Right. We did it right again. And that means the tournaments aren’t useful anymore. I understand that logic.
If the issue is that US Chess doesn’t market itself well:
That’s a different issue.
It’s an old issue.
It’s a persistent issue.
US Chess still doesn’t show a readiness to address it - perhaps its part of a bigger plan
Junking a large, money making event won’t change that issue - at least not for the better.
And of course, this is assuming we even buy into your thesis – one where you’ve offered no facts, no reasonable argument and have been demanding that others do the research for you.
Holding an event in the same place year after year works for some events. The NCAA baseball tournament has been in Omaha for decades, Eugene Oregon has hosted NCAA national track championships for about as long.
The Baseball Little League World Series has been at the same place for many years, too.
But I’d bet a dollar that each of these events has more people working on publicity for these events every year than the US Chess Federation has employees.
I think it could be argued that US Chess’s mission is all about publicity–raising awareness of and interest in chess.
No, Supernationals isn’t held just for publicity, but how can we raise awareness of and interest in chess if we don’t promote and publicize the events we hold, especially those that are or should be naturals to publicize?