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.
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.
yes I know you are an expert on Canadian chess, with 7 whole tournaments (almost) under your belt
in any case I see Bryan Lamb has responded to you and you are jumping all over him with as you would call them fallacies, I was expecting you would be able to prove your point with your superior knowledge of pairings but it seems to be more of the personal attack stuff and I Matthew don't like the pairings so they can't be right
I can think of nothing that detracts more from the game then walking parodies such as yourself, who at the mere bolding of a name on a blog report has a fit
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Saturday, 17th July, 2010, 09:28 PM.
yes I know you are an expert on Canadian chess, with 7 whole tournaments (almost) under your belt
in any case I see Bryan Lamb has responded to you and you are jumping all over him with as you would call them fallacies, I was expecting you would be able to prove your point with your superior knowledge of pairings but it seems to be more of the personal attack stuff and I Matthew don't like the pairings so they can't be right
I can think of nothing that detracts more from the game then walking parodies such as yourself, who at the mere bolding of a name on a blog report has a fit
Yes. A "fit". All of a two line post. Are you always so melodramatic?
With respect to "my not liking pairings, so they can't be right", I am certain this is why every single individual in the room knew that the pairings were done wrongly in Round 3?
Not everyone has enough of a mathematical background to understand why this mistake matters.
As to the responding in substance to Mr. Lamb's point, what would be the point, precisely? He has some legitimate points, but he also has many flawed assumptions and incorrect statements. Even were I to correct him, it would be for what? Should I spend hours of my time educating every single individual who elects to make a post, particularly when, I will have individuals like yourself who are too concerned with being a part of the problem to worry about how a solution might be arrived at.
In any event, I have said my peace and done what I can to argue for change, it will do little to repeat myself.
Yes. A "fit". All of a two line post. Are you always so melodramatic?
With respect to "my not liking pairings, so they can't be right", I am certain this is why every single individual in the room knew that the pairings were done wrongly in Round 3?
Not everyone has enough of a mathematical background to understand why this mistake matters.
As to the responding in substance to Mr. Lamb's point, what would be the point, precisely? He has some legitimate points, but he also has many flawed assumptions and incorrect statements. Even were I to correct him, it would be for what? Should I spend hours of my time educating every single individual who elects to make a post, particularly when, I will have individuals like yourself who are too concerned with being a part of the problem to worry about how a solution might be arrived at.
In any event, I have said my peace and done what I can to argue for change, it will do little to repeat myself.
sure they do Matthew its not rocket science
and yes going after Bob was ridiculous
responding in substance to Bryan you have no clue how to do, responding with invective you are a master of
Are we all sure you are all thirteen years old? Moderator?
"People that rely on historical quotes have never been capable of an original thought themselves". Diogenasaurus - 1724 B.C.
I love the irony in that one, though I recognize it to be intentional.
Nonetheless, quotes do serve a purpose; albeit a limited one. There is a tremendous difference between acknowledging the truth of a statement, even one that was written hundreds of years before, and following such blindly simply because someone stated it to be so.
oh so if they are paid a dollar they are not organizers nor hard working but legitimate targets for your invective...
Invective... what a deplorable and inaccurate choice of words. Mr Scott has been relentless in his claim that round 3 pairings have been wrong and in asking for explanations, which I find quite legitimate. However neither he or I have used invectives in this thread, unless you consider that "quotes" enter that category. That much you should acknowledge.
And for your information, arbiter (or TD) and "organizer" is not the same thing, whether the former earns less than minimum wage or more. Finally the fact that people are hard working is not in itself sufficient cause for praise. Very often people not working efficiently must work longer and harder.
Invective... what a deplorable and inaccurate choice of words. Mr Scott has been relentless in his claim that round 3 pairings have been wrong and in asking for explanations, which I find quite legitimate. However neither he or I have used invectives in this thread, unless you consider that "quotes" enter that category. That much you should acknowledge.
And for your information, arbiter (or TD) and "organizer" is not the same thing, whether the former earns less than minimum wage or more. Finally the fact that people are hard working is not in itself sufficient cause for praise. Very often people not working efficiently must work longer and harder.
my views are accurate, your characterization of others as slackers and incompotents who must then work harder just to get the minimum done is not and is precisely what I mean by invectives, your attitude that if someone is paid a dollar that they are subject to whatever attack you or Mr Scott choose to launch is laughable - that's the joke and farce of this situation
of course I'm not here to say what you should or shouldn't say, I'm just here to react as we both have the freedom of speech, I don't mind if people yell on street corners or protest etc. I just feel free to answer back and guess what I am free to do so
I am free to use organizer to mean anyone who is involved in organizing the event which includes running it
when I have to check with Jean Hebert what the 'rules' of how I may use the English language are I will stop speaking it, I think that's what Voltaire meant by not cowtowing to authority
Mr Scott apparently spent an hour getting an answer from Hal Bond before the round by his own statement and has also gotten an answer on Chesstalk from Bryan Lamb but of course Mr Scott continued in the same way as always - Mr Scott is a pairings expert and Mr Scott has indicated that the pairings are not correct following both these explanations - I of course challenged Mr Scott to reconstruct the round 3 pairings as he would have them, which he is free to disregard but I will then continue to question his expertise
as for the other quotes, they were pleasant to read and of course were not written by you so I wouldn't take too much credit for them but that's just me
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Sunday, 18th July, 2010, 08:20 AM.
my views are accurate, your characterization of others as slackers and incompotents who must then work harder just to get the minimum done is not and is precisely what I mean by invectives, your attitude that if someone is paid a dollar that they are subject to whatever attack you or Mr Scott choose to launch is laughable - that's the joke and farce of this situation
of course I'm not here to say what you should or shouldn't say, I'm just here to react as we both have the freedom of speech, I don't mind if people yell on street corners or protest etc. I just feel free to answer back and guess what I am free to do so
I am free to use organizer to mean anyone who is involved in organizing the event which includes running it
when I have to check with Jean Hebert what the 'rules' of how I may use the English language are I will stop speaking it, I think that's what Voltaire meant by not cowtowing to authority
Mr Scott apparently spent an hour getting an answer from Hal Bond before the round by his own statement and has also gotten an answer on Chesstalk from Bryan Lamb but of course Mr Scott continued in the same way as always - Mr Scott is a pairings expert and Mr Scott has indicated that the pairings are not correct following both these explanations - I of course challenged Mr Scott to reconstruct the round 3 pairings as he would have them, which he is free to disregard but I will then continue to question his expertise
as for the other quotes, they were pleasant to read and of course were not written by you so I wouldn't take too much credit for them but that's just me
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.
Furthermore, whether or not I am a pairing expert is irrelevant, it is widely established the pairings in Round 3 were wrong, no matter how you elect to do them.
However, since your only purpose is to act as an inflammatory tool on these boards; that is all I will say on the subject this morning.
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.
Furthermore, whether or not I am a pairing expert is irrelevant, it is widely established the pairings in Round 3 were wrong, no matter how you elect to do them.
However, since your only purpose is to act as an inflammatory tool on these boards; that is all I will say on the subject this morning.
you made a statment that you spent an hour with Hal Bond arguing about the pairings before your round
you'll of course realize that I prefer to find out what answer you were given in the future direct from the organizers if they wish to, an answer which we do have in part from Bryan Lamb
inflamatory tool? isn't that why you came on here in the first place calling the CO a joke and a farce? and now you are upset that someone disagrees with you? my word how dare I
the fact of whether you know what you are talking about is relevant
its certainly debatable which method should have been used, we all have opinions about that but there is a certain freedom the organizers have under the rules and by still following the rules, which means the pairings are not 'wrong' or a joke and a farce, just different than what you insist upon in your expertise
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Sunday, 18th July, 2010, 08:48 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.
Tweet
But it would be slightly more convincing to let others say it.
Comment