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.
I recommend that you try not to be so cynical. This is a chess discussion board where good ideas, hopefully, get discussed, canvassed, and implemented - and the bad ideas are discarded. The elimination of the tournament fee is a bad idea, so hopefully it will get the chop.
Best Regards,
Alex Toolsie
The problem is that this topic has been thoroughly discussed several times both on this board and the old board. Each time it has been pointed out that this will reduce the amount of people playing in CFC rated tourneys. No amount of discussing this subject will change their minds, They are set in their ways. The proposal continues to be advanced to the new board.
I am only cynical because this proposal refuses to drop this one item.
I have discussed this issue with several people at local tournaments. Several people who only play in one or two tournaments a year have told me that they will just stop playing in CFC tournaments. It doesn't mean that they will stop playing chess... it just means that the CFC will have less income coming in.
Unfortunately through several threads I have come the conclusion that these people just don't care. They think that these players will say 'OK I'll just buy a membership', not taking in to account that these people will just say 'thanks but no thanks'.
Well, it works both ways: people who dont want to buy a CFC membership and support the national federation may not be worth accommodating. There I've said it. That is the other side of the coin.
Now, there may be middle ground: several Governors and notably Chris Mallon (past president and now treasurer) have pointed out that the intent of the tournament membership was always to be a one-time, "see how you like it" membership pitch. It was NOT intended to be a CFC lite membership.
If we are going to keep this beast on the books and available for people, I would like to see the definition clarified exactly and enforced. I don't really care which set of choices actually wins out since I will be buying a membership anyway and it therefore doesn't impact me directly. As a member though, I *do* object to people getting a discount just because they dont participate much!
If you don't want to join the CFC or don't see the perceived value or it doesn't work for you, or you don't like the rating system or whatever, then don't join.
The best thing the CFC can do is offer value for the membership fee (and I will admit freely that at the moment there is less than there was...) If there is value, people will see it and they will join and membership and value will likely rise.
Right now, many of us are working on regaining the value and providing decent return on the membership fee.
And this is exactly what I said. The "grassroots" campaign doesn't care about the average chess player. there is no option for someone who just wants to play in their local club tournament other than buying a CFC membership. Most people who play Casually will just say, "thanks but no thanks" and tournament participation will drop. When the participation starts to drop off they are going to bemoan about how chess is dying in Canada which is FAR from the truth. Just look how Canada stacks up against other countries on online servers. On the ONE online server I play on (www.chessworld.net) based in the UK, Canada is ranked FOURTH!!! amongst participants. Canada is playing chess, its the CFC that has to get with the times.
There is no reason for two classes of members, one subsidizing the other. Community input has asked for numbers of special case exemptions/partial exemptions for annual memberships. This motion makes clear that tournament memberships must go, but this issue can be fine-tuned at the time of implementation if special cases re annual memberships seem warranted.
I don't really see how regular CFC members are subsidizing individuals who buy a tournament membership. The person who pays the tournament membership pays $10 + rating fees ($3.00) for which the CFC has to do 2 small transactions (record a new member and record that members results). Seems like a reasonable transaction from the CFC perspective (i.e. one which will net some cash).
This reminds me of a few years ago when the local school boards greatly increased the cost of renting out rooms for community groups (like chess clubs). The school boards were already counting the cash. What happened? The school boards found themselves with unrented rooms and no revenue at all. And the chess clubs were out of places to play (like we were with the CFC). Raising prices (which you are effectively doing by banning tournament memberships) do not necessarily result in rising revenues.
It is not a slam dunk that removing tournament memberships will "force" people to buy full year memberships. All things (even addictive substances) have a certain elasticity in their price-demand curves.
I'm perfectly OK with paying my CFC fees. But I'm not so sure that all those who are using tournament membeships will feel this way.
I always thought that the tournament fee of $10.00 was created so that Quebec members and CFC members could play in each others' tournaments to avoid buying two memberships. I know in Cdn Open 2008 we were to pay an extra $10 to play on Quebec soil but I don't remember if they waived it or we paid it without looking at my bank account.
You have to find out how this tournament fee was created and to what purpose it was to be used for. My gut feeling is that it was misused from the beginning and that past executives did not plug the holes in the dike and it became common practice to use the tournament fee rather than join the CFC. I'm sure that some of the number crunchers can figure out how many memberships were lost with the creation of this tournament fee.
I for one will use it until the end of the year as my membership expires in Oct and I have two more Peel tournaments to compete in before the end of the year.
John R. Brown
As added off topic notes: What has Chris Mallon done for Ontario Chess since he became Presient of the OCA ? How can he be Treasurer of CFC and still have an impartial judgement on the OCA affairs. Better keep two sets of books Chris as it may be audited extensively due to past OCA shady dealings. Also I feel that the Elora Tournament should have been the Ontario Open but I think that Chris was worried that no one would come to Kitchener if they had an opportunity to play at a new site . Why not take the money at Kitchener and drain Elora dry. If I had the weekends off , I would support Elora as I can play at Kitchener any old time.
As added off topic notes: What has Chris Mallon done for Ontario Chess since he became Presient of the OCA ? How can he be Treasurer of CFC and still have an impartial judgement on the OCA affairs. Better keep two sets of books Chris as it may be audited extensively due to past OCA shady dealings.
Also I feel that the Elora Tournament should have been the Ontario Open but I think that Chris was worried that no one would come to Kitchener if they had an opportunity to play at a new site . Why not take the money at Kitchener and drain Elora dry. If I had the weekends off , I would support Elora as I can play at Kitchener any old time.
I'm not sure I understand your final point at all (starting with "Also I feel the Elora...") - That has confused me, sorry. As for Chris Mallon's roles - he is currently CFC treasurer and OCA president - as the OCA Treasurer I can assure you that every penny coming or going since the last AGM will be accounted for properly. I was one of the people who was EXTREMELY upset with the gross mismanagement of the last OCA tenure and that is why I got involved. There will be no repeat of the dubious dealings that occurred previously. I dont know if Chris can wear both hats - you will have to ask him.
I suggest you start a new thread with this as the start if you like.
Last edited by Kerry Liles; Saturday, 6th September, 2008, 11:27 PM.
Reason: typos
I'm not sure I understand your final point at all (starting with "Also I feel the Elora...") - That has confused me, sorry. As for Chris Mallon's roles - he is currently CFC treasurer and OCA president - as the OCA Treasurer I can assure you that every penny coming or going since the last AGM will be accounted for properly. I was one of the people who was EXTREMELY upset with the gross mismanagement of the last OCA tenure and that is why I got involved. There will be no repeat of the dubious dealings that occurred previously. I dont know if Chris can wear both hats - you will have to ask him.
I suggest you start a new thread with this as the start if you like.
Hi Kerry, I wish you all the best as OCA Treasurer, as we really need that job done well!
I am furious at what seems to be the lack of "recovery" from past transgressions, but it has been suggested to myself to let that go. So, aside from mentioning it, I'm trying to!
I have heard many people express discomfort at Chris' dual CFC/OCA roles, but it seems to me that he ran fair and square, and I don't know how much competition he received. Chess organization elections often seem to be a very small handful of people who just volunteer, and we should really appreciate these few people who do so (Chris twofold).
I've never met Chris in person, but we have discussed things via email or over the phone, and he seems to be someone trying to do his best, at both CFC and OCA levels.
However, now that I am the new EOCA President, local people talk to me about their concerns more than it used to be for me, and I can tell you that the OCA term by Chris, yourself, and the rest of the executive, will be appreciated only when the currently owed membership rebates are forwarded from the OCA to the EOCA (and the other Ontario leagues). As I have indicated to Chris and others, the anti-OCA sentiment in EOCA due to this seems to exceed anti-CFC sentiments. Now, please note that this is my perception, and there very well could be many people in EOCA who are not that upset about this, but there are at least dozens (we are one of the CFC's highest membership regions) who tell me to eliminate the OCA level. I have no idea how to even start to do that, but the big problem disappears when we get our membership rebates! ;)
All the best,
Aris Marghetis
EOCA President
OCA/CFC Governor
P.S. This was not intended to be disrespectful in any way. But I felt I had to post it, as many EOCA players feel I should fight for this more aggressively. This weekend has been a great time organizing and running the RA Fall Open, but it's all been a forum for many players to complain to me. And those complaints are running 80%-20% for OCA vs. CFC.
I have heard many people express discomfort at Chris' dual CFC/OCA roles, but it seems to me that he ran fair and square, and I don't know how much competition he received. Chess organization elections often seem to be a very small handful of people who just volunteer, and we should really appreciate these few people who do so (Chris twofold).
I've never met Chris in person, but we have discussed things via email or over the phone, and he seems to be someone trying to do his best, at both CFC and OCA levels.
I in fact did not run for Treasurer, I simply stated on my proxy that if nominated I would be willing to do any of VP, Treas, Secretary. And that only because David Lavin asked me to. As it turns out nobody else was willing to stand, although I'm sure Frank Dixon would love to argue that the CFC would be better off with no Treasurer than by having me in that position!! :)
Now that I have the job, I am trying to do as much good as I can. A lot of the normal tasks of a Treasurer are made much easier by the fact that our ED is a certified accountant.
As for anything else... I'll continue to help protect the rights of the provincial organizations, which I would do whether or not I was involved at all at the provincial level. I haven't run into any conflict of interest scenarios as of yet.
Hi Kerry;
ALSO means as the dictionary says:inaddition,likewise,too,besides,sometimes used with conjunctive force as an equivalent of AND.
Does this explain also for you????
Hi Kerry;
ALSO means as the dictionary says:inaddition,likewise,too,besides,sometimes used with conjunctive force as an equivalent of AND.
Does this explain also for you????
lol I didn't have a problem with "ALSO". It was the point of the group of sentences that I didn't understand. I guess I don't know enough about the tournaments you mentioned.
I am furious at what seems to be the lack of "recovery" from past transgressions, but it has been suggested to myself to let that go. So, aside from mentioning it, I'm trying to!
I understand your frustration and I too was/am furious. The Trillium money was almost completely wasted in my opinion. However, the Trillium people met with Hal Bond and Barry Thorvardsen and although they slapped Barry for not using the money in the most appropriate fashion, they stopped short of proceeding any further. The OCA balance when the current executive took over was -$2.
I have heard many people express discomfort at Chris' dual CFC/OCA roles, but it seems to me that he ran fair and square, and I don't know how much competition he received. Chess organization elections often seem to be a very small handful of people who just volunteer, and we should really appreciate these few people who do so (Chris twofold).
I've never met Chris in person, but we have discussed things via email or over the phone, and he seems to be someone trying to do his best, at both CFC and OCA levels.
I met Chris at the OCA AGM and I believe he is genuinely trying to make positive changes. If he can handle both jobs, I say let him do it.
However, now that I am the new EOCA President, local people talk to me about their concerns more than it used to be for me, and I can tell you that the OCA term by Chris, yourself, and the rest of the executive, will be appreciated only when the currently owed membership rebates are forwarded from the OCA to the EOCA (and the other Ontario leagues). As I have indicated to Chris and others, the anti-OCA sentiment in EOCA due to this seems to exceed anti-CFC sentiments. Now, please note that this is my perception, and there very well could be many people in EOCA who are not that upset about this, but there are at least dozens (we are one of the CFC's highest membership regions) who tell me to eliminate the OCA level. I have no idea how to even start to do that, but the big problem disappears when we get our membership rebates! ;)
All the best,
Aris Marghetis
EOCA President
OCA/CFC Governor
P.S. This was not intended to be disrespectful in any way. But I felt I had to post it, as many EOCA players feel I should fight for this more aggressively. This weekend has been a great time organizing and running the RA Fall Open, but it's all been a forum for many players to complain to me. And those complaints are running 80%-20% for OCA vs. CFC.
The revenue from the OCA will be sent very, very soon (I am talking about days here not more than a week I hope). We have just completed the surprisingly annoying process of getting a new bank account for the OCA and we will processing the CFC cheques tomorrow...
Well, it works both ways: people who dont want to buy a CFC membership and support the national federation may not be worth accommodating. There I've said it. That is the other side of the coin.
Well, only to the extent that regular players continue to pay the tournament fee instead of obtaining CFC membership.
I don't think its fair to say that that is the other side of the coin. Its only one more aspect to the debate. I think it stands to reason that there will be less overall players if the tournament fee option is abolished, and because that result is unecessary and unconducive to building player numbers, I do hope that common sense ultimately prevails. As the adage goes, one shouldn't fix something if it ain't broke.
Best Regards,
Alex Toolsie
OzChess - Australia's Chess Forum- Upcoming Chess Tournaments, Game Analysis, Chess Politics, & Australian Chess News http://www.ozchess.com
Kerry, thank you for your thorough and hopeful reply. It sounds like we are all looking forward to getting past old mistakes, making things right, and moving on. Best regards.
Tweet
Comment