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.
The second factor is this constant resistance to a concerted and organised effort to find sponsors, which is the only way to establish a basis to solve not only this year's problem, but also the next olympiads problems. Anything goes to block the idea: there are no sponsors, chess is not popular, looking for it is a pain in the ass (Ottosen), it won't work, it works only in Quebec, the CFC doesn't want to do it, the players should do it, it is not needed, etc. Lots of cynicism and denial, indeed.
Just to clarify - while I do believe looking for sponsorship is a pain in the ass, I believe that only to be the case because sponsoring the national chess team or a tournament provides no value to the company doing the sponsorship. Trust me, when the product is of high value, companies come looking to sponsor it, not the other way around.
The kind of smart things to do for open-minded people. Taking defensive positions to try to make virtues out of shortcomings and negligence is not leading anywhere.
Hi Jean, or anyone who may know Marc, I don't know if Marc checks this message board regularly, so please feel free to pass him my message above, including my email address :
Why is it you don't think Canada will be a chess power in the future? Do you figure Canadians don't have the brains, the drive or the organizers who can't train and pair the players properly at the club level?
Any organizer who thinks all he has to do is take a players money and give them a chance to play with no other responsibilities is, in my opinion, a poor stupid jerk.
Most want to play like Fischer and an organizerr should be having events and pairings which challenge players. I used to use a combination of class and open events. With correspondence chess I used to try to get the good players into international play as fast as I could. From there it was onto the national teams if we had room.
What are those organizers you envision there to do? Gratify themselves or provide a service to the players?
There is one Canadian who has done very well and shows the Canadian flag in events around the world. When other Canadians are also entered guess who normally finishes higher.
Why is it the over 45's, or maybe now it's the over 50's, are doing so well in chess in Canada? Could it be a relection of the kind of responsibilities you think the organizers should have?
The kind of organizers you paint in your picture, where anything else is the players problem, reminds me of a big dog which poops on the rug and then looks around like it's someone elses problem.
Gary, that last sentence is a low blow to organizers and an insult to the players that appreciate the events that organizers are providing right now. It seems that in your elitist tete-a-tete with Hebert, you've lost a perspective of what, as Brian pointed out, 99% of Canadian chess players truly care about. They care about having events to play in. Yes, they want to be challenged, but in today's world, there's two things to keep in mind:
(1) they have Rybka, Fritz, Shredder, Hiarcs, Deep Junior that can give them plenty of challenge, and
(2) as the Anand - Topalov match just demonstrated, playing human opponents is much more interesting because of the psychological element. If every tournament the club player went to, s/he was just getting beat up by a group of Heberts there to grab some money, that psychological element disappears and it becomes very much like doing (1). So the vast majority of club players mostly go to weekend tournaments to enjoy the psychological struggle of playing opponents that are near-equal in rating strength, as Anand and Topalov were, but are very different in tendencies, as Anand and Topalov were, over a chess board.
As a correspondence player, you should especially appreciate (2). You don't want your correspondence opponents using computers or books, you want them using their own mind and their own tendencies.
If the Heberts of Canada thumb their noses at what they perceive to be crumbs being offered by organizers who don't feel it necessary to get sponsors and attract them, maybe the Heberts ARE the poop on the rug, and the sooner they get shit out, the healthier the Canadian chess dog will be.
As to Canada being a chess power:
Canada doesn't have the general (non chess playing) public that gives a "poop on the rug" about chess! It's as simple as that. Canada isn't Europe when it comes to chess and never will be. If you want Europe, move to Europe. May your French poodle poop all over the chateau!
Also, Gary, I have a question for you:
If Bobby Fischer came to Canada in the 1980's or 1990's, and became a citizen, and played for Canada's Olympiad team, and "showed the Canadian flag" in events around the world, would you feel proud of him? Don't answer too quickly: try to imagine it actually happening.
The point being, showing the Canadian flag at events around the world isn't so great if your viewpoints are so radical or so condescending of others that 90%+ of civilized people are against them.
It doesn't even have to be that bad. Hebert is no Fischer in either respect, but when he publicly calls regular club players "basement dwellers", or when he publicly posts that an organizer -- who worked very hard for a Canadian Closed to take place when no one else would do it -- was lazy and inept, well, I for one have no pride whatsoever in his showing the Canadian flag. Better to have no one, IMO.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
So respectfull for a second. And in the previous post it was "Hebert be damned"... Almost gets a tear rolling off my eye.
As if anything that the king of hypocrisy and ignorance may say, ask or think could have any importance.
Respectful? Hmmm.... oh yeah, you're the one that introduces yourself to the general public as a chessplayer and thinks people have a look of admiration in their eyes. LOL
There you go again, folks. Ask some pertinent questions and get the Hebert cold shoulder treatment.
It is responses like this that show why Hebert should be damned. He can only make himself look even MORE irreconcilable. Canada can do so much better.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
The first undermining factor is for the CFC to allow the women to pay their own way, thus making the fund raising partly expandable.
The second factor is this constant resistance to a concerted and organised effort to find sponsors, which is the only way to establish a basis to solve not only this year's problem, but also the next olympiads problems. Anything goes to block the idea: there are no sponsors, chess is not popular, looking for it is a pain in the ass (Ottosen), it won't work, it works only in Quebec, the CFC doesn't want to do it, the players should do it, it is not needed, etc. Lots of cynicism and denial, indeed.
SO WHY HAVEN'T YOU FOUND SPONSORS? YOU CLAIM TO BE AVAILABLE TO TALK TO SPONSORS! THE NATIONAL TEAM NEEDS SPONSORS! YOU CARE SO DEEPLY ABOUT CHESS IN CANADA! WHY AREN'T YOU TALKING TO SPONSORS?!
Lots of hypocrisy indeed!
We all know your reason: no payout for Jean Hebert.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
If you would read better you wouldn't have to write all that.
1. There is a fair differrence between the type of organizer which was being discussed and an organizer who cares and wishes to help players gain strength and improve their playing ability.
2. There is a large difference between players wanting to play a strong game like Fischer and be Fischer. Your misinterperting what I wrote and throwing out a hypothetical for effect doesn't alter that part.
3. Jean is entitled to his point of view.
4. I found the invitation Jean described to me shocking. Personally, I'd expect to arrive several days BEFORE the start and to have an idea of the board I'd be playing before accepting. Do you think I don't discuss my board placement when I'm invited to play on a correspondence team?
5. Regarding my own opponents, I don't much care what they use. All I want is their best game. I don't want to waste a year playing a game only to have an opponent hang a queen.
Just to clarify - while I do believe looking for sponsorship is a pain in the ass, I believe that only to be the case because sponsoring the national chess team or a tournament provides no value to the company doing the sponsorship. Trust me, when the product is of high value, companies come looking to sponsor it, not the other way around.
I don't thrust you for a minute because your beliefs are based on misconceptions and do not match reality. Chess tournaments and matches worldwide (including here in Canada!) are being sponsored as we speak and have been in the past. The sponsors must have a good reason to do so and I could easily guess a number of those, but even if they don't have a "good" reason by your standards, the fact remains that they do sponsor big and small chess events. Your "pain in the ass" argument still remains your only valid argument which however says a lot more about what is wrong with you than about what could be wrong with chess as a sponsorable activity.
Convictions are a greater danger to truth than lies are.
- Nietzsche
If you would read better you wouldn't have to write all that.
1. There is a fair differrence between the type of organizer which was being discussed and an organizer who cares and wishes to help players gain strength and improve their playing ability.
2. There is a large difference between players wanting to play a strong game like Fischer and be Fischer. Your misinterperting what I wrote and throwing out a hypothetical for effect doesn't alter that part.
3. Jean is entitled to his point of view.
4. I found the invitation Jean described to me shocking. Personally, I'd expect to arrive several days BEFORE the start and to have an idea of the board I'd be playing before accepting. Do you think I don't discuss my board placement when I'm invited to play on a correspondence team?
5. Regarding my own opponents, I don't much care what they use. All I want is their best game. I don't want to waste a year playing a game only to have an opponent hang a queen.
I hope this answers your questions.
Ummm... I think maybe you need to read better?
The Fischer question wasn't related to your comment about players wanting to play like Fischer. It was related to your praise for Hebert showing the Canadian flag. The question was rhetorical and you didn't need to answer it, as I described the point that was being made. But you still didn't get it, unfortunately.
Yes, Hebert is entitled to his views, I've never denied that.
I really can't believe you are not caring what your correspondence opponents are using. Why play at all then? When you play humans, mistakes are a given (hanging a queen or mistiming a pawn push, it all amounts to the same thing, and humans are virtually guaranteed to make mistakes). If you're looking for opponents who don't make mistakes, computer engines are your best bet.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
I really can't believe you are not caring what your correspondence opponents are using. Why play at all then? When you play humans, mistakes are a given (hanging a queen or mistiming a pawn push, it all amounts to the same thing, and humans are virtually guaranteed to make mistakes). If you're looking for opponents who don't make mistakes, computer engines are your best bet.
I play the position and don't concern myself with the stuff you mention. All it does is set up excuses for losing and other negativity.
There is a lot of chat that goes on in some games. When someone likes to chat I try to accomodate. (no chat about the game, though). We're simply trying to win the game. We don't hate each other or anything like that.
One American I've played 4 times and wouldn't mind being paired against him again.
I don't thrust you for a minute because your beliefs are based on misconceptions and do not match reality. Chess tournaments and matches worldwide (including here in Canada!) are being sponsored as we speak and have been in the past. The sponsors must have a good reason to do so and I could easily guess a number of those, but even if they don't have a "good" reason by your standards, the fact remains that they do sponsor big and small chess events.
I'm pretty sure I've mentioned this before, but my belief is that the companies who currently sponsor chess in Canada are not doing it because they believe it inherently helps the value of their company. They do it because there is a chess enthusiast within the company who has sold the idea to the company, and it's a nice piece of goodwill that comes cheap.
Fundraising for that kind of offered return is not like finding corporate sponsorship. It is, at it's core, charity fundraising, which is a much less enjoyable task, and one that if I do, I would prefer to do for a more worth cause than supporting innovations in the Najdorf poisoned pawn.
Let me give you a simple example of how badly chess handles sponsorship, using your example of Quebec. I just went to the FQE homepage, and clicked on the link for the "Championnat Élite du Québec".
On this page, I see two sponsors icons listed: POM, and Deloitte. Oh, one moment - they aren't clickable icons, like any normal organization would have for their sponsors. They are just pictures of their logos (this same gaffe is repeated with some other sponsors such as Transcontinental, Oasis, and Pepsico on the main page). My french is not that great, but I must say I cannot see anything in the writeups either there, or at:
saying even an extremely standard and quick "Merci" to the sponsors. Note the second page doesn't have the sponsors icons on it either.
Ok, that's not great, but nonetheless, let's look at these two companies to see what they can expect to get from their sponsorship.
POM: Off to their web site to at least find out what they do - you know, the kind of thing that is explained on the web site in the sponsor lists - "for all your XXX needs, visit POM who is generously sponsoring this event!", one of those pesky things a company who expects ROI on their sponsorship will demand in the branding. I also notice that they are trying to capitalize on their sweet deal of sponsoring a chess tourney by not mentioning it anywhere on their site.
Anyways, as near as I can tell, this appears to be some sort of bakery wholesaler that supplies to restaurants. Well, as we all know, the chess world is full of restaurant owners so this is clearly a good investment for them that will increase the value of their company.
Deloitte: An international accounting company designed to service major corporations! Well, there's no telling how many potential customers they are reaching by sponsoring a local master level chess tournament that receives no coverage outside of Quebec that earns a total of 4 hits in Google (two of which are the FQE page, and 2 of which on a generic site). I'm logging into my online trading account to take advantage of my inside knowledge by loading up on Deloitte stock before the markets get smart!
