The 2.0 Rule
cavema...@my-deja.com
"Be it resolved that the regular membership dues may not be more than
double the greatest rate for youth or scholastic memberships."
I'd like to hear your comments.
--
Kevin Bachler
Caveman
"Caveman chess is chess without finesse."
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Ray Lopez
Paul Rubin <p...@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:7s9k1d$5...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com...
> In article <7s95ft$6eo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <cavema...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> >I am considering proposing the following ADM for 2000.
> >
>
> Right now, adult dues are $40/year and youth dues are $17/year. So if
> your proposed ADM passes, either adult dues would be lowered to $34 or
> youth dues would be raised to $20. I don't think I need a crystal
> ball to see which way it would go. What's the point?
No way. You have to be kidding. Dues for some chess association are
$40/year?! Outrageous!! What are you getting for that money? A magazine
and the right to play some tourney? I think most tourneys now allow you to
enter as an "unrated", so why should you pay money? As for the magazine,
you can get a lot of stuff off the net, or buy a good book.
C'mon, get real Cavebozo. You live in the past. Prices are falling all
over the world, and you think you are in the 70s with inflation.
Just my humble 2 cents (actually 1 cent--I just cut the price of my
opinions).
--RL
Paul Rubin
>I am considering proposing the following ADM for 2000.
>
>double the greatest rate for youth or scholastic memberships."
>
>I'd like to hear your comments.
Right now, adult dues are $40/year and youth dues are $17/year. So if
your proposed ADM passes, either adult dues would be lowered to $34 or
youth dues would be raised to $20. I don't think I need a crystal
ball to see which way it would go. What's the point?
I hope you will make following ADM instead: since chessplayers form a
worldwide "family", the "Additional Family Membership" rate of
$11/year (membership without chess life) will be made available to
anyone who wants it, removing the requirement that there be another
family member receiving Chess Life at the same address.
cavema...@my-deja.com
p...@netcom.com (Paul Rubin) wrote:
> In article <7s95ft$6eo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <cavema...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> >I am considering proposing the following ADM for 2000.
> >
> >"Be it resolved that the regular membership dues may not be more than
> >double the greatest rate for youth or scholastic memberships."
> >
> >I'd like to hear your comments.
>
> Right now, adult dues are $40/year and youth dues are $17/year. So if
> your proposed ADM passes, either adult dues would be lowered to $34 or
> youth dues would be raised to $20. I don't think I need a crystal
> ball to see which way it would go. What's the point?
>
one major point is to establish a philosophy about what the relative
costs of membership will be.
> I hope you will make following ADM instead: since chessplayers form a
> worldwide "family", the "Additional Family Membership" rate of
> $11/year (membership without chess life) will be made available to
> anyone who wants it, removing the requirement that there be another
> family member receiving Chess Life at the same address.
>
That, however, would be counterproductive to communication with the
membership, and would raise the per unit cost for those who want the
magazine. Until alternative communication is improved, this is simply
a poor choice.
cavema...@my-deja.com
"Ray Lopez" <insi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Paul Rubin <p...@netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:7s9k1d$5...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com...
> >
> > Right now, adult dues are $40/year and youth dues are $17/year. So
if
> > your proposed ADM passes, either adult dues would be lowered to $34
or
> > youth dues would be raised to $20. I don't think I need a crystal
> > ball to see which way it would go. What's the point?
>
> $40/year?! Outrageous!!
Apparently $40 a year or its rough equivalent is the going rate in many
countries, so the USCF price is not at all outrageous. It is standard.
>What are you getting for that money? A magazine
> and the right to play some tourney?
The right to play rated chess in a tourney. Ratings are important.
> I think most tourneys now allow you to
> enter as an "unrated", so why should you pay money?
Not if you've previously had a rating, and unrateds need to join as
well.
> As for the magazine,
> you can get a lot of stuff off the net, or buy a good book.
>
That's true.
> C'mon, get real Cavebozo. You live in the past. Prices are falling
all
> over the world, and you think you are in the 70s with inflation.
>
You've done the research then? My research shows that the going price
is about $40 a year in many industrialized countries. What research
have you done? I've posted the research online. The prices are
available on national federation websites, all you have to do is apply
the exchange rate.
> Just my humble 2 cents (actually 1 cent--I just cut the price of my
> opinions).
>
And your opinion was worth every penny.
> --RL
Ray Lopez
<cavema...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7sb7qi$m6l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> > No way. You have to be kidding. Dues for some chess association are
> > $40/year?! Outrageous!!
>
> Apparently $40 a year or its rough equivalent is the going rate in many
> countries, so the USCF price is not at all outrageous. It is standard.
>
Yeah, but chess is more popular in Europe. If you want to make it popular
here, you have to cut membership rates. Cheap supply creates greater
demand, the first rule of economics.
> >What are you getting for that money? A magazine
> > and the right to play some tourney?
>
> The right to play rated chess in a tourney. Ratings are important.
We agree to disagree. I say most people don't care about ratings, now that
you can get ratings from playing your computer, playing on-line, etc.
From another message in this newsgroup, I understand USCF membership rolls
are declining. It figures.
--Ray Lopez
cavema...@my-deja.com
"Ray Lopez" <insi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <cavema...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:7sb7qi$m6l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > >
> > > No way. You have to be kidding. Dues for some chess association
are
> > > $40/year?! Outrageous!!
> >
> > Apparently $40 a year or its rough equivalent is the going rate in
many
> > countries, so the USCF price is not at all outrageous. It is
standard.
> >
>
> Yeah, but chess is more popular in Europe. If you want to make it
popular
> here, you have to cut membership rates. Cheap supply creates greater
> demand, the first rule of economics.
Number one, it wasn't just Europe. Number 2 you are oversimplifing
economics. Number 3, enhancing service is just as legitimate and
probably a better approach to develop a critical mass of membership.
>
> > >What are you getting for that money? A magazine
> > > and the right to play some tourney?
> >
> > The right to play rated chess in a tourney. Ratings are important.
>
> We agree to disagree. I say most people don't care about ratings,
now that
> you can get ratings from playing your computer, playing on-line, etc.
>
The most well-attended and most expensive events are those will large
prize funds. That indicates that people place a great value on these
types of tournaments (whether I like it or not, it is hard to argue
that the statement is not true.)
Ratings are essential to these types of tournament for the awarding of
prizes and for the prevention of sandbagging.
A rating from Chessmaster 6000 has very little utility.
I think your argument is very weak as a result.
> From another message in this newsgroup, I understand USCF membership
rolls
> are declining. It figures.
Actually, it is not clear that they are declining. The measurements
pointed to could be no more than normal statistical flucuation. What
is clear is that they are stagnant. There are a number of factors that
contribute to that, most of which appear more important than anything
you have offered.
>
> --Ray Lopez
wm_c...@my-deja.com
cavema...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <7s9k1d$5...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>,
> p...@netcom.com (Paul Rubin) wrote:
> > In article <7s95ft$6eo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
<cavema...@my-deja.com>
> > >I am considering proposing the following ADM for 2000.
> > >
than
> > >double the greatest rate for youth or scholastic memberships."
> > >
> > >I'd like to hear your comments.
> >
if
> > your proposed ADM passes, either adult dues would be lowered to $34
or
> > youth dues would be raised to $20. I don't think I need a crystal
> > ball to see which way it would go. What's the point?
> >
> one major point is to establish a philosophy about what the relative
> costs of membership will be.
>
> > I hope you will make following ADM instead: since chessplayers form
a
> > worldwide "family", the "Additional Family Membership" rate of
> > $11/year (membership without chess life) will be made available to
> > anyone who wants it, removing the requirement that there be another
> > family member receiving Chess Life at the same address.
> >
>
> That, however, would be counterproductive to communication with the
> membership, and would raise the per unit cost for those who want the
> magazine. Until alternative communication is improved, this is simply
> a poor choice.
>
> --
> Kevin Bachler
Kevin-
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that not delivering Chess
Life to every adult and youth USCF member would impair communication to
members. However, since the proposed change would have delivery of Chess
Life to every household with members, information important to all youth
and adult members, could be included. Remember, the scholastic
(age 14 and under) members don't get Chess Life, but School Mates
bi-monthly. So even now, Chess Life isn't universally received by USCF
members. If you feel that that's O.K. since scholastic members don't
need to know about governance issues, do you feel that youth members
should be involved in governance issues? Remember, ten year olds can
become youth members, since there is no floor on the age limit. The
reason to do this would be to get Chess Life instead of School Mates for
only five dollars per year more.
Alternatively, Governance news could be communicated effectively with a
bi-monthly mailing of a four page newsletter to adult members, and Chess
Life could not have to worry about such issues, although it would still
be a house organ. Some organizations have such a system.
As to raising the unit cost of Chess Life by reducing the number of
copies mailed: Since youth membership is $17/year with Chess Life, it
seems that the savings of printing fewer magazines would be made up by
the reduction in dues for a second youth/family member. Its hard to
estimate the number that the total print run would be reduced
by--perhaps one-two thousand, but that's just a guess. Now we're getting
into the "Are scholastic/youth members subsidized?" question that is
presently on other threads.
Membership without Chess Life at at reduced rate could be offered to
adult members, too, but at a higher rate than that offered to juniors.
There are a number of other organizations that have such membership
structures--full membership with the magazine, family membership, and
youth membership.
I think that your original 2.0 rule is a good idea. (I personally
believe that the present rate for Juniors is too low and should be $25,
if regular adult membership is $40.) It is important that adult members
not feel that they are being cheated by paying too high a dues rate due
to a subsidy of youth members. Many organizations subsidize youth
members in order to encourage them to participate in the sport--Should
that be the policy of the USCF? If so, it should be explicitly agreed to
by the adult members.
Stated in broader terms, and as the real and important issue that you
and others are addressing is the question: "What should the dues
structure be for USCF membership to maximize service to members?" Such
issues include:
1. Should there be reduced rates for youth members? If so, what should
these rates be?
---I say yes, but at a higher rate than now offered.
2. Should there be family memberships where a second family member
could become a member at a reduced rate?
----I say yes, perhaps $10 less than full adult membership and w/o
another Chess Life copy.
3. Finally, should membership automatically include Chess Life, with
the accompanying extra cost, or should it be an added expense with a
lower dues rate without the magazine?
----I don't know. That's a hard one to decide. It's a really complex
issue, especially when you consider that I have read that one third of
USCF members don't play in OTB tournaments. If they are members because
of getting Chess Life, you don't want to drive them away.
What is your opinion on these questions? That's not a belligerent
response, but an effort to get ideas discussed and defined, since one
can reasonably answer a number of different ways, and with a number of
different rates.
Sincerely,
Wm Chaney
Paul Rubin
>> I hope you will make following ADM instead: since chessplayers form a
>> worldwide "family", the "Additional Family Membership" rate of
>> $11/year (membership without chess life) will be made available to
>> anyone who wants it, removing the requirement that there be another
>> family member receiving Chess Life at the same address.
>
>That, however, would be counterproductive to communication with the
>membership, and would raise the per unit cost for those who want the
>magazine. Until alternative communication is improved, this is simply
>a poor choice.
Making members who don't want to pay $40 quit the USCF entirely
instead of taking a no-magazine membership doesn't sound so good for
communication either. What is the purpose of this communication
you're talking about anyway? Who needs it? Why should anyone be
willing to pay for it? Does it occur to you that the players who'd
opt for no-CL membership are precisely the ones with alternative means
of communication, or else feel that they don't need communication?
For example, I personally see at least 3 different copies of CL every
month despite not being a USCF member, but I usually don't bother
reading any of them. If I were a USCF member and were forced to get
CL, I'd probably throw it in the trash without looking at it, just
like I do with other junk mail. And what kind of "communication" with
the remaining members does CL accomplish that couldn't be done just as
well with a quarterly or semi-annual 4-page newsletter? Don't say
TLA's. They are worthless.
cavema...@my-deja.com
communication, be it CL, SM or WEB. Web is not yet sufficiently
developed, but could be close relatively soon.
> However, since the proposed change would have delivery of Chess
> Life to every household with members,
Huh? My change proposed change delivers what they have now. Rubin's
proposed change is that no one at the home needs to receive Chess
Life. I am not opposed to a tiered membership that cuts out Chess
Life. I am opposed to one that cuts out communication.
> information important to all youth
> and adult members, could be included. Remember, the scholastic
> (age 14 and under) members don't get Chess Life, but School Mates
> bi-monthly. So even now, Chess Life isn't universally received by USCF
> members. If you feel that that's O.K. since scholastic members don't
> need to know about governance issues, do you feel that youth members
> should be involved in governance issues?
Not the issue. I think you misunderstood Rubin's proposal, but I'm not
sure.
> Remember, ten year olds can
> become youth members, since there is no floor on the age limit. The
> reason to do this would be to get Chess Life instead of School Mates
for
> only five dollars per year more.
>
> Alternatively, Governance news could be communicated effectively with
a
> bi-monthly mailing of a four page newsletter to adult members, and
Chess
> Life could not have to worry about such issues, although it would
still
> be a house organ. Some organizations have such a system.
The most efficent means is the net, and we should encourage members to
get online.
>
> As to raising the unit cost of Chess Life by reducing the number of
> copies mailed: Since youth membership is $17/year with Chess Life, it
> seems that the savings of printing fewer magazines would be made up by
> the reduction in dues for a second youth/family member.
I don't know what you are talking about here? There is already a
family membership. Rubin's proposal is to totally cut out sending
people Chess Life.
> Its hard to
> estimate the number that the total print run would be reduced
> by--perhaps one-two thousand, but that's just a guess. Now we're
getting
> into the "Are scholastic/youth members subsidized?" question that is
> presently on other threads.
>
> Membership without Chess Life at at reduced rate could be offered to
> adult members, too, but at a higher rate than that offered to juniors.
> There are a number of other organizations that have such membership
> structures--full membership with the magazine, family membership, and
> youth membership.
>
I realize that. I think we should consider tiered memberships, but we
need to have other means of communication in place and working well
before we do.
> I think that your original 2.0 rule is a good idea. (I personally
> believe that the present rate for Juniors is too low and should be
$25,
> if regular adult membership is $40.) It is important that adult
members
> not feel that they are being cheated by paying too high a dues rate
due
> to a subsidy of youth members. Many organizations subsidize youth
> members in order to encourage them to participate in the sport--Should
> that be the policy of the USCF? If so, it should be explicitly agreed
to
> by the adult members.
In the past it has been.
>
> Stated in broader terms, and as the real and important issue that you
> and others are addressing is the question: "What should the dues
> structure be for USCF membership to maximize service to members?" Such
> issues include:
>
> 1. Should there be reduced rates for youth members? If so, what
should
> these rates be?
>
No. My question assumes that we agree that lower youth rates are
acceptable and necessary for growth. As we can offer more tiered
memberships, that may change.
My suggestion is purely political. The fact is that the gap between
adult and youth is so large that the adults feel cheated. The 2.0 rule
makes everyone agree that there is a maximum gap, and that the current
gap is too large.
> ---I say yes, but at a higher rate than now offered.
>
> 2. Should there be family memberships where a second family member
> could become a member at a reduced rate?
>
There already is. YOu seem to have misunderstood the whole question
here.
> ----I say yes, perhaps $10 less than full adult membership and w/o
> another Chess Life copy.
>
> 3. Finally, should membership automatically include Chess Life, with
> the accompanying extra cost, or should it be an added expense with a
> lower dues rate without the magazine?
>
> ----I don't know. That's a hard one to decide. It's a really complex
> issue, especially when you consider that I have read that one third of
> USCF members don't play in OTB tournaments. If they are members
because
> of getting Chess Life, you don't want to drive them away.
>
> What is your opinion on these questions? That's not a belligerent
> response, but an effort to get ideas discussed and defined, since one
> can reasonably answer a number of different ways, and with a number of
> different rates.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Wm Chaney
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
>
--
Kevin Bachler
Caveman
"Caveman chess is chess without finesse."
Paul Rubin
>Apparently $40 a year or its rough equivalent is the going rate in many
>countries, so the USCF price is not at all outrageous. It is standard.
Evidence? I remember an old post of yours that made some comparisons,
but it wasn't clear from it that any other countries require you to pay
anywhere near that much to be able to play in tournaments.
>You've done the research then? My research shows that the going price
>is about $40 a year in many industrialized countries. What research
>have you done? I've posted the research online. The prices are
>available on national federation websites, all you have to do is apply
>the exchange rate.
Got some URL's? Is your own research on a webpage somewhere?
cavema...@my-deja.com
p...@netcom.com (Paul Rubin) wrote:
> Making members who don't want to pay $40 quit the USCF entirely
> instead of taking a no-magazine membership doesn't sound so good for
> communication either. What is the purpose of this communication
> you're talking about anyway? Who needs it? Why should anyone be
> willing to pay for it? Does it occur to you that the players who'd
> opt for no-CL membership are precisely the ones with alternative means
> of communication, or else feel that they don't need communication?
> For example, I personally see at least 3 different copies of CL every
> month despite not being a USCF member, but I usually don't bother
> reading any of them. If I were a USCF member and were forced to get
> CL, I'd probably throw it in the trash without looking at it, just
> like I do with other junk mail. And what kind of "communication" with
> the remaining members does CL accomplish that couldn't be done just as
> well with a quarterly or semi-annual 4-page newsletter? Don't say
> TLA's. They are worthless.
>
LOL.
OK, let's see...
1. What is the purpose of this communication you're talking about
anyway?
To inform people of chess news, to inform them of events, such as
tournaments, to inform them of rules changes, to inform them in
general, and to educate them about chess.
2. Who needs it?
People you need to be informed about chess news, chess events, chess
tournaments, rules changes, or who need more education about chess.
3. Why should anyone be willing to pay for it?
Because it has value. I don't generally read Chess Life either, but I
do read TLA's to learn of tournaments in my state and other neighboring
states, for example. I can now start doing that online more easily.
As that function and others can be done by a significant portion of the
membership, online can replace CL's functions in those areas.
4. Does it occur to you that the players who'd opt for no-CL membership
are precisely the ones with alternative means of communication, or else
feel that they don't need communication?
Of course it does, especially since I would fit into that category.
However, there is not currently a good nationwide alternative to
TLA's. And if you don't need the communication at all, I'd question
why the player was in USCF. The only reason to be a member at that
point is to play ONLY in weekly rated $1-$2 events at the local club,
and I'd have to question why that person bothers to play rated events.
The quality of the magazine has declined. Also, the quality of the
news has declined, and that has just as big or a bigger impact.
Fischer coming up and developing and winning the title was BIG NEWS.
Yasser and Larry Christiansian and others coming up in the 70's and
80's was exciting. There was international tension, a cold war, it was
fun to read.
Can we more away from Chess Life to alternatives? Yes. Your original
proposal, unlike this post, did not say that.
wm_c...@my-deja.com
cavema...@my-deja.com wrote:
snip
> --
> Kevin Bachler
> Caveman
>
> "Caveman chess is chess without finesse."
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
>
Kevin-
Yes, I was confused about the family membership. I checked the USCF
membership web page, but didn't see the "add a family member" link at
the bottom. Setting the regular/youth dues ratio at 2.0 as a maximum
differential is a good idea for stopping most of the bad feelings that
seem to exist about the reduced youth rates.
I doubt if the Web can replace paper/mail communication for everyone,
but it might be able to cut down on expenses. Members could choose email
as their means of communication. In any case, it would be good to have
as many email addresses as possible in a database for sending
information to those members with email. This can be done easily and
would enhance the value of USCF membership if they got weekly updates,
for example, of chess-related news from the USCF.
Sorry about my confusion.
cavema...@my-deja.com
p...@netcom.com (Paul Rubin) wrote:
> In article <7sb7qi$m6l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <cavema...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> >Apparently $40 a year or its rough equivalent is the going rate in
many
> >countries, so the USCF price is not at all outrageous. It is
standard.
>
> Evidence? I remember an old post of yours that made some comparisons,
> but it wasn't clear from it that any other countries require you to
pay
> anywhere near that much to be able to play in tournaments.
>
None of the countries, as far as I can tell, including the US, require
you to pay a $40 membership fee to play in tournaments. They all seem
to require an amount in that ballpark to play in their federation's
sanctioned (typically rated) events. In some countries that membership
falls more to the state/province level (i.e. you pay the province $40)
and they in turn are more strongly affiliated with the national
organization.
