THIS thread originated in the Fide Chess Group, based on 1/8 of Sam Sloan's
final motions, and orbits the topic of fees for services.

Sounds like you have a low-affinity attitude, to me. USCF hasn't the
time to deal with such folk; they should be ignored.

I know you are being funny, Ken.

The office cannot afford to ignore the needs of the groups that actually
SELL
their products.

ECJ


I thought Delegate Johnson just got through saying he justified selling full
memberships to benefit the office, not the player, who he didn't even tell
about the $12 option? - but here is yet another idea, 'the needs' of
organisers.

++++++++++
Are membership fees a waranted tax on active rated player? Can 15 Staff
positions outside Mabazine and Ratings be justified?
++++++++++

Perhaps it will be eye-watering to know that membership does not increase
rated chess play at all - at least not by the evidence of European
countries - instead of requiring membership they do require fees for rating,
and its even possible to pay game-by-game if you are in a club.

This low threshold generates 10x more players per-capita than in the US
system, where 1/2 of all adult members don't play any rated chess at all.

The activity rate [number rated games per year] is even greater compared
with the British Club System, where its hard not to play at least 30 rated
games per year in interclub league matches - and any "A" team member is
likely to play 50. Furthermore this has sufficient mix of players to make
ratings more real than small local pools of players forever playing each
other..

Therefo it can be seen that membership fees act /directly/ against active
and potentially active player engagements requiring the relatively high
threshold of $25 to even try it out.

If real fees are charged for ratings on a usage basis - sufficient to cover
overhead, and the optional magazine is also priced at actual cost, what do
the other 15 staff members do? I presume their work is the tax rated players
make a contribution to, and non of them work in profit centers.

If the salaries and overhead attributed to these 15 are examined for worth,
perhaps some superadded fee is justified - so, outside the magazine and the
ratings departments, what are people paying for, in lieu of getting more
players into the system?

Phil Innes
Vermont

On Aug 12, 7:53 am, "Chess One" wrote:
THIS thread originated in the Fide Chess Group, based on 1/8 of Sam Sloan's
final motions, and orbits the topic of fees for services.

Sounds like you have a low-affinity attitude, to me. USCF hasn't the
time to deal with such folk; they should be ignored.
I know you are being funny, Ken.

The office cannot afford to ignore the needs of the groups that actually
SELL
their products.

ECJ

I thought Delegate Johnson just got through saying he justified selling full
memberships to benefit the office, not the player, who he didn't even tell
about the $12 option? - but here is yet another idea, 'the needs' of
organisers.

++++++++++
Are membership fees a waranted tax on active rated player? Can 15 Staff
positions outside Mabazine and Ratings be justified?
++++++++++

Perhaps it will be eye-watering to know that membership does not increase
rated chess play at all - at least not by the evidence of European
countries - instead of requiring membership they do require fees for rating,
and its even possible to pay game-by-game if you are in a club.

This low threshold generates 10x more players per-capita than in the US
system, where 1/2 of all adult members don't play any rated chess at all.

The activity rate [number rated games per year] is even greater compared
with the British Club System, where its hard not to play at least 30 rated
games per year in interclub league matches - and any "A" team member is
likely to play 50. Furthermore this has sufficient mix of players to make
ratings more real than small local pools of players forever playing each
other..

Therefo it can be seen that membership fees act /directly/ against active
and potentially active player engagements requiring the relatively high
threshold of $25 to even try it out.

If real fees are charged for ratings on a usage basis - sufficient to cover
overhead, and the optional magazine is also priced at actual cost, what do
the other 15 staff members do? I presume their work is the tax rated players
make a contribution to, and non of them work in profit centers.

If the salaries and overhead attributed to these 15 are examined for worth,
perhaps some superadded fee is justified - so, outside the magazine and the
ratings departments, what are people paying for, in lieu of getting more
players into the system?

Phil Innes
Vermont

This sounds like a transcript of a debate here from 1999. Some things
never change.

On Aug 12, 1:53?pm, "Chess One" wrote:
THIS thread originated in the Fide Chess Group, based on 1/8 of Sam Sloan's
final motions, and orbits the topic of fees for services.

Sounds like you have a low-affinity attitude, to me. USCF hasn't the
time to deal with such folk; they should be ignored.
I know you are being funny, Ken.

The office cannot afford to ignore the needs of the groups that actually
SELL
their products.

ECJ

I thought Delegate Johnson just got through saying he justified selling full
memberships to benefit the office, not the player, who he didn't even tell
about the $12 option? - but here is yet another idea, 'the needs' of
organisers.

++++++++++
Are membership fees a waranted tax on active rated player? Can 15 Staff
positions outside Mabazine and Ratings be justified?
++++++++++

Perhaps it will be eye-watering to know that membership does not increase
rated chess play at all - at least not by the evidence of European
countries - instead of requiring membership they do require fees for rating,
and its even possible to pay game-by-game if you are in a club.

This low threshold generates 10x more players per-capita than in the US
system, where 1/2 of all adult members don't play any rated chess at all.

The activity rate [number rated games per year] is even greater compared
with the British Club System, where its hard not to play at least 30 rated
games per year in interclub league matches - and any "A" team member is
likely to play 50. Furthermore this has sufficient mix of players to make
ratings more real than small local pools of players forever playing each
other..

Therefo it can be seen that membership fees act /directly/ against active
and potentially active player engagements requiring the relatively high
threshold of $25 to even try it out.

If real fees are charged for ratings on a usage basis - sufficient to cover
overhead, and the optional magazine is also priced at actual cost, what do
the other 15 staff members do? I presume their work is the tax rated players
make a contribution to, and non of them work in profit centers.

If the salaries and overhead attributed to these 15 are examined for worth,
perhaps some superadded fee is justified - so, outside the magazine and the
ratings departments, what are people paying for, in lieu of getting more
players into the system?

Phil Innes
Vermont

Phil:

I regret that I must take issue with you over your comment that it is
hard not to play 30 games in the English club system. I do think that
would be pretty high and perhaps reflects a stare of affairs in the
past.

My interpretation of the English data for the period 1 June 06 to 31
May 07 is:

Players with at least one rated game: 12,949

Average number of games per player 16
Median number of games 11

Players playing 30 games or more 1,904
Players playing 60 games or more 314

Most leagues these days will involve maybe only a dozen or so club
matches per season, and the keen player is likely to supplement league
chess with weekend congress chess.

These figures apply to 'slow play' only, not to 'rapid play'' (all
your moves in 15 - 60 minutes) which is rated separately.

regards

Paul Buswell

"Bruce" wrote in message
ups.com...

This sounds like a transcript of a debate here from 1999. Some things
never change.

Actually Bruce, we are about to witness a struggle where everything will
change

How strange that the lost 10,000 numbers seems to be about the same as ICC
gained, and at 60 bucks a year, each!@

Low affiliates! As my colleague the Delegate would say - but they seemed to
have low affiliation to 'never-change' rather than to chess.

Phil Innes

Paul, thanks for the several corrections. Never used to be that way in
Cornwall! We had 16 teams in 2 leagues, playing each twice per year, plus
'Cup' play, County matches etc. It grew among other players a Michael Adams.

Are your numbers averaged for the whole country? I was citing West Country
experiences. Even so, "Players with at least one rated game: 12,949" is
about the same as adults in the US. [USCF Estimate is approx 14,000].

Again only an estimated 7,500 play more than 10 rated [slow] games/year.

Do you pay the same way as before? We [our club, Camborne/Redruth] used to
pay by match, and the players per game to the club. Do you now pay for a
season's ratings or per game? Is there any membership fee involved [and any
initial fee to join system].

Cordially, Phil

"PB" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Aug 12, 1:53?pm, "Chess One" wrote:
THIS thread originated in the Fide Chess Group, based on 1/8 of Sam
Sloan's
final motions, and orbits the topic of fees for services.

Sounds like you have a low-affinity attitude, to me. USCF hasn't the
time to deal with such folk; they should be ignored.
I know you are being funny, Ken.

The office cannot afford to ignore the needs of the groups that
actually
SELL
their products.

ECJ

I thought Delegate Johnson just got through saying he justified selling
full
memberships to benefit the office, not the player, who he didn't even
tell
about the $12 option? - but here is yet another idea, 'the needs' of
organisers.

++++++++++
Are membership fees a waranted tax on active rated player? Can 15 Staff
positions outside Mabazine and Ratings be justified?
++++++++++

Perhaps it will be eye-watering to know that membership does not increase
rated chess play at all - at least not by the evidence of European
countries - instead of requiring membership they do require fees for
rating,
and its even possible to pay game-by-game if you are in a club.

This low threshold generates 10x more players per-capita than in the US
system, where 1/2 of all adult members don't play any rated chess at all.

The activity rate [number rated games per year] is even greater compared
with the British Club System, where its hard not to play at least 30
rated
games per year in interclub league matches - and any "A" team member is
likely to play 50. Furthermore this has sufficient mix of players to make
ratings more real than small local pools of players forever playing each
other..

Therefo it can be seen that membership fees act /directly/ against
active
and potentially active player engagements requiring the relatively high
threshold of $25 to even try it out.

If real fees are charged for ratings on a usage basis - sufficient to
cover
overhead, and the optional magazine is also priced at actual cost, what
do
the other 15 staff members do? I presume their work is the tax rated
players
make a contribution to, and non of them work in profit centers.

If the salaries and overhead attributed to these 15 are examined for
worth,
perhaps some superadded fee is justified - so, outside the magazine and
the
ratings departments, what are people paying for, in lieu of getting more
players into the system?

Phil Innes
Vermont

Phil:

I regret that I must take issue with you over your comment that it is
hard not to play 30 games in the English club system. I do think that
would be pretty high and perhaps reflects a stare of affairs in the
past.

My interpretation of the English data for the period 1 June 06 to 31
May 07 is:

Players with at least one rated game: 12,949

Average number of games per player 16
Median number of games 11

Players playing 30 games or more 1,904
Players playing 60 games or more 314

Most leagues these days will involve maybe only a dozen or so club
matches per season, and the keen player is likely to supplement league
chess with weekend congress chess.

These figures apply to 'slow play' only, not to 'rapid play'' (all
your moves in 15 - 60 minutes) which is rated separately.

regards

Paul Buswell

"Chess One" writes:
How strange that the lost 10,000 numbers seems to be about the same as ICC
gained, and at 60 bucks a year, each!@

The USCF could easily get members at 60 bucks a year, if it provided
venues everywhere, where people could play whenever they wanted, with
zero additional dues or entry fees other than the annual fee.

It doesn't do that though, so it should stop acting as if it does.

On Aug 12, 6:29?pm, "Chess One" wrote:
Paul, thanks for the several corrections. Never used to be that way in
Cornwall! We had 16 teams in 2 leagues, playing each twice per year, plus
'Cup' play, County matches etc. It grew among other players a Michael Adams.

Are your numbers averaged for the whole country? I was citing West Country
experiences. Even so, "Players with at least one rated game: 12,949" is
about the same as adults in the US. [USCF Estimate is approx 14,000].

Again only an estimated 7,500 play more than 10 rated [slow] games/year.

Do you pay the same way as before? We [our club, Camborne/Redruth] used to
pay by match, and the players per game to the club. Do you now pay for a
season's ratings or per game? Is there any membership fee involved [and any
initial fee to join system].

Cordially, Phil

"PB" wrote in message

oups.com...



On Aug 12, 1:53?pm, "Chess One" wrote:
THIS thread originated in the Fide Chess Group, based on 1/8 of Sam
Sloan's
final motions, and orbits the topic of fees for services.

Sounds like you have a low-affinity attitude, to me. USCF hasn't the
time to deal with such folk; they should be ignored.
I know you are being funny, Ken.

The office cannot afford to ignore the needs of the groups that
actually
SELL
their products.

ECJ

I thought Delegate Johnson just got through saying he justified selling
full
memberships to benefit the office, not the player, who he didn't even
tell
about the $12 option? - but here is yet another idea, 'the needs' of
organisers.

++++++++++
Are membership fees a waranted tax on active rated player? Can 15 Staff
positions outside Mabazine and Ratings be justified?
++++++++++

Perhaps it will be eye-watering to know that membership does not increase
rated chess play at all - at least not by the evidence of European
countries - instead of requiring membership they do require fees for
rating,
and its even possible to pay game-by-game if you are in a club.

This low threshold generates 10x more players per-capita than in the US
system, where 1/2 of all adult members don't play any rated chess at all.

The activity rate [number rated games per year] is even greater compared
with the British Club System, where its hard not to play at least 30
rated
games per year in interclub league matches - and any "A" team member is
likely to play 50. Furthermore this has sufficient mix of players to make
ratings more real than small local pools of players forever playing each
other..

Therefo it can be seen that membership fees act /directly/ against
active
and potentially active player engagements requiring the relatively high
threshold of $25 to even try it out.

If real fees are charged for ratings on a usage basis - sufficient to
cover
overhead, and the optional magazine is also priced at actual cost, what
do
the other 15 staff members do? I presume their work is the tax rated
players
make a contribution to, and non of them work in profit centers.

If the salaries and overhead attributed to these 15 are examined for
worth,
perhaps some superadded fee is justified - so, outside the magazine and
the
ratings departments, what are people paying for, in lieu of getting more
players into the system?

Phil Innes
Vermont

Phil:

I regret that I must take issue with you over your comment that it is
hard not to play 30 games in the English club system. I do think that
would be pretty high and perhaps reflects a stare of affairs in the
past.

My interpretation of the English data for the period 1 June 06 to 31
May 07 is:

Players with at least one rated game: 12,949

Average number of games per player 16
Median number of games 11

Players playing 30 games or more 1,904
Players playing 60 games or more 314

Most leagues these days will involve maybe only a dozen or so club
matches per season, and the keen player is likely to supplement league
chess with weekend congress chess.

These figures apply to 'slow play' only, not to 'rapid play'' (all
your moves in 15 - 60 minutes) which is rated separately.

regards

Paul Buswell- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Phil:

Those are figures for all of England. It would be possible but
tedious to regionalise them, and the definitions for such an exercise
would need some thought.

I note that the 2007 ECF Year Book lists 9 clubs in Cornwall, which
implies perhaps a maximum of 16 matches?

On payment, I am a couple of years out of touch but the system as
applied to Cornwall would have been that the Cornwall County Chess
Association would pay the national body ?0.92 (say $1.75) per game
played in the Association's tournaments, and half that amount in the
case of junior tournaments. How the Cornwall Association collects
this money from its local clubs/players is entirely a matter for the
Association - I have seen various models depending on local
circumstances, which vary widely.

My own Club plays in two leagues, in both Kent and Sussex. It is
those leagues which pay the national rating fee of ?0.92 per game.
But as it happens we pay the leagues not per game, but a sum per team
we enter, and we trust someone in the leagues has done their maths OK
to meet the leagues' costs. Then our own Club members pay an annual
subscription (currently ?48) to the Club to cover our team entry fees
and the Club's other costs, and we trust that our Club Treasurer has
got her budget right. At the moment the players in my Club's team
matches also pay a supplementary amount of ?2 per match, but that's a
contentious issue.

?1 = $1.90 very very roughly.

Statistically, I mention in passing that there are a further 3,056
players in the English system who had rated games in 05/06 but none in
06/07.

I note 17 players whose first affiliation is listed as Camborne &
Redruth; 13 of them had rated games in 06/07, the average number of
games amongst those 13 being 16, and the median 14.

regards

Paul Buswell

"PB" wrote in message
ps.com...

Phil:

Those are figures for all of England. It would be possible but
tedious to regionalise them, and the definitions for such an exercise
would need some thought.

I note that the 2007 ECF Year Book lists 9 clubs in Cornwall, which
implies perhaps a maximum of 16 matches?

Yes - that's way down since 30 years ago. Probably 18 league matches and 3
or 4 cup KO format ones. Then for some, county games which used to be about
1 per month, and we had a rated club championship. Maybe 20 rated-games per
year is an average?

On payment, I am a couple of years out of touch but the system as
applied to Cornwall would have been that the Cornwall County Chess
Association would pay the national body ?0.92 (say $1.75) per game
played in the Association's tournaments, and half that amount in the
case of junior tournaments. How the Cornwall Association collects
this money from its local clubs/players is entirely a matter for the
Association - I have seen various models depending on local
circumstances, which vary widely.

Interesting. So about $35 pa for that 20-game player [though this may be
offset by local art 'grants' and such - isn't some lottery money going to
chess now? Maybe just centrally to BCF?]. My old club colleague Ian George
is now the CCCA Sec, I'll ask him, and also how is his Pirc?

I further assume that these fees - 92 new pence per game support the cost of
ratings by BCF, and nothing else - not a magazine, eg.

