PDA

View Full Version : Something To Think About



Bob Armstrong
03-01-2009, 09:44 AM
Last Thursday, Feb. 26, Scarborough CC started its 2008-9 club championship. The club championship is in 3 sections this year.
The Championship Section is a 10-player round robin comprised of the top 8 rated players in the club registered ( this year is exceptionally strong with 6 masters , 3 experts and 1 “ A “ Class player ) – master Liam Henry, WFM/master Yuanling Yuan, master David Krupka, master John Hall, master Bryan Lamb, master Karl Sellars, expert Hugh Siddeley, and expert Andrei Moffat, along with the two winners of last year’s Reserves Championship – expert Oscar Villalobos; A Class Kevin Wu.

The Reserves are split into two. There is an Open Section, and an U 1700 Section. In the top Reserves, 34 players registered, and the roster is headed by 3 experts and a number of A Class players who were formerly experts. In the U 1700 Section, 20 players registered. The winner of the Open Reserves gains entry into next year’s Championship Section, so there is something very worthwhile to play for in that section. The total of 64 players continued the highest numbers we have had out since early in the millennium. The highest we’ve had out this 2008-9 year is 68 players for the Howard Ridout Swiss in the early Fall, 2008.

A minor administrative controversy arose just before the start of Rd. 1 in the Championship section. SCC is using carbon score sheets for the Championship section this year, to facilitate the collecting of games for our SCC Database ( we collect games handed in each week, enter them into our SCC Games Database, and then e-mail the week's games to each member ). Some of the players asked that the handing in of the carbons be " mandatory " – SCC has always previously maintained that handing in score sheets for the database was “ voluntary “. But it was argued that to make it voluntary was unfair in the top section. There the pairings are known in advance, since it is a round robin, and so a player can prepare for the opponent by looking up their games in the database. It was argued that it was unfair if some players handed in their games, thus allowing others to prepare against them, while others didn’t give opponents a chance to prepare, because they refused to hand in their carbons.

Now I had requested of the executive that it be " mandatory " two weeks earlier, when I had suggested we use carbons this year....and the executive had unanimously turned me down. Their reasoning was that the emphasis at SCC was on friendship and members feeling comfortable playing there. To make it mandatory might make some championship section players unhappy – they might choose not to play or leave the club. Or at very least, they would be handing the carbons in under protest, and still be unhappy. The executive did not want to “ force “ members to do this if they didn’t want to. As well it seemed they didn’t want “ professionalization “ of the club to trump the “ friendly informality “.

Legally, the organizers of a tournament “ own “ the score sheets:

CFC Handbook:
http://www.chess.ca/section_4.htm

Article 8,
" 8.3 The score sheets are the property of the organisers of the event. "

So SCC, as the organizer, has the right to demand that if someone plays in the championship section, then they must hand in their originals. But the executive did not want to follow this path.

Now it is also true, that with this position, other players may be unhappy. They feel they face unfair odds, if they comply with the wish of SCC that games be handed in, though voluntarily. And maybe one of them might quit the tournament in protest.

The upshot was that the executive explained its position to the player raising the “ mandatory “ argument, and he withdrew his request ( though I believe he was still unconvinced of the executive position ).At the end of the first round, 7 of the 10 players cooperated and handed in their carbons. Three did not. So one game was missing. We can only assume they have refused, since it was announced that we were collecting the games if we could, and that was the reason for the carbons for the top section. And a number of the players in the section were around when the executive was explaining its position to one of the players. But these members are now well within their rights to refuse to hand in the carbons, since this is now CFC policy.

One thing to keep in mind though is the main reason for the SCC Database – the enjoyment of members in being able to play over the games of other members. They may have seen part of the game in the evening and wanted to see how it turned out. Or they may have heard a member crowing about his win, and wanted to check it out. An additional reason for the database is club history – it is a historical record of players, ratings, tournaments, etc. for future members who are always given the full database when they become members.

What do you think of our Executive Policy? What do you do at your club or in your tournaments?

Ken Einarsson
03-01-2009, 11:40 AM
In Manitoba, we do hand in score sheets for all players and for all sections when we have class tournaments to the tournament director. After the scoresheets are handed in, we decipher the scoresheets the best we can and post them on our website for members to view or download.

As for the memberships view on the scoresheets being posted, we have not gotten back any negative feedback. The only feed back we get is that it is easy to check gamescores on Manitoba players and it is more difficult to find gamescores on other people outside the province.

Hopefully this helps you on your decision.

Bob Armstrong
03-01-2009, 12:31 PM
Hi Ken:

Thanks - interesting - didn't know you were doing that.

