CFC Member Inactivity/Lack of Interest in CFC Program

[Alan Baljeu]

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

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

Mainstream promotion is usually for specific activities, unless you have in mind a TV spot that says "Play chess, it's fun, it makes you smart. (A message from the Chess Federation of Canada)

Otherwise, if you're promoting a specific event to the public, any other group (whoever is organizing the specific event) can also do mainstream media promotion.

The national organization can promote stuff if it chooses. It doesn't. If there are gaps, the CFC could try to fill it. Anyone else could do the same: Name a gap. Discuss it online. Do something about it.

The reason individuals and various organizations can be more effective than the CFC is simple: There are many of them, and only one CFC. More ideas come up. People interested in each idea can organize it themselves, and not channel it through a bureaucracy. The CFC's best mode of operating is to not do things itself, but present ideas and have somebody come forward to take it on. But it's neither the sole source nor vetter of ideas.

[Steve Karpik]

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

Looking at chess or other sports I am involved with, I don't see a lot of useful promotional activity from national bodies. Most growth in organizations happens because local organizers, coaches, etc. are doing exceptional jobs encouraging new members. Or sometimes a player or athlete does exceptionally well on the international stage. In chess, the most famous example is Fischer. Or Clara Hughes in cycling and speed skating. Or Lance Armstrong in cycling. The accomplishments of these individuals opened up the eyes of young people to their sports. When USA Cycling has experienced growth, it isn't because of anything that was done at the headquarters in Colorado Springs.

National bodies set an overall structure for all the leagues and competitions under them. National bodies sanction championship events. They provide opportunities for elite competitors because of their official roles with regards to internal bodies like FIDE. All of this is important. But I don't really expect them to do stuff like, for instance, promotion that directly affects the grassroots. They have too few resources and they are too far away from the actual playing of the game/sport.

[Craig Sadler]

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

...

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.

...

is combining the tasks of the rating auditor with that of "rater" so obscene? or a couple of volunteer people? the idea is not to do away with the rating fee, but rather to turn $12000 profit into almost $40000 ($12000+28000) particularly if the rating entry method is revamped

[Gary Ruben]

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

is combining the tasks of the rating auditor with that of "rater" so obscene? or a couple of volunteer people? the idea is not to do away with the rating fee, but rather to turn $12000 profit into almost $40000 ($12000+28000) particularly if the rating entry method is revamped

It never entered my mind they would do away with the rating fee.

We used to work things differently with correspondence. There was no rating fee. At the time half the entry fee went into the prize fund and half toward administration. The administration went into things like mailing all the assignments, handling the complaints, stationary, etc. Even a 4 player class event had half the entry fee as the prize fund. I think the prize fund formula might have changed over the years.

[Bob Armstrong]

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

The CFC's best mode of operating is to not do things itself, but present ideas and have somebody come forward to take it on. ....

Hi Alan:

You should talk to past CFC executives about that statement. CFC has always suffered a dearth of volunteers. Some provinces have difficulty filling their CFC Governor quotas. CFC Committees go unmanned. There is generally very little input from the membership.

Now the Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC ) thinks that there is one main reason for this:

The CFC does not go out of its way to promote member involvement by giving members any real influence/power. This was the topic at the start of this thread dealing with CFC Bylaw # 1, s. 14 - Limitation of Member Rights ( for which see the prior posts).

If the CFC did this, and member involvement increased, I think there would not be the suspicion any longer that CFC has no role in Canadian chess.

Bob

[Alan Baljeu]

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

Bob, I think you're saying the CFC has presented ideas and there weren't people to implement them. I imagine you're right and my statement was off. I agree the CFC would perform better if it engaged the organizers better.

But even better is to reverse the approach. Rather than the CFC engage organizers, people on the ground should come together of their own and engage the chess community directly.

Yet there's room for both.

[Kevin Pacey]

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

I suspect news on a Closed will be forthcoming shortly.

Hopefully good news is on the way. It helps for experienced organizers to be in charge of an event like this, and if they are CFC governors it almost doesn't matter.

Every now and then I jump back into discussing matters related to the CFC. Old habits die hard. :)

[Bob Armstrong]

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

Bob, I think you're saying the CFC has presented ideas and there weren't people to implement them. I imagine you're right and my statement was off. I agree the CFC would perform better if it engaged the organizers better.

But even better is to reverse the approach. Rather than the CFC engage organizers, people on the ground should come together of their own and engage the chess community directly.

Yet there's room for both.

Hi Alan:

" Yet there's room for both " - Amen, Amen.

Would be ideal !!

Bob

[Alan Baljeu]

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

Ideal suggests it's not real. Which part to you think is most lacking, and why?

[Bob Armstrong]

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

Hi Alan:

No, by " ideal " I meant the best of both worlds.

The CFC needs to do better, and the chess public/CFC members need to take more individual initiative. That way chess will grow !

Bob

[Kevin Pacey]

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

Just wanted to post something that's very relevant to previous discussion a bit earlier in this thread. In another thread I've just pointed out that the CFC could do without providing a rating system of its own, so long as all Canadian events are FIDE rated. Then, so long as the CFC still has the sole right to process events to be sent to FIDE for rating by them, CFC membership could be seen as still have the value to average members that it does now, and organizers would still have a reason to insist that participants in their events be CFC members.

[Robert Clark]

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

Just wanted to post something that's very relevant to previous discussion a bit earlier in this thread. In another thread I've just pointed out that the CFC could do without providing a rating system of its own, so long as all Canadian events are FIDE rated. Then, so long as the CFC still has the sole right to process events to be sent to FIDE for rating by them, CFC membership could be seen as still have the value to average members that it does now, and organizers would still have a reason to insist that participants in their events be CFC members.

Sounds like an idea, the membership fee charged by the cfc would have to be lowered dramatically though.

[Kevin Pacey]

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

Sounds like an idea, the membership fee charged by the cfc would have to be lowered dramatically though.

The CFC membership fee could then be lowered, yes, since the (FIDE) ratings would not have to be calculated by the CFC, but I don't see why the CFC membership fee would have to be lowered by the CFC if it didn't wish to. CFC members would still be getting a rating (albeit a FIDE one), and getting it the only way they could (except for through the CMA's more modest system [in terms of people (mainly kids?) in their system], afaik).