What can Canada do to nurture its chess talents?

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

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

...Furthermore, being one of the only females, I must say, it can get a bit lonely.

This is really a big issue for a lot of fields.

Once I spoke with the Scout leader, and she told that to retain a girl is almost impossible. However, two or more is quite easy :D Thus, they try to redirect a girl to another session or meeting place where there would be more them.

[Paul Bonham]

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

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.

No worries, Eric, I'm chill. I couldn't tell you were joking, and I thought with you being (I believe) fairly young that maybe you had been influenced due to some sense of respect for Hebert. Also, I don't tie everything to Hebert, just the nonsense that he is well known to believe in. In this very thread, he is proposing that we do what it looks like Armenia is doing, throw money at elite chessplayers, as much money as it takes to get them on the world stage.

What's really ironic is that he claims without doing this, Canada will be a "third world chess country". Nevermind that if we do what he wants, we'll be on our way to becoming a for-real third world country, which in Jean's mind is ok because we'll have super-GMs!!! Whoo-hooo!

Yes, any chessplayer that has chess aspirations can be envious of an Armenia-like environment. But I would advise that you pay attention to what is beginning to transpire over in Europe. The world is now undergoing an economic earthquake, and Europe is directly on the fault lines, because of its primarily socialist systems that for years have fostered such things as state support for chessplayers (just one example). These things cannot continue in the dog-eat-dog days that are coming down the pipe. The first ripples of the earthquake are now being felt in Greece, Portugal, and Spain. If Spain breaks down, it's time to man the lifeboats.

Purely capitalist systems that support exorbitant scholarships for athletics (just another example) will not fare any better. Across the U.S., school systems are now forcing parents to pay fees for their kids to be involved in any kind of athletics. The school systems are literally broke, and scrounging for money whereever they can. The underlying local tax systems are breaking down. This will percolate up to universities as well. California is about to lower the boom across their entire higher education system, just the beginning of the unravelling. Since you are (I believe) young, I can only hope for the best for you and your generation. It's not going to be pretty. Well, at least you have your ByePhones to keep you occupied. Wassup!!!!

Maybe after writing this, I should be advising YOU to chill?

[Paul Bonham]

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

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.



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.

Just wanted to say, Kevin, you've been making GREAT points on this thread. Great to hear a voice of reason among the cacophony.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

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

he is proposing that we do what it looks like Armenia is doing, throw money at elite chessplayers, as much money as it takes to get them on the world stage.

Armenia invests into chess, Canada into ice-rinks - and both have their sports Olympic champions.
Fans are similar too :D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjUDJ0TsRnQ[Armenia - chess olympiad champions]

[Jean Hébert]

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

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 "waiting" (which, granted, can take a long time) but "acting" to produce great players. As far as I know Norway isn't either very populated or a country where chess has been particularly popular (until recently thanks to Carlsen).
"Expanding the pyramid's base" is an old song that has been going for ever in Canada without ever producing significant results. Only a mega-event like Fischer-Spassky 1972 succeeded in having a big impact on the base. And it had a long term effect everywhere but in North America, because here we kept focusing on the "average-Joe" with class prizes tournaments, instead of building a solid base of chess professionals who can play, teach and write about the game at a high level for a long time. That would have sustained "growth".

[Gary Ruben]

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

Not "waiting" (which, granted, can take a long time) but "acting" to produce great players. As far as I know Norway isn't either very populated or a country where chess has been particularly popular (until recently thanks to Carlsen).
"Expanding the pyramid's base" is an old song that has been going for ever in Canada without ever producing significant results. Only a mega-event like Fischer-Spassky 1972 succeeded in having a big impact on the base. And it had a long term effect everywhere but in North America, because here we kept focusing on the "average-Joe" with class prizes tournaments, instead of building a solid base of chess professionals who can play, teach and write about the game at a high level for a long time. That would have sustained "growth".

Players such as Carlsen are not developed. They are born.

Norway is a nation of about 5 million people from what I know. They had the good fortune to find oil. A lot of oil. Offshore, I think. As a result, it is a rich nation. Norway has used the oil wealth for the social programs and other things. I recently played a correspondence game against a Norweigan GM with whom I often exchange posts on a message board. He works in oil and gas. I worked with that as well so we write about that sort of thing.

Norway also has holdings in Canada. In the Alberta oil tar sands. They have that through their state controlled company.

I realize you don't like the pyramid of chess. While Quebec is a part of the Canada, it is not a part of the CFC. Some Quebec players who become good and have ambitions to play internationally join the CFC but Quebec as a province does not support the CFC. They have their own organization and rating system. Since Quebec is probably about 25% of the population of the country you can see the CFC only has a presence is the larger fraction of Canada.

On the national scene Quebec is a voice in the wilderness. A few players interested in the CFC and the majority interested in the FQE. If you want a stronger presence for Canada, you will have to wait until there is a national chess organization with all the provinces participating.

There is something you should already know. Few care about you and the chances you get. You are the elite. The top of the pyramid. The other players are interested in their own game and what's in it for them. If you don't care about the average "Joe" chess player and the average "Joe" player doesn't care about you then there is no money. That's why so many talented players find a Job.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

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

Players such as Carlsen are not developed. They are born.

His coach, Agdestein, wrote the book Wonderboy how Magnus Carlsen became the youngest Chess Grandmaster in the world: the story of the games.

There are other young players who had enough support to hit 26xx mark or higher.

[Kevin Pacey]

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

Not "waiting" (which, granted, can take a long time) but "acting" to produce great players. As far as I know Norway isn't either very populated or a country where chess has been particularly popular (until recently thanks to Carlsen).

Acting? Again, what (preferably many) specific actions would you suggest that would have the remotest chance of producing a Carlsen? Carlsen had at least one Norwegian GM coach in Agestein, afaik. Plus, again, Norway is a country right next to Europe, the big leagues for chess.

Canada actually did have some near super-GMs, in their time. Yanofsky, Suttles, and, especially for modern times, Spraggett. All of these were not products of the Canadian Federation's efforts, but of their own searing devotion to the game (Yanofsky being originally from Europe, I believe). Just like Fischer in the US. However Yanofsky and Suttles called it quits on a chess career eventually, and Fischer basically just called it quits.

Spraggett is an interesting case (ahem). He travelled the world, as was necessesary, in his quest to become strong. Big victory in the Candidates in '88, but he didn't go far enough. He was all over TV news for Canadian chess's 15 minutes of fame after beating Sokolov, but then he didn't get past Yusupov. Did the Canadian public suddenly take up chess in droves? No, like I said, North Americans love WINNERS (in ANYTHING). Read WORLD CHAMPIONS.

Anything but coming in first gets a yawn (but if it's hockey, for Canadians, then anything but first is crushing disappointment). The exception is non-chess, non-hockey Olympic sports, where we are content with silver or bronze medals.

Anyway, Spraggett has left the country basically, and hasn't seemed to contribute much positive to the development or reputation of Canadian chess for years. Not a team player for our Olympic team at all, and given to viciously attacking some of our best organizers by name. He's shown himself to be a sociopath, almost akin to Fischer in a way. It's not enough to have super-GMs: in the long run, they must also have personalities presentable to the public on a regular basis. From what I've seen, Carlsen is a charming lad.

"Expanding the pyramid's base" is an old song that has been going for ever in Canada without ever producing significant results. Only a mega-event like Fischer-Spassky 1972 succeeded in having a big impact on the base. And it had a long term effect everywhere but in North America, because here we kept focusing on the "average-Joe" with class prizes tournaments, instead of building a solid base of chess professionals who can play, teach and write about the game at a high level for a long time. That would have sustained "growth".

Name me some countries where Fischer-Spassky had a significant positive effect much longer than in North America. Other factors like (un)favourable native chess culture taken into account.

What caused the Fischer boom in North America to end could be theorized any number of ways. For instance, North Americans lose interest quickly when their champion stops playing. Especially when the next world championship match in 1978 turns into a weird-fest of protests, gurus and silly psychological tricks that degrade chess in the eyes of a sensible North American public quite possibly more accustomed thinking of chess as a noble game than a smackdown.

The truth is, expanding the pyramid's base hasn't been given a fair chance because of all the business and operational mistakes the CFC has made over the years, and that's aside from having too much lethargy. Your way (however you propose to develop it) hasn't been given a chance here for a long time, but unless someone has a concrete plan to do it, it could turn into a half-baked experiment that could crash the CFC completely (not that it hasn't almost done that to itself already through serious past mistakes).

I say your way hasn't been given a chance for a long time because it sort of once was: in the days before ratings there were no class prizes, naturally. Did Canada develop a robust body of pros as you describe back then? No. Did the equally isolated US, with more resources to draw from within its Federation, do it your way in those previous times either? Perhaps. I don't know. BUT the US had a much higher population. I'm thinking of back to the pre-WWII era, when the US fielded the best olympic teams, and there were writers on the game amongst the pros.

[Jean Hébert]

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

Acting? Again, what (preferably many) specific actions would you suggest that would have the remotest chance of producing a Carlsen? Carlsen had at least one Norwegian GM coach in Agestein, afaik. Plus, again, Norway is a country right next to Europe, the big leagues for chess.

Canada actually did have some near super-GMs, in their time. Yanofsky, Suttles, and, especially for modern times, Spraggett. All of these were not products of the Canadian Federation's efforts, but of their own searing devotion to the game (Yanofsky being originally from Europe, I believe). Just like Fischer in the US. However Yanofsky and Suttles called it quits on a chess career eventually, and Fischer basically just called it quits.

Spraggett is an interesting case (ahem). He travelled the world, as was necessesary, in his quest to become strong. Big victory in the Candidates in '88, but he didn't go far enough. He was all over TV news for Canadian chess's 15 minutes of fame after beating Sokolov, but then he didn't get past Yusupov. Did the Canadian public suddenly take up chess in droves? No, like I said, North Americans love WINNERS (in ANYTHING). Read WORLD CHAMPIONS.

Anything but coming in first gets a yawn (but if it's hockey, for Canadians, then anything but first is crushing disappointment). The exception is non-chess, non-hockey Olympic sports, where we are content with silver or bronze medals.

Anyway, Spraggett has left the country basically, and hasn't seemed to contribute much positive to the development or reputation of Canadian chess for years. Not a team player for our Olympic team at all, and given to viciously attacking some of our best organizers by name. He's shown himself to be a sociopath, almost akin to Fischer in a way. It's not enough to have super-GMs: in the long run, they must also have personalities presentable to the public on a regular basis. From what I've seen, Carlsen is a charming lad.



Name me some countries where Fischer-Spassky had a significant positive effect much longer than in North America. Other factors like (un)favourable native chess culture taken into account.

What caused the Fischer boom in North America to end could be theorized any number of ways. For instance, North Americans lose interest quickly when their champion stops playing. Especially when the next world championship match in 1978 turns into a weird-fest of protests, gurus and silly psychological tricks that degrade chess in the eyes of a sensible North American public quite possibly more accustomed thinking of chess as a noble game than a smackdown.

The truth is, expanding the pyramid's base hasn't been given a fair chance because of all the business and operational mistakes the CFC has made over the years, and that's aside from having too much lethargy. Your way (however you propose to develop it) hasn't been given a chance here for a long time, but unless someone has a concrete plan to do it, it could turn into a half-baked experiment that could crash the CFC completely (not that it hasn't almost done that to itself already through serious past mistakes).

I say your way hasn't been given a chance for a long time because it sort of once was: in the days before ratings there were no class prizes, naturally. Did Canada develop a robust body of pros as you describe back then? No. Did the equally isolated US, with more resources to draw from within its Federation, do it your way in those previous times either? Perhaps. I don't know. BUT the US had a much higher population. I'm thinking of back to the pre-WWII era, when the US fielded the best olympic teams, and there were writers on the game amongst the pros.

Kevin,

The lenght of your post and the fact that a lot of your arguments are either superfluous or remotely related tells me that your are much too busy defending your vision of things to really benefit from this discussion.
Trying to expand the base is certainly not a bad thing in itself but it is a long and tedious process with uncertain and often short-lived results. Actually it seems to me that it is more a consequence then a goal that can be pursued for its own sake. A youth tournament with hundreds of participants is fine and we need them, but eventually only a handful (if any) will stick around and develop any further, especially if they get support and benefit from a proprer chess environment to to so. The "average-joe" come and go, the "larger base" is just an illusion because it is never large enough and vulnerable to shrinking at any time. The "elite" on the other hand has a tendency to stick around much longer and contribute much longer. And this is very good for the base.

[Kevin Pacey]

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

kevin,
the "elite" on the other hand has a tendency to stick around much longer and contribute much longer.

