Canadian Closed - list of games I have

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Canadian Closed - list of games I have

Hi John:

What is it they say? " Great minds think alike - fools seldom differ ! "

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

Good Signs

Recently on one of the message boards, I lamented the fact that on one thread I was involved in, ALL those posting were governors - 100% - not one ordinary member had posted. I said I was glad to see increasing governor participation on the two boards ( ChessTalk and the CFC Chess Forum ), but discouraged at lack of ordinary member participation.

So I am pleased to see the activity on this thread - 36 posts by governors, and 10 posts by ordinary members. I think this will go some way to changing the view that CFC Governors do not post on members' boards, and it is also encouraging that it seems more ordinary members are posting on CFC-related matters.

We seem to be starting to make use more of the infrastructure for governor/ordinary member dialogue. I think it is a good sign for the CFC's future.

Bob

[Brian Raymer]

CYCC surplus - funding a coach for the WYCC

CYCC surplus - funding a coach for the WYCC

A further note. I am not sure that everyone knows that the CFC is a charitable organization. I think it should be possible for parents or anyone else to make a targeted donation toward a coach for the WYCC. Combined with the $6225 surplus from this year's CYCC it should be possible to find a good/suitable coach.

Another suggestion is for people with aeroplan miles to contribute an air ticket toward players and/or a coach traveling to the WYCC in Turkey. Aeroplan miles now expire if unused.

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: Canadian Closed - list of games I have

How about keeping this thread on topic - i.e. games (or lack of) available from the Closed. I want to know what I'm mssing, and whether those missing games are available (see my earlier post below).

How about starting new threads for:

1) Funding of a coach for the WYCC.
2) Comments about the organization of the Closed (and future Closeds).

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Canadian Closed - list of games I have

How about keeping this thread on topic - i.e. games (or lack of) available from the Closed. I want to know what I'm mssing, and whether those missing games are available (see my earlier post below)

Probably it would be helpful to include the board number into the PGN files and to sort the file again. It would give an idea what is missing. (Then grab both players and shake well :D

Some pairing programs give a pre-formated PGN file, thus only actual moves must be inserted. This can be confirmed with an arbiter or who manged the pairings if this might be done.

[Michael von Keitz]

Re: Canadian Closed - list of games I have

I want to know what I'm mssing, and whether those missing games are available

The 136 games you have should be the complete set. There were 15 games for each of the first eight rounds, 14 in the ninth round due to withdrawals, and two tiebreak games for the IM title.

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: Canadian Closed - list of games I have

The 136 games you have should be the complete set. There were 15 games for each of the first eight rounds, 14 in the ninth round due to withdrawals, and two tiebreak games for the IM title

You're right. I matched the games with the crosstable, and 136 games is the correct number (there were byes in most rounds).

[Jean Hébert]

Re: Canadian Closed - list of games I have

I have quickly created a file of the 136 games I have from the Closed. There is still a lot of editing to do. Let me know if I'm missing any games - but I won't have a chance to work on the file until Sunday night.

http://canbase.fqechecs.qc.ca/cbv/20.../2009canch.pgn
http://canbase.fqechecs.qc.ca/cbv/20.../2009canch.cbv

Hugh,

I have already started to do the editing and enter FIDE ratings. It will be completed way before sunday and I will send it to you.

[Jean Hébert]

Re: A better organizer

I think both you and Hal have some valid points of course, but it doesn't look like either of you prefer to lay the blame on the CFC (where the blame lies in my opinion).

It's easy but useless to lay blame on an organisation without pinpointing anyone in particular. When everybody is guilty, nobody ends up guilty.

Yes, it was great that someone would step up and organize the Closed under such constraints, BUT the CFC was the reason this was NOT properly organized in the first place.

What "constraints" ? There were no constraints. The organizer had "carte blanche", the CFC has no minimum reguirements for the Closed. This probably induced Mr Bond to believe that very little was expected of him and in a way he was right.

In my lifetime (34 years between can. ch 1975-2009) the CFC has NEVER been of much help to organize the Closed. Someone experienced stepping up to organise one of these should know that and be ready. Organizing is about taking responsibilities, not spreading the blame around when things don't turn out as well as hoped.

The CFC should either have rejected Hal's bid (if there was one!) on the grounds that it was too late to do a proper job or (better) the CFC should pay attention to doing a proper job for the few events that it really ought to be concerned with: the Canadian Open, The Canadian Closed, the Olympiad and perhaps the CYCC/WYCC.

The CFC as long as it does not set up minimal standards must accept a bid if its the only one. That is one more reason to set up such standards. It cannot foresee that an organizer will be so negligent as for example to "forget" to put signs saying "Canadian Closed and Zonal Championship".

I understand your frustration Jean, but to shoot at one of the few people who actually IS trying to make a difference is pointless and may perhaps alienate one of the last remaining people who give a damn. Just consider how prestigious this would have been if Hal had not done the job he *did* do...

You must be a fortuneteller to know what would have happen if Hal had not come forward to organize it. It is that kind of reasoning that has put the CFC on the verge of bankrupcy. Tolerating incompetent people scares the competent ones away.

How much help did Hal have?

A better question would be: how much help did he try and managed to get ? If he tried the same way he tried to attract spectators and promote the event, no wonder the results were poor. Who is to blame ? Not for me to say I guess...
[/QUOTE]

[Kerry Liles]

Re: A better organizer

Ok, clearly you are pretty upset about all this and I guess I will back off now and let you and Hal argue about it. I would not be surprised though if little of value comes from that dialogue.

I realize the composition of the CFC Executive changes (usually) from year to year, so simply blaming 'the CFC' is futile, but I was implying that the CFC should establish proper guidelines and standards for the operation of the events I mentioned - I thought that much was clear.

I also think that if Hal had not stepped forward there would have been no Closed for you or anyone else to win and the Canadian representative could have been decided by some simple Rock, Paper, Scissors...

[Steve Douglas]

Re: A better organizer

It's easy but useless to lay blame on an organisation without pinpointing anyone in particular. When everybody is guilty, nobody ends up guilty.

It seems pretty clear at this point that this is something personal between you and Hal Bond. You are singling him out as the source and cause of your dissatisfaction with the event. You are labeling him, and *only* him as "guilty", "failed", etc.

You have also said that you have no desire to discuss what should be done to improve things with the "no nothing" governors.

You may have a lot of valid points but you seem to be completely unwilling to work with others to solve the problem. Is your goal to make next year's closed better, or just slag the current organizer who apparently stepped in at the last minute? As Jonathan Berry said you are trying to shoot the messenger.

If there is no Closed next year, and somebody like Hal Bond doesn't scramble at the last minute to make it happen, will you be happy?

Will you be organising and running one? You clearly have very firm ideas about how it should be run and that it shouldn't be very difficult to accomplish. There is an old adage: "Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself."

Your posts single out "Hal Bond" as a major problem but I can't see how they do anything constructive. And I don't see "Hal Bond" or "John Coleman" or many others in southern Ontario as being the problem. In my opinion they are under-appreciated.

Steve

[Jean Hébert]

Re: A better organizer

It seems pretty clear at this point that this is something personal between you and Hal Bond.
Steve

You don't get it at all. There is absolutely nothing personal as far as I am concerned. Its a matter of principles and its about telling it like it is.

[Jean Hébert]

Re: A better organizer

It seems pretty clear at this point that this is something personal between you and Hal Bond.
Steve

You don't get it at all. There is absolutely nothing personal as far as I am concerned. Its a matter of principles and its about telling it like it is rather than sweeping everything we would rather not see under the rug.

[Jonathan Berry]

Re: Canadian Closed - list of games I have

I've just posted this at the CFC Governors' board:

I would like to suggest that the Masters' Rep and similar-strength colleagues come up with a "recipe" for the closed, including conditions, time control, suggested entry fees, appearance fees, prizes, and so on.

An organiser might not be able to meet all the conditions, but at least there would be a target.

For example, as a relatively weak player and some-time organiser, I had no idea that a daily bulletin was important. Just hadn't considered it.

You could start here:

http://www.chess.ca/section_9.htm

The Guidelines are 901 to 932.

It's easy to see that those guidelines are for an open tournament. They also need updating, being at least 35 years old, and part of the CFC Handbook for that long, too.

Daily bulletins were de rigueur for a long time. For example, the North Bay International. In the 21st century, their equivalent, daily internet publication of the game scores, is expected. Or at least we're used to that in BC (for the BC Closed and the Keres) and I experienced it at the 2007 Quebec Open. Of course in an open, often with 2 rounds per day, you're not going to have 100% coverage, but for a Closed event with no more than 15 games per day, one would have thought that the few missing games on scoresheets could have been kept up with. They could have scanned the scoresheets of the missing games and emailed them if there was unavailability of this chess skill in the Guelph area. But for most organizers, it would be easier just to input the games from the scoresheets, it only takes a few minutes, rather than locate a scanner ....

AFAIR they had daily bulletins in the Closeds of 1972, 1975, 1978, 1981, 1984, 1986, 1994, 1999, and 2002, at which I was present (in 81 and 86 I was around, not playing).

Yeah, I think that what you suggest, John Coleman, could be a positive step. Make a recipe for an ideal Canadian Closed, put it in the Closed regulations, with a preamble such as "While it is recognized that not all bids can guarantee all of the following conditions, it is expected that every bid will meet the most important of them" and then a prioritized list.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Canadian Closed - Sponsors, Standards et al

Why is it that "no frills" has to mean very poor financial conditions, outrageous entry fees for everybody including titled players, no visibility in or around the event (not a single poster or sign anywhere around), no facilities for on site spectators (chairs, players names on the tables, etc.), of course no effort to attract any (that's the way to put chess on the map and bring new players...) almost non-existent internet coverage, no one mandated to take pictures, no daily file game available and now, not even 3 days after the event ?

Here we go again, the endless arguments and questions as to: where is all the money for chess?

Your game, sport, whatever you want to call it, may have had glory days in the past, but no more. Computers - both chess engines and chess databases - have seen to that. Here in North America, where capitalism still does reign supreme (for better or worse), you can't hope for corporate sponsorship for a game in which the same tired old faces win time after time, where a draw is more likely than a decision, where there are almost no spectators nor TV coverage because the general public understands nothing and cares nothing about the "action".

You want to see money in chess? So would I, to be honest, but NOT for chess in it's current form. For the changes you want, at least in North America, you must CHANGE CHESS ITSELF. If you haven't the stomach for that, stop with the whining. Chess is interesting and fascinating for those who play it, but not for those who don't, which means you can't have fans and you can't have sponsorship. Maybe in Europe you can, maybe even in Quebec you can, but not in a true capitalist system.

You criticize a person who I believe made best efforts (Hal Bond), but until you, Jean Hebert, take action to change chess itself, you're just pissing in the wind. But it's not you personally I gripe against, it's the whole collective attitude that chess as it exists now somehow deserves better. It doesn't! Just ask Lucas Davies. (Sorry, I just had to throw that in. Anyone who saw one of Lucas' most recent posts will understand).

I'm sorry if I'm offending you Jean. But you attack Hal Bond as if he personally is responsible for the dumps that chess is heading into. I hope you will apologize to him, he seems to me (and I don't know him personally) to work very hard for chess, and so he's not one you should attack. And I hope you consider the truth of what I write about organized chess in North America.

I do feel sorry for all those 18 year old players you refer to. But on the other hand, they do have energy and enthusiasm. Perhaps they, rather than the old guard, can change chess for the future and bring it some fan and corporate appeal.