Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old March 2nd 04, 03:40 AM
LeModernCaveman
 
Posts: n/a
Default My EB Platform

Well since I'm "exploring" running for EB, here's my platform:

1. Threaten bankruptcy to bring the Life Member lobby into line. File if
threat is ignored.

2. Threaten bankruptcy to bring the scholastic member lobby into line. File
if threat is ignored.

3. Sever all ties with the US Chess Trust. Let them do their thing and USCF
do its own.

4. New rating system, new computer equipment, and a new, chess-loving techie
to code the database I design.

5. Chess Life? Cya!! Say hello to e-chess life. Old farts who want a print
mag? **** 'em.

6. Create an e-book store and partner up with all the chess multimedia and
e-book publishers. USCF could split the revenue 50-50 and tap into the profits
enjoyed by individual chess information producers, which would also increase
their income. All a member would have to spend is $50.00 a year to practically
fund a membership.

7. Run tournaments, claim copyright to the games (and sue any infringers),
publish the official tournament book, and give the players a percentage of the
revenue.

8. Create a world-class chess server and hold official tournaments on it.
Allow players rated under 2000 online to use their internet ratings in OTB
tournaments (with prize limitations for big tournaments) if they don't have OTB
ratings.

9. Increase first prize for the US championship, or add to the prize fund if
someone else runs it. The stronger our champion, the more interested the
country, or so it appeared when Fischer was the champion.

10. Make USCF membership free until someone has an established rating. This
would encourage strong recreational players to take the plunge.

11. Bring live internet simulcasting to the major tournaments.

That's a start, anyway. I'd rather see USCF just DO this rather than elect me,
if truth be told.


  #2   Report Post  
Old March 2nd 04, 04:11 AM
Matt Nemmers
 
Posts: n/a
Default My EB Platform

"LeModernCaveman" wrote in message
...
Well since I'm "exploring" running for EB, here's my platform:


When you dig up $300.....

1. Threaten bankruptcy to bring the Life Member lobby into line. File if
threat is ignored.

2. Threaten bankruptcy to bring the scholastic member lobby into line.

File
if threat is ignored.


Bankruptcy, hmmm......don't think that's the answer. But I guess your
answer to everything is to file *something*, no?

3. Sever all ties with the US Chess Trust. Let them do their thing and

USCF
do its own.


I don't see the reason.

4. New rating system, new computer equipment, and a new, chess-loving

techie
to code the database I design.


With what money? You've filed bankruptcy, remember?

5. Chess Life? Cya!! Say hello to e-chess life. Old farts who want a

print
mag? **** 'em.


A good idea in principle, but it'll go over like a lead balloon.

6. Create an e-book store and partner up with all the chess multimedia

and
e-book publishers. USCF could split the revenue 50-50 and tap into the

profits
enjoyed by individual chess information producers, which would also

increase
their income. All a member would have to spend is $50.00 a year to

practically
fund a membership.


It'd flop. Period. Nobody would buy.

7. Run tournaments, claim copyright to the games (and sue any

infringers),
publish the official tournament book, and give the players a percentage of

the
revenue.


You can't copyright games! Would you sue somebody if they played the exact
same moves as somebody else?? (Haven't we already gone over this....?)

8. Create a world-class chess server and hold official tournaments on it.
Allow players rated under 2000 online to use their internet ratings in OTB
tournaments (with prize limitations for big tournaments) if they don't

have OTB
ratings.


Already got one: ICC. Won't get any takers on that deal, either.
Gamesparlor, anyone? Didn't you learn from the USCF's mistake?

9. Increase first prize for the US championship, or add to the prize fund

if
someone else runs it. The stronger our champion, the more interested the
country, or so it appeared when Fischer was the champion.


Maybe......

10. Make USCF membership free until someone has an established rating.

This
would encourage strong recreational players to take the plunge.


Until they play ONE game?? What's the catch?

11. Bring live internet simulcasting to the major tournaments.


ICC already does that.

Too radical (most), too ridiculous (some), too much (all). You don't have a
snowball's chance in hell.

MN


  #3   Report Post  
Old March 2nd 04, 04:30 AM
LeModernCaveman
 
Posts: n/a
Default My EB Platform

When you dig up $300.....

1. Threaten bankruptcy to bring the Life Member lobby into line. File if
threat is ignored.

2. Threaten bankruptcy to bring the scholastic member lobby into line.

File
if threat is ignored.


Bankruptcy, hmmm......don't think that's the answer. But I guess your
answer to everything is to file *something*, no?


It's called "reorganization." We can still service the life members but they
have to be flexible.


3. Sever all ties with the US Chess Trust. Let them do their thing and

USCF
do its own.


I don't see the reason.


I stated the reason. I could be wrong. That, however, is what I'd do.


4. New rating system, new computer equipment, and a new, chess-loving

techie
to code the database I design.


With what money? You've filed bankruptcy, remember?


Databases are written with brains, not money.

It would take maybe 1-3 months to design something, and that's on the long end.
From there, it could evolve. The key is to make the basic structure sound.


5. Chess Life? Cya!! Say hello to e-chess life. Old farts who want a

print
mag? **** 'em.


A good idea in principle, but it'll go over like a lead balloon.


That's what the "**** 'em" was for. Leaders are hired to lead.


6. Create an e-book store and partner up with all the chess multimedia

and
e-book publishers. USCF could split the revenue 50-50 and tap into the

profits
enjoyed by individual chess information producers, which would also

increase
their income. All a member would have to spend is $50.00 a year to

practically
fund a membership.


It'd flop. Period. Nobody would buy.


If that were the case I wouldn't bother building this exact type of website.

If I could make money without a 400,000 niche mailing list, I would assume USCF
could do quite well with one.


7. Run tournaments, claim copyright to the games (and sue any

infringers),
publish the official tournament book, and give the players a percentage of

the
revenue.


You can't copyright games!


You can, however, license the publicity of the players who played the game.

Sure, you could publish a game in a book, but don't say it was Kasparov-Karpov,
etc. That is what should be protected.

How much would Fischer have made with the rights to his own games growing up?


Would you sue somebody if they played the exact
same moves as somebody else?? (Haven't we already gone over this....?)


The game score (which includes the names of the players) is what should be
copyrighted.

This would allow analysis books to publish their own opinions and even the
moves, but the players to profit from their own games.

If the fact that Karpov played the game is relevant (it is or they wouldn't say
it), then Karpov should get paid.


8. Create a world-class chess server and hold official tournaments on it.
Allow players rated under 2000 online to use their internet ratings in OTB
tournaments (with prize limitations for big tournaments) if they don't

have OTB
ratings.


Already got one: ICC. Won't get any takers on that deal, either.
Gamesparlor, anyone? Didn't you learn from the USCF's mistake?


Bankruptcy would destroy any existing contracts. Ideally, USCF should own the
best server, however.


9. Increase first prize for the US championship, or add to the prize fund

if
someone else runs it. The stronger our champion, the more interested the
country, or so it appeared when Fischer was the champion.


Maybe......


Worth a shot.


10. Make USCF membership free until someone has an established rating.

This
would encourage strong recreational players to take the plunge.


Until they play ONE game?? What's the catch?


An established rating is 20 or 25 games.


11. Bring live internet simulcasting to the major tournaments.


ICC already does that.

Too radical (most), too ridiculous (some), too much (all). You don't have a
snowball's chance in hell.


You're right.

I still think these ideas need to be considered and improved upon, but they are
a starting point.

Serving on the EB actually sounds more like a punishment than a prize, which
may explain why people never seem satisfied with it. In fact, it may be one of
the most thankless jobs in the United States.


  #4   Report Post  
Old March 2nd 04, 04:33 AM
Mike Nolan
 
Posts: n/a
Default My EB Platform

"Matt Nemmers" writes:

4. New rating system, new computer equipment, and a new, chess-loving

techie
to code the database I design.


With what money? You've filed bankruptcy, remember?


By the time the election is decided, the above should be done anyway.

10. Make USCF membership free until someone has an established rating.

This
would encourage strong recreational players to take the plunge.


Until they play ONE game?? What's the catch?


Um, an ESTABLISHED rating takes around 25 games. That's more than most
new members play before they drop out. This sounds like a variation on
JTP that I don't think would be revenue positive but it isn't the worst
idea I've read this week. If combined with some kind of length-of-tournament
membership (instead of just higher ratings fees for everyone), it might
help tournament attendance while the length-of-tournament fees help offset
the reduced membership income.

As with any program with a limited eligibility, getting TD's to collect
the [right] membership fee when it becomes due could be an issue. How
does the TD know a rating is established, unless the requirement is
that it be a published established rating? I'm also not sure how to
take into account both the regular and the quick ratings systems, because
someone could play as many as 48 games without getting an established rating
in either system.
--
Mike Nolan
  #5   Report Post  
Old March 2nd 04, 05:09 AM
LeModernCaveman
 
Posts: n/a
Default My EB Platform

As with any program with a limited eligibility, getting TD's to collect
the [right] membership fee when it becomes due could be an issue. How
does the TD know a rating is established, unless the requirement is
that it be a published established rating?


Well they could just make the first month free or something like that. Same
principle.

This is pretty much why scholastic memberships are discounted: to get them into
the game and rated.

Whatever needs to be done, it's not what's currently being done.




  #8   Report Post  
Old March 2nd 04, 06:21 AM
Matt Nemmers
 
Posts: n/a
Default My EB Platform

"Mike Nolan" wrote in message
...
"Matt Nemmers" writes:

4. New rating system, new computer equipment, and a new, chess-loving

techie
to code the database I design.


With what money? You've filed bankruptcy, remember?


By the time the election is decided, the above should be done anyway.


Which? A new rating system and computer equipment or the filing of
bankruptcy?


10. Make USCF membership free until someone has an established rating.

This
would encourage strong recreational players to take the plunge.


Until they play ONE game?? What's the catch?


Um, an ESTABLISHED rating takes around 25 games.


Right, missed that little detail in my rush through the post.

That's more than most
new members play before they drop out. This sounds like a variation on
JTP that I don't think would be revenue positive but it isn't the worst
idea I've read this week. If combined with some kind of

length-of-tournament
membership (instead of just higher ratings fees for everyone), it might
help tournament attendance while the length-of-tournament fees help offset
the reduced membership income.


But what happens if the player will go over 25 games in the middle of a
tournament? Will he then have to join to have those games rated? If that's
true and he doesn't, what then? Devil's advocate here, Mike. It's not too
crazy an idea, but that seems like it'd be a lot of extra paperwork for New
Windsor and the TDs.

As with any program with a limited eligibility, getting TD's to collect
the [right] membership fee when it becomes due could be an issue. How
does the TD know a rating is established, unless the requirement is
that it be a published established rating? I'm also not sure how to
take into account both the regular and the quick ratings systems, because
someone could play as many as 48 games without getting an established

rating
in either system.


Exactly.

Regards,

Matt

--
Mike Nolan



  #10   Report Post  
Old March 2nd 04, 07:16 AM
Mike Nolan
 
Posts: n/a
Default My EB Platform

Kenneth Sloan writes:

(Mike Nolan) writes:


USCF is implementing a database that LeModernCaveman designed?


I meant it literally, which is to say one that *I* designed. :-)

Um, an ESTABLISHED rating takes around 25 games.


Really? Says who?


Well, it damned sure takes more than ONE game. :-)

Perhaps the Ratings Committee would like to clarify just how many games
it DOES take? I can't find a plain English translation of the
Glickman/Doan document on the USCF website.

Surely the Ratings Committee isn't proposing the abandonment of the
concept of provisional ratings, tThere are too many places they're used,
such as in determining eligiblity for the Top 100 lists.
--
Mike Nolan

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
Announcement: Compile Crafty 19.11 with GCC under Windows Michael Loggel rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 2 March 18th 04 10:12 PM
I hope Chessbase doesn't implement activation technology Alberich rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 5 December 1st 03 01:40 AM
New "Red" Political Platform takng shape? Bruce Draney rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 29 November 27th 03 10:06 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:07 AM.

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