|
Chessville
logo by
ChessPrints
Advertise
with
Chessville!!
Advertise to
thousands
of
chess
fans
for
as little
as $25.
Single insert:
$35
x4 insert:
@ $25 each.
From the
Chessville
Chess Store
From the
Chessville
Chess Store
|
.jpg)
TheParrot
Squaawks….!
Opinions and Reader Feedback
(Agree with what other readers have to say? Disagree?
Talk to
The Parrot and tell us
what you think.)
TheParrot
Says…
8-6-2004
Is the Scholastic chess movement actually bad for
chess? Maybe, or so argues Tom Braunlich in an
article extracted at Chessville (Scholastics
and the Soul of Chess). Tom points out
that the scholastic movement isn't bringing in new USCF members that stick
around - they drop out after they've finished with the scholastic chess
scene. Further, he argues, no one knows if there's any money being
generated by the movement, or where it's going if it is. Most ominously, he
argues that the scholastic scene isn't doing anything to develop new chess
talents that are discovered in the scholastic scene. Instead, he says,
"Scholastic Chess is ... a creation of educators, not chess
players. They think of chess as an educational tool. They see it as
a “Social Good”, not as a “sport”, and use it for their own purposes." and
that "The brand of chess educators teach can be criticized by a chess
sportsman in many ways, including their de-emphasis of developing a
competitive and winning attitude, their strong reward of mediocrity, and
perhaps most important of all, their tendency to ignore the talented players
in favor of the large “mass” of kids that are their target." Is Tom right?
He may be. Right or wrong, it is a critical question that should be
answered as the USCF considers a merger proposal with the
AF4C. If Tom is right, we can't afford to
surrender our national organization to an outside group that might work at
cross-purposes, a la the the American
Chess Foundation.
Readers say:
-
Although ill today, I decided to print out and read the
entire article. I think that the article was quite balanced,
although at the end I thought the author should have left a thought in
your mind for you to decide instead of stating a forceful opinion. A "We
report, you decide" ending would have been better.
I enjoyed the varied comments from scholastic
organizations and promoters, as well as feedback from USCF officers, past
and present. I also enjoyed the breakdown of the profit made at scholastic
tourneys. I believe that these events are truly fundraisers with no goal
of really building up the game of chess.
The 70% turnover each year was astounding to me. It seems
that the USCF works endlessly to bring new kids in, but does nothing to
keep them there as they transition from grade to grade.
I enjoyed the subtopic about how scholastic chess neglects
talented players. There are too few programs out there to support the
players like your Sam Schmakel's or Kayin Barclay's as they get older. It
seems that after they pass the "cute" stage, they are left to fend for
themselves, which usually results in them quitting or minimizing their
play. I've seen this happen in Chicago to numerous players as they enter
High School in just the last few years.
The baseball analogy hit the nail on the head regarding
the idea of separate organizations. The USCF needs to decide what type of
organization it will be. I personally don't think that it should be an all
adult organization, especially when you look at the membership numbers. I
do think that they should have a separate wing that specifically handles
adults, and one that handles kids (and I do believe that all should be
called "Juniors." The scholastic twist is way too political). All proceeds
from the junior wing should be directed back at that wing, and the same
should go for the adults. Raising dues for adults because of the turnover
of kids is not fair to the adults. If managed properly, there is no reason
why junior memberships couldn't be $10 a year, and adults $20/year. Let's
eliminate the magazine and provide better web articles, blogs, forums,
etc. News travels much faster on the web and is much cheaper to
compile. The USCF could compile all of the chess stories from around the
USA each week and send out a much better newsletter than they have now,
and with the addition of some puzzles, commentary, etc, it would be a
fantastic newsletter! Yes, you'd get complaints from those who don't have
Internet; oh well. Amazon.com isn't coming out with a printed catalog
anytime soon to appease those without Internet. We are in the 21st
Century, and we need to stop being so paper reliant. If both wings of the
USCF produced an appropriate newsletter and website for their member base
and eliminated the magazine cost, you'd start to see more interest. More
business would come in from a $20 adult membership than a $49 membership.
More numbers mean more revenue for advertising, etc. I'd rather have
50,000 people at $20 each than 25,000 people at $49 any day!
In general, a very well researched article, and definitely
something to give serious thought to. As long as the politics remain,
however, little or nothing will get accomplished. I hope all who are
involved with chess will set aside their egos and work towards the common
goal of building the game of chess in the USA. There is enough business
for everyone, so there is no need to step on anyone's back in the process.
Thank you for allowing me to share my very long opinion.
