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.
GWWS(80+)
[Canadian National Organization/Unincorporated Not-for-Profit Cooperative]
2026 Hart House Reading Week Open - Feb. 14-16.
Team Formation (In Process)
Unfortunately, Lance has gotten sick, and so will be unable to make the trek from USA to Toronto.
So our team (Old Pharts) so far is:
1. U 1600 Section: Bob Armstrong - GWWS(80+) Member - 81 y.o. ..............CFC 1504 (To go down by Rd. 1) ....FIDE 1471 - registered
2. U 1400 Section - Eli Teram - GWWS(80+) Member Waiting list - 78 y.o.....CFC 1229............................................. FIDE ------... - registered
Note: Age (FIDE Definition): Oldest age in the calendar year.
We have one possible from our U 1600 Conscripts list......he's trying to make arrangements to register. These invitees are under a deadline to respond of Wed., 26/2/4 @ 6 PM EST.
After that, we will send out invites to our 1600+ Conscripts list.
Bob A - Team Captain
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Tuesday, 3rd February, 2026, 11:04 AM.
GWWS(80+)
[Canadian National Organization/Unincorporated Not-for-Profit Cooperative]
2026 Hart House Reading Week Open - Feb. 14-16.
Team Formation (In Process)
a. Our Old Pharts team (So far):
1. U 1600 Section: Bob Armstrong - GWWS(80+) Member - 81 y.o. ..............CFC 1504 (To go down by Rd. 1) ....FIDE 1471 - registered; Captain
2. U 1400 Section - Eli Teram - GWWS(80+) Member Waiting list - 78 y.o.....CFC 1229............................................. FIDE ------... - registered
Note: Age (FIDE Definition): Oldest age in the calendar year.
b.The Continuing Player Search Saga:
1. Two players from our 4 player U 1600 Seniors' Conscripts list are on the waiting list for the tournament, and will play for our team if they get in: Javier Dixon; Ken Kurkowski.
2. Yesterday we sent out invitations to our 13 1600+ Seniors' on our Conscripts list:
Notes:
Age (FIDE Definition) = Oldest age in the calendar year
So far, no takers (Sigh).....We don't know how many of these may indeed be already registered to play.
3. On-Site Conscription
If necessary, on-site, before the start of Rd. 1, we will approach some registered seniors who have never before been on one of our teams, to see if they can be conscripted.
The final step will be to abandon forming a seniors team, and submit an open team by trying to conscript some non-seniors to flesh out an open age team.
These players receive copies of our public emails - to know what we're up to from time to time.
Our waiting/supporting seniors get some preference in our senior team creation.
If you are 79 y.o. (or close), and are considering joining on your 80th birthday, contact us and you will be added to our list.......get all the latest poop immediately.
Same goes for those who would like to "support" our effort by lending their name publicly (goes on our flyer).......just let us know you'd like to be added to this list.
Don't be shy - Contact us!
d. Conscripts Lists
These are seniors who have actually been assigned to or played for one of our various teams:
Member # 1 - Monné, John.....................................95 y.o....................193130...(1096)...---......----......2026/1/29 Member # 2 - Armstrong, Robert (Bob) J.......81 y.o...................100034....1504...1517..1471...2026/1/29 Member # 3 - *Beloungie, Lance............................83 y.o.... ...............170713... 1677...----.....1841...2026/1/29
Promotion: Please draw this thread to the attention of all 80+ active Canadian seniors. To be on our List of 80+ active players, they can contact us at the above email.
Or write me about them and we will contact them.
II.Members' Waiting/Supporters List:
1. Finlay, Ian …................................................80 y.o...................101866..1809....-----... 1786... 2026/1/29
These players receive copies of our public emails - to know what we're up to from time to time.
Our waiting/supporting seniors get some preference in our senior team creation.
If you are 79 y.o. (or close), and are considering joining on your 80th birthday, contact us and you will be added to our list.......get all the latest poop immediately.
Same goes for those who would like to "support" our effort by lending their name publicly (goes on our flyer).......just let us know you'd like to be added to this list.
Don't be shy - Contact us!
3. Subscriptions:
Contact: Bob Armstrong: bobarm111 at gmail dot com
Current Subscribers: 40
To Subscribe: It's free; you don't have to be a senior.
To Unsubscribe: Reply to this email and so advise.
