Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old June 10th 05, 01:12 PM
Ray Gordon
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rethinking The Samford Fellowship

About 15 years ago was my last year of eligibility for that thing. I in
fact took up the game more seriously when I learned of its existence. If
nothing else, it gave me something to aim for by age 25, about five years
after I began playing. When I "only" made expert strength by age 24 (after
beginning at age 20), and it was apparent that I wasn't going to receive it,
quitting chess became easier.

I said back then, as I say now, that the fellowship focuses too much on a
player's rating and not enough on his commitment to the game. While I
certainly wouldn't argue against those who have won the fellowship, many of
these players petered out and never even seriously trained for the world
title. It's possible that if their funding had been extended, they might
have stayed. I also think 25 is too young of a cutoff age and should be
raised to 30 or 35 (I'm 38 so I still wouldn't be eligible).

Also, rather than give a two-year stipend, they should consider a one-year
stipend for a yearly winner, who then would play a "torch match" against the
Fellow who is "carrying the torch" for this country's world title hope. A
player who loses the torch match would lose the fellowship, and the other
funding would go to the next player in line (the torch loser that year and
then normal selection thereafter).

This would make it possible for a Fellow to keep his funding (and earn it
OTB every year) all the way to the world championship, plus it would create
a very interesting and strong chess match each year in the US.


--
Ray Gordon, Author
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Four FREE books on how to get laid by beautiful women

http://www.cybersheet.com/chess.html
Free Chess E-book: Train Like A Chess Champion

Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.


  #2   Report Post  
Old June 10th 05, 02:10 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Wow, you really spend a lot of time dwelling on old wounds for one
supposedly only 38 years old.

Has it occurred to you that the stipulations of the Fellowship might
not allow for such alteration?

When you leave The Ray Gordon Fellowship behind, from all that money
you are making off of the hotties and developing chess champions, you
can set it up the way you want.

  #3   Report Post  
Old June 10th 05, 04:01 PM
Mike Murray
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 12:12:00 GMT, "Ray Gordon"
wrote:

About 15 years ago was my last year of eligibility for that thing. I in
fact took up the game more seriously when I learned of its existence. If
nothing else, it gave me something to aim for by age 25, about five years
after I began playing. When I "only" made expert strength by age 24 (after
beginning at age 20), and it was apparent that I wasn't going to receive it,
quitting chess became easier.


Seirawan went from begiinner to *Master* in substantially less time
than that. AFAIK, he didn't get a fellowship either. It seems your
pace of improvement wouldn't put you near world championship range.


  #4   Report Post  
Old June 10th 05, 04:05 PM
Member
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2005
Posts: 30
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Gordon
About 15 years ago was my last year of eligibility for that thing. I in
fact took up the game more seriously when I learned of its existence. If
nothing else, it gave me something to aim for by age 25, about five years
after I began playing. When I "only" made expert strength by age 24 (after
beginning at age 20), and it was apparent that I wasn't going to receive it,
quitting chess became easier.

I said back then, as I say now, that the fellowship focuses too much on a
player's rating and not enough on his commitment to the game. While I
certainly wouldn't argue against those who have won the fellowship, many of
these players petered out and never even seriously trained for the world
title. It's possible that if their funding had been extended, they might
have stayed. I also think 25 is too young of a cutoff age and should be
raised to 30 or 35 (I'm 38 so I still wouldn't be eligible).

Also, rather than give a two-year stipend, they should consider a one-year
stipend for a yearly winner, who then would play a "torch match" against the
Fellow who is "carrying the torch" for this country's world title hope. A
player who loses the torch match would lose the fellowship, and the other
funding would go to the next player in line (the torch loser that year and
then normal selection thereafter).

This would make it possible for a Fellow to keep his funding (and earn it
OTB every year) all the way to the world championship, plus it would create
a very interesting and strong chess match each year in the US.


--
Ray Gordon, Author

Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.

When a child is given a scholarship to go to college, there is no long term commitment made, or even expected of the child to pursue a life or career based on that education. The same is true of this fellowship. If a person decides a life focused on chess is fulfilling, then good for them, but if not, that's acceptable too.

You seem to think free lessons were all that kept you from becoming a recognized master in chess. That's not true. What has kept you from this is your own lack of will, effort, or desire to do this. Chess is not magic, or rocket science. I subscribe to Morphy's assertion that virtually anyone can learn to play at the expert level with reasonable intelligence and practice. Everything you need is contained in the many good chess software programs out there. If it's really so important to you, then JUST DO IT!!

It's very sad to see a man of your age living in the past and blaming bad luck over who got free lessons and who didn't for the level of performance you exhibit today. Would you really trade your income, your home, your family, just so you could be a minimal master in a game where the number of people making a living can be counted on one hand? It's a game. Unless you are willing to make a commitment to devoting 90% of your waking hours to it, you have no chance of playing at the top. We all have dreams of getting rich to play some game or other. Most of us mature and come to understand this won't happen. Some few get stuck in a loop thinking, "I could've been a contender, but..." and there is always a good explanatory "BUT". Please don't put yourself in that category by grasping from middle age toward unrightable wrongs you perceive from your childhood. It makes you look pathetic. Try to put chess in its proper perspective.
  #5   Report Post  
Old June 10th 05, 08:37 PM
Louis Blair
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Forking Knight wrote (Fri, 10 Jun 2005
16:05:02 +0100):

... Morphy's assertion that virtually
anyone can learn to play at the expert
level with reasonable intelligence and
practice.


_
When and where did Morphy make such an
assertion? Could it be that Forking
Knight is thinking of the passage from
Lasker's Manual of Chess:
_
"Let us assume that a master who
follows a good method, say, the
method of this book, strives to
educate a young man ignorant of
Chess to the level of one who,
if conceded any odds, would surely
come out the winner. How much
time would the teacher need for
this achievement? I think that
I am correct in making the
following calculation:
Rules of play and Exercises 5 hrs
Elementary Endings 5 hrs
Some Openings 10 hrs
Combination 20 hrs
Position Play 40 hrs
Play and Analysis 120 hrs
Even if the young man has no talent
at all, by following the above course
he would advance to the class specified.
Compare with this possibility, the
reality. In fact, there are a quarter
of a million Chess amateurs who devote
to Chess at least two hundred hours
ever year and of these only a thousand,
after a lifetime of study, attain the
end. Without losing myself in
calculations, I believe I am safe in
voicing the opinion that our efforts
in chess attain only a hundredth of
one percent of their rightful result."



  #6   Report Post  
Old June 10th 05, 11:25 PM
FiFiela
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Would you really trade your income, your home, your family, just so
you could be a minimal master in a game where
the number of people making a living can be counted on one hand?

For Ray, that would be a really really really good deal!

  #7   Report Post  
Old June 13th 05, 12:08 AM
Junior Member
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2005
Posts: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Gordon
About 15 years ago was my last year of eligibility for that thing. I in
fact took up the game more seriously when I learned of its existence. If
nothing else, it gave me something to aim for by age 25, about five years
after I began playing. When I "only" made expert strength by age 24 (after
beginning at age 20), and it was apparent that I wasn't going to receive it,
quitting chess became easier.

I said back then, as I say now, that the fellowship focuses too much on a
player's rating and not enough on his commitment to the game. While I
certainly wouldn't argue against those who have won the fellowship, many of
these players petered out and never even seriously trained for the world
title. It's possible that if their funding had been extended, they might
have stayed. I also think 25 is too young of a cutoff age and should be
raised to 30 or 35 (I'm 38 so I still wouldn't be eligible).

Also, rather than give a two-year stipend, they should consider a one-year
stipend for a yearly winner, who then would play a "torch match" against the
Fellow who is "carrying the torch" for this country's world title hope. A
player who loses the torch match would lose the fellowship, and the other
funding would go to the next player in line (the torch loser that year and
then normal selection thereafter).

This would make it possible for a Fellow to keep his funding (and earn it
OTB every year) all the way to the world championship, plus it would create
a very interesting and strong chess match each year in the US.


--
Ray Gordon, Author
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Four FREE books on how to get laid by beautiful women

http://www.cybersheet.com/chess.html
Free Chess E-book: Train Like A Chess Champion

Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.
the real problem with the samford fellowship is that it is run by the incompetently managed ACF. before any ACF people defend the ACF here i would like them to list how many male players higher rated than goletani applied for the fellowship when it was given to her. im sure the list will be pretty long. there is no reason why the fellowship should be another piece of pork thrown out for political reasons(like with goletani and ippolito). the ACF has never been able to do anything but stick a players age and rating into a formula and decide how much money gets spent based on that. the coaches of various players realise that they have basicly quit improving and quit working, but the coach wont get paid if he tells the ACF the player has quit. so this disfunctional organization continues to throw money at so-called "talented" players instead of making good use of the money. the only way money can really be spent well in chess is by putting it in at the top and having it trickle down to those who work the hardest and are the strongest
  #8   Report Post  
Old June 13th 05, 05:32 AM
Ray Gordon
 
Posts: n/a
Default

this
disfunctional organization continues to throw money at so-called
"talented" players instead of making good use of the money. the only
way money can really be spent well in chess is by putting it in at the
top and having it trickle down to those who work the hardest and are
the strongest


Fifteen years ago, I said that was me, and kids and coaches who were part of
this game used to spit out the age/rating numbers all the time.

What I despised about the conduct I saw was that those who were receiving
the money regularly acted as if no one had a right to question how it was
being divided up (kind of like the way "name" politicians act like everyday
citizens don't have the right to run for office), especially not someone so
"OLD" as me, what with all these promising young kids in the game. I was
all but asked to step aside, and while I did that eventually because I took
a regular job, had chess provided me with an income on the way up (or even
some token acknowledgement of my hard work), odds are I would have toughed
it out.

Where are all those kids now? I was told, many times, by many people, and
in no uncertain terms, that they had the future of this game under wraps.

Where's that world championship?


--
Ray Gordon, Author
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Four FREE books on how to get laid by beautiful women

Seduction Made Easy: http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
Get this book FREE when you purchase ANY affiliated product!

Visit our FREE SPEECH SEDUCTION REVIEW message boards at:
http://cybersheet.com/eve/ubb.x
Compare over a dozen different seduction e-books and get SME for FREE if you
buy!

http://www.cybersheet.com/chess.html
Free Chess E-book: Train Like A Chess Champion

Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.


  #9   Report Post  
Old June 13th 05, 01:27 PM
Member
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2005
Posts: 30
Default

@Louis Blair:
You are correct. I was thinking of Lasker's quote there. Don't know why I attributed it to Morphy. Thanks for the correction.
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rethinking the Anna Hahn and US Woman's Chess Olympiad Controversy Sam Sloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 49 May 9th 04 12:24 AM
Rethinking the Anna Hahn and US Woman's Chess Olympiad Controversy Sam Sloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 31 May 3rd 04 06:46 PM
Can Someone List ALL Samford Fellowship Winners... Doctor SBD rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 7 September 7th 03 03:47 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:32 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017