Goichberg has announced who he supports for Election
samsloan
filing still two weeks away, Bill Goichberg has already announced who
he is supporting in the forthcoming Executive Board elections.
Goichberg wrote on December 27, "[XXXX] is a well qualified candidate,
and I intend to support his candidacy, as well as that of [XXXX], for
the two available seats on the Executive Board.
Bill Goichberg"
I do not wish to suggest in any way that the two named persons are not
qualified candidates or that they are not independent of Goichberg.
Both of them are highly qualified. However, it seems that this early
announcement of whom Goichberg is supporting is intended to foreclose
and discourage anybody else from trying to run.
Randy Hough, who is well known to be a Goichberg sycophant, makes it
clear that this early announcement is intended to limit the field so
as to prevent Sam Sloan from being re-elected.
Randy Hough writes on the USCF Issues Forum:
"I have no hesitation in supporting him, and if no other candidates
file, that's fine with me. We should remember how Sam Sloan was
elected in 2006, a low-turnout special election with five candidates
running for two spots.
"Randy Hough"
However, voters should also remember that it was the result of a
similar effort by Goichberg to control the elections and to prevent
Sam Sloan from being re-elected in 2007 that led to the current
massive litigation. Goichberg supported Polgar and Truong in the 2007
election even thought he well knew that Truong was the Fake Sam Sloan.
Goichberg continued to support them even for three months after the
Mottershead Report came out. Goichberg stopped supporting Polgar and
Truong in January 2008 only after the USCF's lawyers refused to keep
defending them.
In the current election, Goichberg wants to limit the number of
candidates to three so he can campaign for two of them and keep the
third man out.
Sam Sloan
Forsythe
executive board, my feeling is that nobody really cares about being on
the executive board. If they are Goichberg preferred candidates, and
only yourself, my feeling is that nobody cares about the vacant seats
period. Why would someone that is rational want to be on a executive
board only for a single year only to be a minority on the executive
board.
In fact, I would support if Goichberg became Tsar Goichberg and
control the USCF as an autocratic. In fact, I do not care if the USCF
declares Goichberg the reincarnation of Muhammad, or the USCF declares
him the Messiah, or, Jesus of Nazareth to proclaim the end of the
World.
samsloan
My best chance to be elected is if there are only two candidates.
However, then they will probably change the rules and declare that
only one can be elected.
Sam Sloan
Forsythe
vote against Goichberg? When you were on the USCF Executive Board
every single idea you wanted was rejected. Look, Polgar and Truong
were on the USCF Executive Board and they had two votes just to get
nothing in the end. So, what do you really think you are going to make
a difference with being a minority vote?
samsloan
This is not true. I was supported on almost every major issue by two
of the other board members.
The problem was that there were only six members on the board.
Goichberg had two sycophants whose votes were in his hip pocket:
Channing and Hough. Therefore, with only three votes I could not get
anything passed.
At the first meeting with Tanner still on the board I was able to get
a few things passed, as Tanner sometimes voted with me, which may
explain why Goichberg pushed Tanner off the board.
Regarding Polgar and Truong, during their time on the board they never
proposed anything. The real situation was that they did not have a
clue as to what the USCF needed or ought to be done. Therefore, they
presented no ideas, no initiatives. If you doubt this, read the BINFOS
and see how they remained silent and had nothing to contribute during
the board meetings.
Right now, Goichberg has only one totally mindless sycophant on the
board, Mike Atkins. Goichberg must feel uncomfortable with only one
vote in his hip pocket on a five member board. So, there is hope that
after the coming election an independent board will evolve.
Sam Sloan
Forsythe
smaller and will be getting smaller with you on the board or off the
board. When I got on the Michigan Chess Association Executive Board
because of the bribes that Sawmiller and others received, the board
meetings was more painful than a root canal. The way I look at the
USCF Executive Board, it looks to be more painful than going to Hell.
In fact, life for me is more enjoyable thinking of the book Inferno
from Dante as a fantasy after my death than dealing with the rational
of the USCF Executive Board. If Dante was alive today, he would write
about the chess players in Hell with their eyes sewn shut because of
their sin on Envy.
ChessFire
> Sam, what can you really do with a organization that is always getting
> smaller and will be getting smaller with you on the board or off the
> board. When I got on the Michigan Chess Association Executive Board
> because of the bribes that Sawmiller and others received, the board
> meetings was more painful than a root canal. The way I look at the
> USCF Executive Board, it looks to be more painful than going to Hell.
Certainly the truth lies in plain sight. While the only competition
heretofore for USCF tournaments are CCA tournaments, and when
Goichberg controls both, to the objective neglect of USCF, what have
you but a Soviet system, and for life.
More recently we have seen competition in running tournaments from
SPICE which challenges this monopoly, and we have also seen lawsuits.
That is the crux of it, and Sloan is but a pawn in this game.
> In fact, life for me is more enjoyable thinking of the book Inferno
> from Dante as a fantasy after my death than dealing with the rational
> of the USCF Executive Board. If Dante was alive today, he would write
> about the chess players in Hell with their eyes sewn shut because of
> their sin on Envy.
A high sentiment reflecting a base cause? I think the issue is no more
than plain competition, and if you like the Soviet system you will
vote for USCF as usual, and if you do not you will try market value of
permitting alternates. That is the main contest, whether in chess or
in the realm of ideas which Dante represented as options for us all.
Do we want a 'strong leader' who does nothing to promote chess, but
everything to promote his own allied fortunes via the maintenance of
chess as it is [worth a buck or two, maybe quarter million a year to
Bill?], or do we want something else...?
Cordially, Phil Innes
Forsythe
Phil Innes
Have to agree with you. When I was on the Michigan Chess Association
Executive Board, have to remind you that the USCF supports zero
competition even before Goichberg was even born. It is not just the
USCF that limits competition: it is also the state chapters themselves
that limits competition. When I was on the executive board, debating
about tournaments was like a committee of the Soviet Union debating
about the supply of toilet paper.
When there is zero competition, there is zero desire to improve the
lot. In fact, when there is zero competition, why improve the lot to
produce a person that will replace you. When there is zero
competition, and everyone is a volunteer working for free, is there a
drive to improve the community.
On the other hand, competition is only going to produce more cost
prohibitive tournaments that only produces bankruptcy. If the
tournaments are cost prohibitive, and being done by a sponsor only
goal is to produce cost prohibitive tournaments. When the sponsor
withdraws or dies, nobody can restore a balance with break even
tournaments. Remember the Manhattan Chess Club when the old
businessmen that sponsored the club retired and died.
Chess is a lose lose with how it is organized. If you have profit,
only a single man can produce a level of profit to live on. Even with
Goichberg, he can only produce a limited level of profit to live on
and still does not have the ability to retire. If on the other hand,
you have sponsors promoting chess with a cost prohibitive
organization, it will collapse on itself when the sponsorship is
ended.
The Masked Bishop
watching decades of shrieking about this, I'm pretty convinced that
you could have Caesar, Napoleon, and Bill Shatner on the damn thing
and nothing would change.
Remember OMOV? Remember the fighting and screaming about that? Gee,
what a change that brought...NOT. How many people have been on and off
this thing? Hey, I'm ready to change my mind...somebody post any real
improvement to US Chess that any board has ever accomplished.
TMB
sd
> Has it EVER made a difference who sits on the USCF board? After
> watching decades of shrieking about this, I'm pretty convinced that
> you could have Caesar, Napoleon, and Bill Shatner on the damn thing
> and nothing would change.
Yet in another post you recommend putting celebrities on the board.
I suspect you have very little idea of what you are talking about,
other than that you are dissatisfied with the progress made. But that
puts you in the same slowly sinking boat most of us are in.
>
> Remember OMOV? Remember the fighting and screaming about that? Gee,
> what a change that brought...NOT. How many people have been on and off
> this thing? Hey, I'm ready to change my mind...somebody post any real
> improvement to US Chess that any board has ever accomplished.
In this you are correct. Probably the whole governance structure of
the USCF is flawed, and works against change, rather than for it.
Of course, no one ever postulates that chess may not be capable of
improvement. It is a cheap game. It involves abstract thought and
reasoning. In a capitalist environment, chess can't compete. There are
no new titanium clubs to buy, no special shoes, no gloves, etc. You
could compare it to a game like poker, but in poker, just about
everyone can understand what is going on in a game - in a limited
manner. You can't say the same for chess.
But my remarks are off-the-cuff as well, and may be as flawed as
yours. What amazes me is the opinions people have about chess and its
improvement without doing the basic analysis of how chess might best
be promoted, if at all. Perhaps it should be a self-selecting process;
people should choose to play chess because they want to not because it
is crammed down their throats, as the scholastic movement seems to
attempt to do.
When Hanke was on the board, I discussed with him the possibility of
doing more research to find the best way to run the USCF and promote
chess. He seemed receptive, but we know his fate. Like most "good
people" he lost out to the status quoians.
Chess is a game of research and analysis; yet, in running chess,
people seem to "go with their gut" and play the equivalent of "wish
chess," make a move and just hope it works.
Bobcat
First before I write anything HAPPY NEW YEAR to everyone here.
O.K. I'm back on the prowl again. Let me throw in my own two cents
worth:
> Perhaps it should be a self-selecting process;
> people should choose to play chess because they want to not because it
> is crammed down their throats, as the scholastic movement seems to
> attempt to do.
And herein lies the crux of the problem. Can anyone tell me WHAT
exactly is the PURPOSE of the USCF?!? If some one says, "to promote
chess in the United States", I'd say it would be far more cost
efficient to simply run ads in various magazines. OK different
question What UNIQUE product does the USCF sell that no one else can
sell?? The answer is a USCF "Official Rating" obtained through OTB
competition. PERIOD!! The sole function of, "The Rating" is for
pairing purposes in USCF sponsored tournaments. Before I go on let me
some numbers up so everyone can see where I'm going. First let me city
the link that Forsythe provided: http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb175/douglasforsythe/membershipch...
This graph shows membership distribution from 1999 - 2009. Now let me
post some numbers:
Membership broken down by Age Group:
2008 Age < 12 13- 15 16-19
20-24 25-64 65+
30,418 8,525 6,245
2,262 28,134 5,895
% of Membership 37% 10% 8%
3% 35% 7%
Total Membership: 81,418
2009 Age < 12 13-15 16-19
20-24 25-64 65+
29,124 8,218 6,002
2,342 27,290 6,159
% of Membership 37% 10% 8%
3% 34% 8%
Total Membership: 79,135
(Loss) or Gain between 2008 and 2009
Total Membership: (2,344)
By Age < 12 13-15 16-19
20-24 25-64 65+
(1,294) (307) (243)
80 (844) 264
Let's see what we can conclude from these numbers and graph:
1) Between 2008 and 2009 there was an almost universal loss across the
membership spectrum. with a pickup only in the age groups
20-24 and those 65+. the 80 pickup in the age group between 20-24
were probably 19 in 2008, likewise the 264 pickup
were likely due to those who were 64 in 2008 and who turned 65 in
2009. This assumes a steady state model(not realistic but
good enough to work with).
2) 55% of the membership is 19 years of age and younger; 58% of the
membership is 24 years of age or younger.
3) The USCF was ORIGINALLY an ADULT social organization of mostly
WHITE, MALE, chess players. In short it was a GENTLEMEN'S
club. It was a place where men gathered to smoke a cigar, enjoy
some sherry, and play some friendly games of chess. It was
NOT intended to "teach" the game of chess to children. While
youngsters DID eventually make it into the USCF (Fischer comes
to mind) they were brought in by a sponsor.
4) The concept of screening children for chess ability goes back to
the old Soviet Union.
5) Organized "Scholastic Chess" in the United States is a relatively
new concept. While many High Schools and Colleges had
"Chess Clubs", they were hardly organized.
6) "ascach" took me to task for the following comment I made:
> USCF has bent over backwards to appease the Scholastic Crowd, and the
> OLDER ADULT membership is being screwed. Unless action is taken NOW to
> retain the OLDER ADULT membership, you can expect USCF to become
> nothing more than a shell of itself, if it does not cease to exist
> altogether, by 2015. Belonging to the USCF is a waste of money all to
> the inflate the precious egos of a bunch of snot nosed kids.
He went on to say that were it not for the Scholastic Membership the
USCF would have folded a long time ago -- which is probably a TRUE
statement. He complained that "Scholastic Members" receive no
"services" for their membership dollars. What seems to be missing in
this discussion, is what does he mean by the term "services"?? The
ONLY reason that USCF exists to to RATE GAMES between opponents. That
is the only "SERVICE" USCF actually provides to any member, scholastic
or adult.
Now let's take a look as to who is bearing the brunt of the cost of
the USCF. I ran some back of the envelope numbers since I had no
access to real figures, and made some assumptions based on discussions
going on here in rgcp. While Scholastic Members DO help keep the doors
of USCF open, the reality they do NOT bear the brunt of the
financials:
Dues paid according to Age Group:
12 Years and Under: Regular Membership $16/Yr. Premium $23/Yr.
13-15: Regular Membership $20/Yr Premium $27/Yr
16-24: Regular Membership $24/Yr Premium $32/Yr
25-64: Regular Membership $34/Yr. Premium $42/Yr.
65+: Premium (?) $36/
Yr.
Using the 2009 figures, here is what I got Based upon a few
assumptions 1) most scholastic members 19 years of age and under take
ONLY the REGULAR Membership 2) most members age 20 and above take the
PREMIUM Membership which includes a hard copy of CL. These numbers are
probably off but should fall within the standard 95% C.I.
Contribution by Age Group:
12 and Under: $465,984 (21% of total)
13-15: $164,360 (7% of total)
16-19: $144,048 (6% of total)
20-24: $74,944 (3% of total)
26-64: $1,146,380 (52% of total)
65+: $221,724 (10% of total)
Total: $2.217,240
Thus roughly 62% of the membership fees for the USCF is being paid by
42% of the membership Age 25+; the typical "Scholastic" member 19
years of age and under contribute 34% of the membership fees but make
up 55% of the total membership. Again these are ROUGH numbers, exact
numbers and breakdown would have to come from the USCF itself. I used
the April 2009 membership figures and the latest dues fees just
passed. The ONLY additional "service" that OLDER players get is they
get a copy of CL for which they pay.
Which brings us right back to the issue of SCHOLASTIC CHESS. WHY are
we TEACHING CHESS in schools? Or more precisely what is the PURPOSE of
teaching and coaching chess in schools??
Teaching CHESS to students has many, many positive benefits,
especially in teaching students to analyze problems, anticipate
results of certain lines of actions, consequences of certain lines
actions, etc., plus it has the added benefit of being FUN!!! Teaching
chess in schools can only help improve SCHOLASTIC scores in areas such
as MATH and SCIENCE. ....and that was the original purpose of TEACHING
CHESS in schools: Chess was to be used as a TOOL to improve scholastic
scores. Somehow the ORIGINAL purpose of teaching chess has been side
tracked and has become a, "...add also that". Now chess is viewed as
an "extracurricular activity" right up there with soccer, tennis,
swimming, etc. complete with coaches, most of whom are rated experts
and above.
Now look at that graph: from 1999 - 2009 the vast number of
"scholastic" players is getting, younger and younger, yet most of the
scholastic players have started dropping out by High School, and most
have totally left USCF by age 20. Again looking only at the graph and
the data on hand from 2008-2009. From 1999-2009 graph the average age
which most scholastic players drop out has moved from 19-20 - to now
about age 24. The total numbers are now probably now less than 5% over
the course of the past 10 years.
One of the negative side effects on scholastic players have had on
U.S. Chess is widely known and reported on, and that being the issue
of RATINGS DEFLATION especially as it relates to OLDER ADULTS. There
are several causes of this, they include:
1) CHILDREN are being COACHED in chess, shown the shortcuts etc., and
have more plastic brains at such a young age. Must ADULTS taught
themselves.
2) In spite of all the coaching they are typically UNDER RATED.
3) The USCF has rigged the system in favor of scholastic players by
"Dual Rating" tournaments between Game 30 - Game 60 which are
essentially skittles time controls, for the sole purpose of allowing
Scholastic Members to Obtain a REGULAR USCF Rating -- aka The Gold
Standard Rating. Most tournaments played today are G/30 - G/60, and
25-50% of the players in these tournaments are scholastic players...
that is not even counting "Scholastic ONLY" tournaments.
The net result is that there is a siphoning of rating points from
older players to scholastic players many of whom will drop out of
competitive chess by the end of High School, taking with them those
rating points.
There is a growing resentment among OLDER players towards Scholastic
players. Chess should still be about FUN, but most OLDER adults don't
want to put a lifetime rating on a line to lose it to some UNDER
rated, COACHED "Scholastic" player who has been taught short cuts,
obscure lines of openings etc. Any talk about allowing ADULT players
who enter these G/30 - G/60 tournaments to choose if they want to be
ONLY "QUICK CHESS" rated or to have BOTH their Quick Chess and Regular
ratings effected is shot down, because there is a FEAR that many OLDER
ADULTS will enter and opt to ONLY be QUICK CHESS rated, not regular
rated, thus Johnnie can't obtain a "Regular" USCF rating.
USCF had better start paying more attention to its CORE MEMBERSHIP --
those age 35+ -- who while they are not the majority in numbers are
paying 62% of the membership fees. Unless action is taken NOW to
retain this CORE OLDER ADULT membership, you can expect USCF to become
nothing more than a shell of itself, if it does not cease to exist
altogether, by 2015.
USCF believes -- wrongly -- that it is the only game in town, but that
is not the case. One does not need to belong to the USCF in order to
play chess, nor does one one have to belong to USCF in order to obtain
a "rating". USCF now has to compete with ONLINE Chess websites, many
who have their own rating systems, some more precise than USCF's own,
and the player gets to choose their own time controls etc. Best of all
some of these ONLINE sites are FREE, and other you play a slight fee
for, but most are less than a 1 year Premium Adult USCF membership.
And most of these sites have far more content available to their
subscribers than what USCF offers. There is WAY TOO MUCH POLITICS
going on in the USCF, and that more than anything is going to be the
death of the USCF... that is IF the USCF is not already DEAD. Some
would argue that USCF died when Bill Goichberg became president, given
his ties to the CCA which he runs. Some say Bill hijacked the USCF for
its National Prestige and to give legitimacy to the CCA.
Me?!? I think the USCF is already dead. I bailed last year and refuse
to pay for a mismanaged, corrupt organization, whose president is more
concerned about getting to the bottom of the FSS postings, filing
lawsuits, intimidating political opponents, maintaining political
power, while spending the membership's money on these often time
frivolous lawsuits, than listen to the membership and provide them
with value for their membership dollars. The USCF has not got a CLUE
about anything even if you were to hit Bill G. up side the head with a
clue-bat. Why?!? He has no intention of listening to anybody. He views
Scholastic Chess as a constant source of money and that's all that's
important to him other than remaining in power. NOBODY is happy with
his leadership, and the net result is be a further decline of the
membership numbers across the board. OLDER ADULTS, many now about to
retire and thus a CORE source of both membership and income are
leaving because they feel way to much emphasis is being paid to
Scholastic chess, while taking away something they spent a lifetime to
earn -- their RATINGS; Scholastic players are leaving because they
feel they are being "overcharged" and receiving no "services", though
the only "service" that the USCF provides is a RATINGS Service, and
that has been compromised by "Dual Rating" skittles time controls.
There HAS to be a WALL between SCHOLASTIC Chess and ADULT Chess. For
most scholastic players a rating has no real value and indeed most
scholastic players are UNDER RATED by the way they were originally
rated which was usually based either by AGE and/or SCHOOL GRADE.
So here are some suggestions:
1) A Scholastic Player will be defined as ANYONE Age 18 or under.
2) SCHOLASTIC players can ONLY obtain a SCHOLASTIC Rating == the USCF
QUICK CHESS Rating. (See exception).
3) ALL G/30-G/60 tournaments would ONLY be Quick Chess Ratable. In
order for a tournament to be REGULARLY rated it MUST have a time
control of not less than 30/90 or 40/2 SD1 or 40/2, 20/1, 20/1 without
SD.
4) For a SCHOLASTIC player who wishes to obtain a REGULAR rating and
who is under the age of 16 he must be nominated for membership by 3
players, one must be a USCF rated Expert (Candidate Master) or above,
one must be Class B rated or above, and one must be Class D rated or
above.
5) Once accepted for ADULT membership, in order to obtain a REGULAR
membership he must obtain his rating the way all ADULTS do: First as
an UNRATED player, then as a PROVISIONALLY rated player, and finally
as an ESTABLISHED rated player.
6) A SCHOLASTIC player will then have to pay a FULL ADULT Membership
dues. A Scholastic rating will not be considered unless it is based on
an ESTABLISHED REGULAR RATING, and then only used for pairing purposes
during the PROVISIONAL rating phase.
7) A Scholastic player can NOT obtain a Regular rating by playing only
in Scholastic Tournaments, the exception would be the US National
Scholastic Tournament.
8) For a Scholastic Tournament to be Regularly rated, A) 50% or more
of the participants must also hold an ADULT Regular
rating: B) It must be run at the ADULT time controls. C) G/30 and G/
60 Scholastic Tournaments are SCHOLASTIC or QUICK CHESS
Ratable ONLY.
True this might sound a bit harsh, but most ADULTS -- especially OLDER
ADULTS -- don't want to sit across the board from some 8-12 year old
who can't go to the potty without adult supervision, let alone be
playing in an ADULT tournament. It will slow the huge Rating deflation
that is going on by separating Scholastic Players from Adult Players;
Scholastic Players can ONLY obtain a REGULAR USCF rating by playing in
ADULT tournaments at slower time controls and in the exact same way as
any ADULT would obtain it. Any scholastic player under the age of 16
MUST be nominated for full ADULT membership and then must pay FULL
ADULT dues.
For the vast majority of Scholastic players their type of "rating"
will matter very little, and only those children with either the
talent, the motivation, and desire and a willingness to pay ADULT fees
is likely to go through the process of becoming a full member with a
Regular rating.
If the Scholastic crowd wants G/30 - G/60 tournaments to be Regularly
rated, THEN ADULT members who are paying 62% of the Federations dues
and thus supporting Scholastic Chess, MUST be given the OPTION to be
QUICK CHESS Rated ONLY if they so desire. I think that would be a VERY
FAIR solution, and it would encourage greater participation. WITHOUT
this option the tournament is stacked.
Without some form of compromise and a lot of CHANGE -- which begins by
getting rid of William Goichberg -- the only direction of the USCF is
downward until it exists only in memory and those who play, once again
play chess just for fun.
samsloan
of discredited claims so you can repeat them when you think people
have forgotten?
John Hillery [/quote]
You're right, John. Almost every time Sam gets caught writing
something proven wrong, he ignores the proof until he thinks everyone
forgot, and then brings it up again.
He was able to respond to Harry Payne in 5 minutes last night, but the
apology for saying that my memory is failing after I substantiated
again where Bill Goichberg lives, has yet to be posted.
Harold S. [/quote]
But in fact, Harold Stenzel, you were wrong again. A person who knows
Bill Goichberg far better than you know him informs me that the house
in the picture you showed is NOT Bill's house.
That person asked not to be quoted for fear of recriminations.
By this I mean that neither the house on the south side of the road
that appears prominently in the picture, nor the house in the very far
upper left hand corner that can only be seen by dragging the image, is
Bill's house.
Where is your apology?
Why does Bill remain silent, since he reads and occasionally posts to
this forum?
Sam Sloan
samsloan
watch.
What credibility can be given to his endorsements?[/quote]
Good point and thank you for making it.
Perhaps the voters will realize that Bill Goichberg bears ultimate
responsibility for getting us into the mess we are now in, and
therefore his endorsements should no longer determine who gets
elected.
Sam Sloan
ChessFire
laugh! until recently i worked with Chessville and accelerated that
site from 20,000 to 60,000 readers a week. at one point we attracted
the attention of an assistant attorney general as an editor [a chess
player] - he told me the same about table-tennis - how the US
established 'official' group did nothing to promote the game, and how
an alternate org was established to do so, and attract money
> When there is zero competition, there is zero desire to improve the
> lot. In fact, when there is zero competition, why improve the lot to
> produce a person that will replace you. When there is zero
> competition, and everyone is a volunteer working for free, is there a
> drive to improve the community.
another friend in chess, a russian publisher criticizes me for this -
he said, please be more critical, not so polite, otherwise, what is
improved?
> On the other hand, competition is only going to produce more cost
> prohibitive tournaments that only produces bankruptcy. If the
> tournaments are cost prohibitive, and being done by a sponsor only
> goal is to produce cost prohibitive tournaments. When the sponsor
> withdraws or dies, nobody can restore a balance with break even
> tournaments. Remember the Manhattan Chess Club when the old
> businessmen that sponsored the club retired and died.
and i do remember that
yes, chess is a limited market, and the argument is whether to merely
retain it as it is in a cogent way, a maintenance model [and the
current, and for past dozen years, the unfaltering USCF plan] or to
look up, and estimate the potential new market, maybe 5x larger, and
act accordingly
who is to say which it shall be? except to observe what is happening
in other countries like Turkiye and Germany who have attracted
millions of dollars to academic chess - even in Asia, especially India
> Chess is a lose lose with how it is organized. If you have profit,
> only a single man can produce a level of profit to live on. Even with
> Goichberg, he can only produce a limited level of profit to live on
> and still does not have the ability to retire. If on the other hand,
> you have sponsors promoting chess with a cost prohibitive
> organization, it will collapse on itself when the sponsorship is
> ended.
you make fair comment on the scene. there is plenty of discussion
possible, and in Europe it is a very happening situation. i should
wish these sensible remarks attain similar consideration here in the
usa, except that the only party not willing to engage in it is USCF -
these people, in my experience are duffers. they care for maintenance
of what is left, or of what is ex cathedra circumstantially
advantageous to them, nothing, absolutely nothing more masculine than
this.
cordially, phil innes
asca...@aol.com
> USCF has bent over backwards to appease the Scholastic Crowd, and the
> OLDER ADULT membership is being screwed. Unless action is taken NOW to
> retain the OLDER ADULT membership, you can expect USCF to become
> nothing more than a shell of itself, if it does not cease to exist
> altogether, by 2015. Belonging to the USCF is a waste of money all to
> the inflate the precious egos of a bunch of snot nosed kids.
He went on to say that were it not for the Scholastic Membership the
USCF would have folded a long time ago -- which is probably a TRUE
statement. He complained that "Scholastic Members" receive no
"services" for their membership dollars. What seems to be missing in
this discussion, is what does he mean by the term "services"?? The
ONLY reason that USCF exists to to RATE GAMES between opponents. That
is the only "SERVICE" USCF actually provides to any member,
scholastic
or adult.
Contribution by Age Group:
12 and Under: $465,984 (21% of total)
13-15: $164,360 (7% of total)
16-19: $144,048 (6% of total)
20-24: $74,944 (3% of total)
26-64: $1,146,380 (52% of total)
65+: $221,724 (10% of total)
Total: $2.217,240
Thus roughly 62% of the membership fees for the USCF is being paid by
42% of the membership Age 25+; the typical "Scholastic" member 19
years of age and under contribute 34% of the membership fees but make
up 55% of the total membership. Again these are ROUGH numbers, exact
numbers and breakdown would have to come from the USCF itself. I used
the April 2009 membership figures and the latest dues fees just
passed. The ONLY additional "service" that OLDER players get is they
get a copy of CL for which they pay.
Curiousier and Curiousier.
"these are ROUGH numbers, exact numbers and breakdown would have to
come from the USCF itself."
Do you believe in the tooth fairy? Come on. USCF's numbers are year
after year a joke and are restated downwards every time there is a new
administration.
If you only want to count dues, then what do we have to talk about.
Tell me, does the National Open make the USCF money? Does the US Open
make the USCF money? How about the US Closed or the US Women's
Championship. These are generally regarded as "adult" tournaments yet
if USCF breaks even on them as a group, they are happy as clams.
But the National Scholastic Championships are a whole different ball
game and here is where your dues gap vaporizes.
Do you have any clue how much money the national scholastics make? I
do.
Pete Nixon once observed that you could run a national scholastic with
zero entry fees and still make a profit. Pete was right on.
This year it would not be surprising if 7000 kids played in the
national scholastics. At $60 a piece, that is $420K in EF (without
late fees) however that is just a part of the pie. The hotels kick
back a substantial portion of each dollar spent on hotel rooms and
there may well be more money in hotel rebates than entry fees. So now
we are up to $800K. By the way, do you know what Expedia and other
websites get from the hotels for the rooms they fill? 25%.
But we aren't done. There is a substantial amount of money to be made
from the book and equipment concession and let us not forget the T-
Shirt sales.
In 1999, we grossed over $25K from the national elementary T-Shirt
sales alone. Net cost was about 3K for 1500 shirts and silk
screening.
So lets not pretend the contribution of those over 25 is anywhere
close to half the pie. Without the kids who come and go, USCF dies.
The t-shirt example I gave is an excellent example of how the insiders
rip off the USCF. When Supernationals was run, it was claimed the T-
shirts cost $8 to make. This caused me to eject my CocaCola through
my nose at the meeting making a horrible mess and casting doubt on the
veracity of the person making the $8 claim. Only a middleman could
make such a claim with a straight face which has been the USCF's
problem for at least the last twenty years. We were told t-shirts had
different costs depending on what part of the country you lived in.
It also had something to do with whether you just fell off a turnip
truck.
Remember the USCF Master Quartz clock? USCF originally charged about
$40 for them then raised the price to $80 when their budget went
haywire. Well, it turns out you can make the things for about $7 but
USCF was paying much much more. Someone was taking the "off the
books" profit. Another example? What about chess books?
Everybody in the business knows you can get discounts as great as 70%
for book purchases in quantity yet every year the delegates were
presented with books that showed only a 30% discount. What happened
to the other 40%?
I wonder if the snot nosed kids you mentioned who have poor retention
stole it? Not likely.
Did USCF gain by selling off the B&E or was there another motive?
That you would limit your comparison to dues shows you have no grasp
on USCF's internal economics.
Please, I am not claiming you are foolish, just naive of the
actuality.
One more item you didn't mention. The life members. There are about
10K life members (virtually 100% of whom are over 30) who pay no dues
at all and have no LMA to pay their bills. Rather like social
security, the young are paying for the old and the young are
unrepresented in our organization. You wrote, "The ONLY additional
"service" that OLDER players get is they get a copy of CL for which
they pay." Hmmm. I think paying the paying the costs of 10,000 life
members would qualify as an additional service. It certainly doesn't
benefit the kids.
Richard Peterson
Life Member
samsloan
>What about chess books?
> Everybody in the business knows you can get discounts as great as 70%
> for book purchases in quantity yet every year the delegates were
> presented with books that showed only a 30% discount. What happened
> to the other 40%?
>
> Richard Peterson
> Life Member
This indeed was a serious problem, especially under Executive Director
Frank Niro who used to buy books at exceptionally high prices and sell
them for less than he paid for them.
For example, he was buying in bulk boxes of copies of Susan Polgar's
book "Queen of the King's Game" for the full retail price of $24.95
for each book and then selling them at a discount price.
There is no way that the USCF could legitimately have been making as
little as 30% profit.
It was because of this scandal that the USCF decided to close down the
books and equipment business.
Sam Sloan
None
>
> This indeed was a serious problem, especially under Executive Director
> Frank Niro who used to buy books at exceptionally high prices and sell
> them for less than he paid for them.
Not true.
> For example, he was buying in bulk boxes of copies of Susan Polgar's
> book "Queen of the King's Game" for the full retail price of $24.95
> for each book and then selling them at a discount price.
Not true.
> There is no way that the USCF could legitimately have been making as
> little as 30% profit.
>
> It was because of this scandal that the USCF decided to close down the
> books and equipment business.
Not true.
>
> Sam Sloan
The decision to outsource the books was made because it had been
losing money ever since Al Lawrence was forced out by the weasel.
Niro's mismanagement was only a footnote in the overall situation.
samsloan
> On Jan 10, 7:52 am, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > This indeed was a serious problem, especially under Executive Director
> > Frank Niro who used to buy books at exceptionally high prices and sell
> > them for less than he paid for them.
>
> Not true.
>
> > For example, he was buying in bulk boxes of copies of Susan Polgar's
> > book "Queen of the King's Game" for the full retail price of $24.95
> > for each book and then selling them at a discount price.
>
> Not true.
>
Yes. It is true. I personally saw the invoices at the USCF Executive
Board meeting held in Monrovia California on February 3, 2007.
Sam Sloan
jkh001
But Sam, no one believes anything you say. You're dishonest,
delusional and innumerate. Aside from that, you might make a fine
candidates. After a brain transplant.