Few personal notes about Canadian Closed

[John Coleman]

Re: Few personal notes about Canadian Closed

Kevin Spraggett writes on his blog:

"This 10th edition of the Montreal International has been something of an embarrassment both to the local organization (ineptly lead by local organizer Andre Langlois) and to the main sponsor Empresa. One would think that going into your 10th effort (of anything!) one would be able to produce a quality event and one that the world would be interested in.

Instead, both local and international coverage of the tournament was a deception. The tournament web site, http://www.echecsmontreal.ca/, despite numerous complaints, was never fixed and remained an embarrassment to all. I mean, how much effort is required to change Cananda to Canada?

One of the most important internet news sites (http://www.chessvibes.com/) simply stopped covering the tournament after the first rounds because of difficulties getting daily information !

Shame on both Empresa and Langlois!

One would hope that for 2010 either the organizers or the sponsor part company and try to produce something that does not remind one of Mickey Mouse or back to the future!"

[Hugh Brodie]

Few personal notes about the Montreal International

Unfortunately - the Montreal International suffered from one of the "faults" of the Canadian Closed - no signs or directions. At least three people told me they couldn't find the place - they had the correct address - but there were no signs directing them to the room where the tournament was. Up the stairs there is a restaurant (that was not always open during rounds) and a closed (but unlocked) door next to it - but no indication that you had to go through this door and along a maze of passages and stairways to see the games. A friend asked at the restuarant (and it sounded like they had been getting used to people askeing where the site was). It would have been hopeless for anyone who had difficult walking or climbing stairs.

I enjoyed the Igor Nataf analysis (but prefer Jean Hébert in the analysis room - much more audience participation) - but again - there were no signs. If you were a spectator at the "live" games - you had no idea that Nataf was analyzing - unless you knew it in advance, and asked someone where it was.

At least twice, I suggested to Richard Bérubé to put up some signs, but there was still nothing during the last round. Last year, they had a sandwich-board type of sign on the sidewalk in front - nothing this year.

[Jean Hébert]

Re: Few personal notes about Canadian Closed

The 10th Montreal International that finished last night had several sponsors (private companies, no taxpayers money by the way) whose contribution totalled around 50,000$. Check out the names for yourself Mr Bonham and at least open your eyes if you cant open your mind. You too Mr Ottosen. In any case writing a post approved by Mr Bonham must be such a downer...:) The kiss of death.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Few personal notes about Canadian Closed

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.

First of all, David, EXCELLENT post! Absolutely, positively excellent.

You and I don't know each other (just making that clear to readers), and if you followed my rather ascerbic exchanges with Jean Hebert on other threads related to this one, maybe you think I'm a little over-emotional as some others probably do. But my emotion in those exchanges was motivated by the apparent need for Mr. Hebert to get a rude awakening.

Thank you for writing that "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". I hope Mr. Hebert reads this and weeps for his mistakes. Keep in mind that I don't know Mr. Hebert at all and there is nothing personal, but it seems there WAS something personal between Mr. Hebert and the Closed organizer, Hal Bond. Hebert claimed there wasn't, but I really at this point can't believe that. The result was very, very bad for chess in Canada.

David, you mention sponsors wanting some some form of ROI from chess, and then you talk about player professionalism and then later mention that even the utmost professionalism won't guarantee sponsorship. So, from a potential sponsor's point of view, can you tell us what is needed for chess to get serious sponsorship? I'm speaking of something like a North American tour of events, where there might be something like a cumulative point system to determine a yearly overall winner (maybe even a playoff system, similar to golf's current FexEx Cup playoffs).

Let me ask you right out: do you think any such thing could happen for chess as it is played currently? Or do you think there needs to be a change or changes in chess itself, to give it more mass appeal; that is, more appeal to the non-chessplayer, so that ROI would be easier to realize?

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Few personal notes about Canadian Closed

He made an official announcement in a Newspaper in Canada saying he will go for GM norms. For the Canadian Champion this should be a normal course of event we can expect. We expect organizers to do their jobs and we should expect the Canadian Champion to play in important events.

This Governor thing is simply not important. Saying nothing means everything.

He will go in France in a few days so don't expect him to print name tags for a tournament in Yukon?

Carl

What's that got to do with the price of Poutine in Quebec City? :)

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Few personal notes about Canadian Closed

You have the cart before the horse I think. The sports you talk about have a visiblity factor that creates sponsorhip opportunities. ... Chess does not have that visibility factor & so needs both the CFC and the players who would benefit to improve this. ...

