Hebert vs. Bond

[Christopher Mallon]

Re: Hebert vs. Bond

FWIW, I'm not personally aware of anything... personal. I've just been having computer problems.

I was originally not going to be very involved in the Closed at all, but when Hal said he was needed extra help I made the effort to be there basically as often as I could without quitting my job.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Hebert vs. Bond

Hi Paul:

I doubt your suspicion that this issue revolves around some historical issue between Jean and Hal.

My take is that Jean says that there should be high standards for the Canadian National Chess Championship. He feels that Hal fell short of what was possible in this regard, even given that Hal came in with a bid, only at the last minute, when it looked like Canada was going to have no 2009 Closed/Zonal. Hal did get some sponsorship from the U of Guelph - the free space, which was actually quite excellent re a number of playing conditions - I was there for the last round. He also got sponsorship for Jean's registration fee. In his defence, it seems Hal is saying it was late in the game to do a lot, he did not have many $$ to spend on expenses, and he had some volunteers not show for him ( who might have been able to do some of the things Jean feels should be done, at little expense ).

Is Jean right that there should be high standards - yes - and the CFC is trying to get the Masters' Rep., Governor Eddie Urquhart, to look into this issue - likely the drafting of Closed National Standards to become part of a bid. Could Hal have done a bit more, especially on some of the more minor, less costly and labour intensive items, despite the limitations? - perhaps - hard to say. But if Hal is at all at fault, the CFC should also bear some of the blame, for not having any standards to guide organizers. If an organizer says " I'm last minute and can't do all this ", then the CFC will have to decide - Jean's view that no Closed/Zonal is better than a low standard one; or the view that it's better to have one, even if it falls short of normal expectations, to at minimum give strong players an opportunity to play each other - the basic item in all this.

Likely the governors will be in a no-win situation !

Bob

[Zeljko Kitich]

Re: Hebert vs. Bond

Normally when someone points out the OTB aspect to me the reason is quite different than what yours seems to be.
Reality is that many of us made a choice when we were finished with junior chess. The choice was to continue with chess or go for a career or job which provided the things which go with that. Correspondence chess was a viable option for many of us. My choice was working and also organizing correspondence chess. It would not have been proper for me to ask for a place on international teams ahead of others while I had control over who did participate. For that reason I didn't play internationally nor did I accept a spot as an alternate while I organized.

Correspondence chess has been a good experience. I've played people around the world who made the same choice I did. Teachers, scientists, chemists, Engineers so forth.

We play corresponence chess for the love of the game.



Now we are discussing a different situation. Jean is one of the premier players in Canada. I have no doubt that had GM titles proliferated like rabbits back in the 70's he would have that title. The reality is it was hard to even get an IM title back then.

Hal is obviously a very competent arbiter. We only need look at the invitations he gets from FIDE for his services to know this.

Probably you mean I haven't played CFC rated chess in a very long time. I assure you games I played at the local seniors club and which I have played in coffee houses over the years were real OTB games. I wonder how many excellent chess players in Quebec have no CFC rating. Probably the idea is to specify what kind of OTB chess you have in mind.

sure Gary I mean organized OTB tournaments such as the one we are discussing, CFC rated or not, where players are paired according to some kind of pairing system and play goes several rounds until a winner or winners are decided, I was not meaning casual OTB play with a couple of people getting together and playing each other on an impromptu basis, someone who has not played in a typical organized tournament in many years is no expert on the state of organized chess today

I'm just fine with correspondence chess, have I ever said otherwise?, even played some myself on ICC server but I suspect a player who has not played organized tournaments in some years is not familiar with the typical conditions of organized tournaments today, the PWC Toronto Open was the first return I've seen to the good days and the Labour Day tournaments on Overlea has been an island in a sea of decline

this discussion for me is about the state of chess, not the state of anyone's chess in particular but the state of chess in general

speaking for myself I guess you could micromanage some standards, names cards for each player of a certain card size and font size with a coloured provincial flag logo, x number of chairs for spectators, a roped off area for the players so spectators cannot crowd the boards, each player getting their choice of free non-alcoholic beverage during play and being guaranteed x # of drinks each round, a minimum amount of sponsorship support with a minimum of x dollars in prize money, a min and max temperature and humidity level in the playing hall etc, free accomodation for the players within x minutes or x km of the playing hall, x lighting level, free choice of writing instrument to record the game

as for spectators in 1993 the closed was in Hamilton, there were few spectators even though the organizers had a demonstration room and a commentator, speaking again for myself I see no need to watch a game for 5 hours when I can wait for the games to be done & then spend 5 hours examining alot of different games or seeing them with annotations by the players or a master level player, that's why I would always prefer to buy the Infomant rather than spectating at an event

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Hebert vs. Bond

One reason Hal might not be involved in this thread is because he is rather busy in China(!) right now:

http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5707

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: Hebert vs. Bond

Well, it is apparent that no one is going to take a stand on Hal's behalf. From this I am becoming convinced that there is something personal, a grudge perhaps or something along those lines, between Hebert and Bond, and that most people on this board are aware of it, and so aren't getting involved other than to say thanks to Hal for organizing many wonderful tournaments.

I wrote this on another part of this thread: "Jean is attacking Hal Bond PERSONALLY; although Jean denies this, he has in various threads accused Hal of not seeking sponsors at all, of "standing around picking his nose", and of having less than altruistic motivations for running the Closed. So far there hasn't been any proof of any of this."

All of that again signals something deep and personal between the two. Hal himself said a few things on this whole business (apparently there were seats provided for spectators, even Jean admitted it, however, Jean since then continues to mention "no seats" to continue to make Hal look bad).

So I'm done with this business, as I was convinced there was nothing personal between them and Jean was just being unprofessional and cutthroat towards Hal, blaming him for all the ills of top-level chess in Canada. If there is indeed something personal, then it's not for me to interfere.

I'm sure I've been unprofessional myself and I'm admitting it. But when someone demonstrates complete arrogance and tries telling me I shouldn't interrupt his threads, that tends to get me going and things can get carried away. I doubt I will ever have anything good to say about Jean Hebert, and I feel genuinely sorry for anyone that ever has to work under him.

I am glad I got involved, but again, there has to be more to it than I was initially led to believe. Some of you may know it but for unknown reasons can't make it public. We do need Hal Bond to clear up the accusations of Jean Hebert. That's what is needed right now, and nothing more I can write will be of any benefit.

Usually if there is no display to show the games then the chairs are useless. You better stand up and walk in the room to see the games. So "display screen" and "chairs" comes together. Jean said there was no screen display with chairs and you have to understand he is talking about the whole setup of screen and chairs. Yes there was chairs on the wall but who cares, it is like saying there was electricity but we forgot the TV.

Carl

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: Hebert vs. Bond

One reason Hal might not be involved in this thread is because he is rather busy in China(!) right now:

http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5707

It is very good that Hal can see some glamour in an event. From the pictures that we see on this page, for sure he will learn a lot from the poor citizens of China (earning 75 cent an hour) on how to handle a tournament. It means our masters next years should at least have names at the tables since it cost only a page or two of paper for a total of 20 cents with the printing process.

Are we too poor to have cameras, signs, posters, video, website, photos, even if we are in the G7? Should we wait that chess become popular, to make it look popular!!

Carl

[Steve Douglas]

Re: OT--Saitek clock weirdnesses

The Saiteks have had a few problems in the past, specifically with multiple time controls. This is from memory, but those include problems with the move counter, not properly indicating who flagged first, problems with how time is added after a control is reached, and I seem to recall something about not being able to have an increment on anything but the last control, but this last one is kinda fuzzy and I might have it backwards.

The Saitek 3 is a vast improvement over the Saitek 2, which was very much not a legal clock for tournament use, but was still widely used. The main problem being that you couldn't tell whose move it was from behind the clock. And woe to anyone who used it for blitz! The buttons were unreliable enough as it was without being repeatedly pounded.

Hi Chris:

I know that one of the differences between the Saitek 1 and Saitek 2, aside from the displays, was how they handled reaching the first time control. One of them added the extra time as soon as one player reached the time control (move count); the other added it once one of the players reached "zero". This has led to all sorts of panic at different events when the clock in use behaves differently than expected.

I also don't like the Saitek 1/2's for the fact that you can't tell from behind the clock who's on move. And I remember one event I was at where at another board somebody in time trouble hit the button but the clock didn't "take" it. I went to the TD who came over to monitor the rest of the game. I'm not sure what a ruling would have been since the player clearly pressed the clock button but just didn't notice that their own clock kept going.

Any move counter problems I've seen with the 1's/2's have usually come from somebody forgetting to punch the clock after their move. Every time that happens the clock will be "one move behind". This isn't a problem with single time controls, but it's obviously a problem with multiple time controls. (This has lead to minor discussions with opponents during the game when the time control is reached and we have to make sure the clock knows it before it decides to flag one of us.)

Steve

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Hebert vs. Bond

this discussion for me is about the state of chess, not the state of anyone's chess in particular but the state of chess in general

It appears to me chess in this country has evolved mainly into a children's game. Looks from here like many leave the game behind after their junior years for higher education and careers. Some become weekend warriors until they decide they have had enough of using the first few rounds to get rid of the rust and only being satisfied with the last couple of games they play.

Many good players are teaching chess. In most cases I would think this would take hundreds of rating points worth of strength from their own game. That's because the same cheapoes you look at when you're teaching are still fresh in your mind and don't work in higher level chess. A lot of the stuff from OTB doesn't work in CC.

Many Canadian players can be found online.

I think we need a server and events regularly organized on it so members can play from home. That way there may be more adult players and members. It's often pretty easy to figure out who's cheating with a computer.

By your defintion of OTB chess which has to be organized but not rated, I played well into the 1980's. I'll leave out the seniors club games as sometimes I played them as simuls. I'll leave out the times I ran into Howard giving simuls in malls and he left me with the games while he left for about an hour to grab something to eat.

I do consider the couple of times I played for Scarborough in their match with Indianapolis and also the unrated events I played in Pickering in the 80's at a club someone started as being OTB.

These days I have to figure out how far I have to walk after I park the car, so it limits what I can do.

[Jean Hébert]

Re: Hebert vs. Bond

Are we too poor to have cameras, signs, posters, video, website, photos, even if we are in the G7? Should we wait that chess become popular, to make it look popular!!

Just like everything else, "popularity" is a relative thing. It depends with what you make comparisons. To me chess is already quite "popular" compared to many social, sporting or cultural activities. Lots of people play chess, sometimes only casually but they do. Young and old, men and women from all races or religions, rich and no so rich, professionnals and blue collars, no activity can pretend to be practiced by such a diversity of people. Chess is already "popular". It is just that we make it look unpopular and do very little to promote it further. Organizing tournaments, even more so when it comes to "championships", is not simply about providing a room, with boards and chess sets, it is about promoting the game every which way possible.

[Steve Bolduc]

Re: Hebert vs. Bond

I am happy to see that Jean kept his eyes open while doing his show. Now that the conclusions are drawn, accepted, even if in need of some ''push me over'', I believe now we need a team of '' brainers '' the same way the American did in 2002 for their national championship under the leadership of Y. Seirawan. Corporate money is there as such as they get something in return on the long term. I mean not 2 years but a generation..With that in mind, the plan of popularysing chess will succeed.

It's a pity canadians always have to start from scratch. Where were we?

P.S.

I want to add the following fact : we have the best national chess database on earth. That is something everyone knows but takes for granted. I underline this now.

[Zeljko Kitich]

Re: Hebert vs. Bond

Just like everything else, "popularity" is a relative thing. It depends with what you make comparisons. To me chess is already quite "popular" compared to many social, sporting or cultural activities. Lots of people play chess, sometimes only casually but they do. Young and old, men and women from all races or religions, rich and no so rich, professionnals and blue collars, no activity can pretend to be practiced by such a diversity of people. Chess is already "popular". It is just that we make it look unpopular and do very little to promote it further. Organizing tournaments, even more so when it comes to "championships", is not simply about providing a room, with boards and chess sets, it is about promoting the game every which way possible.

Organized tournament chess is not a popular spectator activity, not in Canada, it can be - in Russia it is because they have a chess playing public that can get something out of it. The 1993 Canadian closed featured a separate analysis room with a master level player providing analysis of the best players in Canada, it was sparsely attended.

It would be unnecessary to have all sorts of spectator seating set out just to go unfilled.

You are well known in Quebec, did one person from Quebec come & watch you play?

Equating everyone who knows how to play chess as naturally being a spectating fan of chess is a miscalculation. I myself at various times have & still know how to play soccer, snooker, 9 ball, softball, darts, air hockey, table top hockey and euchre. The fun of these things for me is playing myself not sitting down for hours watching someone else play. For the vast majority of people who know how to play chess the idea of being a chess spectator is much the same. The majority of casual players would not get much out of watching a game, the same way they wouldn't get much out of competing in a club tournament, they would prefer to play lots of quick games to get better at chess. I had a lot more fun and interest in going down to my local tennis at Gage Park club when I played tennis, I might have kept up with what was happening at the French Open or Wimbledon but I felt it was a better use of my time to play rather than watching hours of tennis, call me crazy, watching Federer might do something for my game but it won't make me a strong tennis player.

Lots of my non tournament chess playing friends who do know how to play chess know I play in weekend tournaments, they ask me how I did but neither I nor they have suggested they come down to watch me play. Nor do I attempt to show them my games.

I have a good friend who has been a chess enthusist for many years, he would not even think of going to a club or to a tournament to watch or to play, he only plays blitz and doesn't want to play or watch long games, I think he's pretty typical -
he carries a set and clock in his car all the time and we play at a Second Cup coffe shop several times a week along with a fellow who was Hamilton Champ about 15 years ago, he even started a chess night 2 summers ago at a table outside with boards & clocks provided by the owner, guess what - one or two takers a night at most

[Jean Hébert]

Re: Hebert vs. Bond

Equating everyone who knows how to play chess as naturally being a spectating fan of chess is a miscalculation.

Mr Kitich,

I wrote or implied no such thing! I did not even use the word "spectator" once in my post! Reread my post and start all over again, without too much personal interpretation this time. Thank you.

[Zeljko Kitich]

Re: Hebert vs. Bond

Mr Kitich,

I wrote or implied no such thing! I did not even use the word "spectator" once in my post! Reread my post and start all over again, without too much personal interpretation this time. Thank you.

Monsieur Hébert

You keep decrying the lack of spectators & media & sponsorship, you seem to think if the seats were set they would come, you have said or implied that in this post & in other recent posts. That's not my experience from being a spectator at the 1993 Canadian closed in Hamilton with the top names in Canadian chess at the time. You say clearly to paraphase that if only demo boads, posters and signs were set up and photographers took pictures, if only name tags were there so people could know which player was which. Logically there is a clear line between your statement that chess is 'popular' and your complaint that there were not enough spectators or spectator facilities and not enough media coverage. You clearly imply that since chess is popular that it should not be difficult for any organizer to obtain all three in sufficient quantity to satisfy your requiements.

Do you know mean that you are saying chess is popular but that in no way affects the potential for spectators or media coverage or sponsorship? Okay then I agree with you, chess is popular but that has nothing to do with the Canadian closed as far as spectators, media coverage or sponsoship, if that is what you are now indicating you said or implied.

Yes chess is popularily played in Canada by many people at some level or other, many people do know how the pieces move and have played some games. They won't come to a tournament to spectate, they may spend a minute reading a newspaper piece about it. Its good that they know how to play but they don't give it as much thought or interest as you do. Yes its possible to find some sympathetic wealthy person to sponsor a chess event for nothing other than the warm glow that person gets inside but I wouldn't think you can always count on that.

Please stand by what you say or we won't be able to take you seriously. Unfortunately if you want spectators some of them will have opinions that you don't like such as myself. Since you are a journalist you know that the job of a journalist is to spark discussion. I have also been a journalist and that is the job as I knew it. People are perfectly capable of reading between the lines and forming their own opinions even if you wish them to think otherwise.

[Benoit St-Pierre]

Let's Keep Bashing Québec !

I can only think that the Quebecers are trying to chase out the good, devoted people from outside Quebec and grab all the prestigious tournaments for themselves. Well, they should keep this in mind: economic conditions might deteriorate further. The Quebec government giveth.... and the Quebec government may taketh away.

Notwithstanding the fact that it shows poor economical skills, this rant is outright racist. This and other passages should be edited.

Disclaimer : english is my second language.

[Brian Hartman]

Re: Hebert vs. Bond

My understanding; however limited, is that the debate is centred around what constitutes ideal conditions, relative to cost constraints, and other mitigating factors such as organizer's being paid, CFC role, etc. I wish I had some answers :) The best I might do is offer some experiential points:

1) Sponsorship - it is possible to gain corporate sponsorship (lots of small or a few larger) for events such as the CDN CC, and has been done before, with its relative success linked to a) strength of the committee involved - corporate/government credibility (such as Sid Belzberg, Gordon Ritchie), b) concentrating on the benefit to the sponsor(s), c) lots of lead time (18 months+)

2) Conditions - I found it ideal to ask former participants to review intended conditions beforehand to gain their insight/feedback, as sometimes simple details can make a large impact difference in the quality of the event

3) CFC - when the CC was a closed event, the CFC used to provide $6,000 toward the budget, which in the case of the 1994 CC was given back as the prize fund, and the sponsor money used to house the players, venue, etc. Clearly now, without this support, there is even more pressure on organizers to find ways to raise needed money. There are many charities, let alone chess, that are experiencing great difficulty in raising funds during the current economic crisis.

4) Hebert - from Jean's speech in 1984 to the present, I always heed his opinion. It is necessary to improve events, chess, etc., to listen and engage in a constructive discussion about how to move forward. Hal is an experienced organizer, who Jean knows and no doubt respects, but this didn't sound motivated versus Hal, but versus generic organization of the CC and similar events and telling everyone to pay attention and engage in a discussion on how to improve it. Certainly if I were to organize a committee on this subject Jean and Hal would be the first two choices.

Brian