State of US Champs

Do they really think a 3 1 tournament on ICC can be taken seriously as a qualifier for a national championship?

It's a great idea, but that time control is a joke.

-Matt

I don't claim to really be in the know, but I heard that the announcement for this event went out at the last minute and in many cases was directed to state officers who haven't been in office for years or decades. If true, it shouldn't be surprising if one or more state chess associations hasn't responded.

I'm sure out of over 50 federations there were some problems. Many states don't keep their records updated with the USCF and that makes contacting people very difficult. You end up with Google and a bunch of friends trying to contact other friends.

As for the time control I'd care more if it weren't for just one spot from 64 and if these weren't already reasonably strong players who can be said to have qualified by winning state championships.

I notice that at least one player doesn't list the U.S. as his home federation. Would he have to change that if he qualifies?

I would guess Jared Bryant is the reigning Maine State Champion if your looking for one. www.mainechess.org (slow as all hell websight) is the websight of the state chess federation.

No player from Kentucky? For shame, Jackson Showalter much be rolling in his grave.

He'd only roll over long enough to look at the time control, conclude the Kentucky chess players were correct, and go back to sleep...

g,

Last year I think someone played as a COL federation member. It shouldn't matter as it is a domestic championship and citizenship or residence should count. But USCF is getting snippy and cutting alien federation members of the 'Top 100 American players' list even if they are American by birth, citizenship and even accent.

Kaidanov and Goldin are official Kentucky Wildcats by choice not just birth. Jackson Showalker has been outsourced

You don't really expect Kentuckians to be bothered with something like chess when basketball season has just started, do you? Go Cats!

As long as the USCF remains the US organization affiliated with FIDE, I think it's a good idea to have the "Top 100 players" be "the top 100 US players" as shown by FIDE affiliation. It makes it a lot easier for fans to follow who may qualify for various international events, and it makes it easier for the USCF and/or individual players to promote someone as "#x US player."

For example, there was confusion for a couple of years when GM Susan Polgar was listed in some sources as "#1 American woman player," but GM Kosteniuk (who became a GM during that time), would show up as #1 on the USCF list.

It was even more confusing because GM Susan Polgar has always been ranked higher than GM Kosteniuk by FIDE rating. She just hadn't played in many USCF events.

In order to help promote chess in the US, it is useful when journalists can quickly and easily verify statements about standings.

So all in all, I think it makes sense to limit the top 100 lists to those with US federation affiliations.

(By the way, regarding the question about changing a federation standing...my understanding, although this may have changed, is that it's not just up to the individual. Both federations involved have to approve it, and it can take awhile to go into effect.

The person may in fact have already requested the change and be in the waiting period for the changeover.

Just as an example, an adult player who has played in any FIDE event under one country's affiliation may not play under another country's affiliation for at least one year, even if he/she has become a citizen (usually by marriage) of the new country.

http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=C05)

one more example...

When IM Chabonneau (CAN) appears on the USCF's Top 100 Players list, then it means that an American does NOT get to say he/she is on that list. In fact, it is somewhat ironic, but I believe that IM Irina Krush at 2445 would have been in the overall top 100 US players if IM Charbonneau and one or two others who are also not USCF Federation members were not on the top 100 list.

And IM Ben Finegold would be a top 10 US player if all of those with nonUS federation affiliations were removed from the list.

Personally, I do think it's part of the USCF's mission to help promote American players like Finegold and Krush. And getting them to the right place on an "American" list would seem to be part of that.

Otherwise you might as well just use the FIDE lists.

regards,
Duif

"Charbonneau," left out the r. My apologies for the misspelling.

And before anyone asks...I consider that anyone whose FIDE affiliation is the US federation is just as American as anyone else in that group...GM Kaidanov or GM Polgar or GM Seirawan or GM Nakamura or GM Christiansen or GM de Firmian or GM Benjamin are all, in my view, equally American. But I do think that if a player will play for another country's Olympiad team, then he/she should not take a place on the USCF's top 100 players list.

respectfully,
Duif

Duif

Your quote:

"Just as an example, an adult player who has played in any FIDE event under one country's affiliation may not play under another country's affiliation for at least one year, even if he/she has become a citizen (usually by marriage) of the new country."

This refers to 'FIDE official individual and team competitions' not to any FIDE-rated event, just to clarify.

US olympiad selection is based on:

"Eligibility for USCF invitations shall be based on several factors including: rating, age (if applicable), activity, and residency. Players must be USCF members in good standing at the time of invitation."

This does not say 'and no foreign FIDE affiliation'. For rating-based selection, the top US player should be offered a place, and in order to take it they would have to adopt USA affiliation (which is very fast if you pay for it).

What about US championship? Many times non-USA federation players have played in this, and why not? It is national championship open to US nationals (citizenship or residents). The top X players qualify by rating. If you take them off the new top-100 list, then someone will come along and point out that they have higher rating and qualify according to the rules, and they are American.

Another problem is simple English - "Top 100 American players" may be read as the top 100 players who are American. When affiliation with FIDE member federation supersedes US citizenship, that is strange.

There are now contradictory legal definitions being set up, so there is problem bigger than anyone's stick-it-to-the-traitor belief that playing for a foreign olympiad team is such a terrible thing.

I don't see anything wrong with expecting loyalty to one federation. Team spirit and all that. If you have American citizenship or residency but decide to play for a different federation with looser guidelines, it's not unreasonable to say you cannot then also represent the US.

Lists are just lists, they don't write the rule book. They are probably just too lazy to keep track of the federations of a list generated automatically.

Players who don't have US federation affiliation aren't allowed to play in the US championship and haven't been for a while.

Mig,

Please define 'for a while'. There is no such written rule. All the complications in the USCF rules about change of federation, residency, etc. relate to immigrants, not to US citizens. Where is the rule that given qualification (rating or tournament result), citizenship, USCF membership, a player can be excluded for FIDE affiliation.

Maybe you personally don't like it, but there needs to be a stronger basis than that.

abc,

There are two separate issues: who should be invited to the US Championship and who should be listed on the USCF's top 100 list.

FIDE has its own rules which apply to Olympiad teams, and which require affiliation with the US in order to be on the US team. I agree that some requests for change have been processed more quickly than others, and that exceptions have been granted at times.

With regard to the US Championship, past rules have changed many times, and various exceptions made, but the question HAS often come up with regard to those who were still in their waiting period for a changeover.

For example, you may remember the case where the US Junior Champion, who was 19 years old and affiliated with Cuba (he was a political refugee) was NOT allowed to play in the US Championship. That was probably a mistake under USCF's own rules.

Just 3 years ago, in an AF4C event, Rusudan Goletiani was not allowed to play because she still had Georgia (the country) affiliation. It was unclear whether this followed USCF rules or not, because there was some disagreement as to whether she had stated her "intent to become a US citizen" in writing or not. Also, she had not enrolled in a US school until after her 20th birthday, but that was because it was a college, and it takes longer to get an application processed than for a high school.

Anyway, I agree that the rules are subject to various interpretations, and have been interpreted in various ways over the years. And changed a few times.

I personally think anyone who is in the official waiting period for the changeover and has stated their intention to play for the USCF should be invited and appear on the list.

But I'll let others worry about the championship itself. With regard to the list, well, if you just make the rule "citizenshp" you run into all the problems of political refugees who get caught in the INS process which can take 5 years or more. That's really too long to be left off the US lists, especially for juniors. But if you just make it "resident" you do get people who will never be affiliated with the US at the FIDE level.

I like using the FIDE affiliation, with a "pending" notation for those who have officially applied for a change in federation.

I just think it's a shame from a promotion standpoint to leave some clearly American players like IM Krush off the top 100 list because our present system includes a number of nonAmericans who happened to play in some US tournaments and so got a USCF rating.

It's not a big issue for me one way or the other. But I do think the top 100 lists are a good promotion tool, and the USCF can make the best use of them by being clear about who is on it. Right now the lists promote the US rating system rather than US players.

Respectfully,
Duif

Duif

All those complicated cases involve people who are not US citizens. With a US citizen, it is simple - should be allowed to play in US Ch. Should be offered an Olympiad place, subject to federation change. Should be on a list called Top 100 American players, on the basis of actually being American.

A list of "Top 100 USCF rated players who are USA federation according to FIDE" is different.

I do not believe the Goletiani case was "because she still had Georgia (the country) affiliation" when her case is much complicated by issues of age, residence time, school enrolment and 'intention'.

The USCF should follow its own rules - which are clear on citizens vs. residents.

As for Irina Krush, surely she would prefer to be on a list purged only of non-Americans, than one where by excluding some Americans, she squeezes into top 100.

Duif,

I posted the following on my blog site a while back:

http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2005/10/new-rule-about-list-of-top-100.html

http://www.uschess.org/org/govern/USCFEBObjectionsProcedureMotionsJulythruOct14-2005.pdf

When the USCF was asked why they included foreign players in the top 100 Americans, their response was they were too busy to take some names off the list.

When asked what was the orginial purpose of the top 100 list, their response was to honor the top 100 American players.

They promised that starting with the December 2005 list, only players who declare USA as their federation will be listed in the top 100 American players list. The board voted unanimously to approve this motion and the motion was co-sponsored by 5 board members.

Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
www.PolgarChess.com
www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com

Duif,

I posted the following on my blog site a while back:

http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2005/10/new-rule-about-list-of-top-100.html

http://www.uschess.org/org/govern/USCFEBObjectionsProcedureMotionsJulythruOct14-2005.pdf

When the USCF was asked why they included foreign players in the top 100 Americans, their response was they were too busy to take some names off the list.

When asked what was the orginial purpose of the top 100 list, their response was to honor the top 100 American players.

They promised that starting with the December 2005 list, only players who declare USA as their federation will be listed in the top 100 American players list. The board voted unanimously to approve this motion and the motion was co-sponsored by 5 board members.

Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
www.PolgarChess.com
www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com

Susan,

Thank you! I'm glad to see the details of the new decision. It's one that makes a lot of sense to me as a chess fan.

abc,

Certainly people can have different opinions about this. It's also an ongoing argument in sports regarding national teams and events. I think that will always be true as long as different countries have different rules regarding qualifications.

I like the "eligible to represent the USCF in international competition" rule because it's something that the USCF already needs to track to issue invitations.

And again it makes it much easier for the fans to follow the lists in order to see how close a favorite is to getting an invitation for upcoming events.

Again, we take someone like IM Krush. She is the 55th top rated US player based on FIDE lists. But she's not even in the top 100 by USCF rating, because the current USCF list includes nonUS players. Relative positions may change somewhat with the different rating systems, but FIDE's #55 American player shouldn't have to have to "squeeze into" the USCF's top 100 list. I consider the list flawed if she doesn't appear on it without a very clear reason for omission.

I am curious--how many US citizens who are active players in the top, say, 250 by rating ARE affiliated with other federations?

Sunil isn't even in the top 500, so he wouldn't be affected one way or the other by the change with regard to the lists.

I honestly don't know--is there anyone currently on the top 100 list who will lose their place in January because they are a US citizen but they play for another FIDE federation? (GM De Firmian is a US citizen who resides in another country, but he has the US as his FIDE affiliation.)

Thanks,
Duif

Actually, I gather the main thing with Krush is that her FIDE rating is higher than her USCF or at least it was for a while which is so unusual that of course she look better on the FIDE list than on the USCF list. I am not sure how significant this problem really is.

Susan,

How can you honor the top 100 American players by cutting Americans off the list?

The clear idea is to take out foreigners, such as those who come and play a couple of tournaments (or Kosteniuk), and are not American.

Typical of a bureaucratic organization, they come up with a crude approximation by using FIDE federation membership list.

It would make sense to add that 'anyone who can show they are in fact a US citizen (=American) can request to be added back to the list'.

Otherwise, the USCF is making a ridiculous reinvention of the meaning of the word 'American'.

Duif,

The list is also used for tracking eligibility for non-FIDE events, such as US championship. There is no written rule that an American citizen must be FIDE-USA in order to play in US ch.

There are people affected by this. I would point out that top 100 covers many categories, women, juniors, boys, girls, etc. Maybe not many people, but in principle this new rule is wrong and poorly thought out.

DP,

As with most players, IM Krush's FIDE rating (2437) is lower than her USCF rating (2445). So that's not the explanation.

It's simply the number of nonUS players such as GM Kiriakov, GM Antonio, GM Anka, GM Vasquez, IM Charbonneau, IM Howell, and others who are neither US citizens nor US residents, but who were included because they had USCF ratings, that dropped her off the list. (GM Vasquez of Chile even managed to get on the October top 100 list twice, once spelled as Vasquez and once as Vazquez.)

Krush is not the only one affected. IM Jack Peters is the #53rd American on FIDE's rankings, but #99 on the USCF top 100 list. IM Daniel Fernandez is #63 among FIDE-rated Americans, but like Krush didn't make the top 100 USCF list. Similarly John Bartholomew, #3 on the USCF 18 and under list and #76 of US FIDE-rated players, didn't make the USCF top 100.

It's not something that affects only one or two players. As far as I can tell, there are at least 10 and perhaps as many as 20 US players who will move onto the top 100 list once nonUS players are removed.

Respectfully,
Duif

abc,

This issue comes up in many sports, where "national" does not automatically mean the same as "citizen." I don't think it can be fully resolved until all countries use the same eligibility rules.

(Rules for juniors, although not always evenly applied, have always been intended to be more flexible as it is recognized they do not usually control their place of residence.)

A list of American swimmers in the Olympics at the official USOC site will not include all US citizens who participated, because it won't list those who swam for other federations.

I think the distinction between "citizen" and "national participant" is not uncommon in these kind of circumstances.

Respectfully,
duif

Duif,

The problem is deeper than that. The USCF was supposed to rate US players in official FIDE events such as World Championships, Olympiad, etc. They failed to do this. This severely affects the ranking. Therefore, this is a good start to fix the problem. I think it is a disgrace not to recognize our own players with the excuse of not having the time to take out a few names.

ABC, I don't understand your point. Why should any player benefit from both? If you are an American, play for the American flag. I had to make this decision. I had to give up my Hungarian flag to represent the US. I could have stayed under Hungary and benefit a lot more financially. If you choose not to represent your country then why should the US National Federation list you?

In addition, I don't know of any player that would be affected. Can you name one?

Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
www.PolgarChess.com
www.SusanPolgar.com

How about Yudasin? He lives in New York, is definitely at least a permanent resident in the U.S. and possibly a citizen by now, but he is still listed under the Israeli federation and, as far as I know, does not want to change it.

People from the October overall list who very clearly don't belong to the top 100 (since they neither live in the U.S. nor have US affiliation), in my opinion are Moiseenko, Najer, Kiriakov, Howell, Vasquez, Antonio, Mariano, Vazquez, Anka, and Rangarajan (10 names). Those who actually live here most of the time but are affiliated with a different federation are (I think) Ehlvest, Yudasin, Georgiev, Mitkov, Ramirez, Kosteniuk, Panchanathan, Sharavdorj, Charbonneau, Vovsha, Florean, Oblitas, Pupo, Simutowe, Vavrak, De Guzman (16 more).

I believe Jerry Dykes is your Kentucky State Champion, at least that is what is listed on the KCA web site.

this is maybe less important, but has anyone taken a look at the top 100 women's list lately?

23 Niemczyk, Michael SC 2119
41 Leinbach, David E AZ 1952
80 Popov, Anatoliy V PA 1780

Duif, I think you didn't get my point very clearly. Krush has a FIDE rating of 2437 which 8 points lower than her 2445 US rating. It used to be higher. This is not the point. The generally accepted relationship is that FIDEs are around 50-100 points lower than USCF. Therefore that Krushes rating is 8 points lower would indeed suggest that she does not fit this rule and that her ranking on the FIDE list would be much higher than on the USCF, a fact born out by your analysis. By guessing I would say Pascal is another case. Check Aleks Wojtkiewicz for yet another example. The fact that they are higher or lower on one list compare with another has little to do with the problem you are talking about and more to do with things like the events rated by each group. The couple above play alot of events outside of the country(and do very well) which are not rated USCF events. Meanwhile Wojtkiewicz plays alot of non-Fide tournaments against lower rated opposition, which due to the bias in the rating system has the tendency to grate away at one's rating. However, this is not true of his FIDE rated games, where he still plays at a reasonably high standard. I hope this clarifies the phenonomenon.

I am sure Michael, David and Anatoliy were willing to have their sex changed to get on one of the top 100 lists.
I don't know how they can miss such stuff. It's not even names like Batchimeg Tuvshintugs or Yuan Ling Yuan (presumably women, but hard to tell to us westerners).

Elizabeth,

As it happens, I did report to the USCF office a couple of clearly male names on the top 100 women's list on the last list. I was told that with the move to Crossville, some things had not gotten full attention, but that they'd look into it. Hopefully since the new policy will require an individual review of names, they'll catch all the anomalies then.

regards,
Duif

I have asked that the list always be sent to me a few days in advance of publication to error check. This didn't occur last supplement but I really hope that it will in the future.

I also supported this new rule change, although my original proposal was that players who play a large number of games in the USA would be included on the list as well, so that guys like Ehlvest and Yudasin and etc would be included. In the end it was decided that such a process would be too complicated and time consuming and it was best to keep things simple.

Also if the "foreign" players care enough to be on the list they can simply change federations. I honestly don't care about the profitability of being a foreign player. I think this rule is completely ridiculous and illogical for a country such as the USA. Why should someone lkie Yudasin count as a foreign player while other GM's who are in the same situation as him (meaning they both live and have a home/family in the USA) don't. There's little to no common sense behind it. I personally think that the idea of needing so many foreigners to make a norm should be rebelled against, especially in large countries that are isolated from other chessplaying nations. I'd support a movement to have the USA split into 2-4 zones that would count for foreigner purposes or something of this nature. There is such a blatant geographical advantage to norm seekers in Europe, and I'm shocked that the current system has just been passively accepted for such a long time. I'm going off on a tangeant but it's a shame that it's so difficult for our own players to be invited to a nice round robin tournament due to some absurd rule which I believe was only implemented to stop cheating. Who in their right mind believes that there is less cheating because we invite 3-4 "foreign" players to a round robin.

In any case I believe the new system will be superior to our past format in which random players who played very few games in this country and obviously didn't live here, took the top spots over American players.

Greg,

You seem to be confused about the issue.

"if the foreign players care enough to be on the list they can simply change federations".

I see NO serious opposition to foreign players (e.g. visitors playing a few tournaments) being taken off the list.

An American is not a foreign player. An American citizen, born in the US, playing games in the US, belonging to USCF, should NOT be excluded from "Top 100 American Players" for any reason except low rating.

The current rule is too crude in application. It effectively defines American in terms of FIDE affiliation. Is that really what it means to be American?

On another issue, is there any 'activity' rule for top-100 in USCF? Such as for FIDE top lists, a year of inactivity takes a player off the list (as Judit Polgar found out after a 12 month break).

If you read my above post carefully you will see that at some point I mention that I supported a list that included players whom live in the USA and play a great deal (all before I went off on a tangeant). This idea was not supported however. Also there was a reason I put "foreign" in quotation marks.

In any case I believe the new changes will make the new lists better than the old lists, however if the USCF was willing to allow for a little more complication, the lists could be even more complete. In reality I agree that there are quite a few players off the top of my head that don't have a FIDE affiliation with the USA, but should be represented on our Top 100 lists. In any case, any rule can be changed. If the new format doesn't work out, and too many players who are prominent on the American chess scene are being left out, I may ask the board to reconsider this.

The problem with a more complex system that would include guys like Yudasin is that it becomes very difficult to enter something in the USCF database which will make it easy to determine who belongs on the lists. This is why I asked to see them ahead of time in the past, so that I could spend 5-10 minutes and eliminate all the obvious non-Americans.

Greg,
Thanks for the explanation!

I feel the list is useful from a chess fan point of view in following not just who is at the very top, but seeing the progress of fan favorites as they move towards the top. It can be exciting to watch someone move from off the list to the 90s, then from the 90s to the top 75, then the top 50, etc. (Or dramatic to watch them fall.)

One of the difficulties with the old system was that a rising American player could get knocked off the list simply because several new foreigners arrived on it.

Fan interest in a single event can't support a professional class of players or a federation in the long run. It takes sustained interest in the drama of individual careers, and the top 100 list can be a helpful contribution to that under the new rules.

abc,

You said "The current rule is too crude in application. It effectively defines American in terms of FIDE affiliation. Is that really what it means to be an American?"

I think all the Olympic sports define "American player" in terms of "committed to represent the US in international competition." So this is not a new idea, nor an unusual one. It doesn't change the definition of "American"--just the definition of "American player."

It would be one thing if the Olympic committee maintained a separate list of "US citizens who compete in the Olympics, regardless of flag," but they don't. Each flag federation promotes its own representatives. That seems fair.

A US citizen who chooses not to compete in international play is still considered a member of their country's flag federatoin--until the day they choose to compete representing another flag.

That's the only point at which you could have a US citizen not appear on the list who had otherwise earned it. And if they changed flags again, they could go back on the list. So it doesn't really seem like a hardship, and it is a common enough sports definition that it should be understandable to most people.

Respectfully,
Duif

Duif,

I think you are focussed too much on olympics and olympiads.

That is the smallest minority of players who ever take part in that.

And what's this 'flag federation' idea? USCF is not an olympic committee.

I reiterate: the USCF is primarily a National federation. One of its side roles is to represent the USA in FIDE business.

People join the USCF. They are USCF members - there are no discriminatory classes of membership. Some of them are American. They play games in USCF tournaments. They have a RIGHT to be listed in top 100 list if their rating is high enough. It purports to be a FACTUAL list - which Americans playing in the US have the highest rating.

If there was list of the top 100 fastest swimmers in America based on times recorded in US events, I am sure an American from Colorado who swam for Botswana would not be excluded.

If this means the USCF top 100 list is not directly useful as a selection tool for the US chess olympiad team, then too bad. The database people will just have come up with a way to indicate federation membership as well, if they wish.

There are uses of the Top 100 list other than Olympiad selection. For example, US championship selection, which is not dependent on FIDE affiliation. And as an accessible record for organizers making invitations to tournaments, etc.

OK, cut everyone off the list who seems the least bit 'foreign'. But at least have a mechanism for those who are actually American to apply to added back on.

Maybe I've been living in the dark for quite a while, but I was under the impression that for the most part you had to be playing under the American flag to compete in the US Championship.

Greg,

In the dark and long ago, in the 2005 US Championships, held in 2004 to distract peoples' attention, there was a player listed by TWIC as from COL:

---------------------------
ch-USA San Diego USA (USA), 6 xi-4 xii 2004
-------------------------------------------------
1. Nakamura, Hikaru g USA 2620
55. La Rota, Fabio f COL 2333
56. Ross, Laura R wf USA 2117
57. Shahade, Jennifer wm USA 2361

And why not? To enter a qualifying event, you need USCF membership, to hand over $75 extra fee, sometimes show social security card if there is a dispute about foreign rating or prize eligibility. To qualify from the event you would need a high enough score, and reasonably to show some more distinct proof of American residence or citizenship.

This is NOT the same as the Olympiad, because FIDE rules for the Olympiad require federation affiliation matching the team.

Most countries e.g. England, France, Russia, Japan etc. etc. have non-FIDE-federation people playing in their national championship. There are several strong ways to get nationality (e.g. being born in a country) that are not usurped by status vis a vis FIDE.

Duif's comparison with olympic committees of other sports is totally irrelevant. In what sport in the US is a US citizen precluded from the national championship? From Olympic team trials, maybe, but not from domestic US championship.

Incorrect. The La Rota situation was addressed at the time but was discovered too late. I don't remember exactly how it played out but he had never bothered to formally change and hadn't played for Colombia in a decade. The spirit of the rule was upheld, if not technically. The AF4C, which is in charge of the championship - not the USCF - has a policy of not letting you play unless you are representing the US.

What other non-Olympic sports have both national and international federations and national championships? It's not as if this is a typical thing with plenty of other sports handy to compare with. There aren't all that many individual sports with championships solely for Americans. So the Olympic comparison is quite apt, especially considering that the US championship in track and field can also be an Olympic qualifier, as in chess and the FIDE WCh.

I don't recall anyone from outside France or the UK playing in their championships this year. Britain was previously an exception because it allowed all Commonwealth players in, including India. But not this year and all were Brits on the list.

Regardless of other nations, the idea of the AF4C was, along with a massive prize fund, to honor the title and the event and not let it be something you did as a lark before going back to represent Lower Backscratchistan where you could make the Olympiad team.

Seems that you are correct.

Mig,

When you go to war with Lower Backscratchistan your emotional reactions to this issue might be more justifiable.

And maybe this attitude will make more tournaments set up ways to exclude various types of Americans from their American events.

But the bottom line is that an American member of the USCF who plays in the US and gets a big enough rating should be on the top 100 list.

Highly lucrative sidelines playing in the All-Backscratchistan League or Olympiad team or not.

Emotional reaction? Is that Swedish for "I have no examples"? And where are these "American-only" events of which you speak? Ah, only a distraction? Okay.

How many American citizens with non-US affiliation are on the USCF top 100 list? Residents? Is this an issue? The problem as presented was with non-citizens. Even in the theoretical extreme I don't see any reason to base the USCF list on citizenship over chess federation affiliation, as if this were obvious or natural. It's a chess list that represents - with a purpose - the top US chessplayers. If you prefer to represent another country in chess you can be as American as the state department wants you to be but not American as a chessplayer. By representing another federation you have voluntarily declared your lack of interest in playing in the US championship or - though I don't consider this very relevant - of being on US top lists.

In the championship this is more relevant. In the lists it's splitting hairs and is hardly going to change much. Again, how many US citizens or residents on the top lists have non-US federation affiliation for any reason other than that they moved here in the past year or two?

Why is the USCF bothering in producing seperate top-100 lists? And what is the big mess with calculations over calculations? They can just put a link pointing here http://www.fide.com/ratings/topfed.phtml?ina=1&country=USA and everything is clear!

Ketevan Arakhamia Grant played in the British championship even though she represents Georgia. She is a UK national by marriage.

That was in 2004. I wonder if the rule changes they made to make it UK-only after that have also kept her out since she plays under another federation. She played in the Georgian women's championship this year but doesn't seem to have actually represented Georgia since 2002 in Bled.

Giannis,

In the past, FIDE ratings didn't go low enough to cover the children's lists maintained by the USCF, which is one reason there are separate lists. In addition, the US recognizes those players who have put in a letter requesting a change to the US Federation and have completed a 1 year residency, but who are still in their 3 year FIDE waiting period.

abc,

You hit on the most critical issue with regard to the national championships (and the main reason I said I didn't have a position on that qualification).

To answer your question, there are indeed a number of other organizations that limit US Championship participation to those able to represent the US in internaitonal competition, for example the US Bridge Championships.

However, in these cases the national championships are also qualifiers, at least in every other year, for the world championship. (Those where it is every other year keep the same rules in "off years" so that there is no issue with a defending champion not being able to participate.)

The history of the US Chess Championship has been complicated in this regard. Some years it WAS a qualifier. Some years not. Under the current format it is not as there are no zonals, but with the world championship cycle in such flux, it is hard to predict the future in this regard.

So are there other "US Championships" that would exclude some US citizens? Yes. But are they a model for the US Chess Championsihp? That is harder to say.

While, as you konw, I agree with Mig on the core issue, I think your point is an important one, and brings in an even more core issue: just what should the mission of the USCF be? Is it an NBA, a US Olympics Committee, an NCAA, a US Bridge, a PGA, or something altogether different?

Your point about who can become a USCF member is part of this most basic issue, particularly with the voting aspect. Perhaps those not able to represent the US in international competition should also be able to be only "guest members," without voting privileges and without the right to championship invitation or top 100 listing. Perhaps not. But it is the fact that the model shifts between those who can be members, those can get rated, those who can get invitations that causes much of the confusion.

So I think you are raising some very good questions. If holding a national championship is part of the USCF's mission, then what is the purpose of that championship?

An interesting discussion, but probably one best left for another thread.

Resepctfully,
Duif

USCF regulations

(1) The USCF is responsible –

“G. To hold a tournament no less often than once every two years for the Chess Championship of the United States and to confer upon the winner
of such tournament the title "United States Chess Champion";”

This cannot to be delegated to AF4C in any way that would allow a conflict with USCF rules. The AF4C is not ‘responsible' for the US Ch., the USCF is.

(2) “Each member shall be entitled to have his or her tournament play officially rated, to participate in the Annual Membership meeting, and to enjoy all other rights and privileges of membership not herein enumerated.”

Equal rights (albeit with a lot of contradictions, e.g. who can vote)

(3)

ALL the USCF complications about other FIDE-federation players have to do with non-citizens. A citizen does not have to do ANYTHING or fulfil any other criteria to get all the benefits of USCF membership, such as they are:

“Before becoming eligible for USCF invitations, non-United States citizens who have FIDE ratings or have represented another country in a chess competition must fulfill the following residency requirements: “

British Championships (2005)
http://www.bcf.org.uk/events/bcf2005/entry-form05.doc

"Open only to British Isles subjects or players resident therein for the past three years or those with British Overseas Dependent Territories Citizenship."

other FIDE-federations - no problem!

French National Championships http://www.echecs.asso.fr/(1u0udlmf45sasc45m4fm4cmm)/Reglements/271.pdf

"Le Championnat de France individuel est ouvert à tous les joueurs français licenciés à la Fédération Française des Échecs et aux joueurs étrangers résidant en France depuis deux ans et licenciés à la FFE la saison précédente et la saison en cours. Des dérogations peuvent être accordées dans des cas exceptionnels. Tout joueur étranger ayant un classement Elo FIDE doit non seulement remplir ces conditions, mais aussi être inscrit sur la liste Elo FIDE pour la France. Les Nationaux sont réservés aux joueurs de nationalité française."

other FIDE-federations IF you are a French citizen - no problem!

Japanese Championship
http://www.fide.com/ratings/trarc.phtml?codt=16&event16=1363

The 2006 Championship, held in 2005, according to FIDE website, had players from JPN, WLS and NED.

other FIDE-federations - no problem!

British Championships (2005)
http://www.bcf.org.uk/events/bcf2005/entry-form05.doc

"Open only to British Isles subjects or players resident therein for the past three years or those with British Overseas Dependent Territories Citizenship."

other FIDE-federations - no problem!

French National Championships
http://www.echecs.asso.fr/(1u0udlmf45sasc45m4fm4cmm)/Reglements/271.pdf

"Le Championnat de France individuel est ouvert à tous les joueurs français licenciés à la Fédération Française des Échecs et aux joueurs étrangers résidant en France depuis deux ans et licenciés à la FFE la saison précédente et la saison en cours. Des dérogations peuvent être accordées dans des cas exceptionnels. Tout joueur étranger ayant un classement Elo FIDE doit non seulement remplir ces conditions, mais aussi être inscrit sur la liste Elo FIDE pour la France. Les Nationaux sont réservés aux joueurs de nationalité française."

other FIDE-federations IF you are a French citizen - no problem!

Japanese Championship
http://www.fide.com/ratings/trarc.phtml?codt=16&event16=1363

The 2006 Championship, held in 2005, according to FIDE website, had players from JPN, WLS and NED.

other FIDE-federations - no problem!.

Duif,

Thanks for your contributions on this subject.

I do not think the US Bridge Federation is a good example to use from your point of view, because participation in USBF or WBF event requires citizenship. In other words there is no federation-affiliation issue that allows players to, for example, join the US Olympiad chess team before they ever set foot in the US.

In other words, in bridge citizenship trumps any other consideration.

USBF:
"Each player in a USBF Championship must be eligible to compete in the WBF championship for which the USBF Championship is a selection trial."

- eligible means US citizen

WBF:
"any competitor in the WBF Tournaments must be a national of the country of the NBO entering him for participation, subject to the following:

If a competitor is a national of two or more countries at the same time, he may represent either one of them, as he may elect.
If a competitor who has represented one country in a WBF Tournament or a zonal tournament and who has changed his nationality or acquired a new nationality, he shall not participate in a WBF Tournament to represent his new country until three years of such change or acquisition. This period may be reduced or even cancelled upon the request of the NBO with the approval of the Executive. "

abc,

I am told by a bridge friend that the bridge situation is the same as the one you were concerned about in chess. You are right that citizenship is the main issue. The problem arises for those with dual citizenship. My friend believes it DID arise for a bridge player who had both Canadian and US citizenship, although he says that may have been a hypothetical.

Imagine a US citizen with dual Canadian citzenship, who played for Canada in a WBF event. Under US Bridge rules, he would then be denied an opportunity to play in a US Bridge event because he hadn't completed the 3 year waiting period to switch back. A US citizen, but NOT "eligible."

Note again that under bridge rules, the country federation must "enter him for participation." So it is not just a choice of the individual--he has to have the support of a federation.

Anyway, I didn't bring this up earlier because the US Bridge US Championship is indeed a qualifier for the World Championship, so it's a different situation in some respects. But citizenship is only the first prerequisite.

Players with dual citizenship who have played for one country are then barred from playing for a different one, even if they are a citizen there, until a waiting period is up for the switch.

That does seem to me to be the same issue you were concerned about.

Oh, my friend did tell me that this is a much less hypothetical situation for bridge, where they quite commonly get players of British or Canadian heritage who are current US citizens.

Many people are not aware that in the last 10 years the US has changed its position on "dual citizenship." The official US position is now "The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. "

http://usembassy-australia.state.gov/consular/dualnat.html

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html

So it is quite possible now to be a dual citizen of Canada, the US, Italy, England, Australia (under certain circumstances), Brazil, Israel, and France, among other countries, so I think he's right that this must come up in bridge circles pretty often.

But my friend says that there he thinks it's different from the chess situation is that you can't become a member of one country's association unless you're eligible to play for them.

But perhaps someone with first hand bridge knowledge can comment.

Happy Thanksgiving to those celebrating it!

Respectfully,
Duif

I wish to thank Elizabeth Vicary for pointing out to me on this blog (21 November 2005) that I am/was ranked 23 on the U.S. Women's List. I have only today learned of this fact. I wish to state, though, for the record, that IM Stan Kriventsov's speculation (21 November)--that I was "willing to have [my] sex changed to get on one of the top 100 lists"--is simply untrue. How many pawns I may have turned into queens over the years, I personally have not. Kriventsov seems to have confused me with Tiresias, who metamorphosed when he touched two amorous snakes in the woods with his wand. Barring any practical jokes that Jupiter may still be playing on his wife Juno, I must suppose that my undeserved status is simply due to an error made in an office somewhere at USCF.