There's a lot of chatter in this group on USCF dues. In my opinion the
$49/yr comes down to one issue: Is playing chess worth $49 to you?

In return for $49 per year USCF permits you to play in rated tournaments,
sends you a (crummy) magazine, and half-assedly supports US Chess. For me
the big benefit is the rated tournament games, of which I play about 60 per
year. I would love a more timely, expertly written magazine. I would love to
have helped cultivate half a dozen US-born world-class players. For now
that's not meant to be. We can continue to criticize, suggest, and volunteer
towards making the federation better, but the bottom line is: do you want to
play chess or not?

In my opinion what USCF actually spends the money on, how it wastes or
invests it, is a completely separate issue to the priviledge of playing in
rated events. When my dues are up I ask myself one question only: Is it
worth $49 to play in rated tournaments?

All you guys who bitch and moan about the dues cannot possibly be serious
about chess, which is ok. My wife would not pay 49 cents for USCF
membership, and I respect that. I would not pay a cent to join the U.S.
Tulip Breeder's Association (if one exists). Because I have no interest in
tulips, I also have no interest whatsoever in the association's dues. They
could be $4/yr or $400/yr, and it wouldn't matter to me because I'm not
interested. If I were interested and valued what the association returned to
me, maybe $400/yr would not be high.

I'm sure there's a price point above which USCF membership would not be
worthwhile for me either, but I assure you that it's a lot higher than $49
because I love chess. I love to play. I love to read about it. I love to
hang out with chess players and shoot the ****. Please don't come back with
"you must have an empty life." I'm married with three young kids, and I work
50-60 hours per week on my business.

I'm not a wealthy guy by any means. Nevertheless, I cannot understand
griping about $49. The non-member gripers posting to this newsgroup suggest
they would rejoin USCF were it not for their resentment over the
federation's wastefulness, as reflected in the high dues. To them I say:
BULL****. What they're really saying, what they really mean, is: "playing
rated chess games is not worth $49/yr to me." Which as I said is ok. Most
people feel the same way. Unlike the dues gripers, however, most don't post
to this newsgroup or pretend to be interested in chess.

The dues gripers remind me of a quote by Oscar Wild's character, Lord
Darlington, who described a cynic as "a man who knows the price of
everything but the value of nothing." Surely, among those gripers earning
more than subsistance wage (and I wonder sometimes if there are any), it
strains credulity to think they do not gladly spend $49 on more frivolous
activities than chess nearly every day of their miserly, wretched existence.
Just look around you, and tell me what $49 buys these days.

To the other dues gripers, those who remain members, I suggest the
following. Let's first fix USCF, and worry about the $49 adult dues later.
To me the federation's survival and financial health is more important than
saving $8 or $11 on my dues. If you love chess you should feel the same way.

The reason dues were raised is because USCF is in financial trouble due to
years of mismanagement. There's no ulterior motive, no secret funneling of
$$ to "big organizers" or anyone else. You "conspiracy guys" are
particularly troubling because not only do you not understand simple
economics, but you're trying to blame the only people in this country who
have actually turned chess into a successful venture.

USCF's finances would be easier to fathom if someone had actually stolen a
couple of million and deposited it into a bank account in Argentina. But
alas, it's basically nickel and dime stuff, adding up at both the revenue
and expense end.

I can anticipate the majority responses to this last statement from the
nickel-and-dime-minded morons among you: "It's not nickel and dime stuff!!!
They spent $800 on meals during the US Open!!!" "So-and-so flew business
class THREE TIMES in THREE YEARS" "So-and-so shared his french fries with
his girlfriend during the board meeting!!!"

Blah blah blah, crawl back into your cardboard boxes, back into the 1940s.

Angelo DePalma

"Angelo DePalma" writes:
There's a lot of chatter in this group on USCF dues. In my opinion the
$49/yr comes down to one issue: Is playing chess worth $49 to you?

Fair enough. The trouble is that for an ever-increasing number of
players, the answer is no, it's not worth it. So they are leaving,
and the USCF is going broke. So I could rephrase your opinion: the
$49/year comes down to one issue, is keeping the dues that high worth
making the USCF go broke?

