"Old Haasie" wrote in message
ps.com...

And what is the effect of this strategy for Mensa, compared with other
things they have tried? How does it relate to chess playing?
Phil
=================
Phil, what is the effect, you ask? The effect for Mensa is the
financial support of the local chapters, effectuating, if I may, the
many social activities of the typical Mensa chapter. And you ask how
it relates to chess playing? In your mind, you have to imagine a
local Mensa chapter converted into a metro sized USCF umbrella that
receives a proportional share of the annual dues generated in the
given metro area. I call the metro umbrellas "Districts," i.e. the
Philadelphia USCF District, the Pittsburgh USCF District. The metro
scale would be preferred over the state scale, but in some locations
perhaps the state chess association would be the only choice. This
would happen when there were so few members as to make a metro
umbrella unworkable.

The only things about Mensa that interest me (for chess) are 1)
national dues shared with local chapters, which saves the locals the
agony of local fund raising and guarantees 100% local participation,
and 2) the focus on the metro scale, not the state scale.

Again, my Mensa Model scheme for chess is designed to captialize
organized chess at the basic market level for organized chess --- the
metro area in most cases. It spreads the risk of chess promotion
rather lightly among all paying members to the tune of about $10 per
year. In this fashion the risk of chess promotion would no longer be
concentrated solely on the shoulders of one or a few so-called chess
promoters. Of course, individual chess promotion would be welcomed,
but the District umbrella would function as the promoter (in the
associative form) of first and/or last resort in its operational
area.

Old Haasie


The problem is that you refuse to consider the negatives.

1. Collecting dues deters membership. Extra dues to support
metro subsidies deters more members.

2. The USCF and its members have neither experience nor,
generally, even an interest in growing chess. Even if the
USCF received a huge influx of free money, giving it
to the USCF members who have created the status quo
is bound to fail.

3. There is no evidence that lack of capital is a factor in the status
of American chess. For example, there are active scholastic
communities and these have sprung up without your metro
subsidies. The capital requirements for OTB chess
are low compared to dozens of activities found in
abundance.

So while your effort to look at alternate structures is
to be applauded, you miss the big picture. It's not capital
that is lacking, but rather good ideas on how to
spend capital in a way that will promote the game
that are lacking.