The real question is not which membership options should be presented to a
potential member.

It is which ones should exist to enhance the health of the USCF, rather than
other parties.

---

That certainly is an opinion. Though a rather deliberated emphasis that what
benefits chess players and what USCF be different subjects. I wonder why
this is? Outside of the Soviet Union this does not seem to be the way that
the rest of the world behaved.

Essentially USCF needs to resolve many issues about its own role in chess,
and its partnering arrangements with 'other parties' very many of which are
contentious and elected relationships not even to any clear benefit to USCF,
but to personalities within it.

The new board must needs revision several core functions USCF performs, and
also, as in any enterprise, make priority lists of what is more or less
important. Key will be its role as a governance organisation, which it must
enhance or abandon. Another key issue must be its stated role as non-profit
which is exactly opposite to the sentences above.

I think the new board will take a hard look at this second factor, since
maintaining an independent 'health' from the real needs of the chess
community seems to be the cause of its decline: losing money in 9 of the
past 11 years, losing $2.5 million of market share in the past 8 years, and
losing almost 15% of its membership, 10,000 lost in 03/04 alone.

If USCF is to be a true governance organisation, it cannot act like a
monopoly party to compete with and repress other parties. That is not
governance - that is to insist that, for example, the Republican President
only represents republicans, and not the oath taken to represent the
people's interests.

True, that oath was not taken in the Soviet Union where centrist economy and
government versus people was the failed game. Advocates for such a system
might suggest actual models where it has not failed.

Phil Innes
Vermont

I would also oppose this, as the folks who would use such a reduced cost
option...are low affinity groups anyway. They will see this as a way to
cut costs rather than grow affinity.


I wonder what those comments mean? Low affinity to chess or 'membership'?

Adding more names to the membership rolls only makes sense if you are 1)
making money on the initial transaction,

Not so. Making money on a lifetime's interest is the - ahem, usual
understanding of gaming and sporting affiliations.

or 2) selling them additional products or services (as through a catalog),

Marshall Ward is dead. The internet lives. The USCF website has been under
construction for 10 months, with no noticeable activity for the past 9 of
them... Besides, if the same product is 30% more expensive at USCF than the
briefest Google reveals from other places - this is hardly a member benefit,
its a sacrifice.

Much better to do something like the Polgar-blog which gets huge numbers of
visitors, and such people can get excited about the possibilities and show
up not in the the 10s or 100s, but in the 1,000s or even 50,000s as happened
in Mexico City.

Ford couldn't make a buck selling 10s or 100s of cars - and had to scale his
product for a mass market. That is USCF's challenge - as well as its stated
reason to exist.

or 3) leverging the enlarged mailing list through mailing list sales.

A detestable practice which induces SPAM, and which the very great majority
of people hate and resent.

The Delegate does not understand the psychology of the net, where you don't
market-to people, but they come to you of their own free will if you can be
sufficiently interesting to attract their REAL interests.

Our average transaction size is small and the margins are poor. Adding
these types of players -- with low affinity who neither buy things nor
renew -- is poor marketing strategy.

Not adding new chess players is an even poorer strategy, since no one at all
will be tempted to 'buy things'.

HALF of the adult membership does not play rated chess. Are they
'low-affiliates'? I doubt they pay money for nothing, and the Delegate might
consider listening to them [no psychic surveys please!] if he wanted to
understand what a core-customer looked like.

Of the Scholastic market, how many renew after 2 years? While that number is
known to me and ignored by the delegate, whatever is currently on offer is
the most expensive of all options - relatively huge effort to get em into
the tent and no attention paid to their leaving.

No - we want some real marketing, not Gypsy-Johnson foretells...

Phil Innes

Yes, it is nice to say that a 100-player school tourney was USCF rated.
But it can also be a way to financial ruin if your margins are low or
negative.

ECJ

Larry's opinion: citing Mikel Petersen

--
In a message dated 8/12/2007 6:50:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
writes:



If USCF is to be a true governance organisation, it cannot act like a
monopoly party to compete with and repress other parties. That is not
governance -- that is to insist that, for example, the Republican
President
only represents republicans, and not the oath taken to represent the
people's interests.

True, that oath was not taken in the Soviet Union where centrist economy
and
government versus people was the failed game. Advocates for such a system
might suggest actual models where it has not failed.

Phil Innes
Vermont

This excerpt is from a new book THE CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans
expected to reach bookstores in September 2007 (Cardoza Publishers, 296
pages, $9.95).

CHESS POLITICS
December 29, 2003

You know the saying: The more things change, the more they stay the
same. This column could have been written yesterday but was penned in
1987 by Mikel Petersen, who made an unsuccessful bid in 2003 for a seat
on the 7-member Executive Board of the United States Chess Federation,
which is now struggling to survive despite a record number of members
approaching 100,000.

"Chess is the ideal game. Anyone can play. Anyone can
enjoy. There can be no cheating over the board (well, almost).
As a matter of fact it would be the best game in the world if not
for one thing: politics.

I expect political fighting in government. It's what makes
the world work, at least as we know it today. I even expect it
in the business world. Anyone working for a major corporation
understands that. But what I can't accept is the politicization of chess.

Why do I feel this way? Well, I was president of the Florida
Chess Association three times. No matter what I did, it made
no difference. One part of the state was always bickering with
another part of the state. I finally gave up. The abuse I suffered
at the hands of friend and foe alike just wasn't worth it -- and I
wasn't even paid!

Look what's going on in the chess world. First, there are
constant machinations of the world championship matches.
Years ago there was maneuvering to raise the ratings of all
women on the world's rating list by 100 points-except for one
woman (Susan Polgar). [See "Rigging Ratings."]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the whole thing makes
me sick. Seeing grandmasters having to fight for their rights as
chess players pains me greatly. What can be done about it?
Man, even writing this column depresses me. I am watching
the game I love defiled by stinking, rotten politics, and I don't like it.

Do you?"

This decade has witnessed other dangers to chess promotion such as
FIDE's drive to speed up time controls and impose random drug testing even
though chess was rejected as a sport in the Summer or Winter Olympics.
Also the inexorable advance of computers poses new challenges to our
ancient pastime.

While chess bureaucrats make new regulations and each nation fights
for more titles and a bigger slice of the pie, players continue to
exercise
their creativity and create pockets of beauty in a noisy world.

Somehow, amidst all the strife, chess survives


__._,_.___

Much better to do something like the Polgar-blog which gets huge numbers
of visitors, and such people can get excited about the possibilities and
show up not in the 10s or 100s, but in the 1,000s or even 50,000 as
happened in Mexico City.


Her blog might successfully generate appearance fees for her -- but how do
you convert such a blog into high margin transactions for an organization?


I wonder if that is a serious question? One answer [with 1,000 parts] might
be to shut-up and listen, since so very many people have been writing to
just that topic for years.

Secondly, you actually know the answer, though because of some /frisson/ you
have about strong players, you dismiss a fair conclusion... look --

Her tournaments at her "club" generate small turn-outs and her foundation
has modest annual revenues.

The organiser doesn't promote the organisation, nor keep the money. The Club
in a city is essentially a local one. The national following from that base
gaurantees that in any city she will get prominently into the print news,
and very likely the tv news.

Other than keeping her name afloat, what does her blog do? Vanity press?


By not 'going on' about organisations [how completely numb!], and instead
addressing the //benefit to children// as players of the game - she achieves
huge press.

Please make a note of it. It is not difficult to understand, is not
controversial, and even opponents admit the FACT of it. Its simply not
necessary to have all these organisational attitudes and staff levels to
present the game to the public, in fact, by all evidence that has an
OPPOSITE effect.

It will be interesting to see how USCF can sensibly use its income and
staffing levels to well-utilize this level of celebrity, where -- to
re-state this to those who gave up already -- USCF could learn something
from Polgar Foundation on how to do it, which is going to be all about them,
the players, which is absolutely how it should be, and the potential here is
to make USCF a professional organisation, instead of feuding minor magnates
who are only big in their own estimation of themselves.

