If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
Under Ontario, who is "handbook 441. Adjust rating" who has no expiry, and the two players starting with "zzz"?
Handbook section 441 allows players to request their ratings be adjusted based on FIDE USCF and FQE ratings under specific circumstances. Instead of just changing the rating without explanation, a “tournament” cross table marked 441 is created to document the adjustment.
Duplicate profiles for a member are sometimes accidentally created. Where possible, I will then combine these two profiles and the abandoned profile will get a zzz as a prefix to the name to avoid that number being used. I would prefer to delete these profiles, but that may cause some technical difficulties.
Thank you to those who have advised me of deceased members. The members database has been updated.
The Southwestern Ontario Winter Open offered a discount to new CFC members who purchased a full year membership. The discount of $16 was the difference between a tournament membership and a full year membership for a US junior (a major target market in Windsor). The tournament resulted in 30 new full year CFC members, most of them Michigan juniors.
Of course, it would have been nice if the almost $500 this cost had come from some sort of CFC initiative to attract new members instead of the tournament budget, but it's still an (eventual) net win for the tournaments as players who have a full year membership are more likely to return for future events.
I agree with Alex. It is really hard to ask a new player to cough up $25 or $38 for a membership in an organization he/she isn't even aware of when they show up to pay $60 or $80 to enter a tournament.
Victoria Chess has been giving free tournament memberships to new players who meet certain conditions. It probably helps a little but the same issue comes up at the next event for that new player.
Several years ago we eliminated annual provincial dues in BC in favour of a $3 head tax at tournaments and it has worked out very well. Easy to administer, easy to audit, transparent to the players.
You just need to wrap your mind around the fact that everyone who plays in a tournament is a "Member".
To apply this to the CFC, one would have to exempt Life Members who have pre-paid their dues and figure out how to deal with juniors who pay a lower membership fee. Another benefit would be to get rid of tournament memberships that can also be confusing to new players.
I know some organizers have been experimenting in entry fees and sections, to try to lure non-tournament casual players, into their first tournaments. I think this is great!
Does anyone know the extent to which it is working?
Some organizers have a "Recreational Section", and there is low entry fee, or none, when the newbie buys the annual CFC membership. Have I got this right? What other strategies around registration are being used?
Bob A
Hi Bob,
It's hard to say to what extent it is working. I know at Hart House a few years back we chose to adopt this idea where... an unrated player only needs to pay CFC membership and the entry fee for the tournament is waived, while the participant is not eligible for prizes (unless playing in the Crown Section). The reason we do this is simply because, a new player can be easily intimidated by having to pay $70 entry fee and an additional $48 CFC membership, especially when most of them are expected to be amateur level. I suppose we could check on our unrated players' progress and see what tournaments, if any, they have played since. I know for a fact that some people at Hart House tournaments take advantage or even wait to play their first tournament with us, not to have to pay an entry fee. Several of them are however, UT students, and most do end up playing elsewhere after.
In tournaments played at clubs, the likely place for an amateur player to start playing, there may not be an entry fee, but there's a club annual membership, and all these fees combined add up. For us at Hart House, we have an average only 2-4 unrated players each tournament, which is not very much. It is easy for us to absorb a couple of players and not affect the prize fund, but in comparable tournaments with only half the players, or 30% of them being unrated, this model would perhaps not work.
I remember a couple of organizers having an amateur entry fee, which was substantially lower than the full entry fee. Not sure how that worked but I can see some problems with that. Players playing up (majority of juniors - which may also mean majority of players - given the chance) would happily take the amateur/ recreational deal since attempting to win a prize is clearly not their main goal. If this was to become trendy, it would also significantly take away from the total monies collected and therefore significantly affect the prize fund as well as the organizer's financial logistics. If this alternative were to work, it would have to be a minor discount I think, of say $10 or $20 discount to not be eligible for prizes, which some people would be happy to take but I imagine most would take the gamble. If the discount was so small though, it would defeat the purpose of having it.
I might add, this 'option' of paying more, or less, based on whether you can play for money might violate some laws in the AGCO - Alcohol & Gaming Commission of Ontario.
Again... since in my opinion the CFC ratings are by far the main (to many members, the only) benefit of being a member of the CFC, I go back to the same topic. We should scrap CFC memberships, and just pay higher rating fees (instead of the $3.00 + 13% HST). New members (and soon enough, everyone) won't even know what the difference would be.
I am going through the list of Quebec members with an expiration date of "No Expiry". I assume that includes Life and Honouary members.
Here is one that can be removed:
Lemelin, Roger (died 1992). He was editor for "La Presse" and did much for chess in Quebec.
Under Ontario, who is "handbook 441. Adjust rating" who has no expiry, and the two players starting with "zzz"? Are players such as Tom Carlton and Alex Knox still with us? I know that Paul Rispler died in 2013.
Perhaps others could go through a province that is familiar to them and list those that are known to be deceased. This could change the membership counts slightly.
I know some organizers have been experimenting in entry fees and sections, to try to lure non-tournament casual players, into their first tournaments. I think this is great!
Does anyone know the extent to which it is working?
Some organizers have a "Recreational Section", and there is low entry fee, or none, when the newbie buys the annual CFC membership. Have I got this right? What other strategies around registration are being used?
Well, certainly I am out of the loop to see the more recent years of chess events and geographically there can be vast differences in approach anyways. All I can say on that is when we were attending events, Ontario and BC organizers and players seemed to take an adversarial role rather the cooperate. My observations are somewhat dated. There were events in Ontario that went an extra mile to accommodate juniors or families better and we were always looking for those.
That being said, I still do question the overall model for juniors transitioning to longer chess controls and the social aspects of that process. If you think you've got a good handle on it, and numbers are growing, well, good for you.
I would agree with Paul's assessment. I recall last weekend, playing in Guelph tournament, that the atmosphere at most tournaments in recent years had become much more cordial and friendly. Interactions between adult players, organizers, kids and parents, much improved, and how this is not adequately reflected by posts on chesstalk.
My observation in chess events in BC and Washington State is that the kids have made the transition to the CFC/USCF quite successfully. They form the overwhelming majority in most open events and are winning the championship events as well. I am even starting to see a turnaround in adults' approach to playing against kids - much more acceptance. There is of course a much larger turnover in juniors - each year same old adults, new young kids. If only we could retain more of them our membership numbers would soar. The statistical program I access to audit ratings shows that we had over 4,000 different players participate in CFC rated events in the past 36 months. So we really had 4,000 members just not all current at the same time.
Well, certainly I am out of the loop to see the more recent years of chess events and geographically there can be vast differences in approach anyways. All I can say on that is when we were attending events, Ontario and BC organizers and players seemed to take an adversarial role rather the cooperate. My observations are somewhat dated. There were events in Ontario that went an extra mile to accommodate juniors or families better and we were always looking for those.
That being said, I still do question the overall model for juniors transitioning to longer chess controls and the social aspects of that process. If you think you've got a good handle on it, and numbers are growing, well, good for you.
the flaw I was referring to was the idea that junior programs or interest is a failure if they don't translate into adult members. I don't agree at all with that idea. What I'm saying is make junior programs about the present, for the kids and their now.
That's the thing - I don't think it's necessarily a flaw if kids don't translate into adult members.
However, the CFC should stop claiming that time and resources are spent on junior programs "to grow the future of the game" and realize the time and resources are spent to generate revenue today. If that's the case, they should be maximizing that revenue, and thinking about how to market themselves to juniors/parents (short term focus: national championships! represent your school! represent your province! parents, your child is a special flower genius!) and adults (long term focus: get out of the house, stay social, cheap activity you can do for life) differently. Once the CFC figures out how to do that properly, they can allocate resources and build membership accordingly.
Think of it this way: you have two potential customers who walk through your doors.
One is going to spend fast and furious, but for a short time period before they leave, and your ability to retain them as a customer has very little to do with your product or price.
The other is not going to spend all that much, but they will be in every single week if they like what you're selling.
Right now, the CFC is giving a discount to the first person, and charging the second one extra. Not good business sense.
Last edited by David Ottosen; Friday, 15th January, 2016, 05:58 AM.
My observation in chess events in BC and Washington State is that the kids have made the transition to the CFC/USCF quite successfully. They form the overwhelming majority in most open events and are winning the championship events as well. I am even starting to see a turnaround in adults' approach to playing against kids - much more acceptance.
There is of course a much larger turnover in juniors - each year same old adults, new young kids. If only we could retain more of them our membership numbers would soar. The statistical program I access to audit ratings shows that we had over 4,000 different players participate in CFC rated events in the past 36 months.
So we really had 4,000 members just not all current at the same time.
I was to clarify - my vision is not to get rid of juniors in open chess events, or anything close to it. Juniors bring good things to the table (new opponents, basic numbers of players, often times a challenging game). They bring negatives too. My "vision" is just that they do not get a discount on membership, nothing else.
As for Larry's idea - unfortunately, as long as there is a revolving door in CFC leadership, you as a business will never be able to make a long standing partnership with them. I wish it was different.
The annual fee is a tiny part of the equation. More important is who advocates for the junior's conditions in events. They are not smaller versions of adults, so some accommodation has to be made for what interests them and makes them feel comfortable. Otherwise, the open age concept is a failure. What I'm saying is maybe the overall model is flawed. With respect to your original post, the flaw I was referring to was the idea that junior programs or interest is a failure if they don't translate into adult members. I don't agree at all with that idea. What I'm saying is make junior programs about the present, for the kids and their now.
I would love to develop a program at Chess'n Math for kids at a higher level. I have been burned in the past by the CFC. I have many stories but no one wants to live in the past. There is an idea that was pitched to me recently which I really like. Associate ourselves with a chess school in Europe and have exchanges etc. Send kids there, have their kids come here, exchange instructors, etc. The CMA has 20 full time dedicated staff. We are financially sound and we want to continue to make a significant contribution to chess in Canada. We need a project that will allow Canadian youngsters to benefit from what we can offer. Bottom line: Money is not the issue. Give us a constructive project that can not be sabotaged...and I am sure we will run with it!
In the history of chess in Canada, there has never been a chess organization as large and having touched as many young lives as the CMA...while I am proud of what we have accomplished...I know there is a lot more work to do. and I am open to new projects that will make a difference.
Larry
Your new project ideas seem in tune with what a lot of young adults are doing these days, connected internationally on social media and some travel a lot. We greatly appreciated the CMA in the early years when the kids were young.
The troubles start when they start migrating to long chess and CFC affiliated events. I agree that dealing with the CFC and affiliated organizers was indeed problematic ( as it was for me, and I wasn't able to deal with difficult or politically charged people well at all ). However, I believe the CMA is partially responsible to ensure that the social transition to CFC or longer controls is ok for kids. The CMA could have done better in this regard. Meaning supporting "graduating" CMA juniors ( emotionally, public advocate for their rights more so then financial ), advocating massive reforms if the system isn't good ( in the early 2000s, it clearly wasn't a healthy environment for ambitious juniors ). Simply dropping kids into the system and hope it works out seems problematic.
Leave a comment: