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!)
CFC Member Inactivity/Lack of Interest in CFC Program
Again, as I've said several times in recent days, what kind of organization do the members want?
It has now been over 24 hours since Peter's post, and only one member has responded as to what they want from CFC. The response is not exactly deafening.
Among possible explanations for the lack of response are :
1. There are no members out there.
2. The members are so satisfied with the CFC there is nothing they want different.
3. The members are so disenchanted with the CFC, and so sure it won't listen, that they are deliberately refusing to respond, believing it hopeless.
4. Other??
I know # 1 is not right. I believe that # 2 is not right ( though I'd love to be wrong ).
# 3 is possible. Do you think this is the reason?
# 4 - please advise if you think there is some other explanation why the members are not answering Peter's quite straightforward question.
It has now been over 24 hours since Peter's post, and only one member has responded as to what they want from CFC. The response is not exactly deafening.
Among possible explanations for the lack of response are :
1. There are no members out there.
2. The members are so satisfied with the CFC there is nothing they want different.
3. The members are so disenchanted with the CFC, and so sure it won't listen, that they are deliberately refusing to respond, believing it hopeless.
4. Other??
I know # 1 is not right. I believe that # 2 is not right ( though I'd love to be wrong ).
# 3 is possible. Do you think this is the reason?
# 4 - please advise if you think there is some other explanation why the members are not answering Peter's quite straightforward question.
Bob
The problem compounds because there is no "average" or "median" CFC member - what interests one may be of little interest to another. One can presume that ALL members (because they bothered to become members) are interested in OTB chess. Clearly participation levels vary - some people are content to play in their local club with a few rated events per year and perhaps the odd rated event in their area or the Cdn Open on rare occasions.
Some members play in every event they can find or get to.
I imagine (but faintly) that some members don't play rated events at all; they just support the CFC or want the newsletter...
In a similar manner, one can argue about direct interest in support of:
1. the Olympiad team/teams
2. events like the Closed
3. the CYCC
4. FIDE
and so on...
Given the wide range of participation and interest it is no surprise that it is hard for the CFC to develop a strategy that everyone can embrace. As an example, presuming that *everyone* must want a professional Canadian Closed tournament [and is willing to pay extra for that] is a big leap in actual practice.
An example of the dichotomy: members who play in a lot of rated events will be quite interested in the rating fee; not so hot a button for people that play in 1 or 2 events a year.
I'm afraid asking many CFC members what they want in the CFC is too broad a question. Perhaps it has to be multiple questions, but then, how do you handle the inevitable results that are mixed? Should rating fees simply be bundled into the membership (so that everyone pays a tiny bit for all the rating that goes on) or would that be considered too democratic?
Personally, I favour raising the membership fees to something like $75/year (while abolishing the rating fees) and see who is left standing... I think we have reached the stage where only hard core chess enthusiasts are left in the CFC and we may as well simplify it for them and stop worrying about tricking new members into thinking there is something for everyone.
Some thoughts
1.Fees reasonable $15-20/yr
2.Value for money-ratings free,e-zine included in fee,ratings regular, website has news
3a.Larry Bevand on the executive with Jean Hebert, Bob Armstrong and 3 others.
3b-No more governors
4.Meetings with minutes recorded
5.Discussion of issues on an open message board
6.Regular financial statements
7.Annual strategic plan
8.One where it doesn't take 60 governors or a grassroots movement to change a light bulb
9.Olympic team(s) funded by donations only
10.Members can donate to specific projects-Championships or whatever
I know. Never gonna happen.
I just have a FIDE rating,ICC membership and get the free BCCF bulletin.
-Chess news is free on the Internet so I don't really need an e-zine unless its outstanding and unique.
-The CFC rating means nothing to me as I have a normal rating.
Give me something I want, then maybe I'll join. Barring that I'm another lost member. The ongoing CFC drama I don't need.
It has now been over 24 hours since Peter's post, and only one member has responded as to what they want from CFC. The response is not exactly deafening.
Among possible explanations for the lack of response are :
1. There are no members out there.
2. The members are so satisfied with the CFC there is nothing they want different.
3. The members are so disenchanted with the CFC, and so sure it won't listen, that they are deliberately refusing to respond, believing it hopeless.
4. Other??
I know # 1 is not right. I believe that # 2 is not right ( though I'd love to be wrong ).
# 3 is possible. Do you think this is the reason?
# 4 - please advise if you think there is some other explanation why the members are not answering Peter's quite straightforward question.
Bob
Hi Bob,
First I would like to say that a lot of great folks have taken on administrative rolls in the CFC over these many years. Most leave.
I will leave others speculate as to why :)
I would like a CFC that:
1 - Makes sure their National Championships are of the highest quality possible. These days there are many events on the FIDE calendar. First the CFC has to define which ones are important to them. What their policy is for the others etc.
For the CFC priority events, overseeing the events. In otherwords, take responsibility for these events. If they fail...the buck stops with the CFC. You will have bidders if you create a win-win-win situation...the 3 wins: the players, the organizers and the CFC.
2 - Makes sure their rating system is efficient and up to-date. (the admin stuff being done by Gerry these days is excellent).
3 - Makes sure FIDE stuff is handled in a timely manner.
4 - Recognizes top Canadian players (all categories), events, organizers etc. on an annual basis (David Cohen has made a big step forward in this area).
5 -Provide a website with current information that is updated on a regular basis. Caveat: No need for bells and whistles.
6 - Partner with other players on the Canadian scene. The CFC does not have the resources to be all things to all people. They have to create a win-win situation with others on the ground...ideally through their affiliates...the provincial organizations. Ignoring other players on the ground is their loss.
7 - Make the Canadian Open into THE CHESS HAPPENING of the year in Canada. A place to come for workshops and activities of all kinds (the one in Toronto last year was well done).
Bottom line...don' bite off more than you can chew...but what you take on...make it be known to everyone that this is YOUR event and...do it extremely well!
BE PROUD...and stop simply filling in the holes with the last minute attitude that a poor event is better than no event! A poor event reflects on the image of the CFC. Period.
Personally, I favour raising the membership fees to something like $75/year (while abolishing the rating fees) and see who is left standing... I think we have reached the stage where only hard core chess enthusiasts are left in the CFC and we may as well simplify it for them and stop worrying about tricking new members into thinking there is something for everyone.
The year we doubled the CCCA membership fees, from around 3.50 to 7 or maybe it was from 3 to 6, (I forget the exact numbers as it was a long time ago), the membership stayed about the same or dropped slightly that year. The following year the membership started growing again.
If you're trying to make the point people don't appreciate something they get for free or very little, I generally agree with you.
I think growing the membership and becoming a more national organization is necessary.
Regarding teams, who really cares if a team which is not competitive wins a couple of matches once all chances of a decent placing are gone? It's like watching the Leafs go on a 2 game winning streak to end the season before they head for the golf course.
Suppose this bylaw was removed-- would that imply that members would have the "right" to be heard? Probably not. If the organisation chooses to ignore someone, whether ignoring them is justified or not, whatever bylaws there are don't matter one way or another.
I think this rule remains potentially useful, however I will admit that I don't think anything would change were it removed.
That does not change my opinion that it is a good rule to have in principle, in case one day out meeting are meeting are interupted by a bunch of nude membership fee protesters.
;)
I have experienced meetings with not much time to discuss many issues be delayed by emotionally-overblown ranting people who haven't done any preparation or warning or previous organizing. Their points may be valid, but a meeting is no place for their ranting input.
But I don't know what Stuart has against nude members. There are chess tournaments in nudist resorts, a big GM tournament in Cap D'Age. I've played chess on Wreck Beach. Gasp, probably some chesstalkers post in the nude!
Personally, I favour raising the membership fees to something like $75/year (while abolishing the rating fees) and see who is left standing... I think we have reached the stage where only hard core chess enthusiasts are left in the CFC and we may as well simplify it for them and stop worrying about tricking new members into thinking there is something for everyone.
That would work out great for me assuming that organizers passed the savings on to members in the form of lower entries or higher prizes. I am not typical though and if you make the fee too high even I might be tempted to escape to the world of unrated play. You might kill the casual players who play one or two tournaments a year. The danger I see in such an approach is that membership might drop to 60% of present levels and then we would have to raise membership fees again because the fee wouldn't cover expenses for the reduced number of members.
If you raise the fee you will lose members possibly enough to totally offset the amount of the increase. It really depends on how steep the demand curve slopes downward with increases in price.
In Windsor we have lots of activity among the highest rated players (expert and above mostly) and among very young children who are working toward the local summit of the scholastic tournament called the Windsor Chess Challenge which takes place at the Ciociaro Club February 28th and March 1st.
When a member doesn't renew you risk losing him or her for a long time. The last time I stopped playing around 1996 it was eleven years before I started again. Even then, I gave serious thought to quitting during that comeback because it seemed at times that I had lost my ability to play reasonably good (by my standards) chess. Fortunately in the midst of my slumps I did have the occasional magical game that convinced me that it was worthwhile to continue to play.
In Windsor, the present fee is a significant barrier for quite a few people. Fear of losing rating points is probably the other significant barrier keeping people from playing and rejoining the CFC.
That would work out great for me assuming that organizers passed the savings on to members in the form of lower entries or higher prizes. I am not typical though and if you make the fee too high even I might be tempted to escape to the world of unrated play. You might kill the casual players who play one or two tournaments a year. The danger I see in such an approach is that membership might drop to 60% of present levels and then we would have to raise membership fees again because the fee wouldn't cover expenses for the reduced number of members.
If you raise the fee you will lose members possibly enough to totally offset the amount of the increase. It really depends on how steep the demand curve slopes downward with increases in price.
In Windsor we have lots of activity among the highest rated players (expert and above mostly) and among very young children who are working toward the local summit of the scholastic tournament called the Windsor Chess Challenge which takes place at the Ciociaro Club February 28th and March 1st.
When a member doesn't renew you risk losing him or her for a long time. The last time I stopped playing around 1996 it was eleven years before I started again. Even then, I gave serious thought to quitting during that comeback because it seemed at times that I had lost my ability to play reasonably good (by my standards) chess. Fortunately in the midst of my slumps I did have the occasional magical game that convinced me that it was worthwhile to continue to play.
In Windsor, the present fee is a significant barrier for quite a few people. Fear of losing rating points is probably the other significant barrier keeping people from playing and rejoining the CFC.
All good points... thanks. I said $70 as a discussion point; the risk is (as you point out) pushing it too high and discouraging potential new members. It is not easy to do the analysis of all possible outcomes because there are so many unknowns. I think the current rating fee income should be offset by an increase in membership fees - I don't know how the arithmetic works out. Members who play more rated games more or less benefit from the switchover. Unfortunately, the rating and membership fees are only one aspect - there is the bigger question of value for membership and what percentage of the membership fees go to: ratings and membership, the Closed, the Olympiad, the Office, FIDE-mandated stuff, publicity programs, website operation (a large enough expense to justify a separate citation), the e-magazine, the CYCC, the WYCC, the Cdn Junior Championship. There are a lot of mouths to feed on $43/month.
Another idea is to get rid of Provincial organizations altogether (another contentious point I am sure).
Re: CFC Member Inactivity/Lack of Interest in CFC Program
Considering what the CFC is offering now, membership fees should be lower if not free, to reach the greatest possible number of chess players. As a potential advertizer (organizer, private teacher, chess material seller) I would rather have a CFC capable of reaching 10 000 people that pay low or no membership fees, than a CFC with its 1000 hard core members paying whatever fee.
The value of a rating system has greatly diminished since the arrival of internet where anyone can get a rating for free. The same goes for an e-zine; there are too much free stuff on the web to expect people to pay for it.
The main way to increase revenues is by selling the social and educational value of chess to donators and sponsors of all kinds, through specific events and programs.
Considering what the CFC is offering now, membership fees should be lower if not free, to reach the greatest possible number of chess players. As a potential advertizer (organizer, private teacher, chess material seller) I would rather have a CFC capable of reaching 10 000 people that pay low or no membership fees, than a CFC with its 1000 hard core members paying whatever fee.
The value of a rating system has greatly diminished since the arrival of internet where anyone can get a rating for free. The same goes for an e-zine; there are too much free stuff on the web to expect people to pay for it.
The main way to increase revenues is by selling the social and educational value of chess to donators and sponsors of all kinds, through specific events and programs.
Ok, now we have the opposite approach to the one I was describing (and Jean has very good points!) The main obstacle to implementing this is having the courage to slash the membership fees while attempting to maintain even the minimal benefits members now have (all the while hoping that with the reduced fees, enough new members will arrive to create an influx of money to start new or improved programs...)
I like Jean's idea but I don't know if there is the possibility to implement it within the current Governor and Executive structure. Many would see it as the death sigh of the CFC - especially those who do not have the patience to see it through.
Ok, now we have the opposite approach to the one I was describing (and Jean has very good points!) The main obstacle to implementing this is having the courage to slash the membership fees while attempting to maintain even the minimal benefits members now have (all the while hoping that with the reduced fees, enough new members will arrive to create an influx of money to start new or improved programs...)
I like Jean's idea but I don't know if there is the possibility to implement it within the current Governor and Executive structure. Many would see it as the death sigh of the CFC - especially those who do not have the patience to see it through.
Many hard choices among competing plans.
I have been arguing for a while now on the CFC board that we should, instead of charging membership, only be charging a tournament/rating/participating fee.
I feel makes sense since the vast majority of members are buying memberships only to have their games rated, and I feel it is reasonable that if you play 10 tournaments per year you pay ten times what someone who plays one event per year.
For those curious, in order to be revenue neutral such a fee would need to be about $8 per player per tournament.
That means that anyone who plays six or less events per year would save money... more then that and it would cost you more then the current system.
... I think we have reached the stage where only hard core chess enthusiasts are left in the CFC and we may as well simplify it for them and stop worrying about tricking new members into thinking there is something for everyone.
well, the turnover in membership each year is something like 30-50% so there must be a fair number of non hard-core players. Giving up on that market segment seems like a big concession. Certainly in areas that don't have enough critical mass without casual players, it would mean death.
You could have a two tier membership structure: the expensive one which comes with a vote, eligibility for certain 'important' tournaments, and whatever other perks are going versus the cheap one which is perhaps only a rating fee and is permissible for play only in 'low' level events. It's a structure which works for bridge - non serious players there collect master points and play in local events but bigger stuff requires an ACBL card (or at least it used to).
Re: CFC Member Inactivity/Lack of Interest in CFC Program
ACBL fees are similar to the CFC - $37 (regular); $28 (new member). You get a monthly magazine, and the right to claim "master points". (you can play in tournaments without being a member, but you can't get credit for master points). As far as I know, you can get credit for them (within a reasonable amount of time) when you become a member.
The Canadian Bridge Federation (and the US Bridge Federation) are affilliates of the ACBL. I don't believe they charge any membership fees, and the CBF produces a (bilingual) 3-times-a-year magazine. The CBF web page appears to be English only.
As with chess, Internet play is very popular, and ACBL-sanctioned games are available on several servers. Master points earned online are in a different category than those earned "in person" to encourage "live" play.
There are 164,145 ACBL members with master points (including those with zero). However - I'm not sure if you have to keep your membership current to be on the list.
Re: CFC Member Inactivity/Lack of Interest in CFC Program
What I would want from the CFC:
Services:
1) Ratings done on a weekly basis
Tournament organization:
1) Ensure Canadian Closed occurs and a bid is accepted by Jan 1 of year in question
2) Ensure Canadian Open occurs and a bid is accepted by Jan 1 of year in question
International:
1) Handle all FIDE ratings, title paperwork, and coordination of world championship participation
2) Take responsibility for Olympiad team fundraising
Membership communication:
1) Maintain a simple web site, focused on ratings, crosstables, upcoming tournament listings, and club locations and contact information
2) Maintain a Canadian chess blog - tournament reports, Canadians overseas, articles of interest with a Canadian focus
3) Maintain a membership online message board, whether the existing, or some sort of arrangement with existing ones
Membership improvement:
1) Begin affiliate agreements/refer a friend type activities to encourage the membership to try to encourage friends to sign up
2) Actual analysis of the membership statistics; what is the churn rate, what is the reactivation rate, what causes players to leave, what is important to the existing membership
3) Closer coordination with clubs and tournament directors to see how the CFC can serve them better
Tweet
Comment