We can continue to criticize, suggest, and volunteer towards making
the federation better, but the bottom line is: do you want to play
chess or not?

Obviously some want it very very badly and will pay practically anything.
Others don't want it at all and won't pay a cent. I think most of us
here on rgcp are somewhere between.

All you guys who bitch and moan about the dues cannot possibly be serious
about chess, which is ok.

You are missing something: the majority of USCF players are NOT
serious about chess. I say that because the median rating of USCF
players is somewhere in the 1300 range. Serious players just don't
stay that low-rated, at least for long. So if the USCF wants to keep
its membership, it has to bloody well get used to the idea that most
of its members aren't serious, and sets its dues to be attractive to
them anyway, which means lower. If it wants to limit itself to
serious players, it better plan on a much smaller membership, and cut
expenses accordingly.

I'm sure there's a price point above which USCF membership would not be
worthwhile for me either, but I assure you that it's a lot higher than $49
because I love chess.

That's swell for you and there are a number of other players like you,
but there are also a lot more who aren't willing to pay that much, and
you can't say the USCF should just let them leave unless you want the
USCF to go broke (or get a lot smaller), because those players ARE
leaving and the USCF IS going broke.

I'm not a wealthy guy by any means. Nevertheless, I cannot
understand griping about $49. The non-member gripers posting to this
newsgroup suggest they would rejoin USCF were it not for their
resentment over the federation's wastefulness, as reflected in the
high dues. To them I say: BULL****. What they're really saying, what
they really mean, is: "playing rated chess games is not worth $49/yr
to me." Which as I said is ok. Most people feel the same way. Unlike
the dues gripers, however, most don't post to this newsgroup or
pretend to be interested in chess.

I guess if the USCF were charging only $5/year, I'd join without
caring whether it was wasteful or not. At $49, I have to look
carefully at what the USCF offers, and I don't like what I see, again
whether or not there's waste.

To the other dues gripers, those who remain members, I suggest the
following. Let's first fix USCF, and worry about the $49 adult dues
later.

The high dues are one of the first broken things that needs to be fixed.

To me the federation's survival and financial health is more
important than saving $8 or $11 on my dues. If you love chess you
should feel the same way.

Then by all means, send a voluntary contribution of $8 or $11 or
whatever you want. But the USCF's survival and financial health isn't
bad because of members who are staying and griping. It's bad because
of non-members who had to choose between paying $49 and paying $0, so
they chose to pay $0. Improving the USCF's health depends on giving
those non-members some more attractive choices.

The reason dues were raised is because USCF is in financial trouble
due to years of mismanagement.

But the increase was so painful because the dues were high already
even when there was no widespread feeling of mismanagement. And the
dues were allowed to get that high because of the pervasive influence
of big-tournament culture.

There's no ulterior motive, no secret funneling of $$ to "big
organizers" or anyone else.

If there's no secret funnelling, why isn't the current GP contract
public? Why wasn't the last one public? It sure looked like
funneling once it got out. I'm not claiming outright corruption
(e.g. kickbacks) but there have sure been interest groups getting
their share (look at the previous Finance VP getting 9 pages of the
USCF B&E catalog devoted to his company' products).

Blah blah blah, crawl back into your cardboard boxes, back into the 1940s.

The 1940's were before the time of any rgcp regulars, but from what I
gather from the old-timers here, the USCF was a much healthier
organization in the 50's and 60's than it is now.

See below:

"Paul Rubin" wrote

Fair enough. The trouble is that for an ever-increasing number of
players, the answer is no, it's not worth it.

If they're leaving over $49, what is it about $39 that would make them stay?

Obviously some want it very very badly and will pay practically anything.
Others don't want it at all and won't pay a cent. I think most of us
here on rgcp are somewhere between.

Au contraire, I think most of the people on here don't play at all.

You are missing something: the majority of USCF players are NOT
serious about chess. I say that because the median rating of USCF
players is somewhere in the 1300 range. Serious players just don't
stay that low-rated, at least for long. So if the USCF wants to keep
its membership, it has to bloody well get used to the idea that most
of its members aren't serious, and sets its dues to be attractive to
them anyway, which means lower. If it wants to limit itself to
serious players, it better plan on a much smaller membership, and cut
expenses accordingly.

