What can Canada do to nurture its chess talents?

[Hans Jung]

I had read a recent thread on questions about the Canadian Junior and it prompted me to check back to some rather recent Canadian Juniors that were held and what happened to the winners. Going thru the article in February 2005 Chess Canada about Zhe Quan's remarkable results at the 2004 World Junior I'd like to share that result with readers here. Zhe Quan at age 15 scored 8 - 5 (+3), 5 wins, 2 losses, and 6 draws with a performance rating of high 2500's (and an IM norm). Along the way he played 4 GM's (Gareev -Azerbaijan +, Petrosian - Armenia -, Koneru - India =, Martel - Poland =) and 6 IM's. All those IMs are today well known GM's. I checked Zhe Quans standing on the rating lists for Canada then (both FIDE top and CFC top in Canada) and 5 yrs later (now) and noted that his ranking on both lists (now and then) is about equal. Back then at age 15 I thought Zhe Quan had serious GM potential but now going on age 21 will he ever get the GM title?
I guess I am using this recent example of a chess talent in Canada (for sure there are many others) to pose the question - what are other countries doing to support their chess talents getting GM titles that Canada isn't? Food for thought.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: What can Canada do to nurture its chess talents?

what are other countries doing to support their chess talents getting GM titles that Canada isn't? Food for thought.

There are 35 countries with 10 or more GM (see a list at http://ratings.fide.com/topfed.phtml ).

Some have more GM than IM :D To my knowledge, those countries (China, Azerbaijan, Armenia) have good financial support for chess players.
Only few countries (USA, Cuba, and Brasil) are not from Eurasia.

Thus:

• search for government monies
• wait till a Canadian shield will collide with Eurasian
• just do it :)

[Nic Haynes]

Re: What can Canada do to nurture its chess talents?

Perhaps a more important question is should nurturing individual chess players be one of the main goals of organized chess in Canada. It is very important to note that most juniors, even the more talented ones play less and less chess once they hit university, and if they haven't disappeared by then, they probably will once they start their careers and families.

Just to throw out some names, when I was a junior there were people Like Justin Gushuliak, Yaavov Vainhorton (sp?), Danny Goldenberg, David Raheb, Warrick Rolfe, Artem Gurevich, and a million more people who played a lot when they were younger, and I haven't really heard about since. I mean probably some of these people are still playing, but I doubt that they're going hard for titles or anything

This may just be a Canadian phenomenon, I don't know, but it's way easier to list the promising players that have left chess then those that played regularly as a teen and kept up with it as they went into their 20's and 30's. I can also guarentee you that most of these people weren't leaving chess because a lack of opportunities in that field.

I mean, most of the talented juniors that were around my age have long since gone on to other things. You use the example of Zhe Quan, however I don't know what his context is. His lack of progress might have nothing to do with talent or opportunity, maybe he just isn't a GM because he's more interested or focused on other things, like school or family etc. I have no idea.

I'm certainly not making the point that nurturing individual talent isn't a worthy goal, however I would certainly make the point that if your goal is promotion of chess, the initiatives should be focused on the average Joe, club player type of person.

Many counter arguments could be made such as the impact that Fischer had on chess in America, however for every Fischer there is a whole bunch of players who have fantastic accomplishments in the chess world and almost no impact on the public perception of the game. Is Gata Kamsky a household name in the States? Do most people in my hometown know who Richard Wang is? Unfortunately, they probably do not.

At the end of the day, paying for expensive trips to foreign tournaments and norm opportunities locally probably only benefits the players who earn these opportunities. In no way does spending this money guarentee that these players will stick around in the chess community for a long period of time, or that they will contribute back to the local chess community. You just don't see this in most cases.

At the end of a day, the popularity of chess is cyclical in a national sense, and also for individuals.

[Hans Jung]

Re: What can Canada do to nurture its chess talents?

Perhaps a more important question is should nurturing individual chess players be one of the main goals of organized chess in Canada. It is very important to note that most juniors, even the more talented ones play less and less chess once they hit university, and if they haven't disappeared by then, they probably will once they start their careers and families.

Just to throw out some names, when I was a junior there were people Like Justin Gushuliak, Yaavov Vainhorton (sp?), Danny Goldenberg, David Raheb, Warrick Rolfe, Artem Gurevich, and a million more people who played a lot when they were younger, and I haven't really heard about since. I mean probably some of these people are still playing, but I doubt that they're going hard for titles or anything

This may just be a Canadian phenomenon, I don't know, but it's way easier to list the promising players that have left chess then those that played regularly as a teen and kept up with it as they went into their 20's and 30's. I can also guarentee you that most of these people weren't leaving chess because a lack of opportunities in that field.

I mean, most of the talented juniors that were around my age have long since gone on to other things. You use the example of Zhe Quan, however I don't know what his context is. His lack of progress might have nothing to do with talent or opportunity, maybe he just isn't a GM because he's more interested or focused on other things, like school or family etc. I have no idea.

I'm certainly not making the point that nurturing individual talent isn't a worthy goal, however I would certainly make the point that if your goal is promotion of chess, the initiatives should be focused on the average Joe, club player type of person.

Many counter arguments could be made such as the impact that Fischer had on chess in America, however for every Fischer there is a whole bunch of players who have fantastic accomplishments in the chess world and almost no impact on the public perception of the game. Is Gata Kamsky a household name in the States? Do most people in my hometown know who Richard Wang is? Unfortunately, they probably do not.

At the end of the day, paying for expensive trips to foreign tournaments and norm opportunities locally probably only benefits the players who earn these opportunities. In no way does spending this money guarentee that these players will stick around in the chess community for a long period of time, or that they will contribute back to the local chess community. You just don't see this in most cases.

At the end of a day, the popularity of chess is cyclical in a national sense, and also for individuals.

Well said. To summarise I sense that you are saying that we should continue as we are and if promoting chess we should be focused on the average Joe/club player type of person.

[Jean Hébert]

Re: What can Canada do to nurture its chess talents?

Well said. To summarise I sense that you are saying that we should continue as we are and if promoting chess we should be focused on the average Joe/club player type of person.

Which is a sure way to maintain Canada within the third world countries of chess.

[Hans Jung]

Re: What can Canada do to nurture its chess talents?

Hi Jean, Im glad you responded. What do you think is the most important thing that we could do? (that we are currently not doing or not doing enough of?)

[Kerry Liles]

Re: What can Canada do to nurture its chess talents?

Which is a sure way to maintain Canada within the third world countries of chess.

Well, Canada has some obvious obstacles (other than the CFC I mean): low population, lack of state-sponsorship of chess or most other "activities", perception that chess is not a sport etc.

Clearly there is little or no overlap between club players and world-class players; addressing the needs of both groups will be difficult unless there is a two-headed approach.

The CFC currently barely manages to do the paperwork for any Canadian world-class players (I am sure Jean might disagree with that - but let's say that this much is true).

The CFC needs to do both: take care of FIDE responsibilities and promote chess at the club and recreational player levels. Enabling "Open" tournaments to be run is not the same as promoting the game and encouraging new players.

Currently the CFC does very little to promote chess throughout the country (never mind the clear rift between Quebec and the rest of Canada and the East versus the West - all familiar themes).

[Hazel Smith]

Re: What can Canada do to nurture its chess talents?

I am currently facing a similar situation as a university student, and I think readers might benefit from my perspective:

Chess is still a part of my life, but to a much lesser degree than in the past. To tell the truth, Canada's system doesn't provide much of an incentive to get back into the game. It's true, I'm pressed for time, but that's not my main issue. It's the lack of passion involved in the organization and participation of tournaments. I would often come out of tournaments with two considerations (1) the $60+ that I sacrificed from my budget (plus any accommodations, food, etc.), and (2) the effect on my rating. As you notice, these are quantitative measures. I believe that the real way to motivate people is to create more qualitative aspects for players to remember. Why do I teach and volunteer despite my crammed schedule? Because I enjoy it. I spent almost every lunch hour in grade 12 helping out at my school's chess club because everyone involved became such a friend -- just like being in the cafeteria or the mall, except in a classroom over chessboards! It's not that I needed to attend, but I wanted to. Same thing with teaching children and volunteering at the library. An hour here or there can end up be the highlight of my week because the people I work with share the same passion. Compare these examples to the situation of formal tournaments. My friends have all quit chess by now, and once the games are over, it seems people just leave and stick to their own peer groups. Furthermore, being one of the only females, I must say, it can get a bit lonely.

In summary, it's not so much about the money, but more, the atmosphere. You can inject thousands of dollars into a person's bank account, but will that make them a better player? Most likely not. They'll probably just run with it. On the contrary, if you add elements of support, collaboration, and like I keep saying, passion, even the slightest amount of money can go a long way.

People my age are looking for a break from all the stress at school, and in my opinion, if chess wants to make its mark, it needs to provide a better way to supplement, as we learn in economics, the opportunity cost of attending events. This includes management of time, money, location, but even more, a qualitative reason to attend.

[Hans Jung]

Re: What can Canada do to nurture its chess talents?

Passion and giving back to the game! I suspect alot of those who help in chess do so for the feeling it gives them inside - and I think this idea of giving back to the game needs to be communicated more. Along those lines there might be a solution to how to attract more organizers to chess and keep them organizing once they are.

[Kerry Liles]

Re: What can Canada do to nurture its chess talents?

I am currently facing a similar situation as a university student, and I think readers might benefit from my perspective:

Chess is still a part of my life, but to a much lesser degree than in the past. To tell the truth, Canada's system doesn't provide much of an incentive to get back into the game. It's true, I'm pressed for time, but that's not my main issue. It's the lack of passion involved in the organization and participation of tournaments. I would often come out of tournaments with two considerations (1) the $60+ that I sacrificed from my budget (plus any accommodations, food, etc.), and (2) the effect on my rating. As you notice, these are quantitative measures. I believe that the real way to motivate people is to create more qualitative aspects for players to remember. Why do I teach and volunteer despite my crammed schedule? Because I enjoy it. I spent almost every lunch hour in grade 12 helping out at my school's chess club because everyone involved became such a friend -- just like being in the cafeteria or the mall, except in a classroom over chessboards! It's not that I needed to attend, but I wanted to. Same thing with teaching children and volunteering at the library. An hour here or there can end up be the highlight of my week because the people I work with share the same passion. Compare these examples to the situation of formal tournaments. My friends have all quit chess by now, and once the games are over, it seems people just leave and stick to their own peer groups. Furthermore, being one of the only females, I must say, it can get a bit lonely.

In summary, it's not so much about the money, but more, the atmosphere. You can inject thousands of dollars into a person's bank account, but will that make them a better player? Most likely not. They'll probably just run with it. On the contrary, if you add elements of support, collaboration, and like I keep saying, passion, even the slightest amount of money can go a long way.

People my age are looking for a break from all the stress at school, and in my opinion, if chess wants to make its mark, it needs to provide a better way to supplement, as we learn in economics, the opportunity cost of attending events. This includes management of time, money, location, but even more, a qualitative reason to attend.

Thanks for such a clear and thoughtful post Hazel. Best of luck with your University studies. I certainly hope one day soon you will be back in the chess scene in Canada.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: What can Canada do to nurture its chess talents?

Which is a sure way to maintain Canada within the third world countries of chess.

The average Joe chess player is where the federation has to get the money. From what I can see, the elite players mostly get free membership and entry fees.

For a good peak of players and events you need a large base. Like a pyramid. If the base isn't large the peak won't likely be very high.

The players pay a membership. If clubs wanted they could make the CFC membership a part of the annual fees. We used to do that.

The problem is if the federation will put the money into chess events and the players. If they want to put the money into monuments to themselves, like office buildings and staff, I don't see the benefit to chess. Then if they want to take what is left over and donate it to the Chess Foundation there is even less benefit to chess. Do you care if they can manage to build a foundation worth 1 million dollars in the next 30 years? I don't care. I figure todays chess players should benefit because they are the ones who are paying now. We don't know if the CFC will be around in 30 years.

If chess in Canada is third world, it's not the fault of the players. It's the organization.

Chess organizing has changed and there are different challenges for organizers. We are in the age of the chess servers. The CFC doesn't have a server. Even if they had a server they might not know how to use it effectively to build membership and organize events. There has to be a plan before considering such an expensive project.

If you have an idea of how to organize chess without lots of average Joe's then write it down. Sponsorships would be nice but governments and companies are having problems balancing their budget without giving money for chess.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: What can Canada do to nurture its chess talents?

If clubs wanted they could make the CFC membership a part of the annual fees.

I used to visit the odd non-CFC-membership-required club in the GTA back in the 1980s. I would hear once in a while, if someone suggested the club charge CFC membership, a club member would say "what's in it for us"? In such cases, at least some of these clubs were full of older players content with social chess. Required CFC membership, apparently often did not offer sufficiently attractive benefits to many of the average non-CFC club members back then, and hence many clubs were afraid to charge CFC membership as part of club dues, lest they lose too many club members. If that's more true than ever, the answer could be to improve CFC services for average members. That may take a long time, however, given the CFC's current state.

The problem is if the federation will put the money into chess events and the players. If they want to put the money into monuments to themselves, like office buildings and staff, I don't see the benefit to chess. Then if they want to take what is left over and donate it to the Chess Foundation there is even less benefit to chess. Do you care if they can manage to build a foundation worth 1 million dollars in the next 30 years? I don't care. I figure todays chess players should benefit because they are the ones who are paying now. We don't know if the CFC will be around in 30 years.

I don't think putting money into a business office was a mistake, while the CFC was in a position to afford it. The problem was that bad business decisions and lethargy saw the CFC shed a tremendous amount of capital. In any case, the CFC would seem to still need limited staff: an editor for a newsletter, and someone to do the ratings updates - though perhaps the idea of revising them every week is crazy (though seemly necessary, to try to justify the high CFC rating fee, e.g. compared to the CMA's rating fee). On the other hand, the Chess Foundation, while apparently a noble idea to build for the long term future, seems to have turned out to be an extravagance.

If chess in Canada is third world, it's not the fault of the players. It's the organization.

Besides any organizational faults, Canadian players are handicapped by our geographic disavantage of needing to travel long distances within our borders, and being isolated from most of the rest of the world by distances, except for the US (which suffers a similar disadvantage, though that is made up for by higher local populations in big cities, where there is lots of chess activity). This can be overcome by air travel, but then that costs more money in the long run than most players have.

Young players don't lack passion for the game usually, but life forces career decisions to be made at some point, so the number of promising players that stick with it narrows down, and because this is Canada they are currently forced to travel to the US or Europe, staying there as long as possible, if they wish to improve dramatically. That narrows the number of players down even further. It might be thought that playing on the internet would allow one to improve without such travel, but one can only get so far this way, I think. Same story for being coached online.

In the end, it looks like all that can be done is to grow the base of that pyramid you mentioned.

Chess organizing has changed and there are different challenges for organizers. We are in the age of the chess servers. The CFC doesn't have a server. Even if they had a server they might not know how to use it effectively to build membership and organize events. There has to be a plan before considering such an expensive project.

The CFC used to have a deal with ICC to allow CFC members to play online. I now recall that such games were rated by the CFC. The CFC blew that deal somehow, however. It would be a start if they could arrange a similar deal again.

I seem to remember on old chesstalk there was some suggestion that starting up a chess server might not be so expensive. However I doubt the CFC would be in a position to afford it for some time regardless.

Sponsorships would be nice but governments and companies are having problems balancing their budget without giving money for chess.

No way should the CFC count on sponsorships as much as trying to improve services for the average Joe member. Even if the CFC gets a major sponsorship, they could blow it with some dumb mistake.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: What can Canada do to nurture its chess talents?

I don't think putting money into a business office was a mistake, while the CFC was in a position to afford it. The problem was that bad business decisions and lethargy saw the CFC shed a tremendous amount of capital. In any case, the CFC would seem to still need limited staff: an editor for a newsletter, and someone to do the ratings updates - though perhaps the idea of revising them every week is crazy (though seemly necessary, to try to justify the high CFC rating fee, e.g. compared to the CMA's rating fee). On the other hand, the Chess Foundation, while apparently a noble idea to build for the long term future, seems to have turned out to be an extravagance.

I guess putting money into buying a business office, doing the maintainance, paying the taxes, heating, etc. is OK if that's the priorities. I thought the idea was money for chess and the players and events, rather than real estate.

The chess foundation appears to be the investment arm of the CFC. I get the feeling it's the money that's important. It should be the chess and the players.

Besides any organizational faults, Canadian players are handicapped by our geographic disavantage of needing to travel long distances within our borders, and being isolated from most of the rest of the world by distances, except for the US (which suffers a similar disadvantage, though that is made up for by higher local populations in big cities, where there is lots of chess activity). This can be overcome by air travel, but then that costs more money in the long run than most players have.

Why then is the membership lower now than in the years when the population was lower? Could more Canadians be playing on the servers?

I seem to remember on old chesstalk there was some suggestion that starting up a chess server might not be so expensive. However I doubt the CFC would be in a position to afford it for some time regardless.

Why would that be? There was talk of spending 10 to 20 grand for a new web site when kids build fancy ones in their spare time for very little. Why would a chess organization pay that for a web site which didn't have a server and ratings functions built into it?

I'm curious to see what they do about an Olympic team if sponsors won't come along. Will they dip into the money they have in the foundation and spend it on chess or simply not send a team?

Is there anything of substance on the foundation?

[Paul Bonham]

Re: What can Canada do to nurture its chess talents?

People my age are looking for a break from all the stress at school, and in my opinion, if chess wants to make its mark, it needs to provide a better way to supplement, as we learn in economics, the opportunity cost of attending events. This includes management of time, money, location, but even more, a qualitative reason to attend.

Hazel, well written, would you like to comment on the following?

(1) In order for chess to be a break from stress, it needs to be fun. In order for chess to be fun, it needs to take focus away from memorization of opening lines and become, right from the outset of each game, a new discovery of both tactics and strategy. A prime way to achieve this is to move away from standard chess and towards chess960, and to offer brilliancy prizes for each tournament that outnumber the class prizes. Focus on the flashes of creativity as much as, if not more than, the achievements of winning a class section.

(2) Do not offer separate prizes for girls. I commented on this in another thread, after seeing a posting of the North American Youth Chess Championship and seeing that each age group has a "Championship" prize and a "girls" prize. Perhaps, Hazel, you can offer a female perspective on this: by awarding girls their own prizes, does this ingrain in them that they are innately inferior to boys at chess? Or would you consider it useful in getting more girls to participate in chess? My comment was that if the difficulty is getting girls to participate, somehow get across to them what they can learn from chess and what enjoyment there is in it.

[Bindi Cheng]

Re: What can Canada do to nurture its chess talents?

You know, the problem with nurturing chess talent is that there's really nothing you can go for that will encourage really talented juniors to keep playing once they reach a peak or a certain age. Since you can't make money off chess other than teaching unless you get REAL good, the time spent studying hard for chess could be used for a ton of other things once university comes along and other real-life scenarios come. I mean, there's nothing wrong with playing a lot of chess at a young age, it's probably really beneficial for your brain since it keeps you thinking a lot but once you're older with a lot of fun problems other than chess to sort out all the time, there's just not enough time and energy in the world that will get you to continue to improve. And btw, it's like much much harder to get from like 2200-2300 than it is 2000-2100 and same for like 1600-1700. So ya, when you have chess universities in the US that offer chess scholarships only to IM's and above and you have Canada, already lagging behind in chess production; unless someone can get IM before he/she has to go to uni, there's really not all that much other than the social aspect of chess to get like a 1800-2000 player in their last year of high school to keep playing chess.
Just my thoughts, I'm really competitive and probably more pessimistic than others in this subject so feel free to have more optimistic thoughts on this. :)