PDA

View Full Version : Turkish Chess Federation



Denis_Jessop
04-02-2007, 03:51 PM
Last year there was a bit of talk on the BB about how the ACF should be like the TCF. The following interview may inspire some energetic 43 year old Australians with big dreams to get involved in the ACF.


2/1/2007

Interview of Turkish Chess Federation president Ali Yazici
By Casto Abundo

We last interviewed Turkish Chess Federation (TCF) president Ali Nihat Yazici in Tripoli during the World Championship. We took the opportunity at the Presidential Board meeting in Antalya to follow up on developments since then.

Casto Abundo: Congratulations on a successful Turkish Youth Championship. You have 1,386 players here at the tournament in Antalya. How much work does it entail?

Ali Yazici: I am only in the Honorary Committee and credit my team for their good work. You must delegate. I have good people and we have high standards. For example here in the Turkish Youth Championship, we do not allow mistakes in the results which we post immediately on our web site. We have daily printed bulletins of all games.

We have 90 workers here including 12 bulletin staff, 8 for the live broadcast, 6 for the website, 2 TV newscast team, 10 transport/airport, ten equipment staff, 40 arbiters plus Appeals Committee and Training Committee headed by GM Andrei Mikhailchisin and 5 masters.

We call this training committee the Infrastructure Development Group. They are responsible for our pool of top players. We have 114 in the pool from age groups under-8, 10, 12, 14, 16 and 18. They undergo continuous training. We give them scholarships, assign trainers and cover all their expenses for the finals scheduled in June during school holidays.

The winners of each age group have the choice to go to either the European or World Youth championships. Usually their first choice is the European Youth championship because it comes first. The runner-up represents Turkey in the second event.

We pay all their expenses and give pocket money. If they win gold, the government gives a bonus of around €5,000 depending on the age group.

The Turkish Chess Federation made it our obligation to send all title holders under-18 to either the European or World Youth championships.

CA: How to you fund all these expenses?

AY: Our annual budget in 2006 was 4 million USD. For 2007 we project a budget of 6 million USD. By 2010 we target 20 million for the federation.

Our strategy in the federation is to diversify our revenue sources. We raise funds from sponsorships, sales, tourism, certificates, entry fees and government subsidies.

We have 200,000 members and charge €3 per year. Our sponsor, the Turkiye Bankasi, gives them bank savings cards as their Turkish Chess Federation membership card. Although the bank card has no funds, it encourages members to bank there which is what the sponsor is interested in but I should underline that the Bank is looking at chess as a social responsibility project and a learning tool for the kids.

We authorize clubs to collect entry fees for tournaments if they wish. We give them receipt booklets and they must turn over all collections to the federation. We return 90% back to the clubs in the form of credits for chess paraphernalia.

We raise funds from sales of chess books and equipment. We sell mainly chess textbooks at €3 each. The printing of these textbooks was advanced by our sponsoring bank.

We raise sponsorships valued at €400,000 per year. If the percentage of sponsorship reaches 40%, this raises alarms for us because we do not want to be dependent on one revenue category alone. For example if the economy is bad, our government subsidy may decrease.

We have a government subsidy which in 2006 was 300,000 Euro. This year we are negotiating to double this to 600,000 Euro.

From tourism we raise commissions. We have an agency which finds us the least expensive hotels and from these hotels we negotiate commissions. We have a good agency, the same one in these last four years.

Our biggest source of income is from Trainers` Certificates.

CA: What about the expense side?

AY: We have 60 permanent employees in the federation, 40 staff and 20 players. They receive salaries and social security. The 20 players are part of our national pool and their job is to play and study chess.

Once players are out of the pool, we invite them to be a coach, thereby guaranteeing lifetime employment in the federation. A coach earns double what players do and shares in the bonuses for wins by their players.

Our staff costs come to €100,000 per month including social taxes.

We spend €40,000 to €50,000 for development outsourced to companies.

We work together with coaches like Grivas, Nikolic, Mikhailchisin, Sokolov, Portisch, either part or full time. We have ten national coaches paid full time by the federation.

CA: How did you succeed to make chess grow this fast in Turkey?

AY: The first step towards our success was to popularize chess, to create a chess climate which did not exist before I became president.

Turkey has a population of 80 million. We told our government when we started our Chess in Schools program that our aim was not to create chess players but to help students develop their intelligence.

All schools are obliged to have a chess program. It is an elective course for children like music and the arts. We do not compete with other sports in schools. Grades 1 to 3 have one hour per week and are not graded with exams. For the next five years they have two hours per week with exams and grades.

We contracted with the government that the TCF book will be used in the Chess in Schools program.

Ten chess sets, 20 books and one demonstration board are given to each class in schools. Every year we should open 1,000 new classes and the government decides in which school. The government pays chess teachers an additional €70 per month.

Only teachers certified by the TCF can give chess courses. Even GMs need a certificate from the TCF. The certificate costs €70 for the first level assistant teacher, more for higher levels. This means One million USD every year. There is a one week course and exam. We have 25,000 certified chess teachers. Every week we add a thousand new teachers. There are further exams to go to a higher level as teacher.

A big percentage of our expenses goes to training teachers.

The Chess in Schools program created a mass base. We have 1.8 million children mainly in the 1st to 3rd grades, 35 percent of whom are girls. Out of a total student population of 16 million, this means we reached ten percent in the first year. The program is now two years old since we began in 2nd June 2005.

Although we convinced the government that chess was only a tool and our aim was not to create chess players in schools, after school they continue playing and that is the next stage in our program – Chess in Clubs.

Five percent of 1.8 million means 90,000 children. Clubs are franchised by the federation with a curriculum for teachers. We charge €30 to €100 for eight hours per month, depending on the level of the teacher.

We finance our clubs, for example €10,000 each in the first division (17 clubs). There are now 1,000 registered chess clubs in Turkey. The biggest club has 2,000 members with continuous courses. It looks like a University with many students all the time.

In the second division we finance clubs with €2,000 each and we have 60 clubs in this division.

CA: Two years ago you spoke about your goals. Do you have new goals?

AY: We want to win the gold medal in the 2012 or 2014 Women`s Olympiad. We are being realistic since the men`s will be more difficult. The average age of our national A women`s team is 16 years and all are title holders.

We have a formula to select our Olympiad teams, with various criteria such as title, rating change, performance in any tournament of 7 to 9 rounds and result in the Turkish championship and preliminaries.

We also want to have ten to twelve GM’s by the year 2010.

Every year we finish our budget, even overspend. We buy 5,000 electronic clocks and 100,000 chess sets every year.

The TCF owns two condominiums, one in Istanbul with 150 sq. meters and in Ankara with 1,000 sq. meters. We have two vans and two autos. Next I want to buy a plane.

CA: A plane, are you serious?

AY: That is the same reaction of my board. But one of them told the others `Okay it is a wild idea, but his ideas have worked so far, so let us listen to him.`

CA: And so should all developing federations listen to this energetic young man of 43 with big accomplishments and ever bigger dreams.

DJ

antichrist
04-02-2007, 06:02 PM
Ali Yazici: I am only in the Honorary Committee and credit my team for their good work. You must delegate. I have good people and we have high standards. For example here in the Turkish Youth Championship, we do not allow mistakes in the results which we post immediately on our web site. We have daily printed bulletins of all games.


Now there is something Dennis that the ACF could learn. Couldn't the ACF send a letter to NSWCA requesting them to follow their code of ethics re St GEorge comp?

Denis_Jessop
04-02-2007, 10:06 PM
Ali Yazici: I am only in the Honorary Committee and credit my team for their good work. You must delegate. I have good people and we have high standards. For example here in the Turkish Youth Championship, we do not allow mistakes in the results which we post immediately on our web site. We have daily printed bulletins of all games.


Now there is something Dennis that the ACF could learn. Couldn't the ACF send a letter to NSWCA requesting them to follow their code of ethics re St GEorge comp?


Oh dear, AC, you seem to have developed an unhealthy obsession with this topic which has next to nothing to do with this thread.

DJ

antichrist
04-02-2007, 10:28 PM
Oh dear, AC, you seem to have developed an unhealthy obsession with this topic which has next to nothing to do with this thread.

DJ

You are correct DJ, I just realised that I am not 43 years old - can remember when but I think. Next to nothing is close enough for me, that is also about how close NSWCA's action was to their code of ethics and also about how much ACF cared about the shortcomings of that action and about how chance I have of succeeding.

Are you referring to Howard, is he 43?

Or is Bill 43?

Spiny Norman
05-02-2007, 06:31 AM
I'm 43 ... but you're quite safe, no need to panic everyone ... I turn 44 in May ...

Seriously though, that is an awesome post #1 above. Wow!

Denis_Jessop
06-02-2007, 08:16 PM
I see that there is a bit of interest about 43 year olds as a result of this thread.

The point of my introductory comment is that I believe Australian chess, especially the ACF, needs organisers of the age group roughly 35 to 45 but I don't know of many (and none of 43 exactly). The same also goes for chess club members in Canberra and possibly other places. Players from the age range 25 - 50 are scarce yet normally they were the backbone of the clubs and that is the range from which organisers should come with a few old guys like me added just for effect.

The magic of 43 is just that Ali Nihat Yazici is 43. I'd better add that I'd never expect anyone here to achieve what he has because the circumstances in Turkey are so different. I think massive government support is one very strong reason for the TCF's success. A population of 80 million and no States also helps.

DJ

ER
08-02-2007, 02:18 PM
One has to congratulate the Turkish chess officials, government and people! I know from first hand experience, that they have done everything possible to promote Chess as a game and culture and they will soon enjoy the results of their efforts!
A beautiful country, hospitable people, and great Chess facilities! Good on you Turkey. Let other countries follow your example too!
Cheers and good luck!

Garvinator
08-02-2007, 02:21 PM
A population of 80 million and no States also helps. I am surprised no one has commented on this comment by DJ ;)

MichaelBaron
09-02-2007, 12:13 AM
I think it would be good to see our officials learning from the Turkish experience. 20 years ago, Turkish number 1 was rated around 2400. others were all under 2300. There was no government funding at all, and now look at the turnaround. What is it that triggered such a development? Was it professionallism of Turkish chess administrators or was it some other factor?
Government funding does not fall from the sky. I imagine it had to be lobbied for.

ER
09-02-2007, 01:54 AM
What is it that triggered such a development? Was it professionallism of Turkish chess administrators or was it some other factor?
Government funding does not fall from the sky. I imagine it had to be lobbied for.

Michael
Chess officials knew that Kemal Attaturk had a passion for Chess, and they conveyed it to Government circles in a nice lobbying network. It has almost become a national sport in Turkey now after football and basketball!
Cheers and good luck!

Basil
09-02-2007, 02:33 AM
I think it would be good to see our officials learning from the Turkish experience.
I think it would be even better if you stopped musing out loud from the sidelines and got off your soft butt and showed us how to do it.


20 years ago, Turkish number 1 was rated around 2400. others were all under 2300. There was no government funding at all, and now look at the turnaround.
We're impressed by that. But your writing down, 8 posts after Denis has written it down counts for nothing except using up space.


What is it that triggered such a development? Was it professionallism of Turkish chess administrators or was it some other factor?
I dunno. I'm asking you. The plan is while you're answering, your mouth will occupied and there'll be no opportunity to belly-ache about someone else not doing it (again).


Government funding does not fall from the sky. I imagine it had to be lobbied for.
Ya think? Are you aware if anyone has ever spoken to the Australian Government about such matters. I don't know who is luckier that we are 2,000 klms apart. You or me.

MichaelBaron
09-02-2007, 10:41 AM
I think it would be even better if you stopped musing out loud from the sidelines and got off your soft butt and showed us how to do it.


We're impressed by that. But your writing down, 8 posts after Denis has written it down counts for nothing except using up space.


I dunno. I'm asking you. The plan is while you're answering, your mouth will occupied and there'll be no opportunity to belly-ache about someone else not doing it (again).


Ya think? Are you aware if anyone has ever spoken to the Australian Government about such matters. I don't know who is luckier that we are 2,000 klms apart. You or me.

Howard, you are one of those ppl on this board that i have no intention to debate with (for obvious reasons e.g. your postings are not factual but simply collections of words). So have fun with your HCDS or whatever you call them but do not expect me to engage into "intellectual arguments" with ppl like you!

I can only imagine how much damage was done to Queensland chess while you were in office!

This "go and do it yourself" attitude is pathetic! I am not a chess administrator. If you are an administrator, you should not be jogging around, telling ppl to take up administration and do jobs that administrators should do!

I am currently involved in development of a new postgraduate course at my workplace and I have emailed the course outline to fellow IT lecturers so they can provide me with some feedback and suggest possible improvements (to me this is a very effective practice).

So now if any of them turn out to be critical I know what I should do! Why bother incorporating their feedback into my work? Instead i well tell them: "Hey, if you are so smart - Why don't you do it yoursef!"

Btw, (it is probably off the topic but anyway). What companies/government organisations is ACF targeting at the moment to obtain sponsorship?

P.S. When people shrug off constructive criticism, it is a sign of a) insecurity (at either personal or professional level) b) admission of the fact that a lot of things that should be done are not being done.

P.S.2 This posting is not a response to Howard as I have no time to read all the "produce of his verbal diarrhoea" that will surely come in response from his end :lol: .
P.S 3 I am not getting involved in chess administration! Thus, there is no point in responding to my questions/suggestings in "Why don't you do it yourself" style.

Denis_Jessop
09-02-2007, 03:09 PM
I think it would be good to see our officials learning from the Turkish experience. 20 years ago, Turkish number 1 was rated around 2400. others were all under 2300. There was no government funding at all, and now look at the turnaround. What is it that triggered such a development? Was it professionallism of Turkish chess administrators or was it some other factor?
Government funding does not fall from the sky. I imagine it had to be lobbied for.


Michael
My understanding is that the Turkish Chess Federation was actually formed by the Turkish Government in the 1990s along with several other sporting bodies, I think. It was given autonomy in about 2001 but there is still great involvement by the Turkish government to the extent of $300,000 pa plus making chess compulsory in primary schools as outlined in the interview. There is no way known that the Australian Government and State governments would give that kind of sponsorship. Even allowing for the fact that our population is, say, 25% of Turkey's we wouldn't even expect to get anything like $75000 from government. it's not as if it hasn't been tried before. From the description of the TCF in the interview and from the opening of their new chess centre last year, I would think that the TCF must have the biggest chess organisation of any country in the world except, possibly, Russia. How they managed it in such a short time I don't know but clearly they have a very efficient organisation, especially the President, hence the query in my original post. But there is obviously a lot more to it than that. Things just don't happen that way without very substantial backing from government and major private interests.

DJ

Basil
09-02-2007, 03:50 PM
your postings are not factual but simply collections of words
Wrong. The fact I was stating is that it is you who was regurgitating Denis' post - yet offered nothing yourself, but offered rhetorical questions which were thinly disguised knocks, passed off as constructive criticism.


So have fun with your HCDS or whatever you call them
I will. But don't try and fudge my use of them elsewhere when I am pointing out that it is you who is offering nothing here.


I can only imagine how much damage was done to Queensland chess while you were in office!
Irrelevant to the argument. Rich coming from someone who has introduced the idea of not wanting to engage in "intellectual debate".


This "go and do it yourself" attitude is pathetic!
It is pathetic if it is a mantra of defence. I use it for you because it is you that doesn't have any constructive criticism. When you start a post as you did "I wish our administrators would learn", you immediately signal yourself NOT as someone with constructive criticism, but as a yapping sideline critic. There is a BIG difference.


If you are an administrator, you should not be jogging around, telling ppl to take up administration and do jobs that administrators should do!
I'm not an administrator. When I was, I didn't do as you suggested. Now that I'm not an administrator, I defend people who receive such banal statements as "I't be good if our administrators would learn ..."


So now if any of them turn out to be critical I know what I should do! Why bother incorporating their feedback into my work?
Don't confuse 'genuine feedback' with carping. You carp. You whine. You belly-ache. You muse out loud. You contribute SFA.


When people shrug off constructive criticism....
Don't confuse 'genuine feedback' with carping. You carp. You whine. You belly-ache. You muse out loud. You contribute SFA.


I am not getting involved in chess administration!
That's fine. It just means that you have laid out your stall as "I am purely an observer and a recipient of the work that the adminstrators do", and therefore the onus is on you to be first grateful, and second set your armchair critic bar to 'humble and fair' and not chuck off statements like "I't be good if someone else can learn ...'

And this is the point: By all means make a suggestion. By all means give constructive feedback. But DON'T just sit back and wonder out loud about the lack of work, brains, clues administrators have.


This posting is not a response to Howard
Don't be stupid. You've introduced discussion about my presidency, HCDs and other things. You're a dribbling fool.

Passing off either of your posts as constructive criticism is balls. You can be, and are in this instance, a negative whining, self-serving prat.

Brian_Jones
09-02-2007, 04:00 PM
You're a negative whining self-serving prat.

Sitting on the fence again are we Howard!?:eek:

Basil
09-02-2007, 04:02 PM
Sitting on the fence again are we Howard!?:eek:

*ahem* 5 HCDs ;)

MichaelBaron
09-02-2007, 05:54 PM
Wrong. The fact I was stating is that it is you who was regurgitating Denis' post - yet offered nothing yourself, but offered rhetorical questions which were thinly disguised knocks, passed off as constructive criticism.


I will. But don't try and fudge my use of them elsewhere when I am pointing out that it is you who is offering nothing here.


Irrelevant to the argument. Rich coming from someone who has introduced the idea of not wanting to engage in "intellectual debate".


It is pathetic if it is a mantra of defence. I use it for you because it is you that doesn't have any constructive criticism. When you start a post as you did "I wish our administrators would learn", you immediately signal yourself NOT as someone with constructive criticism, but as a yapping sideline critic. There is a BIG difference.


I'm not an administrator. When I was, I didn't do as you suggested. Now that I'm not an administrator, I defend people who receive such banal statements as "I't be good if our administrators would learn ..."


Don't confuse 'genuine feedback' with carping. You carp. You whine. You belly-ache. You muse out loud. You contribute SFA.


Don't confuse 'genuine feedback' with carping. You carp. You whine. You belly-ache. You muse out loud. You contribute SFA.


That's fine. It just means that you have laid out your stall as "I am purely an observer and a recipient of the work that the adminstrators do", and therefore the onus is on you to be first grateful, and second set your armchair critic bar to 'humble and fair' and not chuck off statements like "I't be good if someone else can learn ...'

And this is the point: By all means make a suggestion. By all means give constructive feedback. But DON'T just sit back and wonder out loud about the lack of work, brains, clues administrators have.


Don't be stupid. You've introduced discussion about my presidency, HCDs and other things. You're a dribbling fool.

Passing off either of your posts as constructive criticism is balls. You can be, and are in this instance, a negative whining, self-serving prat.

Just as I predicted - Howard's verbal diarrhoea goes on!

Basil
09-02-2007, 06:41 PM
It's a bit like catching a naughty boy 'well at it' (with quotes) only to receive the rasberry back! Do you actually wish to refute anything specifically? Or does your entire defence rest on HCDs and bowel movements? At present, your defence is straight out of the [Alex] obfuscation manual. Its results to date have been less than impressive. He's zero from 2 and you're on track for the same result.

At least you got it right when you said you didn't wish to engage in intelligent debate.

The topic is your musing out loud. Your negativity. Your belly-aching. And specifically in this thread, your regurgitating of Denis' post and musing that you wish administrators would learn from it. On a scale of 1-10 for constructive criticism, that rates about a -1.

I accept your right to do SFA. What's under the microscope is your whining at others' attempts to do something and passing that off as constructive criticism.

