2011 CYCC Financial Report

[Victor Itkin]

PART 1. INCOME

Early bird entry fees.......... $175.......... 195.......... $34,125
50% for 3rd kids fees.......... $87.50......... 4.............. $350
Jason Cao............................ 0............. 1................... 0
Full entry fees.................. $225........... 37............ $8,325
TOTAL ENTRY FEES..................... ..... 237......... $42,800

SPONSORSHIPS...................................... ......... $6,700

T-SHIRTS sold at site........................................... $660
__________________________________________________

GRAND TOTAL: ............................................... $50,160

[Victor Itkin]

2011 CYCC FINANCIAL REPORT

PART 2. EXPENSES

Presented on behalf of 2011 CYCC Treasurer Xuekun Xing

Advertising and promotion (including CYCC flyers)........... 2,261.68
TD, TD assistant, IT, Monroi, simul and lectures............. 3,469.00
Gift bags for the early bird players................................1,920.00
Sponsor plaques........................................... ............ .169.33
Trophies and medals............................................ .....1,057.68
Lucky draw.............................................. ..................800.00
CFC ratings........................................... .....................118.50 **
FIDE ratings........................................... ....................162.80
Bank fees.............................................. ....................209.68 *
Meals and snacks for the volunteers during CYCC............1,647.96
Hotel facilities (playing hall, parents' rooms, TD room)........... 0.00
__________________________________________________ ______
TOTAL EXPENSES:......................................... .......11,816.63


* Additional small bank charges may apply when closing the account

** Correction

[Valer Eugen Demian]

Excellent work; thank you!

[Victor Itkin]

PART 3 (FINAL). PROFIT DISTRIBUTION


TOTAL PROFIT ($50,160 - $11,816.63)....................................... ......................... $38,343.37
__________________________________________________ _____ _____________________________


1. Payment to CFC according to the bid....................... ...........................................$20,000 .00

2. To be distributed as cash prizes and bursaries among 1st,
2nd and 3rd prize-winners according to the 2011 CYCC Surplus - Resolution....................$18,200.00

3. Balance to be ditributed equally between two perfect scorers:
Taylor Zhang (U8 Girls) and Melissa Giblon (U12 Girls)............................................ .........$143.37 *

__________________________________________________ _____ ______________________________


* The amount is approximate; some small bank fees may apply
when closing the account

[Paul Leblanc]

Some will note that the rating fee is heavily subsidized by the CFC compared to an adult event. Is this policy still reflect the best interests of CFC members? I have not yet formed a strong opinion either way but as the new Rating Auditor it has come to my attention that junior events are rated at a loss to the CFC.

[Kerry Liles]

Some will note that the rating fee is heavily subsidized by the CFC compared to an adult event. Is this policy still reflect the best interests of CFC members? I have not yet formed a strong opinion either way but as the new Rating Auditor it has come to my attention that junior events are rated at a loss to the CFC.

"rated at a loss to the CFC"

That implies that you (or someone) knows the actual cost to rate a player's result in a tournament.

The actual cost (at least theoretically) has to vary depending on how many rounds since each round represents a new result to be entered... If the results are submitted electronically (and have no errors) then the actual cost has to be pretty damn minimal.

This issue has been floating around since ratings were done on index cards... and I have never seen a proper cost analysis. By now, the initial costs of the rating system must have been completely paid; the introduction of computerized rating of results must also have reduced the actual costs; the number of errors likely has also gone down due to the emphasis on submitting computerized results...

Can you, or anyone, provide a proper cost accounting for the ratings effort? I doubt it.

[Bob Gillanders]

Can you, or anyone, provide a proper cost accounting for the ratings effort? I doubt it.

Actually, I am working on that question. But it will be some time before reliable information is available. Too many balls in the air right now, but once things settle down, we have a review of the work schedule with Outpost, we will have a good handle on costs. For now, my ballpark guess would be that average rating costs are between $1 and $1.50 per player. So, yes Paul is correct.

Junior tournaments are actually more expensive to rate than adults. That is because of the high number of new players in a junior tournament. These new players have to be added to the players database first. Some junior tournaments can have a new players ratio of 50% or more.

I am not advocating we raise junior rating fees, just stating the facts. As a community, we must ask ourselves if we wish to maintain lower rating fees for juniors to promote chess amongst the kids. :)

[Valer Eugen Demian]

Actually, I am working on that question. But it will be some time before reliable information is available. Too many balls in the air right now, but once things settle down, we have a review of the work schedule with Outpost, we will have a good handle on costs. For now, my ballpark guess would be that average rating costs are between $1 and $1.50 per player. So, yes Paul is correct.

