Wanted: Big Guns in OCA tournaments., Can OCA attract OK's strongest players?

Hello chess fans!

In another thread, there was a discussion concerning the 2008 OCA State Championship and why more of the state's strongest players did not participate. As highly speculative as all of this is, I thought it might be worth exploring how OCA could attract the Big Guns of Chess in Oklahoma to play in OCA events, especially the State Championship.

Of course, we must make a couple of assumptions for this poll to work. Firstly, that the OCA tournament organizers actually want the Big Guns to show up at OCA events, and are willing to organize their events accordingly. Secondly, that we have a good idea about what "bait" is appropriate to use when "fishing" for Big Guns. With that in mind, I have created a poll with what my own experiance and knowledge of the state's strongest players indicates to be what might be lacking in OCA events to sufficiently bait the hook.

Please cast your vote for the option you believe makes the best bait. If you select "other", I hope you will leave a post describing what "other" idea would make an OCA event appetizing enough to catch the ones that got away!

Yours Truly,

The Bran Whitcomb.

But truly, the attendance of 2000+ players has not been that good in any OK events lately, when you only consider OK players. Really only 2-3 OK players rated above 2000 frequently play in in-state tournaments. Occasionallly there is a big-money FIDE event that may attract 4-5, but it still seems most of the money is going out-of-state. That is probably what brought the idea to mind to have at least one annual CLOSED CHAMPIONSHIP!

I think that such a tournament, with an equally attractive prize fund, would bring out the best of the state's players. This tournament could be in addition to the current events held. Perhaps another option could be in adding cash prizes to TOP OK FINISHERS.
It is disheartening to see someone win the State Championship as a resident, yet the biggest cash prizes go to out-of-staters. I think that is an idea to really get OK players "booked up", and loaded for BEAR.
Well, MAYBE! Raymond

Good response Raymond!

I take it CLOSED CHAMPIONSHIP is your "Other"?

Are you advocating that the State Championship be only for OK players, or that the prizes (titles, cash, and all) be only for Okies?

Best wishes,

Bran.

I voted for "Other". Mike Crockett had a great idea a few weeks ago: Chessplayers will enter the next OK State Championship and play for their own affiliate and and the winning affilate gets to host the next OK State Championship. The OCA should not require OCA membership for this ONE tournament that could end the rift. I also like the idea that this tournament should be a closed tournament for Oklahoma residents only. This should bring the Big Guns™ out. Mike T.

Whether it be called THE State Championship or not, I do think it would be an idea to try something of the like. With all of the Big Money tournaments that there have been, very few in-state players have collected much in prize winnings. It is well known that most of the money goes out-of-state, so once a year I think it is a reasonable idea.

I do also like the idea of some sort of unification match, although it might be difficult to decide who plays for what side. I don't think that the OCA would acquiesce to something like that, simply because they don't have to, and may consider it a "circus act."

Something akin to the US Open could be brought to Oklahoma in time, yet it still feels JUST to give something more back to the OK players who have continued to frequent the fireworks of the past few years.

And speaking of the US Open, have you kept up with some of the matchups with our OK players? I am keeping abreast of the standings, and wished I could have gone too. Hope to see you guys soon, Raymond

Oh, and Bran, your first choice is a good one, which I think lends further creedence to the idea of a closed tournament of some kind.
I don't mean to discourage bringing titled players to Oklahoma for events, but it seems that once during the year, the 2000+ players would enjoy vying for good prizes against only other in-state players. There are potentiallly 10-15 players of that rating threshold, that might be brought out for such an event. I am not saying that there should be any rating minimum either, as A players often win tournaments here too. In fact, Wellington Lee won the State Championship some years back as a B player!

I think it is a good idea, and I would be willing to contribute to that prize fund.
Thoughts?

We'll if Chuck and company thinks this idea might be a "circus act" they might take a closer look at what they have been doing

The topic at hand is how to bring the big guns out - not how to strip OCA from it's title holdings.

OCA would still retain the right - year over year - to control the title and OCF could decline to run an OCA event. This is assuming of course that an OCF player won the event. In this case OCA would resume as it had in the past. This opens the door to all affiliates - not just OCA or OCF but includes Renegade or OCU too.

I fail to see what OCA would be "acquiescing" to. Promoting Chess maybe?

Mike T,

I appreciate the vote of confidence. I think it would be a good idea too.

In principle, I don't like paying for more than one chess organization either - but that's what we have. If you put the membership issue on the table, OCA would refuse to cooperate. OCA's main source of income is from it's annual event. It won't cut itself off from that money.

Frankly, OCA doesn't need much money to operate - It just acts as a shell organization for OSCO. I think Swatek said $2.00 per head is what they charged for OCA membership. They really can't do much with that sort of income. From my perspective let them have it. OCF has bigger plans than that.

I doubt OCF would even be interested in running a fund raiser on OCA's behalf. There is no indication they would consider doing this.

Mike C

I understand that, but the State Championship is really the only thing that separates the OCA from any other affiliate, and I really don't see that the "Commanders-in-Chief" would agree to such an idea. I'm not saying it is a bad idea, but I'm not at the OCA helm.

Of course, the idea of having a "Closed Recognition Tournament" of some sort, might be a good way to circumvent both the OCA and OCF, as long as some neutral director could be found. Or maybe it could be played much like the US Championship, with the top 32 (or some number) players being seeded into the tournament. I would think that anyone 1800 and above would have a reasonable attempt at the title. As long as it is not called the State Championship, anyone could host it.

And I do think that they (the OCA) would take issue with your statement about "promoting chess," as the officers of OCA/OSCO feel that they have done that very thing. This thread is more about some event(s), in which the best players of the state could ascertain the "BEST of the BEST." That is an attraction that could bring them all out to play.

Once again, I don't think that the OCA PB would feel that it is in the best interest of the organization to submit to such an idea. That is not saying that it might, however, be the best thing for OK Chess. I guess we'll never know.

Cya, Raymond

I'm sorry but I find the whole tone of this comment to be incredible - the self important smugness - the attitude of superiority - "We have the Titles - You don't!”. This seems childishly ridiculous, especially in the light of OCA's performance.

OCA doesn’t have a monopoly on the market like it used to have. It needs to wake up and learn to cooperate with other chess players – including the OCF !

Oh! Horror of horrors! Please NOT the boogy man!?

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with what you say, but I would imagine that that is their stand on the matter, and they intend to go about doing what they have been doing.

You know, I was just looking at the players in the current US Open, as well as the crosstables of the World Open. I came to realize that there must be at least 2000 players in the US over the 2000 rating point. It is even somewhat intimidating to look at the top 40 in Texas! Wow! This set me to think that if each state had some in-state event, then it could have an annual event to host the best of each state. This would be much like the current Denker and Polgar events, ONLY BIGGER! It is a little tough to think about NY or CA only sending one Rep., while AR, ID, or SD having equal representation, but the idea is entertaining. Or perhaps there could be one Rep/ 5 million people Regions. I think that is a way to make the State Championship more meaningful, and to have Regional titles, if not State Titles, in order to have the best players playing. Perhaps states like NY or CA could have two Champions, whereas OK and AR might combine to make one. I like the idea of State and Regional Champions, and that might be a way to work around State Titles, and their governance.

I see that George Trammell has 4 points out of 5 as of today, defeating a master yesterday. GO OK TEAM GO!

A novel idea might be, that officers in the OCA, be concerned with Oklahoma Chess Players, and not so much their title to Titles. The Oklahoma Chess Championship, should be for Oklahoma Chess players. IMHO I voted other.
Mike Tubbs had a good Idea.

This post has been edited by Harry Payne on Aug 7 2008, 12:49 PM

Amen Bro!

I agree! The organizations must (should) submit to the consensus and desires of its' players. How about a vote? I think it is an idea to take a poll of all USCF OK Chess Players, with several questions about the future of Chess in our Fine State (Oklahoma is still MINE TOO!)!

How is this to be effected?

Let us now ascertain the opinions of the real Body of Chess in OK!

Thoughts? Raymond

Harry,


Reply deleted because the author(me) misread the quote and thus responded wrongly. My mistake.

This post has been edited by doink on Aug 11 2008, 12:13 AM

Albert,

In context with the discussion at hand - OCA tournaments - I think Harry was referring to OCA's general unwillingness to consider letting outside groups run the State Championship and hence wanting to retain exclusive control of the championship titles.

Mike

I think it would be a fair idea to compile some sort of 10-question survey for all OK players. It might be useful to discuss age parameters, for those being polled. I would imagine that the overwhelming majority of scholastic players and parents are much in favor of status quo.
1. What exactly is the issue?

2. Does the current State Chapter Affiliate deserve the right to award titles?

3. What is the current roadblock to greater organizational immersion?

4. Has the Chess community grown and improved in Oklahoma?

5. Who is most disgruntled?

6. Why would someone not desire to play in the OCA State Championship?

7. Would it be feasible, fair, and an idea worthy of consideration, to have any other organization host the State Championship?

8. Is current leadership a major stumbling block to PEACE?

9. Are the 5% willing to listen to the opinions and desires of the 95%?

10. How in the world do you get everyone to agree????

Maybe it is just as well to ask: What does the OCA need most?

My idea of a CLOSED TOURNAMENT might be worthy of some consideration. It doesn't even have to the State Championship.

Thoughts? Raymond

Albert,

In context with the discussion at hand - OCA tournaments - I think Harry was referring to OCA's general unwillingness to consider letting outside groups run the State Championship and hence wanting to retain exclusive control of the championship titles.

Mike

Mike,

Thanks for politely refocusing my attention to the text, of Harry's message, which I misread. I get it now. Thanks.

I'm back from Dallas after a run through the rain, an altercation with a gas station clerk, and a wrong turn in the dark while still peeved at the clerk that cause me to miss my turn and wind up in Muskogee. Hurrah, the mighty and intrepid traveler. Back in my salad days I was Mister Road Trip. But I digress.

I disagree with the quote, "...be concerned with Oklahoma Chess Players, and not so much their title to Titles." and your contention that the OCA is unwilling to consider outside groups running championship events. I just have not seen that attitude among OCA officers as a member, and now as a board member.

Regards,


Albert

P.S. Do you, by any chance, work near the Right Wing? Or Bama Pie?

Albert,

I'm glad you made it safely back. That stretch of road between Atoka and Muskogee may be the most direct route to Dallas but it's not my idea of an enjoyable drive - especially in the dark.

To get you up to speed on the current discussion - we have been discussing Mike Tubb's post here. You may want to read from that point forward to keep the discussion in context.

Regarding my comment - it was actually Raymond, a pro-OCA supporter, who initially suggested OCA would be unwilling to consider the idea. I happen to agree with his assessment.

I and others, even from your organization, happen to share that opinion. Even if you believe we are misjudging the situation - it is still an issue of perception that the OCA PB may want to address.

Mike

P.S. I work up by the Airport, at the American Airlines maintenance base.

This post has been edited by Mike_Crockett on Aug 11 2008, 07:06 AM

Actually, not to be taken out of context, this statement was in reference to a match to decide who would host the event. The OCA has already stated that it would consider another organization hosting the event.

My idea for a match really had nothing to do with the organizations per se, but more to do with having all of the players of the top tier gathered to play in one event. In-state only!

I think that the OCA and OCF are both happy with what they are doing, and aside from this one thing, things will peaceably continue as such. This one "neutral" annual event might be the one thing that the players are looking for.

RG

Raymond,

I don't have a big issue with the suggestion of a closed "In state" championship as you've been promoting. I can take it or leave it. But frankly, I think the idea flies in the face of the suggestion we also need larger prize funds to attract the big guns which I do agree with. If I recall correctly, the larger prize fund issue was your suggestion too. In practice, excluding funding from sponsorship, the bulk of the prize fund comes from the average player - not the top guns. I also recall that you objected strongly to being excluded from receiving benefits because of your decision in where you played. Fortunately that divisive issue has been resolved but I see little difference if you start drawing borders around our state.

IMHO. You can't have larger prize funds if you set about to intentionally exclude people from playing - especially if the bulk of the targeted players would be your average chess player. I see nothing wrong with the open championship concept. If the big guns want to compete for the better prize fund, they may have to work harder to earn it. That principle applies to the average class players too.

Mike

This post has been edited by Mike_Crockett on Aug 11 2008, 06:50 PM

I don't think that we can have any dispute about the size of many of the prize funds in the state, other than the fact that most of that very money does indeed travel back out of the state. I am only speaking of one annual in-state tournament, so that the title, and ENTIRE prize fund, can be put in rightful hands.

It doesn't really matter if the prize fund is larger, under current conditions, so there could at least be a prize fund within each tournament, for the best score from an Okie player.

As far as OCA tournaments, and their prize fund, I do object to having an inordinately large "expense" deduction, or using the tournaments as a fundraiser. If the organization needs funds, then start charging the $10 annual fee again, but the prize funds should be left alone. I personally feel that at least 70% and likely more, should be returned to the players. This year's state tournament seemed to have a better payout than the previous year.

I wonder if the directors keep a tally on monies paid in and out. I think it is important to have tournament report, that delineates these figures.

Actually with only a minimal amount to cover tournament expenses, at least 2-3 tournaments/year could return !00% of EF's back to the prize fund.

Again one might inquire, "How much should the OCA be in the black?"

The operating expenses are now not so great, so it seems that no greater revenue is necessary. And who is to determine these questions? The PB?

By whatever means, some sort of unifying event does seem like as good an idea as any! RG

I'm sure all directors keep tabs on how much they are spending. That's just common sense. You have brought up the topic of "inordinately large" expense deductions before yet you also imply that TD's haven't always made their financial status public. I'm assuming you have someone specific in mind.

This raises several questions...

1. By your definition - has the OCA itself been deducting inordinately large deductions ? The prize funds are typically small - why is that ?

2. How do you know (one way or the other) - assuming tournament expenses are not being made public ?

3. Are you suggesting it is inappropriate for a TD or sponsoring organization to be compensated for their efforts ?

4. Is it appropriate for a participant to say how much compensation is too much ?

I believe this year's state tournament seemed to have a better payout than in previous year because the OCA paid for the facilities. The TD did not have to cover that expense this year - isn't that correct ?

Well, I think certain members helped out with the larger expenses, but I don't know that the organization itself did.


And nowhere did I state or imply that anyone in particular deducted TOO much for expenses, nor do I believe that they should not be compensated, although typically the OCA tournament directors do not ask for fees above their expenses.
I was merely referring to the use of a financial statement for each tournament, that may also be for public consumption.

I do indeed think well of the duty performed by the OCA, yet recognize that any hidden fiduciary functions may become fodder for thought or question by some.
A generated report for each function would likely also provide good ideas for reducing expenses, and improving prize funds. I think it is something that everyone should have access to.
I think that Albert Rine did a great job at the state tournament, and very small adjustments would likely loosen up the apprehension some may have to play.
I think that maybe a report form could be one of those adjustments.
Thanks, Raymond

It sounds to me that the "inordinately large" expense deduction issue really isn't an explaination for why OCA prizes are so low.

As to the financial statement - i agree its good business practice to have full disclosure. It might even be very appropriate when the prize wasn't guaranteed and the number of entries was below minimum - but regardless - I really don't believe a TD has an "obligation" to do so. It's a business - his risk and his reward. The TD has to balance his need for profit and his need for good will with his customers.