:)
Lamarr Wilson
Chess in Chicago Webmaster
-
I read Tom’s article with interest and found it very
disturbing with some of the points he makes. To the following
questions:
1. Isn’t it bringing in lots of new players to chess?
2. Isn’t it developing many new chess talents to enhance the sport?
3. Isn’t it bringing in lots of money to the United States Chess
Federation (USCF)?
He (Tom?) answers No. And here is where I have to disagree with the first
two questions. I will try to answer these and other points he makes in his
article.
First of all, I am a scholastic chess coach. It is my profession. I teach
250+ kids a week in 12 different schools in the greater Phoenix area. I
work as a vendor to the schools in setting up and running before school
and after school programs. The company I work for “The Chess Emporium” has
13 full time coaches and teaches to 150+ schools. Tough we are the largest
scholastic chess organization in Az, we are not the only one.
Now you know who I am and represent, let’s talk facts:
I have been teaching chess now in Arizona for 5 years now. The clubs that
I run are limited to 28 kids each. A manageable amount that one coach can
handle without running into too many difficulties. Now, not all of my
clubs are full, but many (most) of them are and have waiting lists for
kids to join. These clubs are run by me, with the parents paying as an
after school extracurricular activity. We as an organization have been
growing steadily by adding schools and students at 20% rate for the last 7
years. Now we are not educators we are coaches, but the teachers,
principles and parents are seeing the educational benefits that chess
brings. (See my article "Chess is Cool for Kids" on http://ChessCentral.com).
So is scholastic chess clubs adding new players? I have to say yes. I
myself learned the moves of the game from my dad when I was 12 yrs of age.
The year was 1972 and Bobby Fischer had been crowned King. But it wasn’t
until I was well into adult hood when I took an interest in chess 10 yrs
ago and put effort into it by studying and entering tournament
competition. Prior to that, I played an off hand game here and there with
friends. So, I believe that any child who learns the game of chess will
play it off an on for the rest of their lives as I did. Some playing more
consistently throughout there years, than I did.
Other examples are young Hikaru Nakamura, Daniel Rench, Robby Adamson, Tal
Shaked and A.J. Steigman who have started in chess as children and have
now moved up into the “adult” ranks. There are many others though not so
well known I’m sure. Every month, an adult player will come to the Chess
Emporium and want to re-join the USCF so they can enter our tournaments
though they haven’t been members or played a tournament since they were
‘kids’.
The problem I see with Tom’s article is they are only looking for the ones
who are continuing their memberships, and not counting the ones who have
dropped chess as a priority for college, work, and families and have
rejoined later in life. How to track such individuals must be very
difficult if not impossible to do.
Speaking of not continuing their memberships into middle school and above,
when I first started teaching chess at the schools 5 yrs ago we only
taught in the elementary schools. But as our base of students have grown
up we are now teaching in over 20 middle schools and are adding more as we
can. Our problem is mainly, not enough qualified coaches. This coming
school year I will be coaching my first high school team. So, to Tom’s
statement that the kids quit as they grow older, I think that the problem
is that the organizations that are teaching scholastic chess are at fault
as many of them do not put the time and energy to develop the chess clubs
in those upper schools as the kids they teach age. Its not the kids fault
if there is no organized chess clubs for them to play in as they graduate
to middle, Jr and Sr high schools.
Competition: In Tom’s article he states that many educators do not push
competition aspects of chess, (This is a folly as it is to support the
statement that in competition, someone has to loose and we don’t want to
encourage that in our school, program, ect.). To this I say BUNK! Kids
need to loose. It is an important aspect of personal development. To learn
to lose is to grow. I’m no psychologist, but if you don’t learn how to
loose as a child, I think you will certainly be messed up as an adult and
you do lose and don’t know how to handle it.
So the problem is again to me the organizers of the clubs who are not
educating the parents of children on the benefits of chess competition and
learning how to win graciously and loosing and learning as a good sport.
Here in Phoenix, we run approximately 8 tournaments a semester. The basic
charge is $15 so we are not out to gouge the parents. 5 yrs ago the
average scholastic tournament had 75 students with a large Saturday
tournament being up to 150. Now the average is 350 with a high over 400.
The State championship has been any where from 800 – 1100 kids.
They all play for a limited amount of trophies, so don’t tell me there’s
no competition in scholastic chess. Organize the events, keep costs down,
have low entry fees and be fair and consistent with TD-ing, start times,
ect. Competition will grow. It takes time.
One of the things I have found out, was that as the kids compete they tend
to develop their chess skills on an exponential basis much faster than the
kids who don’t compete. (One tournament, 4 games in 30 means the child has
gotten 4 hours of practice. And guess what they do in between the rounds?
