I’ve been working on an experimental program to display tournament history. This is drawn from the same program that is being tested to enter and edit crosstable information before events are rated, but this one draws its data from our historical records.
Currently this is a display-only program, it cannot change any data.
This will probably be the basis of a program to permit TD’s and Affiliates to correct tournament data. For data that doesn’t affect anyone’s rating, it would just update our records. For data that could affect someone’s rating, such as an ID or a result change, it would initiate the re-rating process.
I’ve placed it on both the TD and the Affiliate menus in the TD/Affiliate Support Area.
For TD’s it shows all of the events that have you listed as the chief TD.
For affiliates, it shows all of the events rated under that Affiliate ID.
Like the idea, it would help to take care of some little problems: like the name of the tournament or match (example: Florida - Forsy,the match would be changed to Florida - Forsythe match).
Am I missing something here? The Junior Tournament Player program was abolished fifteen years ago. If you want to sign up a junior member, use a USCF membership form.
Try contacting the USCF membership department for forms. I don’t know if they still have any of the pre-numbered JTP forms, they haven’t been reprinted in years.
As I understand it, the JTP program still exists in two limited forms:
K-3 events (other than national events)
K-12 events held by a scholastic affiliate and open only to students in that school.
The TD/Affiliate Support Area will be able to process JTP registrations, but we’re still working on the administrative details. JTP’s registered through TD/A will not use the ID numbers on the pre-numbered forms.
I think you are missing something. The JTP was started about 15 years ago. It has not been abolished, rather it has been limited, as nolan has indicated above.
You are correct that the JTP membership is still around, though it took me a while to find it. There’s no point in arguing semantics, but the JTP certainly was abolished, along with the “tournament membership,” but retained for a couple of very specialized situations. I hadn’t noticed it because it’s irrelevant except to a few scholastic organizers.
Memberships can now be created offline using a program like Excel, saved as a tab-delimited file, then uploaded and checked as if they had been entered online.
The operative word is “few.” Around 1990, just about everyone agreed that the JTP program had been a bad idea and had to go. To placate the scholastic lobby (which was already influential, though not as vocal as it later became), it was preserved for a couple of categories that were very rarely going to arise. (How many kids play rated chess only in their school club? How long are they going to stay interested?) It was tacitly assumed that the program would fade away over time, which is almost what has happened. If JTPs start being issued in any significant number, I can justabout guarantee that this relic will be eliminated.
Having said that, I am going to express the slightly heretical opinion that there ought to be a less expensive way for kids to get started. With the elimination (well, strong discouragement) of the $13 economy scholastic, the minimum cost for a new player is $19-$25. Magazine or no magazine, only a fraction of these people are going to become serious players, and there ought to be a less expensive way to let them try it out.
The economy scholastic are for two different levels of players. The one with the age of the child, if the child at the most early levels of reading – the economy scholastic is ideal. The second, the amount of money the parents are willing to spend on the childs membership. Only a fraction, a very small fraction will be serious players. The bulk of these memberships, it would be the first and last tournament they will ever be in.
What about, a membership that is only good for the tournament. The scholastic player would get a USCF ID number and a rating. If they want to be in a different tournament, they would need to rejoin the federation.
Run in-school events that fall under the JTP rules, no membership required and they are USCF rated.
There are also the new Family Membership Plans:
For $35 ($33 online) all of the children under 20 in the household can become USCF members.
For $64 ($62 online) not only can the children under 20 become USCF members, but also both parents (if living together) plus any full-time college students up to age 24, even if the college students are living at another address.
Neither of the first two are very useful, from my point of view. Unrated tournaments are a dead end (getting a rating is one of the main selling points for new players). In-school tournaments, by definition, are only for school chess clubs. I’m not going to start another argument about the evils of particularism, but I am interested only in “real” tournaments, open to anyone. The family membership categories do have some value, but it’s an extremely specialized item.
Having a unrated tournament is only a dead end for the players that have no designs on being a USCF member. Having a unrated tournament, with a tournament with 4 rounds: the players with a plus score of 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0 --are the ones more willing to join the federation. If having a rated tournament in say two weeks after the unrated tournament: will find a number of the students are willing to join the federation. True, this system works well for the high school students then the grade schools.
Having a unrated scholastic tournament, would be a greater cost too the ‘organizers’ of the event. As most players would not have a ‘tournament standard equipment’, even some would bring the ‘putmen chess set’ that are non-standard. The organizer would need the equipment of set and board; as it is a non-rated tournament can leave off the chess clock for the tournament.
The JTP program was very useful to us back in 1987. In my city, we have 10 Middle Schools and 20 Elementary, with 5 High Schools. While we never had much interest at the HS level, all 30 Elementary and Middle Schools participated in our tournaments due to the JTP program, which was awarded to new (never before USCF members) regardless of age or grade. I can say that the majority of those students who signed up for the JTP later became paying members (while still in school) and they continued up to 9th grade to play in rated chess tournaments.
USCF should again award new scholastic players introductory tournament memberships. The eligibility should be for all grades, with perhaps a limitation of 2 years, at which time, they would then be required to pay (K-3 exempted). Perhaps other limitations could be discussed, as well. Of course, I wouldn’t encourage USCF to lose revenue it cannot afford. But, an introductory award for ALL players of K-12 should be considered.
Question for Mike Nolan: Any stats on how many players converted from JTP to full scholastic, youth, adult memberships during that period when the JTP program was in full use for K-12? Did USCF lose money or eventually gain through the JTP program?
Activity in rated tournaments in my city has been empacted by the limitations of the JTP program.
The bulk of the JTP usage was before my most detailed data, so I’m not sure I’ve even got all of the records on it.
However, I have records on about 50,000 JTP’s that used the pre-numbered forms. Another 4400 or so were assigned ID’s that began with ‘1’.
Of the 54411 records identified above, about 53000 of them appear to have been assigned before 1996. (We still do get a few JTP’s every month, including some on the pre-numbered forms.)
Of those 53000 ID’s, 24 are current USCF members. That probably understates the actual number because of duplicate ID’s, but the number is so small that even a two or three-fold understatement still gives a total retention rate of less than two tenths of a percent
In contrast, for dues-paying memberships of all kinds, the long term retention rate is around 4%. For scholastic memberships it is more like 2%, but that’s still an order of magnitude higher than for JTP’s.
Other attempts to measure the success of the JTP program have also suggested that the USCF has very few current members resulting from that program.
Since JTP’s were (and still are) free, the roughly $3 cost of processing a JTP registration (it cost us about $1 less than a ‘real’ membership because we didn’t send them a membership card or renewal notices) almost certainly means that the USCF has lost a fair amount of money on JTP’s, probably well over $100,000, with little membership growth to show for it.
Since before January we were also losing money in the ratings department, rating JTP events probably contributed to the financial problems the USCF experienced over the last decade.
I also think we lost money on $7 ‘first time scholastic’ memberships that were available in 1998-2000. I believe that as many as 50,000 individuals utilized that $5 reduction in dues, so that policy probably cost the USCF well in excess of $200,000.
However, about 3% of those scholastic members are still USCF members, which tends to suggest that a ‘free’ membership does not lead to long term USCF membership as much as one that includes some benefits, such as a magazine.
It’s still a bit early to judge the success of the ‘economy scholastic’ membership, but the early returns suggest that the renewal rate for first-year scholastic members who get a magazine is around 10 per cent higher than the renewal rate for those who do not get a magazine. (25% versus around 17% in the first study I did, 28% versus 15% in the 2nd run.)
Getting back to John’s comments, I’m not sure whether there is a fiscally sound way to do what he suggests. The Economy Scholastic numbers suggest that half or more of the scholastic members will take the absolute cheapest option offered them, even though the evidence suggests that that is also the path which leads to the fewest long-term members.
If, as he says, unrated events are a dead end, then USCF membership appears to have SOME value, though that doesn’t help answer the question of the right price to charge for it.
I don’t disagree with any of this. All I’m saying is that the startup cost for a new junior player – USCF membership plus entry fee plus whatever it costs to go to the tournament – seems high. There are plenty of kids for whom $40 is a significant amount of money. But maybe I’m cheap.
A possible compromise would be to a 6-month economy scholastic (at the same price), for first-timers only.
That has always been the problem with any tournament chess, then again you get what you spend. With the scholastic players, the parents will be the one and only members of the family willing to spend the money. If the scholastic player being under the age of 16, every dime and quarter would be spent from the parents. When dealing with the chess set, the chess board and chess clock, then the tournament bag for all this equipment – the cost of the USCF membership is not the breaking point for the scholastic player.
It is so strange having the membership talking of the high cost of the USCF membership. When the factor of the chess set and board, the chess clock and tournament bag are brought into question: if going to replace all my tournament equipment, would be talking around $225. Would love going to a tournament once a month, if the entry fee is only $20 then the final cost would be $240. Since the cost of gas is going up, having a truck the cost of gas and meals would be around $400. Just going to the one day events, very much willing to spend in a years time $750 to $1,000 per year.
It is not the cost of the USCF membership that makes or breaks the bank. Even if the federation could, ‘give everyone free memberships’, the amount of tournament players would still not grow.
First, the scholastic tournaments in my area are rated, but not by USCF. The local scholastic associations have their own rating systems, and a player can go throught the school year and watch their rating rise or fall. It provides them with a little excitement, but I can’t say that it means anything much to them. What gets their little hearts thumping is the trophies and medals being awarded.
And what’s this about non-standard equipment? How did that get into a message about ratings? And why does it matter to an organizer? I’d rather have an organizer who is comfortable with different chess sets than one who won’t hold a tournament jsut because there aren’t enough standard sets for everyone.
The reason for having standard equipment at the tournament: 1) it would not be a issue for the parents to have the equipment before the tournament; 2) even if the parents do have a set and board, they could be the non-standard set and board; 3) having all standard equipment provided from the organizer, it would not show off wealth of the parents.
1 & 2) Some parents do not have at the time, any chess set and board at home. The parents having the ‘putmen chess set’ would not be teaching the scholastic players just the simple demands of a tournament. 3) Some parents want too show offs their personal wealth. Having a $200 wood chess set and a nice wood board, would be a ego trip for the parents. Any adult player could have a nice wood board and set, it is not expected too be used during a tournment.
The organizer should have the same standard equipment during the non-USCF tournaments, or even for the most young of the scholastic USCF tournaments. Having a non-USCF scholastic tournament is the big wind fall for the organizers. Having a non-rated scholastic tournament, at $20 entry fee and only give out trophies: the organizer lose or break even from the tournament is out of the question. Lets use a case example of having 50 players, (50 entries x 20 entry fee = $1,000) Give out tropies to 20 players at a cost of $7.50 each (20 players x $7.50 trophies = $150) Medals for 30 players at a $1.00 each (30 players x $1.00 medal = $30) would be $30. Having a non-rated scholastic tournament, the margin of profit with 50 players should be around 60 to 70 percent. Having a adult tournament, if at best the margin of profit should be 5 percent.
Then you are asking the organizer not too have standard equipment for the scholastic players.
