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.
15. Have fun!
(Thanks to Nigel Hanrahan for writing these up!)
Grassroots' Campaign - " Gang of 4 " Targets CFC Fees
That is why I advocate no CFC membership fees at all, and perhaps a small rating fee increase. Then you try to increase the number of rated games played.
Bruce, while your idea is good but: it much more easy to control membership fee, than to increase the number of rated games played :D
- I do not recall ever meeting a player who wanted to play in one of our tournaments, but then changed his mind when he realized he had to renew his CFC membership.
Heaven forbid a chess player should have to renew a membership. It's a terrible concept.
I went to the Seniors club last week to see if there is a chess club this year and to chat with some cronies I haven't seen for some time.
There was an old woman sitting by the door. When I came inside the large complex she said to me, "you have to renew your membership. That will be 20 dollars".
I told her I'm a tax payer and my taxes paid for that building for which no rent is charged. She said that was nice the price is still 20 dollars.
Me: I'm an old man.
Her: I'm an old woman.
Me: Sorry, I'm taken.
Her: It's still 20 dollars.
Me: I'm a chess player and chess players never pay.
Her: You're not to touch a pawn or pick up a pool cue until you pay the 20 bucks, Laddie.
Me: I only want to talk to a few people and am checking if there is a chess club.
Her: We don't know if there is a chess club this year and talking is OK.
Me: That's a relief. I'll pay the 20 If a club forms.
Bruce, while your idea is good but: it much more easy to control membership fee, than to increase the number of rated games played :D
That's true, but it is not so easy to control the revenue from memberships (membership fee x number of members = revenue). If people perceive that the value of a membership is less than the cost (because the CFC offers little and charges for it), then people won't join.
After all, the CFC can't stop people from playing chess. I still play chess, but I usually play on ICC or with friends, or at fundraisers (none of which require CFC membership).
I think the mistake the CFC is making is to assume that people will renew or join our of loyalty or habit. But the loyalty and habit is to the game itself, not the CFC. (Of course I prefer s-chess to chess, but that's another - although perhaps related - topic).
Hi Bruce, a few months ago, I also advocated no CFC membership fees, partly based on the enormous savings in time and effort by the office and TDs. However, and I am not saying that this was deliberate, but that movement was somehow twisted into lower CFC membership fees. In my humble opinion, lower CFC membership fees will not "buy" the CFC anything. They will just reduce an income stream, and I do not believe that anyone will be genuinely happy with the new amount, unless it is insanely low, like $10.
On the other hand, higher rating fees (you wrote "small rating fee increase", but $3 to $5 or $6 is a high increase, in my opinion) are not that invisible. TDs often post the rating costs, to explain the derivation of the prize fund, and yes, people complain about that amount. If it is raised to $5 or $6, then for many tournaments, it would exceed most of the class prizes and even some of the open section prizes. And everyone knows that it costs an order of magnitude less to actually do such ratings. So, I believe this will piss off people more (towards the CFC) than the single annual driver-licence style renewal.
Yes, these are just my opinions, but I am slightly offended that you think that I have "it completely backwards". Maybe it's different in various parts of the country, but a lot of the players I know play a certain number of rated weekend events, and also play every week at the RA club, where there's a rated event every month or so. I am not on the RA club executive, but won't expenses clearly jump, as almost all club events are rated? :(
After all, the CFC can't stop people from playing chess.
That why as a Governor will not support the proposed Motion eliminating the tournament membership for regular (open swiss, matches, fancy RR, etc.) rated events. I am thinking to propose, that this fee would be split into 80/20 for CFC and TD to cover expenses for managing non-members.
If there is need to eliminate the tournament membership in principal, it can be replaced by a different rating fee for a member and a non-member :) [the CFC shop does not require to be the CFC member to buy smth - there are just different prices.]
Actually the rating fees are one of the most annoying things about running the RA Chess Club, because every new tournament we run rated, we have to get $3 from the players. Every time a new member expresses interest, I have to explain that they have to:
1) Pay the RA Center membership
2) Pay the Chess Club Membership
3) Pay for CFC membership
4) Still pay $3 about 8 times a year, in order to actually play.
The $3 tournament fees simply buffalo new people. They wonder what they were paying all these membership fees for. So as someone running a club offering rated play with no prizes, the rating fees just drive people away. I am against increasing the rating fees.
It will be interesting to see how many new players gravitate to Sunday chess, where only (1) and (2) are applicable.
I've mentioned before a discussion I had with Mike Holmes back when I was still at the RA - raise RA fees enough to cover expected rating fees ($24 if you assume 8 events per member per year) and just have the RA pay the rating fees as they become due. Mike and I also discussed adding in the cost of a years CFC membership as well - then there is one flat fee for joining and all costs are covered and TDs don't have worry about checking membership or collecting the $3.
Having said all that, the RA is an anomaly these days. My impression is that most clubs do not regulary run rated events anymore or have basically all of the club members also CFC members.
actually this next non CFC tournament is going to cost me exactly $0 to enter. The TD was going to collect $10 per person which would go to prize money, but I guess he decided against it. He has found a place to play for free (the only reason I would suspect he would charge).
This TD plays in exactly ONE CFC tournament a year. He was paying the extra $10 tournament fee. I asked him what he would do if they told him he had to buy a membership to play in the Keres open... he thanks but no thanks, he just wouldnt enter. Thanks CFC, you atleast got $10/year out of this person now you will get $0. Yet one less person in the dwindling pool of tournament players. This just shows me how much the CFC cares about average local club players. Personally, I am going to encourage him to have several of these Non CFC tournaments a year. Hopefully the CFC will wake up.
Looks to me as though the CFC is holding the jokers, but I guess they won't figure this one out until they go bankrupt. Good ridance.
This is precisely the reason I do not get near any adult tournament anymore; each person has a strong opinion on what it should get out of a chess tournament and refuses to accept any kind of regulation (such as needed for a CFC rated tournament).
Of course hundreds of thousands of people around the World play chess online, but still OTB chess is very much alive in Europe (to make a reference to another post of yours where you mentioned the USCF example).
Situation in Romania: you need to be a member of your national federation to play in any meaningful tournament (submitted to the federation for rating). Barbeque tournaments between friends do not count; people can play as many of those as they want. There are around 40 counties (have not been updated lately on the correct number), BUT nobody charges local membership on top of the national one!
Conclusion: search to see how many registered players the Romanian Chess Federation has. If this is hard to find, look at their results in international tournaments for kids, women and men (individual and team tournaments). If Canada would be at least at that level chesswise, we could talk about different things now!...
Re: Grassroots' Campaign - " Gang of 4 " Targets CFC Fees
It may be things are different in different parts of the country. I have never thought about ratings fees, but you're right that I shouldn't assume others haven't.
I think the methodology for the CFC should be:
1. Determine what the FIDE related expenses are each year.
2. Add in any other unavoidable expenses (but don't include the Olympiad teams, tournaments or anything of that nature).
3. That gives you your total expenses. Anything beyond that is discretionary (including the cost of administering memberships, which would disappear).
4. Project the annual net income from rating fees based on the number of rated games played last year, assuming no rating fee increase.
5. Compare the two (note this assumes no revenue from memberships).
I think that the rating fee revenue would be sufficient. I have seen a figure of something like $25,000 for rating fees (with a small cost for administering the system), and $11,000 for FIDE obligations.
In other words, I agree with you - it would be better to have no rating fee increases, and instead increase rating revenue by having more rated games.
I've mentioned before a discussion I had with Having said all that, the RA is an anomaly these days. My impression is that most clubs do not regulary run rated events anymore or have basically all of the club members also CFC members.
Not a total anomaly. At the Scarborough Chess Club we're now 2 rounds into a 7 round Swiss that is CFC rated. We've got the largest field we've had in years for a weekly tournament and you'd have to go back a number of years in SCC history to find as strong a field.
All Scarborough tournaments are CFC rated and we're seeing considerable growth as a club. We run about 6 tournaments a year averaging 6 to 8 rounds in two sections (Open and U1700). The news isn't all bad for CFC rated chess.
This is precisely the reason I do not get near any adult tournament anymore; each person has a strong opinion on what it should get out of a chess tournament and refuses to accept any kind of regulation (such as needed for a CFC rated tournament).
Of course hundreds of thousands of people around the World play chess online, but still OTB chess is very much alive in Europe (to make a reference to another post of yours where you mentioned the USCF example).
Situation in Romania: you need to be a member of your national federation to play in any meaningful tournament (submitted to the federation for rating). Barbeque tournaments between friends do not count; people can play as many of those as they want. There are around 40 counties (have not been updated lately on the correct number), BUT nobody charges local membership on top of the national one!
Conclusion: search to see how many registered players the Romanian Chess Federation has. If this is hard to find, look at their results in international tournaments for kids, women and men (individual and team tournaments). If Canada would be at least at that level chesswise, we could talk about different things now!...
Romania/ Eastern Europe has had chess as part of their culture for years, mainly through Soviet Influence. Canada has not. Its comparing apples and oranges. I think a valid comparison would be to the USCF and they are having the exact same problems, a shrinking base of players, but online chess seems to be doing just fine.
Does Romania charge ratings fees? How much is the membership fee? How much does it cost to play in an 'average' tournament. All of these are factors.
Canadas CFC membership is small. Far more people here play online than OTB. It is just a cultural fact that most people in Canada would rather play online. If the CFC wants to gain members, it has to attract people to it, not put barriers to join. Thats probably why I get annoyed. People here aren't just to join to 'support chess' especially when they don't see the national organization doing anything to support
An example this is the server I play on. For $60/year I can play as many rated games/tournaments as I want. There is a great forum, video lessons and many titled players to play against. I played in the 'chessville' open and had to pleasure to be thrashed by WGM Yelena Dembo :) Ive got about 30 corr. games on the go (and have yet to suspect that anyone is playing with computer assistance). No rating fees, no extras, and can play at my convenience. With a service like this, the
only reason to play in OTB tournaments is for the company. I must say that I have found everyone Ive met at local tournaments to be extremely friendly. That being said, it is getting rather expensive.
Re: Grassroots' Campaign - " Gang of 4 " Targets CFC Fees
Bob ;
You can remove my name as a supporter of your Grassroots program.
I'm completly against removing the tournament fee option . Raise the Tournament fee higher so that there would be a more reason to join CFC. But some foreign players only play in Canada maybe once or twice a year.
If you need an email in writing I'll send. It however stop immediately putting my name on the list of supporter of the Grassroots gang .
John R. Brown
Romania/ Eastern Europe has had chess as part of their culture for years, mainly through Soviet Influence. Canada has not. Its comparing apples and oranges. I think a valid comparison would be to the USCF and they are having the exact same problems, a shrinking base of players, but online chess seems to be doing just fine.
Does Romania charge ratings fees? How much is the membership fee? How much does it cost to play in an 'average' tournament. All of these are factors.
Canadas CFC membership is small. Far more people here play online than OTB. It is just a cultural fact that most people in Canada would rather play online. If the CFC wants to gain members, it has to attract people to it, not put barriers to join. Thats probably why I get annoyed. People here aren't just to join to 'support chess' especially when they don't see the national organization doing anything to support
An example this is the server I play on. For $60/year I can play as many rated games/tournaments as I want. There is a great forum, video lessons and many titled players to play against. I played in the 'chessville' open and had to pleasure to be thrashed by WGM Yelena Dembo :) Ive got about 30 corr. games on the go (and have yet to suspect that anyone is playing with computer assistance). No rating fees, no extras, and can play at my convenience. With a service like this, the
only reason to play in OTB tournaments is for the company. I must say that I have found everyone Ive met at local tournaments to be extremely friendly. That being said, it is getting rather expensive.
Romania does not charges rating fees per se. What they charge is membership fees (annual) from players and tournament fees. The way things are broken here with rating fees creates the whole issue to begin with, giving players the option to argue if they want to pay for having a rating or not. It simply should be: you want to play in a sanctioned CFC event, this is the membership fee and tournament entry fee.
Well, the thing about chess in Canada is players wanting everything or nothing. None of these extremes is healthy for a federation. How do you want CFC to atract you? Do you want it to have special rules for you, other rules for John Doe and another set of rules for Jane Dean? You keep on mentioning travel to unrated tournaments like it is for proving a point. How much more would you pay on top to play in a CFC rated tournament? Just curious to know how much we are talking about...
About your $60 membership for server play: it gives you exactly what you pay for. You pay for accessing the server and a different rating. Hey, there are at least 20 servers I know about, all of them with their "ratings". How many count? Of course if you feel this is worth $60, it is your money to spend; however do not blame it on CFC when it does not have the resources (or interest) to pay for such a server facility!
Romania does not charges rating fees per se. What they charge is membership fees (annual) from players and tournament fees. The way things are broken here with rating fees creates the whole issue to begin with, giving players the option to argue if they want to pay for having a rating or not. It simply should be: you want to play in a sanctioned CFC event, this is the membership fee and tournament entry fee.
Well, the thing about chess in Canada is players wanting everything or nothing. None of these extremes is healthy for a federation. How do you want CFC to atract you? Do you want it to have special rules for you, other rules for John Doe and another set of rules for Jane Dean? You keep on mentioning travel to unrated tournaments like it is for proving a point. How much more would you pay on top to play in a CFC rated tournament? Just curious to know how much we are talking about...
About your $60 membership for server play: it gives you exactly what you pay for. You pay for accessing the server and a different rating. Hey, there are at least 20 servers I know about, all of them with their "ratings". How many count? Of course if you feel this is worth $60, it is your money to spend; however do not blame it on CFC when it does not have the resources (or interest) to pay for such a server facility!
Most people in Canada want to see something for their money. The rules were that you could pay $10 for a tournament membership (the economic way of doing things). I don't want 'special' rules just for me, I want fair rules for everyone. I want rules that will promote chess in Canada, not hinder it. If I see the CFC doing things that I feel are contrary to this, I will voice my opinion. This is my money and If I feel that the organization that I belong to, isn't doing what it is advertising, then I have the rights to tell them 'thanks but no thanks, I don't support your cause anymore.' I personally feel that the CFC is going backwards, they are concentrating on the wrong people and are well on the way to being bankrupt.
I mention that I am willing to travel to tournaments. I am willing to play in both CFC and nonCFC tournaments. I mentioned traveling to a non CFC rated tournament to prove a point that Chess will go on in Canada with or without the CFC. I also pointed it out because these people are EXACTLY who the CFC should be encouraging to join, but with this new 'proposal' they will be excluding a large percentage of these club players. If the CFC wants to throw obstacles in there way to play in tournaments, then club players will simply sidestep the CFC and that is exactly what happened this last weekend. Some of us play because we enjoy chess! and a rating means little.
If all the CFC has to entice people is a rating, they are going to attract relatively few people. People can get that from one of the several servers out there.
The Grassroots' Campaign and the " Gang of Four " Governors moving/seconding the three CFC Fees motions are being caught in a catch-22.
We are being told we CANNOT amend the existing, passed July CFC AGM motion on CFC Fees. We are told to amend the CFC Handbook section on CFC Fees. But we CANNOT amend the CFC Handbook either - it is woefully out of date ( s. 328 on CFC Membership Fees was last amended at the 2003 AGM; here is what the Handbook says on " Tournament Memberships ": S. 375. Tournament Playing Fee: A tournament fee for first time players in CFC events.....), and has not yet been updated to incorporate either the July AGM motion on CFC Fees. So how can we amend a section that is not yet up to date??
This is classic bureaucratic bafflegab - to stop these motions from going ahead. We have proposed 2 solutions to this conundrum. We wrote to the CFC Secretary, Lyle Carver ( copy to the CFC President, David Lavin, and to Chris Mallon, CFC Treasurer, who first raised the objection to our motions ) on Sunday, Sept. 21 ( a week ago ):
Hi Lyle:
Can you advise whether anyone has now undertaken to update the CFC Handbook to incorporate the July AGM CFC Fees Motion that was passed, and to send it on to me ( as per my last e-mail to Chris, copied to you and David ) ?
I need this if I am to do as Chris ( and I’m not sure if you feel it is required too ) has requested: to amend the Handbook, rather than the passed motion. I am willing to redraft the motions, but if I am to get them into the next GL, then I need the amended Handbook Sections ASAP.
If no one has undertaken to do this, then in the interest of getting these motions into the next GL, could the Executive decide to allow the motions as is ( amending the passed motion ), and then go on and LATER amend the handbook with the AGM motion ( either as amended or not )? Please let me know.
Thanks.
Bob
We have not yet received a reply to our inquiry. We wanted our motions to go into GL # 2, which is due out soon. We are concerned now as to whether these properly brought motions are going to make it to the Governors for vote ( deja vu all over again , given that 5 of our 7 Grassroots' Motions on CFC restructuring were ruled " out of order " at the July CFC AGM ). Surely the new CFC Executive can do better than this??
Tweet
Comment