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.
Bob,
Do you belong to these people in need of a "rationale" to raise the Closed Standards ? I hope it is just a slip that you came up with after an exausting day at work.
Jean,
If you read the two sentences Bob posted immediately before the one you quoted, you might understand what he meant.
Of course that would ruin all the fun of selective quoting.
On reviewing the conditions imposed by the CFC AGM, I will be very surprised if anyone comes forward to organize the event, particularly given the unfortunate situation last time around when the winner chose to insult the organizer who stepped up at the last minute to salvage the event and thus the winner's trip to Khanty.:o
This is what one get for getting deep and serious problems out in the open instead of wimpily sweeping them off under the rug. If that is insulting to a few people so be it. I will take the wrath for it as I am used to. In 1984 my "insults" were quite profitable for the Closed Champion (K. Spraggett) who pocketed an extra several hundred dollars because of them when the CFC raised the prizes DURING the event after banning me for a year for having withdrawn before the first round in protest for dismal conditions. In essence being right is insulting to some people and there is little to do about it.
My prediction is that there will be a Closed this year (if only for the need to crown a more docile champion :)). But at this late date it is not likely to be much better than last one. It will be a last minute affair with all the shortcomings that usually go with it. Unfortunately.
But if there is no Closed this year, so what ? The CFC will then simply choose its representative and then fall a bit further below self respectability, which in return may force some real changes for the future. As always I remain optimistic...:)
Jean,
If you read the two sentences Bob posted immediately before the one you quoted, you might understand what he meant.
Of course that would ruin all the fun of selective quoting.
I carefully read everything. I still can't see why Bob would seek more "rationale" for raising the Closed standards. But I understand that your case may be different. You need all the rationale possible, to the point that no amount of it may be sufficient.
P.S. I sometime quote selectively only for clarity's sake, not for fun.
But if there is no Closed this year, so what ? The CFC will then simply choose its representative and then fall a bit further below self respectability, which in return may force some real changes for the future. As always I remain optimistic...:)
If there is no championship this year you should probably remain champion and be the representative.
This is what one get for getting deep and serious problems out in the open instead of wimpily sweeping them off under the rug. If that is insulting to a few people so be it.
Jean, the problem isn't that you brought problems out into the open, it's that you chose to do so in an insulting way by posting them on Chesstalk after the event, rather than mentioning them to the organizers during the event first, when something could be done about at least some of them.
So it just came off as you wanting to trash people, rather than being constructive.
I carefully read everything. I still can't see why Bob would seek more "rationale" for raising the Closed standards. But I understand that your case may be different. You need all the rationale possible, to the point that no amount of it may be sufficient.
I don't know however, whether Mark felt that if an organizer could not meet the standards, it was better to have no tournament. I think he felt compromises might have to be made, but the starting point should be something everyone agrees presents a top-notch tournament if implemented.
...
It is pretty clear to me at least that that is what Bob meant by "Rationale" ...
2011 Canadian Closed High Standard " Conditions " - A Spirited Defence Still Needed
Hi Chris and Jean:
I think I was trying to deal with one of the CFC realities - no organizer yet for a key national event that is supposed to be held in a couple of months from now.
Members/organizers have suggested a reason for this - the standards being set for the Closed are too high, too onerous and too expensive for a reasonable budget that allows organizers to make a decent wage out of the tournament, or even that allows a break-even result with a volunteer organizer.
This criticism has to be acknowledged and must be answered. For those supporting the higher standards Closed, the rationale may seem obvious. Not so to some other active and important CFC'ers - some mainstay CFC organizers of the past. So my view is that those supporting higher standards, still have lobbying to do to explain why high standards are a " good " thing, and not an " impediment " to getting a tournament at all.
Mark wanted the higher standards, and got them through the 2010 AGM - more accolades to him. But I consider that he still has a role in promoting his view as to why high standards is a good thing. I was opining that if he were not so busy, and currently somewhat out of touch, it would be great to have him join Jean in the spirited defence of 2010 AGM Motion 2010-13 - Canadian Championship standards. Here was the vote in favour of the motion:
But in the light of no current bidder, the arguments against a high-standard Closed " appear " to have currency, and may be seen as convincing to others. Those of us who believe in the high standards ( I seconded Mark's motion ) need to realize the issue is not dead, regardless of the 2010 AGM vote, and that we still have to be willing to spend some time promoting the " rationale " of high standards, and convincing others, especially organizers, of the merits of a " high standard " Closed.
Bob
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Tuesday, 8th February, 2011, 08:34 AM.
Is the CFC making a financial contribution to their prestigious event?
Such a contribution would take place in the 2011/12 budget year and will likely be contingent on what if any surplus we have from this year and what other competing programs there are for next year.
I would anticipate that a contribution of at least $1000 would be reasonable. Given the fact that we still have no corporate sponsers, this is a significant percentage of any surplus we might actually have.
I am optimistic that things can change in time for the next Canadian Closed after this one, which could be held as soon as summer of 2012 for the 2013 World Cup (assuming rules don't get changed all around again).
I think I was trying to deal with one of the CFC realities - no organizer yet for a key national event that is supposed to be held in a couple of months from now.
Members/organizers have suggested a reason for this - the standards being set for the Closed are too high, too onerous and too expensive for a reasonable budget that allows organizers to make a decent wage out of the tournament, or even that allows a break-even result with a volunteer organizer.
This criticism has to be acknowledged and must be answered. For those supporting the higher standards Closed, the rationale may seem obvious. Not so to some other active and important CFC'ers - some mainstay CFC organizers of the past. So my view is that those supporting higher standards, still have lobbying to do to explain why high standards are a " good " thing, and not an " impediment " to getting a tournament at all.
Mark wanted the higher standards, and got them through the 2010 AGM - more accolades to him. But I consider that he still has a role in promoting his view as to why high standards is a good thing. I was opining that if he were not so busy, and currently somewhat out of touch, it would be great to have him join Jean in the spirited defence of 2010 AGM Motion 2010-13 - Canadian Championship standards. Here was the vote in favour of the motion:
But in the light of no current bidder, the arguments against a high-standard Closed " appear " to have currency, and may be seen as convincing to others. Those of us who believe in the high standards ( I seconded Mark's motion ) need to realize the issue is not dead, regardless of the 2010 AGM vote, and that we still have to be willing to spend some time promoting the " rationale " of high standards, and convincing others, especially organizers, of the merits of a " high standard " Closed.
Bob
One of the potential consequences of stating the higher standards as a requirement is becoming a reality: it is late and no bids are forthcoming.
The CFC may have to kick start the process and inject some resources into the mix (I'm talking about money - not just hope someone will jump up and say "I'll run the tournament").
One of the potential consequences of stating the higher standards as a requirement is becoming a reality: it is late and no bids are forthcoming.
The CFC may have to kick start the process and inject some resources into the mix (I'm talking about money - not just hope someone will jump up and say "I'll run the tournament").
Jean, the problem isn't that you brought problems out into the open, it's that you chose to do so in an insulting way by posting them on Chesstalk after the event, rather than mentioning them to the organizers during the event first, when something could be done about at least some of them.
So it just came off as you wanting to trash people, rather than being constructive.
I disagree. I don't think Jean's criticisms came off as Jean wanting to trash people (with the exception of the one individual who was clearly and maliciously stalking Jean). I think Jean's criticisms and suggestions were well presented. I think the primary problem was that people were determined to take what Jean said personally rather than as food for thought and discussion.
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
I disagree. I don't think Jean's criticisms came off as Jean wanting to trash people (with the exception of the one individual who was clearly and maliciously stalking Jean). I think Jean's criticisms and suggestions were well presented. I think the primary problem was that people were determined to take what Jean said personally rather than as food for thought and discussion.
If he actually wanted things to change, he could have brought up his points during the event rather than waiting for after the event. Instead he comes off as someone who just wanted to gripe, at best.
I think I was trying to deal with one of the CFC realities - no organizer yet for a key national event that is supposed to be held in a couple of months from now.
Why doesn't the CFC pick up the slack and organize the event themselves? Show how to hold an event under their standards and break even or come out ahead.
reasonable budget that allows organizers to make a decent wage out of the tournament...
So you think (or imply) that there is at least one tournament out there where the organizer (and TD) make a decent wage.
Perhaps you could educate me and name one tournament in the last 12 months where the combination of organizer and TD made a decent wage. For the sake of not argueing, I'll accept the provincial statutory minimum wage as a 'decent wage' - not that I really consider that a decent wage. I won't even insist on overtime pay for a day exceeding 8 hours. My guess would be that there was not one tournament in Canada that meets that condition. TD's sometimes (rarely) get enough money to be minimum wage or more for their TD time but that doesn't include the organizational effort.
As to the lack of organizers, I can think of several more reasons other than the one you cite (the patent unrealism of the motion on 'minimum conditions')
1) we all know that last year's tournament organized under short notice was met by insults and carping masquerading as 'constructive criticism' of the organizer. Whatever the merit of the complaints, they were not delivered in a constructive manner. But more to the point, the tournament was not organized in a vacuum. It was presumably authorized by the then executive (or even by all the governers for all I know) who accepted the conditions of the bid. Those who approved the bid did not fully stand up to support the organizer and defend their own responsibility for the event. So, the organizer's lot for accepting a job under short notice is a lack of appreciation for his effort, public chastisement, and a lack of support from those approving his bid. Who needs that?
2) You assume that we all agree with the philosophical underpinnings of that motion. On the scale where one end is a tournament to determine first among equals, where resources that are available are divided more or less evenly apart from prizes, and the competition is primarily for the glory and achievement of becoming Canadian champion and the other end where some people are considered professionals and must be paid for their participation with others whose only role is to be present and pay an entry fee, that motion is clearly tilted to the latter. Well, the governers seem to agree with that view, and if that's the kind of championship they want, they are entitled to demand it. But those who disagree with that view are not going to submit a bid.
There were 23 people who voted for that motion. I would think that you should ask each of those to organize the Closed under the conditions of the motion. If they are not interested in undertaking the job, then their support for that motion is not very meaningful is it?
Tweet
Comment