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.
Fine Zeljko, you keep throwing out garbage, and I'll ignore it. Maybe you'll get bored and read a comic book or something.
comic books? no I'd rather read Professor Jordan's Chess Organizing for Dummies
first you say Jean didn't say there would be spectators if seats & demo boards were laid out, which prompted the lecutre on logic & then you argue that there were indeed spectators that came in sufficient quantities & that they would have stayed if only everything was laid out for them
you are swearving all over logic road, when you attempt to sound all academic like then I assume you don't mind being called professor
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Sunday, 30th August, 2009, 06:16 PM.
Explaining a modus tollens in a chess forum is pedantic. Among other bad things. Deal with it.
If you are making that statement because you think that all chess players are logical and intelligent, then sadly you are wrong. However, I will not point out the logical fallacy at this time ;)
If pointing out a modus tollens is pedantic and bad, then what would you call the logical fallacy that caused my response? Are you saying that illogical banter is good, and trying to set the record straight is bad?
If so, then I give up!!
No matter how big and bad you are, when a two-year-old hands you a toy phone, you answer it.
comic books? no I'd rather read Professor Jordan's Chess Organizing for Dummies
first you say Jean didn't say there would be spectators if seats & demo boards were laid out, which prompted the lecutre on logic & then you argue that there were indeed spectators that came in sufficient quantities & that they would have stayed if only everything was laid out for them
you are swearving all over logic road, when you attempt to sound all academic like then I assume you don't mind being called professor
Did I say something about quantities? Did I say something about how long they would stay? I must have been bored to sleep from the garbage you spewed when I posted that message. Please quote when and where I said that.
The book that I will write will be titled Logic For Dummies, and your picture will be on the cover with a big question mark over your head. You form arguments with facts that don't exist, and when people explain the truth of a matter in easy-to-follow detail, you can't seem to understand anything.
Oh crap, I wasted another three minutes of my life with this garbage... screw you for making it so fun and easy to poke holes in your garbage, Zeljko!
No matter how big and bad you are, when a two-year-old hands you a toy phone, you answer it.
Just remember, I have an answer for everything... like after you beat me in round one of the 1993 Intercollegiates (if I remember correctly, I had a pretty strong position out of the opening with Black, but I made a capture with the wrong pawn and blew it), I beat you 2-0 in the Friday night blitz a few weeks later at the Specialist :)
This is all fun for me too buddy! ;)
No matter how big and bad you are, when a two-year-old hands you a toy phone, you answer it.
You played well, you won a very prestigious tournamant, what is there to fuss about? If there is anyone to blame it should be the CFC and in particularly the former president who didn't seem to care much and because of whom this tournamnet almost never took place. Hal stepped in when no one else would and put together a decent tournamanet. Could it be better? Yes it could, I myself have played in many nicer tournamanets. Was the tournamnet unpleasent to play in? No I don't think so, after playing in the Continental with close to 300 people jammed like sardins, discusting toilets and noisy traffic the playing conditions at the closed were perfectly acceptable. Hal indeed made a mistake at the beginning with the time control, he quickly acknoledged this and changed. I didn't especially like the snacks that were offered or the lack of coffee but that was not so terrible. There was plenty of room, it was quiet to play and no incidents occured.
I have nothing against the type of conditions you would like to see. I think everyone would welcome them. To see this happen I think first of all we need good leadership at the CFC that would aggressively push to improove chess in Canada. Until that happens we should appriciate people like Hal who for a reasonable fee put together an acceptable tournamnet.
You played well, you won a very prestigious tournamant, what is there to fuss about?
Not fussing, just pointing out with deep disappointment that tables, sets and clocks may be enough to play chess, but not nearly enough to promote the game. If I had had a disappointing result, I suppose that you would be the first to explain my "fussing" on a bad performance. People short of argument often come up with this kind of "rationalisation" one way or the other.
As a player unconcerned with nothing but the 64 squares, the tournament went well and was quite pleasant for me. But as an individual involved in this game for 40 years+ and concerned about promoting it, I consider that it was a complete fiasco and a spoiled occasion to promote chess, even if 100% of its participants enjoyed their adventures on the chessboard. It is the nature of this great game that allows that: at times it can be enjoyed even in the most dismal conditions. This is the main reason why chess in Canada has survived decades of mismanagement and underpromotion.
If there is anyone to blame it should be the CFC and in particularly the former president who didn't seem to care much and because of whom this tournamnet almost never took place.
This sentence is pretty interesting. In the first part ("If there is anyone to blame" ) you seem to imply that possibly no one is to blame and then, in the next part, we see a full charge against the former CFC president. It has to be one or the other, not both. Is it your upbringing that makes it hard for you to clearly voice a dissenting opinion ?
Hal indeed made a mistake at the beginning with the time control, he quickly acknoledged this and changed. I didn't especially like the snacks that were offered or the lack of coffee but that was not so terrible. There was plenty of room, it was quiet to play and no incidents occured.
So now we have your definition of a "top notch" event: plenty of room (low attendance makes up for the extra room..)., quiet (also related to low attendance...) and no incidents (related to the good behaviour of the participants). Did I get you right ? Or is it that after some thought, your "top notch" has been downgraded to "acceptable" ?
To see this happen I think first of all we need good leadership at the CFC that would aggressively push to improove chess in Canada.
Don't you think that some of that needed leadership and sense of responsibility should come from organizers too ? If the players bow before anyone who puts a site, some chessboards and a sheet of pairings together, and call it "great", we are not out of the woods.
And what about chessplayer who withdrew twice from his last two (2006 and 2007) Canadian Championships and still got an invitation to National team (wild card) from CFC (may be not from CFC, but it doesn't matter)? I don't think sponsors should like it.
Good point, Victor. I didn't notice that but it certainly shouldn't happen again. Although I have an odd feeling that it might :) . Anyways I'll try my best to make sure it doesn't happen again by putting in some good results in the next year.
And what about chessplayer who withdrew twice from his last two (2006 and 2007) Canadian Championships and still got an invitation to National team (wild card) from CFC (may be not from CFC, but it doesn't matter)? I don't think sponsors should like it.
What's the matter with you Mr Plotkin ? You lick an organizer's boots and then turn around to criticize a fellow chessplayer's actions that happened 2-3years ago and violated absolutely no rule ? You should be ashamed...
Being invited to the National team has little to do with the Canadian championships. Many players on those teams did not even play in the canadian championships! Furthermore withdrawing from a round-robin has serious consequences but not from a swiss system tournament. Players withdraw from these tournaments all over the world without even a glance from the organizers or the sponsors, unless some fees are involved.
What's the matter with you Mr Plotkin ? You lick an organizer's boots and then turn around to criticize a fellow chessplayer's actions that happened 2-3years ago and violated absolutely no rule ? You should be ashamed...
Being invited to the National team has little to do with the Canadian championships. Many players on those teams did not even play in the canadian championships! Furthermore withdrawing from a round-robin has serious consequences but not from a swiss system tournament. Players withdraw from these tournaments all over the world without even a glance from the organizers or the sponsors, unless some fees are involved.
Players rarely withdraw from national championships as far as I know. There is a big difference with that and a regular weekend swiss. Sponsors do not want to provide for an event where the players do not even completely play! How can you support professionally organized tournaments and want stable sponsorship when you also think withdrawing from a national championship is fine? Also, I don't know about before, but I know in recent years (06,08) members of the olympic team had all played in previous zonals. It should certainly be a consideration when picking players.
Mr. Hebert!
I don't want to answer you on the same ugly and personal level. We have enough this stuff here, on chesstalk. I just recommend you choose words more accurately. I never lick shoes and did nothing to you to be shamed.
Just to remind you: 200 years ago words like this were enough for duel in both France and Russia (probably also in Canada).
I never used any negative word regarding yourself or R.-R. I just posted my personal opinion in 1-st post and facts only in 2-nd. Even if I critisized somebody it was CFC for wild card. My personal opinion CFC should take into account things like withdrawing from national championship (for wild card only, not rating).
I believe you should apologize.
Victor,
We have not always agreed in the past but here I believe you are totally right. Mr Hebert should apologize. His words are not worthy of a Canadian Champion!
