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 went to the CFC Handbook, Section 12, on participation in the Chess Olympiad:
1206. Selection of the players
(a) ...................:
(b) National Team: {Motion Smith/Jaeger 2007-08 GL6, amendment of original Craver/Gillanders motion} The National Team shall consist of five players, as follows:
(i) The Canadian Champion, as of 180 days before the start of the Olympiad.
(ii) The three highest rated players on the Selection Rating list.
(iii) One player decided upon by the Selection Committee.
(c) Women’s Team: The Women’s Team shall consist of five players, as follows:
(i) The Canadian Womens Champion, as of 180 days before the start of the Olympiad.
(ii) The three highest rated female players on the Selection Rating list.
(iii) One player decided upon by the Selection Committee.
So the upshot is that the Selection Committee picks only 1 of the 5 members.
Here is an article from the Scarborough Community of Toronto Chess News & Views, Issue # 11-15, April 1, 2010, which sets out the list Eric is referring to:
Final Rating Selection List – Can. National Team
Players Ti FIDE CFCR Avrg Gam Eli P Why Not Eligible
Spraggett Kevin GM 2606 2622 2614 >20 Yes 1
Bluvshtein Mark GM 2583 2634 2609 >20 Yes 2
Lesiege Alexandre GM 2528 2577 2553 No 3 Not enough games
Tyomkin Dimitri GM 2497 2570 2534 No 4 Not enough games
Gerzhoy Leonid IM 2469 2590 2530 >20 Yes 5
Charbonneau Pascal GM 2513 2520 2517 14 Yes 6
Samsonkin Artem ( Artiom at FIDE ) IM 2406 2624 2515 >20 Yes 7 Porper Edward IM 2448 2556 2502 >20 Yes 8 Roussel-Roozmon Thomas IM 2489 2504 2497 >20 Yes 9
Zugic Igor IM 2462 2516 2489 No 10 Not enough games
Krnan Tomas IM 2439 2534 2487 14 Yes 11 Noritsyn Nikolay IM 2403 2564 2484 >20 Yes 12
Hansen Eric FM 2423 2518 2471 >20 Yes 13
Hebert Jean IM 2426 2494 2460 >20 Already Qualified N/A
Teplitsky Yan IM 2448 2466 2457 No 14 Not enough games
Quan Zhe IM 2421 2465 2443 14 Yes 15
These Ratings will be used to select the three highest rated players for the National Olympic team [ Note: since IM Jean Hebert, 2009 Canadian Champion, declined to play, the rating list was actually used to pick 4 members ].
Eric is quite correct, that in terms of rating selection, Edward Porper would come before Thomas Roussel-Roozman, and Nikolay Noritsyn.
Eric, have you asked Edward whether he was contacted, and declined?
Here is the announcement by Hal Bond on the team composition:
The Chess Federation of Canada is pleased to announce that we will be sending both our National Team and our Women's Team to the Olympiad in Khanty Mansiysk. I ( Hal Bond, FIDE Rep. ) would like to thank Ilia Bluvshtein for his diligent efforts to date as our Olympic Coordinator. Our team compositions are as follows:
National team:
Board 1: GM Mark Bluvshtein,
Board 2: IM Thomas Roussel-Roozmon,
Board 3: IM Leonid Gerzhoy,
Board 4: IM Artiom Samsonkin,
Reserve: IM Nikolay Noritsyn.
Captain: Yura Ochkoos. In accordance with CFC Handbook, Yura as a Captain has determined the board order.
It would seem that Roussel-Roozman ( higher rated than Noritsyn ) would have had to be chosen from the rating list, and Noritsyn be the member selected by the Selection Committee. So it is valid, on the surface, to ask how Roussel-Roozman got in ahead of Porper.
Maybe Ilia or Hal could answer Eric's question ( I do not believe that Edward monitors this board, or at least on any regular basis ).
Bob
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Thursday, 27th May, 2010, 01:15 AM.
I see you've now edited your verbiage. Your previous post which I (and many others) saw said "If you don't understand that you shouldn't post here in the first place." Another form of STFU. And when you edit it you STILL drag Jean Hebert's name into it. You can't even censor yourself without slagging somebody else. Geez.
Yup. I saw what I had written and was amazed to find that I was becoming just like Hebert, who LOVES telling certain people that they shouldn't be posting here. In fact, that was his initial response to me when I first criticized his Hal Bond knife-in-the-back attack.
Just goes to show: sleep with dogs and you're bound to get fleas.
Let me explain something to you. You are like a drunk who has found a way to ruin a wedding reception. You've managed to grab the microphone and nobody can get it away from you.
Oh, bad start. There isn't one microphone here for someone to monopolize. I'm not impressed so far, Steve....
This forum is exactly like that reception. You have groups of people standing around chatting but then here comes Paul who is going to butt into EVERY conversation to complain about another guest. Eventually people start to move away from him. He doesn't notice. Then people politely suggest that maybe Paul should tone it down a bit. He doesn't get it. So he carries on, imposing his rant on anybody who can't run away.
Eventually several people tell him *point blank* that he is annoying the heck out of just about everybody else. So what does he do?
He first screams "CENSORSHIP!" even though nobody has suggested anything of the kind. (It's particularly ironic since you "censored" your original post.)
Ok, you've convinced me now you're stupid AND biased. Very bad combination.
To take it point by point, let's start with "groups of people standing around chatting". Really? This is how you would characterize Chesstalk? How about groups of antagonists roving around pointing fingers and telling everyone else how wrong they are? That's what I found when I got here, and that's what I'll find 10 years from now if Larry keeps it going. Kevin Spraggett had to leave this board due to receiving death threats, according to him. If that's your quaint little "wedding reception", perhaps it is a shotgun wedding? in which the majority were slushed to the gills before they even arrived.
Next: I've butt into EVERY conversation.... Oh, Steve, did you have trouble with math? No, probably you're just resorting to one of many tricks used by wannabe debators: exaggeration. Busted!
Next: ...to complain about another guest. Two problems here:
(1) you're implying that I don't confront this guest head on, but rather complain about him to everyone else. Far from the truth. When I DO complain about him to others, I point out exactly why and what is motivating me to do so. As far as I remember, these cases occur in threads that have at least SOME relevance to this guest and his views. But I can't claim perfection, so go ahead and find a case or two where I might have butt in to a totally unrelated topic.
(2) no mention at all of the other guest and whether perhaps the other guest might indeed be an evil entity, there to win converts over to his religion perhaps. Sometimes there REALLY IS a problem and people should be notified. Are you saying no one should ever speak up when they notice something wrong going on? Yes, I do believe that is what you are saying.
Next: Eventually people start to move away from him. He doesn't notice. Ummmmmm, Steve, we don't SEE each other on this board, unless you are privy to some secret technology? If anyone stops reading my posts, I don't get a daily report showing that. Was I supposed to?
Next: ... he carries on, imposing his rant on anyone who can't run away. (sigh) Exaggeration again with the word "imposing". I'm just making posts, like anybody else on this board, how am I "imposing"? And I suppose I'm deliberately choosing "anyone who can't run away".
Really, Steve, such primitive arguments. And the inflammatory word "rant" added on. So easy to spot and identify.
Next: He first screams "CENSORSHIP!" even though nobody has suggested anything of the kind. Oh, good, "screams". I eat those kind of terms for breakfast. 'Nuff said about that.
Kerry Liles asking me to refrain from mentioning Hebert (where my mentioning Hebert was VERY RELEVANT to what I was saying to Mark Bluvstien) is an indirect form of censorship. You want to argue that? Do you want to be taken seriously?
Next: (It's particularly ironic since you "censored" your original post.) Are we not allowed to edit our own posts? Is such editing to be construed as "censoring"? Do you have a language problem in addition to your math problem?
Then he screams "I have a right to free speech!" which is a right which I champion but sadly, particularly on the internet, is a right quickly claimed by a bully. It is also known as the "I have a right to be an arsehole!" defence. At least Godwin's Law hasn't been shown yet.
If I ever said I have "a right" to anything on this board, it was an error that I didn't spot in editing. Because I don't believe at all in "rights" and I made that point to someone on this board quite some time ago. Privileges are what I believe in, not rights. I might have written that Larry gives me the right to post here like anybody else, but I should have replaced the word "right" with "privilege" in editing. And let's see, I probably wrote that.... once. Which to a turdbrain, is equivalent to screaming it from the rooftops.
I like your use of the words "screams" and "bully". Words like that differentiate the boys from the men. Again with the "screams". Good one, Steve! You're on a roll with that! LOL
"Bully" is the most overused term on forums like this. Anyone who disagrees with a person instantly becomes a "bully". (sigh) So juvenile.
Then, when the "FREE SPEECH!" rant is falling on deaf ears, our Paul immediately calls anybody who disagrees with him "Mindless morons!" and says something to the effect that since nobody appreciates him he will go stand in a corner and hold his breath until he turns blue.
Nobody believes him and of course he is eventually "provoked" into not holding his breath any longer.
There never was a FREE SPEECH! rant on my part, I seriously doubt that I ever used the phrase "free speech" once on my own behalf. Go ahead, search my posts. Maybe you can invent something.
The "mindless morons!" quote is taken totally out of context. You'd make a good Fox News reporter. Look and see, the "mindless morons" is directed at those who would block the posts of anyone else -- not just mine, anyone's. It has NOTHING TO DO with anyone who disagrees with me. TOTAL BS ON YOUR PART. Par for the course on this forum.
The only reason I'd hold my breath while on this board is to avoid smelling the stench of those drunk on cheap port... which judging by the type of people on this board, is all anyone can afford and they can't live without it.
What I have said is I will leave those on this board to themselves. I respect Kevin Spraggett for having done the same.
(Since we are still in the wedding recption analogy, I wish to point out that the host can still show you the door.)
Have I got this about right?
Steve
Ummmm... YOU are in the wedding reception analogy. I'm way past you.
I just LOVE the implied threat. From someone who refers to bullies, nonetheless! Ahhhhhh..... no further comment needed.
Now, Steve, you're playing in the big leagues now, let ME explain something to YOU.
I don't recall you bothering to post in any of the threads having to do with my dispute with Jean Hebert. You've been conspicuously absent in the what-Canadian-chess-organizers-should-do or the what-is-good-for-chess-in-Canada debates. For you to appear now, and try to discredit me at this stage of the game, is really more a statement about YOU than it is about ME. I'm sorry I've had to be so rough with you. To be honest, I feel like I've just hit a girl. Please, if you have the kahunas to respond to this, do it point by point (nothing is more annoying than a wannabe who ignores points he has no argument against and just makes one tiny, trivial counterpoint that makes no difference to the overall discussion), and please, BRING YOUR 'A' GAME! Not this putrid "wedding reception" baby pablum. I want to at least feel challenged.
And while you're at it, please explain to us all who died and gave you authority over what is "signal" and what is "noise"?
And if you're appearance here and now is because you are Hebert's attack dog, let off it's leash by Jean to slash and tear at me, well, gosh, Jean, if you're watching for this response, is that the best you can do? I return your attack dog to you in a can -- dogmeat! Hopefully this was just your "Level 1" attack dog.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
I had assumed Edward had been invited but had chosen to decline when I saw the team list. This past weekend he came up for a tournament and so I was reminded to ask him about it. When I asked him if he had declined his invitation and why, he told me that he had not even been invited to the team. I talked about it a bit more with him to make sure I had understood him properly. His answer was still that he had received no invitation at all. I know Edward has expressed to me that one of his lifelong dreams is to play in the Olympiad, and since he doesn't really know much about the CFC or procedures yet, I felt compelled to inquire on his behalf to make sure he wasn't ignored if he rightfully earned an invitation based on the rules.
Last edited by Eric Hansen; Thursday, 27th May, 2010, 03:16 AM.
If what I was reading was right, that players were invited based on email, I could see the CFC not having Edward's email or having an outdated one maybe. Relying solely on email will cause a lot of problems. But I also imagine that little effort was made to contact Edward in the first place as he is relatively new and unknown to a lot of Canadians especially since he doesn't live in Quebec or Ontario. But this is all under the assumption that Edward deserved an invitation, which is what I am inquiring about.
Paul, you complain about the lack of civility on chesstalk, yet you post this extremely offensive personal attack against Steve. Please have the decency to withdraw it.
Last edited by Bob Gillanders; Thursday, 27th May, 2010, 07:44 AM.
I WILL solve my procrastination problem.... JUST YOU WAIT!
Atta boy!! Have a nice day, eh. ;)
"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
...Sorry, Peter, you've lost my respect again. I don't think you'll be getting it back this time. ...
LOL!!! I'm glad we're not meeting face-to-face, Paul. I'd have a difficult time trying to stifle a big laugh at this one. Your posts always get high marks from me for entertainment value.
"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
It would seem that Roussel-Roozman ( higher rated than Noritsyn ) would have had to be chosen from the rating list, and Noritsyn be the member selected by the Selection Committee. So it is valid, on the surface, to ask how Roussel-Roozman got in ahead of Porper.
Maybe Ilia or Hal could answer Eric's question ( I do not believe that Edward monitors this board, or at least on any regular basis ).
Bob
In accordance with the CFC Handbook, Kevin S, Mark B, and Leonid G were selected by rating, Jean H was invited as Canadian Champion, and Pascal S was chosen by the Selection Committee. After Kevin, Jean, and Pascal declined, Thomas R, Artem S, and Nikolay N were chosen by the Selection Committee.
In some countries, all candidates are selected by a selection committee. Rating is not the only factor. My guess is that the committee has considered:
- International experience (in Olympiads in particular)
- Recent chess activity (the player should be active and in good form)
- How well the player will fit in the group
Of course, these factors are subjective. My opinion is that the committee selected a great team in the circumstances. We have a young team. Lets hope that most of these players will continue to represent Canada in future Olympiads.
In accordance with the CFC Handbook, Kevin S, Mark B, and Leonid G were selected by rating, Jean H was invited as Canadian Champion, and Pascal S was chosen by the Selection Committee. After Kevin, Jean, and Pascal declined, Thomas R, Artem S, and Nikolay N were chosen by the Selection Committee.
Where does it say the selection committee has the authority to select replacements? According to 1211. Withdrawls:
"(a) If a player withdraws, he or she shall be replaced by the next player on the Selection Rating List."
If replacements were determined using the selection committee, they should be changed or the CFC faces liability from the legal selection. I don't see how Porper would not have a slam dunk win here; he is being deprived of a deserved and earned right for which there is clear guideline in violation of the CFC handbook.
Of course, the CFC could also fix the situation by followining 1218: "(a) The CFC shall pay the travel expenses to the Olympiad of: (i) the six players on the National Team"
Last edited by David Ottosen; Thursday, 27th May, 2010, 09:55 AM.
Tweet
Comment