If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
I was wondering if you would be willing to go out and meet local business leaders in the search for sponsors for the next Canadian closed.
Also, would you be willing to create posters and ads and then help put them up in the run up to the event?
Let's cut to the chase here and form a team that will agree to do these things right now.
Nice post, Garvin!
Keep up the pressure on Hebert, who claims to be SOOOOO interested in promoting chess. We have to keep exposing him for what he is, which I've made clear in other posts.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Maybe players in the Closed should bring their own sets and clocks too?
I don't think the tasks you mention should be done by the players (with the possible exception of being available for interviews etc). Availability of the players for interviews (etc) would depend a lot on the location of the event - I doubt too many of the players in the Closed would be able to arrive (say) weeks before the event to promote the event, but some of the players might be able to do something in the way of promotion.
The burden is squarely on the CFC and the organizers to DO A GOOD JOB. I think we all know the difference between a GOOD JOB, a GREAT JOB and a hastily organized LAST MINUTE JOB. The CFC obviously has to set *minimum* acceptable standards for the Closed, the Open and any other "national level" tournaments. The CFC then has to make damn sure they award the event to people who can clearly demonstrate the ability to do a GREAT JOB.
In this case, the CFC erred in allowing the event to proceed without proper preparation (and without proper definition of the parameters). If the CFC ponied up some money for such events that might further the cause. If the CFC promoted chess to the general public (in lots of different ways) that would further the cause. I haven't seen the CFC do too many of these things in many years.
so the players who would directly benefit by the increased sponsorship directly should not do anything to help raise those funds beyond something minimal like being available for interviews?
what if the sponsor asks for something like appearance at a sponsors event?
I think you would be surprised to know the efforts that players in other money sports, particularly in Canada & particularly in amateur sports, do make to attract sponsors & be visible, such as in equestrian sports such as polo and show jumping, tennis, pool, bowling, snooker, sailing, cycling, track and field etc.
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Saturday, 5th September, 2009, 10:11 AM.
Aren't you interested first in getting the defending champion to PLAY ?
sure why not, why don't you as current champ let the CFC know what you're demands are so they can give them to any potential bidder & the bidder can decide if they want to bid or not
The burden is squarely on the CFC and the organizers to DO A GOOD JOB. I think we all know the difference between a GOOD JOB, a GREAT JOB and a hastily organized LAST MINUTE JOB. The CFC obviously has to set *minimum* acceptable standards for the Closed, the Open and any other "national level" tournaments. The CFC then has to make damn sure they award the event to people who can clearly demonstrate the ability to do a GREAT JOB.
Ok, but who are these organizers???
As far as I can see, Hal ran the tournament because no one else wanted to. This seems a chronic problem. Even with the Canadian Open, it sounds like getting bids is like pulling hens teeth. The same is true with the CYCC. There simply does not seem that there are sufficient organizers out there to run events.
Is it the responsibility of the CFC to canvas for bids? If so, what is the optimum strategy to get bids?
Perhaps it's the duty of the CFC to somehow recruit persons to organize tournements as a whole, with the thinking the if there were more organizers at least a few would bid on the national events. But again, how is the CFC to do this?
So bottom line, if the "the burden is squarely on the CFC", how is the CFC supposed to address the issue? Ideas here?
Aren't you interested first in getting the defending champion to PLAY ?
In a lot of sports competitors go out, and meet sponsors or fans and sell the game. I'm not sure how that translates to chess..but maybe it means playing simuls in shopping malls and smiling a lot.
Add to that your genuine recognition of existing problems based on comparing this event to others you've seen in the past. If you feel strongly enough about these problems you need to be vigilant in doing something about them.
(Also, some of us newer organizers are not as familiar with everything that needs to be done and need a kind of mentorship from people who have seen it done right once or twice in the past...so that we aren't just repeating mistakes in our natural trial and error process...I could see some kind of partnerships between organizers and players based on this in any case...Wait a minute...I'm trying to tell chess players about teamwork..Ok, ignore this footnote.)
To answer your question: Its not clear to me the focus on your chess playing is more important than making an improvement to the structure of Canadian or Quebec chess, or that there isn't a way to pursue both goals. (Or that there is even a choice being made between them etc)
In a lot of sports competitors go out, and meet sponsors or fans and sell the game. I'm not sure how that translates to chess..but maybe it means playing simuls in shopping malls and smiling a lot.
Add to that your genuine recognition of existing problems based on comparing this event to others you've seen in the past. If you feel strongly enough about these problems you need to be vigilant in doing something about them.
(Also, some of us newer organizers are not as familiar with everything that needs to be done and need a kind of mentorship from people who have seen it done right once or twice in the past...so that we aren't just repeating mistakes in our natural trial and error process...I could see some kind of partnerships between organizers and players based on this in any case...Wait a minute...I'm trying to tell chess players about teamwork..Ok, ignore this footnote.)
To answer your question: Its not clear to me the focus on your chess playing is more important than making an improvement to the structure of Canadian or Quebec chess, or that there isn't a way to pursue both goals. (Or that there is even a choice being made between them etc)
Obviously Mr Nunes you are new, you don't know me at all, and you have no idea about what I have done in the past 30 years. Otherwise you would not ask me to do things I have been doing and still continue to do. My focus has hardly never been on my chess playing, which in retrospect may have been a mistake.
Obviously Mr Nunes you are new, you don't know me at all, and you have no idea about what I have done in the past 30 years. Otherwise you would not ask me to do things I have been doing and still continue to do. My focus has hardly never been on my chess playing, which in retrospect may have been a mistake.
But you're not doing it for the Closed, which you voiciferously made clear is one of the prestige events in all of Canada. So yes, he has to ask you, will you do something for the Closed? Something besides just play.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
In a lot of sports the competitors are paid by way of salary/prize money/endorsements, etc. Even in a lot of sports defined as amateur, the competitors are paid by endorsements, or government grants, or, at minimum, have their expenses covered through sponsorships, or the taxpayer (e.g. their schools) or the fundraising efforts of their local club. In a 'sport' like chess in Canada, where typically the national champion doesn't win enough prize money to come close to covering his expenses (including other sources of income foregone in order to attend the tournament), I hardly think it's fair to impose on the players by expecting them to take on uncompensated promotional and/or other duties. It is the CFC, on behalf of Canadian chessplayers, who must decide how to make progress on this matter of having appropriate funding in place for national championships.
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
In a lot of sports the competitors are paid by way of salary/prize money/endorsements, etc. Even in a lot of sports defined as amateur, the competitors are paid by endorsements, or government grants, or, at minimum, have their expenses covered through sponsorships, or the taxpayer (e.g. their schools) or the fundraising efforts of their local club. In a 'sport' like chess in Canada, where typically the national champion doesn't win enough prize money to come close to covering his expenses (including other sources of income foregone in order to attend the tournament), I hardly think it's fair to impose on the players by expecting them to take on uncompensated promotional and/or other duties. It is the CFC, on behalf of Canadian chessplayers, who must decide how to make progress on this matter of having appropriate funding in place for national championships.
You have the cart before the horse I think. The sports you talk about have a visiblity factor that creates sponsorhip opportunities. Yesterday I was watching the CN Canadian Open Women's golf championship, notice that CN was the sponsor and I noticed when they gave the winnings to date of the competitors that figures in the 6 digit range were the norm, such as $360,000 for younger competitors and $22 1/2 million for some more experienced players. And yes the players are still out there meeting the fans, signing authographs, running clinics. This is the LPGA that has a lot less exposure than the PGA.
Chess does not have that visibility factor & so needs both the CFC and the players who would benefit to improve this. The visibility factor is even worse when its a closed of just a few players. Sponsorship would be easier for an Open with alot of players being exposed to the sponsor. If the players don't want to then fine, but they shouldn't be surprised if the money doesn't materialize. They can lay this on the doorstep of the CFC forever if they like but it won't fix things. We can unelect CFC executive & governors, change the ED but none of that is likely going to change anything, it hasn't in the past 30 years, why should it now? Would you keep playing the same opening gambit if it always proved unsound & losing? I don't think so.
Chess is more comparable to say our olympic athletes such as cyclists, there are articles out there as to how some of them are subsisting on $20000 per year or less, part on government grant & part on personal appearances & the like. The best the CFC could do is lobby for more government grants but you are not likely to get more than a potential olympic medalist that could bring international prestige in the form of a gold medal to Canada while the whole country watches. The best would be to get funds for the olympiad teams & the national championships. If this hasn't been done then its a start. If this has been done in the past it would be enlightening to know the answer. This is true of fencers, marathon runners, bob sledders, there are lots of athletes toiling away out there on next to nothing for the sake of their sport. I wish we did fund them more but we don't. Even some professional team sports such as lacosse that get some exposure can't support their players.
Am I going to do it? No because no one is ever going to make me a governor of the CFC so its not my position to do so. When you approach government for grants you have to be official to do so, the same with companies and individuals. Also am I going to take time to basically fund raise for someone else's benefit. Again no, I started playing chess for my enjoyment not to raise money for someone else. Sorry, I'm not that altruistic. Anyone that is go ahead & show me by example how much more altruistic you are than I am and I will sing your praises and say how much better a person you are than me.
So if its not going to be done by the guys like me and if the few organizers we have now are doing their best by running the events we have now unless they are expected to quit their day jobs & run chess events while impoverished, and its not going to be done by the players who will benefit and if you know its not going to be done by the governors that don't even vote and if the CFC executive seem to have too much on their plate running the day to day operations, its going to be done by that same fellow that's been doing it all along now Mr Noah Body. As Monsieur Hebert seems to allude to its a mistake to devote yourself to organizing at the expense of your own development as a player. I didn't take up chess to make mistakes.
By the way when was the last time the closed was held in Quebec or bid on by anyone in Quebec, they seem to be very sharp organizers, maybe its time for them to think about taking up the mantle again & putting in a bid.
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Sunday, 6th September, 2009, 02:46 PM.
Let me approach from a different perspective - I'm exactly the sort of person the chess world looks for right now. A chess lover at a relatively high level in a company that would be open to the idea of sponsoring chess to some degree.
I cannot say that Jean's remarks make me particularly motivated towards pushing this in our company; sponsors thrive on predictable ROI for their marketing dollars spent. In chess, you have highly individual and opinionated participants who cannot be counted on to ensure that ROI is realized (this individuality, it could be argued, is nearly essential for high quality of play!).
On the other hand, I fully recognize Jean's point that there should be no expectation of a "professional" level of behaviour or commentary in an event that is not run in a professional way. For example, I have no issue with anyone withdrawing from this event - they paid to play, and how they participate is their choice.
So, what you get is a classic chicken vs egg debate; the sponsors won't come because they don't believe the players will be professional, and the players won't fulfill all professional obligations unless there are sponsors.
In the end, the sponsors will find other places to invest their money if not in chess, and it won't make a micron of difference to the sponsors. It's only chess players that will suffer. But then again, there's no guarantee that even if the top players are in suit+ties and on behaviour that would satisfy the Queen of England, that any sponsors will come.
So what's the upshot? If you as a chess player believe that chess is sponsorable and has upside, you should work as an incredibly positive force publicly and hope for the best. If you believe that chess is a fringe game with little mass market potential (or that organizers are incapable of obtaining sponsorship no matter what you do), hell, you might as well just speak your mind.
Obviously Mr Nunes you are new, you don't know me at all, and you have no idea about what I have done in the past 30 years. Otherwise you would not ask me to do things I have been doing and still continue to do. My focus has hardly never been on my chess playing, which in retrospect may have been a mistake.
I want to be clear about something. I agree with most of Jean's complaints except for the part about them being Hal Bond's fault.
But, I'm trying to shift the focus of the discussion from recognition and listing problems and complaints to being proactive and doing something about them.
In a lot of sports the competitors are paid by way of salary/prize money/endorsements, etc. Even in a lot of sports defined as amateur, the competitors are paid by endorsements, or government grants, or, at minimum, have their expenses covered through sponsorships, or the taxpayer (e.g. their schools) or the fundraising efforts of their local club. In a 'sport' like chess in Canada, where typically the national champion doesn't win enough prize money to come close to covering his expenses (including other sources of income foregone in order to attend the tournament), I hardly think it's fair to impose on the players by expecting them to take on uncompensated promotional and/or other duties. It is the CFC, on behalf of Canadian chessplayers, who must decide how to make progress on this matter of having appropriate funding in place for national championships.
I completely agree that the Canadian Chess Champion and other players should be paid when they do promotional activities. I challenge you to submit a proposal to this site on how that can happen.
As for the part where you shift the burden to the mystical CFC, let me just say that YOU are the CFC. If every member of the CFC says let someone else do the work then nothing will get done.
Everything that happens in Canadian chess is because one of the 2000 CFC members decides to do it. Now I have no problem with most people choosing to be free riders. Just don't be surprised when the next zonal is slapped together at the last minute, has no advertising, high, entry fees for the participants etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.
Tweet
Comment