What can Canada do to nurture its chess talents?

[Tom O'Donnell]

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

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!!!:)

I wish I had more dollars in my pocket rather than having it picked so Canada can host the Olympics - an event which I have absolutely zero interest in. What else should I expect from a country that has had thugs like Patrice Cormier and Todd Bertuzzi as its representatives?

[Hugh Brodie]

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

Let's eliminate membership fees and rating fees completely.
The national/provincial organization takes a percentage of the entry fees - or a fixed amount per player (with some sort of minimum - and maybe a maximum).

So - 50 players at $50. Charge 10% (or call it a "$5 rating fee") which would be $250 (of the $2500 total) for the CFC.

Another activity in which I participate does this - so there's no hassle about checking for membership cards at the beginning/during/end of an event. There's no magazine (online or on paper) - but websites and discussion boards keep people up to date. No physical "head office" either - the moneys collected are mostly used for international expenses.

[Paul Bonham]

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

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.

Kevin, you can't get specifics out of Jean Hebert. He simply doesn't have them.

David Ottosen showed Jean how out-to-lunch he is about corporate chess sponsorship, but gave Jean the chance to give some specifics about his views. The result? A big fat zero.

I don't disagree with every view Jean holds; for example, I made pretty much the same point as Jean did about the base, a few weeks ago in a thread about attracting new CFC members from the general public. I wrote that these newbies would stay around a while until they figured out that they're never going to beat players who have been learning opening lines from ECO since they were 3 or 4 years old. Once the newbies realize that they they aren't ever going to be able to say "I came, I saw, I kicked butt", they will leave. Jean made basically the same point in reference to the base.

But for every correct view Jean may have, there's at least 2 or 3 that one must call (graciously) ridiculous. He really believes that organizers are lax or lazy if they aren't constantly bringing in corporate sponsors. He really believes that even in this horrible economy, there are corporations willing to put money into chess if ONLY someone would ask them. He doesn't get it. He's in a dream world. And when you press him for specifics on any of his views, he just clams up and becomes very critical of you because you DARE to question him. There's no substance there at all.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

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

But for every correct view Jean may have, there's at least 2 or 3 that one must call (graciously) ridiculous. He really believes that organizers are lax or lazy if they aren't constantly bringing in corporate sponsors. He really believes that even in this horrible economy, there are corporations willing to put money into chess if ONLY someone would ask them. He doesn't get it. He's in a dream world. And when you press him for specifics on any of his views, he just clams up and becomes very critical of you because you DARE to question him. There's no substance there at all.

The full-of-titled-players tournament - Cappalle-de-Grande - managed to create a 30 kEuro prize fund tournament with an entry fee 50E (see the invitation form http://www.cappelle-chess.fr/en2/use...ppelle2010.pdf )
About 150 are title players (GM/IM http://www.cappelle-chess.fr/fr2/default.php?page=3819 ) and 200-250 not titled ( http://www.cappelle-chess.fr/fr2/default.php?page=3818 ). A simple math 250*50=12.5kE. Thus, another 20kE should come from somewhere... (and probably more to compensate some higher-profile GMs).

As I understand, Jean would like to see such tournaments here, to see some financial help to perspective players, to see chess as not only a pastime affair, and to see the CFC really acting.

However, this thread gives a feeling that nobody really cares about GMs and IMs - a bunch of players who would come and take our prizes Thus let's make an environment where only mediocre players would prosper :D


---
and to keep a chess960 theme alive :D:

Let’s wrap up this “Bisik-Bisik” session with one last question: What do you think about the future of Fischer Random, Seirawan Chess or any other types of chess variant?

Kasparov I have always liked the idea of choosing a few decent positions. And, I don’t think you need more than 15 to 20, out of the 960 possible random chess positions, many of which violate our sense for normal chess geometry. Any change of the position is a challenge, but 10 to 15 to 20 positions can be chosen, and I believe that in the future, every year, we should start with a new position. Again, it should just be one position. I feel an insult if players should start with something that is totally ridiculous, and you have three minutes to prepare… No, I mean, come on, chess is also about some research. You don’t want to have the same extensive thing, fine. But, you have one year of playing one position, which means that players can actually get adjusted and they could do a little bit of research. So at least you have five, six opening moves that are theory now and then you go on to another position. But, if you just want to eliminate everything and call it purity – no, it is not purity, it’s nonsense. So, again, there is some sense in it, but you have to be reasonable.
http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6113

[Kevin Pacey]

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

Kevin, you can't get specifics out of Jean
I don't disagree with every view Jean holds; for example, I made pretty much the same point as Jean did about the base, a few weeks ago in a thread about attracting new CFC members from the general public. I wrote that these newbies would stay around a while until they figured out that they're never going to beat players who have been learning opening lines from ECO since they were 3 or 4 years old. Once the newbies realize that they they aren't ever going to be able to say "I came, I saw, I kicked butt", they will leave. Jean made basically the same point in reference to the base.

Yes, I know much of the base of the pryamid is 'dynamic', for whatever reason(s) (the kick-butt fantasy turned sour that you refer to, for example): the CFC, similar to organized Bridge, etc., historically has a ~33% annual turnover rate of membership (i.e. old members being replaced by an influx of new ones). That was until about the middle of the last decade, when membership sank like a stone. It has since stabilized at a low level afaik.

Since the membership is dynamic, the CFC ought to continuously strive and WORK at increasing the influx of new members, so that overall membership climbs. The base can be increased in more significant numbers than the peak.

Improving the base is not necessarily incompatible with whatever Jean exactly is dreaming of. Increasing the base first makes sense though. I know Jean and others may want to try to improve their tournament profits sooner, say by killing class prizes, but that's not necessarily good for the Federation, nor the size and number of tournaments in the long run. Plus prize structures for tournaments are set by local organizers, not the CFC. Jean basically needs to plead with every one of them to change their ways, if he hopes to get what he wants (i.e. no more class prizes).

[Kevin Pacey]

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

Let's eliminate membership fees and rating fees completely.
The national/provincial organization takes a percentage of the entry fees - or a fixed amount per player (with some sort of minimum - and maybe a maximum).

So - 50 players at $50. Charge 10% (or call it a "$5 rating fee") which would be $250 (of the $2500 total) for the CFC.

Another activity in which I participate does this - so there's no hassle about checking for membership cards at the beginning/during/end of an event. There's no magazine (online or on paper) - but websites and discussion boards keep people up to date. No physical "head office" either - the moneys collected are mostly used for international expenses.

Might work, Hugh, for all I know. However its quite the change and it could easily resemble a half-baked experiment gone horribly wrong if all the ramifications are not thought out by the CFC carefully, and members and organizers are not prepared for the change.

I invite everyone to take a look at my 11-point plan again, and tell me whether too much of it is a fantasy. I think it's doable, at least to some extent, if the CFC has patience, blunders less, and plans for the first membership drive, with the will to actually do work. The order of the steps in the plan aren't necessarily set in stone. Plus there's lots of additional little things to improve membership that could be thought of.

[Gary Ruben]

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

Hi Kevin,

Chess is lucky. It has the CFC to look after promoting the game and finding the organizers.

Probably there are other forces at play here. Like the readily available servers.

Personally, I don't care if they send Olympic teams this year. The current Olympic format lends itself well to using a Swiss Gambit for the also rans. Strategic loses can improve future pairings and final placement.

[Carl Bilodeau]

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

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.

To not separate prizes for girls is simply a very bad idea. This is the way it is in FQE. CCF should not make the same mistake. My daugters will not play in a dominated boy environment from age 8 to age 17. Forget it. I don't see the necessity for my girls to experiment this minority experience for ten years long. I have been in the army and it is not something easy for most girls to be a minority in a boys group.

I spoke with the new FQE president in september about girls and women in FQE and he told me that he does not want to promote chess for girls or women since girls already dominate boys at schools so we must put the energy on boys!!!!

He says that the teenager boys are afraid to tell their girlfriend that they play chess since it looks "nerds" so we must put the energy on boys. To me this does'nt make sense, bring competitions for girls and the boys will have beautiful teenagers girls to go out with in their regular tournaments.

Me and my wife we concluded that we can not meet our educative goals in such an unfair system.

Eveybody knows that by mixing girls and boys in major tournaments means that girls will be a minority. Try to find any kind of explanation (brain, fight, self confidence, fathers of etchnical community, Islam), the results will anyway be the same: they will be a minority if you don't seperate them.

I went in WYCC in Vietnam and in Turkey and it was 50% boys and 50% girls and this is fair. To see all those muslim girls play chess is fantastics.

Quebec tax payers gives us 100000$ per year in tournaments that will create a majority of boy chess players. This is unfair and simply disgusting in 2010.

Carl

[Carl Bilodeau]

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

Kevin, you can't get specifics out of Jean Hebert. He simply doesn't have them.

David Ottosen showed Jean how out-to-lunch he is about corporate chess sponsorship, but gave Jean the chance to give some specifics about his views. The result? A big fat zero.

I don't disagree with every view Jean holds; for example, I made pretty much the same point as Jean did about the base, a few weeks ago in a thread about attracting new CFC members from the general public. I wrote that these newbies would stay around a while until they figured out that they're never going to beat players who have been learning opening lines from ECO since they were 3 or 4 years old. Once the newbies realize that they they aren't ever going to be able to say "I came, I saw, I kicked butt", they will leave. Jean made basically the same point in reference to the base.

But for every correct view Jean may have, there's at least 2 or 3 that one must call (graciously) ridiculous. He really believes that organizers are lax or lazy if they aren't constantly bringing in corporate sponsors. He really believes that even in this horrible economy, there are corporations willing to put money into chess if ONLY someone would ask them. He doesn't get it. He's in a dream world. And when you press him for specifics on any of his views, he just clams up and becomes very critical of you because you DARE to question him. There's no substance there at all.

In French chesstalk this message would be automatically removed because of personal attack. Is there two differents policies here? Or is someone doing politics FOR THE FQE in French? There has been at least 10 deletion in french during the weekend at different times.

We need a chess board equitable without any FQE interference.

Carl

[Kevin Pacey]

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

Hi Kevin,

Chess is lucky. It has the CFC to look after promoting the game and finding the organizers.

Probably there are other forces at play here. Like the readily available servers.

Personally, I don't care if they send Olympic teams this year. The current Olympic format lends itself well to using a Swiss Gambit for the also rans. Strategic loses can improve future pairings and final placement.

Pointing to the servers and the Internet in general as the primary reason for the drop in CFC membership last decade seems fishy to me. That's because the USCF faced the same thing, and yet it's membership didn't drop so badly. I vaguely recall being told that the USCF had a junior (scholastic?) program (unlike the CFC) that helped it weather the effects of the Internet, but I find that a bit unconvincing. No, I think my theory of CFC rating deflation and the lapse of print magazine service, etc., due to CFC mismanagement hold more water.

Really, there's no excuse why the CFC did not long ago try some sort of a membership drive of the kind I've suggested. They should have (and still should, if possible) get off their hinies and proactively seek out new members from the general public, rather than sitting back and see who shows up at tournaments that are mainly advertised in CFC circles. With such an incestuous dependence on mainly its current members to participate in its events, it's not surprising the CFC membership level stagnated at the best of times.

[Gary Ruben]

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

Pointing to the servers and the Internet in general as the primary reason for the drop in CFC membership last decade seems fishy to me. That's because the USCF faced the same thing, and yet it's membership didn't drop so badly. I vaguely recall being told that the USCF had a junior (scholastic?) program (unlike the CFC) that helped it weather the effects of the Internet, but I find that a bit unconvincing. No, I think my theory of CFC rating deflation and the lapse of print magazine service, etc., due to CFC mismanagement hold more water.

Really, there's no excuse why the CFC did not long ago try some sort of a membership drive of the kind I've suggested. They should have (and still should, if possible) get off their hinies and proactively seek out new members from the general public, rather than sitting back and see who shows up at tournaments that are mainly advertised in CFC circles. With such an incestuous dependence on mainly its current members to participate in its events, it's not surprising the CFC membership level stagnated at the best of times.

Well, they should know how it used to be done. I think a couple of the governors were around when I was a kid.

I don't know about the rating deflation part. It only depends on if they have low ratings in Canada and are almost superstars with their FIDE ratings. I always liked coffee house chess. Whoever leaves with the most money has the highest rating. Would you prefer to scrap the CFC ratings and go only with FIDE ratings?

Membership drives are always good. I guess the provincial organizations would have to be involved.

[Kevin Pacey]

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

I always liked coffee house chess. Whoever leaves with the most money has the highest rating. Would you prefer to scrap the CFC ratings and go only with FIDE ratings?

Coffee house chess was big for a long time before many decades ago, afaik. Plus there were patrons for the players.

I go downtown here in Ottawa once every few months with friends to play oriental board games in a cafe with friends. No money involved. In previous years we combined it with double chess or sometimes straight speed chess.

At the moment my FIDE rating is much lower than my CFC rating, so I kind of flinch at the thought of ditching CFC ratings. Looking at it impartially, doing so would save the CFC lots of labour and bucks. Actually, one might ask, what then would be the compelling reason to have a CFC membership, since organizers apparently need not require all participants in an event to be CFC members any more (as there would be of course then no desire existing to CFC rate an event).

However, in order to have an event FIDE rated, you have to be a CFC member, since going through the CFC is the only way to get an event in Canada FIDE rated at the moment.

Many people, I think, want a national (CFC) rating system, possibly, for example, if only to see how they stack up against a pool of almost entirely Canadian opponents. Plus I don't know if FIDE's website/database allows one to sort players by nation, alphabetically for example, or by top players, juniors etc. so that a Canadian can see how he stacks up against only fellow Canadians, by FIDE rating. The CFC is offering a service like that now. If FIDE would, it might lessen the value of having other, non-international, otb rating systems.

Membership drives are always good. I guess the provincial organizations would have to be involved.

The provincial organizations could be involved, though naturally it would be up to each to decide on how much money to chip in for the venture. The CFC would contribute the most by far everywhere a drive took place. The trick, after gathering enough money, would be to sign up people (for example using sleepy governors, who are handy) to place advertisements, prepare chess clubs for a possible influx of newbies, have volunteers for complimentary simuls (stocked with information sheets) in target cities if possible, and have the CFC ready to handle any surge of interest that comes its way early on.

[Paul Bonham]

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

Yes, I know much of the base of the pryamid is 'dynamic', for whatever reason(s) (the kick-butt fantasy turned sour that you refer to, for example): the CFC, similar to organized Bridge, etc., historically has a ~33% annual turnover rate of membership (i.e. old members being replaced by an influx of new ones). That was until about the middle of the last decade, when membership sank like a stone. It has since stabilized at a low level afaik.

Since the membership is dynamic, the CFC ought to continuously strive and WORK at increasing the influx of new members, so that overall membership climbs. The base can be increased in more significant numbers than the peak.

Improving the base is not necessarily incompatible with whatever Jean exactly is dreaming of. Increasing the base first makes sense though. I know Jean and others may want to try to improve their tournament profits sooner, say by killing class prizes, but that's not necessarily good for the Federation, nor the size and number of tournaments in the long run. Plus prize structures for tournaments are set by local organizers, not the CFC. Jean basically needs to plead with every one of them to change their ways, if he hopes to get what he wants (i.e. no more class prizes).

Kevin, I have an idea that might not work logistically for each and every weekend Swiss out there, but could be tried for a few of the larger ones.

My idea is to eliminate all class prizes AND eliminating prizes to the top finishers of a tournament (other than perhaps reimbursement of their entry fees if they paid one or the equivalent if they didn't pay one; trophies / titles would also be awarded to the top finishers). The bulk of prize monies would instead be awarded as brilliancy prizes and as what I would call "strategy prizes". We all know what a brilliancy prize is, a "strategy prize" is awarded based on evidence of superior long-term strategy superbly executed.

The idea being that (based on a fair and anonymous method of awarding such brilliancy and strategy prizes) any player in the entire tournament could potentially win, but the most creative players and/or the most strategical players will be the most rewarded players. A secondary benefit that I see would be that every player would be striving not just to win, but to win IN STYLE.

The primary drawback is the time and effort that it would take to award the prizes. The prizes would have to be awarded some weeks after the event to allow time for all game scoresheets to be properly compiled and examined. There would be some work involved, because volunteer proofer(s) would have to rewrite and proof all scoresheets and make "anonymous" copies, in which the names and ratings of the players involved are not recorded (each anonymous copy would have an ID that would later be used to identify the players if the game was to win a prize). Note that it is in each player's best interest to record their games correctly and legibly, since each correct scoresheet is a ticket into the prize pool.

These anonymous copies would be submitted to let's say 3 separate judges who were not at the event, who would be volunteers that would examine each game for signs of brilliancies or overall strategical excellence and nominate those they felt qualified. Any game or section of a game that was nominated by 2 of the 3 judges would move into final judging, which would be say 5 top prizes for each category (brilliancy and stragegy). Only after awarding the prizes would the judges and everyone else find out who actually won them, and monies would be sent to them. Each top category winner could be further entered into a "Brilliancy Of The Year" and a "Strategy Of The Year" award.

Perhaps class and overall prizes could even be kept in place and chess could sell this idea of brilliancy and strategy prizes to corporate sponsors. Telling a marketing executive that their company name, rather than being tied to a name and face that no one outside of chess will ever know, will be tied to a profound and brilliant calculation or to a flawless long-term strategy just have them getting out their chequebook.

As I wrote above, the logistics of this would prevent it from being ubiquitous, but it could be tried as an experiment and see how the players like it. Perhaps a solution that grows the base of the pyramid AND strengthens those at the top and even brings in more sponsors is simply to change what we reward in chess -- from points, which may come via boring and uncreative means, to ideas!

Perhaps if it wasn't the points they earn, but instead the moves they make, that gets chess players recognition, there would be more creativity unleashed, and even opening novelties might become more frequent.

But I still think that for the full potential of growth in chess to be realized, chess960 needs to be incorporated in parallel with standard chess. There's big inertia to be overcome there, big investments in standard opening theory that will resist any shift to "and now for something completely different".

And this is where the base of the pyramid is critical. If the base of the pyramid is average Joe's and average Jane's (I think I'm the first one to include the fairer sex in this discussion?), and we want to keep them around rather than see them going in and out a revolving door, they need to have nourishment. That nourishment could be the type of prizes I'm suggesting above, but that probably won't be enough. They need to feel a greater sense of pride and accomplishment in what they are doing. Having them repeatedly losing games in the first 12 moves because they simply haven't read their ECO book cover to cover is the wrong way. Having them help to WRITE NEW ENTRIES into a future chess960 ECO book and get their names associated with new discoveries is the right way!

[Kevin Pacey]

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

Kevin, I have an idea that might not work logistically for each and every weekend Swiss out there, but could be tried for a few of the larger ones.

My idea is to eliminate all class prizes AND eliminating prizes to the top finishers of a tournament (other than perhaps reimbursement of their entry fees if they paid one or the equivalent if they didn't pay one; trophies / titles would also be awarded to the top finishers). The bulk of prize monies would instead be awarded as brilliancy prizes and as what I would call "strategy prizes". We all know what a brilliancy prize is, a "strategy prize" is awarded based on evidence of superior long-term strategy superbly executed.

The idea being that (based on a fair and anonymous method of awarding such brilliancy and strategy prizes) any player in the entire tournament could potentially win, but the most creative players and/or the most strategical players will be the most rewarded players. A secondary benefit that I see would be that every player would be striving not just to win, but to win IN STYLE.

The primary drawback is the time and effort that it would take to award the prizes. The prizes would have to be awarded some weeks after the event to allow time for all game scoresheets to be properly compiled and examined. There would be some work involved, because volunteer proofer(s) would have to rewrite and proof all scoresheets and make "anonymous" copies, in which the names and ratings of the players involved are not recorded (each anonymous copy would have an ID that would later be used to identify the players if the game was to win a prize). Note that it is in each player's best interest to record their games correctly and legibly, since each correct scoresheet is a ticket into the prize pool.

These anonymous copies would be submitted to let's say 3 separate judges who were not at the event, who would be volunteers that would examine each game for signs of brilliancies or overall strategical excellence and nominate those they felt qualified. Any game or section of a game that was nominated by 2 of the 3 judges would move into final judging, which would be say 5 top prizes for each category (brilliancy and stragegy). Only after awarding the prizes would the judges and everyone else find out who actually won them, and monies would be sent to them. Each top category winner could be further entered into a "Brilliancy Of The Year" and a "Strategy Of The Year" award.

Perhaps class and overall prizes could even be kept in place and chess could sell this idea of brilliancy and strategy prizes to corporate sponsors. Telling a marketing executive that their company name, rather than being tied to a name and face that no one outside of chess will ever know, will be tied to a profound and brilliant calculation or to a flawless long-term strategy just have them getting out their chequebook.

As I wrote above, the logistics of this would prevent it from being ubiquitous, but it could be tried as an experiment and see how the players like it. Perhaps a solution that grows the base of the pyramid AND strengthens those at the top and even brings in more sponsors is simply to change what we reward in chess -- from points, which may come via boring and uncreative means, to ideas!

Perhaps if it wasn't the points they earn, but instead the moves they make, that gets chess players recognition, there would be more creativity unleashed, and even opening novelties might become more frequent.

But I still think that for the full potential of growth in chess to be realized, chess960 needs to be incorporated in parallel with standard chess. There's big inertia to be overcome there, big investments in standard opening theory that will resist any shift to "and now for something completely different".

And this is where the base of the pyramid is critical. If the base of the pyramid is average Joe's and average Jane's (I think I'm the first one to include the fairer sex in this discussion?), and we want to keep them around rather than see them going in and out a revolving door, they need to have nourishment. That nourishment could be the type of prizes I'm suggesting above, but that probably won't be enough. They need to feel a greater sense of pride and accomplishment in what they are doing. Having them repeatedly losing games in the first 12 moves because they simply haven't read their ECO book cover to cover is the wrong way. Having them help to WRITE NEW ENTRIES into a future chess960 ECO book and get their names associated with new discoveries is the right way!

Brilliancy and strategy prizes are fine, but unfortunately it takes some co-operation by the opponent(s) to win one. Especially if most opponents make the type of poor mistake(s) that turn a potential gem into a dime-a-dozen collect-the-material-and-win-fest. So, making the only prizes available brialliancy and strategy ones can easily be seen as unfair to the strongest/highest point-gathering players, who have to hope for quality opposition in as many of their games as possible.

I've thought many times about whether chess is on the verge of dying out, and I've sort of re-assured myself that it won't happen for a while, at least in my lifetime. There are threats (playing programs, databases, deeper and deeper theory), but after a while I concluded that chess is being potentially exhausted at a rate less alarming than I once thought it was. In addition, as was once explained to me, electrons can pass only so quickly for purposes of computating, and that puts an upper limit on how fast chess playing computer technology will get (not that we are close to that yet).

There are only so many quality (2400+) games played per year, and much theory, even if it exists, is duplicated stuff, or it is lost in old books and people's notes scattered around the globe, beyond the reach of those who might try to compile it perfectly. Plus, there are many less promising openings, for White especially, that can be played without paying much of a price, even at the top level, if the players had the nerve to do so. Larsen did once on a regular basis, with 1.b3 for example. That's the sort of opening that's hard to subject to theoretical exhaustion, because the books think Black's fine after about ten moves in many lines, so investigation simply stops.

When the day comes that FIDE agrees that it is necessary to make chess960 (or whatever variant) the new standard, chess will be following a pattern of periodic rule changes that has happened in centuries past (I understand that the oriental game of Go, with it's 19x19 board is considered played out by it's pros, so they've moved to a 21x21 board - in spite of the fact computers are still duffers at it since there are so many legal moves even in the old standard!). However I think even then computers remain a threat to the new standard chess, if only because people will need to be vigiliant against computer-assisted cheating. It sort of hurts the atmosphere of a tournament a bit when head-gear is forbidden, as is going far from the playing hall, for fear of computer cheaters.

In any case, chess960 has so many possibilities (barring some starting positions that are considered fairly uninteresting - including the current standard starting position:)) that making an ECO for it is impossible - a huge database might be feasible, but who would memorize it, unless, as Kasparov has suggested, make a given chess960 starting position the standard for every ten years or so, so that pros can study it and evolve theory (ouch).

[Carl Bilodeau]

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

Let's eliminate membership fees and rating fees completely.
The national/provincial organization takes a percentage of the entry fees - or a fixed amount per player (with some sort of minimum - and maybe a maximum).

So - 50 players at $50. Charge 10% (or call it a "$5 rating fee") which would be $250 (of the $2500 total) for the CFC.

Another activity in which I participate does this - so there's no hassle about checking for membership cards at the beginning/during/end of an event. There's no magazine (online or on paper) - but websites and discussion boards keep people up to date. No physical "head office" either - the moneys collected are mostly used for international expenses.

I would rather say let increase the membership fees and rating fees. The problem is more in the mentality like it has been said previouly here.

We have a player from Quebec city who went to live in Scottland. He wrote on a forum that he always thought that the fees should go down. But in Scottland the Membership club fees were more than a 100 dollars. He realized then that many people go to the club, they have a lot of services and when they do a tournament in their small city they have more than 200 players.

When you pay a 100$ for a club, if a friend ask you to go to the cinema you will say: "I go to the club tonight, I paid 100$ so I have to go."

To pay more to get exactly the same is not interesting. But giving quality and events is what make people agree to pay more.

No money, no funny. If someone can not pay then he could sell chocolate bars or find a job, it is not our problem. If it is free nobody will come on the long term and chess will die. If it is expensive people will respect your events and chess.

Carl