Hebert vs. Bond

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Drafting National Standards for the Closed - By Whom ?

I find it impossible to believe that anyone would seriously suggest that players, especially at this level, be expected to do anything other than play.

I agree wholeheartedly.

[Christopher Mallon]

Re: Drafting National Standards for the Closed - By Whom ?

I find it impossible to believe that anyone would seriously suggest that players, especially at this level, be expected to do anything other than play.

At the very least, I would expect that if they have a serious (and potentially easy to fix) concern with the event - such as lack of names next to the boards - they would mention that during the event - perhaps after the first round so as to not distract from any chess playing? Certainly not after the event on a public forum.

I barely know Jean at all, not nearly well enough to know what his actual intentions were, but to me it definitely looks like an outright attack on Hal to do it this way.

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: Drafting National Standards for the Closed - By Whom ?

At the very least, I would expect that if they have a serious (and potentially easy to fix) concern with the event - such as lack of names next to the boards - they would mention that during the event - perhaps after the first round so as to not distract from any chess playing? Certainly not after the event on a public forum.

I barely know Jean at all, not nearly well enough to know what his actual intentions were, but to me it definitely looks like an outright attack on Hal to do it this way.

I agree with this president. Myself if I go in a tournament and the toilet is not working I will go see the organizer and will never complain of if on the internet. This would be very riduculous and would be an outright attack.

But if the organizer does not pub names of Grandmasters and International Masters, does not put a sign to say there is a tournament and does not put any chairs nor any game display tool then to go see him would be a complete lost of time and ridiculous because it is not a simple error.

In such a situation you must do a rational critic for the community to make sure everybody understand what is going on.

Thank you Jean
Carl

[Neil Sullivan]

Re: Drafting National Standards for the Closed - By Whom ?

I'm puzzled as to why you quoted me Chris since your post has nothing to do with what I wrote.

I have not made any negative comments about the organizer(s). I am simply attempting to rebut what I feel to be poor arguments about what players should be obliged to do during a national championship.

[Neil Sullivan]

Re: Are the Fees that High?

Neil,

With all due respect, I think a more appropriate example of high entry fees would be the World Series of Poker :

http://www.worldseriesofpoker.com/registration/

"High entries" is a relative notion. Don't forget Benoit, we chess players are cheap. :)

If they pay their 1,000 pounds, I hope they are at least exempt from scrubbing toilets when it's not their turn to play. :D

[Benoit St-Pierre]

Scrubbing Arguments

"High entries" is a relative notion. Don't forget Benoit, we chess players are cheap. :)

If they pay their 1,000 pounds, I hope they are at least exempt from scrubbing toilets when it's not their turn to play. :D

We should tell the World Poker Series that since they have sponsors, they should stop charging that much. They certainly would then redeem many more chess players. To what avail, if they don't charge players, would be their own concern.

I wonder why the professionals still go to the Championship : sometimes, only chess players look like rational beings... At least we now know how rational beings look like ;-)

Toilet-cleaning should be reserved to side bets anyway...

[Zeljko Kitich]

Re: Hebert vs. Bond

I remember Jean from the 1970's. He wasn't hanging onto anyones coat tails.

As for myself, between organizing the Canadian correspondence club and raising my kids there wasn't muich time remaining for OTB. You might have been in diapers back then. I'm still playing high level correspondence chess and might still be doing so when you are back in diapers. I still get invitations for high level correspondence events.

Gary everyone in chess and chess itself was hanging on to Fischers coattails because of Fischer and because of the cold war. That was the golden age of chess in the west especially in Canada. It never got any better than that. It was not a concidence that the USSR dominated chess prior to Fischer.

I point out that you haven't played OTB in a very long time so you are not familiar with conditions of OTB play today. This isn't about how good a player you or anyone else is in OTB or correspondence. Its about the state of chess today and realistic expectations before we hammer even more of our organizers into the ground. If you don't think that's important tell me who ran the big tournaments in the early 90's in Toronto and tell me what happened to tournment chess in Toronto after he left the scene?

[Jean Hébert]

Re: Drafting National Standards for the Closed - By Whom ?

At the very least, I would expect that if they have a serious (and potentially easy to fix) concern with the event - such as lack of names next to the boards - they would mention that during the event - perhaps after the first round so as to not distract from any chess playing? Certainly not after the event on a public forum.

Chris,

I quickly saw that no effort at all had been made to draw spectators and accomodate them. Clearly attendance was not expected nor wanted, but simply tolerated. There were no demo boards or screens to look at in the first place, so putting names next to the boards would have been pretty pointless at that point. A single drop in an ocean of things that could have been done with minimal efforts but weren't. And no player who cares about his playing should get into that kind of discussion with the guy who is not only the organizer but also the arbiter, whether during the first or the last round, unless it is about something that may have a significant influence on his play.
By the way Chris, since you seem pretty close to Hal, maybe you could offer an explanation as to what went through Hal's mind when before the start of the first round, he proposed to play with the clocks set up for one time control (2h+30sec) instead of two (1h30/40 moves and 30min for the rest +30 sec/move), leaving the players with the responsibility of managing the first time control (after 40 moves) "visually" ? That left everyone in the room stunned and looking at each other in disbelief. True, after a few minutes of discussion when players expressed their concern about this unprecedented scheme with sure potential for trouble, he finally agreed to set up the clocks the way they had to, which nonetheless delayed the first round by about 15 minutes.

You Chris, as an arbiter, would you ever suggest to play two time controls with the clocks set up for one ? Or is this some kind of local habit in the Guelph-Kitchener-Waterloo area that I am unaware of?

Is this OK for a public forum, Mr President ?

[Christopher Mallon]

Re: Drafting National Standards for the Closed - By Whom ?

True, after a few minutes of discussion when players expressed their concern about this unprecedented scheme with sure potential for trouble, he finally agreed to set up the clocks the way they had to, which nonetheless delayed the first round by about 15 minutes.

The first-round delay had very little to do with the clocks, I had almost all of them re-set before all the voting (acclaiming?) was done.

You Chris, as an arbiter, would you ever suggest to play two time controls with the clocks set up for one ? Or is this some kind of local habit in the Guelph-Kitchener-Waterloo area that I am unaware of?

If the clock wasn't capable of properly doing the two time controls, then yes, it would be set for one time control. This is what was effectively done for years (centuries?) with analog clocks. The Saitek 1 and possibly the Saitek 2 clocks (I don't recall) were not capable of handling this time control (these clocks have been used a lot in this area), and even the Saitek 3's are not certified by FIDE.

Add in the confusion of there being multiple versions of the Saitek 3 which are very hard to tell apart... thankfully 14 of the 15 we had in use were identical models.

To answer the first question... I won't speculate on "what was going through Hal's head" ... Hal had his reasons, which he stated, and he was convinced to change his mind. End of story.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Hebert vs. Bond

I point out that you haven't played OTB in a very long time so you are not familiar with conditions of OTB play today. This isn't about how good a player you or anyone else is in OTB or correspondence. Its about the state of chess today and realistic expectations before we hammer even more of our organizers into the ground. If you don't think that's important tell me who ran the big tournaments in the early 90's in Toronto and tell me what happened to tournment chess in Toronto after he left the scene?

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.

[Steve Douglas]

Re: OT--Saitek clock weirdnesses

The Saitek 1 and possibly the Saitek 2 clocks (I don't recall) were not capable of handling this time control (these clocks have been used a lot in this area), and even the Saitek 3's are not certified by FIDE.

Add in the confusion of there being multiple versions of the Saitek 3 which are very hard to tell apart... thankfully 14 of the 15 we had in use were identical models.

Hi Chris:

I realize this is off-topic, but ... I'm curious about the differences between the production runs of Saitek 3's. I know that the later ones seemed to have better LCD displays. The original displays, while larger than the Saitek 2's, could really only be read from a narrow range of angles--basically being right over the board.

I wasn't aware that there were any functional or programming differences.

Steve

P.S. I don't have a Saitek 3 but I've had to set them up numerous times at weekend events where somebody brings their shiny new clock but doesn't know how to use it. One nice thing about analog clocks--despite the model or the maker, their usually pretty easy to figure out.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Drafting National Standards for the Closed - By Whom ?

Originally Posted by Paul Bonham:
Will the standards spell out that players should take the place of volunteers or workers if no one else is available? Even when it comes to demo boards, if there's no one else to do it, will the players, at least when they aren't in a time scramble, be asked after making their move to make the move on the demo board? I think I actually saw this happening several years ago, at a Canadian Closed held at the University of Toronto.

Somehow I think the players need to become part of the solution, in situations such as I mention. They shouldn't be so prima donna that they can just idly watch the standards go to hell and not lift a finger to help.

Response by Neil Sullivan:
All the talk has centered around a specific event; the Canadian Closed & Zonal. I find it impossible to believe that anyone would seriously suggest that players, especially at this level, be expected to do anything other than play. The idea that they would be obliged to carry out other duties is risible and would make Canada a laughingstock.

According to Jean Hebert, actually holding the event without all the standards being met makes Canada a laughingstock. So in the situation I've described, where the event is about to start, and all of a sudden the standards can't be met, do we call off the event and send all the players home? On the Laughingstock scale from 1 to 10, I think that would be a 10. What I'm suggesting would be maybe, IMO, a 2 or a 3. Continuing to hold the event without the standards met would be maybe a 4.

The whole point of these standards is apparently to prevent anything like this happen again. So how do we ENSURE the standards are going to actually be met, come what may, save flood, famine, or fire?

Continuing response by Neil Sullivan:
Can you imagine a national track and field championship where entrants paint lane lines. ring the last lap bell or place the finishing tape? How about a Memorial Cup where one of the benchwarmers gets picked to drive the Zamboni? Is that the answer? What is the "prima donna" aspect of a player who simply plays?

Chess is NOT track and field, chess is NOT hockey, chess is NOT even darts or bowling. No comparison to those sports is appropriate because those sports ALL outdraw chess by orders of magnitude.

To be honest, I am anti just about all professional sports because of how the players are exalted to this level, that all they should do is play and anything else is demeaning to them. So if a bomb goes off in a baseball stadium and people need help being evacuated, the players should just go to their locker rooms? This is the way you would have the world operate? What if you were one of the spectators, lying there with 2 broken legs, and the players just filed past you to get to their showers? Granted, this is an extreme example, but the godliness we bestow upon these mere athletes is extreme in and of itself. Truly pathetic. I am also against what goes on here in the States more so than in Canada, which is athletic scholarships to universities. Obscene! And then Americans wonder what is happening to their country. It's rotting from within. But that could be a whole new thread, not chess related, maybe Gary Ruben can use it.

Continuing response by Neil Sullivan:
In another post, you used a business analogy. You said that players should help out because that's what workers are expected to do if someone is missing. The problem is, they aren't workers! If you want to compare it to a business model, think of them as customers; especially when they pay a high entry fee to take part in the tournament.

In the case of paid entry fees, yes, the players are to a small extent customers and to a much larger extent gamblers. They enter with some hope of winning even more back, although in the case of most lower-rated players, this hope may be tiny or even nonexistent. It is the organizer's responsibility to set up the minimum conditions that will attract the maximum customers / gamblers.

In the case of the players being paid to play and all their expenses covered, they are no longer the customers or gamblers. They are in essence the paid actors in an unscripted play. This is an apt comparison because small time theater is another financially strapped business, and the actors are expected, when volunteers or low paid workers aren't sufficient, to do more than just act their parts, to assist in many ways in setting things up before, during, and after the performance. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Chess is financially strapped, and until that changes, paid chess players should be EXPECTED to be willing to go beyond their normal call of duty IMO.

Actually, chess in it's current state is like a rock band just getting off the ground. The musicians (players) don't just play their instruments. They set everything up at every gig and they tear it down afterward. If and when the band earns enough money BY BEING POPULAR ENOUGH THAT EVER-GROWING NUMBERS OF PEOPLE PAY TO SEE THEM, then they can pay roadies and drivers, and stick to playing their music only. Jean Hebert seems to me like the aging rock musician, too prima donna to think that he could still be expected to set up and tear down, even though he's still after all these years only attracting a crowd just big enough to keep the show going.

The whole idea of professional chess in itself is a laughingstock because of it's tiny appeal to the non-chess-playing public. But even if it had such appeal, I personally would be against professional chess. Imagine how many of our best researchers and engineers would be instead playing a useless board game if only the rewards were on par with poker! Now imagine the detriment to our society. Carl would never think of this, as he seems bound and determined that his 5 kids grow up to be at least IMs and making a living at chess.

Now, poker is a different story. It attracts those who are best at lying while appearing honest. Better for society IMO that they play their game for huge rewards than that they use their skills to scam grandma out of her life savings.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Hebert vs. Bond

I'm getting tired of telling a fool like you about sex and travel.

If you don't like the types of chess which make up the worldwide chess scene, find yourself a poker game somewhere. The nations which are strong at OTB chess are also strong at correspondence chess.

I notice you loved correspondence chess when you wanted me to introduce the international correspondence players to your style of play. Are you sure this isn't about what's good for you and not your altrusitic claim of your love for the Canadian game?

Gary, in all honesty I do like correspondence chess, or better to say I am in no way against it. That Homer Simpson bit just popped into my head, I kid you not, and it just seemed too good to waste.

I especially think correspondence play is good for trying out new variants, because it has the best chance of exposing any weak points of the rule set.

But when I asked you if you and your correspondance friends would try out a variant, I didn't even think of it being "international", that concept didn't enter my train of thought at all. I just thought you and your acquaintances, who I thought of as people you stayed in touch with regularly, and who I actually thought of as just being in Canada, could try it out for it's own sake. I had no idea that it was such a formal organization and that there were reputations and a hierarchy, I thought it might be much looser than that. You were quite snippety about it, which didn't help matters; when someone pushes me I do tend to push back.

All water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned. Sorry for the Homer Simpson thing, it was just too good not to use it.

As far as the topic of this thread is concerned, I really think Jean Hebert shows himself to be less than 3rd class. There's nothing for me in it at all, I'm probably looking to most like an antagonist and it's certainly not gaining me any friends. But I felt compelled to do it, especially once Jean replied to me with an arrogance that seemed way out of line.

What it's looking like to me now is that there is some personal issue between Jean and Hal Bond, and the possible reason others aren't standing up for Hal as I am is that they know of this personal issue or grudge and don't want to mention it or become a part of it. Jean said very early on it wasn't personal, but the latest posts I'm seeing, even just the tone of them, is telling me otherwise. And then we have Hal suddenly not posting anything. All signs that there is something deeper going on.

[Christopher Mallon]

Re: OT--Saitek clock weirdnesses

Hi Steve,

The newer ones have FIDE presets which is nice - an attempt to get certified perhaps although I'm not certain. I'm not terribly happy with the angle of view on the LCD even on the newer ones but most of those owned by the OCA are the older models. I only discovered that we had different models in use in the event when I almost set a clock incorrectly because the preset I was using as the base was different compared to all the others.

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.

Chris

[Paul Bonham]

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.