MCC SUMMER 2001 SCHOLASTIC CHESS PROGRAM

FINAL REPORT

Submitted by Alan Hodge

August 28, 2001

 

Objectives

 

The 2001 Summer Scholastic Program successfully accomplished the two objectives identified in the program proposal.

 

  1. Provide more games for participants.

    As a result of adopting a format that scheduled two rounds per night plus option side games, the average number of games played per player per night was between 2 and 3, compared to only one game per night per player last year. (See additional comments under Problems.)

 

  1. Offer a more flexible structure that will more easily accommodate families’ vacation schedules and less than all-summer-long participation.

    Three factors combined to achieve this objective. (a) Although the summer program was structured into three three-week tournaments, the tournaments were inherently meaningless for the players in that winning a tournament earned no prize. Every night of the program was of equal value. As a result, a number of players played only one night of one or another event. They would probably not have come on those nights if the prize structure had been integral to the tournaments, since they would have had no chance at a prize by playing only one of three nights. (b) Players were invited to enter for as little as a single night, and six did so. (This number does not include one player who registered for two events but withdrew after one night.) Three others played only two nights, and six played three nights. (c) Offering all three tournaments for the same entry fee as any two tournaments might have been one factor encouraging some players to extend their participation. (It is likely, however, that the players in question would have extended their participation even if an additional entry fee had applied. Nevertheless, getting the third event “for free” pleased the affected parents.)

 

Overall, attendance was significantly greater that in 2000.

 

·         A total of 55 players registered, compared with 27 last year. Of these, one dropped out after one night, and one never showed up at all.

 

·         Average attendance was 33.4, compared with 18.4 last year.

 

Consistency of attendance was comparable between the two years.

 

·         The percentage of registrants who missed two or fewer nights was 49% in 2001 and 52% in 2000.

 

·         The percentage of all players registered who were in attendance on any given night averaged 61% in 2001 and 68% in 2000 (see the following chart).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


·         The combination of the higher average attendance and the lower consistency values is further evidence of the program’s success in attracting players who could, or chose to, participate in the program only to a limited extent.

 

Finances

 

Complete details are provided in the Entries and Expenses.xls file. Summary data are as follows:

 

Income

Entry fees collected*                                      $885.00

Sale of set (1 @ 20.00)                                       20.00

Sales of scorebooks (7 @ 3.00)                          21.00

Total program income                                  $926.00

 

*This total is net of a $10 refund to a withdrawn player. Also, no entry fee was paid for three registrants who entered one event but played only one night.

 

USCF dues remitted totaled $246. This included 17 one-year memberships and 1 two-year. Three were renewals; 14 were new members.

 

Expenses

Miscellaneous operating expenses               $156.46

Prizes                                                               895.00

Total expenses                                            $1,051.46

 

The program thus operated at a loss of $125.46. Of this deficit, $30 is accounted for by uncollected entry fees and another $24.00 by scorebooks added to the club’s stock for sale. Thus the actual operational loss was only $71.46.

It was expected that the program might run at a deficit, and the proposal explicitly indicated that it could be subsidized with money made from last year’s program, which earned a “profit” for the club of about $600.

 

Problems

 

1.      The original program format called for three games per night for the Beginner and Advanced sections and two games per night for the Top section, based on experience and assumptions about how long the kids would take to play their games. This format was abandoned after two weeks because the third-round games were starting and ending too late. For the remainder of the summer only two rounds were scheduled for each night, with optional side game pairings available to players who finished their second-round games early enough and wanted a third game. This proved to be a popular format, with more than half the participants playing at least one side game and quite a few playing several.

 

2.      The club’s customary procedure for requesting byes was not complied with very well. Accordingly I abandoned the call in/bye sheet approach in favor of taking roll in each section before doing the pairings. Taking roll delayed the start of the night’s first round by a few minutes, and created another (but less serious) problem:  players who showed up late. In the latter case, a player showing up after I paired the round was paired with someone from his or her section who had been paired out, if possible, or was given a bye. My opinion is that the roll call approach is better for optimizing pairings and should be used in the future. It could be reinforced by a check-in policy/procedure requiring players to be at the club by 7:15, or to notify the club that they will be later than that, failure to do either causing them not to be paired in the first round. The idea is that if players are required to notify the club when they will be late, as opposed to when they will not be attending, compliance might be better because of the incentive not to miss a game (versus the largely ineffective incentive of avoiding a forfeit). There are also fewer instances of players being late (as compared with absences), which reduces the scale of the problem. Finally, the approach minimizes or eliminates having to deal with forfeits. There was only one “forfeit” during this summer, and that resulted from a misunderstanding during roll call.

 

3.      A more irritating problem was repeated violations of the policy against playing pool. I found it necessary to repeat this prohibition several times and on two or three nights actually to stop scholastic players who were playing pool.

 

Survey Results

 

Only 11 surveys were submitted, but the feedback was uniformly favorable. General conclusions are that the revised format (two round per night with optional side games) was the best option, the prize structure was satisfactory, and there is interest in continuing the program in 2002. Complete survey results are provided in separate files.

 

Recommendations

 

1.      The Board should consider continuing the scholastic program in 2002. Further, I believe it would be beneficial to consider this sooner rather than later, so that intentions can be announced early. It will not be possible to determine details, including dates, until it is known when school will be out (and therefore when the program can start and how many weeks it will run). Even so, an early announcement of the club’s intention to sponsor the program and a general outline of the proposed structure will probably serve well to increase publicity (most of which is by word of mouth) and enable players/parents to make plans and commitments. Moreover, in 2001 we missed the opportunity to publicize the summer program at several spring scholastic tournaments. An earlier decision/commitment and organizational activity will enable the club to capitalize on these opportunities next year.

2.      Consensus opinion is that two games per night, with possible additional side games, is the best format. I recommend that it be continued. It should be noted, however, that this puts particular demands on the TD to pair opponents appropriately and keep track of the side games.

3.      The prize structure based on cumulative points for attendance and game results was well received and should be continued. (Going with a two-games-per-night format for everyone would also eliminate the complication of having to multiply any game scores by 1.5 to equalize things.) The Board might consider substituting cash prizes for USCF gift certificates, as this would make awarding prizes a less involved and more timely process. However, the entry fees and prizes should be adjusted so that projected prizes account for no more than 75% of entry fees.

4.      The Board should consider the implications of continued growth in the summer program. This involves two points in particular:

(a) If the number of participants increases comparably next year as it did this year, space and noise will be real issues. Perhaps having scholastics play on a night other than Tuesday should be considered, if this is a possibility with the Senior Center.

(b) A number of parents inquired as to the possibility of instruction being provided in addition to tournament games. The Board should consider whether to expand the program to include some sort of instruction for beginning players. This has implications, of course, for the resources required to run a successful program.