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.
I've spoken to several long-time governors and read through several years of governor's letters, and AFAIK, the Governors have never voted on who we should vote for FIDE President. The records go back to 1997, so that's 17 years of precedence. If anyone can find records showing the Governors voting on such matters I will be the first to say I was mistaken.
If indeed you are going to become a Governor come this summer, then by all means put forward a motion to change the status quo. I'll even second it for you. However in all likelyhood, these motions would likely be tabled until after the NFP application is passed. Meanwhile I can report that I have not see a groundswell of Governors demanding changes to how the decision gets made.
Thank you for your post! There is no need to make any motions now, Governors had this power for all these years and it was their right to exersise it at any time, or agree to have a President or FIDE representative to vote on the FIDE's matters. What I'm against is that this Power is taken for granted by the present President, disregarding the objections of certain Governors. Furthermore, apparently he ignores the wishes of the majority of CFC Members spelled out in his own poll making a joke out of CFC by turning away a generous sponsor, not supporting a bid by someone whose name is a part of our civilization for centuries to come, and as he says he's doing it in the interests of Canadian chess! I understand that many people disagree with the present situation but keep quiet because there is no alternative. Is it correct?
Last edited by Sasha Starr; Wednesday, 14th May, 2014, 11:58 PM.
I've spoken to several long-time governors and read through several years of governor's letters, and AFAIK, the Governors have never voted on who we should vote for FIDE President. The records go back to 1997, so that's 17 years of precedence. If anyone can find records showing the Governors voting on such matters I will be the first to say I was mistaken.
If indeed you are going to become a Governor come this summer, then by all means put forward a motion to change the status quo. I'll even second it for you. However in all likelyhood, these motions would likely be tabled until after the NFP application is passed. Meanwhile I can report that I have not see a groundswell of Governors demanding changes to how the decision gets made.
We should have passed that NFP hurdle by then (crossing fingers). On the proposed motion we will worry about it when it is presented. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
You are not a CFC member. You have also shown yourself to be someone that I shouldn't take too seriously because either you have some poor reading comprehension skills or you are being intentionally dishonest. It is already clear that you are hoping for money from Sid. You are not yet at the point where I am going to plonk you because you sometimes raise interesting points but you are heading in that direction...
.
.
.
Sid never made any serious offer of sponsorship. His offer was IF the CFC votes for and endorses candidate Kasparov in the FIDE elections and IF Kasparov wins he MIGHT get involved in Canadian chess sponsorship again. Clearly Kasparov had to win in the FIDE election in order for there to be a prospect of sponsorship...
.
.
.
What I have done at the CFC is to try to institute a new order of things. I have tried to respond to people when they ask for help in resolving issues. I have tried to impose a different style of operating.
.
.
.
You are complaining because I am taking seriously what the government tells me my job as a director and president entails, what the law requires. In your world, I am supposed to do whatever someone with money demands of me on the off chance that it will result in sponsorship dollars. I felt that I and at least one of the members of the executive was treated with disrespect because of the perceived power imbalances in the relationship. You and some others seem to think that my job is to play the part of some desperate supplicant beggar who hasn't had a meal in three days and needs those crumbs to survive. Here we are not even talking about crumbs. At best it is a photo of a slice of bread.
It looks like my blunt talk may have hurt some feelings and if that is the case then I am sorry. Sometimes you have to be heavy handed.
Let me start by saying your second last sentence is effectively the apology to Sid that I was asking for, except Sid isn't here to see it. I think you need to reach out to him and make that apology. But then you ruin it with the last sentence, in which you imply Sid deserved what you gave him, and that is absolutely not the case. You are still talking about his 'demands' and in this post:
I show there never were any demands. YOU are the one guilty of poor reading comprehension or deliberate dishonesty. I also expose the ridiculous double standard you applied to render your judgement against Sid and treat him the way you did. The truth hurts, man. Go ahead and 'plonk' me to get even, if it will make you feel good. But it won't change the facts.
Further:
One doesn't have to be a CFC member to care about the CFC. There are some people, such as Jean Hebert in the past, who tried portraying me as against standard chess, even hateful of it. Absolutely the opposite is the case. I will be launching a venture in which standard chess constitutes 'healthy competition'. What's good for standard chess is generally good for my venture, and in fact my venture is partially meant to rejuvenate standard chess (by bringing money into it through osmosis, and by helping the organizations that run it see that they are being too rigid in this technological age). So let's just make it clear that I do want what is good for standard chess, worldwide.
I don't deny that Sid would appear to make a great investor in my venture, simply because he knows chess. But my venture is already moving along and I have every expectation of a major success with or without any particular investor. If you're suggesting that all my posts on this thread are meant to woo Sid Belzberg, you are sadly mistaken. I know you're desperate to 'plonk' me because I hit a nerve with you, exposing your ill-advised post to Tom O'Donnell that at least makes you appear to be one who can read an email and be immediately influenced, and further, insulting Tom O'Donnell by saying he could as easily be influenced just by seeing emails. Tom has diplomatically not responded to your insult.
You were also exposed in this way by Nigel Hanrahan of all people in another thread,
where you read some news report on the Ukraine situation and reported it as proof of something you believed all along. I think you wrote "the evidence looks pretty compelling" or some such remark...only to have Nigel expose it as a fraud. Plonk! You had to eat crow on that one. It just seems you can be all too easily swayed by simply reading something that agrees with your built up biases. And please don't tell us you have no biases. The climate change thread made it quite clear you do.
Great people acknowledge their weaknesses and correct them. Here in this thread, you have instead been focusing attention on yourself as some altruistic wunderkind, a workaholic messiah for Canadian chess, guided by purity blah blah blah... and you continue that diversionary tactic in the above post. This is a trait that I have always abhorred in people, and whenever Jean Hebert tried it (which was often), I attacked it with a vengeance. In your case, it may well be that you are motivated just the way you say you are. The problem is that when it comes down to brass tacks, you blunder. What you did with Sid was a total blunder.
Whatever you may think of the CFC, it is a business. It needs sponsors to deliver the best results to its customers. Sponsors have a right to make requests in return for their sponsorship. You have an equal right to refuse their money, but since the CFC is so desperately in need of good sponsors, you should recognize that there is an extra level of responsibility on you to account to the membership for rejecting a sponsor. Any requests or demands are not in and of themselves evil. You can't expect money for nothing, even if a rare few will make a gift.
Would you loan money to a stranger without asking for interest? In that scenario, do you consider it evil to ask for interest?
What everyone needs to recognize is that THERE WERE NO DEMANDS. SID MADE NO DEMANDS. Your reaction to Sid was very knee-jerk, something you seem to have a propensity for, one of your definite weaknesses and not a good trait for a business leader. In the aftermath, you speak of 'demands' as if Sid had the Mafia there with him.
But now you're taking a different tack, trying to spin it that Gary has no chance of winning so there never was any real offer of sponsorship. That still doesn't justify your insulting heavy handedness that made any future Sid Belzberg sponsorship impossible. You turned Sid away FOR GOOD. The present and future membership is potentially impacted by that. Some of those Windsor kids of yours might not get a sponsorship to an international event because of it. You REALLY need to think about that. That favorite quote of yours, "do nothing which is of no use"... you did something all right, and it was "of use" but the "use" was anything but good for chess in Canada. Here's a paraphrased quote for you: "The best laid plans of mice and men Often go awry".
In 6 years on this forum, I've never seen an actual sponsor post here. The one that finally shows up and says "I might sponsor chess in Canada if..." gets a slap to the head, and not just from you, even Nigel chimed in with a totally insulting post (insulting to both Sid AND to CFC members) that made Sid appear like a misbehaving kindergarden student.
The sooner you apologize directly to Sid for totally misconstruing his posts, the sooner you become a true leader and not a self-imaged one. Sometimes you have to be heavy handed... and sometimes you have to bow down and say 'I made a mistake, please accept my apology.'
And last I checked, there are at least 2 people wanting to know where you got the intel that Kasparov publicly stated he ruined Salov, part of your reasoning for not supporting Kasparov. The longer you hold out on that, the more nefarious or just plain stupid you look. Is there any such intel? Did you read it in a CNN web page several years ago and instantly buy into it?
So have I reached the point where you're going to 'plonk' me? You've used that type of threat against quite a few people, as if you're some super genius who at any moment can destroy his debating opponents. Bring it on, big boy! Use all your best quotes and song lyrics, lol! Jean Hebert tried the quote thing too... intelligent readers don't buy into that. Not too many people believe Leonard Cohen has some magical mystic insight that we should all bow down to.
I'll use your own statement to Sid against you: I'm not buying what you're selling.
* * *
P.S.: this is a few hours later, and I see from another post that Vlad has put me on his ignore list. Whew! I'm not going to get 'plonked'! Instead, my debater and your CFC President effectively cuts off the debate. That's his 'new way of doing things'.
I think in chess they call that a resignation.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Re: Endorsemeent over Vote: FIDE Election for President
In spite of KI's 20 years leadership (or because of it) the status of chess in the World is comparable probably to... darts. Is there anything KI could have done better, differently, or this is all the chess actually deserves?
Re: Endorsemeent over Vote: FIDE Election for President
Nobody's arguing that CFC has to vote for a candidate percieved delivering the biggest benefits to Canadian chess. And what exactly these benefits were for Canada in the 20 years of KI's rule?
Tweet
Comment