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.
The foundation history goes back to 1960, 50 years. Do we have 50 years of good financial records? I don't know, but I will ask. :)
I would like to see a complete history of the Foundation myself. :D
I've got from 1960 to 1973. The annual bottom line figures are on one page. The rest is statement of intent, foundation constitution, and so forth. I also have the complete CFC handbook from back then.
The Foundation's mandate is to invest the money collected since 1960 from Life Memberships and occasional donations and to hand over the income generated every year to the CFC.
This represents an unwritten contract with the Life Members and benefactors who made the contributions with that understanding and it provides the CFC with income to service the Life Members who pay no annual membership fees.
Aside from Life Memberships, there have been 3 significant contributions to the Foundation:
1. Kalev Pugi made a donation some 20 years ago on the condition that the income be used to assist junior players seeking norms;
2. The Toronto Chess League made a donation about 12 years ago;
3. Some of the funds from the sale of the CFC condo were placed in the Foundation for safekeeping about a year ago. I was requested by the CFC Executive to keep $10,000 of that in cash as a contingency to pay for the web site renewal.
As far as I am concerned, the mandate of the CFC Constitution (to invest the assets wisely and to hand over all income to the CFC) is sound. As the Foundation grows, the CFC will gain increasing revenue and more flexibility to offer services to the members.
Don't forget to include the Foundation in your estate planning.
Sorry, Gary's posting came in while I was preparing mine. Yes, I have the entire history of the Foundation. Much of it pre-dates the electronic age but when I took over as treasurer from Lynn Stringer, she gave me a box full of documentation. In 1960 the Foundation earned $2.57 for the CFC!
Every year my predecessor Lynn Stringer submitted a detailed report to the CFC and anyone can go back to the various GL's and AGM minutes to see those. I have continued to do this and also to provide a semi-annual report to members on the CFC Chat site.
Sorry, Gary's posting came in while I was preparing mine. Yes, I have the entire history of the Foundation. Much of it pre-dates the electronic age but when I took over as treasurer from Lynn Stringer, she gave me a box full of documentation. In 1960 the Foundation earned $2.57 for the CFC!
That does not show in the records I have.
In 1960 the foundation started with 5 donation totalling $125.00. Year end was June 30th. The fund total was $125.00.
In 1961 the amount of interest earned was $3.87. The fund total $580.00.
Where did the $2.57 come from? Since you have the "entire history" of the foundation that should be an easy question.
Also, the Pugi Fund was started as you say, as far as I know. Did the CFC make donations to the Pugi fund to increase the principal?
There are not many professional players - GMs Rozentalis (he is coming to 2010'CO), Šulskis, Kveinys in Lithuania. I should mention g Algimantas Butnorius, who won the World Seniors championship in 2007, and Viktorija Čmilytė, the last player to become a Lithuanian GM and the European Women's vice-champion. (FIDE list of Lithuanian players - http://ratings.fide.com/topfed.phtml?ina=1&country=LTU )
Chess is considered a non-Olympic sport in Lithuania, meaning it has less financial government support. Monies are delivered to a federation account. They are used to send teams to Olympiad and European championships, and something left for a director and small expanses. However, the last year the government reduced the amount (a crisis...)
On other hand, the government supports kids busyness by operating sports "schools", where some towns have chess sections. (This is a soviet heritage.) Recently U10-U14 tournaments took place >> results at http://chess-results.com/tnr31663.as...1&m=-1&wi=1000
Chess clubs (~20) are active in Leagues with two divisions.
My hometown (~20k population) chess club is open three days per week offering blitz tournaments and casual chess. It organizes an active regional chess tournament, and the last summer re-started FIDE rated tournaments. (Other Lithuanian chess activities might be found at my website.)
Chess politics
Federation members (including member-clubs) meet every two years to elect the board. As the rule, the president became somebody known in politics (like a MP. Now this stopped.) The vice-presidents and other people are from chess community, who do all work.
Always there are who are not happy with done work :) e.g., the switch from a closed to a Swiss format for the National championship.
There are many girls playing chess. Thus keeping boys as well :)
Judging from some of the comments on "foundations", it seems few people on here understand the concept. I haven't a clue about the details of the chess foundation, but do know a little about Community Foundations.
Over the past twenty years or so, these have become a popular mechanism for "directed" charity donations. The idea is that people can donate sums of money into the foundation, where it is held in trust, hopefully under the management of reputable financial advisors....don't laugh....yet! Each year, interest or other returns on that fund is given to the cause(s) that the foundation was establish to support. None of the base fund can be used in this way - it exists solely to generate revenue, and hopefully provide some financial stability to the charities of choice, and named in the terms of reference.
In the good old days of high interest rates and market returns, this was a very good way of maintaining ongoing support for your charities of choice. These days, it is a little more difficult, but the basic premise remains, the fund is maintained solely to generate monies for charity, and can not be diminished.
Each foundation operates under very clear terms of reference, with clear objectives, and with an independent board, and the whole thing has to be legally established to satisfy foundation rules, and not least Revenue Canada, to maintain all the perks of taxes and charitable donations.
From what I read, this is in fact the way in which the Chess Foundation is currently operating, is the correct way, and any change would probably mean dismantling the whole thing, and I suspect the disbursement of funds would not be as straightforward as some would hope.
I apologise if this comes across as telling the chess world out there how to suck eggs, but it is quite likely that if the foundation is established under Canadian law for foundations, in no way are their monies part of the CFC , and even the annual payments from interest earned, while contemplated in their terms of reference, are still subject to the decision of the foundation board....which had better be independent of the CFC.
I'm sure some of the drones on here will tell me I'm wrong. Maybe someone who actually knows can reply as well?
The potential problems with this specific chess foundation :
1. A large sum of money collected specifically to build a chess club in
Toronto was donated into the foundation. No such chess club was
ever built in Toronto.
2. Chess is fundamentally changing in Canada. One has to ask if a chess
federation that is not solvent or only solvent if it cuts basic services really
needs a giant foundation storing its only resources.
For example, if the CFC as we know it is liquidated, what will be the purpose of this foundation ? Or if it is not liquidated, at what rate can it "borrow" foundation funds before the relationship gets difficult ?
My memory may be foggy on this, so someone from the executive, or a trustee of the Foundation can correct me if I'm wrong:
1. The Chess Foundation of Canada is not a separate corporation; it is an entity set up by the CFC ( like a sub-business ); so all funds in the Chess Foundation are really CFC funds. I believe tax receipts are issued by the CFC, which is a charitable corporation.
2. As such, the CFC could disband the Foundation at any time, and take all moneys.
3. The CFC wished to protect the funds from itself to the extent possible. So it created the Foundation with Trustees, and treats the entity at arm's length. So it calls for trustee decisions re the funds, and respects their wishes. Thus CFC " agreed " to " borrow " money from the Foundation in some deficit years, and " pay it back " ( which it did ), when that is what the Trustees wanted.
Hope I'm not screwing up the facts here. I'd like someone with a more direct role to confirm whether I've got it right.
O.K. I did a rather siily thing, and looked at what the CFC site says about the foundation! Clearly it is based on a model that evolved into the Community Foudation concept, with the following difference.
"1405. Foundation Board of Trustees. The trust funds shall be in the complete charge and control of the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees shall consist of five persons appointed by the Chess Federation of Canada as follows: Each year, at the Annual Meeting of the Chess Federation of Canada or by its direction, one trustee will be appointed for a one year term, and another for a four year term. The members of the Board of Trustees will select a Chairman and Treasurer from their ranks under the direction of the CFC President."
It is clearly not at arms length from the CFC, although is trying to act like it is. Legally, the whole thing looks like a mess, and heaven knows how ths funds get divvied up at dissolution. You have to hope the five trustees at the time are honourable people - sorry about that!
Fred, you are exactly correct. Thank you for bringing the facts forward.
Our trustees are elected to terms of one to four years at the CFC Annual General Meeting. Currently, we are: Lynn Stringer (chair), myself (treasurer), Bob Gillanders, Michah Hughey and Hugh Brodie.
We are all veteran organizers and players with a passion for the game and a desire to do the best we can for chess in Canada. We are indeed bound by the conditions that you outlined.
It is clearly not at arms length from the CFC, although is trying to act like it is. Legally, the whole thing looks like a mess, and heaven knows how ths funds get divvied up at dissolution. You have to hope the five trustees at the time are honourable people - sorry about that!
I have to admit your previous opinion surprised me. This one sounds more reasonable.
I suspect a significant portion of the funds came from lifetime subscription. In general, such monies are invested to ensure the fund will be able to meet the cost of the obligations towards these lifetime members.
Over the years the main (financially significant) obligation towards the lifetime members was to send them (like other members) a news chess magazine who used to be called "Chess Canada", "En passant", "Chess Canada Echecs", etc. Recently for more than a year CFC members, including lifetime members, did not receive any such service and to top it off could not even count on a decent and virus free website for informations. How come the CFC did not go then to his trusted foundation to get the necessary funds to honour its obligations to all and lifetime members in particular ? Was the CFC unaware of the foundation's purpose ? In that extreme case, the Foundation proved useless to ensure anything. Having money in the bank clearly does not in itself ensure that services are provided. And if the foundation proves useless to prevent the CFC from interrupting for a lenghty period its most basic functions, what good reason can one find for its existence ?
Thanks to some usefull posts above, we now have a better understanding of the reasonable principles behind such foundations. But the question is: is such a foundation really appropriate for the needs of canadian Chess ? Being in a state of under development compared to the rest of the world, can we really afford to wait until that foundation miraculously grows big enough so that chess can develop using only the interests ?
....if the foundation proves useless to prevent the CFC from interrupting for a lenghty period its most basic functions, what good reason can one find for its existence ?
Nice spin Jean, but I would remind you that it was the Foundation that did come to the financial rescue of the CFC while it underwent it's restructuring program. :) I took a lot of flack when I first suggested it, but it was the foundation loans which allowed the CFC to continue "normal" operations. :)
There certainly were times of poor service etc etc :o :o but I attribute that mostly to the dysfunctional political structure that hampers corrective actions. As for obligations to life memberships, I think most have received a pretty good deal, some I believe $50 in exchange for a lifetime of services. Well, I guess they are "entitled to their entitlements"!
Tweet
Comment