Larry Parr wrote:

"A survey of the membership and a marketing survey?

Nope. Certainly not.

The basis is simply to try something new, minus
a major dissenting voice.

Greg, Vinnie and the rest understand that Larry
Evans will score very high in any reader survey. They
hate that likelihood, and the actual customers of the
Federation must therefore NOT be surveyed."

_

Personally, I expect that many readers who got fed up
with Evans and his agenda have likely already discontinued
their USCF memberships, and as a result are no longer
among those who would be surveyed. In view of this, it is
quite possible that Larry Parr's contention -- that Evans
would do very well in a new survey -- is on the money.

Another reason is that Evans stands out from the ordinary
writers in Chess Life. You have Soltis, who writes about
chess; Key Crackers, again about (a weird form of) chess;
Benko, who writes about chess endgames; and so on. Then
you have this loner, this one writer who seems stuck in the
golden era, the era in which America's own Bobby Fischer
was the bright center of the universe.
Now suppose that many readers split their votes among the
"ordinary" chess writers, but those who actually prefer Evans
have to split nothing, for the simple reason that there is only
*one* Evans, one golden era writer? Evans gets all of their
votes.
One more thing, as has been shown here, is that a few
readers may have confused Larry D. Evans' work with that
of de real Larry Evans, in effect, voting for the wrong guy. I
doubt there is a huge number of such people, but they do
exist.


In any case, it has been made clear that the decision was
made to drop Evans, and this was not based upon any survey,
any more than any other decision was. Was there a survey
to decide whether the USCF should squander $25 large on a
redesign? No. Was there a survey as to whether the USCF
should hire Sam Sloan to edit the new Web site? No again.
Was there a survey when someone decided to allow ratings
to deflate again? Nope.

So you see, the issue of surveys seems to have been injected
into this issue as a means for a certain poster here to either
attempt to manipulate the USCF for his own agenda (i.e. save
Evans' "job"), or else as a handy tool for propaganda use. This
"resfusal" of the USCF to take a survey and possibly retain
Evans can be used against them, again and again -- for all
eternity. Zzzzzz.

The problem is that Larry Parr is simply not happy no matter
what the people at the USCF do. It wouldn't matter if they had
taken a survey, and decided to move Evans to the middle --
behind Soltis -- or just a few pages sideways; Larry Parr would
*still* be moaning and groaning about something. It is endemic
in him. I expect that even if the new format for Chess Life turns
out to be a smash hit, LP will be rehashing this "survey" thing
for many years to come.



My advice to Larry Evans is to "roll with the punches", to use
this as an opportunity to redirect his efforts in another direction.
Go and write a few chess books; find some co-authors who are
willing to do most of the work; whatever.

The alternative -- groaning about this for the next ten years or
so -- is quite simply an inferior variation, unworthy of him.



-- help bot

THE CORPORATE MENTALITY

I'm restricting my dialogues to the USCF Forum. Mike Nolan
is a decent guy who has to err on the side of caution because,
as of this monent, we have not been able to find liability
insurance for a moderated forum (hard to believe, but the sponsors
of unmoderated forums have no liability), but at least he does
censor the nut cases who make this place so unpleasant.
You can contact me there and I'd be happy to tell you all I know
about what's happening. -- Joel Channing


It makes no sense to say that one has to censor
the USCF forum for want of insurance but that the
internet also has such forums without insurance.

I am considering writing a real scorcher on the
history of the battle against Larry Evans -- the
hiring of the Pinkertons and the rest -- to observe
how it gets dropped in Nolanland.

Big heat is not for that forum.

Polling current members is probably not worth the
bother for several reasons.... -- Vince Hart

Yet another member of the political class checks
in with opposition to holding a Chess Life survey.
Amazing, really.

Don' ask the readers what they like! Instead,
assume that you know what they like.

Don't ask the dues-paying peons whether they
enjoy this or that writer! Instead, assume that you
know what writers they don't like.

Vinnie Hart, Greg Kennedy and others of their ilk oppose a
survey because they know the history of these surveys.
They have repeatedly produced results ranking Soltis
and Evans at the top. The politicians cannot
handle such a result at this moment. Hence no survey.

Interestingly, the surveys have shown high reader
satisfaction with the magazine among the many
thousands who have responded -- a totally different
result from what is suggested by the opinions posted
by the relative few who post here.

Joel Channing compares a reader survey to a
"plebiscite," and our Vinnie offers a set of imbecilic
reasons for not surveying reader opinion which amount
to this: POLITICIANS WANT TO GET RID OF DISSENT AND
LIFE IN CHESS LIFE, AND I SUPPORT THAT DECISION NO
MATTER WHAT THE MEMBERSHIP WANTS.

The latest excuse for not having a Chess Life
survey to determine the popularity of writers is that
we must also ask whether the readers want Chess Life
at all. The idea here is that a product no longer
seeks to discover what those receiving it wish to have
included. Rather, the makers of the product conduct a
poll about whether Parkay Margarine or Camel
cigarettes should continue to be made.

