|
| The idea of providing access to a playing server as part of the membership
benefit package is to entice people (like me) who are paying roughly $50/yr
to ICC in order to play online in a controlled environment.
My suggestion is not, in any way, to have the USCF organize or rate online
tournaments. The playing server is just for fun, much like ICC. I go there
and play a few 3 or 5-minute games when I get a chance. I occassionally
follow events they show live (like the recent Nakamura_Karjakin match), etc.
We should not forget that, for better or worse, people have moved online.
I'm a rated (but inactive) master living in New York, 7 minutes by car from
the Marshall Chess Club. I haven't visited the place in about 5 years. When
I want a few off-hand games, I go online. Why? The advantages are obvious: I
don't have to travel; I can choose from a much bigger, much stronger pool of
players, and it's much cheaper.
I wonder how many people are in my position: inactive tournament playes who
still retain a love for the game and are willing to pay a small amount of
money in exchange for a little chess-related fun and information. The
current membership benefit package has nothing that would justify spending a
penny on it. I might be an isolated case. I might not. I don't know.
But we should all face the reality: chess is just a game, competing against
all sorts of new games, all of them electronic. We must get on with the
times. The USCF will not survive printing an old-fashioned, irrelevant
magazine and rating games in this era of instant communications.
Most people want more for their money than the USCF is currently offering.
Once again, I might be totally wrong, but that's the way I honestly feel.
--
Irvin
http://www.pixel69.com
"Tom Martinak" <martinak_tom_m@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104170515.452795.26160@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> membership as part of the basic member benefit package. This is not
> very expensive, but if cost is an issue, then arrangements for a
> discounted membership fee can be arranged with one of the major
> services.
>
> No. That has already failed once. Offer centralized rating services
> for "serious" on-line games and allow any of the current organizations
> to run them, just like the USCF doesn't (well rarely) organize
> tournaments in every town but allows local affiliates to run them and
> send them in for ratings. We don't try to rate every skittles game
> played at your local club and we similarly don't need to rate every
> on-line game.
>
>
> rather than monthly. The content gathering can be done without problem
> if the right workflow and submission prcess are enforced. This is quite
> simple and cheap. The benefits of going purely electronic are many:
> content will become relevant once gain; no more reporting on
> tournaments that happened 6 months ago. Printing costs will be
> eliminated; writers will submit their material
> online, from their own location. Magazine will be put together
> automatically! Members will be given access to a games library from
> where they can download study material, game collections, etc
>
> This is probably the most difficult question of what is the right
> model. Eliminating CL does save a lot in costs (@$12/year/member), but
> getting it into members' hands does provide a major advertising and
> promotional benefit. I can understand going electronic and could
> support that, but I still think there is value in paper CL.
>
>
> PROFESSIONAL fund-raising firm in the USA. Yes, hire an outsider that
> will bring sponsorship money to the USCF. They know where to go and how
> to go about it. That's how most non-profits work.
>
> But the USCF can't raise tax-deductible money. That is why I want to
> move so much into separate non-profit organizations - they could. Use
> the model of the US Championship - let others organize and raise the
> money. They either then provide income to the USCF in their bid or at
> the very least reduce USCF expenses by running an event that would lose
> money. Sure they take their cut of the money raised, but they do the
> work themselves.
>
> - Tom Martinak
>
|
|