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 hope you're as disgusted as I am. The question is why? Is he older than the other players and what they want? Is it to make a spot for a Quebec representative? Has the Alberta federation offended them?
I am not sure you are asking me if I am as disgusted as you... but just in case: Yes I am. The exact policies of the CFC are not easily determined; sometimes, even if they can be determined, they are not followed!
Surely this is precisely the definition of a dysfunctional organization that should be tossed out with the bath water and replaced? Sadly, I doubt even that simple action can be taken.
Re: Olympic Team - Relevant Handbook Selection Sections
I have now written to Ilia and Hal on this issue. I reproduced a number of the relevant posts of Eric, myself, Ilia and others , and then said:
" Ilia has explained how Edward was legitimately passed over by the Selection Committee – they were not bound by ratings. If they had the discretion in this case.
But could you point me, and Eric, to the Handbook where it says that if “ Rated choices “ decline, they are replaced by the Selection Committee’ discretion ( not by next highest ratings )? ( Ottosen’s question )
Thanks
I will post any reply I get. I agree that the first issue is what the Handbook says when the Canadian Champion declines, and the " rated " choices decline. It does seem reasonable that if the wildcard discretionary choice of the Selection Committee declines, then they get another shot at it ( but even here, we should confirm this is what the Handbook says ).
From what is being written farther down in the thread it would appear Edward was "passed over".
The Olympic team picks seem to have been given to the Ontario/Quebec CFC "power base".
Your provincial federation should take a tough stance with the CFC. Alberta has a legitimate qualifier for the Olympic team and he's passed over. It's outrageous.
Yes I agree. I noticed that the Olympiad Committee seems to have all 8 members from Toronto, or at least Ontario if I'm mistaken. I think the CFC not using the selection list and hand-picking 3 players based on whoever they feel like is pretty awful. I think that Edward or any non -ONT/QC player would be quite unfamiliar to the selection committee, and they would be more inclined pick the people they know. This is the only way I think someone like Edward could be selected after players such as Noritsyn and Samsonkin when by almost all objective methods he is clearly above them.
Re: Olympic Team - Relevant Handbook Selection Sections
I am not familiar with the details, but didn't this same thing happen with Nikoloff - he was the next higest rated when someone dropped out, and someone picked someone else to fill the vacancy?
I thought I didn't qualify based on rating. But now knowing what their methods are, I think I'm going to need to be at least a GM from Alberta to have a chance to be selected over average IM's from Toronto :)
It's so nice to see our one-person Handbook Updating Subcommittee monitoring Handbook questions ! Thanks for keeping on top of this, as well as the tecnical task of the updating itself.
I was a governor at the time of the motion and I am sure that it was 4 from the list and only 1 by selection in order to reward players who were playing games in Canada and raising their ratings.
I was a governor at the time of the motion and I am sure that it was 4 from the list and only 1 by selection in order to reward players who were playing games in Canada and raising their ratings.
A history of that 1+3+1 motion:
"Motion 2008-03
Moved by Lyle Craver / Bob Gillanders
That Handbook paragraph 1206(b) dealing with the Canadian Olympic team be
amended to read: (b) National Team: 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 TWO highest rated players on the Selection Rating list.
(iii) Two players decided upon by the Selection Committee.
Rationale: this motion is intended to bring the CFC into alignment with FIDE which
has mandated 5 player teams for the 2008 Dresden Olympiad (Note: the capitalized
words original read ‘six’ and ‘three’ respectively)
First Discussion in 05-06GL1.pdf
Second Discussion in 07-08GL2.doc and 05-06GL4.pdf
Final Vote in 07-08GL3.pdf and 07-08GL5.pdf
Results of Voting in 07-08GL6.pdf
Voting suspended as an amendment has been received:
Motion 2008-3 Amendment Smith/Jaeger That Handbook paragraph 1206b
dealing with the Canadian Olympic team be amended to read: b National Team:
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.
In GL#6 Motion transformed to: (b)National Team:The National Team shall
consist of six 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)Two players decided upon by the Selection Committee.
(c) Women’s Team: The Women’s Team shall consist of four players, as follows:
(i)The Canadian Women’s Champion, as of 180 days before the start of the
Olympiad.
(ii) The two highest rated female players on the Selection Rating list.
(iii) One player decided upon by the Selection Committee.
Our existing rules attempt to apply the same selection principles to two teams of different sizes. Now both the National team and Women’s team are five player teams as per FIDE’s rules. Therefore I am ruling that the selection criteria be the same for both teams. Since both teams currently include the Canadian Champion from 180 days before the Olympiad, it comes down to this choice for the other 4 players.
Please choose between:
Option One: 2 players from the Selection Rating List and 2 players chosen by the Selection Committee Option Two: 3 players from the Selection Rating List and 1 player chosen by the Selection Committee
Option Three: Neither of the above (in this case the floor is open for
other options)
Votes for option 1: (6) Barron, Duff, Langer, Luiting, McDonald, Wright
Votes for option 2: (6) Bluvshtein, Craft, Craver, D´enomm´ee, Haley, Profit
Votes for option 3: (1)Wu
Abstention: (1) Gillanders
Tie vote broken by the President – Option 2 passes. "
Option One: 2 players from the Selection Rating List and 2 players chosen by the Selection Committee Option Two: 3 players from the Selection Rating List and 1 player chosen by the Selection Committee
Option Three: Neither of the above (in this case the floor is open for
other options)
Votes for option 1: (6) Barron, Duff, Langer, Luiting, McDonald, Wright
Votes for option 2: (6) Bluvshtein, Craft, Craver, D´enomm´ee, Haley, Profit
Votes for option 3: (1)Wu
Abstention: (1) Gillanders
Tie vote broken by the President – Option 2 passes. "
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.
It might be disputed. It was no a replacement, as the team was not formed and those who accepted not yet withdrawn.
---
As I understand, there is no clear procedure what to do when the player refuses immediately.
It will be quite a nightmare to draft a regulation that covers all possible combinations of accepting and declining - before and after the formation of the team (nevermind the definition of "formation of"). Soon we would have something like the Income Tax Act and officially sanctioned "interpretations"...
I think the regulation needs to be simplified so that it is clear in intent and in practice, but that is certainly easier wished for than done.
Tweet
Comment