Hi all
Please note: You need to register with a real name if you want to reply on the the thread, which does concern RHP, and other sites.
I have just sent the following statement to the ICCF-focused correspondence chess message board:
http://ancients.correspondencechess.com/index.php?topic=123.msg894#msg894
"Hi Austin
I would also like to say I represent "Chess for the masses" and am very proud of this philosophy. Although RHP and Gameknot and others may be primarily commercially focused, they would also be sharing this philosophy of generally promoting chess to the masses - and not just for the elite "chosen few". Being a Fide international player who has beaten IM's in real life, I like taking a role as a chess educator and marketer. So I do care about even the casual members on the Internet - encouraging them to play chess online. I have also been a chess coach and help market chess in the UK for the last 10+ years.
I do respect your view, but it seems you have changed your philosophy from what used to be a site claiming to be a fun casual place to play chess. Indeed you seem to carry a legacy of a large number of very casual variants, which from a chess perspective I would never dream of "polluting" chessworld with. We at Chessworld have a strong central core focus on chess - not trivial variants, which you also seem to take great pride developing and supporting. I am not having a go at you, I just wish to indicate what areas I also take pride in - being strongly chess core focused, and also being welcoming for the newcomer even to chess, let alone correspondence chess.
I am sure it is very easy to handpick and send information about SM to already focused correspondence organisations - I consider it a greater challenge to educate new players into the game, and into the correspondence chess philosophy. However, Chessworld has been featured in Amici Sumus magazine and we would not be adverse to exposure in cc magazines. Unfortunately in recent years we have seen the demise of ChessMail magazine - which perhaps is evidence that chess should not be just for the "Elite" if it is to sustain itself - what is your view of the demise of this magazine in relation to your apparent preferencial support for the Elite? Also how do you feel about the youth of today - don't you think they should be encouraged away from Playstations sometimes into the more intellectual pursuits such as Chess, Scrabble, Soduku etc - and if so, again it would seem your preference for the Elite may only be demographically targetting the elder members of the population who have been in cc for a large number of years. How do you consider future generations to enjoy chess if it is not being actively promoted "to the masses" ?!
I do wonder though how many of your International members will feel when they realise they have been "left out" by only one or two countries being affiliated to the BFCC. Do you think this might lead to some resentment on your site?! Analogous perhaps to some members having a country flag - but other members not?! Also do you think the majority of your members share the ICCF engine philosophy which you are now indirectly encouraging - of engines being seen as just another tool. I take it that you consider "Advanced chess" to be a chess variant (it is treated as such on your site) - do you consider therefore the ICCF to actually not be a "chess" federation but rather a variant "Advanced chess" federation?!
Best wishes
Tryfon"
You may wish to support me in the arguments made for "Chess for the masses" or disagree with it. I just thought I should notify this chess forum as to the current debates going on on the cc board.
Best wishes
Tryfon Gavriel
I'm not really sure what you're getting at so I wonder if you could create a post with more background information that explains it to someone like myself who is not familiar with the sites you refer to.
I understood that you are making a complaint about the presence of chess variants on on a website but I don't see how this inhibits your desire to promote chess to all. It's also not clear to me how the website you are referring to is pandering to a chess elite and ignoring the masses. In fact I would have made the assumption that adding chess variants to a website is pandering to the masses and ignoring the elite. My apologies if this confusion is due to misunderstanding on my part.
Tryfon has a lot to do with chessworld.net and he is having a pop at the guy who runs scheming mind for what he sees as hypocrisy in their approach. SchemingMind have evidently affiliated themselves to the British Federation for Correspondence Chess which is an "official" ICCF National Federation.
BFCC have suffered serious membership decline over the last few years as online CC sites like RHP, SchemingMind and Chessworld.net have taken off so why on earth one of those would want to affiliate to them is beyond me.
SM have a no engine assistance clause in their terms of service whereas ICCF do not discourage engine use so, over the last 10 years, after a fairly well known piece by Dr Stephan Buseman in 1996, more and more of their top "players" have "come out" as engine users etc etc, seeking chess truth etc etc. Tryfon evidently feels that to align oneself, however indirectly, with such an organisation is inconsistent.
On the face of it, I agree with him, but then I voted with my feet and wallet some time ago...
The correspondence chess message board is a forum, mostly ICCF orientated, on which the same well known characters debate the minutiae of ICCF politics ad nauseam. Personally I can't see why an RHP official would want to post there. . .