The decline of Canadian chess?

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

There is a problem with Canadian Chess!!

Players can't make money here. Organizers lose money when they organize a tournament.

If you were to pay organizers to run tournaments, this would help. An organizer and TD like Hal Bond, isn't traveling to other countries out of the goodness of his heart.
He gets paid to do so. The problem with weekend tournaments is organizers pay out of their own pocket for certain amenities to entice players to play. If the participation number is low, the prize fund takes a hit.
Then players won't play in future events because of a compromised prize fund.

Pay and train organizers a reasonable sum and help stimulate the prize funds.
Otherwise, good organizers and TD's will stop doing just that and down the rabbit hole we go.

John Erickson

Fwiw, after the CFC Handbook was changed to meet federal government requirements a small number of years ago, an old ineligibility rule for CFC Directors became arguably no longer in effect, or at least might not stand a legal challenge, because it was not carried over from the old CFC Handbook into the new one. Thus Larry Bevand, for example, might one day run for the CFC presidency if he wished to. If he were elected or acclaimed CFC President, he might well know what to do to get the CFC in much better shape, especially if he made an all-out effort to do so. From the old (Historic) CFC Handbook, here's the old ineligibility rule in question (I once heard it referred to as the anti-Bevand rule, somewhere long ago):

14. INELIGIBILITY AS A DIRECTOR

No person may be elected or appointed as a member of the Board of Directors if he is involved in the ownership or operation of a chess related business or earns a substantial part of his income from a chess related business. Any Director becoming involved in such chess related business during the term of his office shall resign as a Director. A professional chess player, chess teacher, chess coach, tournament director, or a player who writes chess books, a chess column, articles for a newspaper(s) or magazine(s) shall not be excluded from being a Director by this clause.

[Christopher Mallon]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

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.

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:

387. Tournament Director Obligations: [Motions 96-8, 96-9, 96-10 and 96-11 from Governors’ Letter #5, 1995/96]

• That the ads in En Passant display LMR for Latest Magazine Rating or LAR for Latest Available Rating, and further, that organizers be bound by this notice.
• That organizers of all CFC rated chess events publicly post financial statements (in other words, of revenues/expenses) at the tournament site prior to the final round.
• That all organizers of CFC rated chess events publicly post prize fund distribution at the tournament site prior to the last round.
• That all prize winners on site in a CFC rated event acknowledge receipt of the prize in writing.

(EDIT: Does anyone know why whenever I post lately it takes out all my formatting and puts it in just a wall of text? Won't let me paragraph stuff!)

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

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.

And I remember when this practice was common place, back in the 90's.
I see Chris has dug up handbook 367 from 1996 making this a requirement for CFC rated events.
I don't know if this rule was ever actually enforced, but as I recall,
TD and organizer fees were common place and accepted,
but over time, some organizers began displaying TD fees = zero,
until that became the norm, and players began to expect it.
It even became fashionable to bully TD's /Organizers to work for free.
The result was TD/Organizer burnout.
CFC memberships 1996 = 3,250 dropped down to in 2007 = 1,763
There were other factors, but there is a correlation.
Then most stopped reporting tournament financials.
We have brought CFC memberships back up to over 2,200
Do we really want to go thru that again?
Those who fail to learn from history, will repeat it.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

Why should I limit this to if I were to organize a tournament? Should I do the same for the chess lessons I teach? If not, why not? There are people around who will teach group and individual lessons for free. Perhaps my being paid for my services is going to collapse the morale of the free lesson-givers.

My wife used to work at Salvation Army in a paid position. There were plenty of people (mostly seniors, but not exclusively) who worked alongside her for free. Some did it because they wanted to give back. Some to get work experience. My imagination is not good enough to know all motivations, but I got the sense there were many.

I am self-employed. I value my time at $XX/hr. I am not willing to risk whether someone feels like donating for my time/effort. The idea that people who work in certain industries should make the majority of their income from tips seems weird to me. When I went to New Zealand, for example, no one expected to be tipped. As the shuttlebus driver who took us from the airport to the hotel in Auckland told us "we all make a good income here so no need to tip".

I think in general a tipping economy is going to lead to more fraud as people are going to more easily be able to evade income taxes.

