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.
What's the story with Raja Panjwani (and Dilip)? I can't find their ratings on the CFC web site - but when I look at the crosstable of the 2010 Calgary International (in which he played), there is a player named "Pxxxxxxx, Rxxx". Seaching the CFC ratings under that name, you see his tournaments.
I have not seen any other players treated in a similar manner - even if their memberships have expired.
"It's the result of an on-going financial situation with the Panjwani's and the CFC Business Office. I would hope this is resolved to everybody's satisfaction, shortly." by Fred McKim Fred McKim (dated 12-29-2010, 07:43 PM. The whole message: http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/sh...3&postcount=53)
"It's the result of an on-going financial situation with the Panjwani's and the CFC Business Office. I would hope this is resolved to everybody's satisfaction, shortly." by Fred McKim Fred McKim (dated 12-29-2010, 07:43 PM. The whole message: http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/sh...3&postcount=53)
Seems pretty ridiculous. The CFC database includes the names of dead people and those who have not been members for many years, so why make a player persona non grata and attempt to eliminate his name from the historical record (e.g., the 2009 Canadian Junior)? I thought such practices ended with the downfall of the Soviet Union, but I guess not ...
I don't quite understand how a financial dispute would get both players suspended(?). If a relative makes a financial deal and reneges on it subsequently, how is the other also responsible?
And I agree with Ken: turning their names into Pxxxxxxx or whatever is pretty ridiculous.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
The practice of withholding the publication of ratings over financial disputes is ridiculous.
When your customers don't pay their bills, withholding services is normal business practice. The account is long overdue and we have made several attempts to resolve the issue. Nevertheless, we are hopeful of a satisfactory resolution soon.
Withholding the publication of a rating is not with holding service. A rating is a reflection of past play and hopefully of some predictive value of future play.
The CFC has had the practice of not publisihing ratings for many years; I doubt it has done anything to move towards solving outstanding accounts.
It has even gone so far as to a blaclist Life members, an incredibly questionable practice.
This is petty. If you don't pay your Rogers bill, after few month your phone will be cut off. Ok you might dispute the charge, but at the end you may get your money back or you may not. Or if its CIBC, the banks will just take money directly from your account. I'm not saying its right, but that's just the way it is. People get into these dispute situations everyday - that's business.
Here's the point, those companies above many billions, CFC probably only has $500 in their chequings. Raja may have a completely valid case, but com'on, why get into a financial dispute with CFC? Everyone knows CFC has no money.
So unless there's reasonable doubt that CFC or its officials is frauding its members (at which time I totally support an inquiry/investigation), I think both sides should just try to settle this.
Also Bob G. - do CFC release financial statements every year?
Withholding the publication of a rating is not with holding service. A rating is a reflection of past play and hopefully of some predictive value of future play.
The CFC has had the practice of not publisihing ratings for many years; I doubt it has done anything to move towards solving outstanding accounts.
It has even gone so far as to a blaclist Life members, an incredibly questionable practice.
If people want to see rules that could be covered by these sorts of cases, it would seem that 329, 380, and 386 from the handbook would be useful to review.
I see no point in continuing to discuss this particular case, it's a private matter between the CFC administration and the member(s) involved.
Yes, Ken. We are both well aware of the case years ago where a CFC Life Member was blacklisted over a sizeable overdue "retail" account with the CFC. I was able to intervene on his behalf and the situation was resolved.
This is petty. If you don't pay your Rogers bill, after few month your phone will be cut off. Ok you might dispute the charge, but at the end you may get your money back or you may not. Or if its CIBC, the banks will just take money directly from your account. I'm not saying its right, but that's just the way it is. People get into these dispute situations everyday - that's business.
Here's the point, those companies above many billions, CFC probably only has $500 in their chequings. Raja may have a completely valid case, but com'on, why get into a financial dispute with CFC? Everyone knows CFC has no money.
So unless there's reasonable doubt that CFC or its officials is frauding its members (at which time I totally support an inquiry/investigation), I think both sides should just try to settle this.
Also Bob G. - do CFC release financial statements every year?
Of course. Check under Governors Letters at the CFC web site.
Tweet
Comment