| Chess One 2005-04-13, 7:03 am |
|
"Mike Nolan" <nolan@gw.tssi.com> wrote in message
news:d3ch0l$qfe$1@gw.tssi.com...
quote:
> "Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net> writes:
>
>
> Looking just at active players since 1/1/2004, there were 46,256 youth or
> scholastic members with a published rating and an average rating of 694.
>
> In that same time frame, there were 16,350 active adult members with an
> average rating of 1523.
>
> However, if I look at players who were active in 2003, 10781 of the
> adult players are still USCF members and 17226 of the youth/scholastic
> members are still USCF members.
>
> And if I look at players who were active in 2002, 10046 of the adult
> players are still USCF members and 11885 of the youth/scholastic members
> are still USCF members.
Thanks Mike:-
to tabulate these numbers:-
adult youth
2004 16,350 46,256
retained from 2003 10, 781 17,885
lost between 2003/4 5,569 28,371
Approx %age lost 35% 61%
quote:
> Therefore, I would suggest that while the youth/scholastic players are
> a larger numerical group, adults are more likely to remain active as
> chess players.
By a factor of 12:7. However, these statistics are a little dangerous for
adult numbers, and the turn-over rate for new players may in fact be much
higher if we suppose there is a core constituency of adult players with
long-term memberships, and the turnover for new adult memberships represents
the significant change. I would in fact suspect this to be the case, and
loss of new adult members may be in the 50 percentiles!
[Louise, you are the mathematician - what data do we need to substantiate my
supposition, and how much error margin do we have here? Is the effect of
looking at two or three year retentions significant to determine turnover
rate?]
(These are of course very approximate numbers and do not necessarily
represent a 12 month period.)
Cordially, Phil innes
quote:
> --
> Mike Nolan
|