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.
This is a great time of year to state your claim that wherever you are in our chess world ... YOU make YOUR chess-viroment for the better, or for the worse you do.
Chesstalk is NOT a cesspool ... it's not.
What is a cesspool? The very minds of those who say that it is as such. Their very minds! Dissent is key ... so too are those who like to kiss ass ... so too are those who are neither. It's ALL good.
But be warned, again, elite ass kissers with their own pathetic agenda will always, always try to sanitize what is otherwise a common ground to be held by ALL. For a common purpose.
You want that bleached sanitized chess-viroment? Do you? Follow Drkulec and his ass kissing ilk.
Thank goodness for the folks such as Elon Musk!
And f'n R.I.P. Lemmy
2023 needs you, ha!
...
Last edited by Neil Frarey; Monday, 26th December, 2022, 09:13 PM.
I hear you but disagree (of course!....what else would you expect a sad senior citizen to do? :) ). In a situation like this, where a member of the executive is being unfairly targeted for abuse by way of misrepresentations, lies, and harassment, I think one or more members of the executive (preferrably all of them) should have stood up for Olga. Not for the purpose of engaging in arguments with Pargat, but for the purpose of making it crystal clear that Olga is working on a project approved by the executive and with the full support of the executive. Yes, Pargat no doubt would have used the situation to take additional shots but sometimes it's important to stand up and be counted!!
I too am a sad senior citizen by some accounts although some reserve that for age 65 which is still 11.2 months away give or take a few days.
I have deleted approximately eight posts ready to send dealing with this situation. I have given up on chesstalk like most rational or decent people so there is no reason to defend the territory when the owner won't do it.
Olga is a very effective vice president who is very active and shows a great deal of initiative. I and the rest of the board of directors are quite happy with her. She is smart and seems kind and is trying many things. It is best when dealing with very effective people to turn them loose and let them follow their interests. They will take you much farther than you might have imagined if you had assigned them some task. Whether or not her mission is sanctioned by the CFC there is no excuse for the cowardly actions of Pargat or more accurately Paul.
It would be nice if there was federal support for chess but I am not holding my breath. It would probably mean that we could support things like teams for players with disabilities, more outreach and more programs. I have discussed the idea with members of parliament who have indicated that they would support the idea though not from the governing party. It is not essential for chess to thrive in Canada to obtain that recognition and funding but it would be nice. We get funding for organizers through our participation in Sport Tourism Canada conferences. We could do more to try to attract sponsorship but we are all volunteers here and we don't have unlimited time and funds.
We are already about 20% above membership levels at the start of the pandemic when things were starting to look quite good.Unfortunately costs are higher due to inflation for things like flight tickets and hotels but we will grow our way out of that problem.
There is little benefit in arguing with a fictional character. My working theory is that there is no such person as Pargat but he is just a sock puppet for Paul Bonham who was living in the U.S. but is dropping hints as Pargat that he is back in Ontario. Probably not true as most Canadians know that medicare is a provincial responsibility. One of the first rules of a good sock puppet is that you should try to make it plausible and the sock puppet cannot, repeat cannot revisit the haunts of the actual poster who may have posted under his real name. I cannot claim to have made the original connection as someone told me of this likely alter ego after I had reduced my presence here. Examining the evidence gives very high plausibility to this hypothesis.
Its fun trolling people but ultimately it does not advance your interests. "What is your (desired) outcome here?" as Tony Robbins is fond of asking.
If you argue with an idiot, there are two idiots arguing. Observe this maxim and your life is much simplified and you don't post on chesstalk threads where idiots are prevalent.
Last edited by Vlad Drkulec; Tuesday, 27th December, 2022, 11:29 AM.
This is a great time of year to state your claim that wherever you are in our chess world ... YOU make YOUR chess-viroment for the better, or for the worse you do.
Chesstalk is NOT a cesspool ... it's not.
What is a cesspool? The very minds of those who say that it is as such. Their very minds! Dissent is key ... so too are those who like to kiss ass ... so too are those who are neither. It's ALL good.