Junior tournaments are actually more expensive to rate than adults. That is because of the high number of new players in a junior tournament. These new players have to be added to the players database first. Some junior tournaments can have a new players ratio of 50% or more.

I am not advocating we raise junior rating fees, just stating the facts. As a community, we must ask ourselves if we wish to maintain lower rating fees for juniors to promote chess amongst the kids. :)

Do not forget that as a TD for junior tournaments I have to submit the SwissSys files for each one of them if I want the low rating fee. This means I do the work entering new players, addresses, etc. Not sure what extra is done at the CFC office once they receive my files...

[Kerry Liles]

Do not forget that as a TD for junior tournaments I have to submit the SwissSys files for each one of them if I want the low rating fee. This means I do the work entering new players, addresses, etc. Not sure what extra is done at the CFC office once they receive my files...

Perhaps Bob meant the new CFC members info has to be updated? Do all players in a junior tournament have to also be CFC members?

[Bob Gillanders]

Do not forget that as a TD for junior tournaments I have to submit the SwissSys files for each one of them if I want the low rating fee. This means I do the work entering new players, addresses, etc. Not sure what extra is done at the CFC office once they receive my files...

The SwissSys files sent to CFC office identify the new players but it is not interactive with the rating program. Before rating the tournament, a new player profile needs to be created in the CFC rating program and a cfc number assigned. (not a membership per se, but the program needs an id number). This only takes maybe 30 seconds per player, enter name, address, email, date of birth, but if you have 50 new players, well...it takes a few minutes. :D

[Valer Eugen Demian]

The SwissSys files sent to CFC office identify the new players but it is not interactive with the rating program. Before rating the tournament, a new player profile needs to be created in the CFC rating program and a cfc number assigned. (not a membership per se, but the program needs an id number). This only takes maybe 30 seconds per player, enter name, address, email, date of birth, but if you have 50 new players, well...it takes a few minutes. :D

In this case I would contact SwissSys right away to ask for their expertise. It makes absolutely no sense to have the same information entered twice in the program. It (the program) should be capable to identify the fact the original TD has entered one or more new players and add them to the database immediately. Any decent database program in the industry does this...

Could someone from the CFC office do the above suggestion? If not, could I be given a contact information (real person who would do something about it) from SwissSys and I will follow it up?
Thank you in advance!

[Fred McKim]

In this case I would contact SwissSys right away to ask for their expertise. It makes absolutely no sense to have the same information entered twice in the program. It (the program) should be capable to identify the fact the original TD has entered one or more new players and add them to the database immediately. Any decent database program in the industry does this...

Could someone from the CFC office do the above suggestion? If not, could I be given a contact information (real person who would do something about it) from SwissSys and I will follow it up?
Thank you in advance!

I think the only information SwissSys has is the player's name. All of the other player's information is probably on a spreadsheet or word file.

[Bob Gillanders]

I think the only information SwissSys has is the player's name. All of the other player's information is probably on a spreadsheet or word file.

No no Fred. All the information that TD's enter into SwissSys files is there when it gets to the office. But it does require the office to type it manually into the CFC program. But in reality, most TD's send in this information in an email or spreadsheet. Either way is fine.

Valer makes a good suggestion, in that it would be beneficial to have the info upload automatically. Save a few minutes. To maximize that benefit however, then we would have to insist TD's actually enter the data into SwissSys.

Valer - can we put your suggestion on the "to do list" for technical improvements? "All our operators are currently busy" :D

In fact, we have a list of items started for "phase 2" website improvements. We can add this item to that list as we would want website guys at least consulted? Right now, all the boys are busy making sure all the loose ends are wrapped up with "phase 1". :D

[Patrick McDonald]

I could talk to Thad (creator of SwissSys) ... I often deal with him on SwissSys matters ...

BUT ...this is a dangerous slope ... IF we have TD's enter all the information, AND they enter all the info correctly, we will still run the risk that they in fact missed that a player already exists in the database, creating a duplicate profile .. affecting ratings etc.

No, Junior players do not have to pay membership fees currently (in order to rate a completely junior tournament) but the profile has to be created.

The question to ask is: IF a TD makes a mistake and creates a duplicate profile and the rating is done on this, how much work is it to actually undo and correct this mistake after the fact.

Sure, in most cases, there will not be mistakes, but we need to know what it takes to correct on those occasions where mistakes are made.

[Valer Eugen Demian]

I could talk to Thad (creator of SwissSys) ... I often deal with him on SwissSys matters ...

BUT ...this is a dangerous slope ... IF we have TD's enter all the information, AND they enter all the info correctly, we will still run the risk that they in fact missed that a player already exists in the database, creating a duplicate profile .. affecting ratings etc.

No, Junior players do not have to pay membership fees currently (in order to rate a completely junior tournament) but the profile has to be created.

The question to ask is: IF a TD makes a mistake and creates a duplicate profile and the rating is done on this, how much work is it to actually undo and correct this mistake after the fact.

Sure, in most cases, there will not be mistakes, but we need to know what it takes to correct on those occasions where mistakes are made.

Hi Patrick,

Every time a TD like me prepares a tournament result in SwissSys, we always upload the latest players list from the CFC website (as per the guidelines). I would think this eliminates most of the time duplicates since when you enter a name for the first time, similar ones from the database are offered to you as options. If you do not select them, it is a new entry.

For Fred: when I enter a new player in SwissSys I also enter their address, DOB and other related info. This is the least I can do to save Gerry time!

[Patrick McDonald]

Yes, most of us do our best to pick up the correct person in the database ... but mistakes can happen ...

Once you put more people of differing levels of expertise into the mix, the chances of errors or omissions greatly increases.

So, again, what would be the cost or how difficult or how much time would it take to rectify these honest mistakes?

Thanks,

[Bob Gillanders]

Yes, most of us do our best to pick up the correct person in the database ... but mistakes can happen ...

Once you put more people of differing levels of expertise into the mix, the chances of errors or omissions greatly increases.

So, again, what would be the cost or how difficult or how much time would it take to rectify these honest mistakes?

Thanks,

Thanks Patrick. When I took over a ED back in 2008, I began getting numerous complaints about duplicate player profiles. Some of these had been in the system for a year or more. Also, two players with the same name, and the wrong one was chosen. These errors do occur, more frequently than they should. It is a tedious exercise to correct. :(

I don't have any stats on the problem, but I fear it could get worse under a "fully automated" system with no oversight as some would like. :eek:

[Christopher Mallon]

I don't have any stats on the problem, but I fear it could get worse under a "fully automated" system with no oversight as some would like. :eek:

Show me one person, ever, who has asked for or said they would like a "fully automated" system with no oversight.

[Bob Gillanders]

Show me one person, ever, who has asked for or said they would like a "fully automated" system with no oversight.

You did! :eek:
Check your post in the governors forum. I asked Egis if he really expected a fully automated system would reduce the ED's time to zero.
You responded with a resounding Yes. :p :D

[Christopher Mallon]

You did! :eek:
Check your post in the governors forum. I asked Egis if he really expected a fully automated system would reduce the ED's time to zero.
You responded with a resounding Yes. :p :D

Oh my god. Did you even read my whole post, or did you stop at the first word?

[Bob Gillanders]

Oh my god. Did you even read my whole post, or did you stop at the first word?

OMG, Yes I did. :D

Your first sentence says the ED's time is reduced to zero. The balance of your post then went on to describe various duties of the ED under your "fully automated" system. :o I had some problem following your logic.

If you are now saying that the rating system does require some human oversight even in a "fully automated" system, then I am pleased that we are in full agreement. :D:D

[Christopher Mallon]

OMG, Yes I did. :D

Your first sentence says the ED's time is reduced to zero. The balance of your post then went on to describe various duties of the ED under your "fully automated" system. :o I had some problem following your logic.

If you are now saying that the rating system does require some human oversight even in a "fully automated" system, then I am pleased that we are in full agreement. :D:D

Well I didn't see you asking for clarification in that thread!

A properly automated system should be able to catch at least some of the "duplicate or same-name" type errors. It would also be able to backtrack and rerate any events in order should a correction be made at a later time.

Really the only reason to even require the ED or someone else to click "approve" on events is that having a human "in charge" makes people more comfortable.

[Bob Gillanders]

the only reason to even require the ED or someone else to click "approve" on events is that having a human "in charge" makes people more comfortable.

You are clearly more comfortable with automated systems than myself.
Me, I still think we need actual human beings in charge. :D

[Hal Bond]

When we look at the cost of ratings there are other considerations. Our agreement with Swissys cost $5000 up front, plus whatever staff time was involved. We also incur costs whenever there is a change to the code or to alter the database.

[Christopher Mallon]

You are clearly more comfortable with automated systems than myself.
Me, I still think we need actual human beings in charge. :D

I'd love to have a discussion with you sometime on why exactly that is. :)