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.
15. Have fun!
(Thanks to Nigel Hanrahan for writing these up!)
Richard Wang of Canada ranked 32nd amongst 117 participants at the 2013 World Junior
The CFC (governors, office, and exec) is perpetually in "survival mode", and certainly has no energy for improvement.
So, what is to be done?
I don't think it was ever envisioned the Chess Foundation would have more than $200,000.00 to invest and the main CFC organization would be in what you are calling "survival mode".
Duncan might be right that winning is not everything. However, I've noticed when someone wins big on the international scene s/he gets a lot more attention than someone who does not do well.
IF Duncan thinks a CFC representatives will meet the plane when players come home from international events I don't think he's being very realistic.
Given that chess is a board game with limited potential for professional advancement, it is always debatable how necessary chess is as a competition. If we are to accept that chess as sport is of some value, and that trying to win at a World Junior level is a goal of organized chess in Canada, well then the development world that Canada has for its youth has to keep that goal in the picture. And what I am saying is that far more frequently then not it doesn't. CYCC for example emphasizes participation, with almost no reward for winners in the bigger picture.
I guess what I am saying is those who believe chess has some value as a competition and wish that Richard Wang and others will perform well had better ask why our development approach is so scattered, private, and inefficient. And often to the detriment to the young kids who decide they want to try at age 10 or 12 to follow this path. My own personal opinion has changed, I question the point of the whole exercise. It's not that I'm dead against the concept of chess as a sport, its that the way its designed in Canada is not healthy to that goal. So any parent with a talented kid should quite seriously be supportive of the Chess Challenges, school team events, any open event they find fun ( eg CYCC for many is fun ). And forget about the rest. There are plenty of alternatives out there to chess, and frankly the conditions that kids encounter in the more competitive chess events are wildly inconsistent and sometimes downright miserable considering the effort and work to qualify for that opportunity. That part of the story can't possibly be fully understood by casual players in Canada that don't attend the events themselves, and many parents just do their best to smooth over the hassles.
Back on topic, I believe Canada has had more then its fair share of talented young players, and many of them have performed well under pressure and won perhaps more then one might expect given their background. To say "winning is everything" and suggest the kids don't play well under pressure is simply wrong, its not a fair assessment of what is really going on. Its just another reason why chess might be the wrong area to participate in.
You raise some good points Duncan and I'm not going to argue with you on this broad topic but I do want to say that chess is like any other sport/game, there's going to be tons of average kids and a select few that goes beyond and perform higher than what is expected of them. I don't think anyone could be a top player if the only thing pushing them is "fun". They have to be motivated to want to win and get better and participating in the fun activities and attending the once a week group "lessons" is probably not going to push them far enough. The best players are both talented and work harder than the rest on their own time and often do not require someone else pushing them as their own intrinsic motivation makes up for it anyway.
In my opinion, it doesn't matter what activity young kids choose to do these days as long as they follow through and keep trying to plow through it no matter how difficult it is. I'd rather someone fail at something difficult early in their life than try a hundred different things and not give it their all in any of them.
I don't know much about chess being suitable for kids. My daughter played ONE correspondence event with the kids of three other members. She played one school event in grade 4, lost in the semi-final to a boy, told me she cried when she lost and didn't play again.
She played the accordion very nicely. We had a very good teacher who was from Russia. It's like chess. The best teachers were from Russia. Maybe it's still the same. Did you know music is competitive?
How would you describe the chess environment you grew up in compared to that available to children in the GTA?
If you do something it's quite natural if you want to succeed. Or we have to ask Jesse Wang how useful what we do? I find such quotes stupid, that what I wanted to say. If someone plays chess just for fun it's great. If someone wants to become GM, Mr. Wang will tell him "Don't do this! You're gonna become completely useless man". Sounds like an absurd. Same thing I can say about musicians, writers, sportsmen etc. Physicist is probably more useful than most of them.
You raise some good points Duncan and I'm not going to argue with you on this broad topic but I do want to say that chess is like any other sport/game, there's going to be tons of average kids and a select few that goes beyond and perform higher than what is expected of them. I don't think anyone could be a top player if the only thing pushing them is "fun". They have to be motivated to want to win and get better and participating in the fun activities and attending the once a week group "lessons" is probably not going to push them far enough. The best players are both talented and work harder than the rest on their own time and often do not require someone else pushing them as their own intrinsic motivation makes up for it anyway.
In my opinion, it doesn't matter what activity young kids choose to do these days as long as they follow through and keep trying to plow through it no matter how difficult it is. I'd rather someone fail at something difficult early in their life than try a hundred different things and not give it their all in any of them.
I'm not saying working hard at something one is passionate about is a bad thing. What I am saying is conditions in any area can make that endeavor not
worthwhile regardless of the effort, skills, and/or talent. And reverting to more fun events is the smart decision if the conditions dictate that. I could get into details but as you say its too deep and complex a topic.
Re: Richard Wang of Canada ranked 32nd amongst 117 participants at the 2013 World Jun
Hugh Brodie posted:
Speaking of rhyming names, here are some from the 2013 CYCC (probably don't all rhyme when you use the correct Chinese pronunciations):
Du, Fu, Ju, Qu, Su, Wu, Xu, Zhou, Zhu.
Bai, Cai Dai.
Ding, Jing, Ming.
Bui, Hui.
Lo, Mo (Wesley So wasn't there).
Li, Shi, Xie, Ye, Yie.
Tang, Wang, Yang, Zhang.
Cao, Gao, Qiao, Tao, Xiao, Zhao.
Then there are the -ov/-ev names from Eastern Europe...
Last edited by Ken Kurkowski; Saturday, 21st September, 2013, 11:00 AM.
Reason: mis-placed post, didn't make sense
After Richard's move 23, he is down a P, and Uulu has a "winning" advantage (Houdini - 1.76 - Winning is 1.71 and over).
Bob A
After move 27, Richard was still down a P, and Uulu had increased his advantage to a very substantial "winning" advantage (Houdini - 5.36!). Richard is clearly in trouble.
After move 27, Richard was still down a P, and Uulu had increased his advantage to a very substantial "winning" advantage (Houdini - 5.36!). Richard is clearly in trouble.
Bob A
Richard just got mated on a very nice King-side attack Queen sacrifice.
So Richard has 3/8, which has to be a great disappointment for him at this tournament, given he had been playing very well going into it.
Canadian chess is failing the players. Having events in sections according to rating is plain wrong. It doesn't give strong players the experience to defeat weak opposition and the openings they use. It doesn't give weaker players the opportunity to improve their game. All the sections do is allow the players to swap rating points back and forth between them.
I've been saying this for years and don't imagine much will change.
Canadian chess is failing the players. Having events in sections according to rating is plain wrong. It doesn't give strong players the experience to defeat weak opposition and the openings they use. It doesn't give weaker players the opportunity to improve their game. All the sections do is allow the players to swap rating points back and forth between them.
I've been saying this for years and don't imagine much will change.
Hi Gary:
I'm not sure how this, if it were true, would apply to the game in question (round 8). Just with dealing with the opening, Richard didn't really go wrong until 6. ... Qd6. While things got worse after that in terms of pawn structure and what to do about castling and developing his dark-squared bishop, it looks to me like he was not expecting 5. N x d5.
A quick glance at Hugh Brodie's Canbase II, shows around 100 games played since 2005 that went !. e4 c5 2. f4. Most of these were played by players rated below 2000. After 2. ... d5 (the so-called "Tal gambit"), there are only 25 games. After 3. e x d5, there are 19 games. And after 3. ... Nf6, there are only 6 games. There is only 1 game with 4. Nc3.
While I realize that Hugh's database is not exhaustive, it does show that very few Grand Prix attacks with 2. f4 d5 3. exd5 Nf6 (which is the normal variation) were played in Canada at all, so I don't see how the issue of sectional versus open tournaments plays much of a role.
Keep in mind that he is 16 and from what I can see he has played in few international events held outside Canada/North America.
Steve
P.S. MegaDatabase 2011 shows just 44 games since 2005 that went as far as 4. Nc3
I'm not sure how this, if it were true, would apply to the game in question (round 8).
Hi Steve,
I was writing generally about the practice of having events broken into sections rather than having one large section where it's necessary to play low rated players in the early round and defeat them.
That round 8 game isn't really something on which I want to comment. Going strictly from memory, so I might be wrong on the move order, after Qf3 I was looking at e6 instead of the move you mentioned was played.
I don't have megabase or the other databases. I use the databases from Fritz.
In any case, there needs to be a discussion on if the sectional events serve the purpose of raising the level of chess in Canada and developing the chess players. To me it appears the main purpose is to protect the rating points of both the lower and higher rated players.
I was writing generally about the practice of having events broken into sections rather than having one large section where it's necessary to play low rated players in the early round and defeat them.
That round 8 game isn't really something on which I want to comment. Going strictly from memory, so I might be wrong on the move order, after Qf3 I was looking at e6 instead of the move you mentioned was played.
I don't have megabase or the other databases. I use the databases from Fritz.
In any case, there needs to be a discussion on if the sectional events serve the purpose of raising the level of chess in Canada and developing the chess players. To me it appears the main purpose is to protect the rating points of both the lower and higher rated players.
Hi Gary:
e6 is the normal reply to Qf3. I've played the black side of this before (and botched it IIRC). I knew the response to 2. f4 was d5, but didn't know what to do after that since 2. f4 is rarely played anymore. After the game I looked up the normal continuations.
Regarding sections versus open, the main driving force behind sectioned events is to get turnout. Also a lot of high-rated players don't like open events because they don't like "giving lessons".
The issues with developing young players are many and more related to geography and the number of quality events, as well as the overall lack of funds for development programs.
An adult player who plays in a club has a different set of interests/needs than a developing junior. A lot of adult players at the class level won't play in a tournament if they don't stand a chance of winning prize money.
There is also the issue of the number of rounds. 5 rounds is normal for a weekend event and that caps your field for a section at 32 players.
Tom O'Donnell has voiced some strong opinions in favour of Open-only events IIRC.
Hal Bond has had some success with his Pro-am events where there is prize money only in the top section. The other sections get trophies.
Tweet
Comment