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.
15. Have fun!
(Thanks to Nigel Hanrahan for writing these up!)
Why CFC denying talented juniors to represent CANADA at World Stage???
I agree that CFC needs to nurture juniors, since a percentage of them return in later life.
And even when young, they are a staple revenue for current events - they now form 44% of the active membership of Scarborough CC, and are fully integrated into our 5 CFC-rated tournaments per year. This is important revenue to SCC, and we have seen some of our juniors from yesteryear, returning with their children, as you have said.
And look at the significant percentage of juniors in CFC-rated weekend tournaments. They again provide a signficant contribution toward prize funds.
Think of the children as seed corn. Yes we lose many of them for ten years when they try to become doctors and investment bankers and wives and husbands mothers and fathers but many of them come back eventually and become part of the chess community again at some point. Some of them come back when they have their own kids who play chess and its more fun to play than it is to just watch. Some of us get annoyed when we lose to the children who learn so quickly while we seem to dodder along making the same mistakes over and over again.
Many of those kids quit chess and never come back, taking their rating points won from us dodderers away into the ether. When you plant corn not every seed grows. If you eat the seed corn you will be full for a while but next year will come all too soon and you will be starving because you were hungry and didn't plan ahead and plant the seed corn instead of eating it. I suspect that this is part of the CFC's current problems of a declining membership. In the past the seed corn has been eaten and not enough seeds have been planted for future crops to materialize.
This analogy is something that came up over coffee at Tim Hortons with John Coleman last Tuesday after chess club and it seems appropriate to the current discussion.
Too many times the CFC has run mediocre projects for youth players which both discourages their drive and development and their enjoyment of the game. Too often the idea is what the player will become in terms of future skills and revenues, when the fact is these players often bring CURRENT skills and revenues to the game. Even worse, there have been moments where some executives and organizers that have used youth chess as a cash generator for other projects.
Without these players ( the U18s ), some chess events in Canada would be pathetic right now, with extremely small turnouts and frankly boring at times.
If there are adult projects that can be attractive to others, this has nothing to do with kids and their existance, as Ottosen would declare. Nobody is stopping organizers from running adult only clubs or events. However, chess is a game where sometimes the best players are 15 years old. This fact cannot be ignored. What are organizers going to do, say 15 year old Mark B. you got your GM title but wait 3-6 more years until you can play ? Then you miss most of his best years.
So the answer to those who say adult only events are needed, then run them. See how you do. Meanwhile, interested parties might need to create more youth only events with regular time controls.
My understanding is that adult membership has been stagnant at best, dropping at worst, for the past 10+ years, while participation in the CYCC has increased continually during that same time period. Ergo, you can draw a reasonable conclusion that increased participation in junior chess does not equal increases in adult membership. I agree that intuitively you might not expect this to be the case, but the numbers seem pretty clear to me.
If someone can show different, I'd be glad to review my position.
Too many times the CFC has run mediocre projects for youth players which both discourages their drive and development and their enjoyment of the game. Too often the idea is what the player will become in terms of future skills and revenues, when the fact is these players often bring CURRENT skills and revenues to the game. Even worse, there have been moments where some executives and organizers that have used youth chess as a cash generator for other projects.
I would argue that all the CFC has done is create an atmosphere where juniors have a much greater incentive to play and improve (since higher ratings = more opportunities to attend international events). For example, if you randomly said the top 3 masters in each province will be sent on an IM norm tournament once a year, I believe you'd see a lot of adult players making the effort to participate and improve as well. Yes, the kids bring strength to events - because they have much greater reason to try to improve!
All this does is create a system where while you are a junior, there is incentive to play, and once you turn past junior age, that incentive is gone, and the player stops playing.
All this does is create a system where while you are a junior, there is incentive to play, and once you turn past junior age, that incentive is gone, and the player stops playing.
What's left after you stop being a junior? Juniors are already competing in the adult events, playing on the national team and so forth. What is there to strive for after they become adult players which they couldn't do before?
What's left after you stop being a junior? Juniors are already competing in the adult events, playing on the national team and so forth. What is there to strive for after they become adult players which they couldn't do before?
There is nothing that adults could strive for that children couldn't also strive for but that doesn't mean that playing chess as an adult can't be intrinsically satisfying as a pursuit. Most kids are playing chess because they enjoy playing chess and not because of the possibility of playing in the WYCC or in international play. Parents want their children to play chess because they recognize that there are benefits to having them play the game.
Adults might play based on reports that cognitive declines due to Altzheimers and other age related declines may be put off (maybe indefinitely) by playing chess.
My understanding is that adult membership has been stagnant at best, dropping at worst, for the past 10+ years, while participation in the CYCC has increased continually during that same time period. Ergo, you can draw a reasonable conclusion that increased participation in junior chess does not equal increases in adult membership. I agree that intuitively you might not expect this to be the case, but the numbers seem pretty clear to me.
If someone can show different, I'd be glad to review my position.
Both adult and junior CFC activity have been dropping for some time. Junior only activity (as measured by those rated <1200 in the graph below) started circa 2000, peaked circa 2005 and has declined since then. Adult activity (as measured by those rated >1200) has been declining since at least 1996.
Of course this does not include CMA activity but I think you would have a hard time saying that junior activity is increasing overall from this data.
Just annecdotally, without juniors in BC, the attendance at tournaments would be catastrophically lower, perhaps below critical mass
I would argue that all the CFC has done is create an atmosphere where juniors have a much greater incentive to play and improve (since higher ratings = more opportunities to attend international events). For example, if you randomly said the top 3 masters in each province will be sent on an IM norm tournament once a year, I believe you'd see a lot of adult players making the effort to participate and improve as well. Yes, the kids bring strength to events - because they have much greater reason to try to improve!
All this does is create a system where while you are a junior, there is incentive to play, and once you turn past junior age, that incentive is gone, and the player stops playing.
The top three and most other masters in every province may play in the Canadian Closed once a year which is an IM norm tournament. They do not get much in the way of support to do so but the opportunity is there.
Kids like to play chess because it is fun. They like to socialize with other chess players. They like to study chess and improve. To a certain extent that is true of adults as well. Only forty kids or so are going to the WYCC this year out of hundreds or thousands who play some form of organized chess across Canada. Four of those kids are from our Sobeys Windsor advanced class. Ten or twelve kids have played internationally in some other international tournaments.
The 1400 kids who play in the Windsor Chess Challenge are playing because they get a day off of school and they are recognized with a gold, silver or bronze medal if they win. You should see the pain on the faces of the parents and grandparents when their kid doesn't get a medal, especially if they think he or she should. Alas finishing fifth or sixth doesn't earn a medal unless they at least tie for third.
Too many times the CFC has run mediocre projects for youth players which both discourages their drive and development and their enjoyment of the game. Too often the idea is what the player will become in terms of future skills and revenues, when the fact is these players often bring CURRENT skills and revenues to the game. Even worse, there have been moments where some executives and organizers that have used youth chess as a cash generator for other projects.
Without these players ( the U18s ), some chess events in Canada would be pathetic right now, with extremely small turnouts and frankly boring at times.
If there are adult projects that can be attractive to others, this has nothing to do with kids and their existance, as Ottosen would declare. Nobody is stopping organizers from running adult only clubs or events. However, chess is a game where sometimes the best players are 15 years old. This fact cannot be ignored. What are organizers going to do, say 15 year old Mark B. you got your GM title but wait 3-6 more years until you can play ? Then you miss most of his best years.
So the answer to those who say adult only events are needed, then run them. See how you do. Meanwhile, interested parties might need to create more youth only events with regular time controls.
An adult only tournament aside from low cost round robins would not fly in Windsor since there aren't enough adult members to make such a tournament viable. A big money non-CFC event might work but I would have no interest in running such an event and I can't think of any organizer who would be interested. The kids will show up for most tournaments whether they are kids only events or mixed events. They will bring joy to the proceedings and will be appreciative of any help you offer them in the way of analyzing their games.
We are getting a few new adults because of the work that is being done with the children but they are definitely a minority.
I don't understand what your listed proposals require from the CFC. Any local TD could implement these and see if they work or not.
Absolutely, and that was exactly my point.
I'm not expecting such changes to come from the CFC. If CFC membership complains about high membership fees, and those fees are due in large part to ELO ratings fees, then a significant group of the membership could theoretically demand their local TD provide a No Ratings Fee section that uses a simpler DIY rating system such as my proposal, or something like it. Another benefit is no need for web site updates: anyone can calculate in a few moments what their own rating is and what anyone else's rating is.
And if the local TD doesn't want to do it, that part of the membership walks, and maybe one of them decides to become a TD that does provide it. As Bob Armstrong would say, it has to be a grassroots movement. But it won't happen until and unless the membership reaches a "critical mass" of revolt against the high membership fees, and acts as one.