While I admit there probably is a good deal of elasticity in the dues
structure, now is not the time to experiment with that.

That's swell for you and there are a number of other players like you,
but there are also a lot more who aren't willing to pay that much, and
you can't say the USCF should just let them leave unless you want the
USCF to go broke (or get a lot smaller), because those players ARE
leaving and the USCF IS going broke.

Well frankly, I'm more interested in "chess players" who actually play, at
whatever level, in whatever venue. Many of my recent posts address the need
to reach them rather than guys who don't play.

I guess if the USCF were charging only $5/year, I'd join without
caring whether it was wasteful or not. At $49, I have to look
carefully at what the USCF offers, and I don't like what I see, again
whether or not there's waste.

Well then as I said, chess isn't worth $1 a week to you. That's fine, Paul.
But don't call yourself a chess enthusiast.


The high dues are one of the first broken things that needs to be fixed.

Question: Do you believe tax cuts stimulate the economy?

Then by all means, send a voluntary contribution of $8 or $11 or
whatever you want. But the USCF's survival and financial health isn't
bad because of members who are staying and griping. It's bad because
of non-members who had to choose between paying $49 and paying $0, so
they chose to pay $0.

Someone with more knowledge than I about the membership situation and HQ
management please respond to this comment.

If there's no secret funnelling, why isn't the current GP contract
public? Why wasn't the last one public? It sure looked like
funneling once it got out. I'm not claiming outright corruption
(e.g. kickbacks) but there have sure been interest groups getting
their share (look at the previous Finance VP getting 9 pages of the
USCF B&E catalog devoted to his company' products).

Sadly, you cannot post something intelligent from beginning to end. It's
always the same crap with you. USCF is not a democracy. It's governed by
people who can't consult with you every time they decide on something.
People in those positions are sometimes secretive, sometimes unscrupulous.
Unlike you I'm not accusing them of either.

Angelo

Angelo DePalma wrote:

There's a lot of chatter in this group on USCF dues. In my opinion the
$49/yr comes down to one issue: Is playing chess worth $49 to you?

Presently, it is not.



In return for $49 per year USCF permits you to play in rated tournaments,
sends you a (crummy) magazine, and half-assedly supports US Chess. For me
the big benefit is the rated tournament games, of which I play about 60 per
year. I would love a more timely, expertly written magazine. I would love to
have helped cultivate half a dozen US-born world-class players. For now
that's not meant to be. We can continue to criticize, suggest, and volunteer
towards making the federation better, but the bottom line is: do you want to
play chess or not?

Presently, I do not.


In my opinion what USCF actually spends the money on, how it wastes or
invests it, is a completely separate issue to the priviledge of playing in
rated events. When my dues are up I ask myself one question only: Is it
worth $49 to play in rated tournaments?

Presently, it is not.


All you guys who bitch and moan about the dues cannot possibly be serious
about chess, which is ok.

I have been very serious about chess off and on since 1972. In the mid
1990's, I pretty much kept chess going around here, through sheer force
of will and energy. At the time, I had my summers free, no other major
hobbies to occupy my time, and I wasn't attending school. My son was
also a scholastic player, and we often travelled together to tournaments
and enjoyed one another's company. Now, I work 65 hours a week, there
are no good tournaments within 200 miles of my home, dues have been
jacked up on adults 39% since 1995. Year after year, bitter, angry
fights ensue at the Delegates meetings as children are given the lowest
dues rates to do basically what I most wanted to do, which was to just
play tournament chess.

My wife would not pay 49 cents for USCF
membership, and I respect that. I would not pay a cent to join the U.S.
Tulip Breeder's Association (if one exists). Because I have no interest in
tulips, I also have no interest whatsoever in the association's dues. They
could be $4/yr or $400/yr, and it wouldn't matter to me because I'm not
interested. If I were interested and valued what the association returned to
me, maybe $400/yr would not be high.

I'm sure there's a price point above which USCF membership would not be
worthwhile for me either, but I assure you that it's a lot higher than $49
because I love chess.

You are one of the core members who will continue to be bled for as
much as USCF continues to charge you. You will not scream or complain
until the dues are even higher. The over 10,000 adults that have been
lost since 1995 however do not share your tolerance.

I love to play. I love to read about it. I love to
hang out with chess players and shoot the ****. Please don't come back with
"you must have an empty life." I'm married with three young kids, and I work
50-60 hours per week on my business.

Everybody's got their point of resignation Angelo. For you it may be
$100.00 or even $200.00 for some it was $40.00. For others it's
$49.00.


I'm not a wealthy guy by any means. Nevertheless, I cannot understand
griping about $49.

Perhaps you don't understand the real reason for the griping? I could
have renewed at $40.00 had I cared enough to do so, but I saw that the
handwriting was on the wall, and that once again the scholastic lobby
rattles its sabre and the Delegates dance a jig. USCF has continually
squandered and misspent the money, USCF officials have put themselves
ahead of the interests of the members and USCF officials continually
demonstrate an appalling arrogance about which group is most essential
for the survival of the organization. All of the coddling and special
treatment continues to go to the loudest whiners, the scholastic lobby.

The non-member gripers posting to this newsgroup suggest
they would rejoin USCF were it not for their resentment over the
federation's wastefulness, as reflected in the high dues.

It's not just wastefulness, it's also corruption, arrogance and whining
by powerful lobbies. It's also continual cutting of services, the
continual raising of fees, the arrogance that you are "lucky" to be
allowed to send USCF money, rather than USCF is lucky to get money from
you.

To them I say:
BULL****. What they're really saying, what they really mean, is: "playing
rated chess games is not worth $49/yr to me."

Playing rated chess games is no longer worth $49.00/year to me, nor is
paying $45.00 a year to affiliate worth it, nor is paying higher TLA
fees, nor is paying higher rating fees, nor is playing in tournaments
with only a dozen people who are the same people that played last month.
None of those things are worth it to me anymore, because I now have a
degree program I'm working on, I have career priorities I'm working on,
and I have family and important matters to work on that matter a whole
lot more than sending USCF $49.00 so they can let a child play for
$12.00 a year and squander the rest to sell Frank's HOS sets. I don't
feel that I should be paying money to enrich Frank Camaratta, so he can
fill up the catalog of USCF with 9 pages of his items, while he sits on
the Board.

Which as I said is ok. Most
people feel the same way. Unlike the dues gripers, however, most don't post
to this newsgroup or pretend to be interested in chess.

I'm sure you have a point Angelo other than to gripe, but if you expect
anyone to rejoin USCF because you are angry at them, I think you're
going to be disappointed.


The dues gripers remind me of a quote by Oscar Wild's character, Lord
Darlington, who described a cynic as "a man who knows the price of
everything but the value of nothing." Surely, among those gripers earning
more than subsistance wage (and I wonder sometimes if there are any), it
strains credulity to think they do not gladly spend $49 on more frivolous
activities than chess nearly every day of their miserly, wretched existence.

Like books and tuition.

Just look around you, and tell me what $49 buys these days.

That will buy at least a good portion of one of my textbooks for my
classes which are taking up most of my time now that I'm no longer
playing rated chess.

To the other dues gripers, those who remain members, I suggest the
following. Let's first fix USCF, and worry about the $49 adult dues later.

I suggest you fix it Angelo and if you are able to, I'll consider
rejoining, as long as the same idiots who put us in this situation are
not still in charge.

To me the federation's survival and financial health is more important than
saving $8 or $11 on my dues. If you love chess you should feel the same way.

Have you considered the possibility that one could love the game of
chess and not necessarily believe that USCF any longer has the best
interests of chess as it's primary motivation?


The reason dues were raised is because USCF is in financial trouble due to
years of mismanagement. There's no ulterior motive, no secret funneling of
$$ to "big organizers" or anyone else. You "conspiracy guys" are
particularly troubling because not only do you not understand simple
economics, but you're trying to blame the only people in this country who
have actually turned chess into a successful venture.

Let's get something straight. The reason dues were raised was because
in Cherry Hill, about 2/3rds of the Delegates were either Life Members
who don't care how high dues are, because they're Life Members, and
scholastic equipment dealers, coaches and tournament organizers. The
most under represented group was the group that got shafted which was
those who must now pay $49.00 or drop out.


USCF's finances would be easier to fathom if someone had actually stolen a
couple of million and deposited it into a bank account in Argentina. But
alas, it's basically nickel and dime stuff, adding up at both the revenue
and expense end.

I can anticipate the majority responses to this last statement from the
nickel-and-dime-minded morons among you: "It's not nickel and dime stuff!!!
They spent $800 on meals during the US Open!!!" "So-and-so flew business
class THREE TIMES in THREE YEARS" "So-and-so shared his french fries with
his girlfriend during the board meeting!!!"

Blah blah blah, crawl back into your cardboard boxes, back into the 1940s.

Really Angelo. What is this little rant accomplishing? Do you expect
the money to come flooding into USCF now? Do you really believe what's
said or not said on this forum is any way the reason for USCF's
continued decline?

It is painfully obvious that USCF has a completely unsound
demographic/financial structure. It has raised it's total membership,
but it has decreased its necessary membership category of adults by
10,000 in the course of 8 years.

It did this with pride, and bragged about the great spirit of
cooperation when it did it in Cherry Hill. It now sees membership in
adult regulars dropping 60% faster than it did before the disastrous
Cherry Hill debacle.

USCF officials either deliberately lied about how badly the
organization was doing, right up until the LA meetings, or they were so
inept and blind that they were caught completely by surprise that we
lost megabucks.

Now USCF is in even more difficult shape because according to Booz et.
al, they have already lost another quarter million in the first three
months of this fiscal year. They've still got a maxed out line of
credit and are borrowed to the hilt as the Christmas Season draws near
and they need to pay down the LOC in order to buy merchandise to sell in
order not to lose still more money.


Angelo DePalma

Good luck with USCF Angelo. They are lucky to have people like you who
don't care how many fee and dues increases are passed every year, and
who will continue to ask for another no matter how many times they are
beaten with a stick. Time to go get ready to sleep in my 1940's box.

Best Regards,

Bruce

"Angelo DePalma" writes:
Fair enough. The trouble is that for an ever-increasing number of
players, the answer is no, it's not worth it.

If they're leaving over $49, what is it about $39 that would make them stay?

As you say yourself, there's elasticity. There would be less sticker
shock at $39. I've never advocated a $39 membership though. I've
called for minimum dues much lower than $39, accompanied by no CL.

While I admit there probably is a good deal of elasticity in the dues
structure, now is not the time to experiment with that.

The alternative is leaving things as they are and continuing to lose
members.

Well frankly, I'm more interested in "chess players" who actually play, at
whatever level, in whatever venue. Many of my recent posts address the need
to reach them rather than guys who don't play.

An awful lot of them do play, just not in USCF events because they're
not members.

Well then as I said, chess isn't worth $1 a week to you. That's
fine, Paul. But don't call yourself a chess enthusiast.

USCF membership isn't worth $1 a week to me. I don't know if that
makes me a non-enthusiast or not. I don't know if it makes me a
serious player, but I've never called myself one. I do know that
quite a few non-member masters who aren't willing to pay that $1 a
week, and I know that to become a master in the first place, one must
be enthusiastic.

If USCF offered quite a lot more for that $1 a week, like ICC does
except over the board, I'd probably join at that rate. For example,
I'd join at $1 a week if I get to go to over-the-board events and play
all the rated games I want without paying any further rating or entry
fees. That's what ICC offers online, so you get an impression of what
USCF is up against. Lots of players have moved from USCF to ICC.

The high dues are one of the first broken things that needs to be fixed.

Question: Do you believe tax cuts stimulate the economy?

You mean the US economy? That has nothing to do with the USCF. Most
people in the US can't casually decide to leave because the taxes are
too high. There's no always-correct-all-the-time answer, but right
now, tax cuts are bad because they cause higher deficits which means
higher interest rates, etc. USCF on the other hand has different
constraints and different goals, and needs a dues cut desperately.

