 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(OR “How I spent My Summer Vacation.”) Helen Warren Three major areas of concern were addressed in my visit to New Windsor last week: I. Deceased members on USCF Website II. Continuation of LM deletions of deceased. III. USCF’s Correspondence Chess I USCF’s WEBSITE
Several weeks prior to my visit I noted the names of many deceased members on the Website’s rating list. These included the names of deceased LMs on the two lists I previously provided to the office for deletion from ALL USCF files (May, 2000 and Jan. 2001.) This problem led me to inquire about the process used in maintaining the Website rating list. Updates (changes) are sent from the dBase file to the individual responsible for maintaining the ratings on the Website. This responsibility is now in the hands of a volunteer outside the USCF office who sporadically works on the ratings. These updates are then merged with the old Web file, replacing those whose ratings have changed., adding new ones, but not deleting those of the deceased. Members who have lapsed are kept in case they later rejoin, but there is no reason to keep members who have died in the ratings. RECOMMENDATION: Maintaining web ratings is a direct function of the in-house webmaster. A routine should be established in the office to guarantee at least quarterly deletion of deceased members from the Website.. I discussed this with Jeff, Judy, and Joan on Saturday, and updated George on the problem on Monday. It’s possible that programming will be needed to solve this problem, but until that happens, deletions should be made manually in the office, not by a volunteer. II. DELETION OF DECEASED LMS FROM THE LM FILE
Jim and I spent considerable time Monday and Tues. (June 11 & 12). Sometimes using two computers, screening the revised (10/2000) Excel spread sheet list as well as the ‘kill file’ updated on 6/9/01, we discovered many deceased members. Following are newly discovered deceased LMs. ID# is given, name, and date of death verified by SSDI (Social Security Death Index). In a few instances we personally knew the deceased and give an approx. date. ID#10106281 Charles Rehberg Jan. 13, 2001 10436915 Leslie Marjay Jan. 18, 2001 10491801 James Hurt May 30, 2000 10344638 James Scherer about 1990 10345201 Dennis Keen Mar. 30, 1983 10311179 Marshall Rohland Dec. 26, 1994 10004586 Evert Siiskonen Mar. 31, 1993 10002079 Robert Bourdon Dec. 30, 1995 10272211 Rea Hayes Feb. 16, 2001 10320933 Robert Marshall Feb. 28, 2000 10091365 Russell Donnelly Dec. 1, 2000 10175585 Charles Rider Nov. 1, 2000 10435226 Norman Goldberg Feb. 19, 2001 10481996 Bruce Kirkbride Sept. 25, 2000 10019630 Robert Mummey July 16, 1999 10134447 Norman Hill Feb. 25, 2001 10320470 Gerhard Fischer Dec. 1, 2000 10010012 Robert Freeman Sept. 7, 1996 10011841 Robert Polansky May 14, 1998 10015219 John Paulekas June, 1980 10015430 James Bellivieu March 12, 2001 10016754 Philip Wilkins Nov. 25, 1997 10024064 Robert Hodgson Jan. 30, 1999 10280915 Merlyn Moore Nov. 1, 2000 10323606 William Houston Feb. 15, 2000 10473942 Wilfred Goodwin July 16, 1997 10024871 Robert Gardner Feb. 18, 1991 10031265 Henry Tilden unknown date 10508533 James Greco Jan. 30, 2001 10173582 Albert Baron Aug. 19, 2000 10415004 Lowell Seach unknown date 12429519 E J Emmer “ 10313040 Clayton Conley “ 10504732 Max Wernstrum “ 10406960 John Howell “ 10441668 Frank Pye resigned LM 10034116 Nicholas Stevens June 21, 2000 10045797 John P Marshall Nov. 1984 10063078 Herbert Wright Dec. 4, 1994 10069904 Donald Bourquin Oct. 17, 1998 10077681 Paul Magriel, Sr. Sept. 11, 1990 10078202 Harold Pearlstein July 15, 1989 10080061 Edna Horowitz unknown date 10105901 Norman Mayreis Jan. 26, 1990 10125553 Cedric Otis March 11, 1995 10128765 Mike Lukacs March 3, 1995 10130484 Joe DiFulvio Feb. 2, 1990 10133637 Daniel Piotrowski Oct.16, 1999 10133769 Paul Nowak June 16, 1996 10133840 Rudolf Meyer Jan. 24, 2000 10158702 William Stewart Nov. 30, 1986 10173582 Albert Baron Aug. 19, 2000 10178363 Everett Raffel May 24, 2000 10212961 William Hiers, Jr. Jan. 20, 1998 The failure to send the first issue of LM Notes by first class mail was a serious setback to the discovery of deceased LMs. Although this mailing has generated contributions of about $7,000 (6/12/01), the non-delivereds would have provided a fruitful basis for running through the SSDI site. Hundreds of deceased LMs continue unremoved. This is a massive project that may take a very long time to complete, but with the proper tools for screening, it can eventually get done. RECOMMENDATION. 1. The attached list of deceased MUST be removed from the LM file and from every other USCF file of active members: from the CL sub. List, from the list of correspondence chess players, from the rating list, including the Website rating list. The names of deceased previously submitted should be removed from all lists of active players as well. 2, It is mandatory that the next LM Notes mailing be sent by first class mail. A re-design of the enclosed envelope for contributions should be considered, giving LMs a choice for their donation, e.g., “Olympic Team,” “Debt Reduction,” “Master Chess,” etc. I spoke with several LMs who stated they would have sent in a contribution if allowed to earmark their choice.
III. USCF CORRESPONDENCE CHESS My thanks to Joan DuBois, Laura Martz, and Stephanie Colley for their help in this area. The better part of two days was spent examining the computer printout of correspondence players who had at least one game rated between 1/99 and 5/6/01, a total of 2,880 players. We established that 654 of this number were expired members, many of whom continue to be included in sections with open games, i.e., unreported games, probably abandoned. Of the 2,226 remaining players, however, many are LMs who, of course, have no expiration date. Estimating conservatively, well over 200 of this number are probably LMs who no longer play correspondence chess. My own estimate based on evidence of one major USCF postal event is much higher. This would bring the maximum number of active postalites to somewhat under 2000, probably significantly fewer. An accurate number is almost impossible to determine because players are in multiple sections without cross reference capability, so many players within the 2.5 year range no longer play, but cannot be documented. They range, for example, from Player A who had a solitary game rated 30 months ago and immediately thereafter became inactive to a player with a continuous load of sections who abandoned them all. I analyzed the Class tournament ONLY, a non-money prize event with games open as many as five years or more. USCF’s own guideline is for sections to be closed out after 2.5 years. In working through this manual file (loose leaf books from the time of Al Horowitz!) we brought the sections up to the three year level—June, 1998, and in the process closed out about sixty or more sections. Many inactive members and lapsed members remain in the sections from three years ago. Closing out aged sections is not a priority with the office staff; recording results and sending assignments get first handling. It’s reasonable to assume that all USCF postal events are in such a state. It’s my conservative estimate that it would require several months of intensive work to bring the files up to date, especially since they are not computerized. In the process described above, many certificate winners were determined.. A significant number of these winners are no longer members, and hence, the federation is under no obligation to send them their certificate—continuing membership is a requirement for postal play. Nevertheless, we may be seeing cause and effect here: abandoned games are not closed out, winners remain undetermined, potential winners become disenchanted with quitters, receive no certificate---and quit. Imagine the same situation in USCF’s money sections, and the problem becomes more acute. (Cf. “Recommendations” below.) ANALYSIS OF SECTIONS OFFERED Much of the viability of a postal organization centers about its tournament calendar. A balance of non-money and prize money or merchandise sections is desirable, as well as a good mix of single and double round-robin events. At the present time USCF’s offerings are unbalanced: we offer three double-round robin events (Pentad, Trophy and Class) and two single game events (Prize and Golden Knights). This does not include E-mail events and two-person matches. Essentially, events compete with each other for the entrant’s dollar. By offering three double round robin tournaments, entry dilution occurs, the wait for assignment becomes unduly long—and the player becomes disinterested. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Send certificate winners in the recently closed Class events their certificates, accompanied by a cover letter urging them to rejoin USCF (if they are an expired member), and including a half-sheet listing , describing the tournaments USCF especially wishes to promote. 2. Eliminate one of the double-round robin events—probably the Pentad.. (Mr. Berliner doesn’t seem inclined to sign the promised certificates for section winners anyway.) This would strengthen the other double round robin sections.. Promote e-mail rated events actively. Ads for e-mail sections should be prominent on USCF’s website. 3. Give players the option of getting a confirmation of their result and rating change by adding a surcharge of $5 per event, to be paid at time of entry. The master assignment sheet must then be appropriately flagged to guarantee that this is done by the office. If a higher surcharge is necessary, so be it. But at least offer the postal player the option. 4. Begin a process of intensive cleanup of older sections. Call Monday (or whatever day) morning “Cleanup Time”. Devote some hours to putting the house in order. Bring all tournaments within the 2.5 year mark. Go after delinquent reporting, especially in the Golden Knight Semi-Finals and Finals. 5. Begin the process, even if manually, of cross referencing section numbers with names. This may mean creating a separate computer file. 6. RATINGS. Every postal player wants to see where he stands compared with his opponents. Make an annual (at least) rating list available for sale. This can be priced to be revenue neutral or imbedded in entry fees. Or it can be advertised and purchased at a decent fee---$15 or $20. 7. Stop using correspondence chess as a political lobby. These players are among the least interested in being used as a tool for political pretenders who allegedly “protect their interests.” Exaggerating their numbers does them a disservice and protectionist ADMs do not solve the logistical problems that inhibit participation in correspondence chess events. 8. Outsourcing. I do not favor outsourcing. These players, whether a thousand or 1500, have been an integral part of the USCF. They generated revenue big time during the 70s and 80s. They are older, more traditional, some housebound. There are now fewer of them because of competing allures: Internet chess, the use of large data bases which make cheating more common, and they are an aging population. But they are devoted to their game and should continue to be a vital part of our operation if it is well managed. Correspondence chess is as old as the game itself, one of the forms of play that emphasize the ageless need to interact on an intellectual level even though great distance may separate the contestants. |