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 believe Heather, that the root of the problem is this. No one had enough courage to toss him. For it would have involved confronting his problem. Also, it would have meant interpreting certain rules and regulations in certain ways, and then standing by one's decision come hell or high water. Regardless of the potential concequences. Simply because it was the right thing to do. The only move.
Please, could your start a new tread, and let this one disappear from the first page? thnx.
Originally posted by Heather Carbone (NickolofView Post
we were advised by an unimpeachable source that Kevin threatened to withdraw from the team if Bryon were chosen.
I have a more unimpeachable source in my view - myself. No such threat was ever made to me, and Kevin Spraggett's opinions played no part in my decision. I specifically remember discussing it with the other two members of the committee and agreeing that he would be left off the list for the reasons I stated in my last post.
Note that if a tournament was deliberately left unrated, that has nothing to do with the selection committee. On this, I have no idea of the truth or not. The selection committee was not required to pick anyone on the basis of rating - if that were the case, there would be no reason for a committee. Anyone could simply read the rating list and take the top X names. Remember - at that time there was a group of automatic picks (the cdn champ and some others), and the selection committee who had a discretionary pick.
If you want to attack the CFC or OCA as Spraggett's puppets, that's up to you - but please don't put the selection committee in that group.
Bryon should have been told outright that past behaviours disqualified him,not a few rating points.
I don't believe the selection committee at that time was required or felt it necessary to send explanations to the many potential candidates who did not get picked.
I don't believe the selection committee at that time was required or felt it necessary to send explanations to the many potential candidates who did not get picked.
It seems ironic that [a recent entry] Spraggett's blog talks about Joel Lautier being the 'selection committee' for the French team and a similar situation involving a present-day GM who struggles with what appears to be alcoholism (perhaps there is more involved in his case). A similar point is made that the French do not require or expect the selection committee to justify the choices...
I have a more unimpeachable source in my view - myself. No such threat was ever made to me, and Kevin Spraggett's opinions played no part in my decision. I specifically remember discussing it with the other two members of the committee and agreeing that he would be left off the list for the reasons I stated in my last post.
Note that if a tournament was deliberately left unrated, that has nothing to do with the selection committee. On this, I have no idea of the truth or not. The selection committee was not required to pick anyone on the basis of rating - if that were the case, there would be no reason for a committee. Anyone could simply read the rating list and take the top X names. Remember - at that time there was a group of automatic picks (the cdn champ and some others), and the selection committee who had a discretionary pick.
If you want to attack the CFC or OCA as Spraggett's puppets, that's up to you - but please don't put the selection committee in that group.
I don't believe the selection committee at that time was required or felt it necessary to send explanations to the many potential candidates who did not get picked.
My understanding is that the CFC constitution required that three players were to be selected by rating(the top three) and the rest to the discretion of the "selection committee".This is why your selection was declared invalid,and Bryon was chosen to go.His argument was that your choices violated the constitution and that was upheld.I might add that he was not the only player that appealed the decision that year and won his case.Your mandate was NOT to choose ALL candidates,ONLY those who were not deemed eligible by rating.
I read that entry and noted the irony as well.K.S. must have been aching to mention a certain "deceased" Canadian in his blog.I wonder why he did not do so??
Originally posted by Heather Carbone (NickolofView Post
I read that entry and noted the irony as well.K.S. must have been aching to mention a certain "deceased" Canadian in his blog.I wonder why he did not do so??
Exactly my thoughts as well, but I did not post them for fear of incurring the wrath of some people... (as if I ever cared, but ...)
Originally posted by Heather Carbone (NickolofView Post
My understanding is that the CFC constitution required that three players were to be selected by rating(the top three) and the rest to the discretion of the "selection committee".This is why your selection was declared invalid,and Bryon was chosen to go.His argument was that your choices violated the constitution and that was upheld.I might add that he was not the only player that appealed the decision that year and won his case.Your mandate was NOT to choose ALL candidates,ONLY those who were not deemed eligible by rating.
That's partially correct. However, it was NOT the selection committee that was influenced by Spraggett - it was whoever did the rating group picks.
The selection of the committee was not invalid in any way as there were no criteria from which to pick. If the committee had wanted, they could have named anyone as their selection (though obviously a ridiculously stupid pick could have been overruled).
Exactly my thoughts as well, but I did not post them for fear of incurring the wrath of some people... (as if I ever cared, but ...)
Go ahead we all know by now that you are an incurable gossip and rumor monger even if it involves character assasination of someone else's character, even if the subject of that gossip and libel asks you to stop. Don't let anything get in the way of you having a good time. Its obvious that your stated original intent to protect the first person you posted about was a lame excuse. Just too juicy to let go.
Ala Heather I have to ask you, is Kevin having you ghostwrite his blog, is he paying you to publicize his blog entries here or are you doing it deliberately just out of support for him? Oh sure you claim to be outraged but that's what you would say isn't it?
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Tuesday, 27th October, 2009, 05:34 PM.
For someone who abhors gossip,you seem to be inevitably drawn to this particular thread-questionnable at best.As a matter of fact there have been over 3000 hits here so it is evident there is interest.Rather than offend your sensibilities,perhaps you should overt your eyes from the contents of this thread.Much of the so-called gossip here is "tongue-in-cheek",letting off a little steam so to speak.If I find pornography offensive,I do not frequent porn sites.You have expressed your dismay in the past ,why then are you reading this thread again.
Originally posted by Heather Carbone (NickolofView Post
For someone who abhors gossip,you seem to be inevitably drawn to this particular thread-questionnable at best.As a matter of fact there have been over 3000 hits here so it is evident there is interest.Rather than offend your sensibilities,perhaps you should overt your eyes from the contents of this thread.Much of the so-called gossip here is "tongue-in-cheek",letting off a little steam so to speak.If I find pornography offensive,I do not frequent porn sites.You have expressed your dismay in the past ,why then are you reading this thread again.
Why not? Actually I'm reading it to see how far you and Kerry will go in your mudslinging and accusations such as against poor Tony, which you've readily admitted now that you are doing. I don't read Spragget's blog and I don't appreciate it being posted here. You say what you want to say and I'll say what I want to say. If I wanted a steady diet of this BS I'd be reading Kevin's blog.
Bad things happen when good people don't stand against it. If you stand around making a spectacle of yourself (the internet version here) don't be surprised if people observe what you are doing.
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Tuesday, 27th October, 2009, 07:56 PM.
Why not? Actually I'm reading it to see how far you and Kerry will go in your mudslinging and accusations such as against poor Tony, which you've readily admitted now that you are doing. I don't read Spragget's blog and I don't appreciate it being posted here. You say what you want to say and I'll say what I want to say. If I wanted a steady diet of this BS I'd be reading Kevin's blog.
Bad things happen when good people don't stand against it. If you stand around making a spectacle of yourself (the internet version here) don't be surprised if people observe what you are doing.
Thanks for that brilliant analysis Sherlock. If you don't want to hear about Slaggett, you should be able to adapt your strategy accordingly.
Why not? Actually I'm reading it to see how far you and Kerry will go in your mudslinging and accusations such as against poor Tony, which you've readily admitted now that you are doing. I don't read Spragget's blog and I don't appreciate it being posted here. You say what you want to say and I'll say what I want to say. If I wanted a steady diet of this BS I'd be reading Kevin's blog.
Bad things happen when good people don't stand against it. If you stand around making a spectacle of yourself (the internet version here) don't be surprised if people observe what you are doing.
Poor Tony-LOL! Tony for your info is a very good friend of mine and we constantly pull each other's leg.We pulled some terrific stunts together on Bryon.He knows I mean him no disrespect as I noted in one of my posts.However,I do resent it when some moral "know-it-all" tries to censor opinions to which I am entitled,particularly when he is not obligated to read same.I have honoured Jonathon's request however as I respect him,and have not mentioned his name since he asked.If I choose to make a "spectacle" of myself,and in doing so entertain some viewers ,that is entirely my business.The moderator of the site is the only one who can ask me to cease and desist.The sheer gall of someone dictating what others can discuss is mind boggling.
Originally posted by Heather Carbone (NickolofView Post
Poor Tony-LOL! Tony for your info is a very good friend of mine and we constantly pull each other's leg.We pulled some terrific stunts together on Bryon.He knows I mean him no disrespect as I noted in one of my posts.However,I do resent it when some moral "know-it-all" tries to censor opinions to which I am entitled,particularly when he is not obligated to read same.I have honoured Jonathon's request however as I respect him,and have not mentioned his name since he asked.If I choose to make a "spectacle" of myself,and in doing so entertain some viewers ,that is entirely my business.The moderator of the site is the only one who can ask me to cease and desist.The sheer gall of someone dictating what others can discuss is mind boggling.
Hey, maybe Kitich is pulling our leg(s)... I didn't think of that possibility.
Clearly J.B. seems to have just shaken off Spraggett's monumental gaffe, and I am sure he is capable of dealing with it. My intention was to make sure that apologists like Tony do not trick people into thinking Spraggett is merely poking fun - it seems quite clear the remarks about Lynn and Jonathon are way over the top. There is no obligation to click on a link nor is there any obligation to read or participate in any thread on this forum (especially when the title of the thread seems quite clear).
Tweet
Comment