Grassroots Group Proposes CFC Restructuring Package

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: Grassroots Group Proposes CFC Restructuring Package

    Why should Actives cost less? The amount of work for the person entering the data is identical.

    Since the CFC rating system isn't serious anyway, I guess not much harm would come of rating bughouse or blitz or whatever under the system. As long as some guy that wins all the games in the local blitz or bughouse event doesn't get him onto the Olympiad Team or allow him to sandbag and win a bunch of class prizes.
    "Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Grassroots Group Proposes CFC Restructuring Package

      Originally posted by Tom O'Donnell View Post
      Why should Actives cost less? The amount of work for the person entering the data is identical.
      Actives are less serious than Regular time control games; hence, the need or desire to have them rated is less. (At least in our neck of the woods).

      An analogy would be that although it costs the same to have a new car washed as it does a rust bucket how many people with rust buckets bother to have them washed? Maybe if the car wash outfits charged less for people to bring in their rust buckets (while still charging the same for new cars) maybe they'd get some additional sales. :)

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Grassroots Group Proposes CFC Restructuring Package

        That is a rather asymetrical view of looking at things.

        Supposing that it is decided that Actives get charged only $2/head. Then either: 1) the Actives are losing the CFC money and therefore the regular events are subsidizing the Actives or 2) both are making money (that one is almost certainly true), but the regulars are being gouged. Well, if I am an organizer of regular events, I am going to want the discounted rate. How could the CFC refuse? They would have to admit to either 1 or 2 above, and in either case I am not happy.

        Perhaps, continuing your car analogy, car washes don't do what you propose because they fear that the owners of non-rustbuckets will demand a less expensive wash?

        My personal view is that the CFC should get out of rating anything, and probably sooner rather than later. FIDE is going to eventually be rating every serious Canadian event. The non-serious events can be rated locally for much cheaper (or even free, as you can attest).
        "Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Grassroots Group Proposes CFC Restructuring Package

          While the CFC seems to be secretive about money, do we at least know what the cost (or effort) of rating events might be?

          Can't tournament reports be sent in so that they are rated almost automatically by the computer, at no cost to the CFC? That is my assumption - that the cost to the CFC of rating, say, a five-round Swiss is maybe a dollar, but the rating fee is $3.00 x 20 players = $60. The rating fee doesn't really relate to the costs (although there would be some costs to the CFC) but rather to the service provided.

          Since the service provided for active, blitz, etc. events is less (because they are less important and because the K factor would be much less, so they would affect the ratings less), the rating fee would be less. Turning that around, and expanded rating system would encourage chess activity.

          The idea is to make money on volume, which in turn would necessarily reflect at great level of chess activity of all types.

          As for qualifying, I think it would follow that you use FIDE ratings (only) for the Olympiad teams, and/or that you insist that players have played in something like 20 regular CFC rated games in (say) the year before the event, so that the effect of active and other play would be fairly minimal for those players. In other words, someone who boosts their CFC rating by winning active or s-chess events would lose (or at least have to defend) those rating points in normal tournaments.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Grassroots Group Proposes CFC Restructuring Package

            Originally posted by Bruce Harper View Post
            Can't tournament reports be sent in so that they are rated almost automatically by the computer, at no cost to the CFC? That is my assumption - that the cost to the CFC of rating, say, a five-round Swiss is maybe a dollar, but the rating fee is $3.00 x 20 players = $60. The rating fee doesn't really relate to the costs (although there would be some costs to the CFC) but rather to the service provided.
            Now there's a can of worms...
            Christopher Mallon
            FIDE Arbiter

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Grassroots Group Proposes CFC Restructuring Package

              Originally posted by Bruce Harper View Post
              While the CFC seems to be secretive about money, do we at least know what the cost (or effort) of rating events might be?

              Can't tournament reports be sent in so that they are rated almost automatically by the computer, at no cost to the CFC?
              The cost is certainly less than $1/player. No, it cannot be done automatically, at least not yet.
              "Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Grassroots Group Proposes CFC Restructuring Package

                Larry could do it automatically ... ;)

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Progress Report - Grassroots CFC Restructuring Package

                  We now have Governor Movers for all 7 of our motions going to the Governors on our revised platform ( item # 5 [ Retail Business ] and # 7 [ CFC Staffing ] have been slightly amended, but keep the fundamental substance of the initial platform in tact ). We also have Governor Seconders for 5 of the 7 motions.

                  We have the motions out to 9 Governors now looking for seconders for the final 2 motions outstanding.

                  If we get seconders today, we will keep with our schedule of sending in the motions to the Executive by midnight tonight. It is still looking good as we draw to the finish line.

                  Bob

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X