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.
Hey Bob, you know, I think it's a bit crass to bold the favorites before the match starts.
It doesn't display much in the way of integrity. You might be interested to know that while it's true Supsup did go on to beat me, it was also after I had spent the previous hour arguing about the incorrectly done pairings, and was not at my best. Furthermore, I went on to beat one of the U2000 players who is ranked *above* Supsup tonight.
Furthermore, Tian Lan beat his opponent in Round #3.
It's certainly true that the higher rated player is the prohibitive favourite, but we all know that. Why do you need to bold it and call it a "projection"?
Maybe spending an hour arguing about pairings wasn't the best use of your time.
Why? The pairings were wrong. It's destroyed the integrity of the process. I'd do it again.
"The integrity of the process"????? I didn't realize that chess tournament pairings were so embued with integrity, but maybe that's just me.
I'm not saying that they were incorrect or correct, or that you shouldn't complain about them if they are done wrong. I am saying though that this really isn't the end of the world, and getting so bent out of shape is a waste of your time. Have fun complaining about pairings for an hour whenever you don't like them...
Hey Bob, you know, I think it's a bit crass to bold the favorites before the match starts.
It doesn't display much in the way of integrity. You might be interested to know that while it's true Supsup did go on to beat me, it was also after I had spent the previous hour arguing about the incorrectly done pairings, and was not at my best. Furthermore, I went on to beat one of the U2000 players who is ranked *above* Supsup tonight.
Furthermore, Tian Lan beat his opponent in Round #3.
It's certainly true that the higher rated player is the prohibitive favourite, but we all know that. Why do you need to bold it and call it a "projection"?
I think you are being too sensitive... its fully Bob's right to make "projections" if he wants to.
Also in terms of the pairings, while I agree its a pretty big problem why don't you just file an appeal already and move on? Its not the end of the world.. I can understand why someone like Bindi would be complaining because it was billed as a chance for him to get a norm, but I don't think its going to have much affect for any lower rated players this early in an open tournament. The pairings will "balance" out in the later rounds. Im not saying that it makes it OK, but that you really shouldn't waste so much time getting all bent out of shape over it.
Last edited by Tyler Longo; Tuesday, 13th July, 2010, 11:18 PM.
I think you are being too sensitive... its fully Bob's right to make "projections" if he wants to.
Also in terms of the pairings, while I agree its a pretty big problem why don't you just file an appeal already and move on? Its not the end of the world.. I can understand why someone like Bindi would be complaining because it was billed as a chance for him to get a norm, but I don't think its going to have much affect for any lower rated players this early in an open tournament. The pairings will "balance" out in the later rounds. Im not saying that it makes it OK, but that you really shouldn't waste so much time getting all bent out of shape over it.
I agree he can make projections, but what he did was simply predict the winners would win. That's an inherent assumption in any Swiss System, and requires no "projection" whatsoever.
With respect to the pairings, what good would filing an appeal at this juncture do? It would be procedural, nothing more.
With respect to the norm v. myself, I'm playing in the tournament to have fun. I have more fun when the tournament is administered properly. Although I don't care about the cash prize, I *would* like to win my category and set that as the goal when I entered the tournament. That task is made infinitely more difficult by the free pass two of my opponents got in Round 3.
I'm sorry but in terms of bolding the favourites and projecting, what part of the day 3 blog are you referring to. I'm not aware I projected any winners in my Day 3 blog. Can you point me to the section? I've reread my blog a few times and don't know what you are referring to. I'll be glad to respond if I can understand the criticism. I can't even see any " bolded " names. Thanks.
Bob
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Wednesday, 14th July, 2010, 12:37 AM.
I just went to look at the day 2 blog, and now see what you are referring to - it is the Rd. 3 pairings for the top three in the U 2000 group. I see the bolded names. The bolding was not meant to be a projection of the potential winner - I was merely bolding their names because they were the one's from my U 2000 group. I guess my title of " Projections " was a bad one - sorry about that. I was not making " projections " re their Rd. 3 matches - just presenting the pairings and highlighting our own group members. I'll make sure I don't use that title again. I can see why you read it the way you did.
Day 4 - Tuesday, July 13: The U 2000 Can. Open Blog
The U 2000 Canadian Open Blog
Day 4/Rd. 4 – Tuesday, July 13
Starting the Day Off Right ?
