USCF Executive Board Election

Yesterday I received my June issue of Chess Life. Attached to it, there was the ballot for the election of members to the USCF executive board. I filled out my ballot and am mailing it today. Whenever I vote in any election (USCF or otherwise), I am never really sure that I voted for the right persons. But I vote anyway, on the theory that people who don't vote are in no position to complain when things go wrong.

I have a couple of recommendations for the four candidates who win the election, whoever they may be.

1) In theory, chess in the schools is a good idea. But, in chess, timing is everything. How smart is it to have chess in the schools when the endgame is lost? By that I mean, most of these kids will drop chess like a hot potato when they turn eighteen years of age. About thirty years ago, I had a conversation with a chess parent from my home town. His son, a strong candidate master, had given up chess for a career in life insurance. When I asked his father why, he gave me an answer that I will never forget, "Young man, chess is a game for boys. Selling life insurance is a job for a man." Unfortunately, little has changed in the past three decades. Until the USCF finds a way to market its game to adults, chess will continue to be perceived in America as a game for kids. Ironically, the unintended consequence of chess in the schools is to reinforce this stereotype. When I was growing up, I read comic books, collected baseball cards, and played chess at the playground during summer vacations. Two of those three pastimes are now socially acceptable for adults, and one is not. How come it is okay for adults to collect comic books and baseball cards, but chess is still a game for kids? The USCF must market its game to adults. This probably means outsourcing to marketing consultants. How about earmarking some of that money for chess in the schools to an advertising campaign aimed at adults? I live in an American society where adults participate in paintball competitions, but adult attendance is down at chess tournaments. And, I think all chess players will agree, we have a better product.

2) In recent years, there has been a sharp increase in television airtime for poker, but none for chess. In my opinion, this is because poker is televised in a viewer friendly way, while chess coverage is locked into the outdated format of a single game between two players. Sure, that format worked well when it was Spassky versus Fischer in 1972. But how often does a chess match of that magnitude happen? The USCF needs to explore the possibility of televising an entire tournament like the World Open and editing it into viewer friendly segments of an hour apiece. At appropriate intervals, there should be "up close and personal" interviews with chess celebrities such as grandmasters and tournament directors. Right now, I know more about the personal lives of famous poker players than I do about those of chess players! This needs to change.