The true cost of volunteers by Steve Giddins

[Vlad Drkulec]

http://stevegiddinschessblog.wordpre...of-volunteers/

[Paul Bonham]

Re: The true cost of volunteers by Steve Giddins

http://stevegiddinschessblog.wordpre...of-volunteers/

Ahh, but the REAL problem still hasn't been addressed even by this blogger.

The REAL problem is that chess has no spectator appeal (beyond other chessplayers). Without general public spectator appeal, you can't break the cycle. There just aren't enough dedicated chess players to make if viable.

Poker broke through because of the 'hole cam', showing television viewers what cards each player was holding. Suddenly the viewer was involved. Poker on TV exploded, so did the prize money, and a feedback loop was established.

There is no tech solution to save chess. Andrew Paulson's biometric measurements won't do it. The general public will yawn and switch channels.

This is all evidence that chess is not a sport. All sports attract some decent number of the general public as spectators, even that bastion of brainlessness, bowling.

If the chess volunteers stop volunteering and demand payment, organized chess will die.

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: The true cost of volunteers by Steve Giddins

Great article. This should be required reading for all chess volunteers!
A primer in the study of Chessonomics! :)

[Gordon Gooding]

Re: The true cost of volunteers by Steve Giddins

I wonder how many sporting activities at the big league level would be around if the people who made it happen, did it all ;for the love of the game.; hmm. My guess is none!

Do not muzzle the ox as it treads the grain.

[Gordon Gooding]

Re: The true cost of volunteers by Steve Giddins

Ahh, but the REAL problem still hasn't been addressed even by this blogger.

The REAL problem is that chess has no spectator appeal (beyond other chessplayers). Without general public spectator appeal, you can't break the cycle. There just aren't enough dedicated chess players to make if viable.

Poker broke through because of the 'hole cam', showing television viewers what cards each player was holding. Suddenly the viewer was involved. Poker on TV exploded, so did the prize money, and a feedback loop was established.

There is no tech solution to save chess. Andrew Paulson's biometric measurements won't do it. The general public will yawn and switch channels.

This is all evidence that chess is not a sport. All sports attract some decent number of the general public as spectators, even that bastion of brainlessness, bowling.

If the chess volunteers stop volunteering and demand payment, organized chess will die.

Umm, using that reasoning professional sports of any type should have never gotten beyond the idea stage of organizing for compensation (paid for work.) It is work to organize and run a chess tourney. All you organizers know that even with the 'pay' that most of you get for your efforts, minimum wage is better than our pay for promoting and running tournaments. It's kind of depressing when you do the math. All the hours, before the tourney spent in responding to emails, setting up sections, during the tourney setting up tables on game day, running the tourney, wishing u could play, tearing down the tables, submitting reports, responding to emails/comments concerning your tourney.

[Peter McKillop]

Re: The true cost of volunteers by Steve Giddins

Umm, using that reasoning professional sports of any type should have never gotten beyond the idea stage of organizing for compensation (paid for work.) ...

I agree with Paul. Chess is a marginal activity in Canada and many other places. Until that changes then organized chess in this country will remain roughly as it is - volunteer and patron dependent. Interestingly (imo of course), the CFC does little or nothing to try to expand the base of chess players or cater to a wider chess audience. They prefer to focus on that tiny and apparently decreasing segment of Canadian chess players who like to play rated OTB chess.

[Hans Jung]

Re: The true cost of volunteers by Steve Giddins

Im glad somebody finally communicated the situation which does sound very familiar (although its across the pond where there are supposedly far more resources) As for our situation we have only ourselves to blame. There should be an association of organizers and keeping in touch and on the same page should be done if only by email. Support each other! What a concept. No, instead its regional, or usually each to their own. Joe Blow does this and John Smith does it that way and lets keep everything to ourselves. (thats not personally the case but I have seen it a lot)

[Peter McKillop]

Re: The true cost of volunteers by Steve Giddins

Im glad somebody finally communicated the situation which does sound very familiar (although its across the pond where there are supposedly far more resources) As for our situation we have only ourselves to blame. There should be an association of organizers and keeping in touch and on the same page should be done if only by email. Support each other! What a concept. No, instead its regional, or usually each to their own. Joe Blow does this and John Smith does it that way and lets keep everything to ourselves. (thats not personally the case but I have seen it a lot)

Hans, aren't you (and others? with some assistance from the municipal govt.?) doing some progressive things in K-W to broaden the appeal of chess beyond the tournament-focused CFC crowd?

[Garland Best]

Re: The true cost of volunteers by Steve Giddins

Interestingly (imo of course), the CFC does little or nothing to try to expand the base of chess players or cater to a wider chess audience.

Perhaps that is because they are unpaid volunteers. ;)

[Nigel Hanrahan]

article by Steve Giddins

Chess is a marginal activity in Canada and many other places. Until that changes then organized chess in this country will remain roughly as it is - volunteer and patron dependent.

The highlighted item is somewhat incorrect. Many, many people play chess. When the CFC paid for a study in the 1980's, it is my understanding that the numbers showed that more Canadians played chess on a regular basis than play ice hockey. We should, therefore, distinguish how much chess is played, despite or outside of any organized efforts to support it, and the organized version.

Canada does not have the kind of general chess culture of countries like Russia and the Republic of the Philippines. In the former, it is common practice to play chess during coffee break at work, usually blitz, the way Canadians might play cribbage. Other can describe the practices in the Philippines. It's simply beyond the ability of a sporting organization like the CFC, no matter how large, to grow the sport to that level. It would take a powerful political will which is something that chess players simply have failed to generate. Edited to add: clearly, organized chess could do more here. I would just note that we must convince all political perspectives of the merit of promoting chess, and not limit ourselves, as I think we do, to making political points by supporting one political faction or another. Chess should be bigger than such sectarian views.

