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.
Of course how could I win any debate with you ? You have already stated that: "your views are accurate". :)
P.S. Sorry, that is the only part of your arguments I can remember. I am too lazy to try to break up a 200 word sentence into digestible bits.
Would you mind to transfer your disputes in this and other threads into private messages.
you've really lost the debate of ideas when all you can do is complain about the typesetting
Of course how could I win any debate with you ? You have already stated that: "your views are accurate". :)
P.S. Sorry, that is the only part of your arguments I can remember. I am too lazy to try to break up a 200 word sentence into digestible bits.
The point about players using half-point byes to catapult themselves into contention for Class prizes was also brought up by your ob't s'r'v't during an earlier discussion of half-point byes here. The facts remain that it is poor netiquette to make a post that says "Me, too!", and that this board has no mechanism to applaud or boo a post. One can only add to the rep of a poster, which is a much different thing. A perfectly-worded complaint might have the support of scads of thinkers on the board, but be quite alone in board-space.
I am a supporter of the half-point bye concept. I don't see the need to offer three byes in a one-game-per-day tournament, except as a way to lure local players who continue to work during the event. Bravo to the organizer who wants to welcome as many players as possible, but there may be competitive consequences.
The typical Canadian Open schedule has two games on the first Sunday. That is a perfect opportunity for half-point byes for players who will not play more than one game per day. But in 2010 they decided to go to nine rounds and have only one game on the first Sunday.
There used to be disagreements about the distribution of prizes, particularly in the case of ties involving place prize winners and class prize winners. Following the precedent of the USCF, the CFC got together and produced a brief set of rules for prize distribution. It's in the CFC Handbook. The only case I remember where that was insufficient was where a CFC President didn't understand the Handbook and tried to use his authority to get me to give a player more money. Hah. So instead of having pages of detailed rules on prize division, pre-tournament announcements have a lovely sparse look.
I think that byes deserve a similar treatment, one or two Handbook pages. To start with, unless announced, all requested byes would be of the 0-point variety. If half-point byes are allowed, there'd be guidelines which would apply unless exempted in writing by the organizer in the pre-tournament announcement.
the much larger problem in my opinion remains pre-arranged draws, a problem which more than one commentator has indicated is a serious threat to chess and makes this issue of 1/2 point or 0 point for byes like rearranging the proverbial deck chairs on the titanc
no there is not and no more questions, you seem to be the only one who is complaining, the loud minority as it were
The point about players using half-point byes to catapult themselves into contention for Class prizes was also brought up by your ob't s'r'v't during an earlier discussion of half-point byes here. The facts remain that it is poor netiquette to make a post that says "Me, too!", and that this board has no mechanism to applaud or boo a post. One can only add to the rep of a poster, which is a much different thing. A perfectly-worded complaint might have the support of scads of thinkers on the board, but be quite alone in board-space.
I am a supporter of the half-point bye concept. I don't see the need to offer three byes in a one-game-per-day tournament, except as a way to lure local players who continue to work during the event. Bravo to the organizer who wants to welcome as many players as possible, but there may be competitive consequences.
The typical Canadian Open schedule has two games on the first Sunday. That is a perfect opportunity for half-point byes for players who will not play more than one game per day. But in 2010 they decided to go to nine rounds and have only one game on the first Sunday.
There used to be disagreements about the distribution of prizes, particularly in the case of ties involving place prize winners and class prize winners. Following the precedent of the USCF, the CFC got together and produced a brief set of rules for prize distribution. It's in the CFC Handbook. The only case I remember where that was insufficient was where a CFC President didn't understand the Handbook and tried to use his authority to get me to give a player more money. Hah. So instead of having pages of detailed rules on prize division, pre-tournament announcements have a lovely sparse look.
I think that byes deserve a similar treatment, one or two Handbook pages. To start with, unless announced, all requested byes would be of the 0-point variety. If half-point byes are allowed, there'd be guidelines which would apply unless exempted in writing by the organizer in the pre-tournament announcement.
my humblest apologies for not walking your strictly defined line of what is relevant and what is not relevant and in not using the English language as per your strict definition as to what an organizer is & isn't, of course Voltaire is relevant to any discussion I can see that the point it that quite possibly he was given a lengthy explanation, which this statment of his points to, with one hour being his specificaiton, and the point is that possibly he has chosen to throw a fit (as he did against Bob) on Chesstalk because the pairings were not altered to his specifications ie he didn't get the opponent he desired to be able to have a better chance of winning prize money which he is now making a paranoid attempt to say he was targeted to not win and its possible he's totally misleading us here and its quite possible that he's one amongst a number of chess players that feel they have a right to hurl invective at everyone and anyone who doesn't do precisely what they want, since we are talking about possibilities - and yes I have seen that possibility in action at more than one tounament in Toronto
Wow! A 9 (!) line long sentence with about 200 words! That defends it well against the threat of being read and understood. :)
Why am I not surprised that after your "Thus is explained the not so quiet revolution and the deplorable state of the financial sector in Montreal today", you completely fail to see what is relevant and what isn't ?
Whether Mr Scott argued about the pairings for an hour or only 53 minutes with the TD or with a bunch of people is hardly significant. The point is that possibly (I am not passing judgment here) wrong pairings have been knowingly posted through negligence and above all reluctance to admit a mistake. This would hardly have been a first time in Canadian Chess. I still have vivid recollection of a well documented case in 1985, also in Toronto...
my humblest apologies for not walking your strictly defined line of what is relevant and what is not relevant and in not using the English language as per your strict definition as to what an organizer is & isn't, of course Voltaire is relevant to any discussion I can see that and I can also see that what happened in Toronto in 1985 is relevant to 2010 even supposing that whatever you are referring to 25 years ago did not involve the same people as are involved today, different people, same city - yes I can see how you could say that was relevant
the point it that quite possibly he was given a lengthy explanation, which this statment of his points to, with one hour being his specificaiton, and the point is that possibly he has chosen to throw a fit (as he did against Bob) on Chesstalk because the pairings were not altered to his specifications ie he didn't get the opponent he desired to be able to have a better chance of winning prize money which he is now possibly making a paranoid (your word remember?) attempt to say he was targeted to not win and its possible he's totally misleading us here and its quite possible that he's one amongst a number of chess players that feel they have a right to hurl invective at everyone and anyone who doesn't do precisely what they want, since we are talking about possibilities - and yes I have seen that possibility in action at more than one tournament in Toronto
but I'm not passing judgement either, merely thinking about possibilities the same as you
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Sunday, 18th July, 2010, 04:39 PM.
not you Mr Hebert, I'm not on here to satisfy you - as astounding as that may seem to you, in fact if you ever agreed with me it would scare me to no end, I would then know I had crossed over to the 'dark' side
and as to the hour I quote from Mr Scott's hissy fit for imagined slights by Bob Armstrong, in addition we have a post from David Cohen saying that Hal Bond left the CFC AGM to discuss the pairings, I think even you are now able to figure it out
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"?
Why am I not surprised that after your "Thus is explained the not so quiet revolution and the deplorable state of the financial sector in Montreal today", you completely fail to see what is relevant and what isn't ?
Whether Mr Scott argued about the pairings for an hour or only 53 minutes with the TD or with a bunch of people is hardly significant. The point is that possibly (I am not passing judgment here) wrong pairings have been knowingly posted through negligence and above all reluctance to admit a mistake. This would hardly have been a first time in Canadian Chess. I still have vivid recollection of a well documented case in 1985, also in Toronto...
That about says it all... But it would be slightly more convincing to let others say it.
not you Mr Hebert, I'm not on here to satisfy you - as astounding as that may seem to you, in fact if you ever agreed with me it would scare me to no end, I would then know I had crossed over to the 'dark' side
and as to the hour I quote from Mr Scott's hissy fit for imagined slights by Bob Armstrong, in addition we have a post from David Cohen saying that Hal Bond left the CFC AGM to discuss the pairings, I think even you are now able to figure it out
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"?
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Sunday, 18th July, 2010, 11:08 AM.
I didn't get an answer from Hal Bond for an hour. Further, the answer I did get from them was the pairings were incorrectly done, but not being changed.
This I can believe because prior to the first round of the 2009 Canadian Closed in Guelph, something quite similar happened. The clocks happened not to be set properly for two time controls. Acknowledging this the arbiter and organizer (Mr Bond) to everybody's amazement proposed to leave them as they were and suggested instead "a visual check" for the second time control! Of course nobody in the room nor I had never heard such a thing while people looked at each other in disbelief! After a further 10 minute discussion the hard working Mr Bond finally agreed to take on the "formidable" task to set 15 clocks properly, with the help of his assistant.
If I had not been there I could hardly believe such a story but I was, along with a further 30-40 people.
Leave a comment: