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 doubt there are many cities in North America that have a chess coffee house anymore. In the heyday Montreal was famous for Cafe En Passant which was open until 5 am - 7 days a wekk.
Today we are fortunate to have cafe En Pi which serves the chess playing clientele 7 days a week. Owned by Mr. Kiss, this great hangout continues to prosper. The Montreal Gazette ran a nice story on the place today. This kind of visibility is excellent as it brings the casual player back to the game.
Meanwhile, a week ago, the Canadian Open was in town and there was not a whisper in the local media...and you can't blame the media for that as it is difficult to report on an event that one is not even aware is happening.
Meanwhile, a week ago, the Canadian Open was in town and there was not a whisper in the local media...and you can't blame the media for that as it is difficult to report on an event that one is not even aware is happening.
Strange. In another thread I thought that I read that this Canadian Open was "extraordinary" and "fantastic". :)
The event itself may have been, but last year I saw multiple articles in the Ottawa Citizen and Sun, two postings on Chessbase.com, postings on Mig's Daily Dirt site, and a live blog site with all sorts of articles. There was definitely more effort last year to promote the event to a wider audience. I think that is Larry's critism of the event.
I think the event was fantastic from the players and the organizers perspective. In my earlier post, I did mention that media coverage was lacking (non-existant).
For the record, here is what I wrote:
I think all of the last Canadian Opens have been extraordinary!
2004 - I am too lazy to look...sorry...but since you asked 3 years...I am ahead of the game
2005 - Edmonton - incredible!
2006 - Kitchener - Hal and Patrick did a fantastic job!
2007 - Ottawa - Gordon Ritchie and the team put on a class event!
2008 - Montreal - Fantastic
So the bottom line...despite all the internal problems of the CFC...Canadian chess continues to produce first class National Championships.
First and foremost...all 4 events were great and everyone involved should be extremely proud!
I was in Ottawa last year and Montreal this year. From the sidelines this is how I would compare the two events
First Ottawa worked very hard and attracted a great number of players to a downtown location. I was one of the players in the Ottawa Canadian Open which was held in the church basement many years ago with no A/C
If you compare the population base and the tradition in Montreal...then the numbers in Ottawa were extraordinary!
Why...well...every summer there is the Quebec Open which draws 225 to 250 players of late...making it a Canadian Open brings in an additional 100 players from the rest of Canada. This year, the company Empressa (Luc Deguire owner and Andre Langlois consultant and employee) tossed in a substantial dollars to make a Guaranteed prize fund of $25,000! So Montreal drew about 330 players and Ottawa came in (if memory doesn't fail me) around 290 players
In Ottawa, Peter Hum was great with media and feeding us info on a regular basis as the event approached. In Montreal, this has always (well most of the time at any rate) been our weakest link. No media coverage. Not before...not during...nor after. In case people are wondering this is also a major problem with the Chess'n Math Association....we have had our success in this area but they are far and few between.
The playing site. Well...Montreal was in a college...it may not be glamorous...but it is very functional and everyone has lots of space. Compared to the Ottawa hotel where it was played in a number of rooms in the basement...I would give this one to Montreal.
Location...the last 3 events (I don't know the physical locations before that) were all excellent...downtown...lots to do...easily accesible etc.
Prize funds and quality of players at all these events was awesome!
Prize funds and quality of players at all these events was awesome!
Something that happens all the time, every year, at "all these events", cannot in my book be called "fantastic", "awesome" or "extraordinary". It has to be called at best "normal", "ordinary" or "standard".
Yes it was an event with a good prize fund and a fair bunch of "ordinary" GMs. Yes, most people had a good time (which is the case in almost all chess events, nothing "extraordinary" there), but from an organisational stand point, it was probably below average for a long list of reasons, some of them having been already mentionned: total lack of side events (simuls, conferences, etc.), no media coverage through a complete lack of effort from the organisation, no clause to prevent unrated and provisionnallly rated players to win undeserved prizes, no easy way to identify players in the Open section (like ID cards), listless (as usual) opening and closing ceremonies, etc., etc,.
Participation was far from "great" too, when everything is considered carefully. Last year the Ottawa Canadian Open drew 280 players and the Quebec Open 233. That is a total of over 500 players. What is so fantastic for Canadian chess in having one single "big" summer Open that draws only a total of 330 players in 2008 ? That's a loss of over 170 players, isn't it ? Even making a tournament to tournament comparison isn't so flattering for Montreal 2008. What is so great for Montreal to draw only 50 more players than Ottawa, when its population is three times larger ?
The fact of the matter is: canadian chess is in such a bad shape that anything that even half works is seen (by some) as fantastic, wonderful, awesome. It is high time to open our eyes...
Jean, you make some good points that adjectives are often bandied about with reckless abandon. But here is some "news" - the new CFC Executive (or at least the new President) is preparing a plan to be released very soon now...
Excuse me for having a severe case of deja vu. There can be no doubt the CFC is in desperate need of a plan that will work and will be passed by the Governors (assuming they are asked; oops, that was old news). What I find contributing to the deja vu part is the same old cycle: executive tries things during their mandate; some succeed, many fail. The CFC AGM looms on the horizon so the pace of innovation or recommendation slows to a crawl at best and then: we have a new POPE! Oops, I mean, a new Executive (mostly) and all is well again.
This scenario keeps repeating like a bad episode of Groundhog Day (a fine movie BTW).
From your description Jean, I gather there were some problems that could easily have been avoided at the premiere tournament... very sad indeed. I read elsewhere about complaints about unrated/provisionally-rated players apparently sand-bagging... that too is sad - makes a mockery of the game.
This seems like a segway. What do the CFC Executive have directly to do with the attendance of the Canadian Open?
The only role the CFC plays in this matter is that it decides which team has the winning bid for the Open. The comittee for selecting the winning the bid awarded it to Montreal. I don't think there was another serious bid. After that it is the function of the team that won the bid to make the tournament successful.
I don't deny that the CFC is in horiffic shape right now and needs to figure out fast how to right things. But if you are going to critize a specific event, then put it where it belongs.
Personally, I'm more of a glass half full person myself. The past 4 Canadian Opens drew over 200 persons, and the last two averaged over 300. These number are right up there with attendance numbers from 20 years ago. This proves that if you can offer a quality tournament, people will attend. We just need to see more activity at the local level, to create the right environment to attract players.
Hébert has no reason to whine: He played in the -2400 section despite having maintained a rating higher than that for all but a very short period since 2000, which is as far as the Internet ratings go. He was over 2400 a great deal longer than that and at one point reached 2500, as indicated by the ".25" in the number. We have nothing to learn from Hébert when it comes to fair play.
There is another Chesstalk post which is a legitimate call for disqualifying cheaters who play at lower levels; however, instead of recognizing the mistake, politely apologizing, and attributing the prize (it was the E section) to the right people, it appears the fellow who posted jolted the ChessTalk palace guard in an uproar. Read "Invalid Results - Section E - Canadian/Quebec Open" to see how the illiterate self-appointed "leaders" of Canadian chess protect their own by becoming apologists for the fraud. "Oh, dear. Such a shame a guy beating masters time and time again in blitz somehow played in the -1400." What preposterous little people you are.
With regards to Larry Bevand bemoaning the fact Chess'n Math is not in the news anymore, I submit that organization has no reason to be, for it merely a petty operation just like the rest of Canadian Chess. It has been around for a long time, yet not a single strong Canadian player -- from Lesiège to Charbonneau to Roussel-Roozmon -- can say that Chess N' Math had anything to do with their training. The fact is the organization has failed to retain and train a single strong player beyond the elementary school level. (Special thanks to Larry for once again mentioning André Langlois' rank within Empressa, as though Langlois himself did not spend his entire time at the Open reminding everyone how much money he makes).
Something that happens all the time, every year, at "all these events", cannot in my book be called "fantastic", "awesome" or "extraordinary". It has to be called at best "normal", "ordinary" or "standard".
Yes it was an event with a good prize fund and a fair bunch of "ordinary" GMs. Yes, most people had a good time (which is the case in almost all chess events, nothing "extraordinary" there), but from an organisational stand point, it was probably below average for a long list of reasons, some of them having been already mentionned: total lack of side events (simuls, conferences, etc.), no media coverage through a complete lack of effort from the organisation, no clause to prevent unrated and provisionnallly rated players to win undeserved prizes, no easy way to identify players in the Open section (like ID cards), listless (as usual) opening and closing ceremonies, etc., etc,.
Participation was far from "great" too, when everything is considered carefully. Last year the Ottawa Canadian Open drew 280 players and the Quebec Open 233. That is a total of over 500 players. What is so fantastic for Canadian chess in having one single "big" summer Open that draws only a total of 330 players in 2008 ? That's a loss of over 170 players, isn't it ? Even making a tournament to tournament comparison isn't so flattering for Montreal 2008. What is so great for Montreal to draw only 50 more players than Ottawa, when its population is three times larger ?
The fact of the matter is: canadian chess is in such a bad shape that anything that even half works is seen (by some) as fantastic, wonderful, awesome. It is high time to open our eyes...
Hébert has no reason to whine: He played in the -2400 section despite having maintained a rating higher than that for all but a very short period since 2000, which is as far as the Internet ratings go. He was over 2400 a great deal longer than that and at one point reached 2500, as indicated by the ".25" in the number. We have nothing to learn from Hébert when it comes to fair play.
Mrs Sheehan,
I was not responsible for the making up of the sections at the COC. Actually I told André Langlois that the cutoff for the B section should have been 2200or 2300, but certainly not 2400. But just like everybody rated below 2400 FIDE, I was seen by Mr Langlois as a player who could be a nuisance for GM norms purposes in the Open section. Under those conditions I was eligible for the under 2400 section under rules that I had nothing to do with and I legitimately entered that section. Anything wrong with this Mrs Sheehan ? This has nothing at all to do with "fair play".
It was funny...two people contacted me yesterday...about this post...I laughed...and came to the same conclusion as you.
I spoke to Chris Mallon as he has been the one confirming info to give people access to post on this site. He has basically accepted everyone on face value. However, this site gives us lots of info to determine who actually made the post.
I will be asking Chris to look further into this. Obviously if someone uses their real name and wants to voice a complaint...problem...etc...I have no problem with that...it is just the cowards out there who want to hide...that I have no respect for.
Chess'n Math is not perfect. Gee, why do you think I lose my hair :). I know the problems with our organization better than anyone else LOL. However we do care and we do want to do the right thing!
So if Cindy is real...then let's talk and make things better. If Cindy is really a coward hiding behind a ficticious name...then...let's give this person the attention they truly deserve :)
Tweet
;):p:o
Comment