I’ve seen that many states do not use a tournament clearinghouse. I wonder why that is. Also I do not see if there are any ramifications if you do not use the clearinghouse or disobey them.
The clearinghouses are somewhat archaic, they were probably more useful several decades ago when Chess Life, printed flyers and mailings were the primary way people learned about tournaments. These days websites and emails are likely the way most people learn about tournaments, and that includes people who are contemplating running an event that might compete with another event.
The clearinghouses have no authority to keep anyone from running a tournament on a specific set of dates or in a specific city, it is strictly a volunteer program.
2 Likes
A sub-committee of the States and Affiliates Committee had been discussing how to put some teeth into the clearinghouses process but in a discussion with some EB members they thought it’d be better to put out some carrots to those organizers that complied, but the sub-committee struggled to come with any agreements on what that would look like given their preference for penalties.
A well-functioning clearinghouse could benefit organizers as well as players.
But there isn’t a one-size-fits-all approach that I can see. What works well in Madison WI, where more than one tournament on a weekend might be a rare event, is different than what would work in a large metropolitan area like Chicago, where the player population and the number of active organizers and directors are both much larger, and multiple events might be commonplace.
Moreover, the type of event (prizes and entry fees) might be a big factor. If some organizer is running a mega-event with a large entry fee, is that really going to affect or be affected by someone running $10 quads in the same city? And a player in Madison (to continue the geographical aspect of clearinghouses) might be just as likely to travel to an event in Chicago as one in Dubuque.
So the key question to me is what functions do clearinghouses have in the middle half of the 21st century?
I can easily understand why the subcommittee had trouble identifying both incentives and penalties, and US Chess’s history of not enforcing rules that do have penalties associated with them (like the limitations on the size of events that club, local and senior TDs can direct) might work against any attempt to create new penalties, as organizers might feel they’re being singled out.
Even a rule that said that upcoming events must check with the local clearinghouse before an event can use US Chess services such as TLAs and email blasts might be difficult implement and to enforce consistently. About all a clearinghouse can do is advise an organizer that some other organizer already has an event scheduled or planned for those dates and location, but granting any exclusivity might be difficult to enforce, both internally and legally. And the system could be abused.
2 Likes
I would also anticipate a lot more fighting about who the recognized state affiliate should be if there was some sort of exclusivity on the line.
I’m not sure the state chapters have anything to do with the clearinghouse system, they aren’t mentioned on the clearinghouse page:
Updated link: Tournament Clearinghouses (4-3-2026) | US Chess.org
The state chapters do have some control over events that award state championship titles, but I don’t know if any long-standing tournament names are trademarked or otherwise protected.
Intellectual property law is an interesting and complicated topic. I have some friends in show business, they have to deal with IP issues frequently.
1 Like
I can tell you from personal experience that if a state chapter contacts US Chess and says “we want the clearinghouse, take it away from the people who picked it up after the former person died and give it to us” that US Chess will do just that.
Rose has pointed out that the link I posted upthread is the old Clearinghouse page, here’s the updated link: