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.
If I'm not mistaken, Tom once ran for Women's Coordinator - with a platform that he would abolish the women's program. (he lost).
I'm sorry if I have not read Tom's posts carefully enough to tease out his fundamental argument against the parallel separate women-only "system".
Would someone who is clear from his posts, or Tom himself, give the fundamental position.
I'm interested to see the extent to which my argument for "women's incubator elimination" is like Tom's (If it is; Tom and I have very different views on a number of other things, from my reading of his posts from time to time.......but I do admit he usually seems to back them up with some evidence, and reasonable supportive arguments!)
I have to say that I was not aware that the position I now hold (Elimination of the women's chess incubator), was being espoused by a well-known significant Canadian player, back in the mid-1990's. Obviously, though, he failed to convince the majority of VM's (Any?) at that time, since we still have the Canadian parallel separate women's system.
Whether Tom and I have exactly the same rationale for this position would maybe need more discussion.
Bob A
Would you please tell me, precisely and coherently, what the "Canadian parallel separate women's system" is?
This is going way beyond the argument that private chess organizers should be allowed to be prejudicial in organizing chess events. I agree with that, even if blacks were specifically excluded from specific privately-run events. But I'd be against the government running chess events and excluding blacks or any other group, and I believe this is what xxx was saying also. I'm ok with boys and girls being in their own sections (of a government-run program) if both groups are ok with it themselves. Brad Thomson says women are insulted by being offered their own events: have you yourself seen any evidence of that?
Whoa, whoa, whoa,.....
Please **NEVER** associate my name with anything that even remotely hints that I might be in favour of a chess tournament that excludes blacks. What we have been talking about here are chess events/tournaments which, while technically discriminatory on the basis of gender or age (two examples), do not harm or diminish another segment of the population. And by the way, I've asked Bob Armstrong and Brad Thomson to explain how men are harmed or diminished by a Canadian women's championship and neither of them has even attempted to answer the question.
Regarding Tom's wedding cake example, unfortunately there is no foolproof way to stop some people from using their ignorance and prejudice to hurt other people. That's the way the world is: wall-to-wall assholes with a minority of decent people sprinkled in. In the wall-to-wall assholes group I include those supposedly decent people who are willing to stand by and watch while others get hurt. Regarding the anti-gay baker(s), so long as my tax dollars are being used to support their business (roads, communication systems, water, hydro, police, etc.) they'd better damn well serve that gay couple, politely and without pissing in their cake. Otherwise they can stick their business out in the bush where it would only be accessible via a three day portage.
P.S. That's why we have laws to try to limit the damage that the assholes do to others!!
Last edited by Peter McKillop; Tuesday, 3rd January, 2017, 12:25 PM.
Tom, I believe I recall an AGM where at some point you accepted a nomination as Governor, and then joined the table just in time to vote against the woman's program. I was there at the time as an employee, and without a vote of course. Is this correct? It would have been earlier than 1996 I think, possibly Winnipeg 1994, or Toronto 1995. Someone made a comment about not wanting chess to be a boys only club (I am not sure how this makes sense) and then you responded with an analogy about washrooms. :)
Anyone with the old Governors' letters from this era could find the results of the vote.
I have to say that I was not aware that the position I now hold (Elimination of the women's chess incubator), was being espoused by a well-known significant Canadian player, back in the mid-1990's. Obviously, though, he failed to convince the majority of VM's (Any?) at that time, since we still have the Canadian parallel separate women's system.
Whether Tom and I have exactly the same rationale for this position would maybe need more discussion.
I did a survey of women chess players in the CFC around 1996(?) and quite a few were insulted by offering separate titles, for example, from the responses I received. It was contained in one of the Governors' Letters of the period. I think the one with the AGM.
Tom, I believe I recall an AGM where at some point you accepted a nomination as Governor, and then joined the table just in time to vote against the woman's program. I was there at the time as an employee, and without a vote of course. Is this correct? It would have been earlier than 1996 I think, possibly Winnipeg 1994, or Toronto 1995. Someone made a comment about not wanting chess to be a boys only club (I am not sure how this makes sense) and then you responded with an analogy about washrooms. :)
Anyone with the old Governors' letters from this era could find the results of the vote.
Last edited by Brad Thomson; Tuesday, 3rd January, 2017, 08:59 AM.
Tom, I am in complete agreement with you that private chess organizers should be given complete leeway to discriminate against anyone they want to for their events.
But you've made some interesting and more general comments here. You seem to imply that there should be no placing of shame, nor forcing of actions, to people of prejudice IN GENERAL. And your reasoning is that the prejudice they feel is never going away because of being shamed or forced into doing something they don't want to do. While your reasoning has a ring of truth at least for some people, it opens up a philosophical debate: should we assume that all prejudice is thus acceptable and should not be fought at all, or should some prejudices be fought against in the hope that eventually the vast majority will realize that such prejudices are wrong?
What came to my mind in reading your comments was this: In the 1960s there was the fight for civil right for black Americans, and part of that was the desegregation of schools, colleges and universities. When the government stepped in and forced busing of black American students into schools in Mississippi and Alabama (and possibly other states), there most definitely was hostility. Armed troops had to protect the students. I don't know how long it took, but eventually everyone accepted that blacks had the right to an education side-by-side with whites, and protection by troops is no longer needed. But it's true that some hostility remains, racism still simmers under the surface. The 2016 U.S. election brought a lot of that back to the forefront, and the Black Lives Matter movement is borne out of the perception of this still present racism. So we haven't actually "solved" racism, but I guess the question I'm putting to you is, do you think that there has been PROGRESS in fighting racism because of the steps the government took to force schools to accept blacks? And if yes, then do you think the general idea of fighting prejudices is worthwhile?
This is going way beyond the argument that private chess organizers should be allowed to be prejudicial in organizing chess events. I agree with that, even if blacks were specifically excluded from specific privately-run events. But I'd be against the government running chess events and excluding blacks or any other group, and I believe this is what Peter McKillop was saying also. I'm ok with boys and girls being in their own sections (of a government-run program) if both groups are ok with it themselves. Brad Thomson says women are insulted by being offered their own events: have you yourself seen any evidence of that?
Government should never discriminate based on e.g. race. Jim Crow laws did just that. Further any business that hopes to do business with government should not receive that business unless they don't discriminate.
For the rest, the free markets can handle it. Let's suppose I own a restaurant and won't serve Group X. Someone else can open a restaurant that will serve Group X, as well as everyone else. They will not only corner the market on one type of customer, but also get a large group of people who are sympathetic to the discrimination against Group X members. Instead, we have government demanding that racists potentially make profit off of customers that the racists are prejudiced against. That is madness, imo.
I don't consider being prejudiced to be morally wrong. I consider it to be a sub-optimal way to live as it is limiting.
I did a survey of women chess players in the CFC around 1996(?) and quite a few were insulted by offering separate titles, for example, from the responses I received. It was contained in one of the Governors' Letters of the period. I think the one with the AGM.
Brad knows that well as this was during his tenure as a CFC employee.
Consider the famous "baking a wedding cake for a gay couple" case. The government steps in and forces the bakers, against their will, to deal with the couple. Now I ask you how does society benefit from this?
People who are prejudiced are either going to find ways to discriminate covertly, or they will be enriched financially by having to deal with people they despise and just piss in the wedding cakes of future members of these groups.
People in the targeted groups don't benefit because now they cannot know if the people they are dealing with are covertly hostile. I personally would rather know if the people serving me food have a problem with me before I place my order. Certainly before I take my first bite.
Meanwhile people like the bakers are not suddenly going to "behave" because they are shamed. People tried shaming Brexit voters, and Trump voters, and look what happened.
Tom, I am in complete agreement with you that private chess organizers should be given complete leeway to discriminate against anyone they want to for their events.
But you've made some interesting and more general comments here. You seem to imply that there should be no placing of shame, nor forcing of actions, to people of prejudice IN GENERAL. And your reasoning is that the prejudice they feel is never going away because of being shamed or forced into doing something they don't want to do. While your reasoning has a ring of truth at least for some people, it opens up a philosophical debate: should we assume that all prejudice is thus acceptable and should not be fought at all, or should some prejudices be fought against in the hope that eventually the vast majority will realize that such prejudices are wrong?
What came to my mind in reading your comments was this: In the 1960s there was the fight for civil right for black Americans, and part of that was the desegregation of schools, colleges and universities. When the government stepped in and forced busing of black American students into schools in Mississippi and Alabama (and possibly other states), there most definitely was hostility. Armed troops had to protect the students. I don't know how long it took, but eventually everyone accepted that blacks had the right to an education side-by-side with whites, and protection by troops is no longer needed. But it's true that some hostility remains, racism still simmers under the surface. The 2016 U.S. election brought a lot of that back to the forefront, and the Black Lives Matter movement is borne out of the perception of this still present racism. So we haven't actually "solved" racism, but I guess the question I'm putting to you is, do you think that there has been PROGRESS in fighting racism because of the steps the government took to force schools to accept blacks? And if yes, then do you think the general idea of fighting prejudices is worthwhile?
This is going way beyond the argument that private chess organizers should be allowed to be prejudicial in organizing chess events. I agree with that, even if blacks were specifically excluded from specific privately-run events. But I'd be against the government running chess events and excluding blacks or any other group. I'm ok with boys and girls being in their own sections (of a government-run program) if both groups are ok with it themselves. Brad Thomson says women are insulted by being offered their own events: have you yourself seen any evidence of that?
Last edited by Paul Bonham; Tuesday, 3rd January, 2017, 01:09 PM.
2. Make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age. ***
Tom, are you talking about #1 or #2?
#2
Consider the famous "baking a wedding cake for a gay couple" case. The government steps in and forces the bakers, against their will, to deal with the couple. Now I ask you how does society benefit from this?
People who are prejudiced are either going to find ways to discriminate covertly, or they will be enriched financially by having to deal with people they despise and just piss in the wedding cakes of future members of these groups.
People in the targeted groups don't benefit because now they cannot know if the people they are dealing with are covertly hostile. I personally would rather know if the people serving me food have a problem with me before I place my order. Certainly before I take my first bite.
Meanwhile people like the bakers are not suddenly going to "behave" because they are shamed. People tried shaming Brexit voters, and Trump voters, and look what happened.
Last edited by Tom O'Donnell; Monday, 2nd January, 2017, 05:02 PM.
The hotel computer won't let me correct my typo. I meant to write "10%" instead of "20%". My apologies.
I would favour any private individual (as opposed to a government respresentative) in any private situtation (as opposed to one involving the government in some form) being allowed to discriminate against anyone for any reason, real or imagined.
*** dis·crim·i·nate / verb
1. Recognize a distinction; differentiate.
2. Make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age. ***
The hotel computer won't let me correct my typo. I meant to write "10%" instead of "20%". My apologies.
I would favour any private individual (as opposed to a government respresentative) in any private situtation (as opposed to one involving the government in some form) being allowed to discriminate against anyone for any reason, real or imagined.
"sex·ismˈsekˌsizəm/noun
prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
synonyms:sexual discrimination,*chauvinism,*gender prejudice,*gender bias"your hiring practices have generated numerous complaints about sexism""
I said somewhere else in this thread that I wouldn't object to men-only events provided that they weren't sexist; i.e. not deliberately, or even unwittingly, intended to harm or diminish women. Tom, do you believe that men are harmed or diminished in some way because there is a Canadian women's chess championship tournament? If you do, could you please fill me in?
Private organizers should be able to restrict anyone from any event for any reason, imo. I would say even for no particular reason at all.
Any tournament funded even in part from CFC coffers should not be allowed to be restrictive by sex because there is only so much money available and any money that goes towards XX cannot go towards other things.
Restricting by age is not the same, imo. Everyone that lives long enough will be U10, U12, etc. as well as 50+, 65+, etc.
This debate has been going on for decades and I suspect it will continue for decades more. I expect 40 years from now the ratio of male to female adult players will still be on the order of 10+ to 1.
I am on the road right now, coming back from the National Open in Las Vegas and in the Open Section it looked to me that about 20% of the participants were females, mostly in their teens and 20s.
So I take it that if someone were to run male-only events you would make the same argument?
"sex·ismˈsekˌsizəm/noun
prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
synonyms:sexual discrimination,*chauvinism,*gender prejudice,*gender bias"your hiring practices have generated numerous complaints about sexism""
I said somewhere else in this thread that I wouldn't object to men-only events provided that they weren't sexist; i.e. not deliberately, or even unwittingly, intended to harm or diminish women. Tom, do you believe that men are harmed or diminished in some way because there is a Canadian women's chess championship tournament? If you do, could you please fill me in?
So I take it that if someone were to run male-only events you would make the same argument?
Just to be clear on my position here at the start of 2017 on "only" events and separate "systems" (My position is different than Brad's, as far as I can tell, in some respects):
1. Women-only tournaments are NOT sexist - I am all for them.
2. Male-only tournaments are NOT sexist - I am all for them.
3. Junior-only tournaments are NOT discriminatory on the basis of age - I am all for them
4. Junior-Boy-only tournaments are NOT sexist - I am all for them.
5. Junior-Girl-only tournaments are NOT sexist - I am all for them.
6. Senior-only tournaments are NOT discriminatory on the basis of age - I am all for them.
7. Residents of the City of Toronto - only tournaments are NOT discriminatory on the basis of residency - I am all for them.
8. Glasses-only tournaments are NOT discriminatory towards the rest of the whole world who do not wear glasses - I am all for them. I wear glasses, and I am still waiting for my entrepreneur organizer to surface.
BUT
9. A FIDE whole separate and parallel women-only chess "system", with FIDE titles is NOT NOW (Any longer) helpful to the advance of the quality/strength of women's chess (My own personal crusade; not endorsed yet publicly by any woman player in the world, and I'm not sure if some men endorse it - I fear it will be for reasons other than my own, with which I will likely disagree) - I am all against it - it should now be abolished (It has outlived its usefulness).
10. A FIDE whole separate and parallel open junior- only "system" is not discriminatory on the basis of age - I am all for it.
11. A FIDE whole separate and parallel junior girl-only "system", with regular FIDE women's titles is NOT NOW (Any longer) helpful to the advance of the quality/strength of girl's chess (My own personal crusade; not endorsed yet publicly by any junior girl player in the world, and I'm not sure if some junior boys endorse it - I fear it will be for reasons other than my own, with which I will likely disagree) - I am all against it - it should now be abolished (It has outlived its usefulness).
Happy New Year to all my Ct friends!
Bob A
P.S. Are there any Ct'ers at all that agree with any of my 11 positions?? Is a bit disconcerting, though I have been described, I hear, as a bit "far out".
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Sunday, 1st January, 2017, 01:31 PM.
Leave a comment: