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.
Well, without the newsletter, the CFC offers nothing whatsoever except a rating service (which is additional cost anyway) and interface with FIDE. Try selling that collection of nearly nothingness.
What, you haven't read the website "When you become a member of the CFC, you join a fraternity of chess players, enthusiasts, teachers, and organizers from across Canada devoted to promoting chess."
And if you swallow that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale ...:p
Well, without the newsletter, the CFC offers nothing whatsoever except a rating service (which is additional cost anyway) and interface with FIDE. Try selling that collection of nearly nothingness.
Kerry, to be quite honest, the idea of "pay as you go" as a model is something that needs to be done. It is my belief that the CFC has developed a very bad reputation with some of its previous customers, and some ( many? ) people will on principal not pay that $50 membership fee.
If you want to grow tourney participation, dump the membership model for something else. For example, in Curling, every club member pays the OCA a fairly nominal fee every year ( say $5 or $10 ). The OCA then charges larger fees for those directly using their services ( eg tourneys, training courses ).
Last edited by Duncan Smith; Saturday, 9th July, 2011, 06:08 PM.
One of the big problems with this is that not all CFC events are created equal. For example a small club event vs a provincial open - yet both would be taking the same amount from the player. This would kill a lot of the smaller club events.
No it wouldn't kill the smaller club events. It would probably mean that they would not be CFC rated.
Denton, there is some merit in your idea. As an organizer I always cringe at having to sell a $36 annual membership or a $20 tournament membership to a new player in addition to provincial dues and rating fees (which are hidden costs here in BC since they are absorbed out of entry fees).
As for how much the (hidden) rating fee would have to be bumped up to offset the membership revenue loss, let's say for example that the average CFC player plays in 3 tournaments per year. That would mean adding $36 divided by 3 = $12 to the rating fee for a new rating fee of $18 per player per event.
My math suggests that the new fee should be $15 based on your figures unless you want to add a 20% surcharge which would not surprise me.
Another possible way of approaching the problem would be to give a large discount on membership dues to new members. The revenue loss could be offset by increasing renewal dues for existing members by a small amount.
What revenue loss? The real question is what is the incremental cost of adding one CFC member? Given that all the costs are relatively fixed adding one member does not cost you anything more. Giving away a membership will not cost you anything so there is no revenue loss.
What is the lifetime value of a CFC member to the CFC.
You don't think that the people who play in more than three tournaments a year would notice such a radical increase in the fees that they pay? What happens if they decide that $18 is too much and decide to skip CFC rating their tournaments? Increasing the cost of playing in a tournament to the point that it is more than the tournament membership used to be doesn't strike anyone as absurd?
Well, without the newsletter, the CFC offers nothing whatsoever except a rating service (which is additional cost anyway) and interface with FIDE. Try selling that collection of nearly nothingness.
Eliminate the newsletter and then CFC membership fees could be lowered from $36 to $21 which is almost the same as the current cost of a tournament membership.
Why do people who play in lots of tournaments and don't have time to read the newsletter have to support the newsletter with increased fees? It seems unfair to me.
Increasing the fee per tournament will have the unintended (or maybe intended) effect of reducing CFC tournament participation.
What, you haven't read the website "When you become a member of the CFC, you join a fraternity of chess players, enthusiasts, teachers, and organizers from across Canada devoted to promoting chess."
And if you swallow that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale ...:p
Hey John - I wrote that back in 2008 to try to give the CFC some identity and sense of purpose. Sure, there is lots to criticize, but it is essentially a true statement and does give us a goal to aspire too. I do get offended when you continue to mock it. So, stop it.
The key to lowering the membership fee is to massively grow the base. We can think of creative ways in which we can create cheap membership rates for children and newbies.
Quit spending money on dumb stuff.
That was easy.
We have a product that is more addictive than crack cocaine and is good for you (improving math and reading scores in children and reducing the onset of alzheimers in the older player).
Keep the rating fees at $3 and send everyone a free membership for the year. If you play in twelve or more events in the next year then your next year`s membership is free. If you play in six events then you get a membership for $18. If that idea is too radical then charge $10 per year instead of giving it away for free but you need to play 12 events in order to qualify for the $10 fee next year.
We have a product that is more addictive than crack cocaine and is good for you (improving math and reading scores in children and reducing the onset of alzheimers in the older player).
Keep the rating fees at $3 and send everyone a free membership for the year. If you play in twelve or more events in the next year then your next year`s membership is free. If you play in six events then you get a membership for $18. If that idea is too radical then charge $10 per year instead of giving it away for free but you need to play 12 events in order to qualify for the $10 fee next year.
The problem with this is that it'll be hard to explain to people why it was free this year, and now you want them to pay for their next year. It makes sense logically, but humans aren't exactly logical creatures.
By our calculations, if the CFC was to stay at current funding levels, then the rating fee would need to be $8 instead of 3. If we ditch the newsletter (the argument could be made that it wouldn't be needed anymore if membership fees are eliminated), then that amount could be reduced to about $6.50.
The fact is, most big tournaments already have ridiculous (in my view) entry fees. I don't think you would notice the rise in entry fees from $60 (and that's a cheap tournament these days) to $65, when in exchange you didn't have to pay a membership fee.
As to the small club events; I don't think these would be as harmed as people think they would be. I don't think too many people would complain if their small event had a total entry fee of $6.50 + prize pool.
I think this approach would allow a lot of people that want to "try" chess to get a chance to play. The $50 membership fee and $20 single tournament fees are prohibitive to not-currently-serious players playing in tournaments.
Well, without the newsletter, the CFC offers nothing whatsoever except a rating service (which is additional cost anyway) and interface with FIDE. Try selling that collection of nearly nothingness.
Then the CFC needs some strong reform.
It already seems viable to me for some enterprising individual(s) to create a competitor to the CFC.
No membership fees and significantly lower rating fees would be the draw. Nothing could even prevent this group from seeding their rating systems with the current CFC ratings of the players.
The only difficulty in that is that it would lose some over 2000 players due to the lack of FIDE interaction. Nothing though would stop TDs from submitting results to that organization for lower sections, and just report the top sections to the CFC.
In other words, players would be groomed in the other organization, then only moved to the CFC when they get really strong. In a sense, it's the CMA, but not just for kids.
This is the dangerous future that the CFC faces if they remain this inefficient.
Scarborough CC runs 5 CFC-rated tournaments per season. There is no prize money. There are no entry fees, since entry to all is covered in our annual membership. There are no rating fees charged, as that is also covered in the membership.
We have over 100 players out to a swiss.
So if the rating fee/player was to jump $ 5, then that would cost SCC $ 2,500 more per year! ( 5 tournamentsx100 players/tournamentx$5 = $ 2,500 ).
This is effectively transferring one half the cost of the CFC membership to the SCC membership ( CFC Cost = $ 50; SCC Additional Cost - 1 playerx 5 tournamentsx$5 = $25 ). We would have to increase our membership fees almost 20%. Sure the member will pay less overall ( which will be a task to explain to everyone ), but SCC will lose members because of a prohibitively high annual membership fee ( some already feel $ 140 for 10 months is high, despite it being less than $ 30/tournament for entry and rating fees ).
I'm not sure the SCC executive would be happy with such a change ( I am not on the executive, just an ordinary member ).
Bob
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Saturday, 9th July, 2011, 08:39 AM.
Scarborough CC runs 5 CFC-rated tournaments per season. There is no prize money. There are no entry fees, since entry to all is covered in our annual membership. There are no rating fees charged, as that is also covered in the membership.
We have over 100 players out to a swiss.
So if the rating fee/player was to jump $ 5, then that would cost SCC $ 2,500 more per year! ( 5 tournamentsx100 players/tournamentx$5 = $ 2,500 ).
This is effectively transferring one half the cost of the CFC membership to the SCC membership ( CFC Cost = $ 50; SCC Additional Cost - 1 playerx 5 tournamentsx$5 = $25 ). We would have to increase our membership fees almost 20%. Sure the member will pay less overall ( which will be a task to explain to everyone ), but SCC will lose members because of a prohibitively high annual membership fee ( some already feel $ 140 for 10 months is high, despite it being less than $ 30/tournament for entry and rating fees ).
I'm not sure the SCC executive would be happy with such a change ( I am not on the executive, just an ordinary member ).
Bob
Groups that do tournaments that way would have to change how they do it unfortunately.
But what would be so wrong about lowering the SCC membership fees, then having people pay on their own if they want to play in the tournaments?
Come to think of it, I would guess not all your members play in all the tournaments. That's a similar situation to what the CFC currently does. Asking people to pay in advance for tournaments (regardless of whether they actually play), doesn't make much sense to me personally.
Also think how many new members the club could get who don't want to play in a lot of big tournaments, but may want to play in 1 of them. My goal is to grow the base of tournament players.
Denton
Last edited by Denton Cockburn; Saturday, 9th July, 2011, 09:12 AM.
Why don't you contest one of the positions and try to make reforms?
Maybe you can reverse the trend and increase the membership by a few hundred.
Because I'm not currently a governor. No one should vote for a random member to take the position of a leader.
What I would love to see is a governor who is interested in reform along such lines. I would definitely support such an individual. I would go for a governor position though.
I just believe that tournament chess is currently only accessible to very few adult individuals. I don't know many University students that can afford a $50 CFC membership fee, esp. when they don't know if they will play another tournament.
I believe restructuring the fee system would increase our membership by more than a few hundred.
Denton
Last edited by Denton Cockburn; Saturday, 9th July, 2011, 10:37 AM.
Because I'm not currently a governor. No one should vote for a random member to take the position of a leader
You don't have to be a governor to run for president.
If you can administer a national organization, promote chess and grow the membership then give it a try.
Why would you think a random member such as yourself is less deserving than the one term wonders we've been watching? Past president must be a better job than president. Everyone seems to quit to be one. That position should be abolished. The last thing a new president needs is a has been hanging around.
You don't have to be a governor to run for president.
If you can administer a national organization, promote chess and grow the membership then give it a try.
Why would you think a random member such as yourself is less deserving than the one term wonders we've been watching? Past president must be a better job than president. Everyone seems to quit to be one. That position should be abolished. The last thing a new president needs is a has been hanging around.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A single issue rarely makes a good platform.
While I appreciate the idea, it's safe to say that I'm not going for any such positions at this time.
I do believe the organization needs to be reformed, but there are plenty of governors that should be able to see the same problems and come up with creative solutions.
In the meantime, I have a PhD to finish. I spent the last year running a union during contract negotiations. My degree doesn't need any more commitment distractions right now.
Tweet
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Comment