Wayne Praeder and I disagree about someone
such as Randy Bauer. To my mind, he is a powermonger
who will always come up with a reason NOT to survey
the readership because the politicians want to
eliminate dissent in the magazine by discontinuing GM
Evans and, perhaps, other writers who prove even
mildly critical. Such is the corporate mentality.

So, one asks customers this question: "Do you
want our product?" and only then does one ask, "Which
flavour do you prefer?" or "Should it be smooth or crunchy?"

The vital distinction is that USCF membership is
a package deal based on what is required to keep the
USCF in existence, which I favor doing even though I
will not pay membership dues because the Federation is
a de facto supporter of drug testing. The issue is not
whether the package membership should be discontinued,
which is to say, whether the USCF should be
discontinued, but how to make the package accord with
members' desires.

I have never heard of a magazine polling readers
about whether it should be discontinued. One hears
about reader surveys, though.

Still, one can certainly poll the readers about
whether they enjoy, reprehend or are lukewarm about
GM Evans and others. And, yes, if the only objection to
such a survey is that we must ask the ludicrous
question about whether the product should be
continued, then yes, let's ask that question, too.

Now, then, will Paul Rubin and others of his
kind now support a reader survey about what writers
they prefer?

Ah, somehow I think the answer will be no --
but this time, for other reasons.

Also see the never-before published transcript of THE GREAT
DEBATE between Larry Evans and Don Schultz in 1988 that explains much
of the hostility
of the political class for GM Evans' accurate reporting.

http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules....icle&sid= 674

" writes:
Interestingly, the surveys have shown high reader
satisfaction with the magazine among the many
thousands who have responded -- a totally different
result from what is suggested by the opinions posted
by the relative few who post here.

Duhhhhh, people who were unsatisfied with the magazine quit
subscribing and therefore weren't surveyed. Of course the remaining
subscribers will tend to be the ones who are satisfied.

So, one asks customers this question: "Do you
want our product?" and only then does one ask, "Which
flavour do you prefer?" or "Should it be smooth or crunchy?"

You think the magazine is the product. That is wrong. The product is
membership. The magazine is a feature of the product, just like a
particular column is a feature of the magazine.

I'm not terribly interested in questions of whether to keep or get rid
of a columnist. I'm more interested in whether to keep or get rid of
the magazine. Why don't YOU want a survey about that?

Now, then, will Paul Rubin and others of his kind now support
a reader survey about what writers they prefer?

I'm persuaded by help bot's recent post that a survey is unwarranted
and would amount to micromanaging the editor. When new management is
brought into any organization, it's normal for them to want to make
changes. I've looked at past issues of Georgia Chess on the web, and
I think it's a good magazine and that Dan Lucas did a good job on it,
so I tend to think he should have a free hand with Chess Life, given
that the USCF (without doing a survey) has seen fit to keep publishing
Chess Life.

I do, however, believe that members who don't like Lucas's editorial
decisions (or any other aspect of the magazine) should be entitled to
quit subscribing, without the implicit sanction of being barred from
playing tournament chess in the US. This has been my main beef with
the USCF for many years.

Also see the never-before published transcript of THE GREAT
DEBATE between Larry Evans and Don Schultz in 1988 that explains
much of the hostility of the political class for GM Evans' accurate
reporting.

If there are so many readers eager to read Evans's writing, surely he
could start up his own publication and round up enough subscribers to
make a go of it. Heck, I'd toss a couple bucks towards that effort
myself.

"WPraeder" writes:
I'm already on record being in favor of making Chess Life optional if
that is what the membership prefers. Polling the readers need not have
preconditions in order to provide useful feedback.

Cool. However I'm persuaded by help bot's post that micromanaging CL
isn't appropriate. I prefer David Kane's approach of separating CL
from the USCF.

NEW EXCUSES FOR NOT POLLING

Personally, I expect that many readers who got fed
up with Evans and his agenda have likely already
discontinued their USCF memberships, and as a result are no
longer among those who would be surveyed. In view of this,
it is quite possible that Larry Parr's contention -- that
Evans would do very well in a new survey -- is on the money.
-- Greg Kennedy (Help Bot)

Greg Kennedy has come up with new reasons --
admittedly, original -- about why Larry Evans would
perform well in a survey.

First, the members who dislike Evans have
already discontinued their memberships, leaving a
preselected pool to poll. Poor Mr. Kennedy. And as
for why Evans scored well in surveys dating back to
the 1980s into the 1990s -- well, the members had not
yet resigned or they had already resigned? Pitiful stuff.

Secondly, Larry Evans might score well because
some reader somewhere likes Larry D. Evans, the
international master. He then confuses Larry D. Evans
with Larry Evans, who writes the high-profile Question
and Answer column. And as for all of those years when
Evans scored well without Larry D. Evans around -- ah,
well, one is not responsible for the vagaries of taste, etc.

The political class and its epigones have always
hated Larry Evans and Bobby Fischer because they were
so eminently successful in making chess bigger in the
United States.

Among the political class, the opposition to
surveying the readership is virtually total. What the
readership wants is not what counts. What the
political class wants is what counts.

Greg's attempt to justify ignoring the
readership is to ask ludicrous questions about
surveying them about spending tens of thousands
of dollars on redesigning Chess Life. If you do not
survey about dues, then why survey about writers?

That is the nub of the man's argument.

The distinction is the following: dues are one
of the discrete business decisons about keeping a
business going; surveys about writers involve
soliciting expressions of reader taste and desires
rather than knowledge.

The distinction is elementary.

The politicians do not want to poll readers
because they already know that Larry Evans would
rank highly. They hate him and they hate that fact.

HENCE NO SURVEY.

THE USCF WAY -- HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF

From: (TOMDORSCH)
Subject: OMOV survey
Date: 1996/05/22
newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics

The OMOV survey, commissioned in 5/95 to ascertain the wishes of the
membership regarding one-member-one-vote, has been cancelled. The $20K
allocated for the survey will not be spent.

It is now up to the Blue Ribbon Commission to engineer positive
changes in USCF governance.

Regards, Tom Dorsch

"Grand experiments at the memberships expense is the USCF way. Why use
scientific management methods to focus on success when our leaders can
play craps with our dues money? Let's spend $50,000 and see if our
adult members and associated revenue increase as a result. If it
doesn't work we can always look at doing a poll, but it will probably
cost too much and won't provide the answers we want to hear." -- Wayne
Praeder

wrote in message
oups.com...
THE USCF WAY -- HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF

From: (TOMDORSCH)
Subject: OMOV survey
Date: 1996/05/22
newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics

The OMOV survey, commissioned in 5/95 to ascertain the wishes of the
membership regarding one-member-one-vote, has been cancelled. The $20K
allocated for the survey will not be spent.

It is now up to the Blue Ribbon Commission to engineer positive
changes in USCF governance.

Regards, Tom Dorsch

I hear that 2 new columns have been announced!

They will be made of marble, and stand at the entrance of ChessHut.

Seriously, if chess fans were to be surveyed, [not just remaining USCF
members] 2 critical things are necessary to establish - one of which is
their rating. Which section of the market [by rating] is responding on what
they would like to read in terms of chess playing content?

The second thing is, for all other subjects, what topics people want.

And of these two, what proportion of what to what?

Should any editor be in possession of this information, he could then design
his columns based on them, and engage capable chess writers to actualy write
the columns.

The current 'method' is backwards - without knowing anything about the
market [s] (pls. note plural) even if some changes were thought necessary
(by whomever, we shall never know) columnists were fired.

Why not survey what columns were desirable, then ask current columnists to
adjust their format to incorporate the new.

Otherwise money spent on new columns would be as well spent holding up the
front portico. At least that keeps the rain off.

Phil Innes

"Grand experiments at the memberships expense is the USCF way. Why use
scientific management methods to focus on success when our leaders can
play craps with our dues money? Let's spend $50,000 and see if our
adult members and associated revenue increase as a result. If it
doesn't work we can always look at doing a poll, but it will probably
cost too much and won't provide the answers we want to hear." -- Wayne
Praeder

Larry Evans was a great player and has written some excellent books as
well -- I own several of them. I have no problems with views that some
find controversial, and find myself more in support than disagreement
on, for example, FIDE and drug testing.

That said, as I have noted previously, I have not found his columns of
the past few years particularly interesting. If a new editor wishes to
freshen up the magazine, I'm all for it.

Randy Bauer

As Wayne most likely recalls, I have written on numerous occasions
about the need to do a better job of learning what members want in
service from the USCF. I spoke about it while a member of the
Executive Board at several Board meetings as well. I still believe
the financial investment to do focus groups and other survey methods
would be worthwhile.

That said, I think every editor should have some latitude to make
changes. Today's Chess Life isn't all that different from when I first
started receiving it 30-plus years ago. The chess world has changed a
lot since then, and maybe it's time for Chess Life to do so as well.

Randy Bauer

"Randy Bauer" writes:
That said, I think every editor should have some latitude to make
changes. Today's Chess Life isn't all that different from when I first
started receiving it 30-plus years ago. The chess world has changed a
lot since then, and maybe it's time for Chess Life to do so as well.

I'm now of the opinion that the USCF should have simply shut down
Chess Life in the 1990's. It should have made a deal with ICE where
USCF life members would get Inside Chess subscriptions instead of CL,
paid by the USCF. USCF Operations dept got around $16/year per life
member for CL, so ICE would have had to get offered around the same
amount, which I think would have been workable. ICE had around 5000
subscribers paying around $40 a year for 25(?) issues, so they'd have
had to put together a 12-issue-per-year version of IC for this
purpose. There are around 10,000 life members and I think ICE could
easily have worked out a deal for 10,000 12-issue subscriptions at $16
a pop. Plus, regular USCF members would also be offered a similar
subscription through the USCF, if they wanted to pay for it, the same
way that my portable audio player came with a coupon for a discount
for a Rolling Stone magazine subscription. And part of the USCF-ICE
deal for such a program could have been that USCF got a page or two in
each issue for USCF-specific news.

The reason Inside Chess folded was because while there might be a
reasonable number of players who wanted to subscribe to a chess mag,
only the hardest core players wanted to subscribe to TWO mags, and CL
was sucking the air out of the room. With CL gone and with the LM
subscriber base, IC could have survived.