Ok, being facetious enough - I hope you understand why I look at these "sponsorships" and see them as nothing more than goodwill donations from the companies in question - I would say that they will not receive $1 of direct new business from these sponsorships and probably no indirect business either as neither appears to be making any effort to publicize their involvement. There is absolutely no way they can be considered as giving the company any value when they get no publicity for it, and don't care enough to even mention it.
If you want to gain the benefits for being associated with something, you have to make sure people know you are associated with it, and that your "partner" in the deal is actively and powerfully confirming it. Without that, there is no "good" long term reason to carry on with the sponsorship.
Last edited by David Ottosen; Thursday, 13th May, 2010, 06:26 AM.
Reason: I'm glad you're not thrusting me :D
I'm pretty sure I've mentioned this before, but my belief is that the companies who currently sponsor chess in Canada are not doing it because they believe it inherently helps the value of their company.
Even if true it is largely irrelevant. The bottom line is that for good or not so good reasons chess is and can be sponsored.
They do it because there is a chess enthusiast within the company who has sold the idea to the company, and it's a nice piece of goodwill that comes cheap. .
Again irrelevant. I suspect that this at times apply to many other activities besides chess. There is no shame in finding a chess enthousiast in a company and get sponsorship this way. It would be nice to find a chess enthousiast in YOUR company. Wouldn't it ?
Fundraising for that kind of offered return is not like finding corporate sponsorship. It is, at it's core, charity fundraising, which is a much less enjoyable task, and one that if I do, I would prefer to do for a more worth cause than supporting innovations in the Najdorf poisoned pawn.
You have already made your point clear that you don't want to raise or give money to chess which is of no great interest. If for you chess amounts to "innovations in the Najdorf poisoned pawn", I can understand why. Your years playing the game have apparently been a waste of time.
But what I have problems to understand is why you are so bent on discouraging others to do so ? Don't you have any other more serious "bad cause" to fight against, like seal hunting or pedophilia, for example ?
Let me give you a simple example of how badly chess handles sponsorship (...)
Irrelevant as usual. Agreed we have to treat sponsors better and learn how to deal with them, but not stay away from them! Besides, you have already stated that there are no benefit in sponsoring chess. Following your line of thought how could chess in your eyes handle sponsorship well ?
Ok, being facetious enough - I hope you understand why I look at these "sponsorships" and see them as nothing more than goodwill donations from the companies in question.
The way you look at them or the label you give them has very little importance. The net result is that whenever sponsorship OF ANY KIND can be obtained (and it can be obtained) we get better events for all, a better quality of chess life and better tools to promote the game, which unfortunately is a thing you apparently have no real interest in.
The way you look at them or the label you give them has very little importance. The net result is that whenever sponsorship OF ANY KIND can be obtained (and it can be obtained) we get better events for all, a better quality of chess life and better tools to promote the game, which unfortunately is a thing you apparently have no real interest in.
Ah, but actually, the label you give them *does* matter. It shapes how you should approach it, and how you should approach the sponsors, and how you should treat them after you obtain them. It also shapes what you can reasonably expect organizers and sponsorship hunters to obtain.
Can sponsors be found? Of course they can. But neither you or anyone else should sugarcoat it and say "hey companies get huge value out of being associated with Canadian chess, you must not be working very hard if you aren't getting them to sign up." Motions like the one the CFC is currently considering make light of the realities of trying to find this kind of sponsorship.
Finally, to your last questions, in fact I am willing to approach the company I work for about sponsorship of the national team. However, I PM'd Hal Bond on May 9th, 2010 with a few questions to clarify some issues, and received no response of any sort. Heck, I am probably even willing to make a donation myself - however, when I go to the CFC website, and click on "Donate now!" it does not take me to any way to donate. In this spot I agree with you - while I don't think its necessarily fair to expect organizers to go out and cold approach potential sponsors, it's certainly pretty silly to make it so difficult to donate.
Ah, but actually, the label you give them *does* matter. It shapes how you should approach it, and how you should approach the sponsors, and how you should treat them after you obtain them. It also shapes what you can reasonably expect organizers and sponsorship hunters to obtain.
That I like. You have moved away from the "sponsor-pain in the ass" approach to the techniques of approaching them. Big move. In that context granted, labels matter.
Can sponsors be found? Of course they can. But neither you or anyone else should sugarcoat it and say "hey companies get huge value out of being associated with Canadian chess, you must not be working very hard if you aren't getting them to sign up." Motions like the one the CFC is currently considering make light of the realities of trying to find this kind of sponsorship.
Great. Sponsors can be found. This is positive. I don't think I have ever overly sugarcoated anything, but when you believe that you have a good product or a good service to sell, or a good cause to promote, you are legitimately entitled to "sugarcoat" it, that is to present it in the best light possible. There is nothing wrong with it. If you approach people by starting with the self-defeating: "I know, chess in not very popular in Canada but..." you don't stand a chance. Not only that, chess IS popular in Canada, that is, compared too many other sponsored activities. It is all subjective. One is allowed to use subjective assessments to his advantage.
Another point here that is often overlooked by chess organizers scared by the word "sponsorship" is that in chess we are not looking for the same kind and size of sponsorship that professionnal sports like golf or tennis are getting. We are looking for small amounts from a few hundred dollars to maybe a few tens of thousands dollars for big events. For example, 200$ can make a big difference for a local weekender event by allowing the organizer to give everyone free drinks and snacks during the whole event. This may be enough to make the event shine above the average tournament and make it memorable for everyone. Which the next year leads to a greater turn out.
For those amounts, which are often small change for even small or medium size businesses (or for many individuals) do sponsors get "huge value" for their money ? Maybe not huge value, but I would say something between fair and very good. You get what you pay for and sponsors understand that. But very often, sponsors (at large) will support chess just for the sake of it without making detailed assessments of what they get in return.
Finally, to your last questions, in fact I am willing to approach the company I work for about sponsorship of the national team. However, I PM'd Hal Bond on May 9th, 2010 with a few questions to clarify some issues, and received no response of any sort. Heck, I am probably even willing to make a donation myself - however, when I go to the CFC website, and click on "Donate now!" it does not take me to any way to donate. In this spot I agree with you - while I don't think its necessarily fair to expect organizers to go out and cold approach potential sponsors, it's certainly pretty silly to make it so difficult to donate.
After lots of hard digging we have finally found the chess fan in you. Bravo!Which now leads back to the CFC and its shortcomings. On that it is hard to disagree. The guy you mention will certainly eventually give you an answer now that he is, using his own word "spearheading" the fund raising campaign. Isn't that amusing ? Good luck!
Finally, to your last questions, in fact I am willing to approach the company I work for about sponsorship of the national team. However, I PM'd Hal Bond on May 9th, 2010 with a few questions to clarify some issues, and received no response of any sort.
...snipped more stuff
If you mean you used the Private Message function of this message board, I would not be surprised if it went not noticed. I am sure I have received PMs that were not accompanied by any sort of pop-up notification or the like (perhaps that would be a function of my browser settings to kill pop-up windows?).
Anyway, I would suggest email as a better means of communication, but as always, YMMV.
Note also, that until yesterday, there was a spate of SPAM messages being delivered by the PM function on this board - that might have contributed to the chance all PMs would be ignored. I believe Chris thinks he has eliminated the loophole/configuration option that permitted PM spam... [edited: the antispam measures I was thinking of were instituted on the *other* board - the CFC forum - where Chris is also the admin... sorry. Perhaps he made a similar "fix" here - I don't know.]
Last edited by Kerry Liles; Thursday, 13th May, 2010, 04:11 PM.
If you mean you used the Private Message function of this message board, I would not be surprised if it went not noticed. I am sure I have received PMs that were not accompanied by any sort of pop-up notification or the like (perhaps that would be a function of my browser settings to kill pop-up windows?).
Anyway, I would suggest email as a better means of communication, but as always, YMMV.
If he's really spearheading the effort, he should make his email address more publicly known (I don't see it in any of the threads here).
Tweet
And in the previous post it was "Hebert be damned"... Almost gets a tear rolling off my eye.
Comment