PDA

View Full Version : Stinginess of Chess Players



Paul S
25-06-2004, 04:07 PM
One of the major problems in Australian Chess is the stinginess of most chess players. Those of you who subscibed to Australian Chess Forum would remember the excellent editorial from Shaun Press about 2 years ago on this matter.

Is it any wonder that Australian Chess is in decline when many chess players object to even paying trivial sums like $20/$25 to become a member of their State Association and some even object to paying $10 to become a member of their local chess club? Remember that in NSW that due to licenced club subsidies, for around $10 to $20 membership of a chess club you get rent free premises, all equipment supplied, club pays for interclub entry fees, club pays for trophies etc etc. IMHO Australian Chess would be better off without these sorts of people, who just expect everything for free and just take advantage of others but contribute absolutely nothing themselves and just whinge all the time. These sorts of people just discourage the relatively few chess organisers there are from wanting to bother to continue to contribute their time and effort into chess administration. No wonder a lot of people get p***** off with chess admin after a while and leave!

For about 6 months of my time on the NSWCA Council last year I was the main contact person for enquiries. Occasionally I would be asked "where is the NSWCA Office?"!!! IMHO a proper office with at least one full time staff member would be a great thing for a state chess organisation (or the ACF!) and would help considerably to boost the profile of chess. However, this is not feasible with the miserly income stream coming into State Chess Association coffers and you have 1) so many freeloaders on the system (eg games are ACF rated for non-members) and 2) a lot of existing members object to paying as "much" as they already are. A full-time office is just one of many things that Australian chess needs if it is ever to progress!

Another example of stinginess of chess players was the absurd reaction on this Bulletin Board over the ACF spending $50 for best BB post of 2003. In the end I got sick of it and just donated the $50 prize myself!

Over the years I have heard comments from people that "groups like Jews/Scots etc are stingy with money". Well, as a group the most stingy group of people I have come across when it comes to money matters is the average Australian Chess Player (even allowing for the fact that some chess players are in genuine financial difficulty)!

Ian Rout
25-06-2004, 04:51 PM
Another example of stinginess of chess players was the absurd reaction on this Bulletin Board over the ACF spending $50 for best BB post of 2003. In the end I got sick of it and just donated the $50 prize myself!
At risk of taking this off-topic on the first response, I was one of the objectors and my objection was not on the basis of stinginess (it wasn't coming out of my pocket) but the symbolism of having a monetary reward when so many tasks are performed voluntarily and considerable achievements over the board receive relatively low rewards. In my opinion the competition was a bit of a joke (as it indeed transpired) and would be appropriately rewarded with something silly.

I think this is getting close to the 50,000th time that it has been asserted that objections to the prize are attributable to stinginess so I think that needs to be laid to rest before new readers start believing it.

Rincewind
25-06-2004, 05:07 PM
At risk of taking this off-topic on the first response, I was one of the objectors and my objection was not on the basis of stinginess (it wasn't coming out of my pocket) but the symbolism of having a monetary reward when so many tasks are performed voluntarily and considerable achievements over the board receive relatively low rewards. In my opinion the competition was a bit of a joke (as it indeed transpired) and would be appropriately rewarded with something silly.

I think this is getting close to the 50,000th time that it has been asserted that objections to the prize are attributable to stinginess so I think that needs to be laid to rest before new readers start believing it.

Hear, hear!

arosar
25-06-2004, 05:17 PM
Stingy. My butt stingy. This is just plain bull-schit this whole business. How can chess players be effing stingy when they regularly haul their asse.s off to places like Canberra, Mexico, toad country and all that just to play chess? That costs quite a bit. How's about the smackers spent on books, CDs, entry fees? What's so f**kin' stingy about that? Listen here Paulie....you're an alright bas.tard in me book .... but geez mate....you whine about other people too much!

AR

JGB
25-06-2004, 06:00 PM
Stingy im also not sure when I have seen some of the unbelievebly expensive entrance cost for some of the tournaments advertised on the net. Some over 100 $ and the Victorian masters what were they asking for? What are the super benifts that the players recieve after forking out these dollars? Some tournaments add that its a great chance to get your ELO, wow?! If someone is looking at 'paying' for an elo it can be done for about the same price 'guaranteed' (although illegally).

Alan Shore
25-06-2004, 06:03 PM
Doh, I hit some button and my post got lost.. take 2 then... more condensed.


Is it any wonder that Australian Chess is in decline when many chess players object to even paying trivial sums like $20/$25 to become a member of their State Association and some even object to paying $10 to become a member of their local chess club?

I have no qualms paying a membership to a chess club, my club is great (Uni of QLD) and they have plenty of events with lots of prizes on offer.

However, my partucular state association does nothing for me but send 3 dodgy newsletter per year, so I very much resent having to pay for that.


Another example of stinginess of chess players was the absurd reaction on this Bulletin Board over the ACF spending $50 for best BB post of 2003. In the end I got sick of it and just donated the $50 prize myself!

No one asked you to.. It was nice of you to do so though.


Over the years I have heard comments from people that "groups like Jews/Scots etc are stingy with money". Well, as a group the most stingy group of people I have come across when it comes to money matters is the average Australian Chess Player (even allowing for the fact that some chess players are in genuine financial difficulty)!

As Amiel already attested to, there are many purchases made by chess players regarding products, tournament entry fees, etc. There's also the question of what you're really referring to.. what is it exactly chess players (very large generalisation) 'won't pay for'? Would you want to pay for things of no use to you?

For example, I use FICS (freechess.org) and enjoy it very much. Yet people pay to use the Internet Chess Club (ICC). Does that make me stingy? No, it makes me smart not to waste money on features I wouldn't use, or could use just as easily as a guest on there. There are many, many other reasons I am anti-ICC though...

Finally, I think there are those players who genuinely are in some financial difficulty.. chess doesn't exactly pay a lot. I'm still a student and since I have very limited income while studying full-time I don't have all the cash in the world to splash around on chess. I would agree with you that it's wrong for those that have money to be stingy but keep in mind there are those that don't.

Garvinator
25-06-2004, 06:28 PM
However, my partucular state association does nothing for me but send 3 dodgy newsletter per year, so I very much resent having to pay for that.
now now bruce, stop misrepresenting the situation, in that newsletter you get plenty of recycled results from here, you get information displayed on graemes site and you also get advertising of how to buy chess products. that is worth ten dollars isnt it :lol: ;) :p :whistle: :uhoh: :uhoh:

Alan Shore
25-06-2004, 07:42 PM
now now bruce, stop misrepresenting the situation, in that newsletter you get plenty of recycled results from here, you get information displayed on graemes site and you also get advertising of how to buy chess products. that is worth ten dollars isnt it :lol: ;) :p :whistle: :uhoh: :uhoh:

How to buy products from the producer of said shoddy newsletter so he can get more money for his retirement fund.... :eh:

Garvinator
25-06-2004, 11:42 PM
How to buy products from the producer of said shoddy newsletter so he can get more money for his retirement fund.... :eh:
your not talking about the blatant advertising on the back page for chess products from a particular store are you ;) and how that advertising is about 100 font size larger than the tournament schedule :uhoh: :hmm: :wall:

Bill Gletsos
26-06-2004, 12:23 AM
Hear, hear!
Yes, Ian summed it up nicely.

Paul S
26-06-2004, 12:27 AM
I think this is getting close to the 50,000th time that it has been asserted that objections to the prize are attributable to stinginess so I think that needs to be laid to rest before new readers start believing it.
Actually its more like about the 5th time (not 50,000th time). :lol:

But you have a point though Ian - my mentioning of this around 5 times in recent months is excessive - its just that I sometimes get carried away and over-excited on this forum! :)

Paul S
26-06-2004, 12:47 AM
Stingy. My butt stingy. This is just plain bull-schit this whole business. How can chess players be effing stingy when they regularly haul their asse.s off to places like Canberra, Mexico, toad country and all that just to play chess? That costs quite a bit. How's about the smackers spent on books, CDs, entry fees? What's so f**kin' stingy about that? Listen here Paulie....you're an alright bas.tard in me book .... but geez mate....you whine about other people too much!

AR

Steady on, Amiel. :hand: After all, I was just doing your old trick of trying to liven up this forum (which has been somewhat dull over the last several weeks) by making a mildly controversial post. :p If you and Chesslover had been doing your "job" in recent weeks then there would have been no need for me to make such a post! ;) :)

I probably should not have given the impression that my initial post refers to every chess player and yes, I recognise that some players have limited financial means (which is a factor that needs to be taken into consideration). Perhaps a more accurate/precise description would be to say that the average chess player is stingy when it comes to spending (or donating) money on chess activities that are NOT of direct benefit to him (such as becoming a member of their local state chess association or contributing to the Olympiad Fund) but which benefit chess as a whole. Amiel, the activities you mention such as playing interstate (which only a small percentage of chess players do) and buying chess books/CDs are activities that the player does for his own self benefit, and not for the benefit of chess as a whole.

Garvinator
26-06-2004, 01:01 AM
Amiel, the activities you mention such as playing interstate (which only a small percentage of chess players do) and buying chess books/CDs are activities that the player does for his own self benefit, and not for the benefit of chess as a whole.
a point that has been discussed before at length in regards to volunteering.

Alan Shore
26-06-2004, 01:14 AM
a point that has been discussed before at length in regards to volunteering.

And is a separate issue to that which you brought up.

Paul S
26-06-2004, 02:40 PM
Oh no, It looks like the "Thread Police" (Garvin and Bruce) are on to me! :eek:

Sorry "policemen", but IMHO I was still on topic when I responded to Amiel (although I'll admit my response could encourage others to respond to my response and so eventually go "off topic").

As the originator of this thread, I say that I should decide what is (and what is NOT) off topic in this thread, and that this should not be for the "Joh Bjelke-Petersen Queensland Thread Police" to decide! ;) :lol: :cool:

antichrist
08-07-2004, 04:27 PM
My belated entry into this topic (repeating) that about 30 playes bought a total of about three drinks per week when I had the Sydney Chess Club going. Bill, that was part of the reason for it closing. But sad to say at a later stage some sucker put a lot of money into poker machines.

peanbrain
08-07-2004, 06:17 PM
My belated entry into this topic (repeating) that about 30 playes bought a total of about three drinks per week when I had the Sydney Chess Club going. Bill, that was part of the reason for it closing. But sad to say at a later stage some sucker put a lot of money into poker machines.

I didn't want to buy a beer because you talk too much so I went elsewhere to buy my beer just so I don't have to listen to your crap. :hand:

Garvinator
08-07-2004, 06:19 PM
I didn't want to buy a beer because you talk too much so I went elsewhere to buy my beer just so I don't have to listen to your crap. :hand:
welcome back to the bb peanbrain :lol: complimentary as always :lol: :whistle:

antichrist
08-07-2004, 07:17 PM
I didn't want to buy a beer because you talk too much so I went elsewhere to buy my beer just so I don't have to listen to your crap. :hand:

what are you talking about. I have not heard of anyone (except the Ukrainians) who drink alcohol during games and as they were comp games I shut up and as DOP I ensured everyone did likewise, which was not necessary.

I doubt you were anywhere near that club. To test you where was the draw set up and on what??

Basil
20-04-2008, 10:37 PM
Reading Denis' post in this thread (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=7931) just now and I caught at the bottom of that page that this thread was apparently related!

This second thread started and finished 2 years before my arrival on chesschat. I hadn't even heard of chesschat and I certainly hadn't even heard of the person grumbling. An intriguing thread name, I couldn't help but skim it. And look what I found!


However, my partucular state association does nothing for me but send 3 dodgy newsletter per year, so I very much resent having to pay for that.

Funny thing the annals of time. I was president of the CAQ at the time of this thread. One of my volunteered duties then was to compile the newsletter referred to in this thread. The goal was six editions per year. The newsletter was a value-add to the meagre annual membership fee of the state association. That membership fee paid for various costs of running the association (although the vast majority of those costs were borne by the councilors - phone, fuel, refreshments etc.) as well as the newsletter. The newsletter was professionally compiled and commercially printed, not to mention postage and envelopes.

It's a well-known fact now that the target of the 6 editions wasn't met (I think we produced four that year) because of, among other things, my weekly interstate commute and that year's diagnosis of my son's cerebral palsy. Sampson even had the good grace to suggest that I was a professional victim! Choice.

But apart from the commercial naivety and the disingenuous grumbling, what specifically caught my eye was the judgement of history.

The grumbler here is Dion Sampson, a commercially inexperienced university student. However, three years later in 2007 he nominated for a non executive role on Council (I had resigned as president after five years for family reasons in 2006).

While Sampson was on the 2007 Council, the issue of the future of the newsletter arose. It was proposed that the newsletter be ceased.

The record will show that Sampson neither objected to its demise nor suggested that the state fees should be reduced. The record will also show that the e-mail format which replaced the hard copy newsletter was not sent out any more regularly than the hard copy version.

Was his above-quoted comment from 2004 a one-off? No. Prior to his short-lived tenure on Council, he managed to put his miserable position before the chess community repeatedly throughout 2006. So much so that I created a special thread (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=5363) for him.

It's not the about-face to which I wish to draw attention. We are all entitled to that. I find this episode provides a fascinating and lasting model for up and coming people who wish to express ideas on chess administration. By all means have an opinion, but try and temper it with one's standing and knowledge.

There are a few morals here:
1. If you're young and relatively inexperienced, try not to bash a system you don't really understand. Learn first. Talk later.
2. If you're young and relatively inexperienced, things that might seem fun, might have consequences when you're older.
2. If you're young and relatively inexperienced, putting things down in writing in a public place can be a two-edge sword, even if you think it's only one-way traffic at the time.

Garvin, you'll just have to cop your part in it on the chin old mate!

bill718
24-04-2008, 02:25 PM
Hear, hear!
I think most people watch there pocketbooks out of habit,
and it's this habit that seems to suggest stinginess. Most
chess organizations give good value for the fees they collect.
Complaining about cost is part of human nature. Note however,
that most of those complaining do not leave there chess organizations
because of cost. They leave because they stop playing chess!

Rincewind
24-04-2008, 04:29 PM
I think most people watch there pocketbooks out of habit,
and it's this habit that seems to suggest stinginess. Most
chess organizations give good value for the fees they collect.
Complaining about cost is part of human nature. Note however,
that most of those complaining do not leave there chess organizations
because of cost. They leave because they stop playing chess!

Hey Bill. Thanks for the post I'm just a bit intrigued as to why your quoted by "hear hear" post. I was trying to lend support to Ian's argument that most of the complaints about the $50 prize for best post were not related to some inherent stinginess of chess players, but rather a fundamental objection that the prize was not fit for the merit and nature of the competition.


Regarding your post. There are people who do not pay the ~$25 per year to remain a member of their state association for reasons other than chess inactivity. I won't try to group them into a single entity but generally the root cause is that it is easier to not pay. Perhaps some traction could be had in making it easier to pay but I don't know how much or whether any specific such effort would be cost effective.

MichaelBaron
24-04-2008, 09:48 PM
This post is on behalf of all the "stingy" chess players (and i am certainly one of them).


1) I would think chessplayers subscribe to a national chess magazine when they feel its a good magazine to read, not because this is a way of supporting Australian chess
2) People pay membership of a chess club/state association etc. because they feel they get good value out of it