This is incomplete research, not high on my project list. You can
easily go to the FIDE list of federations and check web sites though.
In some cases you may need a translator.
> >You've done the research then? My research shows that the going
price
> >is about $40 a year in many industrialized countries. What research
> >have you done? I've posted the research online. The prices are
> >available on national federation websites, all you have to do is
apply
> >the exchange rate.
>
> Got some URL's? Is your own research on a webpage somewhere?
>
See above.
Ray Lopez
<cavema...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7sdopk$gh9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <7sc831$2tg$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "Ray Lopez" <insi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >
> > > > No way. You have to be kidding. Dues for some chess association
are $40/year?! Outrageous!!
>> popular here, you have to cut membership rates. Cheap supply creates
greater demand, the first rule of economics.
>
> Number one, it wasn't just Europe. Number 2 you are oversimplifing
> economics. Number 3, enhancing service is just as legitimate and
> probably a better approach to develop a critical mass of membership.
>
No I'm not oversimplifying. Cheaper is better. Just like wider is better
for stability. Have a "free" tourney and see how many people show up.
Also, you can advertise tourneys with thin paper flyers and via the
internet.
> > > >What are you getting for that money? A magazine
> > > > and the right to play some tourney?
> > >
> > > The right to play rated chess in a tourney. Ratings are important.
> >
> > We agree to disagree. I say most people don't care about ratings,
> now that you can get ratings from playing your computer, playing on-line,
etc.
> >
> The most well-attended and most expensive events are those will large
> prize funds. That indicates that people place a great value on these
> types of tournaments (whether I like it or not, it is hard to argue
> that the statement is not true.)
>
> Ratings are essential to these types of tournament for the awarding of
> prizes and for the prevention of sandbagging.
>
> A rating from Chessmaster 6000 has very little utility.
>
> I think your argument is very weak as a result.
>
No your argument is weak. Ratings are NOT essential for tournaments where
prizes are awarded to prevent sandbagging. All you have to do is TWO
THINGS. ONE, offer the most prize money at the "grandmaster" level, and
offer the least money in the unrated/class A,B,C levels. Then if you, as a
patzer, want to play for the big bucks in the "grandmaster level", and have
no realistic chance of winning, well, that's your tough luck, and the real
masters and grandmasters gain (they play woodpushers). TWO, less important,
you can play a multi-round "Swiss" so everybody plays people of equal
strength (over the long haul).
Paul Rubin
>1. What is the purpose of this communication you're talking about
>anyway?
>
>To inform people of chess news, to inform them of events, such as
>tournaments, to inform them of rules changes, to inform them in
>general, and to educate them about chess.
Swell, but if those are the only purposes you can come up with, then I
don't see a strong case against letting people decide for themselves
whether they need it.
>2. Who needs it?
>
>People [who] need to be informed about chess news, chess events, chess
>tournaments, rules changes, or who need more education about chess.
To be precise, people who need to be informed of those things *by the
USCF*. And why should the USCF decide that all members need the USCF
to inform them?
>3. Why should anyone be willing to pay for it?
>Because it has value. I don't generally read Chess Life either, but I
>do read TLA's to learn of tournaments in my state and other neighboring
>states, for example. I can now start doing that online more easily.
That's nice. Some of us don't care about tournaments in neighboring
states. If we want to hear about tournaments in our own states, we
can subscribe to the newsletters of our state affiliates. Some of us,
though, don't even care to do *that*.
>
>4. Does it occur to you that the players who'd opt for no-CL membership
>are precisely the ones with alternative means of communication, or else
>feel that they don't need communication?
>
>Of course it does, especially since I would fit into that category.
>However, there is not currently a good nationwide alternative to
>TLA's.
I am totally thrown by this. Why is there ANY need for nationwide
TLA's? Who is going to travel to a distant state for a small
tournament? (Big tournaments can pay for regular advertising insted
of using TLA's). If it's just a few people, why should the rest of us
pay for a nationwide TLA system? TLA's, if they're useful at all,
should be done at the state level. A one page bimonthly mailing from
the state affiliate, sent bulk rate, should be good enough for this.
This mailing would also mention not-too-distant tournaments in
neighboring states, or in some areas could cover several states.
>And if you don't need the communication at all, I'd question why the
>player was in USCF. The only reason to be a member at that point is
>to play ONLY in weekly rated $1-$2 events at the local club, and I'd
>have to question why that person bothers to play rated events.
I liked playing rated club events since the rating lets me know how I'm
progressing, lets me know how I match up with my opponent, lets the TD
pair me with someone of the appropriate strength, etc. It also makes
the game feel more serious, and I like that. These are basically the
only types of events that I played in with any regularity, and I
enjoyed them a lot. There was also plenty of opportunity for chess
gossip and other "communication" at the club events, and for that
matter plenty of copies of CL and other magazines laying around the
club. So the USCF requiring me to subscribe to CL to play in these
events feels like extortion to me.
>Can we move away from Chess Life to alternatives? Yes. Your original
>proposal, unlike this post, did not say that.
Fine. Let's amend the proposal: since the USCF sees communication as
important to members, in order to be eligible for the "additional
family membership" rate, the member must check a box on the form
indicating that they don't need CL because already have access to
current chess information from any of:
a) someone else's copy of CL (not necessarily a family member),
b) Usenet, the world wide web, or other computer media,
c) membership in a chess club where they can find out about current
chess happenings from club meetings or the club newsletter, or
d) any other channel that the member sees as adequate.
(This is really not the USCF's decision to make.)
How's that?
Alternatively, since you've indicated that School Mates is an
acceptable form of communication, let's make scholastic memberships
available to everyone regardless of age.
Paul Rubin
>family membership. Rubin's proposal is to totally cut out sending
>people Chess Life.
Only to people who don't want it, remember?
>My suggestion is purely political. The fact is that the gap between
>adult and youth is so large that the adults feel cheated. The 2.0 rule
>makes everyone agree that there is a maximum gap, and that the current
>gap is too large.
I don't feel cheated because youth pay less. I think there's only
one poster here who's been going on like that. I feel cheated because
regulars (the only category I'm eligible for) have to pay so much.
If youth dues were raised then they'd be cheated too. I don't enjoy
being cheated, but I'd rather that only some members be cheated than
have all members be cheated. So I'd like the youth dues kept where
they are and the regular dues lowered to comparable levels, at least
for those willing to forego the CL subscription.
>> 2. Should there be family memberships where a second family member
>> could become a member at a reduced rate?
>>
>There already is. YOu seem to have misunderstood the whole question here.
And why, by the way, has the USCF taken up the family values agenda?
Are they going to next tell us what TV shows to watch? I've had
several roommates (non-family-members) who were chessplayers and got
copies of CL that I could read if I wanted to. So even I thoguht the
requirement that someone at the same address get CL is reasonable (I
don't), the requirement that that person be a family member is
oppressive.
Paul Rubin
>None of the countries, as far as I can tell, including the US, require
>you to pay a $40 membership fee to play in tournaments. They all seem
>to require an amount in that ballpark to play in their federation's
>sanctioned (typically rated) events. In some countries that membership
>falls more to the state/province level (i.e. you pay the province $40)
>and they in turn are more strongly affiliated with the national
>organization.
Obviously very few countries ban inviting your friends over for an
unrated chess event and calling it a tournament. However, especially
if you're a strong player, it's very hard to find well-matched OTB
opponents anywhere other than at a rated tournament, so unrated
tournaments are fairly useless for serious players.
>This is incomplete research, not high on my project list. You can
>easily go to the FIDE list of federations and check web sites though.
>In some cases you may need a translator.
I just checked one other country, http://www.chesscanada.org/cfc.htm;
the dues are 33 Canadian dollars per year which I think is around 25
US dollars. That's noticably less than US$ 40 from where I sit. Some
(not all) Canadian provinces charge an additional fee. The only
province I visit with any regularity (Quebec) doesn't charge extra.
ESchlich
<< Swell, but if those are the only purposes you can come up with, then I
don't see a strong case against letting people decide for themselves
whether they need it. >>
Dear Paul:
I disagree with your statement for one main reason. The USCF membership as a
whole has decided that we want a magazine as part of what we want from our
organization. I suspect that I am a typical member of that majority in my
belief that if someone wants to enjoy some of our activities, you should help
pay for all of the activities our organization supports.
I do not believe it is in our organization's best interests to have a
membership cost structure that allows each member to financially pick and
choose which of our programs they support and have a tiered membership price
based on the cost of each program not supported. Should someone be allowed to
purchase a $36.25 membership because they feel we should not have a prison
program.
It is my belief that once our membership has decided what programs or services
we want, each person has to make their own decision if the cost to be a member
is worth the benefits they perceive as valuable.
The comments about providing the magazine electronically are valid but I also
believe that fewer of our members may be actively on-line then you realize. As
I look at the rating reports received in the office, about 1/2 appear to be
without disk. Some of our membership may have on-line capability but still
prefer to have an actual physical magazine to read. As time passes, our
membership may change its mind but I feel a significant portion of our
membership currently wants the paper version of Chess Life. If (or when) we do
decide that the electronic version will be standard, we will also have to
decide how to fairly deal with that portion of our membership that either
prefers or can only receive a paper version.
Please understand that the main thrust of my argument is that I am convinced
that our organization should require everyone who wants to participate in any
of our activities to financially support all of our activities as an
organization. It just happens that the discussion is focused on the magazine. I
am sure that almost every one of our members feel that at least one of our
programs does not interest them. Part of being a society is supporting the
larger group's interests.
Regards, Ernie Schlich
Regards, Ernie
Ernest W. Schlich
Technical Director USCF
Technic...@Juno.com
cavema...@my-deja.com
p...@netcom.com (Paul Rubin) wrote:
> In article <7sdqcc$hr8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <cavema...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> >I don't know what you are talking about here? There is already a
> >family membership. Rubin's proposal is to totally cut out sending
> >people Chess Life.
>
>
> >adult and youth is so large that the adults feel cheated. The 2.0
rule
> >makes everyone agree that there is a maximum gap, and that the
current
> >gap is too large.
>
> one poster here who's been going on like that. I feel cheated because
> regulars (the only category I'm eligible for) have to pay so much.
> If youth dues were raised then they'd be cheated too. I don't enjoy
> being cheated, but I'd rather that only some members be cheated than
> have all members be cheated. So I'd like the youth dues kept where
> they are and the regular dues lowered to comparable levels, at least
> for those willing to forego the CL subscription.
>
> >> could become a member at a reduced rate?
> >>
> >There already is. YOu seem to have misunderstood the whole question
here.
>
> Are they going to next tell us what TV shows to watch? I've had
> several roommates (non-family-members) who were chessplayers and got
> copies of CL that I could read if I wanted to. So even I thoguht the
> requirement that someone at the same address get CL is reasonable (I
> don't), the requirement that that person be a family member is
> oppressive.
>
USCF's decision than a standard social acceptance.
--
Kevin Bachler
Caveman
"Caveman chess is chess without finesse."
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
cavema...@my-deja.com
p...@netcom.com (Paul Rubin) wrote:
> In article <7sdqcc$hr8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <cavema...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> >I don't know what you are talking about here? There is already a
> >family membership. Rubin's proposal is to totally cut out sending
> >people Chess Life.
>
I was clarifying your statement. The poster thought that you were
suggesting a family membership, which already exists.
>
> >My suggestion is purely political. The fact is that the gap between
> >adult and youth is so large that the adults feel cheated. The 2.0
rule
> >makes everyone agree that there is a maximum gap, and that the
current
> >gap is too large.
>
> I don't feel cheated because youth pay less. I think there's only
> one poster here who's been going on like that. I feel cheated because
> regulars (the only category I'm eligible for) have to pay so much.
The dues for USCF are in line with other dues for organizations and for
chess orgs around the world. It looks like you should change the way
you feel.
> If youth dues were raised then they'd be cheated too.
No. You FEEL cheated. There is a difference.
> I don't enjoy
> being cheated, but I'd rather that only some members be cheated than
> have all members be cheated.
The members receive value for the $40. Members have begun to take a
significant portion of that value for granted, and we need to figure
out how to better communicate the value to them so that they understand
it. In addition, we need to enhance USCF service. However, comparing
USCF's price and service with other organizations, it is hard to argue
that members are cheated. Room for improvement? Definitely? Cheated?
Hardly.
> So I'd like the youth dues kept where
> they are and the regular dues lowered to comparable levels, at least
> for those willing to forego the CL subscription.
>
> >> 2. Should there be family memberships where a second family member
> >> could become a member at a reduced rate?
> >>
> >There already is. YOu seem to have misunderstood the whole question
here.
>
> And why, by the way, has the USCF taken up the family values agenda?
LOL.
> Are they going to next tell us what TV shows to watch? I've had
> several roommates (non-family-members) who were chessplayers and got
> copies of CL that I could read if I wanted to. So even I thoguht the
> requirement that someone at the same address get CL is reasonable (I
> don't), the requirement that that person be a family member is
> oppressive.
>
--
Kevin Bachler
Caveman
"Caveman chess is chess without finesse."
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
cavema...@my-deja.com
p...@netcom.com (Paul Rubin) wrote:
> In article <7sb7ic$m3f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <cavema...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> >> I hope you will make following ADM instead: since chessplayers
form a
> >> worldwide "family", the "Additional Family Membership" rate of
> >> $11/year (membership without chess life) will be made available to
> >> anyone who wants it, removing the requirement that there be another
> >> family member receiving Chess Life at the same address.
> >
> >That, however, would be counterproductive to communication with the
> >membership, and would raise the per unit cost for those who want the
> >magazine. Until alternative communication is improved, this is
simply
> >a poor choice.
>
> instead of taking a no-magazine membership doesn't sound so good for
> communication either.
The USCF doesn't make people quit. They do watch out for all member
interests by requiring that all members pay the required dues. As a
member, I am glad they do so.
> What is the purpose of this communication
> you're talking about anyway? Who needs it? Why should anyone be
> willing to pay for it? Does it occur to you that the players who'd
> opt for no-CL membership are precisely the ones with alternative means
> of communication, or else feel that they don't need communication?
> For example, I personally see at least 3 different copies of CL every
> month despite not being a USCF member, but I usually don't bother
> reading any of them. If I were a USCF member and were forced to get
> CL, I'd probably throw it in the trash without looking at it, just
> like I do with other junk mail. And what kind of "communication" with
> the remaining members does CL accomplish that couldn't be done just as
> well with a quarterly or semi-annual 4-page newsletter? Don't say
> TLA's. They are worthless.
>
--
cavema...@my-deja.com
p...@netcom.com (Paul Rubin) wrote:
> In article <7sdr6v$idg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <cavema...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> >anyway?
> >
> >To inform people of chess news, to inform them of events, such as
> >tournaments, to inform them of rules changes, to inform them in
> >general, and to educate them about chess.
>
> don't see a strong case against letting people decide for themselves
> whether they need it.
Those are among the primary purposes of USCF. If people don't want
ANY of those services, it is difficult to understand why they would
join.
Once there is an alternative mechanism to make this information
available, I would see no problem with giving people a choice.
>
> >2. Who needs it?
> >
> >People [who] need to be informed about chess news, chess events,
chess
> >tournaments, rules changes, or who need more education about chess.
>
> To be precise, people who need to be informed of those things *by the
> USCF*. And why should the USCF decide that all members need the USCF
> to inform them?
>
Because that is the purpose of the organization. If you don't like it,
don't join.
> >3. Why should anyone be willing to pay for it?
> >Because it has value. I don't generally read Chess Life either, but
I
> >do read TLA's to learn of tournaments in my state and other
neighboring
> >states, for example. I can now start doing that online more easily.
>
> That's nice. Some of us don't care about tournaments in neighboring
> states. If we want to hear about tournaments in our own states, we
> can subscribe to the newsletters of our state affiliates. Some of us,
> though, don't even care to do *that*.
So then why do you join?
> >
> >4. Does it occur to you that the players who'd opt for no-CL
membership
> >are precisely the ones with alternative means of communication, or
else
> >feel that they don't need communication?
> >
> >Of course it does, especially since I would fit into that category.
> >However, there is not currently a good nationwide alternative to
> >TLA's.
>
> I am totally thrown by this.
Of course you are. YOu don't want to stop and see it from anyone's
perspective but your own, so when confronted
> Why is there ANY need for nationwide
> TLA's?
> Who is going to travel to a distant state for a small
> tournament?
I've OFTEN had that happen, and sometimes I do as well. Even so, who
said the state has to be DISTANT? I regularly play in 3 states besides
my own.
> (Big tournaments can pay for regular advertising insted
> of using TLA's).
Not so. I run two tournaments a year that have over 350 players in
each, and they can't afford advertising. They are SCHOLASTIC events.
> If it's just a few people,
Actually, the results indicate otherwise.
> why should the rest of us
> pay for a nationwide TLA system?
First, organizers pay for TLA's. Even so, they contribute to chess
generally, so yes.
> TLA's, if they're useful at all,
> should be done at the state level.
No, many people play across states.
> A one page bimonthly mailing from
> the state affiliate, sent bulk rate, should be good enough for this.
Nope. Not even close. That comment shows a significant
misunderstanding of the issue.
> This mailing would also mention not-too-distant tournaments in
> neighboring states, or in some areas could cover several states.
>
> >And if you don't need the communication at all, I'd question why the
> >player was in USCF. The only reason to be a member at that point is
> >to play ONLY in weekly rated $1-$2 events at the local club, and I'd
> >have to question why that person bothers to play rated events.
>
> I liked playing rated club events since the rating lets me know how
I'm
> progressing, lets me know how I match up with my opponent, lets the TD
> pair me with someone of the appropriate strength, etc. It also makes
> the game feel more serious, and I like that. These are basically the
> only types of events that I played in with any regularity, and I
> enjoyed them a lot. There was also plenty of opportunity for chess
> gossip and other "communication" at the club events, and for that
> matter plenty of copies of CL and other magazines laying around the
> club.
So why not just run a club ladder and forget joining USCF?
> So the USCF requiring me to subscribe to CL to play in these
> events feels like extortion to me.
LOL. When you buy groceries at the store does that feel like extorsion
too?
> >Can we move away from Chess Life to alternatives? Yes. Your
original
> >proposal, unlike this post, did not say that.
>
> Fine. Let's amend the proposal: since the USCF sees communication as
> important to members, in order to be eligible for the "additional
> family membership" rate, the member must check a box on the form
> indicating that they don't need CL because already have access to
> current chess information from any of:
> a) someone else's copy of CL (not necessarily a family member),
> b) Usenet, the world wide web, or other computer media,
> c) membership in a chess club where they can find out about current
> chess happenings from club meetings or the club newsletter, or
> d) any other channel that the member sees as adequate.
> (This is really not the USCF's decision to make.)
This will be fine shortly. But not quite yet. For example, even with
the current levels of communication, there is a problem in
standardizing the ways that people play, use equipment, etc. This is
important and is a role of the USCF. Once this information is online,
I would agree with you. Once it is available and people know where to
get it, fine.
Right now that isn't the case.
> How's that?
>
> Alternatively, since you've indicated that School Mates is an
> acceptable form of communication, let's make scholastic memberships
> available to everyone regardless of age.
>
No. That's senseless. Part of the point of these memberships is to
make them more enticing to create future generations of chess players.
Why would I give that to a 30-year-old?
Paul Onstad
> Should someone be allowed to
> purchase a $36.25 membership because they feel we should not have a prison
> program.
Yup, that's the crux. Good post, BTW. So many want to make Chess Life
optional but no one's come close to a methodology.
-Paul
cavema...@my-deja.com
services that aren't comparable you will have a problem comparing.
Note the following:
The Chess Federation of Canada provides En Passant every other month --
to your door for $23 (Canadian). Doubling for the number of issues and
allowing for currency conversion (as of August) approximates $32 a
year, a tad short of $40. Of course, that's for the magazine only. If
you added the $10 (Canadian) for CFC membership, that would translate
to about another $7 annually for a total of $39 a year.
Paul Rubin
Paul Onstad <pon...@sihope.com> wrote:
>ESchlich wrote:
>
>> Should someone be allowed to
>> purchase a $36.25 membership because they feel we should not have a prison
>> program.
