Canadian Open comments (from a non-participant)

**Hazel Smith** · Thursday, 15th July, 2010, 09:36 AM

Re: Canadian Open comments (from a non-participant)

I agree with your comments, especially the one to do with results. I went to visit, eyeing some of the top boards in particular, but rounding the playing hall from time to time. Occasionally, when I came back to see the top boards, they had ended, and unless the result was obvious, I was left wondering what had happened (even more, I had to try to explain the presumed results to my mom). By the time I got home, I was too tired to go online to check. Special scoresheets, logos, etc. might take some time/money to prepare, but results on the wall are very easy to implement.

Other than that, I think the organizers should get some credit. They picked a great playing hall, secured a considerable amount of sponsorship, and when I passed by, they all seemed to take their roles seriously. It's not easy managing a large group of players, and we're lucky enough to have the live game views, blogs, and more. Let's hope for a nice finish!

**Erik Malmsten** · Thursday, 15th July, 2010, 09:45 AM

Re: Canadian Open comments (from a non-participant)

Originally posted by Hugh Brodie View Post

I just returned from a few days in Toronto, and had a chance to watch a couple of rounds of the Open. Nice setup - but I will make my Jean Hebert-like comments about it. Some of the following could be corrected before the end of the event.

1) No carbon-copy scoresheets. The only games available will be those recorded on Monroi devices (and any voluntary submissions). (even the CYCC uses carbon-copy scoresheets on all boards). I brought this up at the CFC AGM (one person connected with the tournament said price was the factor). The FQE sells "regular" scoresheets $6/100; carbon-copy $12/100 (I can't find any scoresheet pricing on the CFC site; USCF sells them (carbon copy) for $6.95/100 . Assuming 125 games/round, that would be 1125 scoresheets, or $144 (half that if from the USCF). Is that a huge-budget item for an organizer? Put a sponsor's logo on them, and you could probably get the sponsor to pay for them). And if you don't have time to enter the games - there are volunteers around who will.

2) Results of completed games (of the round in progress) not available to spectators. I saw that boards 1 and 2 were completed, and the only way I could find out the results was to go to the Monroi computer (projecting the games) and scroll up and down to find the result. Suggestion to organizers: when one of the top boards is complete, leave the name cards on the tables and put a "1-0", "0-1", or "1/2-1/2" card on the table.

3) Sponsors logos. They appear in very small type on the top boards player name cards. Why not have much larger logos hanging from the sides of the tables?

4) Monroi game display: I heard a couple of negative comments, and I felt the same way. The black squares are too dark - causing the black pieces to be almost invisible on black sqaures. Also - the player names on the displays are almost impossible to read (too small) - make them larger and darker by using just the last names. What happened to the Monroi feature of highlighting the piece last moved?

Thanks for your input.

1) I brought my scanner and the plan was to have a desk with a person scan all the scoresheets, or at least those invlving master players. But we have problems getting enough volunteers to staff the cellphone desk and watch a computer. Zeljka would have done it, but the scanner is too noisy to be in the centre of the playing room. Players can make an additional copy to put in the bag for best game, brillancy prize, but I agree that carbon copies would get more games submitted.

2) Leaving a king in the centre shows a result but having a folded card with the result might be more visible.

3) sponsor logos are on a sign at the door and on the boards, but a vertical sign around the top boards and screens would be a good place.

4) The lighting around the screen can't be turned down because it is needed for the boards, and this is the core of the problem.

**Egidijus Zeromskis** · Thursday, 15th July, 2010, 09:58 AM

Re: Canadian Open comments (from a non-participant)

Originally posted by Hugh Brodie View Post

1) No carbon-copy scoresheets.

I'll try to make scoresheet copies with a camera today. As Eric told me, he wanted to scan them but a scanner was too noisy for the task...

2) Results of completed games

The common practice is to plays a king(s) on the board center.

3) Sponsors logos.

They are on the directional boards too.

from Monroi

4) Monroi game display

You can not have a good movie theater in a bright room ;) As I remember, the last year during the Toronto Open, the projector and the screen were not so far apart thus the picture was better.

***

The large hall accommodating all boards is a very very good thing, and there still many space to move around those boards.

****

hmm, Eric beat me with his replies. However I am amused of coincidence of his and my answers :D

**Gordon Ritchie** · Thursday, 15th July, 2010, 10:23 AM

Re: Canadian Open comments (from a non-participant)

I am kicking myself for not being well enough organized to play in this event. I did visit on Monday night and was very impressed. The playing hall is the best I have ever seen for an Open---better than Edmonton, Montreal, Ottawa or Kitchener. Good lighting. Ample spacing. Good ventilation. Easy access.
The organizers have done a lot of things right. I very much enjoyed the freedom for spectators to move around and there did not seem to be any problems. The top boards were easily followed live which more than made up for the inevitable problems with the screen displays.
On the score sheets, I agree with Hugh and we did discuss the matter at the AGM. Edmonton imposed a requirement that a score sheet be deposited for every game or the game would simply not count. That encouraged (!) compliance and seemed to work fine. Cost should not really be a factor.
All in all, a very fine tournament.
Indeed, the last few years have created an interesting problem: they may have set the bar so high that it discourages other locations from bidding. While it is very enjoyable to have a spectactular event every now and then, replete with foreign GMs and crystal chandeliers, it would also be perfectly acceptable to hold a much simpler event in most years.

**Jean Hébert** · Thursday, 15th July, 2010, 10:35 AM

Re : Canadian Open comments (from a non-participant)

Originally posted by Hugh Brodie View Post

I just returned from a few days in Toronto, and had a chance to watch a couple of rounds of the Open. Nice setup - but I will make my Jean Hebert-like comments about it.

You probably mean that you are telling it like it is. We need more cynical people like you.:)

Originally posted by Hugh Brodie View Post

1) No carbon-copy scoresheets. The only games available will be those recorded on Monroi devices (and any voluntary submissions). (even the CYCC uses carbon-copy scoresheets on all boards). I brought this up at the CFC AGM (one person connected with the tournament said price was the factor). The FQE sells "regular" scoresheets $6/100; carbon-copy $12/100 (I can't find any scoresheet pricing on the CFC site; USCF sells them (carbon copy) for $6.95/100 . Assuming 125 games/round, that would be 1125 scoresheets, or $144 (half that if from the USCF). Is that a huge-budget item for an organizer? Put a sponsor's logo on them, and you could probably get the sponsor to pay for them). And if you don't have time to enter the games - there are volunteers around who will.

This is a no-brainer but it is one more reason not to do it.
"Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity."
-General George Patton

**Jean Hébert** · Thursday, 15th July, 2010, 10:56 AM

Re : Re: Canadian Open comments (from a non-participant)

Originally posted by Gordon Ritchie View Post

I am kicking myself for not being well enough organized to play in this event. I did visit on Monday night and was very impressed. The playing hall is the best I have ever seen for an Open---better than Edmonton, Montreal, Ottawa or Kitchener. Good lighting. Ample spacing. Good ventilation. Easy access.

So far you are describing the infamous Guelph Canadian Closed 2009. Hopefully the Canadian Open 2010 is more than "nice space"...

Originally posted by Gordon Ritchie View Post

The organizers have done a lot of things right. I very much enjoyed the freedom for spectators to move around and there did not seem to be any problems.

You have already mentioned the "ample space". Surely there is more to mention and you don't need to repeat...

Originally posted by Gordon Ritchie View Post

The top boards were easily followed live which more than made up for the inevitable problems with the screen displays.

Seems to me that if there are display problems, the games are not so easily followed. Standing up next to the board is not an acceptable way to follow a chess game, both from the spectator and the players point of view.

Originally posted by Gordon Ritchie View Post

On the score sheets, I agree with Hugh and we did discuss the matter at the AGM. Edmonton imposed a requirement that a score sheet be deposited for every game or the game would simply not count. That encouraged (!) compliance and seemed to work fine. Cost should not really be a factor.

A no-brainer which should not be discussed any more. It should be done without "sinking", like most russians would say. Losing gamescores on a large scale in such an "important" event is no minor flaw. It is a disaster.
If you have to do it every day, for God’s sake learn to do it well.
-Mignon McLaughlin,

Originally posted by Gordon Ritchie View Post

All in all, a very fine tournament.

No comment.

Originally posted by Gordon Ritchie View Post

Indeed, the last few years have created an interesting problem: they may have set the bar so high that it discourages other locations from bidding. While it is very enjoyable to have a spectactular event every now and then, replete with foreign GMs and crystal chandeliers, it would also be perfectly acceptable to hold a much simpler event in most years.

This is nonsense. It is like saying that Carlsen is getting too strong and discouraging other players to try to beat him. Bringing standards down is not "perfectly acceptable". Canadian "standards" (if such a thing actually exist) are not high enough to be allowed to go down.

**Kerry Liles** · Thursday, 15th July, 2010, 11:16 AM

Re: Re : Re: Canadian Open comments (from a non-participant)

Originally posted by Jean Hébert View Post

Canadian "standards" (if such a thing actually exist) are not high enough to be allowed to go down.

**Hugh Brodie** · Thursday, 15th July, 2010, 11:24 AM

Re: Canadian Open comments (from a non-participant)

My comments to the comments.

Gordon wrote:

The organizers have done a lot of things right. I very much enjoyed the freedom for spectators to move around and there did not seem to be any problems.

I enjoyed that "freedom" too. The restrictions on spectators in the 2007 (Ottawa) Canadian Open was a low point as far as showing a major chess tournament to the public was concerned.

Egidijus wrote:

I'll try to make scoresheet copies with a camera today. As Eric told me, he wanted to scan them but a scanner was too noisy for the task

How do you get the players to provide you with the scoresheets to photgraph/scan? Ideally - you should have the scoresheets of both players. Will the qualities of the scans/photos be good enough?

Egidijus wrote:

The common practice is to plays a king(s) on the board center.

That practice is used by the DGT sensory boards to indicate a result - commonplace in Europe - but the average (North American) player would not understand what it meant. Also - the spectator's area for the top boards is too far away and too low to see exactly where the King(s) are placed. Maybe by standing on a chair you could see where the King(s) were.

**Matthew Scott** · Thursday, 15th July, 2010, 11:30 AM

Re: Canadian Open comments (from a non-participant)

Originally posted by Hugh Brodie View Post

My comments to the comments.

Gordon wrote:

I enjoyed that "freedom" too. The restrictions on spectators in the 2007 (Ottawa) Canadian Open was a low point as far as showing a major chess tournament to the public was concerned.

Egidijus wrote:

How do you get the players to provide you with the scoresheets to photgraph/scan? Ideally - you should have the scoresheets of both players. Will the qualities of the scans/photos be good enough?

Egidijus wrote:

That practice is used by the DGT sensory boards to indicate a result - commonplace in Europe - but the average (North American) player would not understand what it meant. Also - the spectator's area for the top boards is too far away and too low to see exactly where the King(s) are placed. Maybe by standing on a chair you could see where the King(s) were.

http://www.dgtprojects.com/site/Boar...te-result.html

**Egidijus Zeromskis** · Thursday, 15th July, 2010, 11:51 AM

Re: Canadian Open comments (from a non-participant)

Originally posted by Hugh Brodie View Post

How do you get the players to provide you with the scoresheets to photgraph/scan? Ideally - you should have the scoresheets of both players. Will the qualities of the scans/photos be good enough

I'll ask them :) I've some experience with this approach at the Hart House tournaments. A quality was good enough (I may send you a sample later if interested), and it is tree-friendly :D

That practice is used by the DGT sensory boards to indicate a result

The DGT version is too complicated.

One king for win
Two kings for draw

**Matthew Scott** · Thursday, 15th July, 2010, 12:15 PM

Re: Canadian Open comments (from a non-participant)

Originally posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post

I'll ask them :) I've some experience with this approach at the Hart House tournaments. A quality was good enough (I may send you a sample later if interested), and it is tree-friendly :D

The DGT version is too complicated.

One king for win
Two kings for draw

It's because the DGT version probably can't tell which King is which, though this could be easily solved by having the kings having slightly different weights or shapes on their base.

**Jean Hébert** · Thursday, 15th July, 2010, 01:25 PM

Re : Re: Canadian Open comments (from a non-participant)

Originally posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post

I'll ask them :) I've some experience with this approach at the Hart House tournaments. A quality was good enough (I may send you a sample later if interested), and it is tree-friendly :D

You have skipped the main question/problem. "How do you get the players to provide you with the scoresheets to photgraph/scan?"

**Egidijus Zeromskis** · Thursday, 15th July, 2010, 01:36 PM

Re: Re : Re: Canadian Open comments (from a non-participant)

Originally posted by Jean Hébert View Post

You have skipped the main question/problem. "How do you get the players to provide you with the scoresheets to photgraph/scan?"

once more: I'll ask them - it takes 20-30 sec to make a picture. Hope there will be not many stubborn players

(I'm not trying to collect all games.)

**Jonathan Berry** · Thursday, 15th July, 2010, 02:11 PM

Re: Canadian Open comments (from a non-participant)

Originally posted by Hugh Brodie View Post

1) No carbon-copy scoresheets. The only games available will be those recorded on Monroi devices (and any voluntary submissions). (even the CYCC uses carbon-copy scoresheets on all boards). I brought this up at the CFC AGM (one person connected with the tournament said price was the factor). The FQE sells "regular" scoresheets $6/100; carbon-copy $12/100 (I can't find any scoresheet pricing on the CFC site; USCF sells them (carbon copy) for $6.95/100 . Assuming 125 games/round, that would be 1125 scoresheets, or $144 (half that if from the USCF). Is that a huge-budget item for an organizer? Put a sponsor's logo on them, and you could probably get the sponsor to pay for them). And if you don't have time to enter the games - there are volunteers around who will.

At the 2007 Canadian Open, I remember that Stijn was upset at the cost of NCR (duplicating) scoresheets from the CFC, and was extremely reluctant to buy more than was absolutely necessary, zero. It's ironic, because the tournament had a printer, and with enough lead time ... Anyway, proof of the pudding is in Hugh's hands. Canbase II shows 431 games from the 2007 Canadian Open in Ottawa, which is as many as any Canadian Open since Edmonton 2005 (which provided 1017 games, that must be pretty close to all the games played). Still, Ottawa was only 43 games out of the 135 played each round.

Appropriate technology can be the key.

A sheet scanner (such as the Fujitsu Scan Snap S510) is quieter, faster and more compact than a standard scanner. It also copies both sides. But beware of players with scorebooks, suddenly you can't copy their score.

A digital camera could do an acceptable job, but add a $10 tripod, and that job becomes much better.

Me, I still have a few old-fashioned carbon papers in an airtight bag, and some uncut scoresheets that you just need to fold in half to make a carbon machine. Remember when writing move 51 to flip the carbon paper!

One of the drawbacks of NCR is that frequently the copy isn't legible, so you need to take the original, which may annoy the players.

Inadequate staffing levels--tell me about it! One sometimes overlooked source of expertise is among the spouses of players. That's what they eventually availed in Ottawa 2007. One exception was the World Chess Festival at Saint John 1988. Somebody told me that the initial volunteer organizational meeting, about a year before the event, attracted 800 prospective volunteers. They had so many, they could pick and choose. So even the chess ushers were career professionals. Maritimers are different, no doubt about it!

Canadian Open comments (from a non-participant)

Canadian Open comments (from a non-participant)

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment