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.
Re: Re : Some numbers from the last Canadian Closed
Junior chess can be self supporting and even be organized at a profit due to the large numbers of players. Juniors and their parents actually do a lot for other groups in the chess community. They support chess professionals by hiring them as coaches and attend regular swiss tournaments as well and their entry fees make those more viable.
Large swisses can also often be self supporting especially when they attract large numbers of juniors, but sponsorship is very helpful if you want to increase the prize fund and / or offer conditions to IMs and GMs in order to support them and to get them to give up other income and training opportunities to attend these tournaments. Talking to organizers in France it seems that cities and towns often sponsor chess events through their tourism departments and these funds are used to attract titled players and stage stronger tournaments that offer norm opportunities. Incidentally, towns also often offer free space for these tournaments and for local chess clubs.
Elite level chess tournaments such as the Canadian Closed or a Canadian Women's or Junior Closed, or round robins offering GM and IM norms are very difficult to run on a cost recovery basis. They need sponsorship from a company, organization, town/ province / fed agency, an angel OR they need to be funded through transfers from other chess tournaments that are capable of generating a surplus. There may also be other viable models as well.
Whether the lack of support for elite - level chess in Canada is a major concern or not depends on your perspective. Most juniors and their parents are probably best served if the money generated by junior chess is recycled to support junior chess. The same is true of weekend warriors and hobbyists who play in weekend swisses and the few 9 rounders staged in Canada during the summer.
Where does this leave the few players in Canada who are playing at the elite-level or who can seriously aspire to play at that level? I am not sure. Ideally, they would get some government support like athletes do for their training and for travel to international competitions. They would also be given better and more plentiful conditions and the opportunity to compete for generous prize funds in Swiss tournaments. They would also be offered attractive participation fees to participate in round robin norm tournaments that give opportunities to others to gain titles and become world class players themselves. All this takes money and the question is whether or not we are willing and able to support our elite chess players in Canada. Our results at the last Olympiad suggest that our players can compete on the world stage, but they have done so by pursuing opportunities elsewhere to hone their craft and to access financial resources. This has been serendipitous for supporters of our Olympiad teams, but not something we can take a lot of credit for as a community.
Last edited by Eric Gedajlovic; Monday, 24th July, 2017, 03:54 AM.
A major problem is that there is not a lot of financial resources available in Canada to support professional / semi professional chess players. In the absence of these resources, organizers are unable to provide the conditions or prize funds that support these sorts of players in other countries. It also means that round robins are not financially viable and our swiss tournaments need to have low rating floors in Master's Sections to bring in more entry fees. This makes it harder for master level players to get norms and doesn't provide them with the sort of competition they would find in tournaments elsewhere.
There is some money available, usually from government entities and local tourism bureaus. Last year we got $5,000 for chess from the Windsor Essex Pelee Island Tourism Bureau for the Canadian Open/CYCC/NAYCC which was applied to the Canadian Open. Sault Ste Marie got $40,000 from their local government. The numbers were okay though somewhat disappointing. We were told that the $15,000 prize fund was not enough. As the chief organizer I was not going to ask the families that backed our original bid to fork over large amounts of money to increase the prize fund so we made the tournament self sustaining. This year the prize fund was $40,000 but that didn't result in a materially larger turnout.
It seems that the one source of money that is available comes from junior players and their parents. I believe that the current CFC president believes that money collected through junior chess events should be used to support junior chess and not be used to subsidize adult and elite level events. I think its a reasonable position and don't think money should be harvested from kids to fund events for weekend warriors or even elite level adults.
CYCC is the source of funds for junior chess and those funds are collected on the basis that they will be used to fund teams to WYCC and WCCC. We have expanded the use to other events like NAYCC and the U16 Olympiad though the expenditures on these tournaments tend to be much lower.
As the organizer of last year's NAYCC, I was gravely disappointed with all the things that went on at this year's NAYCC starting with the fact that the organizers scheduled it to conflict with the Canadian Open. There were many other problems as well including a reduced support for official players and a number of other actions by the organizers which put norms in serious jeopardy and flagrantly ignored FIDE laws of chess.
So, much of the solution boils down to getting pools of money to support elite chess in Canada. Where should this come from? An Angel? Corporate Sponsorship? Government Grants? All of the above? Somewhere else? I'm not sure, but it seems like something worth discussing.
I think that governments, usually through local tourism programs are the best bets for raising funds. This of course does not mean that there is an easy way to package a Canadian Closed for this type of sponsorship.
Re: Re : Some numbers from the last Canadian Closed
Thanks for your insights, Victor. Player feedback should always be welcome by organizers, even when it's not a positive review. Knowing what to improve upon is better than no feedback at all.
Re: Re : Some numbers from the last Canadian Closed
A major problem is that there is not a lot of financial resources available in Canada to support professional / semi professional chess players. In the absence of these resources, organizers are unable to provide the conditions or prize funds that support these sorts of players in other countries. It also means that round robins are not financially viable and our swiss tournaments need to have low rating floors in Master's Sections to bring in more entry fees. This makes it harder for master level players to get norms and doesn't provide them with the sort of competition they would find in tournaments elsewhere.
It seems that the one source of money that is available comes from junior players and their parents. I believe that the current CFC president believes that money collected through junior chess events should be used to support junior chess and not be used to subsidize adult and elite level events. I think its a reasonable position and don't think money should be harvested from kids to fund events for weekend warriors or even elite level adults.
So, much of the solution boils down to getting pools of money to support elite chess in Canada. Where should this come from? An Angel? Corporate Sponsorship? Government Grants? All of the above? Somewhere else? I'm not sure, but it seems like something worth discussing.
Re: Re : Some numbers from the last Canadian Closed
Why even bother with a Canadian Championship. There should only be a Total of all the Provincial and Territory Champions ONLY.
So a round robin would be very easy on a low number. The CFC does not know the meaning of a Canadian Championship. They only know that they restrict players from different Provinces and Territories based on the Most stupid thing going Ratings. Canadian Championship should be played with the champions from across Canada.
Last edited by John Brown; Friday, 21st July, 2017, 04:38 AM.
Reason: error
Re: Re : Some numbers from the last Canadian Closed
Hi Louis,
1. My post was not offensive at all. It was just about the unpleasant reality.
2. The 2000+ rule was NOT followed. From the announcement "open to rated players over 2000 CFC, FIDE or FQE + provincial champion. Was the 1624 player a provincial champion? Did he have 2000 rating at time of registration? Probably, not.
So, why do you argue? It was a clear violation of your rules. Just accept it.
3. You don't agree that finish with 8/9 and not get clear first place it's very rare? Your example with I.Ivanov is absolutely irrelevant.
4. Arbiter's decision was indeed confirmed by NAC. At the same time, many NAC members were "not so happy" with the arbiter's job. "Not so happy" - because I want to be politically correct here.
5. Please don't tell me what should I do. It's not your business. In my opinion as a player, as a Master Representative, as a 3 times National Team Captain, as a FIDE Trainer - organizers did a very poor job.
6. Trust me, if I "make the tournament weaker" - the tournament is pretty strong (at least for Canadian standards). So far, it was not too many Canadian tournaments with my rating below the average rating of the tournament.
Last edited by Victor Plotkin; Thursday, 20th July, 2017, 06:43 PM.
31% - (9/29) the forfeit rate. In many tournaments I have played it my life, this is by far the highest ever number. Usually it's around 10% or less. Actually with a few more forfeited players, it would have been very difficult to make a swiss pairings for the last round.
1624 - the lowest-rated player. Almost 600 points below the standard level for the Canadian Closed and almost 400 points below the announced level (2000). I understand that organizers did not care much about CFC rules, but at least they could follow their own rules.
Initially, I was sure that organizers decided to grant a "wild card" to some underrated talented junior. I was wrong. 1624-player was not a junior, he performed close to his rating (0.5/8). 250 dollars entry fee is great, but how about some rules?
8 points. Very rare, in a big swiss tournament 8/9 is not enough for the clear first place. In 2015, the winner got just 6.5/9 points. Sure, both Bator and Nikolay had a great tournament. However, the level of competitors was much below than usual. For example, in 2015 2 GMs and 7 IMs were playing. This year, only 2 GM (1 withdrew after round 5) and just 3 IMs (1 of them below 2200).
8th place - my result in this tournament. I did not play well, lost almost 20 rating points, played just 1 game with a higher-rated opponent, but somehow finished 8th. Just another example of a weak tournament.
Taking into account other factors (basement, 2 games a day schedule, weak arbiter) I can get the only possible conclusion about this event.
It was a total disaster.
Dear Mr. Plotkin
My boss (FQE director Richard Bérubé) asked me to respond to your offensive post. I have to mention this, because this is far from being an enjoyable task.
31% - (9/29) the forfeit rate. In many tournaments I have played it my life, this is by far the highest ever number. Usually it's around 10% or less. Actually with a few more forfeited players, it would have been very difficult to make a swiss pairings for the last round.
Yes this is huge, but not the organizer's fault. When one accepts to pay $250 for such an event, one should be expected to play all games.
1624 - the lowest-rated player. Almost 600 points below the standard level for the Canadian Closed and almost 400 points below the announced level (2000). I understand that organizers did not care much about CFC rules, but at least they could follow their own rules. Initially, I was sure that organizers decided to grant a "wild card" to some underrated talented junior. I was wrong. 1624-player was not a junior, he performed close to his rating (0.5/8). 250 dollars entry fee is great, but how about some rules?
The rule was 2000+ and was followed. All players in the Canadian Closed once had a FQE or CFC rating of over 2000.
8 points. Very rare, in a big swiss tournament 8/9 is not enough for the clear first place. In 2015, the winner got just 6.5/9 points. Sure, both Bator and Nikolay had a great tournament. However, the level of competitors was much below than usual. For example, in 2015 2 GMs and 7 IMs were playing. This year, only 2 GM (1 withdrew after round 5) and just 3 IMs (1 of them below 2200).
Clearly, you were not living in Canada when Igor Ivanov or Kevin Spraggett had a perfect or almost perfect score in the Canadian Closed. I even remember that Ivanov once won both the Canadian Open and the Canadian Closed, despite the fact that both events were held simultanously.
8th place - my result in this tournament. I did not play well, lost almost 20 rating points, played just 1 game with a higher-rated opponent, but somehow finished 8th. Just another example of a weak tournament.
By your own admission, you were out of form, making this tournament even weaker.
Taking into account other factors (basement, 2 games a day schedule, weak arbiter) I can get the only possible conclusion about this event. It was a total disaster.
Should you have been able to see outside, you would have realized that the playing room was at first floor, not in a basement. True, there were no windows in the playing room, but you were the very one suggesting not to play in the open area where there were huge windows in the ceiling.
The schedule of 2 games a day is becoming the norm in many international events. Even if this was not so, the FQE was asked at the very last minute to organize the event and the CFC did not give any money. This was simply not possible to do better given the circumstances. The FQE lost a fair amount of money in this event, and would have lost even more if the event would have lasted 9 days instead of 5.
The arbiter was not weak at all. His decision about the inverted rook was confirmed both by the CFC appeal committee and the FIDE arbiter commission.
The continuing result of a decision made 20 years ago, namely switching the Closed from a RR with lousy prize funds and good competition to a Swiss with mediocre prize funds and lousy competition. Surely there is some way to combine the best of both.
I realize there are many other factors to consider, but what about:
Hold the closed as Round Robin between 8 players with the first six by rating/invitation, etc., with the last two players to be determined by a Swiss event held the week/weekend before with the entry fees (after prizes/expenses) from the Swiss used to subsidize the RR?
The continuing result of a decision made 20 years ago, namely switching the Closed from a RR with lousy prize funds and good competition to a Swiss with mediocre prize funds and lousy competition. Surely there is some way to combine the best of both.
31% - (9/29) the forfeit rate. In many tournaments I have played it my life, this is by far the highest ever number. Usually it's around 10% or less. Actually with a few more forfeited players, it would have been very difficult to make a swiss pairings for the last round.
1624 - the lowest-rated player. Almost 600 points below the standard level for the Canadian Closed and almost 400 points below the announced level (2000). I understand that organizers did not care much about CFC rules, but at least they could follow their own rules.
Initially, I was sure that organizers decided to grant a "wild card" to some underrated talented junior. I was wrong. 1624-player was not a junior, he performed close to his rating (0.5/8). 250 dollars entry fee is great, but how about some rules?
8 points. Very rare, in a big swiss tournament 8/9 is not enough for the clear first place. In 2015, the winner got just 6.5/9 points. Sure, both Bator and Nikolay had a great tournament. However, the level of competitors was much below than usual. For example, in 2015 2 GMs and 7 IMs were playing. This year, only 2 GM (1 withdrew after round 5) and just 3 IMs (1 of them below 2200).
8th place - my result in this tournament. I did not play well, lost almost 20 rating points, played just 1 game with a higher-rated opponent, but somehow finished 8th. Just another example of a weak tournament.
Taking into account other factors (basement, 2 games a day schedule, weak arbiter) I can get the only possible conclusion about this event.
It was a total disaster.
Last edited by Victor Plotkin; Thursday, 20th July, 2017, 12:03 PM.
Leave a comment: