Congratulations to Haizhou Xu

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Open sections in tournaments

How would they do that? Dress Paul up in an Alfalfa outfit? I think the parents might just notice the age difference. And who would play Paul's proud parents? 'Our little Paul is going to be such a good player one day' :)

In 3 tournaments in Europe I've played a GM and an IM. However, in the open tournaments there are like 25 to 50 GMs all competing for the top prize. Also tournaments here have serious prizes such as 8000 euros.

There is no "age difference" aspect to an Open tournament. Paul would be dressed in his normal Superman outfit. :D The parents would be told that their kids were about to get a firsthand chess lesson. That's why I wrote that Paul might do a simul as well, because not every kid entered would get to play him a tournament match.

If there are 25 to 50 GMs competing for Open section top prizes, how many 2100's, 2200's, 2300's are there? And what are the typical entry fees to those sections? It seems like you are suggesting that it is a good idea to have Open sections at all tournaments, and that is the discussion point I am bringing up, so if you have evidence to support you, please give as many details as possible. Your point, if I've interpreted it correctly, may have some validity, but there's one caveat: how much should we try and bring European tournament practices into North American events? There is a huge difference in chess culture. Europeans, with generous government pay and vacation packages, have more time on their hands and have a greater chess tradition. But all that is changing rapidly in a world of collapsing demand.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Re : Congratulations to Haizhou Xu and IM Jean Hebert!

Several masters with little hope of ever going above their current or former level, instead of risking an entry fee (115$) and be competitive in the Open section, preferred the free but at times depressing ride at the bottom of the Invitational. Tastes are not to be discussed.

Perhaps your decision to play the Open was responsible for at least some of those decisions, in which case you helped the organizers lose entry fees in addition to helping experts to lose prize money (which could have a chain reaction effect of preventing them from entering future events).

For those who would say "but many others bought into the Open in order to have a chance to play Jean", I again ask: if this is really true, why isn't every weekend event organizer across Canada holding an Open section and inviting all the players of Hebert's quality?

A study should actually be done (if it hasn't already) to see whether this practice would increase or decrease paid entries to weekend tournaments.

[Jean Hébert]

Re : Re: Congratulations to Haizhou Xu

IMHO, Short vs Hebert are in different positions. Short played in a single section event where he was invited. Hebert declined an invitation and he went to an Open.

Surely I am not the first player in history to decline an invitation... especially when an alternative is available. If one cannot decline an invitation, then it is not an "invitation", it is an order.
I find Short's decision to be totally opportunistic ;). But I might have done the same to thank my hosts for a well funded trip and simuls :).

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: Congratulations to Haizhou Xu

Some players enter an event due to there being strong players (possibly heavily subsidized) attending. They want to have a chance to play/see a strong player.

For some it's the other way around. They stay away if there are strong players (possibly heavily subsidized) since their chances of winning prize money are being reduced (or eliminated).

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Open sections in weekend tournaments

If everyone knows the rules going in, I don't have a problem with that scenario. It would not discourage me from playing in a tournament to know that there was going to be one player rated 200 to 300 points above every other player.

I thought you might look at this from the viewpoint of many others, not just yourself. This is a question that applies to the future of organized chess, and you dismiss it rather lightly, which means I misjudged you.

In that case I would fill up a car with all of the best players from Windsor and make sure that Paul was thwarted in his evil plan to finance his AGW prosletytizing. But seriously I am thinking about a similar scenario for our Windsor kids minus the big prizes. The kids like playing people rated three hundred points above them.

Well, yeah, kids don't have to think about things like MONEY. Duh. This is another example of too much focus on kids and not enough on the adult membership that is needed to grow organized chess.

Jean Hebert won $1000 or some portion thereof playing in an open section. As far as I can see it is both right and legal. If the organizer was intent on forcing Jean Hebert to play in the top section then he would have changed the rules to require him to do so. I really can't get excited about your perceptions that this is some kind of injustice when there are so many real injustices in our world which I can more readily get worked up about (for instance the large sums of taxpayer money squandered on so-called green energy programs).

I wouldn't have used the word "injustice", and your example of a "real" injustice is purely subjective. Also, I'd add that this isn't about Jean Hebert, I haven't criticized him for entering the section, rather I question whether organizers should be offering such opportunities.

If you win all your games then you have a legitimate chance of winning money.

Circular reasoning. I thought you were better than that.

I'm not sure. If you travel for a tournament, prize money is rarely the first thing you are thinking about as you almost always have to win first or second place if you hope to break even.

Again, you lightly dismiss what could easily be a mitigating influence on tournament participation. Maybe you should actually ASK such people before you presume to know what they are thinking about. Perhaps Beckwith is correct that you are not at all of the scientific persuasion and would rather jump to conclusions.

Hebert has come right out and said he enters the Open section for financial reasons. It stands to reason then that others rated much less than him and without another section to go to might NOT enter the tournament for financial reasons. This deserves investigation by anyone who claims to care about the future of organized chess.

If playing a computer were the same as playing a real live player then tournament chess would have died out long ago.

No one is talking about tournament chess dying out. Players will continue to want to play real live players. What I was writing about was learning chess lessons, and most definitely playing a strong computer engine is just as good as playing a real live player, unless you are considering the psychological element of time pressure. Losing to a strong computer engine can teach one just as much about tactics and, today, even strategy as losing to the likes of Hebert. More, really, because Hebert himself couldn't beat such engines over the long haul.

You are quick to spend Mr. Hebert's money. Why don't you give $800 to a Children's Hospital if it is that important to you? The future of chess in Canada is not in encouraging players who only play for the prospect of big money, if you can even call $1000 big money. The pettiness on display here is starting to wear down my patience.

I expected someone to come back with "why don't you give $800 to a Children's Hospital", but I didn't expect you to do it, Vlad. Now you demonstrate a total lack of interpretation. If you read what I wrote again, you will realize that I don't want to spend Hebert's money, I want HEBERT to spend it in a way that backs up his claims to care about the kids. If he's going to talk the talk, he should walk the walk.

Well, Vlad, in summary: I've noticed over the past several weeks your posts relating to the future of chess in Canada. I started to think that you might be slowly positioning yourself to become a major player in that, and I thought you might be a good candidate as such a major player. In the coming few years, when I launch something that is going to test organized chess and perhaps force it to adapt to a changing world, I thought you might be someone (especially since you are business-oriented) that I could work with to help chess in Canada make such an adaptation. However, based on just your reply to my post, I have to conclude you have a long way to go. First and foremost, you need to think more deeply and not make rash assumptions.

Finally, what you call "pettiness" that is testing your patience is again a total misjudgment. Bindi may have railed against Hebert, but for me that's not the issue and there is no pettiness. This is a genuine issue pertaining to the future of organized chess. You should recognize it as such. And work on your patience too, Vlad, you'll need lots of it if you actually do have any ambitions in guiding the future of organized chess.

[Zeljko Kitich]

Re: Re : Re: Congratulations to Haizhou Xu

Surely I am not the first player in history to decline an invitation... especially when an alternative is available. If one cannot decline an invitation, then it is not an "invitation", it is an order.
I find Short's decision to be totally opportunistic ;). But I might have done the same to thank my hosts for a well funded trip and simuls :).

My 2 cents for what it´s worth.

It´s Jean´s chess career to manage as he sees fit. Unless Bindi is offering to become Jean´s agent and generate better playing opportunities\prize funds for Jean. Open means open.

[Zeljko Kitich]

Re: Open sections in tournaments

There is no "age difference" aspect to an Open tournament. Paul would be dressed in his normal Superman outfit. :D The parents would be told that their kids were about to get a firsthand chess lesson. That's why I wrote that Paul might do a simul as well, because not every kid entered would get to play him a tournament match.

If there are 25 to 50 GMs competing for Open section top prizes, how many 2100's, 2200's, 2300's are there? And what are the typical entry fees to those sections? It seems like you are suggesting that it is a good idea to have Open sections at all tournaments, and that is the discussion point I am bringing up, so if you have evidence to support you, please give as many details as possible. Your point, if I've interpreted it correctly, may have some validity, but there's one caveat: how much should we try and bring European tournament practices into North American events? There is a huge difference in chess culture. Europeans, with generous government pay and vacation packages, have more time on their hands and have a greater chess tradition. But all that is changing rapidly in a world of collapsing demand.