Thanks.
Bob Armstrong (Communications Secretary/ Ontario Coordinator)
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Sunday, 8th February, 2026, 06:53 AM.
GWWS(80+)
[Canadian National Organization/Unincorporated Not-for-Profit Cooperative]
The Nature of 80 + Senior Teams: Cooperative or Authoritarian/Consultative
........an interesting issue.......
GWWS(80+) Motion# 1 - Bob Armstrong (26/2/8) (At this point, given our size, no seconder is required for a motion)
Presented to the other 2 members of the cooperative, John Monné, and Lance Beloungie.
As a Cooperative, we only form chess teams that are pure cooperatives themselves (Captain is the team coordinator only - no special status re initial vote). But in case of a tie, the Captain is given the 2nd tie-breaking vote.
Team players must:
1. accept that the team is a pure cooperative (We are not open to players bringing motions to become the authoritarian model); and 2. agree to fully participate in the cooperative structure ( Vote, etc.), despite, perhaps, any personal preference to playing on normal authoritarian teams.
Discussion Phase - before voting, there will be debate among us concerning this motion, to try to sort out the critical factors involved. So the motion is now open for discussion by the 3 of us. We are aware that the traditional competitive chess team position is one of the Captain having all authority, and can consult team members to whatever extent he wishes. In a cooperative team, all members have a vote on all substantial issues; the Captain is only a secretary to the team, and re voting has no special status (Except s/he may be given a 2nd tie-breaking vote to enhance team effectiveness).
Input: As always, our think-tank (Waiting Member/Supporter list) has been invited to provide their advice to the 3 of us ( though they do not have an actual vote). We are also consulting members of our 2025 (Under the now disbanded 70+ Group) and 2026 GTCL Team Championship Teams.
As usual, we also invite input from CT'ers. Comment below.
Bob (Member; Communications Secretary)
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Tuesday, 10th February, 2026, 08:18 AM.
GWWS(80+)
[Canadian National Organization/Unincorporated Not-for-Profit Cooperative]
2026 Hart House Reading Week Open - Feb. 14-16.
Team Formation Abandoned
Unfortunately, on Friday, I developed a health condition that meant that I could not play chess. So yesterday I withdrew (Too bad; love playing in the Great Hall!). Things happen....
Also, GWWS(80+) only has teams where at least one of the GWWS(80+) members is playing. I was the only member of the partially formed team. So I advised HHCC that we now would no longer be submitting a team.
There’s a phrase that haunts chess players at every level: “I’ve been stuck at [rating] for years.”
I’ve heard it from students. I’ve seen it in forums. And if I’m being honest, I’ve felt it myself. My USCF rating has hovered around 2325 for the past 12 years. Twelve years. Same number, give or take a few points in either direction.
For a long time, that felt like a plateau. Like I was running in place while everyone else moved forward.
But here’s the thing I’ve come to believe: plateaus don’t actually exist in chess. Not the way we think about them, anyway.
If your rating has stayed the same for a few months or years (and you’re actively playing), then you’re not stuck. You’re improving. You’re just not out-improving everyone else.
I know how this might sound. A convenient reframe that lets you avoid confronting the possibility that you’ve hit your ceiling. But that’s not what I’m arguing. I’m not saying you should be satisfied with a stable rating. I’m saying you should understand what a stable rating actually means.
I'm not trying to make you feel better about a stable rating. I'm trying to give you a more accurate picture of what's actually happening. The Stock Market Comparison
I first started thinking about this after hearing Alex Hormozi talk about growth in business. His take is simple: in business, you’re either growing or dying. There’s no standing still.
The reason? The market is always moving. If the stock market grows an average of 7% per year and your investments also grow 7%, you haven’t “stayed the same.” You’ve kept pace with the market. You’re growing, just not outperforming. The same logic applies to chess ratings.
Your rating isn’t a fixed measurement of your skill. It’s a measurement of your skill relative to everyone else in the pool. And that pool is getting stronger every single year. The Chess Ecosystem Is Constantly Improving
Think about how much chess has changed in the last decade.
We had the pandemic chess boom, which brought millions of new players into the game. Free access to engines and databases means a 1200-rated player today can analyze their games with the same tools that grandmasters used 20 years ago. YouTube, Chessable, Chess.com lessons, Lichess studies (there’s an endless flood of high-quality training content that didn’t exist before). Kids today learn opening theory in their diapers that club players in my generation never knew.
