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.
Sid, your sponsorship was a complete inspiration to me!
So, is the reverse true ... those girls who do poorly with chess have a lesser fulfilling life? I think not.
Chess isn't all about titles or the elite. Sorry, but it is not. The above mentioned accomplishments are all well and good but ... you don't need to be accomplished in chess to enjoy the benefits of chess.
It would be somewhat faith restoring to see our Canadian Gov. better execute with the funding already in place.
I would go further and say you don't need to play chess at all ... although there is no harm in doing so, as long as you don't get addicted. It's like smoking pot. Some people say it opens their minds and expands their thinking, even after they's stopped smoking it. But others do get addicted to it. Any kind of addiction is bad.
Chess probably has many sad addiction stories, you just don't hear about them. Nobody comes forward and says, "I spent all my adult life playing chess, and never got a career in anything" but those people are out there. Poker too, by the way, with worse results because there is luck in poker so everyone thinks they can still get lucky.
On your posts on Chesstalk, I thought I'd mention that my younger daughter Stephanie ( ex-national team member ) is highly successful in her career with a fairly strong social media presence. ... Stephanie's also done exceedingly well in fairly high profile roles ( just more business oriented ). Stephanie doesn't play anymore except casually but maintains some interest even took a pile of chess stuff to California.
Stephanie resides in San Diego and is a pod cast host for a huge hedge fund ( P.Eng from Queens then shifted into social media marketing ). Great role model for young women who play chess. Hazel her sister unfortunately has had some huge health issues so we prefer not to bring her into any conversation about chess. This matter is why we are low key but I just thought the video was a great insight into our experiences.
Duncan Smith
Watching a highly intelligent young woman with a P. Eng talk about what chess meant to her is far more relevant to this conversation. Her opinions are echoed by many of the girls who played chess. They all seem smart and articulate and accomplished almost without exception. They become grandmasters at life if not in chess.
There is nothing bad to say about these stories .... but this is rather like Parker Bros. posting about all the kids who grew up playing Monopoly and are now accomplished scientists and engineers and so on.
All games that have at least some skill in them should be grouped together. Monopoly is a game where skill is important: money management / budgeting, calculating your / opponents' dice roll probabilities, making good trades, etc. I have read a couple of books about Monopoly strategy, but am no expert. I would say it is roughly on par with poker in terms of skill (long-term results) vs luck (short-term fluctuations).
Last edited by Tom O'Donnell; Wednesday, 4th January, 2023, 01:52 PM.
"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.
Chess probably has many sad addiction stories, you just don't hear about them. Nobody comes forward and says, "I spent all my adult life playing chess, and never got a career in anything" but those people are out there. Poker too, by the way, with worse results because there is luck in poker so everyone thinks they can still get lucky.
I think you do hear about them, and I think they do serve as cautionary tales. I know when I finished university and had reached master strength, I had a serious look in the mirror, I looked around at the state of top Canadian chess and the players, assessed the upper limits of my own potential (which I deemed to be probably FM, maybe a weak IM if I really went for it and things broke right), and basically dropped out of serious chess to pursue more conventional career success. Ironically, the same goes for my poker experience.
That said, some of the friendships I made, the experiences I had, and the lessons I learned from chess and poker are all things I consider to have been super valuable throughout my life.
Most activities carry some positives, but some risks. Chess generally I think people have a great chance of getting the vast majority of the positives with minimal risk and minimal investment. I don't really object to pursuing gov't funding on this as long as it's going to expose chess to the widest range of people possible and not to support elite chess. Put another way - I'd rather see 100,000 kids get a rating of 1000 than 10 kids get a rating of 2500, and I think Canadian society would see a positive return from that investment.
I think you do hear about them, and I think they do serve as cautionary tales. I know when I finished university and had reached master strength, I had a serious look in the mirror, I looked around at the state of top Canadian chess and the players, assessed the upper limits of my own potential (which I deemed to be probably FM, maybe a weak IM if I really went for it and things broke right), and basically dropped out of serious chess to pursue more conventional career success. Ironically, the same goes for my poker experience.
That said, some of the friendships I made, the experiences I had, and the lessons I learned from chess and poker are all things I consider to have been super valuable throughout my life.
Most activities carry some positives, but some risks. Chess generally I think people have a great chance of getting the vast majority of the positives with minimal risk and minimal investment. I don't really object to pursuing gov't funding on this as long as it's going to expose chess to the widest range of people possible and not to support elite chess. Put another way - I'd rather see 100,000 kids get a rating of 1000 than 10 kids get a rating of 2500, and I think Canadian society would see a positive return from that investment.
Originally posted by Pargat Perrer
Chess probably has many sad addiction stories, you just don't hear about them. Nobody comes forward and says, "I spent all my adult life playing chess, and never got a career in anything" but those people are out there.
I think you do hear about them, and I think they do serve as cautionary tales.
Thank you for acknowledging and confirming that. It's a brave thing to do because the competitive chess world doesn't want that spread around. You certainly don't see the CFC mentioning it. Vlad Drkulec would rather tout girls making it into university (when they would have done the same without chess) than 50-something males who are facing bleak prospects in their retirement years because they devoted their life to chess.
Where do you hear from them? The Ontario govt needs to hear from them before making any decision on taxpayer funding.
I don't really object to pursuing gov't funding on this as long as it's going to expose chess to the widest range of people possible and not to support elite chess. Put another way - I'd rather see 100,000 kids get a rating of 1000 than 10 kids get a rating of 2500, and I think Canadian society would see a positive return from that investment.
I agree with Aris, this is a great post. I wish I had thought of putting it that way. But again, those 100,000 kids getting to a rating of 1000 don't need taxpayer funding to get there.
They want to play chess! But they don't want to be Pawns!
All games that have at least some skill in them should be grouped together. Monopoly is a game where skill is important: money management / budgeting, calculating your / opponents' dice roll probabilities, making good trades, etc. I have read a couple of books about Monopoly strategy, but am no expert. I would say it is roughly on par with poker in terms of skill (long-term results) vs luck (short-term fluctuations).
I would say it's below poker, BUT it could be on par with poker if there was this rule: every player on their turn rolls the 2 dice twice, and if the second roll gives a same total as the first, they roll again until they have 2 distinct totals. Then they choose 1 of those 2 totals. This would really increase the influence of calculating dice roll probabilities. Do you like that idea?
But again, the whole reason I brought up Monopoly was to show that if Ontario govt endorses taxpayer funding for chess, it only opens Pandora's box. The North American Tiddlywinks Association (a real thing!) will want funding because tiddlywinks improves hand dexterity and visualization.
You get the idea. Where do you stand on this question of taxpayer funding for chess?
There's no pandora's box at all. The government funds cultural and sporting activities for the greater benefit of the country. Our national soccer and hockey teams receive funding because it promotes the prestige of Canada to have our teams competing on the world stage. It also promotes involvement in pro-social activities like sports among our youth.
The same principles clearly apply to chess as to soccer and hockey and any other sport, but not to Monopoly or Tiddlywinks, which don't have the same prestige or international reach. Poker may be comparable in popularity, but it is of questionable societal value.
In any case, there's nothing stopping anyone from registering a tiddlywinks association as a charitable organization and benefiting from the tax credit regime, which is a de facto government subsidy. If the game gets enough headway through private donations, maybe they'll one day reach a level of popularity to merit greater government funding.
I may be mistaken, but I think the CFC is registered as an amateur athletic association and donations are eligible for a tax credit.
I know that some time back, CFC had been given "charitable status". It got revoked after a lot of negotiations. I believe the reason was (someone correct me) that the CFC, unlike the CMA, did not have youth chess as its "main" focus, just as one of many chess priorities?
....
In any case, there's nothing stopping anyone from registering a tiddlywinks association as a charitable organization and benefiting from the tax credit ....
There's nothing stopping anyone from TRYING to register a tiddlywinks association as a charitable organization. CRA will have the final say on the application.
"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
..... 50-something males who are facing bleak prospects in their retirement years because they devoted their life to chess.
Where do you hear from them? The Ontario govt needs to hear from them before making any decision on taxpayer funding.
.....
Sadly, these people may be so broken, so deep in the well of their addiction to chess, that they can't speak for themselves. Maybe this is your niche in life, Pargat; your chance to do something positive rather than wasting your life on cyber stalking the officials of very minor not-for-profits. Perhaps you will become known as 'Pargat Perrer, the man who had the courage to stand up and speak for 50-something males who were facing bleak prospects in their retirement years because they devoted their lives to chess.'
"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
There's no pandora's box at all. The government funds cultural and sporting activities for the greater benefit of the country. Our national soccer and hockey teams receive funding because it promotes the prestige of Canada to have our teams competing on the world stage. ......
Would you rather have that "prestige", which is meaningless, or have nurses who can work full-time hours and get benefits?
Would you rather have sports "prestige" or have functioning ERs in hospitals?
The pandora's box is already open because of current sports funding. Chess trying to get taxpayer funding is precisely because that pandora's box is open. Chess actually GETTING that funding would shatter pandora's box completely and every sports and game organization is going to go hat in hand to the government.
My petition to counter Olga's petition will demand an end to all non-facilities sports funding across Canada. No more taxpayer funding for individual athletes, just as one example.
Sadly, these people may be so broken, so deep in the well of their addiction to chess, that they can't speak for themselves. Maybe this is your niche in life, Pargat; your chance to do something positive rather than wasting your life on cyber stalking the officials of very minor not-for-profits. Perhaps you will become known as 'Pargat Perrer, the man who had the courage to stand up and speak for 50-something males who were facing bleak prospects in their retirement years because they devoted their lives to chess.'
Nice try, Peter, I'm not biting.
I'm not against those 50-something males, they made their bed, they can lie in it. Nor am I cyber stalking anyone.
I am against taxpayer funding for sports, aside from facilities provision and maintenance.
That's it and that's all. Your troll talk only makes YOU look bad.
I know that some time back, CFC had been given "charitable status". It got revoked after a lot of negotiations. I believe the reason was (someone correct me) that the CFC, unlike the CMA, did not have youth chess as its "main" focus, just as one of many chess priorities?
Bob A
Hmm.. that's surprising to me. I don't know why the CFC wouldn't qualify as an amateur athletic association, it seems to meet the CRA's definition more-or-less to the letter (the only stumbling block being whether chess is classified as a sport):
Hmm.. that's surprising to me. I don't know why the CFC wouldn't qualify as an amateur athletic association, it seems to meet the CRA's definition more-or-less to the letter (the only stumbling block being whether chess is classified as a sport):
There was a general crackdown by the CRA on all charities which caught CFC. As I recall, it didn't help that parents were claiming costs to accompany kids to the world events as charitable donations on tax returns.
Comment