I think we're not far from agreement here. To improve visibility, chess does *need* the players who potentially stand to benefit from whatever improved visibility may bring. My point was that such players shouldn't be *expected* to take on uncompensated promotional or other duties when playing in a Canadian chess tournament is already a money-losing proposition for them.

... If the players don't want to [help out] 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? ...

I guess we Canadian chessplayers would have to be pretty lucky to wind up with a CFC executive that was highly skilled in promoting/marketing/fundraising/etc. However, just because certain skills are lacking among the CFC executive members doesn't mean that the CFC can't work towards creating opportunities where someone who is interested can learn to be successful in these fields (keeping in mind that 'success' would be measured within the context of Canadian chess). The recent Canadian Open in Ottawa and the 1994 Canadian Closed in Hamilton, just to pick a couple of examples from our province, were both tournaments where the organizer(s) had extraordinary success in finding sponsors and putting on first-class events; a team of people was involved in Ottawa and Brian Hartman was the driving force in Hamilton. We can learn from people like this. And these are just two examples. It isn't fair to expect the CFC executives to be masters of all trades. But we can and should expect them to foster an environment in which needed skills/knowledge can be developed.

... 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.

And that's fine. I'm the same way. There's nothing wrong with being a consumer in the chess marketplace.

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: Few personal notes about Canadian Closed

There is a choice to accept or not accept such an appointment and the responsibility and work which go with it.

I'm waiting for the reply.

He made an official announcement in a Newspaper in Canada saying he will go for GM norms. For the Canadian Champion this should be a normal course of event we can expect. We expect organizers to do their jobs and we should expect the Canadian Champion to play in important events.

This Governor thing is simply not important. Saying nothing means everything.

He will go in France in a few days so don't expect him to print name tags for a tournament in Yukon?

Carl

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Few personal notes about Canadian Closed

Hi Gary:

Jean has already said in a prior post that he did not want to spend time in endless discussion with governors who thought they knew a lot.

Bob

Hi Bob,

My question requires a simple "yes" or "no".

Gary

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Few personal notes about Canadian Closed

Hi Gary:

Jean has already said in a prior post that he did not want to spend time in endless discussion with governors who thought they knew a lot.

Bob

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Few personal notes about Canadian Closed

He receive this ridiculous Governor title being Champion of Canada. Like a diploma it should be honorific. The Champion of each year should not be invited to take decisions on chairs, boards, etc. Let this kind of thing to organizers. We want the Champion to play chess. Come on.

The Champion of Canada should not receive this title of Gouvernor but receive an honorific Senator Title.

Carl

There is a choice to accept or not accept such an appointment and the responsibility and work which go with it.

I'm waiting for the reply.

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: Few personal notes about Canadian Closed

If you're not a CFC Governor then you have a point.

If you are a governor then you are management. Governors have the ability to make changes.

Are you a CFC Governor?

He receive this ridiculous Governor title being Champion of Canada. Like a diploma it should be honorific. The Champion of each year should not be invited to take decisions on chairs, boards, etc. Let this kind of thing to organizers. We want the Champion to play chess. Come on.

The Champion of Canada should not receive this title of Gouvernor but receive an honorific Senator Title.

Carl

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Few personal notes about Canadian Closed

The Canadian Championship's problem is not my personal problem.

If you're not a CFC Governor then you have a point.

If you are a governor then you are management. Governors have the ability to make changes.

Are you a CFC Governor?

[Zeljko Kitich]

Re: Few personal notes about Canadian Closed

He's got a point Garvin, and its not your nor my personal problem either unless we get our rating over 2200 and have to consider playing in it. So I suggest we don't bother ourselves about it. :):)

[Jean Hébert]

Re: Few personal notes about Canadian Closed

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.

So what are you going to do about them?

Mr Nunes,

The Canadian Championship's problem is not my personal problem. I spent 20 years without playing in one of them (when I could have played in all of them) and this one in 2009 could very well have been my last, unless I can come back in 2038 to try to win titles 60 years apart! :)
Nonetheless I will always be available to share my knowledge and experience with interested parties. Doing simuls and lectures, talking to journalists when needed, meeting potential sponsors, no problem with that.

[Garvin Nunes]

Re: Few personal notes about Canadian Closed

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.