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 registered for the 2010 Quebec Open in the "Open Section" and thus paid my entry fee of what I believe to be 95$. I then realized I would much rather play in the "Invitational Section" of which I was completely eligible (FM Title). I have been in touch with Mr. Poulin on several occasions and heard no response in a very long time. In short, I would like my long overdue reimbursement of 95$ that I should not have had to pay to play in the Invitational section...please and thank you.
I registered for the 2010 Quebec Open in the "Open Section" and thus paid my entry fee of what I believe to be 95$. I then realized I would much rather play in the "Invitational Section" of which I was completely eligible (FM Title). I have been in touch with Mr. Poulin on several occasions and heard no response in a very long time. In short, I would like my long overdue reimbursement of 95$ that I should not have had to pay to play in the Invitational section...please and thank you.
Aman,
May I suggest you call the Quebec Federation at 514-252-3034. I know Marc was leaving on vacation right after the event...It probably simply slipped through the cracks.
Aman,
Let’s straiten the facts here.
First, your request was responded by the FQE and denied for reasons that we will explain in further details below. The fact that you don’t like the answer does not allow you to claim that your request was not being handled. We also responded to your mother a few months ago.
Despite your pretentions, you were not entitled to play the invitation section. As the name INVITATION says, this section was by invitation only. The FQE invited a number of foreign GM, FQE members with a FQE rating of 2250 +, and the champion of Québec Élite Tournament. As a good gesture, we also invited the members of the Olympic team and opened a few spots to young, norm seeking, CFC members and we used Chesstalk to advertise this. Based upon the replies we had, we selected a few of them and we invited those players. At that point, you were not part of the group that was invited. Later on, you asked to participate in the invitation section and we obliged to upgrade you to this section but in no way did we indicated that we would waive the fees, nor did you requested a refund at that time. Had you had done so, we would have simply say no, as our budget for funding the GM and CFC invitations was already overspent.
I have to admit that the FQE feels that your request is a little out of place. First, you are not even a member of the Federation (and therefore the FQE has no obligations towards you). Second, we were under no obligation to accept your request to play in this section. Third, I don’t think that you are requesting that the CFC waive their fee towards your participation in the Canadian Open (150$ I believe). Participation in the Invitation section is a privilege, not a right and therefore, given the circumstances, the FQE feels totally entitled to maintain the participation fee, which we believe is fairly low in respect to the opportunity that was provided to you. We also regret that you chose to bring this personal issue on a public board, forcing us to make public the response that was already provided to you and your mother verbally.
Last edited by Marc Poulin; Wednesday, 20th October, 2010, 08:31 PM.
We also regret that you chose to bring this personal issue on a public board, forcing us to make public the response that was already provided to you and your mother verbally.
First of all, my asking publically can merit simply a "we will discuss this privately" or something, i did not FORCE you to do anything, i stated my feelings, so please do relax.
Secondly, you are regretting my decision for me...? To clarify, the response made to myself and my mother was that I WAS entitled to this entry fee reimbursement, or I clearly wouldn't make this post out of thin air.
To refresh your memory, this is extracted from your post on July 21st, 2010, 08:41 AM "We also left a few spots open for norm seeking CFC members and those spots were attributed based on CFC ratings (hence the invitations to Mr. Calugar (2368), Martchenko (2382), Sapozhnikov(2438), Hambleton(2332); Mr Quin (2328 CFC and 2178 FQE) is a member of the FQE and therefore received special considerations as did Mr. Kraiouichkine and Mr. Modwal as FQE juniors )."
Despite your pretentions, you were not entitled to play the invitation section. As the name INVITATION says, this section was by invitation only.
You used the term "hence the invitations to" and proceeded to list my name. For this reason I assumed I was invited...
Finally, for no reason would I demand my entry fee back from the Canadian Open because they did not formally "invite" me...I'm not sure how that pertains at all
To refresh your memory, this is extracted from your post on July 21st, 2010, 08:41 AM "We also left a few spots open for norm seeking CFC members and those spots were attributed based on CFC ratings (hence the invitations to Mr. Calugar (2368), Martchenko (2382), Sapozhnikov(2438), Hambleton(2332)...
It would be interesting to know if Mr Calugar, Martchenko and Sapozhnikov paid entry fees. They seem to be put on the same level as Mr Hambleton...
Let’s be clearer for the benefit of Mr. Hébert.
Mr. Calugar, Mr. Sapozhnikov and Mr. Martchenko did not pay an entry fee as they were invited by the FQE. They were selected amongst the candidates who had submitted a request to participate in due time. At the time the FQE made its decisions on who to invite, Mr Hambleton had registered himself in the open section and had pay its entry fee accordingly. Later on, Mr. Hambleton changed his mind and requested to play in the Invitation section. By then, all the “free” spots in the Invitation section we could grant in accordance with our budget had been awarded. Not being a FQE member with 2250+ rating, he was not entitled to an automatic spot in this section. We nonetheless accepted to upgrade Mr. Hambleton to the Invitation section.
Mr. Hébert, I hope these explanations on the sequence of events explain why Mr. Hambleton’s case is different from the others.
When faced with a monetary demand, I would assume you would prefer to make it clearer for the person who thinks you owe them money, rather than the audience. Interesting.
My point is that you included myself in the same sentence and grouping as Calugar, Sapozhnikov, and Martchenko when mentioning you extended an INVITATION to all of these players, myself included. If "invitation" did not mean free for me, then it had to have been made very clear. You mentioned that these players didn't pay a fee as they were invited by the FQE, and then proceed to state that I was invited alongside them. There is an inconsistency here that you seem content to continually oversee.
Instead of responding to Mr. Hebert's point, it would be more helpful if some of my issues were addressed. So far it seems as though a major inconsistency on the part of FQE and it's invitation system has resulted in a monetary misunderstanding, which is why I am requested my entry fee back.
You are clearly on this forum enough, I hope to hear it from you.
When faced with a monetary demand, I would assume you would prefer to make it clearer for the person who thinks you owe them money, rather than the audience. Interesting.
How so? He gave Jean Hebert basically the same answer he gave you: you were not an invited player, there was no budget for you, you were allowed to pay an entry and join the top section. He clarified it exactly the same for both of you.
I'm a bit unsure as to how budgetary factors come into play here - I presume the tournament has prize fund X, and adding one additional player without entry fee to the event does not change that, nor does it add any additional cost simply to give a free entry with no other payments. I'd be interested to understand this a bit more.
The only point that can be debated here is whether or not you were officially told that you were due a reimbursement (as you claim - I assume you are not taking a chesstalk post that you are interpreting a certain way as "official notification"). At some point, did someone directly tell you that "You will be allowed to play in the invitational section at no cost" ? If not, then it's tough luck for you, in my opinion, and I wouldn't worry about it as by making this public, I doubt you'll encounter the problem again as no sane organizer will touch you.
LOL yup,
David, why don't you let Aman and Marc discuss this. There's no need for a non-playing chesstalker to interfere with their own interpretations of the situation and take sides. I mean... do you really think your two cents is all that necessary when you were obviously not present during their disagreement?
I doubt you'll encounter the problem again as no sane organizer will touch you.
Everything has to turn into judgment doesn't it :) It seems discussions or statements of feelings on this forum quickly turn into someone framed as the bad guy. A heated discussion is still a discussion. If something is not clear to me I have the right to ask it made clear.
You already are skipping to the part where no sane organizer will touch me? Harsh. The only downside to this is that I might not be able to participate in the ECC Ottosen Open, an unfortunate punishment I will have to deal with :(
Put it this way: You don't have a main course meal, instead you chose to just take sides.
As far as I can see it, I was listed as an "invited player" and all other invited players received a free entry. It would seem I am owed money in this respect.
David, why don't you let Aman and Marc discuss this. There's no need for a non-playing chesstalker to interfere with their own interpretations of the situation and take sides.
In fact, I played a rated game on Tuesday, a devastating refutation of the London attack against a player rated 1400, which I thought about posting for the theoretical and learning value for Gary Ruben. Do I now have the right to give my opinion on yet another situation where a highly rated player with a ridiculous sense of entitlement who posted their complaint publicly is being immature?
I mean... do you really think your two cents is all that necessary when you were obviously not present during their disagreement?
Uh, it's an internet forum. If he doesn't want people's two cents, he should pick up the phone and call the guy he has a problem with.
I was listed as an "invited player" and all other invited players received a free entry. It would seem I am owed money in this respect.
You do understand that different players receive different conditions for events, right? For example, Illescas and Kasparov were both invited players for major Linares tournaments, but Illescas would be laughed off the stage if he said "I am an invited player, just like Kasparov. Kasparov receives $100K to play in Linares. It would seem I am owed $100K as well."
Everything has to turn into judgment doesn't it :) It seems discussions or statements of feelings on this forum quickly turn into someone framed as the bad guy. A heated discussion is still a discussion. If something is not clear to me I have the right to ask it made clear.
You already are skipping to the part where no sane organizer will touch me? Harsh. The only downside to this is that I might not be able to participate in the ECC Ottosen Open, an unfortunate punishment I will have to deal with :(
Put it this way: You don't have a main course meal, instead you chose to just take sides.
As far as I can see it, I was listed as an "invited player" and all other invited players received a free entry. It would seem I am owed money in this respect.
By starting the thread on Chesstalk, you are implicitly inviting commentary from all and sundry (after all, this is a *forum*). Bindi also encountered a bit of blowback as a result of making very public what should have been a discussion between Vlad and him.
Just because social networking exists is not a valid reason to use it in every situation...
I will grant that you have been calm and reasonable and persistent; however, it seems the FQE and Marc are intransigent on this and you may as well chalk up the lesson learned and move on. It seems the FQE (and many other organizations) often make up the regulations in retrospect - that is convenient but not necessarily fair. They fail to see the value of customer service; in fact, I doubt "customer" is a fair description of their clientele. As always, "caveat emptor"
In fact, I played a rated game on Tuesday, a devastating refutation of the London attack against a player rated 1400, which I thought about posting for the theoretical and learning value for Gary Ruben. Do I now have the right to give my opinion on yet another situation where a highly rated player with a ridiculous sense of entitlement who posted their complaint publicly is being immature?
Let me congratulate you on your stunning victory against such a high rated player. If I were still writing, editing and publishing a magazine, I'd annotate the game appropriately and publish it. Appropriately being the key word.
One of the top 10 rules of organizing is: Never annoy a PITA. Caress his ego and collect his dues.
Tweet
Show me the money
Comment