| |
Main
Date: 15 Jul 2007 12:01:54
From: Chess One
Subject: The USual Subjects
|
Benko and Evans are proven writers with wide followings. Many
subscribers get Chess Life just to read their columns.
By contrast, the three I mention are new hires. I really do not know
how their writing abilities compare with others. I also do not know
whether Kamsky or Nakamura would be interested in writing a column for
Chess Life. I just find it odd that Benjamin, Shahade and Polgar are
all eligible to play and have been invited to play in the US
Championship, yet all have declined to compete. Evans and Benko, by
contrast, never turned down an invitation to compete in such events.
Sam Sloan
----
And the losers are... the usual subjects, US chess players.
We know that Sam Sloan has now turned his attention, together with
recommendations of active-player = CL columnist, to the question of USCF's
publishing regime.What we don't know is if Sam Sloan knows anything.
We don't know if READERS have to any degree been consulted, and instead we
get burocrats jaw jawing on yet another issue which normally would be the
province of the editor and publisher.
We do know that even in active forums where he participates, Sam Sloan seems
not to notice what others say, rarely goes into any issues for more than a
couple of posts, and makes whatever the issue, all about him. But usually
Sam Sloan is content with issuing fierce proclamations on what he will do -
rather than attend to what he can do now.
I agree that Benko and Evans have both been popular for a long time, by the
evidence of the mailbag, and also because of the ruckus when Evans was
fired - but how popular compared with others?
I imagine it would be useful to survey readers and non-readers of CL to see
what they liked! Non-readers of CL are important too, since maybe what they
want doesn't appear in the 'ol darlin'?
One advantage of having a /good/ website is that on-line articles can be
individually tracked for unique hits over time. This indicates a topical
area, or writer, that people actually read! Since USCF have a $50,000 new
site, and its editor makes $40,000 a year [or $800 week], I wonder if this
ready market intelligence is being consulted?
Similarly, the editor of the print CL makes as much money, and apart from
consulting the 8-ball, how does he make decisions about what to put up on
its pages? Evidenced by the firing of Evans, its certainly not based on
science!
These two together, with a bit of overhead cost $100,000 per year. What do
we know about their editorial savvy in terms of proportioning different
sorts of articles? In fact, how many people read there, and read what? For a
hundred grand you would expect /some/ science, no?
Another fantastic resource for researcher-Sloan is the Forum. What topics
are members writing about in it? Now, here is the problem - member's
opinions are not noticed, and the forum is dominated by political opinion,
which requires moderators, and then a committee to moderate the
moderators... but, HEY! what about the actual players? One 'skill' that
researcher-Sloan could develop, and which might be recommended to other
board members too, is to shut-up, as in, "shut-up and listen."
Step 2 would be then to know what active writers are wanting to read about,
which could be followed by Step 3, which is to discuss with the respect
editors IF what people want to read is being fairly covered. Step 4 would
suggest remedies to these editors if they proved they could not do so
themselves, despite the $100k.
Then, researcher-Sloan could write his opinion of what should happen based
on something other than his own opinion, and squarely on this minimal but
objective market test, and achieve something that no chess politician ever
did before!
Phil Innes
Vermont
|
|
| |
Date: 20 Jul 2007 12:31:06
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The USual Subjects
|
> In a message dated 7/18/07 8:33:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> innes8@verizon.net writes:
>
>>
>>
>> Anyone interested in the actual chess match - first time since 1947 that
>> USA and Russia had played a distance match - might note that Paul Truong
>> and myself did a 2-hour live rap on 8 fast games [4 at a time], and while
>> I was just the 'color-man' Paul did the chess notes on games which
>> included 2 world champions. He wasn't faking his understanding!
>>
>
> zzzzzz snoozefest.
> ECJ
A USCF delegate declares his interest in the mission of USCF, to broaden
chess into the mainstream, here declares that 2 hours of TV with 8
grandmasters and 2 world champions is... ?
This is why chess politicians become 'dirty'. They //really// don't care
about chess - only their own fortunes. And these are the people who think
they are the insiders and others should have nothing to say!
Disgustful!
Phil Innes
>
> **************************************
|
| |
Date: 15 Jul 2007 18:55:04
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The USual Subjects
|
>> Similarly, the editor of the print CL makes as much money, and apart from
>> consulting the 8-ball, how does he make decisions about what to put up on
>> its pages? Evidenced by the firing of Evans, its certainly not based on
>> science!
>>
>>
>
> Presumably, he trusts his judgment -- and by the look, feel and content of
> the mag, his judgment is excellent.
>
> He doesn't need to cobble the mag together by polls.
Cobble!
> Da Vinci didn't do the Mona Lisa after finding out through marketing
> surveys that the locals liked seeing him in drag, did he?
Dan Lucas then, is a heretofore hidden DaVinci, who has private dressing
habits which do not detract from...
... Except that the fact that the clamour to reinstate Evans more than
somewhat challenges Dan Da Vinci to look a bit further than his own idea of
things [ previously confined to one state ] , and to what people want -
which is the exact same subject which the USCF Delegate dismisses from my
message - any objective measure that the bloke knows what he is doing?
If Dan wants to be a Da Vinci, he should hang up his editorial pen, and have
a bash at mastering something, not diminishing the work and worth of real
[Grand] Masters.
Phil Innes
> ECJ
>
|
|
