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.
What it shows is that there was good interest in both of Victor's motions, as the straw poll didn't allow you to vote for both (a bit of a flaw that I pointed out at the time).
I would expect that both will be put forward at the next meeting of the CFC Voting members.
It seems a bit odd to talk about revamping the rules after one of the most successful open (men's) Olympiad teams ever.
In this case why are 0 votes for "Keep the current system with selection committee" ?
What about the following motions?
a) No selection committee
b) No CFC rating for National Team
c) Use the last rating instead of the highest
d) Bonus/penalties for last Canadian Closed
e) Bonus/penalties for the last Olympiad
f) Bonus for young age and tie-break.
In this case why are 0 votes for "Keep the current system with selection committee" ?
What about the following motions?
a) No selection committee
b) No CFC rating for National Team
c) Use the last rating instead of the highest
d) Bonus/penalties for last Canadian Closed
e) Bonus/penalties for the last Olympiad
f) Bonus for young age and tie-break.
I agree totally with Rene on this issue.
I don't think CFC should back track from the earlier position when all the VMs have vote for the changes in selecting the Olympiad teams. Even if the current team achieved the best result so far, this should not be the reason to back track from it. CFC has to be decisive and move forward with the decision made otherwise we will just be the laughing stock.
It seems a bit odd to talk about revamping the rules after one of the most successful open (men's) Olympiad teams ever.
Looks like it's easier to make excellent result on Olympiad than to change something in CFC rules. This was one of the reason I preferred voting and discussion before the Olympiad. My opinion remains the same. The selection process is bad, and changes are necessary.
A straw vote is simply a straw vote. Until a specific motion is before VMs it is hard to say how they will vote.
So when and who is going to introduce these 6 motions?
a) No selection committee
b) No CFC rating for National Team
c) Use the last rating instead of the highest
d) Bonus/penalties for last Canadian Closed
e) Bonus/penalties for the last Olympiad
f) Bonus for young age and tie-break.
In this case why are 0 votes for "Keep the current system with selection committee" ?
Hi Rene:
I would have voted to keep the selection committee. The brouhaha over the selection committee resulted after Lesiege was selected over other players, including your son. Many people immediately wanted to change the rules to correct this perceived injustice. The Canadian team, with Lesiege playing board 3 and playing mostly blacks produced a spectacular result.
I don't see a problem with having a selection committee, particularly since it selects only one player.
Changing the rules because "they didn't pick the guy I wanted" is a partisan knee-jerk reaction. Secondly, making the process complicated with obscure calculations and various bonuses, etc. will not help things. It will make the process unclear if not downright opaque and will thus make selections *more* controversial.
If the system is "broken" then the most recent results of the "broken" system have to be taken into consideration. The committee did its job in looking at fielding the best possible team and the results are excellent.
I don't see anything wrong with a straightforward objective process to select 4 of the 5 team members and a closed-door subjective process to select the 5th.
Steve
P.S. I mean no disrespect to you or Razvan. I have little doubt that Razvan was seriously considered and I have no doubt that he will be very deservedly on a future Olympiad team.
I would have voted to keep the selection committee. The brouhaha over the selection committee resulted after Lesiege was selected over other players, including your son. Many people immediately wanted to change the rules to correct this perceived injustice. The Canadian team, with Lesiege playing board 3 and playing mostly blacks produced a spectacular result.
I don't see a problem with having a selection committee, particularly since it selects only one player.
Changing the rules because "they didn't pick the guy I wanted" is a partisan knee-jerk reaction. Secondly, making the process complicated with obscure calculations and various bonuses, etc. will not help things. It will make the process unclear if not downright opaque and will thus make selections *more* controversial.
If the system is "broken" then the most recent results of the "broken" system have to be taken into consideration. The committee did its job in looking at fielding the best possible team and the results are excellent.
I don't see anything wrong with a straightforward objective process to select 4 of the 5 team members and a closed-door subjective process to select the 5th.
Steve
P.S. I mean no disrespect to you or Razvan. I have little doubt that Razvan was seriously considered and I have no doubt that he will be very deservedly on a future Olympiad team.
Steve,
See Victor's post. He was team captain for the last few Olympiads and I trust his knowledge. No other comments.
Looks like it's easier to make excellent result on Olympiad than to change something in CFC rules. This was one of the reason I preferred voting and discussion before the Olympiad. My opinion remains the same. The selection process is bad, and changes are necessary.
It seems a bit odd to talk about revamping the rules after one of the most successful open (men's) Olympiad teams ever.
Somehow, I am not surprised..Victor and many others wanted to vote on the motion during the meeting (is it even legal to stop someone from submitting a motion?), but some, including the president, wanted to postpone the decision till a later time. Apparently, they wanted more discussion to happen. No discussion has happened since then on the governors board. Now we learn that its odd to change rules.
I would have voted to keep the selection committee. The brouhaha over the selection committee resulted after Lesiege was selected over other players, including your son. Many people immediately wanted to change the rules to correct this perceived injustice. The Canadian team, with Lesiege playing board 3 and playing mostly blacks produced a spectacular result.
I don't see a problem with having a selection committee, particularly since it selects only one player.
Changing the rules because "they didn't pick the guy I wanted" is a partisan knee-jerk reaction. Secondly, making the process complicated with obscure calculations and various bonuses, etc. will not help things. It will make the process unclear if not downright opaque and will thus make selections *more* controversial.
If the system is "broken" then the most recent results of the "broken" system have to be taken into consideration. The committee did its job in looking at fielding the best possible team and the results are excellent.
I don't see anything wrong with a straightforward objective process to select 4 of the 5 team members and a closed-door subjective process to select the 5th.
Steve
P.S. I mean no disrespect to you or Razvan. I have little doubt that Razvan was seriously considered and I have no doubt that he will be very deservedly on a future Olympiad team.
How does making the selection formula completely mathematical make it more controversial? The numbers are quite simple, and can be calculated even without a calculator.
Sometimes, a bad process can still lead to good results. That does not mean the process should not be improved/changed. We have no way to find out if the committee indeed fielded the best possible team. Maybe a different player would do even better. Or worse...if the same event is held another time with the same teams and players playing, the results would be completely different.
Somehow, I am not surprised..Victor and many others wanted to vote on the motion during the meeting (is it even legal to stop someone from submitting a motion?), but some, including the president, wanted to postpone the decision till a later time. Apparently, they wanted more discussion to happen. No discussion has happened since then on the governors board. Now we learn that its odd to change rules.
Voting on the motion without the statutory notification means that anyone could go to court and win the right to overturn the results of the vote based on the NFP act which requires prior notification of any motions to be voted on. It is not an option. It is the law. One of the duties of the executive is to ensure that the CFC remains compliant with all applicable laws including the NFP act. There is no point in doing anything which can easily and successfully be challenged in court because it is contrary to the laws that govern the CFC.
To get anything on the agenda the voting members can send a motion to the executive (either me or the secretary Lyle Craver will usually work best) at least three to five weeks before the next scheduled meeting. The law actually is that voting member motions require three to five months of notice before an AGM if my memory is correct but we get around that by making voting member motions director motions and probably will continue to do that as long as I am president.
Tweet
Comment