This topic is a spinoff from MSA crosstable formats – a dream thread.
If I understand your concern, you appear to be thinking that US Chess needs to be a middleman to the transaction, and that’s not what I’m advocating. Let each league officer see to it that their league has a PayPal or Stripe account. We’re just providing essentially an ecommerce site in that aspect, not a transaction.
Assume you are processing a league registration for your team.
You get to the point where a payment has to be made.
Off to PayPal, Square, or some other payment processor site you go!
Now, in order to get the payment routed to the right party, US Chess would have to know enough about who’s actually getting the money to provide those particulars to the payment processor. That generally involves several authentication steps, which require things like an ID that the recipient would have to supply to US Chess. There’s also generally an encryption key and a few other steps, all designed to ensure that the transaction isn’t bogus. This is non-trivial programming, so it might behoove US Chess to pick one (or possibly two) payment processors and require the leagues all sign up with the provider(s) chosen.
And here’s the hard part–getting back. After all, the league registration site has to know if the payment succeeded or not, because it cannot finalize the registration until it knows a payment was completed. This is possible, but it requires that the payment recipient not mess with the settings of the account, which often include where to go to finalize the transaction.
And because US Chess doesn’t own the account getting the money, any problems or disputes would have to be referred to the league before the transaction can be completed, voided or modified.
If for some reason the account the funds are being sent to is closed or suspended, US Chess probably wouldn’t be notified of that, so they’d go on accepting league registrations that cannot be finalized.
A lot of expensive programming and handshaking between parties here, is it worth it?
Mike, how is it different for:
and so many others - even companies that just ticket and aren’t necessarily chess related?
First pair of questions. I think some people have different answers for them.
Who thinks that the proposal was to have US Chess serve as the actual conduit of registration money going from members to leagues?
Who things that the proposal is to provide a link that a member can follow to go directly to a league’s registration site?
Next pair of questions.
If US Chess directs people to a league that folds and doesn’t return registration money then is US Chess considered liable?
If so, if the page of links has disclaimers (which almost no one reads) and they say that US Chess is just providing a link with no other involvement, then would that eliminate the liability?
Since I do not use those sites, did not program them, and have no contact with or detailed knowledge of them, I cannot answer your question. I can only comment on the programming I myself have written to process credit card transactions for US Chess, which is exceedingly detailed work (and not getting easier, as the interfaces are getting more complex with each new release.) Even using a package like Stripe on a WordPress site is fraught with complications.
We once offered letting some organizers use our registration system for their events. They were interested, until we told them that we would need anywhere from 6 to 8 percent of their revenue just to cover our costs (mostly credit card fees, both inbound and outbound) and there would be a delay of several days between when someone registered and when they got access to those funds.
Personally, I’m not sure I see much financial benefit from supporting leagues, especially if it costs thousands of dollars in programming costs to set them up plus ongoing operating costs (including staff time.) Will they increase membership? Will they increase OTB rated play? We were told that both of those would be direct results of online rated play, and I don’t really see that in the numbers I’ve analyzed.
Jeff, I can tell you what a lawyer once told me about website disclaimers. He said nobody reads them and it wouldn’t take much for a court to say they were unenforceable.
Neither of your first options above is correct.
The proposal was for US Chess to have pages that support league play. Think of it more like an e-commerce site. There are many ways this could occur, ranging from U.S. Chess to developing all the pages themselves, to outsourcing the entire arrangement to a mix in between. The collection and distribution of funds is routinely performed on the Internet. If handling funds is not our bailiwick, outsource it. The league information pages are essentially a template where league officers (and potentially members) can put in data. League officers will need to approve others who enter data.
How is your second set of questions different than for other e-commerce providers?
Why is US Chess’s number one job to make things more complex than they are? This isn’t THAT complex. It might not be determined to be a high priority. It might be too expensive and not worth the payoff. It will require some education of US Chess and some decision-making. But it’s certainly doable. These are all problems that have been solved for Internet-based businesses before.
Mike, I agree that the question of whether such support is cost-effective (at this time) or a high priority (at this time) are valid questions. Those are business case questions quite different from the technical questions raised. Putting the league in a direct interface with the financial institution providing the financial service, should put the costs around 3%, which a league should easily be able to absorb.
Unlike online play, much of league play is already OTB. Supporting it can be structured to support membership. For example, we could support or allow a new league to negotiate (or we could otherwise provide) a 1-year discount on U.S. Chess memberships, or provide a discounted structure for memberships, if all the league games are rated and they have a year-end league tournament. For an ongoing league, this sets a precedent at a low one-time loss leader to get ongoing rated games year-after-year. Additionally, we could report ratings on league rosters, such that US Chess ratings become integral to league reporting - league members now want to know the rating of their opponent and it becomes ingrained in the league.
We can use the roster information to advertise to the league or to encourage organizers to set up tournaments attractive to area leagues. We can encourage scholastic organizers, school districts, park districts, etc. to run city leagues.
This shouldn’t have a high U.S. Chess office support time - it’s supporting a league “office” which is running the league, and only the league office should be contacting US Chess. The link/form for help on the pages should be to the league office, and if they don’t have a league email, we can provide one or a form that emails the league officers for help. US Chess’ standard response to questions on league play should be “Please directly contact your league office via the form provided on your league page. Your league office will contact US Chess if necessary.”
Every year someone would come to our annual chess league meeting with a “simple” suggestion to change our league constitution, bylaws, or playing rules. We would investigate and do due diligence to see if such a “simple” suggestion was “doable.” Most of the suggestions were not well thought out to begin with as they did not address how the league was run. Some suggestions were designed to benefit one or a few teams at the expense of the rest of the league. Some suggestions would have been costly while likely bringing in no new teams or players. If a suggestion streamlined how the league was run, or cost nothing to implement, then we would hone it some more to fit in with the bylaws. We even considered whether the USCF should be involved in helping to run the league. We looked at how the USTA runs their leagues. In the latter cases, it was found it to be too expensive and cumbersome to put players through the process.
What is “doable” is in the eye of the beholder. Over time the league cut the traditional mailing expenses to virtually zero because all league contacts were done through e-mail. That was a suggestion that worked and did not need the USCF as a middle man or conduit for the processing of information. (As I am typing this, I just received an e-mail notice of the pairings for this Sunday’s first round of the Pittsburgh Chess League. The e-mail goes out to all players and team captains) At the end, there have to be people to run a league. It has to be run as efficiently and inexpensively as possible. Importing middle men to process payments or league registration, like the USTA does, is fine if you have 330,000 players in competition. However, most leagues I know of run things much simpler. Some leagues are non-rated and get along just fine. The rated leagues do not need the USCF to help run, advertise, or participate in registration and payments. To the degree that is done is through TLAs to direct players to their local leagues. That is sufficient. No other website area on the USCF website is needed at this time. I will let others explain how expensive it is to program or set up a new area, the office time to maintain it, or other ancillary costs involved.
There is one more thing to add. If the USCF were too go belly up, which has almost happened on a couple of occasions, all of the chess leagues in the country would continue to run just fine. We would save money on rating fees and USCF membership processing. Our websites would still function. We would set up our own rating system which would likely become the basis for others in the tournament community to follow.
Hello Mr. Magar,
The Chicago Industrial Chess League opted against US Chess rating its league because that would require all players to be members and some of the companies in the league utilize more casual players that do not want to have to pay just to play for their company (well, they may have to pony up a portion of the $75 annual team entry fee if the company is not covering that expense, but even if there are no alternates on the team that portion would not exceed $15 annually). The league has its own rating system (similar to US Chess without floors and with this year being the first one to institute some type of bonus points). The matches are OTB but all of the organization is by e-mail with the schedule on the league’s website (there are pre-season and pre-playoff face-to-face board meetings each year). Since it is not US Chess rated the league does not have to worry about having TDs at the matches.
I’m not sure what the proposal would provide as a bonus to any existing league (especially those that do not US Chess rate the matches). I’m not sure how the proposal would help start a new league, though that would seem to be the most likely benefit.
Open call:
Barring free US Chess memberships and free rating of events, is there any officer of an existing league that would have a request for US Chess to make things easier for the league?
I’d like to hear what is desired before trying to decide what is offered.
Thanks for the information on the CICL, Jeff. Besides the PCL, NYC, DC/MD/VA region, and Columbus, what other rated leagues are out there? There is an unrated league in central PA, and I believe there is another one in the Cleveland area. I am sure that there are other such unrated leagues that are open to adult and junior players. Not all of them have websites or publicize themselves. I talked to one league officer a while back who said that they could not, and did not want to, rate their league because of the number of non-USCF players in their local area. He said there were no entry fees or prizes. At that time, they had over a dozen teams.
Note also that there are a bunch of non-rated scholastic leagues operating around the country, too. We have a non-rated high school league in the Pittsburgh area. I started playing chess formally in a high school league that had 36 teams in 6 divisions. That experience led to playing in rated tournaments, becoming a TD, a league officer, setting up clubs, and all sort of other roles in chess. Because of the PCL I am still playing, too.
Obviously any new idea won’t work, and we shouldn’t even consider trying it. That’s pretty much the response we get from many on these forums.
Let’s consider:
- Team play is one of the primary reasons scholastic chess is successful.
- As scholastic players approach adulthood, there is a general lack of team play within US Chess
- There are many successful adult leagues in the U.S. - and I know of additional leagues that were successful until the-mid 1970s - many older organizers expressed that large prize-fund tournaments damaged these leagues as the focus of chess shifted.
- I’ve had many scholastic players tell me that they don’t continue in chess because its primarily a non-social male-environment at the adult level.
Social chess is important. It is important to attract and retain players, and the social aspect seems important to this. Team play seems important to the social aspect, and we can see how that is important in some other circumstances like bowling. It is also important in another environment - running.
Given this, it seems important for US Chess to work on ways to make chess more social and make US Chess an integral part of that. As you know, I’ve long advocated that one of the best roles for US Chess is to provide a helpful infrastructure for volunteers, and this goes along with that. Yes, there are many things organizers can do without US Chess. But we all know volunteers tire and wear out. Allowing them to be better leveraged provides volunteers the ways to do more.
This is the type of thing that may even take awhile to catch on once built, but if it’s built and consistently promoted, it will catch on, its too useful not to.
Your idea is not a new idea. It was suggested before and turned down because of cost considerations and lack of personnel to maintain it properly. A poorly run division of the USCF would be no credit to the organization or of use to its organizers or members.
There is a lot of chess going on that does not require the USCF “infrastructure” to be built out to support it. The non-rated events that some organizations run have been the result of a deliberate decision not to be involved in any way with the USCF. Note that many rated events do not operate using USCF TLAs. TLAs are an additional cost to some organizers who advertise to their player base using local websites and clearinghouses as well as social media.
BTW, the Pittsburgh Chess League, which has been in existence since 1960, began its 60th season last Sunday as a rated league serving the Pittsburgh chess community.
There is the phrase “if you build it they will come”.
IT professionals have seen a LOT of brilliant ideas from sales/marketing that have each resulted in tens of thousands of dollars (sometimes hundreds of thousands) spent in development and marketing to get what ends up being just a few thousand dollars in gross sales (much less in net sales).
They were built and a (very) few people did come, but the result was far, far less than was initially expected, and a number of other opportunities were put aside due to the effort needed.
