FIDE....and the future role of the CFC

[Larry Bevand]

FIDE has informed all National Federations that they have new rules with regards to FIDE rated events. CFC President Michael von Keitz posted the text on the CFC board which I have copied below.

A glance at the latest CFC Financial statements shows that the CFC generates about $50,000 in memberships and $26,000 in rating fees. These are their 2 major revenue generators.

The chess world has changed. What is the new role of a National Federation. How will it finance itself? What are your thoughts on this?

Here is the text:

To all National Federations

Dear friends,

This is to draw your attention to FIDE's new initiatives concerning rating:

1. Rating Lists are now being published monthly, so that the next list will appear 1 August.

2. Ratings (The rating floor) now goes down to 1000, so that the first players rated 1000-1199 will appear in August.

3. There are now separate blitz and rapid play ratings. The first lists were published 1 July 2012 on the FIDE website. They are included with the information for each player. There is no charge for this service by FIDE in 2012. The charges, if any, from 2013 will be decided in Turkey.
Until we know how popular this service will be it is impossible to say what use will be made of the information. For example, titles may be awarded; or the ratings used for qualification to various events.

We understand that many people don't know about the change to monthly lists or that the Rating Floor has been dropped to 1000. Organisers don't know about these blitz and rapid play rating lists or don't know that the service is free.
We need your help to make a success of these new initiatives.


Qualification Commission

Posted to the CFC site by
CFC President Michael von Keitz

[Aman Hambleton]

Re: FIDE....and the future role of the CFC

FIDE has informed all National Federations that they have new rules with regards to FIDE rated events. CFC President Michael von Keitz posted the text on the CFC board which I have copied below.

A glance at the latest CFC Financial statements shows that the CFC generates about $50,000 in memberships and $26,000 in rating fees. These are their 2 major revenue generators.

The chess world has changed. What is the new role of a National Federation. How will it finance itself? What are your thoughts on this?

Here is the text:

To all National Federations

Dear friends,

This is to draw your attention to FIDE's new initiatives concerning rating:

1. Rating Lists are now being published monthly, so that the next list will appear 1 August.

2. Ratings (The rating floor) now goes down to 1000, so that the first players rated 1000-1199 will appear in August.

3. There are now separate blitz and rapid play ratings. The first lists were published 1 July 2012 on the FIDE website. They are included with the information for each player. There is no charge for this service by FIDE in 2012. The charges, if any, from 2013 will be decided in Turkey.
Until we know how popular this service will be it is impossible to say what use will be made of the information. For example, titles may be awarded; or the ratings used for qualification to various events.

We understand that many people don't know about the change to monthly lists or that the Rating Floor has been dropped to 1000. Organisers don't know about these blitz and rapid play rating lists or don't know that the service is free.
We need your help to make a success of these new initiatives.


Qualification Commission

Posted to the CFC site by
CFC President Michael von Keitz

Can't wait for my FIDE blitz to be higher than my FIDE standard. Good times.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: FIDE....and the future role of the CFC

A glance at the latest CFC Financial statements shows that the CFC generates about $50,000 in memberships and $26,000 in rating fees. These are their 2 major revenue generators.

The chess world has changed. What is the new role of a National Federation. How will it finance itself? What are your thoughts on this?

It is clear that FIDE is looking for additional sources of financing. Obvious sources would be a license fee as was recently proposed and at least temporarily shot down. Expansion of the rating system and charging additional rating fees is another obvious avenue to increased revenues.

Currently FIDE rating of tournaments in Canada is an option for tournaments which are CFC rated. I don't see a great demand from players rated 1000 to get FIDE ratings. It seems to me (and I believe this was pointed out by Jean Hebert) that if you get a FIDE rating early and you are an improving player who cares about their rating then you are better off waiting until you are stronger before establishing a FIDE rating.

I suspect that the CFC will continue to finance itself through memberships and rating fees for the foreseeable future. Major sponsorships would be helpful but will not easily happen at our current numbers.

The national federation should be doing all that it can in order to expand membership numbers and chess education in Canada. The stated mandate on the website is "to promote and encourage the knowledge, study and play of the game of chess in Canada." A large part of that effort will have to come from the local level by individuals. If we want sponsorships on the level of hockey or soccer then we will need to get our numbers up. The upside is that we are pretty much starting out at close to zero so there is a huge possible upside if we act purposefully and effectively.

[Roger Patterson]

Re: FIDE....and the future role of the CFC

Is as much the only reason many people pay a CFC membership is to play in a CFC rated tournament, it's clear that the widespread substitution of FIDE ratings for CFC ratings is a serious threat.

What to do?

a) Decide if it is for or against a move to FIDE ratings at all levels in principle (independent of the revenue questions). If it is against, then come up with appropriate policiess (e.g. only top sections, or "important" events are allowed to be FIDE rated). If it is for that move, then to plan for the eventual elimination of the CFC rating system. If ambivilent, then let things go as they are.

b) It needs to get it's administration costs under control Elsewhere it has been posted that the CFC costs to rate a player are of the order of $2/event and of the order of $10+ to process a new member. These are not good numbers. Apart from improving processing capabilities and proceedures, that may include rethinking what it means to be a member (e.g. why collect mailing addresses any more?, maintaining the email list for the magazine for members only has to be a lot of work - is it justified?, why even require an average player to be a member?).

c) It needs to have other reasons to be relevant to the average player and organizer than just a source of ratings. I spend a lot of time trying to improve the conditions for chess locally - my problem is the sad state of local activity. Yet, I am not a CFC governor - why? because the CFC is irrelevant to solving my problem apart from being an expense. I don't offhand know what those "other reasons" can be, but they need to be found.

[Jonathan Berry]

Re: FIDE....and the future role of the CFC

Thanks, Roger, for zeroing in on some issues.

a) A chess federation without a rating system is like a turtle without a shell.

b) $2 per player*event strikes me as high, especially if it includes those events that are pre-entered. As time goes on, the variety of formats accepted for pre-entry should expand, so that eventually only manually-paired tournaments would need to be data-keyed, and even then an on-line entry facility....

That said, if you're factoring in other costs such as server and software amortization, website coding amortization, share of office overhead, ..., ..., maybe $2 is not so bad.

b) $10 per new member must have other costs factored in. I remember in 1975 being paid 50 cents per member (new or existing) per year for records management. The 5x8" card cost a couple of cents. Membership card was about 10 cents, postage of the card (substitute current postal rate), punching up a new address keycard lets say 50 cents (not because it cost anything, but because the mailing label process was so error-prone and tedious. Everything became so much better circa 1980 with a micro-computer.)

b) Yes, I suggested membership-free regular-rated tournaments for the FQE in relation to its new agreement with the CFC. I could hardly suggest less for the CFC as FIDE shoehorns itself a little further in. As an idea--but as you say, Roger, some sober numbers need to add up before putting such an idea into practice.

c) Just as "Supporting FIDE" has been a motherhood issue for strong players, "Supporting the CFC" is a motherhood issue in this country. It may be rotten, but it's our rotten. Even the sternest critics must admit that both organizations have improved in recent years. Occasionally, individual organizers or groups of organizers arise to ignore the CFC. It must be a huge advantage to offer a similar service, but without the $40+ sticker shock. Surprisingly, unaccountably, CFC is still here, and most of the others aren't.

[Ed Zator]

Re: FIDE....and the future role of the CFC

The chess world has changed. What is the new role of a National Federation. How will it finance itself? What are your thoughts on this?

I think that with the Internet, there are more chess players interested in
international chess, and just playing, and not so much their own rating, or
local players, or a national infrastructure.

The CFC currently offers so much less now than it once did, at a time when
people are mainly playing over the web.

I honestly don't see what the CFC gives to the average member that is worth
their membership fee. A CFC website that anyone anywhere can go to? An
electronic newsletter that pales besides others, such as Chess Life and
Review?

Besides foreign rated players, the CFC should allow any unrated players to
play in tournaments without joining, and charge them for the FIDE rating
fee. That might not increase CFC revenues, which is a different issue
anyway, and should never be the obstacle to wider participation.

In other words, let new players join as part of the global interest in the
game, as represented by FIDE. and not hold them hostage to a national
system of ever decreasing relevance.

[Pierre Denommee]

Re: FIDE....and the future role of the CFC

The FIDE AGM, by a majority vote, has already approved the move to FIDE rating at all levels. Some countries without any national rating are delighted by the FIDE move.

a) Decide if it is for or against a move to FIDE ratings at all levels in principle (independent of the revenue questions). If it is against, then come up with appropriate policiess (e.g. only top sections, or "important" events are allowed to be FIDE rated). If it is for that move, then to plan for the eventual elimination of the CFC rating system. If ambivilent, then let things go as they are.

[Peter Sibbald]

Re: FIDE....and the future role of the CFC

Like Roger I am no longer a member of the CFC. I used to enjoy my membership and received an interesting magazine. Finally I was a member just to have a rating. Then my club started using CXR as its rating agent for $8/ year with unlimited games rated (no rating fee per game). I let my membership lapse.

In general, international standards are to be encouraged and for all players to be rated under the same system is not a bad thing. In practice however two issues will continue to affect (FIDE or other) ratings in Canada: the problem of localization where players only play in a limited geographical area which results in anomolies; and the fact that ones rating tends to go where it should be anyway. So my CXR rating is about the same as my CFC rating and not that different from my old INGO Zahl (a rating system once used in Germany but now abandoned).

The question for any National Organization is what is its role. I am actually glad to see ratings taken out of the equation as this may force the CFC to focus on more important issues which might include:
1. Development of young/new players.
2. Promoting the game.
3. Organization and coordination of tournaments and other events.
4. Becoming a well run organization that a major sponsor would love to support.

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: FIDE....and the future role of the CFC

The problem with using a rating system such as CXR is the small number of tournaments rated (maybe 30 in the last year), and the lack of significant overlap in regions and their rated events (the "localization" factor as Peter stated). Thus - you have (over the last year) 4 tournaments in Kingston, and almost all the rest are split between Oklahoma and the Philippines. CXR then basically becomes a "club" rating for the 3 regions - there is no overlap. "National" ratings have lots of overlap, due to players travelling from one area to another for events.

http://www.cxrchess.com/EventList.php

[Zeljko Kitich]

Re: FIDE....and the future role of the CFC

My somewhat limited understanding is that you have to be a member of a FIDE member federation to be rated by FIDE or to play in an international tournament. So I don't think there would any issue with everyone giving up their CFC membership just because FIDE handles the ratings. I'm not sure at this point how well FIDE enforces this rule.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: FIDE....and the future role of the CFC

And from my last conversation with Gerry, re my " Battle of Toronto " FIDE rating Round Robin, coming up in October, CFC is the one that submits the Canadian FIDE - rated tournaments to FIDE for rating, and pre-registers the tournament at FIDE. So CFC would continue to have a function in the FIDE rating system.

Bob

[Zeljko Kitich]

Re: FIDE....and the future role of the CFC

Speaking of FIDE does anyone know why this official offered his resignation and then why it was refused?

FIDE President refuses resignation of Ali Yazici as Vice President

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: FIDE....and the future role of the CFC

Are we forgetting the recent proposal to raise the FIDE rating fee to 7 Euros /player/tournament?
A rate approximately triple that of the CFC rating fee.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: FIDE....and the future role of the CFC

Are we forgetting the recent proposal to raise the FIDE rating fee to 7 Euros /player/tournament?
A rate approximately triple that of the CFC rating fee.

We need a CFC rating system to avoid the danger of FIDE making a change in the rules that makes it impossible for Canadian players to operate under that system. While 7 Euros seems a bit much they could just as easily change it to 70 Euros. FIDE has a problem currently with a number of the federations being encouraged and paid by Kasparov to file frivolous lawsuits which FIDE invariably wins but at significant cost due to legal expenses.

As long as FIDE operates under its current rules it will take a long time for ratings to penetrate down to the 1000 to 1200 level since the bottom of the Canadian FIDE rating pool is around the 1900 level and you have to play at least three FIDE rated players in a tournament and score one point in order to begin to establish a FIDE rating. That is assuming that TDs even choose to FIDE rate the lower sections which is still a significant expense.

In Windsor we have four FIDE rated players currently with ratings in the 2000 to 2150 range. An attempt to organize a FIDE tournament last year failed when only two of the FIDE rated players participated making the goal of FIDE rating other people impossible.

[Zeljko Kitich]

Re: FIDE....and the future role of the CFC

We need a CFC rating system to avoid the danger of FIDE making a change in the rules that makes it impossible for Canadian players to operate under that system. While 7 Euros seems a bit much they could just as easily change it to 70 Euros. FIDE has a problem currently with a number of the federations being encouraged and paid by Kasparov to file frivolous lawsuits which FIDE invariably wins but at significant cost due to legal expenses.

As long as FIDE operates under its current rules it will take a long time for ratings to penetrate down to the 1000 to 1200 level since the bottom of the Canadian FIDE rating pool is around the 1900 level and you have to play at least three FIDE rated players in a tournament and score one point in order to begin to establish a FIDE rating. That is assuming that TDs even choose to FIDE rate the lower sections which is still a significant expense.

In Windsor we have four FIDE rated players currently with ratings in the 2000 to 2150 range. An attempt to organize a FIDE tournament last year failed when only two of the FIDE rated players participated making the goal of FIDE rating other people impossible.

The question might be would FIDE agree to mass import CFC ratings, with some kind of adjustment, into the FIDE system and at what cost?