The entry fee is typically 35 to 50 euros. There are usually 200 or more players so there are quite a few above 2000. The tourament in Crete had sponsorship from the city (so maybe a free playing hall) but of course it brought extra dollars into the city. The tournament in Crete was run as an Open with no modification or accelerated pairings. As a nonprofessional player paying 50 euros for a 9 round/8 day tournament was a good deal. A good many of the players are from India, Russia and other nonEU that don´t have the vacation\pay packs you mention. What makes the European system really work are all the local players of all ratings eager to enter and play.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Open sections in weekend tournaments

I thought you might look at this from the viewpoint of many others, not just yourself. This is a question that applies to the future of organized chess, and you dismiss it rather lightly, which means I misjudged you.

I dismiss it rather lightly for the reason that we can't build chess in Canada on the people who won't attend an open tournament because Jean Hebert or any other strong player will be there and his presence diminishes their shot at prize money. Those are the players we have little hope of holding.

I experienced a situation where we had lots of sponsorship money in Windsor through the bingos which we used to raise money in the early to mid nineties. Back then bingo halls were a very smokey environment and working the bingos was not a pleasant experience for me. The impetus for fundraising was a Canadian Open which was organized in Windsor. After we paid off the cost of the Canadian Open we held a large number of small to medium sized subsidized tournaments. After a while the volunteers got tired of working the bingos to subsidize the opportunistic players who wouldn't volunteer unless you threatened them with imminent bodily harm and then complained when the class prizes offered were not large enough.

We had tournaments where the entry fee was $20 and you got all the coffee you wanted and a nice pizza dinner, trophies plus money prizes. We didn't pay rent for the site, a restaurant. The same people who were complaining about the need for better prizes were doing things like bringing in fast food to the restaurant at the lunch break where food was not supplied needlessly offending our restaurant sponsor. The restaurant made money on the food and coffee (subsidized by bingo funds).

Well, yeah, kids don't have to think about things like MONEY. Duh. This is another example of too much focus on kids and not enough on the adult membership that is needed to grow organized chess.

The adult membership will come from the members that we already have and from the kids when they grow up. The reason so many people focus on organizing kids chess is that there are fewer headaches for an organizer than you have with adults. Many of the kids and their parents will thank you for your efforts. You feel appreciated unlike the situation in adult chess.

I wouldn't have used the word "injustice", and your example of a "real" injustice is purely subjective. Also, I'd add that this isn't about Jean Hebert, I haven't criticized him for entering the section, rather I question whether organizers should be offering such opportunities.

If I was organizing such tournaments I would be offering such opportunities. The best players should have the opportunity to play in an open section and win the prizes.

Again, you lightly dismiss what could easily be a mitigating influence on tournament participation. Maybe you should actually ASK such people before you presume to know what they are thinking about. Perhaps Beckwith is correct that you are not at all of the scientific persuasion and would rather jump to conclusions.

I am not just interested in what will increase tournament participation in individual instances. I am looking at long term solutions which increase tournament participation in the long term. My own interpretation of my previous experience at least in the Windsor area is that if you throw money at chess players you can initially increase participation on a temporary basis but you will depress it in the long run as people will stop playing when there isn't "big" money on offer. Given our limited resources my feeling is that we should be going for the people who intrinsically enjoy playing chess without demanding large monetary payoffs for their participation.

Hebert has come right out and said he enters the Open section for financial reasons. It stands to reason then that others rated much less than him and without another section to go to might NOT enter the tournament for financial reasons. This deserves investigation by anyone who claims to care about the future of organized chess.

I don't need to do an investigation to understand that people don't enter particular tournaments for financial reasons. We all have our budgets and sometimes finances will prevent someone from entering tournaments that they would attend if they could afford it.

No one is talking about tournament chess dying out. Players will continue to want to play real live players. What I was writing about was learning chess lessons, and most definitely playing a strong computer engine is just as good as playing a real live player, unless you are considering the psychological element of time pressure.

This last statement leads me to believe that you don't understand and probably never will.

Losing to a strong computer engine can teach one just as much about tactics and, today, even strategy as losing to the likes of Hebert. More, really, because Hebert himself couldn't beat such engines over the long haul.

Engines have a role in chess study. Nothing more. It is possible to survive without them and may even be beneficial to strive to do so.

I expected someone to come back with "why don't you give $800 to a Children's Hospital", but I didn't expect you to do it, Vlad. Now you demonstrate a total lack of interpretation. If you read what I wrote again, you will realize that I don't want to spend Hebert's money, I want HEBERT to spend it in a way that backs up his claims to care about the kids. If he's going to talk the talk, he should walk the walk.

The kids he was talking about were chess playing kids. Donating money to a children's hospital would not benefit the same kids and judging from Ontario sunshine lists would do more to benefit highly paid administrators. Jean Hebert could do more for chess playing kids by visiting a children's tournament and talking about his chess experiences. Oh wait, he does that or at least he did in Northern Ontario.

Well, Vlad, in summary: I've noticed over the past several weeks your posts relating to the future of chess in Canada. I started to think that you might be slowly positioning yourself to become a major player in that, and I thought you might be a good candidate as such a major player. In the coming few years, when I launch something that is going to test organized chess and perhaps force it to adapt to a changing world, I thought you might be someone (especially since you are business-oriented) that I could work with to help chess in Canada make such an adaptation.

If it involves some form of gambling I wouldn't be interested. I am not opposed to gambling, I just don't think that an alignment between chess and any form of gambling would be beneficial to chess in the long run aside from separate fundraisers as occurs in Alberta or as we did in Windsor with bingos at one time. In the case of the Windsor bingos I had a real sense that we were making bargains with the Devil to advance our aims and eventually the price proved too high. My decade long disappearance from organized chess can be largely traced to exhaustion from the effects of the Faustian bargains that we engaged in back then.

However, based on just your reply to my post, I have to conclude you have a long way to go. First and foremost, you need to think more deeply and not make rash assumptions.

At the moment I have aspirations only to be a major player in the future of chess in Windsor which seems to be doing just fine thanks to the efforts of a few people including myself. Once we build Windsor chess into what we think it can be then I am sure that we will have some lessons that can be profitably generalized to the rest of Canada.

On the national chess stage I aim only to be a useful foot soldier. I joined the long term planning committee because I thought that I had something to offer the committee. Most of my posts on the topic of Canada's chess future were done in order to generate ideas and comment which could be used in furthering the generation of a useful strategic plan.

Finally, what you call "pettiness" that is testing your patience is again a total misjudgment. Bindi may have railed against Hebert, but for me that's not the issue and there is no pettiness.

My pettiness comment was directed at the whole thread and not at you in particular. That being said, I think you are trying to push chess organizers in directions which I would not be interested in going. Anyone under about CFC 2400 who approaches chess tournaments as a money making venture would be better off in the long run to give up chess and take a minimum wage job at Tim Horton's. He would have more money in the long run and would also get some free donuts in the process.

Trying to build our house on the shifting sand of those motivated only by money is silly and requires dishonesty on our part since the economics of the situation mean that everyone has to lose in the long run. The real net financial beneficiaries for a large tournament are going to be the hotels and nearby restaurants and if I'm playing maybe the chess book seller. Overhead expenses eat up a significant portion of the revenues of a tournament. Relying on a gambler's delusion as the basis for a marketing strategy for chess is a prescription to further shrink chess in Canada.

This is a genuine issue pertaining to the future of organized chess. You should recognize it as such. And work on your patience too, Vlad, you'll need lots of it if you actually do have any ambitions in guiding the future of organized chess.

You are exhorting me to devote some of my limited time and energy to entertain an idea which seems to me to be a variation that has been refuted.

[Bindi Cheng]

Re: Congratulations to Haizhou Xu

Selected Chesstalkers, I think you're missing the point of my original argument here.

While I have respect for Jean's level of play, I don't agree with his choices in picking off weaklings just because he can. This would be like watching (for wrestling fans out there) Kane destroy Zack Ryder every week on Raw and Smackdown. It happens, but it's distasteful and after a couple of beatdowns, audiences get tired of it and wants to see them fight evenly matched opponents. While this level of play happens in early round open tournaments, eventually the players are more evenly balanced in the later rounds and the Zack Ryders of the world are able to wrestle the Santino Marellas of the world.

Needless to say, I understand Jean's point of view in beating up experts left right and centre and picking up some easy money but I don't think it's right. In a couple of decades my level of play will probably fall down and I hope that when that time comes, I will still keep my dignity and get thrashed by GM's rather than beating up amateurs.

While there is no stopping players rated 2395 from playing in a U2400 section filled with 2100s, organizers can stop that foolishness from happening by just refusing entry. Because at the end of the day, the experts in those sections are not paying hard-earned money to get killed by a player several levels higher than they are. They're paying 100 bucks for a chance to win 600 bucks and not doing it to line up the pockets of whatever opportunistic player comes along and takes it. The garbage that I've read about players getting an "opportunity" to play a player of Jean's level is laughable. It's just a fan-made narrative that amateurs use to defend whatever belief they have concerning a problem they don't understand.

I still think Jean's a strong player and right now his play is probably better than mine and if I were in his shoes in Montreal with a chance for easy money, I might do the same. But the thing is, while it's the practical thing to do, it's not the ideal path to take. I probably need to get knocked off my high horse soon but while I'm still young, I'd like to not become cynical that early.

My original post was just meant to be a congratulations to Haizhou with a small snub at Jean but I think I wrote too much of the latter. So to end this post, I just want to congratulate Haizhou again for gaining about 50 or so fide points (could have been 70) and Jean for performing what he should have performed.

[Kerry Liles]

Re: Congratulations to Haizhou Xu

Selected Chesstalkers, I think you're missing the point of my original argument here.

While I have respect for Jean's level of play, I don't agree with his choices in picking off weaklings just because he can. This would be like watching (for wrestling fans out there) Kane destroy Zack Ryder every week on Raw and Smackdown. It happens, but it's distasteful and after a couple of beatdowns, audiences get tired of it and wants to see them fight evenly matched opponents. While this level of play happens in early round open tournaments, eventually the players are more evenly balanced in the later rounds and the Zack Ryders of the world are able to wrestle the Santino Marellas of the world.

Needless to say, I understand Jean's point of view in beating up experts left right and centre and picking up some easy money but I don't think it's right. In a couple of decades my level of play will probably fall down and I hope that when that time comes, I will still keep my dignity and get thrashed by GM's rather than beating up amateurs.

While there is no stopping players rated 2395 from playing in a U2400 section filled with 2100s, organizers can stop that foolishness from happening by just refusing entry. Because at the end of the day, the experts in those sections are not paying hard-earned money to get killed by a player several levels higher than they are. They're paying 100 bucks for a chance to win 600 bucks and not doing it to line up the pockets of whatever opportunistic player comes along and takes it. The garbage that I've read about players getting an "opportunity" to play a player of Jean's level is laughable. It's just a fan-made narrative that amateurs use to defend whatever belief they have concerning a problem they don't understand.

I still think Jean's a strong player and right now his play is probably better than mine and if I were in his shoes in Montreal with a chance for easy money, I might do the same. But the thing is, while it's the practical thing to do, it's not the ideal path to take. I probably need to get knocked off my high horse soon but while I'm still young, I'd like to not become cynical that early.

My original post was just meant to be a congratulations to Haizhou with a small snub at Jean but I think I wrote too much of the latter. So to end this post, I just want to congratulate Haizhou again for gaining about 50 or so fide points (could have been 70) and Jean for performing what he should have performed.

Whatever. Ultimately this whole thread revolves around your opinion about Jean's choice to play in that section. People will line up on both sides of nearly any issue.

What is distressing is that someone in the U1600 level can win almost as much money as all but the top winners in very high level sections... that sort of prize structure makes sandbagging a necessity (I am not implying Jean is sandbagging).

It may just boil down to determining the reason a person plays: to learn and grow or to try to win money. Chess tournaments are a poor place to earn money and more often than not, a poor place to learn much either.

[Jean Hébert]

Re : Re: Congratulations to Haizhou Xu

While I have respect for Jean's level of play, I don't agree with his choices in picking off weaklings just because he can.

It is hard to understand your point since that even with a performance of 2430, I came within one move missed by Xu to finish second. Clearly you underestimate how difficult winning such a tournament can be. Besides that, I like to think that my opponents learned from playing me, in the same way that some "weaklings" benefitted from playing in the Invitational section.

In a couple of decades my level of play will probably fall down and I hope that when that time comes, I will still keep my dignity and get thrashed by GM's rather than beating up amateurs.

You might also keep your dignity by playing teacher instead of making the GMs lose their time over a hopeless case :).

While there is no stopping players rated 2395 from playing in a U2400 section filled with 2100s, organizers can stop that foolishness from happening by just refusing entry.

In a tournament you need at least one open section. I chose to play in that section. Other strong players could have done the same but they choose the free entry (some people call it a "free ride" :)) in the Invitational. I chose instead to contribute 115$ to the FQE balance sheet.

