For events of 4 or less rounds or that are quick-rated only, the event participation fee would be $10.
For dual or regular rated events of 5 rounds or more, the event participation fee would be $20.
An event participation fee could be credited towards a full-year adult USCF membership (at the published rate) if converted within 90 days. Thus someone who pays a $10 EPF could apply that towards a $49 USCF membership for an additional $39. ($37 if entered online through the USCF website.)
Under this proposal, if someone who has never been a USCF member shows up at your 4 round tournament, you would have three options to offer him:
Pay $38 to become a USCF member for one year (promotional rate.)
Pay $27 to become a USCF member for six months (trial rate)
Pay $10 to become a USCF member for that event (Event Participation Fee.)
For a 5 round or longer regular or dual-rated event, the options would be:
Pay $38 to become a USCF member for one year (promotional rate.)
Pay $27 to become a USCF member for six months (trial rate)
Pay $20 to become a USCF member for that event (Event Participation Fee.)
(If you don’t like seeing policy in the formation stage, don’t read this thread.)
I think that would complicate things too much. What Mike has proposed is reasonable and works very well, especially since membership fees would be applied to a permanent membership if the player so chooses. I think it does a great job of allowing those who aren’t sure if they are going to continue to play chess see what they are getting, and also allows USCF to pester them with membership solicitations.
I have a student who isn’t sure if he wants to be a USCF member or not, because he doesn’t know if he’s going to stick with it. Having a temporary membership would suit him just fine.
And don’t toss those affiliate copies! Pass them along to someone who isn’t a member, or donate them to your local scholastic chess club!
One of the features in the design specs for the USCF membership system is an alternate delivery address ONLY for the magazine. This would alllow an affiliate or member to send the magazine to a local school, prison, etc. while continuing to get renewal notices, tournament flyers, etc.
It would also handle vacation addresses.
One of the more interesting uses of it may be for diplomats. Because of the way the diplomatic service handles magazines and first class mail, having a second address just for the magazine would do a better job of getting the magazine to career diplomats stationed abroad. (Either the USCF has a surprisingly large number of diplomats among its membership or they’re very vocal, because I’ve heard from well over a dozen of them.)
This feature is scheduled to be implemented in early 2006.
For the organizer, it would not be a bad idea to use the ten dollars to take care of the house man. If the organizer has to pay twenty dollars, for the dual rated events or events with five rounds or more. The organizers would be more willing to have events that are not dual rated, just to save the extra ten dollars. Having two different price plans, organizers would be more willing to go into the cheapest price plan.
Organizers would be more willing to have someone from the floor be the house man. As a director would be willing to pay the ten dollars to have a house man, than myself being a playing director to cover the odd number of players. Experience has proven I am around two hundred points below my rating as a playing director. The experience the house man would get, could be a reason to become a full USCF member. Since my time controls are game sixty, the cost of having the house man would be twenty dollars. With the affiliate discount and the on-line discount, the final cost of the trial membership would be twenty-five dollars. It would be a better deal for the house man to have the trial membership.
Would have to have very good feelings the house man would stay as a USCF member, if going to pay the twenty dollars or the trial membership. The cost of the ten dollars would be ideal for myself, as being the playing director takes away important duties. It would not be ideal to shift the time control from game sixty to game sixty-one. As it takes away some of the players getting their established quick rating, or getting closed to having the quick rating established.
If the cost of the twenty dollars is for the dual rated events over the ten dollars single rated event. Would be less willing to have a house man, than use myself as the playing director. Having two different costs of the tournament membership fee, in my judgment would be working against the USCF’s best mission to get more players with established quick ratings.
The non-member house player rule will not be affected by this tournament membership/participation fee. (The terminology is still under discussion.)
However, that rule applies only to non-member house players playing for the benefit of the tournament (to avoid having to give players byes when there are an odd number of players in a round).
It DOES NOT APPLY to any non-member who registers to play in your event. This new policy is being crafted for those individuals.
See secure.uschess.org/houseplayer.php for a summary of the USCF’s current position on non-member house players. That page will probably need to be updated if/when a new policy on tournament memberships is established.
To clarify something else that Doug appears to have gotten wrong, as it is currently being proposed the $10 fee would apply to ALL Quick rated events (ie, those with a sudden death primary time control of between Game/5 and Game/29), and to Dual or Regular rated events if they are 4 rounds or less.
The $20 fee would apply to all Dual or Regular rated events of 5 or more rounds.
