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.
it was mentioned the rule changed in 2012, players are allowed to play up, as it should be, that is great decision of CFC if it is true. The local organizers did great job this year.
if a player can qualify in U18 instead of U16, and represent Canada in WYCC, it is always good that Canada has better representative, who cares how young he/she is, Why not allow younger stronger player to represent Canada.
I still hate the decision that CFC or Ottawa organizers ruled against my child playing up in 2012 despite she was 2nd highest ranked in her section at that time.
Last edited by George Zhou; Friday, 10th July, 2015, 10:30 AM.
Reading this thread, I think your questions have been answered. You just don't agree with the answers. Seems to run like this:
1. How is Sam Song an exceptional player if he is rated 13th in his age group? Answer: Since 2012 the "exceptional" requirement has been dropped. Anyone can play up once they qualify for the CYCC.
2. Why was he preregistered in the U16 and then allowed to play in the U18 without any announcement? The U18 players found out about this after the 1st round pairings were posted. Answer: There is no rule stating that such changes have to be announced.
3. Is CFC going to pay for his WYCC trip if he comes 1st or if he comes 2nd and the winner declines to go? Yes. By coming in first or second he has shown himself to be the best qualified within that group.
It does not appear that anyone considers this to be a bad call besides yourself. I don't see anyone else agreeing with you on this thread.
I think Rene has a legitimate concern. If a competitor's objective is to earn a trip to the WYCC, then being able to switch sections becomes a strategic consideration. If some competitors are effectively denied the option to change sections because the CFC has failed to provide all competitors with a clear copy of the up to date rules, then an element of unfairness has been introduced. I see this issue as a failing of the CFC. After all, a parent shouldn't have to go sifting through the CFC handbook and online minutes trying to find out what the rules are. Neither should the organizers. The CYCC rules should be explicitly clear and readily available. I think the CFC owes Rene an apology and a promise to do a better job next year.
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
I think Rene has a legitimate concern. If a competitor's objective is to earn a trip to the WYCC, then being able to switch sections becomes a strategic consideration. If some competitors are effectively denied the option to change sections because the CFC has failed to provide all competitors with a clear copy of the up to date rules, then an element of unfairness has been introduced. I see this issue as a failing of the CFC. After all, a parent shouldn't have to go sifting through the CFC handbook and online minutes trying to find out what the rules are. Neither should the organizers. The CYCC rules should be explicitly clear and readily available. I think the CFC owes Rene an apology and a promise to do a better job next year.
Unfairness? If a parent tries to facilitate their precious one on to the world stage by playing games with the sections, some might claim this is "unfair". Equally the parent who complains about it is surely guilty of the same "crime". Seems like a level playing field to me..... Harumph, harumph!
I think Rene has a legitimate concern. If a competitor's objective is to earn a trip to the WYCC, then being able to switch sections becomes a strategic consideration. If some competitors are effectively denied the option to change sections because the CFC has failed to provide all competitors with a clear copy of the up to date rules, then an element of unfairness has been introduced. I see this issue as a failing of the CFC. After all, a parent shouldn't have to go sifting through the CFC handbook and online minutes trying to find out what the rules are. Neither should the organizers. The CYCC rules should be explicitly clear and readily available. I think the CFC owes Rene an apology and a promise to do a better job next year.
I agree that players should be allowed to play up, UNLESS they are in the event because they won a qualifier for a certain age group. That should be the rule, plain and simple. And yes, even such a simple rule can be used for gamesmanship... it just so happens, I gather, that in this specific year, the U18 section is (rating-wise) weaker than the U16 section, and so moving up is a no-brainer. (But there is a price: the player moving up may do well enough to get to go to the world event, but will also have to play up there, and probably the U18 section is stronger than the U16 section there.)
I'm wondering if Rene is upset because he simply didn't think of it himself for Razvan, who I'm assuming could also have moved up? But I haven't seen it mentioned in this thread whether or not Razvan could have also moved up, so I don't know the answer to that.
As far as Rene thinking of it as a "cheap trick", well, wasn't Rene accused of using a cheap trick just a few months ago at a Niagara Falls event... registering his son at the last moment to clean up on the prizes, or something like that? There was a lot of back-and-forth on that one, and the feeling I got was that although it's perfectly legal, it was sort of a violation of a code of ethics or something because it hurts the organizer, who would have preferred Rene to have registered his son early and thus attract more players into the event.
(This all seems very pertinent to what happened in the NFL playoffs this past season. No, not "Deflategate", that was a separate issue. I'm referring to the playoff game between New England Patriots and Baltimore Ravens. In that game, New England took advantage of an obscure rule that no one had ever previously paid any attention to... that allowed players coming to the line of scrimmage before the ball is snapped to tell the officials "I'm lining up as an ineligible receiver" meaning that even though he lines up on the line of scrimmage, he cannot catch a pass. But Baltimore's defense would not know this and would cover him as if he was an eligible receiver...this would pull coverage off of a different player who would be wide open. It happened throughout the game and finally Baltimore's coach went storming onto the field to protest it and the team was assessed a penalty.
So how does this pertain? Because after the game which NE won, NE quarterback Tom Brady said nothing illegal was done and "Maybe those Baltimore coaches should read up on the rulebook". It was quite fascinating, because twice in the game Baltimore went up by 2 touchdowns... and both times NE used this technique to come right back, and then they used it again to go ahead near the end... I believe it was an offensive lineman who lined up on the outside of the line and declared himself an eligible receiver for that play and caught a TD pass. Effectively the game was decided by one team knowing the rulebook better than the other team.
That obscure rule was removed from the NFL rulebook during the off-season.)
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Unfairness? If a parent tries to facilitate their precious one on to the world stage by playing games with the sections, some might claim this is "unfair". Equally the parent who complains about it is surely guilty of the same "crime". Seems like a level playing field to me..... Harumph, harumph!
The sentiment of blaming parents when the CFC made an avoidable mistake doesn't rest well with me. The CFC has a history of mismanagement and politics involving youth events. Might have improved a lot because some of the more political or incompetent guys dropped out of CFC admin, but there are obviously still some issues, possibly more to do with manpower/resourcing now.
Note that the mistake is not in allowing the move. It's procedure.
A 15 or 16 year old young man made the decision to move sections. His parents likely had nothing to do with it. I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with inquiring about opportunities and taking a somewhat easier section. For the contenders, CYCC/WYCC has more of an element of rewarding good work and trying to win a medal then trying to maximize strength of opposition for some altruistic or idealistic notion of improving one's game ( that can be done elsewhere ).
Rene may have a point but blaming the player isn't right. Not many years from now, chess will mean nothing to most of these players. Nobody has a right to demand other people's kids follow their own chess ideals. If the young man wanted to maximize his chances for top 3, I see nothing wrong with that.
I don't know why the CFC wants to set a precedent for players to change sections as late as the day before events, but given this news they better have a firm procedure in place next year where players can confirm these changes and see the registration list. Or it might disintegrate into people gaming the system, with ridiculous situations possible where two players want to avoid each other. This is not a rare outlier event, in fact, in past years there were far more obvious skill disparities but no flexibility to move.
Last edited by Duncan Smith; Friday, 10th July, 2015, 03:29 AM.
Please, don't insult my intelligence. I'm sure that he realized he has better chances to qualify to WYCC in the U18 where he has only 1 higher rated opponent to play against. It was a bad call to allow him this cheap trick. Now the next question is if CFC is going to pay for his WYCC trip if the 1st place declines to go?
It's not a "cheap trick" to consider two opportunities you have to play and choose one. If you are mad about the procedure, that the other players weren't given the same opportunity, I can buy that 100% as a legit complaint. If what is important to the young man is to try to get top 3 ( the motivation which could be any one of a number of things e.g. college applications ), that's his right. Perhaps he's done with chess next year, who knows. Too many people in chess are constantly looking at youth chess as a development cycle; sometimes it's truly just an event in someone's life and the chess "futures" just aren't important; this isn't hockey, there is not much future in chess beyond recreation for all but a small number worldwide.
Last edited by Duncan Smith; Friday, 10th July, 2015, 05:43 AM.
Just had a look at the results and, in my humble opinion, the problem might not be the possible section switching, but rather... why the hell is the U18 so weak? The U12 was arguably much stronger and much harder to win.
We have a huge youth program that leads to absolutely nothing beyond 16-17 yo...
I've got my own idea on why it ends up being like that, but I'd be interested in hearing about other, more informed opinions.
Just had a look at the results and, in my humble opinion, the problem might not be the possible section switching, but rather... why the hell is the U18 so weak? The U12 was arguably much stronger and much harder to win.
We have a huge youth program that leads to absolutely nothing beyond 16-17 yo...
I've got my own idea on why it ends up being like that, but I'd be interested in hearing about other, more informed opinions.
Because 16 is probably the right time to focus on academics, parents/kids know that. Grade 11/12 marks determine the options for University, good Universities & useful degrees usually mean better job opportunities.
Reading this thread, I think your questions have been answered. You just don't agree with the answers. Seems to run like this:
1. How is Sam Song an exceptional player if he is rated 13th in his age group? Answer: Since 2012 the "exceptional" requirement has been dropped. Anyone can play up once they qualify for the CYCC.
2. Why was he preregistered in the U16 and then allowed to play in the U18 without any announcement? The U18 players found out about this after the 1st round pairings were posted. Answer: There is no rule stating that such changes have to be announced.
3. Is CFC going to pay for his WYCC trip if he comes 1st or if he comes 2nd and the winner declines to go? Yes. By coming in first or second he has shown himself to be the best qualified within that group.
It does not appear that anyone considers this to be a bad call besides yourself. I don't see anyone else agreeing with you on this thread.
The answers are great. I always support the decision that players should allow playing up.
I did not proceed with a motion - mainly it was (and still is) not clear how a new CFC legal status and paper work effect the Handbook and all its chapters.
wow, I didn't see another discussing in 2012, Bob already supported the playing up. But CFC or Ottawa organizers of CYCC2013 did not follow the rule(new rule since 2012 as mentioned by CFC president in this post),shame on them (bad organizing, missing clocks, pairing mixed up, small/no trophies).
This year's CYCC organizers made great decision to allow playing up. and very well organized. Big trophies for top players, participating trophies for everyone, cheap parking, nice playing hall, a lot of volunteers, onsite food court, lunch delivery, large parents waiting room, friendly volunteers, paring and results on time, score sheet online, playing hall pictures updated online etc. great job Windsor organizers and volunteers.
It does not appear that anyone considers this to be a bad call besides yourself. I don't see anyone else agreeing with you on this thread.
I think the posted rules in the CFC handbook should be followed. Some obscure change from years ago which was never posted for participants to see should not supersede the rules in the CFC handbook.
I didn't notice any disclaimer that the rules might be out of date and parts may have changed.
I think the posted rules in the CFC handbook should be followed.
With the passage of the NFP act, the CFC handbook is no longer official, and should be regarded as advisory only. We desperately need a new handbook. Perhaps the incoming president should make that a priority.
Because 16 is probably the right time to focus on academics, parents/kids know that. Grade 11/12 marks determine the options for University, good Universities & useful degrees usually mean better job opportunities.
Not very complicated really.
I totally understand that. It is certainly a factor.
But there's probably more to it. With all that talent in the U12, U14 and U16, we should be able to come up with a much stronger, or at least, more 'populated' U18. Is it a lack of proper training? Weak competition? Kids play until they reach a very good level, but then there's nothing more to do or learn, so they quit?
I don't know. Anyways, maybe all these kids will make me eat my words and we'll have a very strong U18 in a few years.
Tweet
Comment