On Aug 21, 10:47 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message

oups.com...

This idea of his has been hashed and rehashed numerous times for 6
years. Someone just pointed out the numerous reasons it won't work
but the main reason it won't work is that redistrubition of wealth
only works when there is wealth to redistribute.

The USCF can't even operate profitably on the members it has now and
the dues it charges them. He basically wants USCF to charge lower
dues than they do now and then give about 1/3 of them back to the
organizers as rebates.

It doesn't take a financial genius to figure out that this would
quickly bankrupt the USCF. It also never addresses the accountability
factor. For example he assumes these organizers will use their
rebates to promote chess in their metro district rather than merely
pocket the rebate and spend it on themselves.

Okay Bruce - on the whole while I agree, I don't completely - and two days
on newsnet of discussion doesn't really dismiss or exhaust this topic.

The best rebuttal has been by David Kane, the same person who actually
raised a more interesting point, in my own mind and now in myu words [not
hisgrin] that the little-tents catered to are pretty pathic! I don't know
if spending dollar-one on chess would make any difference to those who would
show up anyway? - the problem has been to attract others to the game, in
some way that will increase chess playing, and just as important, to keep em
in.

A far better idea would be for USCF to slash dues to encourage
membership, not that they can afford that either.

And there is another issue! Does it? Is there a connection between chess
playing and membership in USCF?

Half the adults don't play /any/ rated games. The turn-rate of the 40,000
juniors is an official secret! But about 2 years by my estimate sees 80% of
them come and gone.

Since these juniors take no part in the political process at USCF, do not
organise, but just play for ratings - what are they, the majority members of
USCF, actually members of? I mean; what are they conscious of, except a need
to pay something to get that rating?

If a Mensa, or other model, could be used to do something different, and
stir up interet in the game where none existed before, well and good! Or if
it could retain more of those juniors - let's talk more! My criticism of it
here as proposed is that it is redundant to any useful effect.

Phil Innes

And why did so many young people join USCF Phil? Was it because dues
to join for them were $7.00/year at one point? Was it because it was
a phase and it was popular for a couple years in their lives?

In 2003 when I decided to say goodbye to USCF, I went to Kansas prior
to the U.S. Open and was told in no uncertain terms by a political
insider that a deal had already been struck to vote up adult dues.

Of course that is exactly what they did and I decided at that point
that the organization was never going to change and I was wasting my
time.

As for the Mensa debate you might google it if you think he's only
been discussing it for 2 days here. He was proposing his mensa
metro district plan way back in 2001.