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.
Executive Board Election Results are in
By Mike Nolan, Chair, USCF Election Committee
July 23, 2009
The results of the 2009 Executive Board Election are in. 11.1% of the eligible voters cast ballots. The four candidates who were elected to four year terms on the Executive Board are Jim Berry, Bill Goichberg, Ruth Haring and Mike Atkins. Jim and Bill were incumbents, Ruth and Mike will take office at the conclusion of the 2009 Delegates Meeting, replacing Randy Hough, who chose not to run for another term, and Joel Channing, who had resigned.
Totals in Order of Rank
Jim Berry: 3030
Bill Goichberg:3014
Ruth Haring:2952
Michael Atkins: 2672
Michael Korenman: 822
Mike Nietman:732
Eric Hecht: 717
Blas Lugo: 657
Sam Sloan:588
Brian Lafferty:576
Brian Mottershead:435
There were also 123 Write-in ballots. A total of 4379 ballots were received.
So, anyone out there who's been following the USCF thing... is this good or bad?
At first glance it would seem to be good, as Bill Goichberg got back in and there is no mention of Susan Polgar, who has a huge lawsuit going against the USCF!
Susan would have dropped her lawsuit if the USCF would just apologize. Instead BG wanted to drag it into court. As someone who has been following US chess politics longer than Canadian, I am not impressed.
What surprises me is that 588 people actually voted for Sam Sloan. I have had a few 'debates' on the various newsnet groups with him and he is a complete nutbar. Brian Lafferty must feel pretty low as even Sloan got more votes than he did.
The USCF is well on its way to monetary bankruptcy... it has been morally bankrupt for years.
So, anyone out there who's been following the USCF thing... is this good or bad?
Very much a bad thing IMHO. Goichberg and his cronies have totally destroyed the US Chess Federation and at the same time he continues to line his pockets via the Continental Chess Assoc (can anyone say 'conflict of interest'?)
The lawsuits alone will ensure the USCF will be crippled for many years (at least the next 4 I suppose while Goichberg is again at the helm). The USCF cannot even afford to run the US Championship...
Makes our issues with the CFC seem tame by comparison...
Very much a bad thing IMHO. Goichberg and his cronies have totally destroyed the US Chess Federation and at the same time he continues to line his pockets via the Continental Chess Assoc (can anyone say 'conflict of interest'?)
The lawsuits alone will ensure the USCF will be crippled for many years (at least the next 4 I suppose while Goichberg is again at the helm).
I think you have it bass-ackwards. Do some research.
I think you have it bass-ackwards. Do some research.
I don't think so.
I have been following the whole USCF mess for some time. YES, it is true that the USCF has lawsuits for and against them; YES, it is true that Susan Polgar and her husband Paul Truong have sued the USCF. My understanding is that Polgar's suit is a counter-suit to several suits the USCF launched against her and her husband. It is getting hard to figure out what the situation really is since the USCF officially says very little and of course the other side(s) have coverage from their own perspective.
I DO KNOW that Polgar offered to drop her suit if the USCF simply issued an apology and dropped their suit - they declined to do either.
I have been following the whole USCF mess for some time. YES, it is true that the USCF has lawsuits for and against them; YES, it is true that Susan Polgar and her husband Paul Truong have sued the USCF. My understanding is that Polgar's suit is a counter-suit to several suits the USCF launched against her and her husband. It is getting hard to figure out what the situation really is since the USCF officially says very little and of course the other side(s) have coverage from their own perspective.
I DO KNOW that Polgar offered to drop her suit if the USCF simply issued an apology and dropped their suit - they declined to do either.
I think so; and/or you have swallowed the Polgar Kool-Aid. You didn't mention why the USCF launched the first suit (re; False emails). And, you failed to mention that Polgar only offered to drop the suit against the USCF, but the lawsuit against others would continue.
I think so; and/or you have swallowed the Polgar Kool-Aid. You didn't mention why the USCF launched the first suit (re; False emails). And, you failed to mention that Polgar only offered to drop the suit against the USCF, but the lawsuit against others would continue.
I believe that the original issue arose out of what they refer to as usenet forgeries or froggeries.
I think so; and/or you have swallowed the Polgar Kool-Aid. You didn't mention why the USCF launched the first suit (re; False emails). And, you failed to mention that Polgar only offered to drop the suit against the USCF, but the lawsuit against others would continue.
Well, I certainly didn't omit any information that I actually HAD. As for the kool-aid, I suppose it is possible that Susan Polgar and her husband are building a huge, nation-wide conspiracy to usurp the USCF etc. I don't have the time or the inclination to wade through all the posted briefs and filings and other debris... I guess we will see when the dust settles.
I have met Goichberg (long time ago); I have not met Susan but have corresponded with her on a number of occasions and topics. I tend to believe her motives are much clearer and I think her track record will hold up to scrutiny...
To each their own. Sooner or later we might see the truth come out.
I was quite active on the Usenet chess newsgroups when these "fake Sam Sloan" messages started to flood the newsgroups. Almost everyone who was an active participant in these groups just added the fake Sam Sloan messages to their 'twit filter'. At the time I thought someone was just getting back at Sloan for his CONSTANT spamming of the newsgroups. I sent him several messages asking him to stop posting messages that were not related to the newsgroup. He didn't care and continued to spam the groups. He used these fake messages as an excuse on why he lost the election. It had absolutely NO effect on the voting for the USCF board. Only a very small percentage of USCF members read the Usenet chess newsgroups. Of those who do, the vast majority of them would vote for a post with hair before they would vote for Sloan.
Sloan has also been known for 'editing' peoples posts and re posting them completely out of context... so much so that Taylor Kingston ran a contest on who could do the same to one of Sam Sloans messages... a contest that I won :) unfortunately he couldn't contact me for to give me the signed copy of his chess cafe book, and he gave it to someone else before I could get a hold of him.
Personally I don't care if the Polgars did do the 'fake sam sloan' messages. The things that are said about each other on Usenet are down right nasty and makes chesstalk look down right civilized! :).
Tweet
Comment