If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
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 ?
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.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
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)
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.
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...
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.
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.
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?)
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.
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.
That link above is the last ACTIVE tournament I directed in 2002 at the Dutton Chess Club on Bayview.
From 1999 to 2002, we ran 32 CFC-rated ACTIVE tournaments.
50 players was a good turnout. 30 was about average.
As for large active events... how about the Canadian Active Championship that used to be held each year at the Estonian Chess club on Broadview in Toronto?
100+ players in 5 sections was the norm for the Estonian Active events.
Other than those events, as a Tournament Director and Organizer, I found that many players in Canada don't even have an ACTIVE rating and/or only have a provisional rating.
You can check crosstables at the Chess Federation of Canada prior to 2002 for better attendance at Active tournaments.
Prize fund is 2000 with min 100 players paying a 50$ fee (5000 total collected). 2000/5000 = 40% return to the prize fund
I wish organizers to succeed, as to attract 100 CFC players might be very difficult.
You are so right Egidijus! All the very best of luck to the organizers of this event.
2000-2002 Saturday ACTIVE Series
at the DUTTON CHESS CLUB ON BAYVIEW
1681 Bayview Ave – 2nd floor
(2 blocks south of Eglinton – above Chess’n Math store)
1. August 14, 1999 - The 1999 "First Saturday ACTIVE" - 35 PLAYERS
2. September 25, 1999 - Saturday Active Series #2 - 22 PLAYERS
3. October 23, 1999 - Saturday Active Series #3 - 30 PLAYERS
4. January 8, 2000 - Ser #4 "New Millennium ACTIVE" - 36 PLAYERS
5. AUGUST 26, 2000 - 5TH (Summer Active) - 39 PLAYERS
6. SEPTEMBER 23, 2000 - 6TH (Fall Active) - 38 PLAYERS
7. OCTOBER 21, 2000 - 7TH (Hallowe’en Active) - 34 PLAYERS
8. NOVEMBER 25, 2000 - 8TH (November Active) - 34 PLAYERS
9. DECEMBER 23, 2000 - 9TH (Christmas Active) - 36 PLAYERS
10. JANUARY 6, 2001 - 10TH (New Year's Active) - 39 PLAYERS
11. FEBRUARY 24, 2001 - 11TH (February Active) - 32 PLAYERS
12. MARCH 24, 2001 - 12TH (Spring Active) - 39 PLAYERS
13. MAY 5, 2001 - 13TH (May Day Active) - 25 PLAYERS
14. JUNE 2, 2001 - 14TH (June Active) - 18 PLAYERS
15. JULY 28, 2001 - 15TH (July Sizzler Active) - 41 PLAYERS
16. AUGUST 25, 2001 - 16TH (Summer Active) - 40 PLAYERS
17. September 22, 2001 - 17TH - (Fall Active) - 43 PLAYERS
18. October 27, 2001 - 18TH - (Hallowe'en Active) - 34 PLAYERS
19. November 24, 2001 -19TH - (November Active) - 45 PLAYERS
20. December 22, 2001 - 20TH - (Christmas Active) - 40 PLAYERS
21. January 5, 2002 - "Series #21 - New Year's Open" - 55 PLAYERS
22. February 2, 2002 - "Series #22 - February Open" - 40 PLAYERS
23. March 2, 2002 - "Series #23 - March Active Open" - 33 PLAYERS
24. April 6, 2002 - "Series #24 - Spring Active Open" - 22 PLAYERS
25. May 4, 2002 - "Series #25– May Day Active Open" - 38 PLAYERS
26. June 1, 2002 - "Series #26 – June Active Open" - 24 PLAYERS
27. July 6 - "Series #27 – Summer Sizzler Active Open" - 34 PLAYERS
28. August 17 - "Series #28 – August Active Open" - 32 PLAYERS
29. September 28 - "Series #29 – Fall Active Open" - 23 PLAYERS
30. October 26 - "Series #30 – Hallowe'en Open" - 32 PLAYERS
31. November 23 - "Series #31 - November Open" - 31 PLAYERS
32. December 21 - "Series #32 - December Open" - 53 PLAYERS
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.
Ok, I see your points I think. I think Jean's criticism of some organizers (even his original criticism of Hal Bond's efforts) have merit since they were applicable to very high-level events. I think that Jean primarily focuses his interest on those events, not weekend swiss tournaments or the like. I believe that if you offer a well organized, high quality event for high level players, that event will succeed based on the skill of the organizers and the time they have to plan and execute... If the planning or the time is at all short, the event will suffer (and in extreme cases like the event that started much of the nasty exchanges) should likely NOT be held at all.