If I don't like the finances of a tournament, I won't play in it. I don't think it is necessary for an organizer to post a detailed breakdown of their expenses. It's none of my business. I do want to know the total take for all expenses from the prize pool, however. It's why I think the poker model is much more transparent and easy to understand.

... 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? ...

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

the local casino here has a weekly $100 + $25 tournament..

I'm very far from poker. Thus, could you answer more details about such tournament: total playing time (aka venue "rent" time), how many staff personal are involved, participant number.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

I'm very far from poker. Thus, could you answer more details about such tournament: total playing time (aka venue "rent" time), how many staff personal are involved, participant number.

In the local casino, their small tournaments have three tables for a maximum of 27 players (down from 36 players at four tables last year). This casino is pretty anti-poker; they make way more profit per person from things like slots and blackjack, I guess.

Big money tournaments (not at this casino) can last a day or longer, and the house take is more money, though a lower percentage of the total fee paid. Poker tournaments are elimination, so although these ones are about four-five hours long, some people are eliminated in the first two hours or so. You need a dealer for every nine players, and a floor person who is sort of the chief TD.

So call it three dealers and a floor person. The floor is working say five hours total and the dealers are averaging say three-four hours each.

As the tournament participants are eliminated they can stick around and play cash games after tables free up and those still in the tournament are consolidated at fewer table(s). The cash games are raked per hand, the amount depending on the size of the pot. I would guess a cash game table grosses about $100/hr in rake. I haven't personally seen any tipping from tournament winnings, but tipping in cash games is pretty common.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

And I remember when this practice was common place, back in the 90's.
I see Chris has dug up handbook 367 from 1996 making this a requirement for CFC rated events.
I don't know if this rule was ever actually enforced, but as I recall,
TD and organizer fees were common place and accepted,
but over time, some organizers began displaying TD fees = zero,
until that became the norm, and players began to expect it.
It even became fashionable to bully TD's /Organizers to work for free.
The result was TD/Organizer burnout.
CFC memberships 1996 = 3,250 dropped down to in 2007 = 1,763
There were other factors, but there is a correlation.
Then most stopped reporting tournament financials.
We have brought CFC memberships back up to over 2,200
Do we really want to go thru that again?
Those who fail to learn from history, will repeat it.

This sounds to me like a totally bogus narrative. If not, then please explain WHY.....

"TD and organizer fees were common place and accepted,
but over time, some organizers began displaying TD fees = zero,
until that became the norm"

WHY would an organizer stop paying himself or herself?

The only plausible answer seems to be, to increase the prize fund and attract more entries.
Could it be that when organizers were paying themselves, they couldn't attract very many entries???

"Do we really want to go thru that again?
Those who fail to learn from history, will repeat it."

[John Coleman]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

Paul, why do you care about this? You don't play chess, or organise, as far as I know.

Why don't you focus your attention on something that really needs help, like International Olympic Committee, or Save the Whales, or something.

It's not like anyone here ever agrees with you.

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

This sounds to me like a totally bogus narrative. If not, then please explain WHY.....

"TD and organizer fees were common place and accepted,
but over time, some organizers began displaying TD fees = zero,
until that became the norm"

WHY would an organizer stop paying himself or herself?

Paul, I answered this question in my "bogus narrative".
But you chose to delete my answer and substitute in your own.
Oh, aren't you so clever.

To repeat myself,

but over time, some organizers began displaying TD fees = zero,
until that became the norm, and players began to expect it.
It even became fashionable to bully TD's /Organizers to work for free.
The result was TD/Organizer burnout.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

In the local casino, their small tournaments have three tables for a maximum of 27 players (down from 36 players at four tables last year). ...

Big money tournaments (not at this casino) can last a day or longer, and the house take is more money, though a lower percentage of the total fee paid. Poker tournaments are elimination, so although these ones are about four-five hours long, some people are eliminated in the first two hours or so. You need a dealer for every nine players, and a floor person who is sort of the chief TD.

So call it three dealers and a floor person. The floor is working say five hours total and the dealers are averaging say three-four hours each....

Thnx.
It sounds like a blitz tournament to me - small number, quite short. Though, I have not heard of $125 entry fee to a blitz tournament recently. Vlad was doing for $25 (or was it 25+5?).

[Paul Bonham]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

Paul, I answered this question in my "bogus narrative".
.............It even became fashionable to bully TD's /Organizers to work for free.
The result was TD/Organizer burnout.

Evidence of such "bullying"?????

Extravagant claims require exceptional evidence. Was the bullying documented? What threats were used against the organizers? Was the Mafia involved? Who are the guilty parties? Have they confessed in writing to the bullying? Are some of them still playing tournaments today? Will they start bullying again? WILL HISTORY REPEAT ITSELF???

[Paul Bonham]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

.... Though, I have not heard of $125 entry fee to a blitz tournament recently.......

That is because anyone can win a poker tournament, but not anyone can win a blitz tournament. Tom should have accounted for this difference. It prevents blitz tournament organizer from charging more than people are prepared to lose.

Poker players think of how much they can win. Chess players (except the very few elite) think of how much they are going to lose.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

That is because anyone can win a poker tournament, but not anyone can win a blitz tournament. Tom should have accounted for this difference. It prevents blitz tournament organizer from charging more than people are prepared to lose.

Poker players think of how much they can win. Chess players (except the very few elite) think of how much they are going to lose.

Oh LOL

With such negative there would be no chess players at all.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

That is because anyone can win a poker tournament, but not anyone can win a blitz tournament. Tom should have accounted for this difference. It prevents blitz tournament organizer from charging more than people are prepared to lose.

Poker players think of how much they can win. Chess players (except the very few elite) think of how much they are going to lose.

Poker tournaments have only place prizes. Chess tournaments have rating category prizes. This has zero to do with the original point about organizers charging fees.

What makes chess tournament organizers so special that they need to forgo normal methods of payment? Next time I go to a movie I will tell management that they should only expect me to pay them based on my evaluation of the quality of my experience.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

Poker tournaments have only place prizes. Chess tournaments have rating category prizes. This has zero to do with the original point about organizers charging fees.

What makes chess tournament organizers so special that they need to forgo normal methods of payment? Next time I go to a movie I will tell management that they should only expect me to pay them based on my evaluation of the quality of my experience.

It is not the case that chess organizers are special, it is that chess is special... in the sense that it is a game of pure skill. 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. This means for you to still enter that tournament, you must enjoy chess enough to be willing to lose your entire entry fee (plus take up a whole weekend in playing the games).

All this adds up to "special" demands on chess players who are not near the top of their category. The time demand isn't special compared to poker, but the expectation of certain loss of money is. I think it was very neatly summed up in my previous comment: poker players think what they can win, chess players who are not the very few elite think of what they will lose. Note I didn't say "can lose", I said "will lose". They will lose. They know it with certainty. Just ask Bob Armstrong when he signs up for the next Canadian Open.

This expectation of certain monetary loss by so many players puts additional pressure on entries, and thus on entry fees. Event participation cannot approach the participation rate at poker events. Therefore, chess organizers must make do with much smaller events and must do what they can to attract the many players that are on the fence about entering. Part of "doing what they can" is to not pay themselves.

This is all common knowledge in chess circles so I don't know why it even needs explaining. The only people who think chess can be like poker are idiots like Maurice Ashley and the investors that he fools.

Nowhere have I been saying that a donation ask has to be the model for all economic activity, or even a large portion of it. I've only been talking about chess, and busking, and restaurants. The thing they all have in common is that they are service-oriented, and when people pay for services, they do not know what they will get. Why not allow them to pay for what they get as they get it, rather than pay up front and then have to complain if the service is sub-par? Its being responsive to your customers, letting them decide.

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?

And that stuff about everyone in New Zealand has a great income, no need for tips..... you do realize that that shuttle you rode, you very likely paid a small fraction of its actual cost? Public transportation is notorious around the world for needing government subsidies. So the people who paid the difference for your ride are... New Zealanders! You don't live there, so you got away with it. If you lived there and had to pay the difference for all the tourists, your opinion would likely change.

People have talked here about getting government to subsidize chess through tax revenues.... would you be in favor of that? I'm guessing not.