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.
It's great that we're going to see a new champion for a change. The Netherlands are a great team, but Spain must be the favourites on current form.
Current form? Netherlands beat #1 Brazil, while Spain beat #3 Portugal and #6 Germany ... and lost to Switzerland! I'd say that both teams did what they needed to do. Great current form from both!
As I cheer for the underdog, I can enjoy the final with perfect equanimity, as there is, IMHO, no underdog. Regarding the other game, I wonder if Uruguay experienced an epiphany when they scored against the Orange with both Suarez and Forlan on the bench. With their steady defenders Lugano (a good chess word) and Fucile also back from suspension, they are pretty good value for an underdog, not a Forlorn hope.
Last edited by Jonathan Berry; Saturday, 10th July, 2010, 01:19 PM.
Reason: Fucile
Verry funny, even without sound! Though I can't figure out why you quoted Emil, or what this has to do with Dutch fandom. Oh well, thanks for the link.
Germany played well against Uruguay and were the deserving winners. The South Americans can take consolation in having scored two beautiful goals. The combo Perez to Suarez to Cavani was particularly good. It was an entertaining game.
Before the main match, I thought back to Germany's insipid performance against Spain and wondered if Netherlands would make the same mistake. Then I wondered if they could do it worse, and the thought arose that yes, they could do worse by trying to intimidate their opponents. Just a few minutes into the game: bingo.
I think that Netherlands were the architects of their own downfall. Rough and aggressive play (may I leave this spike imprint on your chest?) led to the referee quickly giving yellow cards. He could not let the game be decided by thuggery. OTOH, he was reluctant to give a red card after 5 minutes of play. Either eventuality would leave the reputation of soccer in disrepute. To show that Spain could not work the system by drawing more violence on themselves, he gave Spanish players yellow cards for lighter infractions. Netherlands continued to play rough until most of their main players had one yellow card each. Spain was not intimidated, but the spectacle was ruined by mostly Spanish (but also Dutch) players hamming up their hurts, and appealing to the referee to give red cards. There was a bit of a lull in the roughness, as the Dutch players knew that anything blatant would result in another yellow and a 10 vs 11 situation. Then came the payback. Robben outran Puyol to the ball. Puyol kind of held him back. I'm not an expert on penalties (nor on much about soccer, I just played a tiny bit as a youth. But I do know a bit about chess refereeing.), but according to the TV commentator this play by Puyol would often merit a penalty, which would be a penalty kick depending upon where it happened. But the Dutch players had pushed the referee into a corner where he wouldn't call a penalty on the Spanish unless it was blatant. The Dutch had used up all the headroom. Because of the Dutch strategy in the game, they didn't get that penalty. Actions have consequences.
It looked to me like Iniesta took a swan dive which resulted in the indirect penalty which Spain missed. Later Iniesta scored the only goal. Iniesta is a midfielder. The Spanish strikers continued below par, missing several good chances.
The player of the tournament was Spanish goalkeeper Casillas. Give, oh, Uruguay, for example, a keeper like Casillas, and they might have won it all.
Rough play is a legitimate tactic in other sports. They call it "playoff hockey". I didn't find that it made for a particularly entertaining game of soccer, though. I don't know what the solution is, though several times I thought that making the players compete barefoot would be an improvement.
Edit: I wrote the above all on my lonesome, but as a sanity check, I put thuggery Netherlands Spain into my favourite search engine. Seeing 12,700 hits, I pressed the Post button. :)
Last edited by Jonathan Berry; Monday, 12th July, 2010, 02:29 AM.
I don`t know much about soccer either (I also played as a kid), but based on my experience during the soccer games at chess camp, I think the game could be made more entertaining by having two balls in play simultaneously.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
I agree with Tom, the addition of the second ball lead to much more exciting play.
At the World Cup I was saddened by the way Ghana was eliminated. When a player who is not the keeper deliberately catches the ball to stop it from going into the net, an automatic goal should be awarded. A red card and a penalty kick are not sufficient, since a penalty kick can, and in this case was missed. One should not be able to profit from deliberately breaking the rules when it is the best percentage play. Change the rule. (Even in hockey if a player tosses his stick to thwart a shooter the referee awards a goal.)
I was quite pleased with the way the team from France imploded. After cheating their way into the tournament it was poetic justice indeed.
I think that Netherlands were the architects of their own downfall. Rough and aggressive play (may I leave this spike imprint on your chest?) led to the referee quickly giving yellow cards. He could not let the game be decided by thuggery. OTOH, he was reluctant to give a red card after 5 minutes of play. Either eventuality would leave the reputation of soccer in disrepute. To show that Spain could not work the system by drawing more violence on themselves, he gave Spanish players yellow cards for lighter infractions. Netherlands continued to play rough until most of their main players had one yellow card each. Spain was not intimidated, but the spectacle was ruined by mostly Spanish (but also Dutch) players hamming up their hurts, and appealing to the referee to give red cards. There was a bit of a lull in the roughness, as the Dutch players knew that anything blatant would result in another yellow and a 10 vs 11 situation. Then came the payback. Robben outran Puyol to the ball. Puyol kind of held him back. I'm not an expert on penalties (nor on much about soccer, I just played a tiny bit as a youth. But I do know a bit about chess refereeing.), but according to the TV commentator this play by Puyol would often merit a penalty, which would be a penalty kick depending upon where it happened.