My own Club plays in two leagues, in both Kent and Sussex. It is
those leagues which pay the national rating fee of ?0.92 per game.
But as it happens we pay the leagues not per game, but a sum per team
we enter, and we trust someone in the leagues has done their maths OK
to meet the leagues' costs. Then our own Club members pay an annual
subscription (currently ?48) to the Club to cover our team entry fees
and the Club's other costs, and we trust that our Club Treasurer has
got her budget right. At the moment the players in my Club's team
matches also pay a supplementary amount of ?2 per match, but that's a
contentious issue.

?1 = $1.90 very very roughly.

OK - that's a fair outline of club fee system, & maybe typical. Although I
notice you Saxons use money instead of Heva! being able to make payment in
mackeral.

Statistically, I mention in passing that there are a further 3,056
players in the English system who had rated games in 05/06 but none in
06/07.

I note 17 players whose first affiliation is listed as Camborne &
Redruth; 13 of them had rated games in 06/07, the average number of
games amongst those 13 being 16, and the median 14.

A very good report - and I thank you.

[I lived in Sussex one Summer, eat figs! and cycled back and forth on a
sit-up-and-beg 1919 bicycle twixt Arundel, Chichester and down the lanes
Bogner way, past Blake's house - easy cycling below the Downs. I met Lady
Goodwood there, who, at the time seemed to own half of Africa, and since I
didn't fawn before her, La assumed I was indeed the viscious Viscount Innes,
something of a raconteur, and engaged me in topics which I had to gloss
being entirely innocent of them! But I never played chess in Sussex except
with her driver who was good enough to play 'blind' while driving.]

This side of the pond only 25% of adult USCF members [that's 7,500 players]
play a minimum of 10 rated games per year.

Cordially, Phil Innes


regards

Paul Buswell

If real fees are charged for ratings on a usage basis - sufficient to
cover overhead, and the optional magazine is also priced at actual cost,
what do the other 15 staff members do? I presume their work is the tax
rated players make a contribution to, and non of them work in profit
centers.

If the salaries and overhead attributed to these 15 are examined for
worth, perhaps some superadded fee is justified - so, outside the
magazine and the ratings departments, what are people paying for, in lieu
of getting more players into the system?

Phil Innes
Vermont



Think of it as a "governance charge" to keep the malicious acts of folks
like you (Phil) to a minimum.


Chess promoters = malicious acts.

That's a very heavy-levy to ensure the mission never gets accomplished, and
instead, can be swept under the carpet.

The real refutation of Delegate Johnson's comment is that now he does it for
free, not on the payroll after a previous [undisclosed] catastrophe took
place.

Here the Delegate abandons presenting any reason at all why chess players
money should have any accountability attached to it, and offers public abuse
instead. Poor Sam Sloan has been wondering all week who these wicked
politicians can be? [lol]!

Phil Innes

ECJ

On Aug 13, 8:35 am, "Chess One" wrote:
If real fees are charged for ratings on a usage basis - sufficient to
cover overhead, and the optional magazine is also priced at actual cost,
what do the other 15 staff members do? I presume their work is the tax
rated players make a contribution to, and non of them work in profit
centers.

If the salaries and overhead attributed to these 15 are examined for
worth, perhaps some superadded fee is justified - so, outside the
magazine and the ratings departments, what are people paying for, in lieu
of getting more players into the system?

Phil Innes
Vermont

Think of it as a "governance charge" to keep the malicious acts of folks
like you (Phil) to a minimum.

Chess promoters = malicious acts.

That's a very heavy-levy to ensure the mission never gets accomplished, and
instead, can be swept under the carpet.

The real refutation of Delegate Johnson's comment is that now he does it for
free, not on the payroll after a previous [undisclosed] catastrophe took
place.

Here the Delegate abandons presenting any reason at all why chess players
money should have any accountability attached to it, and offers public abuse
instead. Poor Sam Sloan has been wondering all week who these wicked
politicians can be? [lol]!

Phil Innes



ECJ- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well Eric's tiny pup tent theories are still working away I see.
Eric's view even when he worked for USCF was that it wasn't price
gouging or harrassment it was only USCF excericising it's rights.

Eric pretty much never knew any rating fee increases, service cuts or
dues increases that he didn't think were good. He frequently turned
it around to blame things on disgruntled organizers who if they would
merely disappear and stop promoting chess would make USCF a happy
successful organization.