Cycc 2016 & Naycc 2016

[John Coleman]

Re: Tournament Organizing in Canada - Dying? Why?

I have a simple question to (about) retired people - why do they not take matters in their hands? They should have more time than an average working/family person. Even if those tournaments were only for seniors it would increase a bump on the other side of the membership distribution curve.

I have the impression that most organisers are part of the grey-hair demographic. Chess organising desperately needs new ideas. New ideas come mostly from younger people.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Tournament Organizing in Canada - Dying? Why?

Just saying!!! OMG, how do I even get up every morning!.....oh ya, coffee. :)

Anyway, the CFC does need a new publicity officer.
If Paul's post motivates anyone to take the job, great. Your first task would be to refute Paul's argument. Consider it your job interview. :)

Actually Liza Orlova is our publicity officer and has been quite active on social media.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Cycc 2016 & Naycc 2016

What other game/sport (non-gambling) allows an average (or even mediocre) player to win cash? Trophies or medals are the norm elsewhere.

There are quite a few interesting nuances to this question.

First of all, forget the cash element. Then your question becomes "What other game/sport (non-gambling) allows an average (or even mediocre) player to win?"

In this question, the key word is "allows".

The answer is all of them: tennis, golf, curling (a team sport), badmington, squash... all except chess. As the Borislav Ivanov incident proved a few years ago, chess WILL NOT ALLOW an average player to win. Such a player will be strip-searched for cheating devices, because even the organizers agree: an average player is not supposed to win. It is completely understood that the only way such a player could win is via cheating. This means that every player in a chess event who is N rating points below the top rated players knows s/he is not allowed to win... and N isn't a very high number, just 100 rating points off the top and you winning would definitely arouse suspicion, perhaps enough to justify a strip-search. This is the only game where players of all strengths are allowed to play, but about 90% of them ARE NOT ALLOWED TO WIN.

Organized chess wants those 90% to come out and support events by registering to play, but limits their numbers by implicitly denying them any chance to win. There will always be some who will play anyway, to rub shoulders with their 'idols' as it were, but the numbers can never add up to prosperity for chess and monetary reward for organizers. It is a faulty business model, and it is fortunate for the few who do play that organizers are there to do the work despite knowing they can never be financially compensated.

Millionaire Chess attempts to overcome this huge problem by throwing relatively huge sums of money into the prize pot so that prizes can be extended down to something like 20th place in all sections. This first of all requires very large entry fees, and beyond that, it requires the money to come from DUMB INVESTORS. Those dumb investors have now had 2 events to discover that no, this showering of money doesn't defeat the problem. They need 1500 entries to break even, they got 550 the first event, then 660 this year. It's like trying to break the laws of physics. I severely doubt there will be a 3rd event.

The other nuance to your question, Hugh, is that you had to specify non-gambling. The truth is, all the sports I mentioned are gambling to some degree, because they all allow for elements of chance to decide results.

But beyond that, these other sports offer some form of physical exercise. Maybe it isn't obvious, but people WILL participate in an event without having any hope of winning if they can get at least some physical good out of it. You can tell people all you want that chess is good for the mind... but most people are exercising their minds all week long at their jobs, and want a BREAK from using their minds. There aren't that many people doing pure physical work any more... if everybody was shoveling shit all week long, a weekend chess tournament would have some appeal. But so many people today are sitting and using computing devices for hours at a time. So the mind-exercise selling point just doesn't work for chess, for the most part. Maybe a few will buy into it, but not nearly enough to bring money to organizers.

Chess has to break out of its sandbox, or the only people left in the sandbox will be masses of children, supervised by a few volunteer adults, along with a few oldsters who just love to play the game even if it is mostly against the children.

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: Cycc 2016 & Naycc 2016

To win cash prizes at tennis, golf, etc. your have to be GOOD. There are no cash prizes in golf for best score by a player with such-and-such a handicap, or the winner of a tennis tournament limited to those ranked below (e.g.) the top 100 in the country. You have to qualify by winning more and more important events, and then you are eligible for cash. Remember the old Soviet system of chess qualifications? If you won a category 4 tournament, you could then play in a category 3 event, etc. until you qualified for a GM event step-by-step.

[Garland Best]

Re: Cycc 2016 & Naycc 2016

I have to disagree with your opinion that people don't play in weekend tournaments because they spend their work week thinking and need a break from it for the following reasons.

1) Most white collar jobs are in fact not that mentally challenging. Most of the work day is mundane (fill expense report a, sell computer to customer b, etc).
2) Chess is a different mental exercise than what one does for work. By your logic, people would not do sudoko puzzles, play scrabble, fill in crossword puzzles etc. Because it is too much like work.

Also, when I play in a weekend tournament, I'm usually playing in my section, which is not the top section. I am eligible for class prizes, but I rarely win them. But there is a real possibility each time. What I get from the tournament is satisfaction from my individual battles over the board. The same is true for my club play, for which there is ZERO monetary reward. And that I do almost every week.

Just for reference, I play in about 2 weekend tournaments a year. I don't play in more that that, not because I don't want to, but because there is a lot of competition for my time on weekends. It's the main time I have to do household chores and repairs, I am volunteering for scouting every second week, and it's when I get quality time with my family etc. I suspect this is true for many players.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Cycc 2016 & Naycc 2016

I have to disagree with your opinion that people don't play in weekend tournaments because they spend their work week thinking and need a break from it for the following reasons.

1) Most white collar jobs are in fact not that mentally challenging. Most of the work day is mundane (fill expense report a, sell computer to customer b, etc).
2) Chess is a different mental exercise than what one does for work. By your logic, people would not do sudoko puzzles, play scrabble, fill in crossword puzzles etc. Because it is too much like work.

Also, when I play in a weekend tournament, I'm usually playing in my section, which is not the top section. I am eligible for class prizes, but I rarely win them. But there is a real possibility each time. What I get from the tournament is satisfaction from my individual battles over the board. The same is true for my club play, for which there is ZERO monetary reward. And that I do almost every week.

Just for reference, I play in about 2 weekend tournaments a year. I don't play in more that that, not because I don't want to, but because there is a lot of competition for my time on weekends. It's the main time I have to do household chores and repairs, I am volunteering for scouting every second week, and it's when I get quality time with my family etc. I suspect this is true for many players.

Hi Garland:

I agree.

It is the busy lifestyle that is now more than ever interfering with attendance at weekend swisses. There is serious competition to chess on both the life front, and on the other leisure activities front. Like Garland, my schedule is such that I only play 4 non-club tournaments per year: 2 in the summer (including the Can. Open); 2 in the winter - one Pre-Holidays; one in February.

Weekend Chess Tournaments simply have to be made as attractive as possible to compete. And it is my belief, like yours, that although I never win cash prizes, I always hope it might happen...it is a minor attractive feature......and since most tournament players are between 1400 and 1700 I believe, then the cash class prizes should be kept. Hal is able to have class trophies, because he gives the compensation of lower class registration fees.

Bob A

[Nigel Hanrahan]

grouchy old guys

I have a simple question to (about) retired people - why do they not take matters in their hands? They should have more time than an average working/family person. Even if those tournaments were only for seniors it would increase a bump on the other side of the membership distribution curve.

This is a good observation. I think the Canadian Senior Ch., with two groups (over 50-something AND over-65) in it, will have a good turnout in Surrey next June and I hope the trend will continue.

Here's a funny story to contrast with Paul's gloom and doom and inplicit criticism of youth chess. Many years ago, when I was a teenager, I went to the local chess club. I wasn't particularly good, just better than most patzers. The local club wasn't CFC connected, just a club. My dad paid the $5 annual fee, and I played a few games with the locals.

At the end of the evening, they returned the $5 to my dad. I wasn't welcome to play there. The old timers didn't like getting beat up over the board by a young whippersnapper.

I'm on the other end of things now, so I can sympathize with those grouchy old guys. Perhaps age-segregated chess is the way to go. We do it with rating groups, gender groups, and age groups for those under 18, so why not? The senior chess might be very successful. Whatever works.

The other obvious thing is that chess players have an antipathy to organizing. Most would rather play than do the other necessary stuff. It's a real prejudice, like the common prejudice against composition, heterodox chess, and most variants. I agree with the remark that you need a critical mass of volunteers. Winnipeg had it, probably still does, and was able to host the Canadian Open more than once, run a good website, collect a good games database, and just generally promote competitive chess no matter the ups and downs of individual volunteers. I'm out on the coast now, and the Lower Mainland and Victoria seems to have the same critical mass.

Maybe the CFC could spend a little more time and effort honouring its organizers as well as its players. And encouraging others to do so, making the path smoother for new volunteers, blah blah.

Anyway, those are my remarks. From a grouchy old guy, now on the other side of the fence.

[Nigel Hanrahan]

Re: Cycc 2016 & Naycc 2016

Weekend Chess Tournaments simply have to be made as attractive as possible to compete. And it is my belief, like yours, that although I never win cash prizes, I always hope it might happen...it is a minor attractive feature......and since most tournament players are between 1400 and 1700 I believe, then the cash class prizes should be kept. Hal is able to have class trophies, because he gives the compensation of lower class registration fees.

Winnipeg still has its Tuesday Night Tournaments and I see Victoria does much the same (using their local rating system) with Blitz, Active, etc.. A weekend Swiss is not the only way to go.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Cycc 2016 & Naycc 2016

Winnipeg still has its Tuesday Night Tournaments and I see Victoria does much the same (using their local rating system) with Blitz, Active, etc.. A weekend Swiss is not the only way to go.

Hi Nigel:

I agree. A lot of weekend tournament players, especially juniors, come out of chess clubs that hold a regular weekly meeting and have 5-9 rd. tournaments over the year, with throwing in from time to time an evening quick tournament, lecture, etc. Weekend swisses without strong chess clubs in the region, have a tough time.

Bob A

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: Cycc 2016 & Naycc 2016

Montreal holds 6-player RR sections of roughly equal-rated players on Wednesday nights, and it's hard keeping the number of players below 66 (capacity). The different ages seem to mingle amicably. There is a smaller crowd for the 4-player RR sections on Friday nights - probably because it's Friday night. :-)

[Chris White]

Re: Cycc 2016 & Naycc 2016

I have been to a bunch of Canadian Opens and usually there was a large monetary prize fund for every section.

However, if a Canadian Open was planned with $0 prize fund for all U-2200 sections (in order to pay organizers a just wage and beef up the professional section prize fund,) I would still try to make the trip to attend. Medals or trophies would be nice for the amateur section but I'd still go without it.

Do other amateur players feel the same way or is the prize fund an important part of the experience?

[Erik Malmsten]

Re: Tournament Organizing in Canada - Dying? Why?

I have a simple question to (about) retired people - why do they not take matters in their hands? They should have more time than an average working/family person. Even if those tournaments were only for seniors it would increase a bump on the other side of the membership distribution curve.

The Toronto CC in the 1960s was a bunch of old geezers. Luckily youth like Dobrich came in, organized and promoted. The high school league was run by the students, that's where organizers like myself, Boyd, Burk, Matsi, and Dutton participated. Teams travelled to other schools for a monthly match as well as weekend tournaments. Teams going to the Ontario High-School received funding from the student council. Our school's club sold pop at school dances to raise money for sets and clocks. The Toronto CC gave youth free membership in returning for volunteering to run tournaments. Thus we had young TDs who could direct in the future, instead of having a vaccumn when the oldsters retire. Today we have so many chess kids going to high school where's there no club. AS well as losing future adult CFC members, we are losing future organizers.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Cycc 2016 & Naycc 2016

I have to disagree with your opinion that people don't play in weekend tournaments because they spend their work week thinking and need a break from it for the following reasons.

1) Most white collar jobs are in fact not that mentally challenging. Most of the work day is mundane (fill expense report a, sell computer to customer b, etc).
2) Chess is a different mental exercise than what one does for work. By your logic, people would not do sudoko puzzles, play scrabble, fill in crossword puzzles etc. Because it is too much like work.

As I was reading your reply, in the background CNN was airing a special about some form of weekend-long music concert ('EDM Festivals') that is going viral, where people pitch tents somewhere in the country and multiple huge stages are set up. The difference is that the music is mostly played by DJs rather than musicians, and their music is a never-ending series of digital samples and sounds set to some kind of percussive beat. And the CNN host remarks that the concertgoers, many of them doing ecstasy and other drugs, are dancing for hours on end. They tell her that they are there to escape the hardship of their lives.

The host follows a male concertgoer named Oden (not sure of spelling, but that's what his name sounds like). He would fit right into a late '60s rock festival. He has brought ecstasy with him and is very much into doing that all weekend. She asks him what he does for a living. I was anticipating the answer, and it was exactly what I expected: "I work in the software industry."

These are all 20-somethings that could be playing chess... but the idea of doing that would be laughable to them. Whether it's the mundane aspect of their jobs or the mental challenges in their jobs doesn't really matter, it could be a bit of both, but the fact remains they want to escape and chess would be no escape whatsoever. The host remarks that these festivals are way beyond the raves she went to in the 1990s.

I don't know how you can equate playing in a chess tournament to doing sudoko or crossword puzzles or Scrabble. The fact you did so means you really missed the point. The time and mental concentration demands are not even close. Who does sudoko or crosswords for an entire weekend? But people do know that chess takes up an entire weekend, and while you may be ok with that, most people whose work is either mundane or requires lots of thinking are NOT ok with spending their weekend in the same type of environment.

I've always said that frequent or serious chess players bring their biases with them into these kinds of debates. They simply cannot imagine what it is like for 99.99% of the population, which is, to NOT like playing chess all weekend long. And that is their biggest failing towards understanding what organized chess is up against.

There are ways to make chess more exciting, but nobody in chess wants to go in that direction. This was where I drew the comparison to bridge. Chess will eventually end up where bridge is today, except that chess will always have children interested in large numbers. But the more chess panders to that demographic, the less it can appeal to the adult segment. Eventually it becomes stigmatized as a children's game -- not so much with the adults that are playing chess, but by the much much greater number of adults that aren't playing chess. "Oh, chess... that's the game kids are going crazy about."

Marshall McLuhan famously said "the medium is the message" and we can apply that to this situation: when the TV or internet news is repeatedly showing kids playing chess at this event or that event, the message becomes "chess is for kids" even though the news coverage was not making that claim. The message comes from the invisible association that gets formed in people's minds.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Cycc 2016 & Naycc 2016

There are ways to make chess more exciting, but nobody in chess wants to go in that direction.

You are free to change everything in chess and do you millions LOL Blitz, Fischer, random, bughouse all are played and enjoyed, though non of them reached the level of "classical" chess ("classical" - a standard setup with a time control enough to think and make decisions without hurry). Recently finished blitz and rapid championship were exciting but that all. They will never reach the deepness of the championship cycle - candidates/matches/final.

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: Cycc 2016 & Naycc 2016

I have been to a bunch of Canadian Opens and usually there was a large monetary prize fund for every section.

However, if a Canadian Open was planned with $0 prize fund for all U-2200 sections (in order to pay organizers a just wage and beef up the professional section prize fund,) I would still try to make the trip to attend. Medals or trophies would be nice for the amateur section but I'd still go without it.

Do other amateur players feel the same way or is the prize fund an important part of the experience?

I have been to numerous Canadian Opens over the years, and the prize fund has NEVER been a consideration in deciding whether or not to play. The deciding factors are usually where is it (always nice to discover new places in Canada), are my friends going, does it fit into my schedule. On occasion I have won money ($11 one year) and it's always a nice unexpected bonus. A trophy would have been even more appreciated.