Canadian Open

[Halldor P. Palsson]

Re: Canadian Open

I was planning on running in 2017. But now with only a month to AGM I don't think there's enough time to move the VMs in a positive direction, via email loop and all.

I guess 2017 would make it 10 years of having nothing to do with organized chess.

I cannot see a stampede of support for your return with that record. The voters are CFC members that run chess clubs & local CFC/FIDE rated tournaments. They expect those who want to lead the CFC to carry a load in organized chess.

[Neil Frarey]

Re: Canadian Open

The voters are CFC members that run chess clubs & local CFC/FIDE rated tournaments. They expect those who want to lead the CFC to carry a load in organized chess.

Incestuous, myopic comment at best.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Canadian Open

I guess 2017 would make it 10 years of having nothing to do with organized chess.

I cannot see a stampede of support for your return with that record. The voters are CFC members that run chess clubs & local CFC/FIDE rated tournaments. They expect those who want to lead the CFC to carry a load in organized chess.

Donald Trump is on the cusp of winning the most powerful position in the world without ever having participated in any legislative or political initiative whatsoever. I would suggest, Halldor, that your understanding of "the voters" is.... well, I don't know.... maybe CFC election voters are different from normal voting citizens?

You even say that "the voters" run chess clubs and tournaments. Are we to take from this that only people running clubs and tournaments get to vote in CFC elections? I actually don't know, perhaps this is true.

Those leading the CFC carrying a load in organized chess seems to be part of the problem... not part of the solution.

[Neil Frarey]

Re: Canadian Open

OK, let's air this one out. My comment might have been a tad harsh.

Iceman does raise an interesting point worth discussing, even if it comes from a "protective" and "limited" perspective. (better?)

But ... in organized chess I have created enduring bits. I have a track record of success; on a regional level TD remuneration for one, it comes from a my perspective ... a perspective of growth. National Capital Open too it endures. Not to mention respect of our French culture! On club level, those at the RACC who have lost to yet another 10 year old ... you can blame that one on me. I was the one brought forward the motion to do away with the youth age restriction ... it was seconded by Patterson ;) Blame him too! OCC, Chapter's chess etc.. I won't go on.
It's actually a long list, my work on street level with cafe chess got me into a book! And globally, ODA ... Ottawa Diplomatic Association, and SoCA ... Society of Chess Aficionados. Believe me, I'm no chess organizer neophyte ... no wheres nears! I have carried the load and paid my dues.

And 10 years on, the main difference being, I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is.

All of that comes from my perspective ... a perspective of growth.

So, take note Fred(s) I'm prepared to give our mag editor (website site too) a budget! ... recruit a French translator. And also on my own dime, I'll fly up North and meet with territorial leaders and discuss face-to-face organized chess in Canada. I'll live stream that one. And more, lots more.

Over the last 10 years, my creativity combined with my ability to bring my creativity to life has brought me fame. Seriously it has. I never saw it coming. And I've had the great honor and privilege (right up to this very day) to contribute to some amazing global organizations and to work with some very talented people. What have I learnt? In order to grow and thrive 3 things must happen; 1) become humble 2) become extroverted 3) get involved. And that's the way I would lead the CFC. BTW, I learnt that in some small part working with chess here in my own backyard but mainly from my first tour of America and from my collaborations with American orgs and artists in general! The Declaration of Independence ... is an amazing amazing thing of beauty. I could go on and on about that for days and days!!! Did you know, it gave birth to the Individual? Did ya???

But please note this ... I'm not prepared to discuss my work with creativity here on CT or publicly anywhere else for that matter. Privately yes, publicly no. And I'd like to take this opportunity to thank those in our chess community whom I have trusted over the years in keeping my accomplishments on the 'down low'. peace beautiful people.

Sorry, I digress.


Anywho, Halldor's point of view is introverted. It is inbred. Any gains that come from that will be grotesque at best. A vision of dribs & drabs. Real gains are to be had out there >>> in Canada >>> all of Canada.

We really should go get it.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Canadian Open

I'll not update chess- results till Sunday. sorry. I might send a file if anybody is willing to male updates.

[Fred McKim]

Re: Canadian Open

Thanks for doing that Fred!

http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/sh...6-2016-cfc-agm

I was planning on running in 2017. But now with only a month to AGM I don't think there's enough time to move the VMs in a positive direction, via email loop and all.

At the very least, you forced the dates to be publicly announced. I shudder to think why this wasn't on the CFC home page a month ago, it's important stuff. And why such an important announcement was held back, and why such an important announcement fell to the CFC Treasurer.

Has Lyle resigned?

I wish we had a volunteer that would help Bob out with the web site. There is so much that could be done to make it more relevant - such as having links to the CYCC and CO crosstables, news on the AGM, Olympic players, etc, etc. I used to do a lot of that stuff (and created all of the historical files) but time doesn't permit me to help that way any more. Any one who know a little html could be a great help. Just send me a note. fred underscore mckim at Hotmail dot com

Neil, if you decide not to run for President this year, you can still make your presence felt - maybe you could come on board as public relations officer - this could cover doing any kind of of grass roots membership drive stuff you are contemplating.

[Fred McKim]

Re: Canadian Open

I guess 2017 would make it 10 years of having nothing to do with organized chess.

I cannot see a stampede of support for your return with that record. The voters are CFC members that run chess clubs & local CFC/FIDE rated tournaments. They expect those who want to lead the CFC to carry a load in organized chess.

All good points Halldor. According to Neil, I am one of those Voting Members that has probably done nothing for Canadian chess in the past 20 ... 30 ... 40 years. I did however decide to see how many tournaments I directed / organized from 2006-2015 (using the CFC crosstable search function). Counting multi-section events as only 1 tournament, it comes out to 67. I'm sure there are all kinds of others out there that are at least in double digits over the same time period. Without these people's contributions there would be no CFC.

[Fred McKim]

Re: Canadian Open

Donald Trump is on the cusp of winning the most powerful position in the world without ever having participated in any legislative or political initiative whatsoever. I would suggest, Halldor, that your understanding of "the voters" is.... well, I don't know.... maybe CFC election voters are different from normal voting citizens?

You even say that "the voters" run chess clubs and tournaments. Are we to take from this that only people running clubs and tournaments get to vote in CFC elections? I actually don't know, perhaps this is true.

Those leading the CFC carrying a load in organized chess seems to be part of the problem... not part of the solution.

Paul. Each province elects one or more Voting Members (based on their population). They are the ones who elect the CFC Board of Directors. This is where Neil's problem is. He continues to insult on this forum the people who are eligible to vote.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Canadian Open

All good points Halldor. According to Neil, I am one of those Voting Members that has probably done nothing for Canadian chess in the past 20 ... 30 ... 40 years. I did however decide to see how many tournaments I directed / organized from 2006-2015 (using the CFC crosstable search function). Counting multi-section events as only 1 tournament, it comes out to 67. I'm sure there are all kinds of others out there that are at least in double digits over the same time period. Without these people's contributions there would be no CFC.

I don't know Neil, except by his postings over the years (I did used to visit the Ottawa Chess Club Website).

Though Neil seems to have some good creative ideas (some I'm not sure of), I think he TALKS a lot about CFC reform/progress.

I think he needs to volunteer and DO, to maintain his credibility on this issue......it is not what someones says that you use to measure them, it is what they DO (Here for CFC which seems Neil's main target, as opposed to any of his prior contributions to chess generally).

Just my 2 cents worth.

Bob A

[Garland Best]

Re: Canadian Open

Playing devil's advocate here, Neil may have a point, but it might not be directed at the correct level.

The voting members consists of approximately one representative per 50 CFC members, allocated on a province-by-province basis. The voting members are supposed to be chosen among the individual members by some electoral process, but how this is done this is up to the provincial associations.

Perhaps this is where we need improved transparency or more democratic processes. As secretary of the EOCA, I will look at ways to get more involvement of individual players in the election process, thus improving the process at the bottom level (at least where the EOCA is concerned).

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Canadian Open

Playing devil's advocate here, Neil may have a point, but it might not be directed at the correct level.

The voting members consists of approximately one representative per 50 CFC members, allocated on a province-by-province basis. The voting members are supposed to be chosen among the individual members by some electoral process, but how this is done this is up to the provincial associations.

Perhaps this is where we need improved transparency or more democratic processes. As secretary of the EOCA, I will look at ways to get more involvement of individual players in the election process, thus improving the process at the bottom level (at least where the EOCA is concerned).

I agree with Garland.....part of the solution, at least, lies with the provincial members (And in Ontario, with the members of the 4 Leagues). I say this after 5 years as a VM (At the time, a governor). It is my opinion that the provinces send a spectrum of VM's to CFC, with respect to commitment and willingness to volunteer time (above and beyond, or instead of, their local volunteering for chess). Despite some 60 odd VM's, we always had trouble getting volunteer labour for all kinds of things. These VM's are elected by the CFC members......do they realize who they are sending to CFC? do they know the track record of incumbents running again? Do they care? And when they don't care, are they the first to complain when the volunteer component of CFC does not do all the myriad things they say CFC is to be doing?

But the provincial organizations (+ 4 Ontario Leagues) cannot be let off the hook. They organize their AGM's where these elections take place usually. What are they doing to help with the quality of these elections? Do they publicize the CFC MEMBER Vote? Do they beat the bushes for their best CFC VM's to run?

I think there is a very long-standing structural problem here, which has been raised for years, but which CFC has never really figured out how to address, since the power resides in the province.

Bob A

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Canadian Open

Paul. Each province elects one or more Voting Members (based on their population). They are the ones who elect the CFC Board of Directors. This is where Neil's problem is. He continues to insult on this forum the people who are eligible to vote.

Thank you Fred. I read again Neil's post... I don't think he is criticizing anyone's achievements as an organizer. Really, that would be political suicide as you imply. So I think he's directing his criticism at the lack of growth in the CFC base, and the lack of creative ideas coming from the CFC Executive in dealing with that.

I don't know anything about Neil's history with CFC, so perhaps if you are being too sensitive on his criticism and thinking it even covers your organizing achievements, well, there could be some personal history there influencing things. Or if not, then perhaps Neil isn't being specific enough in his criticism to account for the extra sensitivity of some people.

A dedicated, selfless organizer is a precious commodity in the CFC. They all deserve nothing but respect unless they do something specific to hurt organized chess. But such an organizer does not necessarily equate to a good person to act and make decisions on the current and future directions of the CFC. And in fact, such an organizer is quite likely to resist changes that are needed to grow the base.

A specific example: there is a very good organizer in Ontario, and this organizer has been posting on this forum in favor of Bernie Sanders in the U.S. election primaries. He, like Bernie Sanders, believes a 'political revolution' mostly against the wealthiest 1% of American society is needed to address many serious socio-political and economic issues. That's all fine and good. But this same organizer, whom I have liked and respected for many years, is also a member of the current CFC.... well, I don't know if his position is part of the Board of Directors or not, but he's an officer of some kind in the CFC. And as much as this organizer sees the need for revolution in modern North American society, he completely fails to see the need for a similar revolution in the CFC and organized chess in general. In fact, his opinions on the matter indicate that he is against any such revolution, and he follows Vlad Drkulec in setting the entire focus of the CFC onto children's chess (because chess parents are much more forthcoming with $$$ than adult chess players).

You see, this organizer was already very active in organizing children's chess and so by acquiescing to this focus on children's chess, he becomes very much 'part of the action'. He sees the activity around him as good because he's so immersed in it. He can't see the forest for the trees. He doesn't realize the hypocrisy in calling for U.S. voters to rise up and act for revolution while failing to rise up and act similarly himself in a different domain.

Perhaps he will say such a revolution isn't necessary in organized chess. How this can be argued when organized chess captures so incredibly TINY a segment of the chess playing public, and when the reasons for that are so painfully obvious, is beyond me, but he may very well say it. He's already said he believes many of the children being brought into organized chess today will become future adult members of the CFC, when there is decades of history that refutes that very argument. Only a tiny, tiny sliver of them come back.

And so my point is, and this example proves it, good organizers are precious, but most if not all do NOT make good leaders on behalf of organized chess / CFC. Therefore Neil should be seen in the same way that Donald Trump is being seen in the U.S. election. Trump is an outsider, and many voters are LOVING that.

It appears to me that organizers controlling everything in the CFC is very rigid and inflexible.

[Fred McKim]

Re: Canadian Open

It appears to me that organizers controlling everything in the CFC is very rigid and inflexible.

The sad fact is Paul, that the overworked local / provincial organizers are generally the only ones willing to offer their services as a CFC Voting member. I would bet that a big majority of Voting Members were acclaimed for the upcoming year.

As for the CFC emphasis being on Youth chess, I think I already posted here where the emphasis of the CFC is, and you can disagree with me if you want - but I don't think you'll see it mentioned in my points.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Canadian Open

I'm not familiar with each provincial association or Ontario league's procedure for selecting Voting Members. With so many of the same VM's selected for so many years (based on looking at the list of VM's on the CFC website), I wonder if sometimes there are appointments, or, in effect, semi-appointments made, rather than elections. By semi-appointments, I'm getting at the issue of: are the dates of provincial association or Ontario annual general meetings always made widely known to CFC members, well in advance (even just at chess clubs), so that any may plan to attend? I wish I knew, but back in the 1980's it was pretty well always the same old faces that showed up in Toronto meetings, at least. With the internet, maybe the chances of learning of the time/existence of a meeting are considerably greater!? As an aside, Saskatchewan is one of the very few 'have' provinces economically, yet it has no chess association any longer, even nowadays - and I kind of wish I lived there, especially with my political leanings.

VMs have historically been mostly tournament organizers, but this is not mandatory. The second time I was one, long after the 1980's, I floated the idea of 5 prerequistes to be a VM, any one of which would be sufficient; I recall two were: donate $100 to the CFC, and the other was to organize a minimum number of events per year. Predictably the idea didn't get far - one reaction was simply that 'governors govern'. No mention that a politician does constituency work in real life politics. After a number of terms, including some volunteer work, my supply of fresh ideas for the CFC to improve was exhausted, with none of my 25 or so suggestions in a VM private forum thread reacted to before I decided to not return as a VM. I still passively field the odd email once in a while, as I did as a once more active volunteer.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Canadian Open

Here's a link re: a saying I once heard in a movie (though it was about the 5Ps, rather than 7 of them :) ); I thought it might be thought provoking, for some:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_Ps_(military_adage)