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.
Anyone who has never played in a slow CFC or FQE event has no business playing in a CYCC, imo. They are national championships and shouldn't be watered down with players who barely know how to play.
As a CYCC player I agree. I remember two years ago in a CYCC seeing I think 4 games end in the first ten minutes because of back fired three moves attempts (in the U14 section!!!!!). Instead of allowing the qualifier to just be 50% in a quick chess tournament, change it to 50% in a slow tournament.
Even this past CYCC, I think it was something like 20-ish players who had no slow rating (I also recall they were paired under their active ratings as well; not listed as unrated). There hasn't been much of a commitment towards quality so far and highly doubt there ever will be.
I understand David Ottosen's point about adults not liking to play juniors. I'm one of them. John Coleman (who has run a LOT of junior events) recently complained about some of those reasons and was treated quite horribly by some posters here. But on what grounds would you keep juniors out of events they qualify to play in?
I just want to clarify this - I don't think they should be kept out; I personally have no issues with playing juniors and have no feeling positive or negative when paired to play one. I just don't think they should be given a discount.
To the question re CYCC$250 - I have a lot of trouble believing there are parents out there who will pay $250, but not $260 for their child to participate in CYCC. The CFC is throwing away money that could be gotten from those players.
I'm also surprised there hasn't been any comments on my thoughts about the FIDE vs non FIDE membership. FIDE expenses are a very substantial part of the CFC expenses per year that are just being glossed over.
I just want to clarify this - I don't think they should be kept out; I personally have no issues with playing juniors and have no feeling positive or negative when paired to play one. I just don't think they should be given a discount.
To the question re CYCC$250 - I have a lot of trouble believing there are parents out there who will pay $250, but not $260 for their child to participate in CYCC. The CFC is throwing away money that could be gotten from those players.
I'm also surprised there hasn't been any comments on my thoughts about the FIDE vs non FIDE membership. FIDE expenses are a very substantial part of the CFC expenses per year that are just being glossed over.
FIDE expenses are not being glossed over as they are significant but we also receive benefits from being a part of FIDE. We have to be part of an international chess body recognized by the IOC (International Olympic Committee) in order to be recognized by the Canadian Olympic Committee. FIDE is that international chess body which is recognized by the IOC. If we ever want to raise significant funds from corporations being recognized by the IOC and COC is very helpful.
The CFC is the governing body for chess in Canada. We are a founding voting member of FIDE which is the world chess body recognized by the IOC. While my duty is to represent the CFC it is also to take into account the objectives of the CFC and also the non-profit status of the CFC. The CFC is primarily interested in encouraging the study and playing of chess and specifically tournament chess. We also cooperate with FIDE and the provincial associations to further our objectives. The best interest of the CFC does not include maximizing the funds which we extract from everyone that crosses our path. We are a non-profit that relies on a network of volunteers and one or two paid individuals in order to deliver our services.
The idea that we should relinquish our interest in junior chess would not be consistent with our objectives.
I'm also surprised there hasn't been any comments on my thoughts about the FIDE vs non FIDE membership. FIDE expenses are a very substantial part of the CFC expenses per year that are just being glossed over.
While it is true that FIDE membership is something that only directly affects a fraction of the membership, I think it is understood that a function of a national organization is to do what is necessary to be part of the worldwide scene. And if the many are paying for a benefit for the few, that is not conceptually different from say using entry fees to fund prize money in tournaments for which most people will not have a realistic shot at the top prize - something which seems to be well accepted (although there are those who claim that the few don't get enough or object to smaller prizes for the many).
While conceptually that is acceptable, it is complicated by the view that FIDE itself is not the most reputable of organizations and is not a completely acceptable partner. And that conceptual framework does not address just how much is appropriate to fund FIDE.
FIDE also has a strong ratings brand which is coveted by many, notwithstanding that a new number by a different organization is not more meaningful and just results in shipping money to that other organization. FIDE is of course trying to extend it's reach on this with a rating floor that goes down to 1000 and has in the past floated ideas of individual annual FIDE memberships in order to extract more money. So, the number of people who are directly affected by a relationship with FIDE is continually expanding. Something like that would be an existential challenge for the CFC and it is a bit odd that that is not discussed more often.
In order to be part of FIDE we need to fund them consistent with our participation. We really are not in a position to demand a special deal from FIDE. If there are things we don't like about FIDE, the best way forward is trying to change the system from within. Most of the individuals involved in FIDE are not unlike most of the individuals involved in the CFC. They are volunteers who do not make money from their involvement in chess.
