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.
Maybe. But only after a lot of time and perhaps bad communication and loss of goodwill. Jean has a good point (in general; I am not certain about this particular tournament since the details are far from clear).
There was a better advice from Jean "It should mean back to the drawing board and fast", as with a such loose condition "If not enough seats are reserved, the event will be rescheduled to an alternate day in May to allow sufficient time to promote this amazing one-day event" - many will restrain. Thus there is still time and advices to succeed with "this amazing one-day event" ;)
We should wish only the good organizers to succeed. Those trying silly formulas doomed to failure actually hurt the game of chess and should be censured before they can do more damage. In this particular case looking at those above figures, we are dealing with someone with little interest in the game itself but a big interest in making a profit. To achieve this goal he is ready to ask for outrageous entry fees, reschedule or cancel events and what else ? No respect at all for the game, no respect at all for the chess players/customers.
After spending a month in France looking closely at the wonderful organisation of two great open chess tournaments, reading this on Chesstalk is a shocking return to Canada's retarded state of chess development.
Canadian chess is fragmented. Quebec provides very few members to the CFC and has no real affliliaton with the CFC. So, the CFC only appears to represent represent 75% of the population of the nation.
For tournaments, the players have to decide for themselves where they will play. Possibly some players would prefer to play in such a one day event for $50. as opposed to spending close to $200. to play for a week in the Canadian Open.
If the players want to make money and appearance fees, why shouldn't the organizers try to make money? For the players the risk is nobody will want to pay them to play and for the organizers the risk is nobody will pay to play in their events.
I was wondering that myself. If you specify an adult event (as junior tournaments are typically at active time controls), the number is probably quite small. (with or without the stipulation that it be CFC rated)
Luc Poitras's events have drawn in the mid 30's although are not usually CFC rated. The 2009 BC active championship (which was CFC rated althought the 2010 version was not) had I think 36 or 38 people in two sections (I'd post the crosstable but the CFC xtable site seems to be down...sigh)
But surely there is an event somewhere bigger than 36?
I was wondering that myself. If you specify an adult event (as junior tournaments are typically at active time controls), the number is probably quite small. (with or without the stipulation that it be CFC rated)
Luc Poitras's events have drawn in the mid 30's although are not usually CFC rated. The 2009 BC active championship (which was CFC rated althought the 2010 version was not) had I think 36 or 38 people in two sections (I'd post the crosstable but the CFC xtable site seems to be down...sigh)
But surely there is an event somewhere bigger than 36?
I went to check out some of my previous Actives (as a player), but the damn website is unresponsive again, grrr. :(
Anyway, a few years back, there was a gentleman, I believe in Waterloo, Ontario, who was running CFC-rated Actives on ICC. It was once a month on Sunday evenings, if I remember correctly, and attendance eventually was quite decent, I seem to recall.
I was wondering that myself. If you specify an adult event (as junior tournaments are typically at active time controls), the number is probably quite small. (with or without the stipulation that it be CFC rated)
Luc Poitras's events have drawn in the mid 30's although are not usually CFC rated. The 2009 BC active championship (which was CFC rated althought the 2010 version was not) had I think 36 or 38 people in two sections (I'd post the crosstable but the CFC xtable site seems to be down...sigh)
But surely there is an event somewhere bigger than 36?
I'm sure that the annual Keres 6-round active at the Estonian House on Broadview in the 1980-90s had 60 players.
As Jean has pointed out on other occasions, obtaining sponsorship to mitigate the risk is a good solution, but an elusive one for most prospective tournaments. National tournaments like the Canadian Open or a Large tournament in a big city may have a better shot at sponsorship than a local weekend Swiss, but the risks are not the same in those two situations.
Here in Quebec we have three weekend events coming up, all three benefitting from sponsorhip and offering respectively 5000, 5000 and 12000$ in prizes. One of them (the Ch. Ouvert du Saguenay) in its 2nd edition is heavily sponsored. Participants will get probably 4-5 times what they pay in entry fees. The "ch. ouvert de la Mauricie" gets enough entries to at least break even, but still gets some hard money from the city. Their prize fund is not garanteed but year after year it is given in full. And the "ch. de Lanaudière" is another event that gives more money than it gets from the players, thanks to a fair amount of support from the city.
I have wrote it before and I will stick to it because it is a fact: most organizers do not get sponsorship because they don't search for it or/and don't know how.
But surely there is an event somewhere bigger than 36?
If you include FQE-rated active tournaments, the highest was 118 at the 1992 Quebec Open ative championship. Unfortunately - this event hasn't been held the last few years.
We should wish only the good organizers to succeed. Those trying silly formulas doomed to failure actually hurt the game of chess and should be censured before they can do more damage. In this particular case looking at those above figures, we are dealing with someone with little interest in the game itself but a big interest in making a profit. To achieve this goal he is ready to ask for outrageous entry fees, reschedule or cancel events and what else ? No respect at all for the game, no respect at all for the chess players/customers.
After spending a month in France looking closely at the wonderful organisation of two great open chess tournaments, reading this on Chesstalk is a shocking return to Canada's retarded state of chess development.
Without defending this particular organizer or condoning his methods, someone needs once again to get in Jean's face and say this:
Maybe if you want things better here in Canada, you should be paying entry fees to organizers here in Canada instead of chasing selfish goals over in Europe.
Oh, I forgot, you're JEAN HEBERT, you don't pay entry fees. What was that you were saying about "someone with little interest in the game itself but a big interest in making a profit"?
If it's such a shocking return, don't bother returning. Canadian chess doesn't need armchair quarterbacks. But since you are returning, how about you put your money where your mouth is?
BTW, it should be mentioned that in comparing France and Canada with respect to chess organization, France doesn't have Canada's HOCKEY or CURLING interests to compete with in winter. And in the summer, maybe Canadians just want to get outdoors instead of being glued to a wooden chair pushing chess pieces all weekend. There are cultural differences that will likely never be overcome. If you like France, go live in France, which is probably why you whine and selfishly pursuing GM norms instead of helping to remedy all the problems you whine about.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
BTW, it should be mentioned that in comparing France and Canada with respect to chess organization, France doesn't have Canada's HOCKEY or CURLING interests to compete with in winter. And in the summer, maybe Canadians just want to get outdoors instead of being glued to a wooden chair pushing chess pieces all weekend.
Your knowledge and understanding of France seems to match your understanding of chess. No surprise there.
And I suppose denigrating any new ideas that are tried by somebody is a sure way to improve conditions?
Sure, not all new ideas are good. But don't belittle and lambast people who try something new. Let them try and see if it works.
Roger,
Use your judgment if you can to set apart the good, the bad and the ugly. If you want to try a new but highly dubious move in your favorite Orang-Outang opening, its your business and the worst that can happen is that you will lose the game and please an opponent.
A so-called new organizer coming up with silly schemes to make a buck and cancelling them at the last moment has very negative consequences for the chess community, first of all in terms of image. It is our responsability that these things do not come off the ground. Encouraging them to "try" hopeless and potentially destructive schemes is not a good idea.
It seems that some people are so desperate to have things organised for them that they are ready to thrust anybody, no matter how foolish their plans may be. In the meantime the good organizers stay on the sidelines watching the experiments.
It's one thing to not like a particular set of organizing conditions and decide yourself not to play. It another thing entirely to decide that nobody else should play either and do your best to stop an event from happening.
Here we have an event that is something like 1000km from you, that you wouldn't play in even if conditions were perfect. Heaven forbid that somebody, somewhere should play chess under conditions you consider "inferior".
Your rationale for this that there are good organizers being "forced" to sit on the sidelines because of all the "bad" events is not credible.
Further, there is nothing to guarantee your feelings represent the truth of what is considered "good" organizing or even that others agree with your feeling that no tournaments is better than having "bad" tournaments. Where would we be if all the people who feel the Canadian Open should be either run in sections demanded sections or no tournament at all and all the people who like one section demanded one section or no tournament at all?
Tweet
Comment