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.
Dylan Canavan has been named "Chess Coach of the Year" by the Illinois Chess Coaches Association which leads me to pose the question whether there are any equivalent chess coaches associations here in Canada?
Dylan Canavan has been named "Chess Coach of the Year" by the Illinois Chess Coaches Association which leads me to pose the question whether there are any equivalent chess coaches associations here in Canada?
"Secret" is a strange word to use. If you mean that most coaches are home-based, and require only a chess set and the kitchen table, I agree with you. Since most chess lessons are paid for in cash, I can't blame coaches for keeping the lessons private. It is very likely that prospective students (or their parents) learn of chess coaches by word-of-mouth.
If you mean that most coaches are home-based, and require only a chess set and the kitchen table, I agree with you. Since most chess lessons are paid for in cash, I can't blame coaches for keeping the lessons private. It is very likely that prospective students (or their parents) learn of chess coaches by word-of-mouth.
Yes, this is all probably true. But it is also true that players choose to keep the fact that they have a coach quiet, or they choose to keep the name of the coach to themselves, or the coach does not wish it to be known widely that s/he is a coach, and so on. It's this aspect I was drawing attention to. And then "secret" isn't a strange word to use at all.
I don't really begrudge this aspect of coaching (much) ... except that making judgements about who is a good coach, and who isn't, especially for lower-ranked players and prospective students, is made more difficult by this secrecy. And that I don't like. It may even be a factor in the under-developed professionalism in our sport in Canada (Simply put, ignorance about coaches and the critical importance of good coaching holds back the general level of excellence of chess).
Last edited by Nigel Hanrahan; Tuesday, 10th June, 2014, 05:34 PM.
Reason: add stuff
Dogs will bark, but the caravan of chess moves on.
A few days ago, Nigel Short (@nigelshortchess) commented on Twitter: "I think trainers and girlfriends you shouldn't share, in general".
This is hinting at a reason for secrecy. One trainer or coach per player seems to be Short's view here. This isn't very good for coaches or trainers who might wish to make a living at it, or share their experiences, or be the subject of comparison, however. What may be true for the strongest players, as with the secrecy surrounding the seconds of Magnus Carlsen in the recent WCh Match, may be a harmful example to copy for the rest of the chess world.
Why am I not surprised that Short brings this arguable or questionable advice together with misogynistic remarks in such a nice neat package?
Dogs will bark, but the caravan of chess moves on.
This is hinting at a reason for secrecy. One trainer or coach per player seems to be Short's view here. This isn't very good for coaches or trainers who might wish to make a living at it, or share their experiences, or be the subject of comparison, however. What may be true for the strongest players, as with the secrecy surrounding the seconds of Magnus Carlsen in the recent WCh Match, may be a harmful example to copy for the rest of the chess world.
Why am I not surprised that Short brings this arguable or questionable advice together with misogynistic remarks in such a nice neat package?
I take it you are not a fan of Nigel Short? In any case, I took it as a small and lame (typically English) joke.
It seems (to me) like a bit of a stretch to interpret it as misogynistic.
I take it you are not a fan of Nigel Short? In any case, I took it as a small and lame (typically English) joke.
It seems (to me) like a bit of a stretch to interpret it as misogynistic.
Duly noted. I won't be guided by Short's opinion or your opinion on such matters. Exchanging one thing for another is something we do with property, chattel, and the like. I'd really like to see Short try that garbage with someone like Susan Polgar or any self-respecting female player. He'd need some serious dental work after that! ha ha.
In any case, you're welcome to defend everything and anything bigoted he says in public. I'm sure there will be plenty of further occasions for you to do so. The last World Cup had so many inappropriate remarks by Short that many people, other than me, complained about it. It was really quite repulsive. There is plenty of evidence right here on ChessTalk regarding that.
Supplemental: Contrast the sort of example that Susan Polgar provides with her chess commentary to that of Short. Polgar is always so positive; Short relies on put-downs as a continuous source of merriment for himself and other like-minded people. Think about that.
Joe Roeback made a comment on here - in an unrelated matter - once that might be worth repeating.
Originally posted by Joe R.
However, these opportunities didn't happen because I was the most consistent player, had the highest rating, or knew the most chess theory. What it boiled down to was that I try to give people respect and show sportsmanship, I uphold confidentiality, and I try to create a positive atmosphere, especially when I was upset.
Last edited by Nigel Hanrahan; Wednesday, 11th June, 2014, 01:26 PM.
Reason: quote
Dogs will bark, but the caravan of chess moves on.
Dylan Canavan has been named "Chess Coach of the Year" by the Illinois Chess Coaches Association which leads me to pose the question whether there are any equivalent chess coaches associations here in Canada?
I've never heard of one but really how could a committee determine whether Coach A or Coach B is better? Better at what? What possible criteria could they use and how could they be measured?
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
I've never heard of one but really how could a committee determine whether Coach A or Coach B is better? Better at what? What possible criteria could they use and how could they be measured?
Well, I would first of all say that cross-training is a good criteria.
Secondly, there is the example provided by Igor Smirnov about some of the criteria:
In my experience most people looking for a coach truly believe that they lack some technical aspect that will make them a better player. When I look at my student's games, however, more than 90% of the time the people are making mistakes where more chess knowledge would not help them.
I will give you three recent examples. All three are players from outside of Canada and I don't think any of them read ChessTalk but I will use fake names for them anyway.
Player 1, we'll call him Charles. He's an older gentleman, in his mid-60s and rated about 1300. His chess knowledge is much higher than his playing level, from the chats I had with him before we arranged any lessons. He sends me some games. First game I look at Charles is White and he plays a London System. His opponent castles kingside and that's enough to set Charles off. He literally starts sacking wildly to strip away his opponent's defenders. Within a half-dozen moves he goes from plus-over-equals to down three pieces for three pawns (his opponent's f- g- and h-pawns). Yes, Black's King has almost no defenders but White's remaining attackers are his Queen plus a couple of pieces strategically tucked away over on the Queenside. He wonders if maybe his openings aren't sharp enough.
Player 2, I'll call him Calvin, age about 30. He's about 1600. Sends me some games. Game after game he is generally better to winning - even against people up to 2000 - but loses almost all of them due to either flagging or blundering all his pieces in the time scrambles. We have a few lessons but when I explain to him that he really limits his improvement by not playing routine moves quickly he explains that he is the sort of person who cannot play anything less than the best move in every position even if that means running short of time. He wonders if perhaps he should switch from 1.e4 e5 to 1.e4 c5?
Player 3, I'll call Jeff, age about 40. He's about 1800. Smart, crafty player. Openings are strong, knows the typical middlegame plans from his openings. Keeps up pretty well with recent developments in those systems. We look at some of this games. One game vs a 2200, in a promising position, his opponent "blunders" by playing a positionally weak move. Jeff (in his words) gets very excited, thinks for about ten seconds, then plays the refutation, threatening a series of checks that mate. His opponent responds with a two-mover that wins a rook with check and follows up with forced mate. He wonders if he should do some tactics problems.
It is a symptom of our school system that students are provided with micromanagement and lots of busy work. It's possible that I am totally on the wrong track here, but in my experience most people at least in the under 2000 rating range, would be helped more by "curing" their non-chess problems than knowing how to play the Lucena Position or adding a new defense to 1.d4.
In my experience most people looking for a coach truly believe that they lack some technical aspect that will make them a better player. When I look at my student's games, however, more than 90% of the time the people are making mistakes where more chess knowledge would not help them.
A very important part of what a good coach provides is an accurate assessment of what the player really needs to improve. This is important for many reasons ... including as a time-saver.
Your excellent examples also suggest to me that players need to be taught about their own wrong-headedness, to unlearn some things or reconsider old habits, which requires some understanding of what will work with that person (and what won't work!) in order to be successful. If the player gives you a collection of their games, then isn't this a good tool to use (especially if you can find several, similar examples) to show them what doesn't work? I mean, if a player is stuck on making incorrect claims about their play, or obstinately insists on a certain learning plan, then the evidence from their games would be a good lever to get them to move forward. Of course, you may wind up helping your student so much that s/he doesn't need your help quite so much. I bet that can be annoying. Heh.
In hockey, there is a famous commercial in which a hockey parent berates their child's lack of prowess in goal-tending, lamenting how the child stops the difficult shots and lets in the easy ones. The clever coach asks the parent to record the number of shots taken in the games and, lo and behold, it turns out that the goalie in question has an excellent save percentage. Seeing the forest for the trees and all that. Coaches have to negotiate chess parents as well, which can be tricky for sure...
... most people at least in the under 2000 rating range, would be helped more by "curing" their non-chess problems than knowing how to play the Lucena Position or adding a new defense to 1.d4.
My own best tournament results happened when I abandoned a habit of analyzing every game immediately after I played it and, instead, I focused on getting good rest and spending what little free time I had on trying to determine what opening would be played in the next game. There's time management in the game and then there's time management the rest of the time.
Dogs will bark, but the caravan of chess moves on.
Tweet
Comment