If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
Here is a link to an article by Justin Horton in Kingpin magazine. In my opinion this is required reading for anyone who cares about the image and status of chess.
Here is a link to an article by Justin Horton in Kingpin magazine. In my opinion this is required reading for anyone who cares about the image and status of chess.
The article summary states, "Chess is barely visible in mainstream media. Chessplayers have only themselves to blame".
We don't have far to look to see why this is so. Here in this forum, visible to the world at large, we have a moderator who argues that winning in chess isn't everything, then turns around and repeatedly declares that he has won debates he is involved in... as if winning the debate is all that really matters, because no reason or logic is given for his winning, he simply declares he has won. Whenever others ask him to defend his position, he ignores their points entirely. Whenever someone makes a point to which he simply can't have a reasonable retort, he unilaterally censors it. He even makes up accusations that his opponent was doing something abhorrent such as equating women to pigs... which no one can verify because the original comments have been conveniently censored. This moderator becomes the very thing he rails against: a poor example for the children, abusing to his own ends the power granted to him. So that he can claim a win while simultaneously claiming he believes winning doesn't matter. From a personality point of view, he is, after a long period of silence, suddenly the Donald Trump of Canadian chess. Instead of saying "You're fired" he says "You're censored." Surprising that in the Borislav Ivanov cheating situation, he isn't blathering about birth certificates!
And no one on this forum will do anything about this. There is no cry and hue.
In fact, as I write this, 172 people have viewed this very thread and haven't bothered to post. Indeed, even among the chessplayers who are to blame, none will step up and say... anything. (In the case of the moderator, this is a good thing).
Instead, they are too busy keeping chess constrained to the tiny sandbox it has always been confined to. We have the example of two young Canadian players who are right now living in Spain because they want to "change some conceptions about chess" according to one Aman Hambleton. Yet on his most recent thread, the young Mr. Hambleton starts off by describing all the virtues of living on the beach in Spain, and being shown the "nightlife". Are we to be surprised when Hambleton then bombs in the tournament and finishes tied for 54th place when he was ranked 21st in the event? At least Hansen knows enough to shut up about the perks of living on the beaches of Spain, oblivious to the predicament of Spaniards in general (over 50% unemployment among workers up to 25 years old, a tragedy that will leave Spain reeling for decades to come). But Hansen also underperformed and, while I believe he may be more directed and driven than Hambleton, he may also be now smitten with the good life. Perhaps these two youngsters would be better off with their chess development if they had to live the life of a homeless and unemployed Spaniard instead of being pampered with the beach life. Nothing motivates like hunger!
I am sure that Hambleton, were he to be presented with the article referred to by the OP of this thread, would reply: "tl;dr" (too long, didn't read). Well, the rest of the world (non-chessplayers) can say the same about his chess games: "tl;dw" (too long, didn't watch).
As long as the non-chessplayers are thinking that way about chess, nothing will change. You can't suddenly make organized chess matter beyond its own borders. We just had an admission from Felix Dumont that the "Elite Championship of Quebec" lost a sponsor from last year and had to reduce prize amounts drastically. How does an "Elite Championship" lose a sponsor? Did anyone investigate? Has the sponsor been contacted? No, likely none of those things were done. Maybe the sponsor would answer that they received no ROI from their sponsorship, and maybe the sponsor will even say that despite chess' image of intellectualism and creativity, they discovered that serious chess players and chess forum moderators almost unanimously turn out to be narrow-minded dolts incapable of anything resembling a reasonable debate on any topic.
It's just another year in the "same shit, different year" annals of organized chess. Except that, because of the rampant cheating and accusations of cheating and banning from chess for spending too long in the bathroom or making moves in regular rhythym, the shit isn't quite the same -- it's worse than ever.
So yes, chess is barely visible, and yes, you serious chess players ARE to blame, and yes, you don't care, and no, I for one don't expect you to ever care.
To change the place of organized chess in this era, you have to change chess itself. Nothing else will do it.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Here in this forum, visible to the world at large, we have a moderator who argues that winning in chess isn't everything, then turns around and repeatedly declares that he has won debates he is involved in... as if winning the debate is all that really matters, because no reason or logic is given for his winning, he simply declares he has won. Whenever others ask him to defend his position, he ignores their points entirely... And no one on this forum will do anything about this. There is no cry and hue.
