$ 400 in 5 hours work !!

[David Ottosen]

Re: $ 400 in 5 hours work !!

Don't worry David. With your philosophy there will be a "chess club" for your old age, that is half a dozen or maybe a dozen of old timers playing between themselves somewhere in some basement with absolutely no outward interest. Those have always existed thanks to the introverted nature of chess players.

You're right - they have always existed, and always will exist. I cannot say the same for the CFC if it doesn't realize that those are the people it should cater to, not the latest junior of the week to reach 2400 that will be quitting chess at age 19 (or staying at 2400 for 25 years complaining about how chess organizers are the problem).

[Paul Bonham]

Re: $ 400 in 5 hours work !!

The type of organizer/person I am is the same you are - I judge my time to be valuable and don't want to waste it without return. Searching for chess sponsorship in North America is an activity where the financial return does not match the effort, or even close. If there were other returns, such as appreciative players, or world class play, maybe it could be considered. None of that exists in this situation.

This is very close to getting to the crux of the problem, but not quite all the way there.

There is not a COMPLETE lack of sponsorship in Canadian chess. So some organizers are finding some sponsors. This means, given David's comment about financial return, that these organizers are going quite the extra mile, probably due solely to their love of providing chess tournaments to the public. Or perhaps a certain organizer knows a certain sponsor willing to put in some sympathy money. Jean states flat out that none of these organizers are even seeking sponsors; he paints them all with the same brush, namely being "lazy dumbells". He then criticizes me for giving credit to sponsors for the work they do, saying I don't know them personally and don't attend their tournaments, therefore my support is worth nothing. Of course, by the very same logic, his criticism is also worth nothing. But his criticism is there in black and white on this public forum, so Canadian chess has to deal with it somehow.

I have already explained the crux of the problem. It isn't lazy dumbell organizers. It isn't even lack of financial return for the work involved in seeking sponsors (that is a symptom, not a cause). The crux of the problem isn't even that potential sponsors do not see value in sponsoring chess (again, a symptom).

Chess isn't tennis, chess isn't poker, chess isn't badminton or volleyball or bowling or curling. The crux of the problem is: in North America, chess has little to no fan appeal, outside of the players who play it.

That and that alone is the crux of the problem. No volunteer or even paid trainer of organizers will change the situation. No amount of organizer training will suddenly have sponsors busting down the doors to have their name associated with chess. No volunteer or paid PR person is going to change how chess is viewed by the public AND by sponsors. Long, boring, quiet, tedium, dull, too much to understand...... At least when the major networks advertise golf, they show golfers pumping fists, breaking or throwing clubs, pounding their chest, dropping to the ground, and all as the crowd roars. A semblance of action at least.

As long as chess doesn't address the crux of the problem as I have stated it, this debate will rage year after year after year. This I can guarantee.

P.S. of all the games / sports that DO attract fans in good numbers from the general public, the one I personally find most surprising in being able to do this is bowling. There is no strategy to bowling, is there? Is it not just try each and every time to get a strike? And if you fail that, get a spare? But despite this, bowling attracts spectators. It has physical action. A ball goes down a long lane and for a few seconds, everyone is enraptured at following the path of the ball. Then an explosion of action at the end as pins go flying. Personally, I'd rather be reading, but there are apparently lots of people willing to pay money to watch this.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: $ 400 in 5 hours work !!

The man who cannot do should at least keep quiet and not disturb those who are doing.

"Holy hypocrite, Batman! Does this mean Jean Hebert will now shutup with his nonsense about organizers not seeking sponsors?"

"Not likely, chum. The criminal mind is nefariously oblivious to any sense of right and wrong. It can even criticize others for that which it itself is doing."

[Jean Hébert]

Re: $ 400 in 5 hours work !!

To try to change what people in the Canadian chess community think about chess and what it should be accomplishing (or trying to accomplish) so that when I'm retired and want to go to a local chess club to play, there will be a local chess club.

Don't worry David. With your philosophy there will be a "chess club" for your old age, that is half a dozen or maybe a dozen of old timers playing between themselves somewhere in some basement with absolutely no outward interest. Those have always existed thanks to the introverted nature of chess players.

[David Ottosen]

Re: $ 400 in 5 hours work !!

But if your time is that precious, why waste it telling people that "looking for sponsors is a pain in the ass" or that sponsors are not interested in chess because of poor ROI ? What is your interest in doing that ?

