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.
Some of the discussion about Ed Zator's last round concerns are quite interesting and worthwhile. Can we move it to another thread, say, this one? The headline "Excellent Canadian Open, spoiled" has dominated Chess Talk for many days. How is an existing or potential sponsor supposed to react to that? How are the organizers supposed to react to that? I know that the organizers are quite discouraged by the negativity, and we have no bids whatsoever for next year.
On the top item of page one, the last item says the admin can change the title of a thread. But how to get in touch with admin? I sent a personal message a couple days ago and got no reply, so maybe he doesn't see his personal message notice - there should probably be a flashing light when you have a personal message on this board.
Some of the discussion about Ed Zator's last round concerns are quite interesting and worthwhile. Can we move it to another thread, say, this one? The headline "Excellent Canadian Open, spoiled" has dominated Chess Talk for many days. How is an existing or potential sponsor supposed to react to that? How are the organizers supposed to react to that? I know that the organizers are quite discouraged by the negativity, and we have no bids whatsoever for next year.
Just a thought...
It might as well be in this thread, but I would be concerned that regardless of which thread it appears, there is a good chance the discussion would degenerate into ad hominum attacks etc.
I have heard that claim before: that sponsors check out what is said on chesstalk! I would almost believe that about the official CFC forum, but I find it somewhat hard to believe that potential or actual sponsors even visit here!
It might as well be in this thread, but I would be concerned that regardless of which thread it appears, there is a good chance the discussion would degenerate into ad hominum attacks etc.
I have heard that claim before: that sponsors check out what is said on chesstalk! I would almost believe that about the official CFC forum, but I find it somewhat hard to believe that potential or actual sponsors even visit here!
all a sponsor has to do is google Canadian Open chess 2010 and they will land smack dab in the middle of this stuff, why do you think other events such as equestrian sports & snooker & squash etc. always encourage their players to behave with good etiquette
which puts them smack dab into a debate on whether the entry fee is too high (great market for them, people who can't afford $175 to enter a tournament) & whether GMs are important to the event (isn't it supposed to be Canada's premier event?), from there the rest is open season as they say
sponsors and potential sponsors are smart, and they have people who have the job to monitor this sort of stuff
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Friday, 23rd July, 2010, 04:19 PM.
The headline "Excellent Canadian Open, spoiled" has dominated Chess Talk for many days. How is an existing or potential sponsor supposed to react to that? How are the organizers supposed to react to that?
So that's why no significant sponsors were found last year for the Closed. The upside is that Chesstalk gives some organizers the perfect scape goat for not finding and most probably not even looking for any sponsorship. One should not underestimate the necessity of good excuses.
Most sports have drug and alcohol addictions, doping, violence problems, people organizing dog fights, sexual behaviour problems, and the list goes on and on. In chess we have the ChessTalk "problem". It sure takes away all chances for sponsorships...
all a sponsor has to do is google Canadian Open chess 2010 and they will land smack dab in the middle of this stuff, why do you think other events such as equestrian sports & snooker & squash etc. always encourage their players to behave with good etiquette
which puts them smack dab into a debate on whether the entry fee is too high (great market for them, people who can't afford $175 to enter a tournament) & whether GMs are important to the event (isn't it supposed to be Canada's premier event?), from there the rest is open season as they say
sponsors and potential sponsors are smart, and they have people who have the job to monitor this sort of stuff
I understand how easy it is to find any of this stuff, but my question really was "does anyone have any real evidence that any current or potential sponsor was actually put off by any of this prattle?"
Telling me "sponsors and potential sponsors are smart, and they have people who have the job to monitor this sort of stuff" is not any sort of confirmation.
OK, here is a tangentially related decision which I found a little surprising. In the current Arbiter's Notebook at the ChessCafe Geurt Gijssen was asked about the game Van Kampen - Smeets from the last round of the recent Dutch Championship. This game ended in a draw after three moves of a Berlin Ruy Lopez. Gijssen makes the following comment:
"I assume that the draw was correctly offered, and was not agreed to before the start of the game. In that case there is nothing wrong with this offer. The only question is whether everyone, except the players, is happy. I understand the situation. The player of the black pieces only needs a draw to retain his title of Champion of the Netherlands. He doesn't want to take any risk. But I can also understand the sponsors of the tournament like fighting chess and publicity....as far as I can see, nothing can be done in this case."
He goes on to state that if organizers want to avoid such draws, they can apply the newly added Article 9.1.a of the Laws of Chess (the formal codification of measures such as the Sofia rules):
The rules of a competition may specify that players cannot agree to a draw, whether in less than a specified number of moves or at all, without the consent of the arbiter.
It should be noted that Article 12.1 is still on the books, which would seem to have some bearing on the situation:
The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute.
So that's why no significant sponsors were found last year for the Closed. The upside is that Chesstalk gives some organizers the perfect scape goat for not finding and most probably not even looking for any sponsorship. One should not underestimate the necessity of good excuses.
Most sports have drug and alcohol addictions, doping, violence problems, people organizing dog fights, sexual behaviour problems, and the list goes on and on. In chess we have the ChessTalk "problem". It sure takes away all chances for sponsorships...
I thought I would look to see what Jean Hebert had to say here, thinking "Is he going to say something positive?" Nope! Just the usual "everybody screwed up" stuff. Usually when someone tears everone else down its to raise their own status - a sure sign of chronic insecurity.
I understand how easy it is to find any of this stuff, but my question really was "does anyone have any real evidence that any current or potential sponsor was actually put off by any of this prattle?"
Telling me "sponsors and potential sponsors are smart, and they have people who have the job to monitor this sort of stuff" is not any sort of confirmation.
your original point was that sponsors don't visit here, that is almost certainly not true as I have shown
you mentioned nothing about how they react when they do visit here
now you are changing your objection to seeminly yes they do visit here but they are not bothered by what they find?
so what is your proof that sponsors don't care about the image of the events they sponsor? you don't think they would like some positive feedback for their investment?
telling us you don't think sponsors are put off is pointless as you don't really know and you are not the one going out after sponsorship in any case
which is it better to assume? which assumption and which behaviour and word of mouth is more likely to cost chess sponsorship dollars in future?
do you know or have any idea how many requests major sponsors get such as the ones obtained for this open
how do you think they weed them out? I've seen the process from the inside working previously for the Economic Development department at the City of Hamilton, who both made requests for corporate sponsors for Hamilton festivals such as Aquafest & received requests from conventions and festivals for City sponsorship
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Friday, 23rd July, 2010, 04:44 PM.
so what is your proof that sponsors don't care about the image of the events they sponsor? you don't think they would like some positive feedback for their investment?
telling us you don't think sponsors are put off is pointless as you don't really know and you are not the one going out after sponsorship in any case
which is it better to assume? which assumption and which behaviour and word of mouth is more likely to cost chess sponsorship dollars in future?
I am not making any claims one way or the other. All I am asking is if someone has some real example of a sponsor (current or potential) who was put off by discovering Chesstalk (or the Ottawa Club Message Board or any other notable chess forum relevant to their potential market).
So that's why no significant sponsors were found last year for the Closed. The upside is that Chesstalk gives some organizers the perfect scape goat for not finding and most probably not even looking for any sponsorship. One should not underestimate the necessity of good excuses.
Most sports have drug and alcohol addictions, doping, violence problems, people organizing dog fights, sexual behaviour problems, and the list goes on and on. In chess we have the ChessTalk "problem". It sure takes away all chances for sponsorships...
big difference, those sports have huge popularity and vast ticket revenues, they are not vulnerable to lack of sponsorship funds like chess is, advertisers line up to spend big money on tv commercials to reach this fan base
unless you are seriously comparing chess to NFL football in terms of financial strength and popularity
I am not making any claims one way or the other. All I am asking is if someone has some real example of a sponsor (current or potential) who was put off by discovering Chesstalk (or the Ottawa Club Message Board or any other notable chess forum relevant to their potential market).
you made a claim in your first post that sponsors or potential sponsors do not visit this site
you want proof? sure just wait until the sponsorship money does not come through next time, a little late then but what the heck, there you go, more proactive thinking
you want reasonable probabilities, the thread about Canadian Open has 4270 views, only 120 replies by no more than a dozen or two people, if I was any kind of statistician I would say its not just us chess players here reading this stuff
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Friday, 23rd July, 2010, 05:12 PM.
you made a claim in your first post that sponsors or potential sponsors do not visit this site
you want proof? sure just wait until the sponsorship money does not come through next time, a little late then but what the heck, there you go, more proactive thinking
you want reasonable probabilities, the thread about Canadian Open has 4270 views, only 120 replies by no more than a dozen or two people, if I was any kind of statistician I would say its not just us chess players here reading this stuff
I suppose that anyone with a buck to spend is a potential sponsor, with a fair chance to visit this site at one point or another. So what do you suggest then ? To censure every word that might be interpreted as a hint that not everything and every tournament and everybody involved in chess is perfect in every way ? I did not read you here complaining about certain people calling others "assholes" though. In that context your virtuous calls simply appear self serving and hypocritical.
I suppose that anyone with a buck to spend is a potential sponsor, with a fair chance to visit this site at one point or another. So what do you suggest then ? To censure every word that might be interpreted as a hint that not everything and every tournament and everybody involved in chess is perfect in every way ? I did not read you here complaining about certain people calling others "assholes" though. In that context your virtuous calls simply appear self serving and hypocritical.
Self serving? Since you have a much better chance, as do dozens of other top players, than I do to win prizes in tournaments I don't see how I'm serving myself. I do understand from your past comments that you do want (demand?) more prize money but care not a whit how it is raised or to help raise it. Personally my rating level is not high enough (but I'm working on it) to enter a Closed and benefit from sponsorship of such an event. Although it seems you resent potential sponsors as merely being those 'with a buck to spend'. I am specifically addressing those that have been kind enough to support Canadian chess in the past or may be approached to support chess in the future.
I'm merely pointing out reality, that sponsors do have access to what is said in the Canadian chess community. Let's not fool ourselves. Not in the days of the internet.
I made no virtuous calls, I merely pointed out that other successful events have made these requests of their athletes. Perhaps there is a Showjumpingtalk out there somewhere where show jumpers berate each other and their horses? I drew no inferences from this or made any suggestions. As usual you supplied your own inferences and drew your own conclusions. Fair enough but don't foist them on me.
I think reasonably intelligent people particularly those that are familiar with the Canadian chess scene over the years can draw their own inferences based on past sponsorship levels. Compare that with the recent top prize at Spruce Meadows of $45,000 and you begin to see the differences.
Where did I suggest censorship? I have always maintained that freedom of speech means you are free to say what you say and I am free to say what I want to say. Most people agree with the first point but forget the second. Although did I miss something? When did I call someone an ahole?
If we are going to have a debate on this point please don't end up by complaining that you can't debate with someone who thinks he is right. If you want to debate only with those people who think you are right go surround yourself with some 'Yes men' and 'debate' them.
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Friday, 23rd July, 2010, 10:42 PM.
Tweet
Comment