Recognize Chess as a Sport in Canada

[Pargat Perrer]

Sid, your sponsorship was a complete inspiration to me!

So, is the reverse true ... those girls who do poorly with chess have a lesser fulfilling life? I think not.

Chess isn't all about titles or the elite. Sorry, but it is not. The above mentioned accomplishments are all well and good but ... you don't need to be accomplished in chess to enjoy the benefits of chess.

It would be somewhat faith restoring to see our Canadian Gov. better execute with the funding already in place.

I would go further and say you don't need to play chess at all ... although there is no harm in doing so, as long as you don't get addicted. It's like smoking pot. Some people say it opens their minds and expands their thinking, even after they's stopped smoking it. But others do get addicted to it. Any kind of addiction is bad.

Chess probably has many sad addiction stories, you just don't hear about them. Nobody comes forward and says, "I spent all my adult life playing chess, and never got a career in anything" but those people are out there. Poker too, by the way, with worse results because there is luck in poker so everyone thinks they can still get lucky.

[Pargat Perrer]

Thank you to Duncan Smith who pointed out this podcast where his daughter Steph discusses the impact of chess on her.

Having a former chess player talk about the experience is much more relevant than anything I or anyone else here can say about chess:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EpW80QO6i0

Duncan wrote the following


Hi Vlad.



On your posts on Chesstalk, I thought I'd mention that my younger daughter Stephanie ( ex-national team member ) is highly successful in her career with a fairly strong social media presence. ... Stephanie's also done exceedingly well in fairly high profile roles ( just more business oriented ). Stephanie doesn't play anymore except casually but maintains some interest even took a pile of chess stuff to California.


This video is quite good : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EpW80QO6i0.


Stephanie resides in San Diego and is a pod cast host for a huge hedge fund ( P.Eng from Queens then shifted into social media marketing ). Great role model for young women who play chess. Hazel her sister unfortunately has had some huge health issues so we prefer not to bring her into any conversation about chess. This matter is why we are low key but I just thought the video was a great insight into our experiences.


Duncan Smith


Watching a highly intelligent young woman with a P. Eng talk about what chess meant to her is far more relevant to this conversation. Her opinions are echoed by many of the girls who played chess. They all seem smart and articulate and accomplished almost without exception. They become grandmasters at life if not in chess.

There is nothing bad to say about these stories .... but this is rather like Parker Bros. posting about all the kids who grew up playing Monopoly and are now accomplished scientists and engineers and so on.

Should we have taxpayer funding for Monopoly? LOL

[Tom O'Donnell]

....

Should we have taxpayer funding for Monopoly? LOL

All games that have at least some skill in them should be grouped together. Monopoly is a game where skill is important: money management / budgeting, calculating your / opponents' dice roll probabilities, making good trades, etc. I have read a couple of books about Monopoly strategy, but am no expert. I would say it is roughly on par with poker in terms of skill (long-term results) vs luck (short-term fluctuations).

[David Ottosen]

Chess probably has many sad addiction stories, you just don't hear about them. Nobody comes forward and says, "I spent all my adult life playing chess, and never got a career in anything" but those people are out there. Poker too, by the way, with worse results because there is luck in poker so everyone thinks they can still get lucky.

I think you do hear about them, and I think they do serve as cautionary tales. I know when I finished university and had reached master strength, I had a serious look in the mirror, I looked around at the state of top Canadian chess and the players, assessed the upper limits of my own potential (which I deemed to be probably FM, maybe a weak IM if I really went for it and things broke right), and basically dropped out of serious chess to pursue more conventional career success. Ironically, the same goes for my poker experience.

That said, some of the friendships I made, the experiences I had, and the lessons I learned from chess and poker are all things I consider to have been super valuable throughout my life.

Most activities carry some positives, but some risks. Chess generally I think people have a great chance of getting the vast majority of the positives with minimal risk and minimal investment. I don't really object to pursuing gov't funding on this as long as it's going to expose chess to the widest range of people possible and not to support elite chess. Put another way - I'd rather see 100,000 kids get a rating of 1000 than 10 kids get a rating of 2500, and I think Canadian society would see a positive return from that investment.

[Aris Marghetis]

I think you do hear about them, and I think they do serve as cautionary tales. I know when I finished university and had reached master strength, I had a serious look in the mirror, I looked around at the state of top Canadian chess and the players, assessed the upper limits of my own potential (which I deemed to be probably FM, maybe a weak IM if I really went for it and things broke right), and basically dropped out of serious chess to pursue more conventional career success. Ironically, the same goes for my poker experience.

That said, some of the friendships I made, the experiences I had, and the lessons I learned from chess and poker are all things I consider to have been super valuable throughout my life.

Most activities carry some positives, but some risks. Chess generally I think people have a great chance of getting the vast majority of the positives with minimal risk and minimal investment. I don't really object to pursuing gov't funding on this as long as it's going to expose chess to the widest range of people possible and not to support elite chess. Put another way - I'd rather see 100,000 kids get a rating of 1000 than 10 kids get a rating of 2500, and I think Canadian society would see a positive return from that investment.

Great post David, thanks.

[Pargat Perrer]

Originally posted by Pargat Perrer
Chess probably has many sad addiction stories, you just don't hear about them. Nobody comes forward and says, "I spent all my adult life playing chess, and never got a career in anything" but those people are out there.

I think you do hear about them, and I think they do serve as cautionary tales.

Thank you for acknowledging and confirming that. It's a brave thing to do because the competitive chess world doesn't want that spread around. You certainly don't see the CFC mentioning it. Vlad Drkulec would rather tout girls making it into university (when they would have done the same without chess) than 50-something males who are facing bleak prospects in their retirement years because they devoted their life to chess.

Where do you hear from them? The Ontario govt needs to hear from them before making any decision on taxpayer funding.

I don't really object to pursuing gov't funding on this as long as it's going to expose chess to the widest range of people possible and not to support elite chess. Put another way - I'd rather see 100,000 kids get a rating of 1000 than 10 kids get a rating of 2500, and I think Canadian society would see a positive return from that investment.

I agree with Aris, this is a great post. I wish I had thought of putting it that way. But again, those 100,000 kids getting to a rating of 1000 don't need taxpayer funding to get there.

They want to play chess! But they don't want to be Pawns!

[Pargat Perrer]

Originally posted by Pargat Perrer
....
Should we have taxpayer funding for Monopoly? LOL

All games that have at least some skill in them should be grouped together. Monopoly is a game where skill is important: money management / budgeting, calculating your / opponents' dice roll probabilities, making good trades, etc. I have read a couple of books about Monopoly strategy, but am no expert. I would say it is roughly on par with poker in terms of skill (long-term results) vs luck (short-term fluctuations).

I would say it's below poker, BUT it could be on par with poker if there was this rule: every player on their turn rolls the 2 dice twice, and if the second roll gives a same total as the first, they roll again until they have 2 distinct totals. Then they choose 1 of those 2 totals. This would really increase the influence of calculating dice roll probabilities. Do you like that idea?


But again, the whole reason I brought up Monopoly was to show that if Ontario govt endorses taxpayer funding for chess, it only opens Pandora's box. The North American Tiddlywinks Association (a real thing!) will want funding because tiddlywinks improves hand dexterity and visualization.

You get the idea. Where do you stand on this question of taxpayer funding for chess?

[Patrick Kirby]

There's no pandora's box at all. The government funds cultural and sporting activities for the greater benefit of the country. Our national soccer and hockey teams receive funding because it promotes the prestige of Canada to have our teams competing on the world stage. It also promotes involvement in pro-social activities like sports among our youth.

The same principles clearly apply to chess as to soccer and hockey and any other sport, but not to Monopoly or Tiddlywinks, which don't have the same prestige or international reach. Poker may be comparable in popularity, but it is of questionable societal value.

In any case, there's nothing stopping anyone from registering a tiddlywinks association as a charitable organization and benefiting from the tax credit regime, which is a de facto government subsidy. If the game gets enough headway through private donations, maybe they'll one day reach a level of popularity to merit greater government funding.

I may be mistaken, but I think the CFC is registered as an amateur athletic association and donations are eligible for a tax credit.

[Bob Armstrong]

I know that some time back, CFC had been given "charitable status". It got revoked after a lot of negotiations. I believe the reason was (someone correct me) that the CFC, unlike the CMA, did not have youth chess as its "main" focus, just as one of many chess priorities?

Bob A

[Peter McKillop]

....
In any case, there's nothing stopping anyone from registering a tiddlywinks association as a charitable organization and benefiting from the tax credit ....

There's nothing stopping anyone from TRYING to register a tiddlywinks association as a charitable organization. CRA will have the final say on the application.

[Peter McKillop]

..... 50-something males who are facing bleak prospects in their retirement years because they devoted their life to chess.

Where do you hear from them? The Ontario govt needs to hear from them before making any decision on taxpayer funding.
.....

Sadly, these people may be so broken, so deep in the well of their addiction to chess, that they can't speak for themselves. Maybe this is your niche in life, Pargat; your chance to do something positive rather than wasting your life on cyber stalking the officials of very minor not-for-profits. Perhaps you will become known as 'Pargat Perrer, the man who had the courage to stand up and speak for 50-something males who were facing bleak prospects in their retirement years because they devoted their lives to chess.'

[Pargat Perrer]

There's no pandora's box at all. The government funds cultural and sporting activities for the greater benefit of the country. Our national soccer and hockey teams receive funding because it promotes the prestige of Canada to have our teams competing on the world stage. ......

Would you rather have that "prestige", which is meaningless, or have nurses who can work full-time hours and get benefits?

Would you rather have sports "prestige" or have functioning ERs in hospitals?

The pandora's box is already open because of current sports funding. Chess trying to get taxpayer funding is precisely because that pandora's box is open. Chess actually GETTING that funding would shatter pandora's box completely and every sports and game organization is going to go hat in hand to the government.

My petition to counter Olga's petition will demand an end to all non-facilities sports funding across Canada. No more taxpayer funding for individual athletes, just as one example.

[Pargat Perrer]

Sadly, these people may be so broken, so deep in the well of their addiction to chess, that they can't speak for themselves. Maybe this is your niche in life, Pargat; your chance to do something positive rather than wasting your life on cyber stalking the officials of very minor not-for-profits. Perhaps you will become known as 'Pargat Perrer, the man who had the courage to stand up and speak for 50-something males who were facing bleak prospects in their retirement years because they devoted their lives to chess.'

Nice try, Peter, I'm not biting.

I'm not against those 50-something males, they made their bed, they can lie in it. Nor am I cyber stalking anyone.

I am against taxpayer funding for sports, aside from facilities provision and maintenance.

That's it and that's all. Your troll talk only makes YOU look bad.

[Patrick Kirby]

I know that some time back, CFC had been given "charitable status". It got revoked after a lot of negotiations. I believe the reason was (someone correct me) that the CFC, unlike the CMA, did not have youth chess as its "main" focus, just as one of many chess priorities?

Bob A

Hmm.. that's surprising to me. I don't know why the CFC wouldn't qualify as an amateur athletic association, it seems to meet the CRA's definition more-or-less to the letter (the only stumbling block being whether chess is classified as a sport):

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-age...sociation.html

[Fred Harvey]

Hmm.. that's surprising to me. I don't know why the CFC wouldn't qualify as an amateur athletic association, it seems to meet the CRA's definition more-or-less to the letter (the only stumbling block being whether chess is classified as a sport):

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-age...sociation.html

There was a general crackdown by the CRA on all charities which caught CFC. As I recall, it didn't help that parents were claiming costs to accompany kids to the world events as charitable donations on tax returns.