-64 65+
B 240 0.0 0 0 0 6 214 20 (Blind/Prison)
E 3291 0.0 0 0 0 0 2 3289 (Senior)
I 42 100.0 4 2 3 5 25 2 (International Online)
J 6813 61.3 468 670 3822 1727 126 0 (Young Adult)
L 6770 33.6 0 0 0 0 3247 3523 (Life issued before 1984)
R 16093 30.9 33 36 103 208 15088 625 (Adult)
S 36 0.0 0 0 1 1 34 0 (Sustaining)
U 28431 76.6 27487 943 0 0 1 0 (Scholastic)
V 1875 17.3 878 344 298 49 288 18 (Trial/Short Term)
W 6798 0.0 4283 1190 715 172 427 11 (Family/Group)
Y 6602 73.2 888 5212 502 0 0 0 (Youth)
Z 3823 32.3 1 6 10 16 3145 645 (Life since 1984)
Tot 80814 49.0 34042 8403 5454 2184 22597 8133
[/code]
This assertion is debatable. Mr. Nolan routinely produces membership-related data. One may view past and current breakdowns via BINFO at the secure USCF site.
Mr. Nolan has answered this already.
First, I hope Mr. Bacon is feeling better. (I did not quote the portion of his post where he says he has been ill recently.)
Second, his correspondent’s analysis is as one-sided (and, IMHO, wrong-headed) as that produced by those who claim that youth members are the most critical and indispensable segment of USCF membership.
USCF needs the dues from youth members. One big reason: they make youth tournaments possible. Without youth tournaments (particularly the surplus amassed at our national scholastics), USCF’s financial health would be rather grim. Of course, as adult members pay the largest dues, and populate USCF national events (as well as events by other organizers), their membership/participation is also critical.
USCF needs to increase participation/retention across the board to ensure its future survival and success. This is not, and has never been, a zero-sum game.
If you factor out the over 10,000 existing life members, from whom we receive no current dues revenue, we receive more membership revenue each year from those under 25 than from those 25 or older. Yes, the older members pay more on a per-member basis, but there are a lot more current dues-paying members under 25 than 25 or older.
But both age groups are important to the USCF. I probably know several thousand chess players, most learned how to play chess before they graduated from high school, though they may not have gotten serious about it until after then. (I played in my first USCF-rated tournament as a Freshman in college.) So the young members represent our future.
I was unaware Mr. Nolan had provided an answer as to how he came to break it down that way, so I went back to ascertain exactly what I missed. This is what I found:
by nolan on Tue Aug 05, 2014 8:46 am #283102
Of the 389 players listed on the crosstable for the 2014 US Open, 69 were age 12 and under, 55 were ages 13-15, 50 were ages 16-19, 26 were ages 20-24, 170 were ages 25-64 and 23 were age 65 or older.
nolan
I have been unable to find anything written by Mr. Nolan as to how he came to break it down the way he did. Please point out to me where it can be found.
I thank you for your concern and can tell you that I feel much better than I felt yesterday, but as my grandmother was fond of saying, I am not yet ready to go out and run rabbits! (You do not have to be from the South to understand, but it helps…) The fact is that at my age when one takes sick, one wonders if this could be what takes them out of the chess game of life…
I beg to differ with you about my correspondent’s analysis. The parent of a child under 13 pays $17 to become a member. An adult pays $46, which is almost THREE times as much as the parents of the child pays. Therefore it takes about THREE child memberships to equal ONE adult membership. My correspondent wrote that if the chart published in Chess Life showed the amount of money contributed by each one, it would look much different.
I had no idea there were 10,000 life members. I was opposed to it “back in the day” and backed up my words with action by not opting for it because I thought it would help USCF long-term if I paid each year. It may have been a great short term deal for individual members, but a bad long term deal for the Royal game. I seem to recall reading recently that there are about thirty thousand of each group, children and adult. Obviously if one third of the latter group pays nothing, then the importance of the former group grows. Still, 20,000 x $46 = $920,000; while 30,000 x $17 = $510,000. Even subtracting the 10,000 life members, the adults provide more revenue.
Correct me if I am mistaken, but according to what Ruth Haring published, the vast majority of children drop out before moving on to the next category of “youth.” I believe she said they began to jump ship at age eleven. A youth membership begins at age thirteen.
Then there is the “young adult” group that pays only $33. Why? An person is considered an adult at twenty-one years of age. The fact that the “young adult” is subsidized is obviously a major reason “…the older members pay more on a per-member basis, but there are a lot more current dues-paying members under 25 than 25 or older.” Many businesses provide a “Senior” discount, but I have yet to see a “young adult” discount anywhere but USCF. Why is that? It is obvious many opt out when they are no longer subsidized. If a “young adult” gets a break, they why do Seniors not receive a corresponding break?
Yes, young members represent the future. What does it say about that future when most of the young members drop out before puberty? For the last two decades or so we have heard nothing but how the young people were the future. The future has arrived, gentlemen, and where are all those children who have been members in the last two decades or so? How long will you pooh-bah types continue to hope things will change? When will you acknowledge the change turning chess into scholastic chess has not, and will not, work?
I realize that, “Without youth tournaments (particularly the surplus amassed at our national scholastics), USCF’s financial health would be rather grim.” Who’s fault is that? “Back in the day,” the 1970’s and 1980’s, before the money was diverted (co-opted? hijacked?) from Master chess to scholastic chess such was not the case. It is like nuclear energy, brought online in the late 1950’s. The pooh-bahs acknowledged there was no way to dispose of the waste material but told WE THE PEOPLE they would find a way. It is half a century later and the waste is spewing into the ocean and WE THE PEOPLE are still being told a way will eventually be found to do something with the waste material. How long will you USCF pooh-bahs continue to tell us that a way will be found to retain the young people? When will you wake-up and realize it is a pipe dream, and that it ain’t gonna happen?
The most interesting information comes from children, for they tell all they know and then stop. - Mark Twain
There were some kids that received substantial class prizes at the US Open. Early in the evening while games were still going on and the lower-rated classes were being determined, a couple of sets of parents came by with their kids (who had finished) to get an idea of just how much the kids had won. In both cases I asked the parents if they had spent money for entry fees, memberships and lessons, and whether or not the kids should start paying that back to them from the winnings. 
One kid smiled a little nervously and the other looked a bit alarmed. 
I never received lessons as a kid and I don’t remember when I started considering what the parents spent on us kids. I do remember going into the 96 world open that Dad and I had a deal that if I won anything he would get half as he was taking care of all the expenses. I was 15 at the time. I took it for granted as fair but I really wasn’t expecting to win anything anyway.