Do I really have to tell you?) Believe me, when a kid goes to a tournament
and see others winning the few trophies, the next club meeting, they are
sitting up straighter and paying more attention to the lesson I’m
teaching. Those who have developed their chess have gained many rating
points and have outclassed their peers at their grade level and are now
playing in our adult tournaments against adults and others children so as
to continue to develop their chess skills.
The problem with most scholastic chess is that the tournaments are too few
and far in between for children to keep an interest to want to get better
and enter. Baseball, soccer, football, tennis all has their seasons and
the competitions are every Saturday. Again, the fault lies in the lack of
organizers doing too few and too little for their kids.
As for the last question, why isn’t the USCF growing as an organization
and declining with adult membership. I contend that there are several
things that are going on at once.
1. Internet chess has killed OTB chess. I believe if it wasn’t for kids
growing up and joining the USCF, their adult membership would be in even
worst position that what it is now.
2. Other than a rating organization and a very behind the times magazine
the USCF has noting to offer for its $40+ membership program. Your rating
takes over two months to get to be officially published), after you play a
tournament. Sure they have to wait for the organizer to send it in and
they say they are rating them within two weeks of getting the paper work,
but they ratings only become official every two months, so if you play in
a tournament in May, even if it gets to the USCF before the end of the
month, you won’t get the official publishing of that rating until August.
The magazine, though very nice, as the staff works hard on it, all
tournament information is months old. Better to publish results on their
website and do more human interest stories on the players or more analysis
on the games of the players than just a published game. Unfortunately they
have dumbed down the magazine to make it appealing to scholastic students
who also receive the magazine since they have done away with school mates.
3. The USCF at one time served the interest of their members, but now, in
such a topsy turvey state, financially, infighting, politics, they have
not kept up with the state of chess in this country as well as the world
and have fallen far behind as internet chess has taken over and grown by
leaps and bounds.
As the USCF has grown scholastically over the past years, they have done
nothing to take advantage of it and have even destroyed their scholastic
division and canceled their scholastic magazine. Thus they have nothing to
offer the kids. Unfortunately, that is why as an organization, we have had
our kids switch over to the ASCF, the American Scholastic Chess
Federation. For the same price, the kids get 6 scholastic magazines a
year, but most importantly, the tournament ratings are published Twice a
Month thus the kids can see their progress and results in a real time
environment.
So I agree, the USCF is not a scholastic organization and can not keep up
with the growth, and is loosing members. A sad state I wish was not
happening.
Over all, Tom raised some good arguments, but is scholastic chess killing
OTB play. I disagree, There are many more scholastic players than ever
before. They just have to grow up and that takes time. I believe as FIDE
and the USCF and any other chess organization clear their inner problems
and start to become a valuable asset to the players, these kids will
become adults and there will be a new surge in OTB chess. But all that
will take time, and only time will find if I am right or not.
Sorry for making this letter into a short book.
Leopold Lacrimosa
Chess Coach
Scottsdale, Arizona
-
Tom Braunlich makes a few good points in his diatribe
against scholastic chess, but I must disagree with him that "scholastic"
chess is harming the "sport" of chess.
First, let me disclose my bias: I am a parent, I am trying
to organize an after-school chess program at my three daughters' jr. sr.
high school, I am not a member of the USCF and I am a mediocre player. I
personally play chess, not necessarily for the competition and joy of
victory, but for the joy of the abstract intellectual challenge and the
learning experience. My goals are personal and are measured against "my"
past performance. I ask myself did I learn something, did I improve my
game, was I able to teach something to someone else and improve their
game. My attitude is much like most recreational runners who enter and
runs a race without any real expectation of winning or necessarily
placing, but they enjoy rising to the challenge, enjoy running with others
that share their passion and doing their own personal best.
The overall tone of the argument is rather negative and
rings of a "what have you done for ME lately" attitude, but does raise
some good points:
1. Chess has real academic and social benefits that cannot
and should not be ignored - Tom did not have an argument against it.
2. Educators reward mediocrity, play down competition and
focus more on the masses , rather than the individual. Unfortunately this
is not only true in scholastic chess but in academia at large. The motive
or intent is noble. They want to reach the lowest common denominator and
offer encouragement and recognition to those that may never otherwise
achieve it in hopes that it will propel them forward. Some schools have
gone so far as to no longer recognize the valedictorian and salutatorian
students. Some colleges are criticized for lowering entrance requirements
and dummying down academic programs to attract more students (read
Doonesbury's satire of Walden college). This is a balancing act that can
be either positive or negative and like most things the pendulum has to
swings too far in one direction before it returns to the center.
Scholastic chess does appear to focus its energies on elementary students
and more should be done to encourage students to stay in chess as they
grow older.
3. The USCF is basically shooting itself in the foot. It
does not know how much much it makes or looses on national tournaments?!?
It is not taking advantage of the Internet, depends on scholastic chess
for its existence and has failed to retain and translate the scholastic
memberships into adult members. The solution however, is not to separate
scholastic chess from "real" chess or the sport of chess. I think
Tom should have been more critical of the USCF rather than the scholastic
movement for the popularity of chess amongst adults, it only has itself to
blame for its dismal membership numbers and its poor financial management.
It should know where every dollar is spent and earned. The success of
scholastic chess should not be measured by USCF adult memberships.
Students join initially because they are encouraged by teachers, coaches
and the tournaments to do so. As an adult the ranking process is
cumbersome and awkward. Chess Express does a much better job, faster and
cheaper than USCF. Chess Life magazine is not that much of an incentive
when sites like Chessville and TWIC are available for free on the Internet
and offer more current extensive coverage of chess. The USCF Store charges
too much, the member discounts are not enticing when I can shop at Cajun
Chess or Wholesale chess for less.
The solution? Tom spent more time outlining the problem
instead of a proposing a positive and constructive solution. Maybe a
merger between AF4C and USCF would be beneficial in bridging the gap
between scholastic chess and adult chess instead of dividing them.
Regardless, the USCF needs to change its strategy. A better handle on its
finances appears to be necessary along with partnering with others that
are specialist like Chess-Express for ratings, Cajun Chess for sales,
Internet Chess Club for online play and Chessville for news and articles.
Maybe it should focus on simply being a governing body for the sport of
chess and focus on the competitions (aka tournaments) much like the
Olympic sports organizations.
As for the popularity of chess amongst the general adult
populace, please refer to the excellent
article
by Steve Lopez. The steps he proposes could go a long way in
encouraging students to join a local club, be challenged and improve there
game while developing a lifelong interest and joy for the game no matter
how competitive they become or where they are ranked. - Ed Gray
-
Scholastics and the Soul of Chess is a very interesting
article with many thoughts to ponder. My experiences with scholastic chess
are different from those addressed in the article. My son was not
recruited at school. As a matter of fact, after he began playing and
"loving" the game, he initiated a chess club at his school. I would
classify my son as an "elephant." He learned to play chess at the age of
12 from my brother who had played chess his entire life with many other
family members. My brother was the only family member to belong to the
USCF, and he became an expert.
Chess has sparked my interest because I am an educator,
and I have seen the positive effects chess has made on my son with his
school work. Since mastering the game of chess, my son is more focused and
determined to do well in school and in life. His grades have improved
dramatically, and he has earned many school honors. Additionally, his
overall ability to conquer new challenges has increased.
A suggestion regarding scholastic chess and the USCF may
be for the USCF to create a separate and distinct division for scholastic
chess. It could even be called the United States Scholastic Chess
Federation (USSCF) utilizing the same rating system. In addition, when
youths in the USSCF become adults, their ratings would automatically
transfer to the USCF. Therefore, if a youth or scholastic chess player
became an expert in the USSCF, they would also be an expert in the USCF.
Many "elephants" and/or Denker high school representatives have expert or
near expert ratings. They should not be penalized for their achievements
at an early age!
Regarding the money received by the USCF for scholastic
and other national tournaments:
"So how much is the USCF making off of these
scholastic events? That's the problem…Nobody knows. They don't report
it. They don't even seem to know themselves. Stan Booz, head of the
USCF Finance Committee recently (in May 2004) agreed it is fair to
say, "The USCF has no idea whether it makes money on the national
scholastics nor any idea how much it loses annually on the US Open."
- Scholastics and the Soul of Chess by Tom Braunlich
The USCF needs to be accountable. We teach our children to
be accountable for their actions…We expect our public officials to be
accountable…The USCF needs to be accountable! Thank you for this
opportunity to express and share my thoughts. - Lynn Irby
-
I believe Braunlich's article, Scholastics and the Soul of
Chess, is very misleading. In particular, I wish to respond to his claim,
on page 20, that the prestigious Pittsburgh Chess Club has been damaged by
scholastic chess.
As it happens, I am the Scholastic organizer who became
President of the Pittsburgh Chess Club in 2001. Despite the author's
claims that my group has "been ousted", I have been on the club's Board of
Directors continuously, as have most of my supporters.
Braunlich claims that the Pittsburgh Chess Club is in
serious trouble and may close its doors. Well, as it happens, the
Pittsburgh Chess Club recently acquired a large number of new chess sets,
digital clocks, a new computer, a new laptop, a new laser printer, and
upgraded its chairs. Our finances are better than ever, and scholastics
played a big part in this. We are certainly not planning to close our
doors any time soon.