In the chess world people have also gotten jaded with players that say that if an organizer does something then the tournament turnout would increase dramatically, particularly when the organizer does implement some of these ideas and the turnout stayed stagnant or dropped. There is often limited or no payback on innovations where a non-organizer asks an organizer to spend money doing something.
Some of the more successful innovations are when organizers take the time and trouble to implement their own ideas. The growth of scholastic K-8 chess in Illinois began when an organizer in 1982 was willing to run a purely K-8/K-5 tournament instead of have a K-8 side event to the main tournament sections that were Open or High School, and the K-3 section came about when another organizer took a chance on running one as part of the 1985 scholastic state championship (those are innovations I know fairly well but there are some others that were much more ground-breaking, like the very first big scholastic tournaments that were before I joined the USCF). Those are ideas where the organizer knows exactly what is desired instead of trying to implement somebody else's rough idea.
During the 1970’s, the USCF got into the business of running some round robin events to promote the game and increase the number of titled players. It was costly and a bust as sponsors were few. There were a few who wanted the program to continue, that if only a little more money was spent, then results would improve. The USCF cut its losses and let others do that type of work. Was it too early for that effort? Should it be retried today? That is a question that requires more than cursory consideration or metathought. To do it requires lots of cash, good organization, and almost guaranteed results. Sponsors would have to take heavy risks without thought of much reward financially.
To have the USCF to become involved in league play at this late date would require a high degree of commitment and expenditure of resources. If the organization was just trying to piggyback on what others have done in order to make some money, then it would be taking on a risk with a relatively low chance of reward. Unless the USCF was offering an enormous benefit, like free rating fees and/or rating players who are not members, then organizers would ignore the part of the website dedicated to leagues. Since the USCF is unlikely to do that, the idea is DOA.
Several assertions were made that need to be addressed:
- “Team play is one of the reasons why scholastic chess is successful.” Much of rated scholastic chess is individually oriented. The team aspect is an add on designed to increase attendance, but is not the primary focus. Just look at USCF sponsored events to see how much focuses on individual awards. Many local organizers do not make team play their goal to grow. It is difficult in many schools to find enough players who are interested in forming a team.
- “As scholastic players approach adulthood, there is a general lack of team play within US Chess.” There may be some that agree with you, and some who will not agree pointing to the USAT, the Pan American Intercollegiate, and other events that the USCF is at least partially involved in. These are specific niche programs that are organized and run by bidders who are willing to take risks. That these are growing are due to individual rather than national organizational commitment.
- “There are many successful adult leagues in the US…” Yes, there are, and this is the result of the dedicated effort of individual organizers and players for the concept and has little to do with the USCF. I do not believe that any of the leagues were damaged by large prize fund tournaments. The focus on big prize funds has hurt the growth of small and regional tournaments. Players who do not have the wherewithal or time usually want to play in inexpensive leagues. Leagues existed before the “Fischer boom” and have weathered the “Fischer bust”. What they have to work on is drawing in scholastic players to compete in more than local scholastic events and/or nationals sponsored by the USCF.
- “…scholastic players tell me that they don’t continue in chess because it is primarily a non-social male-environment at the adult level.” Baloney. Scholastic players move on to college where their time commitments are consumed with study, involvement in sports, participation in college and non-college related activities, and socializing. They are growing up and looking at their futures. To the degree that they do chess in school, it is often casual play with other players on campus. I do not know what you are looking at, but there are an increasing number of girls and women playing chess. The “non-social male-environment” has been breached.
I have always emphasized the social value of chess. If the USCF were that interested it should focus on helping clubs. Tournaments are extreme versions of chess and draws out the most anti-social of behaviors of some USCF players who ignore norms of behavior. Club play by its nature is social. My preference has always been for parties, group analysis, and activities where more than two people were involved. The USCF national hierarchy has a different focus, on more formal events whereby it can increase its finances. Socializing begins with local people. You do not need a dedicated website to do that.
Your knowledge of scholastic chess is thus shown to be shallow. It has long been demonstrable, for many reasons, that team play is a big part of scholastics. Players are involved to be with their friends and represent their school. This is a (significant) part of the reason why participation drops from school to school. Break up the team aspect, and participation drops. Do it again when they graduate high school, and participation drops.If indiivdual play were the key factor, it would be more likely that we would see continued participation into adulthood. The loss of team play is just one more reason - along with changing interests, that players don’t continue.
Again, your lack of knowledge shows. It would be easy for many scholastic players to play in 12-15 - or more - team scholastic events in a school year. You are able to name a half dozen team tournaments nationally for adults. The number of adult team tournaments is a drop in the bucket compared to scholastic events.
Yet again your lack of knowledge shows. There were many leagues that were formed post-WWII that were strong through the 50’s and 60’s - so they certainly survived the growth of suburbia, but then they died in the 1970’s as chess clubs - and the leagues they supported - were largely impacted by societal changes and the change in the way people tended to play chess. Yes, there continue to be successful chess clubs, but many of the suburban clubs that were solid for 30 years died as large tournaments took over, and with it, the leagues died.
One cannot count on a single volunteer forever, nor should we given modern technology. If US Chess can make life easier for volunteers, why shouldn’t we? We can leverage volunteers to last longer and be more effective - but like many in US Chess you prefer the secret handshake.
It’s started to be breached, but the statistics are still far away. College math classes in 1975 were 90+% male. By the early 1980’s they were close to 50/50, but chess was unchanged. At the elementary level, it was close to 50/50, and for older tournaments, the male percentage was much higher. A strong percentage of female chess players is still something to aspire to.
I’ve ACTUALLY SPOKEN to a large number of players that went to college, and though anecdotal, many have indicated that even with all the new distractions, if there were organization, and a social aspect, they would have been more likely to continue on some level - just like many keep up other habits.
I agree with much of what you say above - but why do you insist on making the work harder? Didn’t computer programs make it easier to run tournaments? Didn’t programs and updated websites make it easier and faster to report them and pay for them? Didn’t websites make it easier to advertise tournaments and take entries? And if we can make it EASIER for local people to run events, to run leagues, why wouldn’t we do that? A website does not REPLACE local people, it simply makes it easier for them.
I have never insisted on “making the work harder.” That is one of your strawman arguments whenever anyone disagrees with your ideas. I have said that it is not necessary for the USCF to create a special portion of the website or spend resources on promoting league play. There are already websites and software that aid in doing pairings and managing leagues, clubs, and other day to day chess matters. Your insistence, or rather a demand, that the USCF become involved in this is a waste of time and money. The USCF has better things to do than participate in, interfere with, or exploit the efforts of local organizations and individuals that do chess work just fine without needing a national organization. The USCF does not have to be involved in everything.
My knowledge of league play and administration is extensive. To say it is “shallow” is a ludicrous assertion by an individual with a limited, parochial set of knowledge. There is no comprehensive history of chess leagues in America. For that you have to dig deeply. If you would do your research and objectively read what you find, you would not make so many uniformed statements. If there were so many leagues that were created in the post-WWII period and “died” there would be considerable traces of their demise. At the Pittsburgh CC there are numerous chess magazines and newsletters from around the country that go back many decades covering important chess news. Since I like chess history, I have delved into them searching for evidence of league play, results of tournaments, chess ratings, and a number of other subjects. As the president of a chess league, I felt it necessary to do the research so that I would be have useful knowledge to relate to other players and potential administrators of new leagues. Over the years I have related what I found to help people get started as well as help us streamline our organization.
What I have found concerning tournament and league play in the 1970’s and early 80’s was the impact of the “Fischer boom” and “Fischer bust”. The quick expansion in USCF chess could not be sustained or capitalized on once Fischer decided not to defend the WC title. The rapid outflow of players only interested in Fischer news had a ripple effect that many local and regional publications noted as they saw the decline in tournament sizes in their areas. The oil crisis, hyperinflation, and recession did not damage chess as much as Fischer’s departure. As far as the Pittsburgh Chess League, as one example, it continued to grow throughout the 1960’s and 19’70’s impacted negatively only on the need to find new sites. During the 1980’s as the “Fischer bust” was in full swing, we had our greatest surge. We did a lot to stabilize the chess base in our area. I know that as I was the league match director and later president. I kept in touch with a number of individuals and their leagues. They were doing well, even though some of those leagues were non-rated. If you do your research, you would find that while many city based leagues wax and wane, at their core they are strong and have adapted to the use of technology to run their organizations. So, what you know about league play in general and in particular is basically little to nothing. That is okay, one does not have to be a polyglot. Everyone has their particular niche interests.
Since I started to play organized chess in a non-rated scholastic league which had 36 teams in 1970, one that started over a decade before, I know quite a bit about scholastic chess. Over the years, I have taught gifted and average kids how to play the game. Many were introduced by me to rated chess in the USCF. I also set up regional team tournaments for them to play in on behalf of an educational consortium in my neck of the woods and a similar setup in the central part of the state. There are quite a few tournaments I have been a director for on the local and state level that have involved kids. I have also organized and directed a lot of open tournaments for adults and kids. But you need not trouble yourself to know about those. Stick with your parochial mindset. I have been a tournament director at a number of national scholastic tournaments. I have discussed issues with parents and coaches about the scholastic scene. Their perspectives are fascinating. I have even taken groups of kids to nationals and state scholastic championships. Hmm, that looks like evidence that I do know more than a little about scholastic chess despite your own “shallow” assertions. My chess moms would agree as I am a conduit of information about chess, chess websites, chess books, software, videos, scholastic tournaments, and the nationals. We work together on the logistics for chess trips.
I think it is cute when you say something is “demonstrable” and then you do not demonstrate anything of importance. As for the anecdotal evidence of people you have “ACTUALLY TALKED TO”, putting things in caps does not strengthen your words. Of course, you talk only to like minded individuals who agree with you. Sad. In the real world, like in education, you have to deal with facts and people with social or political agendas who are hellbent on imposing their values on others. It is no surprise that they often face resistance. I know that because I taught in the schools for almost 35 years and saw the consequences of ill advised policies and re-inventing of the wheel. Your agenda for the USCF, which you continuously harp on, is often costly and lacking in cohesion.
Your post above does exactly that. We could further encourage league play and make current league play for many organizers by providing a common system base for many, or we could have many each develop their own base. You are against the work-saving former, thus you are for making it harder.
As noted, its not a straw man. Further, unless you think technology will never advance, volunteers will never wear out, and that we have all the leagues we could possibly have, then there is still a need for such a website. Do you think there will be no further change and no further interest? Because that is the only way your assumption is true.
US Chess is at its best when it further leverages volunteers.
There is. I OWN such traces. I’ve read them. I’ve talked to people about it.
The fact that you haven’t bothered to find and examine the fossils doesn’t mean the fossils don’t exist.
Good for you. What about the leagues not in magazines because there were none? The ability to print things cost-effectively in the 1950’s was limited. Things like the Trans-Mississippi Tournament bulletin was typed on a few legal pages with a limited number of copies. The book on the 1957 Milwaukee tournament was typed and comb-bound. Many reports are area newspaper clippings in a club scrapbook. For someone who doesn’t believe that organization should be more involved - why are you only checking organized sources?
Of course. I know nothing about a league that involved 3 states, several major cities, and numerous minor cities. I would never bother to check the newspapers from then. I wouldn’t know which Pennsylvania players were top Chicago area players in the late 1950s. (In fact, we graduated from the same college.) But I would have no clue at all.
All you need to do is check membership numbers to learn what is demonstrable. Again, you demonstrate that your special handshake is more important that improving the situation.