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 don't have a problem with this. I do have a problem with the CFC executives because they didn't ask the selection committee to explain their "short-sightedness" before announcing the team.
The CFC executives (and the majority of the Canadian chess community) knew that the selection committee decision wasn't the correct one but they swallowed it so they don't upset the FQE.
As far as I know the rules of the selection committee do not give us the option of questioning their decision. The delay in organizing the committee was because some of our candidates declined to serve. Good luck getting future committees put together if the end result was that we bypassed their decision whatever our personal feelings about the decision. Another president and executive might have manufactured an excuse to intervene and ignore the rules that are in place but down that dark path there are many temptations and the damage that it would and could do are not justified even if many feel that the current decision was incorrect. The executive as a whole did not ever discuss this situation.
The CFC Executive do not have the skill set to make a player selection to the Olympic team. That's why there is a Selection Committee. Their deliberations are private.
As much as possible I have promised to follow the previous rules. Some are contradictory or simply impossible to reconcile or no longer relevant (no smoking rules - no one could hold a smoking tournament in Canada in the present environment). Others make great demands on certain people especially organizers which results in tournaments not being organized every year. Some are against the provisions of the NFP act. Clearly anything against the NFP act will not be relevant. Large portions of the handbook deal with historical information which might be interesting and relevant to a historian but have been superseded by our new bylaws.
As far as I know the rules of the selection committee do not give us the option of questioning their decision. The delay in organizing the committee was because some of our candidates declined to serve. Good luck getting future committees put together if the end result was that we bypassed their decision whatever our personal feelings about the decision. Another president and executive might have manufactured an excuse to intervene and ignore the rules that are in place but down that dark path there are many temptations and the damage that it would and could do are not justified even if many feel that the current decision was incorrect. The executive as a whole did not ever discuss this situation.
I will basically reiterate what I was saying for the past four years and suggest getting rid of the selection committee which always causes controversy. Instead just go with ratings. In the rare occasion that there is a real problem with one of the players this should be addressed to the CFC Executive and dealt with. Of course, the fact that one of the players dislikes another is not a cause for not having them on a team, as many successful teams have members who dislike each other, so it should be actually something serious.
I will basically reiterate what I was saying for the past four years and suggest getting rid of the selection committee which always causes controversy. Instead just go with ratings. In the rare occasion that there is a real problem with one of the players this should be addressed to the CFC Executive and dealt with. Of course, the fact that one of the players dislikes another is not a cause for not having them on a team, as many successful teams have members who dislike each other, so it should be actually something serious.
So straightforward, fair and libertarian!
But the sense of 'power' derived from meddling into whatever you can, on flimsy grounds, is so ingrained in both authoritarian and socialist cultures...
I will basically reiterate what I was saying for the past four years and suggest getting rid of the selection committee which always causes controversy. Instead just go with ratings.
Yes, throw out the selection committee.
Screw the ratings (nobody will ever agree on which ratings to use anyway).
Forget minimum games, etc ,etc,etc.
Just have a vote. All CFC members get a vote.
Everyone gets 5 votes for the National team, 5 votes for the Ladies.
The 5 players on each team who get the most votes, that's your team!
Simple? Why not!
It sure would spur some interest in the team!
But which ratings ? FIDE, FQE, CFC's ? A combination of those or not ? Combined in what way ? Over what period ? Based on how many games (local or international) ?
And then a player might be chosen over another by a matter of a couple of points because he might play more or less FIDE rated events, fewer games in weaker events, and so on and so forth. Simple solutions often turn out to be simplistic and just as likely to be criticized than a commitee decision. No easy way out in this matter.
So straightforward, fair and libertarian!
But the sense of 'power' derived from meddling into whatever you can, on flimsy grounds, is so ingrained in both authoritarian and socialist cultures...
Exactly. Once you start down that slippery slope it is difficult to get back up onto the proper path again.
But which ratings ? FIDE, FQE, CFC's ? A combination of those or not ? Combined in what way ? Over what period ? Based on how many games (local or international) ?
And then a player might be chosen over another by a matter of a couple of points because he might play more or less FIDE rated events, fewer games in weaker events, and so on and so forth. Simple solutions often turn out to be simplistic and just as likely to be criticized than a commitee decision. No easy way out in this matter.
Having a few pre-determined criteria in addition to the latest FIDE rating should not make the selection very complicated or controversial... and the CFC executive is always there to deal with unforeseen exceptions...
But which ratings ? FIDE, FQE, CFC's ? A combination of those or not ? Combined in what way ? Over what period ? Based on how many games (local or international) ?
And then a player might be chosen over another by a matter of a couple of points because he might play more or less FIDE rated events, fewer games in weaker events, and so on and so forth. Simple solutions often turn out to be simplistic and just as likely to be criticized than a commitee decision. No easy way out in this matter.
The question of which ratings to use is of course important, but that is a separate topic because there is a current system to determine the top 3 by ratings, so why can't we use the same for 4? Anyway, the topic of which ratings to use and what should be the deadline is important and in fact if there is no need for a selection committee then the rating deadline can be extended closer to the Olympiad.
Anyway, I made a proposal for CFC AGM to eliminate selection committee so if any other voting members would like to support it they can second it.
Having a few pre-determined criteria in addition to the latest FIDE rating should not make the selection very complicated or controversial... and the CFC executive is always there to deal with unforeseen exceptions...
Absolutely agree with you. It's also much easier for players/their parents who missed the team if they knew that they lost because of "formula" than because of a "human factor". I have some ideas and will publish my proposal in a separate thread.
The only justification I can imagine is that you consider Lesiege and Krnan to be your weak links, and want to give them as many whites as possible to protect them, including the likely possibility of giving them both white when playing together when one of the top two boards sits out. If so, I retract my earlier harsh criticism of the selection as it makes logical sense. My long held criticisms of selecting Lesiege remain however.
Your "only justification" is very far from the reality.
Tweet
Comment