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.
Originally posted by Heather Carbone (NickolofView Post
As an afterthought,it occured to me that your observations,Zeljko,support my argument.The chessplayer in question(a) should have been confronted about his behaviour,and/or(b) ejected from the tournament.As neither happened,the behaviour was re-inforced and continued unabated.
Who wants to have to do that? The TD is not a bouncer and neither were the other players there. The only way to have done that would be to have called the police and who enters tournaments with the idea of having to end up calling for the police? I worked in police custody as a civilian custody officer prior to this incident, I know better than to intervene in a situation like that, either you are going to get hurt or you are going to hurt the other person or you are going to hurt a bystander or you are going to have kids watching adults having an altercation.
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Friday, 23rd October, 2009, 12:26 AM.
Who the heck are you talking about? I don't remember mentioning any names. If you want to jump to conclusions that's up to you. I also didn't say that I blamed the player for his or her actions. I simply said I wouldn't have publicized it by recording with a cell phone and posting it on Youtube, if say it had happened when those things were around. I did say it was an unfortunate incident and I don't think there is any denying that.
Give me a break.Your ego must be humongous if you think there is a chessplayer in Canada who wouldn't recognize your reference to the "deceased" player.I happened to be at that particular tournament,albeit,not with Bryon.I was shocked and appalled at the time and didn't hesitate to confront him despite my lack of civilian police training.As the saying goes,if you're not part of the solution,you're part of the problem.Bryon's chess career might have gone in a "whole nuther direction" if he had been physically ejected from tournaments in which he had been drinking.When he caused the uproar at the Closed in Ottawa,it was a wakeup call for him when he was attacked for his behaviour.Despite his denials I saw a very chastened Bryon.I can not in conscience stand by and let another human being demean an 81 year old woman without comment.You are correct that it is not likely to influence his future behaviour,but,my conscience is clear.
Who wants to have to do that? The TD is not a bouncer and neither were the other players there. The only way to have done that would be to have called the police and who enters tournaments with the idea of having to end up calling for the police? I worked in police custody as a civilian custody officer prior to this incident, I know better than to intervene in a situation like that, either you are going to get hurt or you are going to hurt the other person or you are going to hurt a bystander or you are going to have kids watching adults having an altercation.
Well,pretend it didn't happen at the time and bring it up on Chesstalk 15 years later with a tsk,tsk.The police would have come in,escorted him outside, and, likely in a professional manner whereby few would have noticed. I know the routine from personal experience.He likely would have spent the night in jail and be released the following morning with a fine.Public drunkeness is a crime.I know he would have thought twice about getting intoxicated at the next tournament.I'm sorry you didn't make the call since you were witness to the behaviour.You did that "deceased" chessplayer a great disservice.
Originally posted by Heather Carbone (NickolofView Post
Give me a break.Your ego must be humongous if you think there is a chessplayer in Canada who wouldn't recognize your reference to the "deceased" player.I happened to be at that particular tournament,albeit,not with Bryon.I was shocked and appalled at the time and didn't hesitate to confront him despite my lack of civilian police training.As the saying goes,if you're not part of the solution,you're part of the problem.Bryon's chess career might have gone in a "whole nuther direction" if he had been physically ejected from tournaments in which he had been drinking.When he caused the uproar at the Closed in Ottawa,it was a wakeup call for him when he was attacked for his behaviour.Despite his denials I saw a very chastened Bryon.I can not in conscience stand by and let another human being demean an 81 year old woman without comment.You are correct that it is not likely to influence his future behaviour,but,my conscience is clear.
No your ego is very big, you assume I'm talking about your brother, my you are very sensitive. Also you presume you have to explain the public drunkeness routine to a former police civilian custody officer?
If it was your brother, hello, you are his sister and I'm a total stranger, why would you need to have police training to approach him? There is one person in charge of maintaining order at a tournament and that is the TD, if he needs help he can ask, otherwise I wouldn't presume to interfere.
I can live with whatever I did or didn't do just fine. Jonathan Berry is not an 81 year old woman.
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Friday, 23rd October, 2009, 08:13 AM.
"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
Not even close, if you look back in American history, in the 1800's there was a very polite young man named Paul Morphy who certainly captured the Americans imagination... and gained the worlds respect. There is no excuse for Fischers behavior no matter what the apologists say.
As for Susan Polgar, she doubly lives up to her motto considering the crap she has had to deal with from the USCF. Remember she would have dropped all lawsuits if the USCF would have apologized.
1) re: Morphy - the USA of the 1800s was far from the USA of the 1960/70s. Fischer certainly would have gained some notoriety, but nothing to the extent that he did. Instead of being an ongoing daily headline due to his crazy behaviour, he would have been a small sidebar in the paper with "American gets great chess result".
2) re: Polgar - it's not quite as simple as you indicate. First, it's far from clear the USCF has anything to apologize for - it seems pretty clear that Truong engaged in some really dirty behaviour including fake internet posts that could very well have been defamatory. Even putting aside who was right/wrong, by apologizing, the USCF would admit guilt in the matter and open themselves to substantial lawsuits - it is far from as simple as "USCF says sorry, matter disappears".
And to the last question: "How come you never hear of anyone leaving poker to play chess?"
The answer is you can make a very good living being the 25,000th best poker player in the world, and you can't as the 25,000th best chess player. Most of the people I know who play poker+chess play poker for money but would give it up if they could make similar money playing chess. I suspect if you asked any chess+poker player "If prizes were equal, would you rather be WSOP champ or World chess champ?", you'd get an overwhelming chess vote.
It's funny, something like 5-6 years ago I mentioned on Chesstalk that we need a "Sorry" law here in Canada, much like California was just starting at the time. And now several provinces including Ontario do have one. Guess they need one wherever the USCF head office is located.
Although what happens if someone in say Ontario or California (perhaps Ontario, CA?) says they're sorry about something and someone tries to sue them in a state that doesn't have a Sorry Law?
I think you're right about most people choosing Chess, all else being equal. In poker, you need luck to win as well as skill (from my understanding, as I hardly play and never watch it, the more skill you have the less luck you need) whereas in chess it's virtually all skill. Therefore, if you win at chess, it's all about your skill and thus you can unequivocally state that you were the better player.
And to the last question: "How come you never hear of anyone leaving poker to play chess?"
The answer is you can make a very good living being the 25,000th best poker player in the world, and you can't as the 25,000th best chess player. Most of the people I know who play poker+chess play poker for money but would give it up if they could make similar money playing chess. I suspect if you asked any chess+poker player "If prizes were equal, would you rather be WSOP champ or World chess champ?", you'd get an overwhelming chess vote.
David, this question wasn't in Jason's post, it was in mine. Also, it wasn't me asking the question, it was Norman Chad on an ESPN WSOP Main Event broadcast, and it was definitely rhetorical. In other words, the answer was obvious, and of course it's the money.
But I really wonder about your last statement. If the money were equal, I personally would try and play both of them, to balance things out. But if I had to choose, I'd go with poker, because it's more social and fun. I think the serious and good chess players get too hung up on having to win. Also, if you are someone who could make equal money either way, why choose chess when you can always find a computer to give you a good game? But with poker, even playing online isn't the same, only the real thing is as good as the real thing.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
I am totally disgusted with GM Spraggett's latest mess. I don't know what is going on with him and his scurrilous posts, so I won't comment on that.
But I do want to defend IA / GMC / FM Jonathan Berry. Very few if any people in the history of Canadian chess have contributed more positive efforts than Jonathan, over a period of more than 40 years now, and he is still going strong. Jonathan is a tremendous player, both in correspondence and over-the-board; an outstanding, energetic, world-class arbiter; an exceptionally hard-working, reliable, skilled journalist and writer; and a resourceful and imaginative promoter of chess and new ideas in chess, wherever he has lived in Canada. For the extraordinary range of his contributions, I consider him to be no less than "Canada's Leonardo da Vinci of Chess!!" He has been a personal inspiration in chess for me for a long time.
