ChessTalk - RIP

[Gary Ruben]

Re: ChessTalk - RIP

The CFC adult membership keeps dropping. The competition is eating you up.

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: ChessTalk - RIP

Re: CFC online chess -

I am in complete agreement with Bindi here - online chess would just be a money-loser for the CFC (or any other Canadian or Canadian organization that sets up one). You have to establish a membership base, and for that you need money to pay some GM's to appear and play against anyone (think "World Chess Network" - lots of money behind it, but it still failed), and you have to keep those members and keep them playing. How many do you need? Here are some stats I pulled up:

ICC ($69.95 a year): Unknown number of members; 1803 online now; 21 GM's online now.
Playchess.com (fees range from free to 50 euros a year): 312,816 members; 5,222 online now.
Chess.com (free): 10,388,550 members; 32,135 online now.
FIDE Arena/Premium Chess (free or 25 euros a year): 125,874 members; 907 online now.

You need hundreds (or thousands) online at any time so that players just signing on can find someone to play quickly in requested rating and time control ranges..
The USCF tried several times launching servers and they failed. Do any other national federations have their own servers? How active are they? I couldn't find any info about the previously quoted Italian federation's online server on the Italian Federation's site.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: ChessTalk - RIP

Re: CFC online chess -

I am in complete agreement with Bindi here - online chess would just be a money-loser for the CFC (or any other Canadian or Canadian organization that sets up one).

You're probably right about this being a money loser for the CFC. They have lost so many members since 2004 a server can't start out as anything more than a money loser after the start up costs. If you look at the stats, the adult membership has been cut roughly in half and the total members is also lower.

However, you'd think someone could figure out a way to increase the membership or figure out how to run a membership drive.

I always found with a chess organization is I couldn't make money on everything. If I lost money on the apples, I had to make it up on the oranges. It's a total package.

[Garland Best]

Re: ChessTalk - RIP

At this stage of the game, you would be better off trying to make an arrangement with an existing online chess server to add a special interest group, and then provide free membership said server.

Wasn't this attempted with ICC once?

[Garland Best]

Re: ChessTalk - RIP

This is what I don't understand. It appears to be ok to call someone views (for example) "odious" if they are a third party who does not post on this board. But if you state the same about a person posting on this board, it's a personal attack. Why is one allowed but not the other?

[Nigel Hanrahan]

what the moderator noted

This is what I don't understand. It appears to be ok to call someone views (for example) "odious" if they are a third party who does not post on this board. But if you state the same about a person posting on this board, it's a personal attack. Why is one allowed but not the other?

Moderator Brian P: "Calling people nuts is a personal attack. Saying that an idea is crazy is not." Seems clear enough to me.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: ChessTalk - RIP

Perhaps you can publish the details here too?
(Provided this isn't... nor the other proposed "strip chess tweaked version")

:)

Hi Kerry

This form of chess is becoming much more popular thanks to the Internet (and there is at least the odd enquiry as to what the 'official' rules might be, if one does a websearch).

I'd advocate it only for married couples. Even in a highly moral society, there is the quest for novel creative activities in the home.

[Garland Best]

Re: what the moderator noted

So if I called your posts narcistic, pedalogical, dogmatic, leftist, rants, then that's ok, because I'm posting about your ideas???

[Nigel Hanrahan]

what they usually say ....

So if I called your posts narcistic, pedalogical, dogmatic, leftist, rants, then that's ok, because I'm posting about your ideas???

You actually have to identify the ideas that are narcissistic, dogmatic, etc. and not just say "your ideas are blah blah". Otherwise, it's just another personal attack, etc.. Undoubtedly you already know this.

The other thing is that a continuous series of pointless personal questions - like those addressed to me in the other thread, for example - can be a form of trolling. The idea of this sort of trolling is to entangle someone in meaningless arguments unrelated to the thread, perhaps provoking a response, possibly with the ultimate aim of closing or deleting the thread.

But you know what they usually say ...

[Aris Marghetis]

Re: ChessTalk - RIP

At this stage of the game, you would be better off trying to make an arrangement with an existing online chess server to add a special interest group, and then provide free membership said server.

Wasn't this attempted with ICC once?

Yes, and we had a monthly CFC Active-rated ICC event, which was GREAT!!!!!

[Gary Ruben]

Re: ChessTalk - RIP

At this stage of the game, you would be better off trying to make an arrangement with an existing online chess server to add a special interest group, and then provide free membership said server.

Wasn't this attempted with ICC once?

If it was attempted before and failed over the long term, it might be the reason the idea isn't being pursued.

To me it looks like the CFC is so top heavy with governors/voting members they can't easily move quickly and reach decisions on anything which costs money.

I once had a correspondence member get upset with me and start his own correspondence club in Canada. He got over 200 members. It's a free country and he had every right to do that. The argument with me was over the price of chess postcards.

What do you suppose would happen if someone started up a Canadian organization opposite the CFC and managed to sign up 4 or 5 thousand members and applied to FIDE for recognition? Even if they didn't get recognition initially, unrated events with decent prize funds would likely draw players.

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: ChessTalk - RIP

Gary wrote:

What do you suppose would happen if someone started up a Canadian organization opposite the CFC and managed to sign up 4 or 5 thousand members and applied to FIDE for recognition? Even if they didn't get recognition initially, unrated events with decent prize funds would likely draw players.

The FQE did exactly that (maybe not 4 or 5 thousand), and they did apply to FIDE for recognition.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: ChessTalk - RIP

If it was attempted before and failed over the long term, it might be the reason the idea isn't being pursued.

To me it looks like the CFC is so top heavy with governors/voting members they can't easily move quickly and reach decisions on anything which costs money.

I once had a correspondence member get upset with me and start his own correspondence club in Canada. He got over 200 members. It's a free country and he had every right to do that. The argument with me was over the price of chess postcards.

What do you suppose would happen if someone started up a Canadian organization opposite the CFC and managed to sign up 4 or 5 thousand members and applied to FIDE for recognition? Even if they didn't get recognition initially, unrated events with decent prize funds would likely draw players.

Anything which requires voting member approval and requires significant expenditures will usually have a time frame in months because of the need for a voting members meeting which can't be convened without the requisite statutory notice. For smaller amounts that only require input of the executive the turnaround can be much quicker usually a few days.

Unrated events with good prize funds will draw some players but not that many because most players don't expect to win prizes. Our experience in Windsor in the 1990s was that tournaments with good prize funds depressed play in the long run as people would not play without the prize funds. We generated the funds by holding bingos.

If someone can get 4 or 5 thousand paying members in short order then they should run for the executive positions in the CFC and they will already have a relationship with FIDE. I don't see any upstart being able to get a relationship with FIDE without going through the CFC. Our relationship with FIDE is very good at the moment.

FIDE is only a factor for the top 25% of players by strength and many of the kids as FIDE sections reach lower into the rating pool.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: ChessTalk - RIP

If someone can get 4 or 5 thousand paying members in short order then they should run for the executive positions in the CFC and they will already have a relationship with FIDE. I don't see any upstart being able to get a relationship with FIDE without going through the CFC. Our relationship with FIDE is very good at the moment.

FIDE is only a factor for the top 25% of players by strength and many of the kids as FIDE sections reach lower into the rating pool.

Anyone starting up their own organization wouldn't likely want to embrace the CFC model.

Servers aren't that hard. Austin wrote Schemingmind (you can google it if you want) in hs spare time. It's been around more than a decade.

These days it's hard to know which way to go. Maybe something with an App so people can play chess on their public transit commute going to work and back home. Technology moves fast.

[Garland Best]

Re: what they usually say ....

Then if that the case, shouldn't the statement "Isn't this one of the problems of Kasparov's odious views in a nutshell?" be considered a personal attack on Kasparov? The post does not define which views are odious. If I posted "Isn't this one of the problems of Nigel's odious views in a nutshell?", then you would consider it a personal attack, correct? As far as I can tell, this sword cuts both ways.

With regards to asking questions, if someone posts a statement or opinion on a subject, is it unreasonable to question the poster's credentials on a topic?