Question: Suppose a member said that he objected to his games being in a database so others could prepare against him. He refused to hand in his scoresheet. And suppose his opponent decided to agree, and so neither of them would hand in their scoresheet. What would the tournament director do?

Bob

Christopher Mallon
03-01-2009, 12:48 PM
It's simple. If there's no scoresheet, there was no game, so it's a double-forfeit. This is a common rule in larger events.

Ken Einarsson
03-01-2009, 01:11 PM
Hi Ken:

Thanks - interesting - didn't know you were doing that.

Question: Suppose a member said that he objected to his games being in a database so others could prepare against him. He refused to hand in his scoresheet. And suppose his opponent decided to agree, and so neither of them would hand in their scoresheet. What would the tournament director do?

Bob

Scoresheets are mandatory to hand in. We have not gotten into an incident yet where a member did not want to hand in the scoresheet. It could possibly we have been doing this for years and we are all conditioned to hand them in. Our Tournament Director will also enforce this.

Bob Armstrong
03-01-2009, 03:30 PM
Hi Ken:

For our purposes the more relevant question is : What would the MCA do if some members came forward and requested that the handing in of score sheets no longer be " mandatory ", but just " voluntary " - ie. any individual player could legally refuse to hand it in without consequence ?

Bob

roger patterson
03-01-2009, 04:28 PM
The core mission of a chess club is to provide an environment to play chess. Anything which is not part of the core mission and annoys paying customers is probably something that should be avoided.

And, unless you are prepared to forfeit players for not handing in a score sheet, you can't enforce the rule.

In any case, why the obsession with forceing people to do things they don't want to do?

Bob Armstrong
03-01-2009, 06:10 PM
Hi Roger:

Agreed that the club is the place to play chess. That's our Executive Policy now - players are not " forced " to hand in score sheets - it is voluntary to contribute to the club database.

It was raised by some players in the Club Championship Round Robin that ALL should be forced to hand in the scoresheets in the top section. The argument was that if some hand in sheets, and some don't, there is an unfairness in ability to prepare for certain opponents who don't hand them in. The Executive turned down the request ( or more properly, the request was withdrawn when the policy was explained ). Did the players have a point that " forcing " in this case is a " good " thing ?

My interest is in the Manitoba Chess Association which apparently does " force " all players in the weekend tournaments ( if I understand Ken correctly ) to hand in their score sheets. Should they be " forcing people to do things they don't want to do" ? What do you think of that?

Bob

Ken Einarsson
03-01-2009, 09:29 PM
Hi Roger:

Agreed that the club is the place to play chess. That's our Executive Policy now - players are not " forced " to hand in score sheets - it is voluntary to contribute to the club database.

It was raised by some players in the Club Championship Round Robin that ALL should be forced to hand in the scoresheets in the top section. The argument was that if some hand in sheets, and some don't, there is an unfairness in ability to prepare for certain opponents who don't hand them in. The Executive turned down the request ( or more properly, the request was withdrawn when the policy was explained ). Did the players have a point that " forcing " in this case is a " good " thing ?

My interest is in the Manitoba Chess Association which apparently does " force " all players in the weekend tournaments ( if I understand Ken correctly ) to hand in their score sheets. Should they be " forcing people to do things they don't want to do" ? What do you think of that?

Bob

I do not think that we are forcing our players from handing in scoresheets. It is just that we have done this for so long that everyone just complies (basically the person playing white hands in the scoresheet as s/he has the carbon sheet and the black player has a standard scoresheet) and is basically not an issue.

The majority of our players will also correct the game if it cannot be transcribed properly. Just by this alone most of our players enjoy having their games on our website. I can come back with MCA stance on this as our next meeting is on April 2nd.

Bob Armstrong
03-01-2009, 10:31 PM
Hi Ken:

If all players in Manitoba " want " to hand in their scoresheets and enjoy the database on the website, then you are likely right to say you are not really " forcing " them to do it. The word is so negative.

But still, it is " mandatory ". As you said in another post, your TD's would enforce the mandatory policy if they were called upon to by some situation.

I find the fact that it is not " voluntary " interesting. Chess players are usually very independent and not amenable to being " told " what to do.

Our problem in our club championship is that we do have players objecting to handing in the score sheets. Our issue is how we deal with them within a desired friendly club atmosphere, and what the policy should be.

Bob

Bob Armstrong
03-03-2009, 04:25 PM
Update:

For our SCC club championship section, handing in of the carbon score sheets is " voluntary " ( it is a 10-player round robin of 6 masters, 3 experts and 1 A Class player ). We collect games into our SCC Games Database that we have collected for a few years now and then give the games back to the members.

Now one player in the championship section has formally given notice to the club that he refuses to hand in his score sheet ( which he has a right to do ). He feels it is an unfair playing field if he cooperates with the club and voluntarily hands it in, when other players are refusing to hand their games in. They will have games to prepare against him, and he will have no games to use to prepare against them.

He also states that he understands that the club members would like the championship games to play over, for both enjoyment and learning. He would be quite happy to do this if ALL players handed in games ie. the policy was "mandatory ". But as long as it is " voluntary " he refuses.

What do you think of his position?

Should SCC change the policy to make handing in the carbons " mandatory "?

Bob

Egidijus Zeromskis
03-03-2009, 04:38 PM
Bob, what is a slogan of your club? smth about friendly club, yeah?
Now, is it a friendly behavior of your members? Thus if >50% friends think that there are more benefits to have scoresheets in the database, other <50% should be convinced that it is good for friendship :)

Bob Gillanders
03-03-2009, 06:12 PM
Bob,

Maybe you should compromise and not make any games public until the tournament is finished. That would level the playing field a little.

Of course, hopefully they realize that any further control (censorship) of games would be futile. Your club members have lots of games in the public domain on your newsletter alone, not to mention chessbase.

When I was at Canadian Open 2005 in Edmonton, I was quite astonished to learn from my opponent after the game that he had prepared against me the night before by "chessbasing" me. Unfortunately for him, I had abandoned that line I played in Bermuda a year earlier. Nevertheless, I was quite proud of myself that he had bothered to prepare given he was much higher rated.

Now I would like to report I won that game, but I would be lying !

Christopher Mallon
03-03-2009, 08:38 PM
Wasn't there also a compromise in an earlier Women's Closed where the games were not made public for a few months until after it finished, to maintain secrecy for the Olympiad? Was a couple of years ago I think.

Peter Stockhausen
03-04-2009, 04:37 AM
Thank you for your most entertaining opinions!! I mean really, in the day and age when the strongest tournaments report their games live on the net and the games are annotated as well, for all to see around the world, you think of keeping secret the monumental games of your tournaments? You are kidding, right?
But just in case you are not, the train to Gagra is leaving tomorrow.

Cheers
Peter

Ken Craft
03-04-2009, 10:04 AM
Thanks for bringing some perspective to the discussion, Peter.

Bob Armstrong
03-04-2009, 03:33 PM
Hi Peter & Ken:

We are not trying to keep our " monumental " games secret - and for your information, at a club level, having 6 masters, 3 experts and 1 A player in a round robin is very strong, as far as I am aware. Are you aware of a stronger club championship in Canada?

In fact, our goal has been to make our club games public. We collect all the games members will give in to us ( it is voluntary ). A volunteer club member takes the time to enter all these games into a database to give back to members each week. And the database is sent to Hugh Brodie for inclusion in the CanBase. Please advise me of another club that goes to this trouble to make their games public !

The issue is one of a level playing field. Because the handing in of games is voluntary, some players in the championship section are handing them in, and others are not. So each week the players get the database with the games of those who are cooperating with the club. So, the games of some are available for others to prepare against them, while there can be no preparation against those not handing in their games. One player has rightly raised that this is unfair and is refusing to hand in his games, and to have them put into the weekly database, UNTIL THE HANDING IN OF GAMES IS " MANDATORY ", not " voluntary " ie. until all games are handed in and go into the database for all players to use.

What do we do?

Some here on the CFC Chess Forum, including CFC ED Bob Gillanders, have proposed a compromise. Take players' games on a " voluntary " basis, but SUSPEND entering them into the weekly database temporarily - ie. until the tournament is over. That way SCC gets the games it wants, for all Canadians, and the world ( we're not too proud of them ) to see, play over and enjoy, and learn from, and at the same time, no player in the championship will get an unfair advantage over the other.

I have proposed Bob's solution to the SCC Executive, and it is acceptable to the championship player raising the voluntary/mandatory issue.

I'll keep you posted ( since I know you are waiting with bated breath ).

Bob

Peter Stockhausen
03-04-2009, 06:02 PM
Hi Bob,
You raise a good point, the playing field has to be level. So the solution might be to pick a date, any date, and let the club members vote on it, spelling out what voluntary means.
The more drastic step would be to make the handing in of score sheets mandatory from a future date onward, either at the end of each round or at the end of each tournament.

Cheers
Peter

Bob Armstrong
03-05-2009, 01:54 AM
Hi Peter:

Thanks for your continuing input.

The executive are continuing to wrestle with this one which pits the individual member's right to keep his game private, vs the opponent's right to make it public, and where the club membership comes in in their desire to have the games available to enjoy and play over.

Difficult issues. I'll let you know what the exec. finally decides.

Bob

Ken Craft
03-05-2009, 08:21 AM
A player does not have a right to keep a game private when played in a tournament. The scoresheets belong to the organizers.

Bob Armstrong
03-05-2009, 08:40 AM
Hi Ken:

You are right. Legally, the organizers of a tournament “ own “ the score sheets:

CFC Handbook:
http://www.chess.ca/section_4.htm

Article 8,
" 8.3 The score sheets are the property of the organizers of the event. "

So SCC, as the organizer, has the right to demand that if someone plays in the championship section, then they must hand in their originals.

But it is up to the organizers what they will do with the score sheets. They can publicize them or keep them private.

But the executive did not want to follow this path of argument at all. They do not want to enforce their right to the scorsheets. They are willing to let the two opponents decide the fate of the score sheet.

The current policy is " voluntary ". If a player wants to hand in his score sheet, CFC is pleased to receive it to share with the members. If a player does not want to hand in his score sheet, the SCC respects their wishes to keep the game out of the hands of the members and the general Canadian public, through our database, sent to Hugh Brodie, for inclusion in his CanBase Database.

Currently, the policy is however, as well, that one opponent cannot prevent the other opponent from making the game public. Each player has absolute ownership of the game score, and one does not need the permission of the other to make the game public. The desire of one to share the game with the public, trumps the desire of the other to keep it out of the public domain.

The SCC executive is thinking of changing this second principle, to favour the player wanting to keep the game private. One player objecting will keep the game , at least, out of the hands of SCC.

I will let you know if they change the policy this way.

Bob

Ken Craft
03-05-2009, 10:48 AM
I understand all of this detail, bob. The bottom line is the SCC has created this mess with their policy.

Jason Lohner
03-05-2009, 02:06 PM
LoL :) this is too funny... consider this

I was on rec.games.chess newsgroups and I called Winnipeg 'Winterpeg'. I offended a certain unbalanced individual who then 'chessbased' my name and decided to post/annotate my Very first tournament game ever! He even created a webpage where the title was 'retards playing chess' with this game. Scary eh? Of course his actions went with the typical internet bluster of 'when I see you I'm gonna beat you up'... gotta love this day of instant internet info!

Bob Armstrong
03-06-2009, 01:26 AM
Three issues have surfaced at Scarborough CC around:

1. the handing in of game score sheets;
2. the inclusion of games handed in in the club games database;
3. the publication of some database games in the club newsletter.

The current policy is that the handing in of games is " voluntary ". An issue of level playing field arose re our club championship, Championship section, if some were handing in their games, and not others. One player requested that the policy become that all games ( in the Championship section only ) must be handed in or " mandatory ".

This issue led to the SCC executive reconsidering all policy on these three issues. They considered three options ( I have added my own personal commentary on the options ):

Option 1:

a) Handing in of games - " Mandatory " - all games must be handed in.
b) Database & Publication – all games will be entered into the database, and made available each week to all members. The club is free to publish such games as they see fit in the club newsletter. No objections to entry nor publication will be entertained from any players.

My Commentary: this is an absolutist position and is not practical. We would cause hard feelings if all games were mandatory, since some players are embarrassed by their games, and are private people, and do not want to be told what to do. Also, there is a possible problem of sufficient volunteer time to have time to enter all games. The club does, through a volunteer, free computer analysis of games handed in. With so many games requiring entry, all games could no longer be analyzed. Those hoping for the analysis , who's games did not get reached, will be unhappy at being left out.
( However there may be valid arguments that the Championship section of the Club Championship should be mandatory – a unique case - see option 3 below ).


Option 2:

a) The handing in of Games - will be " voluntary ". No one is forced to hand in their game.
b) Database & Publication: Objection Based - Allow any individual to request that their games do not appear in the database or be published irrespective of whether their opponent wants the game entered and published ( if suitable ).

My Commentary – again, in my view, an absolutist position. Games today are published from the top level down. Players of the caliber of our championship section are used to mandatory handing in of games in top sections of tournaments they play in, and know their opponents cannot object to the organizer collecting all games. If one opponent could prohibit the collecting of games into databases, where would modern chess be? And I think the community of chess players has an interest in this decision. They want the games available, and they do not want players being allowed to keep their games hidden.
It is argued that what happens at the highest levels does not imply what should happen at a small friendly club like SCC . Well, I think even at our club membership level, this is true. I get lots of positive feedback on the database and the enjoyment players get playing over other members games ( it is about 20% of players who hand in their games, and they are keen, though the rest are rather neutral on the idea of the database - but they don't refuse to receive it each week ! ). If you asked the " submitting " membership, they would say they want to see their games, and that they don’t want a player to be able to hide the game IF the opponent wants it in the database and published. A player can keep his own score sheet private, but he cannot force the opponent not to divulge the game. The principle must reflect community interest OVER individual interest/comfort.
This would make SCC a chess island on its own - nowhere in the chess world is such an extreme right given to the objecting player of a chess game.


Option 3:

a) submission of game scores - " voluntary " ( except a decision is outstanding on the proposal that next year the championship section of club championship will be the one case where collection is mandatory, as is done in top sections of weekend tournaments, etc. - it is too late to do this in mid-stream in this year's championship );

My Commentary - this to some extent recognizes individual freedom – we will not generally force members to hand in their score sheets. And if 2 opponents both don’t hand in the game, then that is OK – it will never see the light of day by their mutual agreement ( the exception may become the club championship section ).


b) Database & Publication - where a party wishes his game to go into the database , and be published, this shall be done, and the opponent cannot block either.

My Commentary – the right of the chess community to enjoy and learn from games is paramount. If one player wants to share with the community, which the community hopes will happen, then their good intentions will not be overridden by some feelings of embarrassment or uncomfortableness of the opponent, nor the opponent’s desire to keep the game out of the database so others cannot use it to prepare against them. All top games are available now immediately in our chess culture, and players know their opponents will have the games to prepare against them. It is part of chess today. We cannot let those with negative intentions affect there being a benefit available to all.
However, for the club championship this year, we should collect games from those willing to hand them in, but then we will hold them, and not enter them into the database, nor publish them, until AFTER the tournament is over - that way it is a level playing field - the cooperative player is not at a disadvantage as to opponent preparation against them, because of their handing in their games .

The Executive has had an extensive discussion of the three options.

They have chosen the second option - total voluntary - one opponent can block the entry and publication of the game by their opponent.

They have also said that the total policy will be reviewed at the upcoming SCC AGM in September, to ascertain the decision of the members on this.

What option would you have chosen, had you been on the executive? Or, do you think there is some fourth option?

Bob

Peter Stockhausen
03-06-2009, 09:19 AM
In all this debate a couple of points should be looked at:

"the right to privacy of the game score"
I do not think that this right exists if the game is played in public, at an open club or tournament, nationally and possibly internationally rated and under the rules and regulations of a national body.

"Ownership of the score sheet"
This was debated in the courts, as far as the contents of score sheets are concerned, going back to Steinitz and Lasker. The courts ruled that the contents are public domain and are not owned by anybody. One reference, if memory serves right, liked the moves to the details of a baseball game score, which cannot be owned by anybody. The courts did assert that annotations to a game can be owned by the annotater and put under copyright, but the raw moves, no. Maybe our legal guys, say Brad Willis or Les Bunning can have a little pro bono peek at those outcomes.

"The Ruling"
I do have great sympathy with the ruling, so I do think it misses the mark. Seems to me that a small minority is holding the great majority hostage in this club. Maybe a quiet chat between the club's leadership and those concerned could resolve the issue.

Finally, I find it interesting that neither the Club's superb newsletter or its web site make a reference to any club games d-base. Maybe that d-base is private and located in Gagra:)

Cheers
Peter
PS One can only wish that every community in Canada would have a chess club of the quality that the SCC presents.

Bob Armstrong
03-06-2009, 10:29 AM
Hi Peter:

Thanks for your kind compliments to the club, and newsletter.

And I will research your points further - quite thoughtful and thought-provoking.

Lastly, the database is totally public - we send it weekly to Hugh Brodie for inclusion in his Canadian database of games, CanBase.

It is interesting that though the weekly club database goes to all members weekly, only about 20% of the members are willing to contribute to the database - the reasons I expect are many-fold. But the fundamental issue in my view, is that if you benefit from the club database, then you should contribute to it, no? This is apparently not a majority view - members are voting with their feet, so to speak. I don't have an answer to this one, so I suggest we keep doing what we're doing.

But I already have movers lined up to try to change the decision from option 2 to option 3 at the Sept. club AGM. We'll then see what the members as a whole think.

It is a very lively club !!!

Bob

Wolfgang(Wilf) FERNER
03-06-2009, 02:11 PM
Bob: I found these two interesting docs re subject

http://www.chessvibes.com/columns/copyright-on-chess-moves-shadows-on-the-wall/

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/copyright.html

Enjoy!

Wilf

roger patterson
03-06-2009, 02:28 PM
"My Commentary – the right of the chess community to enjoy and learn from games is paramount."

Says who? That is a personal opinion held by you. It is not necessarily held by all. It is certainly not held by me.

Ken Craft
03-06-2009, 02:56 PM
Roger,
Games played in a rated tournament in public are in the public domain. There is nothing to prohibit a spectator from recording the game.

Kerry Liles
03-06-2009, 02:58 PM
"My Commentary – the right of the chess community to enjoy and learn from games is paramount."

Says who? That is a personal opinion held by you. It is not necessarily held by all. It is certainly not held by me.

Care to elaborate on your opinion, then?

roger patterson
03-06-2009, 08:03 PM
Where to place the line between collective rights and individual rights is a divisive one and open to differences of opinion and philosophy. Personally, I am not inclined to be overly encouraging of the concept of collective rights. Now, not only is Bob asserting a collective right, he is stating that it is of "paramount" importatance. Meaning literally that it is "chief in importance or impact; supreme; preeminent". More important say, than wether the club members playing the game are happy or play under good conditions. In fact, if it is of "paramount importance" to the chess community, one could imagine a motion that a game can only be rated if game scores are provided, not that that is likely to happen. The whole idea of the collective right here is annoying to some, to claim that it is paramount is off the wall.

Do you imagine that the primary purpose of people joing chess clubs is to watch other people's games or to play?

More generally, I think the player(s) in the club should be treated as customers and given what they want, not what Bob wants. If they don't want to hand in a scoresheet, then I think the appropriate response is "Yes Sir!" not withstanding the FIDE rules on ownership of the scoresheet.

And Ken: "Games played in a rated tournament in public are in the public domain. There is nothing to prohibit a spectator from recording the game" This is irrelevent. It has no bearing on whether the player should be obliged to give the spectator a copy. For that matter, if Bob wants the game so badly for his database, he can stand there and write it down.

Peter Stockhausen
03-06-2009, 11:02 PM
Hi Bob,

First off, I drew the conclusion of minority from your number of 7:3 in your current open section. Clearly, I was wrong, since you tell us that 80% of your total members and players keep their games secret.

So, bear with me for a little and follow my totally confused train of thought:

1, About 80% of the games of players in your club are not publicly available, but are sent
to the Black Hole of Gagra, administered by Emperor Roger Patterson.

2, About 20% of the games of players in your club submit their score sheets and you make them available weekly to the public in two ways:
a regular d-base made available to the 20% and the 80% of your membership directly via e-mail.
a regular listing to can base by Hugh Brodie which can be accessed by anybody.

The consequence of the above actions allows the 80% to cheat the 20%. Not exactly a level playing field, yes, no?

Please indulge me for a few moments more:

Imagine a chess world in which 80% of the top players since say Tassilo von Heydebrand und der Lasa and the Pleiades to Steinitz, Lasker, Rubinstein, Nimzowitch, Capablanca, Alekhine, Botvinnik, Keres all the way to say Carlsen would have kept their games and thoughts secret. What an impoverished chess world that we would be living and playing in today.

Let me consider what possible solutions might be available to your dilemma, because it is a dilemma, since you can hardly afford losing 80% of your paying membership.

Cheers
Peter

Bob Armstrong
03-08-2009, 10:35 PM
Hi Wilf:

Thanks for the references - I'll read them.

As usual, Scarborough CC is on the cutting edge of chess issues !

Bob

Bob Armstrong
03-08-2009, 10:52 PM
Hi Peter:

It is a rather knotty ( naughty?? ) little problem - that goes to some very fundamental individual vs collective rights issues, as Roger correctly points out. Generally speaking the right wing will opt for the individual right being paramount, and the left wing, the collective right.

Which way chess??

For our club purposes, I am quite satisfied with our " voluntary " rule as to handing in of games. It is a club, as Roger notes, where players come first to play chess. And if a club member, for whatever reason, wants his game kept private, it is likely no loss to the club or the chess world generally.

I am concerned with the 20-25% who see value in " sharing " their games. They are leading edge in my view, and need to be supported. They see the collective right to see games as paramount. Now they are not demanding all hand in games. But what they do want is that their games get into the club database, and get distributed to all members ( even the 75-80% who refuse to hand in their games ). And my hope is that these leading edge players will slowly convince more and more of the " game-hiders " to come around, and share their games with other club members , who are interested in playing them over, warts and all.

This is also why I am against our current SCC policy, that the " hider " can block the " sharer " from getting the game into the database. What are we doing supporting the " hider "?? We should be supporting the " sharer ".

Will the club members as a whole, vote to change the policy? Hard to say when 75-80% are " hiders ". Looks like an uphill battle to me, to get our games public, even given 20-25% of our membership trying to, and sometimes getting blocked by the fatal " objection ".

Time will tell.

Bob

Christopher Mallon
03-09-2009, 12:11 AM
Personally, if someone told me I wasn't allowed to have my game put into the club's database because my opponent refused, I'd go put it up on my own personal website. Maybe even post it on Chesstalk. Just to spite them.

Bob Armstrong
03-09-2009, 01:04 AM
Hi Chris:

You are right. We have advised the players involved that these are internal club rules.

The player owns his game score ( though maybe he can't copyright it ). And though the club upholds an objection to a game going into the club database, this does not say anything about what that player can do with his game outside of the club ( eg. go post it on Chess5, where the whole world can see it ). In the general public realm, the opponent cannot stop him from doing anything he wants with the game score.

But even here the issue is not simple. There is a problem because the handing in of games is " voluntary ". Some players are managing to keep their games secret, where the opponent also does not hand in the score. So if an opponent, where there is an objection, goes and publicly publishes the game, the objecting opponent can rightly complain that there is not a level playing field, and that his opponent is making his game available, where others are not. The player publishing may not care if others can use the game against him, but should he make that decision for his objecting opponent? The club would certainly, given its policy, and to be consistent, not encourage the publishing player to go and make the game public ( though they couldn't stop him ). What I fear would happen is that the objecting player will withdraw from the tournament, on the ground that it is not a level playing field, and either all games get published, or no games get published.

Bob

Christopher Mallon
03-09-2009, 01:45 AM
I'm sorry, I know there aren't enough people playing chess these days, but if someone was going to be THAT petty, I wouldn't shed any tears if they withdrew and never played again. I'm all for reasonable accommodations but I'm not going to bend over backwards for someone.


So if an opponent, where there is an objection, goes and publicly publishes the game, the objecting opponent can rightly complain that there is not a level playing field, and that his opponent is making his game available, where others are not.

It is most definitely NOT rightly. This person has ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to force someone else to keep his game private. And he'd be a bit of a hypocrite to talk about a level playing field.

Bob Armstrong
03-09-2009, 03:02 AM
Hi Chris:

I did not mean " rightly " in that he could prevent the opponent from publicizing the game. He cannot do that.

The problem is our policy that championship games being handed in is " voluntary ". So some games are in and some are not. The objecting player can " rightly " complain that it is not a level playing field IN THE CLUB, and that it is being made more " unlevel " by the opponent making the game public outside the club.

I hope my use of " rightly " here is OK from this perspective. It is a rather complex issue in some ways, and hard not to get issues mixed up. Well I've tried to defend my position - maybe others can comment besides Chris if they think I'm looking at this wrongly.

Bob

Ken Craft
03-09-2009, 07:26 AM
This is being made far more complex than it needs to be. It is actually quite clear. The organizers of a tournament own the scoresheet. period.full stop. The problem is the organizers are not exercising the right other than in the sense of saying they don't want the scoresheet to which they have a right.

Bob Armstrong
03-09-2009, 06:28 PM
Here is the latest update on Scarborough CC policy on handing in scoresheets and entry of games submitted into the club database, including the special policy for the club championship this year:

" Hi to All SCC Members:

As club database administrator, I want to bring to your attention the current SCC policy ( recently changed [ by the executive ] due to discussions with some of the players in the championship section ) on the database:

1. Handing in of games – “ voluntary “ – you are free to hand in your games or not, though obviously the club is trying to collect as many games as it can, on this voluntary basis ( this is as it has always been );

2.Entry of games into the club database ( new ) –

a) If you do not want your game in the database, and your opponent has voluntarily handed it in, you can advise me you don’t want it entered, and I will not do so.
b) for all games in the club championship, voluntarily handed in without objection, I will not be entering them into the database immediately for this club championship. I am holding them back until the tournament is over. This is so that those cooperating with the club in handing in their games, are not at any disadvantage because of doing so – that is, their games, though handed in, will not be available to opponents during the tournament, to use to prepare against them ( the executive felt that even though advance pairings are not published for the Reserves, being swisses, in later rounds, the leaders can sometimes figure out who their opponent is likely to be, and could use the database championship games to prepare against them. So this delayed entry applies to both the Championship and Reserves Sections )

3. Publishing of games in the club newsletter ( new ) – There will be no publishing of any championship game in the newsletter until AFTER the tournament is over, again so no games are available for preparation against those voluntarily handing them in.

The executive hopes these new policies will make those handing in their championship games voluntarily, more comfortable doing so. They will not be available to your opponents to use to prepare against you. We hope this will now encourage more of you to voluntarily hand in your championship games.

Bob "

As mentioned in earlier posts, the executive has said that these policies will be brought to the membership for review at the SCC AGM in September.

Bob

Ken Craft
03-10-2009, 07:18 AM
What a crock.

Bob Armstrong
03-11-2009, 02:21 PM
For a full review of these issues, see my lengthy article on the Scarborough CC 2008-9 Club Championship in the Chess Canada Webzine, under " General Interest ".

Bob

Bob Gillanders
03-11-2009, 04:50 PM
What a crock.

Bob, good solution. I believe it is what I suggested !!

Ken, it sounds like the politics at SCC is running a close 2nd behind the CFC.

Bob Armstrong
03-11-2009, 05:14 PM
Hi Bob:

I even gave you credit for the idea in one of my e-mails on this to the executive !!

Bob

Bob Armstrong
03-12-2009, 02:23 PM
Due to some controversy raised about my article, Vincent Chow, the editor of the Chess Canada Webzine, has decided to pull my article.

For those wishing to read it, please e-mail me ( bobarm@sympatico.ca ) and I will be happy to e-mail it to you. Thanks.

Bob

Ken Craft
03-13-2009, 07:17 AM
Article on what? Controversy shouldn't lead to articles being pulled.

Bob Armstrong
03-13-2009, 10:08 AM
Hi Ken:

What happened was that the President of the Scarborough CC wrote a very short response to my article on " Scarborough CC 2008-9 Club Championship: Use of Score Sheets " , that the CFC had published in the Chess Canada Webzine, under " General Interest ". It made a short point on the Scarborough CC's point of view on the issue. The President asked Vincent Chow, editor, to post it after the article, as a " Response ". I was quite happy to have Vincent do that. It added some more information to what I think are leading edge issues in chess that Scarborough CC was dealing with, because it is one of the few ( the only? ) clubs with its own database of its members' games.

Vincent wrote both myself and the President:

" The webzine is not meant as a forum and rebuttals/replies are not well adapted in this media.
For the present I think it is better to leave this article out. "

He was therefore advising that rather than publish both articles ( which both the President and I were happy with ), he would publish neither ( which the President was also OK with, but I wasn't ). The article was immediately then pulled from the webzine.

I feel it is unfortunate if the webzine is going to shy away from controversy. First of all, it " sells magazines " ! But more seriously, it was an important chess culture issue, and players should have an opportunity to think about these issues. Also, to some extent, I am proud of what SCC is doing ( even if I might disagree partly with executive policy on the database ), and was hoping that the article would allow SCC to lead by example, and have some other clubs in Canada follow what we were doing.

But, I did advise Vincent that it was his decision as editor, and I strongly support the webzine, and I would accept his decision.

I just term this precedent a bit unfortunate, I guess.

Bob

Ken Craft
03-13-2009, 12:25 PM
To boldly go into the future. The benefits of a webzine is that it can have this kind of cut and thrust. I'd love to hear what the SCC President has to say on the issue.

Bob Armstrong
03-13-2009, 12:43 PM
Hi Ken:

You won't be hearing from the President.

It is the executive desire that the matter now be handled " in club " at the SCC AGM in September. Could be a lively meeting with motions on " handing in of score sheets " and whether an " objecting player " has the right to keep the " sharing " player from getting the game into the club database.

Bob

Ken Craft
03-13-2009, 01:16 PM
I meant I would have like to have seen your article and the President's response. They both should be published in the webzine.

Bob Armstrong
03-13-2009, 01:39 PM
Hi Ken:

I agree with you. And that was a satisfactory solution to both myself and the Scarborough CC President - that both article and response be published.

Maybe you might provide your opinion as a Governor to Vincent Chow, so he knows there are people who want to see the article, and who think he should publish both article and response. If anyone else would like to give such input to Vincent, that would be great.

I think the article deals with leading edge chess issues, and current club issues, and people should be able to see the articles and think about them ( and I modestly think the article is well-written too - and Vincent obviously agrees because he did initially publish it under the " General Interest " section, where it is available to all webzine viewers, not just members ).

Bob

Ken Craft
03-13-2009, 02:59 PM
Why don't you publish both of them here Bob?

Bob Armstrong
03-13-2009, 06:40 PM
Hi Ken:

Two reasons:

1. There is greater readership at the Chess Canada Webzine, so I'd rather have it put back into the webzine;

2. It is a sensitive issue with the Scarborough CC executive - what has been done has been done - it got published; to do something new ( publish here ) would likely not be appreciated.

For those interested in the article & response, however, I will privately e-mail them copies if they contact me ( bobarm@sympatico.ca ).

Bob

Bob Armstrong
03-16-2009, 01:41 AM
Hi Ken Einarsson:

Do I have your current e-mail: ken659@mts.net ?

If so, you have mail from me.

Thanks.

Bob

Ken Craft
03-16-2009, 07:30 AM
Not my email Bob and never has been. I'm kcraft@unbsj.ca

Bob Armstrong
03-16-2009, 11:38 AM
Hi Ken Craft:

Confusion - I'm trying to reach Ken Einarsson.

But thanks for responding - was ambiguous.

Bob