By going after Jonathan Berry, in such an outrageous, unjustified manner, GM Spraggett has only made himself look like an angry fool, unfortunately.
I think you're right about most people choosing Chess, all else being equal. In poker, you need luck to win as well as skill (from my understanding, as I hardly play and never watch it, the more skill you have the less luck you need) whereas in chess it's virtually all skill. Therefore, if you win at chess, it's all about your skill and thus you can unequivocally state that you were the better player.
Or you could state that you had more opening knowledge if your win was due to an opening line you knew that the opponent didn't. Or it could be that you were better at managing time control, and you won on time despite being behind in the position.
But I think anyone who is asked "Assume you could make equal money playing poker for a living or playing chess for a living. Which would you choose?" has to consider this: if you play chess for a living, and you aren't a top player, but you are just good enough to make a living, you will have to get used to finishing in the middle of the pack EACH AND EVERY TIME YOU PLAY AN EVENT. There will be no exceptions. You will never have your 5 minutes of fame. Conversely, if you play poker for a living, you won't know in advance where you will end up. You might go out first, or you might win the whole thing, or anywhere in between. (Of course, this is precisely WHY the question is moot, and chess will never have the money that poker has).
So in essence, one would be choosing, would you rather have the dullness of constant mediocrity or the excitement of a real possibility of being King for a Day? Since 90% of people would end up being in the constant mediocrity category in chess, I think they'd choose poker if you made them aware of these implications.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
.........if you play chess for a living, and you aren't a top player, but you are just good enough to make a living, you will have to get used to finishing in the middle of the pack EACH AND EVERY TIME YOU PLAY AN EVENT. There will be no exceptions. You will never have your 5 minutes of fame..........
Paul, I have to disagree. You are saying that there are never any upsets, the top seeded chess players alway win the event, always..always....never an upset, we can always predict the winner....no surprises...never! :( Quite a statement. I am quite sure you're wrong, but I'm not going to spend any time digging thru the statistics! (but I'm sure somebody in chesstalkland will LOL )
Or you could state that you had more opening knowledge if your win was due to an opening line you knew that the opponent didn't. Or it could be that you were better at managing time control, and you won on time despite being behind in the position.
But I think anyone who is asked "Assume you could make equal money playing poker for a living or playing chess for a living. Which would you choose?" has to consider this: if you play chess for a living, and you aren't a top player, but you are just good enough to make a living, you will have to get used to finishing in the middle of the pack EACH AND EVERY TIME YOU PLAY AN EVENT. There will be no exceptions. You will never have your 5 minutes of fame. Conversely, if you play poker for a living, you won't know in advance where you will end up. You might go out first, or you might win the whole thing, or anywhere in between. (Of course, this is precisely WHY the question is moot, and chess will never have the money that poker has).
So in essence, one would be choosing, would you rather have the dullness of constant mediocrity or the excitement of a real possibility of being King for a Day? Since 90% of people would end up being in the constant mediocrity category in chess, I think they'd choose poker if you made them aware of these implications.
Hi Paul, that's an interesting point. However, I would suggest that not everyone values similar things similarly. For example, I believe that some people would actually prefer the consistency of more regular results. You can actually see that in online poker, where lower-level semi-pros will grind out lower-level ring games, or even SNGs, for hours daily.
However, by doing so, such players are at risk of engraining psychological biases that will hinder them in massive MTTs, where quite quickly at lower buy-ins, the remaining stacks are very low multiples of the blinds and antes, necessitating high aggression.
This leads me to what I find most interesting about poker, which is how psychological makeup, including relative social interaction, actually profoundly influence how one plays poker. Whereas chess, in my opinion, can be played more "autistically" than poker, etc.
On the other hand, what I value most about chess is that "artistic creativity" feeling a player gets when he weaves a special game, especially for me anyway, when it feels like a successful endgame study. I have never gotten that big a rush from a "move" in poker.
Anyway, just my 2c worth. I would like to continue playing lots of both chess and poker!
Tweet
)
Comment