OzChess - Australia's Chess Forum - View Single Post

**MOZ** · 10-11-2007, 11:07 PM

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

Hi,

A couple of points. For years MCC has been running its own internal rapid ratings. These games are not rated by ChessVictoria. We do this to keep our costs down.

I appreciate your financial strictures.
And I appreciate that MCC does support CV/ACF via officially rated tournaments at traditional time-controls.

We see no reason why we should have these type of events officially rated.

A reasonable position by you given that a higher proportion of your entrants already have a traditional rating anyway.

It should be noted that these tourneys are small between 5-20 people. They require an arbiter and its all done on Swiss Perfect. It appears to me that the benfiits for rating the games are outweighed by practical reality.

Similar comment.

I suspect a similar argument is also capable of being made for private operators.

I don't see this point at all. How is the largest commercial operator supporting the services supplied by the ACF (as I described earlier) and CV?

However there is a key difference. Private organisations who do not support the structures of Australian chess in ANY way, financially shouldn't be allowed to have there cake and eat it aswell.

Ahh. Now I see your finesse. On this we agree.

I have argued consistently that there should be activity clauses with qualifying events for all premium ACF selections.

I may come to agree with this.

Should junior chessplayers be allowed to represent Australia and be subsidised by the ACF without competing nationally in ACF sanctioned events?

And this

Should Private Organisers be allowed to run premium chess events with subsidies from the ACF without paying fees?

And this.

What about qualifyers?

Some private organisers are running junior tournaments, collecting fees and making such a profit that they are able to pay for entry fees and travel costs to ACF events. There are pros and cons to such activity. I'm not sure if there is anything wrong with this, but what it does show is that private organisers have cornered a considerable market. For years they have been developing these markets, often based on coaching advertising credentials established within the ACF/Fide structure.

While I would probably agree they have 'cornered a considerable market', I don't see any significant barriers to entry to the market by affiliated Clubs. Dark Horse CC is one that has a substantial share. And CJCC is another.
What we don't see is significant voluntary contribution to the ACF/CV structure and revenue streams from most commercial operators. (Some operators such as zedChess are redressing this imbalance).

It seems to me that the ACF levy problem is quite simple. The ACF/ State organisations simply have to be more committed to the grassroots development of chess. Instead of locking themselves into dependent relationships with Private organisers they need to set the agenda within the relationships.

An extremely good observation.

They need to understand that there is no economic elite without support from the mass. They need to protect their market without destroying its development. How else can something like the NSWJCL be explainable? Its exactly the same thing in Victoria except there is no league, just private chess companies.

Agreed.
More contribution to administration and revenue streams is obligatory.

Will the ACF ever understand what its resources are? Don't hold your breath! You need to invest in them long term, as leaders, not beggers.

cheers Fg7

Good point.

Thanks for your post firegoat.
MOZ

10-11-2007, 11:07 PM	#25 (permalink)
MOZ Volunteer Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Ozchess is the marginalised cyber-spot where cc-Mods choose to engage with cc-banned posters. Posts: 3,539	Well done. You have seized the agenda. Originally Posted by Firegoat7 Hi, A couple of points. For years MCC has been running its own internal rapid ratings. These games are not rated by ChessVictoria. We do this to keep our costs down. I appreciate your financial strictures. And I appreciate that MCC does support CV/ACF via officially rated tournaments at traditional time-controls. We see no reason why we should have these type of events officially rated. A reasonable position by you given that a higher proportion of your entrants already have a traditional rating anyway. It should be noted that these tourneys are small between 5-20 people. They require an arbiter and its all done on Swiss Perfect. It appears to me that the benfiits for rating the games are outweighed by practical reality. Similar comment. I suspect a similar argument is also capable of being made for private operators. I don't see this point at all. How is the largest commercial operator supporting the services supplied by the ACF (as I described earlier) and CV? However there is a key difference. Private organisations who do not support the structures of Australian chess in ANY way, financially shouldn't be allowed to have there cake and eat it aswell. Ahh. Now I see your finesse. On this we agree. I have argued consistently that there should be activity clauses with qualifying events for all premium ACF selections. I may come to agree with this. Should junior chessplayers be allowed to represent Australia and be subsidised by the ACF without competing nationally in ACF sanctioned events? And this Should Private Organisers be allowed to run premium chess events with subsidies from the ACF without paying fees? And this. What about qualifyers? Some private organisers are running junior tournaments, collecting fees and making such a profit that they are able to pay for entry fees and travel costs to ACF events. There are pros and cons to such activity. I'm not sure if there is anything wrong with this, but what it does show is that private organisers have cornered a considerable market. For years they have been developing these markets, often based on coaching advertising credentials established within the ACF/Fide structure. While I would probably agree they have 'cornered a considerable market', I don't see any significant barriers to entry to the market by affiliated Clubs. Dark Horse CC is one that has a substantial share. And CJCC is another. What we don't see is significant voluntary contribution to the ACF/CV structure and revenue streams from most commercial operators. (Some operators such as zedChess are redressing this imbalance). It seems to me that the ACF levy problem is quite simple. The ACF/ State organisations simply have to be more committed to the grassroots development of chess. Instead of locking themselves into dependent relationships with Private organisers they need to set the agenda within the relationships. An extremely good observation. They need to understand that there is no economic elite without support from the mass. They need to protect their market without destroying its development. How else can something like the NSWJCL be explainable? Its exactly the same thing in Victoria except there is no league, just private chess companies. Agreed. More contribution to administration and revenue streams is obligatory. Will the ACF ever understand what its resources are? Don't hold your breath! You need to invest in them long term, as leaders, not beggers. cheers Fg7 Good point. Thanks for your post firegoat. MOZ