$ 400 in 5 hours work !!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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: $ 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.

[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."

[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.

[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).

[Jean Hébert]

Re: $ 400 in 5 hours work !!

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).

If the CFC's existence is in danger it is certainly not for its overdeveloped concern for its junior or elite players! Pretending otherwise don't even come close to the facts. It has no program to speak of to support or develop either of these categories. The other problems lay on the shoulders of clubs and local organizers, not on the CFC's. But everybody should be concerned about creating a richer chess life that will not only assure the survival but also the growth of chess. That include among other things sponsored events and national championships, clubs with multiple activities for its members including teaching, training and coaching sessions, (not just competitions which wears off even the most hardened warriors), seminars to form coaches, arbiters and better organizers, etc. This is what chess and chess clubs are all about in other parts of the world, why should it be different here if we want chess to grow ?

Another not easily acceptable statement for a logical and moderately intelligent mind is your complaining at the same time about people quitting chess and about those sticking around "complaining". Of course those who quit for good never complains. But among those sticking around (and even the PBs who only stick around the messages boards) everybody is "complaining" one way or another. And fair complaining is good for those in charge who want to make a better job and improve things. It is just that a few people have knowledge, experience and vision to base their observations and criticisms, while most don't.

About this 2400 thing I must correct you: I have been staying around it for more than 30 years, not 25. Is this good or bad ? Probably very good for two reasons. First nowadays chessplayers reach their peak at an early age (early twenties) and start declining slowly afterwards. So the tendancy over such a long period is to see one's playing strenght DECLINE, with a few rare exceptions... In my case the current FIDE rating is now at its highest since 2001...
Secondly if my rating has not manage to reach new heights durant those 30 years+ it can be easily explained by the fact that I have NEVER been a professionnel player, not even by a long shot. And during those 30 years many professionnals have seen their strenght decline, which is of course perfectly natural and certainly not a cause for your criticism.

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: $ 400 in 5 hours work !!

If the CFC's existence is in danger..........................It has no program to speak of to support or develop either of these categories. The other problems lay on the shoulders of clubs and local organizers, not on the CFC's...........

All that after describing chess players as introverted dwellers of basements.:(

Geez, nothing nice to say about anybody...:(:(

Thank goodness we have PB to defend us poor beleaguered organizers :) otherwise we might become discouraged.

But seriously, you want sponsored events! Well for the elite players anyway, most tournaments are sponsored. The sponsors are all the average Joe chessplayers who pay the freight with their entry fees and memberships. :)

[Kerry Liles]

Re: $ 400 in 5 hours work !!

All that after describing chess players as introverted dwellers of basements.:(

Geez, nothing nice to say about anybody...:(:(

Thank goodness we have PB to defend us poor beleaguered organizers :) otherwise we might become discouraged.

But seriously, you want sponsored events! Well for the elite players anyway, most tournaments are sponsored. The sponsors are all the average Joe chessplayers who pay the freight with their entry fees and memberships. :)

I think Jean makes some excellent points; it seems hard for me as a non-master to even appreciate whatever organization issues there are in upper-class chess, but I agree with Jean when he points out that the CFC does not have programs in place. The CFC is a bureaucracy that is obsessed with maintaining the status quo. There is always much ado about nothing and nothing to do with CHESS or CHESS tournaments or organizing or promotion.

One thing I would echo from another poster elsewhere: Jean is actually DOING something... it is possible to complain that it isn't enough, but one cannot complain he is doing nothing. I subscribe to his very fine weekly journal and even though my French is abysmal, I work hard at trying to follow the analysis he provides (for FREE!).

If half the energy spent on attacks on others on this board were redirected toward legitimate chess-related activities, the game we all enjoy would be better off here in Canada...

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: $ 400 in 5 hours work !!

If half the energy spent on attacks on others on this board were redirected toward legitimate chess-related activities, the game we all enjoy would be better off here in Canada...

Exactly my point actually. Jean does make an important contribution with his newsletter, agreed. I don't speak French, so I haven't seen it. But I will trust reliable sources that it is excellent. My criticism would be that his criticism is absolute. To say that the CFC has no programs is ridiculous.

What of the CYCC program to encourage the youth. What of the efforts every 2 years to send the Olympic teams. These programs support the youth and the elite players, two groups Jean claims there is no support for! Sure we all wish more could be done. But who is going to pay for it! :(

Thankfully we do have a national rating system and a quality newsletter, two programs that benefit all including average Joe chessplayer (who's paying for everything). :)

And attacking local chess organizers and clubs for not making chess popular in Canada, give me a break.

Constructive criticism is fine. But it must be balanced and fair. The organizers and clubs of today can hardly be held responsible for the lost opportunities of several decades. Constant unrelenting criticism only drives organizers away.:(

[Gary Ruben]

Re: $ 400 in 5 hours work !!

If half the energy spent on attacks on others on this board were redirected toward legitimate chess-related activities, the game we all enjoy would be better off here in Canada...

Hi Kerry,

I spent my afternoon working on making correspondence chess game moves, writing on the message board and thinking about the joys of life. As someone around the age of 70, I more and more appreciate a warm room, a correspondence chess game, a snooze on a rainy Sunday afternoon, and a good article about global warming.

Thinking back, I wonder if we had internet back in the 70's, if I'd have been roasted on the message boards for the club policy of all the members also having to be CFC members.