How to become a CFC governor?

[Paul Bonham]

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

Its the journey and not the destination that is important....

Yes, Vlad, it is the journey and not the destination that is important, on that we agree. But when I propose ideas to make the journey more interesting (brilliancy prizes, novelty prizes, endgame prizes, fighting chess prizes), you respond with "Have you been to a tournament recently? There is very little time for all these prizes which obviously would require qualified judges."

Now, what you write is the truth... I even wrote it myself... but you join all the others who want to make the journey better and more interesting but FAIL in doing anything actively to do this. You are defeated by the sheer weight of inertia.

Later, you write that "If it was all about the money I probably wouldn't be so involved in chess". Wake up and smell the coffee: chess IS all about the money. It has been for decades ALL ABOUT THE MONEY. Just go back in time on this forum and look at all the threads that had the most responses. I'd say 90% of them are ALL ABOUT THE MONEY (OR LACK OF IT) IN CHESS. Even if they didn't start out that way, it all came down to brass tacks in the end. Chess is HAUNTED by its lack of money.

Then you write that with my initiatives, I am out to "kill chess in order to save it" and that "That variation doesn't appear to lead to a promising position". Do you think adding the castling rule was "killing chess in order to save it"? What about the en passant rule? Chess has not been changed in centuries, and it now finds itself in a modern computer age and in a depressed world economy, both of which affect it greatly. Chess is in freefall, or at the very least, it's a stock with no future.

I feel like John Cleese in the Dead Parrot skit: "The only reason it's sitting on it's perch is because you nailed it there! It's not pining, it's passed on. This parrot is no more. It has ceased to be. It's expired and gone to meet its maker. This is a late parrot. It's a stiff. Bereft of life, it rests in peace. If you hadn't nailed it to the perch, it would be pushing up the daisies. It's rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. This is an ex-parrot."

The recent Candidates in London provided more drama than chess has seen in years, but it went unwitnessed, unheard of and unappreciated by 95% or more of the world's population.

Chess has to be changed to be saved. You can call it "killed" if you like, but no one will be prevented from playing standard chess, either casual or organized. With prize funds. Organized events of standard chess will still go on... at least for another generation or two, after which I would think that yes, it might ring down the curtain and join the choir invisible.

There are ways to fight inertia. All it takes is a full understanding of the problem.

[Bindi Cheng]

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

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.

Haha that's jokes, I don't think we've ever agreed on anything other than this and Jean Hebert stuff. I actually don't mind prizes given out to sections like U1800, U2000 and so forth. I think those prizes provide an incentive for players to play more tournaments and in turn get stronger and better for the future and so I would actually encourage it. The system rewarding mediocrity part refers to titles like the National master title, the Class A-E titles created by the CFC and now the Women's titles, which all promotes the idea that everyone gets a participation ribbon. It's like giving out prizes to the top 10 finishers when there are only 10 racers.
In other news, The women's title looks like they are going to be passed pretty easily partly thanks to the argument I started here and on the CFC board. Guys and their chivalry :)

[Paul Bonham]

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

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.

Maybe you overlooked this part that I wrote:

"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."

You should see, then, that the problem is solved by bringing the general public into chess as spectators, to the same degree that other sports do.

You are correct that this cannot be done for standard chess. You can't get non-chessplayers interested in spectating standard chess.

So the total solution involves a new form of chess. No, not chessboxing, although that seems to be doing ok, surviving at least. A new form where chess skills still predominate, but an element of chance is introduced, such that even mediocre players can believe that "every dog has his day".

Along with a few other changes to make the game spectator-friendly.

Standard chess does not need to become a money thing, correct. But it is doomed to continue having spats, scandals, and vitriolic arguments simply because it lacks money. Or maybe not, because if all those who want to make money in chess are diverted out of standard chess, and only the standard chess purists remain, things might go a lot smoother for organized standard chess. Then it would be a win-win situation.

[Bob Gillanders]

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.

Oh, I'm not all that "ruffled up". Usually I ignore these comments, but I thought your post was a little excessive on the rating snobbery index.

I see lots of juniors working hard, some with coaches, struggling to improve their game. Climbing the rating ladder. Some will reach the 1900-2100 level, many will not. A very small few will even go higher.

Do you really believe they appreciate your comments?

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

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

The system rewarding mediocrity part refers to titles like the National master title, the Class A-E titles created by the CFC and now the Women's titles, which all promotes the idea that everyone gets a participation ribbon.

Please don't call the system "mediocre". There are higher ranks with FIDE titles (GM, IM, FM) making it more or less complete system for everybody to have a goal and some transitional steps.

Tell us, do you coach kids with an initial goal to make them World Champions Nr XX? :D

[Felix Dumont]

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

Oh, I'm not all that "ruffled up". Usually I ignore these comments, but I thought your post was a little excessive on the rating snobbery index.

I see lots of juniors working hard, some with coaches, struggling to improve their game. Climbing the rating ladder. Some will reach the 1900-2100 level, many will not. A very small few will even go higher.

Do you really believe they appreciate your comments?

All the kids I used to play with and that still play have reached at least the 2000 level (FQE / FIDE). When players begin young, it's definitely not hard to reach (if they continue playing)... However, many (nearly all in fact) quit before that.

[Alan Baljeu]

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

Maybe you overlooked this part that I wrote:

"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."

You should see, then, that the problem is solved by bringing the general public into chess as spectators, to the same degree that other sports do.

Now it's clear. In sport, the elite make money and the second-tier make less money, but still some. The mediocre play in pickup leagues and make nothing, but these support the elite by watching them.

That's the same as in chess, just the size of the audience is smaller. The chess-playing public is paying the GMs to play, and watching them. No change is required.

So the total solution involves a new form of chess.

Conversation ends here. Until you demonstrate this "new form of chess" is popular, I won't believe it.

Standard chess does not need to become a money thing, correct. But it is doomed to continue having spats, scandals, and vitriolic arguments simply because it lacks money.

The spats, scandals and vitriolic arguments also happen in the Canadian government, proving that the lack or abundance of money is not the cause of discord.

[Kevin Pacey]

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

...
Later, you [Vlad] write that "If it was all about the money I probably wouldn't be so involved in chess". Wake up and smell the coffee: chess IS all about the money. It has been for decades ALL ABOUT THE MONEY. Just go back in time on this forum and look at all the threads that had the most responses. I'd say 90% of them are ALL ABOUT THE MONEY (OR LACK OF IT) IN CHESS. Even if they didn't start out that way, it all came down to brass tacks in the end. Chess is HAUNTED by its lack of money.
...

Curious, I just did a search of chesstalk threads that had any of the keywords "money cash prizes". The result was 41 threads, less than 2 full pages worth. There are currently 308 pages worth of threads on chesstalk.

Maybe I didn't search hard enough.

[Paul Bonham]

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

Curious, I just did a search of chesstalk threads that had any of the keywords "money cash prizes". The result was 41 threads, less than 2 full pages worth. There are currently 308 pages worth of threads on chesstalk.

Maybe I didn't search hard enough.

I'll say you didn't search hard enough. The thread doesn't have to contain those keywords. It could be about anything to do with improving turnout, growing membership, criticizing organizers (Jean Hebert), what the CFC should be doing or not doing, keeping kids in chess once they are no longer kids, sponsorship (Jean Hebert and David Ottosen), funding for Olympiad teams or CYCC or WYCC, where to hold events to attract players from the entire country, the CCC (Bob Anderson), reducing ratings fees... I could go on and on. All these topics and more have at their root the problem of NOT ENOUGH MONEY IN ORGANIZED CHESS.

This very thread itself centers around the recognition that more women need to be attracted into organized chess, and that problem has at its root not enough money.

You'd have an easier time searching for the threads that have nothing to do with money.

[Bob Armstrong]

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

I'll say you didn't search hard enough. The thread doesn't have to contain those keywords. It could be about anything to do with improving turnout, growing membership, criticizing organizers (Jean Hebert), what the CFC should be doing or not doing, keeping kids in chess once they are no longer kids, sponsorship (Jean Hebert and David Ottosen), funding for Olympiad teams or CYCC or WYCC, where to hold events to attract players from the entire country, the CCC (Bob Anderson), reducing ratings fees... I could go on and on. All these topics and more have at their root the problem of NOT ENOUGH MONEY IN ORGANIZED CHESS.

This very thread itself centers around the recognition that more women need to be attracted into organized chess, and that problem has at its root not enough money.

You'd have an easier time searching for the threads that have nothing to do with money.

*Armstrong

[Aman Hambleton]

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

where to hold events to attract players from the entire country, the CCC (Bob Anderson), reducing ratings fees...

[Paul Bonham]

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

Now it's clear. In sport, the elite make money and the second-tier make less money, but still some. The mediocre play in pickup leagues and make nothing, but these support the elite by watching them.

That's the same as in chess, just the size of the audience is smaller. The chess-playing public is paying the GMs to play, and watching them. No change is required.

I'm sure the GM's are glad you are speaking for them, and saying that their income from chess is quite adequate and no change is required, they don't need to make the kind of money that the top 100 tennis players or top 100 golf players make.

Conversation ends here. Until you demonstrate this "new form of chess" is popular, I won't believe it.

At this point, we are concerned with how who we should go with to be able to quickly scale to the anticipated popularity... anticipated based on very limited exposure so far, and the wild reception that exposure has received. But hey, nothing is guaranteed, and you are fine not to believe it.

The spats, scandals and vitriolic arguments also happen in the Canadian government, proving that the lack or abundance of money is not the cause of discord.

Actually, it only proves it more. What is the chief function of the government? To collect and redistribute money. All the political spats and arguments center around that. What is the chief function of the CFC? To collect and redistribute money... but of course, a lot less money than the government. Therefore the ratio of (# of spats and arguments) to (size of the CFC) is much higher than it is for the government.

[Kevin Pacey]

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

...
All these topics and more have at their root the problem of NOT ENOUGH MONEY IN ORGANIZED CHESS.

This very thread itself centers around the recognition that more women need to be attracted into organized chess, and that problem has at its root not enough money.
...

I'm far from sure girls/women might fail to be attracted to chess because of the lack of money. Just my guess, but I doubt that's even a major reason, at least for girls.

Asking people about their motivation for playing chess, or staying it, is tricky since motivations change over time. As a kid I dreamed of being at least a GM. That dream was pretty much lost eventually, in my 30s - plus I discovered I don't like to travel so much, which doesn't help one's chess career, especially in such a vast country with isolated pools of players.

I had also hoped to at least break even on entries plus expenses vs. prizes won throughout my career, but I one day threw away my account book for such figurings when I realized that wasn't going to happen. I've always wanted to push my rating as high as it can go, but rationally I realize I'll be a bit lucky if it returns to 2400 at my age. Also rationally, I know playing for prizes, even as a master, is a losing proposition like playing the lottery.

My main reason for continuing to play chess is now its social aspect (given my club has a bar & grill upstairs; not that I always relish the curmudgeonly exchanges that go on on message boards), plus playing a wide variety of chess openings and playing or studying many different types of chess positions (which is basically necessary for anyone to hope to become a good player regardless).

I once overheard an older man that used belong to the club I go to telling someone he liked playing chess for the 'arguments' that ensued in post game analysis. There are many motivations to play chess. I think girls might find it to be simply one more thing they can do with their friends, who are largely other girls. Many quit later on for the same reasons as many men do - college, jobs or raising a family. Even sports that have plenty of money within them suffer such a dropout after high school, as many men or women realize they haven't sufficent talent to earn a living at them.

Chess has just been a hobby for most people, and that's fine with a lot of them I would guess.

[Bindi Cheng]

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

Please don't call the system "mediocre". There are higher ranks with FIDE titles (GM, IM, FM) making it more or less complete system for everybody to have a goal and some transitional steps.

Tell us, do you coach kids with an initial goal to make them World Champions Nr XX? :D

I call it as it is. When there's a chess system that rewards Class E titles equivalent to 1400 in strength, there must be something wrong with the idea in entirety. I agree with the transitional steps but back when I first started playing all I saw was Master, FM, IM and GM and nothing less. I believe that in order to be great at anything you have to aim at a reasonable high level that is achievable and for me that was IM all those years ago (mainly for the free ICC). The problem I see with rewarding all those lower levels is that once a player sets his mind to something and achieves that, their hunger for more goes away and a chess player with no hunger will not improve much further (I put myself in that category).

I'm realistic Egis, not hopelessly optimistic. I believe any player that starts young can become a master if they like playing it and play tournaments. The problem is most kids quit or will not persist through the tough times and just give up before reaching their potential. I don't tell them how high they can go, I base it on their performance and work ethic.

Bob, please don't speak on behalf of juniors all across Canada. A vast majority of them give up so I doubt they will care and the few that stay dedicated to the game will definitely become strong enough that all those Class titles will become meaningless to them soon enough. And what exactly did I say that is offensive to juniors? I said if they like the game enough or they have a coach forced upon them, most of them will probably get to master rating provided they actually play chess in their spare time.

[Paul Bonham]

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

I call it as it is. When there's a chess system that rewards Class E titles equivalent to 1400 in strength, there must be something wrong with the idea in entirety. I agree with the transitional steps but back when I first started playing all I saw was Master, FM, IM and GM and nothing less. I believe that in order to be great at anything you have to aim at a reasonable high level that is achievable and for me that was IM all those years ago (mainly for the free ICC). The problem I see with rewarding all those lower levels is that once a player sets his mind to something and achieves that, their hunger for more goes away and a chess player with no hunger will not improve much further (I put myself in that category).

I'm realistic Egis, not hopelessly optimistic. I believe any player that starts young can become a master if they like playing it and play tournaments. The problem is most kids quit or will not persist through the tough times and just give up before reaching their potential. I don't tell them how high they can go, I base it on their performance and work ethic.

Bob, please don't speak on behalf of juniors all across Canada. A vast majority of them give up so I doubt they will care and the few that stay dedicated to the game will definitely become strong enough that all those Class titles will become meaningless to them soon enough. And what exactly did I say that is offensive to juniors? I said if they like the game enough or they have a coach forced upon them, most of them will probably get to master rating provided they actually play chess in their spare time.

Hey, Bindi, I didn't realize until this thread that you are a chess teacher, just like Hebert.

Now here's a question for you: do you know anything about karate? Do you know that there are several levels, known as "belts", that get awarded in karate? Do you know that the kids learning karate progress from one belt level to the next?

Gee, I wonder if having all those belts in karate is a mistake because "once a player sets his mind to something and achieves that, their hunger for more goes away"? Did nobody think of this? Until now, until Bindi Cheng came along and educated us all?

Bindi, it is you and not Bob who is speaking on behalf of all juniors all across Canada. You, Bindi, are the one who says "back when I first started playing all I saw was Master, FM, IM and GM and nothing less" and believes things should be just as they were for you. No changes, ever.

You seem to me to be the Don Cherry of Canadian chess. Well, except maybe you don't wear flashy suits. And you probably couldn't fight your way out of a paper bag. If you ever did take karate, you probably lost your hunger and gave up after achieving the very first belt.