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.
Paul Bonham, why do you not renew your CFC membership that expired in 1996? What a waste of time you are to organized chess.
Aaaaaand..... loving it!
But Halldor, you have it the wrong way. What a waste of time organized chess was to me! And that would be because I was already an adult when I joined, I didn't know chess opening theory, I lost most of my games on time because I spent all my time in the opening, it was too expensive in terms of time and money to learn openings from books....
Or as Vlad Drkulec would translate the above: "blah, blah, blah, blah. You're an adult, we at the CFC don't care what you think."
So the CFC is all about kids now. The only adults that count in the CFC now are the ones that are competing internationally (go Canada!) or the ones who are teaching kids or organizing events, especially kids events.
And my message to Vlad on this strategy is that the CFC will ultimately become a feeder system into my federation, where adults are to be the main focus. And so I can say I'm good with this CFC strategy, it will benefit my federation.
And the straw man burns to the ground. Only ashes remain.
Of course you are being logically inconsistent as well. You claim that I am casting aside sponsors and you make an argument that the top down nature of the rewards in chess is our great weakness and yet you spend a great deal of time decrying my alleged casting aside of a sponsor who only ever was interested in the top of the pyramid. If I cast aside a sponsor it was because he made demands that had nothing to do with his past contributions which I could not meet.
Regarding your straw man statements: I can see why Robert Hamilton gave up having any kind of a reasonable debate with you. When the points are getting through your meager defenses, you just trot out terms like straw man to make everything seem ok. Did you learn that from Dale Carnegie?
Well, you are now in the most dangerous phase. As Sid and Sasha have both mentioned, you did well with the somewhat mechanical task of gaining NFP certification. Now you face the much more demanding task of actually growing the CFC. Your chosen means -- bring in huge numbers of kids and eventually gain adult members -- has failure written all over it. It might take 10 or 15 years to realize that all those extra kids didn't make an iota of difference in adult membership. So you have some time to bask in the adulation of those who don't even realize they've been manipulated. But your eventual legacy will be anything but kind.
There's nothing logically inconsistent with arguing against casting any sponsor aside. Jean Hebert would have crucified you for that, but it appears he no longer sees anything in the CFC worth his time. Whereever Sid would have directed his sponsorship money be spent, it would have prevented other monies from being spent there, thus broadening the spectrum of where the CFC could apply financial resources.
Perhaps, though, there is a lesson in all this for Sid and other potential sponsors. Spending money on luxury conditions for Olympiad team members hasn't earned him any respect other than a few people like Brian Hartman and Ian Findlay. There was no long-lasting benefit to chess that Sid can point to and say, 'That wouldn't be here if it wasn't for my earlier donations.' That's why you could give him ZERO respect without batting an eye. Perhaps Sid can learn that the whole pyramid scheme of organized chess is a problem that is only exacerbated by throwing money at it.
But Vlad you go ahead, throw away some other sponsors for 'demands you cannot meet'. Just make something up, and then use Dale Carnegie salesman techniques to get everyone to buy it. Make yourself look like some sort of saviour who is going to cleanse chess and give it respect.
And as you do this, events beyond your control will have your world shrink before your very eyes.
There is no room in your world view for the love of the game. You are wrong. In twenty years you will still be here arguing that there is no future in chess and your project will be no closer to reality unless you shut down your computer and actually do the things that will bring it into reality. Windsor is successful because we find kids that love chess and give them more reasons to love chess and show them adults who also love chess and then we show them where they have an opportunity to play chess. Its not much more complicated than that. If we can transfer that to the rest of the CFC then all of those predictions of fantastic growth in numbers of chessplayers will be wildly pessimistic compared to reality.
I fully acknowledge that kids love chess. No dispute on that at all. And in fact, my federation will not seek to gain members in the age range below university level (but neither will we turn such members away). We realize that up to a certain age, kids / teens think chess is wonderful and limitless and full of creativity. But talk to any elite GM and ask him / her how much routine they have to go through for one little nugget of creativity, and they will give you that ratio out of the side of their mouth. Meaning: "Don't talk to me about creativity, I'm too busy making a living'.
You know what kids REALLY love playing is bughouse. And that should tell you something.
But kids do love chess, and it is great that you are going to teach more and more kids to love and play chess. When they get to university level and beyond starting late this year and expanding in 2015, they are going to find a whole new way to love chess. And for 95% of them, it won't be through the CFC or FIDE.
It seems rather obvious that Rene objected to the use of the very rude 4-character acronym in John Coleman's post...
(I too find that offensive; mind you every one of the threads about or around the CFC/FIDE election and presidency are
just ridiculous but mostly not offensive according to the current practical definition you seem to use).
As for the acronym, IF the words had been spelled out explicitly, would that be grounds for censuring the post? Perhaps
that should be the litmus test?
Ah Kerry, but Johnny Mustard thought he was childishly
funny, Steve the Peeve clapped gibberingly, and Nigel
Magnesia suffered amnesia!
As for the acronym, IF the words had been spelled out explicitly, would that be grounds for censuring the post? Perhaps that should be the litmus test?
There you go. I'll second that. I'd rather not intervene at all but when people make accusations of bribery, or engage in online stalking behavior, or just spurious stupidity generally, I will intervene. I want to keep discussions going, at least productive ones, and I try, not always successfully, to keep the discussion board clean for children.
What I've also found, unique to ChessTalk I might add, is that there is more argument around an intervention than the initial issue. Time-wasting seems to be a highly developed strategy here.
I guess Sasha gets one "STFU" for free. Maybe he'll use it on me. lol.
Last edited by Nigel Hanrahan; Monday, 14th July, 2014, 07:25 PM.
It seems rather obvious that Rene objected to the use of the very rude 4-character acronym in John Coleman's post...
(I too find that offensive; mind you every one of the threads about or around the CFC/FIDE election and presidency are
just ridiculous but mostly not offensive according to the current practical definition you seem to use).
As for the acronym, IF the words had been spelled out explicitly, would that be grounds for censuring the post? Perhaps
that should be the litmus test?
Ken, a suggestion: get a library card and start reading some books. My posts will then seem very short. :D
You see, even now, you can't simply answer questions. But, that was quite short!
The above is a dream, we'll never see it.
By the way, I am a very active library user and your posts are painful even to look at. That is why I can't be bothered to read most of them.
OTOH, I hate it when people start the back and forth quoting every little passage of a message and picking at each piece as has been going on with the CFC stuff.
Leave a comment: