Canada at the Olypmiad

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Canada at the Olypmiad

Originally Posted by David Ottosen
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.

The "big move" here is totally on Jean, not David. Nowhere did David "move away" from saying getting sponsors is a pain in the ass. Instead, Jean is acknowledging that labels do matter (he tries to hide it by writing "in that context" where there is no changed context. David hasn't changed his viewpoint, and even if he had, how does that suddenly make the labels of sponsorship versus donation important?).


David has said all along, even back last year when he and Jean were on this topic, that there is a difference between sponsorship and donation. Jean has just woken up to this now.

Don't believe it? This is from the very first post David gave on the topic of sponsorship, back in September 2009:

( The thread begins here: http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/show...13329#poststop )

"I'm exactly the sort of person the chess world looks for right now. A chess lover at a relatively high level in a company that would be open to the idea of sponsoring chess to some degree. I cannot say that Jean's remarks make me particularly motivated towards pushing this in our company; sponsors thrive on predictable ROI for their marketing dollars spent."

A little later in the same thread, Jean Hebert wrote:

"Whether you call it "sponsorship" or "donation" is beside the point."

To which David Ottosen responded:

"It is very much not beside the point; in fact, it's the central crux of understanding how chess should present itself to businesses to seek money from them. Sponsorship is a business partnership where both sides gain from a third party (the marketplace), and a situation where both parties have direct and measurable incentive to continue, and extreme effort is not required by either side to continue. Donation is a charity act where the side receiving the "charity" must consistently and aggressively ensure that the relationship continues by constantly approaching the donator and pushing for resources."

So you see, David hasn't "moved away" from anything. It's all a fraud perpetrated by Jean. Funny thing is, David himself seems to have been hypnotized by Jean into believing he (David) has somehow changed his position.

(David, if you think you may have in fact changed your position, please respond and describe exactly what has changed and whether Jean had any influence in it. I know that you intend to donate to the Olympiad team and to try and get your company to donate as well, and back in September 2009 you wrote "If I was going to propose that anything in Canada be sponsored, it would be the Olympiad team", so again, this isn't a new postion for you. Are you now so mesmerized by Hebert's sudden friendliness that you are going to try and get your company to sponsor weekend Swiss tournaments in Canada?)


Jean is showing some flexibility now, and I think I know why.

David showed himself to be someone highly placed in a company that might be interested in sponsoring chess. In that September 2009 posting given above, Jean gave David the cold shoulder treatment (Jean responded to David's explanation by writing "If you want to play this game, do it with someone like Paul Bonham."). Ever since then, I've OFTEN reminded both Jean and everyone else on this board that we had someone who could bring in sponsorship and Jean alienated that someone with by giving him the I-know-everything-and-you-are-an-idiot response he's famous for.

What I think has happened is that somebody, perhaps even a Quebec sponsor, maybe someone like Marc Ghannoum who's been on this thread or anyone else who could see that I had a valid point and that Jean was being a negative influence on chess sponsorship, talked to Jean and said something like, "Be reasonable and stop chasing sponsors away. Ottosen is a lead to potential sponsor money, be nice to him."

Of course, Jean will deny anything of the kind happened, but as I've outlined, it has been Jean and only Jean who has given way, something he's not known for doing at all.

Whether Jean denies it or not, I do know one thing, and I'm going to point it out here NOT because I want some credit, but because a lot of you on this board felt my criticisms of Jean were counterproductive and tiring. Well, I believe they've done some good towards changing Jean's knee-jerk arrogance, even if it's only in this thread. I don't care whether anyone gives me credit at all, I believe it's put Jean under pressure to be more accomodating, which is exactly what I intended. One minute, Jean's not "thrusting" David, and the next they're practically blowing kisses at each other.

But let's get real here -- nothing has changed with Jean. He's still insulting Hal Bond as a "beginner" in another part of this thread. The root arrogance is still there and IMO, he can never be anything but negative for chess (despite his playing skills). You really can't teach an old dog new tricks.

And while David is going to make his donation and get his company to donate, when it comes to Jean Hebert, he who exhorts organizers to get out and get sponsors, and who could help in that effort by being a role model, we still got no donation, no talking to sponsors about sponsoring the team.... we got nada.

(I'd love to be wrong on that, by the way).

[Jean Hébert]

Re: Canada at the Olypmiad

[I]
(I'd love to be wrong on that, by the way).

If I were you I'd love to be RIGHT on something, just once in my life.:)

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Canada at the Olypmiad

I think the essence of Jean Hebert's position regarding chess organizing is this: a job worth doing is worth doing well. That is a position that should be supported by organizers, the CFC and the CFC's members. I support it.

I speculate that Hal Bond doesn't view the 2009 Canadian championship as one of the highlights of his organizing career. Hal's position regarding that tournament was probably along the lines of: the CFC has screwed up again...oh well...something is better than nothing. Generally speaking, it's not reasonable to expect people who choose to walk a more principled road to be supportive of the 'something...nothing' approach.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Canada at the Olypmiad

I think the essence of Jean Hebert's position regarding chess organizing is this: a job worth doing is worth doing well. That is a position that should be supported by organizers, the CFC and the CFC's members. I support it.

I speculate that Hal Bond doesn't view the 2009 Canadian championship as one of the highlights of his organizing career. Hal's position regarding that tournament was probably along the lines of: the CFC has screwed up again...oh well...something is better than nothing. Generally speaking, it's not reasonable to expect people who choose to walk a more principled road to be supportive of the 'something...nothing' approach.

Granted, but that doesn't make it excusable for the "more principled" person to publicly humiliate and denigrate the Hal Bonds who in fact do the job well under the circumstances. The "more principled" person only shows himself to be a negative for Canadian chess.

And what you left out of your first paragraph is that Hebert says not being able to do the job to his specifications means the organizer should quit organizing altogether. Do you support this position?

Many organizers have spoken up saying that the majority of entrants to their events DO NOT CARE about sponsorship. They simply want events to play in in which they can compete against near equals. That to them is the (unpaid) job being well done.

But Peter, if you disagree with their position, maybe you should organize, unpaid, and spend hours every day drumming up sponsors? It's fine to lecture others what they should be doing if you are a shining example. Hebert is anything but.

[Jean Hébert]

Re: Canada at the Olypmiad

Many organizers have spoken up saying that the majority of entrants to their events DO NOT CARE about sponsorship.

Are you saying that Hal Bond and Chris Mallon have said such nonsense ? If so I want quotes.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Canada at the Olypmiad

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.

And why not? It would seem that you are admitting that chess can never be as popular to the masses as these sports. Yes, it's popular for people to play chess, and there might even be more regular chess players than regular tennis players. But NOT popular to watch. And that's what drives sponsorship, that plus recognizable names and faces within the sport who can be considered of high moral character. (But then again, there's the NBA, even they can get sponsored if the popularity of the game for spectators is high enough).

After lots of hard digging we have finally found the chess fan in you. Bravo!

Hard digging? Hebert tries to TAKE CREDIT for MAKING DAVID OTTOSEN A CHESS FAN!

Unbelievable, the deception this guy will try. Are any of you actually buying this? Next thing, Jean will use this as an example to a potential customer of his "services" of a successful coaching he did: "Look, I turned David Ottosen into a chess fan!"

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!

No, what's amusing in a sick kind of way is you disparaging anyone's fundraising efforts.

Maybe someone should start contacting the sponsors of events Hebert takes part in and show them these posts of his, and ask them if they really want to associate themselves with this kind of person....

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Canada at the Olypmiad

Are you saying that Hal Bond and Chris Mallon have said such nonsense ? If so I want quotes.

Are you saying that Hal Bond and Chris Mallon have said such nonsense ? If so I want quotes.

If you can't read and interpret postings, maybe you should quit and hand the job over to someone who can. (How's that for taking your own medicine?)

Perhaps in the interest of settling this overall question once and for all, a poll should be put to Chesstalk readers. I'm not much of a believer in polls, because there is ample room for cheating and distortion, and also favoritism (i.e. many readers on this board know and respect you as a chessplayer, don't know me from a hole in the snow, and so might be inclined to vote in your favour without even really considering the question).

Nevertheless, I'll suggest a poll with this question, and you can offer a modification to the question if you don't like the wording of it.

My idea of the question would be something like this:

"Would you be in favour of your local organizer being presented with an ultimatum to either "Get some corporate sponsorship for his / her events or quit organizing altogether", with the consideration that your organizer is largely uncompensated for his / her work and might actually quit, leaving you with at least temporarily, and possibly long-term, no local chess events?"

In other words, is gaining new corporate sponsorship for your local events more important than continuing your local events as they are being run now?

Maybe you can think of some alternate way to word this question. The important thing is, you and I have to mutually decide on the wording of this question before actually posting the poll.

Will you agree to this?

[Jean Hébert]

Re: Canada at the Olypmiad

The important thing is, you and I have to mutually decide on the wording of this question before actually posting the poll.

Will you agree to this?

I'd rather suggest a poll to find out if there is one single reader left on this message board still believing that you might have a shred of sanity.

[Andrei Botez]

Canadian Open and national team

The Chess Federation of Canada is pleased to announce that we will be sending both our National Team and our Women's Team to the Olympiad in Khanty Mansiysk. I would like to thank Ilia Bluvshtein for his diligent efforts to date as our Olympic Co-Ordinator. Our team compositions are as follows:

National team:

Board 1: Mark Bluvshtein,

Board 2: Thomas Roussel-Roozmon,

Board 3: Leonid Gerzhoy,

Board 4: Artiom Samsonkin,

Reserve: Nikolay Noritsyn.

Captain: Yura Ochkoos. In accordance with CFC Handbook, Yura as a Captain has determined the board order.



Women?s team:

Board 1: Yuanling Yuan,

Board 2: Dina Kagramanov,

Board 3: Iulia Lacau-Rodean,

Board 4: Yelizaveta Orlova,

Reserve: Dalia Kagramanov.

Captain: William Yuan. William will be responsible for logistics for the Women?s team. The team composition for each round will be selected by Yura. Yura has also determined the board order for the Women?s team.

I hope to see more team members at the Canadian Open. Right now is just Nikolay and Dalia (well done girl!). Maybe a fund rasing can be organized during CO.
________
FFM COUPLE

[Gordon Ritchie]

Re: Canada at the Olypmiad

There appears to be a widespread illusion that it is a simple matter to raise funds for chess through commercial sponsorship or outright contributions. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The experience with the last five Canadian Opens makes the point: four depended on substantial support from provincial and/or municipal governments (Kitchener, Montreal and Alberta-twice); only Ottawa did it entirely through corporate sponsorship and that in a much more favourable economic climate.
Today, Toronto is having great difficulty despite serious efforts; there is no funding for the Closed' and the Olympiad is facing great difficulty which has presumably given rise to the unfortunate situation with the Women's team---it may be that the only way they can go is if they pay their own way.
Contrary to Jean's belief that this is because organizers lack imagination or drive, the inescapable fact remains that chess is a very tough sell at every level. The demographic is unappealing to sponsors (low disposable income) and charitable fundraising drives are competing with children and hospitals.
Instead of criticizing the inadequacy of these efforts, I guess I would like to see some recognition that a lot of individuals are devoting a lot of effort to supporting chess out of love of the game.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Canadian Open and national team

I was told that William Yuan, father of Yuanling Yuan, first board of the women's team, is not the Captain of the Women's Team. It is Yuanling's mother, Shaomin Shi. But Yura will be dealing with all the chess competition issues for the women's team.

Maybe Ilia could confirm this.

Bob

[Hans Jung]

Re: Canada at the Olypmiad

There appears to be a widespread illusion that it is a simple matter to raise funds for chess through commercial sponsorship or outright contributions. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The experience with the last five Canadian Opens makes the point: four depended on substantial support from provincial and/or municipal governments (Kitchener, Montreal and Alberta-twice); only Ottawa did it entirely through corporate sponsorship and that in a much more favourable economic climate.
Today, Toronto is having great difficulty despite serious efforts; there is no funding for the Closed' and the Olympiad is facing great difficulty which has presumably given rise to the unfortunate situation with the Women's team---it may be that the only way they can go is if they pay their own way.
Contrary to Jean's belief that this is because organizers lack imagination or drive, the inescapable fact remains that chess is a very tough sell at every level. The demographic is unappealing to sponsors (low disposable income) and charitable fundraising drives are competing with children and hospitals.
Instead of criticizing the inadequacy of these efforts, I guess I would like to see some recognition that a lot of individuals are devoting a lot of effort to supporting chess out of love of the game.

Bang on! I personally think there should be on the CFC website a list of volunteers and the hours they put in a year and that way anybody who wants it public could see it. There needs to be a lot more respect and actions noted of volunteers. People however see what they want to see. For example I went to St Louis to play in the Bill Wright Open. I thought it was a memorial event but no he is a long time volunteer organiser (and still alive!) and that shows respect. Also on the board of directors of the club are many long time volunteers in the Missouri chess movement who make decisions in the running of the club and that again shows respect and recognition and volunteers working together. As it should be.

[Jean Hébert]

Re: Canada at the Olypmiad

I personally think there should be on the CFC website a list of volunteers and the hours they put in a year and that way anybody who wants it public could see it.

The number of hours put in cannot be verified and in itself has little meaning. What is meaningful are the results. Spending lots of time for small results may gets you praise for trying but not for doing. Praise spreaded around indiscriminately (which is something quite a few people like doing) loses all its value.

[Ilia Bluvshtein]

Re: Canadian Open and national team

I was told that William Yuan, father of Yuanling Yuan, first board of the women's team, is not the Captain of the Women's Team. It is Yuanling's mother, Shaomin Shi. But Yura will be dealing with all the chess competition issues for the women's team.

Maybe Ilia could confirm this.

Bob

YES, I confirm this.

Ilia

[Jean Hébert]

Re: Canada at the Olypmiad

There appears to be a widespread illusion that it is a simple matter to raise funds for chess through commercial sponsorship or outright contributions. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The experience with the last five Canadian Opens makes the point: four depended on substantial support from provincial and/or municipal governments (Kitchener, Montreal and Alberta-twice); only Ottawa did it entirely through corporate sponsorship and that in a much more favourable economic climate. .

I am not aware that anybody said that it was "simple matter", or even less so that it is a "widespread illusion". Quite the opposite. Most people believe that it cant be done and consequently DO NOT EVEN TRY. This is not one of my belief, this I know for a fact. Your example of the last five Canadian Opens is self defeating. If they got the support they needed from governments why would they go after private sponsors ? One way or another, they succeeding in doing more than just collect entry fees.
Regarding the unfavourable economic climates that at time we have to deal with, how would you explain the success of this year US championship ? Is it because of a particularly favourable economic climate in the US that we are not aware of ? In Cappelle-la-Grande this year finding private sponsors proved tougher, but somehow they to maintain the level of their event. This is worth praise and recognition.

I guess I would like to see some recognition that a lot of individuals are devoting a lot of effort to supporting chess out of love of the game.

I suggest then that you read HPE more carefully. I do recognize and praise the outstanding efforts and achievements of several organizers. However I don't believe in indiscriminate praise. It goes on merit. Sometimes you deserve some, sometimes you don't. When I play poorly I don't get any, I just get my losses published. When I do great I sometimes get a little. That's how life goes.