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 is your contention that there were errors made that need correction. Simply making that contention does not make it so. I disagree."
Instead of errors being made was it just being incompetent? I guess in the eyes of Steve Jobs would he view this style of presidency as janitorial like? Sorry Vlad, you don't need to answer that question I guess your diversions and excuses speak for themselves.
"Nemojte srati gdje jedeš."
I would highly suggest first practising that aphorism before you preach it.
I don't understand why the CFC doesn't just allow anyone to switch to any section in which they are eligible before date X and make date X at least a week before the event starts. Don't publish a player list by sections, just publish an alphabetical list and let the players try to figure out how to maximize their chances.
BTW, a real-life poker tournament story from a few weeks ago. I am playing in a 40-player event, roughly 20 players left. Dealer makes a small error at our table regarding whether a player could raise in a certain situation, ruling against the raise. Player getting ruled against gets very angry, another player not in the action joins in and the floor needs to be called over to make a decision. The two players browbeat the floor and he sides with them without listening to the dealer's side. Then the dealer and the two players have an argument that culminates in "I should know the rules I've been a professional player for the last decade!" "Well I know the rules as I've been dealing for the last 12 years!". Mr. Pro got pretty steamed and dusted off his chips over the next half-hour or so. I think the idea that poker players are so much better at dealing with uncertainty might be tad overblown.
"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.
Tom that is an excellent solution which would have avoided this situation. However, regardless of whether you are for everybody knowing what section they and their peers are in or Tom's idea, the goal should be to create a level playing field for all, instead of having some players with access to different information and resources than others (in regards to playing up).
Tom that is an excellent solution which would have avoided this situation. However, regardless of whether you are for everybody knowing what section they and their peers are in or Tom's idea, the goal should be to create a level playing field for all, instead of having some players with access to different information and resources than others (in regards to playing up).
The thing you don't seem to get is that IF we pander to your argument and create 'a level playing field for all' in regards to playing up, that opens the door to someone arguing we should then make it a 'level playing field for all' in regards to the coaching and training players receive. Why should Johnny, with rich parents who can afford to give him hours and hours of coaching from Kasparov himself, have a leg up on Anish for whom 1 hour of coaching from Bator Sambuev (with a nod and a wink to Eric Hansen) is out of reach? So then there's going to be an argument that the CFC should subsidize training for promising juniors who can't afford it on their own. Yeah, right.
And then we get into the long-running arguments from the past about should the CYCC have a champion from PEI or Saskatchewan get an automatic entry into the event, given how many people in PEI or Saskatchewan even play chess (or organize events)? If you are that champion, where is your 'level playing field'? It simply isn't there, and there is nobody doing anything about it.
Anish, you may think I'm here to give you insults, but no, I'm trying to educate you because you are in obvious need of it. Instead of whining, you need to learn to play with the hand you were dealt, because when you get out in the real world, there's no choice in the matter. Somebody who has 'different information and resources' than you is going to get the job you really want or the girl you really want... what matters is how you handle the situation. If you want to call this 'illogical', all I can say is I hope you have good luck because you are REALLY going to need it.
I wonder if Tom O'Donnell and others like him teach any of these aspects of playing chess? It's simply impossible to have everything be totally fair at all times, and young players need to be able to handle it. Tom, since you know all about poker and bad beats, you would be a very good person to teach such things.
But Tom, if you want to make out that chess players are as good as poker players at dealing with uncertainty, you'll have to do much better than an anecdote. I gave the everyday example of poker players getting moved from table to table in almost every multi-table tournament. You well know what that means... it reduces the influence of poker skill in the results. But it happens because of the expediency it provides to keep the action going. The players don't complain -- the true poker player is born and bred on uncertainty.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
"Instead of whining you need to learn to play with the hand you were dealt, because when you get out in the real world, there's no choice in the matter"
Two things to say about this. The first, is that you still have defined what this "real world" is. Your giving a little bit more clarity, but still not defining it. The second is that we're not whining. I'm not sure about Anish but I had no intentions of playing up to the U18 section, however a player like Yinshi Li who right before the CYCC had exactly the same rating as Sam Song (2211) might have been able to play up and qualify for the WYCC.
I would like the following questions answered with clarity and not a lot of jumbo in which the 2012 CYCC is mentioned and everyone is beating around the bush.
1. In the 2016 CYCC will a player who requests to play up a section be allowed to do so?
2. Will there be requirements and if so what will be the requirements?
3. Will the CFC make a ruling against switching sections or registering for the tournament after the deadline for registration has passed?
Maybe I'm missing some questions that others have, but that is what I would like to know. And no I don't want "well in the CFC handbook section 3.53.3 it says......" because that won't bring clarity, just more rules about how the situation is suppose to be handled. How many chess players have actually started much less completed the CFC handbook anyway? I'm guessing very few have completed it and understand the rules in it correction. I want answers on what the future plans are for handling similar situations, not about how chess is suppose to prepare you for real life, or about how it saved a headache of combining sections because Sam played up or any of that, simply what is the CFC's plan for the future CYCC's in regard to playing up and what will be the regulations or requirements to play up.
BTW Paul your also forgetting something. You said in your post "The players don't complain--the true poker player is born and bred on uncertainty." Well that very well could be true, but that's poker. This is chess, and there is no uncertainty or chance in the way it's played, and those differences must be taken into account when making a comparison of the two. Besides why would we role-model poker or even refer to it in regard to making decisions?
Last edited by Caleb Petersen; Sunday, 2nd August, 2015, 07:59 AM.
Tom that is an excellent solution which would have avoided this situation. However, regardless of whether you are for everybody knowing what section they and their peers are in or Tom's idea, the goal should be to create a level playing field for all, instead of having some players with access to different information and resources than others (in regards to playing up).
Quite possibly, despite the fact that I am somewhat older than you, some people here might say that for some reason I don't know much about what they call «the real world».
However, about the «Canadian Chess World» I know quite a bit.
Historically the CFC has almost never acknowledged any mistake. Regardless of who was the president. They are like referees in pro sports before the replays.
Reversing a decision or admitting to being less than perfect is simply unthinkable.
But then we have had all along the same type of justification beginning or ending with "if you don't like what we do, do it yourself and run for the job."
If you don't run for Prime Minister, you cant criticize him/her. Simple minds...
One final point. If you have the likes of Paul Bonham against you, the rest of this forum knows that you must be completely right.
Mr. Bonham is here to amuse and confuse:)
We await Google Compress to be able to make single-
sentence comprehension of his vast contributions!
Nah... what Paul Bonham needs is a serious amount of medication in order to 'level the playing field' between the different parts of his brain. Some parts are definitely 'playing up a section' at times.
I wonder if Tom O'Donnell and others like him teach any of these aspects of playing chess? It's simply impossible to have everything be totally fair at all times, and young players need to be able to handle it. Tom, since you know all about poker and bad beats, you would be a very good person to teach such things.
But Tom, if you want to make out that chess players are as good as poker players at dealing with uncertainty, you'll have to do much better than an anecdote. I gave the everyday example of poker players getting moved from table to table in almost every multi-table tournament. You well know what that means... it reduces the influence of poker skill in the results. But it happens because of the expediency it provides to keep the action going. The players don't complain -- the true poker player is born and bred on uncertainty.
I trust that you can discern the difference between random uncertainty (e.g. you get two blacks in the last two rounds of a tournament because the pairings force it or you get paired way up instead of the expected down for the same reason) and uncertainty caused by bad officiating or rule-making that appears arbitrary and constantly changing without notice. My poker example featured the latter, fyi.
The CFC has a history of making up rules then expecting:
1) that everyone follow those rules
2) that the CFC itself not have to follow its own rules
This is not a new phenomenon as people like Jean Hebert can attest to.
Of course chess teachers attempt to instill in their students methods for dealing with "strange" things that happen at tournaments. But when the strange things include decisions by TDs and organizers, well, there isn't much that can be done about those. I doubt that poker players are any better at dealing with the bad decisions of officials. In my limited experience they appear to be worse at it.
Addendum: I love the contributions by these Juniors. Keep it up fellas!
"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 trust that you can discern the difference between random uncertainty (e.g. you get two blacks in the last two rounds of a tournament because the pairings force it or you get paired way up instead of the expected down for the same reason) and uncertainty caused by bad officiating or rule-making that appears arbitrary and constantly changing without notice.
I see you haven't been introduced to mr. Bonham. You can't expect anything remotely related to common sense from him.
And, just for the record, your poker example is crystal clear.
Quite possibly, despite the fact that I am somewhat older than you, some people here might say that for some reason I don't know much about what they call «the real world».
However, about the «Canadian Chess World» I know quite a bit.
Historically the CFC has almost never acknowledged any mistake. Regardless of who was the president. They are like referees in pro sports before the replays.
Reversing a decision or admitting to being less than perfect is simply unthinkable.
But then we have had all along the same type of justification beginning or ending with "if you don't like what we do, do it yourself and run for the job."
If you don't run for Prime Minister, you cant criticize him/her. Simple minds...
One final point. If you have the likes of Paul Bonham against you, the rest of this forum knows that you must be completely right.
Yes nobody likes to admit they were wrong and made mistakes, but making such excuses and avoiding any dialogue on what happened and how to make sure this doesn't happen again is not the correct way of handling this situation.
Currently we are dealing with a CFC president who is quick to take credit and quick to shift blame on others. The only answer we seem to be getting are easily dismiss-able excuses to any concern raised. Any time we point out how silly these excuses are, we seem to see illogical rhetoric that either down plays the impact these issues had on the players or side tracks the whole discussion, all in order to avoid answering said questions and concerns.
At least in pro sports we don't see silly excuses for bad calls and decisions like "we were very busy." In pro sports it is simply whether a bad call was made (by the officials own admissions after the game) or wrong doing/cheating. Seeing such excuses and avoidance of key questions can only make one presume either the CFC and/or the organizers are covering up for incompetence or foul play (the latter which I hope isn't the case). Until we see legitimate answers to what happened at this years CYCC, and a solution for the next CYCCs we are only left to make such assumptions.
Quite possibly, despite the fact that I am somewhat older than you, some people here might say that for some reason I don't know much about what they call «the real world».
However, about the «Canadian Chess World» I know quite a bit.
Historically the CFC has almost never acknowledged any mistake. Regardless of who was the president. They are like referees in pro sports before the replays.
Reversing a decision or admitting to being less than perfect is simply unthinkable.
But then we have had all along the same type of justification beginning or ending with "if you don't like what we do, do it yourself and run for the job."
If you don't run for Prime Minister, you cant criticize him/her. Simple minds...
One final point. If you have the likes of Paul Bonham against you, the rest of this forum knows that you must be completely right.
It does seem so hard to say sorry, I made a mistake, but nobody is perfect. There was much chaos before the event. Vlad is a great organizer donating 1,000s of hours. I hope the players said thank you for him volunteering.
A round-robin is different than a Swiss and there used to be a player meeting before the first round. Now days emails can be used to immediately notify any change of who else is playing. Here we have an example of failing to communicate. Unlike little kids tourneys where the TD is a boss, the TD is here for the players, to give them fair and equal treatment under the rules.
Technically correct since you use the collective "we". But the whining part, well, I think the other 99.99% of the adult world that doesn't play organized chess sorta has it right.
Besides why would we role-model poker or even refer to it in regard to making decisions?
No, not making decisions, we are talking about handling decisions that get made outside of your control. And if you still have to ask, then I guess there's nothing to teach you, you must already 'know it all'.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Mr. Bonham is here to amuse and confuse:)
We await Google Compress to be able to make single-
sentence comprehension of his vast contributions!
A good candidate would be: "You can't HANDLE the truth!"
I don't know of any other regular poster here who is coming from outside the organized chess world. That's what, 99.99% of the civilized world? You lament over and over ad finitum ad nauseum how chess needs to go mainstream, needs to get sponsorship, needs to reach out to the public, needs to improve this or that aspect of tournament play.
And yet you all remain blissfully unaware and / or uncaring of how the rest of the world sees the dark, angry, back-stabbing, elitist, status quo little corner where you all reside.
You know the bumper sticker that says "Jesus loves you... everybody else thinks you're an asshole"? Replace 'Jesus' with 'FIDE' and that about sums up the organized chess world.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
I think you are all too busy twerking, taking selfies, or writing tweets to understand survival concepts. It's ok.... you'll find out eventually.
Technically correct since you use the collective "we". But the whining part, well, I think the other 99.99% of the adult world that doesn't play organized chess sorta has it right.
No matter what answers are forthcoming, it's all subject to last-minute changes. Sorry.... 'real world'.
No, not making decisions, we are talking about handling decisions that get made outside of your control. And if you still have to ask, then I guess there's nothing to teach you, you must already 'know it all'.
Paul anytime you post this is the only response you'll be getting."I see you haven't been introduced to mr. Bonham. You can't expect anything remotely related to common sense from him. "
Tweet
Comment