I did not read yet the newspapers so this is just what I think...
Basically the game was a coin toss.
Netherlands was the only team that really challenged Spain in the final part of the competition (leaving aside the odd Switzerland game).
Obviously I do not condone violence - so the boot in the chest deserved a red card – that was given … some 80 minutes later.
But, as the TV "pundits" said (and this was a rare case when they were right) referee Webb had many difficult decisions to take - some he got right, some not. Puyol incident could not be a penalty kick as it happened out of the penalty area. But - if sanctioned - would have led to the defender's elimination.
Among others: the Spanish goal followed a very obvious corner kick that was not awarded to the Dutch.
But over all the refereeing was not the cause of the result and I believe it should not be over-analyzed (or criticized).
My take (as an ardent Dutch fan): a couple of inches in the 62nd minute at Robben's shot made all the difference.
That's also why Casillas has to be the player of the tournament.
Spain had the best players and best ball control but scoring goals was an issue – it seems the lowest scoring World champion ever – worse than Italy ?!
Five other teams scored more – including Brazil and Argentina that played only 5 games.
I would have liked to see Ghana (or other African team if possible) in the semis, too.
All in all I believe this was a very well organized World Cup with many good and interesting things happening.
I don`t know much about soccer either (I also played as a kid), but based on my experience during the soccer games at chess camp, I think the game could be made more entertaining by having two balls in play simultaneously.
Like turning the queens into second kings. Sounds like fun. Unless you're writing euphemistically, in which case LOL.
But the problem that was puzzling me was not the entertainment level directly. It is the relationship between rough play, violence, fouling, clean tackles, and the conduct of the game in general--the effect of that vector on the entertainment value of the game. It strikes me that once accustomed to the extra action, you would simply be doubling the chance of a player trying to injure the opponent. More than double because the new dynamics will give rise to new ways to accidentally step on an opponent's instep or hack at his ankle. And following as day follows night, retaliation, acting, and trying to get penalties called on the opposition. These wreck the entertainment value of the game, at least for me. Obviously, I'm not talking about chess kids here.
Portugal wins the tournament if they have Suarez as a striker (Portugal played four games, but scored in only one of them);
Uruguay wins the tournament if Casillas is their goalkeeper.
England wins the tournament if Suarez is their goalkeeper.
:)
Or not.
Seriously, though, Suarez took the foul and suffered the consequences. Please do change the rules if the consequences are not dire enough. Elsewhere I've seen considerable animus directed against Suarez the person. He did what he needed to do.
My concern was the opposite, the sanctions in some cases were too severe. One example, Australia. A player (Kewell) was standing on the goal line with his arms by his sides. A ball was redirected at his shoulder area from about 10m, but travelling very fast. He did not see the ball until the last instant, flinched, turned his head away, closed his eyes--and raised his arm very slightly as the ball hit him. IMHO this could easily have been the "startle response" (see Stanley Coren's book The Left-Hander Syndrome), a reaction which he could not have suppressed. But he got red-carded (so Australia played with 10 men for the rest of the game) and the opposition, Ghana, was awarded a penalty shot.
That one's been thrashed out a lot. One that bothered me more was the South Africa goalie who was attempting to play the ball, but in paying insufficient attention to a player who he probably thought was offside, was also red-carded and the substitute had to suffer a penalty shot.
Both incidents affected qualification to the round of 16.
Meanwhile, offences (such as hand-ball) by the attacking side or in midfield are sometimes ignored, or even if noted have minor sanctions, such as a defensive free kick. In this way soccer reminds me of Women's Field Hockey, which I was watching around the time of the Los Angeles Olympics (of 1984, not 1932 :) ). I noticed after a few games that most of them were decided by "penalty corners" (a situation that had the scoring potential of a close-in free kick, but not of a penalty kick, in soccer), and that most of these "penalty corners" were caused by technical infractions in the defensive zone, such as touching the ball with the rounded rather than the flat side of the stick. Although the girls were more fun to watch, the other entertainment value was pretty low. Eventually I watched a Men's Field Hockey game and it was completely different. There were close to zero of those defensive zone technical penalties. Either the men players were more adept and didn't make those technical faults, or the faults weren't called. The games were decided by skill plays. I remember watching the 1984 final. The field was like a cool day in Karachi, but by any other standard it was a cauldron. In an entertaining game, Pakistan deservedly won 2-1. It's the only time I've felt sorry for Germany in sport. Boy, was that hot, I could feel it even in the comfort of my living room, watching the TV in real black-and-white!
Apparently in the Australia incident, the referee's choices were:
1. play on; or
2. expulsion, suspension for the next game and penalty shot.
There was no middle ground. This gives partisans lots of discussion fodder, but is it really good for the sport? I'm reminded of the Zero Forfeit rule that FIDE has introduced into chess. If you're one second late for the start of the game, you lose. Except in Canada most organizers publish a specific exemption from that rule. Chess is a difficult enough sport as it is. Basically, if you don't understand chess, there is no entertainment value in watching it. Not true of soccer or hockey. Speaking of hockey, the NHL has been fiddling with the rules for years now, looking to break out of the doldrums, and I think they've succeeded. They started with the invention of the penalty box, way back in the mists of time. Maybe soccer needs that. Chess needs rules that are less technical, instead we get Zero Forfeits!
Tweet
Comment