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.
I personally challenge all the governors on this board to go to a local tournament and talk to the people who use tournament memberships. Find out how many of them would be willing to 'upgrade' to a full membership or would they just stop playing in CFC rated tournaments. My belief from the people I have talked to is that there will be a drop in tournament participation.
Ask yourself is this what the CFC mandate is? I personally thought that the CFC was supposed to promote chess, not hinder participation.
Tournament Playing Fee ( " Tournament Membership " )
Hi Jason:
Here is the relevant section of the CFC Handbook on " tournament playing fee " ( assuming it is up-to-date ):
375. Tournament Playing Fee: A tournament fee for first time players in CFC events, for foreign players, and for players whose name does not appear on the last Annual List, of $10.00 may be paid in lieu of CFC membership. The player will then receive a rating, one copy of the magazine, and an invitation to join the CFC. [see Motion 90-9, as amended, GL, September 1990, p.1-12]
This is popularly called now a " tournament membership ". Grassroots' Campaign Motion 2009-7 seeks to eliminate tournament memberships. Please note that originally, and still currently according to the CFC Handbook, a tournament playing fee is to be " for first time players in CFC events ". This has now been corrupted into some players taking out tournament membership after tournament membership at only $ 10 per tournament ( whereas those who support the CFC by taking out an annual membership pay a full $ 36 annual fee ).
You are concerned that the CFC will lose out if tournament memberships are eliminated. I have used this example below before to show that the CFC will still gain revenue if CFC eliminates tournament memberships, given reasonable estimates of player loss/retention:
" If 2 tournament playing fee players refuse to play when " tournament memberships " are eliminated, then CFC loses $ 30 ( 2x$10 + 2x$5 [ rating fee ] ).
If 1 tournament playing fee player agrees to support the CFC and buys a CFC membership, CFC gets $ 41 ( adult annual membership of $ 36 + rating fee of $ 5 ).
So even if CFC loses 2/3 TPF players, it still makes a profit of $ 11 for each of the players that continues to play.
So even if 2/3 of TPF players quit CFC chess ( which I dispute as much too high ), CFC will still make money eliminating the " tournament membership ". "
As I said to you earlier about a " survey " of tournament playing fee players:
" Of course all tournament playing fee players are going to say " Hell I won't pay " when asked - they don't want to give the TPF Elimination forces any ammunition to support their cause.
But when they find themselves not playing tournament chess down the road, because of their position, will they keep their resolve?? I say they'll come around because they love playing chess and want to play competitive CFC-rated chess. "
So you can challenge Governors to survey, but I say the only sure answer will be once the tournament memberships are eliminated, and we find that many TPF players indeed decide to support their national chess organization by taking out membership, and again playing good, competitive CFC-rated chess.
I'd only note to you that both President David Lavin and Secretary Lyle Craver have both now publicly come out in favour of eliminating the tournament membership. Governors Barry Thorvardson and Gary Gladstone suppport the elimination ( mover/seconder of the Grassroots' Motion 2009-7 ). As well, I would note that CFC Treasurer, Chris Mallon, was an endorser of the original Grassroots' Campaign platform, which had in it the elimination of tournament memberships and was the seconder for the Grassroots' Campaign " straw vote " motion # 3 for eliminating them ( not sure from some recent comments of his if he still supports elimination ). Governor Kerry Liles was also an original endorser of the platform ( though he has recently posted that he now has an open mind on the issue ). All this to say, it is a hotly contested issue.
Bob
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Friday, 10th October, 2008, 10:33 PM.
and as I have challenged YOU... how many of these players have you personally talked to? How come you remain silent on this issue? Until you have actually discussed this with 'tournament members' you are pissing against the wind with your pseudo numbers and logic. Have to even discussed this with any TD's??? The ones I have talked to have responded in shock saying 'they can't do that!!!'.
The fact is that you haven't talked to anyone and you have NO clue on the ramifications of your proposal. This is why I challenge the governors to check for themselves then make up their minds on how to vote.
Re: Tournament Playing Fee ( " Tournament Membership " )
On the " dark " board ( OCC ), Tom O'Donnell correctly has pointed out an error in the calculation in my example of what would happen on elimination of tournament memberships, if 2/3 dropped out.
For the TPF player who joins the CFC, CFC gets $ 41, but they would have gotten from him under the old system $ 15. So the increase from him is only $ 26, as Tom calculated. Thus CFC loses $ 4 for every 1 of 3 TPF players that takes out membership. I still say this is a small loss to get everyone onto the same playing field of annual memberships.
And the losses will be recouped as some of the 2/3 who initially refuse to pay, change their mind later, and take out a membership.
The world will not end when tournament memberships are eliminated. But I do wish there were statistics as to what % of tournament players use tournament memberships vs annual memberships. This would be helpful to know the numbers of players this issue affects.
On the " dark " board ( OCC ), Tom O'Donnell correctly has pointed out an error in the calculation in my example of what would happen on elimination of tournament memberships, if 2/3 dropped out.
For the TPF player who joins the CFC, CFC gets $ 41, but they would have gotten from him under the old system $ 15. So the increase from him is only $ 26, as Tom calculated. Thus CFC loses $ 4 for every 1 of 3 TPF players that takes out membership. I still say this is a small loss to get everyone onto the same playing field of annual memberships.
And the losses will be recouped as some of the 2/3 who initially refuse to pay, change their mind later, and take out a membership.
The world will not end when tournament memberships are eliminated. But I do wish there were statistics as to what % of tournament players use tournament memberships vs annual memberships. This would be helpful to know the numbers of players this issue affects.
Bob
The world won't end, but the cfc will be closer to the end. You guys are not thinking. The model that has been used over the years doesn't work now. Don't even try to fix it, make a better model.
Your idea doesn't hold water. It is full of "ifs". You have no data to back it up. I don't have data, but my years of tournament organizing tell me that without the T, less players at the tournament, less revenue for the cfc. You would rather jam $41 down the throats of players who play once a year, maybe twice. You even say "this is a small loss" as if the cfc can afford more loss.
This is why the governors are basically dangerous, and shouldn't have a say in the day to day business of the cfc. The governors should only be responsible for the rules of chess, nothing else. That should be left to people who have BUSINESS KNOWLEDGE. If the cfc thinks it can fund itself with memberships and ratings, they will be doomed.
On the " dark " board ( OCC ), Tom O'Donnell correctly has pointed out an error in the calculation in my example of what would happen on elimination of tournament memberships, if 2/3 dropped out.
For the TPF player who joins the CFC, CFC gets $ 41, but they would have gotten from him under the old system $ 15. So the increase from him is only $ 26, as Tom calculated. Thus CFC loses $ 4 for every 1 of 3 TPF players that takes out membership. I still say this is a small loss to get everyone onto the same playing field of annual memberships.
And the losses will be recouped as some of the 2/3 who initially refuse to pay, change their mind later, and take out a membership.
The world will not end when tournament memberships are eliminated. But I do wish there were statistics as to what % of tournament players use tournament memberships vs annual memberships. This would be helpful to know the numbers of players this issue affects.
Bob
I ask once AGAIN, how many people who use the tournament memberships have you talked to. Where is your data?
Atleast I have spoken to these people, you have NOT. I have spoken to TD's about this issue, you have NOT. I have yet to talk to ONE person who use tournament memberships who would buy a CFC membership. I think your 2/3 is a pipe dream. I would be surprised if 1/10 actually bought a membership. Then again I have actually asked some of these people... YOU HAVE NOT. All I am asking the Governors to do is go out and do some research on how this will affect people in their areas... something YOU should have done before you brought forward your 'grassroots' proposals. Perhaps you are scared if the governors had actual facts instead of your pseudo numbers.
Seeing that you think that 2/3 is an acceptable dropout rate it shows me just how much you and those of your supporters care about people playing chess in Canada. I thought the CFC was there to SUPPORT chess players, but hey, lets not support the casual player.
You have done NO research on how this affects chess in Canada, no the world won't end, but chess will decline in Canada under your proposals. but then again you haven't taken the time to find this out.
Armstrong, which is more ridiculous: the fact that you're unable to do grade seven math but you're allowed to make decisions that affect chess in Canada, or the fact that you provide random figures and pass them off as statistics but you're allowed to make decisions that affect chess in Canada?
everytime it hurts, it hurts just like the first (and then you cry till there's no more tears)
This is why the governors are basically dangerous, and shouldn't have a say in the day to day business of the cfc.
I have thought for some time that CFC governors MUST be active tournament directors; or, to put it another way, only active tournament directors can be governors.
This would also reduce the number of governors, which would help the CFC.
Ben-or-ben, Bob Armstrong is NOT a CFC governor, AFAIK. This is quite obvious, he is actively involved in chess organising at the club level, and also cares about the CFC.
I don't see why you would want to eliminate the $10 once a tournament membership anyway. It's already as expensive as it is and with people being forced to buy the more expensive $41 membership just to play one or two tournament with no membership benefits whatsoever, what's the point? If tournament memberships are taken away, normal membership costs should be even lower than $41, maybe $30 overall should be better since right now, other than ratings, there's nothing else to be offered whereas atleast in the US, there's the monthly magazine and an actual site to look at chess stuff.
The July CFC AGM motion that was passed lowers the CFC annual membership fees : adult from $ 36 to $ 30, and junior from $ 24 to $ 20. But the CFC wants to raise them back up again with the motion 2009-06 in GL # 2. If you oppose this, you should contact your governors to tell them not to vote for this motion. The Grassroots' Campaign opposes this motion.
The July CFC AGM motion that was passed lowers the CFC annual membership fees : adult from $ 36 to $ 30, and junior from $ 24 to $ 20. But the CFC wants to raise them back up again with the motion 2009-06 in GL # 2. If you oppose this, you should contact your governors to tell them not to vote for this motion. The Grassroots' Campaign opposes this motion.
Bob
This borders on obfuscation ... your post implies that the annual membership fee is the only change that would be pulled back, but there was a slew of changes all together.
Sorry, you are right. I did this post fast on my way out to a chess tournament start, and was a bit late. I should have mentioned that it did other things too, and they should be checked out as well before taking a position on the motion. Mea Culpa.
Sorry, you are right. I did this post fast on my way out to a chess tournament start, and was a bit late. I should have mentioned that it did other things too, and they should be checked out as well before taking a position on the motion. Mea Culpa.
Bob
all rightee then, I'm sending you a virtual pat on the back :)
Re: Tournament Playing Fee ( " Tournament Membership " )
so glad to see that the only criteria of **success** you have is whether the CFC makes more money out of fewer people playing chess as opposed to say any criteria of increasing the number of people who play tournament chess. Never mind that your numbers are entirely made up.
Tweet
Comment