Chess politics - The case for making "Chess Life" optional

Author

The case for making "Chess Life" optional

Tim Hanke

2004-10-30, 5:45 pm

lblai@blackburn.edu (Louis Blair) wrote ...

quote:

> Tim Hanke wrote:
>
>
> _
> Back then, Timothy Hanke also acknowledged:
>
> "If we make the magazine optional as I propose, and
> don't significantly improve the magazine, that would
> not be good for our revenue." - Timothy Hanke
> (2003-05-07 12:52:56 PST)
>
> Does Timothy Hanke maintain that the magazine has
> now been improved so much that we can now make it
> optional without doing damage to USCF revenue?
>
> Does Timothy Hanke think that the USCF should now
> make the magazine optional regardless of whatever
> damage is done to USCF revenue?

Timothy Hanke thinks making the magazine optional is a good idea for
several reasons:

1) People who don't want the magazine won't have to pay for it. This
is only fair.

2) With the magazine no longer going to virtually all adult members,
there will be an impetus for USCF to develop its sorely neglected
website and deliver more tournament details and chess news online.

3) If "Chess Life" is forced to compete against other chess
periodicals in the open marketplace, there will be a solid
market-based impetus for "Chess Life" to improve its quality. This
will also encourage other chess publications, which currently must
compete with a mediocre magazine that nevertheless dominates the
market due to its captive audience. As Chairman Mao said in his Little
Red Book:

Let a hundred flowers bloom,
Let a hundred schools of thought contend.

4) With the cost of USCF membership much lower, there is a good chance
more people will join USCF. Currently, USCF membership is kept low by
the high cost of the magazine subscription, which inflates the cost of
membership beyond the point many people are willing to pay.

5) With more USCF members, there is a good chance organized
over-the-board chess activity in this country will increase. More
tournaments will be held, more chess clubs will be formed, more chess
books and equipment will be sold. We have a chance to create a
positive feedback cycle instead of the negative feedback cycle we now
have (shrinking membership, fewer chess clubs, decreasing level of
chess activity).

6) As organized chess activity in this country increases--and if
"Chess Life" responds to competitive market pressures by improving its
quality--the market for "Chess Life" could actually improve, in the
sense that there might be more chessplayers who are actually willing
to buy it. "Chess Life" circulation might never return to the levels
it enjoyed when it was forced down the throats of virtually all adult
USCF members, but subscribers will be happier because they will all be
people who chose to subscribe.

Bill Goichberg bitterly opposes the idea of making "Chess Life"
optional. He is a typical member of the USCF Old Guard in this
respect, as in many other respects. Bill's philosophy is, "One Member,
One Magazine." I believe it's time for new thinking.

In fairness to Bill Goichberg--and I try to be fair to him, even when
I disagree with him--a majority of our Executive Board may agree with
him about the magazine.

Regarding the magazine, and in many other ways, I am the most radical
member of this Board. If I had my way, USCF would look completely
different. It would deliver most of its services online, it would be
Web-based rather than print-based, it would emphasize user fees over
membership fees, and it would do more promoting and marketing based on
alliances with other nonprofit and commercial organizations, rather
than trying to control a small niche in which it does almost
everything by itself.

Tim Hanke
USCF Vice President of Finance

ASCACHESS

2004-10-30, 5:45 pm

>As Chairman Mao said in his Little

quote:

>Red Book:
>
> Let a hundred flowers bloom,
> Let a hundred schools of thought contend.

And gather them together that we may kill all those who disagree.
Power comes from the barrel of a gun.

Mike Nolan

2004-10-30, 5:45 pm

timothyhanke@comcast.net (Tim Hanke) writes:

quote:

>Timothy Hanke thinks making the magazine optional is a good idea for
>several reasons:

quote:

>1) People who don't want the magazine won't have to pay for it. This
>is only fair.

But is it fair to advertisers and organizers?

Is it fair to let those people vote in USCF elections?

quote:

>2) With the magazine no longer going to virtually all adult members,
>there will be an impetus for USCF to develop its sorely neglected
>website and deliver more tournament details and chess news online.

You will need to set the 'no-magazine' dues rates to make sure there are
funds to cover this ongoing editorial (and webmaster) activity.

USCF currently spends about $70,000 on author fees. Would you be willing
to double or triple that amount to come up with a solid base of top-flight
editorial material for online publication?

Given the page limitations of a magazine, the ongoing cost for preparing
sufficient editorial material for a website might be higher than for
the magazine, because you can cover more tournaments in greater depth, etc.
To what extent can this can be offset with online ad revenue?

Also, are you going to restrict access to an enhanced website only
to USCF members? Otherwise, you may find it hard to get people to pay
for what you are giving away for free.

As Abbie Hoffman wrote: Free love destroys private enterprise.

quote:

>4) With the cost of USCF membership much lower, there is a good chance
>more people will join USCF. Currently, USCF membership is kept low by
>the high cost of the magazine subscription, which inflates the cost of
>membership beyond the point many people are willing to pay.

There is no evidence that lowering the rates will bring adults back in
large quantity.

What is it those members would be joining for. OTB chess?

Chess is not the only sport suffering from lowered adult participation
numbers, so has adult softball. Tennis courts aren't as heavily booked
as they used to be, bowling centers can't make enough money to stay open, etc.
Even golf is finally showing signs of leveling off, though this may be
a function of the number of people willing and able to pay $50,000
initiation dues and annual fees of $20,000 or more for a good private club.

When one considers the time investment to be a tournament chess player,
the cost of a USCF membership is not that steep. For those willing and
able to play in mega-events, a single entry fee can be more than 5 times
the cost of USCF membership. For those who play only in local events,
what's the average entry fee these days for those events? $25 or more?

If not OTB chess, what's in it for those USCF members?
--
Mike Nolan

StanB

2004-10-30, 5:45 pm

"Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:4183cc8b.54507875@ca.news.verio.net...

quote:

> Most board members did not know
> your actual views and that would have been an excellent opportunity
> for you to defend them.

Why do you say that? He certainly stated them on every discussion that i was
privy to to the point of ad nausea.

Tim Hanke

2004-10-30, 5:45 pm

"Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote ...

quote:

> On 30 Oct 2004 08:54:34 -0700, timothyhanke@comcast.net (Tim Hanke)
> wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
>
> Since you feel strongly about this, why did not you include this in
> your candidate's statement when you ran for the board? If the voters
> had known your actual views, we might not be iunder the four-year-long
> threat created by having you on the board.
>
> Why did you refuse to defend your positions when I raised this at an
> Executive Board meeting in New Winsdor? That was the meeting that you
> walked out of when I brought this up. Most board members did not know
> your actual views and that would have been an excellent opportunity
> for you to defend them.
>
> Sam Sloan

Sadly, the statements above are typical of Sam Sloan's constant lies and
misinformation. It's a pity that most voters don't read this newsgroup and
realize what kind of person he actually is.

Not only have my views on Chess Life stayed the same since I was a
candidate, I even created a campaign website while I was a candidate on
which I posted these views. I provided this website address in my published
candidate's statement. Here is an excerpt on this topic from my campaign
website:

"CONSIDER DE-COUPLING CHESS LIFE FROM MEMBERSHIP BENEFITS. In other words,
consider letting USCF members pay a substantially lower fee for membership
if they choose not to receive the magazine. This would address the "adult
flight" problem we have seen in recent years. Players who just want to play
chess would not be forced to subsidize the magazine--as they are now. If
adult membership were cheaper, we would have more adult members. This is
Economics 101.

"It's also a fairness issue. Chess organizations from USCF on down to the
state associations try to force their members to subscribe to magazines and
newsletters that many of them apparently don't want. Why? Apparently USCF
and the state associations are afraid people won't subscribe to their
publications unless forced to do so. Well, that's not a good enough reason.
If USCF follows my advice, they will make the no-magazine membership cheaper
than the current $39 (I suggest $25), and at the same time they will improve
the magazine so dramatically you won't even recognize it anymore. Instead of
having perhaps the biggest-budget chess publication in the world and among
the lowest-quality, we will have a smaller budget and fewer subscribers and
a publication to be proud of. I've done it myself and not lost money. I know
USCF with its vastly greater resources can also do it.

"That's right, the number of subscribers will drop radically, if people are
offered a choice. That's OK! Only those people who actually want the
magazine will get it--which is exactly how it should be. Don't let anyone
tell you otherwise--they will make all kinds of arguments trying to prove
that black is white. But it's really very simple: people should only be
forced to pay for what they want.

"In fact, one reason--perhaps the main reason--that Chess Life is so
mediocre, is that USCF has a large captive audience that can't walk away
from the magazine unless they want to give up playing rated chess. The USCF
membership has been forced to subsidize decades of mediocrity in its
membership publication. Because the magazine hasn't been forced to compete
in the marketplace against other chess magazines, it hasn't had to be good.
You thought this kind of stodgy market protection disappeared when the USSR
collapsed? It's alive and well at your national chess federation.

"You don't have to settle for mediocrity any longer. You can vote for me,
and I'll try to fix this problem."

Unfortunately, USCF had worse problems than the magazine by the time I got
on the Board: our very survival was in question. And now we are wrestling
with issues related to our books & equipment outsourcing, and our move to
Crossville. First things first!

Tim Hanke
USCF Vice President of Finance

Douglas L Stewart

2004-10-31, 12:45 am

Tim Hanke wrote:

quote:

> "In fact, one reason--perhaps the main reason--that Chess Life is so
> mediocre, is that USCF has a large captive audience that can't walk away
> from the magazine unless they want to give up playing rated chess. The USCF
> membership has been forced to subsidize decades of mediocrity in its
> membership publication. Because the magazine hasn't been forced to compete
> in the marketplace against other chess magazines, it hasn't had to be good.
> You thought this kind of stodgy market protection disappeared when the USSR
> collapsed? It's alive and well at your national chess federation.

Why don't we just outsource the magazine then? Every adult member would
still get the magazine but the publisher would need to create a quality
magazine in order to keep their outsourcing agreement with USCF. The
best of all worlds!

I would very much like to read more articles in Chess Life like the ones
in New in Chess. I also get Chessbase Magazine which I like. I still
have three issues of your American Chess Journal - the "Chess Rating
Systems" article in Volume 3 is better than any sleeping pill.

I'll be the first to admit I am sometimes torn on the magazine and
whether or not I should be submitting TLA's. On one hand the TLA's are
a tournament expense and sometimes it seems like no one comes to any
tournaments I'm running that wouldn't have come had I just put the
advertisement on our website, but you do occasionally pick up someone
and I'd hate to make our tournaments less accessible to out of state
players who don't know our website URL. Also, there are still a few
people out there without computers.

The TLA's are the only thing that really make me pro-Chess Life. Over
time I think the TLA's are less and less necessary though as fewer and
fewer people live their lives without the Internet.

---
Douglas L Stewart
douglas@pobox.com
President, Mississippi Chess Association
http://www.mcachess.org

Sam Sloan

2004-10-31, 12:45 am

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 00:53:01 GMT, Douglas L Stewart
<douglas@pobox.com> wrote:

quote:

>Douglas L Stewart
>douglas@pobox.com
>President, Mississippi Chess Association
>http://www.mcachess.org

What happened to Crespo?

I thought that he was the President of the Mississippi Chess
Association.

Sam Sloan

Douglas L Stewart

2004-10-31, 6:46 am

We have elections every year. I was elected President in October, 2003
and just re-elected last weekend.