FIDE expenses are not being glossed over as they are significant but we also receive benefits from being a part of FIDE. We have to be part of an international chess body recognized by the IOC (International Olympic Committee) in order to be recognized by the Canadian Olympic Committee. FIDE is that international chess body which is recognized by the IOC. If we ever want to raise significant funds from corporations being recognized by the IOC and COC is very helpful.
How long has the CFC had this recognition and what benefit has it provided or what benefit is it tangibly and clearly expected to provide? Vague feel good statements are of little use.
The post is only flawed if you believe that an increase in the price of junior memberships will make those juniors quit. I don't believe that to be true - speaking as a parent myself, chess is one of the least costly extracurricular activities a child can engage in.
And I would note - the post in question discussed issues with adult membership stats. I could just as easily argue based on my experience talking to many adult members that the "energy" brought to events by juniors turns off many adults, as does the idea of losing to players 20+ years younger (note - I don't feel this way, but I do believe there is a not insignificant number of adult members who do).
I've always been on board for the CFC to get completely out of junior chess. It would mean juniors and their families can avoid the inevitable headaches from dealing with a mediocre organization rife with special interest groups and politically inclined people. The CFC is never willing to take that step. They want to control everything, even when they lack the resources to run the events or projects properly.
Sure, there are disgruntled adult players who hate being around kids. My observation is many of them won't play anyways. The Bayview Club took your vision forward and created conditions perfect for adult players who could avoid lower rated juniors ( one of the strange aspects for some disgruntled types is they focus on ratings not age or table manners ). Rating ceilings discouraged aspiring masters from playing at all. Did it work ? No. The adult members who asked for the changes still didn't support the events in lasting numbers. Youth players gradually lost interest in supporting the club. My guess as well is, certain players added a level of human interest level beyond their skills that attracted other players ( whether it be their peers or just interested adult players ). Losing said players has a larger impact then most. Yet no effort at all was made to consider those player's experience at any point.
I would think some really good junior events has some value. Who runs them is less important then the quality of event, and there is a built in problem that youth players who excel need competition and the junior pool can be less concentrated. The CMA is good for very young players but rarely properly addresses longer time controls well. I guess there isn't enough money in it for them. I'm not sure what young kids who start dominating local CMA events are supposed to do. We decided to see where the CFC world would take it, and in hindsight I wish we'd passed entirely.
However, all that being said, I'd like to point out that membership fees, program details, politics are all secondary in importance to one basic premise. If an organizer or federation deems a player at a young age suitable for an event, then respect their right to be there and consider their experiences and dreams. They may be young, but skills come quick in chess. You must accommodate for their experience, protect their rights.; if you can't do it, don't have them at the events.
Last edited by Duncan Smith; Monday, 11th January, 2016, 05:44 PM.
I would love to develop a program at Chess'n Math for kids at a higher level. I have been burned in the past by the CFC. I have many stories but no one wants to live in the past. There is an idea that was pitched to me recently which I really like. Associate ourselves with a chess school in Europe and have exchanges etc. Send kids there, have their kids come here, exchange instructors, etc. The CMA has 20 full time dedicated staff. We are financially sound and we want to continue to make a significant contribution to chess in Canada. We need a project that will allow Canadian youngsters to benefit from what we can offer. Bottom line: Money is not the issue. Give us a constructive project that can not be sabotaged...and I am sure we will run with it!
In the history of chess in Canada, there has never been a chess organization as large and having touched as many young lives as the CMA...while I am proud of what we have accomplished...I know there is a lot more work to do. and I am open to new projects that will make a difference.
The Bayview Club took your vision forward and created conditions perfect for adult players who could avoid lower rated juniors
I was to clarify - my vision is not to get rid of juniors in open chess events, or anything close to it. Juniors bring good things to the table (new opponents, basic numbers of players, often times a challenging game). They bring negatives too. My "vision" is just that they do not get a discount on membership, nothing else.
As for Larry's idea - unfortunately, as long as there is a revolving door in CFC leadership, you as a business will never be able to make a long standing partnership with them. I wish it was different.
I would love to develop a program at Chess'n Math for kids at a higher level. I have been burned in the past by the CFC. I have many stories but no one wants to live in the past. There is an idea that was pitched to me recently which I really like. Associate ourselves with a chess school in Europe and have exchanges etc. Send kids there, have their kids come here, exchange instructors, etc. The CMA has 20 full time dedicated staff. We are financially sound and we want to continue to make a significant contribution to chess in Canada. We need a project that will allow Canadian youngsters to benefit from what we can offer. Bottom line: Money is not the issue. Give us a constructive project that can not be sabotaged...and I am sure we will run with it!
