Candidate for CFC President

[Michael von Keitz]

As Ross Perot has failed to materialize as a candidate, upon reflection and encouragement, I have made the decision to put my name forward for consideration as CFC President for the 2011-12 term. With a willing replacement secured, if elected, I will resign as OCA President effective immediately upon the completion of the CFC AGM this coming July. Expect a much more expansive statement within the next few days.

[Stuart Brammall]

wow .

[Kerry Liles]

As Ross Perot has failed to materialize as a candidate, upon reflection and encouragement, I have made the decision to put my name forward for consideration as CFC President for the 2011-12 term. With a willing replacement secured, if elected, I will resign as OCA President effective immediately upon the completion of the CFC AGM this coming July. Expect a much more expansive statement within the next few days.

Good luck Michael. If I had a vote, it would go your way... I believe you have some fresh ideas and, although you are not "new" on the chess scene, you are fresh talent. I wouldn't worry too much about the provincial associations - in my mind, they are needless levels of administration.

[Hal Bond]

Excellent news Michael. You have my full support.

[Bob Gillanders]

Thanks for stepping forward Michael. I look forward to hearing your platform. :D

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Michael:

Your candidacy is a good one. Thanks for making the commitment for the CFC - there is some sacrifice in being CFC President, along with the opportunity to take CFC forward.

It looks like an election at the AGM.

Bob A

[Mark S. Dutton, I.A.]

As Ross Perot has failed to materialize as a candidate, upon reflection and encouragement, I have made the decision to put my name forward for consideration as CFC President for the 2011-12 term. With a willing replacement secured, if elected, I will resign as OCA President effective immediately upon the completion of the CFC AGM this coming July. Expect a much more expansive statement within the next few days.

This welcome news and will ensure a continuity of an improved executive at the CFC since Bob was elected at last year's AGM.

To the naysayers... all I can say is I told you so.

Things worked out after all. :)

[Michael von Keitz]

The crux of my plan is a change to a club-affiliate model. In essence, a club pays a fee to become a member of the CFC and, in turn, each member of that club has the rights of CFC membership. This is not something I would want to immediately implement wholesale. Rather, I would like to run a 3-5 club pilot for the coming year (probably starting in January), in order to have some empirical data to work with. I have been putting some feelers out and, in general, this concept seems to be receiving a positive response.

1) Changing the membership structure of the CFC

It seems to me that members of any national organization, especially those in a country the size of Canada, start out by becoming involved at the local level. Ergo, in order for the CFC to realize any meaningful growth, it must promote, facilitate and nurture recruitment municipally. At this level, we regularly see direct interaction between members and non-members alike, something that makes any organization seem much less distant to the uninitiated.

In order to tailor itself to club recruitment, however, I envision the need for a shift in the CFC's membership structure. Specifically, I see clubs affiliating directly with the national federation. In other words, if you aren't a demonstrable member of a club (e.g. possessing a membership card, having an exec vouch for you, etc.), then you can't join the CFC. Similarly, if a club is too small (e.g. under 10 players), the CFC will not allow it to affiliate. In this way, we introduce some incentive for players to recruit. At the same time, note that this structure does not necessarily require the abolishment of provincial organizations or their affiliated leagues, which still have their place as administrative bodies.

2) Providing Perquisites for Membership in the CFC

In order to provide some impetus for recruitment, those establishing (or already in charge of) a local club need to be convinced that affiliation with the CFC is worth the time, effort and, most importantly, money invested. What can the CFC offer them?

a) Club Director/Organizer Certification (replacing the defunct TDOCP)

Similar to the structure in place in Bridge, those helming a club are certified to do so, receiving full support and instructional materials from the CFC. This includes instructions on how to run a tournament, submit it for rating, etc. Those that feel this support is unnecessary are free to decline it; however, their activity will be monitored for a year to ensure compliance with the rules. From amongst these directors/organizers, the CFC might find viable candidates to mold into FAs/IAs/IOs, again, providing full support to those interested in achieving those international certifications.

b) Ratings, Titles and Certificates

As individual members move up the ranks, should they choose to apply, the CFC can provide certificates appropriate to their class, ranging from Class E (1000-1199) to National Master (2200+). Meanwhile, clubs can receive certificates and/or plaques in recognition of membership levels, while the CFC ensures that a Player of the Year, Volunteer of the Year and a yearly Inductee to the Canadian Chess Hall of Fame continue to be recognized.

c) Nurturing a True, Viable National Championship Structure

Each club champion has the right to move on to the next step in the championship cycle. No longer will the national championship be an open Swiss, but an event open only to those that have established a right to be there. That is to say, even if the championship is simply closed to non-club champions (or non-runners up, as appropriate), it is a step towards what the event should be - a privilege that is earned.

d) Recognition of CFC Membership

The CFC contacts clubs annually to thank them for their continued patronage and to recognize them for their specific achievements (i.e. a form letter with personalized items). A plaque might be awarded to the club, as mentioned previously, to recognize milestones, or simply to state "CLUB X IS HEREBY RECOGNIZED AS AN OFFICIAL AFFILIATE OF THE CFC." Meanwhile, at the individual membership level, pins and/or membership cards might be put into effect, as a tangible indicator of the member's involvement.

e) Posting of Tournament Announcements

Club Directors/Organizers will have the exclusive right to announce their club’s tournaments on the CFC website. This is to say that all events would be tied to a hosting club.

f) Access to Tournament Management Software

Club Directors/Organizers would have exclusive access to the free use of SwissSys, or, in the event of an eventual change, SwissManager. Again, this is to say that all events would be tied to a hosting club. Parenthetically, I am in support of a switch to SwissManager.

g) Facilitation of Chess Instruction

The CFC currently has resources available to assist those teaching chess in the classroom. In order to further encourage pedagogical development, the establishment of a semi-regular FIDE Instructors’ Seminar might also be put on offer.

h) Discount on New in Chess Magazine

Generally recognized as one of the best English-language chess publications in the world, securing a discount through the company would provide a real benefit to our members.

i) Access to the CFC Bookstore and CFC Equipment Store

As a benefit of membership, the CFC should offer discounts on both books and equipment to its members, over and above those available to non-members. In order to maximize this benefit, the CFC might revisit its current contracts.

3) Reaching Potential Members

a) News on the Website

Virtually everyday, something new is happening on the Canadian chess scene. It is important to communicate that fact to the wider community, which is readily done by prominently featuring news items (both local, national and international) on the CFC website. This must be done regularly and reliably, in order to build up a following.

b) Member Discussion Boards

The CFC Discussion Boards must be used as a means of engaging the membership, but only where appropriate, as this can be overdone. The CFC Executive and CFC Governors should refrain from bombarding the general membership with unsolicited information that is outside the purview of general interest. Governors that wish to contact the general membership on behalf of the CFC should first seek the permission of the CFC Executive.

c) Presence on an Internet Playing Site(s)

Partnering with an online chess site can only serve to help the CFC. With, literally, thousands of Canadians playing chess online each day, we need an affordable means of reaching them and convincing them of the merits of OTB chess. Coming to some reciprocal agreement with a site, such as chess.com or playchess.com, in which our logo (and a corresponding link to our site) is prominently featured on their site in exchange for us doing the same for them on our own, seems like one such method.

d) Use of Mainstream Media

Mainstream media, in both traditional and digital forms, is another means; however, paid advertising isn't necessarily cheap and would not be worth investing in as a first resort. The CFC can learn to better leverage its use of Facebook and Twitter, while also adopting YouTube and LinkedIn. A large part of the organization’s target demographic uses these sites on an almost daily basis.

e) Bilingual Content on our Website

Every item on every page of the CFC’s website should be translated to French. If necessary, a contractor can be hired to do the initial conversion; however, a dedicated volunteer should be used day-to-day to translate new content going forward. In addition, for those looking for a French-language alternative to New in Chess Magazine, the CFC can partially reimburse them for the purchase of an alternate magazine.

4) Fee Structure

This new membership model would obviously require a change to the CFC’s fee structure. I propose a committee be struck to determine what might be considered appropriate.

5) Future Initiatives

The CFC might look to partnering with other recreational organizations in an effort to better leverage our collective voice and combined resources both locally and nationally.

[roger patterson]

The crux of my plan is a change to a club-affiliate model. In essence, a club pays a fee to become a member of the CFC and, in turn, each member of that club has the rights of CFC membership. This is not something I would want to immediately implement wholesale. Rather, I would like to run a 3-5 club pilot for the coming year (probably starting in January), in order to have some empirical data to work with. I have been putting some feelers out and, in general, this concept seems to be receiving a positive response.

1) Changing the membership structure of the CFC

It seems to me that members of any national organization, especially those in a country the size of Canada, start out by becoming involved at the local level. Ergo, in order for the CFC to realize any meaningful growth, it must promote, facilitate and nurture recruitment municipally. At this level, we regularly see direct interaction between members and non-members alike, something that makes any organization seem much less distant to the uninitiated.

In order to tailor itself to club recruitment, however, I envision the need for a shift in the CFC's membership structure. Specifically, I see clubs affiliating directly with the national federation. In other words, if you aren't a demonstrable member of a club (e.g. possessing a membership card, having an exec vouch for you, etc.), then you can't join the CFC. Similarly, if a club is too small (e.g. under 10 players), the CFC will not allow it to affiliate. In this way, we introduce some incentive for players to recruit. At the same time, note that this structure does not necessarily require the abolishment of provincial organizations or their affiliated leagues, which still have their place as administrative bodies.




well, I suppose if I can't find a local club that wants to become affiliated (the Victoria Chess club would not) and I want to play tournament chess then I can always find 10 random people from across Canada to form the "Friends of Roger Patterson" club. After all, there is no reason why we should ever actually meet or play. Then we put up a website showing all the members of the club so that when we play in a tournament it can be verified that our membership is current. The problem is, I already belong to such a group - it's called the CFC. How is what you suggest an improvement? I know that this is the European model but so what? Why do you think putting impediments in the way of people who live in small towns, anti-social, or who are just plain not interested in a local club is going to help the CFC grow membership?


a) Club Director/Organizer Certification (replacing the defunct TDOCP)

Similar to the structure in place in Bridge, those helming a club are certified to do so, receiving full support and instructional materials from the CFC. This includes instructions on how to run a tournament, submit it for rating, etc. Those that feel this support is unnecessary are free to decline it; however, their activity will be monitored for a year to ensure compliance with the rules. From amongst these directors/organizers, the CFC might find viable candidates to mold into FAs/IAs/IOs, again, providing full support to those interested in achieving those international certifications.

The reality is that there are not sufficient numbers of organizers (and TDs) of any kind - good or bad. Beggers can't be choosers and proposing a program which implies that you will not accept some clubs and organizers until they have paid you a fee, passed a test, whatever - just means that you will have fewer clubs and organizers. What you propose is not a positive step in the sense of a program to train, encourage, and support new organizers and TDs but is rather framed in a negative sense of a gateway through which hopeful candidates to become organizers or TDs must pass.


e) Posting of Tournament Announcements

Club Directors/Organizers will have the exclusive right to announce their club’s tournaments on the CFC website. This is to say that all events would be tied to a hosting club.

Is there something wrong with having people who are not part of a club organize tournaments? If I were unable to form the "Friends of Roger Patterson" club and hence not part of a club, why would you object if I organized a tournament? Seems like there should be no objection - I would be running an event that brings in revenue for the CFC and provides a service to it's members.

[roger patterson]

as an addendum to my previous post - why do you think clubs will sign up? There are 26 or so clubs listed on the BCCF website. AFAIK, only 2 or perhaps 3 of them offer CFC rated play. The club I am president of, the Victoria Chess Club, has 15-20 people every club night but probably only 1 person present who is a CFC member - me - and I'm not always a CFC member either.

[Fred McKim]

as an addendum to my previous post - why do you think clubs will sign up? There are 26 or so clubs listed on the BCCF website. AFAIK, only 2 or perhaps 3 of them offer CFC rated play. The club I am president of, the Victoria Chess Club, has 15-20 people every club night but probably only 1 person present who is a CFC member - me - and I'm not always a CFC member either.

Perhaps the plan should be that each club gets the existing provincial dues.

[roger patterson]

Perhaps the plan should be that each club gets the existing provincial dues.

not sure what your point is or how you envisage provincial activities being funded but in any case, provincial dues are not within the jurisdiction of the CFC.

[Tony Ficzere]

[QUOTE=roger patterson;13135]well, I suppose if I can't find a local club that wants to become affiliated (the Victoria Chess club would not) and I want to play tournament chess then I can always find 10 random people from across Canada to form the "Friends of Roger Patterson" club. After all, there is no reason why we should ever actually meet or play. Then we put up a website showing all the members of the club so that when we play in a tournament it can be verified that our membership is current. The problem is, I already belong to such a group - it's called the CFC. How is what you suggest an improvement? I know that this is the European model but so what? Why do you think putting impediments in the way of people who live in small towns, anti-social, or who are just plain not interested in a local club is going to help the CFC grow membership?

The way I look at it, the CFC would simply be offering an option to existing clubs, at least the ones who run many CFC rated events. Using the Calgary Chess Club for example, such a program would work for us. We run many CFC events each year, so saving money is a good thing.

I don't see such a program as an impediment at all. I see it as an enhancement. Whether it will provide an incentive to existing clubs is the question. Will it make us work harder to get more members?

Frankly, I don't think the CFC needs to re-invent the wheel here. The Affiliate program from the 80's would work perfectly. For every membership the club submits, you get a rebate. Simple and effective. You could enhance that model to include some sort of price break on rating fees. Personally, I would work harder to recruit new CFC members under this sort of model.

Just a thought.

[Fred McKim]

not sure what your point is or how you envisage provincial activities being funded but in any case, provincial dues are not within the jurisdiction of the CFC.

I thought it was inherent in Michael's model that provincial associations would essentially disappear.

[Fred McKim]

Michael: Thanks for such a detailed platform. I noticed that our largest discretionary budget item (the newsletter) was not mentioned by you.

What side of the fence are you on ?

[roger patterson]

The way I look at it, the CFC would simply be offering an option to existing clubs, at least the ones who run many CFC rated events. Using the Calgary Chess Club for example, such a program would work for us. We run many CFC events each year, so saving money is a good thing.

I don't see such a program as an impediment at all. I see it as an enhancement. Whether it will provide an incentive to existing clubs is the question. Will it make us work harder to get more members?

Frankly, I don't think the CFC needs to re-invent the wheel here. The Affiliate program from the 80's would work perfectly. For every membership the club submits, you get a rebate. Simple and effective. You could enhance that model to include some sort of price break on rating fees. Personally, I would work harder to recruit new CFC members under this sort of model.

Just a thought.

AFAIK the CFC affiliate program is still in place - so I wonder why your club is not already an affiliate.

I was reading Michael's proposal as being that clubs are the exclusive route into the CFC, not an alternate route. He seems to make that fairly clear. e.g.


In other words, if you aren't a demonstrable member of a club (e.g. possessing a membership card, having an exec vouch for you, etc.), then you can't join the CFC.

And he is not thinking of this being a price break as in the existing (?) CFC affiliate program. In my region, the people who go to clubs (usually not CFC members) and the people who play in tournaments (often CFC members but not always) are largely two different sets of people. While I have no particular issue with providing incentives for clubs, I can't see making it an exclusive arrangement as being helpful.

[roger patterson]

I thought it was inherent in Michael's model that provincial associations would essentially disappear.

Also not within the CFC's jurisdiction.

Not to mention, this would then be a proposal to do away with provincial championships or any other activity currently organized by the provincial body.

[Fred McKim]

Also not within the CFC's jurisdiction.

Not to mention, this would then be a proposal to do away with provincial championships or any other activity currently organized by the provincial body.


I think he mentioned qualifying by Canadian Champioships via club champions.

Of course provincial membership could still exist, but I still think that increasing the linkage between the CFC and clubs will weaken a number of smaller provincial associations.

[Tony Ficzere]

I have to confess I didn't read his proposal from top to bottom and was responding more to emails I had received from him.

If the CFC was to go this route, they would lose many many members. If the only way into the CFC is by a club, that would be a shot in the foot. There are tons of players who simply play in tournaments and are not members of a club.

[Michael von Keitz]

well, I suppose if I can't find a local club that wants to become affiliated (the Victoria Chess club would not) and I want to play tournament chess then I can always find 10 random people from across Canada to form the "Friends of Roger Patterson" club. After all, there is no reason why we should ever actually meet or play. Then we put up a website showing all the members of the club so that when we play in a tournament it can be verified that our membership is current. The problem is, I already belong to such a group - it's called the CFC. How is what you suggest an improvement? I know that this is the European model but so what? Why do you think putting impediments in the way of people who live in small towns, anti-social, or who are just plain not interested in a local club is going to help the CFC grow membership?

Before I say anything else, just to be clear, I am proposing the elimination of individual memberships in favour of club memberships, as opposed to the introduction of a fee over and above those the CFC already charges. So, let's say the fee charged to the club by the CFC comes out to an average of $50/player, there is now some degree of local autonomy regarding the distribution of CFC membership dues. For instance, if you want juniors to be cut some slack, you might charge them $40 and adults $60. In turn, rating fees might also be modified.

What use is a club-affiliate model in the first place? Well, in my experience, it proves a useful tool for the individual player to seek out clubs. When I was in Germany, if I wanted to find a club, I simply went on the German Federation's website and searched for clubs in the area. This search provided membership lists, along with player ratings (both FIDE and DWZ). Not only was I able to find a club, but I was also able to determine the approximate level of opposition and how many members were associated with the club. Obviously, this sort of tool is of use to the roaming chess player, but even think of the 2000-rated Internet wizard that has never formally played OTB in hir life. They might be more inclined to visit a club, if they were able to see where they might fit in before ever opening the door. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think this sort of system is a potentially potent tool for recruitment.

You are right, there are people that may not want (or have the ability) to participate in a local club. If those people want to participate in CFC-rated activity, however, I envision them being added to the roster of the club hosting the rated event they wish to take part in, as a "pseudo-member."

From the CFC's perspective, this membership model gives a more micro view of our membership activity, providing some guidance on where we might wish to focus recruitment efforts and who we might wish to contact. I don't see this as a bad thing, though I do invite further constructive criticism.



The reality is that there are not sufficient numbers of organizers (and TDs) of any kind - good or bad. Beggers can't be choosers and proposing a program which implies that you will not accept some clubs and organizers until they have paid you a fee, passed a test, whatever - just means that you will have fewer clubs and organizers. What you propose is not a positive step in the sense of a program to train, encourage, and support new organizers and TDs but is rather framed in a negative sense of a gateway through which hopeful candidates to become organizers or TDs must pass.

Essentially, I'm saying that those endorsed by a club to run events are welcome to do so, but we are willing to provide support to those that need/want it. If that help is declined, we will simply monitor your activity and provide feedback as required. No test, no certification fee, just support.




Is there something wrong with having people who are not part of a club organize tournaments? If I were unable to form the "Friends of Roger Patterson" club and hence not part of a club, why would you object if I organized a tournament? Seems like there should be no objection - I would be running an event that brings in revenue for the CFC and provides a service to it's members.

This is a fairly simple vetting process that I feel we can afford to make. No, I don't want the Roger Patterson that just floated in on a log from Siberia to decide that he's going to run a CFC-rated tournament in Victoria tomorrow. At the very least, I first want a group of 10 people in the area saying that they think he is competent to run an event.

[Michael von Keitz]

I thought it was inherent in Michael's model that provincial associations would essentially disappear.

That is false, though you aren't the first to read it that way. How the provincial associations fit into the formula is something I would task the committee I proposed with determining.

[Michael von Keitz]

Michael: Thanks for such a detailed platform. I noticed that our largest discretionary budget item (the newsletter) was not mentioned by you.

What side of the fence are you on ?

The newsletter is certainly an item I wish to revisit, though I am not wielding an ax at the moment.

[Michael von Keitz]

AFAIK the CFC affiliate program is still in place - so I wonder why your club is not already an affiliate.

I was reading Michael's proposal as being that clubs are the exclusive route into the CFC, not an alternate route. He seems to make that fairly clear. e.g.



And he is not thinking of this being a price break as in the existing (?) CFC affiliate program. In my region, the people who go to clubs (usually not CFC members) and the people who play in tournaments (often CFC members but not always) are largely two different sets of people. While I have no particular issue with providing incentives for clubs, I can't see making it an exclusive arrangement as being helpful.

Yes, my bent is to make clubs an exclusive route, but read my reply to your previous post. My goal isn't to bar participation and I am sure those not formally part of a club can be accommodated by other clubs. I think we must have some common ground here, no?

[roger patterson]

Yes, my bent is to make clubs an exclusive route, but read my reply to your previous post. My goal isn't to bar participation and I am sure those not formally part of a club can be accommodated by other clubs. I think we must have some common ground here, no?

I don't think so. You haven't made a case for strong benefits and there is a fundamental mismatch between your model and how things are actually happening on the ground. There are some clubs that would fit into your model (the RA Club in Ottawa comes to mind) but there are many more that do not.

In Victoria for example, the main club is the Victoria Chess Club, which as I previously said typically has ~18 people showing up (not the same ones each week) with typically 1-2 CFC members out of that. The club members have no interest in the CFC. It is not going to happen that this club becomes a CFC affiliate.

Tournaments in the area are not organized by the Victoria Chess Club but by a group of 3 individuals (aka Victoria Chess). So the connection in your model between clubs and organizing tournaments is a completely artificial one here in Victoria (and largely too elsewhere in BC).

So, if I want to join or organize in your model, I either need to create a virtual club of a dozen people who pool their fees but otherwise have no contact with each other or become a pseudo member of some club I have no connection with. What's the point? Where is the value added? If it is the claim that clubs validate Organizers/TDs how do they do that with their pseudo members?



What use is a club-affiliate model in the first place? Well, in my experience, it proves a useful tool for the individual player to seek out clubs. When I was in Germany, if I wanted to find a club, I simply went on the German Federation's website and searched for clubs in the area. This search provided membership lists, along with player ratings (both FIDE and DWZ).

The CFC (and BCCF) already provide this service. They don't provide membership lists it's true but if you go to a typical club website, you can usually get an idea of strength etc.


No, I don't want the Roger Patterson that just floated in on a log from Siberia to decide that he's going to run a CFC-rated tournament in Victoria tomorrow. At the very least, I first want a group of 10 people in the area saying that they think he is competent to run an event.

I hate organizing. If someone came in off a floating log and wanted to run a tournament in Victoria I would say yes, sight unseen. Wouldn't give him the GPO or the Keres probably but.... And if 10 people show up at this person off the floating log's tournament, that is the vote of confidence that you need. If they show up for his second tournament, then you are certain!

In my experience, people become organizers and/or TDs not because a group of 10 or more people soberly decided that "why yes you could be TD material" but because someone twisted your arm, dragged you into a padded room with whips and chains in it, and sat on your chest until you cried uncle.

[John Coleman]

Well said, Roger. In Windsor there is also a disconnect between the chess club and the tournament player: the regulars at Riverside Library chess club have zero interest in tournament play, I doubt that one of them could name the current Canadian Champion, or even care that there IS a Canadian championship.

The tournament players, and we have several, have little interest in the chess club, though they might drop in from time to time.

Likewise, if someone wants to organise a tournament, I help in any way I can, lending equipment, hosting an ad, providing email contacts, etc. I organised my first tournament in 1961 at my high school, and I'm ready to retire. I have been agressively trying for at least 10 years to get someone to organise, with limited success.

I'll start checking the river every day for logs with TDs. Why didn't I think of that before. :D

[Michael von Keitz]

There are some clubs that would fit into your model (the RA Club in Ottawa comes to mind).


That's all the common ground I need for the time being. As I said, I wish to run a pilot with 3-5 clubs to collect empirical data. Maybe what comes of it is a two-tiered system, though I would much prefer something homogenized. Although I have not laid out a fee structure, you may have deduced that on a per person basis, I would like to see fees reduced. Through the club model, some administrative tasks are simplified, and that should translate to some savings being passed on to the customer.



The CFC (and BCCF) already provide this service.


Not true. In the age of instant gratification, if I don't have the information I'm looking for in 5 seconds, I'm liable to move on. What the CFC and BCCF offer are club listings (some outdated on the part of the CFC, if not the BCCF as well). To determine the strength of the club and approximate membership numbers, I need to invest precious additional time (per club). Why wouldn't I spend that time playing blitz on the Internet as opposed to trying to figure out whether the Okanagan Apple Throwers Club has more value-added than the Victoria Chess Club? What the DSB offers is an ability to search cities for club listings, where I can instantly see the membership lists, which include ratings and (something that slipped my mind previously) the number of rated games played on the domestic rating scale. So, there's another dimension - how active your club is from a "rated play" perspective. Maybe this is irrelevant information as far as the Victoria Chess Club is concerned, but I think the average Internet-bred player would want access to that information before considering joining a live club and he/she is not going to invest the time to seek it out.



I hate organizing. If someone came in off a floating log and wanted to run a tournament in Victoria I would say yes, sight unseen. Wouldn't give him the GPO or the Keres probably but.... And if 10 people show up at this person off the floating log's tournament, that is the vote of confidence that you need. If they show up for his second tournament, then you are certain!

In my experience, people become organizers and/or TDs not because a group of 10 or more people soberly decided that "why yes you could be TD material" but because someone twisted your arm, dragged you into a padded room with whips and chains in it, and sat on your chest until you cried uncle.

Yes, I said people, but I meant (verifiable) members. This man on the log can hold a CFC-rated event with one CFC member and hundreds of non-existent friends and relatives. In the past, some people have managed to inflate their ratings this way. As a means of quality control, I think the vetting process, though not flawless, is superior.

[roger patterson]

Well said, Roger. In Windsor there is also a disconnect between the chess club and the tournament player: the regulars at Riverside Library chess club have zero interest in tournament play, I doubt that one of them could name the current Canadian Champion, or even care that there IS a Canadian championship.

The tournament players, and we have several, have little interest in the chess club, though they might drop in from time to time.

Likewise, if someone wants to organise a tournament, I help in any way I can, lending equipment, hosting an ad, providing email contacts, etc. I organised my first tournament in 1961 at my high school, and I'm ready to retire. I have been agressively trying for at least 10 years to get someone to organise, with limited success.

I'll start checking the river every day for logs with TDs. Why didn't I think of that before. :D

actually, for some reason I was thinking of you when I wrote it. I know you have complained about the difficulty of trying to move your club activity to the next level before.

As to retirement, maybe you could do what Doug Burgess did (Ottawa RA Club). Come in one day and say you quit. 100% cold turkey. [one hesitates to ask the reasons why - never did find out]. The club will move on one way or the other. Might be the only way to get people to step up to the plate.

[John Coleman]

actually, for some reason I was thinking of you when I wrote it. I know you have complained about the difficulty of trying to move your club activity to the next level before.

As to retirement, maybe you could do what Doug Burgess did (Ottawa RA Club). Come in one day and say you quit. 100% cold turkey. [one hesitates to ask the reasons why - never did find out]. The club will move on one way or the other. Might be the only way to get people to step up to the plate. I don't do much with the chess club, which has a life of it's own, in a zombie sort of way. I haven't organised a CFC weekend event in years, though there is some interest. I was thinking more of the children's events, I hate to see "my" big annual schools tournament die. I've been cutting back, in 2010 there were only 1400 players from 80 schools, down 20% from the high.

Nice to know someone is thinking of me! :D

[Vladimir Drkulec]

I don't do much with the chess club, which has a life of it's own, in a zombie sort of way. I haven't organised a CFC weekend event in years, though there is some interest. I was thinking more of the children's events, I hate to see "my" big annual schools tournament die. I've been cutting back, in 2010 there were only 1400 players from 80 schools, down 20% from the high.

Nice to know someone is thinking of me! :D

You have organized a number of CFC rated one day events.

The 1400 players is down only because you chose to cut back to two days instead of three to accomodate the stragglers.

This proposal is a bit vexing to me as a fairly new CFC governor and perhaps the last recorded most active CFC player for the past 18 months (if the first glimpse of the new website is going to be its final format). Am I going to be summarily drummed out of the CFC for the sin of not belonging to a chess club? Well I do visit the Riverside Library Chess Club from time to time but there is no formal membership aside from signing the attendance record. There are also no fees for attending that chess club which seems to be primarily focused on playing blitz which is not my preferred form of chess.

[Michael von Keitz]

You have organized a number of CFC rated one day events.

The 1400 players is down only because you chose to cut back to two days instead of three to accomodate the stragglers.

This proposal is a bit vexing to me as a fairly new CFC governor and perhaps the last recorded most active CFC player for the past 18 months (if the first glimpse of the new website is going to be its final format). Am I going to be summarily drummed out of the CFC for the sin of not belonging to a chess club? Well I do visit the Riverside Library Chess Club from time to time but there is no formal membership aside from signing the attendance record. There are also no fees for attending that chess club which seems to be primarily focused on playing blitz which is not my preferred form of chess.

Yes, Vlad, my priority is ensuring that someone else in Canada becomes the most active player for the year. ;)

Seriously though, I want to be able to run this pilot project and see where that takes us. Roger and John have made some good points, but I don't see what's preventing us from testing things out on a few willing subjects and going from there. As for my harping on about the DSB's website, just for a sample of what I'm talking about: http://schachbund.de/dwz/db/verein.html?zps=51025. That information is easy to categorize and disseminate, provided clubs are willing to submit their membership lists. I really believe that having that information available in one place, at the click of a button, has value-added.

[Erik Malmsten]

Yes, Vlad, my priority is ensuring that someone else in Canada becomes the most active player for the year. ;)

Seriously though, I want to be able to run this pilot project and see where that takes us. Roger and John have made some good points, but I don't see what's preventing us from testing things out on a few willing subjects and going from there. As for my harping on about the DSB's website, just for a sample of what I'm talking about: http://schachbund.de/dwz/db/verein.html?zps=51025. That information is easy to categorize and disseminate, provided clubs are willing to submit their membership lists. I really believe that having that information available in one place, at the click of a button, has value-added.

I don't understand why you need to restructure the membership paying structure just to promote clubs. Chess is larger than clubs.

Is it value-added? Firstly, you need to establish that there actually are many people going to the CFC website to find a chess club. Newcomers to Toronto can google chess and Toronto and the active clubs mostly have their own easy to find websites.

Secondly, the CFC club listing webpage can be vastly improved by adding photos, maps, calendars and data such as a list of club members in CFC rating order. This can be presently done through cooperation of the CFC and the clubs. This would help separate the big clubs who hold CFC-rated tournaments and casual clubs. Some kind of national inter-club rivalry would be welcomed.

And how will you include chess teachers and schools?

[Vladimir Drkulec]

Yes, Vlad, my priority is ensuring that someone else in Canada becomes the most active player for the year. ;)

In the brief glimpse that we had of the new website I couldn't find the most active player listing. I am on top of the list only through a glitch since the list includes 18 months of activity.



Seriously though, I want to be able to run this pilot project and see where that takes us. Roger and John have made some good points, but I don't see what's preventing us from testing things out on a few willing subjects and going from there.

Test away. I don't see how administering members through a club or through individual memberships is much different. Currently most memberships are probably submitted through TDs so I don't see how going through clubs presents any real savings to the CFC. Of course people want to save money but what if the point if you will be forced to raise fees to compensate for lost revenues?

The CFC really cannot afford to put up any new barriers to people who wish to join it nor to people who wish to run tournaments if it wants to adopt sensible policies. Shooting oneself in the foot may provide the peanut gallery with entertainment but is not usually an astute move if you are intent on building the CFC.

In Windsor the CFC gains members despite the current chess club and not because of it. There would be zero interest among non-CFC members to support a $500 fee to make all of the members of the club members of the CFC as well. There are no dues and the library provides the club with a room for free which it has done for more than 30 years.



As for my harping on about the DSB's website, just for a sample of what I'm talking about: http://schachbund.de/dwz/db/verein.html?zps=51025. That information is easy to categorize and disseminate, provided clubs are willing to submit their membership lists. I really believe that having that information available in one place, at the click of a button, has value-added.

Might such a listing not violate some kind of privacy laws? If someone knows that I am a member of a particular chess club which meets on certain days couldn't an enterprising burglar look up my name in a telephone directory listing and decide that a chess club night would be a good time to schedule a burglary?

[roger patterson]

.....


Test away. I don't see how administering members through a club or through individual memberships is much different. Currently most memberships are probably submitted through TDs so I don't see how going through clubs presents any real savings to the CFC. Of course people want to save money but what if the point if you will be forced to raise fees to compensate for lost revenues?
....


it could be he feels the savings are achieved by downloading the costs of administration of membership collection from the CFC (paid positions) to clubs (probably volunteer labour ). Still, there is substantial coordination required to make sure a central membership database is current and correct plus auditing of clubs plus you have many many more people who might make mistakes in keeping their club membership list current.

Of course, I'm biased. I feel the correct way to reduce the costs of maintaining a membership list is to not do it at all. - which is why the BCCF now only charges per tournament fees. For that matter, the Victoria Chess Club does not keep a membership list either - because the one that was kept was never updated properly, membership cards never checked, etc. - all the unneccessary costs of keeping a membership list. The few times it is necessary to check membership is only at AGMs or equivalent - and it's usually pretty obvious with so few people in the room.

I also am peeved by the what it costs me to keep track of CFC memberships. The number of people at tournaments who have membership issues is huge and they don't deal with them by pre-registration. It's a huge hassle figuring out who's OK, chasing down everybody who's not - not to mention collecting all the relevant data, keeping it, and sending it to the CFC. Not a cash cost to be sure but a right royal pain.

[Larry Bevand]

I also am peeved by the what it costs me to keep track of CFC memberships. The number of people at tournaments who have membership issues is huge and they don't deal with them by pre-registration. It's a huge hassle figuring out who's OK, chasing down everybody who's not - not to mention collecting all the relevant data, keeping it, and sending it to the CFC. Not a cash cost to be sure but a right royal pain.

Ditto for me...fortunately I rarely organize CFC or FQE events...but every time I do...I get dinged for players who are not members that have eluded me. Yes...I know...I can threaten not to pair them for the next round...I can also tie them up by their toenails :)...hmmm :)

Larry

[Bob Gillanders]

I also am peeved by the what it costs me to keep track of CFC memberships. The number of people at tournaments who have membership issues is huge and they don't deal with them by pre-registration. It's a huge hassle figuring out who's OK, chasing down everybody who's not - not to mention collecting all the relevant data, keeping it, and sending it to the CFC. Not a cash cost to be sure but a right royal pain.

Really? Now is your complaint with the CFC, or the players? :confused:

The CFC does provide you with free SwissSys software, which does alert you to the fact that memberships are expired when you register them for the tournament. The membership list is updated weekly and is available on the CFC website. :)

I simply don’t accept your statement that the number of people with membership issues is huge. Prove it to me, send me an email with a list of issues you had at your most recent tournament. :)

Collecting all the relevant data!
Name, cfc number, address, and email. What’s so hard about that? :confused:

[Bob Gillanders]

Ditto for me...fortunately I rarely organize CFC or FQE events...but every time I do...I get dinged for players who are not members that have eluded me. Yes...I know...I can threaten not to pair them for the next round...I can also tie them up by their toenails :)...hmmm :)

Larry

Yes, every organizer has been caught at least once by some slimy player who tries to play without renewing his membership. It happens. The only way to police it is to hold the organizers responsible. You are on the hook for a tournament membership fee, but please tell us that you didn't collect it from the player. We understand the problem. We can flag that player, and go after them for membership dues, and maybe even reimburse you. But tell us for sure, otherwise this player will only be encouraged to do it again.

We don't want the organizers to be out of pocket. I suggest you budget for potential losses, just withhold a contingency amount from the prize fund for those "based on entries" weekenders. If you don't need it, you can always add it back to the prize fund at your next tournament. :)

[Victor Itkin]

I simply don’t accept your statement that the number of people with membership issues is huge. Prove it to me, send me an email with a list of issues you had at your most recent tournament. :)

Collecting all the relevant data!
Name, cfc number, address, and email. What’s so hard about that? :confused:

Bob, from 240 players registered to 2011 CYCC up to date 117 players' memberships have expired, which is almoust 50%. For proof just take a quick look at 2011 CYCC website (Pre-registered List).

[Bob Gillanders]

Bob, from 240 players registered to 2011 CYCC up to date 117 players' memberships have expired, which is almoust 50%. For proof just take a quick look at 2011 CYCC website (Pre-registered List).

I would expect a much higher level of new or expired memberships for a junior tournament. For many of these kids, it will be their first cfc tournament where membership is required. Selling them memberships is a little extra work, but it should be a straight forward process, problem free. Right? :)

My comments to Roger and Larry, refer to those slimy people who try to elude paying memberships, thus making life difficult for organizers. These people need to be weeded out. :(

117 new or renewing members! Sweet. :)

[Victor Itkin]

:(

117 new or renewing members! Sweet. :)

Actually there is only one new member (was nominated from CMA challenge list by Provincial Coordinator from Manitoba, because there was no YCC in Manitoba).

All other 116 players are renewing members (qualified through YCC's or by CFC rating).

[Larry Bevand]

I would expect a much higher level of new or expired memberships for a junior tournament. For many of these kids, it will be their first cfc tournament where membership is required. Selling them memberships is a little extra work, but it should be a straight forward process, problem free. Right? :)

My comments to Roger and Larry, refer to those slimy people who try to elude paying memberships, thus making life difficult for organizers. These people need to be weeded out. :(

117 new or renewing members! Sweet. :)


Hi Bob,

At the NAYCC last year, I had a number of people that we had to pay for. I sent them e-mails...but no cheques ever showed up...I will gladly provide a list to the CYCC organizers...maybe they can collect our money at the same time :)

Larry

[roger patterson]

Really? Now is your complaint with the CFC, or the players? :confused:

The CFC does provide you with free SwissSys software, which does alert you to the fact that memberships are expired when you register them for the tournament. The membership list is updated weekly and is available on the CFC website. :)

I simply don’t accept your statement that the number of people with membership issues is huge. Prove it to me, send me an email with a list of issues you had at your most recent tournament. :)

Collecting all the relevant data!
Name, cfc number, address, and email. What’s so hard about that? :confused:

At the Keres, 1/3 of the people pre-registered had membership issues that were not resolved by the start of round 1.

What's so hard? It's work and I don't like working.

And I wouldn't say it's difficult or slimey players deliberately trying to pull a fast one - they are just not that concerned about it.

[roger patterson]

ps: Bob - just look at the number of people on the Canadian Open pre-registered list that have "CHECK" under their CFC status.

[Bob Gillanders]

ps: Bob - just look at the number of people on the Canadian Open pre-registered list that have "CHECK" under their CFC status.

Well, so what! What do you think that means? :)

Take for example, Roman Sapozhnikov, listed as "CHECK" membership.
He is also listed as 2400 rating. If I check his history, I see him rating was 2400 back last November. Presumably that was his rating when he registered for the tournament. At that time, David added him to the list, marked "CHECK" membership at the time because his expiry date would have been February 2011. So he was listed as such because it would be necessary for him to renew his membership before the Canadian Open. I see now he has renewed, his expiry date is now February 2012.

Okay? :)

[Christopher Mallon]

Wow you guys are really taking this thread off topic. So far that I don't even know where to prune it!

[Fred McKim]

Really? Now is your complaint with the CFC, or the players? :confused:

The CFC does provide you with free SwissSys software, which does alert you to the fact that memberships are expired when you register them for the tournament. The membership list is updated weekly and is available on the CFC website. :)

I simply don’t accept your statement that the number of people with membership issues is huge. Prove it to me, send me an email with a list of issues you had at your most recent tournament. :)

Collecting all the relevant data!
Name, cfc number, address, and email. What’s so hard about that? :confused:

I've organized/directed probably close to 300 tournaments, and it is very little hassle, however most of my tournaments are under 25 players - that may be where the problem is.

[roger patterson]

Wow you guys are really taking this thread off topic. So far that I don't even know where to prune it!

well, to bring it back on topic, if there are lots of people with unresolved membership issues at a tournament, it's not going to be easier to deal with if they hail from different clubs with different membership fees.

[John Coleman]

What do I do if a player shows up, and I say "your membership is expired", and he replies "I'm a member of XYZ chess club, I paid my dues to them."

So I look up XYZ chess club, and see that their membership, or affilliate status, or whatever it is, has expired. So I say to the player "sorry, your club hasn't renewed, you are no longer eligible to play in tournaments. Hit the road, jack."

[roger patterson]

What do I do if a player shows up, and I say "your membership is expired", and he replies "I'm a member of XYZ chess club, I paid my dues to them."

So I look up XYZ chess club, and see that their membership, or affilliate status, or whatever it is, has expired. So I say to the player "sorry, your club hasn't renewed, you are no longer eligible to play in tournaments. Hit the road, jack."

Clearly Michael would have lots of issues to work out and some more convincing on purported benefits

[Michael von Keitz]

What do I do if a player shows up, and I say "your membership is expired", and he replies "I'm a member of XYZ chess club, I paid my dues to them."

So I look up XYZ chess club, and see that their membership, or affilliate status, or whatever it is, has expired. So I say to the player "sorry, your club hasn't renewed, you are no longer eligible to play in tournaments. Hit the road, jack."

On that particular count, I would like to return to the distribution of individual membership cards (especially if clubs were to agree to distribute them, for those players that are tied to a club). I'm fairly certain I mentioned something to that effect somewhere on the first page. Anyway, quite simply, if your membership card indicates you are near expiry (regardless of whether we stick with the old model or not), you should be following up (assuming you wish to continue on as a member of the CFC and the CFC office has failed to send you or your club a reminder).


Clearly Michael would have lots of issues to work out and some more convincing on purported benefits

As far as this proposed pilot is concerned (disregarding my previous suggestion of a wholesale implementation in the long term), I would anticipate dealing with some issues as they arise, but there are certainly simple enough answers to most issues, virtually all of which I believe the assembly of governors can identify long before January. What it may become a question of at that point, however, is cost.

[Michael von Keitz]

I guess my first question is, do you have numbers that would tend to demonstrate a Club-affiliate model would help the CFC in any way or is it try to change for the sake of saying things changed ? Any study that would help understanding what part of our membership would favor (and why) that type of model ? Any numbers in mind that would help us consider the monetary aspects of such a change ?


By its nature, a pilot is a study. That said, as a result of the discussion, some have even suggested simply reinstating the old affiliate program would be a good step toward providing incentives to clubs to recruit. I look forward to continuing the discussion and seeing what other thoughts the incoming assembly of governors may have.




Michael, even in the most populated part of the CFC membership (Ontario), the Governors are "elected/selected/nominated" on a twist-harm platform. Even though in theory the Governors are supposed to be elected by the members, in fact in the vast majority of the Governors are either nominated unopposed or twisted an harm and leg to accept the "job". In fact, as an example, it seems only 7 persons attended the EOCA annual meeting out of those people nobody really wanted to be a Governor.


I think I'm missing your point here. I don't dispute that recruiting governors can be cumbersome.



I'm sure you understand it's even worse in smaller parts of the country. If it's already been proven that it already doesn't work very well at the regional level with such situations, what would make you believe that the clubs would join the boat ? What about the life members ? Honorary members ? What happens with members from provinces (or territories) that don't have a structured enough setting to provide a 10-members club ? What about Quebec members ? What about casual players (those that play chess but not in clubs or tournaments ? Have you considered the loss in revenue with all those type of situations (and more) ? How much money are we talking about ? Do you believe the revenues from the clubs would cover more than that ? How would that affect the CFC employee work ? How would you determine the choice for your "trial and error" method ? How would you make sure it's representative of every chess club in Canada ? Have you consulted with the Provincial Associations ? How would the Provincial Associations manage the chess clubs ? What level of responsability vs powers would they have ? Who are your "feeders" ? To be honest, I see this approach as a direct contradiction to our most basic bylaws.


I have begun preliminary discussions with a number of clubs that are primarily composed of CFC members. They may or may not be representative of the average club in this country, but they are exactly the sort of place I envisage conducting a pilot of this nature. The reason I suggested January as a potential launch date is precisely because I anticipate kinks to be worked out before "going live," so to speak.



To be honest, this sound like a used car salesman pitch. I'm pretty sure even you don't believe some of what you claim to be your "vision". The members already have most of what you'd like to "offer" the clubs. In fact, it seems you are trying to shift the CFC's responsabilities to the clubs while offering them nothing more than what they already have. Actually those interested in getting the information you are "offering" already have more than what YOU can provide. In fact, it is very likely the chess clubs you're aiming at will quickly realize they don't need to be part of the CFC because the CFC will have nothing new to offer. Since they would be doing all the work, they'll likely quickly realize they are the ones that should be rewarded for it, not the CFC. As a francophone, I'm sure you'll understand your "biliingual" content offering is at best laughable. Over the last decade most CFC Presidents claimed they were bilingual and promised the french content would finally be completed in their mandates. I believe members are tired to be deceived. Time for a change. Offering the members more of the same (all that long text of yours to basicly say "screw members get in clubs maybe you'll be more appreciative of what the CFC has to offer" ) has proven not to work. Whatever the structure might be.


I'll assume this remark was not intended to be condescending and say that I disagree. As a bilingual candidate, as opposed to seeing the prospect of bilingual content on the website as being "laughable," I would assume you would want to be the first to offer your services in improving the federation's communication with its membership base.

[Christopher Mallon]

I believe the old affiliate program was pretty much shot in the foot (or stabbed in the back?) when the CFC started doing auto-renewals of memberships. Of course the affiliates didn't get cuts out of THOSE even if they sold the initial membership.

Perhaps a hybrid of that and your plan Michael?

Let clubs be affiliates. Let members belong (or not) to one. If they do then the affiliate gets a small cut of their membership no matter how they renew. The CFC can add one item to their database so they can keep track of which club everyone is a member of (only for affiliated clubs of course).

[John Coleman]

I believe the old affiliate program was pretty much shot in the foot (or stabbed in the back?) when the CFC started doing auto-renewals of memberships. Of course the affiliates didn't get cuts out of THOSE even if they sold the initial membership. When Windsor was an affiliate, I'm talking 20+ years ago, we often had the case that I would remind a player of his expiring CFC membership, and he would reply "I already sent it to Ottawa." I could hardly complain, but it did mean that the affiliate "lost" the commission. After a while, the CFC lost the affiliate.

[roger patterson]

When Windsor was an affiliate, I'm talking 20+ years ago, we often had the case that I would remind a player of his expiring CFC membership, and he would reply "I already sent it to Ottawa." I could hardly complain, but it did mean that the affiliate "lost" the commission. After a while, the CFC lost the affiliate.

would you say that your affiliate was successful in drumming up new members or were you just processing people who would have joined the CFC anyway?

[John Coleman]

Being an affiliate had nothing to do with attracting members.

At the time, (20+ years ago) we were running CFC tournaments on weekends, and sending in memberships anyway. So, why not get some commission.

It is tournaments which attract new memberships, IMHO.

In 2011, the only reason to join the CFC is to play tournament chess. The new CFC website talks about "a fraternity of chess players, enthusiasts, teachers, and organizers from across Canada devoted to promoting chess" which is not based in reality. And if someone wants to support the Canadian Olympic team, for example, a $36 donation would be more useful than a $36 membership.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

It is tournaments which attract new memberships, IMHO.

The tournaments might be in the club as well. The (famous) Scarborough club is an example.

The CFC really should encourage clubs with/for competitive chess. Smth like a member is affiliated to one or two clubs, thus the portion of his fees might be given back to the club. Or the club might get some kind of discount on rating fees - an affiliated-club championship is rating-fee free.

[John Coleman]

The club-affiliation idea may work for CFC-oriented clubs like Scarborough and Ottawa RA, but most chess clubs aren't like that. Most clubs are 10 guys meeting at a library or community centre.

About 25 years ago, I had an interesting discussion with Fred Lindsay, who was Mr. Chess in Ann Arbor, Michigan. I asked Fred how to get club players to play serious chess. "You don't," said Fred, "clubs aren't for serious chess. Clubs are for talk and chatter, blitz, casual play, maybe a little analysis. If people want to play seriously, a chess club isn't the place to do it. Instead, organise tournaments, 1-day, weekend, 1-night a week, whatever, but don't try to get the blitz and social guys to play seriously."

Also, I have noticed that socialising drives out serious play. It is really hard to play "for real" if the guys on one side are chatting, and on the other are playing blitz. That's why tournaments have a skittles room.

[Rob Clark]

Mr. Archambault,

While I certainly don't agree with everything Mike has said I applaud him for trying to change our obviously broken system. I really believe we need someone who brings in a new vision, rather than maintains the current system, which is bleeding members every year. I've talked to Mike about this and he claims he will run everything past the governors and incite discussion before major changes are implemented. He has said ultimately he would like to see clubs in Canada gain more power and be able to promote themselves (rather than a Canada-wide sort of advertising initiative, which I agree would be far more effective in terms of attracting new members). This being said, a lot of people have pointed out some of the flaws in Mike's platform. To be honest I think there are even more than those pointed out, but the point is that Mike has a vision and a plan, and is willing to work with the governors to improve his vision and make it successful. I certainly agree that something different is needed.

I was one of the governors who contacted yourself after you emailed the assembly and asked what specifically you saw to be the CFC's assets to be and how we can increase membership. I'm sorry but your answer seemed to deal in generics (ie that we needed to help out juniors, that we needed to increase membership) without really getting into how you plan to accomplish this. It’s easy to poke holes in Mike's platform because he's gone into specifics about a possible way to achieve his vision but I have yet to see you state how you plan to accomplish your goals. So I have to ask, how specifically do you plan to increase membership, increase communication between the governors and the president etc.? Without meaning to offend you or be rude, you seem to have used the same buzzwords we've heard many times before but don't seem to have a plan as to how to achieve these things.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

In other words, if you aren't a demonstrable member of a club (e.g. possessing a membership card, having an exec vouch for you, etc.), then you can't join the CFC.

IMHO, you have been over impressed with a German club system. What works in Germany, barely would survive in Canada. Canada lacks a club team competition.

How many teams competition are organized in Canada? CMA finals, Kitchener active, several in Alberta, pupils (universities, schools).
Clubs? I can't name any at this moment. We had in Toronto but not much interest any more.

[Rob Clark]

Mr. Archambault,

I don't appreciate being called a fear mongerer. I believe the system is broken plain and simple. I say this not to evoke fear but because it needs to be said and I'm tired of people ignoring it. I also say this with the hope that it will lead to positive things and a more honest discussion.

If you don't believe me look at our membership numbers. The current membership pales in comparison to those 10 or 20 years ago, despite the number of Canadians having increased an enormous amount. In some cases we've lost entire territories, in many others provinces' memberships have been halved and I have yet to hear from anyone that this is a problem. Despite our modest numbers we have an outrageous number of governors which makes it hard to try to go in any new direction. We have an affordable game in hard economic times, which has a huge number of health benefits (especially to seniors which I believe should be promoted as beneficial for Canada’s aging population) and yet we manage to lose members virtually every year with a declining trend.

If that’s not a broken system what is? Furthermore, when will you consider it broken? Through some pretty bad management and failure to provide services, the CFC managed to lose the better part of a thousand members in a couple years. Despite these problems being fixed we are unable to regain the members we once had. I personally am from a territory which got treated horribly and had money taken from us without our tournaments being rated and membership dues being collected without people receiving a membership. (To Mr. Gillander’s credit he worked very hard to fix these issues but the damage had been done) In one instance when trying to seek reparations for my club I approached an exec member and was simply told that there were more important matters than my club. If the system isn’t broken why are there huge decreases in so many provinces? Why are there more important matters than an entire club which boasted tournaments of over 400 junior members?

As for your bolded text, `“I'm sorry but your answer seemed to deal in generics (ie that we needed to help out juniors, that we needed to increase membership) without really getting into how you plan to accomplish this.”

If I remember correctly, in my reply to you I mentioned: “Yesterday I met with the FQE Executive Director, Richard Bérubé and we discussed for a little over 2 hours what could be done, if I'm elected.”`

This is exactly what I mean. You talked with Mr. Bérubé for a little over 2 hours about what? What is it that can be done if you’re elected? What steps will you take when you are elected? Telling me that you talked with someone about steps tell me nothing, I consider that very generic.

As for “In my email to you I also mentioned reaching out to junior players. I went as far as to detail how I saw this working in Europe and wanted to implement a similar situation in Canada (which by the way would give more strength to the clubs...but without risking the CFC money for it).” You stated in our emails that “Also the juniors are a big concern to me. I know for a fact there are thousands of kids (only CMA claims to have over 20 000 players annually) that are interested in chess. Both in extra curricular activities at school and also in chess club programs. In fact, when I was living in Spain, that's how our club was working. We were having Saturday morning classes for kids, and that's how we would get enough money to pay our rent, our elite players for special events, and organizing our annual tournament. I believe if the CFC was to support such initiatives, if it was to work on reaching out to those kids, we would benefit greatly.” While I agree with this whole heartedly, how do you attempt to create a Canada wide Sunday morning class for kids? How exactly would you organize this across the country? This is what I meant by specifics.

Finally, as for the “What am I to do? Say nothing because you happen to personally know one of the presidential candidates?” I’m very offended by that. With that statement you imply that I care more about seeing someone I know become president, than I do the state of affairs of chess in Canada. Keep in mind I took the time to read your email, read the discussions on the forum, and email you with questions. To suggest that I favour Mike just because I know him is both insulting and just plain wrong.

Rob

[Michael von Keitz]

IMHO, you have been over impressed with a German club system. What works in Germany, barely would survive in Canada. Canada lacks a club team competition.

How many teams competition are organized in Canada? CMA finals, Kitchener active, several in Alberta, pupils (universities, schools).
Clubs? I can't name any at this moment. We had in Toronto but not much interest any more.

As I stated somewhere previously, Tony's suggestion of reinstating the old affiliate program isn't a bad one. At the same time, I seem to recall Chris Mallon mentioning some of the challenges that old program faced. In case I have not been clear, I am open to discussing and appropriately modifying my views. Obviously, if my proposed club-affiliate model does not suit every member, then further discussion of implementing it wholesale serves no purpose. That said, I would like to investigate a revival of the old affiliate program, which I would still like to do on a pilot basis to start, pending discussion within the incoming assembly. My main motivation was to find a means of strategically offering financial incentives for recruitment and the old affiliate program seems to offer a much simpler avenue to that goal.

Ultimately, my platform is a series of talking points, most of which can be entirely divorced from the proposed membership model. I have said I am not a steamroller and I mean it - I will not implement anything without the approval of the governors.

[Hugh Brodie]

The club scene in Canada is definitely not the same as in Europe - mainly due to distance and population density.

During the Fischer boom, Montreal had a great club setup - YMCA's and boys' clubs formed chess clubs, and companies were liberal with money - supporting strong clubs at companies such as Sun Life, CN, CP, and CBC. It was no problem getting 15 or 20 teams out for the annual event. The matches were traditionally held on the club premises - but eventually all matches were held in the CBC cafeteria (meals available 24 hours a day). Unfortunately - security restrictions put an end to that and the team events (and the clubs - along with company funding) gradually disappeared.

The Montreal club scene (I define a chess "club" as one with an elected executive, and an organized schedule) is negligible now, with probably two entities meeting the above definitions:

Ahuntsic (I assume it has an elected executive) meets once a week and has regular events - although only two or three annually that are FQE rated.

The Montreal Chess Club has an "elected executive" - but I have been to the annual meetings, and usually only 3 or 4 people show up. It has 158 "members": http://www.fqechecs.qc.ca/cms/organisme/090527/club-dechecs-de-montreal provides a link to the membership list. A $2 annual "membership fee" must be paid by all those who enter events held there (not necessarily organized by the Club - but use their facilities - i.e. the 3rd and 4th floors of Chess and Math in Montreal) - and with 50-60 players in each of the 5-round FQE-rated events held there, the number of "members" can be quite large.

The largest Quebec team event throughout the 70's 80's and 90's was always the Intercollegiate held every Easter weekend which often attracted over 200 players. That was due to a dedicated organizer (Denis Cote) who spent many hours contacting colleges and arranging a site.

There are other gatherings of chess players in Montreal in libraries, schools/colleges/universities, parks, coffee shops (the largest being at Cafe Pi) - most of whom are not interested in tournament chess (or not even interested in a quiet, slow game of chess).

Quebec City and Gatineau both have several active clubs, and manage to organize small team events - but limited to their respective cities.

[roger patterson]

The Montreal club scene (I define a chess "club" as one with an elected executive, and an organized schedule) is negligible now, with probably two entities meeting the above definitions:



no more Lakeshore CC Hugh?

[Hugh Brodie]

Lakeshore CC doesn't have an elected executive, nor regular events (mostly blitz). Even the annual club championship seems to have deteriorated into a series of 20-30 minute games.

[Ken Craft]

Spraggett has weighed in on the Club System concept. He is strongly against it.

[Rob Clark]

Hi all,

I spent a couple hours last night talking to Mike about his proposed system. He said that after looking at the negative feedback and specifically at Mr. Patterson's posts, that a revamp of his idea was needed. He also said that he never intended to concretely adhere to the ideas he proposed in his platform, but that he merely wanted to use them as a starting point to allow for the discussion of how to help out Canadian clubs and gain new members. He said that he wanted to use the action plan in his platform as a starting point and rework it and tweak it to create a solid plan of action which members and governors both had a say in and agreed with. He asked me to reiterate that:

"Ultimately, my platform is a series of talking points, most of which can be entirely divorced from the proposed membership model. I have said I am not a steamroller and I mean it - I will not implement anything without the approval of the governors."

and that

"I am open to discussing and appropriately modifying my views."

He also said he was looking at a system which is a hybrid of the old affiliate system as well as his own ideas (similar to Mr. Mallon's suggestions). I hate to put words in his mouth (because I don't think he was decided on this as an alternative platform) but one of his ideas which seemed to interest me was that 10% of a person's membership fee will be returned to the club to which a person is affiliated. If the person isn't affiliated to any specific club then they are welcome to pay the current full price of the membership and the CFC will retain the entirety of their membership. (as they do now)

Unfortunately, Mike will be travelling for much of today so he asked me to post something regarding what we talked about on the boards.

As for my own two cents, when I said before that I didn't agree with everything in Mike's platform and that it had flaws which many people had pointed out (and I also stated that I believed there were even more that people yet hadn't), I was trying to diplomatically say that I wasn't too enthusiastic about his platform. However, after talking to him last night and listening to his new ideas, I feel a lot better. One of the other things which I like and believe is that he seems committed to both acting to better Chess in Canada; as well as doing so with ideas that the governors support.

Rob Clark

[roger patterson]

Hi all,

I spent a couple hours last night talking to Mike about his proposed system. .....
Rob Clark

well, he did manage to paint a bright red target on himself :-).

Although I think the particular idea does not fit for most of Canada, I do believe that the CFC needs fundamental and radical change and a serious evaluation of what it wants to and can accomplish within the resources and current environment it now faces. Not so sure what that change should be but certainly a presidential candidate with some vision, good or bad, is something we need. The status quo with incremental changes is probably just not good enough.


The problem with a radical vision though, is that it is easy to criticize and block.

[Ken Craft]

Well, he has gotten it wrong on moving to a club based membership, wrong on relations with Quebec and wrong on FIDE ratings, from my point of view.

I'm not feeling a lot of confidence about this candidate, at this point in time.

[Michael von Keitz]

Well, he has gotten it wrong on moving to a club based membership, wrong on relations with Quebec and wrong on FIDE ratings, from my point of view.

I'm not feeling a lot of confidence about this candidate, at this point in time.

First of all, I would like to thank Rob Clark whole-heartedly for his encouragement and support. My intention is to contact every governor privately in the near future, to provide a one-on-one forum for those unconvinced. I hope you will take the opportunity to engage me in a dialogue, Ken.