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.
you are the one making allegations. So, you need to present an apriori plausible case. So far, you have refused to do so. You claim it's suspicious but what you have said so far does not make me believe you.
No foul play here I am afraid. :) Nonetheless it is a good example to support systematic use of carbon copy scoresheets. It is very difficult for the players to claim anything (about other players games) when organizers do not provide carbon copy scoresheets and are thus unable to collect and demand gamescores at the end of EVERY GAME. Again, foul allegations or not, if the organization does not do what is needed to get gamescores, it is very much to blame. Of course, even with gamescores (which apparently seems to be the case here), there is not much to do if the ref simply turns his back.
I remember my very first tournament in Quebec City in 1968. I was 8 years old then and somewhat nervous about one thing in particular: going to the arbiter's table after the game (who happened to be the venerable Dudley M. LeDain) and hand in the carbon copy of my scoresheet. This I have continued to do all of my career (not nervous anymore though), wherever I have played... outside of North America.
Here many people have lost sight of why games must be recorded and scoresheets collected... (regardless of the recent phenomena of databases).
According to Nalimov's tablebases, it is winning. But finding it over the board can be hard, especially with all the pressure.
Nalimov tablebases show mate in 53 from the final position but it takes more than 20 moves (25-26) until the pawn is captured or moves.
They already made 38 moves without a capture or a pawn move - so theoretically - the position was drawn when the game ended (move 95).
your complaint that someone managed to draw a R+BP vs Q ending and that this is somehow entirely unfair is entirely unconvincing regardless of the rating and/or time situation of the opponent.
You could of course post a position but really, winning that endgame (I presume you mean with the queen) can be quite difficult and perhaps undoable if you have never studied the technique. Of course, your post is unclear about what happened (draw, win, loss?) and likewise unclear as to what you think should have happened.
The opinion of casual observers about particular positions is completely unreliable.
Arjun managed to setup a fortress. Its a dead draw. Here is one of the position.
They were what, 38 moves towards a 50-move draw? The last capture was on move 57. Black tried really hard to win, but White was equal to the task. A grand battle.
Incidentally, this tablebase Knowledge 4IT shows the final position as a win in 29 moves. So the 50-move draw would already have kicked in and a draw is the proper result, grand gestures aside.
FEN: 8/8/2k5/3R4/2P5/1K6/8/1q6 w - - 0 1
EDIT: No no, I misread the tablebase. If White makes the worst move on the board Ka4, it's a win in 29, thus a draw. If he makes the obvious Kc3, it's a win in 53 moves, in other words it is a 50-move draw even without any history.
Hi Jonathan:
The notion that the 50-move rule would kick in before a win takes place assumes that the pawn doesn't move and/or is not captured along the way.
Nonetheless, after White's 58th move, the tablebase shows Black has a win in 53. After White's 70th move (let's assume Black fumbled around for a bit trying to grasp the initial thread of how to force a win), the tablebase shows the win is still 48 moves away.
Seems to me as though you're just a sore loser. Based on what I've seen in this thread, it was clearly a draw. Incidentally, what exactly are you expecting them to investigate? Like, is a TD going to go "YOU DID NOT PLAY WELL ENOUGH. THIS GAME NO LONGER COUNTS"? This is a ridiculous complaint.
First off, I would like to say that my opponent did not have 3 minutes left. In the final position, he had one and a half hours to my fifteen or so minutes. I tried hard to win but believed that he had set up a fortress. He seemed to know the technique to draw and did not make a mistake during my attempts to win the game once we had reached the Q vs. R+P ending.
Secondly, are you inferring that I deliberately failed to convert this ending? I would have won $260 more had I done so... Where's the logic in that?
The notion that the 50-move rule would kick in before a win takes place assumes that the pawn doesn't move and/or is not captured along the way.
White had amply shown that he was above such a mistake.
Nonetheless, after White's 58th move, the tablebase shows Black has a win in 53. After White's 70th move (let's assume Black fumbled around for a bit trying to grasp the initial thread of how to force a win), the tablebase shows the win is still 48 moves away.
Steve
I'm not surprised. The complaint specified the final position.
One could go away for a while and find the exact point where Black strayed crucially from the tablebase victory. But that does not address the pressing human question; it needed to be answered, and it was.
Now we find out that the complainant (s) had the clock times wrong.
There's one thing missing in this thread,
and it needs to come from EZ.
Here many people have lost sight of why games must be recorded and scoresheets collected... (regardless of the recent phenomena of databases).
Thanks, that is an issue, but I would have thought the arbiter could go and get a copy while the point was being made.
Far better players have looked at the position now (finally!), and found the final position to be a draw. Plus I was partly wrong in reading the clock,
and the relative shortage of time explains how the Q allowed a fortress, sometime after I watched the game.
Still, the arbiter should have said something like "I'll have a look at the game",
rather than display little interest. He should satisfy less skilled players that the games are on the level.
It's not up to me to prove anything, so your remark "unconvincing" is simply not relevant.
It's up to the organizers to investigate any suspicious outcomes in the last round, or at least those brought to their attention. They didn't do that.
So you think you can accuse players of a pre-arranged result and you don't have to "prove" anything?
This should be common sense that you shouldn't be making such an accusation without proof. You cannot say things like this and then say in the next sentence that the onus is on somebody else to support the accusation that you are making. If the organizers do not think that the result was questionable, they don't have to do anything.
Your accusation is tasteless and unfounded. Just because an ending is a certain result in tablebase doesn't mean that a human would ever be aware of this, and it should be exceedingly obvious that the vast majority of human (masters or not) would deviate from the tablebase much more often then they would follow it.
I would like to congratulate the organizers of the Canadian 2010 Open
for the best run and most memorable Canadian Open ever in Toronto in my lifetime!
Unfortunately, for me and others in contention in the under 2000 section, it was spoiled by questionable last round results.
The game that gave the co-winner 6 points had him with a rook and pawn versus a queen in the endgame, which still drew!
You mean to tell me that a master rated 400 points over his opponent, and with 15 minutes on his clock to his opponents 3, can't find the draw that a casual observer was able to see? A rook and bishop pawn still on its 4th
rank!
The full point would only have given him only 6.5, one ninth of the 1,500
dollar prize, whereas the cowinner with his free half point netted $750 as a result.
The free point also cost us 5.5 pointers at least $100 each, and the other
cowinner $250.
It's too bad that Hal Bond would not even address my complaint, even walking away the first time I broached the topic, and not even taking my
concerns very seriously.
It is up to the organizers if they are going to allow last rounds between different sections, to make sure that all the results are on the level, and
to investigate any suspicious ones.
They did not do that, and that spoiled it for me.
An absolutely outrageous accusation! I am sure that Hal Bond was extremely busy at the end of the tournament and he certainly had no time to listen to such accusations. I have to agree with what he did completely.
If you wanted the money that much, you should have taken a minimum wage job in a donut shop. You would have had more money after nine days than you are embarassing yourself over. You also would have had access to free donuts.
Tweet
Comment