I'd expect the USCF prison program exists on the theory that it's good
for society somehow. It helps rehabilitate prisoners, or at least
reduces human suffering by giving them something to do in jail, or
something like that. I might not agree with that theory, or think
that it's worth supporting, but at least I can make some sense of it.
Anyway, the cost per member is minimal.
Similar justifications can be made for the scholastic program and many
other things the USCF does that not everyone agrees with, but which
still have a plausible social benefit.
I haven't heard yet an explanation of how it's good for society for
the USCF to chop down perfectly good trees, process the carcasses with
toxic chemicals that also go in our drinking water, then burn
unrenewable fossil fuels delivering an unwanted magazine to my house
that will be thrown in the trash the moment it comes in the door
because I can get the same info over the internet and because three
other people in the same house get CL already. Unless you've got such
an explanation, it's not reasonable to compare CL to prison chess.
We need a pro-choice movement for CL--every magazine a wanted magazine!
>Yup, that's the crux. Good post, BTW. So many want to make Chess Life
>optional but no one's come close to a methodology.
Methodology for making CL optional: let the member decide whether they
want it. That wasn't so complicated, was it?
Paul Rubin
>> Making members who don't want to pay $40 quit the USCF entirely
>> instead of taking a no-magazine membership doesn't sound so good for
>> communication either.
>
>The USCF doesn't make people quit. They do watch out for all member
>interests by requiring that all members pay the required dues. As a
>member, I am glad they do so.
Ripping everyone off to print magazines that are going to be thrown in
the trash unread is in all members' interests? Not on my planet.
Paul Rubin
>> >1. What is the purpose of this communication you're talking about
>> >anyway?
>> >
>> >To inform people of chess news, to inform them of events, such as
>> >tournaments, to inform them of rules changes, to inform them in
>> >general, and to educate them about chess.
>>
>> Swell, but if those are the only purposes you can come up with, then I
>> don't see a strong case against letting people decide for themselves
>> whether they need it.
>
>Those are among the primary purposes of USCF. If people don't want
>ANY of those services, it is difficult to understand why they would join.
Do you personally need any of those services from the USCF? I know
that I don't, because I get the info in other ways. Why join? To
play rated chess--remember? The USCF is supposed to promote chess.
>> To be precise, people who need to be informed of those things *by the
>> USCF*. And why should the USCF decide that all members need the USCF
>> to inform them?
>
>Because that is the purpose of the organization. If you don't like it,
>don't join.
Huh??? What happened to promoting chess, for example by running the
rating system?
>> That's nice. Some of us don't care about tournaments in neighboring
>> states. If we want to hear about tournaments in our own states, we
>> can subscribe to the newsletters of our state affiliates. Some of us,
>> though, don't even care to do *that*.
>
>So then why do you join?
To play rated chess, remember? I keep saying that.
>> >Of course it does, especially since I would fit into that category.
>> >However, there is not currently a good nationwide alternative to TLA's.
>>
>> I am totally thrown by this.
>
>Of course you are. YOu don't want to stop and see it from anyone's
>perspective but your own, so when confronted
I'm the one-person statistical sample whose perspective I understand
the most thoroughly, so that's the sample I can best poll about
questions like this.
>> Why is there ANY need for nationwide TLA's?
>> Who is going to travel to a distant state for a small tournament?
>
>I've OFTEN had that happen, and sometimes I do as well. Even so, who
>said the state has to be DISTANT? I regularly play in 3 states besides
>my own.
You travel to distant states for small tournaments that you hear about
in TLA's? How often? If you're one of what can't be more than a
few percent of players who do that, why should I subsidize the nationwide
TLA's? Why can't you subscribe to a separate newsletter with nationwide
TLA's?
>Not so. I run two tournaments a year that have over 350 players in
>each, and they can't afford advertising. They are SCHOLASTIC events.
How many of those players come from non-neighboring states?
>> If it's just a few people,
>Actually, the results indicate otherwise.
>
>> why should the rest of us pay for a nationwide TLA system?
>First, organizers pay for TLA's. Even so, they contribute to chess
>generally, so yes.
If the organizers really pay enough to cover the cost of printing and
mailing the TLA's, then members should get them for free.
Btw, I'm wondering if you, as an organizer, really think nationwide
TLA's are worthwhile if the amount you have to pay for them really
reflects their cost. That is, you're running one of your 350 player
tournaments and you have a choice between paying (say) $10 to have
your TLA sent to all Illinois players; or $20 to have it sent to
Illinois and neighboring states; or $50 to have it sent to the whole
country (I picked those amounts to be proportional to my guess at the
number of people who would get them). My guess is the $10 or $20
option is the most sensible.
>> TLA's, if they're useful at all, should be done at the state level.
>No, many people play across states.
So list in several states. See above. Nationwide isn't worth subsidizing.
>> I liked playing rated club events since the rating lets me know how...
>
>So why not just run a club ladder and forget joining USCF?
Players in the club come and go. I want to be part of a uniform
national (or better yet, worldwide) rating system so I can meet any
other player with a rating and know if we're evenly matched.
>> So the USCF requiring me to subscribe to CL to play in these
>> events feels like extortion to me.
>
>LOL. When you buy groceries at the store does that feel like extorsion
>too?
No of course not. The grocery store doesn't make me subscribe to a
magazine in order to buy vegetables.
>> Fine. Let's amend the proposal: since the USCF sees communication as
>> important to members, in order to be eligible for the "additional
>> family membership" rate, the member must check a box on the form
>> indicating that they don't need CL because already have access to
>> current chess information from any of:
>> a) someone else's copy of CL (not necessarily a family member),
>> b) Usenet, the world wide web, or other computer media,
>> c) membership in a chess club where they can find out about current
>> chess happenings from club meetings or the club newsletter, or
>> d) any other channel that the member sees as adequate.
>> (This is really not the USCF's decision to make.)
>This will be fine shortly. But not quite yet. For example, even with
>the current levels of communication, there is a problem in
>standardizing the ways that people play, use equipment, etc. This is
>important and is a role of the USCF. Once this information is online,
>I would agree with you. Once it is available and people know where to
>get it, fine.
What specific information are you talking about? If I have a question
about rules or equipment, I certainly don't look up the answer in
Chess Life. I look in a rulebook (not included in CL subscription) or
ask the TD. How on earth does CL help with this?
>> Alternatively, since you've indicated that School Mates is an
>> acceptable form of communication, let's make scholastic memberships
>> available to everyone regardless of age.
>>
>No. That's senseless. Part of the point of these memberships is to
>make them more enticing to create future generations of chess players.
>Why would I give that to a 30-year-old?
In another thread you're arguing that scholastic members aren't
subsidized. If they're not subsidized, then you're not giving anyone
anything.
li...@ork.net
> In article <37EBBB1E...@sihope.com>,
> Paul Onstad <pon...@sihope.com> wrote:
>>ESchlich wrote:
> I'd expect the USCF prison program exists on the theory that it's good
> for society somehow. It helps rehabilitate prisoners, or at least
> reduces human suffering by giving them something to do in jail, or
> something like that.
Please. By all means. Let's not turn their stays in jail into some kind of
*punishment*
Paul Rubin
>The members receive value for the $40.
Yes, but a lot of them feel they don't receive $40 worth of value,
so they quit.
>Members have begun to take a significant portion of that value for
>granted, and we need to figure out how to better communicate the
>value to them so that they understand it.
Oh, they understand well enough what they are getting and not getting.
They are not as stupid as you think. That is why they quit instead of
paying.
>In addition, we need to enhance USCF service. However, comparing
>USCF's price and service with other organizations, it is hard to argue
>that members are cheated. Room for improvement? Definitely? Cheated?
What other organizations? So far I've done comparisons with only
two: Canadian Chess Federation (~$25/year) and American Chess Association
($1/lifetime). Both are much less expensive than the USCF. If
you have other comparisons I'd appreciate it if you'd post them again.
TOMDORSCH
>whole has decided that we want a magazine as part of what we want from our
>organization
The office idiot is at it again. After several times promising not to post,
here he goes.
Morons like Schlich are the LAST ones who know what "the membership as a whole"
really want. Morons like Schlich are presiding over the destruction of the
organization precisely because they do NOT have the vaguest clue about what the
membership wants.
> I suspect that I am a typical member of that majority
Oh, sure. The typical member is a Navy lifer with a messiah complex
.>Part of being a society is supporting the
>larger group's interests.
Why doesn't Schlich just keep his promise to keep his moronic viewpoints to
himself?
Historians can date the decline of the federation from the point that middle
staffers with no understanding of things started making policy pronouncements
on the Internet, explaining to everyone what the organization's membership
"really wants."
The implications are far reaching. This phenomenon--policy pronouncements from
middle staffers--has implications about the formation of policy at all levels.
It connotes a certain conspicuous decline in the efficiency of the Federation.
Remember the scene in Patton when George C. Scott remarks that he knows the
Germans are finished because they have started using wooden carts? Utterances
from the mouth of specimens like Ernie Schlich are the USCF equivalent. You
can extrapolate from that fact to deduce all manner of organizational
deterioration.
Regards,
Tom Dorsch
Chesspride
>Yup, that's the crux. Good post, BTW. So many want to make Chess Life
>optional but no one's come close to a methodology.
>
>
I certainly don't want to see Chess Life become electronic-only...or optional.
Same for School Mates.
The federation has invested mightily to build the brand value of both of these
products.
Any electronic versions should supplement...not replace...the paper version.
AND...
The very fact that you want to skip Chess Life...and retain access to the
rating system...tells me EXACTLY which parts of the membership are MOST
VALUABLE.
Very well..the cost of a Chess Life-less membership shall be $45.
That's right...MORE.
Why? 1. You obviously value the rating system the most, and 2. You refuse to
participate in the organization's most efficient means for communicating with
its members. So YOU pay more.
Just like if you choose not to use those goddawful electronic cards at your
local supermarket...you might not get the discounts.
Say NO to optional Chess Life plans.
Say NO to those who want to ROB the VALUE of the rating system...through
political pressure.
Eric C. Johnson
Chesspride
>staffers with no understanding of things started making policy pronouncements
>on the Internet,
Clearly a slip...Tom.
I think you would find that the decline dates from the time the former
"Treasurer" started posting.
Eric C. Johnson
Paul Onstad
> Methodology for making CL optional: let the member decide whether they
> want it. That wasn't so complicated, was it?
..And that is as far as such thinking goes ("me only"). What do you want the
price to be AFTER you have dropped CL? If it is your proportion of the
magazine's cost....if that cost is even known....the organization will
suffer. There are plenty of paradoxes which apply to individual/organization
but this one is simple:
1). to retain revenues the costs of other memberships must be increased
2). such increases will impact the most profitable class of USCF members
3). such members will drop out
Item 2 refers to the Chess Life ONLY member. Except for the magazine, they
require no other services. ..No ratings, no TLA's, no politicians, no
tournament promotion costs, no checks to Carol Jarecki. A publisher could
handle the job alone--provided they could continue to convince such members
that they were a part of U.S. chess.
THAT is the glaring fact that the "me only" crowd so consistently omits. You
COULD come up with a formula--a partially reduced membership that would
allow CL to be made optional--but it would disappoint you. It would have to
sustain revenues meaning that the reduction could only be a fraction of the
incremental cost of each additional copy of CL produced.
What would that figure be? Probably a single digit.
-Paul
Jerry
>
> >The USCF membership as a
> >whole has decided that we want a magazine as part of what we want from our
> >organization
>
> The office idiot is at it again. After several times promising not to post,
> here he goes.
>
> Morons like Schlich are the LAST ones who know what "the membership as a whole"
> really want. Morons like Schlich are presiding over the destruction of the
> organization precisely because they do NOT have the vaguest clue about what the
> membership wants.
>
> > I suspect that I am a typical member of that majority
>
> Oh, sure. The typical member is a Navy lifer with a messiah complex
>
> .>Part of being a society is supporting the
> >larger group's interests.
>
> Why doesn't Schlich just keep his promise to keep his moronic viewpoints to
> himself?
>
> staffers with no understanding of things started making policy pronouncements
> "really wants."
>
> The implications are far reaching. This phenomenon--policy pronouncements from
> middle staffers--has implications about the formation of policy at all levels.
> It connotes a certain conspicuous decline in the efficiency of the Federation.
>
> Remember the scene in Patton when George C. Scott remarks that he knows the
> Germans are finished because they have started using wooden carts? Utterances
> from the mouth of specimens like Ernie Schlich are the USCF equivalent. You
> can extrapolate from that fact to deduce all manner of organizational
> deterioration.
>
> Regards,
> Tom Dorsch
I agree.
Jerry
--
Free web ads are again available for chess goods, services, and
activities. Some restrictions apply.
email: ch...@nystar.com
http://www.nystar.com
http://www.nystar.com/free.htm
http://www.nystar.com/chess
Jerry
>
> >Historians can date the decline of the federation from the point that middle
> >staffers with no understanding of things started making policy pronouncements
> >on the Internet,
>
>
> I think you would find that the decline dates from the time the former
> "Treasurer" started posting.
>
> Eric C. Johnson
The Treasurer never had any say over anything that effected the
members or the affiliates whereas they office staff has.
Jerry
I think we have to clarify what members are getting for their
$40. I couldnt figure it out, so Im not paying my $40.
Jerry
I think if I were to join the uscf again, it would be to play in
tournaments. But I dont think $40 makes sense for someone who only
plays in a few rated tournaments a year. Hopefully some other
organization will emerge who can promote and rate tournaments at
a lower cost.
ESchlich
I had forgotten I had set a signature for my newgroup postings. The e-mail
addresses for the USCF have changed. The Juno accounts are no longer monitored
and you should send your mail to *@uschess.org.
The specific address for the Technical Director is Tec...@uschess.org. Please
accept my apology for this mistake. My earlier post was a personal opinion as a
USCF member.
Ernest W. Schlich
Technical Director
US Chess Federation
Paul Onstad
> > What would that figure be? Probably a single digit.
> >
> > -Paul
>
> I think we have to clarify what members are getting for their
> $40. I couldnt figure it out, so Im not paying my $40.
Which is what I pay as well--not $40. In fact a _whole_ lot less.
But that is due to a different issue. Going back to the subject, I see
nothing wrong with Paul R's idea--the one about saving trees. Would a $5
reduction account for the paper, printing, and mailing cost? If that amount
were determined not to be risky--and IF the USCF gets an on-line version of
Chess Life--then it would be perfectly appropriate to have, at the Internet
magazine site, a form to fill out to drop the printed copy of the
magazine--along with an understanding that one's annual renewal would go
from $40 down to $35.
-Paul
cavema...@my-deja.com
p...@netcom.com (Paul Rubin) wrote:
> In article <7sgc58$cvo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <cavema...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> >The members receive value for the $40.
>
> Yes, but a lot of them feel they don't receive $40 worth of value,
> so they quit.
may not have utility to them. If you gave me $40 worth of sunflower
seeds, I wouldn't care less. It may well be that the value is there,
but the member either doesn't understand it or doesn't personally value
it.
>
> >Members have begun to take a significant portion of that value for
> >granted, and we need to figure out how to better communicate the
> >value to them so that they understand it.
>
> Oh, they understand well enough what they are getting and not getting.
> They are not as stupid as you think. That is why they quit instead of
> paying.
No one is saying they are stupid. There is a difference between being
stupid and being uninformed.
>
> >In addition, we need to enhance USCF service. However, comparing
> >USCF's price and service with other organizations, it is hard to
argue
> >that members are cheated. Room for improvement? Definitely?
Cheated?
>
> What other organizations? So far I've done comparisons with only
> two: Canadian Chess Federation (~$25/year) and American Chess
Association
> ($1/lifetime).
You miscompared against CCF by not comparing comparable services. I've
already shown that in another post.
Comparing against ACA is ridiculous comparison. They've demonstrated
few, perhaps none of their claims, have no history as an organization,
and aren't recognized by anyone as a legitimate federation. Use SOME
discretion in your comparisons.
> Both are much less expensive than the USCF. If
> you have other comparisons I'd appreciate it if you'd post them again.
You haven't even got these two right yet. less value. Why not work on
them some more first
li...@ork.net
>> Yes, but a lot of them feel they don't receive $40 worth of value,
>> so they quit.
> That's not at all clear. They may receive $40 worth of value, but it
> may not have utility to them. If you gave me $40 worth of sunflower
> seeds, I wouldn't care less. It may well be that the value is there,
> but the member either doesn't understand it or doesn't personally value
> it.
I'm sorry, but that is irrelevant bullshit.
For a member who does not receive utility, he does not care (and has no
reason to) whether there is some kind of objective "value" there or not.
Just like a chess player does not care if the USCF starts offering
backgammon games.
So the typical USCF member receives no utility from sending Jarecki on
fact-finding missions, does not utility when USCF board members go off on
jaunts to Europe, and does not receive utility when we pay Cavallo 6
digits in salary plus another 5 digits in bonus (for what?).
> No one is saying they are stupid. There is a difference between being
> stupid and being uninformed.
USCF members will never acquire a taste for the above things, and begin to
consider them as providing utility.
Or for other similar wastes of USCF money.
Jerry
Arent there alot of free chess websites? Why should someone pay $35,
or anything at all?
Bruce Draney
>
> >Historians can date the decline of the federation from the point that middle
> >staffers with no understanding of things started making policy pronouncements
> >on the Internet,
>
> Clearly a slip...Tom.
>
> I think you would find that the decline dates from the time the former
> "Treasurer" started posting.
>
> Eric C. Johnson
Hold it right there. You're both wrong. Our decline has nothing to
do with when people started posting publicly to RGCP be the USCF PAID
staffers or USCF ELECTED politicians.
The decline which Kevin doesn't yet acknowledge is even occurring,
began about mid year in 1995, long before Mr. Dorsch was even on the
Board. Al Lawrence was ED at the time, and most had never heard of
RGCP.
Someday, when (or if) this world's longest statistical blip ever
ends, we may be able to decipher what put us into this (alleged)
tailspin, and what (if anything) brought us out of it.
Apparently the honeymoon is over and the office has decided to allow
staff members to start posting to RGCP again. Perhaps this tells us
that their confidence is running pretty high now that they survived
August.
Best Regards,
Bruce
Ray Lopez
TOMDORSCH <tomd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990925013315...@ng-fn1.aol.com...
>
> Remember the scene in Patton when George C. Scott remarks that he knows
the
> Germans are finished because they have started using wooden carts?
Utterances
> from the mouth of specimens like Ernie Schlich are the USCF equivalent.
You
> can extrapolate from that fact to deduce all manner of organizational
> deterioration.
>
Are you really Tom Dorsch, or an imposter? I thought Tom Dorsch was
half-way intelligent. You are taking some sort of weird mind-expanding
drug.
BTW, George C. Scott is dead, and Patton was right about the Germans.
Paul Rubin
>> I just checked one other country, http://www.chesscanada.org/cfc.htm;
>> the dues are 33 Canadian dollars per year which I think is around 25
>> US dollars. That's noticably less than US$ 40 from where I sit. Some
>> (not all) Canadian provinces charge an additional fee. The only
>> province I visit with any regularity (Quebec) doesn't charge extra.
>>
>You forgot to check the services more closely. When you match-up
>services that aren't comparable you will have a problem comparing.
>Note the following:
>
>The Chess Federation of Canada provides En Passant every other month --
>to your door for $23 (Canadian). Doubling for the number of issues and
>allowing for currency conversion (as of August) approximates $32 a
>year, a tad short of $40. Of course, that's for the magazine only. If
>you added the $10 (Canadian) for CFC membership, that would translate
>to about another $7 annually for a total of $39 a year.
No I didn't forget to check the "services". I don't expect miracles
from the CFC or anyone else. The CFC has lower dues because it makes
wiser financial choices than the USCF. I'm perfectly aware that one
of these choices is sending out six magazines a year instead of
twelve. Of course as you know, I'd prefer if the USCF outdid the CFC
by sending out zero magazines a year instead of six.
Yes, the CFC might have to charge as much as the USCF does if it
wasted members' money on USCF-like "services" such as suing its own
organizers, sending its staff on junkets, and sending out magazines
every month instead of every other month. However those are all
hypothetical situations and irrelevant.
Paul Rubin
>I disagree with your statement for one main reason. The USCF membership as a
>whole has decided that we want a magazine as part of what we want from our
Say WHAAAAAT???!!!! When did the USCF membership as a whole decide
anything like that?? When was the poll taken and where were the
results published?
Just because most USCF members *tolerate* the magazine situation
doesn't mean they decided that they want it. Otherwise, it's like
saying that the US population as a whole decided that they wanted the
Air Force to buy $500 coffee pots. In the one chessplayer poll that I
know of on the subject, over half the players surveyed said they would
personally choose a no-CL membership over a CL membership if the price
were enough lower. If you know of another poll, I'd like to see it.
>I suspect that I am a typical member of that majority in my belief
>that if someone wants to enjoy some of our activities, you should
>help pay for all of the activities our organization supports.
Only if the activities are worthwhile, at least in the eyes of a
majority of the members. If you poll the membership, I don't think
you will find majority support on this issue.
cavema...@my-deja.com
You can't compare apples and oranges. USCF provides more service and
charges a higher price. You don't like that. Fine. Don't join.
cavema...@my-deja.com
li...@ork.net wrote:
> cavema...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >> Yes, but a lot of them feel they don't receive $40 worth of value,
> >> so they quit.
>
> > That's not at all clear. They may receive $40 worth of value, but
it
> > may not have utility to them. If you gave me $40 worth of sunflower
> > seeds, I wouldn't care less. It may well be that the value is
there,
> > but the member either doesn't understand it or doesn't personally
value
> > it.
>
> I'm sorry, but that is irrelevant bullshit.
>
> For a member who does not receive utility, he does not care (and has
no
> reason to) whether there is some kind of objective "value" there or
not.
>
comment irrelevant and then agreeing with it?
> Just like a chess player does not care if the USCF starts offering
> backgammon games.
>
You are still agreeing with me. What's your point Liam?
> So the typical USCF member receives no utility from sending Jarecki on
> fact-finding missions, does not utility when USCF board members go
off on
> jaunts to Europe, and does not receive utility when we pay Cavallo 6
> digits in salary plus another 5 digits in bonus (for what?).
>
NO one is trying to justify past bad management. Sounds like you are
still agreeing with me.
> > No one is saying they are stupid. There is a difference between
being
> > stupid and being uninformed.
>
> USCF members will never acquire a taste for the above things, and
begin to
> consider them as providing utility.
>
I don't think they should. NO ONE is saying that.
> Or for other similar wastes of USCF money.
>
But USCF doesn't do a good job of "marketing" the value of a national
rating system, or of certified directors, or of its magazine. (Yes, I
agree the mag needs work, but it still has its pluses.) These things
then get taken for granted and undervalued. Part of the problem is
that USCF needs to deliver better value. Part of the issue seems to be
that it is undervalued in what it delivers.
cavema...@my-deja.com
>
> -Paul
>
I can easily picture this "Me-only" approacher losing a game due to a
new rule...and complaining that he had no way to know about the rule
because he had chosen not to purchase CL.
cavema...@my-deja.com
You get a national rating.
You get a Chess mag.
You support US chess.
You get discounts on books and equipment.
cavema...@my-deja.com
> > > >
> > > > -Paul
> > >
> > > $40. I couldnt figure it out, so Im not paying my $40.
> >
> > Which is what I pay as well--not $40. In fact a _whole_ lot less.
> >
> > But that is due to a different issue. Going back to the subject, I
see
> > nothing wrong with Paul R's idea--the one about saving trees. Would
a $5
> > reduction account for the paper, printing, and mailing cost? If
that amount
> > were determined not to be risky--and IF the USCF gets an on-line
version of
> > Chess Life--then it would be perfectly appropriate to have, at the
Internet
> > magazine site, a form to fill out to drop the printed copy of the
> > magazine--along with an understanding that one's annual renewal
would go
> > from $40 down to $35.
> >
> > -Paul
>
> Arent there alot of free chess websites? Why should someone pay $35,
> or anything at all?
>
> Jerry
>
you shouldn't join.
> --
> Free web ads are again available for chess goods, services, and
> activities. Some restrictions apply.
>
> email: ch...@nystar.com
> http://www.nystar.com
> http://www.nystar.com/free.htm
> http://www.nystar.com/chess
>
--
Chesspride
>wasted members' money on USCF-like "services" such as suing its own
>organizers, sending its staff on junkets, and sending out magazines
>every month instead of every other month. However those are all
>hypothetical situations and irrelevant.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Yes...and did you know that the CFC is smaller than the USCF?
You obviously want a smaller organization...and fewer chess services.
In fact, it sounds like you want NO organization and NO services!
CFC does a fine job...but it is smaller in terms of assets, in terms of
members, in terms of programs, in terms of gross revenues...and in terms of
services.
But I am confident that CFC would like to be bigger...to have more
assets...more members...and publish its magazine more often.
As a membership organization..the USCF is better off if it drops a few folk
like the most vocal ones on this newsgroup...who gripe about pennies and ignore
the big picture.
Everyone has had the experience of a small club where 95 percent of the members
are pleased...and 5 percent are constant complainers.
Your choice is clear...please leave the club...and do something else. Or start
your own club. Why you choose to pursue negative plans via this newsgroup is
beyond me...
Eric C. Johnson
cavema...@my-deja.com
ch...@nystar.com wrote:
> Chesspride wrote:
> >
> > >Historians can date the decline of the federation from the point
that middle
> > >staffers with no understanding of things started making policy
pronouncements
> > >on the Internet,
> >
> > Clearly a slip...Tom.
> >
> > I think you would find that the decline dates from the time the
former
> > "Treasurer" started posting.
> >
> > Eric C. Johnson
>
>the
> members or the affiliates whereas they office staff has.
>
> Jerry
>
cavema...@my-deja.com
p...@netcom.com (Paul Rubin) wrote:
> ESchlich <esch...@aol.com> wrote:
> >I disagree with your statement for one main reason. The USCF
membership as a
> >whole has decided that we want a magazine as part of what we want
from our
> >organization.
>
> Say WHAAAAAT???!!!! When did the USCF membership as a whole decide
> anything like that?? When was the poll taken and where were the
> results published?
One could argue, oh, maybe in the 1950,s when the membership was much
smaller.
One could argue annually, since the vast majority of members renew.
Either way, Ernie's point is valid.
I do think though, that his point is somewhat rigid -- things are
changing and new methods of communication offer different possibilities
that are better for both the members and USCF.
>
> Just because most USCF members *tolerate* the magazine situation
> doesn't mean they decided that they want it. Otherwise, it's like
> saying that the US population as a whole decided that they wanted the
> Air Force to buy $500 coffee pots. In the one chessplayer poll that I
> know of on the subject, over half the players surveyed said they would
> personally choose a no-CL membership over a CL membership if the price
> were enough lower. If you know of another poll, I'd like to see it.
If you know of that poll, I'd like to see it.
>
> >I suspect that I am a typical member of that majority in my belief
> >that if someone wants to enjoy some of our activities, you should
> >help pay for all of the activities our organization supports.
>
> Only if the activities are worthwhile, at least in the eyes of a
> majority of the members. If you poll the membership, I don't think
> you will find majority support on this issue.
>
--
cavema...@my-deja.com
tomd...@aol.com (TOMDORSCH) wrote:
> >The USCF membership as a
> >whole has decided that we want a magazine as part of what we want
from our
>
> The office idiot is at it again. After several times promising not
to post,
> here he goes.
>
You know, you often make good points, and I voted for you, but this is
unacceptable. There is no reason to call Ernie and idiot or a moron.
It weakens your case because it looks like you can win an argument on
the facts or the merits of the argument, so you end up resorting to
name-calling.
Its unacceptable Tom. You should know better and you should be
embarrassed that someone as accomplished as you needs to resort to this
on a regular basis.
I'm ashamed to have this type of behavior from a former USCF official
in a public forum. Do you think it helps to attract members when you
rant like this? Do you think parents want to bring their kids into
chess when their children already act more maturely than you do.
Now behave yourself.
> Morons like Schlich are the LAST ones who know what "the membership
as a whole"
> really want. Morons like Schlich are presiding over the destruction
of the
> organization precisely because they do NOT have the vaguest clue
about what the
> membership wants.
>
Actually, Ernie raises a valid counter-perspective, one that needs to
be listened to and taken into account. Do you really believe that out
of the 40K or so adult members he is the ONLY ONE who thinks that way?
> > I suspect that I am a typical member of that majority
>
> Oh, sure. The typical member is a Navy lifer with a messiah complex
>
> .>Part of being a society is supporting the
> >larger group's interests.
>
> Why doesn't Schlich just keep his promise to keep his moronic
viewpoints to
> himself?
>
Probably for the same reason that you can't control your name-calling
fits Tom.
> Historians can date the decline of the federation from the point
that middle
> staffers with no understanding of things started making policy
pronouncements
> on the Internet, explaining to everyone what the organization's
membership
> "really wants."
>
The Federation has gone through swings similiar to the current one as
far back as I can tell. Your statement is both misrepresentative and
pointless.
> The implications are far reaching. This phenomenon--policy
pronouncements from
> middle staffers--has implications about the formation of policy at
all levels.
> It connotes a certain conspicuous decline in the efficiency of the
Federation.
>
It connotes nothing more than people expressing their opinion.
> Remember the scene in Patton when George C. Scott remarks that he
knows the
> Germans are finished because they have started using wooden carts?
Utterances
> from the mouth of specimens like Ernie Schlich are the USCF
equivalent. You
> can extrapolate from that fact to deduce all manner of organizational
> deterioration.
>
> Regards,
> Tom Dorsch
cavema...@my-deja.com
Bruce Draney <bdr...@novia.net> wrote:
> The decline which Kevin doesn't yet acknowledge is even occurring,
> began about mid year in 1995, long before Mr. Dorsch was even on the
> Board.
You are really in a mode about misrepresenting my arguments lately, and
I wish you would stop.
First, the discussion wasn't even specific to membership declines,
which is what your sentence refers to.
Second, your statement is presented in such a way that one would
conclude that I think there is no problem. I think there are
signficant problems. However, I would prefer that we deal with real
problems.
It is a fact that USCF regular membership numbers over the last 10
years has been stagnant. That is a real problem and one that we need
to look to address.
It is also a fact that there may be a membership decline. However, it
is also a fact that statistically the amount of this decline may be
insignificant. It is too early to tell.
It is also the case that the potential decline may be due to factors
that we cannot wait to fix, because if we waited the issues might be
totally overwhelming.
Please quit mis-representing my positions. If you don't understand
them, then don't "quote" them.
cavema...@my-deja.com
p...@netcom.com (Paul Rubin) wrote:
> In article <7sgc98$d2b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <cavema...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> >> Making members who don't want to pay $40 quit the USCF entirely
> >> instead of taking a no-magazine membership doesn't sound so good
for
> >> communication either.
> >
> >The USCF doesn't make people quit. They do watch out for all member
> >interests by requiring that all members pay the required dues. As a
> >member, I am glad they do so.
>
> Ripping everyone off to print magazines that are going to be thrown in
> the trash unread is in all members' interests? Not on my planet.
>
Bizzarro world?
stan
Larry Parr <75227...@CompuServe.COM> wrote in message
news:7sletk$chu$1...@ssauraac-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
> It's become increasingly clear from the refusal of the USCF to open
> its books for inspection that the organization is basically a cash
> cow for insiders. Jareckigate is merely the tip of the iceberg.
> --
> Larry Parr
Ahhh guilt by refusal to agree to participate in Larry's witchhunt or
deciding there was no gain to do so in any event. Management is doing
exactly what they should, guilty or not.
StanB
Bruce Draney
>
> I can easily picture this "Me-only" approacher losing a game due to a
> new rule...and complaining that he had no way to know about the rule
> because he had chosen not to purchase CL.
>
> --
> Kevin Bachler
> Caveman
>
> "Caveman chess is chess without finesse."
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
This is hilariously funny. One will not find most of the rules in
Chess Life. They will find them in some of the following places:
A: The 4th Edition.
B. The Clock Pamphlet
C. The December Rating Supplements
D. The Affiliate Packet
E. The USCF Website
F. And occasionally in Chess Life.
This should all be solved soon however as the special subcommittee set
up last year by the Delegates and co-chaired by Dorsch and Goichberg has
matters well in hand and has done tremendous work this past year in
finding solutions to these problems. (NOT!)
Best Regards,
Bruce
cavema...@my-deja.com
p...@netcom.com (Paul Rubin) wrote:
> In article <7sge82$epf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <cavema...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> >> >1. What is the purpose of this communication you're talking about
> >> >anyway?
> >> >
> >> >To inform people of chess news, to inform them of events, such as
> >> >tournaments, to inform them of rules changes, to inform them in
> >> >general, and to educate them about chess.
> >>
> >> Swell, but if those are the only purposes you can come up with,
then I
> >> don't see a strong case against letting people decide for
themselves
> >> whether they need it.
> >
> >Those are among the primary purposes of USCF. If people don't want
> >ANY of those services, it is difficult to understand why they would
join.
>
> Do you personally need any of those services from the USCF? I know
> that I don't, because I get the info in other ways. Why join? To
> play rated chess--remember? The USCF is supposed to promote chess.
>
Yes. I personally need tournament life.
> >> To be precise, people who need to be informed of those things *by
the
> >> USCF*. And why should the USCF decide that all members need the
USCF
> >> to inform them?
> >
> >Because that is the purpose of the organization. If you don't like
it,
> >don't join.
>
> Huh??? What happened to promoting chess, for example by running the
> rating system?
>
They do that. If that is important to you, then join.
> >> That's nice. Some of us don't care about tournaments in
neighboring
> >> states. If we want to hear about tournaments in our own states, we
> >> can subscribe to the newsletters of our state affiliates. Some of
us,
> >> though, don't even care to do *that*.
> >
> >So then why do you join?
>
> To play rated chess, remember? I keep saying that.
>
> >> >Of course it does, especially since I would fit into that
category.
> >> >However, there is not currently a good nationwide alternative to
TLA's.
> >>
> >> I am totally thrown by this.
> >
> >Of course you are. YOu don't want to stop and see it from anyone's
> >perspective but your own, so when confronted
>
> I'm the one-person statistical sample whose perspective I understand
> the most thoroughly, so that's the sample I can best poll about
> questions like this.
LOL. One person statistical sample?? One person statistical neophyte
maybe.
One unit "statistical samples" are meaningless.
>
> >> Why is there ANY need for nationwide TLA's?
> >> Who is going to travel to a distant state for a small tournament?
> >
> >I've OFTEN had that happen, and sometimes I do as well. Even so, who
> >said the state has to be DISTANT? I regularly play in 3 states
besides
> >my own.
>
> You travel to distant states for small tournaments that you hear about
> in TLA's?
On average 4-5 times a year. I travel to neighboring states, to sites
distant enough that TLA's are currently the best form of communication.
A once or twice a year I will travel to distant states.
This is a much more common practice than you realize, although I
wouldn't call it the norm in any form.
>How often? If you're one of what can't be more than a
> few percent of players who do that, why should I subsidize the
nationwide
> TLA's?
For the same reason that we should subsidize TLA's because most players
get their tournament info from them.
> Why can't you subscribe to a separate newsletter with nationwide
> TLA's?
>
> >Not so. I run two tournaments a year that have over 350 players in
> >each, and they can't afford advertising. They are SCHOLASTIC events.
>
> How many of those players come from non-neighboring states?
Usually 10% to 20%.
>
> >> If it's just a few people,
> >Actually, the results indicate otherwise.
> >
> >> why should the rest of us pay for a nationwide TLA system?
> >First, organizers pay for TLA's. Even so, they contribute to chess
> >generally, so yes.
>
> If the organizers really pay enough to cover the cost of printing and
> mailing the TLA's, then members should get them for free.
>
They do. They are imbedded in the magazine.
> Btw, I'm wondering if you, as an organizer, really think nationwide
> TLA's are worthwhile if the amount you have to pay for them really
> reflects their cost.
Yes. It hurts to have to come up with the money, but if you compare,
for example, classified ads, TLA's may even be underpriced. Do I wish
they were cheaper? Sure. We all wish everything were cheaper. Do I
think they should be cheaper?
Nope.
>That is, you're running one of your 350 player
> tournaments and you have a choice between paying (say) $10 to have
> your TLA sent to all Illinois players;
You misunderstand the cost structure. The cost in an announcement like
this is the set-up, not the number of places it goes.
Your costs would be $45 to send it to Illinois, $48 for Illinois and
neighboring states, or $50 for the country.
Your question is like asking an airline official if he wouldn't rather
suspend the laws of gravity than having to pay for jet fuel.
>or $20 to have it sent to
> Illinois and neighboring states; or $50 to have it sent to the whole
> country (I picked those amounts to be proportional to my guess at the
> number of people who would get them). My guess is the $10 or $20
> option is the most sensible.
>
Not sensible at all, because the cost structure is impossible. Its a
wish upon a star.
> >> TLA's, if they're useful at all, should be done at the state
level.
> >No, many people play across states.
>
> So list in several states. See above. Nationwide isn't worth
subsidizing.
>
You don't understand how the costs work. Think about it.
> >> I liked playing rated club events since the rating lets me know
how...
> >
> >So why not just run a club ladder and forget joining USCF?
>
> Players in the club come and go. I want to be part of a uniform
> national (or better yet, worldwide) rating system so I can meet any
> other player with a rating and know if we're evenly matched.
>
Then obviously the cost of membership IS worth it to you, but you don't
understand that one of the costs is to support the entire organization,
even though you may not use a particular service.
USCF cannot be a cafeteria of services at this point in time.
> >> So the USCF requiring me to subscribe to CL to play in these
> >> events feels like extortion to me.
> >
> >LOL. When you buy groceries at the store does that feel like
extorsion
> >too?
>
> No of course not. The grocery store doesn't make me subscribe to a
> magazine in order to buy vegetables.
>
Neither does USCF. But you just said the national rating system was
important to you. If you want vegtables cooked in butter, guess what?
You have to buy the butter.
> >> Fine. Let's amend the proposal: since the USCF sees communication
as
> >> important to members, in order to be eligible for the "additional
> >> family membership" rate, the member must check a box on the form
> >> indicating that they don't need CL because already have access to
> >> current chess information from any of:
> >> a) someone else's copy of CL (not necessarily a family member),
> >> b) Usenet, the world wide web, or other computer media,
> >> c) membership in a chess club where they can find out about
current
> >> chess happenings from club meetings or the club newsletter, or
> >> d) any other channel that the member sees as adequate.
> >> (This is really not the USCF's decision to make.)
> >This will be fine shortly. But not quite yet. For example, even
with
> >the current levels of communication, there is a problem in
> >standardizing the ways that people play, use equipment, etc. This is
> >important and is a role of the USCF. Once this information is
online,
> >I would agree with you. Once it is available and people know where
to
> >get it, fine.
>
> What specific information are you talking about? If I have a question
> about rules or equipment, I certainly don't look up the answer in
> Chess Life.
Rulebooks get outdated rapidly, and many members don't have them. YOu
should be looking in CL and the rating supplements for updates to rules.
You are proving my point here. You don't even understand the value you
are receiving.
>I look in a rulebook (not included in CL subscription) or
> ask the TD. How on earth does CL help with this?
Many local TD's don't always (unfortunately) understand the rules
either. A good example was a small tournament I went to in a
neighboring state recently. The TD announced at the site that I
couldn't use a time delay clock.
I had to inform the TD that such an announcement AT THE SITE, without
advance publicity, was not legal.
>
> >> Alternatively, since you've indicated that School Mates is an
> >> acceptable form of communication, let's make scholastic memberships
> >> available to everyone regardless of age.
> >>
> >No. That's senseless. Part of the point of these memberships is to
> >make them more enticing to create future generations of chess
players.
> >Why would I give that to a 30-year-old?
>
> In another thread you're arguing that scholastic members aren't
> subsidized. If they're not subsidized, then you're not giving anyone
> anything.
>
No, I am arguing that they aren't subsidized at the marginal cost as a
group. Please, don't misrepresent my argument.
If you understand that now, I repeat, why would I give that to a 30
year old?
Tom Klem
Chess Federation of Canada Website. They, apparently, understand their
mission.
Boycott the USCF. La Caissa Nostra (that vile gang of bandits and criminals
who control the USCF) only wants your money. They are not interested in
helping you learn the game.