Then by all means, send a voluntary contribution of $8 or $11 or
whatever you want. But the USCF's survival and financial health isn't
bad because of members who are staying and griping. It's bad because
of non-members who had to choose between paying $49 and paying $0, so
they chose to pay $0.

Someone with more knowledge than I about the membership situation and HQ
management please respond to this comment.

Yeah right, we need an expert to tell us whether the USCF would be
better off financially if fewer members quit. Duh.

Sadly, you cannot post something intelligent from beginning to end. It's
always the same crap with you. USCF is not a democracy. It's governed by
people who can't consult with you every time they decide on something.

It's a democracy now (it just had its first OMOV election) and that
seems to have been the impetus for the stables finally starting to get
cleaned out.

No it's not. We elect representatives and they do everything. Same as with
our government, except there we elect them and they do nothing.

It's a democracy now (it just had its first OMOV election) and that
seems to have been the impetus for the stables finally starting to get
cleaned out.

Angelo DePalma wrote:

Bruce,

As usual you make all good points.

I went through 15 years when I hardly played. I was starting my career,
beginning a family, learning to play bridge, etc. I went back to chess in my
early 40s and I'm happy I did.

I often don't consider others' experience, for example people in your
position or in situations similar to mine 10-15 yrs ago. However, what I
said about you applies to me during that period: I wasn't really that
interested in chess, and would certainly not have paid $49 for the
priviledge of -- NOT playing.

And yes, I have a breaking point, but it will be based more on how I
perceive New Windsor and current management rather than any fee increase. Of
course if they raised dues to $449/yr I would probably quit, but if I lost
interest again I would probably quit at 49 cents too.

Most chess players' playing lives have a predictable natural history. They
improve over 2-10 years then stop; they stay interested over 4-20 years, and
then chess doesn't matter any more. I believe these are the adult members
who are leaving now -- the same demographic who were leaving 20 years ago.
The difference is that now perhaps we're not replacing them, more or less as
we were at various times.

Everyone has a theory about why we don't replace adult members. People with
big mouths (like me) like to push their own theories, as do posters (vis
dues).

For the forseeable future I will believe that attrition has little to do
with the dues, which at $49 are still not out of line with hobby
organizations that offer a magazine. Ernie Schlicht or someone else on the
membership committee has probably analyzed the influx and outflux of this
era and compared it with those of other eras. It may not be that different
except for the relative numbers. That is, we may still be losing the same
type/age people as in earlier years, but simply not replacing them.

Sure I'm a chump. When you enjoy something you put up with its faults. But
like most battered spouses I do understand what's going on.

Angelo

That's alright Angelo. Unlike some posters, I don't intend to start a
nasty thread with your name prominently featured in it, complaining
about your complaining.

My view is that if USCF wants to recruit and retain adult regular
members, they need to find out why the ones leaving are leaving, and why
new ones aren't being recruited anymore to replace the ones that are
leaving?

There will always be attrition. What is most worrisome for USCF is
whether irreparable damage has been done to the local recruitment
efforts because of declining attendance, increased fees, poor service
and many directors in smaller clubs and communities just deciding to
chuck it all as being a waste of their time and money. At one point in
the mid 1990's, I was in the top 50 in the country for signing up new
members with my affiliate. This past year, I'll give you a hint about
how many new members I signed up for USCF? It's round, and it has no
value.

In Iowa for example, Des Moines has become a chess dead spot where once
events were held every month. In Nebraska only one guy really runs all
the adult events in either Omaha and Lincoln. If he burns out, which he
will at some point, if no one steps up to replace him, it will be like
Des Moines. Another guy who runs some events in central Nebraska is
getting older and may not do it much longer either.

If you think it's tough to keep going with dues and fees the way they
are, imagine the barriers to starting up, particularly in a smaller
rural state with a shrinking base of adult players. Free sites are
keeping us barely alive around here right now. Incidentally, there are
now about 8 tournaments on the upcoming schedule and only three of them
are USCF membership required events, and one of those is a Scholastic
event. Unrated events are planned for Kearney, Hastings and Omaha. In
addition the AmericInn events are being scheduled and I'm not sure how
those are working this year, but even they are scrounging to find
organizers and directors in this part of the country.

Best Regards,

Bruce

"Angelo DePalma" wrote in message ...
See below:

"Paul Rubin" wrote

Fair enough. The trouble is that for an ever-increasing number of
players, the answer is no, it's not worth it.

If they're leaving over $49, what is it about $39 that would make them stay?

It depends on the perceived value of USCF membership to them.
If it is between $39 and $49 they will leave if dues are $49 and stay
if dues are $39. I suspect there are many people who value USCF
membership around $40. I dropped out a couple of years ago at $40 but
would have renewed at $36.

Obviously some want it very very badly and will pay practically anything.
Others don't want it at all and won't pay a cent. I think most of us
here on rgcp are somewhere between.

Au contraire, I think most of the people on here don't play at all.

I play on ICC and FICS. I have no great interest in rated over
the board chess but I would join the USCF for Chess Life if the
membership were a bit cheaper, say $35.

You are missing something: the majority of USCF players are NOT
serious about chess. I say that because the median rating of USCF
players is somewhere in the 1300 range. Serious players just don't
stay that low-rated, at least for long. So if the USCF wants to keep
its membership, it has to bloody well get used to the idea that most
of its members aren't serious, and sets its dues to be attractive to
them anyway, which means lower. If it wants to limit itself to
serious players, it better plan on a much smaller membership, and cut
expenses accordingly.

While I admit there probably is a good deal of elasticity in the dues
structure, now is not the time to experiment with that.

That's swell for you and there are a number of other players like you,
but there are also a lot more who aren't willing to pay that much, and
you can't say the USCF should just let them leave unless you want the
USCF to go broke (or get a lot smaller), because those players ARE
leaving and the USCF IS going broke.

Well frankly, I'm more interested in "chess players" who actually play, at
whatever level, in whatever venue. Many of my recent posts address the need
to reach them rather than guys who don't play.

I play on ICC and FICS. The main thing the USCF has to offer me
is Chess Life which I don't think is worth $49 a year.

I guess if the USCF were charging only $5/year, I'd join without
caring whether it was wasteful or not. At $49, I have to look
carefully at what the USCF offers, and I don't like what I see, again
whether or not there's waste.

Well then as I said, chess isn't worth $1 a week to you. That's fine, Paul.
But don't call yourself a chess enthusiast.

Chess and the USCF are not the same thing.
James B. Shearer

Louis Blair wrote:

Bruce Draney wrote (2003-09-17 23:01:48 PST):

What is most worrisome for USCF is whether
irreparable damage has been done to the
local recruitment efforts ...

_
A long time ago, we talked about the possibility
of making it cheaper for a new person to try
playing in a tournament. Some proposals seemed
risky, while others required more work from
volunteers.

Right now, as I understand it, the only thing
of this sort that we have is a six-month
membership for $32 with the option for a
person to later extend to a year by paying
another $20. I wonder if it would be possible
to tinker with these numbers somewhat in
order to get more people to try USCF membership.
Perhaps $20 for three months with the option
to extend to a year for another $32. Is the
current board considering anything of this
sort?

Many ideas like this are worth trying to improve things.
Unfortunately, destroying the local chess recruitment infrastructure
which was functioning well up until about 1997, may be a disaster that
will take years of hard work to rebuild or repair, time that USCF
probably just does not any longer have.

Particularly in areas where there were few organizers to begin with,
getting great recruiters/directors/organizers to come back and start
recruiting/directing/organizing again after they quit, retired, gave up
or got discouraged, may be a non-possibility.

A gander at the top 50 affilliates and recruiters from 1996, might
provide us with at least some clue about how many of those affiliates or
organizers are around today.

Best Regards,

Bruce

(Vince Hart) writes:
Paul Rubin may be a fussbudget, but I am sure there are a lot of
places in the country where the presence or absence of a few such
fussbudgets determines whether or not there will be any organized
chess at all.

I feel a responsibility to keep posting here because most other
players in my situation simply quit the federation quietly, and the
federation ignores its problems that led those players to quit.