The decline of Canadian chess?

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

Neil, to clarify my posting, I was referring specifically to the following text of yours:

"Then we should set the TD/Org remuneration at $10.00 per entrant ... 50 player tourney = $500.00 for 20 hours work. Not to shabby. And the more the tournament is marketed the better the chances of increased participation! Given the correct demographics a tourney could easily reach 60 players. Easy as that, no?"

I have always said that anyone who wants to make money as a chess organizer or player should consider working at Tim Horton's instead. The wages will be steadier and there will be the potential for coffee and donuts. I don't know about the other organizers but it seems to me that most tournaments aside from one day affairs call for quite a bit more work than 20 hours.

I do not believe this is viable. However, I would be interested know how CMA renumerates it's employees for organizing CMA events. Perhaps I will be proven wrong.

How the CFC success/fails to grow and promote chess in Canada is another matter entirely, one I am open to discussion about.

The CFC probably should be involved in serious chess education which would likely be profitable. Starting kids off in serious chess classes which featured CFC rated games where the kids had to record their moves would probably lead to more CFC members. There is definitely a pent up demand. We don't have the volunteers or staff to handle it and I don't think it would work at this point run through the office. Bob has all he can handle already.

[Garland Best]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

The CFC probably should be involved in serious chess education which would likely be profitable. Starting kids off in serious chess classes which featured CFC rated games where the kids had to record their moves would probably lead to more CFC members. There is definitely a pent up demand. We don't have the volunteers or staff to handle it and I don't think it would work at this point run through the office. Bob has all he can handle already.

Ok, now this is worth discussing. Of course the main issue here is this is right where CMA is targeting their efforts. So anything that the CFC does here is potentially competing with CMA, and I don't think the "Canadian Chess Market" is big enough to have two organization competing for the same people. CFC efforts need to be more than a "me-too" idea.

More productive would be to look at some sort of partnership, perhaps where the CFC endorses CMA for educating youth in chess, and uniting the rating systems so that CMA youths has some CFC rating when they start to play in "CFC events".

This still is a kid-centric approach. I still think we need ideas that keeps those kids active in chess as they move to adulthood. Retention is key to growth.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

Thank you, Roger. This is a great post.
I hope many of our TD’s / Organizers read it and gain a better appreciation of the value that they bring to the chess community. Nobody starts out to make money at it, but for those who find too much success (growth), the workload expands and can lead to Burnout. Most TD’s / Organizers pay themselves nothing. I did so myself for too many years. But feeling the burn, I began to argue for TD pay with my chess friends and associates. It has been a long and painful battle with limited success. To make a long story short: sometimes I get paid, sometimes I don’t. It is never enough, but it does help soothe the burn scars.
The same arguments extend to chess club officials and volunteers. Don’t burnout by going past your volunteer comfort level. It isn’t a job, you’re not getting paid. You have a right to enjoy the club too. Ask for others to volunteer. Help eliminate BURNOUT.

And uh.....despite the thread title,
Canadian Chess is NOT in decline.

To any organizer that wants to receive remuneration for their services, may I suggest.... the Busker Business Model.

Find a ratty old guitar case, maybe for a few bucks at a Salvation Army thrift store. Take it to the tournament site and lay it down on the floor in front of where you are stationed there. Open it wide and leave it that way as an open invitation to donations.

And if anyone gets clever and asks you if you're going to play some music, reply to them: "Listen! Don't you hear it? The clicking of the clocks, the sliding of the pieces, the scratching of pen against scoresheet? That, my friend, is the music I created for you here."

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

Ok, now this is worth discussing. Of course the main issue here is this is right where CMA is targeting their efforts. So anything that the CFC does here is potentially competing with CMA, and I don't think the "Canadian Chess Market" is big enough to have two organization competing for the same people. CFC efforts need to be more than a "me-too" idea.

Why would you say that? It is not a "me too" idea. It is an idea which made Windsor such a relative success story for quite a while. We got away from it for a time but eventually we will get back on track when I get off my butt and start teaching some serious classes again. There are probably dozens if not hundreds of organizations competing for the same people. CMA is but one of many. They may be somewhat dominant in the markets they compete in but they have only a small part of the total potential market.

Where we would be aiming to service is not where the CMA is targetting its efforts. The CMA is targetting its efforts at chess for fun market. They are only in three or four Canadian Markets. They have a penetration of less than one percent of those markets. They build very slowly. They are actually similar to the FIDE chess in schools recommended approach though I don't really buy in to the idea that you need to go so slow. We would likely also get a penetration of about one percent of those markets. The limiting factor would be instructors. We are not even after the same kids and parents.

More productive would be to look at some sort of partnership, perhaps where the CFC endorses CMA for educating youth in chess, and uniting the rating systems so that CMA youths has some CFC rating when they start to play in "CFC events".

This still is a kid-centric approach. I still think we need ideas that keeps those kids active in chess as they move to adulthood. Retention is key to growth.

Why would the CMA need our endorsement? They are doing fine without us. Obvious from this thread is that we are not happy with the status quo. Why would you argue for the status quo and think results would be any different?

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

Ad hominem attack Vlad. Attack the position, not the person. And I don't think you are right claiming Neil advocates dictating what organizers and players can do. Completely off base. I'm no Frarey fanboy, but I'm willing pay attention to what is being said.

If organizers want to carve out $10 or $20 or $50 of every entry as profit for the TD/Organizer no one is stopping them. Selling it to the market of potential tournament entrants is a different story. I could probably do it but I am not all that interested in doing so. Thinking that a weekend tournament only requires 20 hours of work and that $500 would be motivating to many just shows how out of touch he is. Neil has a rather simplistic idea of what the CFC can and can't do and what the president can and can't do and what is involved in running a tournament. I don't take him seriously at all particularly given his history with the CFC.

Thank God for the volunteers that make chess possible. Thank God for the professional organizers who do make profits from organizing tournaments and have shown the public that their efforts are worthy of the fees that they charge. We are always going to depend on both.

[Garland Best]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

Ummm, don't quite see where I am arguing in favor of the status quo. Perhaps you can clarify matters for me.

To begin with you recommend "The CFC probably should be involved in serious chess education." How would you define "serious chess education"? Chess classes in schools? A team of experienced tutors? A formal school, either in real life or on-line? A defined curriculum / grade system? Identifying potential elite players and subsidizing their chess advancement?

Chess n' Math is the only group I know in Canada that actively engages in a chess in schools program. The Strategy Games stores are places were lessons are taught, and where chess tutors are linked with students. They give scholarships to youths who acheive IM and GM titles. I don't see a CFC equivalent. So when you say the CFC should be engaged in Chess Education, this i the model I have contact with. What model are you thinking of?

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

Ummm, don't quite see where I am arguing in favor of the status quo. Perhaps you can clarify matters for me.

To begin with you recommend "The CFC probably should be involved in serious chess education." How would you define "serious chess education"?

Serious chess education would be the type of classes that we used to teach at Sobeys where masters and tournament players teach kids what it takes to succeed in tournament chess. Endgames, tactics, pawn structures, checkmate patterns and so on. The Russian School of Chess transplanted to North America.

Chess classes in schools?

Maybe though not necessarily.

A team of experienced tutors?

Somewhat essential.

A formal school, either in real life or on-line?

Possibly.

A defined curriculum / grade system?

Not necessarily. We had beginner and advanced which became intermediate and advanced and then simply became advanced.

Identifying potential elite players and subsidizing their chess advancement?

No. We aren't smart enough to do that. You let the players self select. Present them with the tools and see who rises to the top.

Chess n' Math is the only group I know in Canada that actively engages in a chess in schools program.

I am aware of at least eight or nine and that is only the ones that I have talked to. There are probably several times that number that I don't know about.

The Strategy Games stores are places were lessons are taught, and where chess tutors are linked with students. They give scholarships to youths who acheive IM and GM titles. I don't see a CFC equivalent. So when you say the CFC should be engaged in Chess Education, this i the model I have contact with. What model are you thinking of?

The classes don't have to be in a school. They can be in a community centre or a school or a shopping mall. You find promising kids. You teach them endgames, checkmates, tactics, pawn structures, go over master and grandmaster games. You have them play rated games against one another. You analyse the games with them. Wash, rinse, repeat. I'm not saying that this is something that the CFC was/is capable of. When the CFC's survival was on the line we had trouble getting volunteers to help. There are already people doing this across the country. We just need more of them.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

Garland Best:
Identifying potential elite players and subsidizing their chess advancement?

Vlad Drkulec:
No. We aren't smart enough to do that. You let the players self select. Present them with the tools and see who rises to the top.

This becomes (unintentionally) a process of elimination. Those who do not rise to the top will leave chess altogether, and chess will leave a bad taste in their mouth. They will never return as adults. Only the elite few will stick it out, and even some of those will leave (GM Mark Bluvshtein, case in point).

It's the "search for Bobby Fischer" and it's been done to death. But the real reason Vlad sresses it here is that he knows this is where the money can come from. The parents are willing to pay, far more than the rank-and-file chess ADULT is willing to pay for tournaments and memberships.

You can't argue against this, Garland. It is motivated by money and the CFC is in such dire straits that it MUST follow the money. The future of chess in Canada be damned.

Garland Best:
Chess n' Math is the only group I know in Canada that actively engages in a chess in schools program.

Vlad Drkulec:
I am aware of at least eight or nine and that is only the ones that I have talked to. There are probably several times that number that I don't know about.

Ha! Vlad states none of this is a "me too" activity, then he rambles on about how many others are doing it.

Vlad has thus confirmed that it is indeed a "me too" activity. And none of it is going to make more than a sliver's worth of difference to the overall chess picture. Probably these "eight or nine others" are individuals, perhaps registered as a corporation, going around teaching chess to a few students. Not at all the same thing as Chess N Math.

And the "probably several times that number that I don't know about" comment.... LOL! There's probably a lot of aliens from outer space among us that none of us know about, how's that?

Vlad is so pathetic as a debater it's laughable. I'm surprised you haven't gotten him to quoting Taylor Swift lyrics by now.

Now Garland, if you REALLY want to consider what might grow chess in Canada, I could enlighten you with a vision where the definition of chess is far beyond it's current single-set-of-rules sandbox. If a chess organization truly wanted to grow its membership and open their minds to the true potential and creativity that can be unleashed just using current chess pieces and 8x8 board... such an organization would be wanting to hear all about this. But not the FIDE-constrained, desperate-for-$$$ CFC.

The real problem with the CFC and all other chess federations is that they are so inward-looking. If you know about the Flatlanders, you'll understand. You and I live in a 3D world, the Flatlanders (the CFC) can only see in 2 dimensions.

But it's all going to be ok. Change is coming, and when it happens, the CFC (and other federations) will just be a pile of ashes, a few old coals still smoldering (I honestly hope so), while the new fire of creativity and opportunity rages somewhere else.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

This becomes (unintentionally) a process of elimination. Those who do not rise to the top will leave chess altogether, and chess will leave a bad taste in their mouth. They will never return as adults. Only the elite few will stick it out, and even some of those will leave (GM Mark Bluvshtein, case in point).

It is a process of elimination but not with the people running the school making the decisions.

It's the "search for Bobby Fischer" and it's been done to death. But the real reason Vlad sresses it here is that he knows this is where the money can come from. The parents are willing to pay, far more than the rank-and-file chess ADULT is willing to pay for tournaments and memberships.

You are incorrect. There are plenty of adults willing to pay as well. You need to have tournaments for them to play in.

You can't argue against this, Garland. It is motivated by money and the CFC is in such dire straits that it MUST follow the money.

We have made a conscious decision not to follow the money because we don't have the infrastructure of volunteers at this point. In the case of the volunteers who have approached me, I have given them our blessing and told them that we would give them any support we could. Some of those have gone on to become very vibrant youth chess programs.

The future of chess in Canada be damned.

I know that is what you want but it is wishful thinking on your part.

Ha! Vlad states none of this is a "me too" activity, then he rambles on about how many others are doing it.

It is a me too activity if you do it the same way that CMA does it and if you target the same kids.

Vlad has thus confirmed that it is indeed a "me too" activity. And none of it is going to make more than a sliver's worth of difference to the overall chess picture. Probably these "eight or nine others" are individuals, perhaps registered as a corporation, going around teaching chess to a few students. Not at all the same thing as Chess N Math.

One of those companies is Mad Science and their School House Chess program which has 300 to 400 students just in Windsor each year. They are a North American based company. They are similar to CMA in that they are going for the fun chess segment. I am told they do well in all the markets that they are in. Their main focus is fun science classes where they teach thousands of kids just in Windsor. They have diversified to fun chess classes. They are now the proprietors of the Windsor Chess Challenge.

And the "probably several times that number that I don't know about" comment.... LOL!

You have to be pretty motivated to contact me. The people who have contacted me have gone on to create programs which have resulted in thousands of kids playing CFC rated games over the years. Usually these are advanced kids (at least some of them) who go on to play in CYCC and WYCC etc. In my own case, there are quite a few of my former students who go on to teach chess even if they do not become advanced players.

There's probably a lot of aliens from outer space among us that none of us know about, how's that?

Vlad is so pathetic as a debater it's laughable. I'm surprised you haven't gotten him to quoting Taylor Swift lyrics by now.

Haters gonna hate, hate, hate.

It is good to see that you reflected during your time out. It is sad to see that you are no more constructive.

SNIP! remaining nonsense asking people to do his work for him.

[John Coleman]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

Probably these "eight or nine others" are individuals, perhaps registered as a corporation, going around teaching chess to a few students.

I suspect, Paul, you are not aware of the wider world of chess. I have the numbers from SchoolHouse chess: in the Windsor-Essex County area ONLY, here are the figures from the 2016-2017 school year:

Number of schools participating: 18
Number of children participating: 379
Number of active chess instructors: 6

Keep in mind that Windsor’s territory is one of the smallest in the Mad Science system…only about 56,000 children. SchoolHouse Chess is also a successful part of Mad Science of Toronto, though I don’t have access to their numbers.

