The decline of Canadian chess?

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

Evidence of such "bullying"?????

What about the Camelot Open 1174?
A wealthy family near Camelot decided to hold a chess tournament along side a wedding since both the bride and groom were avid chess players. When a rather unhinged chess player, George Lancelot, hearing that the TD was to receive 2 pence for his services, stormed the wedding festivities killing several guests.

We have the video evidence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJoM7V54T-c

Kidding aside, when I say bullying
I mean pier pressure to volunteer beyond your "volunteer comfort level" for free.
Thus disrespecting the volunteer and sucking all the fun out of it until they quit.

[Garland Best]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

Therefore, if you are a player of chess and you have plateaued at a rating R that fits into a rating category, and R is not near the top of that category, you have next to zero chance of ever winning your rating category (or above) at any tournament.

Nope, not buying into this. When class prizes are separated by 100, 200, even 300 rating point sections, the players have a real chance of winning a prize. One can see that for an individual tournament one's performance rating can easily be a couple of hundred points above or below their ratings, especially in the lower class sections, where variance is higher. So if the money is your interest you have opportunity.

EOCA events have an amateur entry fee, where you can pay $30 instead of $60 entry fee, and be ineligible for prizes. Only about 10% of the entries use this option. So the others must think they have some opportunity to win money.

The ones that have a extremely low chance of winning a prize are those that enter a larger tournament and actually pay extra to enter a higher rating section. So you actually have some people willing to pay more to make sure they don't win prize money! Imagine that.

PS: When I first ran the Almonte Open, I had a tray by the coffee pot with a note asking for donations to subsidize snacks and drinks. The donation level was low enough that I didn't bother for the next tournament.

So no, I personally would not ask for donations to go directly to my pocket. The thanks I get from players for organizing the tournaments is good enough for me. If someone else wants to try the donation approach, that's up to them.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

Nope, not buying into this. When class prizes are separated by 100, 200, even 300 rating point sections, the players have a real chance of winning a prize. .....

Then let's hear your theory as to why chess event participation cannot even APPROACH poker tournament participation.

Or why the Millionaire Chess Open, with very large prizes for each category even down to 10th place, plus the opportunity to meet chess GMs from around the world, could barely attract 50% of the entries needed just to break even.

EDIT: Garland, you should only be talking about adult players here, those whose ratings are very well established and who for the most part have plateaued in terms of their chess strength. I'd even say the title of this thread should be changed, it is really about the decline of Canadian adult chess.

[Roger Patterson]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

When I saw you post this, I was thinking... "Hmm... I always did this, because I always thought it was required!" Which is true - CFC Handbook paragraph 387:

As Vlad is fond of pointing out, the Handbook rules are no longer of any force.

this rule always struck me as strange and as unnecessary. My impression is that it arose because of some people in their paranoia being convinced that organizers/TDs were making boatloads of money off the innocent chess playing public and ripping them off. So providing the public with the opportunity to second guess the cost of every line item is somehow necessary. I suppose, somewhere in the mists of time, there might have been such a case.

I suppose I might be able to see the case that for tournaments advertised as BEN and no published (before or after) prize fund (as is relatively common) that there is something to be said for a public financial statement. But.... I run guaranteed prize fund tournaments. I offer a well defined service package for an entry fee, that's what you get, and you decide if it's worth it to you. I have no interest in discussing other's opinions of my line items and you have no need to know. In addition, some things are confidential and not all items have cash value. Terms of hotel venue contracts sometimes have clauses to that effect. Personnel salaries, marquee player costs/terms are also things that one might not want public. Some terms of a hotel contract might not be fully itemized until well after the event. I also am typically playing and am otherwise too occupied to spend time producing a financial statement during the event. As a result, I don't post a financial statement.

One caveat to all of that. We do get donations (the GPO entry form has had a line for that for years now). Someone who makes a donation is in a better position to ask questions about finances, although that would depend I suppose on the size of the donation. I do provide a full financial statement to the sponsors of the Jack Taylor Memorial (a substantial sponsorship).

As for the discussion elsewhere in this thread on the 'busker' model. We do get donations for the GPO and some other events - off the top of my head maybe 5% of players make donations ranging in size. You can find them on our page listing our sponsors although we do not list the amount. Donations are a material part of the budget but entry fees are required for the bulk of the costs.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

1) Evading taxes is not the same as avoiding taxes.
2) Canada is a country of laws. I can disagree with a law and still follow it.
3) I think organizers should be free to charge as much or as little as they want, and decide best how they do that. Let the market decide what it will support.

... Incidentally Tom.... aren't you the self-professed Libertarian? In favor of small government?

What was all that about people evading income taxes... you should be against taxes in principle. Have you had an epiphany?

...

[Garland Best]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

Then let's hear your theory as to why chess event participation cannot even APPROACH poker tournament participation.

Simple. Unless you are already reasonably knowledgeable chess player you can't follow the game. Even when you have live commentary, they go "he plays this, she plays that, and this is pinned so the piece is lost". For most persons trying to follow the action and analysis, this is beyond what they can quickly calculate.

In contrast, someone watching poker doesn't even need to know the all the rules or calculate the odds. They instantly see on the screen that player A is dead lost, yet somehow managed to bluff the other guy to fold. They smirk at the other person's "dumb" decision, even when it was the right call according to the odds. Furthermore the shows are edited to show the most exciting plays. It's well suited to mass media with its short attention plan.

Following a chess game takes mental effort. It's never going to be media friendly. As a result it will always be a niche activity and will draw small crowds. And to me that's ok. Gambling is incredibly popular even though everyone knows the house wins. The most popular gambling activity in Vegas is slots, way more than poker. Should poker try to make itself more like slots?

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

Fwiw, a sizable percentage of North Americans would know all or most of the very basic rules of chess, while personally I don't know all of the basic rules of poker hand rankings presently (e.g. whether a flush beats a straight), unless I were to brush up on them. People are willing to become quite knowledgeable fans if a sport/game becomes popular enough. Perhaps significant differences between poker and chess are that poker is a gambling game with an element of luck, takes less study to sufficiently master than chess does, there is possibly more than one opponent in a game of poker, and a hand of poker hardly takes any time to play, while a serious game of chess is more often played at a much slower pace. There is also the trash talking between players in poker, fwiw.

These differences may not be fatal for organized chess ever becoming big, however. Professional ice hockey arguably has just about as much possibly perceived luck involved as chess. Chess can be gambled at, or played for big prize money conceivably. On TV, a slow serious game of chess can be replayed at faster speed afterwards, or the audience may often find live blitz or active time control games entertaining, if not just as interesting as slow time control games. The real put off may be that it takes a lot of study and talent to become really, really good at chess, even as a fan, but on the other hand being an ice hockey pro is very difficult to achieve, too, and career length favours chess if anything, by comparison. IMHO, the real problem is the failings of FIDE and national chess federations in general to promote organized chess to the general public throughout much of the world, notably in otherwise prosperous North America.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

Simple. Unless you are already reasonably knowledgeable chess player you can't follow the game. Even when you have live commentary, they go "he plays this, she plays that, and this is pinned so the piece is lost". For most persons trying to follow the action and analysis, this is beyond what they can quickly calculate.

In contrast, someone watching poker doesn't even need to know the all the rules or calculate the odds. They instantly see on the screen that player A is dead lost, yet somehow managed to bluff the other guy to fold. They smirk at the other person's "dumb" decision, even when it was the right call according to the odds. Furthermore the shows are edited to show the most exciting plays. It's well suited to mass media with its short attention plan.

Following a chess game takes mental effort. It's never going to be media friendly. As a result it will always be a niche activity and will draw small crowds. And to me that's ok. Gambling is incredibly popular even though everyone knows the house wins. The most popular gambling activity in Vegas is slots, way more than poker. Should poker try to make itself more like slots?

Garland, it seems to me your answer is more pertaining to chess on TV versus poker on TV. What I asked about was participation (entries) at actual events.

The widely quoted figure for number of people worldwide who are "reasonably knowledgeable" about playing chess is 600 million. Just for kicks, let's be conservative and say it's half that number. The membership of FIDE is about 250,000 worldwide. That is 0.08333 % of the 300 million conservative number of knowledgeable chess players. Why? Why such a paltry number?

If you stick with your above explanation, to quote you, "sorry, not buying into it." I don't know the comparable numbers for poker -- for one thing, there isn't a single governing body for poker globally. But I am very certain the % of people who know how to play poker that actually do play tournament events is much higher than it is for chess. And i think the much higher likelihood of winning prizes regardless of skill has a lot to do with that.

Poker is widely known as a game of luck, chess as a game of skill. That more than any other factor comes into people's decisions as to whether they will play in a poker event or play in a chess event.

[Garland Best]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

I'm going to pull a Vlad here:

Garland, it seems to me your answer is more pertaining to chess on TV versus poker on TV. What I asked about was participation (entries) at actual events.

I believe that participation in events is strongly influenced by interest in the media. The Fischer boom is an obvious example. If you cannot generate sustained interest in the media, then you don't get the people coming to events to play.

The widely quoted figure for number of people worldwide who are "reasonably knowledgeable" about playing chess is 600 million.

I contest that number. Perhaps that many people know the rules of chess and casually played a few games. Most will not know the Silician defense from the Scotch Opening or how to win a K+P vs K endgame. When it comes to watching an event and following the commentary, I don't think most people, who have never even played in a chess club, will follow the game. Perhaps I'm wrong, and underestimate the skills of a casual player.

But I am very certain the % of people who know how to play poker that actually do play tournament events is much higher than it is for chess.

I would like to see evidence to back that up before accepting your claim.

By the way, if you think it's all about skill vs luck, why don't we see more backgammon tournaments and events reported in the media? Equally old game, people play it for money. Combination of both skill and luck, like poker (There is a large skill element in poker. It's not all luck by a LONG shot. If you really think luck is the dominate factor to the game, I know of a lot of people who would love to play a number of rounds with you for money.).

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

Two other things that I might have mentioned are that, in a way like for poker, a computer and/or commentator on TV can largely explain if someone should be winning or drawing a game. Also, there's hope more people will be sufficiently knowledgeable at chess early in life if it is widely taught in schools (not so much needed, if so, in the case of poker). Bridge requires a certain amount of study, too, and it was fairly big on TV at one time.

[Neil Frarey]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

Chess dot com is just about to cross over 20 million global members. As I mentioned before, Saint Louis Rapid & Blitz had 1 million global views final round. According to US Chess there are over 30 million OTB chess players in the US. Up here in Canada I put the number around 3-5 million+ ... I think J. Berry has an outdated stat on that.

The numbers are there ... the question(s) how do we aggressively tap those numbers and bring players into OTB organized chess? To me, there's a few ways to get this done ... but it begins with an energized core of positive people and regional/local people who have an incentive to be aggressive in those (and other) markets ... plus an incentive for those chess players to experience OTB organized chess! It's a two way street ...as it should be.

And that's not even addressing newcomer Juniors!

Just last week I [SoCA] sold a bunch of chess tees to some folks in Indiana who know how to play chess ... they 'like' chess ... but they don't really go nuts over it. They don't belong to any chess org at all ... not even a chess club.

Another great great thing about chess ... it's passed from parent to child.

I'm not going to go much further than that, but I know for sure that the Chess Federation of Canada needs a complete overhaul.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

...I know for sure that the Chess Federation of Canada needs a complete overhaul.

Seeing that membership growth has become stagnant again, it's kind of hard to disagree.

Fwiw, a CFC blog entry of mine a couple of months old that mentions 33 goals of mine (both short and long-term) that the CFC might aim for (many of them old and still unrealized) is still getting about 35 views a day, almost as many as my hypothetical political platform blog entry from a few years back that's still going strong. Even if most of my ideas for the CFC to possibly have as goals are unrealistic/stink for the foreseeable future, there is clearly a lot of interest out there.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

I believe that participation in events is strongly influenced by interest in the media. The Fischer boom is an obvious example. If you cannot generate sustained interest in the media, then you don't get the people coming to events to play.

Yes, I can follow that argument. So chess had its big media moment in the U.S., the Fischer boom, and here we are 40+ years later and still paltry chess participation rates. Poker also had its big media moment: the invention of the "hole cam" and its use in year 2000 and on. Since then, poker participation has exploded and continues to do so. So why did chess implode and poker explode? People participated in poker because they believed their lack of skill wasn't a huge detriment to winning prizes. Any adults who tried participating in chess during the Fischer boom soon found out they had no chance of winning anything. Some of them stayed in for love of the game, but probably 90% of them left.

By the way, if you think it's all about skill vs luck, why don't we see more backgammon tournaments and events reported in the media? Equally old game, people play it for money. Combination of both skill and luck, like poker (There is a large skill element in poker. It's not all luck by a LONG shot. If you really think luck is the dominate factor to the game, I know of a lot of people who would love to play a number of rounds with you for money.).

Just within the last 2 years, I watched a World Poker Tour event from somewhere in the U.S. As it got down to the final table and then down to the final two players, they mentioned that one of the two players was only in his 3rd tournament ever. I believe he was from either Wales or Scotland. He entered a tournament there on a lark, and won. He then got invited to a much larger tournament... and won, which qualified him for the even bigger U.S. event. To everyone's amazement, he also won the U.S. event for roughly $1 million. Three tournaments, three straight wins, all with no prior experience. Instant millionaire.

Show me where that has happened in chess with an adult player.

And if you still don't believe in the influence of luck in TOURNAMENT poker (versus cash games, where skill does play a slightly larger part), run through the final table lists (9 players play at the final table) for the World Series of Poker Main Event since the year 2000. Tell me if you see a single name repeated. There might be one or two. And nowhere in those lists will you see the name Phil Hellmuth Jr., the self-proclaimed best Texas Hold 'Em player in the world, despite his participation in each and every Main Event since year 2000.

The people that watch these events on ESPN or other cable channels see these amateurs winning event after event, beating pros at their own game. That definitely helps drive poker tournament participation. So my argument is that even if chess WERE on TV, equal exposure to poker, it wouldn't drive much participation in chess events at all because the viewers would see no amateurs in the top tables, and in fact would see only the same names over and over and over again.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

Strange. There are a lot of the same players winning over and over in tennis, yet that sport is popular in North America. Backgammon still remains Garland's counter-example, I suppose. Fwiw I once saw a speed game of it being played on TV years ago, but not in prime time.

[Neil Frarey]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

Seeing that membership growth has become stagnant again, it's kind of hard to disagree.

It begins with incentives.

Another incentive is to give TD/Orgs a percentage of any new memberships (all kinds) sold on site ...add that to the TD/Org remuneration.