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.
Wish I hadn't started this, but......in the perfect world, my common sense tells me that the foundation should exist to support the development of Canadian chess blah blah blah. And if for any reason the CFC fails dismally to do this, the foundation funds should be reserved for someone who can do a better job!
Unfortunately, although the principles are fairly clear, the terms of reference for the foundation clearly align the whole thing with the CFC, which makes a mockery of the intent....IMHO. You really do need trustees that are independent and arms length from the CFC, but they are appointed by the CFC???
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. 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"!
If I understand you correctly, you consider that "life" has become a much exagerated concept that should be shortened considerably. I am not sure that this and the fact that the chess (CFC ?) foundation's money was used to help the CFC continue its "normal" operations speaks so favorably about its existence. We would like to think that the foundation's money is safe from being used for vaguely related chess projets (like CFC "restructuring"), but obviously it is not. It appears safe only from being used for real chess projects and essential services to members.
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 ?
I believe the foundation is essential considering how often the CFC is led by less than financial competetent executives.
The CFC can develop chess without help of the foundation if it so desires. Two major obstacles in my opinion is the absurb number of decision makers (such a small organization has 50+ governors) and its inability to see beyond rated, competitive chess. Such a small sandbox ...
I believe the CFC made a major faux pas when it pushed Mr. Gillanders away because I thought for the first time in 10 years, the CFC office was becoming respectable and stable enough to have the potential to expand its sandbox.
I fear you will not see any major improvement from the CFC anytime soon, Mr. Hébert.
Two major obstacles in my opinion is the absurb number of decision makers (such a small organization has 50+ governors) and its inability to see beyond rated, competitive chess. Such a small sandbox ...
what is the ratio between members and governors? if there's less than 100 members in a region, there probably shouldn't be a governor. i've said this a few times over the years...governors should be made to bring in a few new members (let's say 5 but it could be higher) in order to earn/keep their governorship...a motion like this could help out with the problems of inactive governors and membership ;)
I believe it is 1 governor for every 50 members. Juniors and participating members are counted partially, I think, don't quote me, I'm too lazy to look up the rules.
For Provincial representative governors, it is a governor for every 50 members.
The CFC Constitutional Coaliton tried to get it cut in half, by making it a governor for every 100 members, at the 2009 AGM in Edmonton ( or maybe 2008 in Montreal - don't remember ). But the governors voted down the motion - so it remains the same. The same thing had been tried about 5 years ago, and it also got voted down ( though we got a few more votes this time than last time ).
Many governors told me they thought an " activity rule " ( participate or you're out ) was preferable. So the CFC Constitutional Coalition has now brought a motion to institute this. It is going to the 2010 Toronto AGM for vote.
Bob
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Monday, 5th April, 2010, 02:52 PM.
I am always willing to learn if you are willing to clarify what you are saying. If you simply say that I did not understand without providing any clarification, I might be inclined to believe that on the contrary I did understand too well. If not, then what did you mean exactly by: "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" ? Did you mean that some life members considering the small (in your view) amount they paid should not expect to receive in full the services they paid for ?
English being my second language it is always a possibility that I misunderstand the finer points of your statements.
I believe the foundation is essential considering how often the CFC is led by less than financial competetent executives.
This a non-starter. You must assume that the people you put in charge can do the job and give them a free hand to do it, whatever the risks. Otherwise no organisation can move forward. After all no one is ever elected for his "financial incompetetentness". There are risks in spending but there are equal if not greater risks in not spending.
Two major obstacles in my opinion is the absurb number of decision makers (such a small organization has 50+ governors) and its inability to see beyond rated, competitive chess. Such a small sandbox ...
Yes there are far too many decision makers at the CFC, which ultimately is the same as having NO décision makers.
However the "rated, competitive chess sandbox" is the only sandbox that really counts for organised chess. By definition a chess player wants to compete. Otherwise we don't have a chess player.
The aim is to bring as many people as possible in that sandbox and hopefully turn it into a garden.
I am always willing to learn if you are willing to clarify what you are saying. If you simply say that I did not understand without providing any clarification, I might be inclined to believe that on the contrary I did understand too well. If not, then what did you mean exactly by: "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" ? Did you mean that some life members considering the small (in your view) amount they paid should not expect to receive in full the services they paid for ?
English being my second language it is always a possibility that I misunderstand the finer points of your statements.
The CFC did collect Life memberships dues, and in doing so, does assume a responsibility to provide the same membership services to Life members as it does to regular members. Agreed. :)
If you want to argue that Lifers must receive for life, the same level of services as when they joined, even when providing such service would bankrupt the CFC, then I have to disagree. :( For example, I have heard the argument that the CFC is obligated to continue the printed magazine until all life members die. This is just silliness.
I think you would agree that the Lifers have suffered the same lapses of service that regular members have endured. :( :D Obligation met!
With reference to the low life membership dues of long ago. Certainly we must adjust for inflation, but perhaps IMHO, regular members have a greater right to complain.;)
This a non-starter. You must assume that the people you put in charge can do the job and give them a free hand to do it, whatever the risks. Otherwise no organisation can move forward. After all no one is ever elected for his "financial incompetetentness". There are risks in spending but there are equal if not greater risks in not spending.
My wife and I are both executives of non-profit organizations which have over 5,000 members and millions in liquidity. Both organizations have very strict spending rules and we're only allowed to spend a small fraction of the liquidity as seed money for special projects. Our experience tells us the rules work well because all "worthwhile" projects were later fully funded from fees, gifts, and donations, and projects which had little support from our members were not.
We find this arrangement rather effective, and less stressful and political than the liberal rules, or the total absence of rules, we encountered in other organizations.
However the "rated, competitive chess sandbox" is the only sandbox that really counts for organised chess. By definition a chess player wants to compete. Otherwise we don't have a chess player.
The aim is to bring as many people as possible in that sandbox and hopefully turn it into a garden.
The objects of the Corporation are:
To promote and encourage generally in Canada, the knowledge, study and playing of the game of chess, and to this end, and without restricting the generality of the foregoing.
I don't see how you can conclude from these obejcts that the "rated, competitive chess sandbox" is the only sandbox which really counts.
My wife and I are both executives of non-profit organizations which have over 5,000 members and millions in liquidity. Both organizations have very strict spending rules and we're only allowed to spend a small fraction of the liquidity as seed money for special projects. Our experience tells us the rules work well because all "worthwhile" projects were later fully funded from fees, gifts, and donations, and projects which had little support from our members were not.
We find this arrangement rather effective, and less stressful and political than the liberal rules, or the total absence of rules, we encountered in other organizations.
While you may not be talking about Foundations, these rules are very similar, and bring the same benefits with them that you cite. I agree with your entire post, for what it's worth.
Yuri Aronov, CFC rating 2266 , heads the list of pre registrants for this Active chess tournament.
Yuri Aronov is the current defendin blitz champion of the week at Mom's Cafe (organized by Vlad Dobrich) , and therefore the current Toronto blitz king of the week as of Saturday April 10,2010. Vlad's Saturday blitz tournaments is by far the strongest in Toronto as titled players play there often e.g. IM Samsonkin, FM Sapozhnikov, and many other titled players.
With just 10 days to go.................the count down begins !!!
Please contact the tournament organizer for any questions.
Last edited by Erwin Casareno; Wednesday, 14th April, 2010, 12:12 PM.
Tweet
Comment