Isn't ChessTalk a privately-owned message board? When we post on this board, we implicitly accept the Terms of Use. If you don't like the Terms of Use, surely you are free to set up your own message board.
Isn't ChessTalk a privately-owned message board? When we post on this board, we implicitly accept the Terms of Use. If you don't like the Terms of Use, surely you are free to set up your own message board.
Yes, of course. My point was not to criticize this forum. I was taking the main point of the author Justin Horton, that the organized chess world deserves the poor treatment it gets from mainstream media because organized chess as a whole has no self respect, and I was illustrating that very point. I showed that on this public forum, a moderator is abusing his granted powers and acting like a dictator to stifle criticism of his own views, and no one raises any objections (except myself and Peter McKillop). That is a perfect example of the author's point, and so it is very pertinent to the thread that you started on this topic.
What has to be remembered is that this forum is viewable by the public at large. People who are not involved in chess may get impressions of chess from what they see here. So such unethical behavior by this forum's moderator is a black eye on chess. By not raising objections to this behavior, the forum members are thus demonstrating the main point of Justin Horton: lack of respect for chess.
There is a certain prominent member of this forum who is very enthusiastic about chess. His enthusiasm comes through in all his posts. He stresses the best points of everyone involved in chess, and overall he reminds me (with all due respect) as a "chess cheerleader". But on any thread that exposes the darker sides of chess, including this moderator business, he is strangely silent. I would say to him that if he really cares about chess, he needs to get involved against the dark forces that continue to assail chess, from incompetent forum moderators to FIDE itself for refusing to consider any changes to chess in an age that demands change. Cheerleading alone isn't going to save chess.
I should also add that I am perhaps one of only 2 people posting on this forum (Gary Ruben being the other) who is not active within organized chess (although I once was). If organized chess cares at all about how it is viewed "from the outside", it should care what Gary and I write about it here. Most people here don't agree with most or even all of my opinions specific to the cult of chess, but the important point is that most people on the outside of the cult of chess WOULD agree with most or even all of those opinions. I am for the most part speaking on behalf of the majority of those outside the cult. You may not like to hear what I write, you may think it sounds condescending. But I do it as a means to kickstart at least some of you into action, because I would like to see chess enter a new, more dynamic, more responsive, more exciting era.
For organized chess not to care about such opinions is again illustrative of Horton's point. It indicates lack of respect. Not just lack of repect for the rest of the world, but lack of respect for organized chess itself.
And so the endless cycle continues. Chess membership grows, chess membership slows, all in a regular rhythym, but the macro pattern is heading down... chess is losing respect and importance due to all of the above and also due to its resistance to change. Both the natural world and the business world know that the number one rule is: adapt or perish.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
I guess the issue for most on this site is that while your thoughts are "interesting" and certainly challenging, you are not winning any battles on here. So why on earth do you continue posting provocative stuff on here? Isn't there a word for this?
I should also add that I am perhaps one of only 2 people posting on this forum (Gary Ruben being the other) who is not active within organized chess (although I once was).
The last time I looked the ICCF still has my rating as my being active. It's organized chess and our titles are recognized by FIDE.
Maybe I'll play some chess at the seniors club this winter.
Regarding the moderator, he's not that bad. I agree he might not have understood the political reference you made but maybe he doesn't follow nasty U.S. political comments and the late night comedians. At least he doesn't notice when things get off topic. :D
What has to be remembered is that this forum is viewable by the public at large. People who are not involved in chess may get impressions of chess from what they see here. So such unethical behavior by this forum's moderator is a black eye on chess. By not raising objections to this behavior, the forum members are thus demonstrating the main point of Justin Horton: lack of respect for chess.
If the moderator edits or deletes a particular article *before* it is published, I don't see how it's reasonably possible for a non-chess visitor to this board to acquire any impression at all about the moderator's behaviour.
The last time I looked the ICCF still has my rating as my being active. It's organized chess and our titles are recognized by FIDE.
Maybe I'll play some chess at the seniors club this winter.
Regarding the moderator, he's not that bad. I agree he might not have understood the political reference you made but maybe he doesn't follow nasty U.S. political comments and the late night comedians. At least he doesn't notice when things get off topic. :D
Sorry if I made a mistake, I thought you had posted quite some time ago that you no longer play rated chess at all, not even correspondence.
I should also make clear to everyone that even if you are now completely outside the cult of chess, as an observer, this in no way implies that you are on side with my arguments. You do have your long and involved affiliation with organized chess as an organizer, and I doubt that you can shed the influences that has had very easily if at all.
The one area in particular where I think you are badly influenced is in respect to your opinion of chess variants. You immediately dismiss them as "fairy chess", and I'll agree that a lot of them fit that description aptly. But there are others that one can immediately see (once they read the rules) that there is something of substance there, something that can add something positive to chess -- not as a replacement for standard chess, but as a side-by-side alternative. Just as poker has Texas Hold 'Em and has Omaha and other variants and they all get played in the annual World Series of Poker. Chess can learn from this, but it won't.
Of course there is the problem of numbers: organized chess currently can't attract anywhere near the numbers that poker can, and so having side-by-side variants seems impossible. But sometimes "impossible" is a state of mind. If some of the variants brought in allow for elements of chance, then the impossible becomes the possible. Organized chess views "chance" like Republicans view Bill Maher (for the uninitiated, that means "poison"). But as I've written many times, standard chess with its pure skill can coexist with variants that allow for chance. The numbers this would bring in would completely transform organized chess, moving it more into the mainstream (television being a prime example). It's the concept known as "a rising tide lifts all boats".
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
I guess the issue for most on this site is that while your thoughts are "interesting" and certainly challenging, you are not winning any battles on here. So why on earth do you continue posting provocative stuff on here? Isn't there a word for this?
So what's wrong with provocative? As long as a post is well reasoned and fair, provocative may be called for. And I find Paul Bonham's posts to be well-reasoned and fair.
I guess the issue for most on this site is that while your thoughts are "interesting" and certainly challenging, you are not winning any battles on here. So why on earth do you continue posting provocative stuff on here? Isn't there a word for this?
I don't look at it as winning battles. I look at it as slowly but steadily changing mindsets, by opening new avenues of thought. It seems that playing serious chess regularly actually makes the mind less capable of thinking out of the box. That's the only way I can explain the pervasive narrow-mindedness that serious chessplayers exhibit. Just as the world once thought the Earth was the center of the universe: that thinking didn't change overnight, it took someone arguing against it with logic and common sense, and arguing incessantly until people's brains were able to rewire themselves to fathom and accept such a new reality and their lesser place in it. That was a LOT of resistance to overcome!
In order to succeed in my efforts, I do realize that I have to actually demonstrate something. I'm working on that. It's taking somewhat longer than I'd hoped but it's going to happen, and once it does, many minds will open up rapidly to the new possibilities for chess, which by the way includes eradication for decades to come of any worries of people cheating using computer engines (unless they are playing standard chess).
That's why I continue posting provocative stuff here. The path to enlightenment is being prepared.
The word you are thinking of (if I'm reading you correctly) is simply conditioned, knee-jerk reaction.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
If the moderator edits or deletes a particular article *before* it is published, I don't see how it's reasonably possible for a non-chess visitor to this board to acquire any impression at all about the moderator's behaviour.
Well, if they were following Nigel's posts and saw that people criticizing Nigel's views were being censored, and if they later saw on other threads absent Nigel's views that other posters were allowed to violate the Terms of Use regularly, they SHOULD acquire an impression about the moderator's behaviour. And most of them would.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Sorry if I made a mistake, I thought you had posted quite some time ago that you no longer play rated chess at all, not even correspondence.
You read it right. While I'm not playing now, the amount of time for my rating to go inactive from when it was last updated on the rating list hasn't yet passed, I don't think. I think it might be 2 years. I'm thinking of taking on an event in the ICCF. Maybe a GM norm event for which I might just qualify.
I'd take on a seniors event but who wants to play with a bunch of old guys. I want to beat young players who are going for norms.
Well, if they were following Nigel's posts and saw that people criticizing Nigel's views were being censored, and if they later saw on other threads absent Nigel's views that other posters were allowed to violate the Terms of Use regularly, they SHOULD acquire an impression about the moderator's behaviour. And most of them would.
"I think that all right-thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that ordinary, decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not! And I’m sick and tired of being told that I am!" (Monty Python's Flying Circus)
Tweet
Comment