How to become a CFC governor?

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Re : Re: Separate Women's System - Accomplish Its Goals??

There you go again Paul.

We don't have prize funds in Windsor. Sometimes there are trophies or ribbons. Entry fees tend to range in the zero or ten to twenty dollar range. When there are prize funds, in Detroit for example, the kids tend to win more than their share.

If everyone rated up to 2100 suddenly decided that their quest for chess perfection was a futile one and that their time was wasted, well there really wouldn't be much opportunity for talented IMs like Bindi to win wheelbarrows full of prizes. There is that thought experiment that was a book and a PBS series called "One Day After People". Maybe we need to do something similar and call it "One Day After the 2100s" when everyone rated 2101 and above was left to fend for themselves while everyone under 2100 slipped into some wormhole and disappeared. Maybe we could get a bunch of Baudelaire and Nietzsche inspired existential groupies to write some prose poems on the premise.

"Wheelbarrows full of prizes", that's funny! Almost as good as Mitt Romney's "Binders Full of Women"! :D

It's interesting that you don't award prize funds to the kids, and yet you feel the way you do about the base of the chess pyramid shooting for chess ratings (or as you wrote, a quest for chess perfection). It's like out of one side of your mouth, you say you are fighting the problem, but out of the other side of your mouth, you are saying you can't defeat the problem (where the problem is defined as motivating people, kids or otherwise, to continue in chess). You are telling Bindi, "Hey, don't stop players from shooting for rating goals, otherwise you won't get any money out of them." Do you see how your Windsor kids could take this (assuming they saw it and understood it)?

They could see you as someone who is encouraging them to enjoy chess now, with no focus on prize funds, but who is actually motivated by getting money out of (most of) them and into the chess prize fund pool at some later point. Whether or not that is your motivation doesn't matter, the fact that you admit that that is the destiny for most of them who persist in chess is what does matter.

Bindi does have a point about shooting for 1900 or 2100 or even 2400 rating. It's virtually meaningless. I've said it before and I'll repeat it: we need to destress ratings and put some emphasis on things like brilliancies, novelties, discoveries in chess. The people at the base of the chess pyramid are NOT being recognized for anything! They are just there, feeding the elite with rating points and prize money.

If you are making chess fun for kids in Windsor -- and it seems you are -- it behooves you to take that concept further, and translate it to chess adults who make up the bulk of the pyramid. Part of that is to defocus attention on rating and even on prize funds. More prize money should make it's way down to the base, for things such as brilliancy prizes, novelty prizes, endgame prizes, fighting chess prizes, etc.

The problem, of course, is that somebody has to take the time to do this, to figure out such prizes. It really should be part of the CFC agenda, but it's all a vicious circle because the money simply isn't there.

I'm so motivated to bring about wholesale change to the chess scene, and my ideas are ever so slowly developing into reality. There IS going to be money and there IS going to be fun and creativity for the base of the chess pyramid.

Oh, to answer your question... the one that came after all that blather about "Baudelaire and Nietzsche inspired existential groupies" (the kind of stuff people write purely to lift themselves up on a pedestal)... yes, I know chess kids. Every chess player in the world should be considered a chess kid.

[Zeljko Kitich]

Re: Re : Re: Separate Women's System - Accomplish Its Goals??

I sent emails asking : "Would you be in favour of a national women master titles". That's it, nothing less, nothing more.
Last year I was favourable to the idea, but after some talk while organizing the Women's closed (with Goddesschess for example), I realized it was actually an awful idea.

I'll stop there, as I don't like to feed trolls :)

That's a different story than your original statement that you talked to some women. How many emails did you send and how many responses did you receive? How many were in favour, how many against and how many were undecided. Might CFC members get some details of this survey?

Oh, wait asking questions like that, any questions at all actually it seems, just got me accused of being a troll. Of course as a CFC member I have no right to ask any of this. Felix has spoken.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: How to become a CFC governor?

I vaguely recall doing a survey approximately 15 years ago on roughly the same subject. I gave the Governors the questions I asked, all of the responses w/names, etc. I am sure if anyone is interested they can look it up c.1997.

[Felix Dumont]

Re : Re: How to become a CFC governor?

I vaguely recall doing a survey approximately 15 years ago on roughly the same subject. I gave the Governors the questions I asked, all of the responses w/names, etc. I am sure if anyone is interested they can look it up c.1997.

http://chess.ca/sites/default/files/97-98gl1.pdf
Your survey was mostly about women programs, not titles.

There's a huge difference. I support women programs and championships, as it promotes chess among women and can really have a big influence on their participation.

I wouldn't have organized the Women's closed if I thought such programs were useless, nor would I have insisted on giving nearly free lessons (in Team-Quebec) to Quebec best young female players.

If people (especially governors) really care about the situation of women in chess, then they should launch such programs in their region or ask for the CFC's help, not create degrading titles, hoping it would miraculously solve the problem.

I would also like to add that some of the answers (to the titles) are really depressing. Some women really feel that men are naturally better than women, and such titles would make it worse. On the other hand, women that think men are women are both as strong seem to vote against such titles.

I think it is good for women to be encouraged and of course men are better at chess than women.

I do find the lower standards for women quite insulting. For example, the achievement for a woman’s international title seems
almost phony when the “unisex” titles requires higher ratings. Lower standards for women may drive some away from the game. I
do not believe that men are inherently better players, only that their opportunities for learning have been better.

This last one seems to be word for word one of the answers I received... If only the one I asked was born back then I would have thought it's the same person :)

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: Re : Re: Separate Women's System - Accomplish Its Goals??

I don't think getting a 1900 rating or a 2100 rating should be an accomplishment worth treasuring regardless of your gender.

Bindi, you are a ratings snob. :(

I find your comments offensive. Nobody gets to 1900 or 2100 without talent and a lot of hard work. Yourself included unless you are some freak of nature. I see you are now 2500+, well ******* congratulations.

Only a very few can achieve those stratospheric ratings of 2200+, the system is actually built that way. You and others can repeat your bullshit about ratings inflation until the cows come home, but its all fiction. There is no inflation.

To those who have achieved those stratospheric ratings and master titles etc., I say well done and congratulations. Your talent and hard work is acknowledged in the rating system, along with the well-deserved admiration of the chess community.

Unfortunately, a few of those who have climbed the ratings mountain, like yourself, then feel compelled to belittle the efforts of the lesser rated. Shame.

Would you care to apologize?

[Louis Morin]

Re : Re: Re : Re: Separate Women's System - Accomplish Its Goals??

Nobody gets to 1900 or 2100 without talent and a lot of hard work.

I remember an article by Bent Larsen in the CFC magazine. This was a Master Forum, and Larsen had to analyze a game played by unknown players, and then try to evaluate their ratings.

Larsen said that the loser was rated 1900 at most... "a very weak player"...

At the time, I was rated 1200 and found Larsen's comment quite offensive... but later when I got this 1900 rating, I understood a lot better what he meant...

More recently, Kasparov said that some GMS rated about 2600 should never be invited in strong tournaments... he called them "tourists"...

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Re : Re: Separate Women's System - Accomplish Its Goals??

"Wheelbarrows full of prizes", that's funny! Almost as good as Mitt Romney's "Binders Full of Women"! :D

It's interesting that you don't award prize funds to the kids, and yet you feel the way you do about the base of the chess pyramid shooting for chess ratings (or as you wrote, a quest for chess perfection).

Its the journey and not the destination that is important. If you convince everyone else that the journey is meaningless well don't be surprised if you wind up playing musical chairs with imaginary companions.

I have mentioned before my disillusionment with the results of distributing excellent prize funds in the 1990s when we had the Windsor Chess Association and ran bingos to support it. The result of that was C players who would only play when there were significant prizes available. The bingos were time consuming, smokey and not much fun to do.

