Why doesn’t anyone ever actually talk about chess on these forums? There’s all sorts of talk about how to run the USCF, how to run tournaments, top grandmasters, etc, but no discussion of the game itself.
I go to other chess forums when I want to post games for analysis, look at games or positions posted by other players, talk about what openings to play, how to become a better player, etc. It just seems odd to me that those types of discussions never take place here.
–Fromper
“A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.”
Why don’t you post a chess-related question or comment?
.
I do not think the deadness of this forum is “odd” at all, I think it is the expected outcome of the way the USCF is running its forums, CLOnline, and Chess Life.
Have you not noticed that all forums & blogs about general chess are dead? 95% of the time, every single one of them either lacks worthwhile content, or lacks a participating audience, or is just plain dry.
The lone exception is Mig’s DailyDirt model.
(Mig’s format could be even better, but that is another discussion.)
Logically and in the abstract, CLOnline is a lot like the DailyDirt (despite the superficial differences in visual layout).
Which format continues to demonstrate more reader participation and interest – Mig’s or CLOnline? Mig earns an average of about 70 replies per day, while CLOnline earns 3. Why this gross disparity?
Perhaps part of the answer is that no registration of any kind is necessary for posting a reply on Mig’s blog.
To post a reply to a CLOnline thread requires a USCF membership. So the majority of chess players in the USA are blocked from participating.
Half of the USCF membership cannot participate, because they are only 17 years old (or younger).
The USCF policy obviously blocks international participants of the type Mig enjoys.
There is hardly anybody left to exclude!
Is this blockage a smart idea? Is the restricted posting privilege really generating more membership purchases?? Or does it just make our web site look dead?
This “All Things Chess” forum suffers from the same blockage as CLOnline. But I see no hope for plain unchampioned forums like “All Things Chess” anyway. Mig’s success has demonstrated and proven the right alternative model.
Without spending more money, could the USCF dramatically boost the CLOnline participation rate before then end of calendar 2008? I think the answer is Yes; but I do not know whether that is a goal of those running the USCF.
Aside from unblocking posting participation…
CLOnline needs a non-generic voice (or voices). CLOnline needs a voice that is out in front instead of behind the scenes, a voice with a personality and opinions to share and debate. I originally thought that JS, the self-described Chess B—h had the right talent and inclination to fill the Mig role. Maybe only the inclination is missing.
Finally, CLOnline needs the cyclical synergy that is still absent from the paper Chess Life.
Chess Life is a huge source of potential power for the USCF. That power is not being leveraged.
I shake my head in dismay when USCF members call for the elimination of Chess Life. A lack of imagination is a dangerous thing.
.
I started the thread asking for advice on Smith-Morra Gambit books. It was just a cut and paste of something I’d posted on another discussion group, posted here as an afterthought. The lack of discussion here made me think that I’d be better off asking elsewhere, though I was pleasantly surprised to get a decent conversation started here. Mostly, I post on more active forums, though, so I don’t feel the need to post here. I guess everyone feels that way, which leads to a dead forum and political posts about what to do about it like the last reply.
–Fromper
Well Gene is correct though.
Everyone here is interested in chess. And simply due to inactivity there isn’t a lot of chess discussion.
The inactivity is directly related to how many people can participate. Out of all the chessplayers in the world … in the millions … only about 40,000 can participate here.
Gene’s motivations in his reply I don’t believe were “political” in nature. Just a description of the “nature of the beast”. And if we wanted more activity, then we would have to “open” up the forum.
Then he went on to attempt an answer as to “Why don’t we do just that?” And an idea or two about doing just that … “boosting activity”.
Anecdotal: In my situation, chess engines and internet play are the two most important things to me. So I too, use other forums and sites more than anything here. And just to avoid your possible misconception that any further discussion about this topic is “political”, I will drop it there.
Just don’t ask “Why?” 
This may seem like a silly answer…
Have you noticed how hard and time consuming typing chess notation is?
If there is an easier and faster way to type chess notation, people would talk about it more often!
You can enter a game into Chessbase and then copy from Chessbase (using Ctrl+C) and then paste anywhere you want with Ctrl+V. If you want to get rid of Chessbase’s formatting, you can copy the text into Notepad and then copy it elsewhere. Obviously, the various chess annotation symbols will not necessarily carry over depending where you are pasting. I like using the Linares font family when I export chess notation from Chessbase to Word, and so I first copy it to Notepad (to force it into PGN notation) and then to Word. I have written a couple macros to convert the PGN NAGs (annotation symbols) to be used with the Linares font. I have also written a macro to convert the notation to figuring using the Linares font (family). But as far as getting the basic chess notation, you can cut and paste from Chessbase without any trouble.
Steven Craig Miller
caissa.com/chess-tools/pgn-editor.php
Has a free online PGN editor. I’ve used it a few times because it also lets you create animated gifs of games that can be used on the web.
I know that you can input a game into the computer and then copy and paste the notation into what ever you are using. Thanks for providing such detailed instructions on how to do that with Chessbase.
I suppose if the USCF really wanted a forum dedicated to chess discussion as a game, they’d have to make a new forum. Call it something like “Openings, Middlegames, and Endgame discussion”.
Maybe its not a bad idea. People could discuss stuff like trends in opening, opening theory, middlegame stratagy, etc.