Would this also apply to the promotional membership, e.g. could they apply the $10 EPF to the $36 promotional membership, or would they then be stumped with paying $39?
Also, what if someone plays in two or three blitz events before becoming a member. Would the $10 EPF’s accumulate meaning they would multiply the $10 EPF by the number of tournaments they played in and deduct the total from a membership should they decide to join?
I run quickplay tournaments every couple of weeks. If someone pays $10 EPF to play then they will have to either join within 2 weeks to play in the next tournament or pay another $10 EPF. I don’t think 2 weeks is enough for them to decide whether it is beneficial or not for them to become a fully fledged member, especially since they wouldn’t have the magazine etc. by then.
Also, in relation to a couple of other comments, I also think there should be a “no magazine” membership since I had one example of a life member’s wife wishing to join and she had no option but to pay for the full membership and receive another magazine at their household.
As for the affiliate magazine going to someone else. I don’t agree with this unless there is some way to remove the affiliate ID and PIN number off the magazine. That information is way too risky to give to someone else since they could log in and change vital information.
The house man is very important, supporting to have the same house man for all the rounds. Even if the house man is in a four round or a five round event. At present, can ask for a waiver for the house man, but the house man is not designed to play all the rounds to get a waiver. The idea the players came to play all the rounds, byes could happen in all the rounds – this could force the house man to play all the rounds.
Can understand the abuse of the house man, as it is hard to make clear if the player was a true house man or a player that made the tournament have an even number of players. The question looking at the house man from Crossville, than understanding the problems that were on site cannot be proven. Having a house man in a round that makes the round have an odd number of players, would be a clear example the house man is false. Having a house man for the whole event, with the tournament with even number of players’ per-round, without any withdraw. The evidence the house man was a true house man, cannot be proven. If the tournament had a withdraw, leaving the following rounds with an odd number, the house man could be proven as the player did make the tournament have an even number again. Do understand the rational argument the office is making.
This would leave the director to pay for the tournament membership, if the house man is forced to play all the rounds. If the tournament is duel rated or regular rated with time controls of game thirty of slower. (Not talking about time controls of game five to game twenty-nine.) The organizer would only have to pay the ten dollars to cover events of four rounds or less. The organizer would have to pay twenty dollars to cover events of five rounds or more. Would that not limit the organizers having the five round games thirty events?
Details are still being worked out. Personally, I think if someone wants the $38 new member rate, they should elect that option up front. I suspect we’ll give it to them within the 90 day window.
The question about multiple $10 fees is a good one, we’ll have to think about it. If the $10 fee is paid online as part of submitting the rating report, it should be available for use fairly quickly, especially if we have an e-mail address for that player.
Life members were kind of left out of the picture when we came up with the family membership plans. I would have no problem reinstating the old ‘W’ rate or offering some kind of family membership rate for the spouse of a life member and any children who would be covered under Family Plan 1. I’ll mention that to Bill H and Bill G when I get a chance. I’m not sure what a reasonable rate for a Life Member Family Plan should be, any suggestions?
Let me clear up two things with regards to alternate addresses.
The PIN and rating information will only be present on the label if the address is coded as a vacation address.
Having the ID and PIN for an affiliate doesn’t raise many security issues, because you can’t use it for much other than to download the ratings supplements.
In order to apply for access to the TD/Affiliate Support Area, a current USCF member who is listed as a club officer must make the application, using his or her USCF ID and PIN, not the Affiliate’s ID or PIN.
Affiliates who have access to the TD/Affiliate Support Area can change their mailing address, e-mail address, and all their club directory information. They can also opt out of the club directory completely. (All affiliates are still in MSA, though.)
If the member re-joined at some other affiliate, without the affiliate sending in the membership within a standard period of time – the members’ membership could be expired. The members’ membership could be expired for a few weeks because of the other affiliate. If the player plays in the tournament, the director would be more willing to demand the tournament membership fee. If the player pays the tournament membership fee, so the tournament can be rated on-line.
If the office process the players’ membership the following week, would not the membership be current on the first day of the month? If the members’ paper-work becomes done on the tenth day of the month, would not the member be current since the first day of the month? Would not the member be current, plus had to pay the tournament membership, because the paper-work was on someones’ desk? Should the member get back the tournament membership, or get an extra month to the membership?
If you do YOUR job and get your events and memberships submitted promptly, maybe others will appreciate it and return the favor. If all memberships sold at tournaments were processed online within 2-3 days of when the event ended, there wouldn’t be much of a problem with trying to find memberships that are stuck on someone’s desk.
1651 events that ended in May-July have been rated, of those 612 were rated within 3 days of when they ended, which means the memberships at those events were activated, too.
Perhaps even more impressive is that so far 41 events that were held over the Labor Day weekend have been rated, 38 of them within 3 days.
td | tnmt_name | days | players
----------------------+-------------------------------------+------+---------
CHARLES M UNRUH | LDMO HONORING ED HUTCHENS | 0 | 37
F ALEXANDER RELYEA | OKIE MASTERS | 0 | 8
F ALEXANDER RELYEA | OKIE OPEN | 0 | 32
F ALEXANDER RELYEA | OKIE CHALLENGERS | 0 | 8
GEORGE C JOHN | 71ST SOUTHWEST OPEN | 0 | 261
GRANT S PERKS | 61ST OHIO CHESS CONGRESS | 0 | 102
KENNETH A ZIEMAK | HAMILTON QUAD 2005-09 | 0 | 10
KENNETH E FEE JR | OPOPEN5 | 0 | 16
KENNETH ROBERT BALLOU | 65TH NEW ENGLAND OPEN | 0 | 163
MICHAEL ATKINS | 69TH ANNUAL VIRGINIA CLOSED | 0 | 78
CHARLES A YU | WOLFPACK OPEN III | 1 | 30
CHARLES W HATHERILL | KEN HORNE/NORM HARVEY MEMORIAL OPEN | 1 | 19
DANIEL W VOJE | ACTION QUAD #34 | 1 | 10
GARY D HOLDEN | ROCHESTER CHESS CENTER 090305 | 1 | 60
GLENN E PANNER | 2005 ILLINOIS OPEN STATE CHAMPIONSH | 1 | 140
GRANT S PERKS | OHIO BLITZ CHAMPIONSHIP | 1 | 22
HARRY D SABINE | 59TH TN SCHOLASTIC CHAMPIONSHIP | 1 | 90
HARRY D SABINE | 59TH ANNUAL TENNESSEE OPEN | 1 | 90
JEFF R ALDRICH | MICHIGAN OPEN | 1 | 197
JOHN K HILLERY | 27TH ANNUAL SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OPE | 1 | 149
JOHN K HILLERY | SCO HEXES | 1 | 7
JOHN K HILLERY | SCO ACTION | 1 | 17
LAWRENCE M REIFURTH | 2005 STATE CHAMPIONSHIP | 1 | 42
WILBERT A BROWN | 2005 MD ACTION CHAMPIONSHIPS | 1 | 81
WILLIAM GOICHBERG | NEW YORK STATE CHAMPIONSHIP | 1 | 149
BRUCE BAKER | 238TH GAMBITO | 2 | 32
HARVEY N LERMAN | 2005 FLORIDA STATE CHAMPIONSHIP | 2 | 133
JEFFREY A PECK | MCALISTERS SUNDAY NIGHT 9042005 | 2 | 16
LEWIS L RICHARDSON JR | 2005 OR OPEN | 2 | 106
RICHARD W KOEPCKE | CALCHESS LABOR DAY CHAMPIONSHIP | 2 | 189
SACHIN K SINGHAL | 2005 MD QUICK CHAMPIONSHIPS | 2 | 47
SACHIN K SINGHAL | 2005 MD BLITZ CHAMPIONSHIPS | 2 | 32
TIMOTHY W JUST | ILLINOIS OPEN G-25 | 2 | 10
TONY DUTIEL | GREAT PLAINS OPEN | 2 | 14
TONY DUTIEL | GREAT PLAINS OPEN | 2 | 14
DANIEL W VOJE | THE CAPT. EVANS SPEED DEMONS | 3 | 20
DONALD F BROOKS JR | LABOR DAY OPEN 2005 | 3 | 15
RANDALL D HOUGH | SCO SCHOLASTICS | 3 | 126
TIMOTHY W JUST | ILLINOIS OPEN G-20 | 3 | 25
There are directors willing to take the one-year membership, if the membership becomes current in a few weeks will report the event: than will return the one-year membership back to the member. Myself finds that policy as asinine, as it makes the director act as a bank. If the membership has expired with the statement it will be current in a few days. The director holds onto the membership fee, if the membership becomes current will return the membership fee back to the member.
This action can delay the tournament being rated because of one player. Having the tournament reported on-line, would have to withhold sending the tournament in till the membership has processed. If the membership stays expired, the membership and the tournament are reported. How long will the director withhold the tournament, that is the question only the director can answer.
That policy the USCF supports, can lead to some major abuse. The membership is in question of being current or expired, if the director used the players’ membership fee for personal reasons. Some directors will use the funds for personal reasons, during the time to see if the membership is current or expired. This will make the tournament late to be reported, as the director is now short on money to pay the membership fee of one or more members. The policy has flaws, first is the expired member, second, the director not to spend the membership fee.
Do not have a problem with the tournament membership, as it will only cost myself ten dollars than the twenty-five dollars. If a member does join at some other affiliate, will use the profits from the tournament to pay the members’ tournament membership – if the member has expired. This year has paid for one trial membership, just to get the event rated.
This is the reason why the USCF membership has to be current. If the membership is not current at the time of the tournament, the member needs to pay some type of membership. If the member has a valid reason (paid at other tournament) why the membership has expired, will use the profits of the tournament to cover the membership costs. If the cost goes down from a trial membership to a tournament membership that is fine with me. That will make the tournament rated that day or the first Monday.
A non-magazine membership would be, in most cases, an extremely BAD idea. This has been tried a few times in the past, with disastrous results. The non-magazine members have an extremely poor retention rate. All it would do is attract cheapskates who want something for nothing. It’s the kind of thing bankruptcy is made of.
There are a FEW situations where it might make sense – additional family members living in the same household, for example.
As for affiliates, the non-magazine idea isn’t worth the cyberspace it’s printed on. What affiliate worth its salt would gripe about paying $40 instead of (for example) $25 just because he doesn’t want another magazine?
Hmmm…last time I heard they were still registered to vote. Here in Chicagoland: “once registered to vote, always registered to vote!” We also like: “Vote early, vote often!!”
While some organizers will be kind enough and generous enough to pay for an occasional tournament only membership ™ themselves, I think they would be doing themselves -and us- a dis-service. The thing that plagues all these kinds of discussions is that most folks think that the USCF membership could easily be twice what it is today. The problem is - how to attract them? This $10 TM is the ultimate in promotions! In one weekend - for a nominal amount of money - you get to play in a rated tournament; get a national rating; AND sample an issue of the magazine.
But you should be having the discussion about whether they want the $10 TM or the $50 regular membership (whatever it is) with 12 times the issues and a year’s worth of tournament activity included. After all - folks do have the option of just buying a one year’s membership to try things out.
Don’t make it easy to upgrade this to a regular membership. I’m not opposed to an upgrade fee - but it should remain the same regardless of how many $10 they submit. You want them to upgrade that second time they are playing … not automatically after the fifth time …
I think automatically including this without any discussions leads to people who place no value on the membership they could receive.
I don’t think the ppl responsible for the ‘Tim Taylor’ issue (I know - different thread) have done enough penance; and I hope there is some guarantee that that kind of issue is not the only one that the kids that would be the $10 TM from me would see … That’s not likely to lead to a lot of upgrades …
There are lots of great uses for an extra Chess Life - hospitals, YMCAs, boys and girls clubs, local schools - people that pay for the $10 TM so they have 2 issues to sample …
I hope those of us who think the magazine is so bad have some constructive advice to the administration on how to improve it. Are there regular surveys of the membershuip that are done?
I know of many players who quit playing for a long time, but then once they came across a Chess Life again, the bug hit them to start competing again. As for me, I stopped playing for a long time because I wasn’t doing very good. But the magazine kept coming and it did get me out of my slump and back into battle!
Just because you consider it to be crap doesn’t mean it is for everyone. And yes, I do think you’d be better off having a non-magazine subscription, and I would support that just because of the personal reasons you give. But don’t lay that on everyone else.
Chess Life is for the newsstand market, not the stronger players. If you want to take a good example, it would be GM Evens with Evans on Chess. If you can ask a non-chess player whom they know as a Grand Master, the first person that comes to mind would be Fischer. How many chess players care about Fischer, not me. Does talking about Fischer help my game, no. Think of it this way, whom is GM Evens talking to? Not the strong players or the club players, so it has to be for the non-chess players.
Take Bruce Pandolfini with Solitaire Chess, when was the last time Black won the game? Only the weak players take the side of white when they study chess. If your a non-chess player or a weak player, you would set up the board to study the game with the white pieces not the black pieces.