PDA

View Full Version : Is it true that...



The_Wise_Man
11-01-2006, 07:01 PM
fees for rapid games are being abolished?

Heared it through the grape vine and want to comfirm?

Wise

Ian Rout
12-01-2006, 09:45 AM
fees for rapid games are being abolished?

Heared it through the grape vine and want to comfirm?

Wise
This is the case, according to the ACF bulletin. (Edit: Not with immediate effect though)

I think the strategy is correct. Ratings should be charged as a flat per-person fee rather than per game to encourage, not penalise, greater use and to recognise that above a certain number of games the extra fee is not matched by any greater service - in fact the opposite as the very active player is providing the service to the system in being the benchmark for adjusting other players' ratings.

BUT having said that

a) The same should apply to the normal rating system. In fact that is more important. Running a free rapid rating service while charging for rating normal games is not a sensible prioritisation.

b) It is not reported in what area revenue is to be increased or expenditure decreased to make up the shortfall. Any info on that?

Spiny Norman
12-01-2006, 10:23 AM
The proposal was narrowly passed at the conference (9-7 with 4 abstentions) as a recommendation to the Council for consideration. It provoked an extended discussion, with some of the main questions/concerns debated being:

- revenue impact on the ACF
- workload impact on the ratings officer(s)
- whether "free for juniors only" or "free for all rapid players"

I assume , since these concerns would have been documented and available to the Council, that Council felt that these issues (and possible others that conference delegates may not have considered) were not insurmountable, as they subsequently approved and seem willing to give this a try.

It will be interesting to see whether it has the desired outcome: increased numbers of people using the rapid rating system, resulting in increased junior participation in chess (due to the competitive interest generated by comparing ratings with one's peers).

Bill Gletsos
12-01-2006, 02:20 PM
This is the case, according to the ACF bulletin. (Edit: Not with immediate effect though)

I think the strategy is correct. Ratings should be charged as a flat per-person fee rather than per game to encourage, not penalise, greater use and to recognise that above a certain number of games the extra fee is not matched by any greater service - in fact the opposite as the very active player is providing the service to the system in being the benchmark for adjusting other players' ratings.There is sufficient involvement from all states in the submission of events in the normal system. It is in the rapid system where there is very little participation of adult events and virtually no participation in junior events from many states. The aim was to encourage those states to participate in the rapid system.

In the normal system at 25 cents per player per game, a typical 7 round weekender is $1.75 per player, a typical 9 round $2.25 and the rare 11 round event $2.75.

If you look at those states that charge a flat rating fee of $5 per player per event from which they pay the ACF admin fee then it is clear that in virtually all cases they are making more off their rating charges than the ACF.

For rapid events the ACf admin fee is 10 cents per player per game for adult events and 5 cents per player per game for junior only events.

I understand State rating charges for rapid events are $2 per player per rapid event. For a 9 round junior only rapid event the ACF admin fee is 45 cents per player. That means over 3 times the ACF admin fee goes to the state association. The typical adult rapid event is only 6 rounds which amounts to 60 cents per player. Again over double the ACF fee goes to the state association.

In my opinion it is State rating charges that discourage organisers/clubs from submitting their events for rating and not the ACF admin fee.

BUT having said that

a) The same should apply to the normal rating system. In fact that is more important. Running a free rapid rating service while charging for rating normal games is not a sensible prioritisation.That wasnt the aim of those that pushed for the abolition of the rapid fee. They wished to increase the participation rate of other states in the rapid system.
Personally I'm not convinced that the ACF admin fees discourage the rating of rapid events. Based on feedback I had received over a number of years I believe that the average adult player couldnt care less about their rapid rating as they dont see it as being representative of their "true strength" and that submission of junior only events was fairly usesless as in many cases it involved unrated juniors playing unrated juniors.

As for junior only events the vast majority of games are between unrated juniors. As such of the juniors on the list the vast majority of them have no published ratings. This is evidenced by the fact QLD whicxh has been the major user of the rapid list especially reagrding juniors has added around 4940 juniors to the list since the December 2000 rating period. Of those 4900 odd juniors as of the December 20005 list only around 1430 have published ratings. That is just 29%.


b) It is not reported in what area revenue is to be increased or expenditure decreased to make up the shortfall. Any info on that?As far as I am aware no increase in other charges are planned, nor that expenditure is planned to be cut.