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.
It would appear the people who attended the meeting and voted the proxies decided to go in a different direction.
Another AGM attended by less than half of the governors where the proxy holders steal the show. The members really need to see that this style of doing business gets changed.:(
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
Gary, believe it or not I have been one of your silent supporters on Chesstalk. Your comments are *generally* refreshingly candid.
In this case however, you actually have me siding with Duncan Smith.
I speak here as an adult *paying* member of the CFC who is very active in tournaments and the father of a junior who has also been very active both in the CFC and the CMA. You are neither of these. I don't dispute your qualifications regarding correspondence chess (and I totally disagree with Mr. O'Donell's positions here) nor do I dispute your views on chess in general (such as the merits of the Winawer), but in this area, you do not have any knowledge that I am aware of. Nonetheless you comment acerbically.
The motion was woefully shortsighted as most AGM motions regarding junior chess are. They don't directly affect the people who vote on them so therefore everything's ok, until something blows up down the road that was "unforeseen".
Gary, believe it or not I have been one of your silent supporters on Chesstalk. Your comments are *generally* refreshingly candid.
In this case however, you actually have me siding with Duncan Smith.
I speak here as an adult *paying* member of the CFC who is very active in tournaments and the father of a junior who has also been very active both in the CFC and the CMA. You are neither of these. I don't dispute your qualifications regarding correspondence chess (and I totally disagree with Mr. O'Donell's positions here) nor do I dispute your views on chess in general (such as the merits of the Winawer), but in this area, you do not have any knowledge that I am aware of. Nonetheless you comment acerbically.
The motion was woefully shortsighted as most AGM motions regarding junior chess are. They don't directly affect the people who vote on them so therefore everything's ok, until something blows up down the road that was "unforeseen".
Steve
Ouch. That hurts.
If the CFC were in good shape and I thought it were a money grab to increase general revenues for wasteful items it would be different. I'm well aware from reading the financial reports the CFC has problems. Revenues have to be increased as does the membership. We appear to be in a situation where the CFC has to be rejuvenated.
I served as president of the Scarborough Club for two years and vice-president for several years before that. Secretary of the OCA. Membership secretary of the CCCA and also the tournament director for about a decade. I'm well aware what goes into a successful chess organization where the books balance and there is break even. It requires the members and executive to work together and it costs money to have something worthwhile. Back then there were no shortage of members.
I have to tell you the CFC isn't the only Canadian organization which is short on money. I got a bill for my entry into the last correspondence Olympic and one other event. I forget which one it was. I haven't had one for my current team event which recently started but if it doesn't come soon I'll write and ask.
We play on the ICCF server. They charge a dollar a game. If I play a 15 player RR event there are 105 games. That works out to 7 dollars per player per event. Age doesn't matter. An 11 game event, which is more standard is 5.50 per player. Generally speaking there is no prize money in the events I play and the entry is steeper than those amounts of money. It goes toward administration and running the organization. Different events have different prices.
The point is the 5 dollar rating fee which goes toward the CFC is not excessive regardless of who pays it. Not in my opinion.
It's a new executive and I think they deserve a chance to see if they can repair the state of the CFC. Having served as a governor decades ago and having sold about 100 memberships a year for them at the Scarborough Club I think I have some interest in seeing the CFC survive. If it would be better to let it go under and rebuild with a new start is a different question and a serious matter of credibility if it goes under.
If the CFC could find a way to interest more people and increase the membership by about 100 members, mostly adult, there would likely be enough money to carry on without increases. I don't see that happening for a couple of reasons. The clubs have rented smaller rooms than they used to have as the size of the membership shrunk. (From what I've seen.) Also, they don't have a internet presence which interests very many of the players.
I'd sooner try to swindle myself a draw with the black side of the Winawer against a player who knows how to beat it than take on an executive position with the CFC.
There are really three kinds of people in any organization.
1. Those who will vote for and support anything the executive proposes either because they beleive in it or are willing to give it a chance.
2. Those who will vote for or against based solely on merit.
3. Those who will vote and work against everything simply because they want to see the system break down.
Since you brought up Duncan Smith and Tom O'Donnell, I have to tell you I have no bad feelings toward them. We don't agree on many things but it shouldn't be blown out of proportion.
Are we talking about fees for youths at general events, of fees for youth-specific events?
At general events, the fee difference is minor, because the rest of entry fee is larger. Whether a junior pays $40 or $45 dollars to enter the Scarborough Weekend Swiss is irrevalent. I say if they are playing in open events, then they should pay the same as everyone else. Especially if they are eligible for the same prizes.
So if the only issue is whether juniors pay $0.50 or $5.00 to play in an all-junior event, then I have to ask how many of these events does the CFC rate every year? From what I know, the CFC has lost control of these tournaments to CMA anyway. I doubt that even if the CFC rated those events for free, you wouldn't be able to get that back, nor can you currently afford to.
Just as a point, I have parents come up to me about having their kid join the RA Chess club. Every time I have to explain that they have to pay to join the RA Center, then pay again to join the chess club itself, then pay again for the CFC membership, then pay another $3 for every rated tournament we run. I'm always worried that I'm scaring them off. Their response? "Do you know how cheap this is compared to hockey?" (or baseball, etc.).
Some good points Garland. In tackling the proposed changes, and future proposals, we should take care to separate sub-points that can be separated, discuss each one in their own right, and see how we can cohesively bring together the resulting solutions.
On a philosophical point, I believe in having as few exceptions as possible, which includes gender, age, etc. Please don't flame me, it's just part of my feelings on fairness.
In addition, and this goes beyond the scope of the membership / rating fee changes, but in my opinion will be just as critical to the survival of the CFC, I believe that any reward mechanisms based on merit/performance should be for genuine elite performance. Again, please don't flame me, but I am apalled at (my perception of) the financial burden we incur to support a provincial or national "best" that is obviously not even close to elite.
Just my 2c worth, but I wanted to express these points, as they will color my input as CFC Governor.
One idea I discussed with Mike Holmes once upon a time to address that issue was to up the club membership to include all fees - i.e. include a year's worth of CFC membership (extended if person is already a cfc member) and enough to cover rating fees on average. That way, you give them one number instead of "oh by the way, you also have to pay.... oh and also you need to pay .... and ....."
I agree with Chris M. and Ken C. that it is really sad that these straw votes were declared out of order, and that the Chair was not challenged. What possible good came of that? Is there a conspiracy to suppress the opinions of the governors on certain matters?
“ 6. CFC Condominium Office: The current CFC office would be placed for sale. The office would then be run out of either a small rental space or a home office. “
Commentary - Ruled out of order by the Chair, Smith, as being initimately intwined with the sale of the retail business - as long as we do business, we need space - and since the Retail Business motion was out of order, so was this one. Again however, the motion caused movement - a motion was passed that 1/2 of the building be leased. This is because some won't consider selling until they know what the carrying costs still are if the building can generate some revenue to help cover them. Then we will know if keeping/leasing is a viable option. I think there will be problems leasing ( a glut of available space apparently, and so the rental rate to get tenants will have to be low ). I think the building will still prove too expensive ( we cannot afford any expenses that can be eliminated ), and with a softening real estate market, the building will go down in value if we continue to hold it over the next few years
[...]
Bob
No, the logic doesn't follow at all. If you sell the office condo, and continue in the retail business, you obtain (rent, lease, buy) new premises with space for retail business. It's even stated in the straw vote motion. So the excuse for declaring it out of order is lame. Was everybody at the meeting hypnotized?
So, the alternative is leasing half the building? The CFC doesn't need a motion to do that. They can do it right now, no motion! There's a precedent, the previous office.
I'm sure that the governors are desperate to staunch the flow of money bleeding from the CFC, so a resolve to rent out part of the office might seem almost as good as selling the office, but in fact it is the opposite. If you rent out half of the office, can you then turn around and sell it? Can you recoup the time and money lost making that half of the office rentable?
As a real estate layman, my opinion on rentability might not be worth much, but here it is: renting out half the office will be difficult and not result in much income.
The real estate market is indeed softening, but in Ottawa in the first half of the year prices had a good jolt up in value. So now would be a perfect time to sell. Again as a layman, my feeling is that you wouldn't get as much as you want for the office condo because it is in the middle of nowhere. It's not really office space, it's not retail space, it's more like warehouse space. But still, it would be money in the bank rather than money going out every month.
It is a mystery to me. Why don't the governors want to know their own opinion on this crucial question?
If it were me, I'd resubmit some straw votes for GL #1. You'd have results by GL #2. Better than the 2009 Annual Meeting. Time is a-wasting.
If that's the case, and I'm not sure it will be, then make a proposal that will gain income.
We have to get real about this. They want trips to places all over the world, Olympics, World Junior, pay the entry for the events, apply for their titles, pay for their titles, pay to change their federations, pay pocket money, give honourary memberships, weekly ratings, etc. Who should pay for all this stuff? If they don't want to play and get CFC rated they might as well be playing tic tac toe.
Most rating fee money likely comes out of tournament entry fees. Most juniors never get any of that and those who do will simply get a little less.
I think you are trying to convice me the parents who paid those large entry fees for the CYCC care if the CFC charges 50 cents or 5 dollars to rate the games. That dog doesn't hunt.
Gary,
You are really out of touch when it comes to junior chess. This is an area which actually makes money on the local, provincial and national level. We run 2 tournaments a month for them in Greater Vancouver, while outside 2-3 yearly events there are none for adults. If this situation gets shut down by stupid decisions, you will have no future for CFC whatsoever!
In what way is the 10 fold increase in rating fees for juniors justified? The service has not improved anywhere close to 10 times, so?... Do we want to milk only participating juniors to provide services for adults who don't participate? It is not at all fair!
Those who wish to play at CYCC pay and play at local and provincial level (roughly $30 per tournament); also playing at CYCC means paying about 5 times the local fee. Where do all these money go and are used for? Past CYCCs were huge money makers for CFC and all is gone now. How can you say kids got unreasonable requests to go to WYCC? Anyways CFC pays only for the champion for each age group regardless how many go (the rest by their own means).
In our case we pay everything in time, even if there are periods of time like in the past year when the service was nowhere. Do you know that CFC has still not solved the money situation from WYCC 2005 when the Canadian delegation (amongst others) were absolutely robbed by the French organizers? Don't want me to go into this and other areas deeper? It won't be pretty...
The only thing you should convince yourself is some areas are not as they used to be in your time. Let us know and do what we think is appropriate because we DO CARE!
In what way is the 10 fold increase in rating fees for juniors justified? The service has not improved anywhere close to 10 times, so?... Do we want to milk only participating juniors to provide services for adults who don't participate? It is not at all fair!
It's justified because the CFC needs income to break even. Your provincial federation squeezes 12 dollar per member on top of the CFC charges for what amounts to nothing. Of course, that's different because it BC that's getting the money and not the CFC.
Those who wish to play at CYCC pay and play at local and provincial level (roughly $30 per tournament); also playing at CYCC means paying about 5 times the local fee. Where do all these money go and are used for? Past CYCCs were huge money makers for CFC and all is gone now. How can you say kids got unreasonable requests to go to WYCC? Anyways CFC pays only for the champion for each age group regardless how many go (the rest by their own means).
They pay an entry fee and the money comes out of that. Maybe it will squeeze the provincial and local margins a bit, but that's too bad.
In our case we pay everything in time, even if there are periods of time like in the past year when the service was nowhere. Do you know that CFC has still not solved the money situation from WYCC 2005 when the Canadian delegation (amongst others) were absolutely robbed by the French organizers? Don't want me to go into this and other areas deeper? It won't be pretty...
I don't care. It has nothing to do with the rating fee increase. Stick to the topic.
The only thing you should convince yourself is some areas are not as they used to be in your time. Let us know and do what we think is appropriate because we DO CARE!
Maybe you didn't get the memo. This is my time. You once told me the least I could do is renew my membership to support the CFC. Well, I think the least the members and parents can do is pay enough of a user fee (that's what a rating fee is) to give the CFC a chance to break even. Surely you can count well enough to know that a few more losing years and the CFC will be reduced to ZERO.
[QUOTE=Gary Ruben;1367]It's justified because the CFC needs income to break even. Your provincial federation squeezes 12 dollar per member on top of the CFC charges for what amounts to nothing. Of course, that's different because it BC that's getting the money and not the CFC.
[QUOTE]
Gary,
I won't argue that the CFC doen't need to fix up its financial situation. However, this large increase in rating fees for Juniors will in the end be harmful towards the goal of having more people playing rated chess.
Presently, the Scarborough Chess Club charges $60 per year for Junior memberships. We offer about 6 or 7 tournaments in a year. We operate on a pretty much break even basis (membership fees go to pay for the community centre rental and for paying the CFC for rating the tournaments -- tournaments have no entry fee for members). If suddenly we are having to fork out $5 per tournament per Junior member then it it looks like we've got to charge Juniors another $30 to $35 per year. It may not seem like a lot of money but it is quite likely going to act as a disincentive to young players becoming involved.
Maybe for some kids (and their parents) it is no such a big deal especially if the kid seems to be gifted. But for others where the kid is just having fun playing chess it might seem like too much money. And for others families, it acually might be a real barrier. Personally, I'd rather have children and adolescents playing chess rather than zombying out to video games or getting into trouble.
I can't believe that all financial options have been examined and this is the only one that works.
I won't argue that the CFC doen't need to fix up its financial situation. However, this large increase in rating fees for Juniors will in the end be harmful towards the goal of having more people playing rated chess.
Presently, the Scarborough Chess Club charges $60 per year for Junior memberships. We offer about 6 or 7 tournaments in a year. We operate on a pretty much break even basis (membership fees go to pay for the community centre rental and for paying the CFC for rating the tournaments -- tournaments have no entry fee for members). If suddenly we are having to fork out $5 per tournament per Junior member then it it looks like we've got to charge Juniors another $30 to $35 per year. It may not seem like a lot of money but it is quite likely going to act as a disincentive to young players becoming involved.
Maybe for some kids (and their parents) it is no such a big deal especially if the kid seems to be gifted. But for others where the kid is just having fun playing chess it might seem like too much money. And for others families, it acually might be a real barrier. Personally, I'd rather have children and adolescents playing chess rather than zombying out to video games or getting into trouble.
I can't believe that all financial options have been examined and this is the only one that works.
Steve Karpik
Steve,
I think you said you have 70 members. There are 7 events per year. I think I read somewhere you have around 10 juniors. For 7 events times an extra $4.50 pre rated event per junior it comes to 31.50. That's $315. for the 10 players. Now divide that by the 70 members and it's $4.50 per member and that's how much you increase the membership dues to cover it.
For the adult membership it goes down 6 dollars, I think it was, so that should cover part of the tournament increase for them. It will make up 3 events. For the other 4 events you have an increase of 6.80 for the entire membership numbers. It will take an extra 11 dollars a member to cover the extra fees, junior, regular and senior.
At a club I would never charge the kids for the entire increase. I'd spread it over the entire membership. Increase your half year membership by 5.50 and full year by 11.00 and it should do the trick.
Do all the members play all 7 events these days?
You realize it's unlikely the CFC can sustain these loses for much longer, don't you?
Actually juniors at the Scarborough Club wouldn't be affected as much as that. Since the tournaments are mixed (i.e. not juniors-only), the rating fee for the juniors is the same as for the adults: $3, which is about to become $5.
The CFC ratings give those events status and without that status they likely wouldn't be as well attended. 5 dollars per event is not excessive.
Than what do yous think about charging participants of Open and Closed additional $10 or $20 for the CFC needs? Potential organizers are charged $x000 just for placing bids :)
--
The good soldier Švejk proclaimed that the government that increases the beer price will fall in one year :beer:
Tweet
Comment