---
Douglas L Stewart
douglas@pobox.com
President, Mississippi Chess Association
http://www.mcachess.org

Sam Sloan wrote:

quote:

> On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 00:53:01 GMT, Douglas L Stewart
> <douglas@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> What happened to Crespo?
>
> I thought that he was the President of the Mississippi Chess
> Association.
>
> Sam Sloan

Jürgen R.

2004-10-31, 6:46 am

quote:

>
>"That's right, the number of subscribers will drop radically, if people are
>offered a choice. That's OK! Only those people who actually want the
>magazine will get it--which is exactly how it should be. Don't let anyone
>tell you otherwise--they will make all kinds of arguments trying to prove
>that black is white. But it's really very simple: people should only be
>forced to pay for what they want.

For example, income taxes should be voluntary? Or does this insight
apply only to magazines?

quote:

>
>"You don't have to settle for mediocrity any longer. You can vote for me,
>and I'll try to fix this problem."

This vote gave a choice between mediocrity (I mean you) and idiocy (I
mean Sloan).

quote:

>
>Unfortunately, USCF had worse problems than the magazine by the time I got
>on the Board: our very survival was in question. And now we are wrestling
>with issues related to our books & equipment outsourcing, and our move to
>Crossville. First things first!

A good Chess Magazine is much more important, and much more difficult
to replace, than a rating agency like the USCF.

Paul Rubin

2004-10-31, 5:46 pm

jurgenr@web.de (Jürgen R.) writes:

quote:

> A good Chess Magazine is much more important, and much more difficult
> to replace, than a rating agency like the USCF.

I dunno, good and bad chess mags come and go all the time, but there
have been very few serious attempts to create a new national rating
agency including a rulebook, TD certification program, dispute
resolution machinery, etc. etc. CL currently is a piece of crap and
it could be replaced in a heartbeat if it went away and there was
later some need to bring it back. The ratings system is the one thing
of value the USCF has, and the mag is just something USCF forces on
members in order to get ratings.

Louis Blair

2004-10-31, 5:46 pm

Tim Hanke wrote:

quote:

> When I ran for the Board, I advocated making
> "Chess Life" an optional member benefit. I
> still do.

I wrote:

quote:

> Back then, Timothy Hanke also acknowledged:
>
> "If we make the magazine optional as I propose, and
> don't significantly improve the magazine, that would
> not be good for our revenue." - Timothy Hanke
> (2003-05-07 12:52:56 PST)
>
> Does Timothy Hanke maintain that the magazine has
> now been improved so much that we can now make it
> optional without doing damage to USCF revenue?
>
> Does Timothy Hanke think that the USCF should now
> make the magazine optional regardless of whatever
> damage is done to USCF revenue?

Tim Hanke now writes:

quote:

> Timothy Hanke thinks making the magazine optional is
> a good idea for several reasons ...

_
I was not asking about WHY Timothy Hanke supports
what he supports. I was asking about the specifics
of WHAT he supports. Does Timothy Hanke maintain
that the USCF should NOW make the magazine optional
or is this contingent on the USCF accomplishing
other things that are not currently accomplished?

Does Timothy Hanke still think that making the
magazine optional without significantly improving
the magazine would not be good for our revenue?

My impression from Timothy Hanke's latest note is
that he now thinks that the USCF should forge ahead
right now with making the magazine optional and
accept the damage to USCF revenue while hoping that
things will work out well in the long run. Is this
impression correct?

Tim Hanke now writes:

quote:

> I try to be fair to [Bill Goichberg], even when I
> disagree with him ...

_
It seems to me that one way to be fairer would be
to stick to the issues and refrain from public
attacks (with no evidence presented) on his
motivations.

Another thing that would help: while discussing
"misinformation posted here", comment on
misinformation posted in opposition to his ideas
instead of commenting only on misinformation
posted in support of his ideas.

Louis Blair

2004-10-31, 5:46 pm

Tim Hanke wrote:

quote:

> [my views on Chess Life have] stayed the same
> since I was a candidate.

_
My impression is that this is not completely true.
Previously, Timothy Hanke wrote, "If USCF follows my
advice, they will make the no-magazine membership
cheaper than the current $39 (I suggest $25), and at
the same time they will improve the magazine so
dramatically you won't even recognize it anymore."
Now, my impression is that Timothy Hanke has dropped
the at-the-same-time idea and wants to proceed with
making Chess Life optional now even though it is not
"dramatically" improved. Are my impressions correct?

StanB

2004-11-01, 12:45 am

"Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:4183cc8b.54507875@ca.news.verio.net...

quote:

> Most board members did not know
> your actual views and that would have been an excellent opportunity
> for you to defend them.

Why do you say that? He certainly stated them on every discussion that i was
privy to to the point of ad nausea.

ASCACHESS

2004-11-01, 5:46 pm

>As Chairman Mao said in his Little

quote:

>Red Book:
>
> Let a hundred flowers bloom,
> Let a hundred schools of thought contend.

And gather them together that we may kill all those who disagree.
Power comes from the barrel of a gun.

Tim Hanke

2004-11-01, 5:46 pm

lblai@blackburn.edu (Louis Blair) wrote in message news:<f8f5e7b4.0410310840.7766117b@posting.google.com>...

quote:

> Tim Hanke wrote:
>
>
> _
> My impression is that this is not completely true.
> Previously, Timothy Hanke wrote, "If USCF follows my
> advice, they will make the no-magazine membership
> cheaper than the current $39 (I suggest $25), and at
> the same time they will improve the magazine so
> dramatically you won't even recognize it anymore."
> Now, my impression is that Timothy Hanke has dropped
> the at-the-same-time idea and wants to proceed with
> making Chess Life optional now even though it is not
> "dramatically" improved. Are my impressions correct?

Timothy Hanke would like to wait and see how the books & equipment
outsourcing deal is working, at least till the end of the current
fiscal year, before making a radical change in dues.

Timothy Hanke

Mike Nolan

2004-11-01, 5:46 pm

timothyhanke@comcast.net (Tim Hanke) writes:

quote:

>Timothy Hanke thinks making the magazine optional is a good idea for
>several reasons:

quote:

>1) People who don't want the magazine won't have to pay for it. This
>is only fair.

But is it fair to advertisers and organizers?

Is it fair to let those people vote in USCF elections?

quote:

>2) With the magazine no longer going to virtually all adult members,
>there will be an impetus for USCF to develop its sorely neglected
>website and deliver more tournament details and chess news online.

quote:

>4) With the cost of USCF membership much lower, there is a good chance
>more people will join USCF. Currently, USCF membership is kept low by
>the high cost of the magazine subscription, which inflates the cost of
>membership beyond the point many people are willing to pay.

Sam Sloan

2004-11-01, 5:46 pm

On 30 Oct 2004 08:54:34 -0700, timothyhanke@comcast.net (Tim Hanke)
wrote:

quote:

>Timothy Hanke thinks making the magazine optional is a good idea for
>several reasons:
>
>1) People who don't want the magazine won't have to pay for it. This
>is only fair.
>

[SNIP]

quote:

>Tim Hanke
>USCF Vice President of Finance

Since you feel strongly about this, why did not you include this in
your candidate's statement when you ran for the board? If the voters
had known your actual views, we might not be iunder the four-year-long
threat created by having you on the board.

Why did you refuse to defend your positions when I raised this at an
Executive Board meeting in New Winsdor? That was the meeting that you
walked out of when I brought this up. Most board members did not know
your actual views and that would have been an excellent opportunity
for you to defend them.

Sam Sloan

Louis Blair

2004-11-02, 12:46 am

Tim Hanke wrote (2004-10-30 14:20:25 PST):

quote:

> [my views on Chess Life have] stayed the same
> since I was a candidate.

I wrote (2004-10-31 08:40:27 PST):

quote:

> My impression is that this is not completely true.
> Previously, Timothy Hanke wrote, "If USCF follows my
> advice, they will make the no-magazine membership
> cheaper than the current $39 (I suggest $25), and at
> the same time they will improve the magazine so
> dramatically you won't even recognize it anymore."
> Now, my impression is that Timothy Hanke has dropped
> the at-the-same-time idea and wants to proceed with
> making Chess Life optional now even though it is not
> "dramatically" improved. Are my impressions correct?

Tim Hanke now writes:

quote:

> Timothy Hanke would like to wait and see how the
> books & equipment outsourcing deal is working,
> at least till the end of the current fiscal year,
> before making a radical change in dues.

_
Timothy Hanke here says nothing about seeing how much
Chess Life has improved at the end of the current fiscal
year. Has Timothy Hanke decided that making-the-magazine
-optional does not have to be "at the same time" as
dramatic improvement of the magazine?

Tim Hanke wrote (2004-10-30 08:54:34 PST):

quote:

> I try to be fair to [Bill Goichberg], even when I
> disagree with him ...

_
Some more suggestions for being fair to Bill Goichberg:

(1) Stop attacking him as "a typical member of the USCF
Old Guard". Either the facts support Timothy Hanke's
proposals or they don't. The "Old Guard" stuff looks
like a blatant attempt to appeal to emotions instead of
facts.

(2) Don't single out Bill Goichberg. If, as Timothy
Hanke himself noted, "a majority of our Executive Board
may agree with him about the magazine", it makes yet
another reason to stick to the facts and not make it
a battle of specific personalities.

(3) Be straight about describing the real difference
of opinion. We NOW know that Timothy Hanke himself
does not think that the USCF can make the magazine
optional at the moment. (Would we know that without
my prodding?) Apparently, the real difference is
that Timothy Hanke thinks that it MIGHT become
advisable for USCF to make the magazine optional at
some future point and others on the board do not
think this.

Tim Hanke

2004-11-02, 6:46 am

"Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote ...

quote:

> On 30 Oct 2004 08:54:34 -0700, timothyhanke@comcast.net (Tim Hanke)
> wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
>
> Since you feel strongly about this, why did not you include this in
> your candidate's statement when you ran for the board? If the voters
> had known your actual views, we might not be iunder the four-year-long
> threat created by having you on the board.
>
> Why did you refuse to defend your positions when I raised this at an
> Executive Board meeting in New Winsdor? That was the meeting that you
> walked out of when I brought this up. Most board members did not know
> your actual views and that would have been an excellent opportunity
> for you to defend them.
>
> Sam Sloan

Sam Sloan

2004-11-02, 6:46 am

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 00:53:01 GMT, Douglas L Stewart
<douglas@pobox.com> wrote:

quote:

>Douglas L Stewart
>douglas@pobox.com
>President, Mississippi Chess Association
>http://www.mcachess.org

What happened to Crespo?

I thought that he was the President of the Mississippi Chess
Association.

Sam Sloan

Douglas L Stewart

2004-11-02, 9:46 am

quote:

> On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 00:53:01 GMT, Douglas L Stewart
> <douglas@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> What happened to Crespo?
>
> I thought that he was the President of the Mississippi Chess
> Association.
>
> Sam Sloan

Jürgen R.

2004-11-02, 9:46 am

quote:

>
>"That's right, the number of subscribers will drop radically, if people are
>offered a choice. That's OK! Only those people who actually want the
>magazine will get it--which is exactly how it should be. Don't let anyone
>tell you otherwise--they will make all kinds of arguments trying to prove
>that black is white. But it's really very simple: people should only be
>forced to pay for what they want.

For example, income taxes should be voluntary? Or does this insight
apply only to magazines?

quote:

>
>"You don't have to settle for mediocrity any longer. You can vote for me,
>and I'll try to fix this problem."

This vote gave a choice between mediocrity (I mean you) and idiocy (I
mean Sloan).

quote:

>
>Unfortunately, USCF had worse problems than the magazine by the time I got
>on the Board: our very survival was in question. And now we are wrestling
>with issues related to our books & equipment outsourcing, and our move to
>Crossville. First things first!

A good Chess Magazine is much more important, and much more difficult
to replace, than a rating agency like the USCF.

Paul Rubin

2004-11-04, 12:45 am

jurgenr@web.de (Jürgen R.) writes:

quote:

> A good Chess Magazine is much more important, and much more difficult
> to replace, than a rating agency like the USCF.

Tim Hanke

2004-11-04, 5:47 pm

lblai@blackburn.edu (Louis Blair) wrote in message news:<f8f5e7b4.0410310840.7766117b@posting.google.com>...

quote:

> Tim Hanke wrote:
>
>
> _
> My impression is that this is not completely true.
> Previously, Timothy Hanke wrote, "If USCF follows my
> advice, they will make the no-magazine membership
> cheaper than the current $39 (I suggest $25), and at
> the same time they will improve the magazine so
> dramatically you won't even recognize it anymore."
> Now, my impression is that Timothy Hanke has dropped
> the at-the-same-time idea and wants to proceed with
> making Chess Life optional now even though it is not
> "dramatically" improved. Are my impressions correct?

Louis Blair

2004-11-04, 5:47 pm

Tim Hanke wrote (2004-10-30 14:20:25 PST):

quote:

> [my views on Chess Life have] stayed the same
> since I was a candidate.

I wrote (2004-10-31 08:40:27 PST):

quote:

> My impression is that this is not completely true.
> Previously, Timothy Hanke wrote, "If USCF follows my
> advice, they will make the no-magazine membership
> cheaper than the current $39 (I suggest $25), and at
> the same time they will improve the magazine so
> dramatically you won't even recognize it anymore."
> Now, my impression is that Timothy Hanke has dropped
> the at-the-same-time idea and wants to proceed with
> making Chess Life optional now even though it is not
> "dramatically" improved. Are my impressions correct?

Tim Hanke now writes:

quote:

> Timothy Hanke would like to wait and see how the
> books & equipment outsourcing deal is working,
> at least till the end of the current fiscal year,
> before making a radical change in dues.

quote:

> I try to be fair to [Bill Goichberg], even when I
> disagree with him ...

Douglas L Stewart

2004-11-06, 12:45 am

Tim Hanke wrote:

quote:

> "In fact, one reason--perhaps the main reason--that Chess Life is so
> mediocre, is that USCF has a large captive audience that can't walk away
> from the magazine unless they want to give up playing rated chess. The USCF
> membership has been forced to subsidize decades of mediocrity in its
> membership publication. Because the magazine hasn't been forced to compete
> in the marketplace against other chess magazines, it hasn't had to be good.
> You thought this kind of stodgy market protection disappeared when the USSR
> collapsed? It's alive and well at your national chess federation.

Jürgen R.

2004-11-07, 6:45 am

quote:

>
>"That's right, the number of subscribers will drop radically, if people are
>offered a choice. That's OK! Only those people who actually want the
>magazine will get it--which is exactly how it should be. Don't let anyone
>tell you otherwise--they will make all kinds of arguments trying to prove
>that black is white. But it's really very simple: people should only be
>forced to pay for what they want.

For example, income taxes should be voluntary? Or does this insight
apply only to magazines?

quote:

>
>"You don't have to settle for mediocrity any longer. You can vote for me,
>and I'll try to fix this problem."

This vote gave a choice between mediocrity (I mean you) and idiocy (I
mean Sloan).

quote:

>
>Unfortunately, USCF had worse problems than the magazine by the time I got
>on the Board: our very survival was in question. And now we are wrestling
>with issues related to our books & equipment outsourcing, and our move to
>Crossville. First things first!

A good Chess Magazine is much more important, and much more difficult
to replace, than a rating agency like the USCF.