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.
I do have much sympathy for the call for better standards and conditions and money for major tournaments, and I took no pleasure in staging a no frills Canadian Championship. I spent a fair amount of time last year trying to find a home for this year's Zonal and we came close to landing in it Alberta and Ottawa. In then end it was Guelph or nothing. My priority was to stage a fair fight in a condusive venue. Was this achieved? It's not for me to say.
In terms of sponsorship, it should be noted that this event was sponsored by the University of Guelph, which donated a pretty good playing site that would have cost atleast $5000. In addition SWOCL came through with the entry fees for 2 of our marquis players, the OCA provided the equipment and the CFC covered the $750 zonal fee. A number of players were able to access local sponsorship within the chess community and elsewhere.
Apologies, Hugh, I inadvertently posted the wrong file. All games from round nine, not broadcasted live, were inputted manually and are included in this file.
Some of us, hopefully, realize where we need some expert opinion, to supplement our limited experience. Governors have come forward, voluntarily, to try to help out the CFC on policy matters - hopefully we do not all think we know it all.
It's better to rule than to govern. Chess doesn't lend itself well to "ham and eggers". While they bicker over what to do it seems the executives are doing what they want.
I see governors as the establishment. Not to tell players what should be. To make it happen.
Someone has to evaluate the various, often competing, opinions of the ordinary player, elite players, other politician governors, the executive - CFC has chosen to make the governors' assembly the place for policy decisions.
You can complain about the structure, but Governors are supposed to govern. Secondarily it is hoped they will find ways to promote chess in Canada. If you want the structure changed, get a governor or two on side, and bring a motion.
The other complaint is that the existing crop of governors know nothing ( and that this has been so for generations ). So let those " who know " become governors and give the CFC the benefit of their expertise. It's not too hard to become a governor with the number of them currently in place ( too bad we voted down governor reduction ). So if you ( not you personally, but anyone ) can do better, tell your provincial affiliate/appointing body you want to become a governor, and get their assistance to make it happen - it has good chances if they support that you are the kind of governor they need.
I do have much sympathy for the call for better standards and conditions and money for major tournaments, and I took no pleasure in staging a no frills Canadian Championship.
Why is it that "no frills" has to mean very poor financial conditions, outrageous entry fees for everybody including titled players, no visibility in or around the event (not a single poster or sign anywhere around), no facilities for on site spectators (chairs, players names on the tables, etc.), of course no effort to attract any (that's the way to put chess on the map and bring new players...) almost non-existent internet coverage, no one mandated to take pictures, no daily file game available and now, not even 3 days after the event ?
I understand quite well Hal why you had no pleasure, but who is to blame for that ? You did not even do the things that cost very little.
I spent a fair amount of time last year trying to find a home for this year's Zonal and we came close to landing in it Alberta and Ottawa. In then end it was Guelph or nothing. My priority was to stage a fair fight in a condusive venue. Was this achieved? It's not for me to say.
You failed on that account also because many non-ontarian players stayed home because of the non-existent financial conditions offered. The "fair fight" was only for those who could afford it. Players outside of Ontarion can hardly speak of "fair fight". Most of them reasonably stayed home. If you had not find a sponsor for my entry fee (thanks Hal!), if the FQE had not agreed to pay generously for an article, and if my partner had not agreed to spend part of his vacation with me in Guelph sharing the costs, then I would have stayed home too.
The hard facts are that the organisation was not up to the minimal standards that a canadian championship (zonal or not!) should have. Organizing a week-end event with "based on" prizes is not the same as organizing a national championship and zonal tournament. The CFC if its still alive which sometimes I have doubts about, should take good note if it wants all those young talented players to keep playing and growing after they pass 18.
Why is it that "no frills" has to mean very poor financial conditions, outrageous entry fees for everybody including titled players, no visibility in or around the event (not a single poster or sign anywhere around), no facilities for on site spectators (chairs, players names on the tables, etc.), of course no effort to attract any (that's the way to put chess on the map and bring new players...) almost non-existent internet coverage, no one mandated to take pictures, no daily file game available and now, not even 3 days after the event ?
I understand quite well Hal why you had no pleasure, but who is to blame for that ? You did not even do the things that cost very little.
The introduction of a Swiss style event with low entry standards and a prize fund made up by the players(!) was a clear sign that Canada didn't take its premiere event seriously. Yet many top players played in the event the first couple of times it was held, and now virtually every single one of them has played at least once. I cannot for the life of me understand why players continue to undermine their own arguments by participating except for short-term gains. If no one takes the principled stand to opt out, then it is insanity to think that anything will change.
BTW, congrats on winning. Check your facebook page once in a while, eh? ;-)
"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.
I cannot for the life of me understand why players continue to undermine their own arguments by participating except for short-term gains. If no one takes the principled stand to opt out, then it is insanity to think that anything will change.
BTW, congrats on winning. Check your facebook page once in a while, eh? ;-)
Tom,
Between 1981 and 2002 (more than two decades). I avoided all the Canadian Closed. I returned in 2002 to play in the decently organized championship in Richmond, B.C, by Peter Stockhausen. Isn't that "principled" enough for you ? But i didn't stay out for principled reasons. I felt that the efffort wasn't worth it, and that the political implications took most of the fun out of it. But between you and I, very few people care whether you, LeSiege or I play or not. If you stay out to change things, you have been wrong. Better play and make a stand the way I am doing. If you feel like playing of course.
P.S. Checking my Facebook page ? How do i do that ? :)
I don't know if that's constructive. Hal was more of the messenger than the message. The essential fault lies with the CFC, starting at the President, then the Executive, then the Governors, then the members like you and me. Even non-member chess players in Canada can take a homeopathic dose of the blame.
One person--with enough resources and a lot of patience--could remedy the problem. Resources = the thirty thou or so needed to put on a good event. Patience = outlasting the often obstructionist CFC. It has been stated in the forums that it is easy to have the format changed, but my observation is quite the opposite. For example, the early-1980s bid from the BCCF. Yep, it didn't happen. That's my proof.
At the risk of seeming pedantic, Jean entered the 1984 Canadian Closed, hoping that things would improve, but withdrew the day before the event started. His eloquent letter is in CFC Bulletin / En Passant / Chess Canada #69. At the time, the CFC did have the money to do something better. I see 1984 as a watershed year. The falloff was insidious and unnoticeable, it took decades. But there was an inward-looking, parochial attitude that began to take hold.
Well. That's all old news. My suggestion is that every Master in Canada should invite a CFC Governor / Executive / even President to have a meal at the house of the Master. It would be a kind of consciousness-raising for everyone.
First should be me. Where's the closest CFC honcho? Could it be? Where on earth is Peter Stockhausen? :)
I don't know if that's constructive. Hal was more of the messenger than the message. The essential fault lies with the CFC, starting at the President, then the Executive, then the Governors, then the members like you and me. Even non-member chess players in Canada can take a homeopathic dose of the blame.
Sorry Jonathan, if two words taken ouf of context among all that I have written so far can be taken as unconstructive. But essentially you are right: the blame should not lie only on Hal Bond. But tell me something: who or what prevented him, for example, to put a sign or two in the building announcing the tournament ? What prevented him to put the player's names on the table for the benefit of onlookers ? To set up chairs and possibly a few demo boards ? To come up with a 15 game gamefile every day ?
The biggest part of the blame lies elsewhere but Hal must accept his share if he wants to become a better organizer and stop "having no fun organizing no frills tournament". Some frills do not cost much in time or money. For his sake and for chess' sake, I hope that he has some fun organizing in the future.
Finally one last thing. As a person I like Hal Bond very much and I respect his competence as an arbiter. I get no pleasure from this thread believe me. But things have to be said if things are to change. There is no way around that.
Sorry Jonathan, if two words taken ouf of context among all that I have written so far can be taken as unconstructive.
But essentially you are right: the blame should not lie only on Hal Bond. But tell me something: who or what prevented him, for example, to put a sign or two in the building announcing the tournament ? What prevented him to put the player's names on the table for the benefit of onlookers ? To set up chairs and possibly a few demo boards ? To come up with a 15 game gamefile every day ?
The "two words" in question are very strong.
And to paraphrase one of JFK's speechwriters, what prevented you from putting signs up?
Jean - You flatter yourself if you think your rant is going to make me a better organizer. You were in Kitchener two years ago and the frills you speak of were at hand because we had the resources available. By resources I mean money time and energy, be they one's own or someone else's. What happens when a couple volunteers back out on you? And what on earth is this nonsense about no chairs? We had plenty of chairs out - about 10 per visitor. They were largely unused because spectators preferred to walk around and look at the games. And since when is Tuesday three days after Sunday?
One thing about your words that I have reflected on is the question of whether staging a modest event is better than nothing at all. Perhaps it is better to let an important event like this not happen if we can't garner enough support to achieve an acceptable standard.
And to paraphrase one of JFK's speechwriters, what prevented you from putting signs up?
Steve
I know an answer to that. The 1967 West Vancouver Chess Club Championship was a round robin. They were loosey-goosey about recording the results of the games. That's how I became a tournament director. A couple of years later, at the Peace Arch Open in Bellingham, before the first round TD Harold Raymond announced to nobody in particular that he was a police man and had been called in to work for the weekend. Would anybody like to take over the tournament? After some silence, that's how I became an international tournament director. The abyss awaited.
By winning the tournament, Jean earned immunity from "why didn't you do it?" gripes. Instead of basking in the glory, he's taking the bull by the horns (I hope you like metaphors) and I am glad he did.
Even here readers would collected some amount for the promised decent online and the giving cash to players for the best games per round and for the whole tournament, doesn't chesstalkers? :)
I wasn't there, I could hardly say about the local conditions. I did see photos, though. It seems to me that on-site deficiencies could have been fixed by chess amateurs, spectators, volunteers. As Hal pointed out, you're not going to make Hal a better organizer (well, maybe a tiny bit) by concentrating on him; but there's a sleeping nation (or two or many, depending upon your point of view) of chess people out there. Maybe they (and we) need to be (a)wakened.
Anyway, everybody can see now that we're in agreement. Back to the regularly scheduled programming: how do we run a Canadian Closed that we can be proud of?
Tweet
Comment