If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
15. Have fun!
(Thanks to Nigel Hanrahan for writing these up!)
The Ugly Mess that is The English Chess Federation
The Ugly Mess that is The English Chess Federation
Many have read about GM Nigel Davies defection to the Undeb_Gwyddbwyll_Cymru (Welsh Chess Union). There is more in a recent article in The Guardian. Some interesting quotes.
In his report to the federation’s AGM [pdf download] last month, the journalist and strong amateur chess player Dominic Lawson, who is president of the organisation, declared that “petty divisions and arguments within the ECF do nothing to help those of us who are attempting to persuade the government and sporting authorities that chess should be given enhanced status”. His warning, which went unheeded, underlines the peculiar rancour at the heart of the game, which is administered for the most part by middle-aged men who have been around for decades and built up all manner of petty jealousies and preoccupations.
... In this world where, in truth, nothing is really at stake, the passions aroused are extraordinary. John Saunders, former editor of both Chess and British Chess Magazine, reckons the explanation lies in the nature of chess players: obsessive, attentive to detail, implacable, relentless. What makes for a strong chess player also produces a terrible diplomat, politician, administrator and sometimes, of course, quite an odd human being....
So what does the future hold? Davies believes the game is at a watershed. “Chess will continue in the UK,” he says, “but how it continues is not really clear. At the moment it looks more like becoming a minority game like go or shogi than a sport alongside darts. The next few years are going to decide, but if I had to bet on it then it would be that it will decline and become like go or checkers.” Some see the thousands who now play chess online or on apps as a source of hope, but Davies disagrees. “It’s not the same. The games have little value. You just finish the game and then start another one – it’s throwaway chess.”
(GM Nigel) Short sees signs of hope – notably the London Chess Classic, which starts at London’s Olympia on 4 December and attracts many of the world’s best players, including world champion Magnus Carlsen – but there are dangers, too, for a game whose place in the country’s cultural life has always been uncertain. Perhaps the glorious era of the 70s and 80s was the blip, and we are now reverting to mediocre type. Even when he strikes a modestly optimistic note, Davies makes the game’s future sound bleak: “It feels like a losing battle, but I’m sure chess will continue in some form. There’s so much history, so many stories, so many characters. This will be preserved, but it may not be as a living tradition.” Chess as morris dancing.
A cautionary tale? ETA: the remarks of John Saunders are interesting (I've highlighted them in the chess quote thread) but don't provide an answer; if chess players in general are like this, then every federation should have the same problems. And they don't.
Last edited by Nigel Hanrahan; Saturday, 21st November, 2015, 05:25 PM.
Reason: comment added
Dogs will bark, but the caravan of chess moves on.
Many have read about GM Nigel Davies defection to the Undeb_Gwyddbwyll_Cymru (Welsh Chess Union). There is more in a recent article in The Guardian. Some interesting quotes.
A cautionary tale? ETA: the remarks of John Saunders are interesting (I've highlighted them in the chess quote thread) but don't provide an answer; if chess players in general are like this, then every federation should have the same problems. And they don't.
I haven't read the whole article. I will when I get a chance. But one thing which I've noticed over the past 15 years is that most organizers, particularly the better ones, are class players. The notion that the same attributes that make top-level chess players, are the same ones that produce terrible diplomats, is well-observed IMHO.
Many have read about GM Nigel Davies defection to the Undeb_Gwyddbwyll_Cymru (Welsh Chess Union). There is more in a recent article in The Guardian. Some interesting quotes.
A cautionary tale? ETA: the remarks of John Saunders are interesting (I've highlighted them in the chess quote thread) but don't provide an answer; if chess players in general are like this, then every federation should have the same problems. And they don't.
All federations don't have the same problems because there are different cultures which emphasize chess to different degrees based on history. Obviously Russia still values chess very highly, and ditto for many eastern European nations. Does that mean that the best players from these countries are not 'odd' in the way that the author of the article seems to present? It all depends on how any given person defines 'odd'.
For many people worldwide, just somebody taking chess seriously enough to make it a profession is itself 'odd'. For one thing, it generally implies not having much of a social life growing up and thus not being very socially adept. Compare that to soccer or tennis or golf or American football or basketball.
It's somewhat akin to comparing a guitar virtuoso such as Steve Vai or Joe Satriani to a cello virtuoso such as... ??? I can't even think of one, and 90% of people worldwide probably can't either, but Vai and Satriani are known by much more than 10% of people worldwide. You may not like it if you're a cello fan, but it's there and it's not going to go away. Guitar virtuosos receive worldwide acclamation and recognition and youtube hits... cello virtuosos... not so much.
You have to put chess in its proper context. Chess compared to soccer is cello compared to guitar... maybe worse. It doesnt mean that either chess or cello are going to disappear. Just that they aren't going to suddenly spring to the forefront of worldwide attention. You can pin your hopes on Magnus Carlsen because he's young and good-looking, but it's not like the world doesn't have other good-looking males doing more 'captivating' things according to the tastes of the world audience.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
AIt's somewhat akin to comparing a guitar virtuoso such as Steve Vai or Joe Satriani to a cello virtuoso such as... ??? I can't even think of one, and 90% of people worldwide probably can't either, but Vai and Satriani are known by much more than 10% of people worldwide. You may not like it if you're a cello fan, but it's there and it's not going to go away. Guitar virtuosos receive worldwide acclamation and recognition and youtube hits... cello virtuosos... not so much.
Off the top of my head I can name Yo-Yo Ma. Lesser known would be Mary Wooten. I also would suggest that the number of people worldwide who would recognize the names Steve Vai and Joe Satriani is probably much less than 10%.
Off the top of my head I can name Yo-Yo Ma. Lesser known would be Mary Wooten. I also would suggest that the number of people worldwide who would recognize the names Steve Vai and Joe Satriani is probably much less than 10%.
Steve
Hi Guys:
My sister-in-law is a professional cello player with the amateur International Symphony. She is the only paid member (other than the director). I am told she could well have put out her own CD's and likely could have made it big had she tried to get an agent and market herself. She is considered quite good. But she is, like many elite, unknown and undiscovered. There is a quite well-known Canadian woman professional cellist of her vintage (can't remember her name at the moment); some said my sister-in-law was as good as her when they both were starting their professional career.
... one thing which I've noticed over the past 15 years is that most organizers, particularly the better ones, are class players. The notion that the same attributes that make top-level chess players, are the same ones that produce terrible diplomats, is well-observed IMHO.
The observation that, "In this world where, in truth, nothing is really at stake, the passions aroused are extraordinary," also rings true. I once saw two chess-playing brothers interrupt a weekend Swiss for what seemed like hours over the issue of where to place the clock on one of the boards.
In a completely different sport, in which litigious minds dominate, weekend sailors switched from resolving conflicts through interminable protest meetings, post race, to on-the-spot 360's or 720's (do a full circle or two full circles with your boat as acknowledgement of a rule infraction rather than wait until later). Maybe the fleet was larger back in the day but those meetings seem to be mostly a thing of the past.
I think TDs and organizers should take it upon themselves to educate the players about the administration of an event. An example would be that, where numbers are not too excessive, I'd like to see TD's use pairing cards to do the pairings in front of the players - so the latter can watch and learn about the pairing methodology used. Just as we try to encourage people to play chess, we should encourage players, and spectators, to think about helping to run and administer events. And this task is just as important as promoting play.
In Winnipeg the TDs used to post hand written Crosstables (an onerous task, true!), placed as much as possible strategically far away from the playing area, around which players could congregate, chat about the event, make new acquaintances, etc. without disturbing the play. I thought it was a great tradition.
Dogs will bark, but the caravan of chess moves on.
My sister-in-law is a professional cello player with the amateur International Symphony. She is the only paid member (other than the director). I am told she could well have put out her own CD's and likely could have made it big had she tried to get an agent and market herself. She is considered quite good. But she is, like many elite, unknown and undiscovered. There is a quite well-known Canadian woman professional cellist of her vintage (can't remember her name at the moment); some said my sister-in-law was as good as her when they both were starting their professional career.
Bob
Story I have is of a friend's friend who was a musician. I forget the instrument but let's say it it was the cello. Her problem was that she was the 2nd best cellist. Being #1 is worth lots with many concert engagements as soloist. Being #2 is worth well bupkis. A steady unremarked job in an orchestra somewhere. There are lots of fields (including chess) where that is the dynamic at play.
As to Paul's and Steve's comments, I have no idea who the people Paul mentions are but I do know who Yo-Yo Ma is. Paul's example is not convincing.
I also found the orginal article on English chess not particulary convincing either. A whine about how there is not enough money for people to be professional chess players.
Last edited by Roger Patterson; Sunday, 22nd November, 2015, 09:07 PM.
Reason: clarity
Re: The Ugly Mess that is The English Chess Federation
While Paul's example was poorly thought through, the intent was correct. It is easier to name five stars in a mainstream popular pastime than one that is at least in North America is a sub-culture. If you ask me to think of 5 famouseguitar players, i would likely name Hendrix, Jimmy Page, Brian May, Eddie Van Halen, Mark Knoppler, and so on. Cello, i would name Yo-yo May, Amanda Forseyth (Ottawa connection), and then be stumped.
Still, sub-cultures can still be vibrant despite being obscure. Using Paul's soccer analogy, most North Americans if ask to name pro soccer players, would name Pele, Maradona, Beckham ... and run out of names. Pick NHL in Canada or NFL in the USA, and the numbers named would go up radically. But the soccer environment is continuously improving, and most Canadians were following the Canadian Women's team at the olympics. So subcultures can do well ... or be the basket case that the UK, and (let's be honest here), Canada is. If you compare the USA with Canada chess-wise, chess is on a definite upswing in the states, and in a decline here in Canada.
While Paul's example was poorly thought through, the intent was correct. It is easier to name five stars in a mainstream popular pastime than one that is at least in North America is a sub-culture. If you ask me to think of 5 famouseguitar players, i would likely name Hendrix, Jimmy Page, Brian May, Eddie Van Halen, Mark Knoppler, and so on. Cello, i would name Yo-yo May, Amanda Forseyth (Ottawa connection), and then be stumped.
Still, sub-cultures can still be vibrant despite being obscure. Using Paul's soccer analogy, most North Americans if ask to name pro soccer players, would name Pele, Maradona, Beckham ... and run out of names. Pick NHL in Canada or NFL in the USA, and the numbers named would go up radically. But the soccer environment is continuously improving, and most Canadians were following the Canadian Women's team at the olympics. So subcultures can do well ... or be the basket case that the UK, and (let's be honest here), Canada is. If you compare the USA with Canada chess-wise, chess is on a definite upswing in the states, and in a decline here in Canada.
The name Yo-Yo Ma might be well known because Kramer blurted it out during an episode of mental confusion on an episode of Seinfeld.... with the point being that it was a totally obscure name to be blurting out. That episode alone probably caused several millions of people to research who Yo-Yo Ma is.
Perhaps I should have used the name Eric Clapton or Jimmy Page instead of Vai / Satriani. If one can honestly say he or she knows the music of Yo-Yo Ma and don't know the music of Eric Clapton, that is the exception that proves the rule.
Speaking to Roger's point about the article on English chess, there are plenty of people in chess who whine about not enough money in the game, and I have to wonder why they don't get it. There simply CAN'T be the kind of money in chess that exists in games or sports where chance is allowed to play a part in results. The logic behind that shouldn't even have to be explained.
My example of guitar players wasn't as good as it could have been, but neither is Garland's comparison of chess to soccer in North America as a sub-culture, because at least soccer has an element of physical activity and of chance involved that make it far more appealing as a spectator sport than chess can ever be. Soccer has room to grow as a spectator sport, chess does not. A better example for chess comparisons might be bridge or darts.
The investors in Millionaire Chess are now 2 years into finding out how they have been led into believing something that can never be for orthodox chess. If anyone wants to see how that is going, take a look here at the post-event comments by Maurice Ashley's business partner in Millionaire Chess, Amy Lee:
One person in the comments section asked where will MC3 be held, and Amy Lee responded: "We are not yet sure if we are going to host MC3. We will make an announcement after we look at everything. Sorry that is all I can say for now." The writing is clearly on the wall.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
there are plenty of people in chess who whine about not enough money in the game, and I have to wonder why they don't get it. There simply CAN'T be the kind of money in chess that exists in games or sports where chance is allowed to play a part in results. The logic behind that shouldn't even have to be explained.
Paul, the appeal for many chess players is that chess is NOT a game of chance. Hard work, study, and persistence does pay off in higher ratings, respect of peers, a sense of accomplishment, and on occasion, some prize money. At the other extreme, the lottery has many players and a very big first prize.
Every other game falls somewhere along the continuum between chess and the lottery. Everyone picks their favourite game(s). Trying to convince chess players to abandon theirs is pointless.
Thus the challenge is not "How do we change Chess to attract more players and money?"
the challenge is:"Without changing Chess, how do we attract more players and money?"
Last edited by Bob Gillanders; Monday, 23rd November, 2015, 11:31 AM.
As for the the name recognition for various activities. I think the whole line of thought is mistaken. The awareness of the general public of a "name" in an activity has not much bearing on their interest in the activity. How many times have you had a conversation that went something like "so you play chess? How about that Fischer guy and that Russian (don't remember the name) he played?". People tend to also know Kasparov but their awareness of those names doesn't translate to any interest in playing chess. Similarly, although I know the name "Yo-Yo Ma", I've never heard a recording AFAIK, and wouldn't cross the street to do so.
Last edited by Roger Patterson; Monday, 23rd November, 2015, 03:17 PM.
Paul, the appeal for many chess players is that chess is NOT a game of chance. Hard work, study, and persistence does pay off in higher ratings, respect of peers, a sense of accomplishment, and on occasion, some prize money. At the other extreme, the lottery has many players and a very big first prize.
Every other game falls somewhere along the continuum between chess and the lottery. Everyone picks their favourite game(s). Trying to convince chess players to abandon theirs is pointless.
Thus the challenge is not "How do we change Chess to attract more players and money?"
the challenge is:"Without changing Chess, how do we attract more players and money?"
I know and respect that chess players love the pure skill aspect of it. For most of them beyond a certain age, playing tournaments is a constant reminder that they lack fundamental knowledge and / or understanding and can never get it sufficient to be anything more than a journeyman player. As long as they don't go crazy and start attacking people, there's no harm done and I have no argument with what they are doing as far as playing the game. Play to your heart's content.
I am by no means "trying to convince chess players to abandon chess". I respect what chess players enjoy and their privilege to enjoy it.
What I am against is how often many of these players, including many of the better players, incessantly gripe about the lack of money in chess. THERE HAS TO BE LACK OF MONEY IN CHESS. To expect otherwise, griping and complaining about it, is to not even understand basic laws of economics and motivation. It is also to not understand that the games that involve large sums of money are those that make for great spectator appeal. Chess will never have mass spectator appeal that comes anywhere near soccer, tennis, football, hockey, and even poker levels.
You are wrong about the challenges. For someone who wants to make money and who can see opportunity, a valid challenge is very much how to change chess to attract more players and money. Think about this: there are far more chess players who are NOT playing organized tournaments than those that are. Those players that are not playing represent a market that is going unfulfilled.
600 million chess players worldwide, only 150 thousand roughly in FIDE. That makes 599,850,000 potential customers of a new form of chess that those people might play. Just win over 10% of them, that is 60 million people! Who is catering to this market? NO ONE! If someone gave them what they wanted -- a form of chess where they don't have to have been studying and memorizing openings and endgames since they were 3 years old, where an element or two of chance could see them once in a blue moon beat a GM or an IM or at least a Master, where they don't have to sit at the board for 6 or 7 hours per game and eat up an entire weekend to play an event, where they can talk during the game, where draws are not allowed except by 50 move rule and stalemate loses and 3 time repetition loses -- you'd be guaranteed to win over that 10% and have that market of 60 million plus. In fact, make the new chess exciting enough and fun enough and I'd expect to win over more like 300 million, 400 million.
So go ahead, tell me again that it's not a valid challenge to serve that market, and I'll tell you you're wrong, wrong, and wrong again.
And for the challenge that you consider valid: join the Millionaire Chess folks beating their heads against the wall. There's no magic formula that doesn't involve changing chess.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
I am by no means "trying to convince chess players to abandon chess". I respect what chess players enjoy and their privilege to enjoy it.
Good to hear. But sometimes you do give the impression that you are trying to convince us to abandon chess.
You make some good points. Those playing organized chess are only a small fraction of all chess players, but that is probably true in a lot of games/sports.
I do see an evolution towards shorter time controls. 6 or 7 hour games are mostly ancient history. There is a movement in Toronto to promote pub chess. Perhaps these changes will bring more players to organized chess which would include a more relaxed tournament format. Widen the tent, so to speak.
Last edited by Bob Gillanders; Tuesday, 24th November, 2015, 11:44 AM.
Tweet
Comment