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: Canadian Chess Open Championship: Pairing Issues
The Quebec Open is actually quite a bit cheaper than the CO. The invitation section will offer norm chances for all participants. We, on purpose, left a few spots for norm seeking members of the CFC and were able to accomodate a number of young players who aked to play in this section.
I see this type of argument a lot. For a moment consider it from your opponents`perspectives. They are paired down against you, which means being paired down 172 to 673 points. They didn`t pay an EF and expenses to give you chess lessons. Presumably they want to play people in their rating range at the minimum. This is the best argument against one section: too many free chess lessons.
Free lessons? Whose dollars are the strongest players walking away with in prize money? :)
On a related note, I've sometimes thought that playing in the CO could be a requirement for participating on the olympic team. Want the chess playing public to contribute to your teams travel expenses? Demonstrate your willingness to promote chess for all Canadians by participating in a national event where everyone has a chance to play against you...
I see this type of argument a lot. For a moment consider it from your opponents`perspectives. They are paired down against you, which means being paired down 172 to 673 points. They didn`t pay an EF and expenses to give you chess lessons. Presumably they want to play people in their rating range at the minimum. This is the best argument against one section: too many free chess lessons.
Oh really? They're "free" chess lessons eh?
I suppose that's why 3 of those 5 have been defeated (including the 2nd and 3rd highest in that grouping?)
Furthermore, I'm curious: since they get to collect my EF as prize money at the end if they win, why shouldn't they have to play me? Often the lower players get screwed - same entrance fees as everybody else and smallest prize funds, even when they have the most players. It's embarrassing.
On a related note, I've sometimes thought that playing in the CO could be a requirement for participating on the olympic team. Want the chess playing public to contribute to your teams travel expenses? Demonstrate your willingness to promote chess for all Canadians by participating in a national event where everyone has a chance to play against you...
I've suggested many times that of the (ridiculously low) 10 game minimum to qualify for the team, some or all of the games should be required to occur within Canada. Personally I'd prefer to see something like 15 games required with at least 6 in Canada, being realistic, although 20 and 10 would be even better.
I wouldn't say I was being squashed. I was suffering for my bad habit of grabbing a pawn in the opening and mixing up variations. I evaluated the ending after 36.Rc6 Bb6 as better for black. I activate my rook and possibly push my pawn to e6 and I have an extra protected passed pawn and a bishop and rook versus rook and knight which is usually better for the side with the bishop nothwithstanding the extra pawn. I thought that White had good drawing chances earlier as long as he didn't try to win.
I've sometimes thought that playing in the CO could be a requirement for participating on the olympic team. Want the chess playing public to contribute to your teams travel expenses? Demonstrate your willingness to promote chess for all Canadians by participating in a national event where everyone has a chance to play against you...
The CO isn't much of a warm-up for the Olympics. If you lose a game at the Olympics, you don't play an opponent 250 points lower than you. I have no objection to requiring games played in Canada, but if you want the team to profit from this requirement, give the Quebec Open, the Calgary International, the Edmonton International, maybe even the Canadian Closed ... at least equal billing to the CO.
The thought struck that if there are participation rules, maybe there should be incentive rules. For example, that at least half the incentive budget at any Canadian Open must be spent on Canadian players.
Are you any relation to the guy who was a bit of a godfather (in the best possible sense) to BC Chess in the late 1960s / early 1970s ? His name might have been Art De Jong.
I suppose that's why 3 of those 5 have been defeated (including the 2nd and 3rd highest in that grouping?)
Furthermore, I'm curious: since they get to collect my EF as prize money at the end if they win, why shouldn't they have to play me? Often the lower players get screwed - same entrance fees as everybody else and smallest prize funds, even when they have the most players. It's embarrassing.
At least here they have to earn their money.
You aren`t playing anyone whose EF was subsidized, as all of their ratings are U2200 so they are in the same boat as you. Mr. XX00 gets all excited about getting paired up, but your opponent is getting paired down and that is hardly exciting for him. It is possible your opponents are playing poorly because they paid hundreds, even thousands, to play in this event, and are getting opponents weaker than if they had played in their own local events. I am sure that many of *them* also want to be paired up and not down to you.
If players don`t like the fact that better players get more of the prize money, there is a very simple solution. Get your rating up and play for those juicy prizes yourselves.
As for Mr. De Jong`s comment about qualifying for the Olympic Team, but having to play in the Canadian Open to get a spot: chess has so little money in it, that you are now asking players to make two financial sacrifices in order to play. Other than students whose play is subsidized by their parents, and people who are independently wealthy, who is going to be able to afford it ...
"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.
You aren`t playing anyone whose EF was subsidized, as all of their ratings are U2200 so they are in the same boat as you. Mr. XX00 gets all excited about getting paired up, but your opponent is getting paired down and that is hardly exciting for him. It is possible your opponents are playing poorly because they paid hundreds, even thousands, to play in this event, and are getting opponents weaker than if they had played in their own local events. I am sure that many of *them* also want to be paired up and not down to you.
If players don`t like the fact that better players get more of the prize money, there is a very simple solution. Get your rating up and play for those juicy prizes yourselves.
As for Mr. De Jong`s comment about qualifying for the Olympic Team, but having to play in the Canadian Open to get a spot: chess has so little money in it, that you are now asking players to make two financial sacrifices in order to play. Other than students whose play is subsidized by their parents, and people who are independently wealthy, who is going to be able to afford it ...
Attitudes like yours bothers me, and are part of why most people (including me) can't be bothered to play much, if any, tournament chess.
You don't *deserve* to play particular opposition. It's very simple: Win your games, and you will play better opponents. Lose, and you won't. It's an open, not an invitational.
While I would be the first to admit the Round 3 pairings have changed the face of this event (by making several higher players end up with lower opponents in subsequent Rounds than they should have), beating up on players who are beating upper players and deserve to thus have the chance to play them is short-sighted.
Last edited by Matthew Scott; Friday, 16th July, 2010, 06:58 AM.
Re: Canadian Chess Open Championship: Pairing Issues
Players deserve to get games that are likely to be competitive. This is nothing personal against you; I see this all the time when players get excited about their prospects of getting paired up. I never hear one of them contemplate the asymmetry of the idea that their opponent probably doesn`t share their excitement.
Perhaps this is why most of Canada`s stronger players don`t bother to play in one-section COs.
A respectful suggestion:
Perhaps you should ask your opponent this round if he paid to play in the event hoping to get paired against someone with your rating and if he found the prospect as exciting as you seem to.
"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.
Players deserve to get games that are likely to be competitive. This is nothing personal against you; I see this all the time when players get excited about their prospects of getting paired up. I never hear one of them contemplate the asymmetry of the idea that their opponent probably doesn`t share their excitement.
Perhaps this is why most of Canada`s stronger players don`t bother to play in one-section COs.
A respectful suggestion:
Perhaps you should ask your opponent this round if he paid to play in the event hoping to get paired against someone with your rating and if he found the prospect as exciting as you seem to.
I'm not excited about the pairing up. I'm also mindful of the asymmetry. The difference between my point of view, and yours, is that I don't believe a high rating entitles you to play certain opponents. If you win games, you play higher opponents. If you lose, you don't.
This tournament got screwed up because of Round 3. That's not my fault, I argued vehemently against it. However, whether or not it got screwed up in Round 3, given the performance I've had so far at this tournament, some high rated player was going to draw me in this round. That happens. There's always a few low players at the upper end of the tournament.
With respect to whether they're excited or not, again, it's a level playing field for everyone.
I would not have played in this tournament if it were split sections. What would be the point? Your comment about "getting your rating up" is almost as though you seem to assume that players should play in countless little tournaments (all the while inflating the prize fund for upper tier players) while going up a few points at a time, despite being significantly better than that.
The pairings did not follow an accelerated swiss system (players were not properly paired), and further, many sections were incorrectly paired (for example, Board #47 to #53 were inexplicably highest v. lowest seed as opposed to Swiss.
I am unsure what the correct approach is. I attempted to argue the point with the tournament Arbitrator, Mr. Hal Bond, prior to the commencement of Round 3. I also attempted to speak with the Tournament Organizers, without success. I know I have taken the time to draft, and send, the relevant Tournament Staff a 5 page complaint outlining my significant issues with the administration of this round.
The ripple effect it has created has severely undermined the final outcome, and it is hard to imagine a remedy that will resolve the problems that this farce of a round has created, short of replaying the Round in its entirety with the proper pairings, and discounting the Round 3 results.
:: sigh ::.
It's pretty sad that the biggest tournament in Canada for Chess is being administered in such a fashion.
No More PAIRING COMPLAINTS at the COCC 2010.
I noticed that those people who have been posting complaints about the pairing suddenly stop whining!
Is it because, they became suddenly contenders again? See what I mean?
Oh well, it's normal to find several reasons to complain when you lost a game. But,
one thing that a player should take note that "There is no one to be blamed when you lose but yourself because
that's all you got in chess! Another thing to take note is that, the 2010 COCC in one OPEN section wherein, you
should be aware that you are going to face several players of different caliber in different rounds depending on
your result and current rating.
HOPE THAT EVERYTHING SHOULD BE FINE NOW AND PLEASE STOP WHINING WHEN YOU LOSE!
DON'T BLAME THE PAIRING BUT YOURSELF! IT'S MAIN USE IS TO GET YOU AN OPPONENT AND GIVE YOU ANOTHER OPPONENT BASED ON YOUR RESULT! THE PAIRING SOFTWARE HAS DONE ITS JOB!!!
I noticed that those people who have been posting complaints about the pairing suddenly stop whining!
Is it because, they became suddenly contenders again? See what I mean?
Oh well, it's normal to find several reasons to complain when you lost a game. But,
one thing that a player should take note that "There is no one to be blamed when you lose but yourself because
that's all you got in chess! Another thing to take note is that, the 2010 COCC in one OPEN section wherein, you
should be aware that you are going to face several players of different caliber in different rounds depending on
your result and current rating.
HOPE THAT EVERYTHING SHOULD BE FINE NOW AND PLEASE STOP WHINING WHEN YOU LOSE!
DON'T BLAME THE PAIRING BUT YOURSELF! IT'S MAIN USE IS TO GET YOU AN OPPONENT AND GIVE YOU ANOTHER OPPONENT BASED ON YOUR RESULT! THE PAIRING SOFTWARE HAS DONE ITS JOB!!!
?
I'm complaining because the pairings were done wrong. I'm currently tied for 1st in my category, and the one above it, so I don't know why you think it's because i'm "losing".
The pairings should have been done right. They weren't. That's a problem.
Tweet
Comment