Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old December 24th 09, 02:30 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2009
Posts: 98
Default Older players less scholastic players

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/b...hipchart01.jpg

Clicking onto the link above was produced by Mike Nolan by the request
of William Goichberg. If you notice, the highest age group with
members of the USCF is in their fifties and their sixties. If you
notice the age group in their thirties, the membership numbers have
been on a decline since 1999. If you notice the age group in their
sixties, since 1999 that age group has increase. There is no earlier
data before 1999.

During 2003, the scholastic community had their highest peak during
the 2000ís, during the same time that adult players in their forties
was the highest age group for adults. Adult members during their
forties would have children within the scholastic community age. This
would produce family unity with parent and their offspring, voluntary
with coaching, teaching, directing scholastic tournaments.

Since the balk of the adult members has turned into their fifties and
their sixties, their children would be leaving the standard age of
being scholastic players into their adulthood. Since their children
are older, there is not much of a practical reason to be engaged in
coaching, teaching, and directing scholastic tournaments.

WARNING! If you notice the members in their forties now are higher
than members in their thirties. When the members in their thirties get
into their forties during the 2010ís, there should be even less
members being engaged in coaching, teaching, and directing scholastic
tournaments. If you look at the highest age group of scholastic
players in 2003 being way over six thousand members with the 2009
numbers just being over five thousand members in 2009, over a thousand
members have been lost in that age group. With a decline in adult
players within the age group of having children within the scholastic
age happening in the 2010ís, all age groups are not healthy going into
the 2010ís.
  #2   Report Post  
Old December 24th 09, 08:34 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2009
Posts: 360
Default Older players less scholastic players

On Dec 24, 7:30*am, Forsythe wrote:
http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/b...e/membershipch...

Clicking onto the link above was produced by Mike Nolan by the request
of William Goichberg. If you notice, the highest age group with
members of the USCF is in their fifties and their sixties. If you
notice the age group in their thirties, the membership numbers have
been on a decline since 1999. If you notice the age group in their
sixties, since 1999 that age group has increase. There is no earlier
data before 1999.

During 2003, the scholastic community had their highest peak during
the 2000ís, during the same time that adult players in their forties
was the highest age group for adults. Adult members during their
forties would have children within the scholastic community age. This
would produce family unity with parent and their offspring, voluntary
with coaching, teaching, directing scholastic tournaments.

Since the balk of the adult members has turned into their fifties and
their sixties, their children would be leaving the standard age of
being scholastic players into their adulthood. Since their children
are older, there is not much of a practical reason to be engaged in
coaching, teaching, and directing scholastic tournaments.

WARNING! If you notice the members in their forties now are higher
than members in their thirties. When the members in their thirties get
into their forties during the 2010ís, there should be even less
members being engaged in coaching, teaching, and directing scholastic
tournaments. If you look at the highest age group of scholastic
players in 2003 being way over six thousand members with the 2009
numbers just being over five thousand members in 2009, over a thousand
members have been lost in that age group. With a decline in adult
players within the age group of having children within the scholastic
age happening in the 2010ís, all age groups are not healthy going into
the 2010ís.


I need to correct you since you don't seem to know how to read a
graph.

1) The bulk of the membership falls in at around 12 years of age.
(Wish Mike had broken it down into 10 year increments rather than 20
years increments).

2) The bulk of the scholastic membership age wise has gotten younger
between 1999 and 2009

3) Total membership in USCF is DECLINING regardless of age group.

4) You are correct; the bulk of ADULT membership has shifted from 1999
from 35 - 50 years of age to 2009 45 - 62 years of age. (DUH!!!)

5) In 1999 the Scholastic membership was growing but outnumbered
ADULTS whose range ran from their late 20's to late 50's, in 2009 the
bulk of the ADULT membership was ran from the late 30's to mid to late
60's

6) There is a HARD CORE number of ADULTS that are aging (DUH!!) but
the number of Scholastic players are dropping out at an almost
constant age: In 1999 most Scholastic Players had dropped out art by
20 years of age; in 2003 (at the height of the Scholastic membership)
they had dropped out by around 22 years of age; in 2009 they were
dropping out at around 25 years of age.

Take home message: USCG *use to be* an ADULT organization, not a
substitute babysitter. There is still way too much emphasis being paid
to Scholastic Chess (as can be seen in the shift of age between 1999
and 2009 ie they are getting younger) and not enough attention being
paid to its CORE ADULT population which is growing OLDER. While there
has been a decline of overall membership numbers across the board it
is hard to say why especially given the 2007-2009 "Great Recession".
We can not also conclude what effect increases in membership fees has
had on membership retention, mortality (especially in the older
population), turmoil in the USCF leadership (ie lawsuits), etc. has
contributed to the decline in membership numbers. The two really BIG
unknowns are why is the OLDER ADULT population many who have usually
retired and now drawing Social Security and Pensions and thus have
more or less stable incomes, why are they are dropping out. There is
more than a little resentment from OLDER ADULTS that the USCF has
caved into the demands of the Scholastic crowd, while their needs and
wants go unmet.

The second BIG question is what is the effect of the internet and
online chess both on the overall population of chess players, but also
on the retention of OLDER ADULT populations.

When the members in their thirties get
into their forties during the 2010ís, there should be even less
members being engaged in coaching, teaching, and directing scholastic
tournaments. If you look at the highest age group of scholastic
players in 2003 being way over six thousand members with the 2009
numbers just being over five thousand members in 2009, over a thousand
members have been lost in that age group. With a decline in adult
players within the age group of having children within the scholastic
age happening in the 2010ís, all age groups are not healthy going into
the 2010ís.


Your conclusion is total rubbish!!! There is a constant INFLUX of NEW
SCHOLASTIC players. That the numbers are declining might have more to
due with economics -- ie the "Great Recession" -- than an aging
population. There are now more than ever chess players making a living
teaching chess -- ie "coaching" -- in schools than ever before. only a
small fraction of the total number of scholastic payers have been
retained into their 20's moving from around 20 years of age in 1999 to
around 25 years of age in 2009. In contrast there has been a constant
decline in the CORE ADULT population that is AGING from 1999 to 2009.
In short as the CORE ADULT population dies out it will NOT be replaced
by like numbers but a shrinking population.

USCF is NOT the only game in town anymore. Internet chess sites make
USCF unnecessary. USCF is primarily a RATINGS SERVICE that if you
belonged to it also provided a FREE chess magazine -- "Chess Life".
Memberships rates have been steadily increased, while benefits have
decreased. Under Bill G. watched USCF came out with a bozo idea of
dual membership rates: a "Premium Membership" rate which includes a
hard copy of "Chess Life" for just $41/yr (WOW!!! What a deal!!) and a
"Regular Membership" that does NOT include a hard copy of "Chess Life"
but gives the member access to the "online edition" of "Chess Life".
it *was* $29 until last year, it is now $34. So what do you get for
your membership dollars?? You get a chance to enter into a USCF rated
tournament and obtain an "official" USCF rating... which means
NOTHING!!! Indeed with the influx of Scholastic players who are now
being COACHED by rated Experts (Candidate Masters -- an Official
Title) and above Older ADULT players who EARNED their ratings over the
course of a lifetime the hard way through OTB play, a love of the
game, and self education, are finding their ratings taking a hit by
losing to these coached "Scholastic Players", many 8 - 12 years of age
who are frequently UNDER RATED. The net result is ratings deflation in
the ADULT population. What OLDER ADULT needs this type of abuse?!?
They are paying their paying their good money to watch their RATING
which they earned over the course of a lifetime being eroded by losing
to these UNDER RATED Scholastic players who are being COACHED in the
game. Far better to take up play on the internet, on many of these
"free" chess sites and "earn" a "Rating" (which likewise is just as
worthless as a USCF rating ), or to engage in friendly skittle games,
neither of which costs you money.

No the survival of USCF depends on A) How do they respond to the
threat of online internet chess sites B) How does USCF retain their
CORE POPULATION of OLDER ADULTS C) Delivering more than they currently
deliver the member for their membership dollars, other than allowing
the member to play in "USCF sanctioned" tournaments to obtain an
"official USCF rating which means absolutely NOTHING since the only
OFFICIAL "TITLES" a member can EARN start at the EXPERT (Candidate
Master) level of USCF rating 2000.

USCF has bent over backwards to appease the Scholastic Crowd, and the
OLDER ADULT membership is being screwed. Unless action is taken NOW to
retain the OLDER ADULT membership, you can expect USCF to become
nothing more than a shell of itself, if it does not cease to exist
altogether, by 2015. Belonging to the USCF is a waste of money all to
the inflate the precious egos of a bunch of snot nosed kids.
  #3   Report Post  
Old December 24th 09, 11:08 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2009
Posts: 98
Default Older players less scholastic players

Older players less scholastic players

- Show quoted text -

I need to correct you since you don't seem to know how to read a
graph.
1) The bulk of the membership falls in at around 12 years of age.
(Wish Mike had broken it down into 10 year increments rather than 20
years increments).
I said the balk of ADULT MEMBERS not the balk of ALL MEMBERS. Do you
understand the legal age of adult unless you sell beer and tobacco to
12 year old? That is right 12 years olds are not ADULTS.
2) The bulk of the scholastic membership age wise has gotten younger
between 1999 and 2009
3) Total membership in USCF is DECLINING regardless of age group.
Check the age group in their 60ís from 1999 to 2009, their membership
has increased because they were in their 50ís in 1999.
4) You are correct; the bulk of ADULT membership has shifted from
1999
from 35 - 50 years of age to 2009 45 - 62 years of age. (DUH!!!)
That shift in age has shifted the age of their children from being
scholastic age to their twenties. Most scholastic coaches are working
for free and the reason they are doing so is because of their
children. When their children are out of High School, it is uncommon
that a adult would be interested to coach children. Even with the few
that is willing to teach for a school, the adults that are willing are
getting older, unless you feel someone in their 60ís should not
retire. Do you feel you should be teaching chess to children when you
are in your 60ís.

Already you are seeing adult members that their children are leaving
High School stopping being coaches because their children are older.
With the other adults, they are getting older themselves without a
younger generation. Even if they stay as coaches until their death,
there are going to be smaller amount of people willing to be a coach
at the same level as they were. Since a coach only teaches a single
school district, you will see a reduction in the amount of scholastic
players.

Sure, there can be a push for more coaches from teachers that never
played a single rated game in their life. They may be interested at
the state level, it is just that nobody really seen a team going to
the nationals with just a school teacher only with any practical hope
to do anything.

Take home message: USCG *use to be* an ADULT organization, not a
substitute babysitter. There is still way too much emphasis being
paid
to Scholastic Chess (as can be seen in the shift of age between 1999
and 2009 ie they are getting younger) and not enough attention being
paid to its CORE ADULT population which is growing OLDER. While there
has been a decline of overall membership numbers across the board it
is hard to say why especially given the 2007-2009 "Great Recession".
We can not also conclude what effect increases in membership fees has
had on membership retention, mortality (especially in the older
population), turmoil in the USCF leadership (ie lawsuits), etc. has
contributed to the decline in membership numbers. The two really BIG
unknowns are why is the OLDER ADULT population many who have usually
retired and now drawing Social Security and Pensions and thus have
more or less stable incomes, why are they are dropping out. There is
more than a little resentment from OLDER ADULTS that the USCF has
caved into the demands of the Scholastic crowd, while their needs and
wants go unmet.
Think the reason that they are dropping out in their 60ís and older is
their age. The other reason, more people DIE in their 60ís more than
in their twenties. That is right as Goichberg and Sloan are in that
age group. Is it great that humans are mortal!
The second BIG question is what is the effect of the internet and
online chess both on the overall population of chess players, but
also
on the retention of OLDER ADULT populations.
When the members in their thirties get
into their forties during the 2010ís, there should be even less
members being engaged in coaching, teaching, and directing scholastic
tournaments. If you look at the highest age group of scholastic
players in 2003 being way over six thousand members with the 2009
numbers just being over five thousand members in 2009, over a thousand
members have been lost in that age group. With a decline in adult
players within the age group of having children within the scholastic
age happening in the 2010ís, all age groups are not healthy going into
the 2010ís.

Your conclusion is total rubbish!!! There is a constant INFLUX of NEW
SCHOLASTIC players. That the numbers are declining might have more to
due with economics -- ie the "Great Recession" -- than an aging
population. There are now more than ever chess players making a
living
teaching chess -- ie "coaching" -- in schools than ever before. only
a
small fraction of the total number of scholastic payers have been
retained into their 20's moving from around 20 years of age in 1999
to
around 25 years of age in 2009. In contrast there has been a constant
decline in the CORE ADULT population that is AGING from 1999 to 2009.
In short as the CORE ADULT population dies out it will NOT be
replaced
by like numbers but a shrinking population.

What type of coach is going to push their students to play in the
state scholastic tournament and the national scholastic tournaments?
The adult expert or want to be expert, or, the third grade teacher
that just learned the rules of chess from the chess set from Toys R
US. Remember, when Goichberg does die, the amount of money that has
driven players to become stronger players will dry up. After
Goichberg, the big money tournaments will be gone. When the big money
tournaments are gone, what is the point of being a strong player when
all you have will be the state championship tournaments.
USCF is NOT the only game in town anymore. Internet chess sites make
USCF unnecessary. USCF is primarily a RATINGS SERVICE that if you
belonged to it also provided a FREE chess magazine -- "Chess Life".
Memberships rates have been steadily increased, while benefits have
decreased. Under Bill G. watched USCF came out with a bozo idea of
dual membership rates: a "Premium Membership" rate which includes a
hard copy of "Chess Life" for just $41/yr (WOW!!! What a deal!!) and
a
"Regular Membership" that does NOT include a hard copy of "Chess
Life"
but gives the member access to the "online edition" of "Chess Life".
it *was* $29 until last year, it is now $34. So what do you get for
your membership dollars?? You get a chance to enter into a USCF rated
tournament and obtain an "official" USCF rating... which means
NOTHING!!! Indeed with the influx of Scholastic players who are now
being COACHED by rated Experts (Candidate Masters -- an Official
Title) and above Older ADULT players who EARNED their ratings over
the
course of a lifetime the hard way through OTB play, a love of the
game, and self education, are finding their ratings taking a hit by
losing to these coached "Scholastic Players", many 8 - 12 years of
age
who are frequently UNDER RATED. The net result is ratings deflation
in
the ADULT population. What OLDER ADULT needs this type of abuse?!?
I agree with you that it was a poor idea of the memberships. Still,
does it prove my point that the scholastic players are on a decline
and will be on a decline? Why reduce membership fees when your private
numbers shows an increase or a stable scholastic community. You know
about DVD and BluRay, and that the selling of DVD players is getting
cheaper and cheaper because of BluRay. With the reduction of the
membership and selling memberships without the magazine, what is that
telling people.


  #4   Report Post  
Old December 25th 09, 02:34 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2005
Posts: 131
Default Older players less scholastic players

USCF has bent over backwards to appease the Scholastic Crowd, and the
OLDER ADULT membership is being screwed. Unless action is taken NOW to
retain the OLDER ADULT membership, you can expect USCF to become
nothing more than a shell of itself, if it does not cease to exist
altogether, by 2015. Belonging to the USCF is a waste of money all to
the inflate the precious egos of a bunch of snot nosed kids.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


This isn't just wrong. It is deranged.

What wonderful services does USCF perform only for "the Scholastic
Crowd"? How has USCF bent over backwards? How is the OLDER ADULT
membership being screwed? Is it the kids fault that the insiders
wasted the $2,000,000 LMA?

USCF would fold instantly without scholastic chess. The National
Scholastics keep the doors open and those "snot nosed kids" and their
parents are paying the bills for the aging adult membership especially
us life members. The older membership is declining because they are
dying or infirm while the snot nosed kids are replenished each year by
yet another generation of snot nosed kids whose parents pay USCF's
bills.

Besides the national scholastics, what other tournament could charge
such astronomically high entry fees and offer nothing in the way of
prizes, not even monetary scholarships.

Scholastic dues keep edging skyward and there is not even a scholastic
director on staff at the office.
Your assertions are laughable.
The scholastic financial model does not rely on retention but rather
replacement. Those older adult politicos have never understood that
simple fact known to the entire scholastic community. Whining that
the kids leave after a year or two is just dumb and fchess follows the
replacement model in little league and youth soccer. Kids try stuff
then try something else.

The world will be different indeed without Bill Goichberg.
Try and find a local weekend event now which does not require an EF of
$100. Why would young people in their 20s and 30s want to pay high
entry fees to learn? The result is we lose them.

Instead of training new organizers and TDs, USCF and its insiders have
engaged in the predatory destruction of organizers and TDs who might
challenge the insiders. Remember the New York Open? John Barnard?
What was the name of the Seattle group who had money? What about the
Minneapolis group that promised to run a series of megatournaments and
gave up after one? People just give up trying to deal with USCF's
backstabbing insiders and move on to more fertile environs.

The older insiders do not want to train replacements. They think they
will never die.

If you think chess has it bad, try and find a local scholastic bridge
or canasta tournament.

Rp
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Chess Ratings samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 7 May 10th 08 07:33 AM
Chess Ratings samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 7 May 10th 08 07:33 AM
First Draft: Blue Book Encyclopedia of Chess samsloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 8 February 29th 08 03:55 PM
Deleted Posts from the USCF Forum: Please Post Them here Todd rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 3 March 27th 07 12:20 AM
Should the USCF rate the Olympiads? Sam Sloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 9 March 29th 06 11:52 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:55 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017