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!)
CFC Member Inactivity/Lack of Interest in CFC Program
But do we need the national organization to do mainstream media promotion; to coordinate the outside efforts and see where the gaps are and try to fill them; to act as the background for a lot of the private activity, and to support it?
Bob
Mainstream promotion is usually for specific activities, unless you have in mind a TV spot that says "Play chess, it's fun, it makes you smart. (A message from the Chess Federation of Canada)
Otherwise, if you're promoting a specific event to the public, any other group (whoever is organizing the specific event) can also do mainstream media promotion.
The national organization can promote stuff if it chooses. It doesn't. If there are gaps, the CFC could try to fill it. Anyone else could do the same: Name a gap. Discuss it online. Do something about it.
The reason individuals and various organizations can be more effective than the CFC is simple: There are many of them, and only one CFC. More ideas come up. People interested in each idea can organize it themselves, and not channel it through a bureaucracy. The CFC's best mode of operating is to not do things itself, but present ideas and have somebody come forward to take it on. But it's neither the sole source nor vetter of ideas.
Is there no need for the national organization to promote chess in Canada to the public, and to try to encourage tournaments for the public ( not saying whether it does that now, or does it well if it does )?
If it is needed, then administration of an organization has to be funded, no? - by membership or rating fee or a combination ( as now ).
Bob
Looking at chess or other sports I am involved with, I don't see a lot of useful promotional activity from national bodies. Most growth in organizations happens because local organizers, coaches, etc. are doing exceptional jobs encouraging new members. Or sometimes a player or athlete does exceptionally well on the international stage. In chess, the most famous example is Fischer. Or Clara Hughes in cycling and speed skating. Or Lance Armstrong in cycling. The accomplishments of these individuals opened up the eyes of young people to their sports. When USA Cycling has experienced growth, it isn't because of anything that was done at the headquarters in Colorado Springs.
National bodies set an overall structure for all the leagues and competitions under them. National bodies sanction championship events. They provide opportunities for elite competitors because of their official roles with regards to internal bodies like FIDE. All of this is important. But I don't really expect them to do stuff like, for instance, promotion that directly affects the grassroots. They have too few resources and they are too far away from the actual playing of the game/sport.
The rating statisticians over those years were volunteers who did it for free. I mailed them the results and they kindly did the calculations on the players rating file.
...
is combining the tasks of the rating auditor with that of "rater" so obscene? or a couple of volunteer people? the idea is not to do away with the rating fee, but rather to turn $12000 profit into almost $40000 ($12000+28000) particularly if the rating entry method is revamped
is combining the tasks of the rating auditor with that of "rater" so obscene? or a couple of volunteer people? the idea is not to do away with the rating fee, but rather to turn $12000 profit into almost $40000 ($12000+28000) particularly if the rating entry method is revamped
It never entered my mind they would do away with the rating fee.
We used to work things differently with correspondence. There was no rating fee. At the time half the entry fee went into the prize fund and half toward administration. The administration went into things like mailing all the assignments, handling the complaints, stationary, etc. Even a 4 player class event had half the entry fee as the prize fund. I think the prize fund formula might have changed over the years.
The CFC's best mode of operating is to not do things itself, but present ideas and have somebody come forward to take it on. ....
Hi Alan:
You should talk to past CFC executives about that statement. CFC has always suffered a dearth of volunteers. Some provinces have difficulty filling their CFC Governor quotas. CFC Committees go unmanned. There is generally very little input from the membership.
Now the Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC ) thinks that there is one main reason for this:
The CFC does not go out of its way to promote member involvement by giving members any real influence/power. This was the topic at the start of this thread dealing with CFC Bylaw # 1, s. 14 - Limitation of Member Rights ( for which see the prior posts).
If the CFC did this, and member involvement increased, I think there would not be the suspicion any longer that CFC has no role in Canadian chess.
Re: CFC Member Inactivity/Lack of Interest in CFC Program
Bob, I think you're saying the CFC has presented ideas and there weren't people to implement them. I imagine you're right and my statement was off. I agree the CFC would perform better if it engaged the organizers better.
But even better is to reverse the approach. Rather than the CFC engage organizers, people on the ground should come together of their own and engage the chess community directly.
I suspect news on a Closed will be forthcoming shortly.
Hopefully good news is on the way. It helps for experienced organizers to be in charge of an event like this, and if they are CFC governors it almost doesn't matter.
Every now and then I jump back into discussing matters related to the CFC. Old habits die hard. :)
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Bob, I think you're saying the CFC has presented ideas and there weren't people to implement them. I imagine you're right and my statement was off. I agree the CFC would perform better if it engaged the organizers better.
But even better is to reverse the approach. Rather than the CFC engage organizers, people on the ground should come together of their own and engage the chess community directly.
Re: CFC Member Inactivity/Lack of Interest in CFC Program
Just wanted to post something that's very relevant to previous discussion a bit earlier in this thread. In another thread I've just pointed out that the CFC could do without providing a rating system of its own, so long as all Canadian events are FIDE rated. Then, so long as the CFC still has the sole right to process events to be sent to FIDE for rating by them, CFC membership could be seen as still have the value to average members that it does now, and organizers would still have a reason to insist that participants in their events be CFC members.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Just wanted to post something that's very relevant to previous discussion a bit earlier in this thread. In another thread I've just pointed out that the CFC could do without providing a rating system of its own, so long as all Canadian events are FIDE rated. Then, so long as the CFC still has the sole right to process events to be sent to FIDE for rating by them, CFC membership could be seen as still have the value to average members that it does now, and organizers would still have a reason to insist that participants in their events be CFC members.
Sounds like an idea, the membership fee charged by the cfc would have to be lowered dramatically though.
Sounds like an idea, the membership fee charged by the cfc would have to be lowered dramatically though.
The CFC membership fee could then be lowered, yes, since the (FIDE) ratings would not have to be calculated by the CFC, but I don't see why the CFC membership fee would have to be lowered by the CFC if it didn't wish to. CFC members would still be getting a rating (albeit a FIDE one), and getting it the only way they could (except for through the CMA's more modest system [in terms of people (mainly kids?) in their system], afaik).
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Wednesday, 23rd February, 2011, 08:06 PM.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Comment