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.
Jonathan: I have a hypothetical question regarding the value of tablebases in draw claims.
Let's say a master(player a) had the rook and pawn and a much lower rated(player b) had the queen and hardly any time on the clock and wanted to draw. I don't know much about claiming draws in the endgame, but lets say player b claimed a draw and went to the arbiter. And he had memorized tablebase evaluations beforehand and his position is "winnable" . So can he claim a draw to the arbiter based on his argument that it is dead winning for him according to tablebases? Would the arbiter go check tablebases or how would he proceed?
Unless they were in a sudden death time control, the claim would be denied. In a sudden death time control, it would be accepted, I would think.
DEVILS SIGNED KOVALCHUK#$&*(#&*()$&*()#$
everytime it hurts, it hurts just like the first (and then you cry till there's no more tears)
Let's say a master(player a) had the rook and pawn and a much lower rated(player b) had the queen and hardly any time on the clock and wanted to draw. I don't know much about claiming draws in the endgame, but lets say player b claimed a draw and went to the arbiter. And he had memorized tablebase evaluations beforehand and his position is "winnable" . So can he claim a draw to the arbiter based on his argument that it is dead winning for him according to tablebases? Would the arbiter go check tablebases or how would he proceed?
The claimant should (but not must) first offer a draw to get an information that the opponent plays for a win (it might be that he wants to promote a pawn :) The well-mannered opponent will not offer a draw in a lost/worse position but he will accept the offer.
IMHO, the arbiter is needed to solve a dispute.
Nevertheless the player may go and ask an arbiter to fix a draw.
"
10.2 If the player, having the move, has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall summon the arbiter and may stop the clocks. (See Article 6.12.b)
a.
If the arbiter agrees the opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means, or that it is not possible to win by normal means, then he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim.
b.
If the arbiter postpones his decision, the opponent may be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue, if possible in the presence of an arbiter. The arbiter shall declare the final result later in the game or as soon as possible after a flag has fallen. He shall declare the game drawn if he agrees that the final position cannot be won by normal means, or that the opponent was not making sufficient attempts to win by normal means."
Mr. Zator decided to conjure up a peremptory accusation, which he posted on Chesstalk to be considered by the community. I believe my post contained some very relevant arguments, undiscovered by previous posts.
Undiscovered arguments ? Is it "I'm disgusted" or "Amen, brother" (after one of the leading bully smartly compared Ed Zator to Homer Simpson eating donuts") ? Give me (not Me, me! :)) a break. Who are you trying to convince here ? Yourself or Me ? With you I suspect it's always Me, Me, Me...
P.S. By the way, add a few letters to your surname it is very ... unsurname like. How about Kevin "the dean of" Mean ? :)
Jonathan: I have a hypothetical question regarding the value of tablebases in draw claims.
Let's say a master(player a) had the rook and pawn and a much lower rated(player b) had the queen and hardly any time on the clock and wanted to draw. I don't know much about claiming draws in the endgame, but lets say player b claimed a draw and went to the arbiter. And he had memorized tablebase evaluations beforehand and his position is "winnable" . So can he claim a draw to the arbiter based on his argument that it is dead winning for him according to tablebases? Would the arbiter go check tablebases or how would he proceed?
The answers of Ben and of Egis are both correct. Rule 10.2 has always been a minefield, but has become less of an impediment as more and more events have an increment from cradle to grave. It is possible, but not likely, that an arbiter will rule that trying to win on time with R+P vs. Q is a normal method.
In any case, a R+P vs. Q tablebase would not enter into the discussion in your example.
Where the value of increment over sudden death would really show its superiority is the opposite case, where R+P is trying to draw against Q. With an increment, you just play it out and count to 50. With sudden death, I suspect most arbiters would require the defending player to demonstrate the fortress. So if he had 5 seconds SD, he'd probably lose, but if he had 1 minute 55 seconds and was adept at the intricacies, he'd probably draw. The moral? "Same move faster was better". {Geza Fuster}
Secondly, are you inferring that I deliberately failed to convert this ending?
No. In fact I made no such accusation or inference. But I did point out, you can't disprove such an accusation on the basis of financial motive, since the potential financial gain is not quantifiable.
Having looked at the game now, I am completely convinced that it was
totally on the level. But I was an opportunity denied to me, and to others in my group, by the arbiter when he chose not to pursue my concerns further.
At worst you failed to convert to a won Q+P vs Q ending earlier on, a mistake even a GM might make. After that, your chances of winning probably became practically impossible, unless you'd studied the specific techniques for Q vs R+P.
Your loss of the half point cost you financially, but it had a much bigger impact on the section two below yours! That's life. Freakish kinds of draws do occur, sometimes even between players with greatly different ratings.
Your opponent played resourcefully in your game, and well throughout tournament, tying for first with Derick Twesigye (who posted another amazing performance). My congratulations to both of them as well.
How dare you continue to insinuate that Mr. MacKinnon did anything wrong?? You are continuing to grumble that he drew instead of winning, because that affected *you*. He is not responsible to you. You are somehow convinced that somewhere in this game he was clearly winning and then unfathomably screwed up, as if that is somehow a rarity in chess. The game looks to be totally legitimate and you have yet to explain how the TD giving your complaint the slightest attention would have affected *anything*.
How dare you continue to insinuate that Mr. MacKinnon did anything wrong?? You are continuing to grumble that he drew instead of winning, because that affected *you*. He is not responsible to you. You are somehow convinced that somewhere in this game he was clearly winning and then unfathomably screwed up, as if that is somehow a rarity in chess. The game looks to be totally legitimate and you have yet to explain how the TD giving your complaint the slightest attention would have affected *anything*.
Mr Zator wrote: "Having looked at the game now, I am completely convinced that it was totally on the level." To me it means clearly he admits his claim was unfounded. (But claiming in itself is always legitimate, if you really think it is founded.)
What else do you want ? Total surrender ? Public stoning ? Kissing of Count Drkulec's feet ? At least leave the guy a little back door to escape the bullies.
Mr Zator wrote: "Having looked at the game now, I am completely convinced that it was totally on the level." To me it means clearly he admits his claim was unfounded. (But claiming in itself is always legitimate, if you really think it is founded.)
What else do you want ? Total surrender ? Public stoning ? Kissing of Count Drkulec's feet ? At least leave the guy a little back door to escape the bullies.
Hi Jean:
Umm, if his post looks like an apology to you, well, I suggest you get your eyeglass prescription checked. EZ has posted several times and has not shown any sign of regret that he dragged one or two other player's names through the mud. He continues to splutter about the financial side of this as if it is somehow relevant. He impugned the character of one of the players by noting that player's (probable) ethnic origin. I'm not piling on or being a bully in replying to this latest post of his.
Mr Zator wrote: "Having looked at the game now, I am completely convinced that it was totally on the level." To me it means clearly he admits his claim was unfounded. (But claiming in itself is always legitimate, if you really think it is founded.)
What else do you want ? Total surrender ? Public stoning ? Kissing of Count Drkulec's feet ? At least leave the guy a little back door to escape the bullies.
how about he stop justifying himself by not continuing to say the players involved can't disprove his accusations as if somehow they are supposed to have to do that
when Mr Zator the bully stops shoving & pushing everyone around for his 'lost' money then maybe things can settle down
What else do you want ? Total surrender ? Public stoning ? Kissing of Count Drkulec's feet ? At least leave the guy a little back door to escape the bullies.
I appreciate organizers and tournament directors like Hal Bond who give me a chance to play the game that I love. Get over it. Stop being such a nattering nabob of negativity.
Umm, if his post looks like an apology to you, well, I suggest you get your eyeglass prescription checked.
Considering how rare apologies are on ChessTalk, his looks pretty good to me. But true, I am a forgiving person...
Compare this:
"Having looked at the game now, I am completely convinced that it was totally on the level." -Zator
with
"The game looks to be totally legitimate." - Douglas.
To you it only "looks" legitimate ? :)
Considering how rare apologies are on ChessTalk, his looks pretty good to me. But true, I am a forgiving person...
Compare this:
"Having looked at the game now, I am completely convinced that it was totally on the level." -Zator
with
"The game looks to be totally legitimate." - Douglas.
To you it only "looks" legitimate ? :)
OK guys, I think this thread has dragged on for long enough.
Jean, as much as I respect your play in chess and stuff, you gotta admit, Ed was just being an asshole and a bully. Keith's a good friend of mine and the endgame he got into with the strong junior was really difficult to win. If Ed actually understands chess rather than relying on tablebases to try to prove his slander, this might not be such a long thread with heated argument. And with everyone ganging up on him, it's more to show that he doesn't have any right in talking crap when he would have probably lost the endgame with the rook and pawn against queen if he was playing Keith in that position. Last time I checked I didn't know 1800s gave masters complex endgame lessons.
Tweet
Comment