GM's Harikrishna and Luke McShane join the Canadian Open race!

[Paul Bonham]

Re: GM's Harikrishna and Luke McShane join the Canadian Open race!

Originally Posted by Mark Bluvshtein
I read parts of a thread criticizing organizers. As an elite player in Canada, I know the importance of organizers. It is about cooperation between the two sides. We need each other. Bashing organizers saying they need to do this and that is simply inappropriate.

All chess players, not just the elite, have to understand the importance of our organizers and most do. That is precisely the reason why we should pay attention and praise when they do well and pay attention and suggest improvements when they don't do so well. Otherwise if nobody never say or do anything but praise, canadian chess is very likely to remain in the underdeveloped state that it is in now.

But Jean, what you innocently call "suggest improvements" has been, in your case, to ask the organizers to get the hell out, stop organizing altogether, if they can't spend hours of unpaid time each and every week seeking out sponsors. Many organized events that occur regularly and don't have sponsors or have minimal sponsors are nevertheless attended and appreciated by scores of chessplayers, not just the elite.

Your act of those organizers to step aside is an insult to them and is a slap in the face to the scores of chessplayers who like their events.

And what's worse, in other posts you go beyond criticizing them for not seeking sponsorship, you criticize the RESULTS of their efforts and say that if they don't SUCCEED in getting more sponsors, again they should step aside. In your cold, cruel world, effort alone isn't enough.

You are free to express your opinion, but it is becoming more and more clear that your opinion of these organizers is radical and wrong.

If there were a vote, you would be defeated soundly. You are being marginalized. I truly don't know how anyone can respect you outside of your chess playing accomplishments, at least until you be a man and apologize to Canadian organizers for painting them all (except a chosen few) with the same brush, calling them "lazy" and "dumbells".



Originally Posted by Mark Bluvshtein
If people think its so easy, please do it yourself and find out its not.

Well Mark, I suppose that you will never criticize any politician, because you are no politician and will not ever be interested to do their jobs, you will never sue your surgeon or dentist for malpractice, never criticize your contractor for having made a major mistake building your house, because let's face it, these are tough jobs that you cannot do yourself. Right ?

Wrong: Mark hasn't said he will never criticize an organizer. You love putting words to people that they never spoke or wrote.

Besides, your analogies are completely bogus. One can praise a group of people (organizers) as a whole for doing a thankless, low-paid or even volunteer job that they do out of caring. One can still then criticize an individual organizer if s/he is somehow negligent or doing something wrong. The two are not mutually exclusive, your whole argument is baseless and silly.



Originally Posted by Mark Bluvshtein
Thank you to all chess organizers in Canada. Without you there would be no Canadian chess.

Chess organizers are not an endangered specie. There are way more of them now than when I started in the late 60'. It will survive as long as there are people playing this game, because chess organizers come from chess, and not the other way around. Chess has existed well before it became "organized", and it is not about to disappear any time soon through lack of interest.
By indiscriminately thanking the good, the bad and the ugly, you simply relinquish your capacity to exercise your judgment and promote the worst of them by unfairly putting everyone in the same basket. In a chess game moves are unequal in value, the good and average moves are acceptable but the bad ones must be eliminated.

It's obvious that what Mark meant was that without organizers, there would be no ORGANIZED Canadian chess. Duh!

As for your "good, bad and ugly" argument, again, totally wrong. An entertainer can get up on a stage and thank his or her fans as a group. If one of those fans starts stalking that entertainer, the entertainer is sure to become critical of that fan and have law enforcement take action. It doesn't mean the fans as a group can't be thanked and praised for their support.

There may be one, two, maybe three or four organizers in all of Canada who might be deserving of some criticism. By your perverted logic, we are not allowed to praise organizers as a whole because of these few?

No, it's obvious what you REALLY mean with this logic: in your opinion, there are only a handful of organizers who deserve praise and the vast majority of them are Level 1, lazy dumbells. Therefore, since the vast majority of organizers is bad (your opinion, not mine), we can't praise organizers as a whole.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. You're just making a fool of yourself.

[Bob Armstrong]

FIDE Ratings?

from Ed Zator:

"Does anyone know if ALL entrants will get a FIDE rating from this tournament?"

I have sent this post on to Brian Fiedler.

Bob

[Erik Malmsten]

Re: FIDE Ratings?

from Ed Zator:

"Does anyone know if ALL entrants will get a FIDE rating from this tournament?"

I have sent this post on to Brian Fiedler.

Bob

From FIDE Handbook:
8.21 If an unrated player scores less than 1 point in his first rated event, or he plays fewer than 3 rated opponents in any event, his score is disregarded.

7.14 A rating for a player new to the list shall be published only if it meets the following criteria:

7.14b If based on results obtained under 6.4., a minimum of 9 games played against rated opponents.
7.14c The condition of a minimum of 9 games need not be met in one tournament: results from other events, played within rating periods of not more than two years, are pooled to obtain the initial rating.
7.14d
The rating is at least the rating floor.
7.14e
The rating is calculated using all his results as if they were played in one tournament, but not published until he has played at least 9 games, then using all the rating data available.

7.2 Players who are not to be included on the list:

7.21 Players whose ratings drop below the floor are listed on the next list as 'delisted'. Thereafter they are treated in the same manner as any other unrated player.

I remember when you needed to be 2200 to have a rating, but FIDE likes to collect the rating fees and keeps lowering the rating floor now down to .....
1200. (The lowest Canadian is 1649),

[Jean Hébert]

Re: GM's Harikrishna and Luke McShane join the Canadian Open race!

[I]
There may be one, two, maybe three or four organizers in all of Canada who might be deserving of some criticism.

Hopefully everyone as human beings are deserving of both praise AND criticism, not just the few lucky that you mention. These are gifts to go on and get better, not plagues.
In your case Paul, I hope that some day you will be well enough to at least appreciate and thank me for the extraordinary restraint that I have been showing you so far, despite all the temptations that you have presented me. :)

[Gordon Ritchie]

Re: GM's Harikrishna and Luke McShane join the Canadian Open race!

Fantastic! This is shaping up to be a truly memorable Canadian Open with a cast of world class Canadian and foreign players.
I predict the numbers from out of province will bulk up as the date approaches.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: FIDE Ratings?

Here is Hal Bond's ( CFC FIDE Rep ) reply to Ed's question:

HI Bob;

I just spoke to Gerry [ Litchfield, CFC ED ). Everyone will receive a FIDE ID.

A FIDE rating only kicks in after FIDE ratable results against 9 FIDE rated players. So if they have fewer than 9 such games, their result will be retained by FIDE until 9 games are acculmulated.

Hal

[Erik Malmsten]

Re: FIDE Ratings?

From FIDE Handbook:
8.21 If an unrated player scores less than 1 point in his first rated event, or he plays fewer than 3 rated opponents in any event, his score is disregarded.

7.14 A rating for a player new to the list shall be published only if it meets the following criteria: a minimum of 9 games played against rated opponents.

An example is last weekend's Ontario Open.

These unrated players will get a published FIDE rating:
17. Vladimir Drkulec CFC2157 1-3 (already registered with 5 games, 4+5=9)
26. Laurentiu Grigorescu CFC2004 4-2 (registered 5 games, 6+5=11)

This player didn't score 1, but as this is not his first tournament his points can be added to his previous event (the Canadian Junior) so he might get a published rating.
62. Ian Mahoney CFC1678 .5-2.5 (registered 6 games, 3+6=9)

This player has games that will count towards his first published rating:
22. Alexandru Florea CFC2050 1-3 (registered 0 games)

These unrated players will not get any of their games FIDE rated:
24. Stephan Tonakanian CFC2008 0-4 (not previously registered)
65. Leslie Tang CFC1612 0-3 (not previously registered)

[Andrei Botez]

Re: GM's Harikrishna and Luke McShane join the Canadian Open race!

Erik,

Do you understand what I was upset about??? People volunteered their time to raise money and support to the Chess Olympiad Team but look!!! You don't even see their names first on the list when this is a NATIONAL CHESS EVENT!!!
Except IM Noritsyn! What type of national representatives we are chess enthusiasts supporting here?! Believe me or NOT, they will register close to end of the registration date. Or perhaps, they are still looking for sponsorship? The funny thing about finding sponsorship is what you have to offer in return to the sponsor's money. Is it worth the price to sponsor one is what i WOULD THINK IF I AM AN SPONSOR!?

Dalia is part of the team too!
________
TOYOTA CAL-1 SPECIFICATIONS