My friend nocab is not reading with his usual degree of care:
Nolan said he broke down the ages as he did because they corresponded with our membership categories.
He appears to have taken the original assertion, which compared revenue from seniors vs youth, and modified it into an adults vs youth comparison. If one takes the total revenue from adult memberships only and compared it to youth membership revenue only, the adult revenue might be higher. If you compared membership only revenue from youth vs seniors over 65, the kids would put more money into the USCF coffers, and that isn’t even beginning to count profits from scholastic events.
Reports using those groupings for age breakdowns have been around for quite a few years. All I did was take the information from that day’s ‘Top Ten’ list, since there was just one tournament submitted by the USCF’s affiliate on that day it was pretty clear it was the US Open. If you don’t know about the Top Ten lists, see the TD page: uschess.org/content/blogcategory/342/668/
So, the code was written weeks or months ago and I’ve probably spend more time writing this note than I did doing a cut-and-paste of that information to the Forums–twice!
I received an email from my friend Mulfish in which he wrote, “Try the beginning of post 283228.”
I totally and completely missed it, even after going back to look for it. What can I say? I have not been well, and am getting old, etc. _ _ it happens. It could be that I overlooked the Nolan breakdown because it came after my lengthy post and was at the bottom of the page and I just went on to the next page…
I would like to thank you for the information. I cannot help but wonder exactly how many members are eligible to play in the US Senior?..and how many are from each state?
And I would like to thank Michael Mulford. Like me, he may not be a Grandmaster, but he also has a Grandmaster love for the Royal game!
Requests for statistical information not already being issued need to go through the Executive Director. We do not currently publish a breakdown by state of those age 50 or older (the minimum age for the US Senior.)
It would probably be possible to generate something along those lines using the demographic query tool in the TD/Affiliate Support Area, that tool is available to all TDs and organizers/affiliates, though it wouldn’t give exact counts.
I would settle for an estimate.
If my friend Bill Hall were still EXDIR I would ask. Besides, I was just wondering…
And I wonder
I wah-wah-wah-wah-wonder
Why
Why, why, why, why, why? lyrics.wikia.com/Del_Shannon:Runaway
Have we determined at what age a player is no longer a “child”? I ask because is seems to me that if a child wants to improve, he/she needs to play in tournaments with “Big Money” because this is what attracts the strong players. (One notable exception is the US Amateur Team)
I took a look at the 12-year-old top 100 list and there are 7 masters. I chose that age because that is the youngest membership category. There are also 4 11-year-old masters. I doubt that all of these players would be masters if they did not play in “Big Money” events (Have we defined “Big”?). Based on observation in my area I have noticed that when young players make the switch from trophy events to $$ events, their ratings usually shoot up rapidly. I recall that a 14-year-old won the US Championship in 1957.
Kids should have the ability to conduct themselves properly at the board and enough maturity to be able to handle defeat. At the US Open I saw one kid burst into tears after dropping his queen against a sub 800 adult (the kid was considerably higher rated). He was sniffing for the next 20 minutes. It was quite distracting. Later I played a 7 year old class C player who was rocking back and forth on my time constantly and periodically was rotating his body in full circles in his chair. He would stop when I silently held up my hand, but he couldn’t help himself. He didn’t stay still long. I talked to a TD, who observed discreetly from a distance but didn’t act. He was a great kid, but he fidgeted like, well, a seven year old. Did he belong in this event? Arguable. I understand why some adults don’t like playing in events with a high proportion of kids. Rarely do they bother me, but this time it was annoying. I’d sure like to see more adult players in the tournaments; that’s a far better thing than seeing fewer kids.
I wrote my post after seeing the notice about the Millionaire Open being “Child Friendly.” What constitutes a “big money” tournament can and will vary, but I assumed everyone would consider a tournament named “millionaire” a big money tournament. I realize a million dollars is about the same as one hundred thousand dollars in terms of purchasing power circa 1970, give or take. The word “millionaire” still has a certain ring to it, though, even if it is not what it used to be. One must also keep in mind that what we in the chess world consider “big money” can be considered “chump change” in most other games.
In my mind the question I posed had more to do with the efficacy of allowing a child to compete against seasoned adults in an adult environment. If, and when, there is a dispute, the child cannot speak for himself. Usually a parent does the talking for the child. I know this from personal experience. This has caused many problems. One chess dad here in Atlanta has wreaked havoc in the chess community recently. Organizers dealing with this particular father have had to file a formal complaint with security after learning other organizers have had threaten to go to security, which forced the out of control chess dad to leave. In this case the threat was stronger than its execution. Yet he still causes problems as it is common knowledge in the chess community these are not the only incidents caused by this man.
As to what age a child becomes an adult, well…that depends. For example, the law differs from state to state. A case could be made that a child is no longer when he becomes a teen. Yet the teen is still under parental control. A case could be made that one becomes an adult when obtaining a driving license at sixteen, but even at that age the teen is still under parental control. At eighteen a person can be drafted by the government and sent to die for no other reason than the “conflict” is good for business, as was the case with Lyndon Baines Johnson, the man behind the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. (The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ by Roger Stone and Mike Colapietro;
LBJ: The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination by Phillip F. Nelson ; Blood, Money, & Power: How LBJ Killed JFK by Barr McClellan; LBJ and the Kennedy Killing by James T. Tague; just a few of the books detailing the role of LBJ in the coup d’état)
Something similar was done by Richard Nixon, as has come out recently when he continued the “war” in Viet Nam for political reasons, while young men who were not old enough to purchase a beer continued to die in what should more properly be called a “conflict.” (news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-playe … 50338.html)
By the time one becomes twenty one, he is no longer considered a child anyone, anywhere other than the USCF. This is the reason one must be twenty one to play in the World Series of Poker. The USCF considers those young people “25 and under at expiration” differently by subsidizing them. They pay less than the full adult membership fee of $46. Those people between 17 and 25 pay only $33. Therefore, a case could be made that USCF considers a player a “child” until the age of 26.
My personal experience does not conform to Mr. Bacon’s. If I am directing an event where a dispute comes up in a child’s game, I ask the child direct questions, and I get answers from the child. I’ve not had a problem with this approach. Parents ask questions, and are concerned. This is not a problem. Their questions can be answered, and the underlying ideas can be discussed - AFTER the dispute is resolved.
Such parents are hardly a new development in the chess community. They’ve certainly existed at least since I started playing USCF events, which will be 28 years ago come November. Organizers and directors are the only reasonable line of defense.
This is not true everywhere - and, as shall be demonstrated below, it isn’t even true in USCF.
As an aside, the World Series of Poker Europe (run under the same brand, by the same corporation) only requires entrants be age 18. Annette Obrestad, in fact, won the inaugural WSOPE at age 18.
A few points:
The discounted membership that runs up to age 25 is called the “Young Adult” membership. This distinguishes it from “Scholastic” or “Youth”.
This membership class kicks in at age 16, not 17.
As the membership class is identified as “Young Adult”, it is not reasonable to use that membership class as proof of an assertion that USCF considers players ages 16-25 “children”.
Why does the Young Adult membership still provide a discount? My guess is that people up to age 24 are likely still establishing themselves - either just starting out in the professional world, or just completing some level of undergraduate or graduate education. This was certainly true for me, at any rate.
So, if my guess is correct, it is not at all unreasonable to surmise that the USCF is trying to encourage that age group to remain active in USCF events, even as other life priorities begin to assert themselves. (I take no position on whether such encouragement is effective in terms of retention of youth members.)
I do not recall ever seeing nocab at a scholastic tournament here in Atlanta, much less being a TD in one. TDs certainly address the kids; the adults aren’t even allowed in the room during play. That isn’t to say that vocal parents don’t interject themselves into the fray later, but the rulings have generally been made based on interaction with TD and players.
There is no lower age limit for youth or young adult memberships, we can and do have players under 13 or 16, respectively, who purchase those memberships.
I do not live in Europe and will be the first to admit I know little about what transpires in the rest of the world regarding the age of adulthood and or the age at which a child is allowed to compete in any big money event. Most people would assume, correctly, that I was referring to this country, the USA. I seem to recall having written about the WSOP in Las Vegas in one of my posts on the forum, or was in on the Armchair Warrior blog?..When young people have played against adults in other games, such as tennis, just as an example, it has turned out well for some, but not all. Some extremely talented players have had much publicized problems. The same is true for child actors. Shirley Temple is held as an exemplar; no one mentions the one’s who are adversely affected. The same is true for chess. To the best of my knowledge I do not, and have never had, any children. But as an adult, is it not my job to care for and protect children? This was in my mind when posing the question.
Such parents may hardly be a new development in the chess community, but when threatening gestures are repeatedly made to the point of consideration being given to calling the police, I tend to see this as going far beyond being routine. I do not have all the details, but the story told by many is one female TD took her two children out of the tournament because of the behavior of this man.
Why would anyone, especially a USCF official, with a “badge” to prove it, “guess” as to the reason the Young Adult membership still provides a discount? If the sheriff’s guess is correct, why is the USCF only targeting young age groups, especially if the USCF is trying to encourage any age group to remain active in USCF events? It would seem logical to provide a discount to the age group(s) that are leaving, or have already left, would it not? Why not provide a similar discount to Seniors, those 50 & over, who have been among the people hit hardest by the economic collapse caused by the Bushwhackers and Banksters in 2008?
I do not have to guess because it was my personal experience when I began 44 years ago, in 1970, that EVERYONE paid the same price for a membership. I was 20 years of age at that time. These fluctuating payments did not begin until the USCF was taken over by the scholastic people. That is a fact, not a guess.
I worked at the Atlanta Chess & What Other Game Center during many scholastic tournaments, Mulfish, and I also volunteered to “walk the floor” at one children’s event where I believe you were present. I seem to recall it being one of the large regional events in a school auditorium. I have also volunteered to help my friend NM Neal Harris at scholastic events in the mountains of western North Carolina. I will admit that I did not curry favor at the very first scholastic event I attended when, after the round began, some of the very young “players” (I use the word very loosely) began to return moments (MOMENTS, not minutes) after the round began and I said, “This is not chess.” The promoters also knew it was not chess, but they also knew that the more children the more PROFIT! My concern was whether or not it was beneficial for the children.
As far as vocal parents interjecting themselves into the fray, I still recall with horror the unfortunate incident with the father during the only tournament in which I participated at the St. Louis Chess & Scholastic Center. It culminated with USCF issuing a reprimand to the man for “reprehensible” behavior. Yet I was the one castigated and vilified on this very forum for that horrid event. No one has EVER asked me how I felt about having to deal with an out of control father who injected himself into the situation to the point that he lied when he told the TDs he would tell his son to abide by their ruling and then told him the complete opposite. The boy NEVER said a word because he was not given a chance by his father BECAUSE HE WAS A CHILD! And if the man with a badge had been there he would not have gotten an answer from the child because the father would not have let him, badge or no badge, sheriff! The man refused to leave his child unattended, as is his right by law, I believe. As a matter of fact, I asked an attorney about the USCF practice of keeping children away from their children and he said he did not believe it would hold up in a court of law, if challenged by a parent.
I shot the sheriff, but I did not shoot the deputy. - Eric Clapton
My comments related more to the big scholastics in GA, not the tiny events they used to have at the House of Pain. Totally different settings.
By the way, criticisms of the fellows with the sheriffs badges here are misguided. They all hate it too. Moreover, they are not USCF officials. They are volunteer moderators, in no way representing USCF.
If one is referring to the USA, then one should be more careful when picking events to make a parallel (as the World Series of Poker has grown well beyond the borders of this country).
All of the foregoing applies to adults at least as much as children. In fact, at scholastic tournaments, the biggest headaches I encounter, by far, come from overzealous parents. This observation is fairly common among those who direct such events. It is a major reason why many scholastic tournaments don’t allow parents in the playing hall while games are in progress.
Moderators of the USCF Forums are not “USCF officials”. Moderators are unpaid volunteers, and are not authorized to speak on behalf of USCF, save for the very limited purpose of upholding the Acceptable Usage Guidelines of the USCF Forums. The “badge” avatar is what has long signified those who are moderators.
It’s not at all clear that providing a senior dues discount would actually increase total revenue. The EB would have to do some analysis to determine if such a proposed discount would make sense. A common two-pronged argument against such a discount is that (a) many senior members are already life members, so USCF does not realize any annual dues revenue from them; and (b) the non-life senior members are in a better position to pay full dues, so it is questionable whether reducing costs for those who are actually in a better position to pay those costs is a good move for USCF.
It should also be noted that the economic crisis triggered by the Lehman collapse did not discriminate based on age. My portfolio bears sorry witness to that fact.
I humbly suggest that Mr. Bacon’s rendition of “fact” is not entirely supported by, well, the facts. Those present at the most recent Delegates Meeting will be surprised to learn that “the scholastic people” have “taken over” USCF.
Times have changed a bit since 1970. Specific to this discussion, more children have gravitated to chess. This isn’t a bad thing. The more difficult proposition is keeping them involved with chess in general, and USCF in particular, as they become adults. However, the more children one can get involved in chess, the more likely it is more children will make chess a lifelong avocation.
I sorrowfully confess that, despite my best efforts, I can’t seem to find a Forums thread within the last five years that references such castigation and/or vilification. I would be most grateful if Mr. Bacon could direct me (and others) to the thread in question.
I get the sense that there’s a lot of agitation in Mr. Bacon’s last paragraph. I’m sorry to see that.
Parents who refuse to abide by the rules of the tournament should be asked to leave the premises. If this means their children can no longer continue in the tournament, those children are withdrawn (without a refund, of course). If said unruly parents refuse to leave, that’s when the organizer should employ site security and/or local law enforcement to assist.
Again, none of this is new. It’s rare, and certainly unfortunate when it happens, but it does come up from time to time. It also happens with chess coaches.
I suspect Mr. Bacon meant to say “keeping parents away from their children” (or vice versa). The practice would hold up as well as it does in centers of learning and in other extracurricular activities all over the country.
In schools, a parent may request to come into a classroom to observe his/her child. The school in turn may reject that request. There is no absolute right that the parent be allowed in the same room as the child. Doing so might be distracting to the learning process for the other children. It also bums out the kid who is really embarrassed by the overbearing parent. Just because you have an interest does not mean that you have a right to interfere with administration.
In chess tournaments, accommodations are usually made to allow parents to see their children from a distance. Special parent/coach areas, velvet ropes, balconies, and central walkways are all ways that I have seen used to provide some separation between the adults and the kids. My preference is that no adult other than the TDs be allowed in the playing area. This includes both parents and coaches. This cuts down on movement and distraction in the room. It also cuts down frivolous claims of cheating. The kids feel less pressure and can be more relaxed and focused. On a number of occasions, I have had children ask me to tell their mom or dad to stay away from their game. Kids with helicopter moms and dads feel smothered with unwanted attention.
As to allowing children to play in “big money” events, if they have the talent and the money, why not? The children are not harmed. They have fun. The money and logistics is left up to the adults. If they have the money to afford to put their kid into such an expensive event, who are we to not take their money? Until the child shows no ability or interest in continuing to compete, it is difficult to prove that the decision to let them play is misguided. As for those adults with tender sensibilities who do not want to play children, for whatever spurious reason they offer, my suggestion is that they just play chess and ignore the kid. Study harder so that you can beat her.
If a child can get away with behavior that would not be tolerated in an adult, that is when I have a problem. If an adult acted as a perpetual motion machine on my time, a TD would warn and if necessary penalize him under the annoying behavior rule. Should a child be permitted to do that?
Lest I be branded a child hater, I have faced many children over the years and always been a gentleman and an encourage to them, and none of them have, in my opinion, conducted themselves in an annoying fashion. Oh, occasionally they might be fidgety or something, but nothing that bothered me. When I’ve lost to them, I’ve been upset with myself for losing to a weaker player, but not because they were a kid. Losing to an adult who is lower rated is just as upsetting, no pun intended.
I, as a TD and as a player, have seen far more egregious behavior from adults than children in tournaments. I have seen adults get into fist fights, spit at each other, slam doors, throw chess pieces at their opponents or across the room, slobber food over themselves and the chess pieces, come to the board reeking of alcohol, kicking opponents under the table, swearing at other adults and children, singing or humming to themselves during a game, going to the book room to look up the opening in the game that they are playing, leaving a losing game in progress to shoot pool in an adjacent rec room, coming to the board smelling as if they have not bathed for a week or two, the list goes on and on. The worst thing I have seen a kid do was run around the room excited after winning a game. He was caught and stopped doing that. The adults did not change their behaviors even after being penalized. I can put up with a little fidgeting.
