CFC Presidential Election (from Fees thread)

[Ferdinand Supsup]

Re: CFC Presidential Election (from Fees thread)

Building the membership can be done by changing the membership model.
The current model which only targets "serious" chess players has little room for growth.

It's the PRODUCT that you sell that keeps the MEMBERSHIP grow. It's about PATRONAGE.

Chess can be shifted into TEAM (5 members) and not INDIVIDUAL competition.

For Team competition: I would suggest:
Inter Commercial Chess Team Championship - Players to be compensated for representing the company.
Inter University Chess Team Championship - Players to be compensated by offering them free scholarship.
Inter Provincial Chess Team Championship.
Inter Secondary School Team Championship.
Inter Primary School Chess Team Championship.
Inter Chess Club Team Championship.

If you can make these competitions CFC-Rated. That's a big growth of membership. Communication must play a major role by publishing results into national newspapers and magazines. A live coverage of the event will be good for potential sponsors. The current situation regarding the popularity of chess is only limited to serious and active chess players.

For individual competition:
Another benchmark to be considered to attract chess players to become members is to pattern prize distribution based on the Continental Chess Association. The major attraction why most chess players play are the prizes in the different sections. Remove the section prizes and make it a big open section, i guess, ordinary chess player even cares. Take note that GMs don't pay entry fees. It was the section players that provided the prizes in the Open section. Some tournaments that attracted many players and came close to CCA prize distributions on section prizes were the 2010 PWC Open, 2010 and 2011 Hamilton Open Summer and Winter and 2011 Ontario Open. A significant and common factor was that, the 1st Prize in a section was close to 10x the entry fee and also logically thought-off depending on the number of players playing in that section.

[Duncan Smith]

Re: CFC Presidential Election (from Fees thread)

I don't know if that's necessarily the case. A lot of the beat down comes from non-members and the vocal fringe.

The CFC may have changed, but in the early 2000s they were directly causing 90% of the turmoil in Canadian chess. Nasty politics, wasting people's time and money, no care in the world about youth chess beyond propping up the Canadian Open or paying off deficits.

Always some good people in certain grassroots projects, but their efforts were constantly thwarted to some degree by idiotic CFC politics. I remember when my daughter was invited to play in the Canadian Closed, an excellent way at the time to encourage key demographics of girls and strong youth chess. Seemed like a good idea, until a few idiots ( including Roger Patterson ) decided to grandstand about using firm rating floors and supposed cheating on the process. Spoiled the whole exercise. So now we get Roger complaining about underrated youth and all I can think about is where were those ideas back then ? Some ( most? ) of those "fringe youth players" of the time became regular Closed participants that did rather well some years.

So what did all those complaints about the Closed that year achieve ? Well, yes, the fields are much smaller. However, not for quality reasons, the lower ranked players are not stronger ratings now, even with the ratings boom. The women/girls just don't attend the Closed anymore. And interestingly, I see a lot of the young women are involved in innovative chess projects that don't involve the CFC. Wonder why.

[Duncan Smith]

Re: CFC Presidential Election (from Fees thread)

Building the membership can be done by changing the membership model.
The current model which only targets "serious" chessplayers has little room for growth.

The CFC is a faceless organization ( with secret meetings ) that taxes entry to chess events. The CFC takes itself far too seriously, stressing things like meeting protocol more so then making sure the meetings have substance.
The CFC is far too small now to require annual elections and all this formality.

You are correct on the "serious" chessplayers, I remember in youth chess the whole idea was you didn't matter much to the CFC until you made it. That is, for example, become an IM and become very "serious" in nature yourself.

I think the CFC needs to become more fun. I'm not going to suggest a roadmap to doing that or even what exactly this means. But to not succeed in this regard I think may eventually just kill the CFC once the upper middle age group that has stuck with this format retires. Chess is after all a GAME.

[Jason Lohner]

Re: CFC Presidential Election (from Fees thread)

Gary Ruben asked: What kind of membership model do you think would build the membership?

Ken replies: In essence, cast a wider net and have lower fees. Chess is played in schools, libraries, community centres, senior citizens complexes etc. outside of the auspices of the CFC. Make it easy to bring them into to the fold, inexpensively.

And none of these organizations need the CFC. The CFC has nothing to offer the vast majority of chess players in Canada. Why bother joining the CFC? Lots of unrated tournaments, internet play, local clubs etc...

The problem is that the CFC has forgotten the average chess player. Too much catering to the elite players has caused the membership to drop. Local club players who just wanted to play in their one tournament per year now don't have a 'tournament' membership that is reasonable to try out.

I left the CFC over a year ago, and I don't miss it at all. Give me one reason why someone like myself would want to rejoin the CFC...

[John Brown]

Re: CFC Presidential Election (from Fees thread)

What the CFC needs to do is run an online questionnaire from their website that can also be printed
and mailed in for those who do not use computers but have friends who can get the questionnaire for them.
The CFC would ask the main questions they want to know and then have an area where the people can voice their concerns etc.

If you'd like me to read and compile the results then you got your Volunteer as the CFC is always saying they ain't got enough volunteers.

If this questionnaire does not tell the CFC why they have no membership then I guess the CFC is not really needed and all we really need is a place to pay to get our games rated.


I personally do not like tournament with sections.
I feel we all pay an entry and we should all be eligible to play for all prizes not just a sectional prize. The recent Ontario Open was run well but I felt with such a low turnout that the prize fund was a little top heavy.

I like the idea of only Open tournaments where there is $1000 for First and the next 20-25 players get the rest of the prizes.
The $1000 for first should draw out the elite players and then rest of the entrants have a chance to compete for the next 19-24 prizes.

In the recent Ontario Open, 25 of the 65 entrants would have come home with a prize had this been a standard tournament profile. Instead of 9.

So you ask why numbers are down?

Give more players a CHANCE to win something and more players will show up to take a chance. Casinos get more players because everyone has a chance to win, not everyone wins but when they do win they are sure ready to come back and play again and again.

Organizers have to be set to some type of standard for tournaments with 50 or more players so that no matter where you run a tournament the entrants know that their entry is going for a whole group of prizes and not just a selected prize fund after the organizers chop up the money.
Yes organizers have expenses but if you set a standard that First is always $1000 and entries are gauged on that First Prize then all other prizes would be depended on more prizes if more participate.

Most ordinary Chess players are not interested in winning prizes they just want to play the game they enjoy but if they can get that from the internet or at the club level without joining the CFC then why would they need the CFC? But sell a National rating that ordinary players can get and improve should they continue as a CFC member playing in CFC rated events then you may have a niche. But you need to know why ordinary players don't join the CFC.
My opinion is the CFC is too wrapped up in themselves to look outside of their bubble.

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: CFC Presidential Election (from Fees thread)

I agree - one-section tournaments with cash to the top "n" players; (plus trophies to the top 3 or so) trophies/medals for class prizes. More sections if too many players - but still cash only in the top section. (and much lower entry fees - $20-$30 max. - especially in the lower sections).

Or - round-robin sections grouped by rating - cash within each section.

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: CFC Presidential Election (from Fees thread)

I personally do not like tournament with sections.
I feel we all pay an entry and we should all be eligible to play for all prizes not just a sectional prize. The recent Ontario Open was run well but I felt with such a low turnout that the prize fund was a little top heavy.

I like the idea of only Open tournaments where there is $1000 for First and the next 20-25 players get the rest of the prizes.
The $1000 for first should draw out the elite players and then rest of the entrants have a chance to compete for the next 19-24 prizes.

In the recent Ontario Open, 25 of the 65 entrants would have come home with a prize had this been a standard tournament profile. Instead of 9.

John - The Hamilton organizing team has had many debates about the distribution of prize funds. Opinions vary, but I think we have settled on a formula that works. You have now criticized our formula. :(

Given that the Ontario Open was in 3 sections of almost equal size, total 69 players, and a prize fund of $3,400, I am curious what your prize distribution would be. When you actually do the math, I think you will find that the 25th place prize isn't worth fighting over. John, please sit down and do the math! :)
I'll make it easy for you, pretend it was all one section if you wish! :D

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: CFC Presidential Election (from Fees thread)

The CFC is a faceless organization ( with secret meetings ) that taxes entry to chess events. The CFC takes itself far too seriously, stressing things like meeting protocol more so then making sure the meetings have substance.
The CFC is far too small now to require annual elections and all this formality.

Faceless? - but all (most) of our pictures are on the website. :)

what secret meetings? I wasn't invited. :o

taxes? - they are called entry fees and they go the the organizers to pay expenses and prizes to players.

CFC takes itself far too seriously - You got that one right! ;)

Too small for elections? - are you suggesting a dictatorship?

[Fred McKim]

Re: CFC Presidential Election (from Fees thread)

I agree - one-section tournaments with cash to the top "n" players; (plus trophies to the top 3 or so) trophies/medals for class prizes. More sections if too many players - but still cash only in the top section. (and much lower entry fees - $20-$30 max. - especially in the lower sections).

Or - round-robin sections grouped by rating - cash within each section.

I would assume that it's tournament organizers who set the distribution of the prizes, not the CFC.

Every marketplace is different and probably requires a different approach.

[Jean Hébert]

Re: CFC Presidential Election (from Fees thread)

Faceless? - but all (most) of our pictures are on the website. :)

what secret meetings? I wasn't invited. :o

taxes? - they are called entry fees and they go the the organizers to pay expenses and prizes to players.

CFC takes itself far too seriously - You got that one right! ;)

Too small for elections? - are you suggesting a dictatorship?

I am just like you Bob. People can't seem to stop complaining. It makes me sick. :)

[Duncan Smith]

Re: CFC Presidential Election (from Fees thread)

Faceless? - but all (most) of our pictures are on the website. :)

what secret meetings? I wasn't invited. :o

taxes? - they are called entry fees and they go the the organizers to pay expenses and prizes to players.

CFC takes itself far too seriously - You got that one right! ;)

Too small for elections? - are you suggesting a dictatorship?

Bob, the biggest trend right now in Canadian chess is indifference about the CFC. The result is a huge downturn in memberships, less interest in CFC positions, less interest in running traditional CFC events, and interestingly more quality chess projects run outside of the CFC world.

Obviously you chose to volunteer many hours to the CFC, I think its sad that such an noble effort would be to some degree wasted because of what the CFC has become. Even more so for Hal Bond, great guy who keeps going because he believes in organized chess, but frankly the CFC needs to change.
And who are the young people to run with existing projects once you tire of them ? Hate to break it to you, but many of them are indifferent or in some cases disillusioned with their past exposure to the CFC.

I invite you to list the top ten or twenty new innovative projects in Canadian chess from the last few years. How many of them come from the CFC ? How much support has the CFC given to these projects to foster mutual benefits for everyone ?

I understand the core volunteers of the CFC are overloaded just trying to keep up with the responsibilities of maintaining existing legacy projects. But that in itself is a clue that some of that energy needs to be redirected. It won't be long before traditional events like a Canadian Junior or a Canadian Closed just won't be run. Unless things change. Maybe I'm wrong, and everythings under control, despite the clue's that its not. I hear tidbits here and there about some projects and like it or not the image of the CFC is interfering with getting help.

[John Brown]

Re: CFC Presidential Election (from Fees thread)

Hi Bob;
was the $3400 before or after expenses.
If it was after then $3400- $1000 First=
$2400 divided by 24= $100.00 each.
Total$3400. Entry back plus $30.00 seems fair to me.

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: CFC Presidential Election (from Fees thread)

Hi Bob;
was the $3400 before or after expenses.
If it was after then $3400- $1000 First=
$2400 divided by 24= $100.00 each.
Total$3400. Entry back plus $30.00 seems fair to me.

Of course it is $3,400 after expenses.
I hope you're not suggesting the organizers pay all the tournament expenses.

So, to be absolutely clear, your prize distribution is:

1st - $1,000
2nd - $ 100
3rd - $ 100
....
24th - $ 100
25th - $ 100
26th - $ 0

Very unusual indeed!
Have you ever tried this type of distribution at a Peel tournament? :)

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: CFC Presidential Election (from Fees thread)

Hi Bob;
was the $3400 before or after expenses.
If it was after then $3400- $1000 First=
$2400 divided by 24= $100.00 each.
Total$3400. Entry back plus $30.00 seems fair to me.

This sort of prize distribution makes it very profitable to fix games in the last round. Consider this:

Four players have 4/5, and are paired with each other in the last round. If they lose they win $100. Draw and maybe they win more, but maybe not. Win and they get at least $550. What do you think is likely to happen in the last round?

[Gary Ruben]

Re: CFC Presidential Election (from Fees thread)

Use a tie break system for the placings. That would also discourage playing a Swiss Gambit and taking strategic byes.