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.
One good outcome of this issue is that is helped me choose a game for the June 12th Globe and Mail column. The choice was causing ennui until ChessTalk inspiration flooded in.
One good outcome of this issue is that is helped me choose a game for the June 12th Globe and Mail column. The choice was causing ennui until ChessTalk inspiration flooded in.
True -- there are at least 8 Paul Bonham games in CanBase :-)
I don't think that Edward Porper wants to go this year, but he told me that he would be interested in future years. In any case if he should have been selected he should be given a chance to properly decline the invitation!
All regions are represented whether a player resides in every region or not. I would suggest to you that the selections had more to do with age then geography. We can debate all day whether age is an appropriate criteria but this appears to be a rebuilding year and that factor suggests to me sending a younger team this year is not all that bad an idea.
I looked at the playing records out of curiosity and what you say is very misleading. The ONLY category Porper might be considered higher is that blended rating criteria and that is by mere points, which is statistically insignificant.
The funniest thing would be if in two years the selection committee chose Porper instead of yourself to play on the team, simply based on rating ignoring all other factors like you are requesting now. This seems to be your request just use numbers and ignore everything else.
Similarily, if you are selected by committee in two years and you are lower rated then players that are not chosen, I hope you will have the integrity to turn down your spot. The selection committee's of the future certainly should duly note your personal views on this matter.
Last edited by Duncan Smith; Saturday, 29th May, 2010, 02:04 PM.
We can debate all day whether age is an appropriate criteria but this appears to be a rebuilding year and that factor suggests to me sending a younger team this year is not all that bad an idea.
You almost make me regret having turn down my invitation... Very few successful sport teams are made only of youth, or alternatively only of experience. Both are needed.
Final Rating Selection List – Can. National TeamPlayers Title FIDE CFCR Avrg Games Eli P Why Not Eligible
Hebert Jean IM 2426 2494 2460 >20 ***Already Qualified***
Spraggett Kevin GM 2606 2622 2614 >20 Yes 1
Bluvshtein Mark GM 2583 2634 2609 >20 Yes 2
Lesiege Alexandre GM 2528 2577 2553 0 No 3 Not enough games
Tyomkin Dimitri GM 2497 2570 2534 0 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 IM 2406 2624 2515 >20 Yes 7
Porper Edward IM 2448 2556 2502 >20 Yes 8Roussel-Roozmon Thomas IM 2489 2504 2497 >20 Yes 9
Zugic Igor IM 2462 2516 2489 0 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
Teplitsky Yan IM 2448 2466 2457 0 No 14 Not enough games
Quan Zhe IM 2421 2465 2443 14 Yes 15
The number of games played is also a criteria. If the team was chosen based on rating without any regard to "mere" games played in the period, the selections might well have been different.
I attended the 50th anniversary of the Scarborough chess club about a week ago. It was nice. They had a nice summary of the club over the decades, right down to the two-four on Sundays. They gave out the trophies for the club championship and so forth. Good looking trophies. I liked the cake as well. Maybe I'll drop by for their 60th annivesary.
I always liked trophies rather than money prizes. With trophy prizes I always felt the players came for the competition and glory. With money prizes players come for the money and the same ones seem to win most of the time while the number of entrants falls.
The fact that you and several other veterans turned down their invitation is a given. There is no debate to be had there. So now a team must be chosen. What I am very clearly saying is in this situation a bias towards youth is very, very smart planning.
But I'll give you some benefit of a doubt and invite you to select a team with more experience. Players must meet eligibility requirements and be interested in playing.
ps If I was to go into a discussion of sports teams the fact is many dynasties result from teams rebuilding through the draft and putting
up with some lean years playing their young players. Much too big a topic but I would say this approach is the best approach for teams
with limited resources.
Last edited by Duncan Smith; Saturday, 29th May, 2010, 03:52 PM.
I don't think that Edward Porper wants to go this year, but he told me that he would be interested in future years. In any case if he should have been selected he should be given a chance to properly decline the invitation!
If Porper and Krnan decline, in addition to those who have already declined, you get the announced team, all by rating, in accordance with the 1994 precedent. Let's call it the Indirect Method of selection. In most countries, declining such an opportunity would be worth at least a norm opportunity.
Has any member of the CFC Executive answered the question yet as to whether or not the rukes were followed when the Olympiad teams were chosen?
In short, NO. This stuff shouldn't be rocket science, yet it seems to happen *every year*. Exactly how hard is it to produce a clear explanation of the procedure? Unfortunately we get lots of legalese and very little common sense. Moreover, the "process" seems to keep tripping over issues that have been encountered many times in the past. Those who do not learn from mistakes....
Steve
P.S. I don't have a problem with the team as it is constituted and my current understanding is that Mr. Porper would likely have declined this year, but at the moment it does not look like he was treated fairly.
Has any member of the CFC Executive answered the question yet as to whether or not the rukes were followed when the Olympiad teams were chosen?
I also looked at the CFC board and AFAICS, no. The closest we've seen is this from Ilia Bluvshtein:
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.
but that doesn't make sense in terms of various versions of the rules which have been circulated in this thread. AFAICT, all specify 1 (one) to be chosen by the Selection Committee. In another thread, Igor Zugic advised us that the first name (of only three) on the Selection Committee (of which he and Ron Livshits were the members) list was indeed Pascal Charbonneau. Since Pascal subsequently declined, by the 1994 precedent, all five team members would come from the rating list.
This is the kind of situation that often occasions a thorough discussion in the Assembly (of Governors). But I am not a member of that august body.
The best exit may be to induce Porper and Krnan to decline the invitations which they should have received, thus rectifying the announced selection.
Tweet
Comment