Moreover, Braunlich implies the scholastic group abused
the club's non-profit mailing privileges. Well, the Pittsburgh Chess
Club does not now have, nor ever had, a non-profit mailing permit. This is
more shoddy reporting on Braunlich's part.
Braunlich claims the Pittsburgh Chess Club has been
brought to the brink of disaster by scholastics. He tries to use this as
an example of how scholastic are bad for chess. However, he should get his
facts straight before engaging in such shoddy reporting.
I don't have time to criticize the whole article at the
moment. However, I would dispute his generalization that scholastics is
opposed to competition. Maybe he knows a particular organizer or two who
are, but what a generalization that is to try to paint all of scholastics
with that brush! Moreover, his claim that scholastic chess is not
producing any good players is just bunk. There are many fine young players
in this area alone that have risen up through the ranks. I might also
point out the top American in the recent World Championship in Libya is
the son of a NYC scholastic organizer.
Based on Braunlich's reporting of the Pittsburgh Chess
Club, I wonder how many other errors appear in the article. I consider it
spiteful and misleading. - Jerry Meyers
-
Greetings! Having read your article, I've been
trying to relate it to what I've been doing as a chess coach running three
scholastic clubs on my own. You cover a lot of ground, which makes
it hard to reply to everything, so I can only talk about what I've been
trying to do.
First, I don't start the chess clubs until 5th grade, and this year I'm
starting the one in ninth grade. I don't do any lower than that because I
didn't want to deal with the elementary school kids. And the school system
feels the same way I do; they limit competitive sports to the sixth grades
and above. Furthermore, I am not an educator. My approach to chess
is to make the kids realize there are certain common aspects between chess
and any other sport. There is the self-discipline needed to practice,
there is the chance of losing, there is even the occasional "bad ref" call
at tournaments! I tell them about how great sports teams got that way
because they tried harder after losing, that boxers and football players
always face their losses and still get out there and don't give up. I
don't go to the
teachers and other educators and tell them how much chess will improve
student's brain; I talk to the activities directors, who are usually
coaches of one of the sports and let them know how competitive chess is
and how as a team the players can bring to the school recognition and
awards. They like hearing that!
You talked also about the loss of members after high school, but that's
been going on for a long time. Back in the 70's we were losing chess club
members as they went off to college or discovered girls or otherwise
figured out that chess was just a game and there were other, more
interesting pursuits now that they were of legal age. Still, positive,
early experiences of playing chess tended to bring them back, maybe a
little older, but certainly with more time on their hands.
And I think that's one of many factors why we are losing adult members;
the matter of time a tournament takes up. Nowadays when you can just hop
on the internet, or play around the house with your chess computer
satisfies most of the need for playing chess for a lot of people. Which
means they weren't among those who believed in chess as a competitive
sport, who weren't taught that it can be. That's what I think needs
to be emphasized. If we can show what it's like to be a chess competitor,
then they will be motivated to improve their skills and test them
throughout the years.
Certainly there needs to be more special first-time membership rates to
attract the adults back into the fold. I guess the high price of joining
is keeping a lot of adults away. You talk about the USCF mission statement
and how the older one stated what you got for your money, and yet it's the
same thing any member is getting today, and they are wanting more for
their money than just ratings. The mission statement as I see it was
altered to make it seem more visionary, which isn't a bad thing, and it
seems like you're getting more than just ratings and a magazine, which
states that explicitly. Well, it's late here and I'm getting tired
and I'm afraid I'm rambling on. Just wanted to drop this note off and give
you some more input. - John Skelton
See what Tom had to say
about the responses he's received in this update.
-
January 10, 2006: There are various problems I find
with this article. a.) Scholastic Chess should not be considered to
harm chess, at the very worst it is irrelevant. This is what most of the
criticism is aimed at. b.) There are really two groups of scholastic
chess. The first is of those that play because it is a school activity, and
they may not stay in chess for long. However, there is a large group of
people who actually play chess competitively for their enjoyment, not for
education. It would be logical to think that this group would continue
playing chess throughout their lives. All in all this was a
thought-provoking article, but I think that the author is exaggerating the
problem. Thanks for reading this. - Moshe Shulman
|
search tips
The
Chessville
Chess Store
Reference
Center
The Chessville
Weekly
The Best Free
Chess
Newsletter
On the Planet!
Subscribe
Today -
It's Free!!
The
Chessville
Weekly
Archives
Discussion
Forum
Chess Links
Chess Rules
Visit the
Chessville
Chess Store
|