LOL!

Have you read what I (and others) have wrote about the elite, and some individuals amongst them, in this whole thread?!

Individual average Joes may come and go, but the base of the pryramid is massive compared to the tip, which crumbles more easily.

Here in Ottawa the top elite (2350+) of our events didn't show up for about a decade, for example. By then it was all new people.

[Kevin Pacey]

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

Kevin,

The lenght of your post and the fact that a lot of your arguments are either superfluous or remotely related tells me that your are much too busy defending your vision of things to really benefit from this discussion.

I was responding to your points one by one. Your arguments, on the other hand, lack specific solutions.

If you read less emotionally, you will see in my posts I am always allowing the chance that your way, whatever exactly it might be, might succeed. I am asking for more specifics as to what it is, and how to do it. If you can't produce ideas that are applicable to Canada, you have far less of a leg to stand on. So far all I have seen from you that's specific is the tired suggestion on message boards to eliminate class prizes. Face facts. There aren't enough players in Canada that even if there were no class prizes, there wouldn't be enough money for pros. Plus all the class players, accustomed to class prizes, would quit in droves, leaving next to no money for the pros.

[Tom O'Donnell]

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

LOL!

Here in Ottawa the top elite (2350+) of our events didn't show up for about a decade, for example. By then it was all new people.

Since when did showing up for events become the standard for sticking around and contributing?

[Kevin Pacey]

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

Since when did showing up for events become the standard for sticking around and contributing?

I thought it was part of what Jean was implying: average Joes quit, the elite doesn't, so much.

You are the exception that proves the rule:).

[Rob Love]

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

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.

Exactly, why don't they used those moneys that they won in local tournaments through their efforts and save, budget and use them to participate in strong open/international tournaments for their quest to join the elite chess players of the world. If they have a goal set in their minds, It's all up to them to reach those dreams and at the end, they will gladly say "I did it my way!!!:)

[Kevin Pacey]

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

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.

Hi Gary

Since Jean apparently lacks specific ideas for whatever he's on about, let's put our heads together and come up with specific plans to start growing the base of the pyramid, as you put it. Probably no one on the CFC Executive will pay attention, but it may be fun anyway.

My suggestions for a long term plan:

A) Increase available capital:

1) No more office real estate or chess equipment business for a long time, out of necessity if nothing else. Just a rented office for limited staff to do ratings.

2) Try to find a way to wind up the Chess Foundation, and put the funds in CFC General Revenue. If it can't be wound down, keep raiding the darn thing till nothing's left. Same for any specialized Funds for donations the CFC might have, except for the Pugi Fund, for junior travel. Otherwise all donations (not counting for olympic teams) go to CFC General Revenue.

3) Increase the Annual CFC membership fee ever so slightly. There is the justification, right now, in that the newsletter comes out every month now, not just every other month (or whatever). That's an important improved service for the average Joe. To smooth things over, have the CFC President explain the CFC's plan for growth from time to time.

B) Improve technology after building sufficient capital:

4) Get a chess server (in the meantime, try to have a deal with an established server like ICC again, to give CFC members server membership).

5) Get a CMA-style quality automated rating service; the CFC rating fee can eventually be lowered if desirable.

6) Revamp the CFC website if necessary. Try to make it user-friendly to total newbies, at least for some links/pages. Including explanation of tournament ad symbols, for example.

C) Expand the Base in earnest (here we and Jean could be parting ways by now):

7) Provide more services, as affordable, so that the CFC becomes more attractive to the average Joe.

8) After accumulating sufficent capital, launch a membership drive involving a multi-city blitz: spend say $1000 per 10 cities on newspaper ads that give the addresses of local chess clubs and details about the CFC and it's website. Use local cable free community announcement channels etc.; anything affordable. Time this to co-incide with organized simultaneous nation-wide simuls that can be advertised too.

9) Recruit fresh organizers: amongst the new members a membership drive picks up, there are bound to be fresh recruits for CFC organizing. Organizers should be prepared to take them under their wing and show them the ropes as soon as possible.

10) Take care and consolidate: all the way through this plan, limit business and operational mistakes. Learn from the past.

11) After sufficent capital is gathered repeat steps 8-10. Do it over and over, over the years, and grow that darn pyramid nice and fat.