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.
There's nothing wrong with chess organizers finding wealthy chess enthusiasts to sustain elite tournaments. Heck, that's been going on for centuries. It is certainly a better idea than asking taxpayers to fund things like concert halls, sports stadiums and live theatre venues, which seems to be the norm here in Ottawa.
Last edited by Tom O'Donnell; Thursday, 20th May, 2010, 08:07 AM.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
well, of course patronage is different from sponsorship - a point that seems to escape most people.
Another point missing from the discussion is that sponsorship is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Rather than saying organizers must find more sponsors (or patronage), it would be more useful to discuss what is it that organizers don't supply that can't be covered by entry fees that would make chess tournaments more enjoyable. And if the answer is simply more prize money, then it's something I'm not interested in looking for sponsorship / patronage.
Parenthetically, comparing any Canadian chess tournament conditions to those of the US championship, a country with 10x the population, a tournament with 21 GMs some of whom are within spitting distance of world championship level and have worldwide name recognition and the weakest player being 2450 is not an apples to apples comparison. On a per capita basis, Canada has had championships at least as well funded as this one.
well, of course patronage is different from sponsorship - a point that seems to escape most people.
Another point missing from the discussion is that sponsorship is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Rather than saying organizers must find more sponsors (or patronage), it would be more useful to discuss what is it that organizers don't supply that can't be covered by entry fees that would make chess tournaments more enjoyable. And if the answer is simply more prize money, then it's something I'm not interested in looking for sponsorship / patronage.
Parenthetically, comparing any Canadian chess tournament conditions to those of the US championship, a country with 10x the population, a tournament with 21 GMs some of whom are within spitting distance of world championship level and have worldwide name recognition and the weakest player being 2450 is not an apples to apples comparison. On a per capita basis, Canada has had championships at least as well funded as this one.
One thing that it would cover is not asking players to pay an EF to a "prestigious" event to which they qualified. Another is to provide conditions; it's pretty galling to see that even someone finishing clear 3rd in the Canadian Closed is highly unlikely to make their expenses back, unless they live in the city in which it is held.
Obviously there is no way that the Canadian Closed is ever going to have the quality of its US counterpart; however, I would also like to know which Canadian Closed had a prize fund of $20K. I must have missed that one. Since we want to compare apples to apples, you can't compare a prize fund that was created from the players themselves with the one in St. Louis. I consider the prize fund of the last few Closeds to be close to zero.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
Obviously there is no way that the Canadian Closed is ever going to have the quality of its US counterpart; however, I would also like to know which Canadian Closed had a prize fund of $20K. I must have missed that one.
For example: the prize fund for both of the Belzberg Technologies sponsored championships was $25K.
See how long the memory of that lasted? Money well spent. NOT.
A quick search of the columns revealed Belzberg (Sid and Alicia, or Technologies) sponsorship or patronage of the 2004 (won by Charbonneau) and 2006 (won by Zugic) Canadian (Zonal) Championships, the 2004 Women's Championship (won by Khaziyeva), and various Olympic teams.
For the Canadian Championships, was the sponsorship or patronage in the nature of a grant/direct infusion of funds, or of a prize fund guarantee against the now familiar entry fee? The answer to that question is significant in the context of what Tom wrote, which was "you can't compare a prize fund that was created from the players themselves with the one in St. Louis."
I don't remember what the EF was, but if it was $200 as stated in the current handbook, then 65 players (2006) would have contributed $12,600 towards the prize fund (assuming the standard two free entries).
I guess ultimately it's patronage, because few of us are in the market to buy the product of Belzberg Technologies. Mazel-tov for that, Sid.
Whether it was money well spent is completely in the purview of the people who spent it, Roger. If I may make an analogy, let's compare it with volunteering. You work and you don't get paid. On the surface, a waste of time. But for most volunteers, it's a win. The benefits are many, from the joy of helping to work experience and networking to "getting laid" to meeting a future spouse. Mileage also varies; none of these results is guaranteed!
If I may make an analogy, let's compare it with volunteering. You work and you don't get paid. On the surface, a waste of time. But for most volunteers, it's a win. The benefits are many, from the joy of helping to work experience and networking to "getting laid" ...
Never happened to me. Effed a few times, maybe, never laid. Probably a good thing, my wife complains enough about my chess volunteering as it is.
True enough, a cheap shot as they say. And actually I know that Sid was reasonably happy with the first championship he supported, although perhaps not for reasons Tom would consider correct (he liked that there were so many playing, up and coming juniors and women in particular)
The point about a short memory for the contribution remains.
There's nothing wrong with chess organizers finding wealthy chess enthusiasts to sustain elite tournaments. Heck, that's been going on for centuries. It is certainly a better idea than asking taxpayers to fund things like concert halls, sports stadiums and live theatre venues, which seems to be the norm here in Ottawa.
I agree with you, Tom, I wasn't implying that there is anything wrong with finding wealthy chess enthusiasts to sustain elite tournaments.... IF you can do it. It's that IF that is the problem.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
For example: the prize fund for both of the Belzberg Technologies sponsored championships was $25K.
See how long the memory of that lasted? Money well spent. NOT.
Sorry for the delay in responding. Had to go teach a lesson. Did more for the Green cause than any amount of babbling on here by walking to and from the lesson. Took 90 minutes for just under 6 miles total. I couldn't hold my breath all the way so there were some CO2 emissions, sorry about that.
I apologize to Belzberg Technologies if in fact it paid the entire prize fund for the events, though my admittedly very hazy memory doesn't confirm this. Hey, even paying part of the prize fund is nice.
I get the impression that most players range from apathetic to outright hostile in their view towards stronger players and conditions. The stronger players do themselves absolutely no favours by playing in events they later decry as lousy knowing going into the event that it is going to be by their subjective standards, well, lousy. Better not to play at all, imo. Seems I am not alone in this:
"... I will add one last thing: When I was an active player, I attended a meeting of the Southern CA Chess Federation, which happened to be held at a large tournament. I proposed that titled players get free entries into all S.CA events since, 1) They often pay an entry fee, win nothing, and have in effect worked to lose money; 2) These are the players that everyone watches – their participation enhances the event.
There were a lot of players watching these proceedings, and after an official from the federation announced that my proposal was shocking and would place too much strain on tournament organizers, some random guy in the audience rushed down to where I was standing and loudly said (foam literally pouring from his mouth!), “You will pay entry fees into these tournaments, I will watch your games, and there’s nothing you can do about it!”
It turned out that there was something I could do about it – I never played in another S.CA tournament." Smart guy, that Jeremy.
I don't know if the money is well spent or not. On the surface, I would agree that companies spending the money on chess tournaments is a bad idea. I would also agree with the sentiment that companies spending money on anything that doesn't make them more money is a bad idea, but hey that's just me.
As for individuals, I wouldn't criticize how someone who has plenty of money decides how to spend it. I am guessing you wouldn't finance a Canadian Closed, I certainly wouldn't, but perhaps somebody somewhere might. It can't hurt to look for the money. Making motions requiring people to do so, however, is just laughable.
Anyway, I don't see anything changing with respect to the view of chess in Canada. I am sure ten years from now people will be wondering, "Gee, where did promising Player X go and how come he doesn't play here anymore?"
Gee, I don't know. He's probably in Portugal or on Wall Street or working in computer science/computer programming/engineering, playing poker online or even flipping burgers at Wendy's. They all pay better and have better social status. Me, my plan is to retire in five years (Yay Freedom50), go live out on a farm in the boondocks, and read lots of chess books in the evenings. Oh, ya and play in some tournaments. Good tournaments. Most won't be Canadian tournaments.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
the basic problem is the word "worked" in that quote. You see, if it's "work" for you, I don't care if you play in my events or not or quit chess altogether. And that author probably overestimates his value to the organizer and spectators. But perhaps this is slightly off topic - veering into that basic disagreement about whether good players are entitled to monetary priviliges or not. Or maybe not as Mr. Hebert's point of view seems to be that organizers should work harder so that top players can be paid more. I don't imagine that he thinks the point of sponsorship is to provide free tote bags for everyone or to lower the entry fee for everyone.
the basic problem is the word "worked" in that quote. You see, if it's "work" for you, I don't care if you play in my events or not or quit chess altogether. And that author probably overestimates his value to the organizer and spectators. But perhaps this is slightly off topic - veering into that basic disagreement about whether good players are entitled to monetary priviliges or not. Or maybe not as Mr. Hebert's point of view seems to be that organizers should work harder so that top players can be paid more. I don't imagine that he thinks the point of sponsorship is to provide free tote bags for everyone or to lower the entry fee for everyone.
So I guess pro hockey players don't work. Nor would musicians at the symphony. Nor writers. These people all have the magical ability where they don't have expenses for luxuries such as food. Good to know as I'll be expecting free tickets to a variety of sporting and cultural events as well as free books all in the mail. Can't wait.
Do your tournaments offer any cash prizes at all? If so, why? Or why not just award them totally randomly, say by generating some number with that finisher getting the prize?
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
Tweet
Comment