To try to change what people in the Canadian chess community think about chess and what it should be accomplishing (or trying to accomplish) so that when I'm retired and want to go to a local chess club to play, there will be a local chess club.

The current situation, where the majority of funding and personnel/organizer resource usage from the CFC goes to projects with no relevance towards the membership, is a clear road to those clubs dying. I believe the CFC and the players in the CFC should accept the reality of chess in Canada, and use their very limited resources in the way that has the best impact. In my opinion, there is no person in the world who can look at what the CFC has done in the last 15 years (the approximate extent of my time in organized chess) and say "they've really grown the game in Canada, and Canadian chess is much better off than it was then".

[Jean Hébert]

Re: Hypocrite

[I]To me, a winner exhibits wisdom and understanding, not just creative ability in one specific endeavour.

Well, thank you. I suspected all along that behind that wall of bad faith there was nothing but admiration for me.

[Jean Hébert]

Re: $ 400 in 5 hours work !!

The type of organizer/person I am is the same you are - I judge my time to be valuable and don't want to waste it without return. Searching for chess sponsorship in North America is an activity where the financial return does not match the effort, or even close. If there were other returns, such as appreciative players, or world class play, maybe it could be considered. None of that exists in this situation.

Look at a partial list of players who have played in Canada in the last few years in sponsored events: Ivanchuk, Shirov, Bacrot, Short, Nakamura, Najdisch, Jakovenko, and many, many others. Isn't that "world class play" enough for you ? And as far as I can tell all these guys were quite appreciative.
Nobody ask you to do anything, and I can understand why. But if your time is that precious, why waste it telling people that "looking for sponsors is a pain in the ass" or that sponsors are not interested in chess because of poor ROI ? What is your interest in doing that ? Obviously even if you work in the corporate world, you are still not "world class" and have a lot to learn.
The man who cannot do should at least keep quiet and not disturb those who are doing.

[David Ottosen]

Re: $ 400 in 5 hours work !!

You find that as an organizer finding sponsorship is tiring ? Well, that just tells what kind of organizer you might be and what kind of a person you are. Not necessarily a bad person but a lazy dumbell of an organizer. Obviously the best chance that a capable organizer has to make some money for himself is to find sponsors, private or public. Just sucking out blood from low income chess players your way is a hopeless endeavour.

The type of organizer/person I am is the same you are - I judge my time to be valuable and don't want to waste it without return. Searching for chess sponsorship in North America is an activity where the financial return does not match the effort, or even close. If there were other returns, such as appreciative players, or world class play, maybe it could be considered. None of that exists in this situation.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Hypocrite

Originally Posted by Paul Bonham
Ahhh, so you are the expert on who knows what. Everyone will now submit to a remote brain scan from Jean Hebert, and he will decree what you know and how much of it you know.

So I was wrong to assume that you know very little based on your own words and admissions.

I wonder how many times your fingers convulsed as you typed "I was wrong".

Originally Posted by Paul Bonham
All that one needs to know is that the organizers do their work for the LOVE OF IT. For that one aspect alone, they deserve praise.

How would you know their motivations ? You don't play in their events, you don't attend them to see what is going on and you don't know those people.

Some of them have posted on this board explicitly stating that they do it for the love of it. Are you going to call them LIARS?

Do you think they are doing it for fame / fortune? Hmmmm, maybe for sex? Or maybe to get away from sex? Or maybe for a "few crumbs from the winners table"? Tell us, all-knowing-one, what do they do it for?


Originally Posted by Paul Bonham
If one organizer in particular is doing something bad, his or her tournament will fail. The longstanding organizers with longstanding tournaments are obviously doing it right. You claim they don't even seek sponsors, and you have no insight into that at all. HYPOCRITE!

Your reasoning is desperately simplistic. Since that there are very few "longstanding organizers with longstanding tournaments" should we assume that they were obviously wrong ? And please look into a dictionary for the meaning of the word "hypocrite". You seem to have no clue.

Doing something bad or unpopular isn't the only reason some orgainzers will fail or leave. It's likely the burnout rate for organizers is very high due to the extreme patience and fortitude required.

I am imagining what would happen if you ever needed to cross a dry, hot desert on horseback. You would load the weight of the world on the poor horse, give it no nourishment whatsoever, and whip it constantly to make it go faster. And when it finally collapsed well short of your goal, you would watch it die and berate it for not doing enough for you.


Originally Posted by Paul Bonham
... "while living in the States". I didn't know that disqualified me from commenting on Canadian chess. Last I checked, I still have my Canadian citizenship.

It does not disqualify you from making unfounded and goofy statements. Quite the contrary. You are proven to be uniquely qualified to make them.

My point was already well made, and your weak response can be dismissed.


Originally Posted by Paul Bonham
You yourself show even less than [skin deep knowledge] about corporate sponsorship yet still pass yourself off as an expert.

I am sorry if I have given you the impression that I am an expert on this matter. I have just said essentially that based on observable facts, sponsorship is possible and that to get it one must seek it. That's all. If for you it is enough to pass off as an "expert", does that mean that you, being obviously impressed by my deep insight, know even less than I do?

You specifically wrote in a posting on this board that corporate marketing departments do NOT consider ROI when making sponsorship decisions. David Ottosen does work in corporate marketing and responded, telling you that you were absolutely wrong. You responded with a personal attack against him, as is your modus operandi.

And saying that "based on observable fact, sponsorship is possible and that to get it one must seek it" is like saying "based on observable fact, human eating of apples is possible, and to do it one must seek out and pick the apple from the tree". In your world, sitting in your armchair as a mere player of the game of chess, this is how you see things. You would have us believe that sponsors are like apple trees, dangling apples that magically appear, that both the trees and the apples are in plentiful supply, and all we need do is find the tree and reach out to take the apple. To you, there is almost no work involved; even in extreme drought conditions, the apples are still plentiful and easily obtained.


Originally Posted by Paul Bonham
When castling or en passant were first proposed, I imagine there was a Jean Hebert calling it a silly modification.

Probably not, but between those brilliant proposals there were hundreds of proposals dismissed offhand as pure nonsense from PBs who were subsequently burned to death. Not that I advocate such drastic solution in your case.

Wow, do you really believe that? Are you saying chess was at some point in time seen as a "holy game" and that anyone proposing changes could be burned to death for doing so?

You may not advocate it, but it's obvious that you wish it could be so right now. Yet another insight into the workings of the Jean Hebert elitist mind.


Originally Posted by Paul Bonham
At least my suggestions aren't impinging on standard chess.

If you call introducing "random elements" into the game not "impinging", I wonder what would. There goes the last virtue of your "proposals" by the window.

HELLO! EARTH CALLING! EARTH CALLING JEAN HEBERT! I am not advocating changes TO standard chess. I am creating SEPARATE VARIANTS. Separate, as in not impinging on standard chess. Can your mind grasp that concept?????

You truly exhibit the widest discrepancy between chess ability and everyday thinking ability I have ever witnessed.



Originally Posted by Paul Bonham
All kinds of variants have sprung from chess, and are very popular: bughouse, chess960 to name a few. Should we just disallow anyone to create these variants?

You say chess is not popular but that the variants are "very popular". I wonder what scale you are using. But if those variants are so popular, why do you want to create another one ? Is it in the hope to find the magical game that you can be good at ?

Where did I say chess is not popular? Give us all the link to that quote!

You can't because there's no such quote. I've said chess is not as popular as poker, and I believe I even specified in North America, because obviously in some European and Asian countries, that would not hold.

So now you resort to making things up. Somebody get the butter, this guy's toast.



Originally Posted by Paul Bonham
As I wrote elsewhere, I am your karma, Jean Hebert.

At least you are something. Now I understand why you write so much on this message board. Being part of my karma, even a microscopic part, makes you feel alive and worth something. As the saying goes, "A crumb from a winner's table is better than a feast from a loser's table!"

If I wanted a winner's table, I wouldn't look to you, even if that is how you view yourself. To me, a winner exhibits wisdom and understanding, not just creative ability in one specific endeavour.

[Erik Malmsten]

Re: $ 400 in 5 hours work !!

I'm sure that the annual Keres 6-round active at the Estonian House on Broadview in the 1980-90s had 60 players.

I quickly checked Lawrence Day's chess column at the library's Toronto Star database and the Keres Active had 111 players in 1990 and 134 in 1993. The 1994 event's top section was billed as the Canadian Closed Active Championship. There was also a 2-day 12-round Fuster Memorial Active in 1993.

[Jean Hébert]

Re: Hypocrite

Ahhh, so you are the expert on who knows what. Everyone will now submit to a remote brain scan from Jean Hebert, and he will decree what you know and how much of it you know.

So I was wrong to assume that you know very little based on your own words and admissions.

All that one needs to know is that the organizers do their work for the LOVE OF IT. For that one aspect alone, they deserve praise.

How would you know their motivations ? You don't play in their events, you don't attend them to see what is going on and you don't know those people.

If one organizer in particular is doing something bad, his or her tournament will fail. The longstanding organizers with longstanding tournaments are obviously doing it right. You claim they don't even seek sponsors, and you have no insight into that at all. HYPOCRITE!

Your reasoning is desperately simplistic. Since that there are very few "longstanding organizers with longstanding tournaments" should we assume that they were obviously wrong ? And please look into a dictionary for the meaning of the word "hypocrite". You seem to have no clue.

... "while living in the States". I didn't know that disqualified me from commenting on Canadian chess. Last I checked, I still have my Canadian citizenship.

It does not disqualify you from making unfounded and goofy statements. Quite the contrary. You are proven to be uniquely qualified to make them.

You yourself show(sic) even less than that about corporate sponsorship yet still pass yourself off as an expert.

I am sorry if I have given you the impression that I am an expert on this matter. I have just said essentially that based on observable facts, sponsorship is possible and that to get it one must seek it. That's all. If for you it is enough to pass off as an "expert", does that mean that you, being obviously impressed by my deep insight, know even less than I do?

When castling or en passant were first proposed, I imagine there was a Jean Hebert calling it a silly modification.

Probably not, but between those brilliant proposals there were hundreds of proposals dismissed offhand as pure nonsense from PBs who were subsequently burned to death. Not that I advocate such drastic solution in your case.

At least my suggestions aren't impinging on standard chess.

If you call introducing "random elements" into the game not "impinging", I wonder what would. There goes the last virtue of your "proposals" by the window.

All kinds of variants have sprung from chess, and are very popular: bughouse, chess960 to name a few. Should we just disallow anyone to create these variants?

You say chess is not popular but that the variants are "very popular". I wonder what scale you are using. But if those variants are so popular, why do you want to create another one ? Is it in the hope to find the magical game that you can be good at ?

As I wrote elsewhere, I am your karma, Jean Hebert.

At least you are something. Now I understand why you write so much on this message board. Being part of my karma, even a microscopic part, makes you feel alive and worth something. As the saying goes, "A crumb from a winner's table is better than a feast from a loser's table!"

[Paul Bonham]

Re: $ 400 in 5 hours work !!

Paul, I apologize for my ill-considered remarks earlier. It wasn't the first time that my temper has got the best of me at ChessTalk and, regrettably, it probably won't be the last.

I'm not being critical of you for standing up for organizers. I'm being critical of you for stalking Jean Hebert. He is entitled to his opinions even if you disagree with them.

In some 42 years of playing in chess tournaments, I have never had a problem with an organizer or tournament director.

Well.... I've never seen this before on Chesstalk. What appears to be a genuine apology. I'm not sure what to think, if I accept, will he reply "PSYCHE!"???

Well, it seems sincere. It takes a big person to make such an apology in public, so Peter, I accept and you have my respect.

I guess we can just agree to disagree on whether I'm stalking Hebert. If it appears that I'm doing that, what can I say beyond what I've said already... things should be clear by now.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Talk Talk

Being just a little over the top might not be detrimental to the dealing of any issue. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. What goes around comes around. Those who lives by the sword... Et cetera.

Exactly, Benoit! To which I would add, "fight fire with fire".

[Paul Bonham]

Re: $ 400 in 5 hours work !!

Well said Gary. :)

Chess organizing is a lot of work considering the pay (if any), but dealing with problem players comes with the territory. Personally I find 99% of players are no problem at all. Maybe I've just been lucky.;)

While I can appreciate PB's support for chess organizers, (and this thread is very entertaining indeed) I think some of his comments are "just a little over the top". :(

It hasn't escaped my attention that none of the organizers who are targeted by Jean's rants (which would appear to be non-Quebec organizers in general) have spoken up for themselves. I picture them at home, laughing as they tell whoever will listen, "Oh, look what Jean is saying NOW! Whoo-hoo! HA HA HA!!!"

I suppose everyone except Jean himself could just stay silent, give absolutely no response to any of his rants. Maybe that's what went on before I got involved, i.e. after Jean figuratively knifed Hal Bond in the back well after the Canadian Closed had ended and Jean had escaped with his money.

I just don't like anyone making public elitist self-serving slanderous lies and getting away with it. Since it is my right to comment, I comment, hopefully to at least show that this type of slander can be stood up to. If some find my comments over the top, I have no problem with that. Some people think Don Cherry is over the top, or Fox News is over the top, but they still have a licence to editorialize on the air. If you would rather they didn't, perhaps you should move to China?

And I just love how I'm over the top, but Jean calling organizers "lazy dumbells" on a public forum is perfectly fine even with one of the targeted organizers. Sorry, Bob, good friend and all, you just need to.... wake up and smell the French Roast coffee???

A lot of you seem to forget that this is a forum for comment. So if Jean posts his nonsense here and no one comments, it could appear that there is tacit agreement with what he writes. Even if an organizer isn't offended by it, s/he should still feel it's wrong, and if they feel that way, THIS IS THE PLACE TO EXPRESS IT. Not expressing it implies either ignorance of Hebert's comments or agreement with them.

Gary Ruben, you may not have cried about problem players, but when you write that "I handled the problem", what does that mean? Are you trying to infer that any organizer commenting about it here would be "crying", while doing something else is "handling the problem"? And if that's the case, why do you make so many comments on this forum that could by your own logic be interpreted as "crying"? Obviously, it's not crying, no one is crying, even you are not crying, we are all just making our feelings and opinions known.

Sometimes even the best of us just can't see the forum for the feelings.

[Paul Bonham]

Hypocrite

That's a new twist. Not knowing has never stopped you before.

Ahhh, so you are the expert on who knows what. Everyone will now submit to a remote brain scan from Jean Hebert, and he will decree what you know and how much of it you know.

You have been praising people you know very little about or about what they have done (more embarrassing than anything else for them)...

You have been criticising them with even less knowledge. All that one needs to know is that the organizers do their work for the LOVE OF IT. For that one aspect alone, they deserve praise. Without them doing it for the love of it, there is no money to pay others to do it for profit.

If one organizer in particular is doing something bad, his or her tournament will fail. The longstanding organizers with longstanding tournaments are obviously doing it right. You claim they don't even seek sponsors, and you have no insight into that at all. HYPOCRITE!

...you have been commenting on canadian chess and its problems with skin deep knowledge of them while living in the States...

Oooooh, "while living in the States". I didn't know that disqualified me from commenting on Canadian chess. Why not just make it "while living outside Quebec"? Or how about "while not agreeing with Jean Hebert"?

Last I checked, I still have my Canadian citizenship. And last I checked, I am still registered on this forum, which allows me to comment. I know, I know, you HATE it when others comment whom you look down your nose at. Easy to dismiss them as people with only "skin deep knowledge".

You yourself show even less than that about corporate sponsorship yet still pass yourself off as an expert. HYPOCRITE! And when a David Ottosen comes along, who works in corporate marketing for a company that is (was) interested in chess sponsorship, and he tells you your views are nonsense, that corporate marketing departments DO care about ROI, you launch into a personal attack.

That's the way you deal with making mistakes. I"m surprised people that have beaten you over the chessboard are still alive to talk about it.

...you have been suggesting silly modifications to the most spreaded and respected thinking game on the planet while being hardly more than a beginner at it...

When castling or en passant were first proposed, I imagine there was a Jean Hebert calling it a silly modification. At least my suggestions aren't impinging on standard chess. All kinds of variants have sprung from chess, and are very popular: bughouse, chess960 to name a few. Should we just disallow anyone to create these variants? Should we, Jean? Do they leave a bad taste in your mouth?

ATTENTION EARTHLINGS: By Royal Decree of Jean Hebert, no further chess variants are allowed. All existing variants will no longer be permitted, and all records of them destroyed.

And really, Jean, I'm hardly more than a beginner? Here we are again, Jean Hebert speaking of something he has no knowledge of. HYPOCRITE!

...and most importantly you have been critisizing and trying to insult me for the sheer pleasure of it on the basis of one or two posts that somehow displeased the all important PB, while disregarding and disputing out of bad faith and ignorance every bit of information contrary to your beliefs posted by numerous people, me included.

As I wrote elsewhere, I am your karma, Jean Hebert. You likely have worse karma than me to worry about, but you won't worry.... until it hits you.

The words "I can't comment on that" should have been applied to just about every topic you have touched on this message board. At this point you have dug yourself a hole so deep that no one really expects you to turn around and start acting decently if only by keeping quiet.

I know you are, but what am I?

The hole I've dug is hopefully the one where we can bury your false assertions about organizers outside of Quebec.