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.
They lost my membership when they did away with paper magazines. I would have renewed every year - despite that I don't play chess anymore - because the magazine had interesting articles. I spend all day in front of a computer, I really don't like having to read an e-magazine.
One thing a long-term planning committee could look at is a business plan, which could include projecting for how many members that the CFC might need down the road before it might re-introduce a paper magazine without causing too great a burden on the CFC's finances.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
They lost my membership when they did away with paper magazines. I would have renewed every year - despite that I don't play chess anymore - because the magazine had interesting articles. I spend all day in front of a computer, I really don't like having to read an e-magazine.
That I why I can hardly wait for CCN to be published in a yearly book form, an idea which some time ago seemed to have been met with quite a large amount of approval. I would be curious to know if the new CFC president has plans about it or is even aware of the idea ... :)
That I why I can hardly wait for CCN to be published in a yearly book form, an idea which some time ago seemed to have been met with quite a large amount of approval. I would be curious to know if the new CFC president has plans about it or is even aware of the idea ... :)
Jean,
You had offered to publish it...and CMA is also interested but I would gladly defer to you...so the ball remains...in the court of the CFC.
Obviously there is not a lot of money to be made here (if any LOL)...it is more a question of historical value.
The vast majority of chess players have no need for the CFC. Many club members aren't members of the CFC (and have no interest in joining) and most people play online these days. The best suggestion is the online server option, but the CFC still thinks email is new and exciting high tech option.
The vast majority of chess players have no need for the CFC. Many club members aren't members of the CFC (and have no interest in joining)...
This problem goes back to pre-internet days. Back in the 1980's, when I lived near Toronto, a couple of clubs (and one team league) I went to in the region (including my own club in Brampton) were not CFC-oriented (i.e. not CFC-affiliated, nor requiring CFC membership, nor holding CFC rated club tournaments). The odd time the question of club members joining the CFC came up, there was generally either indifference or else the question 'What's in it for me?' would be asked, e.g. by typical seniors at the club. An older CFC Governor I knew at the time had no thoughts on this when I related this to him, other than thinking that the club members in question were selfish for not indirectly supporting elite players/juniors who would represent Canada.
...and most people play online these days. The best suggestion is the online server option, but the CFC still thinks email is new and exciting high tech option.
A poll I did on the old chesstalk years ago suggested to me that the CFC lost about 1000 members in a short span not so many years ago more because of rating deflation back then, and/or the discontinuation of the print magazine (with no compensating reduction in membership fee to boot), rather than the internet being as significant as many people thought. However the poll was, as usual, with a small sample size, and it was unscientific. Another more significant cause, I thought, may have been the rise of the cost of the CFC rating fee.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
@Kevin Pacey - Were you a member of the Brampton Chess Club at Heart Lake?
I was a member there for a while (mainly in summers from school), but that's a couple decades from the time you were speaking about.
I think as we've talked about on here before, the CFC really needs to re-evaluate its funding model. $48 membership fees + $3 per tournament is in my view one of the biggest things holding down CFC membership numbers.
Just like in Brampton and Windsor, I think there are probably a lot of committed club players that are not CFC members because it costs too much for very little reward.
Brampton CC still maintains its own internal rating system, which allows players to gauge their strength against others. With that, the CFC rating system has no added benefit to them.
A poll I did on the old chesstalk years ago suggested to me that the CFC lost about 1000 members in a short span not so many years ago more because of rating deflation back then, and/or the discontinuation of the print magazine (with no compensating reduction in membership fee to boot), rather than the internet being as significant as many people thought. However the poll was, as usual, with a small sample size, and it was unscientific. Another more significant cause, I thought, may have been the rise of the cost of the CFC rating fee.
The graph of number of active players over the last 15 years given below for players rated >1200 shows a steady decline and no 'blip' associated with the demise of the magazine. Nor is there a blip associated with the change in cost of the rating fee. So your hypotheses look dubious.
In general, what people tell you caused them to stop playing may not actually be why they stopped playing. And a poll on chess talk that reaches only people who still follow chess online is not particularly representative of people who quit playing chess.
Interesting graph, Roger. However I'm not sure you're representing annual total CFC membership by itself anywhere, which is what I was refering to, even though it might include some inactive players.
More specifically, check out the years given in the following link (including 2004-2007, from May 1 of each year, when total CFC membership dropped from 2701 to 1763):
Coincidentally or not, 2004-2007 was the period designated as the time of rating deflation. I can't recall the exact year the print magazine was cancelled, but it was one of these years, I'm fairly sure.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
@Kevin Pacey - Were you a member of the Brampton Chess Club at Heart Lake?
I was a member there for a while (mainly in summers from school), but that's a couple decades from the time you were speaking about.
I think as we've talked about on here before, the CFC really needs to re-evaluate its funding model. $48 membership fees + $3 per tournament is in my view one of the biggest things holding down CFC membership numbers.
Just like in Brampton and Windsor, I think there are probably a lot of committed club players that are not CFC members because it costs too much for very little reward.
Brampton CC still maintains its own internal rating system, which allows players to gauge their strength against others. With that, the CFC rating system has no added benefit to them.
Denton
Hi Denton
I was a Brampton CC member from 1976 to 1989. We moved once or twice away from the YMCA close to where I had lived, but I think I missed the move to Heart Lake.
Sometime after I moved back to the Ottawa area in 1989, Barry Thorvardson became a member of the Brampton CC, and probably he persuaded the reluctant (or more receptive?) club Exec to hold at least some CFC rated club events, I'm guessing (based on crosstables I saw on the Internet in the new millenium). I don't whether Barry is still a member or on the Exec.
I was Brampton club tournament director for at least ten years. Once I helped organize, and directed, a CFC weekend event in Brampton in the mid 80's, but we made a mistake, perhaps, in allowing smoking (either that or Brampton may have been too far from Toronto for many, and with no obvious accomodations). Turnout was light.
When I first played in a CFC rated weekend event at the RA in Ottawa back in 1975, the entry fee and/or CFC membership fee was probably $10 or less. Maybe the present CFC membership fees and local entry fees have not kept up with inflation, I don't know. However psychologically I can see why casual players even today may flinch at a fee over $10 if they have never played in organized chess before. Even if they have, they may have issues with the CFC or local organizers over what value they're getting for their money, especially if they play in less than two tournaments a year. Serious, hardened veteran otb players have less such qualms, perhaps. They're either addicted to cash prize tournament chess, and/or they're elite players. Maybe, as they get older, some still retreat to casual clubs for offhand or speed games, at a cheaper cost. I think the CFC should get into the Seniors' chess 'market', bigtime. The CMA probably is going to.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Roger, what is your definition of "active player"? For 2010, for example, your graph shows approx 3600 "active players", while the CFC stats show 1883 total members. Are the rest tournament members?
Roger, what is your definition of "active player"? For 2010, for example, your graph shows approx 3600 "active players", while the CFC stats show 1883 total members. Are the rest tournament members?
Just an educated guess, but I think Roger is including all people who played a CFC rated game in 2010. This would include juniors playing in junior only events, where the kids get a cfc rated tournament but are not required to buy a CFC membership. They are identified as "membership type B" in the system. Many of these kids play one tournament at their school out of curiosity, but then never take up the game. Roger should really eliminate "B"'s from the statistics. :)
Roger, what is your definition of "active player"? For 2010, for example, your graph shows approx 3600 "active players", while the CFC stats show 1883 total members. Are the rest tournament members?
Someone who played a rated game in the preceding 12 months. As Bob notes, the ~4000 players includes a lot of juniors. So, you might prefer (and I do prefer) to look at the number of active players with a rating >1200 (approx 1800 people which includes tournament memberships and high rated juniors) , also on the graph as more indicative of traditional CFC tournament activity.
The database does not reliably record birth dates so it is not possible to reliably separate out juniors or junior only tournaments from the database. Nor is is possible to separate out by membership type for historical data. Membership type is only recorded in the database for 'today' and has no historical record so you could not get data for say last year for last year's membership types.
I would be interested in seeing this graph broken down further by rating class. I suspect that the CFC is losing players more often from the lower rating groups but I don't have any data to back it up. If that is the case it might affect how the CFC should market itself to regain these player.
I would be interested in seeing this graph broken down further by rating class. I suspect that the CFC is losing players more often from the lower rating groups but I don't have any data to back it up. If that is the case it might affect how the CFC should market itself to regain these player.
yes, that sounds like a possibly interesting graph. I'll put it on the 'to do' list. But...there are lots of things on there already..... :-) so it will be a while before I get to it. In the meantime, you have the '<1200' class and '>1200 class'.
But you might be wanting something else to support your idea - which would be % turnover of active members by rating class (i.e. what fraction of active players in a given class where active a year ago?)
Tweet
Comment