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.
This obsession you appear to have for following Jean Hebert around wherever he goes and verbally abusing him can't be healthy, can it?
I only respond to Jean when he undeservedly and arrogantly attacks others, specifically organizers. Which I suppose pretty much would by 90% of his posts. I think I told Kerry Liles several weeks ago that I wasnt' attempting to troll all of Jean Hebert's posts. But I feel a compulsion to defend organizers because they are (with possibly a few exceptions) the true workhorses of Canadian chess. Jean has no regard for their efforts, all he sees is conditions that don't meet his approval and so he attacks the organizer. He flippantly uses terms like "retarded" (Sarah Palin better not hear about that!) and "dumbell". He sees tournament conditions in one part of the world and believes those same conditions should exist here in Canada, and if they don't, it's the organizers' fault. He's extremely narrow-minded.
That's all it is, Peter, plain and simple. On this particular thread, I've responded to just about all of Hebert's posts because they're all in that category. I will continue to expose Hebert for the negative force he is to Canadian chess.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
I am 54-year old. I began to play chess in 1976 (34 years ago). Around 1982 I got an expert rating (more than 2000), and it went up and down several times. My last 2000+ rating was in 1994. Since then my rating steadily dropped, today it is between 1850 and 1900 most of the time.
Does this mean than my chess understanding is lower than before? Not at all. Actually I understand chess a lot better now than 30 years ago. Now I understand better positional play, opening and endgame theory, and I know better chess history and the games of the great champions. So why did my rating go down? The answer is: because chess is NOT a purely intellectual endeavour. Chess is mainly a SPORT. It takes stamina to play two 5-hour games a day at a constant high level.
So today my chess understanding is better than before, but my rating is lower, because I get older... in particular, I cannot calculate long combinations as well as before... also I get tired sooner... since I take more time to find good moves, I get more often in time trouble... and I blunder more often... but fortunately my overall chess understanding is better than ever, which partly compensates for my numerous tactical slips...
It does not take so many more blunders to lower significantly a chess rating. I hope you understand better now the difference between chess understanding and chess rating.
Louis, it is not I who easily dismisses the chess understanding of others, it is Jean Hebert.
If you want to rail against someone, do it against Jean. He writes that I have virtually no chess understanding, something he would know nothing about. It is a personal shortcoming of Jean, that he can just dismiss anyone he disagrees with and accuse them of having no understanding. He honestly believes only he has true understanding of the issues he writes about.
I can understand that you cannot keep your rating level, much less improve it, but what I wrote was about chess PROFESSIONALS. Anyone who devotes every day, their entire life, to chess should overcome all the stamina issues you mention. Since their understanding is supposedly improving much more than yours is, they should see continued improvement in their rating right into their 50s at least. If it's a stamina issue, they need to work out.
If in my profession I just stayed level and didn't improve, I'd be out of work by now. And my profession requires at least 8 hours a day of intense concentration, not unlike playing a game of chess. I have to have stamina also, and there are also young people right out of university who are very bright and talented for me to contend with, just as there are young talented chess players for the likes of Hebert to contend with. If I can continue to improve and not lose out to these youngesters, then mature chess professionals should be able to do the same.
I personally believe they don't improve because once they reach a certain level, they operate on cruise control, which they can get away with. Even with some decline in their ratings, they still maintain an easy lifestyle (which is not to say a rich lifestyle, but "easy" meaning they don't have to work hard). So for me, these people are underperforming and are not truly devoted to their profession. They are not pushed hard enough, by others or even by themselves.
I, on the other hand, continue to push myself very hard and continue to improve. This verifies my viewpoint, I can see that improvement is possible even 18 years into my profession. I would truly say to Jean Hebert that he can and should become a GM and improve his rating. But obviously for 20 years he hasn't done that, so it seems either he is one of those who lives the easy life, or perhaps he's had personal issues blocking his way, I really can't say.
One thing is clear, he wants more of an easy life here in Canada, which is why he's trying to get organizers to do all the grunt work to get sponsors to pony up for all the freebies Hebert thinks he deserves. Jean will not do any of the work himself, he feels above doing that, unlike his Facebook friend Mikhail Egorov, who just played in the Hamilton Winter Open where he also helped make name cards for the tables and helped run the demo boards. Now THAT'S the kind of player you need more of in Canada!
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
I am 54-year old. I began to play chess in 1976 (34 years ago). Around 1982 I got an expert rating (more than 2000), and it went up and down several times. My last 2000+ rating was in 1994. Since then my rating steadily dropped, today it is between 1850 and 1900 most of the time.
Does this mean than my chess understanding is lower than before? Not at all. Actually I understand chess a lot better now than 30 years ago. Now I understand better positional play, opening and endgame theory, and I know better chess history and the games of the great champions. So why did my rating go down? The answer is: because chess is NOT a purely intellectual endeavour. Chess is mainly a SPORT. It takes stamina to play two 5-hour games a day at a constant high level.
So today my chess understanding is better than before, but my rating is lower, because I get older... in particular, I cannot calculate long combinations as well as before... also I get tired sooner... since I take more time to find good moves, I get more often in time trouble... and I blunder more often... but fortunately my overall chess understanding is better than ever, which partly compensates for my numerous tactical slips...
It does not take so many more blunders to lower significantly a chess rating. I hope you understand better now the difference between chess understanding and chess rating.
Louis,
54 years old yes, but you forgot to say that you are now more than 400 pounds. The brain simply need a good slim and trained body to perform at the top no matter the age.
If you look at Jean on pictures he is very slim and in good shape since he decided to go for GM norms. The guy is doing a come back, before he was simply teaching chess and played in minor weekends tournaments.
Last edited by Carl Bilodeau; Tuesday, 23rd March, 2010, 09:42 AM.
...
Jean will not do any of the work himself, he feels above doing that, unlike his Facebook friend Mikhail Egorov, who just played in the Hamilton Winter Open where he also helped make name cards for the tables and helped run the demo boards. Now THAT'S the kind of player you need more of in Canada!
He writes a weekly chess magazine for 1500+ readers and spend one day a week doing it. This is the kind of player you need more of in Canada!
Also he beated the young Canadian top players to become the Canadian Champion 2009. This is the kind of player you need more of in Canada!
He stay in Canada and play in Canada's tournaments so our kids can chalenge him. This is the kind of player you need more of in Canada!
He gives many good advices base on his long carreer as a teacher, as a chess newspapers writer and as a chess player. This is the kind of player you need more of in Canada!
He writes a weekly chess magazine for 1500+ readers and spend one day a week doing it. This is the kind of player you need more of in Canada!
Also he beated the young Canadian top players to become the Canadian Champion 2009. This is the kind of player you need more of in Canada!
He stay in Canada and play in Canada's tournaments so our kids can chalenge him. This is the kind of player you need more of in Canada!
He gives many good advices base on his long carreer as a teacher, as a chess newspapers writer and as a chess player. This is the kind of player you need more of in Canada!
Carl
Merci, Carl
A computer beat me in chess, but it was no match when it came to kickboxing
I'm not convinced, the US GM Ben Finegold ain't no lightweight. Surely there is hope for we fatties.
In an interview after he became world champion Bobby Fischer was asked: Do you do some sport?
- Yes I have an intensive training a lot, I swim and play tennis but all this training is only a preparation for Chess, you sit for hours, have to be concentrate..... a lot of blood go in the head....
Click here to see the video. (I think this is the interview)
In my opinion GM Ben Finegold is losing more than 50 pts because of his exta 50 pounds, just like Louis is losing 280 pts (450 pounds - 180 normal weight = 280 extra pounds).
Last edited by Carl Bilodeau; Tuesday, 23rd March, 2010, 11:45 AM.
If you look at Jean on pictures he is very slim and in good shape since he decided to go for GM norms.
Well I wish that it would be completely true but actually I may look slimmer than I am. No doubt that losing 10-15 pounds would not hurt my resistance and performances. Last summer I did quite a bit of biking which I believe was an important part of my success at the Canadian Closed. I felt more relaxed and fcused. But it didn't make me lose any weight. Nonetheless I will bike again this spring and summer...
I'm not convinced, the US GM Ben Finegold ain't no lightweight. Surely there is hope for we fatties.
That's one nice feature of chess. Everybody, young and old, men or women, rich and not so rich, physically handicapped, slim and not so slim can play and enjoy the game at various levels. The one possible exception being the PB type looking for brainless lottery type games with a high level of chance and randomness. Fortunately thinking games like chess have built-in features to keep those really handicapped people away. :)
... blah, blah, blah ... I will continue to expose Hebert for the negative force he is to Canadian chess.
I suggest you take the blinders off. You're so focussed on trying to impale Jean Hebert that you're failing to see the bigger, more accurate picture. For example, have you read what Carl Bilodeau wrote about Jean elsewhere in this thread? Here it is:
Originally posted by Carl Bilodeau
He writes a weekly chess magazine for 1500+ readers and spend one day a week doing it. This is the kind of player you need more of in Canada!
Also he beated the young Canadian top players to become the Canadian Champion 2009. This is the kind of player you need more of in Canada!
He stay in Canada and play in Canada's tournaments so our kids can chalenge him. This is the kind of player you need more of in Canada!
He gives many good advices base on his long carreer as a teacher, as a chess newspapers writer and as a chess player. This is the kind of player you need more of in Canada!
Carl
How do you reconcile your viewpoint with what Carl wrote?
Last edited by Peter McKillop; Tuesday, 23rd March, 2010, 06:42 PM.
"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
Well I wish that it would be completely true but actually I may look slimmer than I am. No doubt that losing 10-15 pounds would not hurt my resistance and performances. Last summer I did quite a bit of biking which I believe was an important part of my success at the Canadian Closed. I felt more relaxed and fcused. But it didn't make me lose any weight. Nonetheless I will bike again this spring and summer...
I am (slowly) reading a great book on this subject, it's called Spark and it's about how certain types of exercise can have a dramatic effect on mental focus and ability. Their case study was a high school outside of Chicago, that went from below-average test scores to best in the country test scores after implementing a new fitness program for all students. Interesting stuff.
For anyone interested, the best exercise for this is the kind that requires some thinking (naturally). Biking outside is great, biking on a stationary bike has almost no direct effect on mental focus or ability. Ditto running outside compared to a treadmill. Rock Climbing is apparently the most amazing thing to do for this.
I am (slowly) reading a great book on this subject, it's called Spark and it's about how certain types of exercise can have a dramatic effect on mental focus and ability. Their case study was a high school outside of Chicago, that went from below-average test scores to best in the country test scores after implementing a new fitness program for all students. Interesting stuff.
For anyone interested, the best exercise for this is the kind that requires some thinking (naturally). Biking outside is great, biking on a stationary bike has almost no direct effect on mental focus or ability. Ditto running outside compared to a treadmill. Rock Climbing is apparently the most amazing thing to do for this.
Hi Chris, that is very interesting! I totally agree how outside versions of an activity would be better, just with the sheer amount of extra environment awarenesss required.
Now, are there any other summaries you could provide from that book, like sports that have many "plays" vs. more continuous play, sports that have an actual opponent vs. something individual like against the clock, sports that have higher failure risk (what I mean by that is, if you lose at tennis, not a big deal, if you lose at boxing, pain baby!)
If you prefer to reply by email, feel free, I'm researching that book now, thanks! :)
The book in general thinks team sports are pathetic, both educationally and as an exercise tool.
It makes sense too. If they WERE good exercise, pro athletes wouldn't have to work out to be in good shape to play their games! You spend way too much time sitting around while other people do things.
The author particularly loves Tennis if you are into individual sports. A great combination of hand-eye coordination needed plus reflexes AND running around. And very little in the way of "enforced" downtime - you take a break when you're tired, not when the rules of the game require you to.
Tweet
Comment