The decline of Canadian chess?

[Paul Bonham]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

Donating what? A percentage? What percentage?

50 player tournament 3 sections let's say in total 10 prize winners ... and the some 40 players don't care about what happens to the entrance fees (with the possible exception of a rating fee here or a rating fee there)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So, it is possible that 80% of participants in a 50 player tournament will /donate/ to the TD/Org 100% (minus rating fees) of the entrance fees!!!

ROFLMAO!!!

Thanks Paul Bonham ... best idea EVER!!!

What are you smoking? I have no idea what you are on about here. 80% of the 50 players donating 100% of the entry fees? What????? Try again when you are not on drugs.

But your opening question.... "Donating what? A percentage? What percentage?" ...... you can equally apply that question to Bob's organizer fee idea. A percentage? What percentage? Why is one organizer more expensive than another? Oh, he lives in a more expensive apartment.....

And thank YOU for the best idea ever! Hiring unemployed people from outside of chess to organize chess tournaments! Close enough for rock 'n roll!

[Neil Frarey]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

What are you smoking? I have no idea what you are on about here. 80% of the 50 players donating 100% of the entry fees? What????? Try again when you are not on drugs.

But your opening question.... "Donating what? A percentage? What percentage?" ...... you can equally apply that question to Bob's organizer fee idea. A percentage? What percentage? Why is one organizer more expensive than another? Oh, he lives in a more expensive apartment.....

And thank YOU for the best idea ever! Hiring unemployed people from outside of chess to organize chess tournaments! Close enough for rock 'n roll!

I applied the question to you, Paul Bonham!

And as for my idea, as I mentioned earlier ... TD/Org remuneration under the guidance of the national fed/organization.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

I applied the question to you, Paul Bonham!

What, you mean what would I donate? You, the person who refuses to buy a CFC membership and still wants to run for CFC President, you ask me that?

If I was in a tournament, I would donate, unless the tournament was sub-par in my estimation. If I was a student and couldn't afford to donate, I'd pass and leave it to the people who can afford it. Whereas with "Taxman Bob's" idea (I'm learning from Trump!), I might skip the event altogether because I couldn't win enough to pay my utility bill whereas I could spend the weekend busking and make better money.

Are you going to explain your "80% of the 50 players donating 100% of the entry fees" comment, Spaceman?

And as for my idea, as I mentioned earlier ... TD/Org remuneration under the guidance of the national fed/organization.

Please, please, stop the tickling!

[Neil Frarey]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

What, you mean what would I donate? You, the person who refuses to buy a CFC membership and still wants to run for CFC President, you ask me that?

If I was in a tournament, I would donate, unless the tournament was sub-par in my estimation. If I was a student and couldn't afford to donate, I'd pass and leave it to the people who can afford it. Whereas with "Taxman Bob's" idea (I'm learning from Trump!), I might skip the event altogether because I couldn't win enough to pay my utility bill whereas I could spend the weekend busking and make better money.

Are you going to explain your "80% of the 50 players donating 100% of the entry fees" comment, Spaceman?

Please, please, stop the tickling!

Your encumbrance idea is just another expense piled on top of all the other expenses. Travel, food, lodgings, entrance fee, etc. etc. Good one Paul Bonham!

That's just great ...another expense.

And why would the VAST majority /including students/ want to pay another expense after having not qualified for a prize? Chess players are a frugal lot ... ask most anybody who has put in some time TD/Org chess!!! And yes, I have done my share.

Add to that sobering reality ... over 40% of CFC members are Juniors ... who by definition don't have an expendable income.

The TD/Org remuneration should be built into the EFs.

And posted!

If the TD/Org wishes to decline their remuneration ... that's OK ... and for those who choose to accept their remuneration ... that's OK too!

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

Many poker tournaments use the same model but express it more clearly, imo. For example, the local casino here has a weekly $100 + $25 tournament. The $25 goes to the casino (which supplies a venue, dealers, cards, etc.), the $100 goes to the prize fund.

So, you just want to continue your silly posts instead of an intelligent debate on the issue.
Okay, I get the message. I did get to state my case, so mission accomplished.
If anyone wants to discuss this with me further, I invite you to email me.

Moving on..........

[Paul Bonham]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

Many poker tournaments use the same model but express it more clearly, imo. For example, the local casino here has a weekly $100 + $25 tournament. The $25 goes to the casino (which supplies a venue, dealers, cards, etc.), the $100 goes to the prize fund.

You cannot model chess events after poker events. Any attempt to do so is doomed to failure, as the Millionaire Chess investors found out.

Chess and poker are at opposite extremes of the gaming spectrum.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

My opinion of the hierarchy of chess events:

1) Guaranteed prize fund = riskiest to organizers, most desirable to players
2) "$100 + $25" type events = moderately risky to organizers, moderately desirable to players
3) "Prizes based on entries" where number of entries is not specified = least risky to organizers, least desirable to players

To say you cannot do X based on three data points that are not even in the same category as I am suggesting ...

You cannot model chess events after poker events. Any attempt to do so is doomed to failure, as the Millionaire Chess investors found out.

Chess and poker are at opposite extremes of the gaming spectrum.

[Gordon Gooding]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

Bob, you and all organizers can decide for yourselves. There are no rules against organizers paying themselves. I would only hope that if you do that, you notify potential entrants on the tournament flyer. Trying to hide it in expenses would not be ethical, even if it is perfectly "legal".

You do realize that you can never test your hypothesis? You can't hold 2 simultaneous tournaments, one where you reduce the entry fees to pay yourself and the other where you don't. So you are just imposing your will, and your hypothesis is your way of feeling good about it.

But let's say you hope for 50 entrants. Because your flyer says you are paying yourself $200, let's say 10% of players don't enter. That's 5 players at $50 each. That's $250 lost entry fees for the event. Meanwhile, you are still paying yourself the $200 so prizes have to go down even MORE. The next year, when your same event comes up again, players are going to remember that your prizes were very low last year.... maybe this time 8 players will not show, and now you've lost $400 in entry fees, making prizes even LOWER. No matter how low they go, you still take your $200. It could become a feedback loop leading to the downfall of your event. How about that simple math?

It astounds me that you can say organizers don't do it for the money, while crusading for organizers to pay themselves money.

You say imposing an organizer fee is democratic, people will vote with their feet, and you then say no one will do that, and you have NO way to prove it. The players who don't come are not going to send you a letter, "Dear Bob, I wanted to play in your event but I chose not to because I don't like the organizer fee."

And by the way.... the 5 players that don't enter your event are most likely to be from amongst the ones most likely to win some prize money, meaning 5 of the best players. If there's a choice of another event that has no organizer fee, they will go for that one. So your event will not only lose revenue, but its best players as well. People will remember that in the next year's event also.

Why would you be afraid to even test out the busker model of asking for donations? Are you afraid nobody is going to contribute? And how can you not see that the donation model is more democratic and more sensitive to the customer?

When you go to a music concert or any other form of entertainment, and you pay for that ticket to gain admission to enjoy the experience, do you ask to see a breakdown of how the $60, $80 or $200 ticket price is going to pay for what and who? If you want to play, you pay. if you dont want to pay, then play somewhere else. That's freedom of choice, awesome isn't it? Do not muzzle the ox while it treads the grain. How many leisure, entertainment activites use the busker model? Didnt the buskers have to pay for a licence? Is that not expenses? Does the busker tell their donators how much of their donation is going to licencing fees, music equipment maintenance, singing lessons? Imagine how chaotic it would be if everything was based on how you feel about giving for a service out of the goodness of your heart? News flash, no one is good. I could see bartering as an alternative though, that may be interesting.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

My opinion of the hierarchy of chess events:

1) Guaranteed prize fund = riskiest to organizers, most desirable to players
2) "$100 + $25" type events = moderately risky to organizers, moderately desirable to players
3) "Prizes based on entries" where number of entries is not specified = least risky to organizers, least desirable to players

To say you cannot do X based on three data points that are not even in the same category as I am suggesting ...

What, you mean no one else can do what YOU did???

You brought in a data point from outside of chess and implied it could be applied to chess. You neglected to mention some key differences between poker events and chess events. Because poker events have so much luck involved, players will shell out big money to get a chance at winning HUGE money. The casinos that hold poker events are BUSINESSES. They make a profit from it! The dealers and staff are all PAID. And it's all because of LUCK.

Chess has no luck, therefore no big entry fees and jackpot payouts. In fact as has been pointed out, chess payouts aren't enough for the elite players in Canada to be professional playing only in Canada. Canadian chess events rely on VOLUNTEERS. Take the volunteers out of Canadian organized chess, and you don't have tournament events. And if organizers start paying themselves (and only themselves), what are volunteers going to think?

This is true to a slightly lesser extent in the U.S. also. Millionaire Chess tried to force feed chess to the mainstream. Their rationale: pay out large guaranteed prizes down to even 10th place in each section. Build it and they will come.

They didn't come. Investors took a bath. Amy Lee, a Canadian entrepeneur and investor, was bamboozled by Maurice Ashley's smooth talk. I wonder if they even talk to each other at all now.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

When you go to a music concert or any other form of entertainment, and you pay for that ticket to gain admission to enjoy the experience, do you ask to see a breakdown of how the $60, $80 or $200 ticket price is going to pay for what and who? If you want to play, you pay. if you dont want to pay, then play somewhere else. That's freedom of choice, awesome isn't it? Do not muzzle the ox while it treads the grain. How many leisure, entertainment activites use the busker model? Didnt the buskers have to pay for a licence? Is that not expenses? Does the busker tell their donators how much of their donation is going to licencing fees, music equipment maintenance, singing lessons? Imagine how chaotic it would be if everything was based on how you feel about giving for a service out of the goodness of your heart? News flash, no one is good. I could see bartering as an alternative though, that may be interesting.

Hi Gordon:

There have been a couple of organizers in Ontario who posted a full financial statement for their tournament before the 2nd last round, along with the prize fund.

I always appreciated that. And I feel chess players do not know or care what is happening to their organizer. But this is a step in trying to educate chess players that tournaments generate not only prizes, but expenses.

I was fine to see both an organizer fee and an arbiter fee in the expenses (Though usually the organizer/arbiter took no stipend - I didn't agree with this). We should know where our entry fees go, regardless if the rest of the world never asks re anything else.

Bob A

[Paul Bonham]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

Hi Gordon:

There have been a couple of organizers in Ontario who posted a full financial statement for their tournament before the 2nd last round, along with the prize fund.

I always appreciated that. And I feel chess players do not know or care what is happening to their organizer. But this is a step in trying to educate chess players that tournaments generate not only prizes, but expenses.

I was fine to see both an organizer fee and an arbiter fee in the expenses (Though usually the organizer/arbiter took no stipend - I didn't agree with this). We should know where our entry fees go, regardless if the rest of the world never asks re anything else.

Bob A

Bob, I'm just curious, how would you have felt if the organizer, instead of taking a hard fee, had put out a donation box?

So far in this discussion, I haven't heard anyone say why a donation ask instead of a hard fee is a bad idea. Well, except for Gordon Gooding who insists people are not good-hearted. Gordon doesn't seem to get out much. Buskers are alive and well, and at millions of restaurants around the entire world, waiters and waitresses work for peanuts in salary relying on the goodness of people to tip them for good service.

[Fred Harvey]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

Bob, I'm just curious, how would you have felt if the organizer, instead of taking a hard fee, had put out a donation box?

Buskers are alive and well, and at millions of restaurants around the entire world, waiters and waitresses work for peanuts in salary relying on the goodness of people to tip them for good service.

In neither case is this a life-style choice. Keep digging.......

[Paul Bonham]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

In neither case is this a life-style choice. Keep digging.......

Then they should band together and demand salaries... but the decades have gone by and they aren't even inclined to do that. They seem quite ok with the model, all with the understanding that neither busking nor waitressing is a lifelong career.

But then, chess organizers aren't doing what they do for a "career" either. Bob Gillanders and Neil Frarey would like to change that fact. That would alienate the lifeblood of chess, volunteers, as one side effect, and the whole notion ignores the real world plight of chess tournaments, which is that they don't appeal to enough people.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

I've played in about a dozen poker tournaments in person and literally hundreds online. I finished third in the $100 + $25 event the time before last that I played. I won $600, $475 if you deduct the EF. Even the winner got only $1600. Not huge money.

I would say at least 90% of the poker events I have played in have the "$X + $Y" prize pool / house rake description in the advertising/info, so players know exactly what they are paying for. This description is little different than when a chess organizer says "$XXXX dollars based on YY entries". The only difference is that the poker description is much clearer imo and it incentivizes organizers who are interested in making some money to attract as many players as possible, to save with economies of scale (albeit potentially with some risk) and pocket the difference.

If some people would rather volunteer, so what? Some people coach hockey professionally. Some volunteer. Does this mean that no one should make a dollar coaching hockey? Some people play the piano for free, some do it for money. You can pay people to mow your lawn, or clean your bathroom, or wash your car. Or you can "volunteer" to do these jobs for free. Yet those jobs exist. I admit you've completely lost me on this point. If people don't like that Joe Blow is trying to make some money from organizing a chess tournament then don't play in their chess tournament. Problem solved.

There's a big difference between something like Millionaire Chess where an organizer risks hundreds of thousands versus a local event where someone is earning less than minimum wage to have something tangible for their work.

What, you mean no one else can do what YOU did???

You brought in a data point from outside of chess and implied it could be applied to chess. You neglected to mention some key differences between poker events and chess events. Because poker events have so much luck involved, players will shell out big money to get a chance at winning HUGE money. The casinos that hold poker events are BUSINESSES. They make a profit from it! The dealers and staff are all PAID. And it's all because of LUCK.

Chess has no luck, therefore no big entry fees and jackpot payouts. In fact as has been pointed out, chess payouts aren't enough for the elite players in Canada to be professional playing only in Canada. Canadian chess events rely on VOLUNTEERS. Take the volunteers out of Canadian organized chess, and you don't have tournament events. And if organizers start paying themselves (and only themselves), what are volunteers going to think?

This is true to a slightly lesser extent in the U.S. also. Millionaire Chess tried to force feed chess to the mainstream. Their rationale: pay out large guaranteed prizes down to even 10th place in each section. Build it and they will come.

They didn't come. Investors took a bath. Amy Lee, a Canadian entrepeneur and investor, was bamboozled by Maurice Ashley's smooth talk. I wonder if they even talk to each other at all now.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

I've played in about a dozen poker tournaments in person and literally hundreds online. I finished third in the $100 + $25 event the time before last that I played. I won $600, $475 if you deduct the EF. Even the winner got only $1600. Not huge money.

I would say at least 90% of the poker events I have played in have the "$X + $Y" prize pool / house rake description in the advertising/info, so players know exactly what they are paying for. This description is little different than when a chess organizer says "$XXXX dollars based on YY entries". The only difference is that the poker description is much clearer imo and it incentivizes organizers who are interested in making some money to attract as many players as possible, to save with economies of scale (albeit potentially with some risk) and pocket the difference.

If some people would rather volunteer, so what? Some people coach hockey professionally. Some volunteer. Does this mean that no one should make a dollar coaching hockey? Some people play the piano for free, some do it for money. You can pay people to mow your lawn, or clean your bathroom, or wash your car. Or you can "volunteer" to do these jobs for free. Yet those jobs exist. I admit you've completely lost me on this point. If people don't like that Joe Blow is trying to make some money from organizing a chess tournament then don't play in their chess tournament. Problem solved.

There's a big difference between something like Millionaire Chess where an organizer risks hundreds of thousands versus a local event where someone is earning less than minimum wage to have something tangible for their work.

Firstly, you're still missing the big difference between poker and chess events that prevent the poker model from easily translating to chess. In poker anyone can win. So even if the prize money is not huge, it is still winnable by any of the entrants. Not at all the case for chess. And that makes a huge, huge difference.

Secondly, no one except maybe some bored seniors actually sets out to volunteer when others around them are making money. So the point about that is that if an organizer is being paid a hard fee out of entry fees, how much are people around him or her willing to volunteer? Maybe for a short time out of some sense of devotion or something, but eventually greed takes hold. They see that the organizer is pocketing some decent money and say, what am I, chopped liver? And eventually the volunteer imperative in chess will die out, and everyone will want their cut.

Look, I'm not against anyone in organized chess making money. I'm saying simply let the players decide how much money that should be for tournament organizers and supporting staff, and the best model for that is the busker model (donation ask). What is the big deal against it? Would you Tom as an organizer be willing to try it? If not, why not?

I like, Tom, that you participate in both poker and chess events, as I think that gives you some smarts that people only involved in chess don't have. But don't get carried away trying to translate poker models over to chess. It just can't work, meaning the same numbers can't be achieved. The only reason organized chess in North America isn't a total, complete failure is because of volunteers. Poker has no need of volunteers and there are no volunteers helping to run poker events (again excepting bored seniors as an outlier possibility, and also excepting charity events).