A 1700 player today is almost certainly stronger than a 1700 player from 2010. And they would likely crush a 1700 from 2000.
This effect is probably strongest at the beginner and intermediate levels where the gap in available resources is massive. At higher ratings (2200+), the effect might be less dramatic since strong players were already using serious training methods. But even at the master level, preparation has gotten deeper and the young players coming up are stronger than ever. The tide is rising everywhere. It’s just rising faster in some places than others. What Your Rating Actually Measures
Elo ratings are relative, not absolute. Your rating reflects how you perform against the current pool of players, not against some fixed standard of chess ability. And that pool is constantly getting stronger.
So when you hold your rating steady over several years, you’re not standing still. You’re hitting a target that keeps moving further away. You’re running on a treadmill that keeps speeding up.
A “plateau” is actually you successfully keeping pace with an entire ecosystem that’s improving around you.
My Own Experience: 2325 for 12 Years
My USCF rating has been around 2325 for about 12 years now. For a while, this frustrated me. I’ve been coaching chess for over a decade. I’ve studied thousands of games. How could my rating not reflect all that work?
But when I actually look at my games from 12 years ago and compare them to my games now, the difference is obvious. My opening preparation is deeper. My endgame technique is cleaner. My time management is better (still working on that one). My understanding of pawn structures, piece activity, and long-term planning has improved dramatically.
I am a significantly better player than I was 12 years ago. The rating just doesn’t show it because everyone else got better too.
I’ll also say this: I’m in my 30s now (just turned 33 last week). I’m not a kid with a plastic brain and unlimited time to study. Part of what I’m doing is fighting against natural cognitive decline while trying to keep pace with younger players who are improving faster than I ever did at their age. Have you seen how fast kids like Faustino Oro and Yagiz Erdogmus have improved?!
For older adult improvers, this reframe might actually be more encouraging. If your rating is stable in your 40s or 50s, you’re improving enough to offset the natural slowdown that comes with age and still hold your ground. That’s an achievement worth recognizing.
Know someone who's been 'stuck' at the same rating for years? They might need to hear this.
So if holding your rating means keeping pace with the ecosystem, what does gaining rating actually require?
It means you have to improve faster than the average rate of improvement around you. You have to outperform the ecosystem, not just your past self.
This is hard. It’s supposed to be hard.
Some things that can help you outpace the field: targeted, deliberate practice (not just playing more games), working with a coach or training partner who can identify your specific weaknesses, studying your own games deeply and honestly, focusing on your weaknesses rather than reinforcing your strengths, and consistency over years, not months. The Flip Side: What Losing Rating Really Means
If you’re actively playing and your rating is slowly declining, it doesn’t necessarily mean you’re getting worse at chess. It might mean the ecosystem is improving faster than you are.
But I want to be careful here. There’s a difference between short-term rating drops and long-term trends. If you lose 50 points over a few tournaments, that’s probably just noise. Ratings fluctuate.
But if your rating has been steadily declining over a year or two while you’re actively playing, that’s a different signal. Maybe you need to change how you’re training. Maybe you need to play less and study more. Maybe you just need a break. “I’m falling behind the pace” is more actionable than “I’m getting worse at chess,” which might not even be true. A Quick Qualifier
I want to be honest about the limits of this idea.
This reframe applies most clearly to players who are actively trying to improve. If you’re studying, analyzing your games, working on weaknesses, and playing with intention, then a stable rating probably does mean you’re improving at the pace of the ecosystem.
But if you’re just grinding games without reflection (playing blitz for hours, never reviewing, never studying) then a stable rating might actually be stagnation. You’re not improving, and neither are your opponents at that level.
The “plateaus don’t exist” framing isn’t meant to let anyone off the hook. It’s meant to give you a more accurate mental model so you can make better decisions about how to train. Measuring Progress Beyond Rating
If rating isn’t the only measure of improvement (and it isn’t), what else should you look at?
Canadian National Organization/Unincorporated Not-for-Profit Cooperative
Editor: Bob Armstrong
The Chess Rating System - Pt. II; Pt. I Above
Conclusion
So here’s the reframe I want to leave you with:
Plateaus don’t exist. Not really. What exists is an ecosystem that’s constantly improving and your position within it.
