CCC Discusses Chess – Posts of Interest – The Local Chess Club and Chess Reform

[Bob Armstrong]

Posted on the Facebook chess discussion page of the Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC ), " CCC - Chess Posts of Interest ":

CCC Discusses Chess – Posts of Interest – The Local Chess Club and Chess Reform

Q: Some say that the local chess club is the natural place where demand for chess reform should, and must, first arise. Others say chess clubs are only for “ playing chess “, not for “ chess politics “. How does CCC see the role of the local chess club?

A: Chess clubs provide a place for members to play, kibitz and socialize – basically, to have fun. As such, they have great potential for being places to determine the opinions of ordinary chess players generally.
But there is a problem. CCC agrees that many clubs see “ playing “ as their only purpose. Why? Because they are usually governed “ presidentially ( read dictatorially ) “, and members are conditioned to only see themselves as consumers of a service, not as owners of the club. In the presidential system, the president makes all decisions; the executive committee may or may not ever meet, and may or may not be even consulted – they have no real power. Members are not canvassed for their opinions on club administrative decisions or given any meaningful input ( maybe once a year at the Annual General Meeting ). In this climate, members will not be interested at all in chess politics at a club level, nor any higher level.
So if chess clubs are to become starting places for reform, they must:

1. become collegially managed - the executive must be the deciders of issues, and by majority vote where unanimity is not achievable, with the President having only an equal vote. The club may wish him, as Chair of the Committee, also to have a second tie-breaking vote.

2. the culture of the club must become more “ cooperative “ – members become joint owners of the club, and are encouraged to become active decision-makers in major administrative club decisions.

It is only by active involvement in local club “ politics and administration “ that members will develop an interest in, and pro-active attitude towards, higher level chess politics and administration. Should this be accomplished, then chess clubs may in future join forces to bring a reform agenda to their national federations, for both national and FIDE reforms.

Q: Is it realistic to expect either of these changes at the local club level?

Bob Armstrong, CCC Member ( Canada )

[Roger Patterson]

Re: CCC Discusses Chess – Posts of Interest – The Local Chess Club and Chess Reform

Posted on the Facebook chess discussion page of the Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC ), " CCC - Chess Posts of Interest ":

CCC Discusses Chess – Posts of Interest – The Local Chess Club and Chess Reform

Q: Some say that the local chess club is the natural place where demand for chess reform should, and must, first arise. Others say chess clubs are only for “ playing chess “, not for “ chess politics “. How does CCC see the role of the local chess club?

A: Chess clubs provide a place for members to play, kibitz and socialize – basically, to have fun. As such, they have great potential for being places to determine the opinions of ordinary chess players generally.
But there is a problem. CCC agrees that many clubs see “ playing “ as their only purpose. Why? Because they are usually governed “ presidentially ( read dictatorially ) “, and members are conditioned to only see themselves as consumers of a service, not as owners of the club. In the presidential system, the president makes all decisions; the executive committee may or may not ever meet, and may or may not be even consulted – they have no real power. Members are not canvassed for their opinions on club administrative decisions or given any meaningful input ( maybe once a year at the Annual General Meeting ). In this climate, members will not be interested at all in chess politics at a club level, nor any higher level.
So if chess clubs are to become starting places for reform, they must:

1. become collegially managed - the executive must be the deciders of issues, and by majority vote where unanimity is not achievable, with the President having only an equal vote. The club may wish him, as Chair of the Committee, also to have a second tie-breaking vote.

2. the culture of the club must become more “ cooperative “ – members become joint owners of the club, and are encouraged to become active decision-makers in major administrative club decisions.

It is only by active involvement in local club “ politics and administration “ that members will develop an interest in, and pro-active attitude towards, higher level chess politics and administration. Should this be accomplished, then chess clubs may in future join forces to bring a reform agenda to their national federations, for both national and FIDE reforms.

Q: Is it realistic to expect either of these changes at the local club level?

Bob Armstrong, CCC Member ( Canada )

How many different clubs have you ever actually been a member of Bob?

Over my lifetime I've been a member of many different club in many different cities (lets see: Victoria, Calgary, Hamilton, Ottawa, Montreal, Halifax) and what they all have in common is a lack of warm bodies willing to get involved.

Your statement here about dictatorial club presidents is some kind of fantasy in your own mind that has nothing to do with facts on the ground.

[John Coleman]

Re: CCC Discusses Chess – Posts of Interest – The Local Chess Club and Chess Reform

I agree with Roger. I wish I lived in a place with an active chess club. In my experience, the players just want to play.

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: CCC Discusses Chess – Posts of Interest – The Local Chess Club and Chess Reform

I came across some relevant materials on the CFC website. If you click on Resources, then Downloadable Resources, you will see an article written by Jonathan Berry: Organize a Chess Club. It is somewhat dated now, but I love the following excerpt:

Why organize a chess club? Because you want a club in your area and because somebody has to organize it. It can be hard work, and frustrating, but it has its rewards, not money, but creation. Creation is more substantial than money, and that fact has nothing to do with inflation!
You will probably want to do it for only a few years, maybe two or three. It is important for you to groom a successor. If nobody volunteers, choose somebody and twist his arm a bit. Volunteers are very rare in chess—which is why there are so few clubs in Canada. But arm- twisting is not rare—which is why so many of them survive for so long.

http://chess.ca/downloadable-resources

Timeless comments. Thanks Jonathan.

[Roger Patterson]

Re: CCC Discusses Chess – Posts of Interest – The Local Chess Club and Chess Reform

http://chess.ca/downloadable-resources

Timeless comments. .

and substantially more relevant than complaining about the "lack" of collegial management.

[Steve Karpik]

Re: CCC Discusses Chess – Posts of Interest – The Local Chess Club and Chess Reform

...(b)ecause they are usually governed “ presidentially ( read dictatorially ) “, and members are conditioned to only see themselves as consumers of a service, not as owners of the club. In the presidential system, the president makes all decisions; the executive committee may or may not ever meet, and may or may not be even consulted – they have no real power. Members are not canvassed for their opinions on club administrative decisions or given any meaningful input ( maybe once a year at the Annual General Meeting ). In this climate, members will not be interested at all in chess politics at a club level, nor any higher level.

I don't really understand this talk about politics and power. The quote that Bob Gillanders provided really resonated with me. To you, it is all very Machiavellian. Maybe that's the case in international FIDE play where money and national pride is at stake; however, at the club level in Canada, chess organization is about doing volunteer work to provide something for the community. It's got little or nothing to do with "power" or "politics".

As members of a chess club executive we are responsible for ensuring that the rent for the community centre gets paid, that results are sent promptly to the CFC for rating, that rating fees are paid to the CFC in a timely fashion, that our members are CFC members in good standing, that the washrooms are clean, that it is not too cold in the playing hall in summer, that the playing hall is not too hot in the summer, that disputes between players and questions about rules are resolved professionally, that the clocks work, that there are enough boards and pieces, that there are chairs for the waiting parents to sit in, that there are cups for the instant coffee and hot chocolate, that inquiries by prospective new members are answered promptly and courteously... Nothing here that looks like "politics" to me. It's just plain unglamorous but necessary work. To top it off, it is unpaid work at that.

Occasionally we make changes in the club rules or procedures (for instance, how to deal with habitual forfeits by some players) but any of those changes get made at the AGM and only pass if the club members at the AGM approve them. Several motions proposed by the executive at our last AGM were voted down by the members. Is that a dictatorship?

In our club, I see a president who has put many dedicated years towards the service of the club and who would happily retire if someone stepped into his shoes. I see executive members who would much prefer to just play chess and not have to worry about the mundane things that have to be done every week. Mainly we just try to keep things running well from week to week.

Where's the "politics"? Where is the "dictatorship"?

There is indeed a legitimate question about how one can get club members more willing to chip in with what needs to be done. However, suggesting that some sort of chess version of the "Arab spring" is necessary to get better participation by members is, I think, totally off-base.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: CCC Discusses Chess – Posts of Interest – The Local Chess Club and Chess Reform

an article written by Jonathan Berry: Organize a Chess Club.

When we went formal with the Aurora Chess Club, we looked around for all kind of information (thnx to those who shared their club experiences). The article was one of it. To share with others I made a copy (it is now on the CFC site for everybody to read). We took advices from it. Seems it still works :) We grew to ~40 members, and unofficially we secured the same venue for the next year.
As one player told: there is no bad Mondays anymore :)

[Ken Kurkowski]

Re: CCC Discusses Chess – Posts of Interest – The Local Chess Club and Chess Reform

I'm with Steve on this one. Terms like politics, reform, corruption may be appropriate when discussing FIDE and, at times, national Federations like the CFC or USCF. But at the Club level, where small numbers of dedicated volunteers keep organized chess alive, I don't think it's time to 'hit the streets'.
I would suggest a philosophy of 'Kaizen' - Japanese for "improvement", or "change for the better" it refers to
"philosophy or practices that focus upon continuous improvement of processes in manufacturing, engineering, and business management. It has been applied in healthcare, psychotherapy, life-coaching, government, banking, and other industries." (Wikipedia)