Basil
12-02-2007, 01:52 AM
One could write a paper analysing this most worthwhile interview excerpt and its application to Australian chess. I've taken the trouble to try and knock the loose quotes into some semblance of an assessment primarily for the purpose of my understanding the logistics of what the Turks are up to. In case there's any doubt, I applaud their efforts unreservedly. Transporting their experience to Australia is not quite as easy - although there is much to be learned - just as much by the chess community as the administrators!!!

Just a few observations:
1. Australia is 10 times the size of Turkey. It has 1/4 of the population.

2. "We do not allow mistakes in our results."
Certainly a big call and to be commended. But like any absolute statement, it will succumb. Even the bloody Roman empire copped it. So while I applaud the bar being set so high (and Australia can improve, no doubt) it would be folly to look at the Turkish situation in awe and default to Aussie bashing. Yes it begs the question as to why Australia doesn't have that many worker bees - I touch on that later.

3. Federation 2006 Budget : AUD $ 5.1 million
INCOME
AUD $ 2 million Trainers' Certificates* est. (Their "biggest source of income is from the Trainers' Certificates")
AUD $ 1 million membership fees - 200,000 members @ 3 euros each
AUD $ 900,000 various
AUD $ 700,000 value of sponsorships (I assume includes book printing see below)
AUD $ 500,000 government subsidy (10%)

EXPENSE
AUD $ 1.2 million wages

Selected Analysis
- The Turks have made a business out of teaching chess (certification income, book sales etc.). Any why not? But who couldn't envisage some let's say 'resistance' if the ACF announced that 2/5 of its income next year would be derived from accreditation of trainers and that 1/5 of its expenditure would be spent on paying staff!
- This is very much a user pays system.
- The govt subsidy and sponsorships, while valuable and of substance, are not silver bullets and should not dazzle the easily dazzled! :)
- I haven't checked whether a P&L for the Federation is available online. I would be interested in seeing it.

4. Making chess 'cool'. Schools. Marketing.
This is far more of a social issue than one of asking administrators to do better. The work of Graeme Gardiner and others illustrates that the effort is being made in some quarters, but the social cringe factor in Australia must be acknowledged and accepted as a starting point. That's not to say the culture can't be changed, but change can't be demanded; it must evolve.

I can think of no better example than football (soccer). When I arrived in Australia in 1981, the country was awash with Paul Hogan, Winfield Blue and Rugby League. Until 24 hours earlier I had spent my life immersed in a life that embraced all codes of football. I had played 1st XV rugby and 2nd XI 'soccer' (and captained the hockey team :)) and the two sat reasonably comfortably beside each other. But 24 hours makes a BIG difference! It's basically taken 20 years of social (r)evolution (more than one World Cup) and BIG business to change the landscape over here. Demanding (of part-time administrators) a social change in making chess cool is ill-conceived rhetoric.

Into more positive territory on the marketing side, more than a few people in Queensland (and I'm sure elsewhere) regularly take every opportunity to feed the press. We asked ourselves in the Arianne thread whether the bust up and the DWTS would help lift the profile of Australian chess. I said at the time we would need DWTS, a Moulthun, a bust-up (beat-up!), a Smurf, a Rogers story on regular rotation.

Some notable and regular achievements from our better players on the world stage would do no end of good. These performances may happen naturally or may have to be nurtured (hatched). If naturally, I'm sure we would seize the opportunity to promote on the back of it. To nurture/ hatch takes cash, but as we have seen, not necessarily from the Government (only 10% of the Turkish budget) - all the while remembering the socio climate in which we operate - which is not dissimilar to England and USA. Basically it's a case of maintaining and building the pressure against a resistant audience.

Perhaps a few of our better players could offer a weekend afternoon FOR FREE :eek: to play shopping centre simuls - say those that don't have time for club management but could find oh 6 hours a year! (stop it Howard, you're hurting me).

Observers from an Eastern European background, I feel should be prepared to accept this social difference. It's impossible to deny the existence of the political will and the ensuing financial juggernaut that created the chess blocs and schools of which they perhaps were a beneficiary, both a long time before they were born and at the expense of other municipal funding opportunities. With that came the social psyche of acceptance to which I have seen reference on this BB. That social psyche of acceptance just doesn't exist in England, France the USA and so forth. The conclusion here is that the dynamic is not a northern hemisphere one, but an Eastern bloc one that has been culturally endemic (and paid for handsomely) for over half a century.


"The first step towards our success was to popularize chess, to create a chess climate which did not exist before I became president. We told our government when we started our Chess in Schools program that our aim was not to create chess players but to help students develop their intelligence."

It would be great to know more about this. Such questions as the political infrastructure (federal v state delineation (both chess admin and government) in Turkey etc.), and the level of chess activity in schools prior to this initiative. All credit to him and the team. But it takes a willing government. For those that aren't aware, Graeme Gardiner and others have a history of lobbying both state and federal government.

5. Raising funds from players entry fees
I am truly loathe to comment here. I will suffice to say that there is a general reluctance for players to part with $$$. I appreciate there are shades of grey in this statement and some would say they wouldn't mind paying more for quality representation, but there are equally many people if not more, that couldn't give a fig about the development of the game in this country and are interested solely in ratings, their costs, and of course, their budget. Of course, these people would vote with their entries (or otherwise) at tournaments.

Elsewhere, there mere talk of 'raising funds' from chess players, whatever the cause sends people into apoplexy, while others insist the vast bulk of entry fees should be funneled back in prizes. Clearly the concepts of raising funds from and giving the money back to the players are at odds with each other.

6. Give 90% of entry fees back to the clubs (in the form of credits) for chess paraphernalia
This is a unclear to me. If entry fees are returned via credits to the clubs for clocks and books where do the prizes come from?

One of my policies in Qld was to reintroduce the annual membership from a bank breaking zero to a miserly $10 pa. One notable v. short term and arrogant VP lobbied unsuccessfully to halve it. Apart from being a gratuitous shot at the goose, my point is that I would like to see the end of activist minimalist campaigns - soon!

Matt Sweeney, if you're reading I'd like to say that although I didn't spend much time talking with you about your philosophies (and I would welcome a correction) it seemed to me that your policies of returning everything to the chess player is a good example of doomed minimalist introspection that leaves little room for growth of the game in this country. It's not how they do it in Turkey; and those of us with management and marketing experience here know its not how to do it in Australia.

7. Raising funds with sales of chess books
A protectionist difference - the ramifications of which are so obvious that bears it no need for me to comment. The cost of printing the chess books was paid for by the sponsoring bank! The right to sell the books and the profits from same remain with the Federation.

8. Clubs are franchised by the federation
Our respective state bodies are structured differently to each other. We (on the BB) have different ideas as to structure. To some the idea of ANY infrastructure (read hierarchy) sends us into further apoplexy. What's clear from the Turkish model is that a power base exists, an HQ. Until we can work out whether we want an HQ, whether we'll respect it, whether we'll accept that OF COURSE we'll have philosophical differences with it - we are no hope of being the beneficiary of it. And certainly where large pecuniary interests are involved.

Scant summary IMO:
The government funds a mere 10% of the budget.
The two greatest sources of income (more than half) are retrieved from coaches and players.
The high standards claimed and achieved are done on the back of paid administrators and 'helpers' who receive pocket money.
Having Australian state bodies with different auspices will be a stumbling block to future stream lining.
The psyche which resists hierarchy for whatever motivation, necessarily resists a basic building block of solid administration.

There is much much more to write, even from the direct quotes here including the career chess employment that is fostered, let alone broader discussion of the social climate. I hope to have clarified some of the mystery for some and provided food for discussion for others, including those who may wish to disagree with any conclusions I have drawn.

MichaelBaron
12-02-2007, 09:44 AM
Scant summary IMO:
The government funds a mere 10% of the budget.
The two greatest sources of income (more than half) are retrieved from coaches and players.
The high standards claimed and achieved are done on the back of paid administrators and 'helpers' who receive pocket money.
Having Australian state bodies with different auspices will be a stumbling block to future stream lining.
The psyche which resists hierarchy for whatever motivation, necessarily resists a basic building block of solid administration.

There is much much more to write, even from the direct quotes here including the career chess employment that is fostered, let alone broader discussion of the social climate. I hope to have clarified some of the mystery for some and provided food for discussion for others, including those who may wish to disagree with any conclusions I have drawn.

Suprisingly (in fact very surprisingly) deep and well-presented analysis by Howard :clap: .

Some of the things i learn from his report.

1) only 10% of the funding is from government!
2) chess can be profitable to the extent of millions of $$$ being made
3) there are a lot of opportunities to take up chess professionally (as a player, administrator, coach etc.) since Chess has become a big industry.

Denis_Jessop
12-02-2007, 11:06 AM
This business of chess administration and support for chess and so on would be an interesting subject for some research. I am reading Sarah Hurst's "Curse of Kirsan" (recently bought at Academic Remainders, Canberra for $14.95 v rrp $39.95). Contrary to the title, it contains many articles she wrote as a chess journalist recounting interviews with various chess personalities, including some in Hungary. Now Hungary cannot be said to be a weak chess nation but it is interesting to read that, in 1997, when the article was written and apparently still in 2002 when the book was published, the Hungarian Chess Federation had only one paid employee - the general secretary, Zoltan Ambrus - and received no government support as the Hungarian Government did not recognise chess as a sport. The federation kept going through gifts from sponsors, membership fees and other income. The HCF can't afford to host super tournaments nor can it afford the appearance fees of its own GMs. For example, Judit Polgar charges $10,000 (presumably $US and that was 10 years ago). So far a bit like Australia. The difference is that the Hungarian population is 10 million but the number of players officially registered through clubs is 10,000 with 1,000 FIDE-rated players (1997). Hungarians are fanatically keen chess players, I suspect much more so than Turks, so the number of "members" 10,000/10 million v 200,000/80 million gives food for thought. Especially, I wonder how on earth the Turks managed to get such high numbers. There could be some doubt about the accuracy of the Turkish figure as it was quoted as 150,000 last year when their Chess Centre opened and 200,000 this year- a one-third increase in less then 12 months is more than impressive.

DJ

Sunshine
12-02-2007, 01:49 PM
3. Federation 2006 Budget : AUD $ 5.1 million
INCOME
AUD $ 2 million Trainers' Certificates* est. (Their "biggest source of income is from the Trainers' Certificates")


How does this work ? It might be government funding by default if :

a) The government mandates a school chess program is something the schools should have. This delivers a ready income stream from chess teaching opportunities.
b) The goverment mandates that all trainers deliverying the service must have a Trainers Certificate from the TCA. This delivers a share of the chess training income stream to the TCA.

If this was the case then the lobbying to the government is all about regulation and quality and putting the TCA up as the most appropriate to monitor and regulate the school trainers and program.

This is probably easier than obtaining direct funding from the government.

Oepty
12-02-2007, 01:59 PM
This business of chess administration and support for chess and so on would be an interesting subject for some research. I am reading Sarah Hurst's "Curse of Kirsan" (recently bought at Academic Remainders, Canberra for $14.95 v rrp $39.95). Contrary to the title, it contains many articles she wrote as a chess journalist recounting interviews with various chess personalities, including some in Hungary. Now Hungary cannot be said to be a weak chess nation but it is interesting to read that, in 1997, when the article was written and apparently still in 2002 when the book was published, the Hungarian Chess Federation had only one paid employee - the general secretary, Zoltan Ambrus - and received no government support as the Hungarian Government did not recognise chess as a sport. The federation kept going through gifts from sponsors, membership fees and other income. The HCF can't afford to host super tournaments nor can it afford the appearance fees of its own GMs. For example, Judit Polgar charges $10,000 (presumably $US and that was 10 years ago). So far a bit like Australia. The difference is that the Hungarian population is 10 million but the number of players officially registered through clubs is 10,000 with 1,000 FIDE-rated players (1997). Hungarians are fanatically keen chess players, I suspect much more so than Turks, so the number of "members" 10,000/10 million v 200,000/80 million gives food for thought. Especially, I wonder how on earth the Turks managed to get such high numbers. There could be some doubt about the accuracy of the Turkish figure as it was quoted as 150,000 last year when their Chess Centre opened and 200,000 this year- a one-third increase in less then 12 months is more than impressive.

DJ

Denis. I think there are indications the Turkish Chess Federation counts all of the players they teach through their chess in schools programs as members. This would boost the numbers considerably and explain the huge increase.
Scott

Basil
12-02-2007, 02:14 PM
Sunshine, I'd say that is exactly what happened, although one can only speculate from such a short piece.

Basil
12-02-2007, 02:18 PM
Suprisingly (in fact very surprisingly)
This sort of condescending* rubbish leaves you open to a number of comments. And I'd hate to disappoint.


deep and well-presented analysis by Howard
What is 'deep' for you was only my scant summary.


Some of the things i learn from his report
You should have learned it from the original. I just regurgitated it for you :owned:


Some of the things i learn from his report
It wasn't entirely comprehensive. Social Ineptitude 101 is next semester.

* I use condescending although clearly the word is inaccurate because as I pointed out to fg7, the starting positions are wrong and therefore defy the laws of physics.

Basil
12-02-2007, 04:20 PM
2) chess can be profitable to the extent of millions of $$$ being made

Seriously now. You didn't learn this from the report. I did not list expenses except for wages. And that was only to illustrate that hefty wages get paid.

Without the P&L for the Federation we only know their budget; we don't know how they performed against it.

MichaelBaron
12-02-2007, 05:13 PM
Seriously now. You didn't learn this from the report. I did not list expenses except for wages. And that was only to illustrate that hefty wages get paid.

Without the P&L for the Federation we only know their budget; we don't know how they performed against it.

Howard, as i've mentioned previously, i got no time for debating with you (nor i see any point in it). I am just wondering where you find time to talk so much rubbish.

cheers and good luck

Basil
12-02-2007, 05:35 PM
It's shouldn't be difficult for a man of your training, Michael.

You said you learnt from the report (or my analysis of it) that there's millions to be made in chess. Your conclusion is fantasy. It's not possible to deduce any such thing. My post 26 was stating that.

We don't know if the Federation operated within it's budget. We know the budget was set at AUD 5.1 Million. But as I said in my analysis, we need to see their P&L to determine their success at operating within it.
DEFICIT?
It's possible (hypothetically) the Federation operated at a hefty deficit for the financial year.
SURPLUS?
Further, what's also unclear is where any surplus might reside; equally defeating your conclusion that there's millions to be made. The surplus may reside with the state and necessarily be funneled back to the government as a rider to the funding.
BREAK EVEN?
Finally, in the case of a break even against budget, it is not stated who is the recipient of the expenditure. In all three possible outcomes, there isn't sufficient data to support your claim.

So now back to my post: I corrected your statement in which you said "I have learned that there's millions to be made at chess". As I pointed out, you can't learn any such thing from this piece. In response to my correcting your fallacious conclusion, you're going on about debating and resorting to insults.

The more you write here, the further out of your depth you appear. Give it up.

arosar
12-02-2007, 06:14 PM
Who said you can make millions out of chess? That's the most ridiculous thing I read all day!!

AR

MichaelBaron
12-02-2007, 06:23 PM
It's shouldn't be difficult for a man of your training, Michael.

The more you write here, the further out of your depth you appear. Give it up.

I simply have better things to do in life rather then debate with you. There are certain ppl on the BB i am happy to debate with! You are not one of them! So I have given up already :)

Basil
12-02-2007, 06:38 PM
So I have given up already
You never even got out of the blocks.

Good day to you. You're an obfuscating dribbler up there with the best of them, that has contributed nothing except:

:drool: musing uselessly out loud and passing that off as constructive criticism
:drool: drawing wrong conclusions
:drool: making juvenile and transparent attempts to escape your blunderings
:drool: and generally shooting yourself in the foot!

A superb all 'round performance of which The Tool would have been most proud :clap: :clap: :clap:

Basil
12-02-2007, 07:41 PM
BTW if anyone thinks my dealing with Michael has been heavy-handed, I don't like to allow too much oxygen to admin knocking before serious thought has gone into the proposition. I appreciate that it doesn't reflect too well on me, but taking out the trash is a messy job.

Some people carry on as if observing Australian chess administration is a bloody duck-shoot.

Denis_Jessop
12-02-2007, 07:54 PM
Denis. I think there are indications the Turkish Chess Federation counts all of the players they teach through their chess in schools programs as members. This would boost the numbers considerably and explain the huge increase.
Scott

Thanks, Scott. Your explanation makes sense of the figures which otherwise seem pretty incredible. If Australia were to do the same, we would have a fairly respectable figure, well into the thousands, I imagine.

Denis

Basil
12-02-2007, 08:44 PM
One job that I didn't manage to get around to in Queensland (which I identified and promised to do) was visit a number of disenfranchised clubs and groups. Specifically 'Northside' and an informal collection in the outer western suburbs.

In the 90s these players had opted out of the ratings (CAQ membership) system for various reasons (incl dissatifaction with the CAQ (real or imagined), lack of stated need for tournament chess, lack of 'selling' the Association to them).

While this concept may not migrate directly to the discussion between Scott and Denis, I do wonder if The Turks have managed to encourage complete assimilation! so that break-away groups (however noble the rationale) don't exist.

Is this experience shared in other states?

MichaelBaron
12-02-2007, 09:13 PM
BTW if anyone thinks my dealing with Michael has been heavy-handed, I don't like to allow too much oxygen to admin knocking before serious thought has gone into the proposition. I appreciate that it doesn't reflect too well on me, but taking out the trash is a messy job.

Some people carry on as if observing Australian chess administration is a bloody duck-shoot from the realtive safety of the sidelines.

Sigh....Howard let me tell you again, GET A LIFE!!!!

If my life would be this BB, i would respond...but let me tell you again I GOT BETTER THINGS TO DO THAN DEAL WITH YOUR COMPLEXES. If you view a BB debate as a "warfare" it is your problem..and the problem of your doctor.

As for "admin-threashing" the very point in discussing the way things are done in Turkey is to pick up the good points for us to employ!

P.S. If you wait for 35 years or so...I will be looking forward to your lengthy postings and kill my time replying to your lovely junky talk. In the mean time, I have to entertain myself by thinking that you were actually a chess administrator yourself. This very thought makes me smile :)

bergil
12-02-2007, 09:25 PM
As for "admin-threashing" the very point in discussing the way things are done in Turkey is to pick up the good points for us to employ!
Who's the us? :hand:

Basil
12-02-2007, 09:26 PM
There are also Affiliate members for the CAQ (numbering 385 in 2006) on top of the 500 normal members. It is the normal (financial) members that are counted.

Collectively the states could 'find' many members and we should be sure to include them when presenting our 'case' although reliance on what is still a relatively small number wouldn't do a great deal - it is the broader audience that we are agreed we need to source.

Desmond
13-02-2007, 08:08 AM
There are also Affiliate members for the CAQ (numbering 385 in 2006) on top of the 500 normal members. It is the normal (financial) members that are counted.

Collectively the states could 'find' many members and we should be sure to include them when presenting our 'case' although reliance on what is still a relatively small number wouldn't do a great deal - it is the broader audience that we are agreed we need to source.Coincedently I updated the CAQ website with the 2006 membership stats last night if anyone is interested.

http://www.caq.org.au/htm/CAQMSHIP2006.xls

antichrist
27-11-2010, 06:58 AM
I think it would be even better if you stopped musing out loud from the sidelines and got off your soft butt and showed us how to do it.


We're impressed by that. But your writing down, 8 posts after Denis has written it down counts for nothing except using up space.


I dunno. I'm asking you. The plan is while you're answering, your mouth will occupied and there'll be no opportunity to belly-ache about someone else not doing it (again).


Ya think? Are you aware if anyone has ever spoken to the Australian Government about such matters. I don't know who is luckier that we are 2,000 klms apart. You or me.

Gunnar, what in the world had you been eating that morning?

Anyway, has there been any follow-up on these ideas?