Marketing the American Checker Federation

Dear Checkers Friends,

If organized checkers is to survive, we need to overhaul the ACF's marketing and publicity, both to increase membership/tournament attendance and to improve the visibility and reputation of the game as a whole.  From what I've seen of historical checkers literature, the complaints that "no one takes us seriously" and that "we have to reach out to more players" are present in every generation of players.  Yet we've also managed to survive as an organization for 60+ years, and as an organized game for roughly two centuries.  So the task before us is twofold: identify what has worked consistently, and identify what new ideas or approaches are needed.

Like it or not, the ACF's support base is very conservative, in the sense that the players generally like doing things the way they've "always" been done, whether that means tournament governance or just taking a lucky sock to every Ohio tournament.  That can be frustrating for our second task, even if the proposed changes are seemingly inconsequential, but it can actually be quite valuable for our first task. There's nothing like running things the same way for years on end to subject nearly every element of a given experience (say, making tournament pairings) to intense scrutiny, so even if nothing's really been changed for a decade, those of us who've been around the game for many years can offer very useful analysis of why certain things are done.  Now, I don't think that necessarily takes any individual practices off the table (well, we should probably leave the actual checkers on the table, unless they're my opponent's pieces) in discussions of rule or policy changes, but it should encourage more conscientious discussion about pros and cons.

Our second goal, as I mention above, is to figure out what we need to change or to add, to improve the playing experience and to sustain the game's and the ACF's attractiveness for future generations.  We've made some progress in that area this past year: we now have updated ratings, a social media presence (including our first two webcasts of major events), significant scholastic interest in Missouri and Alabama, a strong group of "new" players from Italy, and wider access to checkers literature.   These accomplishments, and others that I've forgotten, have both shown us how we can potentially use our current resources and underscored certain limitations to those resources.  For instance, according to the Ustream metrics for the Moiseyev-Borghetti match, we had 8272 unique viewers tune in over the course of the match.  Even accounting for some view count inflation (which is inevitable since IP addresses often change), that's an exponentially larger crowd than we've had at any tournament for the past 15 years.  I don't know how many new members signed up for the ACF this past year, but I would be surprised if we managed 1% of that figure.  Lots of people play checkers, and many are even interested enough in playing checkers to improve their skills in it. But if we don't get them in the pews, so to speak, then to be perfectly honest I don't think we'll make it another 20 years, let alone 60. 

So we have to ask ourselves: what exactly does the ACF offer? What, in other words, is the product we're trying to market? Our current ACF Benefits page lists four items: the ACF Bulletin, the right to play in ACF events (a requirement rarely enforced outside the Nationals), an official ACF rating, and the chance to meet people with similar interests.  All these are good benefits, and I think most ACF members genuinely appreciate at least a couple of them.  But we're insiders, and the point of marketing is to make a product visible and attractive to those on the outside.  It's not easy, and it's not cheap-- as any business owner will tell you, publicity is the result of conscious and continual investment, in time and money.  Right now, to the best of my knowledge, we have two active checkers clubs (one in NC and one in TN), two scholastic groups (MO and AL), and about two dozen regular (annual) tournaments.  We also have no checkers columns, no press kits or brochures, no corporate partners or sponsors, no ads on playing sites (and of course, no playing site of our own), very little media coverage, and almost no competition for critical ACF leadership positions.  And perhaps most worrisome of all, the average national or international event receives financial support from well less than 10% of the membership, often resulting in prize payouts that barely cover the winner's travel costs.  These are depressing numbers, but I hope they're also eye-opening numbers.  We simply won't get anywhere relying on the game's natural beauty or the camaraderie of checker players: we must have a message, and we must communicate it well and often.

Now, at this point you may well be expecting me to ask you to invite a friend to a tournament, or track down some players at a local school (fire station, park, retirement home, chess club, etc), or talk to a local business about sponsoring the ACF, or get out your checkbook and donate ten bucks to the 2012 Nationals prize fund.  I hope you will do those things, but I also know you've heard them all before and may well have learned to tune them out.  So let me offer a tougher challenge: I want you to make the American Checker Federation a product worth telling the world about.  I want us to be proud to market our game and our group, because we're proud of what we've created. I want those of you who've left the ACF (or never joined) to get over whatever squabble you had with ornery officers or snail's-pace games or minuscule prize funds, and spend the three dollars a month (less than a gallon of gas!) to join up and make this organization work-- because it works for you, and won't work without you.  I want current members (even the crusty life members like me) to remember why you're here in the first place, and to find at least one "baby step" to help make the ACF into the well-run, professional organization I know it can be.  And most of all, I want you all to be ambassadors for the game: we may only have one Player's Representative, but we can have hundreds of representative players.

This is our game, and our group: it's time we get out of this rut, and hit the ground jumping!

Improving ACF Tournament Divisions

As many of you know, the American Checker Federation currently uses a three-tiered system to divide players in its National Tournaments: minors, majors, and masters.  In general, players have been allowed to self-select which division they play in, with the exception of previous years’ division winners and with only occasional enforcement of rating cutoffs.  This has led to more than one controversy about players “sandbagging”—deliberately playing in a lower division to improve their chances of winning—and, less commonly, of players spoiling a higher division by advancing too far.  These controversies often sow discord among what is already a shrinking group of tournament checker players, and occasionally spill over into very public feuds that hurt our organization’s and our game’s reputation.  To handle questions about tournament divisions in a more amicable fashion, and to encourage fair play, I propose a new system for our national tournament divisions, to be placed in the official ACF Tournament Rules, under Section IV (“Classification and Seeding”).  I am also posting a copy of the proposal on the ACF Forum and distributing it by email, in an effort to get useful feedback and revision ideas from a range of players.

Much of the existing confusion about tournament divisions, I believe, has stemmed from the lack of reliable ACF ratings, a weakness that has now been rectified thanks to the work of several dedicated volunteers.  Now that we have more useful data, I believe we should take the opportunity to rethink the three-tier system, and replace it with a four-tier system, as outlined below.  Over the past ten years, we’ve averaged about 56 players per Nationals, including the youth tournaments held from 2003-2009.  Even accounting for declining attendance in the past five years, I believe 45-50 is a reasonable expected attendance for an NT, given sufficient promotion.  Under those conditions, my proposed model would still allow for divisions of about 12 players each—certainly enough for a standard Swiss tournament, with possibilities of a round-robin depending on the style and turnout.  More importantly, though, they set out clear boundaries for tournament divisions, and outline specific procedures for assigning players into the appropriate division. Your feedback is welcome, and I hope we can integrate these changes into the 2011 National Tournament.

Proposal

1. Replace the current divisions with a four-tiered rating system: 2201+, 1901-2200 (U2200), 1701-1900 (U1900), and 0-1700.  These rating cutoffs are similar to those suggested in the most recent ACF 3-Move Tournament Rules, and are based on player performance in the last few National Tournaments. Tournament directors should acquire a copy of the most recent ACF ratings before the tournament starts, and must use those ratings to assign divisions.

2. Players within 100 rating points of the next-highest division may petition to play up one division.  Unrated players may petition to enter the U2200 or U1900 divisions based on state tournament performance or, in the case of no previous tournaments, based on the testimony of at least one established tournament player.  Players are encouraged to prepare these petitions ahead of time.

3. First-time tournament players who wish to play in the U1700 division must offer evidence (preferably combined with the testimony of another ACF player) that playing there is appropriate given their playing strength. This rule is not meant to discourage beginners from entering the Nationals, but rather to ensure that experienced but unrated players compete at a fair level.

4. Pursuant to the existing ACF rule about auto-promoting division winners, previous Majors winners (currently Phil Schwartzberg [2008], Albert Tucker [2009], and Teal Stanley [2010]) will play in the 1900-2199 division, unless they place into a higher division. The previous Minors winners (currently Corey Modich [2008], Willis Shewcraft [2009], and Nick Addante [2010]) will play in the 1700-1899 division, with the same exception. Following this pattern, future division winners will move up one category automatically, for the same three-year period. If a division winner has not reached the next rating threshold within three years of his or her respective division victory, he or she will return to his or her regular division.   State tournament victories will not trigger this auto-promotion, but they may be used in consideration of petitions to play up. 

5. State tournaments may combine rating divisions at the tournament directors' discretion, but the first round matchups must be between players of the same division whenever possible.  TDs may also consider using mini round-robin tournaments between players of the same rating division, to improve rating accuracy, but the majority of the tournament rounds should use Swiss pairings.

6. In cases where TDs need to adjust the number of players in a given division (for instance, to avoid awarding a bye or to allow for a round-robin tournament), they may ask the lowest-rated player in a division to move down, or the highest-rated one to move up.

7. Any remaining questions about placement should be referred to a four-person committee with representatives from each division.  If insufficient representatives are available, the tournament director may assign the remaining committee seats.

Thank you for your time and consideration.  Please feel free to email me your comments at acker.jt@gmail.com, or post them on the ACF Forum (http://www.usacheckers.com/forum).  I look forward to your feedback!

2011 British and Irish Freestyle Championship

Paddy Doyle won the 2011 British and Irish Freestyle Championship, held this past weekend in Kildare, Ireland. Liam Stephens kindly provided this crosstable of tournament results, and also posted these standings on the ACF Forum:

Masters
1. Paddy Doyle 15 points
2. John McElhone 15
3. Colin Young 13
4. Liam Stephens 11
5. Bill Dobbins 11
5. Patricia Breen 11

Senior
1. Billy Kelly 14 points
2. Paddy Byrne 13
3. Sean Davis 11
4. Brendan Murray 11
5. Liam Doyle 11

Intermediate
1.Denis Fitzgerald 13 points
2. Michael Rattigan 11
3. Kenny Johnston 9
4. Michael Martin 6

Final 11-Man Standings

Final Standings(after 8 rounds)

1. Moiseyev 25
2. Laverty 21
3. Webster 19
4. McLellan 18 (126 hp)
5. T. Stanley 18 (125 hp)
6. McClintock 18 (119 hp)
7. Millhone 18 (118 hp)
8. Ross 16
9. Williamson 14
10. Smith 13
11. B. Stanley 11
12. Martin 10
13. Atkins 9

Hopefully a couple of the participants will update us on their impressions of the tournament.

11-Man Update

After R6:

1. Moiseyev 20
2. Laverty 16
3-4. Webster & Ross 14
5-8. McClellan, McClintock, Millhone, and T. Stanley 13
9. Williamson 12
10. Smith 10
11-12. B. Stanley & Atkins 7

11-Man Ballot Tournament Update

After R5:

1. Moiseyev 16
2-3. Laverty & McClellan 13
4-5. McClintock & T. Stanley 12
6-7. Millhone & Webster 11
8-10. Ross, Williamson, & Martin 10 (Martin withdrew; his 10 is counting a 3-point bye in R6)
11. Smith 8
12. B. Stanley 7
13. Atkins 5

2011 11-Man Ballot Tournament

Alan sent me a copy of the crosstable. After three rounds, here's how things stand:

1-2. Alex Moiseyev and Tim Laverty (10)
3-4. Joe McClellan and Bill McClintock (8)
5-6. John Webster and Mike Ross (7)
7. Teal Stanley (6)
8-11. Alan Millhone, Ted Williamson, JR Smith and James Martin (5)
12. James Atkins (3)
13. Bill Stanley (2)

Irish Open and World Qualifying Tournament

The 2010 Irish Open and 3-Move World Qualifying Tournament were held back-to-back this past week in Dublin, Ireland, at the Radisson Hotel. Competition was fierce in both tournaments, and they generated lots of commentary and argument at the ACF Forum. The winner of the WQT earns the right to challenge World 3-Move Champion Alex Moiseyev for the title, with a match likely to take place in late 2011.

After the smoke had cleared, Ron King won the Irish Open Masters convincingly, while Bernard Coll topped the Senior division (analogous, I think, to the majors division in US tournaments). In the WQT, Michele Borghetti edged King out for first place, which will make for an exciting match-up in the next WCM. Borghetti is known as the Marion Tinsley of Italian checkers, and he has proven himself to be an extremely strong crossboard player in many variants of the game. Toyeva Hurhagul won the women's WQT over Jan Mortimer and Kim Willis (Amangul Durdyeva, the current Women's Champion, played in the open division), while Maksat Durdyev beat Gechakov Gochmyrat in the youth WQT. Congratulations to all the competitors, and thanks for an exciting week of checkers!

Here are the full standings for both events, courtesy of Graham Young. You can also view the crosstables at Google Docs: Irish Open and World Qualifying Tournament.

Irish Open - Masters

Ron King
John McElhone
Michael Shabshai
Filip Karetr
Igor Martynov
Shane McCosker
Tom Watson
John Webster
Sean O'Drscoll
Tom Kee
Brian Kilgour
Colin Young
Joe Schwartz
Danny Oliphant
Frank Moran
Myles Hannigan
Liam Stephens
Peter Kierans
Anthory Rose
Charlie McKenna
Bill Dobbins
Paddy Doyle
Jaroslav Tichy
Thomas Wien
Sean Phillips
Franice McNally

Irish Open - Senior and Intermediate

Note: Everyone played as one group, but I've grouped the intermediate players below for ease of reading.

Senior
Bernard Coll
John Jolliff
Sean McKenna
Graham Young
Joe Maguire
John Preston
Tommy Canning
Sean Davis
Con Boyle
Jan Mortimer
John Joe McGee
Brendan Murray
Billy Kelly
John Reade
Charlie McElory
Kim Willis
Vencent Beirne
John Davis
Liam Doyle
Ian Caws
Joan Caws
P J Furry
Con McCarrick

Intermediate
Paddy Byrne
John Kelly
Mick Brennan
Mick O'Dowd
Pasty Quinn
Mick Martin
Liam Harkin
Lisa Cuito

World Qualifying Tournament
Michele Borghtti
Ron King
Shane McCosker
John Webster
Joe Schwartz
Garrett Owens
Bagtiyar Durdyev
Robert Tovagliaro
Michael Holmes
Igor Martynov
Micheal Shabshai
Myles Hannigan
James Morrison
Bashim Durdyev
Amangul Durdyev
Filip Kareta
Colin Young
Thomas Wien
Frank Moran
Donald Oliphant
Tony Boyle
Paddy Doyle
Anthory Rose
Jaroslav Tichy

King Retains GAYP Title

After a victory in Game 24 of their match, Ron King successfully defended his GAYP World Title against Richard Beckwith. King won two games-- one with the white side of 11-15 23-19 8-11 22-18 and one with the red side of 11-16 22-18 16-19-- while Beckwith scored with the red side of 11-15 24-19. The remainder were draws.

Congratulations to Ron King for retaining the title, and to Richard Beckwith for once again proving he is a world-class grandmaster! We look forward to the next title match.

Game # 23

Ron with reds opens " OLD Faithful " and dr beckwith replies 22-18.

Drawn game.

Alan
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Four hour marathon

Second double corner. Dr. Beckwith reds. Red wins. Two games left.

Alan
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Game #21. Final day

Suki has the red pieces for this mornings first game of the final four of the match.

Single Corner. Suki takes 12-16 line.

Draw

Alan
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Game # 20

Dr. Beckwith with reds. 11-15,24-19,15-24,28-19,9-14,22-18,5-9. Drawn game.

Stay tuned tomorrow for last games.

Alan
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Game # 19

11-15,22-17,15-19. Draw.

Dr. Beckwith reds next game.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Game # 18

Dr. Beckwith reds.

Second double corner. 9-14 line. Drawn.
Alan
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Friday. Game #17

Suki with reds as today's four games begin.

Fife three by two refused. Drawn game. Alan

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Game sixteen

Souter. 9-14,22-17,11-15. Souter.
Draw.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Game fifteen

Defiance opening with suki reds. Draw
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Another Photo

Game 14: Dr. Beckwith red and 9-14,22-17,11-15 into the Souter and a nice draw. Amishman Joe Weaver visiting today from Mt. Eden, Ohio.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

First Blood

From Alan:

Game 13. Suki opens 11-16. Then 22-18 then 16-19. Two hour game. Suki won.