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 took your concerns to Hal and you can check the standings and results on the pairing sheets at the front table ably staffed by Rachel Tao.
Thanks Vlad. Some glitches are inevitable, but it's nice to see they're being addressed. Crosstables are now on the far wall from the pairing sheets for any other participants reading this...
..... this organizer has been posting on this forum in favor of Bernie Sanders in the U.S. election primaries. He, like Bernie Sanders, believes a 'political revolution' mostly against the wealthiest 1% of American society is needed to address many serious socio-political and economic issues. That's all fine and good. But this same organizer, ................yadda yadda yadda........as much as this organizer sees the need for revolution in modern North American society, he completely fails to see the need for a similar revolution in the CFC and organized chess in general........
Paul, not all revolutions are equal.
The Bernie Sanders revolution has many specific recommendations and a clear goal, unlike the Trump revolution (with all it's ugliness) and vague rhetoric of "make America great again".
I am not against change in organized chess, but I would like to see specifics. Not a vague Trump like campaign of "make the CFC great again".
Last edited by Bob Gillanders; Saturday, 16th July, 2016, 12:26 PM.
If I recall correctly, there's no position on the CFC Executive that's called 'Membership Coordinator', though it could be a good idea to create one (although for all I know there may be a charge from the federal gov't to amend the CFC constitution). Positions for officers not on the Executive exist, though, including ones for publicity and another for garnering sponsorship for the CFC (forget the exact names of these officer positions just now). There was a less official volunteer position for the CFC to coordinate with clubs that was created while I was there, too, and it could perhaps be revived.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
If I recall correctly, there's no position on the CFC Executive that's called 'Membership Coordinator', though it could be a good idea to create one (although for all I know there may be a charge from the federal gov't to amend the CFC constitution). Positions for officers not on the Executive exist, though, including ones for publicity and another for garnering sponsorship for the CFC (forget the exact names of these officer positions just now). There was a less official volunteer position for the CFC to coordinate with clubs that was created while I was there, too, and it could perhaps be revived.
If I am correct, I believe the old "CFC Handbook" allowed the Executive to create special non-executive officer positions for certain purposes. So some of these, such as the Public Relations Coordinator, and Fundraising Coordinator (Not sure if this is exactly the title), for example, ended up with a job description section right in the Handbook when they were created (Though often they remained unfilled).
But I believe new positions could be created.
But if it was in the Handbook, that document is now in legal limbo as I understand it, with CFC becoming restructured as a Not-for-Profit Corporation. I believe now it is at best some type of CFC policy document, and if any part conflicts with the statute, that section is null and void.
Maybe one of the executive could clarify this issue of creating, now, new non-executive specialized officer positions (E.g. - Membership Coordinator). This could be important if Chesstalk is flushing some new CFC volunteers out of the woodwork. Having some authority to pursue their goals might encourage them further.
Fwiw, at times I wonder about classifying types of overall situations someone thinking of volunteering for a position in an established organization (e.g. the CFC) might be tempermentally suited for, though probably this has been studied extensively already by someone. I can list a small number of overall situations just for the organization as a whole:
A) The situation is going critical, and the main goal is organizational survival;
B) The situation is something of a chronic malaise, where organizational resources are now tight;
C) Times are good & getting better, plus organizational resources are now rich;
The CFC has been in each of these situations for several decades now, usually in situation B).
I'd say a man with ideas is not so content or useful to work within situation A), nor is someone who is inexperienced or who has trouble staying calm in the face of adversity.
In situation B), I'd say it's a time favouring those who are content to make incremental or relatively risk-free changes, for there is generally little stomach for the organization to gamble by pursuing big or risky changes unless forced to do so. However, a very practical ideas man can still be content, if he has a excellent eye for opportunity.
In situation C), it's sunny days, and ambitious & bold creative ideas are more likely to be considered seriously, with at least some being embraced by the organization.
I may be being Captain Obvious, if I've sized things up right basically, but perhaps this post may prompt further discussion...
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Fwiw, at times I wonder about classifying types of overall situations someone thinking of volunteering for a position in an established organization (e.g. the CFC) might be tempermentally suited for, though probably this has been studied extensively already by someone. I can list a small number of overall situations just for the organization as a whole:
A) The situation is going critical, and the main goal is organizational survival;
B) The situation is something of a chronic malaise, where organizational resources are now tight;
C) Times are good & getting better, plus organizational resources are now rich;
The CFC has been in each of these situations for several decades now, usually in situation B).
I'd say a man with ideas is not so content or useful to work within situation A), nor is someone who is inexperienced or who has trouble staying calm in the face of adversity.
In situation B), I'd say it's a time favouring those who are content to make incremental or relatively risk-free changes, for there is generally little stomach for the organization to gamble by pursuing big or risky changes unless forced to do so. However, a very practical ideas man can still be content, if he has a excellent eye for opportunity.
In situation C), it's sunny days, and ambitious & bold creative ideas are more likely to be considered seriously, with at least some being embraced by the organization.
I may be being Captain Obvious, if I've sized things up right basically, but perhaps this post may prompt further discussion...
I disagree with your situation (C) point. When things are going well, there is the tendency to avoid anything that entails risk... i.e. "don't rock the boat".
Situation (A) is when the highest-risk moves are most likely to be undertaken. You even allude to this in your situation (B) comments when you wrote "....unless forced to do so."
A good example is the Millionaire Chess initiative: that was born from the need to bring chess back from the brink. Unfortunately, even risky moves can still be victim of a failure to see the real changes needed. They wanted chess to become like poker.... and they failed to recognize why poker succeeds!
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Situation A) arose circa 2007 for the CFC. The CFC's office building in Ottawa was sold and lots of paperwork had to happen besides. Before that, and maybe after (not sure) services were being cut back. No really forced or unforced high risk moves were actually taken, afaik, though perhaps they should have been, sooner.
Situation C) was still pretty much the case for the CFC when the CYCC concept was first tried out, I think, though I'm not sure how risky an idea that was, if it had failed in the early years. Also, the transition to computer databases for membership data might not have happened so fast if situation B) had been in effect for the CFC. My memory's a bit hazy on the 1980's and 1990's as far as the CFC goes, though.
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Saturday, 16th July, 2016, 08:54 PM.
Reason: Spelling
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Paul, not all revolutions are equal.
The Bernie Sanders revolution has many specific recommendations and a clear goal, unlike the Trump revolution (with all it's ugliness) and vague rhetoric of "make America great again".
I am not against change in organized chess, but I would like to see specifics. Not a vague Trump like campaign of "make the CFC great again".
Hey, Bob, you "yadda yadda yadda'd" over the best part! To which you reply, "No, I left in the phrase 'against the wealthiest 1%' "!
Ok, hope that lightened the mood a bit. Now let's go over this with some perspective:
First of all, I made sure to praise your organizational work. Whether or not it's mostly done for kids, that doesn't matter. Getting kids into chess in and of itself is not to be criticized. And the work you do, like that of most if not all organizers, is selfless and dedicated. The entire Canadian chess establishment should thank you and other organizers, much more often than they do.
Next, let me point out the context of my remarks. I didn't start a whole new thread and say "Guess what, everybody, here's an organizer that...yadda yadda yadda...revolution....yadda yadda yadda...."
No, the context was a conversation between myself and Fred McKim on the topic of whether someone running for CFC Executive should have an extensive background, right up to the present moment, in chess organizing. All brought up because of Neil Frarey apparently considering running this year, and Neil apparently not having done much if any organizing in the past 10 years. Neil felt the need to defend himself on this. I was making the point of asking whether it is even a good thing to demand such a requirement.
So I gave you as an example of someone who is great at organizing, but not necessarily (at least so far) of having any notion of how to revolutionize organized chess. And I mentioned that you seem to know and to be very sure of your knowledge of what the USA needs for a political revolution. This indicates that you are intelligent enough to judge about revolutionary changes needed in a political and economic system, which could be said to be much more complex than organized chess.
For the past few years, I have not seen you putting forth anything about what organized chess needs for an adult membership revolution, other than you did say to me in a long-ago post that you felt bringing all these kids into chess would eventually grow the adult membership. Statistics of the past many decades do not bear this out. Even in your reply here, you say you are not against changes in organized chess, but neither do you say you are FOR them. Revolutionary changes in U.S. politics: "Definite yes, and I know specifically what changes." Revolutionary changes in organized chess: "Ehhhh...well...not against it, but I don't have any specifics."
You have multiple years working right within the system and you know how bad the numbers are. They are bad even within FIDE itself, as I pointed out... 0.04% market capture. How's that, Mr. Wonderful?
Kevin O'Leary: "You're dead to me."
For the past several years, some people on this forum have criticized me for proposing revolutionary changes to organized chess because I am an outsider. Well, you are very much an insider, and you don't have any specifics. But I mention that only to serve as an example, because seemingly neither does anyone else currently within the system. What does that indicate? I think an outsider is BEST for this type of observation and creative thinking. You don't have specifics BECAUSE you are within the system, and you are not alone. The best you seem to have is Bob Armstrong, who may be very well-meaning but whose idea of 'revolutionary' is to form a committee, and if there already is one, form a sub-committee. Ok, so he loves politics and being in the thick of it, let him have his committees.
I do believe that in general, in this context of seeing changes needed for organized chess, chess organizers with maybe one or two exceptions cannot see the forest for the trees. And even if they were to see the forest, it would be counterproductive to have them stop what they are doing and be the ones to lead the changes. In my view, the CFC should be WELCOMING outsiders, with due process and vetting, of course.
I don't think you should take offense at any of this. You are great at organizing, that alone makes you a very special and needed person in Canadian chess. As far as revolutionary changes in organized chess, you admit you need to see specifics, which means you yourself don't have them. In a way, that's good, you can continue to do what you are needed to do.
Oh, and by the way....the Kardashian sisters all want to meet you and.... yadda yadda yadda... chocolate syrup... yadda yadda yadda.....French Defense.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
If I am correct, I believe the old "CFC Handbook" allowed the Executive to create special non-executive officer positions for certain purposes. So some of these, such as the Public Relations Coordinator, and Fundraising Coordinator (Not sure if this is exactly the title), for example, ended up with a job description section right in the Handbook when they were created (Though often they remained unfilled).
But I believe new positions could be created.
But if it was in the Handbook, that document is now in legal limbo as I understand it, with CFC becoming restructured as a Not-for-Profit Corporation. I believe now it is at best some type of CFC policy document, and if any part conflicts with the statute, that section is null and void.
Maybe one of the executive could clarify this issue of creating, now, new non-executive specialized officer positions (E.g. - Membership Coordinator). This could be important if Chesstalk is flushing some new CFC volunteers out of the woodwork. Having some authority to pursue their goals might encourage them further.
Bob A
As I read this ongoing dialog, it is becoming ever more clear why the cfc is in constipated mode! I took a quick look at the handbook, which to me seems to be in much better shape than many on here think. Whether or not it is in "legal limbo" is a red herring, as I saw nothing that would be controversial, or precluding doing what could be done!
The constitution calls for three to ten directors, which can be changed at an AGM. Currently there are six defined directors, president, vice-president, FDE rep, secretary, treasurer, and junior coordinator. The directors can appoint for one-year terms any other directors they see fit. In addition they can appoint any number of advisory committes they feel would help the cause. They can also reconstitute the directors if they see fit, presumably with the concurrence of the "membership".
I believe it is counter-productive to resort to the legal limbo concern, which is a recipe for doing nothing. As far as I can see, the CFC is allowed to do whatever is necessary to get on with the job, but in reality stifles itself with the crazy voting members structure which has to be a relic from the ark! Why not just let members vote?
If someone is willing to help in any way, get on with it, and quit the geriatric pontification! Look for ways to make it work...not for barriers. Ask yourselves why there are no volunteers. Perhaps most of the membership feels all the current activities are unnecessary and worthless, unless you're a Windsor parent and organizer!
I don't think you should take offense at any of this.
None taken. We're good.
Now I must get some sleep.
I'm headed for Brantford tournament tomorrow.
Rob and Lee put on a wonderful active tournament outside in Harmony Square.
Proceeds go to charity.
Not a super serious tournament, very relaxed casual atmosphere.
But some good chess nevertheless.
I enjoy it immensely, but the turnouts are usually disappointing.
Sad, but maybe the concept will catch fire someday.
Last edited by Bob Gillanders; Sunday, 17th July, 2016, 02:38 AM.
Fwiw, Obama sure didn't offer many specifics when he was campaigning with his 'Yes we can' slogan... the real problem with Trump's campaign is that he's being just too obnoxious towards just too many groups of people.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Please keep this thread on topic. Trump & co. can be discussed in other threads...likewise the CFC. This thread was created to discuss the Canadian Open.
Please keep this thread on topic. Trump & co. can be discussed in other threads...likewise the CFC. This thread was created to discuss the Canadian Open.
Please keep this thread on topic. Trump & co. can be discussed in other threads...likewise the CFC. This thread was created to discuss the Canadian Open.
Hi Hugh:
I think it is too late to close the barn door......the CO is now history.
Tweet
Comment