Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old November 16th 07, 11:29 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 5,003
Default National Championship Organization

Here is a conversation started elsewhere. Please excuse me giving it a name
that describes what its about [!] but below, the sponsor of the US
championship, is responded to by Delegate Johnson of the USCF. After that I
add 10 cents! Phil Innes
----------

In a message dated 11/14/07 7:18:54 PM Eastern Standard Time,
writes:



I didn't know I was asking for empathy.
We should go by the Golden Rule. He who has the gold.....
You can bid on it yourself in 2009 and move it back to NYC
and call it the Rosenwald if you wish....... invite Fischer...
FKB


No, the point is *precisely* that I cannot do that (nor can any bidder).
He
who has the gold doesn't make the rules here -- the organization is not a
one-man show.

Frankly, your answers make me very concerned.



But I am glad that a sponsor should join a conversation with chess
administrators, otherwise the corollary is that there will be rules but no
event! I don't see what's wrong with having a Frank Berry Cup /be/ the US
Championship, or the sponsor joining in with what is, after all, just a
clerical activity, since he is paying for it.

[What is so special about what USCF does? I mean, there has to be rules, and
someone must decide their scope - but they are hardly settled rules and seem
to admit the board itself to vote in their favorite players [!] and other
idiosyncrasies which appear to have no objective benefit to the event]

But let's not forget the other 'partner' not present in the conversation,
the players! Since, after all, USCF is not the event any more than the
sponsor is.

Internationally the result of FIDE's inert 'hands off' attitude was the
creation of the ACP. Neither has FIDE fared well with sponsors.

So whatever the answer is, must be a plurality, not this nor that, but some
blend of perspectives. And here USCF need to bend and not be too inflexible,
since otherwise the Frank Berry Cup could simply operate without USCF, who
cannot afford to run their own tournament, and the /default/ situation is
the FBC becomes the National Championship.

And that is what ACP did - as a player-cooperative they began to run their
own tournaments in competition with Fide. The same will happen here, since
this role which naturally accrues to USCF seems to one it refuses to engage
without determining all aspects of it, which given the other partners on the
scene, the players and the sponsor, is out to proportion to what USCF
contributes.

Phil Innes



ECJ



  #2   Report Post  
Old November 17th 07, 12:04 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 5,003
Default National Championship Organization


[What is so special about what USCF does? I mean, there has to be rules,
and

someone must decide their scope - but they are hardly settled rules and
seem


I agree. I'm running the Eric C. Johnson Super Bowl the first weekend in
February. It will be televised -- hope you catch it.



You do don't seem to grasp the point Eric. After 60 years, I was wondering
if the rules could settle down a bit so that people could actually figure
out who was likely to be in it, in advance, and simply asked what else there
is to decide about a national championship, other than location of event -
and since location is not any technical matter to do with chess playing, why
is that solely the board's call?

(Oh, the NFL thinks it owns it...but that's just a clerical activity. I
paid my cable bill, so I'm sponsoring it.)


If the NFL /failed/ to put on the superbowl that year, then your event would
be it, by default

In another reply to the same message you said "And most "sponsors" will find
that the event costs more than it gives back -- as the sponsor in Seattle
found."

CHESS ON TV

But I think that is the sponsor's problem and their opportunity! And in
turn, if their motive is to recover their costs, so as to at least
perpetuate their sponsorship, then other agencies have to be admitted to
converse about what goes on, just like in football. IE, television coverage
gets the sponsor's name before an audience.

You are to consider that in the superbowl no viewer who is female ever even
played the game - most male viewers didn't even play football at high school
level, and none of them to the level of skill of the athletes on the field

Yet somehow millions of non-players [around the world - even in countries
where there is no american football] watch the game, which good old american
media savvy has made presentable to the masses.

If chess organisations need sponsors to fund their events, and sponsors need
tv ro recoup their investment, sponsors need to think why football works at
all on tv - otherwise it is as poor a prospect as you say - and [hint] the
answer is nothing to do with the specifics of football or chess

phil innes


  #3   Report Post  
Old November 18th 07, 05:25 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,576
Default National Championship Organization

On Nov 17, 6:04 am, "Chess One" wrote:
[What is so special about what USCF does? I mean, there has to be rules,
and


someone must decide their scope - but they are hardly settled rules and
seem


I agree. I'm running the Eric C. Johnson Super Bowl the first weekend in
February. It will be televised -- hope you catch it.


You do don't seem to grasp the point Eric. After 60 years, I was wondering
if the rules could settle down a bit so that people could actually figure
out who was likely to be in it, in advance, and simply asked what else there
is to decide about a national championship, other than location of event -
and since location is not any technical matter to do with chess playing, why
is that solely the board's call?

(Oh, the NFL thinks it owns it...but that's just a clerical activity. I
paid my cable bill, so I'm sponsoring it.)


If the NFL /failed/ to put on the superbowl that year, then your event would
be it, by default

In another reply to the same message you said "And most "sponsors" will find
that the event costs more than it gives back -- as the sponsor in Seattle
found."

CHESS ON TV

But I think that is the sponsor's problem and their opportunity! And in
turn, if their motive is to recover their costs, so as to at least
perpetuate their sponsorship, then other agencies have to be admitted to
converse about what goes on, just like in football. IE, television coverage
gets the sponsor's name before an audience.

You are to consider that in the superbowl no viewer who is female ever even
played the game - most male viewers didn't even play football at high school
level, and none of them to the level of skill of the athletes on the field

Yet somehow millions of non-players [around the world - even in countries
where there is no american football] watch the game, which good old american
media savvy has made presentable to the masses.

If chess organisations need sponsors to fund their events, and sponsors need
tv ro recoup their investment, sponsors need to think why football works at
all on tv - otherwise it is as poor a prospect as you say - and [hint] the
answer is nothing to do with the specifics of football or chess

phil innes


So what, a bunch of crooks get together and hold a chess tournament to
launder
money for the lifestyle of the FIDE PResdient? If you complain, Susan
Polgar
makes death threats against his percieved opponets?

I am going to play that prono if I can find it, and I am going to make
this game
so disgusting, that nobody plays.

No more happy talk. Let's get down to the ****ing!

Marcus Roberts
  #4   Report Post  
Old November 18th 07, 12:42 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 5,003
Default National Championship Organization

Sposors don't get much back from chess, went the discussion, so add TV... ?
-----------

Actually, this is not a bad analysis of an athletic sport, though games
differ somewhat, and have other features - here we go with an adjustment for
poker as comparison, since poker is already on TV

Why does football work on TV?


1. Physical athletes are attractive. Most mental athletes are not.



The people who play poker on TV ain't much to look at

2. The game is fairly simple (in basic format) so that people understand
"you have 4 plays to get 10 yards" even if they don't undersand HOW you
get those yards


Yes, and poker is pretty simple, and relatively quick - though people
'trance'

3. The game is repetitive -- sets of 4 plays over and over again


Yep, poker is the same old 5 card-trick over and over

4. Bright uniforms


Not apt for poker

5. See # 1


Sports also have their songs, but i'm not sure that 'Take me out to the
chess game' will catch on, unless Willy Nelson makes it popular, with Arnold
S joining The Pelikan Sisters for the chorus. And other things won't
compare - eg: Gata has to go into the 25-second penalty box for
'celebrating' after winning the exchange. Jennifer gets a 10 second penalty
for kicking Hikaru under the table, who himself gets a penalty flag for
pulling her hair in retaliation; 'Roughing the kicker'.

Apply this to chess. Good luck.



Well... a straight comparison with sports seems unwarranted, and original
thinking may be required. I notice that a lot of reality shows spend a good
deal of time on the bio of the player, rather than the event they are in
which is dealt with differently

You can state the odds of drawing a card in poker, and certainly no football
game has Fritz as kibitzer, a sort of instant commentator on the relative
merits of each side

The biggest drama in chess, which is unique to chess, is time - and anyone
at all can assess that - all they need to understand is that if you run out
of it, you lose!

That's a dumbed down way to appreciate chess, but the football references
above are hardly more entailed!

There are a few more things worth considering - yet, to take Eric's list
seriously, this major game has a lot of pizzazz in presentation, but doesn't
really have that much 'depth' to its presentation, eh?

What move we waitin for?
Raaa Raaa! Rook e 4 !

Screamed the Pawnettes, while the 16 piece uniformed "Kings&Queens&Others"
marching band 'acted out' the first few moves of the Ruy, with the
sprinter/trombonist from f1 racing to b5, then in close-up for the camera, a
backward flip to a4... and another! to b3 ...

ROFL!

Phil Innes

ECJ



  #6   Report Post  
Old November 19th 07, 12:55 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2007
Posts: 66
Default National Championship Organization

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 12:42:55 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:


The people who play poker on TV ain't much to look at


But they are 'characters'. The game is half based on lying (ie
bluffing) which creates players that showboat for the camera.


3. The game is repetitive -- sets of 4 plays over and over again


Yep, poker is the same old 5 card-trick over and over


lol want repetitive? hmmm QGD...


Well... a straight comparison with sports seems unwarranted, and original
thinking may be required. I notice that a lot of reality shows spend a good
deal of time on the bio of the player, rather than the event they are in
which is dealt with differently

lol a 'reality chess' show... 10 GM's locked in a single house where
they have 'matches'... kinda like the Ultimate fighter show
Although I think a house with Kramnik and Topolov would provide some
interesting camera footage


That's a dumbed down way to appreciate chess, but the football references
above are hardly more entailed!


can you dumb down football any further???

J.Lohner
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
Goichberg's List samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 3 March 19th 07 09:09 PM
Goichberg's List samsloan rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 1 March 19th 07 09:09 PM
Goichberg's List samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 2 March 19th 07 07:25 PM
USCF Issues Forum: "February Board Meeting" [email protected] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 February 10th 07 06:55 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:39 AM.

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