English Chess Forum

Given the 250-post epic that has appeared, I thought it'd be interesting to see what Forumites would actually vote for, rather than a discussion on the matter.

You can only vote for 1 option, but you can sum the three non-Membership Only options manually to get the relative approval of Membership.

Probably not wise to comment on the issue in this thread, but in the original thread.

The actual funding paper can be found here.

Interestng if a poll could be set up that all chess players (not just forum members) could contribute to. Then a link could be sent to contacts at all chess leagues and congresses who could forward on to people on thier mailing lists. This would allow a better sense of what the average chess player wants.

I realise it's leagues that have votes to cast at the AGM etc but it would be useful for delegates to know the strength of feeling of the average chess player

Maybe surveymonkey could be used for this?

Laurie Roberts wrote:Interestng if a poll could be set up that all chess players (not just forum members) could contribute to.

Well, anyone can become a member of the forum!

Game Fee causes road rage

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-ma ... r-12733535

Total chess playing population - how many thousand? Total votes cast - 35?

Mike Truran wrote:Total chess playing population - how many thousand? Total votes cast - 35?

35's a bit on the low side for a random sample, yes - ideally, you'd want 500 or more (this is pretty much independent of the size of the base population).

More importantly, the sample is not a true random sample: it's biased towards very active players, who might be presumed to be biased towards membership.

The above poll went 'live' at about 8pm on 12 March, but it has taken over 3 days before the last two references were made to it possibly not being a true reflection on the wishes of all chess players. However, why were these reservations not made as soon as the poll was instigated instead of waiting until the 'result' went against the way some may have wished ?

Alan Burke wrote:The above poll went 'live' at about 8pm on 12 March, but it has taken over 3 days before the last two references were made to it possibly not being a true reflection on the wishes of all chess players. However, why were these reservations not made as soon as the poll was instigated instead of waiting until the 'result' went against the way some may have wished ?

That's a rather strange criticism.

The poll is heavily in favour of a Universal Membership Scheme.

Over the years, there have been few more forceful and consistent advocates of such a scheme than Mike Truran.

Apart from the statistical insignificance, the main problem with the poll it seems to me is that it treats numbers as set in stone, thereby distracting from the principle of each option. Whilst this isn't so much of a problem with the Game fee options (leaving to one side the debate about whether hikes in game fee will actually lead to greater revenue) it is not clear, for example, if people are voting in favour of "membership only", or "membership only @ £18/year". Considering a lot of the "compromises" suggested in the main thread (whilst remaining in favour of abolishing game fee) consist of various options for reducing the cost for infrequent players the example figure given of £18 (which would consequently have to rise - possibly significantly) is only serving to cloud the issue.

Richard Bates wrote:Apart from the statistical insignificance, the main problem with the poll it seems to me is that it treats numbers as set in stone, thereby distracting from the principle of each option. Whilst this isn't so much of a problem with the Game fee options (leaving to one side the debate about whether hikes in game fee will actually lead to greater revenue) it is not clear, for example, if people are voting in favour of "membership only", or "membership only @ £18/year". Considering a lot of the "compromises" suggested in the main thread (whilst remaining in favour of abolishing game fee) consist of various options for reducing the cost for infrequent players the example figure given of £18 (which would consequently have to rise - possibly significantly) is only serving to cloud the issue.

When I set it up, none of the alternatives tabled in the thread had been proposed. Not being telepathic, this made it difficult to add them to the options.

I agree with what you say though.

David - it wasn't a criticism at all, it was just an observation that a couple of posts have indicated that the poll was of only a very minor amount of the total chess playing population and only of those who use this forum, yet could this not have been pointed out well before people knew of the outcome of such a poll ? It's like a Premier League football team playing away in the cup against a Division 2 team; losing; but only THEN making complaints about the state of the pitch, etc - why not make such feelings known BEFORE the kick-off ?

It may not be a criticicism, but it's still a rather odd thing to say given that my post was simply a statement of the b*****g obvious. As David says, I've always been a supporter of a membership based option, so the poll has certainly gone in the right direction from my point of view, but it would be nonsense to try to use evidence based on only 36 responses to support my stance.

Mike Truran wrote:It may not be a criticicism, but it's still a rather odd thing to say given that my post was simply a statement of the b*****g obvious. As David says, I've always been a supporter of a membership based option, so the poll has certainly gone in the right direction from my point of view, but it would be nonsense to try to use evidence based on only 36 responses to support my stance.

And it would be unwise to assess the strength of feelings about any of the options base on the rather long thread discussing the proposals! Most of the objections to 1) come from one source

Mike - I was obviously not aware of the individual views on anyone who had previously posted, but that is irrespective. I was just asking as to why, if people had reservations about the restricted poll, they didn't make them known earlier. As a side isssue, why can't people thesedays have a good discussion without the need for ****s ?

Well, the answer to the first one is that I didn't think of it. The answer to the second one is that it's not worth the trouble of getting moderated.

It's a good thing George VI wasn't able to post on forums. If Carl had had an equivalent in the 1930s he would have had a field day.