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.
If you say my belief is 100% wrong, I can live with it and carry on a perfectly fine discussion without taking it personally.
I would never say such a stupid thing, even about you. How you describe sponsorship is your view and nothing else. You are in no position to make decisions, right ? Obviously different people (and different companies) have different views (not 100% different though...), otherwise chess would never find sponsors but it does all over the world. Between your 100% black and white view of things, I believe you are missing quite a bit. The intangibles I was talking about are grasped by men of vision. The others keep crunching numbers at lower levels. The same goes for chess. The GM sacrificing a piece sees the intangibles he gets in return, the others see only a position down 3 points.
Paul, I'm getting confused. Where are the original comments from Jean Hebert that have upset you so much?
"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
As for Gary - let me give you an example to show why I feel that way. Say that I had a company I wished to link image-wise with extreme sports, to gain a hip and edgy image. Would you as a layperson care if I chose random skateboard kid from the local mall, or the local state skateboarding champ (who I also do not know from Adam)? I would not care in the least. Do we wish it would be different, or should it be...sure. But right now, it isnt.
It would be meaningless to me, David. Being over 65, I don't relate to those activities. If you want to target me, Jean would be a better choice. Anyone who has been around chess for decades and hasn't heard of Jean has probably been in a coma.
It's not being mentioned in this discussion but Jean distributes a free publication weekly (I think it is) and has been for more than a year. I've been meaning to sign up so it would be emailed to me weekly but never got around to it. At least one of my friends gets the free publication.
There really isn't anything wrong with wanting a bigger prize fund and better playing conditions for a national championship.
Maybe it all depends on if you like the profile of the CFC or the profile of the USCF better. Chess is the entertainment business. :)
It would be meaningless to me, David. Being over 65, I don't relate to those activities.
Exactly, and my point is that the mass market doesn't relate to chess any more than you relate to skateboarding, so it makes no difference to them whether it's the Canadian champ in the commercial or some guy who doesn't even know how the horsey moves.
I believe you are missing quite a bit. The intangibles I was talking about are grasped by men of vision. The others keep crunching numbers at lower levels. The same goes for chess. The GM sacrificing a piece sees the intangibles he gets in return, the others see only a position down 3 points.
So to be clear, you believe the problem with chess sponsorship is that there are not enough people who are successful in business that are "men of vision that can see the intangible benefits of sponsoring chess"? It can't just be me who's missing these benefits - it has to be all the thousands of companies in Canada who elect not to sponsor chess.
I believe that in business, just as in chess, that results indicate who took the proper approach. That GM using intuition and speculation you indicate will beat the lowly master counting points. By the same token, in my experience, people who own successful businesses demand ROI for their sponsorship dollars. That they are successful to me indicates that they are taking the proper approach.
It can't just be me who's missing these benefits - it has to be all the thousands of companies in Canada who elect not to sponsor chess
Probably they have not been approched at all. I was really suprised to see a car company's logo on the Toronto open poster Kudos to B.F. Maybe next time we'll see Smart's moves :)
Exactly, and my point is that the mass market doesn't relate to chess any more than you relate to skateboarding, so it makes no difference to them whether it's the Canadian champ in the commercial or some guy who doesn't even know how the horsey moves.
I thought chess has a great deal of appeal. School chess clubs and interschool competitions went back to when I was a junior in Winnipeg. When I taught chess at a YMCA for free, the class filled up quickly. I'm trying to remember if I was even 20.
I used to run into Howard Rideout in malls giving simuls here in the Toronto area. I'd met him decades before in Winnipeg when I was still a junior player. We were later members of the same club in Scarborough. He used to leave me with the games while he left for about an hour to get something to eat and have a break. Lots of people used to just come and sit down. There was never just one or two.
I used to watch the players sit down. I could always tell from the way a player sat down and adjusted the pieces if he expected to beat me. Then I would play accordingly.
Several years ago I suggested a chess afternoon at the Seniors club. We had about 10 regulars. I haven't been to the seniors club in the last couple of years so don't know if they still have it. Cards is, of course, more popular.
I seem to recall when Fischer was playing Spassky there was a TV channel in the U.S. which showed the games on a demonstration board with someone commentating. It was a long time ago and my memory is fuzzy on this one. Maybe someone can jump in and give the details or maybe I'm just plain mistaken.
I thought chess has a great deal of appeal...
I used to watch the players sit down. I could always tell from the way a player sat down and adjusted the pieces if he expected to beat me. Then I would play accordingly.
Using yourself as an example is not a good way to evaluate this as you are obviously a chess enthusiast. Try showing a picture of Jean and a picture of some random person you download from the internet to a non chess playing friend, and say "Who would you rather watch play chess?". The answer, I'm sure, will be "I don't care because I have no idea who either of them are."
Using yourself as an example is not a good way to evaluate this as you are obviously a chess enthusiast. Try showing a picture of Jean and a picture of some random person you download from the internet to a non chess playing friend, and say "Who would you rather watch play chess?". The answer, I'm sure, will be "I don't care because I have no idea who either of them are."
They more likely would say 'neither'.
What about Kosteniuk? Or Almira Scripchenko (one of my favourites?) ...
I don't think anyone will watch chess unless they know something substantial about the game (I'm sure people who knew nothing about chess might have watched Fischer-Spassky, perhaps because they may have hoped there would be bloodshed).
Try watching the Krush-Zatonskhin insane blitz finish from last year's US Championship and tell me whether that is worth watching? I watched it (shortly after the event when there was the kerfuffle about the format of the playoff) and it was interesting for all the wrong reasons...
I don't know of *any* reason why someone who is not a chess player (even a very weak one) would watch people play chess - regular time frame or blitz or anything in between. You might get people to watch chess-boxing combo though.
Try showing a picture of Jean and a picture of some random person you download from the internet to a non chess playing friend, and say "Who would you rather watch play chess?". The answer, I'm sure, will be "I don't care because I have no idea who either of them are."
That's not how a decent firm advertises and markets.
You're obviously talking about marketing a product to a non chess player. Someone who doesn't know the ins and outs of the game, or the players.
It's no different than marketing a product using a golfer. I don't play golf or watch it. I know who Tiger Woods is and how good a player he is. The reason I know is because a marketing firm has shown him to me and told me. I couldn't tell you if he hits right handed or left handed. They didn't tell me that.
Same with Arnold Palmer. I even bought the product. An Arnold Palmer golf shirt. Liked it so much I've been wearing that line for decades.
Using the Canadian Chess Champion in a marketing campaign should not be difficult.
My non chess playing wife would sooner watch Jean play, since you asked. She says he's an IM and correspondence chess GM.
My non chess playing wife would sooner watch Jean play, since you asked. She says he's an IM and correspondence chess GM.
Ask her best friend.
Seriously, the question is open - could a professional marketing firm make the Canadian champion a "celebrity" in the mold of a Tiger Woods? I doubt it. There's just not enough identification ("Hey I could do that") or inspiration ("Hey I can't do that, but I understand why it's so impressive") derived from chess, because laypeople simply don't understand the game well enough. When people feel that identification or inspiration watching someone, that person can become an icon.
Seriously, the question is open - could a professional marketing firm make the Canadian champion a "celebrity" in the mold of a Tiger Woods? I doubt it. There's just not enough identification ("Hey I could do that") or inspiration ("Hey I can't do that, but I understand why it's so impressive") derived from chess, because laypeople simply don't understand the game well enough. When people feel that identification or inspiration watching someone, that person can become an icon.
I'm surprised. Kids learn the game at school and take it home. People have had parents who played. My newspaper has a weekly chess column. More and more people are playing on the internet each year from what I understand. Parents buy their kids chess lessons.
A big surprise came some 30 years ago. My wife's aunt gave me a gift. Her fathers chess set. It is an old Latvian set with nice looking pieces. It has been used extensively and I had to refinish the pieces. I asked if she played to which she replied she knew the moves but didn't really play. It's the set I use to do my analysing.
I think using a person for marketing and using a person to be watched are two different things. You can market to the general public, like golf players do with me. For watching, I think you would want people who already know something about the game. Just like golf would likely appeal more to a golfer, even a duffer, than it would to me.
Why are chess players taking all their problems out on veggie dogs today? Leave the veggie dogs alone!
Homer Simpson:
"Mmmmm, veggie dogs. Tastes just like chic.... Hey, wait a minute! That's what the Ho Lee Chow Chinese food place said about their Meow Gai Pan, and they got shut down for using cats! Darn veggie dogs aren't veggie dogs at all, they're veggie CATS!"
Well I guess its true the biggest chess boom in North America was because there was a chess star, namely Bobby Fischer.
Do you think someone like that can be created?
It's a crap shoot, but Carl Bilodeau has bought 5 tickets so far.
The timing of Fisher's rise was part of what made him a star. The Americans needed a chess star to puncture the Soviet chess balloon right at the height of the Cold War. On top of that, Fisher was young and attractive to women. In the long run, however, Fisher was a nightmare from a chess sponsorship point of view.
Another nightmare for chess sponsorship has always been the "GM Draw" problem, here's a link describing it back in 2007:
Note how in the very first paragraph, it is mentioned that the sponsor's Marketing VP is in attendance to make sure his company is getting good ROI for their scarce promotional funds -- more proof for Jean Hebert to ignore that sponsors do indeed seek tangible returns for their money (as opposed to donors, who don't care).
Garvin, I don't know what level of sponsorship you would be seeking, but you do specify it's for the Closed, so you're talking about paying entry fees and expenses for all participants as well as location rental. It's a tough proposition mainly because of the fact that it's chess. Chess does not and will not sell to the masses. Here's another link from back in 2006, someone's idea for "Rapid Transit Chess" to win TV audiences:
It hasn't happened yet. Notice how it is mentioned that getting chess on TV is a hard sell even in Russia. Notice also that Rapid and Blitz don't have significantly more mass appeal than slow chess.
Also in 2006, Clint Ballard held a GM-level event in the Seattle area that was rated by the USCF in which the games were scored using his BAP3 scoring system, which he championed as the ultimate anti-GM Draw mechanism. It apparently was a great success, draws were way down and they were described as fighting draws. However, Clint Ballard disappeared almost immediately afterwards (probably in debt to his eyeballs) and no one has bothered to take up the mantle. Despite the success, there was a huge backlash against the BAP3 system.
The game of chess itself is the problem. Chess clubs and weekend Swiss tournaments can continue ad nauseum into the future because there will always be lovers of the game, and that is a good thing. Super-GM level events, sponsored because of their heavyweight status, can also continue into the future ad nauseum, with little to no growth in interest from the non-chess-playing public. That too is fine.
However, especially now in the new stagnant economy that will become the norm for many years to come (assuming we survive Dec 21 2012, and further assuming China continues to purchase U.S. Treasuries to keep even the stagnant economy alive), classical chess simply cannot grow to have mass appeal even to 1/10th the level that a simple card game called Texas Hold-Em has already achieved.
Garvin, if you consider yourself a chess purist and only chess as it is now will do for you, the best thing you can hope for IMO is to hold a Closed that might break even and won't have many frills and won't have TV coverage.
Here is my personal list of what is needed to put something RESEMBLING chess on the mass media map:
1. Change the game to have some element of luck. This allows Joe Woodpusher to enter with at least a glimmer of winning something.
2. Change the game to contain multiple games within a game. Poker has hands, baseball has innings, hockey, basketball, football all have stoppages of play, golf has holes, tennis has games and sets, bowling has frames. My suggestion for chess is to do away completely with the opening, which is a sore spot anyway, and have a match be a series of middlegame positions (determined perhaps by some other skill of each player, and containing no more than 8 pieces / pawns per side including the King, making each position more understandable by a chess newbie spectator) which all contribute to a total match score.
3. Allow the players to talk to each other during the game. Encourage it, in fact. In poker, it's part of the game, because the players try and influence each other's decisions. This could also happen in a modified chess that didn't have perfect information.
4. Create a more dynamic scoring / rating system. I can't elaborate on that because I'm developing a new rating system for classical chess itself.
Homer Simpson:
"Ooooooh, a new chess rating system. I wonder if it will put me up to 1000. If it doesn't put me at least to 1000, I won't use it! I'll just be unrated and everyone will have to deal with it!"
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Tweet
Kudos to B.F. Maybe next time we'll see Smart's moves :)
Comment