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.
I thought we already drew names out of a hat? That was in Round #3. Don't you remember?
As to the number of tournaments, yes. I've played in 6. Why? I don't want to waste my time playing in 5 hour games, when I have other things to do. I rarely take the time to play in them, but this does not correlate to a lack of understanding about how they are structured.
Playing in tournaments does not, by default, generate any special expertise in how the pairings are drafted. Do you know what does? Understanding the rules, reading them, having a thorough knowledge of data organization and other such things. Without know my credentials or background, do you not think it is a *tad* presumptuous of you to assume that a simple lack of tournament play renders me incapable of analyzing a pairing structure?
Of course, I'm the parody here, the guy advocating for the interests of all the players in the tournament in Round 3, at my own expense; the individual who after a player got DQ'ed in Round 1 for no legitimate reason (in, I should add, my opinion) spoke on their behalf anyway - despite not knowing the player and having no personal stake in the outcome.
And I don't like the type of person you represent, so I suppose, we are equal on that score.
I want the tournament to be run fairly, transparently, and openly. I have said all along that I do not care if that adversely affects my own chances, but I do want to make sure it's just. I also have no interest in deferring to someone merely because some person somewhere thought it fit to give them a title.
I realize, that some people, and perhaps you count yourself among them, are too afraid to stand up and say, "Hey wait a minute, something here doesn't add up", and that's fine. I have not expected, and do not expect, that everyone will have the internal fortitude to fight for what they believe in or object when things are wrong.
In this tournament, there was at the very least, one entirely egregious screw up in Round #3. That has not changed, and it continues to affect pairings and results. The moment that happened, every single person involved in the administration of this tournament lost total credibility. There no longer is, what could best be titled, consumer confidence, in the pairings or results. When you are investing significant portions of your time and money to participate in such things, that's a problem. When the results appear questionable, like my pairing currently is, then it is an even greater opportunity for someone to ask whether they are being done correctly.
Now, instead of your acting as though you're the school yard bully and utilizing ad hominem attacks to attempt to convey your position, why not actually try to rationally consider the way the tournament has been run, and whether you consider that to be the way you would want a *national* tournament to be administered.
If that's the very best Canadian Chess has to offer, it is no wonder we lag behind so many other countries in it.
sorry Mr Law student I'm still laughing about the 6 tournaments and the lack of experience with pairings
if you are so good why don't you do a correct pairing of the tournament from round 1, post the results here and everyone can see how much you know, I'm sure we will all be in awe, I'm from Mississouri, the show me state, any one can claim to have read the rules but they don't let just anyone ref the game
sorry I'm laughing so hard I can barely type this & you have a challenge to take up or not, put your expertise where your mouth is - show us
What I preposturous challenge. It would take hours to enter the data and hours to make all the pairings. Nobody would do that on a whim. However it might do Matthew some good to realize the difficulty of pairing a large tournament and understand his standard of quality is unrealistic.
sorry Mr Law student I'm still laughing about the 6 tournaments and the lack of experience with pairings
if you are so good why don't you do a correct pairing of the tournament from round 1, post the results here and everyone can see how much you know, I'm sure we will all be in awe, I'm from Mississouri, the show me state, any one can claim to have read the rules but they don't let just anyone ref the game
sorry I'm laughing so hard I can barely type this & you have a challenge to take up or not, put your expertise where your mouth is - show us
I love logical fallacies. Your arguments are regularly riddled with them. I mean, I see from a quick google search of your name that you're not a child; and apparently, you're a reasonably good chess player. Despite this, for some unknown reason, you continue to act in an extremely childish manner.
Despite, what you may think, I'm not here for your entertainment. I also do not need to further justify that, regardless of the degree of expertise an individual may or may not have, it is abundantly clear and entirely accepted that the Round 3 pairings were done incorrectly.
There's no disputing this point. Errors, especially ones of that magnitude in national tournaments, undermine confidence in the results. The fact that you apparently lack the intellectual maturity to accept this fact and engage in a civil discussion leads me to believe that your only purpose is to attempt to elicit responses at a level you are more comfortable with.
Unfortunately, dear sir, I left the playground long ago, and have no interest in returning there.
What I preposturous challenge. It would take hours to enter the data and hours to make all the pairings. Nobody would do that on a whim. However it might do Matthew some good to realize the difficulty of pairing a large tournament and understand his standard of quality is unrealistic.
"his standard of quality is unrealistic???" I believe all he wants is an explanation of the obviously bizarre and likely incorrect pairings in Round 3 (perhaps later as a consequence) and most importantly why they were allowed to stand (by several FIDE Arbiters as I understand it) EVEN THOUGH the errors were pointed out many HOURS before the round. I very much want to hear the rationale behind that decision to NOT correct the pairings.
That is absolutely reasonable. I would agree. I also wonder why there has not been an explanation of the pairing system in use - that should have been posted long before the tournament. Inquiries about that were left unanswered.
It doesn't matter in the slightest whether he has played in zero or 50 tournaments. These are reasonable requests.
That is absolutely reasonable. I would agree. I also wonder why there has not been an explanation of the pairing system in use - that should have been posted long before the tournament. Inquiries about that were left unanswered.
It's up to a player to find out the pairing system being used, if this is an issue, and then deciding if s/he wants to play. If you don't get a reply and pairings are of importance, simply don't play.
It costs a lot of money to play in that event and more when you factor in travel, lodgings (if applicable), and your time. It's reasonable to understand and be in agreement with the paring system before plunking down an entry fee.
In CC, I ask the name of the tournament director before agreeing to play in an event. There are some directors whose events I won't play.
What I preposturous challenge. It would take hours to enter the data and hours to make all the pairings. Nobody would do that on a whim. However it might do Matthew some good to realize the difficulty of pairing a large tournament and understand his standard of quality is unrealistic.
I love logical fallacies. Your arguments are regularly riddled with them. I mean, I see from a quick google search of your name that you're not a child; and apparently, you're a reasonably good chess player. Despite this, for some unknown reason, you continue to act in an extremely childish manner.
Despite, what you may think, I'm not here for your entertainment. I also do not need to further justify that, regardless of the degree of expertise an individual may or may not have, it is abundantly clear and entirely accepted that the Round 3 pairings were done incorrectly.
There's no disputing this point. Errors, especially ones of that magnitude in national tournaments, undermine confidence in the results. The fact that you apparently lack the intellectual maturity to accept this fact and engage in a civil discussion leads me to believe that your only purpose is to attempt to elicit responses at a level you are more comfortable with.
Unfortunately, dear sir, I left the playground long ago, and have no interest in returning there.
My point stands.
well you have been very entertaining and last time I checked the playground the young kids went screaming and crying to anyone if they thought their ball was taken away unfairly - that's you to a T - transparency is code for I get to cry as loud as I want if there may be something I don't like and if someone, anyone doesn't agree with me I'll pout & call them childish
do the round 3 pairings, show us your expertise, if you have any - you don't even have enough experience to know you don't have enough experience
there has been a farce and the farce is you
your point stands? haven't heard that one since debate club in high school
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Saturday, 17th July, 2010, 06:17 PM.
I love logical fallacies. Your arguments are regularly riddled with them. I mean, I see from a quick google search of your name that you're not a child; and apparently, you're a reasonably good chess player. Despite this, for some unknown reason, you continue to act in an extremely childish manner.
Mr Kitich in his infinite wisdom understands that "It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong." (Voltaire) So like most people he will courageously side with the established authorities at every chance he gets, which by the way is in itself further proof that the established authority is wrong.
The right way is not always the popular and easy way. Standing for right when it is unpopular is a true test of moral character. - Margaret Chase Smith
Mr Kitich in his infinite wisdom understands that "It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong." (Voltaire) So like most people he will courageously side with the established authorities at every chance he gets, which by the way is in itself further proof that the established authority is wrong.
The right way is not always the popular and easy way. Standing for right when it is unpopular is a true test of moral character. - Margaret Chase Smith
Mr Hebert in his limited wisdom thinks that only if you are completely disagreeable can you possibly be right. Thus is explained the not so quiet revolution and the deplorable state of the financial sector in Montreal today. Mr Hebert mistakes hard working organizers for a police state. Voltaire would not make such a mistake, to his credit.
"To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable.” - Barry Goldwater
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Saturday, 17th July, 2010, 09:02 PM.
Mr Kitich in his infinite wisdom understands that "It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong." (Voltaire) So like most people he will courageously side with the established authorities at every chance he gets, which by the way is in itself further proof that the established authority is wrong.
The right way is not always the popular and easy way. Standing for right when it is unpopular is a true test of moral character. - Margaret Chase Smith
Oh I like quotes. I also like Voltaire, he's perhaps my favourite philosopher. :).
"Non-cooperation with injustice is a sacred duty." - Gandhi
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
"It is a just person who disobeys an unjust law." - Plato
Take your pick, really. :)
EDIT: Some more:
Try not to become a man of success but rather try to become a man of value. -Einstein
To know what is right and not do it is the worst cowardice. -Confucius
A man is usually more careful of his money than of his principles. -Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
In matters of principle, stand like a rock; in matters of taste, swim with the current. -Thomas Jefferson
It takes less time to do a thing right, than it does to explain why you did it wrong. -Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
The reputation of a thousand years may be determined by the conduct of one hour. -Japanese Proverb
If moral behavior were simply following rules, we could program a computer to be moral. -Samuel P. Ginder
But best of all:
It is easier to find a score of men wise enough to discover the truth than to find one intrepid enough, in the face of opposition, to stand up for it. -A.A. Hodge
Last edited by Matthew Scott; Saturday, 17th July, 2010, 09:06 PM.
Oh I like quotes. I also like Voltaire, he's perhaps my favourite philosopher. :).
"Non-cooperation with injustice is a sacred duty." - Gandhi
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
"It is a just person who disobeys an unjust law." - Plato
Take your pick, really. :)
wow I didn't know you were fighting to make the planet safe for all humanity, my apologies, you are right, first its wrong pairings and next its forced labour in some gulag
wow I didn't know you were fighting to make the planet safe for all humanity, my apologies, you are right, first its wrong pairings and next its forced labour in some gulag
Mr Hebert mistakes hard working organizers for a police state. Voltaire would not make such a mistake, to his credit.
It is not "hard working organizers" that are in question here. It is a paid arbiter responsible for the pairings. Confusing volunteers and paid people has become a fixture of canadian chess to avoid criticism.
As for being disagreeable, I am convinced that even your friends appreciate your capabilities in that matter.
He has no enemies, but is intensely disliked by his friends. - Oscar Wilde
It is not "hard working organizers" that are in question here. It is a paid arbiter responsible for the pairings. Confusing volunteers and paid people has become a fixture of canadian chess to avoid criticism.
As for being disagreeable, I am convinced that even your friends appreciate your capabilities in that matter.
He has no enemies, but is intensely disliked by his friends. - Oscar Wilde
oh so if they are paid a dollar they are not organizers nor hard working but legitimate targets for your invective, fair enough I guess - they should really have to earn that dollar
oh so if they are paid a dollar they are not organizers nor hard working but legitimate targets for your invective, fair enough I guess - they should really have to earn that dollar
Again, with the fallacies. Honestly. It boggles my mind.
You know, there is this perception among lay (in this context, non-chess players) people, that somehow individuals who play chess are of above average intelligence, or that they have strong logic skills (derived from their ability to find combinations and patterns on a chess board).
The more time I spend around tournament halls, the more I see, particularly among certain types of players, how false that image is.
In a strange way, it's sort of amusing Mr. Kitich. You seem to think I'm a parody, and/or entirely unreasonable, and yet, I can think of very little that detracts more from the game than people with the perception you hold.
While it is certainly true I have faults, at least there are interests I care about beyond my own.
Tweet
Comment