Chess Organization Philosophy 2 of 3

Why create chess communities?
[as blogged originally on playchess.de Jan 16, 2004]

Quite simply, humans (including chess players!) are social creatures. Chess players want to be around other chess players. And, interestingly, chess players (like most humans) feel most comfortable in a hierarchical organization.

For a fascinating article on this, look at the March 2003 Harvard Business Review, for the article "Why Hierarchies Thrive", by Harold Leavitt. The description at the bottom of page concludes "...Over the past 50 years, for example, they [hierarchies] have co-opted the three major managerial movements--human relations, analytic management, and communities of practice. Hierarchies also persist because they deliver real practical and psychological value, and they fulfill our deep need for order and security. Despite the good they may do, however, hierarchies are inevitably authoritarian."

Another way to think of these hierarchical communities is like a bee hive (hierarchical, group oriented). Most people like belonging to a good hive, rather than being alone. For example in programming, most programmers would rather work in a good perhaps new and growing hive (pick from JAVA, internet, .NET, etc), rather than work in an old, perhaps decaying hive (pick from ISAM, ASM, VMS, etc), or worse yet, working alone. This psychology relates to the aforementioned "communities of practice", which are mostly hierarchical, and I will claim that chess (like programming) is a community of practice.

So a chess community: (a) is a community of practice (how to do something, get better, etc); (b) provides emotional and psychological security/stability (identity, ratings, awards, titles, etc); (c) is authoritarian (rules, arbitration, etc.).


Creating Chess Communities

Ultimately, most chess communities are created at the grass roots level, and grow & prosper, or die. Someone, an individual, or small group of people, decide they need to start one. Yes, a conscious and emotional decision to start a chess community. Very typically, this would be a local club where "the charter" people decide they want a community that better serves their interests, than any existing community. The reasons can be varied:

1. A club closer to where you live (want better accessibility)
2. A club that offers the kind of tournaments you want to play (want better service)
3. A club with different leadership (want better authoritarian rule or governance)
And keep in mind that typically a chess community is largely or completely a volunteer organization. We'll cover more on that later.


Grow and Prosper

The three basic dimensions of a chess community are: (a) accessibility; (b) service (includes price); (c) governance. There is no "right" formula, but you can be sure it is a combined effort to balance volunteer effort into the community, versus production of accessible service. The communities that prosper determine a formula that will work (is focused on) only a segment of the population of chess players. That is, the successful communities will (almost by definition) never be attractive or useful to all chess players all of the time. But they will be extremely attractive and useful to some of the players most of the time.

Since different communities will have different offerings, over time a chess community ecosystem will form. That is, a community of communities. Thus we have local clubs that belong to national associations, national associations that belong to international associations. We also have new transnational communities (IECG, IECC, PlayChess.de, etc) that are still sorting out how they fit into the big picture. But fit they must, over time. We already see IECG and ICCF forming tighter ties which gives IECG more credibility, ICCF considering a web server and individual membership, etc.

In addition, for new communities to thrive and prosper they must complement, not compete directly with the successful incumbents (for example a new email chess group is not likely to survive against IECG or IECC), or offer services that are new or compelling (such as a web server with a new twist, like PlayChess.de with its great interface, and these blogs!). There is still much competition and sorting out happening in the server space. Nonetheless, my opinion is that a new "general purpose" online server like ICC could not survive because we already have ICC, FICS, etc. They are the successful incumbents. However, new national online servers offered as an extension to the already existing national org stand a chance to erode some server market share. One example is the U.S. Chess Federation, and its new online service. However, I don't expect much erosion, because chess loyalty runs deep.


Decay and Death

Chess communities die due to lack of momentum, or disuse. Chess players need a community that feels alive, has a lot of activity, a sense of identity, history, giving meaning to ranking, titles and awards. As long as the governance is providing a structure to channel sufficient volunteer energy to provide valuable services to the community, all is well. If the governance gets distracted, perhaps forgets that it is but one piece of a larger ecosystem, gets arrogant, places its needs above the members or communities interests, then all is lost.

In other words, the governance needs to provide valuable, relevant services to its members. Pretty simple, but easy to forget for some. Consider FIDE. FIDE for a while (perhaps even now?) gave community members, and the public, the impression that they were aloof, and did not care much about the average professional chess player. They were (are?) catering to the sponsors, by forcing faster time controls and perceived silly tournament structures onto the membership (players). And yet, despite catering to the sponsors and ignoring players, FIDE was not even treating sponsors well. You can read all about this in the rec.chess.politics newsgroups.

The point is that a governance such as FIDE may not yet realize or remember that chess communities are usually created spontaneously at the grassroots level. Thus, with all of the disappointment, disdain, and disgust over FIDE in the last few years, who is to say they too won't die and be replaced? Once a community falls into disuse and disrepair, it is dead. No community is immune. Only time will tell.


So Why Create a Chess Community?

A chess community is nominally created by an individual (or a small group of people) who:

1. Are frustrated with existing communities, and personally believe they can provide a more valuable chess service, where one does not exist (either locally or globally); or...
2. Are convinced they can provide a better service than currently exists because they can create and apply better governance.

This last point is particularly important for chess communities because so much of the chess service delivery is volunteer (or "low wage I do it for love") based, and without good governance, you won't have a good volunteer org, which reduces services. This creates a vicious cycle that leads to decay and death. Particularly vulnerable are "one person shops" like Stan's NetChess, that start great, then when the "one person" gets overloaded, the community falls into disrepair, and loses momentum then relevance.

So the bottom line, chess communities are usually created out of a personal and emotional need to offer a new, improved, different service and/or governance. When a chess community is created, you must consider the entire ecosystem that you will fit into, and the kind of governance you are capable of creating and sustaining. Everyone wants to be associated with a winner, no one wants to be associated with a loser.

Next we will examine: "What makes a good chess community?"