I have been reading this group for over a year now and feel compelled to post a
few observations.

First, a very brief bio. I am a professional (CFO of a mid-size manufacturer)
who lives in fly-over country with my wife and two kids. I am a Life Member of
USCF and a no-talent chess player who has loved the game for over 30 years. I
organized a couple of small local tourneys and coach the chess team at the
elementary school where my wife teaches. I am an avid acquirer of chess books
and magazines with a library approaching 500 chess books.

1. I joined USCF mainly to play in the occasional tourney and read Chess Life
each month (I am not astute enough to judge its quality but I have always
enjoyed it). I want for these benefits to continue. The new team running
things seems to be doing the right things to try to save this disaster, so if
it takes a few months of lesser Chess Life mags, so be it. And yes, horrors!,
I actually like playing chess on USChessLive.
2. I have received plenty of value for the amount I paid for a Life membership
years ago, so I will be sending in a check to try to help. I have no ability
to understand all of the whining about the dues - I guess it is just another
symptom of the WalMart toilet we seem to be swimming in these days. It's always
ugly when the free lunch ends!
3. The attacks on Bob Long confuse me. Yes, Bob is an opinionated cuss and
his new mag is suffering some growing pains, but the man has spent years trying
to contribute to the chess scene. My dealings with him have always had
excellent results and for years he was the only place to get decent pricing on
chess stuff. So what if I don't agree with all of his opinions. I would buy a
lifetime subscription to his new mag (if he sold such an animal) just to
express my thanks.

It is pathetic the amount of self-righteous flaming that goes on here.
Nothing is perfect but it would be nice to see a little constructive criticism,
and OMG, some praise occasionally.

Just my two cents worth. Flame away!

Jeff Jackson

It is pathetic the amount of self-righteous flaming that goes on here.

Oh yeah, how many times have we seen this: first the folksy,
gather-round-the-fireplace biography, a kindly newbie has just arrived, and
gee, he's just a good guy who loves and supports chess, thinks the
long-suffering team at New Windsor needs our support and love, is ready to
write big checks, hell, I'm reaching for my hankie...

And then comes the REAL reason he showed up...to SCOLD the room.

Welcome aboard, Bigbenni. You fit right in, with your self-righteous
flaming.

TMB

Among other things, RGCP is a place to vent. Venting is good in the long run.

RSHaas

The Masked Bishop wrote:

It is pathetic the amount of self-righteous flaming that goes on here.

Oh yeah, how many times have we seen this: first the folksy,
gather-round-the-fireplace biography, a kindly newbie has just arrived, and
gee, he's just a good guy who loves and supports chess, thinks the
long-suffering team at New Windsor needs our support and love, is ready to
write big checks, hell, I'm reaching for my hankie...

And then comes the REAL reason he showed up...to SCOLD the room.

Welcome aboard, Bigbenni. You fit right in, with your self-righteous
flaming.

TMB

Ah, look. He's a new poster. Kill him.

Best Regards,

Bruce

AGAINST CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM

By Larry Parr

Jeff Jackson wants constructive criticism.

How dare he! How dare he! *******.

Destructive criticism is always preferred, which is why rgcp has
proven such a valuable asset in chess.

On the other hand, occasional kind words are permitted. Bob Long
published one of my books about 20 years ago, and I must say he met payments
and conducted all of our business relations professionally.

How dare he! How dare he!

Welcome aboard, Bigbenni. You fit right in, with your self-righteous
flaming. -- TMB

I share similar thoughts as a 30 year member of USCF. Despite long
sentimental attachments, and although it will probably recover for awhile, I
doubt that it has much future in its present form.

The internet has changed everything. Chess is now "free" to all in virtual
reality. Organizations are still needed, but not $50/year dues, so I don't
think it can work. Those expensive dues go (went) to support a
superstructure of high paid, well intended, talented management which tried
their best but couldn't make it work. I doubt that anybody else can make it
work either, in its present form. I won't suggest a solution because I don't
know if there is one, so I guess you can call this a pessimistic view.

I only play correspondence chess now. I enjoyed OTB play when I was younger,
but now it's only CC - both postal and email. So, dropping Alex Dunne's
column and CC coverage from Chess Life (Nov'03 issue) leaves me without much
of real interest to read therein. However that's not critical because I play
in 4 different CC organizations, so it's easy enough to transfer my play to
the other groups.

As this indicates, and despite being a life member, I don't have a lot to
lose if USCF folds up shop tomorrow. I'll miss it, but it wouldn't upset me.
I care, but not very much. If USCF wants me to care more, then it will have
to do more in support of correspondence chess.
--
Euc1id


"Bigbenni" wrote in message
...
| I have been reading this group for over a year now and feel compelled to
post a
| few observations.
|
| First, a very brief bio. I am a professional (CFO of a mid-size
manufacturer)
| who lives in fly-over country with my wife and two kids. I am a Life
Member of
| USCF and a no-talent chess player who has loved the game for over 30
years. I
| organized a couple of small local tourneys and coach the chess team at the
| elementary school where my wife teaches. I am an avid acquirer of chess
books
| and magazines with a library approaching 500 chess books.
|
| 1. I joined USCF mainly to play in the occasional tourney and read Chess
Life
| each month (I am not astute enough to judge its quality but I have always
| enjoyed it). I want for these benefits to continue. The new team running
| things seems to be doing the right things to try to save this disaster, so
if
| it takes a few months of lesser Chess Life mags, so be it. And yes,
horrors!,
| I actually like playing chess on USChessLive.
| 2. I have received plenty of value for the amount I paid for a Life
membership
| years ago, so I will be sending in a check to try to help. I have no
ability
| to understand all of the whining about the dues - I guess it is just
another
| symptom of the WalMart toilet we seem to be swimming in these days. It's
always
| ugly when the free lunch ends!
| 3. The attacks on Bob Long confuse me. Yes, Bob is an opinionated cuss
and
| his new mag is suffering some growing pains, but the man has spent years
trying
| to contribute to the chess scene. My dealings with him have always had
| excellent results and for years he was the only place to get decent
pricing on
| chess stuff. So what if I don't agree with all of his opinions. I would
buy a
| lifetime subscription to his new mag (if he sold such an animal) just to
| express my thanks.
|
| It is pathetic the amount of self-righteous flaming that goes on here.
| Nothing is perfect but it would be nice to see a little constructive
criticism,
| and OMG, some praise occasionally.
|
| Just my two cents worth. Flame away!
|
| Jeff Jackson

Dear Larry,

Heil Dubya!

Were you twitting me over my response to that fellow who wondered about my use
of the word, "bacilli", when you made "*******" a full sentence?

I realize that your morality DOES admit of "*******s", but ask you to try
twirling "bacilli" around in your mouth. You might like the feel and sound of
it.

By Larry Parr

*******.

(GREATLY snipped.)

Heute Uhmuhrikkka, Afghanistan und Irak. Morgen die ganze Welt!

Uhmuhrikkka, Uhmuhrikkka uber Alles!

(Was 11 September 2001 Kristalnacht or the date of the Reichstag fire?)

Fraternally,

Jerry Bibuld

gens una sumus

"Despite long sentimental attachments, and although it will probably recover
for awhile, I doubt that it has much future in its present form." (Euc1id)
==============
If the dues stay at $49 the USCF will have to find something to make
membership more attractive... something that has never been there. Otherwise I
think the organization will drift away to nothing.
Fundamentally, we don't need the USCF for much more than its role as
custodian of the ratings database. To me that's worth no more than a $15
annual fee to be "active" in that database.
If Chess HQ stays at $49, I'd prefer to see the Mensa model treatment. If
no Mensa treatment... lower the dues to rock bottom.

RSHaas

RSHaas wrote:

"Despite long sentimental attachments, and although it will probably recover
for awhile, I doubt that it has much future in its present form." (Euc1id)
==============
If the dues stay at $49 the USCF will have to find something to make
membership more attractive... something that has never been there. Otherwise I
think the organization will drift away to nothing.
Fundamentally, we don't need the USCF for much more than its role as
custodian of the ratings database. To me that's worth no more than a $15
annual fee to be "active" in that database.
If Chess HQ stays at $49, I'd prefer to see the Mensa model treatment. If
no Mensa treatment... lower the dues to rock bottom.

RSHaas

Two interesting perspectives. I don't believe that USCF will function
effectively as long as it is primarily based upon only dues in one
category being profitable, particularly as long as that category
continues to shrink.

Clearing out B&E should finally answer once and for all, questions
about whether USCF is able to make it doing the things it is absolutely
essential for it to do, which in my opinion is to rate games, run
national championships and to establish standards and regulations in the
U.S. for the playing of chess.

I personally don't believe that $49.00 dues for adults for limited
services is viable. USCF should probably be moving away from the dues
based model as much as possible, but since nothing else will now
generate significant revenue there will be continued upward pressure on
the dues rates in the future, unless expenses are slashed so much that
much less revenue is now needed to operate.

The other problem is inefficiency. Since USCF has repeatedly proven it
is an inefficiently run organization, and is technologically about 10
years behind, this makes it difficult to operate on reduced revenues and
budgets and again increases the upward pressure on dues rates.

I've personally got the feeling that in a couple more years, USCF will
once again be back begging for another dues increase on people. Knowing
the infinite "wisdom" of the delegates, they will no doubt raise adult
dues to $55.00 and set scholastic dues at $19.00 for everyone, or $15.00
with no magazine. I could easily see such a proposal happening as early
as next year or perhaps in 2005.

Best Regards,

Bruce

"Bruce Draney" wrote in message
...

Two interesting perspectives. I don't believe that USCF will function
effectively as long as it is primarily based upon only dues in one
category being profitable, particularly as long as that category
continues to shrink.

I am convinced micro economics was a foreign language to the previous board.

StanB