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 hear your point about numbers at the CYCC diminishing if the top 10 rated in each group, with 10 games in the prior year ( for example ), were able to be endorsed by CFC, without CYCC participation.
But if Eric got such a motion passed, would there be problems of too great a supervision task with such a potentially large team. These additional players would not be given any money towards registration/expenses, but would they cost CFC collateral money in supervision? Or other collateral costs they would be drawing on?
Ladies, gentlemen, esteemed elk, you are about to witness a spectacle. This is the stuff dreams are made of. YOUR dreams. Your dreams about me posting on ChessTalk.
Okay, at least one person believes that competing internationally is "interesting". Does anyone agree with him? Does anyone, perhaps, consider it "painfully boring"? I volunteer to keep a tally of people's views on this VERY PERTINENT (NOPE) matter.
and as long as the players are willing to pay they should be given the chance.
So, you're saying the WYCC should be an open event? WHERE YOU GONNA DRAW THE LINE, CHIEF?
It wouldn't affect the cycc in anyway as the participants are still playing for first place and a free trip.
Diminishing its value wouldn't affect it in any way? Man, let me go over this one for you. Currently, Canadians need to play in the CYCC to qualify for the WYCC. You advocate allowing some Canadians to qualify directly to the WYCC, you know, BYPASSING THE CYCC. That has an impact on the CYCC. You might even say... it affects it. Actually, you wouldn't, but you're the contemptible sort.
You could argue that the proposed change will have a small effect on the CYCC. You could also argue that it will have a positive effect on the CYCC. (You'd be wrong in both instances, but you've clearly demonstrated that you're comfortable in such territory.) But, you claim that it would have no effect on the CYCC? NO EFFECT? NONE?
When I read posts like yours, I get so mad. I will not be able to sleep tonight and you are to blame.
So a member has an idea, and you just throw your hands up in the air? You certainly are executive material!
The other two people who made terrible posts in this thread are children. What's your excuse?
He "throws his hands up in the air"? THROWS HIS HANDS UP IN THE AIR? ABOUT WHAT THE SEAN BERGENHEIM ARE YOU TALKING? How did you infer that? Hansen's proposal has been discussed countless (not literally) times on ChessTalk. During such fun-filled round tables, the majority of opinions do not change. Other than the fact that I am now posting in it, this thread holds no magical powers. This time will not be any different. THE MAJORITY OF OPINIONS WILL NOT CHANGE. In other words, here we go again.
Having posted on ChessTalk for several years, you could have just recalled this. Or, if remembering stuff isn't your "thing" (in which case I would advise against purchasing the "Remembering Stuff: My Anti-Drug" design from my new line of My Anti-Drug t-shirts, available in men's and women's S-XL, holla@ for purchasing details on orders of over 100), you could have just the deduced the obvious. There was no need to be a complete ass and rudely attack someone who volunteers his time to Canadian chess. In case you thought this post would be without some bizarre use of an extended idiomatic metaphor, I will know force-feed you a taste of your own medicine:
Hi Tony,
So an executive member makes a harmless comment, and you just irrationally insult him? You certainly are procreating material!
No wonder the CFC is corrupt, and is losing money constantly.
After I read Ye's post, I said to myself, "This is for sure the worst post I will read on ChessTalk in the next twenty seconds." Then, just like Kurt Sauer's development as a reliable stay-at-home defender, you came along.
I don't even know where to begin. However, I am known to battle through incredible obstacles, so I will try. Your post starts off with the phrase "no wonder". No wonder? No wonder what? Usually, and by that I mean always, an utterance of "no wonder" is meant to denote some sort of revelation. You know, like, your tuba-playing buddy isn't losing any weight even though he's on a diet, then he drops his tuba and a mass of M&M's spill out of it. You realise, "Oh, he's not losing any weight because he's been sneaking chocolate through his tuba. NO WONDER." That, by the way, is a reference to Gordan Korman's classic novel The Toilet Paper Tigers.
So, Mallon is not thrilled about the prospect of witnessing an argument that takes place annually. Oh, NO WONDER! THAT'S how he's stealing all the funds! BY NOT SHARING YOUR LOVE OF POINTLESS DEBATES! Kid, if you crack another couple cases like this, you might get an office downtown with your name on the door, I'll tell you what.
NO. I AM BEING FACETIOUS. You will NEVER be a detective at this rate. How can you make claims of corruption based on Mallon's post? HOW? Tell me how. I YEARN TO KNOW WHAT MAKES YOU TICK.
Also, thank you for informing me that the CFC is losing money constantly. I thought that the operating surplus they'll experience this year was a clear indication of the contrary, but apparently you've quite the business acumen and know something about those gosh dang confusing numbers around which I just can't quite wrap my head. Economics professor, police officer in 1980s Missouri - with so many exciting career options before you, I guess I understand why you don't have time to proofread your posts for stupidity.
BAM. You thought I was going to compliment you, but then I called you stupid. Crap; look at the time. "Lizzie McGuire" is on Family Channel.
Update: It was the episode in which Lizzie tries to be friends with her mom. Top ten all-time.
Last edited by Ben Daswani; Tuesday, 28th April, 2009, 05:44 AM.
Reason: typo/Lizzie-related update
everytime it hurts, it hurts just like the first (and then you cry till there's no more tears)
Unfortunately CYCC is a "money maker" event for CFC. It's the only way that CFC can afford to send kids to WYCC.
CFC should come with a different "business plan". As long as the player's rating is in the top 10 for his age group and he pays for the CYCC registration he should be allowed to play at WYCC. CYCC is a 4 days event and some many things can happen in such a short period. Every chess player has bad days. Also why should somebody spend $3000 (flights from Toronto to Victoria and accommodation for 2) to participate and come 2nd or 3rd at CYCC when he can use the money toward the trip to WYCC? Just pay the maximum registration fee ($225 this year) and if your rating is in the top 10 (and your parents can afford the trip) go to WYCC.
In 2008 from 43 qualified players only 24 went to WYCC. Ellen Nadeau (CFC's junior coordinator) told me that she'll have to much work to do for the "extra" players. Does this make sense for you? In this case CFC can charge the "extra" players another $50 or more to cover the paperwork. This proposal will have better chances to be approved.
This topic has definitely been discussed many times before ... as former Youth Co for the CFC, I do know this.
The impact on the CYCC will definitely be felt ... the CYCC is the fundraiser to be able to pay for the one player from each section that the CFC does fund to go to the WYCC. This may not happen if players do not attend (or at least pay the entry fee)
(Now this is an interesting twist ... top 10 pay the $225 CYCC fee to be allowed to go ... but don't have to play in the CYCC? hmm ...)
If we could get sponsorships then this would help the proposal.
If we ran like the US and only the top rated get picked to go, we would have problems of fairness.
Unlike the US, we definitely have very real "pockets" of players with ratings that do not "equal" the ratings of other areas (whether over or under rated). This is especially pronounced with our youth players. (The US, with their much greater population seems to be much more homogenous with ratings with more "cross-pollination" of ratings as players move between closer geographical areas)
Also, without the CYCC funding the first place finisher, any top player that does not have the personal funds available would not be able to go.
The precursor to the CYCC, which was run by CMA, had standards for qualification.
The CYCC has no standards. There are "qualifiers", but they don't really qualify you to anything.
Now, having gotten the players used to the idea that ANYONE can play in the CYCC (no need to play in the regionals, provincials, whatever...), in an ironic twist some players figure they can skip the entire thing and go directly to the WYCC.
You reap what you sow.
"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 hear your point about numbers at the CYCC diminishing if the top 10 rated in each group, with 10 games in the prior year ( for example ), were able to be endorsed by CFC, without CYCC participation.
But if Eric got such a motion passed, would there be problems of too great a supervision task with such a potentially large team. These additional players would not be given any money towards registration/expenses, but would they cost CFC collateral money in supervision? Or other collateral costs they would be drawing on?
Bob
Hi Bob,
There is no supervision for the team. Sometimes not even coaching. In France at WYCC, the team was split in 2, the coach and half of the team got to stay in 4 stars hotel and the rest in a highway motel (not contact options between the team members - in the motel there were no phones but there were bunk beds) at 50km away. Everyone payed the same amount for accommodations.
I kinda don't think the CMA would really want to take over the CYCC in its present form.
Here is the story, although it was over a decade ago so I may make a few minor mistakes as I have not taken the time to look things up. Many people involved today were not around at the time we organized the event...and many of those who were, either don't know the details or they simply don't care.
Originally each country was allowed to send only 1 player in each division to the world event. If a country finished in the top 3 in a division then they were allowed to qualify a 2nd player the following year.
Prior to the CMA organizing the CYCF (Canadian Youth Chess Festival...the CFC changed the name to CYCC when they took it back from us), the CFC would receive an invitation to the world event and they would file the invitation somewhere. If a strong youngster wanted to play at the world event, then he or she would ask the CFC if it was okay. The response was..."as long as it doesn't cost the CFC anything, then go ahead."
I remember one year CMA paid the airfare (or a substantial part of it - I don't remember exactly) to send Alexandre Lesiège and Johanne Charest to the World event in Brazil. We also paid for the coach, Richard Bérubé. The host country picked up lodging and meals.
So one day Ben Wicks, the Toronto cartoonist who was instrumental in getting the Canadan Chess Challenge (CCC) rolling, calls up and he has a sponsor. Hal Bond was the Executive Director at the CFC at the time. Hal and I have always worked well together. So we put together a project for the CYCF. The event would be organized by the CMA and sanctioned by the CFC. It would run earlier in the year so as not to conflict with the CCC. We hired Jeff Coakley to oversee the project. He worked with organizers across the country to set up regionals and provincials. Unfortunately, sponsorship for the event disappeared after the first year, but the CMA then used its own money to keep the project alive. If a youngster qualified to the Nationals, there was no entry fee and the CMA subsidized part of the airfare. If the youngster won the Nationals, we paid their airfare to the World event.
It wasn't perfect but it was better than what had been in place. Anyway, over the time we operated the event, we invested about $50,000.
Then one day the CFC had a new President and a new executive director. Well guess what? New rules - no consultation...simply, if you don't like it tough (since they wanted to take back the event this was very convenient :). I was not a happy camper and I told them to...
At the annual CFC meeting where this was on the table, the CFC President asked me not to attend...so I did not attend the meeting.
And the CFC took over in (I believe) the 1999-2000 school year after we had invested $50,000 to develop the event....
Do you seriously want to know if we are interested in the event now?
Seems to me from what you say, that it is much more constructive a use of time, and typing, for CFC members to get behind the CYCC, and help to improve it - no reason both organizations cannot contribute their part to junior chess in Canada.
Seems like going over old history is helpful for information, but not for future action.
Tweet
Comment