|
Home > Archive > Chess politics > April 2005 > Scholastic chess numbers
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Scholastic chess numbers
|
|
| David Kane 2005-04-27, 7:45 pm |
| Scholastic chess season has come to a close
in the state of Washington (pop. 6 million).
Approximately 100 tournaments have been rated
in the Washington rating system. In K-6, 3500
players have played a rated game this year.
Of that number, approximately 1600 qualified
for the state elementary championships by achieving
a winning score in a prior tournament. 1124 actually
played in the just concluded championships, making
it, according to the organizers, the largest chess
tournament to ever take place in Washington.
This number represents a 12% increse over last
year's attendance.
The best news for anyone who is interested in
the future of chess is that the Washington rating
system will soon expand to become the Northwest
rating system - thereby providing thousands more
chessplayers the opportunity to play tournament
chess without being penalized by "their" chess
federations.
| |
| George John 2005-04-27, 7:45 pm |
| David,
Thank you for sharing the good news.
Would you clarify a bit please your comment "penalized by "their" chess
federations".
Best regards,
George John
| |
| Sam Sloan 2005-04-28, 3:30 am |
| On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:01:22 -0700, "David Kane"
<davidekane@comcast.net> wrote:
quote:
>
>"George John" <george@neosoft.com> wrote in message
>news:1114635624.482621.21310@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>chess
>
>Someone who goes to school in Washington can
>play in rated tournaments by giving nothing but
>his name, grade and school.
>
>The US, Canadian, and many state chess
>federations are based upon the concept of
>excluding inhabitants of its territory from
>chess tournaments unless they buy a "membership"
>from "their" chess federation. While this
>membership may include some legitimate
>costs involved in rating, most of the cost is a
>penalty that federations impose on chessplayers
>for being interested in chess. These monies go to
>various "chess-related" projects with no
>connection to rating.
>
>Obviously creative people can rationalize
>the stupidest of practices. But actions have
>consequences, and in this case the apparent
>consequence is to suppress chess activity.
This is wonderful news and we applaud it.
However, NorthWest Chess has its own rating system back in the 1960s.
It eventually folded up.
How can you be sure that will not happen again and if it does, then
what?
Sam Sloan
| |
| David Kane 2005-04-28, 3:30 am |
|
"George John" <george@neosoft.com> wrote in message
news:1114635624.482621.21310@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> David,
>
> Thank you for sharing the good news.
>
> Would you clarify a bit please your comment "penalized by "their"
chess
quote:
> federations".
>
> Best regards,
>
> George John
>
Someone who goes to school in Washington can
play in rated tournaments by giving nothing but
his name, grade and school.
The US, Canadian, and many state chess
federations are based upon the concept of
excluding inhabitants of its territory from
chess tournaments unless they buy a "membership"
from "their" chess federation. While this
membership may include some legitimate
costs involved in rating, most of the cost is a
penalty that federations impose on chessplayers
for being interested in chess. These monies go to
various "chess-related" projects with no
connection to rating.
Obviously creative people can rationalize
the stupidest of practices. But actions have
consequences, and in this case the apparent
consequence is to suppress chess activity.
|
| |
|
|