Canadian Closed - list of games I have

[Felix Dumont]

Re : Canadian Closed - list of games I have

haha...

If only professionnal chess players could win as much money as professionnal golf players do :D

[Paul Bonham]

Re: A better organizer

Steve,
Your reaction really surprises me. When I write: "Should the CFC write a contract with the organizer telling him in the smallest details what he could and should do... ?", isn't it about the issue of who is to blame and why, isn't it about what should have been done and wasn't ? Isn't this at the centre of your plea to "save" the organizer and put the blame elsewhere, preferably in a no man's land ? :)
How can one stick to the "issues" more than this ? It seems to me that you have simply run out of decent arguments.

Two items here:

1) Jean has been referring to "faceless organization" and a "no man's land". Are we talking CFC here, or CIA?

2) Jean, you have been surprised so many times now, why don't you just give it up? You have no understanding of people. Just go back to studying your chess pieces on your chess board.

[Jordan S. Berson]

Re: National Standards for Championships

Secondly, an important event such as the canadian championship and zonal cannot and should not be organized (as was the case this year) without sponsorship, private or otherwise. Financing it solely with entry fees is degrading and insufficient. In civilized chess countries, GM, IMs and participants in national championships do not in the first place pay entry fees! If you are an organizer without the capacity and contacts to find sponsorship, then stick to week-end events with prizes based on entries (which personally I find unprofessionnal and unacceptable).

Jean,

Congrats again on winning the Closed this year!

I have read much of what you have written regarding the Canadian Closed. As I am at the early stages of polling to see if St. John's, NL would be a suitable location, I have absorbed a lot of your comments and the more constructive responses.

The only point of yours that I have to contest is the above. While I completely agree with you that sponsorship is absolutely the key to success in any important tournament, especially the Canadian Championships, surely you must realize that we have been in a recession since late-2008.

Companies great and small are still at risk of grave financial losses, thousands upon thousands of jobs have been cut spanning almost every industry, and the government has had to intervene to keep order in many economic areas.

Maybe I am a little more sensitive to these matters than some because of my job. I work in the employment insurance call centre for Service Canada, so I deal with the financial difficulties of individuals and organizations on a daily basis.

With all that said, I can hardly see why any organization in 2009 would even consider sponsoring chess anywhere in North America. Chess has proven over decades to be a non-spectator-sport and in no way profitable for most potential sponsors, so when you add the current recession to the mix, then sponsorship for the Closed would be less than usual, if anything at all.

Based on what I have read, the tournament itself was not a complete flop. While I had hoped more players of hgher strength to show up, I was not surprised by the dismal turnout. I don't even remember seeing any advertising for the Closed more than about six weeks prior to the start.

If you're going to blame anyone for the mishaps at the Closed, don't make Hal Bond the scapegoat. My understanding is that he is one of Canada's best organizers around. Don't even blame anyone at the CFC office. The fact that North Americans don't appreciate chess as much as they appreciate Rock Paper Scissors, and the fact that we're in a recession should be the focus of your direct concern.

The fact that the missing perks at the Closed did not impact your ability to win the tournament means that they were just that: perks. There were boards, sets, clocks, score sheets and pairings before each round, and that's really all you need...

Respectfully,

Jordan

Oh, and pencils ;-)

[Steve Douglas]

Re: A better organizer

Steve,
Your reaction really surprises me. When I write: "Should the CFC write a contract with the organizer telling him in the smallest details what he could and should do... ?", isn't it about the issue of who is to blame and why, isn't it about what should have been done and wasn't ? Isn't this at the centre of your plea to "save" the organizer and put the blame elsewhere, preferably in a no man's land ? :)
How can one stick to the "issues" more than this ? It seems to me that you have simply run out of decent arguments.

Hi Jean:

My reaction was primarily to your first paragraph, the one you didn't quote.

I don't think the CFC should be spoonfeeding the organizers, but it should at least be aware of what is allegedly going to be provided, or not provided. By focusing on this specific organizer and hardly saying a word about the CFC you are setting the stage for what seems to be a CFC specialty--leaving the blame with whatever scapegoat is found, pretending it had nothing to do with them, and then sticking their head in the sand.

If there are certain minimum standards that have to be met for premier events such as the Closed, Open, Junior, and CYCC then they should be spelled out. Jonathan Berry states that a lot of this is outdatedly covered in the CFC handbook but I haven't had the time to sift through all of that (my responsibility/fault--I know). And if in a given year there is not a compliant bid, then a decision has to be made by the CFC whether they will go ahead with a non-compliant or sub-standard bid.

I'm not trying to "save" the organizer here, and my opinion of this would be no different if it were another organizer. But if the perception continues that this event was substandard solely because it was run by Hal Bond, then there is a good chance next year that the CFC will just go with any other organizer and ignore that it is also their responsibility to ensure that the event is properly done.

I'm not in a position to argue the merits of what was done or not done at this year's event since I wasn't there. The issue is how to make the event (and other high-profile CFC events) better in the future.

Steve

[Jean Hébert]

Re: National Standards for Championships

I can hardly see why any organization in 2009 would even consider sponsoring chess anywhere in North America.

Until you do I suggest that you limit your organizing to club activities and week-end swisses with prizes based on entries, where you put the financial risks on the participants shoulders instead of taking responsibilities yourself.

Chess has proven over decades to be a non-spectator-sport and in no way profitable for most potential sponsors, so when you add the current recession to the mix, then sponsorship for the Closed would be less than usual, if anything at all.

We are not looking for the size of sponsorship that would require 15 or 20 thousand people crowds here. Usually we are talking a few hundred to maybe 10 or 20,000 dollars for bigger events. Pocket money for many. I disagree with you: chess is appealing to spectators if only they know the basic rules. I have observed this many times, people who barely know how the pieces move getting engrossed watching a chess game. But for this to happen we must give the potential spectator a chance: a little advertizing, chairs and demos, and if possible a commentator. Without seats even hockey games would lose many fans...

Based on what I have read, the tournament itself was not a complete flop.

What have you read exactly ? From the promotional point of view, it was a complete flop. In my opinion it is the main point of view. The first duty of an organizer is to promote the game. This was not done.

If you're going to blame anyone for the mishaps at the Closed, don't make Hal Bond the scapegoat. My understanding is that he is one of Canada's best organizers around.

If true, then it explains why chess is in trouble in Canada. He may be one of the most active, but from what I have seen (the last two Closed) he is not in my top 5, and probably not in my top ten.

Don't even blame anyone at the CFC office. The fact that North Americans don't appreciate chess as much as they appreciate Rock Paper Scissors, and the fact that we're in a recession should be the focus of your direct concern.

This is a myth. The problems of chess in North America come from the inside not the outside. I know how non-chess players react when I tell them that I play chess at a (relatively) high level. There is generally genuine admiration in their voices and eyes. Actually many chess tournaments find sponsorship here in Quebec and it continues even in 2009. Sponsorship may shrink a bit in more difficult times, but it does not disappear. There are still people (yes companies are made of PEOPLE) with money to spend who want to make a contribution to the community and make a difference. Organizer seriously looking for sponsors do find sponsors. If you take the loser's attitude and believe that looking for it is useless, then of course you don't stand a chance.

The fact that the missing perks at the Closed did not impact your ability to win the tournament means that they were just that: perks. There were boards, sets, clocks, score sheets and pairings before each round, and that's really all you need...

It is not about what I need Jordan, it is about what chess needs to grow that is the point here. For that "boards, sets, clocks, score sheets" are not enough.

[Neil Sullivan]

Re: A better organizer

You'd have a much better argument, Jean, if you had offered to help Hal yourself with much of these tasks. If you went to him, and he said "People quit on me at the last minute", and you replied, "How can I help?".

How much effort does putting players names on tables take? Making up some signs? Sending an email to the paper? Or inputing a few games? ...

One can debate what the responsibility of the organizer(s) should be, but this argument seems to me to be a non-starter. In what national championship is it considered normal for the participants to spend time doing the prep work before play begins?

In fact, a player who did this might face some criticism if it was felt that these activities had taken away from his performance.

I believe the players' responsibilities during the event were to respect the rules and each other and to give their best effort. Making up signs and putting names on tables? No. That's not their job.

[Steve Douglas]

Re: A better organizer

One can debate what the responsibility of the organizer(s) should be, but this argument seems to me to be a non-starter. In what national championship is it considered normal for the participants to spend time doing the prep work before play begins?

In fact, a player who did this might face some criticism if it was felt that these activities had taken away from his performance.

I believe the players' responsibilities during the event were to respect the rules and each other and to give their best effort. Making up signs and putting names on tables? No. That's not their job.

Hi Neil:

I agree with you here and regret that I queried Jean as to why he didn't put up signs. I was trying to deal with broader concepts, and was in no way seriously suggesting that any of the players at this particular event should have been putting up signs or anything else of the kind. Unfortunately others have taken that remark of mine and tried to run with it.

Steve

[Jordan S. Berson]

Re: Canadian Closed - list of games I have

Jean,

I would quote and requote, but clearly your understanding of the big picture is a lot broader than mine.

That said, would you be interested in helping to organize a Closed here in St. John's, NL?

Jordan

PS - that's not a sarcastic question, I'm honestly asking for your help...

[Paul Bonham]

Re: A better organizer

Hi Neil:

I agree with you here and regret that I queried Jean as to why he didn't put up signs. I was trying to deal with broader concepts, and was in no way seriously suggesting that any of the players at this particular event should have been putting up signs or anything else of the kind. Unfortunately others have taken that remark of mine and tried to run with it.

Steve

First, I nowhere said players putting up signs and names on tables would be or should be considered "normal". If people quit on Hal at the last minute, as I believe he stated, that is not normal. It then appears that no one, player or otherwise, offered to help do these tasks, or maybe there's some other reason as to why they didn't get done. We could definitely use Hal's input on this.

Of course players have their normal responsibilities, but to say that they should never under any circumstances help do the prep work is wrong. Well, that's my opinion and you each have yours, but consider this: many job interviewers look to see how much of a team player each person they interview is. In the real world, you don't just do "your" responsibilities. You have to think and act out of the box, more so today than ever if you want to keep your job. If someone takes a sick day, you might have to do their work plus your own. For chess players to be so prima donna is just another factor making them utterly irrelevant. Of course, if either of you belong to a union, you wouldn't follow this line of thinking. But unions aren't doing so well these days, and I don't see better days coming for them.

At any rate, all this about signs and names on tables is minor stuff, a smokescreen for Jean's real beef, the "atrocious" financial conditions. And in Jean's mind, Hal is solely responsible for this. Doesn't matter if Hal worked harder than ever before in his life to try and get sponsors, all that counts to Jean is the final result. And if chess is very short of good organizers, that also doesn't matter, get Hal out of there is his sole remedy. Very shortsighted and arrogant, not conducive to making chess better, IMO.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: National Standards for Championships

Originally Posted by Jordan S. Berson:
I can hardly see why any organization in 2009 would even consider sponsoring chess anywhere in North America.

Reply from Jean Hebert:
Until you do I suggest that you limit your organizing to club activities and week-end swisses with prizes based on entries, where you put the financial risks on the participants shoulders instead of taking responsibilities yourself.

Let's all learn about taking responsibility from the king himself, Mr. Hebert! When he arrived at the closed and saw all the promotional perks missing, he TOOK RESPONSIBILITY and made sure they got done....

Well, no, he didn't. Hal Bond, and only Hal Bond, was supposed to do that. Jean was too busy preparing for his games, eyes on the prize.

Jean, what you are preaching here is the antithesis of teamwork. Everybody in a chess event has their responsibility. If one person for any reason can't do their task, don't even volunteer to help. Just allow the work not to get done, then criticize the person. Don't even ask what might have been wrong.

Jordan can now add himself to the long list of people Jean has insulted and slandered since he got back from Guelph. But I say, if Jordan thinks he can get a decent Closed in St. John's, and enough players like the idea, go for it. Don't let Jean Hebert decide who organizes what tournaments.


Originally Posted by Jordan S. Berson:
Chess has proven over decades to be a non-spectator-sport and in no way profitable for most potential sponsors, so when you add the current recession to the mix, then sponsorship for the Closed would be less than usual, if anything at all.

Reply from Jean Hebert:
We are not looking for the size of sponsorship that would require 15 or 20 thousand people crowds here. Usually we are talking a few hundred to maybe 10 or 20,000 dollars for bigger events. Pocket money for many. I disagree with you: chess is appealing to spectators if only they know the basic rules. I have observed this many times, people who barely know how the pieces move getting engrossed watching a chess game. But for this to happen we must give the potential spectator a chance: a little advertizing, chairs and demos, and if possible a commentator. Without seats even hockey games would lose many fans...

Jean has been in a coma for the past 30 years. While in the coma, he dreamt he saw hundreds of non-chess-playing spectators paying for tickets then sitting fixated on chess games played by top level players. They were all oblivious to the fact that they couldn't even hiccup without receiving glares of pure hatred from the players at the tables and in the stands. But that was ok, because the pure drama had them holding their breath anyway! And yes, there was a commentator! Why, it was none other than Don Cherry! He was whispering, something about "... damn Europeans".

Enough lies about the seats, Jean! Hal already exposed this lie of yours, and you admitted to it, so just STOP WITH THE LIES!



Originally Posted by Jordan S. Berson:
Based on what I have read, the tournament itself was not a complete flop.

Reply from Jean Hebert:
What have you read exactly ? From the promotional point of view, it was a complete flop. In my opinion it is the main point of view. The first duty of an organizer is to promote the game. This was not done.

All you organizers out there, please bow down now to Mr. Hebert and acknowledge that you've been wrong all these years in thinking your first duty was to organize an event. Start chanting in unison: "Promote the game. Promote the game. Promote the game...."


Originally Posted by Jordan S. Berson:
Don't even blame anyone at the CFC office. The fact that North Americans don't appreciate chess as much as they appreciate Rock Paper Scissors, and the fact that we're in a recession should be the focus of your direct concern.

Reply from Jean Hebert:
This is a myth. The problems of chess in North America come from the inside not the outside.

That statement needs to start a new thread, could become the biggest thread in Chesstalk history.


Continuing reply from Jean Hebert:
I know how non-chess players react when I tell them that I play chess at a (relatively) high level. There is generally genuine admiration in their voices and eyes.

When you mistake scorn, laughter, or total ambivalence for admiration, you are in serious trouble. Wow, it's amazing how chess affects the brain! I wonder if professional bowlers have this problem? After all, for general spectators, they outdraw chess tournaments, what, about 100 to 1? Oh, well, they have COMMENTATORS!


Continuing reply from Jean Hebert:
Actually many chess tournaments find sponsorship here in Quebec and it continues even in 2009. Sponsorship may shrink a bit in more difficult times, but it does not disappear. There are still people (yes companies are made of PEOPLE) with money to spend who want to make a contribution to the community and make a difference. Organizer seriously looking for sponsors do find sponsors. If you take the loser's attitude and believe that looking for it is useless, then of course you don't stand a chance.

Once again, Jean implies that Hal Bond didn't even try to get sponsors. We really need Hal himself to come forward on that point. If Hal admits to it, Jean would at least have one point in his favor.