Phil Innes

ECJ

On Aug 13, 9:27 am, "Chess One" wrote:
Much better to do something like the Polgar-blog which gets huge numbers
of visitors, and such people can get excited about the possibilities and
show up not in the 10s or 100s, but in the 1,000s or even 50,000 as
happened in Mexico City.

Her blog might successfully generate appearance fees for her -- but how do
you convert such a blog into high margin transactions for an organization?

I wonder if that is a serious question? One answer [with 1,000 parts] might
be to shut-up and listen, since so very many people have been writing to
just that topic for years.

Secondly, you actually know the answer, though because of some /frisson/ you
have about strong players, you dismiss a fair conclusion... look --

Her tournaments at her "club" generate small turn-outs and her foundation
has modest annual revenues.

The organiser doesn't promote the organisation, nor keep the money. The Club
in a city is essentially a local one. The national following from that base
gaurantees that in any city she will get prominently into the print news,
and very likely the tv news.

Other than keeping her name afloat, what does her blog do? Vanity press?

By not 'going on' about organisations [how completely numb!], and instead
addressing the //benefit to children// as players of the game - she achieves
huge press.

Please make a note of it. It is not difficult to understand, is not
controversial, and even opponents admit the FACT of it. Its simply not
necessary to have all these organisational attitudes and staff levels to
present the game to the public, in fact, by all evidence that has an
OPPOSITE effect.

It will be interesting to see how USCF can sensibly use its income and
staffing levels to well-utilize this level of celebrity, where -- to
re-state this to those who gave up already -- USCF could learn something
from Polgar Foundation on how to do it, which is going to be all about them,
the players, which is absolutely how it should be, and the potential here is
to make USCF a professional organisation, instead of feuding minor magnates
who are only big in their own estimation of themselves.

Phil Innes



ECJ- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Having been out of the loop mostly for 4 years I will only say that
USCF is an eternally political organization. While there is nothing
wrong with Ms. Polgar trying to promote chess, sometimes being on the
board politicizes everything a person wants to do.

Look at all the people who were pretty well respected as chess
promoters. Once they got elected to the board they were viewed as
sycophants, pandererers for political power, self ingratiators or do-
nothings. This included not just the well known politicos who have a
vested interest in controlling or influencing the board but in others
that started out with sincere, honest motives.

It was my experience that those people get sucked into the petty
quarrels and political alliances which are merely an accepted reality
of Board membership.

"There is no money in the chess world. There is no serious company
that will be willing to show itself on the stage with Ilyumzhinov.
Chess represents strategic management, handling foresightful, exact
thinking, making decisions.
These are qualities those responsible in FIDE do not have" -- Hans-
Walter Schmitt, organizer of the Chess Classic Mainz 2007.


Bruce wrote:
On Aug 13, 9:27 am, "Chess One" wrote:
Much better to do something like the Polgar-blog which gets huge numbers
of visitors, and such people can get excited about the possibilities and
show up not in the 10s or 100s, but in the 1,000s or even 50,000 as
happened in Mexico City.

Her blog might successfully generate appearance fees for her -- but how do
you convert such a blog into high margin transactions for an organization?

I wonder if that is a serious question? One answer [with 1,000 parts] might
be to shut-up and listen, since so very many people have been writing to
just that topic for years.

Secondly, you actually know the answer, though because of some /frisson/ you
have about strong players, you dismiss a fair conclusion... look --

Her tournaments at her "club" generate small turn-outs and her foundation
has modest annual revenues.

The organiser doesn't promote the organisation, nor keep the money. The Club
in a city is essentially a local one. The national following from that base
gaurantees that in any city she will get prominently into the print news,
and very likely the tv news.

Other than keeping her name afloat, what does her blog do? Vanity press?

By not 'going on' about organisations [how completely numb!], and instead
addressing the //benefit to children// as players of the game - she achieves
huge press.

Please make a note of it. It is not difficult to understand, is not
controversial, and even opponents admit the FACT of it. Its simply not
necessary to have all these organisational attitudes and staff levels to
present the game to the public, in fact, by all evidence that has an
OPPOSITE effect.

It will be interesting to see how USCF can sensibly use its income and
staffing levels to well-utilize this level of celebrity, where -- to
re-state this to those who gave up already -- USCF could learn something
from Polgar Foundation on how to do it, which is going to be all about them,
the players, which is absolutely how it should be, and the potential here is
to make USCF a professional organisation, instead of feuding minor magnates
who are only big in their own estimation of themselves.

Phil Innes



ECJ- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Having been out of the loop mostly for 4 years I will only say that
USCF is an eternally political organization. While there is nothing
wrong with Ms. Polgar trying to promote chess, sometimes being on the
board politicizes everything a person wants to do.

Look at all the people who were pretty well respected as chess
promoters. Once they got elected to the board they were viewed as
sycophants, pandererers for political power, self ingratiators or do-
nothings. This included not just the well known politicos who have a
vested interest in controlling or influencing the board but in others
that started out with sincere, honest motives.

It was my experience that those people get sucked into the petty
quarrels and political alliances which are merely an accepted reality
of Board membership.

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


Having been out of the loop mostly for 4 years I will only say that
USCF is an eternally political organization. While there is nothing
wrong with Ms. Polgar trying to promote chess, sometimes being on the
board politicizes everything a person wants to do.

Look at all the people who were pretty well respected as chess
promoters. Once they got elected to the board they were viewed as
sycophants, pandererers for political power, self ingratiators or do-
nothings.

More diplomatically grin I said something similar to 2 new board members
this morning. I said, "get thee to an interview, and please don't continue
that 'official announcement thing' which never contains any information".
Feeling pleased with my prose, I then informed the no-doubt startled board
members that "its like drowning in Maple Syrup."

This included not just the well known politicos who have a
vested interest in controlling or influencing the board but in others
that started out with sincere, honest motives.

Actually, you make a good point - and it will be worth monitoring on a
continuous basis.

Of course, its not just an American thing, look at the Russians! The talk
was that Karpov would have beaten Ilyumzhinov, but the Russian Fed didn't
back him. The Russ Fed vote would have swayed an additional 15 countries.

It was my experience that those people get sucked into the petty
quarrels and political alliances which are merely an accepted reality
of Board membership.

I think the 'petty' aspect of things you mention is just so! The scope of
USCF is not a very active or engaging prospect to preside over, and the
pettiness of it all seems much like explosive nervous tension resounding
round the teeny little tent.

I think most of my own aggression in this respect is that people have
convinced themselves that this scale of affairs is inevitable. My hope for
Polgar and Co is that they will be able to persuade people otherwise -
though there is going to be some arm-wrestling on who controls what.

At least the current division of labor on the board should clearly identify
who is primarily responsible for what, and I await with interest to
understand the respective roles of President and Chairman.

Cordially, Phil Innes

wrote in message
oups.com...
"There is no money in the chess world. There is no serious company
that will be willing to show itself on the stage with Ilyumzhinov.
Chess represents strategic management, handling foresightful, exact
thinking, making decisions.
These are qualities those responsible in FIDE do not have" -- Hans-
Walter Schmitt, organizer of the Chess Classic Mainz 2007.

Dear Larry Parr,

I put the following 2 newsclips and original sources including another
German one, http://www.russia-ic.com/news/show/4516/ and Neues Deutschland,
in my column, just out, on what the election... no! I mean what
post-election Fide is now about.

While the first one is straight international politics, oil & hotels & the
usual, the second is altogether peculiar! You might even think there was a
conflict of interest in that one, but to the spaceman's credit he has never
put chess first, so obviously /he/ has is not conflicted.

Phil Innes
---

Check the date - its not April 1st:
Here is a report of what Fide have "in mind" see
http://www.russia-ic.com/news/show/4516/

The world's second largest chess federation (FIDE) intends to build hotels
in 165 countries. All hotels are said to be in the shape of chess figures.
FIDE plans to build 150 hotels and chess centres within the nearest four
years. According to FIDE president Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, at the first stage
nearly US$1 billion is to be allotted for bringing the plans to life.

The total cost of the project is estimated at US$50 billion. It is already
known that a number of chess centres and hotel complexes will first appear
in Chisinau (Moldova), People's Republic of China, and such Russian cities
as Samara, Yekaterinburg, and Khanty-Mansiysk.

Another grandiose part of the FIDE project is building of a chess city that
will consist of 32 hotels in the shape of chess in the UAE. It is an
expensive project but FIDE has already arranged a settlement with several
investors.

In associated news equally strange is this explanation of a new commercial
enterprise - Bessel Kok is being interviewed by a Herr Dr. Gralla of Neues
Deutschland:

Dr. Gralla: In 2006 you ran a campaign for the presidency of FIDE, against
the incumbent Kirsan Ilyumzhinov. That campaign was bitter and sometimes
very polemic. After you lost the election at Torino it comes as a big
surprise that you have started to work together with Mr. Ilyumzhinov, and
that you have even agreed to run the commercial arm of FIDE, "Global Chess
BV". Can you explain this decision to us?

Bessel Kok: Firstly, "Global Chess BV" is not the commercial arm of FIDE.
It is a private company, in majority funded by Mr. Ilyumzhinov.

The Delegate does not understand the psychology of the net, where you
don't market-to people, but they come to you of their own free will if
you can be sufficiently interesting to attract their REAL interests.


Oh, I understand it very well -- it is passive

Nonsense! It actively generates interest by addressing what people are
interested in.

and relies on the consumer to come to the provider.

However, membership organizations have an interest in providing news and
offering products to their membership at times of the organization's
choosing (active methods).

What can that 'however' mean. Does it mean that USCF has decided against
appealing to the interests of chess players?

Phil thinks catalogs are dead. However, my mailbox overflows with printed
catalogs. JC Penney sends me a sale circular 2x per week, without fail.
Why do they do it? Because it works.

Buy as many curtains as you like from JC Penny, and may it benefit you! I
have a wife who likes to shop-like-hell, as indeed do many wives. She either
chooses something 3 times what I would pay, or she finds an equivalent
on-line and pays for the same quality with 2/3 the money.

That, I suggest to the delegate is real. JC Penny put their circulars into
the local newspaper and I put their circulars into the circular file.

Small organizations must tailor their methods to finding folks who
actually spend money on their products or servies...not on sending
feel-good messages to those who don't spend money.

Phil Innes is addicted to the notion of "chess" as a thing-in-itself (per
Plato)...

Eric has forgotten about the people in DC hustling chess at lunch time. Both
the blitz hustlers and the punters in $1,000 suits pay more every day for
their habit than annual USCF dues. If the delegate wants a small
organisation he already has one that loses money in 9 from 11 years.

My 'addiction' is to something else!

rather than an activity supported by actual organizations. I'm concerned
about real organizations, not chess.


I couldn't have summarised the past 15 years of USCF better.

Phil Innes

ECJ

Part of the problem is that no one has paid attention or cares why they join
and what the characteristics of being a kid member are.

Probably no amount of effort will improve significantly the odds of keeping
them. They join and stay (for as long as they do) for vastly different
reasons than do adult members.

It is fair to say that their (short-term) acquisition benefits third parties
vastly more than it does the USCF.

---

A fair analysis, and a normative one of market forces which recognise
/spender's/ motivations as paramount in their expenditure. There is zippo
loyalty to anything else that is easily measured.

The real question about the majority of the USCF market, scholastics, is why
90% of them leave, and so soon. Again, in market terms, they are
insufficiently engaged in their /own/ terms. In UK there is no need to join
or commit to any organizational values or corporate aspirations to play
chess, and with 1/5th US population there is still approx the same amount of
rated games performed.

Only people interested in why that is, and why that is not untypical in the
rest of the world, should attempt further inquiry.

Phil Innes