It's like out of one side of your mouth, you say you are fighting the problem, but out of the other side of your mouth, you are saying you can't defeat the problem (where the problem is defined as motivating people, kids or otherwise, to continue in chess).

It seems to me that we are having problems motivating girls more than boys. The boys tend to drop out as well but they drop out later and then they pop up later when they have more time or else I find that they are teaching kids chess which is great as the harvest is great but the labourers are few.

You are telling Bindi, "Hey, don't stop players from shooting for rating goals, otherwise you won't get any money out of them." Do you see how your Windsor kids could take this (assuming they saw it and understood it)?

In a slightly roundabout way I suppose you can look at it that way if you are trying to be exceptionally cynical. I believe they call that the paper tiger. Bend in unrecognizable ways what someone says so that you can easily substitute your own poor easily defeated argument which you try to convince the unwashed masses is your sparring partner's argument. Sorry I have been around this block many times with individuals who are much more adept at it than you.

From my perspective, Bindi is a very good player. On occasion it seems that he is exasperated with the not so good players. We can't all be very good players but we can all try to move down that road and achieve intermediate goals like 1900 or 2100 or win a particular championship or beat a particular player or play an amazing game. If everyone starts reading existential philosophers and decides that life is absurd and possibly useless how does that help us in furthering our goals to make chess more popular? If we make chess more popular then maybe Bindi makes more money playing chess. This is not rocket science or a deep thought. It is just common sense.

They could see you as someone who is encouraging them to enjoy chess now, with no focus on prize funds, but who is actually motivated by getting money out of (most of) them and into the chess prize fund pool at some later point.

Most of the kids are more sophisticated than you in that respect. If it was all about the money I probably wouldn't be so involved in chess.

Whether or not that is your motivation doesn't matter, the fact that you admit that that is the destiny for most of them who persist in chess is what does matter.

I am reminded of the scene in Animal House where John Belushi gives his speech ahead of the homecoming parade and he is getting more and more wound up.

Bindi does have a point about shooting for 1900 or 2100 or even 2400 rating. It's virtually meaningless.

So is amassing a fortune of one million or ten million or even a billion dollars. If you don't have fun along the way it is meaningless.

I've said it before and I'll repeat it: we need to destress ratings and put some emphasis on things like brilliancies, novelties, discoveries in chess. The people at the base of the chess pyramid are NOT being recognized for anything! They are just there, feeding the elite with rating points and prize money.

I am not so sure about that last part. I do agree with putting less emphasis on ratings. The problem is that every time I do that and tell the kids to get better at chess and the rating will come, they do it and the rating does come.

If you are making chess fun for kids in Windsor -- and it seems you are -- it behooves you to take that concept further, and translate it to chess adults who make up the bulk of the pyramid. Part of that is to defocus attention on rating and even on prize funds. More prize money should make it's way down to the base, for things such as brilliancy prizes, novelty prizes, endgame prizes, fighting chess prizes, etc.

Have you been to a tournament recently? There is very little time for all these prizes which obviously would require qualified judges. We are understaffed as it is.

The problem, of course, is that somebody has to take the time to do this, to figure out such prizes. It really should be part of the CFC agenda, but it's all a vicious circle because the money simply isn't there.

I'm so motivated to bring about wholesale change to the chess scene, and my ideas are ever so slowly developing into reality. There IS going to be money and there IS going to be fun and creativity for the base of the chess pyramid.

Your approach is to kill chess in order to save it. That variation doesn't appear to lead to a promising position.

Oh, to answer your question... the one that came after all that blather about "Baudelaire and Nietzsche inspired existential groupies" (the kind of stuff people write purely to lift themselves up on a pedestal)...

Baudelaire and Nietzsche are enjoyable reads. How does that translate to trying to lift oneself on a pedestal? Google them and you can read them online without the need to feel inferior any longer.

Not enough!-- It is not enough to prove something, one also has to seduce or elevate people to it. That is why the man of knowledge should learn how to speak his wisdom: and often in such a way that it sounds like folly!
- Nietzsche

Gardener and garden.-- Out of damp and gloomy days, out of solitude, out of loveless words directed at us, conclusions grow up in us like fungus: one morning they are there, we know not how, and they gaze upon us, morose and gray. Woe to the thinker who is not the gardener but only the soil of the plants that grow in him! - Nietzsche

Poor angel, it sang, your discordant note:
"That naught is certain here below,
That always, though it paint its face with utmost care
Man's selfishness reveals itself,
That it's a hard calling to be a lovely woman,
And that it is the banal task
Of the cold and silly danseuse who faints away
With a mechanical smile,
That to build on hearts is a foolish thing,
That all things break, love, and beauty,
Till Oblivion tosses them into his dosser
To give them back to Eternity!"
I've often evoked that enchanted moon,
The silence and the languidness,
And that horrible confidence whispered
In the heart's confessional.
- Baudelaire

yes, I know chess kids. Every chess player in the world should be considered a chess kid.

I like that last statement.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Re : Re: Separate Women's System - Accomplish Its Goals??

"Wheelbarrows full of prizes", that's funny! Almost as good as Mitt Romney's "Binders Full of Women"! :D

That line I like! :)

[Louis Morin]

Re : Re: How to become a CFC governor?

I vaguely recall doing a survey approximately 15 years ago on roughly the same subject. I gave the Governors the questions I asked, all of the responses w/names, etc. I am sure if anyone is interested they can look it up c.1997.

An interesting book on women's chess:

http://www.9queens.org/shop/play-lik...s-by-9-queens/

Play Like A Girl: Tactics by 9 Queens is our very own chess workbook. The book includes puzzles and short profiles of female chess champions from all over the World, including the youngest ever World Champ, Hou Yifan and reigning US Women’s Champ, Irina Krush. Edited by 9 Queens co-founder Jennifer Shahade, Play Like A Girl is a fantastic present for chess players of all ages.

[Bindi Cheng]

Re: Re : Re: Separate Women's System - Accomplish Its Goals??

Bindi, you are a ratings snob. :(

I find your comments offensive. Nobody gets to 1900 or 2100 without talent and a lot of hard work. Yourself included unless you are some freak of nature. I see you are now 2500+, well ******* congratulations.

Only a very few can achieve those stratospheric ratings of 2200+, the system is actually built that way. You and others can repeat your bullshit about ratings inflation until the cows come home, but its all fiction. There is no inflation.

To those who have achieved those stratospheric ratings and master titles etc., I say well done and congratulations. Your talent and hard work is acknowledged in the rating system, along with the well-deserved admiration of the chess community.

Unfortunately, a few of those who have climbed the ratings mountain, like yourself, then feel compelled to belittle the efforts of the lesser rated. Shame.

Would you care to apologize?

I don't think you understand what a ratings snob is, as I genuinely don't care about my CFC rating since it is slowly becoming more like the Zimbabwe currency. I also don't understand what's so offensive about my comments. You don't need talent or hard work to get to 1900-2100. Any kid who either likes playing chess on their own time or have a coach forced upon them by their parents will get there eventually. You don't need any talent or much hard work until you're legitimately a master (not a CFC one, you probably need 2300 CFC to be considered a real master).

As you can see, I'm disregarding adults in the way of hard work and talent as I assume that anyone who starts playing chess while they're an adult will find it difficult to become a master even if they have talent and are willing to put in hard work. So if you're in that category, Bob, I can understand why you are offended by my realistic assessment of the situation.

CFC rating inflation is not fiction, it's very true indeed and it doesn't just happen in Canada but in the US as well although it is not as pronounced. The number of players that I see in most tournaments who have become a "master" in recent times is hilarious in its growth and sheer size and one that I have no doubt will continue. I don't believe I have ever belittled the efforts of others in the way you describe. I try to encourage fellow players and students to improve their play and often hand out tips or analyze games in the skittles room. The only thing I belittle is the fact that the system rewards mediocrity and lesser accomplishments and gives kids and now women a lesser goal to reach.

I'm surprised someone with your happy-go-lucky status in chess tournaments can get so ruffled up by a few comments on a chess forum.

[Kerry Liles]

Re: Re : Re: Separate Women's System - Accomplish Its Goals??

I'm surprised someone with your happy-go-lucky status in chess tournaments can get so ruffled up by a few comments on a chess forum.

Bob is often happy, but not usually lucky...

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Re : Re: Separate Women's System - Accomplish Its Goals??

The only thing I belittle is the fact that the system rewards mediocrity and lesser accomplishments and gives kids and now women a lesser goal to reach.

It sound like an argument about half full & half empty.
For somebody all titles will only be the next step to a champion crown :D For someone one of the title might the lifetime goal. Smart people know their limits :p However some are just sick with a chess bacteria without a way to get rid of it :D

There are only 10 girls who are above 1900 CFC points at this moment:
http://www.chess.ca/players?player_search_gender=F
That is more troublesome than all kind of titles. Thus, if the titles will inspire some girls to attempt and jump over 2000/2200/2400, it will be good :)

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Re : Re: Separate Women's System - Accomplish Its Goals??

Any kid who either likes playing chess on their own time or have a coach forced upon them by their parents will get there eventually. You don't need any talent or much hard work until you're legitimately a master...

...As you can see, I'm disregarding adults in the way of hard work and talent as I assume that anyone who starts playing chess while they're an adult will find it difficult to become a master even if they have talent and are willing to put in hard work...

...The only thing I belittle is the fact that the system rewards mediocrity and lesser accomplishments and gives kids and now women a lesser goal to reach.

Bindi, I find myself actually agreeing with you on these points, except maybe the last one. If by "the system rewards mediocrity" you are referring to prizes given to U1800 or U2000 sections, can it not be said that the majority of those prizes are given to players who are on the way up in the class hierarchy? Many of which would be young, improving juniors, i.e. players who are eventually going to join the ranks of the elite? You yourself probably claimed many of these prizes on your way up.

Vlad is basically saying to you, "Don't bite the hand that feeds you", but I think you're smart enough to know you're not being fed very well as it is and can't be because it's chess we are talking about. Even my pet peeve, pro bowling, does better.

The ideal scenario would be if the elite could make a good living from chess AND even the mediocre could make a decent living from chess. If that offends your sensibilities, understand that all sports have their elite and have their underclasses, and the underclasses can still make a living at the sport because there's enough total money to go around. That's because the sport attracts paying spectators who themselves are not serious players. That is precisely where chess has a serious deficiency.

I am working to address that deficiency. The rest of the chess world isn't really doing anything about it, everyone is afraid or unwilling to try and break the vicious circle.

[Alan Baljeu]

Re: How to become a CFC governor?

Bindi, stop saying that 1900 isn't an accomplishment. It may not be national news, maybe shouldn't be a national honor, but to an individual it can be a challenge they put to themselves. Congratulate them for making it. (This doesn't have to mean prizes.) And for the best, encourage them to strive for the next milestone.

Let me give the analogy in running. In the 5K race, someone might run it in 15 minutes, and depending on competition even win at that pace. But many people enter the race who couldn't run that _ever_. For someone who was not in great shape, who couldn't even complete a mile last year, 40 minutes is a very laudable accomplishment. And next year they can do 30. Maybe eventually 25 minutes. 15 would be right impossible.

There's nothing wrong with giving someone honors for entering the 600 club in bowling.

[Alan Baljeu]

Re: Re : Re: Separate Women's System - Accomplish Its Goals??

The ideal scenario would be if the elite could make a good living from chess AND even the mediocre could make a decent living from chess.

The first part is acceptable, but the second is impossible. The mediocre can't make money in a zero-sum game. You can make a sport out of it with prizes in lower sections, but overall it's a money loser for the players.

Maybe you meant the "merely very strong" could make a decent living. That's plausible. But I think this is a dead-end not worth pursuing. Chess is not and does not need to become a money thing.