As for companies in Quebec, it is likely they have either grants or tax credits from the Quebec government that they must use by certain dates, and they throw this excess money at things such as chess events. Ultimately it all comes from the Quebec taxpayer. But Jean doesn't care where it comes from, as long as he gets his indoor heated pool and other amenities to help him prepare for games.



Originally Posted by Jordan S. Berson:
The fact that the missing perks at the Closed did not impact your ability to win the tournament means that they were just that: perks. There were boards, sets, clocks, score sheets and pairings before each round, and that's really all you need...

Reply from Jean Hebert:
It is not about what I need Jordan, it is about what chess needs to grow that is the point here. For that "boards, sets, clocks, score sheets" are not enough.

I got it! How about the Quebec government legislate that all Quebec colleges must have a 2-year training program to produce "Chess Tournament Commentator" graduates? Mr. Hebert will convince government officials that there is a dire shortage and need of such highly-trained specialists.

And let's not forget the need for Chess Tournament Electronic Demo Board Operators.

Of course, the salaries in Quebec for all these specialists will come from.... come on, now, try and guess. Starts with a "T"! Contains an "X"!

Outside of Quebec, the sponsors will gladly pay! They've been dying to see the availability of commentators and electronic demo boards!

[Jean Hébert]

Re: A better organizer

I do not know Hal Bond nor Jean Hebert personally. I do not play organized chess any longer, since 1996. I don't even live in Canada anymore.

At least you finally admit that you know nothing before proceeding to prove it once more. Well done!

[Paul Bonham]

Re: A better organizer

At least you finally admit that you know nothing before proceeding to prove it once more. Well done!

You quote me from another thread because once again, you can't answer my arguments. You again resort to the tools of the loser. You might just as well say "I resign".

I most certainly didn't admit I know nothing, but I will admit I don't know everything. So far, though, I've known enough in this debate to make you look very bad. The only reason I don't get more support is no one knows me and everyone knows you, the Closed champion. If winning at chess is what it takes to be right in everything else, you should be running for Prime Minister I suppose. And the sad thing is, you'd actually get some votes.

Ah well, such is life. This is why modern society is doomed.

The puppy dog Carl would support you even if you came back from Guelph and said we should exterminate all the Jews, that they were to blame for the poor Closed.

[Jean Hébert]

Re: A better organizer

You quote me from another thread because once again, you can't answer my arguments.
The puppy dog Carl would support you even if you came back from Guelph and said we should exterminate all the Jews, that they were to blame for the poor Closed.

If you call this tasteless and thoughtless attack and other nonsense that you have come up with so far an "argument" , then you have a lot of soul searching to do. Unless it is simply a case of improper medication.

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: A better organizer

....

The puppy dog Carl would support you even if you came back from Guelph and said we should exterminate all the Jews, that they were to blame for the poor Closed.

Paul, Nazis used to ridiculized Jews people and make them ugly so that when you killed one, you felt nothing more than killing a rat. You use the same technique of humiliation to make me look like a dog or a nazi so that people start picking on me.

I feel responsabilities as an occidental person for what append in those terribles days of WWII. I have always been pro Israel. I have five children and I oftenly imagine what I would have lived as a father of 5 Jews if I was a Jew in 1939 in europe. Or what would I have done in Germany as a father of 5 German Kids? Would I have hidden Jews risking the lives of my 5 kids for the lives of Jews? Terrible to think about all this.

I don't want to be associated with the concept of approving Jean theorical suggestion of killing Jews. Maybe you know things about Jean I am not aware. As a father and a businessman I have my own ideas, my own values and my own experiences. I share some of Jean values but in no way I am a person who can not determine the good from the bad.

I am not a dog neither.

You are making a too big story about journalist's critic and a tournament director that seems to be appreciated for small events only by a category of players.

If you are a teenager then I would understand that there is exageration. I don't if it is the case!

Carl

[Michael Humphreys]

Re: Canadian Closed - list of games I have

Oh Shoot!

I had predicted that Godwin's law wouldn't be proven on this thread for at least another two days.

You guys have really outdone yourselves.