But be warned, again, elite ass kissers with their own pathetic agenda will always, always try to sanitize what is otherwise a common ground to be held by ALL. For a common purpose.
You want that bleached sanitized chess-viroment? Do you? Follow Drkulec and his ass kissing ilk.
Thank goodness for the folks such as Elon Musk!
And f'n R.I.P. Lemmy
2023 needs you, ha!
...
Neil, you are most famous in CFC circles for being a Karen and costing someone his place to live.
Thank you for posting that information, Vlad. Best wishes for success to Olga!
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
I hear you but disagree (of course!....what else would you expect a sad senior citizen to do? :) ). In a situation like this, where a member of the executive is being unfairly targeted for abuse by way of misrepresentations, lies, and harassment, I think one or more members of the executive (preferrably all of them) should have stood up for Olga. Not for the purpose of engaging in arguments with Pargat, but for the purpose of making it crystal clear that Olga is working on a project approved by the executive and with the full support of the executive. Yes, Pargat no doubt would have used the situation to take additional shots but sometimes it's important to stand up and be counted!!
Yes, it's important to stand up and be counted, and that's what I'm doing on behalf of Ontario taxpayers, defending them from the clutch and grab antics of people like Olga, who perhaps has been put up to it by the CFC executive.
Peter likes to talk about misrepresentations and lies .... here's what Olga wrote in this very thread: "Obviously, I'm doing it to get extra funding from the government (at least to get a shot at it)."
So there is no misrepresentation or lie to me saying that she is wanting to declare chess a sport in order to get taxpayer money for chess.
It is also not a misrepresentation or lie to say that it is greedy for any person to take away taxpayer money from things that benefit ALL Ontarians, such as healthcare, in order to pay for some chess players' progress in competitive chess.
I don't back down an inch from the opinions I've expressed in this thread. I think many MILLIONS of Ontario taxpayers would side with my opinions. So what if a few chess people don't?
Peter is a hypocrite, he criticized Karjakin the Russian GM, calls him a dirtbag here on ChessTalk because Karjakin is allegedly pro-Putin. Peter really doesn't like that other people besides him get to express their opinions here, and he tells them to fuck the hell off (his words). Ahhh well, he's a senior citizen I guess, so we have to give him a few allowances before the dementia REALLY sets in.
I see my comments have struck a nerve at the CFC, with CFC pres. Vlad Drkulec again saying i am Paul Bonham, simply because Mr. Bonham and I both share an interest in chess variants. I guess only 1 person should ever be interested in that? It was one of the reasons Mr. Bonham and I struck up a friendship in the first place and why I came to this forum, on Mr. Bonham's suggestion some years ago. Anyway, it's all good for a laugh, and I'll just let Mr. Drkulec continue to feel like he is so clever.
I notice too that Mr. Drkulec has detailed some medical issues he has. So I wonder, given the increased chances for him that he could end up in an ER someday waiting like everyone else for attention, what his feelings are about PUBLIC money being used for chess when it could go to healthcare? As a principle, I mean, because obviously the amounts involved would not make much of a difference.
It is principles that we must stand up for. If chess gets funded publicly, what's next? The term "slippery slope" comes to mind. But this is a chess forum, so I both expect and can deflect the criticisms I get here.
Yes, it's important to stand up and be counted, and that's what I'm doing on behalf of Ontario taxpayers, defending them from the clutch and grab antics of people like Olga, who perhaps has been put up to it by the CFC executive.
Peter likes to talk about misrepresentations and lies .... here's what Olga wrote in this very thread: "Obviously, I'm doing it to get extra funding from the government (at least to get a shot at it)."
So there is no misrepresentation or lie to me saying that she is wanting to declare chess a sport in order to get taxpayer money for chess.
It is also not a misrepresentation or lie to say that it is greedy for any person to take away taxpayer money from things that benefit ALL Ontarians, such as healthcare, in order to pay for some chess players' progress in competitive chess.
I don't back down an inch from the opinions I've expressed in this thread. I think many MILLIONS of Ontario taxpayers would side with my opinions. So what if a few chess people don't?
Peter is a hypocrite, he criticized Karjakin the Russian GM, calls him a dirtbag here on ChessTalk because Karjakin is allegedly pro-Putin. Peter really doesn't like that other people besides him get to express their opinions here, and he tells them to fuck the hell off (his words). Ahhh well, he's a senior citizen I guess, so we have to give him a few allowances before the dementia REALLY sets in.
I see my comments have struck a nerve at the CFC, with CFC pres. Vlad Drkulec again saying i am Paul Bonham, simply because Mr. Bonham and I both share an interest in chess variants. I guess only 1 person should ever be interested in that? It was one of the reasons Mr. Bonham and I struck up a friendship in the first place and why I came to this forum, on Mr. Bonham's suggestion some years ago. Anyway, it's all good for a laugh, and I'll just let Mr. Drkulec continue to feel like he is so clever.
I notice too that Mr. Drkulec has detailed some medical issues he has. So I wonder, given the increased chances for him that he could end up in an ER someday waiting like everyone else for attention, what his feelings are about PUBLIC money being used for chess when it could go to healthcare? As a principle, I mean, because obviously the amounts involved would not make much of a difference.
It is principles that we must stand up for. If chess gets funded publicly, what's next? The term "slippery slope" comes to mind. But this is a chess forum, so I both expect and can deflect the criticisms I get here.
My personal opinion (not as CFC Rating Auditor), is that I agree that spending money on Health Care is more important than chess. However, it is a matter of economics. 'Canada spends more than $300 billion annually on health care. That's about 13% of our GDP – the second highest among OECD countries.' It is my hope that if the Canadian Government recognizes chess as a national sport, that they may spend $250,000 on chess. I do not think that $250,000 more to Health care will make a big difference. Also it is my understanding that Olga is doing this at a Federal level not a provincial level?
'As announced in Budget 2021, the Government of Canada will distribute as much as $80 million over two years across the country to help encourage more accessible local organized sport and remove barriers to participation in sport programming.' I think money given to chess would have a greater impact/return than giving it to many sports.
Economics is all about the allocation of resources. Everyone wants a piece of the pie, so yes, debate is good. It would be nice if chess could get a few crumbs.
Originally posted by Neil Frarey
When Chess is dragged into the back alley and forced to become rated ... that's when things do turn dark and ugly.
Teach the game in primary school for all the learning benefits mentioned in this sparkling thread.
Leave rated chess out of the funding equation.
Fund Chess ... the game itself.
That's the common ground.
There is merit to this position. The rating system is unfortunate. Funding, if at all, should seek to develop new players, not pay off old ones.
Please help me understand why teaching chess in primary school needs additional taxpayer funding. When plastic chess sets can be purchased for about $5 each, and you don't need clocks and scoresheets and arbiters ... ????
I agree completely, leave rated chess out of the funding equation.
Brad, what exactly is meant by "The rating system is unfortunate"?
Does this mean competitive chess is unfortunate? Or the ELO system is unfortunate? What exactly is unfortunate?
In your previous post to this, you said you hope politicians friendly to the notion of funding chess should hopefully not read this thread. That seems to indicate you want taxpayer funding for chess. I disagree completely, let then read this thread and see from at least my posts that taxpayer money should NOT go to funding chess!!!!!
If this thread were on an Ontario Taxpayer forum, there would be thousands of posts to support my position. Maybe hundreds of thousands of posts!
Put that up against Olga's petition numbers any day of the week.
NO PUBLIC FUNDING FOR CHESS!
And if I had my way,
NO PUBLIC FUNDING FOR SPORTS OUTSIDE OF FACILITIES PROVISION AND MAINTENANCE!
You want to play sports? You do so AT YOUR OWN EXPENSE! Too many pigs at the public trough!
....Mr. Drkulec has detailed some medical issues he has. So I wonder, given the increased chances for him that he could end up in an ER someday waiting like everyone else for attention, what his feelings are about PUBLIC money being used for chess when it could go to healthcare? As a principle, I mean, because obviously the amounts involved would not make much of a difference.
It is principles that we must stand up for. If chess gets funded publicly, what's next? The term "slippery slope" comes to mind. But this is a chess forum, so I both expect and can deflect the criticisms I get here.
The silence from Mr. Drkulec on this is deafening.
The silence from Oga in reply to my posts is deafening.
Olga has been thrown under the bus. The CFC is providing no actual support for her petition. Just a short note, not even as good as a Jimmy Fallon thank-you note, about how nice and kind Olga is and she is "trying many things" ... yeah, in this case a thing the CFC wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole. Decades have gone by without the CFC attempting this in any "serious" way such as a petition. LOL
It's kind of like that old Life cereal commercial I remember .... "Let Mikey try it, he likes everything!"
"Let Olga do it! She'll try anything!"
Shameful behavior. Pure money-grubbing and with no accountability, Olga takes all the risk. I feel sorry for her. Totally used, unless she really did this all on her own with no prodding from the CFC executive, and if that's the case, I only feel sorry that she's so naive and ignorant about Ontario taxpayer DEBT!!!!!
Olga: Debt is money that someone someday HAS TO PAY BACK WITH INTEREST. Like your children, if you have any or plan to have any.
Last edited by Pargat Perrer; Friday, 30th December, 2022, 08:22 AM.
Brad, what exactly is meant by "The rating system is unfortunate"?
I have always been of the opinion that the Elo system of rating chess players so "accurately" is ridiculous. The first tournament I ever played in convinced me. I was watching a guy play who was in my section (unrated, or under 1300 approximately), and if he won his game he would have won some money, $100+, I do not now recall exactly. A draw left him with little or nothing, again I do not recall. So his opponent who was out of the money offers him a quick draw and he takes it?! I asked him why, and pointed out that if he won the game he won the money. He said he knew that but was more concerned with thinking about his rating. The dude would prefer to have been 1325 and broke rather than risking falling all the way to 1295 while taking a crack at some nice cash. This remains one of the stupidest things I can ever recall witnessing. And now we have even more silly real-time ratings. Who cares? People waste so much time and energy concerned with their rating, as if it is relevant to their life, as if it is a comment upon them as intelligent (or otherwise) humans. Furthermore, the amount of cheating, sandbagging, game rigging and so forth due to chess ratings has been a huge detriment to the honesty and integrity of the game at all levels. I would not mind a category system such as GM, IM, FM, NM, Expert, A-class down to D-class. That would be plenty, but all of these numbers are nonsense. I have also always been of the opinion that money should be awarded only in open sections of events. You should not be allowed to use your "handicap" (to use a golf term) in order to compete for money (in golf you can't). If you could only win cash when playing without the artificial aid of your rating then the ratings system would not be so dangerous and corrupting. But it would still be almost meaningless.
Please help me understand why teaching chess in primary school needs additional taxpayer funding. When plastic chess sets can be purchased for about $5 each, and you don't need clocks and scoresheets and arbiters ... ????
I agree completely, leave rated chess out of the funding equation.
...
Additional taxpayer funding because of the structure/platform or rather courses which develop learning. In a qualified manner. That's why from the get go of this shinning thread I recommend partnering with CMA.
If it were me, as King of Chess in Canada, I'd take that fresh funding and drop it all on someone like IM O'Donnell who could, with his decades of experience in teaching chess, structure this entire national effort.
The silence from Mr. Drkulec on this is deafening.
The silence from Oga in reply to my posts is deafening.
If you argue with an idiot, there are two idiots arguing.
I would rather discuss Paul Bonham and his fictional alter ego Pargat Perrer. Every poster has his own signature, a series of tells that they can overcome only with great difficulty and a certain skill which I am afraid you are sorely lacking. A dog returns to his vomit and you are unable to rise above your previous work and are fond of returning to past lines of attack.
When making up a character it is best to create a whole new character going through a similar process to that of an author creating a character for a work of fiction. The person can even be based on a real person that you know really well. Its best if you don't share an IP address.
Tweet
Comment