CFC Member Inactivity/Lack of Interest in CFC Program

[Gary Ruben]

Re: CFC Member Inactivity/Lack of Interest in CFC Program

I would expect that our next "capital purchase" will be rewriting the rating software completely with an automated tournament submission system.

You might think I'm here to criticize, but no. Not I.

I'm going to tell you what it cost to do the ratings for the correspondence club the 10 or 11 years I directed events. The last number of years it was around 700 members. The ratings were done on paper without computers. My events, like Canadian opens, ran in the hundreds of entrants. All the events had a lot of players. Non members used to be invited to play in Canadian Opens for a very small entry fee kindly advertised by the chess editors in their newspaper columns.

The rating statisticians over those years were volunteers who did it for free. I mailed them the results and they kindly did the calculations on the players rating file.

You might think this kind of volunteer work is isolated but it's not. I directed ICCF events for years. Hundreds of players and games at a time. All over the world. There was no pay or honourium or whatever it would be called. My receipts for stamps were reimbursed, when I remembered to send them, but what was it.

I was paid a token amount for organizing for the CCCA but not as well as the CFC paid their business manager. What I got went to the secretary and main typist.

I'd like to think it worked because of my pleasant personality and easy going ways.

[Aris Marghetis]

Re: CFC Member Inactivity/Lack of Interest in CFC Program

Actually it wouldn't be that expensive even if it did cost tens of thousands of dollars which it shouldn't. The current system costs about $13,000 to $20,000 per year in labour costs depending on how you divvy up the costs and overhead items according to the information posted by Fred McKim. If you went to something fully automated you could probably reduce that to $6500 to $10,000 or perhaps if you did it properly you might be able to reduce the need for human intervention to close to zero. The payback on an investment in the software would be less than a year. That would free up the Executive Director to do more productive things.

I imagine that you would need a robust database like Pervasive, MySQL, SQL Server, PostgreSQL or some such with a website front end. I would be surprised if the costs would exceed $5000 since full blown commercial websites with much more functionality can be had for less than that (in the Windsor/Detroit area at least).

I believe that it would be just awesome if we had an automated process. If only there was some other organization in Canada that already provided automated ratings input, that we could perhaps benefit from? Let's say aim for something that provided the TD with the ability to enter results online, either in SwissSys format, or manually tab the results in, for the much lower price of, I don't know, 40c a player? If only there was some other organization in Canada that could we buy/rent such a web service from!

P.S. to Vlad: I replied to your post, but I am in no way upset at what YOU wrote!

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: CFC Member Inactivity/Lack of Interest in CFC Program

[The] CFC should be the afterthought , not the focus. We only need the CFC to hand out officialness, nothing else.

Before we possibly chuck the baby out with the bath water, the following objectives of the CFC are given in Section 2, part III of the CFC Handbook (some may be a little out of date or need to be modified, but otherwise we might ponder what objectives might be worth not dumping - and if the CFC doesn't pursue them, who might persistently aim to do so?):

"III

The objects of the Corporation are:

To promote and encourage generally in Canada, the knowledge, study and playing of the game of chess, and to this end, and without restricting the generality of the foregoing.

1. TO promote the formation and development of a Provincial Association, in each Province of Canada, where such Association does not presently exist, and to this end, to cooperate with existing clubs and leagues within such Province;

2. TO cooperate with existing Provincial Associations, in all matters pertaining to the development of organized chess within their Province, and to this end to encourage matches, tournaments, competitions, correspondence or telegraphic or radio matches, at all levels in Canada, and simultaneous, blindfold or other displays by chess masters;

3. TO maintain appropriate affiliation with the international chess organization, known as the Fédération International des Echecs, hereinafter referred to as FIDE;

4. TO publish and maintain the Laws of Chess in Canada, consonant with any decisions in such matters published by FIDE, and the Rules and Regulations (excepting local Rules and Regulations not in conflict with them) governing chess competitions held under the auspices of the Federation, or any of its affiliates, or its authorized appointees;

5. TO protect and foster the interests of Canadian Chess players, as far as possible, in the field of national and international chess competition;

6. TO encourage with all means within its power, and at its discretion, the publication of a medium from which chess players may learn of the progress of chess in Canada, and which will be the official organ of the Federation for the publication of its decisions;

7. TO raise funds in such a manner and to such an extent as it may deem necessary or desirable, to enable it to carry out its objectives;

8. TO expend any funds in its possession or under its control, in any manner or degree, in its entire discretion, for the furtherance of the general objectives of the Federation;

9. TO establish and maintain, in co-operation with its membership, a rating system, which shall constitute an official record from time to time, of relative chess ability throughout Canada."

...
So bypass the CFC and get stuff happening. Let's talk about putting on an elite Closed, get the best ideas out there and make one happen. Then the Governors can sanction it or not, but chess goes on.

One snag is that the CFC governors and many/most Canadian organizers that run events rated by the CFC have long happened to be just about the same group of people, afaik. Another snag is that if more than one organizer/team wants to run a Closed or any other flagship Canadian event, who decides who has the right to do so, if one or more of these organizers/teams refuse to yield the sole right of running an event to one particular organizer/team? Right now the CFC in effect preempts that possibility, through the bidding process.
[edit: I forgot you wanted to decide the right to an event through a public vote...unless maybe for Closed events you meant for only the players to take the vote?!...let's hope the public/players would be motivated and knowledgable enough to vote and do so wisely.]

...
Same with ratings. Discuss how to create a tournament reporting system. Get the best ideas going. People can build something as a hobby (it's not that hard). People try it, improve it, and when it works great, then replace the CFC system.

It's possible, but (aside from the CFC's plans for an automated rated system, as revealed by Fred in this thread), who is going to be motivated to make sure that it happens anytime soon, and who is actually going to do something about processing ratings for Canadian players in a better way anytime soon (if they're not given the go-ahead by the CFC)?

[Alan Baljeu]

Re: CFC Member Inactivity/Lack of Interest in CFC Program

IMO only 3,4,5 are essential CFC services. All the others can be done independently. Now I'm not saying the CFC should stop doing the rest. I'm saying people should go ahead and plan the rest regardless of the CFC. That is, come up with ideas, share them, make real plans, and improve them.

In the case of the Closed, only the CFC can make an event official, so that's up to them. But if there's no approved Closed, does that mean there's no tournament at all? I'm saying get the organizers across the country discussing. What makes a good tournament. Get ideas for locations, costs, funds, service. Who might want to host. What are possibilities. Figure what's the best options, pursue them, coordinate to avoid doubled up tournaments, and present the best events to the public. No rules, no secrets, no politics, good plans. Then the CFC may choose to rubberstamp or not. Then the organizer, backed by community support, decides to go ahead, and we have chess.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: CFC Member Inactivity/Lack of Interest in CFC Program

IMO only 3,4,5 are essential CFC services. All the others can be done independently. Now I'm not saying the CFC should stop doing the rest. I'm saying people should go ahead and plan the rest regardless of the CFC. That is, come up with ideas, share them, make real plans, and improve them.

I (almost) agree with you here.

To repeat, 3-5 are:

3. TO maintain appropriate affiliation with the international chess organization, known as the Fédération International des Echecs, hereinafter referred to as FIDE;

4. TO publish and maintain the Laws of Chess in Canada, consonant with any decisions in such matters published by FIDE, and the Rules and Regulations (excepting local Rules and Regulations not in conflict with them) governing chess competitions held under the auspices of the Federation, or any of its affiliates, or its authorized appointees;

5. TO protect and foster the interests of Canadian Chess players, as far as possible, in the field of national and international chess competition;

The CFC may not be able to dispense with raising & expending funds (essentially objectives 7 & 8) entirely, however, since FIDE requires affiliates such as the CFC to pay an affiliate fee every year (a modest amount, perhaps?!), and more significantly, the CFC has from time to time (at least in the past) paid at least some expenses for Canadian players/teams, as well as for organizers of at least Canadian flagship events, in order to give support.

Nevertheless if, as you wish, a rating service for Canadian players and a Canadian Chess Newsletter/magazine could some day be made at no cost to the CFC (i.e. made independently of it), CFC membership fees could be reduced, no problem.

In the case of the Closed, only the CFC can make an event official, so that's up to them. But if there's no approved Closed, does that mean there's no tournament at all? I'm saying get the organizers across the country discussing. What makes a good tournament. Get ideas for locations, costs, funds, service. Who might want to host. What are possibilities. Figure what's the best options, pursue them, coordinate to avoid doubled up tournaments, and present the best events to the public. No rules, no secrets, no politics, good plans. Then the CFC may choose to rubberstamp or not. Then the organizer, backed by community support, decides to go ahead, and we have chess.

Unfortunately, this could be seen as begging the question. There is no Closed at the moment because there are apparently no eager organizers available at present. Organizing is done more at a local level, to start with anyway, and it seems unlikely to me that organizers can stir up interest initially at long distance when it is already apparently lacking at whatever locality each and every Canadian organizer happens to live in.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: CFC Member Inactivity/Lack of Interest in CFC Program

Nevertheless if, as you wish, a rating service for Canadian players and a Canadian Chess Newsletter/magazine could some day be made at no cost to the CFC (i.e. made independently of it), CFC membership fees could be reduced, no problem.

Oops, apparently I should qualify this. If there's no rating service or Newsletter/magazine provided by the CFC, then they had better charge next to nothing for membership, as at least from an average members' point of view there apparently would be little value in having a membership (unless one counts being allowed to play in a tournament that an organizer would demand CFC membership to particpate in [but why would an organizer (edit: when there is no longer a CFC rating sytem)?]).

It's late at night, I forgot my ABC's of common sense when it comes to the CFC. :o

[Steve Karpik]

Re: CFC Member Inactivity/Lack of Interest in CFC Program

Note: My unedited post is in reaction to Kevin first posting. But I didn't type fast enough and Kevin clarified his thoughts. Once clarified it turns out there's not much difference in our perspectives (if any at all). My point (more or less agreed to by Kevin) is that for the average "Joe", a "ratings system"-free CFC doesn't offer much.

-----------------------------

Original posting by SK:

To repeat, 3-5 are:

3. TO maintain appropriate affiliation with the international chess organization, known as the Fédération International des Echecs, hereinafter referred to as FIDE;

4. TO publish and maintain the Laws of Chess in Canada, consonant with any decisions in such matters published by FIDE, and the Rules and Regulations (excepting local Rules and Regulations not in conflict with them) governing chess competitions held under the auspices of the Federation, or any of its affiliates, or its authorized appointees;

5. TO protect and foster the interests of Canadian Chess players, as far as possible, in the field of national and international chess competition;

As a decidedly non-elite and ordinary member of the CFC, why would I pay for any of these things if that's all there was?

The only reason I belong to the CFC is for the ratings service. Ratings give me some idea of whether I'm playing better or worse. It's not much different than a men's rec hockey league keeping standings, goals against, top scorers, etc. The CFC ratings service like the record keeping in the rec hockey league adds a bit of interest to my chess.

I also realize that if I want to benefit from the CFC rating service, some of my membership money is going to benefit elite level chess in Canada. I'm totally OK with that. It makes sense for a national body like the CFC to pay attention to Canada's more talented players. Coordinating major events is also another service which doesn't impact on me too much (usually too busy to play in tournaments like the Canadian Open) but I can see the value in helping to ensure that there's an Open, Closed, Junior Championships, etc.

But if the ratings service was declared unimportant and something a third party could do or did not need doing at all, I can't see spending $43 on the CFC. Chess is one of the things in my life that I do for fun. Seeing my rating go up (or more often than not plummet when my life is too busy) adds a bit to that fun. Take away the ratings, then I'll probably still play chess (enjoying it a bit less) but I won't bother with the CFC.

Each year I directly pay the CFC $43 and indirectly about $24 to $30 per year in rating fees. That's OK with me. Take away the rating service and then I don't understand why I'd pay $43.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: CFC Member Inactivity/Lack of Interest in CFC Program

Hi Steve

See the previous post just above yours (which I posted while you were entering yours).

[Ken Craft]

Re: CFC Member Inactivity/Lack of Interest in CFC Program

I suspect news on a Closed will be forthcoming shortly.

[Alan Baljeu]

Re: CFC Member Inactivity/Lack of Interest in CFC Program

My point (more or less agreed to by Kevin) is that for the average "Joe", a "ratings system"-free CFC doesn't offer much.

I agree. But then points 3,4,5 don't cost money. If the rest is done independent of the CFC, there's no more reason for membership to cost $43. Then make it a $10 membership charge and minimal rating fee. All the rest will be up to organizers and sponsors. The overhead will be room rental only. More people will join because, why not at that rate.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: CFC Member Inactivity/Lack of Interest in CFC Program

I agree. But then points 3,4,5 don't cost money. If the rest is done independent of the CFC, there's no more reason for membership to cost $43. Then make it a $10 membership charge and minimal rating fee. All the rest will be up to organizers and sponsors. The overhead will be room rental only. More people will join because, why not at that rate.

Hi Alan

As I tried to explain in my second last post above Steve's post, points 3 & 5 that I gave from the Handbook do (or can) cost money (but not as much for point 3, i.e. for the affiliation fee that the CFC has to pay to FIDE annually).

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: CFC Member Inactivity/Lack of Interest in CFC Program

Hi Steve:

Is there no need for the national organization to promote chess in Canada to the public, and to try to encourage tournaments for the public ( not saying whether it does that now, or does it well if it does )?

If it is needed, then administration of an organization has to be funded, no? - by membership or rating fee or a combination ( as now ).

Bob

[Alan Baljeu]

Re: CFC Member Inactivity/Lack of Interest in CFC Program

Bob, is the CFC in fact promoting chess in Canada? I suspect it isn't doing much. My point is not that the CFC should stop promoting chess. My point is that everybody else should feel free to promote chess, and that independents (with Internet as a primary means) will and do have more success at this than the CFC.

So then, if people are better at promoting chess than the CFC, we should no longer consider the CFC to be the essential promoter. Again, we have great promotion happening though not via CFC. Since that's the case, why do we need to pay for CFC administration to carry out this function?

To be clear, it's the Internet that makes the difference. 20 years ago, you and I wouldn't be having this conversation. The CFC was an essential organization to facilitate communication. But since mass communication is now free and ubiquitous, most of the CFC's former duties are outmoded.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: CFC Member Inactivity/Lack of Interest in CFC Program

Hi Steve:

Is there no need for the national organization to promote chess in Canada to the public, and to try to encourage tournaments for the public ( not saying whether it does that now, or does it well if it does )?

If it is needed, then administration of an organization has to be funded, no? - by membership or rating fee or a combination ( as now ).

Bob

Hi Bob

I'd like to know if the CFC has significantly promoted chess to the public for a long time (say within living memory).

What the CFC provides for organizers who actually do run tournaments, as well as average members, is a rating system, plus (in the past, anyway) CFC programs that seem to have had limited impact, e.g. the old Local Tournament Incentive Program, which I am not sure does much more than throw some money at the problem of the uninspiring quantity of rated tournaments.

Whether or not the subsets of Canadian organizers and CFC Governors happen to be always almost one and the same, the CFC could just provide a rating service and get out of the way of the organizers of average tournaments by reducing membership and rating fees as much as possible (i.e. to still support the nominal cost of FIDE affiliation, plus the costs of supporting our elite tournament organizers/players as necessary).

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: CFC Member Inactivity/Lack of Interest in CFC Program

Hi Alan:

It is true that other than CFC'ers promote chess in their specific niche :

1. the organizers ( would there be as much organizing if there were no national organization? );
2.discussion B0ards ( though this ChessTalk is by a national organization - CMA - not an individual; the other is the CFC's )
3.bloggers ( like GM Mark Bluvshtein and GM Kevin Spraggett - though Kevin wouldn't be so sensational if he didn't have CFC to kick around anymore;
4.independent promoters ( Yuanling Yuan's Chess in the Library - but not much had been happening by individuals before she did this ).

But do we need the national organization to do mainstream media promotion; to coordinate the outside efforts and see where the gaps are and try to fill them; to act as the background for a lot of the private activity, and to support it?

Bob