"Bruce" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Aug 17, 10:31 am, "David Kane" wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message

ups.com...





On Aug 16, 10:49 pm, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\""
wrote:
Rating fees, perhaps. Maybe an "unlimited rating fee" for active players
or
TDs on behalf of the players.

Each name is worth a lot for marketing, to the point where memberships
would
be more profitable overall, since there would be millions of members.

Look at what ICC does and they charge $10.00 a year more than USCF, with
almost the same number of adult members. With no membership fee and a
top-notch esrver, USCF would be able to mop up on B&E sales and e-commerce
partnerships with its top players (who could suddenly earn a living), and
chess might even make it on to something like ESPN.

No, there would not be millions of members and no the USCF would not
do well attempting to compete with ICC which it DID in fact try to do
with US Chess Live back in 2001.

Chess HAS been on ESPN. When Kasparov played a rematch against Deeper
Blue it was on ESPN in 2003.

USCF needs to do a better job in doing what it has always done which
is in serving as a sanctioning body and ratings generating membership
organization.

This is a comically inaccurate characterization of the USCF's
past activity (forget about the magazine(s)?).



USCF's main problem has primarily been that it overestimates its own
appeal and overspends on stupid things that it cannot afford.

This is true. But what you fail to note is that it's serving the
self-selected
membership that creates the lack of appeal in the first place. There *are*
millions of Americans interested in chess but the USCF is devoted to
a miniscule percentage of them. So American chess is left without an
organizing force.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm not sure what you were claiming was inaccurate my quotes or Roy's
quotes? What exactly would you like a small not-for-profit to do for
American chess?

You inaccurately characterized the USCF as "a sanctioning body and ratings
generating membership organization." The real USCF is essentially a
publisher of an unpopular specialty magazine. Not only does the magazine
have minimal appeal among the general chessplaying public, it also
doesn't have a sufficient quantity of followers to be self-sustaining. Hence,
the USCF's "deficits".


I'll put the ball in your court. Keep in mind that this organization
tried to run an internet chess server of its own and that it has shown
a net loss in operations nearly every single year for over a decade.

If it can't serve the needs of dues paying members what do you suggest
it do, expand its services?


No. .