What can Canada do to nurture its chess talents?

[Paul Bonham]

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.

There was a huge debate last year on this forum as to whether a prestige event such as the Canadian Closed should be held at all if it can't live up to certain standards (because the go-ahead for holding the event leaves too little time to properly prepare). Certain elite players would rather sit back and criticize and blame the organizer than have the passion and giving back to the game that is being mentioned here. When I suggested that such players could try and contribute to the organizing of such tournaments, the outcry was shameful. What came out of it all was that personal ambitions and desires of the elite players (with some exceptions, I hope) come before any notion of giving ANYTHING to the game besides their well-trumpeted presence, which only occurs with payment of a large fee.

My personal feeling is that players who denigrate organizers rather than help them should be blacklisted and not allowed to play prestige CFC events until they formally apologize and agree to do "community service" on behalf of chess. This should be a universal policy across Canada. In pro sports, if you denigrate the officials or the league you play in, you get fined and possibly suspended. Same idea here.

These players are a blight on the chess scene. They wrongly view organizers as being a dime a dozen, and if a particular organizer doesn't bust his or her butt hard enough, just get another one that will.

Without organizers (who are in short supply), you simply don't have organized chess. Without a particular group of elite players, you simply have less players. It's obvious to me which of the two is more expendable.

How's that for "communicating the idea of giving back to the game"? Will it change anything? Will any such elite players change their outlook and give something back to the game? Will anyone involved with the CFC consider penalizing such players? HA HA HA HA!

[Nic Haynes]

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.

Not necessarily, however I was making the point that if you spend a lot of money to fund promising juniors in travelling to tournaments and organizing strong local tournaments:

1) You cannot make the assumption that these juniors will continue playing chess in their 20's, or that they will contribute to the community in terms of organizing, teaching etc, because most don't.

2) That spending money on the top talents will somehow instantly equate to producing elite chess players. Jean Hebert says that focusing promotion on club players will "maintain Canada within the third world countries of chess.", which is an asinine comment.

Chess is an individual competition. At the end of the day, you will succeed or fail at the game based on your merit as a player. This is the appeal of the game to me. Can you nurture and help top chess talent get a bit better? Of course. Can you create top chess talents? No, these people succeed based on their own merit much moreso then anything else.

I could understand that funding players would be a huge issue if there were certain talents in the country that were much better then everybody else, and the competition was not close and they simply couldn't improve by playing the weak local players. However how many Canadian players are there like that? There's a handful like Eric Hansen, Raja Panjwani, Jonathan Tayar, Mark Bluvshtein etc. However, for every player like that, there is probably 5 more who have received funding to a prestigious Open or Junior tournament and not improved a great deal as a chessplayer from the experience. They probably had a good time though, I know I did.

So, if you want to nurture top chess talents, the answer is obvious, get rid of the stupid "throw a bunch of shit to the wall and see what sticks" approach of giving money to any patzer like me that wins some sort of provincial championship. Instead give the money to people who have proven that they can compete on an international level, or at the very least look like they might be able to. Being the best Under 10 player in Canada (or something like that) doesn't necessarily mean that you can compete internationally.

I don't know why there isn't a Canadian Bobby Fischer or Magnus Carlsen, but can you honestly say "X would have been that good if only the CFC gave them thousands of dollars to travel to international tournaments" Lets be serious, there is nobody that good or promising that I know of.

Personally, as a tax payer and CFC member, I don't think that any of the money I pay as dues or taxes should go towards things like this. On the other hand, these people can take all my money in the form of entry fees to tournaments, that's perfectly fair.

[Paul Bonham]

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. :)

Bindi, you make good points, and you have reason to be pessimistic. That's because the entire set of problems with chess is circular. You can't make enough money from chess to seriously pursue it, and you can't seriously pursue it because there isn't enough money in it.

Those who do seriously pursue it either don't need to work a real job or are able to live a very frugal life while dedicating themselves to chess excellence.

This will never change with standard chess. To break the circle, you have to introduce some element of luck. Poker, anyone?

Poker, unfortunatley, has too much luck, and the issues with poker are different: there is so much money to be made in poker that everyone and their mother is playing it, and somebody's mother could be the next WSOP champion because there is so much money in it. The result is a neverending sequence of WSOP main event champions who were washing dishes at MacDonald's or logging in Lousiana or (insert bland lifestyle here) before they became champion.

[Rob Love]

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

Bindi, you make good points, and you have reason to be pessimistic. That's because the entire set of problems with chess is circular. You can't make enough money from chess to seriously pursue it, and you can't seriously pursue it because there isn't enough money in it.

Those who do seriously pursue it either don't need to work a real job or are able to live a very frugal life while dedicating themselves to chess excellence.

This will never change with standard chess. To break the circle, you have to introduce some element of luck. Poker, anyone?

Poker, unfortunatley, has too much luck, and the issues with poker are different: there is so much money to be made in poker that everyone and their mother is playing it, and somebody's mother could be the next WSOP champion because there is so much money in it. The result is a neverending sequence of WSOP main event champions who were washing dishes at MacDonald's or logging in Lousiana or (insert bland lifestyle here) before they became champion.

True! in addition, you have to be in the Top 10 or in the 2750+ Club to get invitations from the world's prestigious tournaments. You have to dedicate your entire life playing chess alone to reach that level and make money.

[Jean Hébert]

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

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.

Most if not all these "obstacles" are psychological, if not merely excuses. Unless Quebec is no longer part of Canada (I am sure i would have realized if that has been the case) do you realise that the FQE (part of Canada) IS state-sponsored every year for about 100,000$ ? Did this bring great results in terms of producing great players or fostering a larger based membership ? No, because money is not the problem, mentality and wrong plans are.
Canada is low populated ? What about little AND very isolated Iceland with a total population of less than half a million people? Excuses. And bad ones at that. The worst is probably this "chess is not considered a sport" whining. Who really cares about that other than some canadian organizers trying to build "pyramids" ? Why not build some GMs and hopefully a canadian Magnus Carlsen ? This is possible and much more likely to put chess on the canadian map. Leave the pyramids to the old Egyptians. Chess is chess, it does not need to be defined as a sport to stand on its own.

The CFC needs to do both: take care of FIDE responsibilities and promote chess at the club and recreational player levels.

The CFC should provides clear guidelines and leadership (for the Canadian Closed for example) and a solid frame (ratings and national publication) within which local organizations will better do their local jobs. The club and recreational player is first and foremost the clubs responsibility. The CFC has national and international responsibilities. The Chess federations should try to create a propre climate for growth, but not try to do too much at the risks of killing local efforts which is pretty much what the CFC and the FQE have been doing.

[Eric Hansen]

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

Somewhat unrelated, but this article dealing with Armenia's dominance in chess from a non-chess perspective is probably the best article on chess I've ever read. Unfortunately, we aren't a third world country economically and Stephen Harper isn't the CFC president!!
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/20...and-the-tiger/

[Kevin Pacey]

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

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 alternative was to have a volunteer doing the CFC ratings updates and equipment sales out of his basement. That was when the CFC still was selling equipment on its own rather than through Amazon (you yourself wrote long ago that a chess equipment business ought to always make money, and should be retained, but the CFC apparently blew it). Trouble with volunteers is, they are harder to find than paid staff, and may tend to quit sooner.

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.

My understanding is that people have the choice of donating to the Chess Foundation (sort of a long term nestegg, of which only the interest may be spent - though I believe this rule was violated recently). Then there is the Pugi Fund (helps pay for junior travel) and any other specialized Fund the CFC has.

As a result, not every donation goes to CFC general revenues, as would be the case if someone donates to the CFC as an organization. It is from CFC general revenues that the CFC would get much of its cash to spend on helping organized chess (and the average Joe chessplayer, not to mention the elite ones) in the country in one way or another, as you would wish. Thus this deflection of potential donations away from general revenues is a reason why we might both see the Foundation (and any Funds) as extravagent. However for the purposes of helping promising juniors, the topic of this thread, the Pugi Fund would obviously be seen as a good thing.

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

In speaking of geographic disadvantage I was referring to the difficulty promising players have finding a sufficent quantity and quality of strong tournaments/opposition/coaches near enough to where they live in this country so that they can improve to GM level.

Membership is not so dependent on geography, since there probably could always be lots of average Joe chessplayers that can play each other in their locality. The membership losses I think (and its only a theory) can be attributed to the Internet (servers, email chess, and maybe generally negatively toned chess message boards) and also the deterioration of CFC services by the middle of the last decade, which saw first rating deflation and then the cutback (and eventual complete loss) of the number of printed CFC magazines per year.

Rating deflation was 'corrected' about the same time as the printed CFC magazine declined, so the correction to deflation had less of a positive impact than it could have had right away (as an aside, the job was only half done: the Active rating system was also supposed to have been corrected, but this slipped through the cracks).

Then there was the neglected state of the CFC website at about that time, not to mention various CFC business/operational mistakes that may have disgruntled some members, who then quit. On top of that there was the terrific improvement of chess playing programs: the defeat of Kasparov by Deep Blue and the monsterous performances later on by HYDRA may have caused a few people not to take up chess, or even quit it sooner than they otherwise might have. Furthermore, some people may now be content just to play against their computer.

In my case I know of two people who have quit the CFC and/or their local club in favour of playing on a server. One because the value of a CFC membership dissatified him, and he could play on a server. The other played on a server so he didn't have to drive to his club anymore, and could be in his own home.

On the bright side, I for one still prefer the atmosphere of a club where I see the opponent, or the thrill of playing for the cash prizes available at weekend events (though rationally I expect to lose more than I make in the long run even though I'm a master). Plus I wonder about cheaters who might be using the Internet (alas this is a slight possible concern even in a playing hall or club nowadays). Nevertheless I expect a lot of people who play on servers to come around to otb chess again, slowly, for the atmosphere. Myself, I can see and make friends before and after a game at my club, and where I play there is a bar and grill in the building.

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?

Sorry, not an area of expertise for me. NJF was going to build a server into his proposed new and improved OCC message board, so what you report about kids building servers for little may make sense. However NJF's project has stalled for some reason.

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?

I believe the CFC missed sending a team at least once in the past. It would be fiscally responsible not to send one, rather than dipping into the Foundation. Wouldn't surprise me if they sent a team anyway. I don't follow what happens to the Foundation much, sorry.

[Ken Kurkowski]

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

The CFC should provides clear guidelines and leadership (for the Canadian Closed for example) and a solid frame (ratings and national publication) within which local organizations will better do their local jobs. The club and recreational player is first and foremost the clubs responsibility. The CFC has national and international responsibilities. The Chess federations should try to create a propre climate for growth, but not try to do too much at the risks of killing local efforts which is pretty much what the CFC and the FQE have been doing.

I agree 100% with Jean's comment! In my over 30 years as an "ordinary Joe" chess player, who has provided me with the most chess-related benefits?
It's all the Tournament organizers and directors, the chess club executives, and the many opponents that have provided me with stimulating, enjoyable competition. As for rating tournaments and publishing magazines/ezines, other organizations (or even individuals) could even do that. Let the CFC devote its energies to supporting those talented young players with dreams of competing against the world's best- just as many Canadian sports federations do!

[Kevin Pacey]

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

Why not build some GMs and hopefully a canadian Magnus Carlsen ? This is possible and much more likely to put chess on the canadian map. Leave the pyramids to the old Egyptians. Chess is chess, it does not need to be defined as a sport to stand on its own.

The CFC should provides clear guidelines and leadership (for the Canadian Closed for example) and a solid frame (ratings and national publication) within which local organizations will better do their local jobs. The club and recreational player is first and foremost the clubs responsibility. The CFC has national and international responsibilities. The Chess federations should try to create a propre climate for growth, but not try to do too much at the risks of killing local efforts which is pretty much what the CFC and the FQE have been doing.

Sorry, I see nothing specific here on how more Canadian GMs are going to be 'built'.

Btw, Iceland has a national chess culture that is at least somewhat foreign to popular North American culture (Fischer Boom aside - yes, we do love winners in ANYTHING). Also, Iceland is not nearly so far from the UK and Europe as is North America. Canada is definitely at a geographic and cultural disadvantage, though it is not clear that it can't be overcome, as you say. We need specifics, and lots of them.

[Hazel Smith]

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

Kerry, thanks for your wishes, and I'll definitely keep myself involved in chess.

Paul, I'm glad you've been thinking about some issues. Here are my comments:
(1) I am completely in support of making chess "fun", but in a variety of ways to encourage different interests. Some people enjoy studying new opening lines and theories. If that's the highlight for you, then go for it. For me, I love teaching and analyzing positional/tactical chess, so you won't find me spending much time memorizing. Actually, a lot of people were surprised how little time I spent on openings. Brilliancy prizes are always fun. I actually suggested having some in the library program, since creativity happens at all levels. I was discussing chess with someone, and they wondered how I could watch so many beginner games day after day. My response? Beginner games are exciting! Maybe I'm too much of a psychologist (even though psychology is not my major), but I enjoy observing how people respond to certain situations and imperfections. Diamond in the rough kind of idea. I would definitely like to support creativity, rather than the same people scooping up all the prizes in the tournaments (one initiative I have to applaud is Mei's Chessca tournament --> brilliancy and "best-dressed" prizes!) Furthermore, I don't think we have to be restricted to one game of chess. I have a lot of fun trying out different variants, including double chess, chess960, avalanche chess, atomic chess, gravitational chess, etc. No one says we have to be confined to specific setups and rules, but if you like playing standard chess (as I still do), then I'm all for that as well. It's all about giving choices and flexibility.
(2) I don't join activities based on gender. While all the other girls were in dance and gymnastics, I was playing chess and baseball (in which my team was mostly boys). If you really enjoy something, gender should not be restrictive, but I can see how it can be troublesome when others view you differently. In that way, I support programs, such as the Girls Championship, to gather confidence and allow children to form social groups in the area of chess (something I always had trouble doing, because at a young age, boys and girls have quite different interests). However, I don't think money alone will ever solve gender-related problems. Most tournaments I chose to join weren't selected based on the "female prize". Even the world championships and olympiads, I joined them for the experience, not the free trips. In today's society, women don't necessary feel inferior, but like you said, they need to be given a qualitative reason to join activities like chess.

I hope that answered your two questions. I'm always happy to share my experiences in order to help others.

Bindi, I understand your pessimism, but at the same time, I never considered chess as a formal profession, just like I never considered my past involvement in sports as a profession. These activities were hobbies I enjoyed being involved in, and if it took me anywhere, it would be a "bonus". In other words, I see life as a balance. I work hard to get good grades in school, get involved in some school clubs, and relax, but I try not to take any of these activities to the extreme. Since I enjoy being involved in chess, I make time for it, but continue to aim for success in other areas.

[Kevin Pacey]

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

Why not build some GMs and hopefully a canadian Magnus Carlsen ?

Actually, as you know, Canada already has a number of GMs (not necessarily home grown). The problem is most of them aren't playing much, as they seem to see that chess is no way to make a living here at the moment (I know of at least one Canadian who became a GM very young, after world travel, only to go out and get a day job).

Too bad, since a good, specific, way to manufacture more GMs might be to have many futurity events over the years, with a bunch of Canadian/foreign GMs (and even IMs) playing between themselves along with several promising juniors in small tournaments. The problem is, these GMs and IMs, being typical chessplayers in many cases, would always have the issue of what's in it for them, unless a reasonable prize fund was offered. Plus many of the titled players might need to be flown in expensively from long distances.

Why not build some GMs and hopefully a canadian Magnus Carlsen? This is possible and much more likely to put chess on the canadian map.

Leave the pyramids to the old Egyptians. Chess is chess, it does not need to be defined as a sport to stand on its own.
The Chess federations should try to create a propre climate for growth, but not try to do too much at the risks of killing local efforts which is pretty much what the CFC and the FQE have been doing.

Waiting for a Canadian Magnus Carlsen to arise will probably take longer than for the Egyptians to build the pyramids. Sorry, at least expanding the pyramid's base (i.e. of average Joes) is an easier, more reliable, and more realistic goal for the CFC. At least that would be growth.

Not sure at all what the CFC has been doing too much of that risks killing local efforts. Not sure the CFC has been doing way too much of anything. Except making serious errors in the not too distant past. Merely reduce those, and the popularity of organized chess may start to recover all on its own.

[Paul Bonham]

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

Somewhat unrelated, but this article dealing with Armenia's dominance in chess from a non-chess perspective is probably the best article on chess I've ever read. Unfortunately, we aren't a third world country economically and Stephen Harper isn't the CFC president!!
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/20...and-the-tiger/

Eric, I read the article and didn't find it too informative on chess, but on how Armenia became an international chess powerhouse. It seems that part of their success is due to a history of impoverishment.

I could be misinterpreting you, but it seems you would prefer Canada to become economically impoverished, if it resulted in Canada having a handful or more of super-GMs that were in contention for the world title? If that is truly what you wish, you are a Jean Hebert disciple.

In Canada's case, we have had a taste of being a highly developed nation, so there is no going back. The masses would only be happier if they had never had that taste (well, most of them anyway, some might like a simpler but harder life).

I think if you suddenly make Armenia as wealthy as Canada and spread that wealth to their masses, within a generation you'd see their chess prominence fade away.

[Eric Hansen]

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

Eric, I read the article and didn't find it too informative on chess, but on how Armenia became an international chess powerhouse. It seems that part of their success is due to a history of impoverishment.

I could be misinterpreting you, but it seems you would prefer Canada to become economically impoverished, if it resulted in Canada having a handful or more of super-GMs that were in contention for the world title? If that is truly what you wish, you are a Jean Hebert disciple.

In Canada's case, we have had a taste of being a highly developed nation, so there is no going back. The masses would only be happier if they had never had that taste (well, most of them anyway, some might like a simpler but harder life).

I think if you suddenly make Armenia as wealthy as Canada and spread that wealth to their masses, within a generation you'd see their chess prominence fade away.

I was making a joke. Considering I am going into business, I would much prefer Canada than Armenia (unless I can get my hands on some untapped oil over there that may have been overlooked while the government was analyzing the dragon or najdorf). I for sure think that they should be doing better things with the money than putting it into chess. But I think it's pretty interesting how chess is worshipped there, and considering all the time I've put into a game that isn't really recognized in North America, it's cool to see it being recognized like that. In Europe there is a much greater sense of pride in being a chess player, you are much more respected over there. Nothing wrong with being envious of something such as that. But anyways, you need to chill out and also stop tying everything with Jean Hebert.

[Kevin Pacey]

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

I agree 100% with Jean's comment!As for rating tournaments and publishing magazines/ezines, other organizations (or even individuals) could even do that.

It might possibly be interpreted that you don't quite agree 100% with Jean, who wrote:

"The CFC should provides clear guidelines and leadership (for the Canadian Closed for example) and a solid frame (ratings and national publication) within which local organizations will better do their local jobs."

The main benefits of the CFC's membership fee at the moment, from the point of the average Joe anyway, are I suppose to provide him a rating service, the right to play in rated events, and (more recently) a newsletter (which justifies the high fee to some extent - I suppose the membership fee definitely should (at least from a member's point of view) be lowered if the newsletter was ever dropped).

Let the CFC devote its energies to supporting those talented young players with dreams of competing against the world's best- just as many Canadian sports federations do!

In other words, forget about the average Joe:)? If membership revenues are hurt, say if rating and newsletter service are cancelled (and fees are lowered), or if average Joes quit the CFC in droves, where does revenue come from to support the young players that the CFC would be solely dedicated to support?

In any case, it's easier said than done, when the norm is that the young Canadian players can't succeed wildly enough (i.e. become super-GMs, not just normal GMs) before career decision time taps them on the shoulder.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

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

it's pretty interesting how chess is worshipped there, and considering all the time I've put into a game that isn't really recognized in North America, it's cool to see it being recognized like that.

Have you checked pictures?



or this one