$ 400 in 5 hours work !!

[David Ottosen]

Re: $ 400 in 5 hours work !!

Do you have any thoughts what should be? (and at the end: Who will implement?)

Yes I believe I've stated clearly where I think the CFC should focus their resources. IF I were inclined to take on this job (which I am not), I would be campaigning on this platform (caveat: I am not up to date on CFC finances or obligations and some of this might not be realistic):

Vision: To build the CFC membership by supporting local clubs and tournaments

Action plan:
a) Reduce the cost of playing:

1) Drop the rating fee in half, and outsource the rating function. This is a data entry job that requires little skill other than precision and should not be the job of an executive or manager. It's not 100% clear to me what the staffing situation is at the CFC but it should be nearly nothing.
2) Reduce CFC membership fee to something like $10. $20 maximum. I believe from my time as an organizer that it was a huge roadblock to new players when they showed up for a tourney and I told them $36 to join the CFC, $20 for the tourney, and yeah, you are pretty much likely gonna get $0 back while a bunch of experienced players get the prizes.

b) Focus resources and reward organizers:

1) Make a percentage of every membership payable to the organizer who submits it. This gives organizers a direct incentive to look for new members, and to retain existing members.
2) Drop all junior, women, and Olympiad program funding/organizational resources. If there are organizers who wish to run these events, wonderful. They provide no long term benefit to the CFC in terms of membership.
3) Require players to pay all FIDE fees for their ratings. FIDE ratings are a luxury for the majority of players (for example, I have one. I don't need one. If the CFC has spent a dollar on mine in history, it is money that is wasted). If you are a professional player that needs one (or needs a title), it should be no different than an engineer who has to pay the fees for his professional memberships.

c) Emphasize local results:

1) Re-design the newsletter/magazine to essentially be a compilation of provincial magazines. There would be no coverage of world chess. I believe that seeing their names in the "National magazine" is a huge motivator for people to come and keep playing. Seeing Joe Blow won the U1400 and realizing every serious player in Canada sees that means a lot to him.
2) Simplify the web site heavily to simply be contact information for clubs, tournament announcements, required rules/forms, and ratings. The CFC website should be like wikipedia - a place you go for information. It should not try to be like Yahoo where you visit every day, and should not take up very much resources. My ideal site would be the main banner, then 6 large font links:
Chess Clubs, Tournaments, Ratings, Resources, FAQ, About Us. Not sure about the discussion board.
3) Return the Canadian closed to a round robin format featuring each provincial champion and a small number of players invited by rating. This will re-emphasize the importance of the provincial championships, and create more interest in the closed at the local level.

My belief is that chess will not grow in Canada from miraculously developing one Magnus Carlsen. It will grow from developing 10,000 Bob Smiths.

I recognize some of these things might be against CFC constitution, or would have no chance of passing governors, or whatever, but that is how I think the CFC has to move forward - become lean, realize what it can and can't do, and realize what is stopping their customers from coming back. Right now, I believe it's the cost of the game, a feeling like the CFC only cares about juniors/titled players, and that the local clubs/remote provinces feel no connection to the CFC.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: $ 400 in 5 hours work !!

Ok, let's restate then - it's silly to make a motion like this with no actual requirement to do anything, that will only lead to subjective complaining after the fact from people who believe that "significant" efforts were not actually undertaken.

I asked for a definition of "significant efforts" from Bob, who is a seconder, I think, of the motion and understood the reply to be the proposed efforts would be put in the bid.

In any case, I wouldn't try to get sponsorship for CFC championships and Olympics on an event by event basis done by the tournament organizers each year. I like a more professional approach.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: $ 400 in 5 hours work !!

Ok, let's restate then - it's silly to make a motion like this with no actual requirement to do anything

At first, Bob cited only a part of his motions. The whole text is at http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/showthread.php?t=799
The second, they are only motions (and not yet official). They might be amended, defeated, etc.

A well run organization has to have a clear vision that is realistic - the CFC has neither a clear vision nor a realistic view of what they can actually accomplish.

Do you have any thoughts what should be? (and at the end: Who will implement?)

[David Ottosen]

Re: $ 400 in 5 hours work !!

It can hardly be called "unreasonable" since it is purely symbolic: only unmeasurable "efforts" are asked and no result is demanded. What it might do is simply to modestly raise organizers awareness that if they bid for a national event, they are expected to meet the challenge honourably and not just put up a playing site with tables and chairs. If this is unreasonable for you...

Ok, let's restate then - it's silly to make a motion like this with no actual requirement to do anything, that will only lead to subjective complaining after the fact from people who believe that "significant" efforts were not actually undertaken. I would feel the same about a motion that required participants in the Canadian closed to "make significant efforts" to support chess tournaments in Canada. If you want to put something in the rules, make it clear what is expected so that all parties involved can understand what they are expected to do.

Vague motions with unclear goals and objectives are among the reasons the CFC is doing poorly; is the CFC handbook not full of enough chaff already that more unclear stuff needs to be added?

I recall a project (actually multiple projects) proposed during my time on the ACA board that sounded kinda cool, was interesting, and was chess related; however, the actual return for it was debatable at best, full of a lot of speculation such as "it will be good for chess". These are the kinds of thoughts the CFC and other canadian organizations need to get out of their heads - projects should have a clear return because there are simply not enough resources to just do whatever and hope it somehow works out for the best.

A well run organization has to have a clear vision that is realistic - the CFC has neither a clear vision nor a realistic view of what they can actually accomplish.

[Kerry Liles]

Re: $ 400 in 5 hours work !!

It can hardly be called "unreasonable" since it is purely symbolic: only unmeasurable "efforts" are asked and no result is demanded. What it might do is simply to modestly raise organizers awareness that if they bid for a national event, they are expected to meet the challenge honourably and not just put up a playing site with tables and chairs. If this is unreasonable for you...

I find the wording rather vague too, but I understand their intent. It is often quite difficult to translate intentions into clear language (in any language). Measuring how much effort an organizer (or organization) puts into 'attempting' to acquire sponsorship seems very hard. It is easy to spot complete failure and complete success, but various values between those two extremes are very subjectively measured. What one person might consider 'reasonable effort' might well be considered merely providing lip service to the issue. I have not been able to think of a way to word their motion to make it clear and measurable.

Obviously, getting sponsorship for chess events (especially in the current economic climate) is hard. Several events have shown that it is not impossible.

Note that different classes of events may have very different sponsorship requirements: for example, top-class events might include appearance fees and complimentary lodging/airfare etc for invited GMs; at the local level, it is quite a different story.

[Jean Hébert]

Re: $ 400 in 5 hours work !!

Can't you make the difference between unreasonable requirements, rules and guidelines, and reasonable ones ? -JH

Yes, and I believe adding some clause that organizers are required to make "signficant efforts" to find sponsors to fit under "unreasonable requirement". You are free to disagree, and the market (ie, the willingness of organizers to bid on events with this restriction in place) will tell us who is right.

It can hardly be called "unreasonable" since it is purely symbolic: only unmeasurable "efforts" are asked and no result is demanded. What it might do is simply to modestly raise organizers awareness that if they bid for a national event, they are expected to meet the challenge honourably and not just put up a playing site with tables and chairs. If this is unreasonable for you...

[David Ottosen]

Re: $ 400 in 5 hours work !!

I wish I had a "powerful voice in canadian chess" but I am not that delusional. But I do note that you on the other hand firmly believe to be the one owning the truth about "how chess should be handled in Canada".

No need for false humility. People will obviously listen when you speak given your experience and status in the chess scene in Canada. I do believe that my viewpoint is definitely the correct one however.

Can't you make the difference between unreasonable requirements, rules and guidelines, and reasonable ones ?

Yes, and I believe adding some clause that organizers are required to make "signficant efforts" to find sponsors to fit under "unreasonable requirement". You are free to disagree, and the market (ie, the willingness of organizers to bid on events with this restriction in place) will tell us who is right.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Organizer Obligation to Seek Sponsors

The is true, but knowing that a player is from Toronto does not tell me anything about him. Knowing that he from a postcode, I can get demographic data for that postcode, and make assumptions.

I did some stats about Ontario CFC players and posted at the CFC forum. (It is not what you want but still might be helpful somewhen)

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Organizer Obligation to Seek Sponsors

Last fall, I met with a representative from a national bank regarding sponsorship. He made the point that, for a national event, no matter how brilliant the effort put forth by the local branch of the sponsor, the majority of the participants are from out of town, and the local branch gets almost no return. If the head office of the sponsor is to participate, such campaigns are usually planned a year or more in advance, and are based on extensive survey-knowledge of the target audience.

John, you should have got him on the phone with Jean Hebert. Jean could have informed this person that "return" is of no importance, and no survey of target audience need be done. With Jean's vast experience and God-like reputation in Canadian chess, this representative would have given you a blank check.

At least that's the way Jean sees it. He argued with David Ottosen a few months ago that sponsors do not worry about ROI (Return On Investment). David tried to educate him, but you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

[Jean Hébert]

Re: $ 400 in 5 hours work !!

I'm more unhappy with the fact that someone who has such a powerful voice in the Canadian chess community has such a delusional view of how chess should be handled in Canada.

I wish I had a "powerful voice in canadian chess" but I am not that delusional. But I do note that you on the other hand firmly believe to be the one owning the truth about "how chess should be handled in Canada". I leave it to observers to decide whom here is the most delusional.

I wonder what would happen if there was implemented a requirement that in order to play in the Canadian championship, you must have played 100 rated games in Canada ...

Can't you make the difference between unreasonable requirements, rules and guidelines, and reasonable ones ? Have you turned off your judgment specifically for this thread or is it your normal behaviour to kill any attemps at having normal discussions ?

[Jean Hébert]

Re: Organizer Obligation to Seek Sponsors

" Section 811 ( b ) The organizers shall provide a prize fund; part of this obligation shall be to make a significant effort to find sponsors; .............

This is much too vague and thus totally ineffective. It would have been much more effective to stipulate precise minimum standards in terms of prize fund and number of rooms and boards provided for the top players, for example. Wishfull thinking is no help to an organizer. Precise expectations is much more likely to be helping by setting up clear goals to reach. What good would "significant efforts" but no resultit do for anybody ?

[John Coleman]

Re: Organizer Obligation to Seek Sponsors

You may try to use a rating database. There are towns and cities of players included.

The is true, but knowing that a player is from Toronto does not tell me anything about him. Knowing that he from a postcode, I can get demographic data for that postcode, and make assumptions.

Ah well, water under the bridge.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Organizer Obligation to Seek Sponsors

regarding player postcodes

You may try to use a rating database. There are towns and cities of players included.

[John Coleman]

Re: Organizer Obligation to Seek Sponsors

I am not sure of the extent to which organizers outside of Quebec make significant effort to find sponsors.

For CYCC 2010, I contracted with a fundraising company; they have had little success, barely making enough to cover their fee.

Last fall, I met with a representative from a national bank regarding sponsorship. He made the point that, for a national event, no matter how brilliant the effort put forth by the local branch of the sponsor, the majority of the participants are from out of town, and the local branch gets almost no return. If the head office of the sponsor is to participate, such campaigns are usually planned a year or more in advance, and are based on extensive survey-knowledge of the target audience.

I made strenuous efforts to obtain demographic information about Canadian chess players, but the CFC has none. The most recent national survey was in 1979.

The CFC fund raising committee did not respond to my emails; the CFC business office did not respond to my request regarding player postcodes.

Of course, an alternative is knowing someone in authority, whose arm you can twist.

[David Ottosen]

Re: $ 400 in 5 hours work !!

But look even at how he treats David Ottosen (whom I should state I do not know and don't communicate with). Pure arrogance and demeaning attitudes.

I don't care about that. I'm more unhappy with the fact that someone who has such a powerful voice in the Canadian chess community has such a delusional view of how chess should be handled in Canada.

Bluvshtein/Armstrong's motion is frankly ludicrous - we are in a situation where there are few organizers willing to take on the task of major events, and there is a motion to impose greater requirements on those volunteer organizers.

I wonder what would happen if there was implemented a requirement that in order to play in the Canadian championship, you must have played 100 rated games in Canada (making "significant efforts to grow Canadian chess", if only to get them thinking about it) in the past year, and by the way, there is no prize money for the championship. I expect participation among top players in the Canadian championship would disappear, just as the number of high quality organizers is disappearing.