Interestingly (imo of course), the CFC does little or nothing to try to expand the base of chess players or cater to a wider chess audience. They prefer to focus on that tiny and apparently decreasing segment of Canadian chess players who like to play rated OTB chess.

It's an intimidating problem for an over-taxed organization. And, given the vociferousness over what will likely have little effect on chess in Canada (the "debate" over FIDE Presidency), we probably use too much energy and time on less important things.

I don't have much to add as some magic solution to growing chess in Canada. I am in the process of reading many, many beginner's manuals and such in an effort to understand how best to teach chess. And I have no desire to try to re-invent the wheel. Two things, however, stand out for me so far:

1. We do not emphasize enough the other variations and approaches to chess other than our own favorites. I would like to mention that treating chess as a creative activity, such as problemists do, and encouraging the composition and solution of chess problems as a rewarding activity in and of itself is something I would like to see more of. Not everyone wants to compete in chess; some like the beauty of a fascinating problem. It is still chess, IMHO.

Furthermore, this might even democratize chess a little, as competitive results don't drown out all other considerations here. A friend of mine once pointed out, amusingly, that the Winnipeg chess players used to go down a crowded stairway at the old Cornish Library in virtual rating order on their way to a tourney. I had to laugh when I realized it was true. Competition can make snobs of us. I would add, by the way, that some excellent players deliberately violated this unspoken rule and rejected it by gentlemanly encouraging others to precede them down the stairs.

2. Chess history/culture. Other sporting activities, such as tennis as represented by Wimbledon, include a cultural component and is enjoyed by those who never play tennis. Baseball fans have a whole culture associated with their almost feverish and fanatic accumulation of statistics and information - outside their direct enjoyment of the sport. Chess has a history that dwarfs these other activities. It outlasted the society that gave birth to it, I rather think that it will outlast our own society, and yet we impoverish the spread of chess and its culture by treating this as not of importance. Every teacher of chess knows that teaching children about chess "etiquette" will help them to improve (such as the importance of losing with grace) and some pepper their presentations with historical information so as to be more interesting to newcomers.

[Hans Jung]

Re: The true cost of volunteers by Steve Giddins

Hans, aren't you (and others? with some assistance from the municipal govt.?) doing some progressive things in K-W to broaden the appeal of chess beyond the tournament-focused CFC crowd?

Yes there is a lot more than just tournament chess in KW. My approach was to develop a model based on the activity of the outdoor chess tables and the need for a chess coordinator. Many cities across Canada have been made aware of this model. Interestingly enough municipal governments are willing to buy into infrastructure (concrete chess tables) but go silent when they are made aware that those same tables need staffing (volunteer or otherwise). There are thousands of outdoor tables across North America, most of them hardly ever used for chess play, so not just a Canadian problem.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: article by Steve Giddins

" ... Every teacher of chess knows that teaching children about chess "etiquette" will help them to improve (such as the importance of losing with grace) and some pepper their presentations with historical information so as to be more interesting to newcomers. ..."

When I see a kid scarfing down lunch at chess camps I tell everyone how Alekhine choked to death on a piece of meat and that they should chew their food. Does that count? ;-)

[Chris White]

Re: article by Steve Giddins

Good, thought provoking article. Is this a problem in Canada?

If so, here are a couple of ways that tournament directors and organizers could be more fairly compensated for their time and skills:

1) higher entry fees
2) no prize money for under 2200

Not all people involved in organized sports/activities want to be compensated financially for their time or skills. Some enjoy volunteering in their communities and enjoy watching their work cause growth. That is where I am but I do not put a lot of time into chess for now. I can imagine someone putting enormous hours into promoting chess deserves to be well compensated. So even though my two suggestions may be a bitter pill to swallow, something's got to give.

The article also made me think of Gary Kasparov's quote in The Globe And Mail article. “It’s a small federation of people who don’t care about promoting the game." I admire Kasparov but I think he is off base on that one. It seems to me there are a lot of people in Canada who are very passionate about promoting chess. From the large tournament directors to the guy who makes sure all the new people in the club feel welcome - whether it's analyzing games after someone's first tournament or going for dinner or a beer with them - everyone plays a part.

One thing that I feel is lacking in Canada is chess in the schools. Here's an idea that I have seen work in Newfoundland:

An experienced player, titled or not, goes to a school with their criminal record check completed and offers to start a chess club for free. With a little luck, some parents will be signing their kids up for private lessons.

In my experience, volunteering is not giving up your time for free. Yes, you might not get paid directly for the work you do but if you do a good job it will lead to some benefit down the road. Contacts, job references, the list goes on and on.

I guess that's why I had to comment on the article. I agree with his points but I felt that he was giving volunteering a bad rap. It can open so many doors. Most of the things I'm most thankful for in my life all can be traced back to volunteering in one way or another.

[Nigel Hanrahan]

chess immortality, choking on food, and stuff like that

When I see a kid scarfing down lunch at chess camps I tell everyone how Alekhine choked to death on a piece of meat and that they should chew their food. Does that count? ;-)

Heh. Be careful not to compliment Alekhine's play overmuch or an impressionable youngster might form the erroneous conclusion that choking on their food while playing (chess) is a sure-fire method to chess immortality. The great German writer Goethe got his literary start writing a novel about "Young Werther" who took his own life; young Germans were so impressed that they started a stampede of suicides.

By the way, is there a best way to teach children not to have a tantrum when they lose a game?