In the history of chess in Canada, there has never been a chess organization as large and having touched as many young lives as the CMA...while I am proud of what we have accomplished...I know there is a lot more work to do. and I am open to new projects that will make a difference.
Larry
Your new project ideas seem in tune with what a lot of young adults are doing these days, connected internationally on social media and some travel a lot. We greatly appreciated the CMA in the early years when the kids were young.
The troubles start when they start migrating to long chess and CFC affiliated events. I agree that dealing with the CFC and affiliated organizers was indeed problematic ( as it was for me, and I wasn't able to deal with difficult or politically charged people well at all ). However, I believe the CMA is partially responsible to ensure that the social transition to CFC or longer controls is ok for kids. The CMA could have done better in this regard. Meaning supporting "graduating" CMA juniors ( emotionally, public advocate for their rights more so then financial ), advocating massive reforms if the system isn't good ( in the early 2000s, it clearly wasn't a healthy environment for ambitious juniors ). Simply dropping kids into the system and hope it works out seems problematic.
I was to clarify - my vision is not to get rid of juniors in open chess events, or anything close to it. Juniors bring good things to the table (new opponents, basic numbers of players, often times a challenging game). They bring negatives too. My "vision" is just that they do not get a discount on membership, nothing else.
As for Larry's idea - unfortunately, as long as there is a revolving door in CFC leadership, you as a business will never be able to make a long standing partnership with them. I wish it was different.
The annual fee is a tiny part of the equation. More important is who advocates for the junior's conditions in events. They are not smaller versions of adults, so some accommodation has to be made for what interests them and makes them feel comfortable. Otherwise, the open age concept is a failure. What I'm saying is maybe the overall model is flawed. With respect to your original post, the flaw I was referring to was the idea that junior programs or interest is a failure if they don't translate into adult members. I don't agree at all with that idea. What I'm saying is make junior programs about the present, for the kids and their now.
My observation in chess events in BC and Washington State is that the kids have made the transition to the CFC/USCF quite successfully. They form the overwhelming majority in most open events and are winning the championship events as well. I am even starting to see a turnaround in adults' approach to playing against kids - much more acceptance.
There is of course a much larger turnover in juniors - each year same old adults, new young kids. If only we could retain more of them our membership numbers would soar. The statistical program I access to audit ratings shows that we had over 4,000 different players participate in CFC rated events in the past 36 months.
So we really had 4,000 members just not all current at the same time.
the flaw I was referring to was the idea that junior programs or interest is a failure if they don't translate into adult members. I don't agree at all with that idea. What I'm saying is make junior programs about the present, for the kids and their now.
That's the thing - I don't think it's necessarily a flaw if kids don't translate into adult members.
However, the CFC should stop claiming that time and resources are spent on junior programs "to grow the future of the game" and realize the time and resources are spent to generate revenue today. If that's the case, they should be maximizing that revenue, and thinking about how to market themselves to juniors/parents (short term focus: national championships! represent your school! represent your province! parents, your child is a special flower genius!) and adults (long term focus: get out of the house, stay social, cheap activity you can do for life) differently. Once the CFC figures out how to do that properly, they can allocate resources and build membership accordingly.
Think of it this way: you have two potential customers who walk through your doors.
One is going to spend fast and furious, but for a short time period before they leave, and your ability to retain them as a customer has very little to do with your product or price.
The other is not going to spend all that much, but they will be in every single week if they like what you're selling.
Right now, the CFC is giving a discount to the first person, and charging the second one extra. Not good business sense.
Last edited by David Ottosen; Friday, 15th January, 2016, 05:58 AM.
My observation in chess events in BC and Washington State is that the kids have made the transition to the CFC/USCF quite successfully. They form the overwhelming majority in most open events and are winning the championship events as well. I am even starting to see a turnaround in adults' approach to playing against kids - much more acceptance. There is of course a much larger turnover in juniors - each year same old adults, new young kids. If only we could retain more of them our membership numbers would soar. The statistical program I access to audit ratings shows that we had over 4,000 different players participate in CFC rated events in the past 36 months. So we really had 4,000 members just not all current at the same time.
Well, certainly I am out of the loop to see the more recent years of chess events and geographically there can be vast differences in approach anyways. All I can say on that is when we were attending events, Ontario and BC organizers and players seemed to take an adversarial role rather the cooperate. My observations are somewhat dated. There were events in Ontario that went an extra mile to accommodate juniors or families better and we were always looking for those.
That being said, I still do question the overall model for juniors transitioning to longer chess controls and the social aspects of that process. If you think you've got a good handle on it, and numbers are growing, well, good for you.
Tweet
Comment