Tom Klem
Bruce Draney <bdr...@novia.net> wrote in message
news:37EEE4...@novia.net...
> cavema...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >
> > I can easily picture this "Me-only" approacher losing a game due to a
> > new rule...and complaining that he had no way to know about the rule
> > because he had chosen not to purchase CL.
> >
> > --
> > Kevin Bachler
> > Caveman
> >
> > "Caveman chess is chess without finesse."
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
>
Paul Rubin
Paul Onstad <pon...@sihope.com> wrote:
>..And that is as far as such thinking goes ("me only"). What do you want the
>price to be AFTER you have dropped CL? If it is your proportion of the
>magazine's cost....if that cost is even known....the organization will
>suffer. There are plenty of paradoxes which apply to individual/organization
>but this one is simple:
I've said many times, I prefer the ACA approach of charging a very low
(I suggested $5 and the ACA outdid me by charging $1) for a lifetime
membership which consists of a membership card and a database entry in
the rating system, but no other "services". Anything else that you
want, like rated games, magazines, etc. would (in my preference) be
pay-as-you-go. However, I've also said many times that given the
membership model, the current scholastic dues ($12/year) are not too
far out of line and that I'd be happy if regular membership cost the same.
>1). to retain revenues the costs of other memberships must be increased
Don't retain revenues. Revenues and costs should both be much lower.
>2). such increases will impact the most profitable class of USCF members
>3). such members will drop out
>
>Item 2 refers to the Chess Life ONLY member. Except for the magazine, they
>require no other services. ..No ratings, no TLA's, no politicians, no
>tournament promotion costs, no checks to Carol Jarecki. A publisher could
>handle the job alone--provided they could continue to convince such members
>that they were a part of U.S. chess.
Ratings are supposed to be paid for by rating fees. TLA's these days
are supposed to be paid for by organizers. The open tournaments are
supposed to be profitable. That leaves the closed tournaments (US
championship, US junior and women's championship, and maybe one or two
others). I believe it should be possible to fund these even on much
lower dues, especially if membership is enlarged as a result of the
lower dues.
>THAT is the glaring fact that the "me only" crowd so consistently omits. You
>COULD come up with a formula--a partially reduced membership that would
>allow CL to be made optional--but it would disappoint you. It would have to
>sustain revenues meaning that the reduction could only be a fraction of the
>incremental cost of each additional copy of CL produced.
>
>What would that figure be? Probably a single digit.
In that case the USCF is an even more insanely bloated and wasteful
organization than I thought.
Paul Rubin
>Yes...and did you know that the CFC is smaller than the USCF?
Is that a documented fact, or are you making it up?
How many members does the CFC have?
>You obviously want a smaller organization...and fewer chess services.
Yes. Thin is in.
>In fact, it sounds like you want NO organization and NO services!
Not true. I want no magazine, no junkets, no lawsuits against
organizers, no bogus catalog full of salespeople wearing bedroom
slippers and smoking jackets looking nothing like chessplayers, no
retail operation that is almost certainly losing money if you count
the subscription costs to its captive advertising as a cost of sales,
etc. I do want a national rating system, a US championship with a
good prize fund (but maybe held every 2-3 years instead of every
year), representation in international organizations (whatever
eventually replaces FIDE), etc.
>CFC does a fine job...but it is smaller in terms of assets, in terms of
>members, in terms of programs, in terms of gross revenues...and in terms of
>services.
CFC as far as I can tell does everything for Canadian players that I
want the USCF to do for US players. And you cannot convince me that
my views are not in the majority unless you show me an actual poll
where actual chessplayers were asked their actual opinions on these
questions, rather than continuing spouting "they keep renewing so they
must support what we're doing".
Paul Rubin
>I can easily picture this "Me-only" approacher losing a game due to a
>new rule...and complaining that he had no way to know about the rule
>because he had chosen not to purchase CL.
Well, that's my lookout, isn't it?
Hey, you said you don't read CL except for the TLA's--so aren't you in
the same situation?
Paul Rubin
>> The USCF membership as awhole has decided that we want a magazine
>> as part of what we want from ourorganization.
>>
>> Say WHAAAAAT???!!!! When did the USCF membership as a whole decide
>> anything like that?? When was the poll taken and where were the
>> results published?
>
>One could argue, oh, maybe in the 1950,s when the membership was much
>smaller.
Huh? Was there a poll in the 1950's? I wasn't around then. Did all
members get Chess Life (or was it Chess Review) then, whether they
liked it or not? How much were the dues? Was there even a rating
system then? I thought it started in the 60's. Did you have to be a
USCF member to play in most tournaments?
If there was a poll published in a USCF magazine in the 50's, my
local chess club library probably has it, so please cite the issue and
I will look it up when I get a chance.
Of course, if there was no poll, you're kind of talking out of your
butt, aren't you?
>One could argue annually, since the vast majority of members renew.
One could argue that, but it would be stupid. The same argument says
that since the vast majority of Americans haven't fled the US, they
must approve of corrupt politics, high taxes, handouts to
corporations, and all that. That's not a sound conclusion.
>Either way, Ernie's point is valid.
Nope.
>> In the one chessplayer poll that I know of on the subject, over
>> half the players surveyed said they would personally choose a no-CL
>> membership over a CL membership if the price were enough lower. If
>> you know of another poll, I'd like to see it.
>
>If you know of that poll, I'd like to see it.
It was published here in rgcp about 5 years ago. I didn't save a copy
but maybe someone else here did and can repost it.
Chesspride
>my views are not in the majority unless you show me an actual poll
>where actual chessplayers were asked their actual opinions on these
>questions, rather than continuing spouting "they keep renewing so they
>must support what we're doing".
>
>
Well...it is a basic tenet of social science research...that self-report is the
least reliable method of data collection.
So...YES...I most certainly WOULD point to actual behaviorial measures (e.g.,
renewing) over self report (e.g., bitching on the newsgroup).
Eric C. Johnson
Chesspride
>supposed to be profitable.
You really don't know what you are talking about...
The USCF share of "open" tournaments...is $10,000 or less (when you combine all
profitable and unprofitable events together).
The USCF share of "scholastic" events is in the range of $30,000 (possibly more
depending on the magnitude of future contracts...the $30K figure is true for
1994-1998...there has been a trend toward higher flat fees...but note the
recent troubles in that regard).
Both categories are dwarfed by the US Championship...a $120,000 expense with a
$40K sponsorship...leaving a net of ($80K).
Toss in the Olympiad ($70K) every two years...and you've got a big deficit in
the tournament area.
If you can run that on $5...more power to you!
Eric C. Johnson
Paul Onstad
> I've said many times, I prefer the ACA approach of charging a very low
> (I suggested $5 and the ACA outdid me by charging $1) for a lifetime
> membership which consists of a membership card and a database entry in
> the rating system, but no other "services". Anything else that you
> want, like rated games, magazines, etc. would (in my preference) be
> pay-as-you-go. However, I've also said many times that given the
> membership model, the current scholastic dues ($12/year) are not too
> far out of line and that I'd be happy if regular membership cost the same.
You don't want an organization, you want some software to access your
frequent flyer miles or give you stock quotes. If there was a diverse
organization that provided, as a subset, either one of these things, would
you expect other members--who might have joined for entirely different
reasons--to agree with your plan for its dismantling?
There are other members but you ignore them. You pull a dues figure out of
the air and say that's what it should be.
> >1). to retain revenues the costs of other memberships must be increased
>
> Don't retain revenues. Revenues and costs should both be much lower.
The Incredibly Shrinking USCF. It may be heading in that direction but you
would push it over the edge.
> >Item 2 refers to the Chess Life ONLY member. Except for the magazine, they
> >require no other services. ..No ratings, no TLA's, no politicians, no
> >tournament promotion costs, no checks to Carol Jarecki. A publisher could
> >handle the job alone--provided they could continue to convince such members
> >that they were a part of U.S. chess.
>
> Ratings are supposed to be paid for by rating fees. TLA's these days
> are supposed to be paid for by organizers. The open tournaments are
> supposed to be profitable. That leaves the closed tournaments (US
> championship, US junior and women's championship, and maybe one or two
> others). I believe it should be possible to fund these even on much
> lower dues, especially if membership is enlarged as a result of the
> lower dues.
If you could construct an economic argument as to why lower dues would
offset decreased revenues--other than as an article of faith--then you would
at least have a start. I don't see you, or Jerry for that matter, doing
this. Rather, it is "I want", or, "the value to me is." That is a valid
individual view but it is not the point of the organization. It would not
even be the point of the organization if there was OMOV.
Economic argument: demand by your class of membership is rather inelastic.
The organization will focus on membership classes that are more elastic when
maximizing revenue/price performance.
> >What would that figure be? Probably a single digit.
>
> In that case the USCF is an even more insanely bloated and wasteful
> organization than I thought.
Put it this way, the first non-Chess Life membership could only be reduced
by the cost of paper, ink, and postage. If you don't realize this then you
know nothing about economics. The USCF may well be bloated but not on the
basis of an approximate $5 reduction given in my NO-C.L. example.
-Paul
Paul Rubin
>You don't want an organization, you want some software to access your
>frequent flyer miles or give you stock quotes. If there was a diverse
>organization that provided, as a subset, either one of these things, would
>you expect other members--who might have joined for entirely different
>reasons--to agree with your plan for its dismantling?
I don't know why other members joined. It is a very relevant question
and I would like to see a decent poll. The one poll I have seen was
the one posted here about 5 years ago and it admittedly wasn't very
good (small sample etc). However, around 50% of those polled said
they would rather join USCF at a lower cost with no CL subscription
than at the then-current cost with CL included. Until a better poll
is taken, that is the only poll that I know of to go by, so that is
what I go by.
>There are other members but you ignore them. You pull a dues figure out of
>the air and say that's what it should be.
I didn't pull it out of the air. I pulled it out of the USCF's published
dues schedule.
>> Don't retain revenues. Revenues and costs should both be much lower.
>
>The Incredibly Shrinking USCF. It may be heading in that direction but you
>would push it over the edge.
Push over the edge? Is's more like asking for the USCF to go on a diet
to combat constantly increasing bloat. USCF- the Windows 95 of chess
federations ;-).
>If you could construct an economic argument as to why lower dues would
>offset decreased revenues--other than as an article of faith--then you would
>at least have a start. I don't see you, or Jerry for that matter, doing
>this.
The poll I mentioned included a number of strong players who were not
USCF members, who said they would join or re-join if the dues were lower.
That is a fact, not an article of faith.
>Rather, it is "I want", or, "the value to me is." That is a valid
>individual view but it is not the point of the organization. It would not
>even be the point of the organization if there was OMOV.
Since it is individuals who decide whether to join the federation or
not, individual views obviously matter.
>Economic argument: demand by your class of membership is rather inelastic.
Why do you say that? Where is your poll? The one poll I've seen said
the opposite. If you want convince me otherwise, SHOW ME A BETTER POLL.
Stop speculating out of your butt without presenting a shred of evidence.
>Put it this way, the first non-Chess Life membership could only be reduced
>by the cost of paper, ink, and postage. If you don't realize this then you
>know nothing about economics. The USCF may well be bloated but not on the
>basis of an approximate $5 reduction given in my NO-C.L. example.
$5 to print and mail all those magazines? Who is pulling numbers
out of the air now?
Paul Rubin
>For the same reason that we should subsidize TLA's because most players
>get their tournament info from them.
Is this a fact, or are you making it up? If it is a fact, where is
the documentation?
>> Why can't you subscribe to a separate newsletter with nationwide
>> TLA's?
>>
>> >Not so. I run two tournaments a year that have over 350 players in
>> >each, and they can't afford advertising. They are SCHOLASTIC events.
>>
>> How many of those players come from non-neighboring states?
>
>Usually 10% to 20%.
And if they are scholastic events, how do TLA's help advertise it?
Scholastic members don't get Chess Life, remember?
>> If the organizers really pay enough to cover the cost of printing and
>> mailing the TLA's, then members should get them for free.
>>
>They do. They are imbedded in the magazine.
But the magazine is not free.
>> Btw, I'm wondering if you, as an organizer, really think nationwide
>> TLA's are worthwhile if the amount you have to pay for them really
>> reflects their cost.
>Yes. It hurts to have to come up with the money, but if you compare,
>for example, classified ads, TLA's may even be underpriced. Do I wish
>they were cheaper? Sure. We all wish everything were cheaper. Do I
>think they should be cheaper?
I will have to check a current CL and count the TLA's before I can get
back to you on this. But I think you are off again. How much do
TLA's cost? Are the prices printed in CL?
>>That is, you're running one of your 350 player
>> tournaments and you have a choice between paying (say) $10 to have
>> your TLA sent to all Illinois players;
>You misunderstand the cost structure. The cost in an announcement like
>this is the set-up, not the number of places it goes.
>
>Your costs would be $45 to send it to Illinois, $48 for Illinois and
>neighboring states, or $50 for the country.
In that case the USCF is incompetent when it comes to printing a CLA
in the magazine. I know what USCF staffers are paid. I worked on
a chess magazine and we ran tournament announcements, so I know how
much work the setup takes. Even for an inefficient organization like
CL, it should cost no more than a couple of bucks to put the entry in.
>Your question is like asking an airline official if he wouldn't rather
>suspend the laws of gravity than having to pay for jet fuel.
The laws of physics dictate that it costs more to print and mail something
to 50000 members than to 5000 members.
>>or $20 to have it sent to
>> Illinois and neighboring states; or $50 to have it sent to the whole
>> country (I picked those amounts to be proportional to my guess at the
>> number of people who would get them). My guess is the $10 or $20
>> option is the most sensible.
>>
>Not sensible at all, because the cost structure is impossible. Its a
>wish upon a star.
>
>> >> TLA's, if they're useful at all, should be done at the state level.
>> >No, many people play across states.
>>
>> So list in several states. See above. Nationwide isn't worth
>subsidizing.
>>
>You don't understand how the costs work. Think about it.
So tell me how the costs work, kimosabe. I think it is you who don't
know how they work. You're really grasping.
>> What specific information are you talking about? If I have a question
>> about rules or equipment, I certainly don't look up the answer in
>> Chess Life.
>
>Rulebooks get outdated rapidly, and many members don't have them. YOu
>should be looking in CL and the rating supplements for updates to rules.
You are grasping at straws. I'm a player and it's the TD's job, not
mine, to follow the fine points of tournament rule changes. The rules
of chess basically haven't changed since the introduction of chess
clocks and I seriously doubt if anything is going to change in a major
way that I care about. If I get in a rules dispute with an opponent
(this has happened to me exactly once in my life), I will summon the
TD and the TD will make a decision, and if it goes against me because
of a rule change I didn't know about, then that's too bad for me.
Somehow I'm not losing any sleep over the possibility.
>>I look in a rulebook (not included in CL subscription) or
>> ask the TD. How on earth does CL help with this?
>
>Many local TD's don't always (unfortunately) understand the rules
>either. A good example was a small tournament I went to in a
>neighboring state recently. The TD announced at the site that I
>couldn't use a time delay clock.
>
>I had to inform the TD that such an announcement AT THE SITE, without
>advance publicity, was not legal.
And this was based in something you saw in CL? And what does it have
to do with players rather than TD's needing to keep up with new rules?
If you're saying TD's should be required to stay informed of rules
announcements in CL, I don't have any problem with that. It's much
different from saying that all players should be required to subscribe
to CL even if they can read it without a subscription.
Anyway, that story doesn't even make any sense. You're saying the
advance publicity didn't say what the tournament time controls were?
[adult memberships at scholastic prices]
>No, I am arguing that they aren't subsidized at the marginal cost as a
>group. Please, don't misrepresent my argument.
That wasn't clear before, but ok. Though if you think the overall
scholastic costs (not the marginal costs) are subsidized, then what do
you think of the scholastic faction that wants to split scholastics
into a separate organization? How is it going to cover its costs?
>If you understand that now, I repeat, why would I give that to a 30
>year old?
For the same reason you want other members to give things (e.g.
making most members take involuntary CL subscriptions so that you can
have a lower cost per copy) to YOU.
Bruce Draney
>
> > to be paid for by organizers. The open tournaments are
> >supposed to be profitable.
>
>
> The USCF share of "open" tournaments...is $10,000 or less (when you combine all
> profitable and unprofitable events together).
>
> The USCF share of "scholastic" events is in the range of $30,000 (possibly more
> depending on the magnitude of future contracts...the $30K figure is true for
> 1994-1998...there has been a trend toward higher flat fees...but note the
> recent troubles in that regard).
Misleading to say the least if concessions are not taken into account
as it has been widely reported that USCF made an absolute killing on
concession sales in Arizona, none of which went to the organizer and all
of which went to USCF.
>
> Both categories are dwarfed by the US Championship...a $120,000 expense with a
> $40K sponsorship...leaving a net of ($80K).
So should we cross out that 40K for next year's Closed? Hasn't our
sponsorship for that dried up as well?
>
> Toss in the Olympiad ($70K) every two years...and you've got a big deficit in
> the tournament area.
Yeah, I'm still waiting to see how this year's U.S. Open made out and
we already know last year's Open lost money that USCF still has not
recovered.
>
> If you can run that on $5...more power to you!
No, I think they'll let you keep these "profitable" events and they'll
either take the ones that don't lose money, or they'll start their own.
I agree with you however that it will cost a lot more than people
think to start their own chess organization and keep it going. This is
also the miscalculation the Scholastic Organizers are making as well,
although as you have suggested, perhaps their threat to secede is worse
than the actuality of their secession.
>
> Eric C. Johnson
Best Regards,
Bruce
cavema...@my-deja.com
p...@netcom.com (Paul Rubin) wrote:
> Chesspride <chess...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Yes...and did you know that the CFC is smaller than the USCF?
>
> Is that a documented fact, or are you making it up?
> How many members does the CFC have?
>
> >You obviously want a smaller organization...and fewer chess services.
>
> Yes. Thin is in.
>
> >In fact, it sounds like you want NO organization and NO services!
>
> Not true. I want no magazine,
>no junkets,
The accused cases seem to be open to debate, although we certainly
agree. However, that still isn't a big cost item.
>no lawsuits against organizers,
Whoa. What if the organizer is ripping you off? Shouldn't the
Federation be watching out for your financial interest?
> no bogus catalog full of salespeople wearing bedroom
> slippers and smoking jackets looking nothing like chessplayers,
Except that's a good thing. You remember the scene in Searching for
Bobby Fischer where Pandolfini shows Mr. Waitzkin the chess tournament
so that he can see how unkempt chess is?
Changing our image a little is a good thing.
> no retail operation that is almost certainly losing money if you count
> the subscription costs to its captive advertising as a cost of sales,
First of all, why would you do that?
Second of all, how do you conclude that?
> etc. I do want a national rating system, a US championship with a
> good prize fund (but maybe held every 2-3 years instead of every
> year),
I'm certain the GM's who make a living at chess would be happy about
that!
>representation in international organizations (whatever
> eventually replaces FIDE), etc.
>
> >CFC does a fine job...but it is smaller in terms of assets, in terms
of
> >members, in terms of programs, in terms of gross revenues...and in
terms of
> >services.
>
> CFC as far as I can tell does everything for Canadian players that I
> want the USCF to do for US players. And you cannot convince me that
> my views are not in the majority unless you show me an actual poll
> where actual chessplayers were asked their actual opinions on these
> questions, rather than continuing spouting "they keep renewing so they
> must support what we're doing".
>
Except that the majority of people are renewing. There is your poll,
and your answer.
Where is a poll that shows you in the majority?
Quiet honestly, the way you describe things it sounds like this:
1. Everything the USCF does except for the rating system is wrong.
2. I don't want to contribute to the national good of chess in any way
shape or form.
3. I am really cheap, I want a $5 membership, I want everything my way,
and I don't see why I should have to see anything any other way, even
though people present facts that should make me at least question what
I am saying.
Seriously. Lines like..."And you can't convince me..." sound like
you've made up your mind in spite of other possible facts and other
possible interpretations. This stuff is not Black and White.
cavema...@my-deja.com
No. I scan it for interesting material and then read the TLA's. If
there is something I need to read, I read it.
cavema...@my-deja.com
p...@netcom.com (Paul Rubin) wrote:
> In article <7skeej$3ph$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <cavema...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> >I can easily picture this "Me-only" approacher losing a game due to a
> >new rule...and complaining that he had no way to know about the rule
> >because he had chosen not to purchase CL.
>
> Well, that's my lookout, isn't it?
Except when it happens, that's generally not how a player reacts.
>
> Hey, you said you don't read CL except for the TLA's--so aren't you in
> the same situation?
>
--
cavema...@my-deja.com
p...@netcom.com (Paul Rubin) wrote:
> In article <37EC878C...@sihope.com>,
> Paul Onstad <pon...@sihope.com> wrote:
> >..And that is as far as such thinking goes ("me only"). What do you
want the
> >price to be AFTER you have dropped CL? If it is your proportion of
the
> >magazine's cost....if that cost is even known....the organization
will
> >suffer. There are plenty of paradoxes which apply to
individual/organization
> >but this one is simple:
>
> (I suggested $5 and the ACA outdid me by charging $1) for a lifetime
> membership which consists of a membership card and a database entry in
> the rating system, but no other "services".
> Anything else that you
> want, like rated games, magazines, etc. would (in my preference) be
> pay-as-you-go. However, I've also said many times that given the
> membership model, the current scholastic dues ($12/year) are not too
> far out of line and that I'd be happy if regular membership cost the
same.
You'd be happy, again the me generation speaks.
What about sending a team to the Olympiad. Shall we take up a
collection every other year?
What about a US Championship?
What about providing chess instruction to promising juniors?
How do you make these pay as you go programs?
SNIP
cavema...@my-deja.com
chess...@aol.com (Chesspride) wrote:
> >
> >Yup, that's the crux. Good post, BTW. So many want to make Chess Life
> >optional but no one's come close to a methodology.
> >
> > -Paul
> >
>
> I certainly don't want to see Chess Life become electronic-only...or
optional.
> Same for School Mates.
>
Quite seriously Eric, within 5-7 years that statement will change
because ALL magazines will start becoming electronic only. Chess Life
will be behind the times if it doesn't. Your $50 PDA will hold all the
magazines you can read on two or three cross country plane trips. The
cost savings to publishing, the environmental savings in lumber and
paper processing will demand it.
USCF moves slowly. The boat needs to start turning now if its gonna
miss the next iceberg.
> The federation has invested mightily to build the brand value of both
of these
> products.
>
> Any electronic versions should supplement...not replace...the paper
version.
>
Except that will be the case everywhere.
> AND...
>
> The very fact that you want to skip Chess Life...and retain access to
the
> rating system...tells me EXACTLY which parts of the membership are
MOST
> VALUABLE.
>
> Very well..the cost of a Chess Life-less membership shall be $45.
>
> That's right...MORE.
>
> Why? 1. You obviously value the rating system the most, and 2. You
refuse to
> participate in the organization's most efficient means for
communicating with
> its members. So YOU pay more.
>
> Just like if you choose not to use those goddawful electronic cards
at your
> local supermarket...you might not get the discounts.
>
> Say NO to optional Chess Life plans.
>
> Say NO to those who want to ROB the VALUE of the rating
system...through
> political pressure.
>
> Eric C. Johnson
cavema...@my-deja.com
ch...@nystar.com wrote:
> Chesspride wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Yup, that's the crux. Good post, BTW. So many want to make Chess
Life
> > >optional but no one's come close to a methodology.
> > >
> > > -Paul
> > >
> >
> > I certainly don't want to see Chess Life become electronic-
> > Same for School Mates.
> >
> > The federation has invested mightily to build the brand value of
both of these
> > products.
> >
> > Any electronic versions should supplement...not replace...the paper
version.
> >
> >
> > The very fact that you want to skip Chess Life...and retain access
to the
> > rating system...tells me EXACTLY which parts of the membership are
MOST
> > VALUABLE.
> >
> > Very well..the cost of a Chess Life-less membership shall be $45.
> >
> > That's right...MORE.
> >
> > Why? 1. You obviously value the rating system the most, and 2. You
refuse to
> > participate in the organization's most efficient means for
communicating with
> > its members. So YOU pay more.
> >
> > Just like if you choose not to use those goddawful electronic cards
at your
> > local supermarket...you might not get the discounts.
> >
> > Say NO to optional Chess Life plans.
> >
> > Say NO to those who want to ROB the VALUE of the rating
system...through
> > political pressure.
> >
> > Eric C. Johnson
>
> tournaments. But I dont think $40 makes sense for someone who only
> plays in a few rated tournaments a year. Hopefully some other
> organization will emerge who can promote and rate tournaments at
> a lower cost.
>
> Jerry
>
Magic charges less, but they charge more for equipment.
Bowling makes it up in leagues and alcohol sales.
Taekwondo seems to charge the same.
Other National Federations charge about the same.
Why does everyone think this should be less when there is no evidence
to support that?
> --
> Free web ads are again available for chess goods, services, and
> activities. Some restrictions apply.
>
> email: ch...@nystar.com
> http://www.nystar.com
> http://www.nystar.com/free.htm
> http://www.nystar.com/chess
>
--
cavema...@my-deja.com
p...@netcom.com (Paul Rubin) wrote:
> In article <7sl7gi$jli$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <cavema...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> >> The USCF membership as awhole has decided that we want a magazine
> >> as part of what we want from ourorganization.
> >>
> >> Say WHAAAAAT???!!!! When did the USCF membership as a whole decide
> >> anything like that?? When was the poll taken and where were the
> >> results published?
> >
> >One could argue, oh, maybe in the 1950,s when the membership was much
> >smaller.
>
> Huh? Was there a poll in the 1950's? I wasn't around then. Did all
> members get Chess Life (or was it Chess Review) then, whether they
> liked it or not?
information source.
>How much were the dues?
Don't know, but could find out. Why does it matter?
> Was there even a rating
> system then?
The Harkness System was around before the ELO system, I believe it
started in the late 1950's. It's what started the growth of USCF.
> I thought it started in the 60's. Did you have to be a
> USCF member to play in most tournaments?
>
Yes.
> If there was a poll published in a USCF magazine in the 50's, my
> local chess club library probably has it, so please cite the issue and
> I will look it up when I get a chance.
>
The "poll" was the fact that you had a small organization that was
communicating with each other.
> Of course, if there was no poll, you're kind of talking out of your
> butt, aren't you?
No. Not at all.
>
> >One could argue annually, since the vast majority of members renew.
>
> One could argue that, but it would be stupid. The same argument says
> that since the vast majority of Americans haven't fled the US, they
> must approve of corrupt politics, high taxes, handouts to
> corporations, and all that. That's not a sound conclusion.
>
Huh? Your analogy isn't the same at all. In the USCF case they elect
to pay a rather small sum to be part of an organization. In your
analogy they would give up homes and families to not be part of a
country. I don't see the comparison at all.
> >Either way, Ernie's point is valid.
>
> Nope.
>
Obviously with the type of logic used above, you wouldn't get that.
> >> In the one chessplayer poll that I know of on the subject, over
> >> half the players surveyed said they would personally choose a no-CL
> >> membership over a CL membership if the price were enough lower. If
> >> you know of another poll, I'd like to see it.
> >
> >If you know of that poll, I'd like to see it.
>
> It was published here in rgcp about 5 years ago. I didn't save a copy
> but maybe someone else here did and can repost it.
>
Now who is talking out of their butt?
cavema...@my-deja.com
Bruce Draney <bdr...@novia.net> wrote:
> cavema...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >
> > I can easily picture this "Me-only" approacher losing a game due to
a
> > new rule...and complaining that he had no way to know about the rule
> > because he had chosen not to purchase CL.
> >
> > Kevin Bachler
> > Caveman
> >
> > "Caveman chess is chess without finesse."
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
Normally he really has something to add, but in the last few days he
has been horribly misquoting me and taking statements out of context.
Here he does it again, although I had asked that he be more careful.
> This is hilariously funny. One will not find most of the rules in
> Chess Life.
Of course not. That was not the context and it was not the claim. The
context was RULES CHANGES which are published annually in CL.
> They will find them in some of the following places:
>
> A: The 4th Edition.
> B. The Clock Pamphlet
> C. The December Rating Supplements
> D. The Affiliate Packet
> E. The USCF Website
> F. And occasionally in Chess Life.
>
At least once a year in CL, along with things such as governance info,
etc.
> This should all be solved soon however as the special subcommittee
set
> up last year by the Delegates and co-chaired by Dorsch and Goichberg
has
> matters well in hand and has done tremendous work this past year in
> finding solutions to these problems. (NOT!)
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Bruce
>
Bruce, in your attempt to be witty and sarcastic, you once again
misquoted me, took my comments out of context, and in addition you got
the information just plain wrong.
This has been consistent enough over the past few days that an apology
from you to me is now my very reasonable expectation.
And again, if you don't understand what I am saying, please, don't
misquote it.
cavema...@my-deja.com
> >If you could construct an economic argument as to why lower dues
would
> >offset decreased revenues--other than as an article of faith--then
you would
> >at least have a start. I don't see you, or Jerry for that matter,
doing
> >this.
>
> The poll I mentioned included a number of strong players who were not
> USCF members, who said they would join or re-join if the dues were
lower.
> That is a fact, not an article of faith.
>
Almost quoting a reference without stating the assumptions, the
research, the time, the place, who, what, when, where, how, why,
etc...and you call that a FACT? No wonder you don't get any of this.
Do you believe what you read in grocery store checkout lines too?
> >Rather, it is "I want", or, "the value to me is." That is a valid
> >individual view but it is not the point of the organization. It
would not
> >even be the point of the organization if there was OMOV.
>
> Since it is individuals who decide whether to join the federation or
> not, individual views obviously matter.
>
> >Economic argument: demand by your class of membership is rather
inelastic.
>
> Why do you say that? Where is your poll?
>The one poll I've seen said
> the opposite. If you want convince me otherwise, SHOW ME A BETTER
POLL.
Show us one.
> Stop speculating out of your butt without presenting a shred of
>evidence.
Like you? Where is this evidence?
Oh yeah. I saw a poll last week and it said that all members join USCF
because they absolutely love the color of the covers, and I forgot
where it was published or when or by who but it was a small sample and
not very reliable but I believe it anyway.
ROFLMAO!!
>
> >Put it this way, the first non-Chess Life membership could only be
reduced
> >by the cost of paper, ink, and postage. If you don't realize this
then you
> >know nothing about economics. The USCF may well be bloated but not
on the
> >basis of an approximate $5 reduction given in my NO-C.L. example.
>
> $5 to print and mail all those magazines? Who is pulling numbers
> out of the air now?
>
--
cavema...@my-deja.com
p...@netcom.com (Paul Rubin) wrote:
> In article <7snukg$bs3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <cavema...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> >For the same reason that we should subsidize TLA's because most
players
> >get their tournament info from them.
>
> Is this a fact, or are you making it up? If it is a fact, where is
> the documentation?
Are you asking if anyone has documented this with a survey? I don't
know. What I do know is the experience of myself and other long term
directors and organizers. More people come to tournaments if we run
TLA's. That's why we run them. That's why people cared when the price
increased. People found that running tournaments without TLA's made
them unsuccessful. We don't need a poll to determine that TLA's are
the most important source of getting players to tournaments. As new
technology evolves that question may be important someday. It's not
now.
>
> >> Why can't you subscribe to a separate newsletter with nationwide
> >> TLA's?
> >>
> >> >Not so. I run two tournaments a year that have over 350 players
in
> >> >each, and they can't afford advertising. They are SCHOLASTIC
events.
> >>
> >> How many of those players come from non-neighboring states?
> >
> >Usually 10% to 20%.
>
> And if they are scholastic events, how do TLA's help advertise it?
> Scholastic members don't get Chess Life, remember?
TLA's can be run in both Chess Life and School Mates. Many scholastic
chess coaches get CL. So do a anumber of the players.
>
> >> If the organizers really pay enough to cover the cost of printing
and
> >> mailing the TLA's, then members should get them for free.
> >>
> >They do. They are imbedded in the magazine.
>
> But the magazine is not free.
>
So? You pay for the magazine, not for the ads. Do you pay for the ads
in Time, Newsweek, etc?
> >> Btw, I'm wondering if you, as an organizer, really think nationwide
> >> TLA's are worthwhile if the amount you have to pay for them really
> >> reflects their cost.
> >Yes. It hurts to have to come up with the money, but if you compare,
> >for example, classified ads, TLA's may even be underpriced. Do I
wish
> >they were cheaper? Sure. We all wish everything were cheaper. Do I
> >think they should be cheaper?
>
> I will have to check a current CL and count the TLA's before I can get
> back to you on this. But I think you are off again. How much do
> TLA's cost? Are the prices printed in CL?
>
So now what you are telling me is that you've been arguing this point
with absolutely no knowledge of what you are talking about and no
direct experience, right?
Take a look and find out on your own.
> >>That is, you're running one of your 350 player
> >> tournaments and you have a choice between paying (say) $10 to have
> >> your TLA sent to all Illinois players;
> >You misunderstand the cost structure. The cost in an announcement
like
> >this is the set-up, not the number of places it goes.
> >
> >Your costs would be $45 to send it to Illinois, $48 for Illinois and
> >neighboring states, or $50 for the country.
>
> In that case the USCF is incompetent when it comes to printing a CLA
> in the magazine.
It has nothing to do with USCF. It is the economics of printing.
Printing is made cheap by reproducing the same thing over and over
again. If you run different ads to different parts of the country,
those pages change, and you destroy the economic savings.
You really don't have a clue about any of this do you, yet you sit here
and try to argue like you know something.
> I know what USCF staffers are paid. I worked on
> a chess magazine and we ran tournament announcements, so I know how
> much work the setup takes. Even for an inefficient organization like
> CL, it should cost no more than a couple of bucks to put the entry in.
>
> >Your question is like asking an airline official if he wouldn't
rather
> >suspend the laws of gravity than having to pay for jet fuel.
>
> The laws of physics dictate that it costs more to print and mail
something
> to 50000 members than to 5000 members.
>
Read it again, you totally missed the analogy. You would have to do
something for 5,000, and then something new for the next 5,000, and so
on, 10 times, and your cost is greater because you have 10 set-ups.
> >>or $20 to have it sent to
> >> Illinois and neighboring states; or $50 to have it sent to the
whole
> >> country (I picked those amounts to be proportional to my guess at
the
> >> number of people who would get them). My guess is the $10 or $20
> >> option is the most sensible.
> >>
> >Not sensible at all, because the cost structure is impossible. Its a
> >wish upon a star.
> >
> >> >> TLA's, if they're useful at all, should be done at the state
level.
> >> >No, many people play across states.
> >>
> >> So list in several states. See above. Nationwide isn't worth
> >subsidizing.
> >>
> >You don't understand how the costs work. Think about it.
>
> So tell me how the costs work, kimosabe. I think it is you who don't
> know how they work. You're really grasping.
>
I just explained the costs above. It is you who is gasping -- not even
grasping.
> >> What specific information are you talking about? If I have a
question
> >> about rules or equipment, I certainly don't look up the answer in
> >> Chess Life.
> >
> >Rulebooks get outdated rapidly, and many members don't have them.
YOu
> >should be looking in CL and the rating supplements for updates to
rules.
>
> You are grasping at straws. I'm a player and it's the TD's job, not
> mine, to follow the fine points of tournament rule changes.
Try reading the sections of the rule book on player responsibilities
and ethics. You are simply wrong.
> The rules
> of chess basically haven't changed since the introduction of chess
> clocks and I seriously doubt if anything is going to change in a major
> way that I care about.
Again, you are simply wrong.
> If I get in a rules dispute with an opponent
> (this has happened to me exactly once in my life), I will summon the
> TD and the TD will make a decision, and if it goes against me because
> of a rule change I didn't know about, then that's too bad for me.
>
Unfortunately many players at that point don't react so calmly.
> Somehow I'm not losing any sleep over the possibility.
>
Of course you aren't. Ignorance is bliss, you know.
> >>I look in a rulebook (not included in CL subscription) or
> >> ask the TD. How on earth does CL help with this?
> >
> >Many local TD's don't always (unfortunately) understand the rules
> >either. A good example was a small tournament I went to in a
> >neighboring state recently. The TD announced at the site that I
> >couldn't use a time delay clock.
> >
> >I had to inform the TD that such an announcement AT THE SITE, without
> >advance publicity, was not legal.
>
> And this was based in something you saw in CL?
Yes.
> And what does it have
> to do with players rather than TD's needing to keep up with new rules?
Read the rulebook. See comment above.
> If you're saying TD's should be required to stay informed of rules
> announcements in CL, I don't have any problem with that. It's much
> different from saying that all players should be required to subscribe
> to CL even if they can read it without a subscription.
Both statements are true.
>
> Anyway, that story doesn't even make any sense. You're saying the
> advance publicity didn't say what the tournament time controls were?
No, I'm saying that the advance publicity didn't state that time delay
clocks would not be allowed.
>
> [adult memberships at scholastic prices]
> >No, I am arguing that they aren't subsidized at the marginal cost as
a
> >group. Please, don't misrepresent my argument.
>
> That wasn't clear before, but ok.
Then you need to read more carefully.
> Though if you think the overall
> scholastic costs (not the marginal costs) are subsidized, then what do
> you think of the scholastic faction that wants to split scholastics
> into a separate organization?
I think it is a mistake whether they are subsidzed or not. The
financial aspect is not the most important aspect of the decision.
> How is it going to cover its costs?
>
Don't know, don't care.
> >If you understand that now, I repeat, why would I give that to a 30
> >year old?
>
> For the same reason you want other members to give things (e.g.
> making most members take involuntary CL subscriptions so that you can
> have a lower cost per copy) to YOU.
>
That's not a choice I made. It's a choice the organization made. If
you read what I wrote before, you would recall that I am in favor of
devloping tiered memberships with appropriate communication to the
members. So why are you ascribing this to me?
And its not "giving" it to them. Its a value exchange.
Paul Rubin
>> >In fact, it sounds like you want NO organization and NO services!
>>
>> Not true. I want no magazine,
>Needed for the time being..
Needed by some but not others. You still have never answered my
question: suppose Joe Chessplayer (who happens to be similar to me)
and three of his buddies from the chess club rent a house together (I
did roughly that). Joe's three buddies are all already USCF members
and so three copies of CL are sent to the house every single month.
If Joe wants to read CL, there are usually copies around all over the
house, in addition to the copies that are all over the place at the
chess club.
Joe and his buddies are not members of the same family; they are just
housemates who share a common interest. So Joe is not eligible for an
"additional family member" membership even though three CL subscriptions
are already coming to Joe's address and there are CL's underfoot everywhere.
Please answer: why does Joe "need" to have a fourth copy of CL sent to
his address in order to be a USCF member? Stop ignoring this
question. Tell me specifically, up close and personal, why Joe
shouldn't be eligible for a no-CL membership at the "additional family
member" rate, but should still be eligible in the same situation if he
were related to his housemates. The only explanation I can think of
is that the USCF has "family values" to enforce and thinks the living
arrangement of Joe and his buddies is somehow sinful.
>>no lawsuits against organizers,
>
>Whoa. What if the organizer is ripping you off? Shouldn't the
>Federation be watching out for your financial interest?
With Board approval there's less of a problem. A qualification was
needed. The suit we're referring to appears highly questionable to
the board, and therefore the USCF should not have pursued it without
approval.
>> no bogus catalog full of salespeople wearing bedroom
>> slippers and smoking jackets looking nothing like chessplayers,
>
>Except that's a good thing. You remember the scene in Searching for
>Bobby Fischer where Pandolfini shows Mr. Waitzkin the chess tournament
>so that he can see how unkempt chess is?
>
>Changing our image a little is a good thing.
Again, I can only go by my own reaction to that catalog. I'll change
my opinion if a poll is taken and most people think otherwise.
I'm not saying show actual scruffy chessplayers in the catalog. I'd
say take out those yuppie pictures and instead put more info about
the actual products, which is sorely lacking.
>> no retail operation that is almost certainly losing money if you count
>> the subscription costs to its captive advertising as a cost of sales,
>First of all, why would you do that?
Because one of the justifications I often hear for mandatory CL is
that it gets the USCF catalog to people so they will buy stuff. Fine,
but in that case its cost should be charged against the retail
operation.
>Second of all, how do you conclude that?
Because I don't think the average USCF member buys enough stuff from
the USCF retail operation for the profits to cover the cost of CL.
Again, quantitative data could convince me otherwise. In a similar
round of debates a couple years ago, many people on this ng including
Tom Dorsch tried to get financial data from the USCF and couldn't.
Tom ran for treasurer and many of us thought we would finally start
seeing some actual numbers, but we underestimated USCF recalcitrance.
Tom couldn't get them either.
>> etc. I do want a national rating system, a US championship with a
>> good prize fund (but maybe held every 2-3 years instead of every
>> year),
>I'm certain the GM's who make a living at chess would be happy about
>that!
I don't know; I haven't asked any. It might well be that they'd
prefer a less frequent tournament with better prizes over a more
frequent one with lower prizes. The US championship does take up a
big chunk of their time that could instead be spent pursuing other
income. Anyway, I think supporting GM activity is a worthwhile
subgoal of the USCF, but not the overriding goal.
>> CFC as far as I can tell does everything for Canadian players that I
>> want the USCF to do for US players. And you cannot convince me that
>> my views are not in the majority unless you show me an actual poll
>> where actual chessplayers were asked their actual opinions on these
>> questions, rather than continuing spouting "they keep renewing so they
>> must support what we're doing".
>>
>Except that the majority of people are renewing. There is your poll,
>and your answer.
No, that is not a poll, since it doesn't address the questions I asked.
Don't you get it?
Look at AIDS patients: they take drugs with horrible side effects to
stay alive. Since they keep taking the drugs, is that a poll that
says they like the side effects? I'd say not.
Now look at USCF members: they keep renewing for reasons that are
murky. For at least some of them, they renew in order to play rated
games; the CL subscription and its associated cost are a side effect
that they tolerate, like the illnesses caused by AIDS drugs. You can't
conclude from the USCF renewal rate that members like the CL policy.
What percentage of chessplayers consider the CL subscription (and its
cost) to be an undesired side effect of USCF membership, rather than a
benefit? Jawboning will not answer that question. It can only be
answered by a poll. You have to specifically ask individual players
the question you want answered. And you have to ask all the players
who you consider to be logical candidates for membership, not just the
self-selected possibly-masochists who are already USCF members. The
one poll I know of (the one I mentioned) where players were asked
about CL, indicated that around 50% considered the CL subscription to
be an undesired side effect and preferred to not subscribe. I hate to
keep harping on that poll, but it's the only one that I know of.
>Where is a poll that shows you in the majority?
See above.
>Quiet honestly, the way you describe things it sounds like this:
>
>1. Everything the USCF does except for the rating system is wrong.
False. I listed some things the USCF does right (rating system, US
championship, scholastics) and some things it does wrong (mandatory
magazines, bogus catalogs, junkets, etc). Do you think everything
the USCF does is right?
>2. I don't want to contribute to the national good of chess in any way
>shape or form.
False. I believe the national good of chess is served by having more
people playing, and that more people will play if they join the USCF,
and more people will join the USCF if the dues are lower, and the dues
can apparently only be lowered if the USCF cuts services. Therefore,
for the national good of chess, I believe the USCF should cut services
and lower dues. Simple logic.
You might not have the same belief I do, but it's gaining a fair
amount of currency on this newsgroup. Larry Evans has been writing
for years about the 25 million US chessplayers who are not USCF members.
Let's see about getting some of them playing more.
>3. I am really cheap, I want a $5 membership, I want everything my way,
>and I don't see why I should have to see anything any other way, even
>though people present facts that should make me at least question what
>I am saying.
I do see some facts here occasionally, but mostly just unsupported
opinions. I'm not very swayed by those.
>Seriously. Lines like..."And you can't convince me..." sound like
>you've made up your mind in spite of other possible facts and other
>possible interpretations. This stuff is not Black and White.
Are you getting Chesspride disease with these ellipses? The "..." in
"you can't convince me..." has generally said things like "without
presenting quantative data like a poll", when you or Chesspride or
Ernie Schlich have made unsupported claims about what the majority of
players want and that go against the poll that has been done already.
I'll take quantative evidence over unsupported opinion every time.
When I say "you can't convince me [without better evidence]", that
doesn't mean "my mind is made up". It means "please raise the level
of this discussion by presenting actual quantitative evidence (such as
another poll) instead of your opinion/wishful thinking, and THEN maybe
I'll be convinced". So far, nobody has risen to the challenge.
The USCF, by the way, seems to be terrified of polls, perhaps because
finding out what players really think might burst the bubble that they
hide in. For example, it refused for years to run a poll about OMOV,
even when the OMOV supporters offered to place the poll as a paid
advertisement in CL.
I find it incredible that the USCF doesn't do polls or surveys about
what players want and why members renew. Where I work, we do user
surveys several times a month about our product, and are constantly
adjusting our offerings based on what users tell us (and the results
of the surveys surprise us all the time). The USCF seems to operate
on pure wishful thinking.
Paul Onstad
> I don't know why other members joined. It is a very relevant question
> and I would like to see a decent poll. The one poll I have seen was
> the one posted here about 5 years ago and it admittedly wasn't very
> good (small sample etc). However, around 50% of those polled said
> they would rather join USCF at a lower cost with no CL subscription
> than at the then-current cost with CL included. Until a better poll
> is taken, that is the only poll that I know of to go by, so that is
> what I go by.
I didn't realize the NO-C.L. issue was 5 years old. Is it really? Was that a
definitive question--or was it more on the line of, "Should dues be lower?"
I've been around here roughly three years. A five year old poll is pretty
old.
> The poll I mentioned included a number of strong players who were not
> USCF members, who said they would join or re-join if the dues were lower.
> That is a fact, not an article of faith.
Now I'm getting interested. Was this an rgcp poll??
> >Economic argument: demand by your class of membership is rather inelastic.
>
> Why do you say that? Where is your poll? The one poll I've seen said
> the opposite. If you want convince me otherwise, SHOW ME A BETTER POLL.
> Stop speculating out of your butt without presenting a shred of evidence.
SHOW ME THE POLL :)
Anyone can figure out, poll or no poll, that a member who needs a rating is
going to have a more inelastic demand that one who does not.
> >Put it this way, the first non-Chess Life membership could only be reduced
> >by the cost of paper, ink, and postage. If you don't realize this then you
> >know nothing about economics. The USCF may well be bloated but not on the
> >basis of an approximate $5 reduction given in my NO-C.L. example.
>
> $5 to print and mail all those magazines? Who is pulling numbers
> out of the air now?
The only way to sustain your argument is to ignore mine (note "the FIRST
non-Chess Life membership"). IOW, if it were offered, the first person who
took advantage of it could only be offered the tiniest discount. Here's an
estimate:
$0.40 - subscription list
0.50 - postage
0.30 - newsprint
0.05 - ink
0.20 - handling
-----
$1.45 (likely on the high end)
My $5.00 was a fairly conservative extension of the figure if, say,
one-third of the members opted for no Chess Life. It might be $8.00 but it
could also be $3.00. I doubt it's too far off the mark.
(Classic demand curve with a heavy fixed-cost loading.)
It's FAR short of what you and others demanding simplistic solutions
imagine.
-Paul
Paul Rubin
Paul Onstad <pon...@sihope.com> wrote:
>I didn't realize the NO-C.L. issue was 5 years old. Is it really? Was that a
>definitive question--or was it more on the line of, "Should dues be lower?"
Several of the questions were specifically about a no-CL membership.
>I've been around here roughly three years. A five year old poll is pretty
>old.
Yes. I duck in and out of here so I don't know if any more polls have
been done in the interim.
If anything, my guess is that even fewer players would want CL now,
since internet access is much more widespread now than 5 years ago.
But that is just a guess. I'd be happy to see another poll to test it.
>> The poll I mentioned included a number of strong players who were not
>> USCF members, who said they would join or re-join if the dues were lower.
>> That is a fact, not an article of faith.
>
>Now I'm getting interested. Was this an rgcp poll??
No, it was a live poll done of about 20 or 30 players (average
strength probably around 1800-2000) at a coffeehouse chess hangout
(Berkeley, CA) one evening. The results were posted to rgcp. From
memory, about half of those surveyed were USCF members and half were
not; of those who were not, quite a few (including one FIDE master)
specifically gave as the reason for not joining that the dues were too
high.
As I said, it was not the world's greatest poll, but it was a serious
attempt to get real data, and it provided some, which in my view is
far more useful than the second-guessing that usually goes on here.
>SHOW ME THE POLL :)
I am very regretful that I didn't save a copy. I'd like it very much
if anyone who was here then and saved it, would either repost it or
email it to me and I'll repost it.
>> $5 to print and mail all those magazines? Who is pulling numbers
>> out of the air now?
>
>The only way to sustain your argument is to ignore mine (note "the FIRST
>non-Chess Life membership"). IOW, if it were offered, the first person who
>took advantage of it could only be offered the tiniest discount. Here's an
>estimate:
>
> $0.40 - subscription list
> 0.50 - postage
> 0.30 - newsprint
> 0.05 - ink
> 0.20 - handling
> -----
> $1.45 (likely on the high end)
Is that per issue? There are 12 issues/year, remember? You have to
multiply. Also, CL is printed on coated paper, not newsprint (another
of my complaints about CL). Besides being environmentally awful,
coated paper is much more expensive than newsprint.
>My $5.00 was a fairly conservative extension of the figure if, say,
>one-third of the members opted for no Chess Life. It might be $8.00 but it
>could also be $3.00. I doubt it's too far off the mark.
I'd like to see actual numbers about this and many of us (including
the former treasurer) have been trying to get them for years, to no
avail.
cavema...@my-deja.com
p...@netcom.com (Paul Rubin) wrote:
> In article <7sp8up$ag9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <cavema...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> >> >In fact, it sounds like you want NO organization and NO services!
> >>
> >> Not true. I want no magazine,
> >Needed for the time being..
>
> Needed by some but not others. You still have never answered my
> question: suppose Joe Chessplayer (who happens to be similar to me)
> and three of his buddies from the chess club rent a house together (I
> did roughly that). Joe's three buddies are all already USCF members
> and so three copies of CL are sent to the house every single month.
> If Joe wants to read CL, there are usually copies around all over the
> house, in addition to the copies that are all over the place at the
> chess club.
>
> Joe and his buddies are not members of the same family; they are just
> housemates who share a common interest. So Joe is not eligible for an
> "additional family member" membership even though three CL
subscriptions
> are already coming to Joe's address and there are CL's underfoot
everywhere.
>
> Please answer: why does Joe "need" to have a fourth copy of CL sent to
> his address in order to be a USCF member? Stop ignoring this
> question.
magazine under the current circumstances. I also pointed out that USCF
is not capable of offering cafeteria services at this point. Finally I
pointed out that developing this ability in regard to the magazine may
be a good idea.
What if Joe decides to move mid-year? That's only one Joe, how many
Joe's are there? Do we let Joe start and stop his subscription during
the year depending on whether he moves in with people or not?
As I said before, and as you have proven again, you don't even want to
hear anyone else's perspective. You simply have a selfish attitude,
want it your way, and aren't willing to consider the broader needs of
the organization. That's fine. The answer is that right now the
organization cannot do that, and on the scale of priorities, its pretty
low.
>Tell me specifically, up close and personal, why Joe
> shouldn't be eligible for a no-CL membership at the "additional family
> member" rate, but should still be eligible in the same situation if he
> were related to his housemates. The only explanation I can think of
> is that the USCF has "family values" to enforce and thinks the living
> arrangement of Joe and his buddies is somehow sinful.
>
Boy, that's a stretch. Talk about looking for ghosts where none
exist. You also show that you simply believe that USCF is evil and
wrong in what it does, you don't look for internal change, nor do you
care to.
I am coming, through the course of your last few points, to greatly
decrease any credence I had put into your posts.
> >>no lawsuits against organizers,
> >
> >Whoa. What if the organizer is ripping you off? Shouldn't the
> >Federation be watching out for your financial interest?
>
> With Board approval there's less of a problem. A qualification was
> needed. The suit we're referring to appears highly questionable to
> the board, and therefore the USCF should not have pursued it without
> approval.
>
The suit we are referring to does not appear highly questionable to the
Board, or it would have been stopped already. Certainly there will be
an ongoing re-examination of it. Highly questionable is a great
overstatement.
> >> no bogus catalog full of salespeople wearing bedroom
> >> slippers and smoking jackets looking nothing like chessplayers,
> >
> >Except that's a good thing. You remember the scene in Searching for
> >Bobby Fischer where Pandolfini shows Mr. Waitzkin the chess
tournament
> >so that he can see how unkempt chess is?
> >
> >Changing our image a little is a good thing.
>
> Again, I can only go by my own reaction to that catalog. I'll change
> my opinion if a poll is taken and most people think otherwise.
>
Do you decide anything for yourself or do you take a poll for
everything and then go with the whims of the public. Do you own a pet
rock too?
> I'm not saying show actual scruffy chessplayers in the catalog. I'd
> say take out those yuppie pictures and instead put more info about
> the actual products, which is sorely lacking.
>
Gee, stop and think why that is?
> >> no retail operation that is almost certainly losing money if you
count
> >> the subscription costs to its captive advertising as a cost of
sales,
> >First of all, why would you do that?
>
> Because one of the justifications I often hear for mandatory CL is
> that it gets the USCF catalog to people so they will buy stuff. Fine,
> but in that case its cost should be charged against the retail
> operation.
>
Why? If you are talking about an internal reallocation of cost, what
difference would it make other than to increase the bookkeeping and
audit fees?
> >Second of all, how do you conclude that?
>
> Because I don't think the average USCF member buys enough stuff from
> the USCF retail operation for the profits to cover the cost of CL.
Huh? That's why there are dues.
> Again, quantitative data could convince me otherwise. In a similar
> round of debates a couple years ago, many people on this ng including
> Tom Dorsch tried to get financial data from the USCF and couldn't.
> Tom ran for treasurer and many of us thought we would finally start
> seeing some actual numbers, but we underestimated USCF recalcitrance.
> Tom couldn't get them either.
>
> >> etc. I do want a national rating system, a US championship with a
> >> good prize fund (but maybe held every 2-3 years instead of every
> >> year),
> >I'm certain the GM's who make a living at chess would be happy about
> >that!
>
> I don't know; I haven't asked any. It might well be that they'd
> prefer a less frequent tournament with better prizes over a more
> frequent one with lower prizes.
How about a more frequent tournament with better prizes??
>The US championship does take up a
> big chunk of their time that could instead be spent pursuing other
> income. Anyway, I think supporting GM activity is a worthwhile
> subgoal of the USCF, but not the overriding goal.
>
> >> CFC as far as I can tell does everything for Canadian players that
I
> >> want the USCF to do for US players. And you cannot convince me
that
> >> my views are not in the majority unless you show me an actual poll
> >> where actual chessplayers were asked their actual opinions on these
> >> questions, rather than continuing spouting "they keep renewing so
they
> >> must support what we're doing".
> >>
> >Except that the majority of people are renewing. There is your poll,
> >and your answer.
>
> No, that is not a poll, since it doesn't address the questions I
asked.
> Don't you get it?
>
Apparently you don't. Read the above again. It does answer the
questions.
> Look at AIDS patients: they take drugs with horrible side effects to
> stay alive. Since they keep taking the drugs, is that a poll that
> says they like the side effects? I'd say not.
>
No, it says they like the overall value provided by the drugs. And,
its a bad analogy, since NONE of the patients would choose the side
effects. But, suppose that in some patients, the side effect was
nothing more than a feeling of well being. And in some patients a
feeling of euphoria. Then the answer is different still.
Some USCF members prefer the services you keep whining about.
Construct better analogies. Your thinking process is weak here.
> Now look at USCF members: they keep renewing for reasons that are
> murky.
Not at all. It is because they prefer the overall value.
>For at least some of them, they renew in order to play rated
> games; the CL subscription and its associated cost are a side effect
> that they tolerate, like the illnesses caused by AIDS drugs. You
can't
> conclude from the USCF renewal rate that members like the CL policy.
>
And for some, its a side effect that they prefer. Some people just get
CL and participate in USCF in no other way!! Make a better analogy.
The one you have picked isn't even close!!
> What percentage of chessplayers consider the CL subscription (and its
> cost) to be an undesired side effect of USCF membership, rather than a
> benefit?
But right now it isn't a priority item. In addition, the organization
needs communication with its members, and as an organizational goal,
that won't be given up.
>Jawboning will not answer that question. It can only be
> answered by a poll. You have to specifically ask individual players
> the question you want answered. And you have to ask all the players
> who you consider to be logical candidates for membership, not just the
> self-selected possibly-masochists who are already USCF members.
And right now, why would we spend the money on getting this poll?
Would you spend 10's of thousands on a poll so that you could quit
getting CL and lower your dues?
> The
> one poll I know of (the one I mentioned) where players were asked
> about CL, indicated that around 50% considered the CL subscription to
> be an undesired side effect and preferred to not subscribe. I hate to
> keep harping on that poll, but it's the only one that I know of.
>
The one that you have yet to actually reference or quote? That poll?
> >Where is a poll that shows you in the majority?
>
> See above.
>
I'd like to. Again, where is a poll that shows you in the majority?
> >Quiet honestly, the way you describe things it sounds like this:
> >
> >1. Everything the USCF does except for the rating system is wrong.
>
> False.
No, not false. Re-read the sentence. I did not think that you say
everything is wrong. I said its the attitude that you convey. Please
at least read the posts before you make a weak reply.
> I listed some things the USCF does right (rating system, US
> championship, scholastics) and some things it does wrong (mandatory
> magazines, bogus catalogs, junkets, etc). Do you think everything
> the USCF does is right?
Gee, have I said that in any way shape or form, or have I agreed that
working toward a tiered membership, for example, is a good idea?
>
> >2. I don't want to contribute to the national good of chess in any
way
> >shape or form.
>
> False. I believe the national good of chess is served by having more
> people playing, and that more people will play if they join the USCF,
> and more people will join the USCF if the dues are lower, and the dues
> can apparently only be lowered if the USCF cuts services.
All of which is impossible if you don't have a mode of communication,
the major one of which is CL right now.
> Therefore,
> for the national good of chess, I believe the USCF should cut services
> and lower dues. Simple logic.
>
Simple is right. The USCF, which is already losing money, should
encourage new members by cutting services and lowering dues. They
provide how many services? Mag, sales, ratings, national tourneys,
rules/TDs, scholastic chess.
Why does that encourage new members?
> You might not have the same belief I do, but it's gaining a fair
> amount of currency on this newsgroup.
Actually, I've raised a question about the very same issue, saying that
maybe USCF should focus only on the governance issues.
And you are overstating the argument again. People are asking good
questions about it. You make it sound like its a fate accompli.
> Larry Evans has been writing
> for years about the 25 million US chessplayers who are not USCF
members.
> Let's see about getting some of them playing more.
>
> >3. I am really cheap, I want a $5 membership, I want everything my
way,
> >and I don't see why I should have to see anything any other way, even
> >though people present facts that should make me at least question
what
> >I am saying.
>
> I do see some facts here occasionally, but mostly just unsupported
> opinions. I'm not very swayed by those.
>
> >Seriously. Lines like..."And you can't convince me..." sound like
> >you've made up your mind in spite of other possible facts and other
> >possible interpretations. This stuff is not Black and White.
>
> Are you getting Chesspride disease with these ellipses? The "..." in
> "you can't convince me..." has generally said things like "without
> presenting quantative data like a poll", when you or Chesspride or
> Ernie Schlich have made unsupported claims about what the majority of
> players want and that go against the poll that has been done already.
Excuse me, I haven't made unsupported claims. I quoted the support
above.
> I'll take quantative evidence over unsupported opinion every time.
>
> When I say "you can't convince me [without better evidence]", that
> doesn't mean "my mind is made up". It means "please raise the level
> of this discussion by presenting actual quantitative evidence (such as
> another poll) instead of your opinion/wishful thinking, and THEN maybe
> I'll be convinced".
I did that. You ignored it.
> So far, nobody has risen to the challenge.
So you didn't ignore it, you were incapable of comprehending that it
was made available?
>
> The USCF, by the way, seems to be terrified of polls, perhaps because
> finding out what players really think might burst the bubble that they
> hide in.
No, because good marketing research, especially surveys, can be very
expensive with no clear result at the end. You can do a lot of polls
to find out nothing, or to find out what you already knew.
> For example, it refused for years to run a poll about OMOV,
> even when the OMOV supporters offered to place the poll as a paid
> advertisement in CL.
>
Now you are mixing political and marketing issues.
> I find it incredible that the USCF doesn't do polls or surveys about
> what players want and why members renew.
>Where I work, we do user
> surveys several times a month about our product, and are constantly
> adjusting our offerings based on what users tell us (and the results
> of the surveys surprise us all the time). The USCF seems to operate
> on pure wishful thinking.
>
No, I think you are looking at an org that is understaffed, overworked,
and under organized. My gut reaction is that when you are fighting
fires, user surveys don't matter much.
Is that right? No. Is it understandable? Certainly. Does
criticizing on a newgroup without constructive suggestions help?
We do something much simpler.
klgt...@spam.cornell.edu
: In article <7sp8up$ag9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <cavema...@my-deja.com> wrote:
: >> >In fact, it sounds like you want NO organization and NO services!
: >>
: >> Not true. I want no magazine,
: >Needed for the time being..
: Needed by some but not others. You still have never answered my
: question: suppose Joe Chessplayer (who happens to be similar to me)
: and three of his buddies from the chess club rent a house together (I
: did roughly that). Joe's three buddies are all already USCF members
: and so three copies of CL are sent to the house every single month.
: If Joe wants to read CL, there are usually copies around all over the
: house, in addition to the copies that are all over the place at the
: chess club.
: Joe and his buddies are not members of the same family; they are just
: housemates who share a common interest. So Joe is not eligible for an
: "additional family member" membership even though three CL subscriptions
: are already coming to Joe's address and there are CL's underfoot everywhere.
: Please answer: why does Joe "need" to have a fourth copy of CL sent to
: his address in order to be a USCF member? Stop ignoring this
: question. Tell me specifically, up close and personal, why Joe
: shouldn't be eligible for a no-CL membership at the "additional family
: member" rate, but should still be eligible in the same situation if he
: were related to his housemates. The only explanation I can think of
: is that the USCF has "family values" to enforce and thinks the living
: arrangement of Joe and his buddies is somehow sinful.
I agree that Joe should be able to get the family rate (I also
think a CL-less membership should be offered) but I can offer
another explanation for the family membership. Several separate
individuals living together supposedly would have separated
monies. Families have "1" pool (Mom and Dad typically) from which
to draw. The family membership may have started from a recognition that
multiple memberships from one source of income can make a big
impact and that the burden should be lessened.
K
--
Note - change address if replying to this post:
klg3 AT cornell DOT edu (<-- make the obvious changes...)
Tom M Martinak
news:7sqidt$6jf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Are you asking if anyone has documented this with a survey? I don't
> know. What I do know is the experience of myself and other long term
> directors and organizers. More people come to tournaments if we run
> TLA's. That's why we run them. That's why people cared when the price
> increased. People found that running tournaments without TLA's made
> them unsuccessful. We don't need a poll to determine that TLA's are
> the most important source of getting players to tournaments. As new
> technology evolves that question may be important someday. It's not
> now.
This has not been our experience. For us, the most important source of
getting players to tournaments has been mailings of flyers. For scholastic
tnmts we don't even bother with TLAs. For adults, TLAs have a marginal
benefit. I would estimate they add maybe 10% to turnout (about 5 players).
It is very close whether we even breakeven moneywise by running them.
Typically we run them for larger events (and they are necessary for Grand
Prix-level events where out-of-towners might play), but I've been cutting
out TLAs for the smaller events because they are not worth it.
Tom Martinak
Bruce Draney
>
> <cavema...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:7sqidt$6jf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > know. What I do know is the experience of myself and other long term
> > directors and organizers. More people come to tournaments if we run
> > TLA's. That's why we run them. That's why people cared when the price
> > increased. People found that running tournaments without TLA's made
> > them unsuccessful. We don't need a poll to determine that TLA's are
> > the most important source of getting players to tournaments. As new
> > technology evolves that question may be important someday. It's not
> > now.
>
> getting players to tournaments has been mailings of flyers. For scholastic
> tnmts we don't even bother with TLAs. For adults, TLAs have a marginal
> benefit. I would estimate they add maybe 10% to turnout (about 5 players).
> It is very close whether we even breakeven moneywise by running them.
> Typically we run them for larger events (and they are necessary for Grand
> Prix-level events where out-of-towners might play), but I've been cutting
> out TLAs for the smaller events because they are not worth it.
>
> Tom Martinak
I would echo Tom's findings here. We have tried advertising in Chess
Life, not advertising in Chess Life, advertising in our state
publication, sending out flyers and advertising via websites and
hotlines.
We have found that TLA's have the least impact which is why some of us
have stopped using them, since their impact on attendance was minimal
and they were no longer given as a service in return for paying the
affiliation fee.
To each their own. In some states and cities, I could see TLA's
making a huge difference, while in others such as Omaha, Lincoln and
other parts of Nebraska, their difference may be negligible.
In 1998 for example we ran a tournament with one Chess Life TLA. It
drew 30 players. In the same year we ran a tournament of identical
length, but advertised in our newsletter and by hotline, and website.
The attendance at the second event was also 30.
If you are attempting to attract out of state players to your events I
will say that it is probably worthwhile to consider using the TLA's but
an event which relies primarily on local players will still do just fine
with or without a TLA.
Unfortunately, it has been our experience that fewer and fewer out of
state players are bothering to come to events in neighboring states
which makes the value of a TLA in Chess Life seem less and less
appealing. We have found that we can do better financially by merely
bypassing Chess Life TLA's and pocketing the difference by capitalizing
on the lower rating fees under the new system.
One other thing I wanted to mention was that more than 50% of
Nebraska's TLA's were messed up this year. We had TLA's with incorrect
dates, incorrect prize funds, and incorrect playing dates put into the
magazine and there was absolutely no way to correct these mistakes so
that players reading the TLA's and considering coming to the events
would know about this. Back in a kinder, gentler, more service oriented
time, an organizer would run a TLA in two issues and if there were a
blatant error, the director/organizer could at least get it corrected in
the second printing, but that avenue of pleasure has been cut off.
Best Regards,
Bruce
Bruce Draney
>
> In article <37EEE4...@novia.net>,
> Bruce Draney <bdr...@novia.net> wrote:
> > cavema...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I can easily picture this "Me-only" approacher losing a game due to
> a
> > > new rule...and complaining that he had no way to know about the rule
> > > because he had chosen not to purchase CL.
> > >
> > > Kevin Bachler
> > > Caveman
> > >
> > > "Caveman chess is chess without finesse."
> > >
> > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > > Before you buy.
> >
> Kevin Bachler
> Caveman
>
> "Caveman chess is chess without finesse."
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Kevin,
What is misquoted? I ask this seriously. If I did misquote you above
I apologize. As far as interpretation, I may have misinterpreted what
you meant in the quote. I thought you meant that a major reason why
every adult member should be required to get Chess Life is so that they
can keep abreast of rule changes and I was stating that I thought this
was funny because it's very difficult to keep abreast of rule changes
(or interpretations of existing rules) even when you have ALL of the
above sources from which to draw.
This wasn't really meant as an attack on you. I just found the
comment funny because the rules are such a mess presently that whether a
person (or a director) gets Chess Life would make little difference in
their understanding of the rules, or their ability to interpret them.
Best Regards,
Bruce
Paul Onstad
> No, it was a live poll done of about 20 or 30 players (average
> strength probably around 1800-2000) at a coffeehouse chess hangout
> (Berkeley, CA) one evening. The results were posted to rgcp. From
> memory, about half of those surveyed were USCF members and half were
> not; of those who were not, quite a few (including one FIDE master)
> specifically gave as the reason for not joining that the dues were too
> high.
Sounds like a decent survey but only relative to anything the USCF has ever
offered or reported (if it were done by a questionnaire and not tossing
questions to the group).
I also made an error in my analysis which I don't care to elaborate. The
reduction afforded to "NO C.L." could be higher.
> I'd like to see actual numbers about this and many of us (including
> the former treasurer) have been trying to get them for years, to no
> avail.
This is even more the current situation. The new administration may make a
pretense of gathering information but none in sharing it. I think they'll be
flushed out in time.
Anyhow, before there is the NO C.L. option (which I don't fundamentally
oppose) there will have to be an on-line version of the magazine. It will be
expensive so I'm not holding my breath.
-Paul
Paul Rubin
> What is misquoted? I ask this seriously. If I did misquote you above
>I apologize. As far as interpretation, I may have misinterpreted what
>you meant in the quote. I thought you meant that a major reason why
>every adult member should be required to get Chess Life is so that they
>can keep abreast of rule changes and I was stating that I thought this
>was funny because it's very difficult to keep abreast of rule changes
>(or interpretations of existing rules) even when you have ALL of the
>above sources from which to draw.
I read that post the exact same way and thought it was equally absurd.
Paul Rubin
>> No, it was a live poll done of about 20 or 30 players (average
>> strength probably around 1800-2000) at a coffeehouse chess hangout
>> (Berkeley, CA) one evening. The results were posted to rgcp. From
>> memory, about half of those surveyed were USCF members and half
>> were not; of those who were not, quite a few (including one FIDE
>> master) specifically gave as the reason for not joining that the
>> dues were too high.
>
>Sounds like a decent survey but only relative to anything the USCF has ever
>offered or reported (if it were done by a questionnaire and not tossing
>questions to the group).
It was a series of one-on-one interviews of about 5 minutes each. The
same 4 or 5 questions were asked of all subjects at the beginning of
the interviews. After that, the followup questions varied depending
on the answers that the subjects gave. Detailed notes were taken
of the responses and posted in the original article 5 years ago.
I'll post a more complete description in the other thread, but might
not get to it right away.
>I also made an error in my analysis which I don't care to elaborate. The
>reduction afforded to "NO C.L." could be higher.
No surprise.
>Anyhow, before there is the NO C.L. option (which I don't fundamentally
>oppose) there will have to be an on-line version of the magazine. It will be
>expensive so I'm not holding my breath.
We'll see.
Chesspride
>out TLAs for the smaller events because they are not worth it.
>
>Tom Martinak
When I ran events in Allentown and Bethlehem (1990-1994)...I did a mixture of
flyer mailings and TLAs.
At the one club..in Bethlehem, we relied on flyer mailings and not TLAs because
of the location (a hospital). The group really couldn't grow past a certain
size without jeopardizing the site....and most folks just knew we would run
either a 3-SS at G/30...or blitz...or something.
At the other location...in Allentown...the use of TLAs and running USCF-rated
quads on a monthly basis...increased attendance from 4-6 players a week (prior
to my help) to 25-35 players for the rated events (after we started running
TLAs on a MONTHLY basis). That energized the local folks enough that when I
left to join the New Windsor office...they could still keep things going.
The Allentown group is still going strong...but sometimes they miss the
deadlines for TLAs....and so their event attendance fluctuates more. In other
words....they could do BETTER if they were organized and ran TLAs consistently
every month.
Advertising works BEST when it is consistent over a long period of time.
My experience has been that...in a mid-sized area with a decent pool of USCF
members (say 100-200)....TLAs are a positive factor.
Groups should use BOTH flyers/newsletters and TLAs...it's not an either or
situation.
Eric C. Johnson
Paul Rubin
>Magic charges less, but they charge more for equipment.
>
>Bowling makes it up in leagues and alcohol sales.
>
>Taekwondo seems to charge the same.
>
>Other National Federations charge about the same.
>
>Why does everyone think this should be less when there is no evidence
>to support that?
The one other national federation I checked was Canada's, which
charges quite a bit less than the USCF, to which you responded that it
wasn't comparable because it didn't send out as many magazines.
Well of course not; that's part of how it keeps its costs lower.
Did you mean to say that only the national federations that charge
about the same, charge about the same?
Btw, I got an email from a guy from Germany, who says that the German
national federation doesn't publish any magazine or sell any books
at all. He didn't know what the dues (if any) currently are, though.
Anyone got any more examples of national federations?
Chesspride
>Quite seriously Eric, within 5-7 years that statement will change
>because ALL magazines will start becoming electronic only. Chess Life
>will be behind the times if it doesn't. Your $50 PDA will hold all the
Truly a dreadful day...and one that I hope never comes.
Centralized control of all printed matter? No way! That's the WORST form of
tyranny...the printed page can change from day to day...with no hard copy for
confirmation. Electronic ink that can change today's newspaper into tomorrow's
edition, without leaving a copy of the old one....thus, eliminating AND
rewriting history at the same time. Sounds Orwellian.
Private ownership of printed books...recorded music...all gone you say? Just
access it when you need it? Or when you are ALLOWED to?
That's not a future that I want!
Eric C. Johnson
Paul Rubin
>> The poll I mentioned included a number of strong players who were not
>> USCF members, who said they would join or re-join if the dues were lower.
>> That is a fact, not an article of faith.
>>
>research, the time, the place, who, what, when, where, how, why,
>etc...and you call that a FACT? No wonder you don't get any of this.
As I've said several times, I'm very regretful that I don't have a
copy of the original to repost, and still hope I can locate one somehow.
But to answer your questions:
The time: about 7 to 10 pm, one evening about 5 years ago. That is when
there were the most players around. I don't remember the exact date.
I can probably narrow it to a couple weeks because I remember the
class I was taking at the time.
The place: Cafe Milano, on Bancroft Avenue in Berkeley CA across from
the university entrance, down the block from where the Berkeley Chess
Club usually played on Friday nights.
Who: the subjects were the chessplayers who were regularly hanging
out playing blitz at that coffeehouse and were there that evening.
There were maybe 20 of them, average strength probably around
1800-2000, but several were quite a bit stronger. Many were also
BCC regulars. The interviewer was me.
What: a poll about USCF dues and CL-less memberships, remember?
When: see "the time"
Where: see "the place"
How: I went to the cafe and spent about 3 hours interviewing players
for about 5 minutes each. I interviewed -all- the players who I
got a chance to ask, so it was not a self selected sample who responded.
Why: because there was a discussion similar to this one taking place
on rgcp at the time (plus ca change) and I felt (just like now)
that an actual poll would be far more enlightening than unsupported
opinions, so I went out and took one.
Questions asked (approximately remembered--it's been a while)
1) are you a USCF member?
2a) [asked only of non-members]
3a) why aren't you a member now?
4a) have you ever been a member?
5a) If you could join/rejoin at half the current dues, but you
wouldn't get a CL subscription, would you join/rejoin?
2b) [asked only of members]
3b) Do you like CL?
4b) if you could change your membership so you'd only have to
pay half as much in dues, but you'd stop getting CL, would you?
and a couple more questions along those lines. Some discussion
usually followed as some of the answers were interesting. I took
notes from the answers and included them in the original post.
Results: about half the players surveyed were nonmembers. Almost all
had been members at one time or another (not surprising given that
they were all pretty strong players). Quite a few nonmembers-- I
simply don't remember the number--gave the straight answer "it's too
expensive" or "I don't want to pay the dues" to the question of why
they weren't members. The players giving that answer included a FIDE
master.
Both members and nonmembers were roughly split down the middle on the CL
issue. That is, about half the nonmembers said they'd join at a
reduced rate with no CL, but weren't willing to join at full rate even
with CL. And about half the members said they'd drop CL if they could
get a reduced rate.
The other nonmembers gave some fairly unexpected reasons for being
nonmembers. E.g., one guy gave as his reason "I don't like Al
Lawrence". I would never have thought of listing that as a multiple-
choice answer, so I think the interview format is the right way to
do this type of poll.
Remark: if everyone surveyed got what they said they wanted, the USCF
would have 1.5x as many members from that group (the members would
stay in and half the non-members would join); revenues would stay
exactly the same (they'd lose half the dues of half those currently
members, but get it back from the half of the nonmembers who'd join
with no CL); and costs would go down because only half as many CL's
would be sent out. From my point of view, of course, higher
membership numbers are the most important thing because it means more
chess is being played, so I think the result (more members) would be
a good thing even if revenues dropped.
Anyway, as I said, I don't think of this as the world's greatest poll,
but it was a serious attempt to get some meaningful data and I believe
that the results are significant. I would be delighted if someone
who thinks this poll was bad goes out and does a better one.
Until then, this is what I have in the way of quantitatave data.
>Do you believe what you read in grocery store checkout lines too?
Irrelevant.
>>The one poll I've seen said
>> the opposite. If you want convince me otherwise, SHOW ME A BETTER POLL.
>
>Show us one.
I hope the description above helps. The poll was real and it was
serious. Its main limitation in my opinion was that its subjects were
all quite a bit more dedicated players than the average USCF member
(median USCF rating is around 1400). Is a 2000 player *more* likely
or *less* likely than a 1400 player to stay away from the USCF because
the they don't want to drop the cash? My opinion/guess is that
they're less likely; that probably around half of the 2000-level
players in the US are USCF members, but maybe only 1% or so of the
1400-level players are USCF members (Larry Evans keeps saying there
are 25 million players in the US but less than 100k USCF members).
However, I have no problem at all calling that guess a guess; I'd have
much more faith in the results of an actual poll of such players, if
someone will take one.
Chesspride
>: question: suppose Joe Chessplayer (who happens to be similar to me)
>: and three of his buddies from the chess club rent a house together (I
>: did roughly that). Joe's three buddies are all already USCF members
>: and so three
It is my understanding of USCF office practice...that same-sex relationships
WOULD qualify for the family membership.
If the address is the same...and a reasonable description of the relationship
is forthcoming...the $11 rate should apply.
I discussed this with the folks in membership services on several previous
occasions.
So Joe CAN get the family rate...if he fesses up about his circumstances
(grin).
Eric C. Johnson
Chesspride
>as it has been widely reported that USCF made an absolute killing on
>concession sales in Arizona, none of which went to the organizer and all
>of which went to USCF.
>
Not misleading at all...and I object to your language.
Concessions usually contribute a fixed percentage of sales to tournament income
(traditionally 12 percent if USCF is the vendor). In this particular
case...the percentage MAY have been zero...based on the language of the bid (I
was not the manager for the event, so I don't have a firm recollection...in
general, I tended to oppose renegotiating the fixed percentage, and much
preferred that it stay 12 percent for all USCF events...as a matter of
principle).
On the basis of the concession fee paid to the tournament...and only that
basis...is is correct to talk about concessions and tournaments in the same
breath.
If a third-party vendor had been used...would you be talking about the same
issue? No. So please remember that there are several SEPARATE entities here:
1. the USCF
2. the local partner
3. the tournament
4. the concession
5. memberships
Each of these is SEPARATE and must be thought of separately when speaking about
or calculating the profitability of a particular USCF tournament property.
The tournament can lose money...and the federation can still show a profit...if
it has a contractual arrangement with the local partner (e.g., a flat fee).
The concession can go poorly...and show a loss...and the tourament can still
see positive revenues from it (e.g., through the concession fee).
There are numerous other relationships...but these two examples can show both
the complexity and the separateness of each calculation.
The discussion here was on tournament profitability...not vendor profits from
concessions.
Tournaments are completely separate and divorced from concessions....the
concessionaire should always be thought of as a third-party vendor.
>we already know last year's Open lost money that USCF still has not
>recovered.
>
>>
You are half-correct. The 1998 Cardoza US Open posted a loss (TRUE). But the
federation was protected by a flat fee arrangement that meant the USCF has a
paper profit of $2,500...and a receivable due from the organizer on the order
of $24,000.
Just as with any USCF receivable...if it is not paid in a timely
fashion...collection methods should be employed.
Eric C. Johnson
cavema...@my-deja.com
> >
> > In article <37EEE4...@novia.net>,
above
> I apologize. As far as interpretation, I may have misinterpreted what
> you meant in the quote. I thought you meant that a major reason why
> every adult member should be required to get Chess Life is so that
they
> can keep abreast of rule changes and I was stating that I thought this
> was funny because it's very difficult to keep abreast of rule changes
> (or interpretations of existing rules) even when you have ALL of the
> above sources from which to draw.
>
> comment funny because the rules are such a mess presently that
whether a
> person (or a director) gets Chess Life would make little difference in
> their understanding of the rules, or their ability to interpret
them.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Bruce
>
OK. The rules comment was intended as one example among many of a
reason, not as the primary reason.