By way of explanation, he may have been drawn into ChessTalk mudslinging initiated by the regular rude people on this site. And possibly his choice of words was a result of English being his second language. I am not apologizing for him, only he can do that.
As for the discussion of the tournament conditions, this should be left to the players themselves, not to regular snipers who were not even there.
As someone who was not there, the only objection I can make is There were no live online games of the event That was a truly shocking error on the part of the CFC! But what can you expect of a horse with three broken legs?
Shoot it already!
I'm not sure if you understand what Modus Tollens means. It is used very commonly in classical logic: If A then B; Not B therefore Not A.
Jean didn't say that if you put up demo boards then there would be spectators. He said there were no demo boards, therefore there could not be any spectators.
Do you understand the difference?
Jordan
Jordan, thanks, I'm not sure if you know what a question mark means. A question mark looks like this: "?" and it means the statement is a question. My statement was asking Jean if he was meaning to say that if you put up demo boards, then there would be spectators. I was not STATING that this was what he meant.
Do you understand the difference? :)
I then extrapolated that if this was indeed what Jean meant, he might be correct, in a ratio of about 1 demo board to 1 spectator.
By the way, there's a definite logic error that Jean used against Ron Livshits. Ron posted that "I think Hal organized a very good tournament in a short period of time", and he later in the same paragraph wrote that "Hal is one of the few organizers who consistently organizes top notch tournaments year in and year out." Notice that Ron NEVER wrote that the Closed was a top notch tournament.
But Jean twisted Ron's statements, by transferring the "top notch" description onto Ron's description of the Closed. I notice he did this on another occassion in the continuing threads between them:
Originally Posted by Ron Livshits:
Hal indeed made a mistake at the beginning with the time control, he quickly acknoledged this and changed. I didn't especially like the snacks that were offered or the lack of coffee but that was not so terrible. There was plenty of room, it was quiet to play and no incidents occured.
Reply from Jean Hebert:
So now we have your definition of a "top notch" event: plenty of room (low attendance makes up for the extra room..)., quiet (also related to low attendance...) and no incidents (related to the good behaviour of the participants). Did I get you right ? Or is it that after some thought, your "top notch" has been downgraded to "acceptable" ?
As you can see, Jean has totally and incorrectly transformed Ron's original statements, making Jean's entire argument bogus.
Why do you point out a logic error that never was and ignore a more blatent one that kept repeating? Is it possible because you are not being objective, but have been blinded to Jean's logic errors by his charm and smooth talk?
Just so you know, that bit about charm and smooth talk was SARCASM.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Players rarely withdraw from national championships as far as I know.
Players rarely withdraw from chess tournaments in general, so... ? Again we are talking swiss systems here, people covering their own expenses, etc. It is not the name of the tournament that counts.
If I get a fee to play in a week-end tournament, I will complete the tournament no matter what, unless I am willing to renounce that fee.
There is a big difference with that and a regular weekend swiss. Sponsors do not want to provide for an event where the players do not even completely play!
As far as I know, there were no or little sponsorship in the championships in question. You can't displease sponsors that don't exist ? Or can you ? If there are sponsors, they can if they so wishes, set conditions upon players to be followed . But these conditions must be clear and known beforehand.
How can you support professionally organized tournaments and want stable sponsorship when you also think withdrawing from a national championship is fine?
As long as the national championship is NOT professionnaly organised, that players mostly pay for their own expenses, expecting no withdrawal and impose sanctions would be totally abusive. To say that I find withdrawals "fine" is slightly off the mark. But seeing one or two players in the middle of the pack withdraw from a 30 player field is no big deal. Again in a "serious" tournament, presumably a round-robin, things are very different.
Also, I don't know about before, but I know in recent years (06,08) members of the olympic team had all played in previous zonals. It should certainly be a consideration when picking players.
Traditionally the canadian champion gets a spot on the team, but that's it. The rest of the team is made based mostly on ratings. Nothing to do with playing or not in the Canadian Championship. You are entitled to believe that it should change, but I suggest that after a few of those canadian championships under your belt and a few olympiads, your opinion is likely to change a bit.
Tweet
Comment