2 questions for Jean Hebert

[Larry Bevand]

For close to two years, the FQE has been privileged to have the President of Sobey's Quebec, Marc Poulin, as President of the Quebec Chess Federation. This has resulted in major (for chess) sponsorship of Quebec chess events.

The Canadian Chess Challenge, which is organized by the Chess'n Math Association, has benefitted from sponsorship from Ben & Jerry's (Unilver Canada) Lawtons Drugs the Bank of Montreal and Danone. In order to get the Canadian Chess Challenge off the ground in 1988, we had Ben Wicks (a famous cartoonist) who raised well over $100,000 for the event).

Last year, Brian Fiedler, who is an accomplished chessplayer and an important person at Canadian Tire, put on the Canadian Open. It was a great event! A few years ago, Sid Belzberg, was a major sponsor of the Canadian Closed and the Canadian Olympic team. In the 1970's (thanks to Roger Lemelin) La Presse put chess on the map in Quebec. We had the Montreal International for a decade thanks to Andre Langlois.

I guess what I am saying is...chess in Canada, throughout the decades, has had good people come forward (probably more so in Quebec than any other province in Canada). In Alberta, thanks to Ford Wong and the Alberta Chess Establishment of the past, money is not the major issue. Today I understand, these folks would have preferred a better followup.

Our problem is that we do not retain these excellent people.

Question 1: Why is that?

Question 2: Could these people have directed their contribution in a more constructive fashion?


BTW, your new book is impressive! It can be purchased at our website:

http://strategygames.ca/boutique/sto...e=EN&code=GF40

It is in French. Free shipping anywhere in Canada.

Larry

[Jean Hébert]

Re: 2 questions for Jean Hebert

Our problem is that we do not retain these excellent people.

Question 1: Why is that?

Question 2: Could these people have directed their contribution in a more constructive fashion?


BTW, your new book is impressive! It can be purchased at our website:

http://strategygames.ca/boutique/sto...e=EN&code=GF40

It is in French. Free shipping anywhere in Canada.

Larry, you sure have kept the tough questions for me ! I will think about it for a while to put my ideas in order.
Thanks for the good words on "Hébert parle échecs" volume 1. Volume II should be even better covering 2009, which was quite special for yours truly...

[David Ottosen]

Re: 2 questions for Jean Hebert

Can anyone answer or just Jean?

[Jean Hébert]

Re: 2 questions for Jean Hebert

Can anyone answer or just Jean?

Go on it will give me some ideas... :)

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: 2 questions for Jean Hebert

Last year, Brian Fiedler, who is an accomplished chessplayer and an important person at Canadian Tire, put on the Canadian Open.

Brian is still around and with several goals related to chess. He was elected as the CFC governor during the GTCL AGM, too.

[David Ottosen]

Re: 2 questions for Jean Hebert

Go on it will give me some ideas... :)

The answer to question 1 is in question 2. When you think that your volunteer resources and talent can be "directed" in the manner of your choosing, you are already halfway to losing them. People volunteer to do things for a variety of reasons - the opportunity to follow orders is not one of them.

From a higher perpsective, you can consider it from Maslow's theories. Volunteering for chess work fulfills none of the physiological or safety needs of a person. So, the positions should be geared towards meeting people's need for belonging or self-esteem. Instead, a disproportionate amount of time is spent on people who:

1) Don't consider the organizer as part of their peer group (eliminating any chance for feeling like "belonging"). The Canadian Closed is running right now - how many players have offered to take the TD out for lunch/dinner in the first five rounds, just to chit chat and be friendly? I'm guessing zero.

2) Complain that conditions/prizes/game broadcast/website are not better (eliminating any chance for gaining self esteem for getting a bunch of compliments for running an event). I don't think I need to even bother mentioning the many examples of this regarding the Canadian closed right now.

Essentially, my answer to Larry's question is - what does an organizer get out of it? Nothing. In fact, less than nothing - being excluded from the peer group of "players", and having self esteem attacked by complaints. It's pretty well a mathematical certainty that you'll lose people.

I fully understand the chicken vs egg argument that is coming - well if they organize better, I'll treat them nice and say lots of good things. Just remember who has the incentive to make it happen. Hint - it isn't the volunteer organizers.

[Jean Hébert]

Re: 2 questions for Jean Hebert

The answer to question 1 is in question 2. When you think that your volunteer resources and talent can be "directed" in the manner of your choosing, you are already halfway to losing them. People volunteer to do things for a variety of reasons - the opportunity to follow orders is not one of them.

From a higher perpsective, you can consider it from Maslow's theories. Volunteering for chess work fulfills none of the physiological or safety needs of a person. So, the positions should be geared towards meeting people's need for belonging or self-esteem. Instead, a disproportionate amount of time is spent on people who:

1) Don't consider the organizer as part of their peer group (eliminating any chance for feeling like "belonging"). The Canadian Closed is running right now - how many players have offered to take the TD out for lunch/dinner in the first five rounds, just to chit chat and be friendly? I'm guessing zero.

2) Complain that conditions/prizes/game broadcast/website are not better (eliminating any chance for gaining self esteem for getting a bunch of compliments for running an event). I don't think I need to even bother mentioning the many examples of this regarding the Canadian closed right now.

Essentially, my answer to Larry's question is - what does an organizer get out of it? Nothing. In fact, less than nothing - being excluded from the peer group of "players", and having self esteem attacked by complaints. It's pretty well a mathematical certainty that you'll lose people.

I fully understand the chicken vs egg argument that is coming - well if they organize better, I'll treat them nice and say lots of good things. Just remember who has the incentive to make it happen. Hint - it isn't the volunteer organizers.

Now at least I am starting to understand why Larry asked me those questions... You have failed to understand the questions.

Larry does not talk about organizers in general or even only about organizers ( Belzberg was not really an organizer from my point of view ), he talks about those "excellent people" who attracts money or bring money with them and gets things done on a high level.

Furthermore to support your "volunteer that quit through criticism theories" you bring in the worst possible example where the "volunteer" is actually a chess professionnal getting wages or making (legitimately) a profit from every service he provides ! Which certainly explains why he does absorb a small amount of criticism and nonetheless has remained in the business for a long time and shows no sign of quitting.

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: 2 questions for Jean Hebert

So Jean, from the tone of your last post, it would appear your objective is to drive away all organizers who don't live up to your expectations, thus clearing the road for more worthy organizers with lots of money.

Let me remind you that the Closed was open for bids from any "deep pocket" organizers until the last minute. Nobody came, again. :(

The CFC would be most welcome to accept bids from any "deep pocket" organizers for any of our national championships for 2012. I look forward to their bids at the AGM in July. But what if they don't come, again. :(

There are no chess tournament organizers in Canada (that I know of) that are receiving enough compensation (fees, salary, profits) to adequately compensate them for their time, effort, devotion, risk, and grief from frivolous complaints on chesstalk.

So, I have a third question for Jean. If you are successful in driving away all the chess organizers without "deep pockets", and nobody with deep pockets brings forward a bid in July, will you? What is your plan B?

[David Ottosen]

Re: 2 questions for Jean Hebert

Larry does not talk about organizers in general or even only about organizers ( Belzberg was not really an organizer from my point of view ), he talks about those "excellent people" who attracts money or bring money with them and gets things done on a high level.

Whatever nit you are picking, the point still applies. What does the excellent person who attracts or brings money get in terms of positive reinforcement out of their involvement in the game? What individual need of theirs is being met by bring their talents to our organization? And what makes you think that, in exchange for the nothing that you give them, you have the ability to influence them to do something different than what they are already offering?

If you talk about professional organizers making a wage, then you are talking about people who are meeting a more base Maslow need, and are thus irrelevant to this discussion.

[Jonathan Berry]

Re: 2 questions for Jean Hebert

Why does every thread have to be "British Bulldog on Jean Hébert" ?

Larry's question is about sponsors, not organizers.

If you want to gang up on Jean, or talk about volunteerism, and chess volunteerism in particular, please start a new thread. Thank you.

[Peter McKillop]

Re: 2 questions for Jean Hebert

... What does the excellent person who attracts or brings money get in terms of positive reinforcement out of their involvement in the game? What individual need of theirs is being met by bring their talents to our organization? ...

What if this 'excellent person' has a need to reinforce low self-esteem? : l

[Jean Hébert]

Re: 2 questions for Jean Hebert

So Jean, from the tone of your last post, it would appear your objective is to drive away all organizers who don't live up to your expectations, thus clearing the road for more worthy organizers with lots of money.

I don't intend to drive anybody away because I know from experience that it simply does not work. Some people enjoy and need the attention, any kind of attention... :)

Organizers are needed at all levels of chess, scholastic, club, weekenders and so on. What I say is that if someone takes on the challenge to organize a high level tournament, the Canadian Closed being a good example, he should perform at that level of organizing, not at the level of a simple "based on..." weekender. The "better than nothing" approach does not cut it with me, even if I understand that it makes sense for many people.

Have I ever driven away an organizer in my chess career ? Frankly I don't think so. Or maybe one, whose name has since been easily forgotten. This is a non-issue all made up to protect people from imaginary dangers. As Larry implied, the excellent people, those that by definition draw way more praise than criticism (if any) are often those who leave too soon, despite the praise ! The others, far less efficient, unfortunately often stay far longer (despite the criticism) without making any progress.

I don't think that Larry's questions are about that at all. But then Larry's mind sometimes work in mysterious ways and in that regard i could be way off base. :)
In any case I see that discussing those issues may prove impossible if people stay stuck with theories such as the ones above.

[Jean Hébert]

Re: 2 questions for Jean Hebert

What does the excellent person who attracts or brings money get in terms of positive reinforcement out of their involvement in the game? What individual need of theirs is being met by bring their talents to our organization?

The need to make a difference, if possible a lasting difference that goes beyond a single one time event, and the need to contribute to society positively. Promoting the game of chess among youth or at large in a meaningful way can contribute significantly to fill those needs.

[David Ottosen]

Re: 2 questions for Jean Hebert

Why does every thread have to be "British Bulldog on Jean Hébert" ?

Because he's so wrong about everything? :D Besides, I asked before I jumped in and got the royal Hebert permission.

Larry's question is about sponsors, not organizers.

His question was about people with access to sponsors/money. Organizers or sponsors both are volunteering their time/money in exchange for some nebulous goodwill feeling.

The need to make a difference, if possible a lasting difference that goes beyond a single one time event, and the need to contribute to society positively.

You can get that goodwill feeling 100x more fulfilled (especially for people who are capable of raising money) in just about any other endeavour than chess.

For example, could you imagine the Make a Wish foundation kids coming to someone who was volunteering and saying "unbelievable that the DVD you gave me of this was not in HD, and that Wayne Gretzky just came for a 2 hour visit instead of flying me to Disneyland."? No, you use your connections/money/whatever, and you get to see a sick kid have the most incredible day of your life. How does chess compete with that?

[Jonathan Berry]

Re: 2 questions for Jean Hebert

... I asked before I jumped in and got the royal Hebert permission.

You asked permission, and then you wilfully wrote on a different (though familiar) subject.

Organizers or sponsors both are volunteering their time/money in exchange for some nebulous goodwill feeling.

I noticed in the tax return that Revenue Canada allows those who have taken a vow of perpetual poverty to a religious order to deduct the value of the property they have given over. Priests, nuns, organizers and sponsors, all can have that "nebulous goodwill feeling." Since CFC lost its charitable status, maybe it's timely to up the ante and become a religious order. After all, a strong Canadian chess player used to say "Fischer is God." Smile. No, really, he did. Smile.

If we could only figure out what motivates men to become nuns, could we solve the eternal question of chess sponsorship? Or is "nebulous goodwill feeling" really too vague for meaningful comparison, is it insufficiently insightful?