PDA

View Full Version : Psychoanalysis of chess admin (SF What they said, what we think they meant)



MichaelBaron
07-04-2011, 12:06 PM
Grant, The difference is that many of the chess players, are dillusional, self-centered people. In a team sport, you learn to play as part of a team and control your ego wherever necessary. In chess, every 1300 feels he knows something about the game, he is great - just been ''unlucky'' for years.

With the chess administration, it delivers neither monetary, nor career benefits. Therefore, we have a situation where many people get involved in to the admin to feed their sick egos and gain a sense of importance. Many chess administrators could be compared to train ticket inspectors...who are dumb like wood but put on the uniform ..and suddenly feel that others need to look up to them. Consequently, managerial capacity of these people is questionable. Furthermore, in order to hold on to their power, they need to keep the chess scene conservative and small. Imagine that one day ACF president is a paid job with a decent managerial salary....how many of the current ACF leaders would be considered. Would you appoint a new manager over 60? Would you appoint a Manager without a relevant Masters degree? Would you appoint someone without 3+ years of managerial experience in a professional environment?

If we look at the European chess scene (and it is a professional chess scene) we note that majority of the chess administrators plays little chess themselves (even though they do have some chess-related background -some are even former GMs such as Kouatly and Ochoa or IMs such as Danailov) but they all have managerial experience!

Rincewind
07-04-2011, 12:18 PM
This all to obvious attempted thread-jacking has been granted a new thread. Similar attempts in other threads will likely be merged here. You can push your barrow in this thread all you like but please don't push it into every thread your come across which you think gives you a tangential hook-in.

Kevin Bonham
07-04-2011, 12:33 PM
*sigh* More of Michael's ludicrous ranting about why people supposedly get involved in chess admin; of course it wouldn't have occurred to him that some people actually care about making sure the game they like is run well and are willing to put time into it on that basis without asking "what's in it financially for me?"

Actually a sure sign of just how intellectually hopeless Michael's latest rant is is that he starts by arguing that chessplayers are just self-centred. Then, since chess admin doesn't fit the normal characteristics of self-centred he moves the goalposts by arguing that it must be self-centred anyway (don't worry how, he'll make something up to get his square peg into a round hole). Yet he wants to argue that we're "delusional"!


Imagine that one day ACF president is a paid job with a decent managerial salary....how many of the current ACF leaders would be considered. Would you appoint a new manager over 60? Would you appoint a Manager without a relevant Masters degree? Would you appoint someone without 3+ years of managerial experience in a professional environment?

Well as it happens I think it would be quite a good idea for the ACF to have a paid staff member, since a lot of ACF work that is slow at volunteer level because people can only devote so much time to it (and have to consult with each other in doing so) could be much more easily done by a single person working for pay who therefore doesn't have to give their admin work second priority behind their real work. The question of course is how to find enough money in the Australian chess system to fund such a position and we're nowhere near that level of income at the moment.

Assuming such a person was being appointed by Council the first thing I'd be looking for is a good existing basis in chess administration (of some sort) and genuine passion for the game. The next thing I'd be looking for would be evidence of general competence and reliability in the sort of tasks that person would be doing.

The last things I'd be doing would be:

* discriminating against an otherwise good and energetic applicant with the potential for years of good service on the basis of age

* requiring a degree in anything (least of all the ability to misapply management-speak) for work that simply does not require a tertiary qualification to be understood and performed properly.

Desmond
07-04-2011, 12:44 PM
Grant, The difference is that many of the chess players, are dillusional, self-centered people. In a team sport, you learn to play as part of a team and control your ego wherever necessary. In chess, every 1300 feels he knows something about the game, he is great - just been ''unlucky'' for years.

With the chess administration, it delivers neither monetary, nor career benefits. Therefore, we have a situation where many people get involved in to the admin to feed their sick egos and gain a sense of importance. Many chess administrators could be compared to train ticket inspectors...who are dumb like wood but put on the uniform ..and suddenly feel that others need to look up to them. Consequently, managerial capacity of these people is questionable. Furthermore, in order to hold on to their power, they need to keep the chess scene conservative and small. Imagine that one day ACF president is a paid job with a decent managerial salary....how many of the current ACF leaders would be considered. Would you appoint a new manager over 60? Would you appoint a Manager without a relevant Masters degree? Would you appoint someone without 3+ years of managerial experience in a professional environment?

