Re: Membership fees: An unnecessary tax on real players, or a benefit?

On Aug 12, 6:29?pm, "Chess One" <inn...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Paul, thanks for the several corrections. Never used to be that way in
Cornwall! We had 16 teams in 2 leagues, playing each twice per year, plus
'Cup' play, County matches etc. It grew among other players a Michael Adams.

Are your numbers averaged for the whole country? I was citing West Country
experiences. Even so, "Players with at least one rated game: 12,949" is
about the same as adults in the US. [USCF Estimate is approx 14,000].

Again only an estimated 7,500 play more than 10 rated [slow] games/year.

Do you pay the same way as before? We [our club, Camborne/Redruth] used to
pay by match, and the players per game to the club. Do you now pay for a
season's ratings or per game? Is there any membership fee involved [and any
initial fee to join system].

Cordially, Phil

"PB" <PBusw13...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1186936154.185105.252850@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



On Aug 12, 1:53?pm, "Chess One" <inn...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
THIS thread originated in the Fide Chess Group, based on 1/8 of Sam
Sloan's
final motions, and orbits the topic of fees for services.

Sounds like you have a low-affinity attitude, to me. USCF hasn't the
time to deal with such folk; they should be ignored.
I know you are being funny, Ken.

The office cannot afford to ignore the needs of the groups that
actually
SELL
their products.

ECJ

I thought Delegate Johnson just got through saying he justified selling
full
memberships to benefit the office, not the player, who he didn't even
tell
about the $12 option? - but here is yet another idea, 'the needs' of
organisers.

++++++++++
Are membership fees a waranted tax on active rated player? Can 15 Staff
positions outside Mabazine and Ratings be justified?
++++++++++

Perhaps it will be eye-watering to know that membership does not increase
rated chess play at all - at least not by the evidence of European
countries - instead of requiring membership they do require fees for
rating,
and its even possible to pay game-by-game if you are in a club.

This low threshold generates 10x more players per-capita than in the US
system, where 1/2 of all adult members don't play any rated chess at all.

The activity rate [number rated games per year] is even greater compared
with the British Club System, where its hard not to play at least 30
rated
games per year in interclub league matches - and any "A" team member is
likely to play 50. Furthermore this has sufficient mix of players to make
ratings more real than small local pools of players forever playing each
other..

Therefore: it can be seen that membership fees act /directly/ against
active
and potentially active player engagements requiring the relatively high
threshold of $25 to even try it out.

If real fees are charged for ratings on a usage basis - sufficient to
cover
overhead, and the optional magazine is also priced at actual cost, what
do
the other 15 staff members do? I presume their work is the tax rated
players
make a contribution to, and non of them work in profit centers.

If the salaries and overhead attributed to these 15 are examined for
worth,
perhaps some superadded fee is justified - so, outside the magazine and
the
ratings departments, what are people paying for, in lieu of getting more
players into the system?

Phil Innes
Vermont

Phil:

I regret that I must take issue with you over your comment that it is
hard not to play 30 games in the English club system. I do think that
would be pretty high and perhaps reflects a stare of affairs in the
past.

My interpretation of the English data for the period 1 June 06 to 31
May 07 is:

Players with at least one rated game: 12,949

Average number of games per player 16
Median number of games 11

Players playing 30 games or more 1,904
Players playing 60 games or more 314

Most leagues these days will involve maybe only a dozen or so club
matches per season, and the keen player is likely to supplement league
chess with weekend congress chess.

These figures apply to 'slow play' only, not to 'rapid play'' (all
your moves in 15 - 60 minutes) which is rated separately.

regards

Paul Buswell- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Phil:

Those are figures for all of England. It would be possible but
tedious to regionalise them, and the definitions for such an exercise
would need some thought.

I note that the 2007 ECF Year Book lists 9 clubs in Cornwall, which
implies perhaps a maximum of 16 matches?

On payment, I am a couple of years out of touch but the system as
applied to Cornwall would have been that the Cornwall County Chess
Association would pay the national body ?0.92 (say $1.75) per game
played in the Association's tournaments, and half that amount in the
case of junior tournaments. How the Cornwall Association collects
this money from its local clubs/players is entirely a matter for the
Association - I have seen various models depending on local
circumstances, which vary widely.

My own Club plays in two leagues, in both Kent and Sussex. It is
those leagues which pay the national rating fee of ?0.92 per game.
But as it happens we pay the leagues not per game, but a sum per team
we enter, and we trust someone in the leagues has done their maths OK
to meet the leagues' costs. Then our own Club members pay an annual
subscription (currently ?48) to the Club to cover our team entry fees
and the Club's other costs, and we trust that our Club Treasurer has
got her budget right. At the moment the players in my Club's team
matches also pay a supplementary amount of ?2 per match, but that's a
contentious issue.

?1 = $1.90 very very roughly.

Statistically, I mention in passing that there are a further 3,056
players in the English system who had rated games in 05/06 but none in
06/07.

I note 17 players whose first affiliation is listed as Camborne &
Redruth; 13 of them had rated games in 06/07, the average number of
games amongst those 13 being 16, and the median 14.

regards

Paul Buswell


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is it for real or is it a scam?
    ... I have tried many online sites Paradise, Poker stars, Poker Host, ... Let me first start off by saying that the live tournaments I play in I do very ... occasionally play in cash games although I do prefer the tournament play. ... Is it that the players are just so bad that you continously take the worst of it ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: OT: Who is the stupidest RGP poster? Day 4
    ... Pokertracker makes it quite clear to me who the strong winning players ...  None of them play a strategy even remotely resembling Travel's ... I drop out of games whenever VP ...  Raises on the flop are always 2 ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Long Run "GCA"
    ... Playing the lottery would be an example (though a bad ... Players on a bad ... I play for a living and do know what this is about. ... Playing split games let you maintain a greater edge and balance also. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Quitting 3.5
    ... simulationist or a story teller) then the min/max players often run ... You want to play Samwise and Merry, ... We have a Mystic Theurge with a 10 Constitution, and he has made it to 9th ... people who enjoyed the games I just described above. ...
    (rec.games.frp.dnd)
  • Re: If online poker is not
    ... I believe that all players can overcome this manipulation, ... Once or twice I was able to fund the four big limit games simultaneously. ... Now I've gotten a fair amount of 3,4,5, and 6 handed play in on Party. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
Loading