I think most organizers are not seeking sponsorship (I almost want to say "...at all" but that is a little harsh and perhaps too far off the mark). Gordon Ritchie and the Canadian Open Committee come to mind as exception as did the PWC event recently in Toronto... It *can* be done, but isn't being done. The CFC isn't doing it (in my view the CFC is dysfunctional and needs to be disbanded and replaced by a benevolent dictatorship - we just have to find the proper benevolent dictator. I very much like some of the suggestions David Ottosen elsewhere today in this thread -although some are hard pills to swallow.
I will leave it at that; Jean has valid points and so does almost everyone else, but no-one has all the answers. Nasty dialogue is worse than NO dialogue. I do not want to pit one group against another and create even more fractions of effort.
I think the CFC has to regroup to concentrate on growth of chess in clubs and associations and at the same time provide support for the "elite" players that we have or we can grow - as far as FIDE support, opportunity for Norms and a few top-class events that Canadian players would be proud to enter. I don't mind some of my CFC membership money being used for the latter purpose - provided that it is properly managed and proportioned (neither at the moment in my opinion).
Vision: To build the CFC membership by supporting local clubs and tournaments
Action plan:
a) Reduce the cost of playing:
This is good if you want to attract low income or jobless people but bad if you want to attract people with money to spend on their pastime, people with money to pay for private tuition for their kids, and finally people with connections to help organizers find sponsors. On the other hand, the bigger part of the costs of playing are unrelated to the CFC, namely travel expenses, food and accomodations. The CFC only has control over its membership fee. Whatever its level it should simply match the quality and quantity of its services, including national programs for its elite.
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.
Since that there are usually only a few new players at a time, why don't organizers waive the entry fee for first timers instead of waiting for the CFC to solve their "problem" ?
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.
This has been done for years in Quebec with no perceptible results for an obvious reason. By definition chess organizers are volunteers and do not expect financial rewards for their involvement. A few bucks apiece make no difference.
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.
This is probably the most idiotic proposal I have seen in my lifetime, especially considering that the CFC is already devoting very little to these vital programs. Imagine a national sporting federation having no interest in its elite and no interest in its youth (and its future). Of course they provide benefits (short and long term) for the membership. We need many more strong players to give simuls, to teach, to coach and to write about the game to promote it, not less. Exploits of sportsmen does have an effect on memberships.
3) Require players to pay all FIDE fees for their ratings.
Again, such a "creative" proposal in order for the CFC to save peanuts on the back of an already largely abandoned elite. No chess federation in the World has ever to my knowledge thought of a thing like that. Again, we need more strong players to promote the game, not less.
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.
Local magazines with local content should be made at the local level. When you provide a national magazine (like the CFC) your goal is to reach the greatest number of people possible, not just a couple of Joe Blow happy to see their own names in print.
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.
In a few months one Bobby Fischer has manufactured millions of Bob Smiths, almost by miracle. The masses are very much influenced by the stars. Imagine golf without Tiger Woods despite his faults...
But of course the Fischers ans Carlsen cannot be planned and manufactured. However most other GMs, IMs and masters are made, not born. We need those dedicated people to promote the game.
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.
The CFC it seems to me has become quite lean recently even touching the bone. When you don't communicate with your customers for more than a year, you have become very lean... Apart from the fact that the game of chess is quite tough, especially for newcomers, the bulk of the reasons why people don't come back lays at the local and club level, not at the CFC level. Seeing how most clubs and organizers operate is depressing, especially for newcomers who have other pastimes to compare with. One example being the way most weekenders simply die out on Sunday nights, with people leaving one by one without even a closing ceremony to leave them a sweet taste in their mouth.
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.
The accountant's view is good to balance a budget but quite useless to build a vision on how to promote chess. Simply reducing membership fees is not going to do much. We rather need to offer more for the player's money and build a real chess life, not just offer mere survival.
Last edited by Jean Hébert; Tuesday, 30th March, 2010, 10:58 PM.
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
Hi Bob,
I responded to this on the CFC Forum, hoping it'll generate more feedback from governors. Also this thread is getting hard to follow with so many different subtopics, I felt like it could be a topic of its own.
Tweet
Comment