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.
If playing up is allowed then playing up one year and in your own section the next year is neither fair nor unfair. It's simply a case of a player making a decision he's allowed to make. Speaking of which, aren't both of you missing something? I thought the major point of last year's brouhaha on playing up was that the CFC hadn't bothered to make a correct and complete set of CYCC rules readily available for the players/their parents which in turn meant that there was not a level playing field for all players. Apparently there is still no complete and readily available set of rules(?).
The complete set of rules is available on Chess.ca under the handbook in the section on CYCC.
Regarding conflict of interest, Vlad is using a national championship to promote his own business. I think it's a conflict of interest if other chess coaches don't have equal opportunities to promote their businesses via the CYCC. Just my opinion.
I promise to give your opinion all the weight which it deserves. If other coaches are willing to put in the several hours per day volunteering without pay to organize this set of tournaments I am sure we can give them some advertising space.
p.s. Should coaches be allowed free advertising?
How is it free advertising if I am the one paying the bulk of the cost of the website? Shouldn't the argument be that the tournament websites shouldn't be allowed to piggyback on an existing website for free?
Speaking of which, aren't both of you missing something? I thought the major point of last year's brouhaha on playing up was that the CFC hadn't bothered to make a correct and complete set of CYCC rules readily available for the players/their parents which in turn meant that there was not a level playing field for all players. Apparently there is still no complete and readily available set of rules(?).
I asked this question in a previous post http://forum.chesstalk.com/showthrea...ganizers/page6
How long it will take to get an updated CFC handbook so the parents can find the rules without searching through the CFC meetings and motions?
Regarding conflict of interest, Vlad is using a national championship to promote his own business. I think it's a conflict of interest if other chess coaches don't have equal opportunities to promote their businesses via the CYCC. Just my opinion.
p.s. Should coaches be allowed free advertising?
"Copy and paste" from other websites dealing with conflict of interest:
Conflict of interest is a situation, not an accusation. Being in a conflict of interest is not the same as being corrupt, and pointing out that someone is in a conflict of interest is not the same as accusing them of bias or lack of integrity.
Is a conflict of interest always a bad thing? No! It is often how a director reacts to a situation that determines whether a conflict of interest has a negative impact.
The law asks that directors take reasonable steps to avoid finding yourself in a conflict of interest. But conflicts cannot always be avoided. When directors find themselves in a conflict, the law says that they must tell the other directors about their situation so they can decide what to do.
What should a director with a conflict of interest do?
They must disclose your conflict of interest to the organization. To do this, they can take one of these steps:
Verbally report the conflict of interest to the other directors at a board of directors meeting.They should make sure that the conflict of interest is noted in the minutes. (The minutes are the written summary of the meeting.)
OR
Disclose the conflict of interest in writing by sending a letter to the board of directors. The conflict can then be noted in the minutes of the next board meeting. Important: Directors should keep proof that the letter was mailed and received. For example, it can be sent by registered mail.
So if the other CFC directors (executives) are OK with this I don't see a problem. I was just suggesting to Vlad to remove that page until the 2 tournaments are done.
Last edited by Rene Preotu; Wednesday, 11th May, 2016, 12:10 PM.
So if the other CFC directors (executives) are OK with this I don't see a problem. I was just suggesting to Vlad to remove that page until the 2 tournaments are done.
There are three tournaments. The CYCC, the Canadian Open and the NAYCC.
Vlad,
You better stop posting before you dig yourself a bigger hole.
I saw a problem (a player can play up one year and move back to his age group next year), I've tried to suggest a fix and you answered me with sarcasm. End of story.
Umm. I didn't see any sarcasm in Vlad's original reply. He said that you could bring a motion, but it would not apply to this year's tournament, and that it was unlikely to succeed since it was targetted at one player. We've been through this stuff numerous times before, particularly about not allowing girls to play in the open section.
The player you're concerned about is not breaking the rules. The same rules apply to everybody. (And you want to change the rules at the last minute because of one particular player.)
The "sarcasm" you may be referring to, came after your accusations of a conflict of interest.
If playing up is allowed then playing up one year and in your own section the next year is neither fair nor unfair. It's simply a case of a player making a decision he's allowed to make. Speaking of which, aren't both of you missing something? I thought the major point of last year's brouhaha on playing up was that the CFC hadn't bothered to make a correct and complete set of CYCC rules readily available for the players/their parents which in turn meant that there was not a level playing field for all players. Apparently there is still no complete and readily available set of rules(?).
Hi Peter:
Both the CFC and the CMA at times have had rules which are well known to many, unknown to others, and readily available to everyone at the local planning office. :-) For any parent that's been through the process, they know the basic rules. The CYCC more or less has to follow the WYCC rules. If it is unclear on the CFC website that doesn't surprise me, but any parent who has gone through one cycle of this stuff knows the basic rules. Things actually seem to be much better now with the CYCC than they were a decade ago. (And Larry just smirks as the CFC slowly figures things out while the CMA just *does*.)
Regarding conflict of interest, Vlad is using a national championship to promote his own business. I think it's a conflict of interest if other chess coaches don't have equal opportunities to promote their businesses via the CYCC. Just my opinion.
I'm not sure how this *currently* is a conflict of interest. "WindsorChess" was awarded the CYCC contract. Vlad is associated with WindsorChess. Vlad is a semi-qualified chess teacher. Vlad advertises on the WindsorChess website (as do others). The only potential conflict of interest was when Vlad voted to award the CYCC bid to WindsorChess. But at the time of that vote everybody knew his involvement. I don't see how his position as CFC president was unduly influenced, although he probably should have abstained in the vote.
Umm. I didn't see any sarcasm in Vlad's original reply. He said that you could bring a motion, but it would not apply to this year's tournament, and that it was unlikely to succeed since it was targetted at one player. We've been through this stuff numerous times before, particularly about not allowing girls to play in the open section.
We've been through this stuff numerous times before, particularly about not allowing girls to play in the open section.
Can you please show me when another player was in the same situation? I've been following the CYCC for the last 10 years and I don't remember seeing a player playing up one year and than down next year.
The player you're concerned about is not breaking the rules. The same rules apply to everybody. (And you want to change the rules at the last minute because of one particular player.)
I agree with you that he doesn't break any rule. That's why I think we should improve the rule. Also is the same player who registered in the U16 last year and switched to the U18 at the last minute.
Umm. I didn't see any sarcasm in Vlad's original reply. He said that you could bring a motion, but it would not apply to this year's tournament, and that it was unlikely to succeed since it was targetted at one player. We've been through this stuff numerous times before, particularly about not allowing girls to play in the open section.
It is also seeking to punish that player by changing the consequences of some action after the fact. If such a rule were successfully passed it would only apply to people wanting to play up in future years. No one has asked to play up in this year's CYCC. Some players have asked to play up in NAYCC mainly to have a shot at some higher titles available in the older sections.
The player you're concerned about is not breaking the rules. The same rules apply to everybody. (And you want to change the rules at the last minute because of one particular player.)
The "sarcasm" you may be referring to, came after your accusations of a conflict of interest.
Steve
Given the fact that there is no profit to any individual associated with this tournament it is very difficult to argue credibly there is a conflict of interest. There has been some friction with implementation of this policy as not everyone likes this non-profit stance but from my point of view the rules for non-profits are much better than the rules of for profit companies especially in the area of sales taxes and such. Thresholds for being taxable are much lower and certain things are not exempt in the for profit world that are in the not for profit world.
The complete set of rules is available on Chess.ca under the handbook in the section on CYCC.
In a post from yesterday, Rene Preotu said this: " How long it will take to get an updated CFC handbook so the parents can find the rules without searching through the CFC meetings and motions?" I think it's highly praiseworthy, Vlad, that in the space of 24 hours you were able to light a fire under somebody's butt and get this job done. Way to go!!
I promise to give your opinion all the weight which it deserves. If other coaches are willing to put in the several hours per day volunteering without pay to organize this set of tournaments I am sure we can give them some advertising space.
There is a link that goes from the CFC's home page to a web page that flogs your lessons and qualifications. What gives you the sole right to do this? Aren't there other chess coaches in Windsor who are part of the CYCC effort? Don't they deserve a link from the CFC's home page to a website that flogs their lessons and qualifications? If you're going to do this (i.e. the link), wouldn't it be sensible to at least have the CFC's voting members give you their prior approval? I read through the Windsor CYCC, NAYCC, CO bid and didn't see any mention of special considerations for you. In this day and age, when it's possible for a coach to have pupils from almost anywhere thanks to Skype, why can't people like Hans Jung or Tom O'Donnell have a link from the CFC home page to a web page where they can give some information about the CYCC and then flog their own lessons and qualifications? I did see this in your commentary on Quebec City's bid for the CYCC: "The FQE Quebec City bid does imply a $2,000 subsidy from the CFC for the holding of the Canadian Open. The Windsor bid expressly states that they will not be asking for any subsidy." Isn't a direct link from the CFC to your lessons site a form of subsidy? And by the way, it was a cute trick not including yourself in the list of Windsor organizing committee members - gave you an opportunity to knock the competition without appearing to have a conflict of interest.
How is it free advertising if I am the one paying the bulk of the cost of the website? Shouldn't the argument be that the tournament websites shouldn't be allowed to piggyback on an existing website for free?
Shouldn't the argument be that the organizing committees for these types of events should set up their own independent websites so that conflict of interest questions like this don't come up?
10 characters
"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
How do you decide the exact cutoff for when they have to pick their section? Can players wait until they see a list and then change? Can those players on the list then change their section based on the other changes? I could see if you had say three very strong players that each would have an incentive to wait for the other two to determine their section before making a choice. I guess it wouldn't be a problem if every player were just listed online as registered but no other player or family member of another player knew precisely what section they were registered in (excepting those who could only play in U18 of course). Then set a cutoff as midnight on date X to submit their changes (if any) and after that tough luck.
I think we should stop arguing about the rule. The change won't happen this year so it will better if the organizers can set some dates for registration and change of sections.
Can a player show up an hour before the first round, pay $300 and register in whatever section he wants?
Can you please show me when another player was in the same situation? I've been following the CYCC for the last 10 years and I don't remember seeing a player playing up one year and than down next year.
I agree with you that he doesn't break any rule. That's why I think we should improve the rule. Also is the same player who registered in the U16 last year and switched to the U18 at the last minute.
Conflict of interest is a situation, not an accusation
Well the quoting thing seems to be misperforming.
But anyway Yoiks! And Away!!!
The sarcasm about "president" came well after your inital post and Vlad's initial replies. And from what I see you were the one who made reference to the office president.
I can explain other years when players were in the same situation. Go look around 2003 (not sure exactly which year) for motions brought by John Rutherford.
Duncan Smith and I don't generally get along, but there was a great deal of controversy when his daughter Hazel played in the open section one year. He made a very strong argument about the issue of "quality of experience" and I understood and eventually agreed.
If the player is not breaking any rules, WHY do you want to change the rules, and WHY do you want it to apply immediately?
If you want to claim a conflict of interest for Vlad (or anybody else) in their roles in the CFC then make a specific case. Currently I don't see it. (Other than tha Vlad should have probably abstained regarding the awarding of any tournaments to WindsorChess.)
Steve
My saying that you would make a great president was not sarcasm. It was a statement of my opinion. This is based on your volunteer work on behalf of the CFC which is quite appreciated by me and other members of the executive. One of the chief prerequisites for the job is to be willing to do a lot of unpaid work to the benefit of chess and you have shown that you are willing to do that.
I am not sure how much longer I should even do this job as perhaps there should be some kind of term limit if only for the sanity of the incumbent.
I can explain other years when players were in the same situation. Go look around 2003 (not sure exactly which year) for motions brought by John Rutherford.
Duncan Smith and I don't generally get along, but there was a great deal of controversy when his daughter Hazel played in the open section one year. He made a very strong argument about the issue of "quality of experience" and I understood and eventually agreed.
If the player is not breaking any rules, WHY do you want to change the rules, and WHY do you want it to apply immediately?
Steve,
Your example has nothing to do with my question so you won. I give up.
Last edited by Rene Preotu; Wednesday, 11th May, 2016, 04:14 PM.
My saying that you would make a great president was not sarcasm. It was a statement of my opinion. This is based on your volunteer work on behalf of the CFC which is quite appreciated by me and other members of the executive. One of the chief prerequisites for the job is to be willing to do a lot of unpaid work to the benefit of chess and you have shown that you are willing to do that.
I am not sure how much longer I should even do this job as perhaps there should be some kind of term limit if only for the sanity of the incumbent.
Vlad,
I'm sorry because I misunderstood your statement. I have no intentions to be the CFC president but the first thing to do as a president it will be to update the handbook. Something like the USCF bylaws with updates after every CFC meeting if necessary. I'm not familiar with the USCF and I'm not saying to copy their business model but to make everything more transparent to the members. The Standards of Conduct for the executives and Code of Ethics are also good to have.
Seriously? My post was on-point and covered all of your topics.
If the player is not breaking any rules, WHY do you want to change the rules, and WHY do you want it to apply immediately?
Steve
Steve,
I'm going to explain the rule using an example. I hope you'll understand my point.
As you know, each age group has junior and senior players. Let's assume I'm a junior player registered in the U16 group where 3 other strong senior players are also registered. Few days before the CYCC I decide to change my section to U18 where I have more chances to qualify to WYCC. The CFC rule allows me to play up so nobody can complain. Next year I'll be a senior player in the U16 and all the strong players will move up in the U18. This way I have another shot to qualify to WYCC by playing again in the U16 group without breaking any rule.
Every year after the WYCC is done I hear people complaining that CFC is wasting money by sending chess tourists to this tournament. If CFC doesn't want to encourage competition by stopping this type of behavior than let's continue to send chess tourists to the WYCC.
Tweet
Comment