I got home late on Tuesday night, and didn’t get to starting my blog ‘til 12:45 AM today. But before then, I did check the ChessTalk website new posts, and read Matthew Scott’s comments on my Day 2 blog, specifically my section “ Projections “. I have to apologize, because the title is totally misleading. I was not making projections as to who would win their 3rd round games, among the games involving the top 3 U 2000 players. I was just presenting the pairings. I bolded the names of the U 2000 players, to highlight that they were in our U 2000 group, not that I was predicting they would win the game. But I can see that would be a legitimate interpretation of what I wrote. I just meant “ Projections “ as referring to the fact that I was going to discuss then moving “ forward, to round 3 “. I’ll not use that title again, since it can easily be understood differently than I intended. I don’t just assume that the higher players always win – as an 1800 player, I’d certainly be shooting myself in the foot to view things that way – I always harbour hopes of an upset !!
The CFC AGM
After finalizing my Day 3 blog this morning between 8-9 AM, I headed downtown for the 10:00 AM Incoming Governors’ CFC AGM. The meeting went well and we elected our new slate of officers. I congratulate Bob Gillanders on his acclamation as president, and thank him for being willing to take on this sometimes rather thankless task – lots of criticisms and not a lot of bouquets. I am hopeful of a good year for the CFC. There were a lot of discussions on current issues going forward, and David Cohen, the recording secretary, has posted here on ChessTalk in another thread, an AGM executive summary.
A Quiet Afternoon
After the AGM concluded in mid-afternoon, I spent some time with outgoing GTCL Governor, Bill Evans. As some of you may know, he has produced an anthology of chess problems on-line, which are available for purchase. His problems have been used on Kevin Spraggett’s blog from time to time. I had not seen it before, and was impressed with the format – seems easy to use. I think Bill is going to be selling them at the CMA table, so you might take a look.
Dinner with the President
I went out to get a coffee a bit before the round 4, and ran into Bob Gillanders, and another organizer from his very successful Mississauga club. So we went out for dinner. Bob confirmed that lots of people were “ bending his ear “ yesterday after his election. I think this may be one of Bob’s strong suits – he’s very approachable, a good communicator, and willing to listen, even when he may not agree. So he seemed to be surviving his first hours as the new CFC President. We had a pleasant dinner and chat – so much so that I forgot I had Rd. 4 to go to !! I checked my watch and it was 6:10 PM, and I had a few blocks to go to get back to the playing hall. Like I can afford to give my young opponent, the U 14 Canadian Champion, expert Tanraj Sohal, a time handicap??
The U 2000 Group
There are 56 players in our prize group. Going into Rd. 4, our 2 leaders, with perfect scores, had to play national masters. Ferdinand Supsup was able to get a draw with David Filipovich. Pino Verde lost to Paul Gelis.
So here are the leaders in our group after 4 rounds:
I ( 1800 ) have 2.5 pts., and am tied 6/18. As I’ve mentioned before, I am ranked last of the 56.
The 8 Scarborough Chess Club U 2000 Results:
3 points - Pino Verde ( 1800 )
2.5 points – Michael Song ( 1866 ) [ who got a Rd. 4 Draw with Lawrence Day ! ]; Alex Rapoport ( 1838 ); Bob Armstrong ( 1800 )
2 points – Ferdinand Cale ( 1806 )
1.5 points – Robert Bzikot (1984 ); Jim Paterson ( 1889 );
1 point –
½ point –
0 points – Pepin Manalo ( 1932 )
My Game
As I mentioned above, Tanraj just won the U 14 Can. Championship at the recently concluded CYCC in Windsor, Ontario. I apologized for being late coming, and we settled in to the opening – I was white. Amazingly, I got a space advantage, and started to develop a K-side attack against his K. He thought it was dangerous, and ran his K from g8 all the way over to a7 ! So I still had good play on the K-side for a breakthrough. Tanraj ventured the opinion afterwards that I was likely winning much of the game to here. But then I had a lapse. I pushed my gP; I wanted to exchange P’s, and recapture with my R, which would have kept my initiative. But after I made the move, I realized his N covered the recapture square, and so I had to recapture with my P. There went my whole game plan, though material was still equal. Tanraj seized upon my error, got the initiative, and tied me right down. I was desperate ! So I came up with a possible Q-sac for a R + N, with good play thereafter. Tanraj looked at it for a while, and then decided not to go into the Q-sac line, since he thought I got too much out of it. I now felt I was lost, and so decided my only hope was to open some lines to his K, now on the Q-side, even if it cost me a pawn or two. But Tanraj saw my “ cheapo “ threats, and nicely defended at the same time as mating me ( with him having 9 minutes left, and me having 47 minutes ) ! A loss, but a very fun game to play.
Some Random Thoughts After Day 4
Another good AGM meeting of “ new “ ( and returning ) incoming governors. I am hopeful that if the new governors participate on an increased basis over last year, the CFC should be able to move forward, supporting the new executive. As I mentioned in my Day 3 Blog, instituting Governors’ Quarterly On-line Meetings goes a long way toward increasing the efficiency of governor decision-making, and will encourage stronger participation among the governors. I will go out on a limb, and predict a good year coming up for CFC ( though we do have some immediate clouds on the horizon, that will required some tough problem-solving ).
Who will Canada support in the upcoming FIDE Election this September – Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, the incumbent, or Anatoly Karpov, the challenger, former 12th World Champion? Although the AGM discussions on this were confidential, I think it is OK to say the governors are divided, and there is a strong undercurrent of not being too happy with either candidate. So the issue was handed off to the new executive to instruct our FIDE Representative, Hal Bond ( our Can. Open Arbiter ), how to vote.
Our current crop of juniors have to be a solid hope for Canadian chess in the future. Kids these days are just so good ! They are starting at a young age ( we have at least one 7 year old in my club, the Scarborough Chess Club, in Toronto ). And they have the advantage of coaching, something seldom seen when I started playing. And credit has to be given to the effective chess promotion programs for youth of the Chess’n Math Association, the Chess Institute of Canada, the Chess In the Library program ( started by one of our SCC juniors, WIM Yuanling Yuan ), chess junior clubs being run by a number of Can. chess clubs, among others. We see more and more juniors at our clubs ( they are likely between 30-35 % of our SCC now ), and in weekend tournaments. Some say, yes, but they quit after high school. That is a reality – but in the meantime they help fill our playing halls, give us stronger opposition than we can often handle, and often return to chess later in adult life. And the more we get playing chess, the more we will retain.
Round 5 – Wednesday, July 14
So who are our top 5 U 2000 players playing tonight? Here are the pairings and they face stiff opposition:
8 GM Vladimir Malaniuk (2551 : w : 3.0) Ferdinand Supsup (1851 : b : 3.5)
10 IM David Cummings (2482 : w : 3.0) Derick Joshua Twesigye (1990 : b : 3.0)
14 Dmitry Chernik (1855 : w : 3.0) Alexander Martchenko (2382 : b : 3.0)
15 Arjun Bharat (1841 : w : 3.0) Laszlo Bekefi (2376 : b : 3.0)
16 Pino Verde (1800 : w : 3.0) FM Dale Haessel (2316 : b : 3.0)
Go get’em guys !!
My Round 5 pairing is also tough - I play a national master:
32 David Filipovich (2218 : w : 2.5) Robert J. Armstrong (1800 : BB : 2.5)
But that's why I came - to try to get strong opposition, and players who I would not normally ever get to play. My chess has been pretty sound so far for the most part. As I said in one of my earlier blogs - I always harbour dreams of upsets ( as do most of us class players ).
Finally, I'd like again to invite everyone to join into the discussion - any comments, suggestions, criticisms of the blog are welcome - and of anything to do with the Can. Open. I will try to respond if that seems appropriate.
Bob
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Wednesday, 14th July, 2010, 10:46 AM.
I see you are up rather late also with your blog entries. I just concluded my 3am blog to the new cfc executive team with my thoughts on the AGM, then of course, wrapping up the day with your blog.
I thought the AGM meetings were very productive. A very good sign.
I just went to look at the day 2 blog, and now see what you are referring to - it is the Rd. 3 pairings for the top three in the U 2000 group. I see the bolded names. The bolding was not meant to be a projection of the potential winner - I was merely bolding their names because they were the one's from my U 2000 group. I guess my title of " Projections " was a bad one - sorry about that. I was not making " projections " re their Rd. 3 matches - just presenting the pairings and highlighting our own group members. I'll make sure I don't use that title again. I can see why you read it the way you did.
Bob
Appreciated. I do enjoy your posts, and I think they add value. It's also not that I have anything against projections when they are intended either, I don't... I just thought it was sort of unfair to the players who already are playing w/ very low odds to "project" they lose, but as you've said that isn't what you intended, it's cool.
Hi Bob - saw your round 4 game - thought your motto for the game was - "dark squares - I don't need any stinking dark squares" ! You did have the light squares sewn up though! Thought you might have sacked the d pawn for open lines at one point. Of course, this might be just hot air on my part!
I haven't analyzed the game yet, but you may have seen my g6 push, attacking the f7R and the h7P. Totally wrong decision, as I said, due to a lapse in analysis, which a beginner shouldn't make.
I had a very good game ( even Tanraj agreed ), and I likely could have made more of it. Opening lines like you suggest is an option. I'll look at your suggestion when I analyze.
Re: Day 4 - Tuesday, July 13: The U 2000 Can. Open Blog
Good luck in the rest of your games Bob, wish I was able to play the CO this year. Do you have an Edmonton-style wager going on with anyone else in the section?
Tweet
Comment