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.
15. Have fun!
(Thanks to Nigel Hanrahan for writing these up!)
All you ever wanted to know about chess-players...
They announced a new one - an interview with g P. Svidler
semi-original English version (Russian question were answered in Russian, English questions were answered in English, and everything translated to Russian or English) at http://www.crestbook.com/en/node/1364
About 960: "I’d like to say that 960 is the future of chess, but to be honest I don’t think so."
Q:- Carlsen has had great results over the past year. But looking at the games, he appears to have been uncommonly lucky – in Nanjing he was worse against Topalov, Gashimov & Bacrot. In Bazna, he was worse against Ponomariov. This is in contrast to a Kramnik or Anand, who appear more solid. Does luck explain part of his phenomenal rating?
A - There is no luck in chess – Carlsen constantly creates problems for his opponents, often by taking what many would describe as unnecessary risks. Perhaps the fact that his opponents keep on cracking under that pressure might go some way towards explaining why he keeps on doing it. For someone like Kramnik or Anand (I have the same problem, but nowhere near the same results, so it's somewhat irrelevant) making moves that they know are not optimal in order to increase variance comes much less naturally than to Magnus, but to explain his play and results using the term 'luck' is just plain wrong.
Re: All you ever wanted to know about chess-players...
'Unreservedly' thx for link egis.
Q - King_LAG: Hello Peter! It would be interesting to find out if you play at the internet chess portals “ICC”, “Chess Planet” and so on? What’s your opinion on playing chess on the internet?
A - I played an awful lot on the ICC, but gave it up a long time ago – it took up too much time. As a means of breaking in new openings it might have some sense, but then you have to actively spend your time making yourself anonymous, * and that seems too much like work to me.
Last edited by David McTavish; Friday, 3rd December, 2010, 11:49 AM.
Reason: forgot Q and A, as well as ref.
Re: All you ever wanted to know about chess-players...
I am so glad that a strong player has finally said what I have believed for so long: "There is no luck in chess"
So many players use "luck" as some sort of catch all that somehow excuses every single mistake they ever make in a game. I'm sorry, but just because you don't know why you made a mistake, or you don't think you should have made a mistake, or the error is uncommon- None of this means you should attribute your own shortcomings to probability or chance.
I think people who attribute their results to chance are doing themselves a great disservice in pretending that anything other then themselves is responsible for how well they play.
Chess is not a game of probability like poker is. The player that plays the better chess game always wins.
I also agree about chess 960. I love playing it, and it is a shame that there aren't more tournaments of it. It seems like many people are arguing how computers and opening knowledge are making chess become more and more "played out", but not all of these people are willing to switch over to chess 960.
I am so glad that a strong player has finally said what I have believed for so long: "There is no luck in chess"
So many players use "luck" as some sort of catch all that somehow excuses every single mistake they ever make in a game. I'm sorry, but just because you don't know why you made a mistake, or you don't think you should have made a mistake, or the error is uncommon- None of this means you should attribute your own shortcomings to probability or chance.
I think people who attribute their results to chance are doing themselves a great disservice in pretending that anything other then themselves is responsible for how well they play.
Chess is not a game of probability like poker is. The player that plays the better chess game always wins.
I also agree about chess 960. I love playing it, and it is a shame that there aren't more tournaments of it. It seems like many people are arguing how computers and opening knowledge are making chess become more and more "played out", but not all of these people are willing to switch over to chess 960.
I have to disagree, as I think that there is a lot of luck in chess. Of course in the long run the better players will win more games against the weaker ones but the same can be said about Poker.
The fact is that whenever even the best players play chess, they often don't really know what is going on, or at least don't completely understand the position. Because of that, there is always an element of randomness in the moves which leads to luck.
As for myself, whenever I save a lost position or win a drawn one I attribute it to luck, because it so happened that I was lucky enough in that particular game that my opponent made the mistake which helped me. This didn't necessarily had to happen.
The situation is quite opposite when I blow a game, because I attribute it to my bad play even though in reality perhaps my opponent was lucky that I blew it in that particular game.
I also agree about chess 960. I love playing it, and it is a shame that there aren't more tournaments of it. It seems like many people are arguing how computers and opening knowledge are making chess become more and more "played out", but not all of these people are willing to switch over to chess 960.
The resistance to chess960 comes from established players who have invested much time and effort into memorizing opening lines and want to leverage that knowledge into paying results. To them, chess960 is a threat.
For chess960 to overcome this requires organizers who will regularly present it to YOUNGER chess players, who will eventually realize it's more FUN to play. But no organizers are doing this, because to do so would alienate the established players.
Some organizer just has to say "Damn the torpedoes, I'm just going to do it."
It would also help to have some established players who are courageous enough to say, "I'm willing to stake my future on tactical, middlegame and endgame skills rather than on opening knowledge."
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Re: All you ever wanted to know about chess-players...
Paul, Vlad;
I agree totally with both of you.
Lots of luck in chess, for example in who you get to play in a large tournament, how sharp they are on that given day, how your knowledge meshes with theirs, etc. etc. If there is a cap on ones luck I'd rather use mine for stuff other than chess. As Cal said in the Titanic movie, "We make our own luck" as he paid off his spot on one of the last lifeboats.
I love the idea of chess960, normal chess can get a little boring in this day and age with the same starting position. Playing chess960 makes no difference to my chess strength as I never studied openings anyway, I try to deviate from main lines on move 2 or 3. Since most people rely on their opening knowledge (like a blind person relies on a guide dog, or an elderly person relies on a hearing aid, or a myopic person relies on glasses, or a dog relies on its master for food and walks), their strength suffers more with chess960 than mine. Opening theory is an excuse for people not to think in the beginning of the game. I usually have fun sessions at the end of my kid lesson sessions using chess960.
Tweet
Comment