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.
This must rank as one of the greatest results ever for someone without a FIDE title.
One goofy thing though is it looks like two games may have been decided by the new FIDE zero tolerance policy on lateness. I read that Hou Yifan lost her game by arriving five seconds (!!) late. I wonder if Ding's last round win was under similar circumstances.
"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.
one goofy thing though is it looks like two games may have been decided by the new fide zero tolerance policy on lateness. I read that hou yifan lost her game by arriving five seconds (!!) late. I wonder if ding's last round win was under similar circumstances.
Yes - see http://blog.sina.com.cn/chessnews. I have yet to see the exact regulations spelt out anywhere, except in Chinese, but it appears they are going with the new FIDE default time of 0 minutes (which doesn't officially come into effect until July 1st). Ding "won" his game around two minutes after the start time.
One goofy thing though is it looks like two games may have been decided by the new FIDE zero tolerance policy on lateness. I read that Hou Yifan lost her game by arriving five seconds (!!) late. QUOTE]
At the Canadian Open, the lateness policy will still be "one-hour past the scheduled start time".
As Vlad said, the zero-tolerance rule (which, by the way, is OPTIONAL for TD's), is ridiculous.
At the Canadian Open, the lateness policy will still be "one-hour past the scheduled start time".
As Vlad said, the zero-tolerance rule (which, by the way, is OPTIONAL for TD's), is ridiculous.
What's the difference between enforcing zero tolerance on the one hour late rule and enforcing zero tolerance on the exact time rule?
This must rank as one of the greatest results ever for someone without a FIDE title.
One goofy thing though is it looks like two games may have been decided by the new FIDE zero tolerance policy on lateness. I read that Hou Yifan lost her game by arriving five seconds (!!) late. I wonder if Ding's last round win was under similar circumstances.
There once was an article in Chess Canada (other canadian mag?) by Bent Larsen, circa mid 70s (before your time?), where he gave the story that he was ~55 minutes late for a game, and casually strolled about the tournament hall looking at other games. When people said to him (paraphrasing) 'Are you crazy, make a move or you will lose'. His response was that the rule said nothing about making a move in the hour, just that you had to be there (and by implication, being "in" the tournament hall was being there).
On the other hand, Cyrus Lackdawala told be a story of a game he forfeited in one of the Canadian opens. He was ~59' and seconds late and running, got close enough to his board to see his flag fall at the one hour mark and was forfeited. In vain, he quoted the Larsen article as a defence so maybe Larsen was wrong.
So, I would presume someone who lost by being 5 seconds late, was in fact in the tournament hall, perhaps in sight of the board. Just how close to the board do you have to be in order to avoid forfeit? 1 foot? 5 feet? 10? Do you have to be on the right side of the board? Apparently, being in the tournament hall isn't good enough. (e.g. some of those forfeited at the Olympiad after leaving their board to find a pen at just the wrong moment)
You gave me the difference between the allowable starting times and not the difference between any problems in the enforcement of each time.
The difference between Canadian chess players and the players of many other nations is that Canadian players generally lack grit and toughness. Our players get coddled and pampered.
If they think their ratings are too low instead of telling them to play better, the governors vote bonus points.
Fide and other nations are moving to no tolerance on lateness. Of course, our players could never tolerate such oppressive conditions so our national championship will have the hour grace.
Maybe that's one of the reasons many of our good players enter foreign events.
No tolerance on lateness is a silly policy as the Chinese Championship seems to have indicated.
Now I wonder if the CFC governors are tough enough to operate as an affilate of FIDE and move forward with the rest of the world as the rules and condtions evolve.
Tough players don't whine about such a rule. They know that if someone loses on that time rule it won't be them. It will be their opponent.
Why is the CFC losing out to the servers in the competition to gain members?
Given the nature of a chess game, the proposed rule is not required for the competition totake place. What you call evolution, Gary, I see as FIDE's usual inept shenanigans.
Given the nature of a chess game, the proposed rule is not required for the competition totake place. What you call evolution, Gary, I see as FIDE's usual inept shenanigans.
Let's look at some of the events. The first 40 moves are in 90 minutes. What you are defending is a player showing up and making his 40 moves in 30 minutes plus one second while likely slapping the clock after each move to try to save a fraction of a second.
You gave me the difference between the allowable starting times and not the difference between any problems in the enforcement of each time.
The difference between Canadian chess players and the players of many other nations is that Canadian players generally lack grit and toughness. Our players get coddled and pampered.
If they think their ratings are too low instead of telling them to play better, the governors vote bonus points.
Fide and other nations are moving to no tolerance on lateness. Of course, our players could never tolerate such oppressive conditions so our national championship will have the hour grace.
Maybe that's one of the reasons many of our good players enter foreign events.
Hi Gary
Is all going well?
The one hour lateness rule allows for greater margin of error to prevent what is really a tragedy for all concerned: the player, his opponent, who may normally want to win after a played out contest, and the organizer, who may have highly disappointed spectators on his hands. Even FIDE itself will avoid more grief in the long and short run than by going to zero tolerance, I would imagine. There are other interesting issues affecting lateness policy that Roger's post addresses, but for now I won't get into them.
Yes, players should be tough when necessary.
The rating deflation issue, which you don't seem to acknowlege, is a seperate issue - though I'll address it since you took a swing at players on that account too. In my view it was unwarranted on the matter of the rating system. Some rating systems are even clearly inflated, at least for the top players - look at FIDE's. Less people complain, perhaps, though it's annoying when trying to compare FIDE rated champions from past decades to the current one - 2700 is the new 2600.
Meanwhile there was the CFC rating system while it was deflated, in my opinion and in other people's. Yes, a player could work like a dog to advance his rating, and succeed, but it would still be lower than it deserved to be. If you took the British system, to make things obvious, someone with a rating of 160 would have a lot of work to do to get up to 1800, which would be way off the scale in the British system.
As you may know, I'm boycotting the CFC's Active events until the Active rating sytem is corrected. I found out the reason it was not done at the same time as the regular rating system was corrected. It was a typcal snafu followed by neglect on the part of the CFC. To quote Chris Mallon from a post on the CFC Discussion Board:
"Actually, the Active ratings WERE supposed to be corrected at the same time, but an error in the script prevented this. This was pointed out to the Exec and the Ratings Auditor at the time but apparently ignored - despite the fact that we also provided a corrected script which would have fixed it."
Now, you may still insist on saying players like me are not tough enough, but at least you can see that the CFC is not helping itself in every way possible if it agrees with Governors like Peter Stockhausen, who thought the CFC was making a BIG mistake from a business point of view in allowing the reguar rating system (alone?) to deflate.
In case you were just aiming to be provocative all through this thread, I can return the favour :). It's arguable that the Correspondence rating system is grossly inflated. How to prove that a 2600+ Correspondence player is the same strength or better as a 2600+ over the board player? Have a match between two such players or teams of players. One part of the match is Correspondence chess games, the other part is an equal number of over the board games. The player/team with the best score overall wins and is considered the better player(s). Who has the onus to organize such a match? I'd say it's the Correspondence chess world, if only because Correspondence chess is less popular and the players are less well known.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Susan Polgar has an item today on this. I started with the view of supporting "zero-min. tolerance" (but move it off the hour as most sports do), and expected pro tennis to have the same rule, but discovered otherwise. Here's my summary comment there:
---------------------------------------------------------------
(a) If chess is going to follow other professional sports in having strict start times, then it should also follow many of them in moving those start times 5-or-10 minutes off the hour. This is for spectators as well as players.
It's not just a matter of building a buffer for the natural human tendency to focus on the :00 and :30 points of the hour. One can make time for visiting dignitaries, photos etc. between (say) 7:00 and 7:05, plus give time for media to do intros---if you anticipate having those things, it doesn't make sense to list 7:00 as the start-clocks time. Making pre-game attendance mandatory is a separate (contractual) issue.
(b) To my surprise, the ATP pro tennis rulebook has an official grace period up to 15 minutes with fines, though only for players who are "on site". Although my point (a) wasn't meant to be a "grace period" as one replier thought, I do feel that chess should not be leapfrogging its traditions over peer professional organizations' rules to become more strict than them.
Both of these points are directly relevant to the Chinese championship cases: (b) Hou Yifan was clearly "on site", and (a) from the source blog's story it seems Ding Liren's opponent was defaulted right after the 14:01:47 time shown in one photo, and well before 14:05.
-----------------------------------------
So while I philosophically agreed with Gary Ruben's position, I find that wisdom, precedent, and peer-policy argue otherwise.
On top of other arguments for a grace period of an hour for a chess game, there is the fact that a late player is 'punished' by losing time on his clock even if he arrives less than an hour late.
The only sport that comes close to being professional that uses clocks, as far as I recall, is curling, which 'borrowed' the concept of chess clocks at some point in the modern era. I don't know what lateness policy there is for curling.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Tweet
Comment