Also, SchoolHouse Chess teach at 3 of the 4 top Windsor Chess Challenge schools…Talbot Trail, Bellewood and Giles Campus…with very large enrolments.

In addition, the ASCIS chess enrichment program has about 50 students, I believe.

There are probably others - I know one instructor for the Chinese community - chess classes every week.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

I suspect, Paul, you are not aware of the wider world of chess. I have the numbers from SchoolHouse chess: in the Windsor-Essex County area ONLY, here are the figures from the 2016-2017 school year:

Number of schools participating: 18
Number of children participating: 379
Number of active chess instructors: 6

Keep in mind that Windsor’s territory is one of the smallest in the Mad Science system…only about 56,000 children. SchoolHouse Chess is also a successful part of Mad Science of Toronto, though I don’t have access to their numbers.

Also, SchoolHouse Chess teach at 3 of the 4 top Windsor Chess Challenge schools…Talbot Trail, Bellewood and Giles Campus…with very large enrolments.

In addition, the ASCIS chess enrichment program has about 50 students, I believe.

There are probably others - I know one instructor for the Chinese community - chess classes every week.

Emmanuel from the chess club in the 1990s has also put on chess camps at the university and teaches at the libraries and there was also one additional guy who teaches classes at some of the community centres though I haven't seen a recent city activities guide to know whether he is still doing it.

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

To any organizer that wants to receive remuneration for their services, may I suggest.... the Busker Business Model.

Paul, while I am sure you thought your post was clever and amusing, it also shows some disrespect for the efforts of the TD/Organizer. They are not in it for the money, they are not begging for quarters, they provide a service by volunteering their time and thus give back to the chess community.

I am certainly in the minority when I advocate for a TD/Organizer fee. I hear this sentiment often "I want my tournament to be a success which means the largest possible prize fund!" My reply is that a small honorarium for the TD/Organizer will not make any difference. For example:

Let's take a typical small weekend swiss outside of a large urban area.
Players = 30
Entry fee = $50
1 section open
Rent = $300
Rating fees etc. = $200
Total entry fee = 30 x 50 = $1,500
Expenses = $500
Available for Prize fund = $1,000

Cash prizes 1st, 2nd, 3rd = $500, $250, $150
Class prize = $100
Total = $1,000

Let's say instead, the 2 TD/Org's get $100 each = $200
Prize fund = $800
Cash Prizes = $400, $200, $100
Class Prize = $100
Total = $800

IMHO, the players would be just as happy with a prize fund of $800.
The $200 would not be missed.
The $100 each certainly does not equate to the effort of our volunteers, but it does say "Thank you".
I would be happier if this was considered Normal rather than Zero.

So to all those TD/Organizers out there who want to put it all towards the prize fund,
you have my blessing to pay yourself first. I do.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

Paul, while I am sure you thought your post was clever and amusing, it also shows some disrespect for the efforts of the TD/Organizer. They are not in it for the money, they are not begging for quarters, they provide a service by volunteering their time and thus give back to the chess community.

No, YOU must have thought my post was clever and amusing. I meant it legitimately. By asking all participants to pay you an obligatory fee, you are disrespecting the players. Maybe they want to pay based on how well you organize the event! When people go to a restaurant, they expect to get food, but they will pay extra for good service. Players expect to get chess at a chess tournament, they should be offered the opportunity to pay extra for service, and to NOT pay extra if the service is bad.

IMHO, the players would be just as happy with a prize fund of $800.
The $200 would not be missed.
The $100 each certainly does not equate to the effort of our volunteers, but it does say "Thank you".
I would be happier if this was considered Normal rather than Zero.

So to all those TD/Organizers out there who want to put it all towards the prize fund,
you have my blessing to pay yourself first. I do.

I see how you could support Sanders for President. He doesn't think people will miss the extra taxes they'd have to pay for forgiveness of student debt.

It's quite presumptious of you to decide that 50 people aren't going to miss a potential extra $200 in winnings. Let THEM decide how much they would miss to reward you for your service.

[John Coleman]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

Paul, I think you are getting carried away. You realise that the menu price of restaurant food includes the cost of wages for the waiter, the kitchen staff, the manager, etc.

Of course tournament staff should be paid, something. I doubt we can pay a living wage, even minimum wage is (or soon will be) $15 per hour. Not to mention double time on Sundays.

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

Players expect to get chess at a chess tournament, they should be offered the opportunity to pay extra for service, and to NOT pay extra if the service is bad.

The players ARE getting a chess tournament.
I am NOT asking them to pay extra. Entry fee remains the same.
As a player, I am saying I am okay with TD fees.
If they choose not to take a TD fee, I am okay with that.
Sounds kinda reasonable to me.
Do you expect TD/organizer to work for free? Are you Donald Trump?