The ideal national chess federation would look somewhat like the
American Mensa organization. A portion of the national dues would be
shared directly with metropolitan scaled umbrella organizations, one
such umbrella per metro area. The umbrella would use the money to
promote chess in various ways including the production of
tournaments.

Old Haasie

"Old Haasie" wrote in message
ups.com...
The ideal national chess federation would look somewhat like the
American Mensa organization. A portion of the national dues would be
shared directly with metropolitan scaled umbrella organizations, one
such umbrella per metro area. The umbrella would use the money to
promote chess in various ways including the production of
tournaments.

And what is the effect of this strategy for Mensa, compared with other
things they have tried? How does it relate to chess playing?

Not probably quite so Old, in modern parlance, Differently-Aged [DA], Phil

Old Haasie

Old Haasie wrote:
The ideal national chess federation would look somewhat like the
American Mensa organization. A portion of the national dues would be
shared directly with metropolitan scaled umbrella organizations, one
such umbrella per metro area. The umbrella would use the money to
promote chess in various ways including the production of
tournaments.

Old Haasie


Mensa produces tournaments? Is there one in my area?

--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Mensa produces tournaments? Is there one in my area?

--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/
=======================
I looked into this about two or three years ago. Although it is
rarely done, some Mensa chapters have produced some kinds of chess
events...probably within their SIGs, special interest groups. I asked
if a local Mensa chapter could produce a chess tournament with $EF's
and $Prizes. I was told there is nothing in Mensa's documents that
would prevent a local chapter from producing such a chess tournament
but the person to whom I spoke said he was not aware if it had ever
been done.

Old Haasie

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

"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?

Well, I meant from the playing point of view... [and I take from this
message this is no effect] but I think you address a structural aspect which
underpins 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.

Here are two examples: (1) this town has about 15 active adults at the chess
club and a dozen others who are not active. It also has about 6 to 10
players from the high school. What effect would this have here [pop 11,000]
?

(2) Secondly, abt 2 months ago I made 3 calls to Hastings, Nebraska, to see
if I could link them to Hastings UK and Hastings NZ, to play some chess! The
Chamber of C didn't know of a chess club, neither did the Museum, neither
could they remember there ever being one. The HS said there was a small
chess club, but the teacher who ran it was away. [pop 50,000]

It seems to me that your plan is to benefit organisers in areas already
playing chess by suggesting more efficient distribution of funds to attract
new players to existing clubs - is that true?

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,

Hastings Ne, obviously doesn't need that since there is no club, and ours
doesn't fundraise since the guy who owns the restaurant lets us use it for
free. Would your plan still have anything in it for us?

I ask because perhaps these two illustrations are typical of the majority of
US outside Metropolitan or Conurbation areas.

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.

Seems to me this could be a viable model for USCF for existing players near
cities, on the theme, 'better maintenance model'.

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.

Has USCF ever, to your knowledge, ever studied such a system? If so, what
didn't they like about it?

Cordially, Phil Innes

Old Haasie

It seems to me that your plan is to benefit organisers in areas already
playing chess by suggesting more efficient distribution of funds to attract
new players to existing clubs - is that true?
============== Old Haasie replying next
The plan is not so much to benefit organizers as to benefit areas and
the members within,.. to enrich the chess experience. For example,
in an area that is already active with tournaments, the District
umbrella could choose to promote chess in ways other than running
tournaments. The District could help establish a club in a suburb
that doesn't have one. Or it could, as another example, try to
establish a 4 person league of teams all over town, or a commercial
and industrial league. Each District would annually evaluate the
condition of chess in its area, and come up with some kind of plan as
to what is needed in their area. They might come up ten or twelve
projects. Hopefully they could execute two or three of them, moving
chess forward a little bit. Now, if a given District umbrella
determined that there were few or no tournaments (Tampa Bay District),
the org could start running tournaments. Thus, each District would be
unique to some degree, doing for their areas what was most needed, and
so on. Old Haasie
===============

Has USCF ever, to your knowledge, ever studied such a system? If so, what
didn't they like about it?

Cordially, Phil Innes
===============Old Haasie relying next====
Not much. The Mensa Model was rather brushed off by some members of
the PB. The last time I was actively posting about the Mensa Model I
did suggest that it be tested for effect for a few years in a few
selected locations. Chess HQ was not interested.

Old Haasie

"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.

1. Collecting dues deters membership. Extra dues to support
metro subsidies deters more members.
=======
In my scheme about $10 per adult member would be taken from the
national dues .. pretty much like Mensa itself does it. I would not
be in favor of a $59 dues to fund the Districts.
=======

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.
========
One of my favorite parts of my Mensa Model scheme is: The District
umbrella wouild be offered a proportional share of the membership dues
that originate in the District's area or territory. They'd have to
have some kind of plan as to what would be done with the money. If
they had no plan, or if the locals would not voluntarily staff or even
form up their local umbrella, then they would get no money that year.
I would expect that to happen especially in the early years of a Mensa
scheme. Let's say Pittsburgh simply is too lazy to form up into a
District umbrella. Pittsburg's money would go to District umbrellas
that were up and running. They'd get Pittsburgh's money as a bonus/
reward for being properly organized, operational, and on the ball. Of
course, Pittsburgh would be informed that Minneapolis, Dallas, and
Denver were given Pittsburgh's money. Eventually someone or some
group in Pittsburgh would get tired of seeing area money going far
away,... and they would form up a District umbrella and take
Pittsburgh's money for the benefit of chess in Pittsburgh. I love
that part of my scheme.
===========

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.- Hide quoted text -
=============================
If money is not a factor, why does the USCF beg for it all the time.
Kiddie stuff arose because organizers can make money running kiddie
stuff (no $$ prizes, but fairly hefty EF's). Who's kidding whom? The
capital requirements for adult OTB chess are formidible if the so-
called chess capitalist (organizer/promoter) has modest working
capital, which is the case for most of them. Not many rich people
waste time running adult open events. As I said elsewhere the risk of
running adult OTB events is almost always concentrated on the
shoulders of one promoter, and the risk is almost always much greater
that the profit potential. Many promoters run these things out of
some sense of duty to chess, like Kevin Bachler who admitted on here a
few years ago that if he could be assured of merely breaking even, he
run an event monthly. Even WG of CCA posted here some time back that
he, the top promoter in the country, makes only about $80,000 a year
running adult OTB stuff all over the place. What that shows me, at
least, is that most adult OTB is run not by real chess capitalists but
rather by defacto chess mission bearers ... defacto non-profits for
the most part. One advantage of the Mensa scheme is that it spreads
the risk lightly among all paying members .. about $10 per person per
year. There are other advantages that I will touch upon elsewhere.

Old Haasie

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

1. Collecting dues deters membership. Extra dues to support
metro subsidies deters more members.
=======
In my scheme about $10 per adult member would be taken from the
national dues .. pretty much like Mensa itself does it. I would not
be in favor of a $59 dues to fund the Districts.
=======

The marginal dues required to fund the Districts will lead to marginal
reductions in membership.

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.
========
One of my favorite parts of my Mensa Model scheme is: The District
umbrella wouild be offered a proportional share of the membership dues
that originate in the District's area or territory. They'd have to
have some kind of plan as to what would be done with the money. If
they had no plan, or if the locals would not voluntarily staff or even
form up their local umbrella, then they would get no money that year.
I would expect that to happen especially in the early years of a Mensa
scheme. Let's say Pittsburgh simply is too lazy to form up into a
District umbrella. Pittsburg's money would go to District umbrellas
that were up and running. They'd get Pittsburgh's money as a bonus/
reward for being properly organized, operational, and on the ball. Of
course, Pittsburgh would be informed that Minneapolis, Dallas, and
Denver were given Pittsburgh's money. Eventually someone or some
group in Pittsburgh would get tired of seeing area money going far
away,... and they would form up a District umbrella and take
Pittsburgh's money for the benefit of chess in Pittsburgh. I love
that part of my scheme.
===========

And in that case the Pittsburgh people, who haven't been successful
at tapping the region's chess interest in the past will all of a sudden
be spending it on some product that has proven unappealing a dozen
times before. How is that a benefit?

In the meantime, the potential Pittsburgh member might just conclude
that he doesn't want to cough up the extra $10 (probably $20 when you
include overhead) and just stay away.

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.- Hide quoted text -
=============================

If money is not a factor, why does the USCF beg for it all the time.
Kiddie stuff arose because organizers can make money running kiddie
stuff (no $$ prizes, but fairly hefty EF's).

Exactly. They do this *without* "metro subsidies". Why? Because
they've stumbled upon a product that is appealing to that market.
By the way, most of our kiddie tournaments have entry fees of $15
and are driven by a sense of mission, not monetary gain.

Who's kidding whom? The
capital requirements for adult OTB chess are formidible if the so-
called chess capitalist (organizer/promoter) has modest working
capital, which is the case for most of them.

Compared to what? Compared to golf? Baseball? Dungeons and
Dragons? A restaurant that serves Italian food?

Chess needs a small amount of reasonably comfortable space.
Frankly, it's hard to think of many things that require less than
chess does.



Not many rich people
waste time running adult open events. As I said elsewhere the risk of
running adult OTB events is almost always concentrated on the
shoulders of one promoter, and the risk is almost always much greater
that the profit potential. Many promoters run these things out of
some sense of duty to chess, like Kevin Bachler who admitted on here a
few years ago that if he could be assured of merely breaking even, he
run an event monthly. Even WG of CCA posted here some time back that
he, the top promoter in the country, makes only about $80,000 a year
running adult OTB stuff all over the place. What that shows me, at
least, is that most adult OTB is run not by real chess capitalists but
rather by defacto chess mission bearers ... defacto non-profits for
the most part.

I don't dispute your characterization. However, the underlying
reality is that the products that these mission bearers offer are not
widely appealing. The Mensa scheme makes it a little easier
for the politically well-connected USCFers to offer their unpopular
products. The cost is leaving thousands (millions?) of American
chessplayers who opt out of these activities unserved.
Not a good trade in my book.

One advantage of the Mensa scheme is that it spreads
the risk lightly among all paying members .. about $10 per person per
year. There are other advantages that I will touch upon elsewhere.

It just doesn't make sense to subsidize bad ideas. The amount is irrelevant.


Old Haasie