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.
Jean took 30 years probably to realize he could be GM ...
I do hope he's able to become a GM - that would be an amazing achievement - but I seem to recall him writing in to En Passent in ... probably 95 or 96, stating that he had GM aspirations.
I do hope he's able to become a GM - that would be an amazing achievement - but I seem to recall him writing in to En Passent in ... probably 95 or 96, stating that he had GM aspirations.
More to the point, which seems to be the Canadian Closed, is the event a democracy? The last time I organized an event it was not a democracy. The only democratic part was anyone who asked about the conditions and didn't like the replies could choose not to play.
On the one hand I read there was no sponsorship. On the other hand it seem to be admitted at least one player did not pay a $200 or $250. entry fee. That's sponsorship. So, if this is the case, the argument can only be there was not ENOUGH sponsorship. So, how much money for sponsorship is enough? Does the CFC pay toward the champion attending the next stage of the World Championship cycle? Does the CFC pay toward the winners expenses to go to the Olympiad?
Unbelievable. When you think that you have seen the biggest idiot of all, someone comes up and becomes the new undisputed champ with incredible ease. What's the use Paul ? You can't even read...
Last edited by Jean Hébert; Tuesday, 25th August, 2009, 01:15 AM.
But the competition was fierce and every game was serious business. Now what do you have? Half the field are borderline masters - some not even that! - and that's with rating inflation. No Charbonneau, no Spraggett, no Zugic no Roussel, and the list goes on and on.
Consider this Tom. In this year's "weak" Closed, IMs Noritsyn (2007 winner) and Krnan scored only 4 points (-1), while IM Livshits quit after 7 rounds with only 50%. IM Porper finished with +1 and won only 2 games the whole event. Is this what you consider "not fierce" and not "serious business" ? Actually I am not sure that even GM Bluvshtein would agree with your evaluation. Seems to me that he found the tournament pretty competitive. How many "borderline masters" did you find in this field and how exactly do you think you would have placed in this "borderline masters" tournament ?
Of course it could and should have been stronger, but you point rather seem to be that it was not strong enough for you. Surely I must be getting it all wrong ? :)
Consider this Tom. In this year's "weak" Closed, IMs Noritsyn (2007 winner) and Krnan scored only 4 points (-1), while IM Livshits quit after 7 rounds with only 50%. IM Porper finished with +1 and won only 2 games the whole event. Is this what you consider "not fierce" and not "serious business" ? Actually I am not sure that even GM Bluvshtein would agree with your evaluation. Seems to me that he found the tournament pretty competitive. How many "borderline masters" did you find in this field and how exactly do you think you would have placed in this "borderline masters" tournament ?
Of course it could and should have been stronger, but you point rather seem to be that it was not strong enough for you. Surely I must be getting it all wrong ? :)
Just some stats:
16/31 players with a FIDE under 2200 ( I would consider that borderline master in most cases)
Average FIDE rating of the whole tournament : 2172
Comparison: In 2006, I finished near last with the score of 2/9. Although I was on the very bottom boards, the average FIDE rating of my opponents was 2188. The average FIDE rating in the overall tournament was probably 2250+ FIDE
2172 is a very low average rating, especially for a Canadian Championship. I don't really buy the concept that Canadians are extremely underrated. I'm not going to bring CFC ratings into the equation because one can tell that there is quite a bit of inflation going on. And besides, this is a zonal so it is logical to use FIDE.
Examples showing that we are not underrated:
2009 World Open, Open section: 9 Canadians
Canadians gaining rating:3
Canadians losing rating:6
2009 Philadelphia International: 10 Canadians ( 1 without FIDE)
Canadians gaining rating:4
Canadians losing rating:5
Who are these players? Most of them are rising juniors who also take part in events such as the 2009 Closed. There are also tournaments that are opposite, such as Can Open 09, where Canadians did quite well. So you could say our ratings are pretty accurate, neither inflated or deflated.
Conclusion: While I agree the 2009 Closed was very competitive and fierce, I also agree with Tom that it was generally pretty weak and that the trend needs to be reversed.
Last edited by Eric Hansen; Tuesday, 25th August, 2009, 04:43 AM.
Of course it could and should have been stronger, but you point rather seem to be that it was not strong enough for you. Surely I must be getting it all wrong ? :)
Any Closed that I would qualify for without winning a qualifier would, to my mind, be pretty weak. ;-)
Players from the FIDE list that were missing: #1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8. That's more than half of the top ten!
Much of the rest of my answer can be found in Mr. Hansen's post above. I agree with pretty much all of it.
"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.
Any Closed that I would qualify for without winning a qualifier would, to my mind, be pretty weak. ;-)
Players from the FIDE list that were missing: #1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8. That's more than half of the top ten!
Much of the rest of my answer can be found in Mr. Hansen's post above. I agree with pretty much all of it.
We all agree that the Closed could have been and should be stronger. I have been saying it before you were even born Mr Hansen. No need to shower us with your rating studies that don't prove anything.
Now Tom, what is your plan for the Closed to get stronger? To hold your breath and stay on the sidelines until someone notices? And try to be realistic about the missing top players that you are referring to. Did you really expect Spraggett to come from Portugal or even Charbonneau from New-York to play ? Or Lesiege and Tyomkin to come out of years of retirement ? And what about Suttles and Pelts, while you are at it ? If you wait until things are perfect to play, you might need a time machine. You are not getting any younger my friend... :)
16/31 players with a FIDE under 2200 ( I would consider that borderline master in most cases)
Average FIDE rating of the whole tournament : 2172
Just to get the facts straight:
I would just like to point out that this year's Closed had 14/31 players under 2200 FIDE (including 2 unrateds), and the average rating of the players in the event was 2245.93 FIDE, not 2172.
Yeah you're right about the average rating, 2246, which is pretty low but not nearly as bad as 2172. I should of double checked when doing math at 2.am. No one pay attention to any more stats I do, ok? Anyways, if you don't count that unrated's as u2200 FIDE, then 14/29 had FIDE under 2200 so 48%. I still think it was weak and needs a lot more improvement, maybe make the minimum rating requirement 2300 CFC or 2200 FIDE if having a round-robin won't work out.
the minimum rating requirement 2300 CFC or 2200 FIDE if having a round-robin won't work out.
I have similar thoughts, but some limitations arise - will it attract more players? Maybe fees should go up as well? Of course if there are sponsors, then round-robin the way.
You don't get it at all. There is absolutely nothing personal as far as I am concerned. Its a matter of principles and its about telling it like it is rather than sweeping everything we would rather not see under the rug.
I originally decided to not post a reply since I really didn't want the squabble about the Closed to fester, but it has anyway.
I'm not sure what it is that you think I don't "get", since you decline to specify. We are probably in complete agreement about what an "ideal" Closed should be. I objected to your posts because you seemed to be singling out Hal Bond as having done an atrocious job. My understanding was (and is) that Hal stepped in at the last moment to run a "modest" Closed rather than having none at all. If my understanding is wrong on that point then it is well overdue that somebody say so.
You, apparently, feel that having nothing at all would be preferable to having a Closed below certain minimum standards which you (again) decline to specify to the "know nothing" governors (see Mr. Armstrong's query of you).
Your point of view with respect to "nothing is preferable to sub-standard" is certainly a legitimate argument, but to then publicly chastise Hal Bond, and *only* Hal Bond, who went into it with the opposite point of view (i.e. something is better than nothing), is what caused me to comment. Criticise the tournament all you want. But think twice about where you place the blame. I think Mr. Bond is probably very personally hurt by your comments at the moment. And I wouldn't blame him a bit.
So, next year, when no Hal Bond's choose to step up to the plate, will you be happy?
That is the question you dodged from my previous post.
Steve
P.S. Since it's hard to work these other subjects into a long rant:
Congratuations on your win. I never said that before and I should have. It's something of a shame that human nature makes it easier to criticise than to praise. I was quite happy that you were the winner, particularly after some rather shameful treatment a few years ago during the Olympiad.
Your english is excellent, better than many native speakers; ignore the trolls.
[QUOTE=Steve Douglas;13087] something is better than nothing
Hi Steve,
Hal and I have had this discussion on many occasions. I use to subscribe to the same theory as him. I have changed my mind over the years. Why would I want to be associated with an event that is not worthy of the name?
Sometimes...because I come from the same school as Hal, I accept less... (e.g. the CCC this year was not up to our usual standards).
In this case, Hal gets to take the "merde" while the rest of us get to sit back and say...good thing I didn't touch this event!
Chess being where it is in Canada today needs to cultivate interest not close doors. There is no point in being FIDE 2300 if no one cares about chess anymore. What interests sponsors and the public might not be the same formula that interests certain players that are already FIDE 2300.
Practically speaking, a very tightly closed approach might just mean there is no Canadian Closed anymore. How many Canadians would miss it ( maybe 500 ? optimistically 5000 ?) ?
Last edited by Duncan Smith; Tuesday, 25th August, 2009, 07:11 PM.
Practically speaking, a very tightly closed approach might just mean there is no Canadian Closed anymore. How many Canadians would miss it ( maybe 500 ? optimistically 5000 ?) ?
To play in a nine-day event is not for everyone (just compare weekends opens.) However, the Canadian Closed can be a chess fiesta by use of the two weekends for normal/rapid/blitz events (some kind of fundraiser types.) Mornings and afternoons for casual games, evenings for masters.
Tweet
Comment