But instead, the membership numbers drift down as one by one members just decide it's too expensive to play CFC tournaments anymore. Everyone laments the situation, but the core cause is that the membership won't accept anything but ELO ratings, for which they have to pay through the nose and then wait weeks to find out where they stand. I can see that serious members are willing to pay to be part of the standard rating system. I get that. But there's a whole other group of both current members and past or prospective members who could be brought in if there was a cheaper alternative for them. Unfortunately, those less-serious members aren't going to make any demands -- they are instead going to leave / never show up in the first place.
It would take a brave, forward-thinking local TD to try this on his or her own. There's a few people talking the talk about change and reform, but nobody really willing to walk the walk.
The key concept here is that CFC membership is really divided into two major groups: serious, talented players and recreational players. Right now they all pay the same in membership fees. The recreational players are getting less and paying more, subsidizing the more serious players. What TD's could recognize is that they could maintain the serious group while trying my proposals to grow the recreational group. My prediction is that the growth of the recreational group would eventually swamp the capacity of most current chess club facilities, which one could take as either a good or bad thing. This growth of the recreational group might feed (from its younger members especially) more players into the serious group, helping that to grow as well.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Both adult and junior CFC activity have been dropping for some time. Junior only activity (as measured by those rated <1200 in the graph below) started circa 2000, peaked circa 2005 and has declined since then. Adult activity (as measured by those rated >1200) has been declining since at least 1996.
Of course this does not include CMA activity but I think you would have a hard time saying that junior activity is increasing overall from this data.
Just annecdotally, without juniors in BC, the attendance at tournaments would be catastrophically lower, perhaps below critical mass
There are fewer kids around these days than there once were. This is reflected in schools being closed and loss of jobs for teachers which has been somewhat offset by adding programs like full day kindergarden and half day pre-kindergarden in Ontario.
I'm not expecting such changes to come from the CFC. If CFC membership complains about high membership fees, and those fees are due in large part to ELO ratings fees, then a significant group of the membership could theoretically demand their local TD provide a No Ratings Fee section that uses a simpler DIY rating system such as my proposal, or something like it. Another benefit is no need for web site updates: anyone can calculate in a few moments what their own rating is and what anyone else's rating is.
I think I've lost the drift of your argument. Are you referring to ELO (FIDE) rating fees or CFC rating fees? If you're referring to CFC rating fees, I don't think that going to unrated tournaments will reduce tournament entry fees by any significant amount. CFC rating fees are $3 per tournament per player (plus HST). So if we eliminate rating costs, entry fees drop by a whopping $3. Hardly anything on the cost of a weekend Swiss. In places like Toronto, Vancouver, etc. a significant part of the cost of running a tournament relates to the rental of a space to hold the tournament.
An adult only tournament aside from low cost round robins would not fly in Windsor since there aren't enough adult members to make such a tournament viable. A big money non-CFC event might work but I would have no interest in running such an event and I can't think of any organizer who would be interested. The kids will show up for most tournaments whether they are kids only events or mixed events. They will bring joy to the proceedings and will be appreciative of any help you offer them in the way of analyzing their games.
We are getting a few new adults because of the work that is being done with the children but they are definitely a minority.
Some of the posts on this thread concerning youth chess are absurd, but unfortunately at times this absurdity enters into official CFC business and how organizers design projects. Far more at times then people want to admit.
My understanding is that adult membership has been stagnant at best, dropping at worst, for the past 10+ years, while participation in the CYCC has increased continually during that same time period. Ergo, you can draw a reasonable conclusion that increased participation in junior chess does not equal increases in adult membership. I agree that intuitively you might not expect this to be the case, but the numbers seem pretty clear to me.
If someone can show different, I'd be glad to review my position.
CYCC participation has fluctuated wildly, there has been no trend up or down. You keep saying that the success of a CYCC is predicated on increasing future adult membership, and I say like hell that matters the whole premise that everything the CFC does is based on adult participation levels is faulty to begin with.
The CYCC was hijacked from the CMA and used as a subsidy for other chess projects for numerous years. The CFC failed to tap into obvious sponsorship opportunities, seemingly incapable of understanding that there are sponsors for the kids that are NOT interested in adult chess. This was proven in the event in Ottawa, where a specific provision was made that the CFC NOT put any of the sponsorship funds into general revenue. In fact, it seems to be 90% certain now that this requirement was broken.
Check out any other sport, you'll be challenged to find many that use youth projects to subsidize adult projects. What you'll find is it is understood that by supporting youth projects you ensure to some degree the survival of your sport moving forward. If the CFC cannot deal with the responsibility, then get the hell out of the way and let others try.
Last edited by Duncan Smith; Friday, 21st October, 2011, 06:57 PM.
Tweet
Comment