In article , Jerry says...

You're not being specific about what the problem is with
this idea. Maybe there isn't any. There is also the WBCA,
why not compare it to that?

WBCA is either in fact or in effect a sanctioned body. ACA sanctions itself.
The difference is fairly clear.


"Kevin L. Bachler" wrote:

In article ,
says...

I'll run it.

I'll even host the official website.

All I will promise is a balanced budget each year.


Who will sanction it?

Well it's NEW, so it sanctions itself.

Then it is unbelievable. You are no better off than (dare I say it) Stan
Vaughan and the American Chess Association, http://www.geocities.com/radale/aca/
, or alternatively CEA at www.chesslogic.com

Kevin L. Bachler


Kevin L. Bachler

Dear Kevin,

Isn't this a little like the CJA sanctioning chess "journalists"? I realize
that the wbca is legitimate enough, but the only reason they are is because
they have trademarked the word "blitz", a GrandMaster owns them, and what
other reason? You said they are "sanctioned". Is that by FIDE?

Who sanctions the sanctioners? This whole argument of legitimacy in Chess
organizations is a little strange when you read about how FIDE was started
by real Chess Grand Masters, and what it has become now. Before the 1930's
didn't Chess get along just fine without sanctioning bodies?

Hey, I thought the real reason to have Chess organizations was to promote
Chess through something called a Champion. You know, your champion
challenges my champion, and the best organization has the best champion. The
process is so politized, that players are afraid to even talk to someone
from a competing organization, let they be called anti-fide, or worse.

We could do with a little less sanctioning, and a lot more Chess. Less
quack, and more buck.

Jane
http://www.lvcm.com/jadams

"Kevin L. Bachler" wrote in message
...
In article , Jerry says...

You're not being specific about what the problem is with
this idea. Maybe there isn't any. There is also the WBCA,
why not compare it to that?

WBCA is either in fact or in effect a sanctioned body. ACA sanctions
itself.
The difference is fairly clear.


"Kevin L. Bachler" wrote:

In article ,
says...

I'll run it.

I'll even host the official website.

All I will promise is a balanced budget each year.


Who will sanction it?

Well it's NEW, so it sanctions itself.

Then it is unbelievable. You are no better off than (dare I say it)
Stan
Vaughan and the American Chess Association,
http://www.geocities.com/radale/aca/
, or alternatively CEA at www.chesslogic.com

Kevin L. Bachler


Kevin L. Bachler

Who will sanction it?

Kevin L. Bachler

Who will join it, especially when you do not have a name?

We don't need a name until people join, do we?

I meant your name. LeModernCaveman is obviously not your real name.

Who will join the chess organization of a person not prepared to
reveal his real name?

Oh, I was being facetious, just hoping that someone in USCF might adopt my
ideas.

Generally, I'd do away with print magazines, replace it with a website, and I
know it's easy to do the ratings because I use the ELO method for sports
handicapping and have a database set up.

Considering that ratings and publishing are the two things a federation does,
and I can do both of them, I know generally what it would cost to keep a
federation going. On the publishing side, you're talking $500.00 a month for a
dedicated webhost, plus the cost of a webmaster/publisher (say bye bye to those
paid columnists!) that might be another $1,000.00 a month (most chess jobs
don't have to pay much more than minimum wage as enthusiasts will do it for
status). As everyone could do the work electronically from their homes, there
goes the need for big offices.

I would have thought that the USCF would be thriving by now, but I guess I was
wrong. The stuff I talk about is being done all over industry. The only
problem, as usual, would be to convince the establishment to change. Those who
are vested in the older systems are naturally protective of those systems, and
reluctant to try new things lest they not work out. Someone like me wouldn't
care about that because I'd be starting from scratch.

It would still take money to do, just not that much.

I am still curious about how it would not cost less to satisfy the Life
Membership requirements for existing Life members with an e-zine. It would
seem that the cost of printing that many Chess Lifes would be relatively
substantial.

"Jane Adams" wrote in message news:xj9Pa.1207$_s.320@fed1read03...
Dear Kevin,
Isn't this a little like the CJA sanctioning chess "journalists"?

Tom, the CJA doesn't "sanction" chess journalists.

I realize
that the wbca is legitimate enough, but the only reason they are is because
they have trademarked the word "blitz", a GrandMaster owns them, and what
other reason? You said they are "sanctioned". Is that by FIDE?
Who sanctions the sanctioners? This whole argument of legitimacy in Chess
organizations is a little strange when you read about how FIDE was started
by real Chess Grand Masters...

Please name the "real Chess Grand Masters" who started FIDE.

....and what it has become now. Before the 1930's
didn't Chess get along just fine without sanctioning bodies?

Can you give examples of chess getting along fine "without sanctioning
bodies" "before the 1930's"?

SNIP Klem Krapola.

Less
quack, and more buck.

Jane
http://www.lvcm.com/jadams

"Kevin L. Bachler" wrote in message
...
In article , Jerry says...

You're not being specific about what the problem is with
this idea. Maybe there isn't any. There is also the WBCA,
why not compare it to that?

WBCA is either in fact or in effect a sanctioned body. ACA sanctions
itself.
The difference is fairly clear.


"Kevin L. Bachler" wrote:

In article ,
says...

I'll run it.

I'll even host the official website.

All I will promise is a balanced budget each year.


Who will sanction it?

Well it's NEW, so it sanctions itself.

Then it is unbelievable. You are no better off than (dare I say it)
Stan
Vaughan and the American Chess Association,
http://www.geocities.com/radale/aca/
, or alternatively CEA at www.chesslogic.com

Kevin L. Bachler


Kevin L. Bachler

Kevin L. Bachler writes:
You're not being specific about what the problem is with
this idea. Maybe there isn't any. There is also the WBCA,
why not compare it to that?

WBCA is either in fact or in effect a sanctioned body. ACA
sanctions itself. The difference is fairly clear.

Huh? Who sanctions the WBCA?

ACA could do a better job, if it, well, did a better job. That's just
a matter of how much work its organizers are willing/able to do. It
has nothing to do with being sanctioned.

"Kevin L. Bachler" wrote in message
...
In article xj9Pa.1207$_s.320@fed1read03, "Jane says...

Dear Kevin,

Isn't this a little like the CJA sanctioning chess "journalists"?

I don't think CJA does that.

I realize
that the wbca is legitimate enough, but the only reason they are is
because
they have trademarked the word "blitz", a GrandMaster owns them, and what
other reason? You said they are "sanctioned". Is that by FIDE?

In effect, by USCF. I don't recall the arrangement, but USCF does not
rate
games under game 10, and instead leaves those games to WBCA.


Who sanctions the sanctioners?

There is always a need for a common legitimacy or belief. As in
governments, I
believe that the power is derived from the people. But on a day to day
basis
that power is invested in organizations, and it takes a lot for the people
to
decide to wrest it away again. It is not a simple deal.

SNIP

Kevin L. Bachler


Kevin,

If you want to believe in the USCF, go right ahead. I have lost my high
opinion of them. I am a little confused as to why anything they "sanction"
should have any more weight than any other organization, considering their
destructive tendencies.

Jane
http://www.lvcm.com/jadams

(joe mccarron) writes:

The American chess association seems ok. However it seems the rating
system is crude. Am I wrong on this or am I misunderstanding it.

If anything, I would argue it might be too complex.
--
Mike Nolan

or alternatively CEA at www.chesslogic.com

Kevin L. Bachler


Kevin,
Why would you compare USCF to something that works?

Our new ratings were up the day after our nationals.

USCF spends 80% of its time in political activity whereas it should be a
ratings and rules service.

Do you see any indication that USCF has any self correcting methodology or do
they doggedly keep to the failed path.

Imagine a USCF without politics.

This idea of official sanction is crap.
It is used my the incompetent to maintain their little positions of power and
influence.

This may be one example where nothing would be better than something. If FIDE
did ratings, then there would be little need for USCF.

Richard Peterson

Cheap chess memberships per se won't attract large numbers of members. State
associations are generally cheap, have newsletters and website... and generally
have small memberships and little growth. A chess federation, association,
club, league or whatever has to have an "attraction" in order to "attract."
Don't forget that when dealing with the chess playing universe one is usually
dealing with a universe of slow moving human sloths. (RSHaas)

"... If FIDE did ratings, then there would be little need for USCF." (Richard
Peterson)
============
Yes indeed. The "USCF rating" is Chess HQ's last toehold on credibility.
(RSHaas)