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 imagine that if I ran a recreational hockey league, amateur poetry slam reading night, or a recital for my music students that I would react pretty much the same way if one the participants started demanding to be paid. Doesn't matter how hard they work at it or how many kids they have to support. Doesn't mean I deny the existence of pro hockey players et al. somewhere, just that I have no obligation to them to enable them to make a living.
The existence of cash prizes does not imply that tournaments are professional. Prizes are there because it adds a little spice to things and larger announced prizes tell people that a good turnout can be expected. But since you ask, the tournaments I organized in the last year:
- a dozen or so blitz tournaments - no prizes.
- 3 or 4 club actives - no prizes
- 2 fundraiser actives - trophy, book prizes
- Jack Taylor Memorial - nominal prizes
- GPO, Keres with a traditional prize setup including good class prizes. But as I say, doesn't mean the participants are professionals or that I have any interest in the goals of any 'professionals' who may be playing for the money.
You do realize we were talking about the national championship of Canada, right? You want to compare apples to apples, try comparing it to something at least a little more elite than poetry night at the local coffeehouse.
That you personally have little or no interest in funding the Canadian Closed doesn't necessarily make it a bad idea nor one that is so hopeless to get patronage that no one should ever try.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
well, Mr. Hebert's remarks are about all organizers so presumably he means all tournaments and that's certainly how I took it. He certainly slagged all organizers, not just the few who have done a Canadian Closed. Your quote was about someone playing in some random event, not a national championship so I presume you feel the same way about lessor events needing to "pay" the best players.
But it doesn't really matter in the sense that the discussion is about delivering a support level that does or does not reach a level of making it "pay". So, I'm not against trying to find support to make it "possible" to play for people to play in the Canadian Closed by which I mean modest amounts that might cover some, even most of direct costs (although some people are hopelessly unrealistic) but I have no interest in supporting anything that comes with the idea that it is necessary to "pay" for participation. Ditto the Olympiad team. If it's a job for the player rather than a hobby and passion, then too bad. Think of the Olympics (at least before they started allowing professional atheletes :-) ). The idea that a "significant" priize fund is necessary as in the Armstrong / Bluvstein motion does not receive support from me.
That an organizer should be dismissed as incompetant because he has better things to do than pander to the wishful thinking of a few is disgraceful.
The Summer/Winter Olympics are a good example, actually. Taxpayers such as myself, who couldn't care less if Canada competes in the Olympics let alone wins medals, are obligated to payout thousands to professional hockey players who earn 50+ times what I earn in a year. On top of that, a whole bunch of others get monthly government stipends, supported unwillingly by me with my tax dollars to do things like luge or synchronized swimming. Compare that to chess where even chess players are hostile to the idea of someone pursuing it seriously. That was the point of my quoting Silman.
I want to make one thing totally clear: I do not think that players "must" be paid to play. It's a free market, and people can decide whether to play while organizers can decide if they want to pay for X or Y's participation. In my case, if I like the conditions of a tournament I might play in it, assuming I have the free time; if I don't, I certainly won't.
Last edited by Tom O'Donnell; Thursday, 20th May, 2010, 11:32 PM.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
So I guess pro hockey players don't work. Nor would musicians at the symphony. Nor writers. These people all have the magical ability where they don't have expenses for luxuries such as food. Good to know as I'll be expecting free tickets to a variety of sporting and cultural events as well as free books all in the mail. Can't wait.
Do your tournaments offer any cash prizes at all? If so, why? Or why not just award them totally randomly, say by generating some number with that finisher getting the prize?
Chess is not hockey, chess is not music, chess is not literature... and my favorite, chess is not bowling: people will watch bowling!
Chess players choose to play chess, and in 99.9% of cases, not for money. If they do choose to do it for a living, they know what they're getting involved in, i.e. they know that chess is NOT so popular as a spectator sport that it gets supported by the general public. So your hockey and music analogies fall flat, no pun intended.
Roger and other organizers are not professionals trying to provide an unrealistic professional environment for anyone.
In order to expect entry fees and expenses being covered for top rank players, chess players must act to make chess a spectator sport. Nothing else will suffice in North America (except RICH DONORS, which we have at least one of in St. Louis), because North America is not Europe. We don't have a chess culture here and we cannot import it.
This is perhaps good, seeing as Europe is now beginnng the very painful process of being brought down to reality from the heights of socialist dreaming. The dreams are nice, but somebody has to pay for them. I suppose all the global investors that have been buying European bonds for years to finance runaway deficit spending are finally saying, "What the #$%^&???"
Among other things, the notion of a free lunch for a chessplayer is one thing that Europeans must get rid of in the years to come. Economics will ensure that it happens. I believe economics will also ensure that the extravaganza going on in St. Louis will be short-lived. The current one may even be the last.
I myself am not against paying or supporting chessplayers... provided that chessplayers show some flexibility to opening up the game to spectators. This means such things as introducing some degree of luck to results and making the entire environment more dynamic and exciting.
But I think if and when that should happen, corporations or taxpayers supporting chessplayers won't be necessary. The poker model of players winning prizes that are exclusively from entry fees will work fine.
Unfortunately... I fear economics might short circuit even this. The possibility exists like never before that our giant global Ponzi scheme economy could totally collapse. A very respected economic expert is on record that by the end of this year, we will no longer recognize the United States, it will be so radically changed and engulfed by turmoil.
Heck, Gary Ruben couldn't even give his prognostication at New Year's. That's got to be REALLY BAD!
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
well, at least we agree on the desirability of the funding of the Olympics. The counter arguement I suppose is that there are an enormous number of initiatives that the government funds and you can't expect complete agreement on all of them so you have to expect that there are some things you personally don't agree with. It's just that the Olympics bill is so ... egregious.
The possibility exists like never before that our giant global Ponzi scheme economy could totally collapse. A very respected economic expert is on record that by the end of this year, we will no longer recognize the United States, it will be so radically changed and engulfed by turmoil.
Heck, Gary Ruben couldn't even give his prognostication at New Year's. That's got to be REALLY BAD!
I wouldn't have predicted that and don't know the experts definition of "radically changed and engulfed by turmoil". Obama losing the Senate and maybe the House as well wouldn't fit that definition for me.
The problems with the Euro aren't really all that surprising. With all the nations involved it was always as strong as the weakest link. Some of the nations have been carrying on as if they won the lottery since they "lucked into" the Euro.
The Canadian currency is a Petrol currency.
I'm going by memory here but it seem the Euro started out at around $1.18 U.S. per Euro. Today it's around $1.25 U.S. It's not that bad.
Changing Euros to U.S. dollars might well be jumping from the frying pan into the fire but I'd prefer that fire.
I'm not all that sure the endgame won't be the U.S. inflating their way out of this mess, like around 1980, and paying off todays hard dollars in tomorrows soft dollars. Who can forget out government fighting inflation with unemployment? Knocking the wind out of inflation. Wrestling it to the ground. (no kidding.) Then the PM said something along the line that last year he defeated inflation and this year he would defeat unemployment.
How bad was it? Some companies were giving unions wage increases between contracts just to keep the employees.
Oh yeah, the bailout by the IMF. I think the U.S. is in for about 17% of that (or maybe more) and I forget even a round figure for Canada.
There is something with which I have been struggling for about half my life now.
Certain chess players, musicians, film directors, etc believe that they deserve funding from one or more governments; that it is somehow just for tax dollars to be spent so that they can pursue a particular activity professionally.
Let us examine the facts:
- Magnus Carlsen is a professional chess player. He earns well. His earnings come from appearance fees at tournaments, prizes at tournaments, and sponsorship. In all three cases, he receives his earnings in exchange for his services as per agreements he reaches with interested individuals.
- Chess Bum X is a professional chess player. In exchange for his services, individuals will not agree to pay him enough money to escape poverty. He believes that the government should supplement his income with tax dollars.
- Maddox is a professional Internet poster. His earnings come from the sales of goods associated with his Internet postings (such as books he has written and t-shirts with his name on them). In such cases, he receives his earnings in exchange for the goods he has created as per agreements he reaches with interested individuals.
- ben daswani is a professional Internet poster. In exchange for his t-shirts et al, individuals will not pay him enough money to escape poverty. He believes that the government should supplement his income with tax dollars.
First of all, what's the effing difference? But this is not with what I have been struggling. This is:
- An organisation called the Government of Canada oversees what it calls "Canadians". Most "Canadians" have been "Canadians" since they were born. They were never actually given a choice. If they were to attempt to renounce their Canadian citizenship, the Government of Canada would not accept their renunciation, as the Government of Canada does not accept renunciations that result in statelessness.
- As such, "Canadians" are required to pay taxes to the Government of Canada, which uses the money for a variety of projects. The Government of Canada considers paying taxes mandatory.
- If you do not pay your taxes, the Government of Canada might potentially send men with guns to your home and remove you against your will.
- Ultimately, employees of the Government of Canada might decide to put you in a cage for several years because you did not pay them the money they requested.
So, my questions for any chess players, musicians, film directors, etc who believe that they deserve funding from one or more governments, or for anyone who thinks that such people deserve funding from one or more governments:
- If I told you that you had to pay me an annual sum of money that I and my associates would use for a variety of projects, would you be okay with it?
- If you failed to pay me the requested sum and I responded by sending two of my associates, armed, to your home to remove you against your will, would you be okay with it?
- Lastly, if I decided to put you in a cage for several years as punishment for your refusal to pay me, would you be okay with it?
This post is sort of all over the place. Hopefully at least some of my points are clear.
everytime it hurts, it hurts just like the first (and then you cry till there's no more tears)
Great questions. One of my favourite interviewers is a man named Jan Helfeld. He has a very offbeat style. Here he pretty much asks Harry Reid a series of questions of the type you ask here:
There is something with which I have been struggling for about half my life now.
Certain chess players, musicians, film directors, etc believe that they deserve funding from one or more governments; that it is somehow just for tax dollars to be spent so that they can pursue a particular activity professionally.
Let us examine the facts:
- Magnus Carlsen is a professional chess player. He earns well. His earnings come from appearance fees at tournaments, prizes at tournaments, and sponsorship. In all three cases, he receives his earnings in exchange for his services as per agreements he reaches with interested individuals.
- Chess Bum X is a professional chess player. In exchange for his services, individuals will not agree to pay him enough money to escape poverty. He believes that the government should supplement his income with tax dollars.
- Maddox is a professional Internet poster. His earnings come from the sales of goods associated with his Internet postings (such as books he has written and t-shirts with his name on them). In such cases, he receives his earnings in exchange for the goods he has created as per agreements he reaches with interested individuals.
- ben daswani is a professional Internet poster. In exchange for his t-shirts et al, individuals will not pay him enough money to escape poverty. He believes that the government should supplement his income with tax dollars.
First of all, what's the effing difference? But this is not with what I have been struggling. This is:
Let's look at a more recent example. Our government pays the Olympic athletes to wiin medals. They were paid for winning gold, silver and bronze medals. Around $20,000.00 for a gold and less for he silver and bronze. They also got paid while training. I'm not sure how the program works and what the athletes have to do to qualify for funding.
Your tax dollars pay for this.
If you qualify to represent Canada on the international stage and compete for medals why shouldn't you get the same incentives and funding?
Our government has demonstrated the model of funding athletes and paying for medals works. This discussion can only be about what they support and not if they should support. We already know they support.
It took almost 20 years, but Gata Kamsky is once again the United States Champion.
Kamsky won the championship on Tuesday by drawing a one-game playoff against Yuri Shulman. Kamsky, who had Black, had draw odds, meaning that he only had to draw the game to be declared winner on tie-break.
Though Kamsky has been one of the top players in the world since the early 1990’s, he had only won the U.S. Championship once before — in 1991, when he was 17. Part of the reason for the long hiatus was that he almost completely quit playing chess between 1996 and 2004, a period in which he went to school and got a law degree.
The playoff for the championship had an unusual format. Each player made a bid about how little time he would start with. The lower bidder, in this case Kamsky, started with that amount of time and then got to choose which color he would play. So Shulman had White, with 60 minutes on his clock at the start, while Kamsky had only 25 minutes. Ten seconds was added to each player’s clock after each move.
Shulman, knowing he needed to win, opened with the d pawn and Kamsky countered with the Slav Defense, at which he is an expert. Shulman obtained the bishop pair and broke through on the queen side, eventually taking control of the c file. Kamsky overlooked a tactic that allowed Shulman to win a pawn, but Shulman, with his own time beginning to run down, made a mistake, allowing Kamsky to win back his pawn. Both players now only minutes on their clock as they raced through an endgame in which White had an edge, but no clear way to win any more material. Shulman eventually made another mistake (overlooking that he could not take a pawn that he was attacking because Kamsky’s knight would deliver check, snaring Shulman’s rook) and Kamsky mopped up from there. In the final position, Kamsky may be winning, but he agreed to a draw as that was all he needed.
By winning the tie-breaker, Kamsky collected $30,000. Shulman earned $25,000. The championship took place at the Chess Club and Scholastic Center of Saint Louis and was sponsored by Rex A. Sinquefield, a retired businessman who has become the primary financial force behind chess in the United States over the last two years.
The defending champion, Hikaru Nakamura, who had lost to Shulman, ended in a tie for third with Alexander Onischuk.
A computer beat me in chess, but it was no match when it came to kickboxing
Great questions. One of my favourite interviewers is a man named Jan Helfeld. He has a very offbeat style. Here he pretty much asks Harry Reid a series of questions of the type you ask here:
Thanks for the links. I enjoyed the second one especially. His question ("Can you delegate a right that you do not have?") articulated that particular sentiment better than I had been able to.
Let's look at a more recent example. Our government pays the Olympic athletes to wiin medals. They were paid for winning gold, silver and bronze medals. Around $20,000.00 for a gold and less for he silver and bronze. They also got paid while training. I'm not sure how the program works and what the athletes have to do to qualify for funding.
Your tax dollars pay for this.
If you qualify to represent Canada on the international stage and compete for medals why shouldn't you get the same incentives and funding?
Our government has demonstrated the model of funding athletes and paying for medals works. This discussion can only be about what they support and not if they should support. We already know they support.
I assumed it was apparent that I believe that Olympic athletes' performances should not be funded by involuntary taxation, either. How does the fact that one group is receiving money it shouldn't be receiving demonstrate that another group should receive money from the same source?
- Smiley
everytime it hurts, it hurts just like the first (and then you cry till there's no more tears)
Tweet
Comment