If your rating has stayed the same, you’re running in a race where everyone is getting faster. You’re keeping up. That’s not nothing.
If you want your rating to actually climb, you have to outpace the field. That’s a different goal than just “getting better.” It’s getting better faster than everyone else.
But the word “plateau” implies stagnation and stagnation implies you’re not improving. For most players who are actively studying and competing, that’s just not true.
You’re improving. The question is whether you’re improving fast enough to outrun the rising tide.
I’ve been around 2325 for 12 years. I’m a much better player than I was when I started. The rating doesn’t show it because everyone else got better too.
And honestly? I’m okay with that. I’d rather be a better player than chase a number.
Happy improving.”
Publisher Notes:
1. Editor/Contact: Bob Armstrong (Communications Secretary): bobarm111 at gmail dot com.
2. Lists (As shown on our flyer):
Notes:
1. Age (FIDE Def.): Oldest age during the year
2. Date: The day the player's stats were last checked.
3. ^ = Foreign National who plays regularly in Canada = Honorary 80+ Canadian for group purposes
Member # 1 - Monné, John.....................................95 y.o....................193130...(1096)...---......----......2026/1/29 Member # 2 - Armstrong, Robert (Bob) J.......81 y.o...................100034....1504...1517..1471...2026/1/29 Member # 3 - *Beloungie, Lance............................83 y.o.... ...............170713... 1677...----.....1841...2026/1/29
Promotion: Please draw this thread to the attention of all 80+ active Canadian seniors. To be on our List of 80+ active players, they can contact us at the above email.
Or write me about them and we will contact them.
II.Members' Waiting/Supporters List:
1. Finlay, Ian …................................................80 y.o...................101866..1809....-----... 1786... 2026/1/29
These players receive copies of our public emails - to know what we're up to from time to time.
Our waiting/supporting seniors get some preference in our senior team creation.
If you are 79 y.o. (or close), and are considering joining on your 80th birthday, contact us and you will be added to our list.......get all the latest poop immediately.
Same goes for those who would like to "support" our effort by lending their name publicly (goes on our flyer).......just let us know you'd like to be added to this list.
Don't be shy - Contact us!
3. Subscriptions:
Contact: Bob Armstrong: bobarm111 at gmail dot com
Current Subscribers: 40
To Subscribe: It's free; you don't have to be a senior.
To Unsubscribe: Reply to this email and so advise.
Thanks.
Bob Armstrong (Communications Secretary/ Ontario Coordinator)
GWWS(80+)
[Canadian National Organization/Unincorporated Not-for-Profit Cooperative]
The Nature of 80 + Senior Teams: Cooperative or Authoritarian/Consultative
GWWS(80+) Motion# 1 - Bob Armstrong (26/2/8) (At this point, given our size, no seconder is required for a motion)
Presented to the other 2 members of the cooperative, John Monné, and Lance Beloungie.
As a Cooperative, we only form chess teams that are pure cooperatives themselves (Captain is the team coordinator only - no special status re initial vote). But in case of a tie, the Captain is given the 2nd tie-breaking vote.
Team players must:
1. accept that the team is a pure cooperative (We are not open to players bringing motions to become the authoritarian model); and 2. agree to fully participate in the cooperative structure ( Vote, etc.), despite, perhaps, any personal preference to playing on normal authoritarian teams.
Discussion Phase
We, first of all, advised our Waiting Members/Supporters Network that we were open to their input. Then we posted that we were also open to the input of ChessTalkers. We received only one opinion (from a Network member, who was also a 2026 GTCL Team Championship team member).
So, as part of the discussion phase, I, the Communications Secretary, consulted the full 2026 GTCL Team Championship team, and put together the following "Input Brief" (Lightly edited):
Bob Armstrong: A cooperative competitive chess team is one member, one vote, on all substantial matters (But if there is no time for a vote, then the Captain makes the "tentative" decision, subject to being over-ridden by the majority when the vote can be held; of course, in many instances the decision is a final one by the Captain since it was time sensitive).
Player A: “A 'cooperative' team complicates the process of coming to a decision. [Competitive] chess teams are better off with the authoritarian/consultative organization because:
1. It is faster at making decisions, a necessary condition in time pressure related activities such as during a chess tournament round.
2.It prevents paralyzing indecision, for example in deciding who plays white or black in a round.
3. The cooperative approach is slow because it is consensus-driven.”
Player B: In general team creations, the cooperative model will not work (Has played on many high level competitive teams. [But see below]
Player C & Player D: In competitive chess, a cooperative team does not work well. I believe this was the intent, not just that they didn't want to change the nature of the 2026 GTCL Team in mid-stream.
The Cooperative Competitive Team IF amenable Team Members/Captain
Player B/Player E: Both felt that the cooperative model would have worked fine with the 2026 GTCL Team Championship team.....there was a team spirit that was very cooperative. Both would have been willing to convert that team from the authoritarian/consultative model to a cooperative model, and so voted when asked.
Player E “what I have seen with this group [Our 2026 GTCL Team] there is no chance of [discord/ disharmony].happening.
I therefore vote yes [to changing from our authoritarian/consultative model to a cooperative model]”
The Authoritarian/Consultative Competitive Team
Player E: In an authoritarian/consultative team, I have always been a team player and have typically deferred to the decisions made by the coach/ captain. When we won the GTCL league twice with Dutton CC, I always accepted decisions made by the captain as they were in the best interest of the collective. In my view individual opinions matter quite a bit, as long as they do not lead to discord/ disharmony.
I believe that every good team in all sports will have a head coach as well as associate coaches. Each assistant or associate coach will be likely a specialist in an area where the head coach has lots of knowledge but perhaps less specific knowledge. Utilizing the input from these assistants or team members in this case could lead to a more informed decision on the part of the captain. It is a cooperative type decision but without actual formal voting.
Possible Conclusion
Bob Armstrong: There is no doubt that the competitive cooperative team structure is more democratic than the competitive authoritarian/consultative structure. But it seems it has seldom been tried....it has pretty much traditionally just been assumed that the Captain having ultimate control (With some consulting) is the way to go in competitive events.
But it seems there is also a strong view that the cooperative model can work quite well IF the team is very amenable to the model, will avoid discord/disharmony, and the Captain is fully behind the model, and willing to be a team “administrator”, subject to having, for efficiency, a second tie-breaking vote.
Since we ourselves area pure cooperative (One member; one vote), and we have total control over picking our Captain, and our individual team members, I recommend that we do form, where appropriate, competitive cooperative teams, and give the model a good try. We will then know if it is as good as, or better than, the traditional authoritarian/consultative model, and whether team members find the model good."
Invitation to CT'ers
Before we vote, we are still open to input.......just comment below.
Thanks.
Bob Armstrong - Communications Secretary/Ontario Coordinator
GWWS(80+)
[Canadian National Organization/Unincorporated Not-for-Profit Cooperative]
The Nature of 80 + Senior Teams: Cooperative or Authoritarian/Consultative
a. GWWS(80+) Motion# 1 - Bob Armstrong (26/2/8) (At this point, given our size, no seconder is required for a motion)
Presented to the other 2 members of the cooperative, John Monné, and Lance Beloungie.
As a Cooperative, we only form chess teams that are pure cooperatives themselves (Captain is the team coordinator only - no special status re initial vote). But in case of a tie, the Captain is given the 2nd tie-breaking vote.
Team players must:
1. accept that the team is a pure cooperative (We are not open to players bringing motions to become the authoritarian model); and 2. agree to fully participate in the cooperative structure ( Vote, etc.), despite, perhaps, any personal preference to playing on normal authoritarian teams.
b. Discussion Phase
The Discussion Phase comes to an end @ 6 PM EST tomorrow, Fri., Feb. 20.
We are open to CT input 'til then. Just comment below, or Contact Bob: bobarm111 at gmail dot com.
Unless member John Monné asks for an extension of this phase, I will then call the vote.
c. Voting
Since we are a pure cooperative, at the moment, each of the 3 members has an equal vote (My own position as Communications Secretary is purely administrative).
Lance Beloungie, member, decided to vote early - he abstained. His position is that either kind of competitive chess team is acceptable to him. So he will go with the majority decision. He did not take a position on whether one format was preferable to him than the other.
Bob A (Communications Secretary/Ontario Coordinator)
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Thursday, 19th February, 2026, 03:27 PM.
Tweet
Comment