$ 400 in 5 hours work !!

[David Ottosen]

Re: $ 400 in 5 hours work !!

If the CFC's existence is in danger it is certainly not for its overdeveloped concern for its junior or elite players...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 ?

First off, "if" is a pretty optimistic way to describe the danger facing the CFC's existence. I'd say it's very real.

Second, I have no doubts that in other areas of the world, where chess is part of the sporting culture, a different method can be used to grow or sustain chess. That is not the case in Canada. We have no chess in the sporting culture, you (despite being one of probably the top 5 players Canada has ever produced and the current champion) are unknown to the average person, and we have very limited financial and human resources to support the game. They cannot be used poorly.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Hypocrite

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

That interpretation could only be a language problem. No one could be THAT delusional.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: $ 400 in 5 hours work !!

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...

Kerry, how well do you know Jean and how knowledgeable are you of what Jean is doing (besides his newsletter)?


Two points about this newsletter:
(1) it is NOT free, he is paid by tournament organizers, who are sure to be getting that back from tournament entry fees, thus the newsletter is paid for by the average Jacques who enters Quebec tournaments. It may be free for Kerry Liles and others outside of Quebec, but I would bet that's an unintended consequence.

(2) a newsletter with games analysis does nothing to grow chess in Canada. That is my opinion, but if you disagree, please explain in detail what you think it does for chess growth. And then explain why, if it's so good for chess growth and Jean is for chess growth in CANADA, why he doesn't take a few hours extra time to do it in English? Something like that could actually go far to convincing people outside Quebec that Jean really does care about chess growth in Canada.

[Kerry Liles]

Re: $ 400 in 5 hours work !!

Kerry, how well do you know Jean and how knowledgeable are you of what Jean is doing (besides his newsletter)?

I do not know Jean; I do not believe we have ever met. I don't see the relevance of anything else he is or isn't doing since I mentioned his newsletter specifically. I imagine he is a good resource for chess in Quebec (since he is living there and knows many people there - again an assumption...)

Two points about this newsletter:
(1) it is NOT free, he is paid by tournament organizers, who are sure to be getting that back from tournament entry fees, thus the newsletter is paid for by the average Jacques who enters Quebec tournaments. It may be free for Kerry Liles and others outside of Quebec, but I would bet that's an unintended consequence.

Yes, it IS free to me and to all who care to subscribe. If it is funded in whole or in part by some chess organizers that is a smart move. If he is doing it on his own nickel then that is even more commendable.
I note that he advertises some services that he offers to chessplayers - perhaps that is sufficient for him to justify the time it takes to produce it.

(2) a newsletter with games analysis does nothing to grow chess in Canada. That is my opinion, but if you disagree, please explain in detail what you think it does for chess growth. And then explain why, if it's so good for chess growth and Jean is for chess growth in CANADA, why he doesn't take a few hours extra time to do it in English? Something like that could actually go far to convincing people outside Quebec that Jean really does care about chess growth in Canada.

If a newsletter with games analysis (and puzzles and some direct insight into some situations where Jean was present) is of no value to chess in Canada, then someone ought to put Tony Ficzere out of his misery now - he is doing precisely that (in an editorial role) for the CFC who indeed considered that concept of great value. Jean is clearly a Quebecer and fully entitled to write the newsletter in his native language; anyone interested enough can cut and paste it into Google translate (although that is tedious) or they can perhaps simply ignore the French text and follow along the alternate lines (with the usual standard symbols for + or - or ? or ! to help them out - I know I spent YEARS doing that with Shakmatny Bulletin and Chess Informants and Deutche Schachzeitung .... Anything (even a modest Club website) that promotes the study and enjoyment of chess has to be a positive influence - doesn't it??

I have answered despite the fact that I have the impression that you are merely baiting me with your questions and likely will use my answers to ridicule Jean (that does appear to me to be your mission above all else). If that is the case, consider this my only and last response.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: $ 400 in 5 hours work !!

I do not know Jean; I do not believe we have ever met. I don't see the relevance of anything else he is or isn't doing since I mentioned his newsletter specifically. I imagine he is a good resource for chess in Quebec (since he is living there and knows many people there - again an assumption...)

Yes, it IS free to me and to all who care to subscribe. If it is funded in whole or in part by some chess organizers that is a smart move. If he is doing it on his own nickel then that is even more commendable.
I note that he advertises some services that he offers to chessplayers - perhaps that is sufficient for him to justify the time it takes to produce it.

If a newsletter with games analysis (and puzzles and some direct insight into some situations where Jean was present) is of no value to chess in Canada, then someone ought to put Tony Ficzere out of his misery now - he is doing precisely that (in an editorial role) for the CFC who indeed considered that concept of great value. Jean is clearly a Quebecer and fully entitled to write the newsletter in his native language; anyone interested enough can cut and paste it into Google translate (although that is tedious) or they can perhaps simply ignore the French text and follow along the alternate lines (with the usual standard symbols for + or - or ? or ! to help them out - I know I spent YEARS doing that with Shakmatny Bulletin and Chess Informants and Deutche Schachzeitung .... Anything (even a modest Club website) that promotes the study and enjoyment of chess has to be a positive influence - doesn't it??

I have answered despite the fact that I have the impression that you are merely baiting me with your questions and likely will use my answers to ridicule Jean (that does appear to me to be your mission above all else). If that is the case, consider this my only and last response.

Kerry, I promise I wasn't attempting to bait you in any way. After your apology, I have great respect for you. Please attempt to have at least some respect for me. I'm not out to destroy Jean Hebert, that is really absurd. I just don't agree with his arrogant Father-Knows-Best attitude. Are you blind to his arrogance? If he could change his arrogance and be really open to ideas and dialog, I'd be really impressed. 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. Even the usually gracious Bob Gillanders is losing patience.

Kerry, I did not say a newsletter was of no value to chess in Canada. Of course it is of value, but only to those already playing chess. What I wrote or at least meant was that it doesn't contribute to the growth of chess in Canada. Unless there's something more in it than mere analysis of chess games.

When it comes to growth of chess in Canada, Jean's newsletter is a non-factor, that is what I was saying, and it is simply my opinion. I'm not saying his newsletter is a bad thing or has no value.

You also say in so many words that the CFC has been a non-factor for this growth. But let's forget about the CFC for a moment and focus on Jean's criticisms of organizers. Do you agree with these criticisms? Do you agree that organizers, and specifically those outside of Quebec, are either not seeking sponsorship at all or are not seeking it aggressively enough?

Again, this isn't any kind of baiting. Jean has made accusations, very general ones, and we that care about chess in Canada need to come to some kind of conclusion as to the truth of them.

[Bob Armstrong]

Organizer Obligation to Seek Sponsors

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

But GM Mark Bluvshtein has brought a motion, seconded by me, to strengthen the national standards for major tournaments in Canada. One of the amendments he has proposed to Section 8 of the Handbook, dealing with the Canadian Closed , is:

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

( d ) Bidders for the Canadian Championships shall take into account in their bids this section 811 of section 8 of the Handbook, and if they intend to exempt themselves from any of the conditions herein, they shall clearly note such in their bids, so the CFC can determine whether such bids will be accepted. "

Mark hopes that his will make clear that organizers have an obligation to at least try to find sponsors, and that they risk non-acceptance of their bid should they try to exempt themselves from this condition of bidding.

Bob

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: $ 400 in 5 hours work !!

But let's forget about the CFC for a moment and focus on Jean's criticisms of organizers. Do you agree with these criticisms? Do you agree that organizers, and specifically those outside of Quebec, are either not seeking sponsorship at all or are not seeking it aggressively enough

Paul, what do you think about the tournament organizers mentioned in the first post of this thread? Do you think the tournament will take place? How many times will it be rescheduled until it will be canceled? (an active tournament with >100 CFC players)

I think, that many, who wrote on this thread, pointed that the tournament announcement is not realistic. I see the announcement as an advertisement of their sale of a chess equipment, too :D

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Organizer Obligation to Seek Sponsors

But GM Mark Bluvshtein has brought a motion, seconded by me, to strengthen the national standards for major tournaments in Canada. One of the amendments he has proposed to Section 8 of the Handbook, dealing with the Canadian Closed , is:

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

( d ) Bidders for the Canadian Championships shall take into account in their bids this section 811 of section 8 of the Handbook, and if they intend to exempt themselves from any of the conditions herein, they shall clearly note such in their bids, so the CFC can determine whether such bids will be accepted. "

Mark hopes that his will make clear that organizers have an obligation to at least try to find sponsors, and that they risk non-acceptance of their bid should they try to exempt themselves from this condition of bidding.

Bob

Would you define "significant effort"? Would it be sending some letters to companies, dining executives, setting up appointments, visiting offices? Without some definition the term can mean whatever an organizer wants it to mean.

If an organizer spends say $1,000.00 to try to find sponsors for a large event and is unsuccessful, where do you suppose that $1,000.00 will come from? Would it come from the prize fund for the event? The organizer won't want to take the loss.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Organizer Obligation to Seek Sponsors

The Deadline for bids for national tournaments is the AGM, as I understand it. And the CFC Governors vote on acceptance of bids. So in a bid, when an organizer states what " significant efforts " he intends to make to find sponsors, the Governors will be the judge of whether the proposed efforts are sufficient for acceptance of the bid.

After that date, the Handbook says:

Section 9
Uncontested Bids for National Tournaments

944. If the published deadline for bids has passed, the CFC Executive is empowered to award all national tournaments unless there are two or more conflicting bids. [see Motion 80-20; GL, June 1980, p. 125]

So uncontested bids will then be decided upon by the Executive - so they will determine " significant efforts " as projected in a bid.

It is felt that some latitude has to be given to organizers on this, and that the criteria should be somewhat flexible re compliance. The point is to get organizers thinking of sponsorship as part of organizing, as much as advertising.

Bob

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Organizer Obligation to Seek Sponsors

The Deadline for bids for national tournaments is the AGM, as I understand it. And the CFC Governors vote on acceptance of bids. So in a bid, when an organizer states what " significant efforts " he intends to make to find sponsors, the Governors will be the judge of whether the proposed efforts are sufficient for acceptance of the bid.

That doesn't seem to have changed. The bids will still be judged on what the governors like the most.

If organizing a major event is such a good deal, how come the CFC doesn't do the organization, line up the sponsors and simply hire an organizer in the area they want the event to look after the local details?

The last time I looked the CFC didn't have much sponsorship for the Olympiad. It has to be more prestigious to sponsor an Olympiad than a Canadian Closed, so what's the problem?

[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.

[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.

[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

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.

[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 ?