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.
Re: Olympic Team - Selection " Interpretation " of the Handbook
I think that IF there is no specific Handbook section dealing with this issue of " declines " ( as opposed to withdrawals ), the spirit of the initial selection process should be honoured - the bulk by rating.
So if as here, the Canadian Champion declines, the committee should go to the next highest player eligible. If those by rating decline, then the committee should go to the next highest player eligible. If the wildcard discretionary selection of the Selection Committee declines, then the Committee gets another substitute wildcard choice ( this almost reads as if it could be made a Handbook Section ! ).
Please indicate if you agree with me , or not, and why.
Bob
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Thursday, 27th May, 2010, 04:10 PM.
Hi Tony. I thought Maurice Smith was several months into a project to clean up and update the Handbook. Perhaps he could shed some light on this.
"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
Kerry Liles is the one-person Handbook Updating Subcommittee now. He has posted elsewhere that Maurice gave all the updating changes to Gerry Litchfield, and Gerry advises that all changes are now in the CFC Website Handbook. And there have not yet been any motions/vote results that have subsequently required Handbook amendments. As soon as there are, Kerry will be on it, with Gerry, to immediately update the website Handbook.
Thanks to Kerry for coming forward and volunteering to take on this rather important, but rather thankless, task. Kerry reports to the Procedures' Committee ( myself as chair; the other member is President Eric Van Dusen ).
Bob
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Thursday, 27th May, 2010, 04:16 PM.
I think that IF there is no specific Handbook section dealing with this issue of " declines " ( as opposed to withdrawals ), the spirit of the initial selection process should be honoured - the bulk by rating.
So if as here, the Canadian Champion declines, the committee should go to the next highest player eligible. If those by rating decline, then the committee should go to the next highest player eligible. If the wildcard discretionary selection of the Selection Committee declines, then the Committee gets another substitute wildcard choice ( this almost reads as if it could be made a Handbook Section ! ).
Please indicate if you agree with me , or not, and why.
Bob
I certainly agree with using the rating list and the committee only being allowed to replace their own selection with another if that selection declines.
Isn't your suggestion probably the legally correct one under the current rules if someone passed over were to seek damages?
Kerry Liles is the one-person Handbook Updating Subcommittee now. He has posted elsewhere that Maurice gave all the updating changes to Gerry Litchfield, and Gerry advises that all changes are now in the CFC Website Handbook. And there have not yet been any motions/vote results that have subsequently required Handbook amendments. As soon as there are, Kerry will be on it, with Gerry, to immediately update the website Handbook.
Thanks to Kerry for coming forward and volunteering to take on this rather important, but rather thankless, task. Kerry reports to the Procedures' Committee ( myself as chair; the other member is President Eric Van Dusen ).
Bob
All I have to do is wait until someone tells me what the section should say... :)
Isn't your suggestion probably the legally correct one under the current rules if someone passed over were to seek damages?
I wonder how much "damage" would be granted by a judge to someone unfairly prevented from being sent for two weeks to Siberia without any income... :) On that front the CFC has little to worry about; no sane individual will actually sue the CFC in such circumstances.
But anyways that does not make the CFC look any better. Every second year for half a century, the same problems about applying and making rules to select olympiad teams return. It is not as if it was a surprise thing that no one could foresee. And every time a problem occurs, a player loses through no fault of his own.
In the rest of the world, over 100 countries send teams to the chess olympiad every second year without major problems. Has anybody in the CFC ever had the idea to look at the selection rules of some of these countries to make our own more effective and more complete ? Probably not, because here we like to do things our way, regardless if it is working or not.
Canadian chess has to open up to what and how they do things in developped chess countries like Holland, Germany, France and others. Otherwise we keep trying to reinvent the wheel. Without much success.
Instead of wild speculation and innuendo, why doesn't someone just contact someone with the answers as to why certain people were invited and not other certain people?
Re: Olympic Team - Relevant Handbook Selection Sections
It appears the part about what happens when a player declines the invitation was deleted when the section was last redone? Or at some other time? Or perhaps was never there in the first place?
In any case strictly speaking it appears that no rules were broken. Personally, I would like to see it go down the rating list when someone declines an invitation (Except perhaps in the case of the Selection Committee's selection declining).
Of course I'd also like to see the current 10 CFC/FIDE rated game rule replaced by a 15 or 20 games played in Canada rule with matches not counting.
It appears from the above the selection committee could only choose one player. The rating list took precedence for replacement when players declined their invitation.
From my reading, the only player the selection committee appears to have been able to replace by selection was the one they originally selected and who declined.
Thanks for making my point Gary. It appears that the CFC failed to follow their own rules. Has this ever happened before?!
The CFC may have sent an email to Mr. Porper and without even knowing if the email was received, took Mr. Porper's silence as "no, I will not play", then selected another player. They did not try to contact him by any other means (all they had to do is contact me for example).
Perhaps Ilya or the members of the selection committee could comment as to why Mr. Porper was overlooked.
I think that IF there is no specific Handbook section dealing with this issue of " declines " ( as opposed to withdrawals ), the spirit of the initial selection process should be honoured - the bulk by rating.
So if as here, the Canadian Champion declines, the committee should go to the next highest player eligible. If those by rating decline, then the committee should go to the next highest player eligible. If the wildcard discretionary selection of the Selection Committee declines, then the Committee gets another substitute wildcard choice ( this almost reads as if it could be made a Handbook Section ! ).
Please indicate if you agree with me , or not, and why.
Bob
The part in bold is probably wrong.
The precedent from 1994 is that if the selected player declines, that's it, there is no alternative selection, it goes back to the rating list. In 1994, the selection committee chose Ron Livshits (knowing that he probably could not play in the Olympiad, but wanting to make a statement about his talent) and at the same time also selected an older alternate who also did well in the Canadian Closed. But when Ron as expected declined, the next spot went to Tom O'Donnell from the rating list. It was not what the Selection Committee had intended, but some old duffer from the wet coast was spared the bitterly cold Moscow winter weather.
Exact wording of the rules is more important than precedent, but when there is doubt ....
Canadian chess has to open up to what and how they do things in developped chess countries like Holland, Germany, France and others. Otherwise we keep trying to reinvent the wheel. Without much success.
I remember that for the 1974 Olympiad, the CFC Governors approved the same method as Sweden used and perhaps still uses. In fact, I was sitting next to Zvonko Vranesic when he proposed it at the 1973 Annual Meeting. It was clear and simple--and turned out to be the most acrimonious and destructive of all the Olympiad scuffles.
I believe Australia chooses their teams entirely via a 6-person selection committee (if I'm reading their chat board correctly). Those who were interested in being team members voiced their interest prior to a certain date, and the committee did the rest.
After the selections are announced, an appeal process is available ($200 deposit - refundable if successful).
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 1994, the Selection Committee's (alternative) choice was replaced by a player from the Rating List. So the rules allowed them to select 1 body, their maximum, but because their first choice couldn't go, they got zero bodies. In 2010, the rules again allow the selection committee to choose 1 body, but instead they choose 3. What The Fredericton?
Don't get me wrong, I think it's a great team, with youth on its side. The youth angle could even have been improved by the selection of a western player. Youth is a big plus at the Olympiad because of the schedule and time control... But I'm still to be convinced that the selection is in accordance with rules. At issue is the credibility both of the process and, yet again, of the national organization.
lol. You've been too long away from the Canadian Prairies. Moscow is the sun belt compared to, say, Winnipeg, etc.
But it's a dry cold. The team photo on the cover of that CCE looked decidedly damp.
I was six years old, and remember the snow reaching above the windows and doors, they had to build tunnels. But the street we lived on was swallowed up in urban redevelopment and no longer exists, so maybe it was all a dream, maybe I never lived in Winnipeg at all ...
And Winnipeg gets more sun than where we're living now, buddy boy.
Tweet
Comment