I still think Jean's a strong player and right now his play is probably better than mine and if I were in his shoes in Montreal with a chance for easy money, I might do the same. But the thing is, while it's the practical thing to do, it's not the ideal path to take. I probably need to get knocked off my high horse soon but while I'm still young, I'd like to not become cynical that early.

Easy money ? Facts prove that it is not that true. I don't feel cynical at all about this, especially when you admit that you might do likewise one day! Apparently I am just being more realistic that you at this point. But at your age it is fine to be idealistic. This is the way it should be. But when it comes to matters related to my personal situation, realism is a better guide.

My original post was just meant to be a congratulations to Haizhou with a small snub at Jean but I think I wrote too much of the latter. So to end this post, I just want to congratulate Haizhou again for gaining about 50 or so fide points (could have been 70) and Jean for performing what he should have performed.

Thanks for the praise! You are right on the money! ;)

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Open sections in weekend tournaments

I dismiss it rather lightly for the reason that we can't build chess in Canada on the people who won't attend an open tournament because Jean Hebert or any other strong player will be there and his presence diminishes their shot at prize money. Those are the players we have little hope of holding.

In the present day situation, your last statement is true. What you have to do is envision a situation where you CAN hold those players. That's where creativity and out-of-the-box thinking come in, and you are, despite your self-proclaimed right wing credentials, sorely lacking. Imagine if you were an MBA student and this was your required task for graduation. "We can't" isn't acceptable.

But I think what you really meant is "We won't". You are making a judgment call that chess should not be built on a foundation of those types of players. It is ok to have a puritannical view, but then you should not speak at all about growing chess. Because the puritannical view has held for a long time and chess in North America hasn't grown. If you want pure chess in which money is not a motive, you must accept pure chess for what it is.

Ironically, in some earlier thread, you mentioned that organized chess should borrow techniques from tennis, golf, hockey. It will happen... but I don't think you're going to like the result and will probably fight against the trend.

I experienced a situation where we had lots of sponsorship money in Windsor through the bingos which we used to raise money in the early to mid nineties. Back then bingo halls were a very smokey environment and working the bingos was not a pleasant experience for me. The impetus for fundraising was a Canadian Open which was organized in Windsor. After we paid off the cost of the Canadian Open we held a large number of small to medium sized subsidized tournaments. After a while the volunteers got tired of working the bingos to subsidize the opportunistic players who wouldn't volunteer unless you threatened them with imminent bodily harm and then complained when the class prizes offered were not large enough.

We had tournaments where the entry fee was $20 and you got all the coffee you wanted and a nice pizza dinner, trophies plus money prizes. We didn't pay rent for the site, a restaurant. The same people who were complaining about the need for better prizes were doing things like bringing in fast food to the restaurant at the lunch break where food was not supplied needlessly offending our restaurant sponsor. The restaurant made money on the food and coffee (subsidized by bingo funds).

This was obviously a formative experience for you. You are basing a lot off of it. I believe you are speaking of the 1991 Canadian Open. Can you tell me, where exactly was that held? I know it was a Holiday Inn, and it doesn't seem to be there anymore. I'd very much like to know the street address where it once was, and what is in its place now?

The adult membership will come from the members that we already have and from the kids when they grow up. The reason so many people focus on organizing kids chess is that there are fewer headaches for an organizer than you have with adults. Many of the kids and their parents will thank you for your efforts. You feel appreciated unlike the situation in adult chess.

I can definitely understand that. I'm really not against a focus on kids, I'm saying that that focus, no matter how successful in terms of numbers, won't grow adult chess beyond a few percentage points.

If I was organizing such tournaments I would be offering such opportunities. The best players should have the opportunity to play in an open section and win the prizes.

And you may be correct. I am really just asking the question and asking for evidence either way. Bindi thinks its laughable that anyone would play such a section just for a chance to play Hebert. You and others think otherwise. Has anyone actually done a study? Probably not, and it appears you can't be bothered because those types of players who would not enter because of Hebert's presence are in your opinion not to be included in the future of organized chess.

I am not just interested in what will increase tournament participation in individual instances. I am looking at long term solutions which increase tournament participation in the long term. My own interpretation of my previous experience at least in the Windsor area is that if you throw money at chess players you can initially increase participation on a temporary basis but you will depress it in the long run as people will stop playing when there isn't "big" money on offer. Given our limited resources my feeling is that we should be going for the people who intrinsically enjoy playing chess without demanding large monetary payoffs for their participation.

And that was, is, and always will be a tiny sliver of the general population that simply cannot be increased beyond population growth itself.

This last statement (...most definitely playing a strong computer engine is just as good (for learning chess lessons) as playing a real live player...) leads me to believe that you don't understand and probably never will.
. . .
Engines have a role in chess study. Nothing more. It is possible to survive without them and may even be beneficial to strive to do so.

Well, I have played both strong live players and strong computer engines. I personally don't think it's worth the extra time and monetary expense to substitute the players for the engines. You disagree. I think I understand fully.

The kids he was talking about were chess playing kids. Donating money to a children's hospital would not benefit the same kids and judging from Ontario sunshine lists would do more to benefit highly paid administrators. Jean Hebert could do more for chess playing kids by visiting a children's tournament and talking about his chess experiences. Oh wait, he does that or at least he did in Northern Ontario.

Hebert doesn't do what he does for nothing. There is no "sacrifice" except for opportunity cost, which for him is likely nil, yet he wants us to believe there is. So forget the children's hospital, he could donate the money back to tournament organizers "for the sake of the kids". Ha! He would rather destroy than build.

If it involves some form of gambling I wouldn't be interested. I am not opposed to gambling, I just don't think that an alignment between chess and any form of gambling would be beneficial to chess in the long run aside from separate fundraisers as occurs in Alberta or as we did in Windsor with bingos at one time. In the case of the Windsor bingos I had a real sense that we were making bargains with the Devil to advance our aims and eventually the price proved too high. My decade long disappearance from organized chess can be largely traced to exhaustion from the effects of the Faustian bargains that we engaged in back then.

Well, now, what do you consider gambling? Bingo, yes. What about tennis? Players are not paid a salary, they earn winnings. Is that gambling? Remember that tennis is not a "pure skill" game, there is luck involved and upsets do happen, much more often than in chess. So then, what if chess were more like tennis? Would that be gambling?

Trying to build our house on the shifting sand of those motivated only by money is silly and requires dishonesty on our part since the economics of the situation mean that everyone has to lose in the long run. The real net financial beneficiaries for a large tournament are going to be the hotels and nearby restaurants and if I'm playing maybe the chess book seller. Overhead expenses eat up a significant portion of the revenues of a tournament. Relying on a gambler's delusion as the basis for a marketing strategy for chess is a prescription to further shrink chess in Canada.

Hard to believe this could be written by someone who calls himself "about as right wing as you can get". As for the "gambler's delusion" part, well, poker is doing just fine, thank you.

You are exhorting me to devote some of my limited time and energy to entertain an idea which seems to me to be a variation that has been refuted.

Please, do post the refutation or a link to it.

[John Coleman]

Re: Open sections in weekend tournaments

...the 1991 Canadian Open. Can you tell me, where exactly was that held? I know it was a Holiday Inn, and it doesn't seem to be there anymore. I'd very much like to know the street address where it once was, and what is in its place now?

Heaven knows why you would "very much like to know" The Canadian Open was held at the Holiday Inn, address (approx) 600 Riverside Drive West, Windsor. That property was purchased by the City of Windsor, maybe 10 or more years ago, as part of a continuing multi-year policy to convert riverfront property to parkland.

[Louis Morin]

Re : Re: Open sections in weekend tournaments

I have played both strong live players and strong computer engines. I personally don't think it's worth the extra time and monetary expense to substitute the players for the engines.

Would you care to name a few of these "strong live players" you played with? Just curious.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Open sections in weekend tournaments

Heaven knows why you would "very much like to know" The Canadian Open was held at the Holiday Inn, address (approx) 600 Riverside Drive West, Windsor. That property was purchased by the City of Windsor, maybe 10 or more years ago, as part of a continuing multi-year policy to convert riverfront property to parkland.

Thank you John, much appreciated. I was able to find a photograph of that Holiday Inn. It was apparently nicknamed the "Plywood Palace" because it was partially built on a warf over the Detroit River. The restaurant, "Maxwell's On the River", had plywood floors that moved with waves from passing freighters. According to the site where the photo was posted the hotel burned down in 1999.