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.
my new goal for the day is to work "nabob" into a conversation ;)
How about "nattering" ? To me it is also a new word. I never thought that I could learn two new words from the Count in the same sentence. Thanks Count!
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. ...
"Whenever the gentlemen of the Kremlin are about to slander me in the press they begin with, "While we have huge respect for Mr Kasparov as a player..." Call it institutional passive-agression." -Garri Kasparov, New In Chess #1, 2009."
Bindi,
Even if I consider you a promising young player... :)
We are way past discussing what happened on the board or the tablebases. Everybody has been in agreement for a while (including Ed Zator in the first place) that no foul play was going on. The situation now does not justify (if it ever did) that you call Ed "an asshole" (even less a "bully", bullying is generally a gang thing). When are you going to apologize ?
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. :)
-Sir Winston Churchill
Finally, some information! But are you sure? No mention of this tournament (or even CAN among the many clickable federations) at the closely-related chess-results.com
I don't understand your question(s). The incident with the Bucholz scores that is referenced in Geurt's column is NOT a Canadian tournament but the point I was making is that even software recommended or endorsed by FIDE can have problems and even when there are obvious problems it isn't clear to everyone what may or may not be done about it!
I wonder if anyone will ask Geurt about the pairings in the Canadian Open?
Hmm.
What is the Correct Result?
"...I told him that it was very difficult to change published pairings, but I could change the result and from round 2 the pairings would be made according to the correct standings."
Is it Possible to Change the Pairings?
Something similar happened in Tournament C. Instead of 1-0, the result was written as 0-1, which the players discovered when the pairings were published. Again, I had no intention of changing the pairings, although it was very easy to do so. Yet, three of the four players who were involved very urgently requested me to change the pairings and I agreed provided that the fourth player would agree as well.... http://www.chesscafe.com/text/geurt84.pdf
"But one thing is clear: the pairings must be transparent. Each arbiter who works in a Swiss tournament must be able to explain the pairings, even when they are made by a computer." http://www.chesscafe.com/text/geurt135.pdf
At least before the tournament at this board several people asked about the pairings system, and H.B. tried to explain (imho, person were satisfied with answers)
Very apropos I think... (although in that case the software was the FIDE-approved Swiss Manager program)
Finally, some information! But are you sure? No mention of this tournament (or even CAN among the many clickable federations) at the closely-related chess-results.com
This thread raises an interesting question: What standing does a player in a tournament have in relationship to what is taking place in a game in which he is not a participant? In other words does such a player have any standing to make a complaint to the TD?
I asked Ed what rule he had cited and the remedy he had requested. Never saw a reply.
In CC, as an arbiter, I could not do anything about an agreed upon game result. It never came up but had I seen an accomplished player resign a game where he was clearly winning the sportsmanship rules might have applied. Still, players see things on the board which is not there and sometimes hang queens or walk into mates. Even GM's can get so carried away with their attack they allow themselves to get caught up in cheapo mates.
But, I wouldn't register an ICCF game result without a scoresheet.
This thread raises an interesting question: What standing does a player in a tournament have in relationship to what is taking place in a game in which he is not a participant? In other words does such a player have any standing to make a complaint to the TD?
In Geurt Gijssen's column (for July 21st!) in ChessCafe
( at: http://www.chesscafe.com/geurt/geurt.htm )
one of the questions amounts to a complaint by a participant in a tournament about another game... Geurt's answer included:
"You mention that a player went to the arbiter about cheating in another game. A player who has finished his game is considered a spectator. The question is whether the arbiter must act on the protest of a spectator. My opinion is that he is not forced to do so, but it is advisable to investigate the matter."
I wonder if anyone will ask Geurt about the pairings in the Canadian Open?
PS: in that same column I have referenced, there is discussion about software calculation of Buchholz scores and errors that appear because software is old and not updated etc. Very apropos I think... (although in that case the software was the FIDE-approved Swiss Manager program)
This thread raises an interesting question: What standing does a player in a tournament have in relationship to what is taking place in a game in which he is not a participant? In other words does such a player have any standing to make a complaint to the TD?
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.
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.
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 ? :)
Leave a comment: