The Dilemma for Checkers

[jpost]

In many of my conversations with fellow checker players, the point is often made that the game of checkers - in any competitive, institutionalized way - is dying. There is compelling proof for this: after peaking in 2001, in which there was a Nationals with over 100 competitors, tournament numbers have slowly dwindled. I do, however, disagree with this assertion, for two main reasons. One is that while some of the players have regrettably passed away in the last few years - most notably Gene Lindsay, Wade Holder, Elbert Lowder and, most recently, Earl Harvell - many of those players are youths attracted to the game through the Internet which found a multitude of distractions once they reached adulthood. School, work, and women can certainly take up most of one's time, and even if they find themselves with time left over, the motivation to study or play checkers is probably not there. Those players have invariably found themselves drawn back to the game at some point in the future, me included. Therefore, I have no doubts that we are losing those players permanently to this great game.

Secondly, we have a modest amount of youth players playing on online sites such as Yahoo! and Kurnik. These are mostly players playing 1/0 (one-minute) games, and while they are crude and sometimes immature, there are several players of exceptional skill which should not have their talents wasted simply by playing in an Internet forum. 1/0 is also incredibly entertaining to watch and, I think, implemented as another form of competition in ACF tournaments (I would think the only way to do it would be to arrange a set of computers in a room and have them play through online means, with a referee monitoring the games. This also has its own problems, but all of them, I think, fixable). There is a certain beauty in watching someone intuitively win a game through a shot or brilliant move simply after a split-second of analysis.

So the question inevitably becomes: how do we attract more youth (or anybody) to checkers? This is a question we have brought up time and time again, with mostly suggestions that fall on deaf ears. I think there is a simple way to promulgate this game, but one that is problematic for many of the players currently competing.

We have to raise the prize money.

The prize money is the key. I attended a tournament in McKinney, Texas this last weekend, which was a great and competitive tournament. Yet the winners - Albert Tucker and Wayne Gober, both formidable players and who played excellent tournaments with 19 points apiece - received only $77.50 in prize money. This is a poor compensation for spending a couple of hundred for gas, a room, and food. We have seen efforts to try to bring more youth to tournaments through scholarships, including giving out gas cards to youths so they can make the drives. This is a valiant effort by the ACF - after all, where is all this money supposed to come from? - but we are still falling short in the important area of prize money.

It's easy to say that we have to raise the prize money, but it's harder to do. I don't want to dwell on the strategies to raise money here as much as I would like to discuss the corollary problem that will accompany it: what would happen to checkers if people started playing it for the money?

There is a mantra spoken at almost every checker tournament I've ever been to, in some form or fashion: "Checker players are some of the best people you will ever meet." I do believe this is true: I think checkers at its best reflects a long-held tradition of Southern hospitality, and I do think that the stronghold for checkers remains in the South (that could be subject for debate). I have met some of the best people I know through checkers. I played the game online for fun, lacking any real focus - probably just to cause trouble because I had nothing better to do - before Larry Jordan came along and mentored me, giving me books and urging me to come play in the Arkansas State tournament. From there, I fell in love with the game. Steve Dick was another mentionable mentor to me, and I think, similarly, most everyone has a story about the person who got them into checkers.

Consequently, the lack of money at tournaments has, I think, created a spirit of good will amongst all the players. Checker players go to tournaments to fraternize with their friends and play checkers rather than try to beat them into the ground for money. They go to tournaments to play, not to win. At the District 8/TX Open I attended this last weekend, I don't remember anyone being mad about a loss to the point of being visibly upset. At Southern States last year, I was part of a four-way tie for first, and I began to wait anxiously to see the results before realizing that two of the three other players had already left, and the other one was staying only for other obligatory reasons. There is competition at tournaments only, it seems to me, because it is compulsory that you must compete. Besides the recent debacle over a tournament that was allegedly botched, I can't remember any real controversies over tournament direction. The sportsmanship of checker players is one of its greatest traits.

If the game increases its payout, there will inevitably be more people showing up to tournaments lacking any motive of friendship, but simply to win money. It would, I'm afraid, become like chess. Also, it would require a stern restructuring of how tournaments are ran: at District 8, we had a meeting an hour before play started to talk about what type of format players wanted to play, and there was a general air of nonchalance. We all just wanted to play. It was a relaxed yet well-run tournament, but how much of it would change if money were involved? What were trivialities before concerning tournament details become important details now. There would be plenty more disputes, and most ostensibly in the name of trying to get whatever edge one could get to win the tournament.

Maybe it's arrogant of me to assume that checkers would one day become a mega-bucks - or even modestly rewarding - sport that is played by thousands more people than it is today. And I think there are other effective ways to recruit people to the game, but without the same drastic effect that raising prize money would have. I don't think I'm arguing against attracting new people to the game in the name of money as much as I'm simply trying to bring fresh insight into this idea and foresee a possible paradox on the horizon. We all assume it is better to bring more people to the game, but it will more than likely come at the cost of the tournament culture we have all come to know and love.

[Eric Strange]

I think we should raise the buy in to like 100 dollars a person. That would make the prize money decent... especially in larger tournaments.

The competition is what keeps checkers players in the game.

[jpost]

Eric,

Not necessarily. For many young people, the competition is there, sure, there's a need for fierce competition. But for many of the older players, the competition is much more light-hearted. By this I mean that sportsmanship comes before competition - as it should. If money were introduced, I think it would change this culture dramatically.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

I think it would change this culture dramatically.

You can pay portion of prize for points. Than number of agreeable draws will dramatically drop.

Deal or no deal ?

If someone wants a quick draw, he should better pay few bucks to his opponent lol

Alex

[Chexhero]

I was looking to start my my own checkers club in my area in hope it would bring more people to the game. I think the ACF members can also encourage family members or friends to come to the tournaments. I brought my father. He is not nearly as good as me, but he still had fun and even won a few games. He said he would do it again, but probably would not want to seriously get into the game. That part you can't really do anything about. I think it takes a certain kind of person who can love a strategic-logic type game like checkers enough to want to make a career out of it.

In regards to the sportsmanship, at the PA State it was absolutely brilliant. Games were as competitive as could be, but afterwords everyone smiled and shook hands with me, win loss or draw. You nevr get this kind of sportsmanship online.

[Danny_Alvarez]

I think that money while being a component that needs to be fixed isn't the first one....
To a certain extent i think that Eric's proposal of a larger buy-in to get a larger prize purse should be discussed as it has it merits in larger tournaments like the Nationals...
I wouldn't advocate it for every tournament.

in my humble opinion these arguments about how to fix the game are rather circular (what comes first, the chicken or the egg?)
there aren't enough numbers, therefore there isn't enough prize money, therefore we don't attract enough people to tournaments....
In my opinion if we really want the game to grow, we should concentrate on initiatives where we promote it in schools (as Kim is doing) and we arrange a scholastic championship...
the national high school champion, the national primary school champion, state champions ..... that could be done with a LOT OF TIME but very little money...
from there you would have more members coming in the future.

obviously the game is in dire straits and there aren't easy fixes or magic pills anymore.... all solutions will hurt... but we have passionate people that still love this game regardless of its lack of
popularity and/or money.
Danny Alvarez
PS in the chicken vs egg argument i am a chicken man ... if anyone wants to argue take it to broken boards HAHAHAHA

[Eric Strange]

Now... what I am about to say might sound a little mean and might hurt someones feelings but this is absolute truth. The future of this game is younger newer players. High buy ins which would cause large prize money will attract more younger players because we are all about pissing contests and challenges. The older players have been playing this game for decades and no matter what happens they are checkers players for life. We need to stop catering to them and focus on new.

In kurnik the players who are the best and have been playing for close to or over a decade threaten to retire from playing checkers and I tell them go ahead. Your already a checkers player and good at this game. I am focused on new players who need to learn and can keep checkers alive.

We need new players not hang onto the old ones. They will come back around on their own when this game is worth playing again. In worth I mean that the prize is worth the trip!!!

The old generation is getting smaller and smaller and the new generation is quitting before ever seeing a real tournament. This could have been prevented but nobody will step up. I am doing what I can to bring checkers into this current technology age and thank everyone who supports me along the way. we need to make some major changes but I am not seeing anything big coming down from the higher ups.

Common Alan!!!!!!!!!!! lets shake things up a little!!!

I have been hearing many people have been trying to talk to me that don't feel comfortable with email. You can call me anytime... if I don't answer then make sure you leave a message so I call you back

[kkelly]

"We need new players not hang onto the old ones."

You may be onto something here Eric, wise beyond your years I do believe..
I think Hitler felt the same way as you..

Jpost,, very well thought out and expressed post.

[Eric Strange]

funny cause jpost messaged me in kurnik and said that what I said had a lot of good points. Looks like you should probably go ahead and kill yourself Kelly.

[jeff webster]

Eric what exactly do you mean by the term"catering to the older players", how is that being done?

[Danny_Alvarez]

"We need new players not hang onto the old ones."

You may be onto something here Eric, wise beyond your years I do believe..
I think Hitler felt the same way as you..

.

Why do people here always over react and villify others just because they disagree with their views....
kkelly, i think your Hitler comparison, is not only uncalled for, but a gross exaggeration and it doesn't help the exchange of ideas here.....
Geez....live and let live people.... when are we going to learn that we are not all the same, AND THAT IS OK !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Danny "the tolerance prophet" Alvarez ..... if you disagree with me i'll feed you to the crocs

[Eric Strange]

Eric what exactly do you mean by the term"catering to the older players", how is that being done?

Jeff, It is apparent that many things that need to be changed have not been changed because the older players have gotten accustomed to certain ways. Just one example off of the top of my head are the acf bulletins. Paper copies sent to people houses.... are you serious? This world has gone technological and these should be sent in email saving tons of money for the ACF which can go to bettering the system. I would say there could be an exception for the couple of players who do not have internet access. Just things like this. People do not like change but that is exactly what the checkers world needs.

[jpost]

I do feel like Eric has some good ideas - I'm not sure if I agree with some of the attitudes towards older players, but I do agree that raising the entry fee is a good idea, although I feel that many people will dislike this idea. The idea of paying more money to play checkers, a game many play in tournaments simply for fun, with the way the economy is is not something people are going to warm up to immediately. But the payout is commensurate to how much money you put in: let's say that the entry fees would be $75 for masters, $50 for majors, and $25 for minors. Not sure how payouts work, but last place in masters would still take home roughly $30-40. That' s a loss of roughly $30, as opposed to a loss of maybe $15 with a lower buy-in. And players who wanted to play for fun would still be able to play in the minors without having to pay anymore.

It's easy to talk about these ideas, of course. It's harder to come to any agreement and have the ideas implemented. And we still have the problem that I discussed in the first post.

[Eric Strange]

Just by way of comparison: I played a Scrabble tournament earlier this month, and the entry fees were $60 (0-1000 rating), $75 (1000-1400), and $90 (1400+). An expert rating is about 1600. The directors didn't publish the full prize list on the results website, but I believe the top prize in my division (the middle one) was in the 300-400 range, with slightly smaller prizes for the #2 and #3 finishers. The prizes in the other two divisions were comparable, and proportional to the entry fees. Now, that probably still wouldn't be much once hotel & meal costs were subtracted, but it's respectable.

Personally, I think a minimum of $100 would be an appropriate entry fee for the ACF Nationals, at least in the top division. The Lindsay and Oldbury funds do provide generous additions to the prize fund, as do other private donations, but we really aren't gonna get anywhere with $15 or $20 entry fees, especially when gas and lodging are getting more expensive.

Bravo John.... we finally agree on something!!!! So will you talk to Alan about doing this for nationals? I believe 100 dollars or more would be a perfect amount for masters.

[Eric Strange]

So scrabble is bigger than checkers.... makes me wanna cry