If we look at the European chess scene (and it is a professional chess scene) we note that majority of the chess administrators plays little chess themselves (even though they do have some chess-related background -some are even former GMs such as Kouatly and Ochoa or IMs such as Danailov) but they all have managerial experience!
This miserable post does you no credit, Michael.

MichaelBaron
07-04-2011, 01:02 PM
This miserable post does you no credit, Michael.
The very fact that any critical post is called ''miserable'' shows what kind of ppl we have involved :).

I've heard it all. How different we are, how special the Australian chess scene is. But why is it that Cordover, Parr, Gluzman etc could turn chess-related activities into a steady income to pay themselves and others but ACF can not? You can dislike a particular person (e.g. Cordover) but you can not deny the fact that some private enterprizes are sucessful in achieving things that ACF would never even attempt. I am not a great fan of Tornelo but can we imagine ACF doing a development of this kind...when they take years to fix the website.

Btw, it was not thread-hijacking. I think my post was addressing the question raised by Grant namely: ''Why are the chess players so dillusional/selfish'' :)

Denis_Jessop
07-04-2011, 01:07 PM
Michael is young. He has little grasp of the real world even at his present age. He seems to have no idea of what it is like to be old. Nor have I :) . Discrimination merely on the grounds of age is dumb. For example both Max Euwe and Florencio Campomanes were FIDE Presidents in their 60s or 70s. And what about Rupert Murdoch? Many famous classical pianists have performed at their top well into their 70s or beyond. That these are special examples is to the point. You can't exclude someone just because of what seems to you to be old age.

Just for good measure he seems to have fallen into the modern management trap that allows people to occupy top management jobs even though their only expertise in the area is an MBA. There have been some spectacular examples of the failure of that idea in the last 20 or 30 years.

DJ

Desmond
07-04-2011, 01:13 PM
The very fact that any critical post is called ''miserable'' shows what kind of ppl we have involved :).I didn't call any critical post miserable. I called your post miserable. And it is.

Kevin Bonham
07-04-2011, 01:14 PM
The very fact that any critical post is called ''miserable'' shows what kind of ppl we have involved :).

In the case of that "critical" post, "miserable" was generous. And there are many other "critical" posts that are made (mostly in the other place) that are similarly abusive and silly (or worse) and that get the contempt they deserve. Intelligently expressed and well argued criticism does not get such responses.


I've heard it all. How different we are, how special the Australian chess scene is. But why is it that Cordover, Parr, Gluzman etc could turn chess-related activities into a steady income to pay themselves and others but ACF can not?

Because they are coaches and/or chess product retailers and that is where the money is in chess and has been for a long time. Junior coaching and tournament direction in particular is a goldmine and David is very good at generating passion for it. Last I heard David didn't have "a relevant Masters degree" and in fact left school at 15.

The stuff the ACF does is mostly the stuff there isn't serious money in because if there was serious profit to be made from it the private sector of chess would already be doing so.


Btw, it was not thread-hijacking. I think my post was addressing the question raised by Grant namely: ''Why are the chess players so dillusional/selfish'' :)

Actually that's just you reading your own agenda into his post (the question you give there is yours not his). His post was not about delusion nor especially about selfishness; it was mostly about false modesty and other euphemisms of diplomacy.

Basil
07-04-2011, 02:05 PM
Pinorcle

MichaelBaron
07-04-2011, 02:40 PM
Actually that's just you reading your own agenda into his post (the question you give there is yours not his). His post was not about delusion nor especially about selfishness; it was mostly about false modesty and other euphemisms of diplomacy.

I think Grant was also trying to point out that chess players tend to have over-rated opinion of themselves :).

Grant Szuveges
07-04-2011, 03:24 PM
Hi everyone

I assume that I am the "Grant" involved here (Ive got to the stage where I am like Brad and Angelina - I dont have or need a surname)...

Which of my posts are people actually referring to?

Rincewind
07-04-2011, 03:26 PM
Which of my posts are people actually referring to?

Hi Grant. Yes indeed. The first post in the "What they said, what we think they meant" thread. (Note the title of this thread where SF is an abbreviation of "split from".)

Grant Szuveges
07-04-2011, 03:58 PM
Hi Grant. Yes indeed. The first post in the "What they said, what we think they meant" thread. (Note the title of this thread where SF is an abbreviation of "split from".)

Oh, ok. It seems that nobody really understood what that thread was all about!

It was not about the ACF, any state association, any coaching company or any particular players - it was a generic discussion about the rubbish chess players generally talk. I think they understood it a bit better on the other forum, but even they didnt quite get the exact idea I dont think. I will put a good example up - in the relevant thread of course!

Keong Ang
07-04-2011, 04:42 PM
Oh, ok. It seems that nobody really understood what that thread was all about!

It was not about the ACF, any state association, any coaching company or any particular players - it was a generic discussion about the rubbish chess players generally talk. I think they understood it a bit better on the other forum, but even they didnt quite get the exact idea I dont think. I will put a good example up - in the relevant thread of course!

Looks like a situation of "what you said, what they think you meant"!! :lol: :lol:

Rincewind
07-04-2011, 04:50 PM
Looks like a situation of "what you said, what they think you meant"!! :lol: :lol:

Now THAT'S funny. :clap:

Grant Szuveges
07-04-2011, 05:42 PM
Grant, The difference is that many of the chess players, are dillusional, self-centered people. In a team sport, you learn to play as part of a team and control your ego wherever necessary. In chess, every 1300 feels he knows something about the game, he is great - just been ''unlucky'' for years.


While I agree with what you are trying to say here, I think it is important to acknowledge that even though 1300 players are much weaker than you or I, they are still VERY STRONG chess players.

Think about it, 1300 rated players are still better than 99.9% of the worlds population at chess. Its easy to look at them as weaker when you are stronger than them - but if they played chess against their friends and family and people they met at work or on holiday etc, they would win nearly (if not every) game.

The difference in chess between the worst tournament players and the best social players is really quite big - although there are of course some exceptions to this rule.

If we compare chess to other sports such as AFL or soccer, I see 1300 players as the equivelant to players who come off the bench in these sports. They are at the lower end of the pecking order when it comes to the very best, but they are still much stronger than footballers and soccer players who are not playing in the AFL or the A - League. Players like yourself (or even me) are the equivelant of the very strong players on the ground - the ones that hardly ever go to the bench, and players such as David Smerdon, Zhong Yuan Zhao and Darryl Johansen are the equivelant to the absolute superstars of team sports - the ones whose posters kids have on their walls.

While 1300 type players are not superstars, they are still very very handy chess players.

Kaitlin
07-04-2011, 05:45 PM
With the chess administration, it delivers neither monetary, nor car benefits.

:rolleyes: ..crosses Chess Adminstration off mylist of Career Choices
(in pencil)

..and the Interviews are really tough :( ...

lxwJ2GgtDHs

but its all for the Love

of Chess

MichaelBaron
07-04-2011, 07:14 PM
While I agree with what you are trying to say here, I think it is important to acknowledge that even though 1300 players are much weaker than you or I, they are still VERY STRONG chess players.

.

Grant, my point is not about how strong/weak 1300 players are. My point is about the fact that chess-players generally fail to assess their ability and skills objectively

antichrist
07-04-2011, 08:34 PM
I agree that chess players only ever lowly-rated should not become arbiters, also such lowly rated players who dont have higher education and experience should be scrutinesed that don't get set up in chess admin as a means of boosting their ego and statute

Rincewind
07-04-2011, 10:56 PM
such lowly rated players who dont have higher education and experience should be scrutinesed that don't get set up in chess admin as a means of boosting their ego and statue

I'd hate to see anyone's statue boosted.

Kevin Bonham
07-04-2011, 11:16 PM
Grant, my point is not about how strong/weak 1300 players are. My point is about the fact that chess-players generally fail to assess their ability and skills objectively

Hmmm, like you generally fail to assess your debating ability and skills objectively, you mean?

I think your claim about 1300s players thinking they are great players who are just unlucky is just a silly generalisation anyway. How many individual players can you think of (don't name them publicly) in that rating band who you can honestly say think they are great and unlucky based on evidence they have provided of it? How many other 1300s have you come across who have provided no evidence to back your silly slur?

I can't think of a single 1300 I've ever known who has been of this kind. I can think of one c.1600 who seemed to believe he was really 2000+ but it's not something I've encountered commonly at low to medium levels.

Basil
07-04-2011, 11:23 PM
Grant, my point is not about my head ...
Fixled :D :cool:

machomortensen
08-04-2011, 04:06 AM
Grant wrote: "If we compare chess to other sports such as AFL or soccer, I see 1300 players as the equivelant to players who come off the bench in these sports. They are at the lower end of the pecking order when it comes to the very best, but they are still much stronger than footballers and soccer players who are not playing in the AFL or the A - League. Players like yourself (or even me) are the equivelant of the very strong players on the ground - the ones that hardly ever go to the bench, and players such as David Smerdon, Zhong Yuan Zhao and Darryl Johansen are the equivelant to the absolute superstars of team sports - the ones whose posters kids have on their walls."

Of course you are right about Smerdon, Johansen and Zhao, but, but, but... I would rather compare 1300-players [ELO] with something less than the 5th division. Maybe more like happy sunday-players...

Libby2
08-04-2011, 09:03 AM
With the chess administration, it delivers neither monetary, nor career benefits. Therefore, we have a situation where many people get involved in to the admin to feed their sick egos and gain a sense of importance. Many chess administrators could be compared to train ticket inspectors...who are dumb like wood but put on the uniform ..and suddenly feel that others need to look up to them. Consequently, managerial capacity of these people is questionable.

Michael - this is such a load of unpleasant, generalist crap.

Unbelievably, there are actual people out there who believe in a culture of giving back and volunteering.

While chess whinges and mopes about needing money for this, that and the other, I come from a background (that still exists) of other sports where getting paid to coach, manage an event, umpire or travel with representative teams is unheard of. People not only don't get paid, they actually pay their own way when they coach teams, or pay their own fees to attend courses and gain formal qualifications as a coach or umpire.

Some of these people were not the greatest individual exponents of their sport - commonly, some top level coaches and administrators are not the greatest players. The skill set is totally different. What you do require is a love of the sport itself to give your time to see it develop but top coaches & administrators do not achieve their results because they were good at the game itself. Some may bring that to the table, but the more significant skills for success are different.

In chess - bizarrely for me - I've had several offers to do what I do as an administrator for money - and I choose not to. I'm not comfortable with that culture.

Now maybe that makes me the fool, but I've never considered the need to deliver a professional standard as an administrator would happen - as a matter of course - if I was paid. I thought it happened because I cared about what I did and I chose to plan, to establish clear processes, to have a clear direction, and to set a long-term goal alongside the short-term day-to-day delivery.


Furthermore, in order to hold on to their power, they need to keep the chess scene conservative and small.

No, because nobody else bothers/questions (in a helpful way)/contributes/stands that can be your outcome. Try fewer ambit claims, more planned, deliverable, costed proposals.

Kevin Bonham
08-04-2011, 11:00 AM
I think if applied myself to chess solidly for a few years I may reach 2000 - I'm guilty

You're also 1475??

antichrist
08-04-2011, 11:45 AM
You're also 1475??

but that would be meaningless if I became 2000

Rincewind
08-04-2011, 11:49 AM
but that would be meaningless if I became 2000

Yes and if you did several medical degrees you might also become a brain surgeon. However, I don't believe that either scenario is particularly likely.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-04-2011, 09:35 PM
Re 1300 players.
Few years ago I lost a serious tournament game to 1300 player without blundering anything. Never underestimate your opponent, even 1000 points difference doesn't guarantee a win.

Kevin Bonham
17-04-2011, 09:39 PM
Never underestimate your opponent, even 1000 points difference doesn't guarantee a win.

Or 1860 points difference for that matter. :eek: