Bob Armstrong
01-08-2013, 09:41 PM
Posted on the Facebook chess discussion page of the Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC ), " CCC - Chess Posts of Interest " ( http://www.facebook.com/groups/cooperativechesscoalition/ ):
CCC 7th Day Chess Reform Series
" In the Judeo-Christian tradition, God rested on the seventh day of the week. However, the Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC ) has chosen the 7th day of each month to explore " chess reform "! CCC is pleased to present the next in its series of " 7th of the month possible chess reform issues ( either at the international FIDE level, or at various national federation levels )":
CCC Discusses Chess Reform – Engagement and Reform
The CCC invites all “ Likes “ to respond to this issue/post below, either “ for “ or “ against “, and if possible, give some reasons for your views!
This post below got posted prematurely on Dec. 31/12, but was intended for this series. Though there have been a number of comments on it already, we wanted to open up the discussion to more “ Likes ” who may not have responded, though they have some thoughts on the topic. So we are reposting it here in our 7th day reform series, where it was originally intended to go.
By Ken Kurkowski, CCC Member ( Canada )
Engagement - a Prerequisite for Chess Reform
For several years, my local homeowners association was a pretty quiet organization. The same aging group of folks served on the executive year after year. The most pressing issue would be what to serve at the next new residents’ ‘meet and greet’ social. Then last year a big developer announced plans to build a huge, six-tower high-rise condominium complex- right at the edge of our quiet neighbourhood. Well, that sure got people active! Meeting attendance shot up. A committee to fight the development was set up, along with a fundraising campaign (for lawyers’ fees). Everybody was talking about how awful this new development would be and how important it was to stop it.
So, what does this have to do with chess? Well, the point I’m making is that in order to get people engaged in an issue (say “Chess Reform”) they have to feel that it affects them personally. Talking about an abstract issue like the forma...t of the Women’s World Championships, or the proliferation of draws at super GM tournaments, may elicit a few comments from the ‘Monday morning quarterbacks’ (North American term for people who discuss players/coaches’ strategies from the previous weekend’s football games) but how many will be interested in launching a campaign to lobby their national chess federation, let alone FIDE?
On the other hand, when local organizers decide to, say, change the time control for tournaments, or raise entry fees, or insist on digital clocks you suddenly hear a lot of impassioned opinions! When the local chess club is about to shut down because the people running it are no longer willing/able to do so, people come out of the woodwork (I hope!) to help ensure that they continue to have a place to enjoy their favourite hobby.
To sum up, I believe that Chess Reform, in order to succeed, should be a largely ‘bottom-up’ process. The focus needs to be largely on local issues.
I am also reproducing here my comments on this post, which puts the issue facing CCC generally around reform, in a clear stark light:
Bob Armstrong, CCC Member ( Canada ) – 1st comment
Hi Ken: Your analysis of the relationship between engagement and chess reform with public support seems sound. My concern is that there are often many things wrong in chess, that need reform ( e.g. the Women's World Championship cycle ), but that do not generate wide public interest/support, and sometimes don't even generate reform desire among those directly affected ( in my example, the top 100 women players in the world ). Does this mean that there is NO way to get this matter ( e.g. the WWCC ) reformed?? Do you think a determined small group, who believes in the necessity of the reform, should start the wheels in motion to get a legal vote in the authority body on the proposed reform, even though there is no public interest/support behind their efforts?
Bob Armstrong, CCC Member ( Canada ) – 2nd comment
In its original Canadian organization incarnation, CCC once got rid of an odious section of the Constitution by its own initiative, as a " vanguard ", when there was almost no public interest in the reform. So is this a legitimate way to do " reform " - just a small group doing its own thing??
CCC also invites all “ Likes “ to submit to CCC ideas for possible chess reform actions ( with some argument for it if possible ). CCC will work with you to develop a post for this CCC discussion board, either to be made by you, or by the CCC Coordinator.
Bob Armstrong, CCC Coordinator
CCC 7th Day Chess Reform Series
" In the Judeo-Christian tradition, God rested on the seventh day of the week. However, the Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC ) has chosen the 7th day of each month to explore " chess reform "! CCC is pleased to present the next in its series of " 7th of the month possible chess reform issues ( either at the international FIDE level, or at various national federation levels )":
CCC Discusses Chess Reform – Engagement and Reform
The CCC invites all “ Likes “ to respond to this issue/post below, either “ for “ or “ against “, and if possible, give some reasons for your views!
This post below got posted prematurely on Dec. 31/12, but was intended for this series. Though there have been a number of comments on it already, we wanted to open up the discussion to more “ Likes ” who may not have responded, though they have some thoughts on the topic. So we are reposting it here in our 7th day reform series, where it was originally intended to go.
By Ken Kurkowski, CCC Member ( Canada )
Engagement - a Prerequisite for Chess Reform
For several years, my local homeowners association was a pretty quiet organization. The same aging group of folks served on the executive year after year. The most pressing issue would be what to serve at the next new residents’ ‘meet and greet’ social. Then last year a big developer announced plans to build a huge, six-tower high-rise condominium complex- right at the edge of our quiet neighbourhood. Well, that sure got people active! Meeting attendance shot up. A committee to fight the development was set up, along with a fundraising campaign (for lawyers’ fees). Everybody was talking about how awful this new development would be and how important it was to stop it.
So, what does this have to do with chess? Well, the point I’m making is that in order to get people engaged in an issue (say “Chess Reform”) they have to feel that it affects them personally. Talking about an abstract issue like the forma...t of the Women’s World Championships, or the proliferation of draws at super GM tournaments, may elicit a few comments from the ‘Monday morning quarterbacks’ (North American term for people who discuss players/coaches’ strategies from the previous weekend’s football games) but how many will be interested in launching a campaign to lobby their national chess federation, let alone FIDE?
On the other hand, when local organizers decide to, say, change the time control for tournaments, or raise entry fees, or insist on digital clocks you suddenly hear a lot of impassioned opinions! When the local chess club is about to shut down because the people running it are no longer willing/able to do so, people come out of the woodwork (I hope!) to help ensure that they continue to have a place to enjoy their favourite hobby.
To sum up, I believe that Chess Reform, in order to succeed, should be a largely ‘bottom-up’ process. The focus needs to be largely on local issues.
I am also reproducing here my comments on this post, which puts the issue facing CCC generally around reform, in a clear stark light:
Bob Armstrong, CCC Member ( Canada ) – 1st comment
Hi Ken: Your analysis of the relationship between engagement and chess reform with public support seems sound. My concern is that there are often many things wrong in chess, that need reform ( e.g. the Women's World Championship cycle ), but that do not generate wide public interest/support, and sometimes don't even generate reform desire among those directly affected ( in my example, the top 100 women players in the world ). Does this mean that there is NO way to get this matter ( e.g. the WWCC ) reformed?? Do you think a determined small group, who believes in the necessity of the reform, should start the wheels in motion to get a legal vote in the authority body on the proposed reform, even though there is no public interest/support behind their efforts?
Bob Armstrong, CCC Member ( Canada ) – 2nd comment
In its original Canadian organization incarnation, CCC once got rid of an odious section of the Constitution by its own initiative, as a " vanguard ", when there was almost no public interest in the reform. So is this a legitimate way to do " reform " - just a small group doing its own thing??
CCC also invites all “ Likes “ to submit to CCC ideas for possible chess reform actions ( with some argument for it if possible ). CCC will work with you to develop a post for this CCC discussion board, either to be made by you, or by the CCC Coordinator.
Bob Armstrong, CCC Coordinator