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.
According to grandmaster Kevin Spraggett on his blog, the game Plotkin-Calugar is the "MOST ''DUBIOUS'' GAME OF THE CHAMPIONSHIP (When is it better to lose than to draw?)".
As I understand from his explanations, a draw (the natural outcome) would give "only" a FM title to Calugar and nothing to Plotkin, while a loss by White (Plotkin) was giving an IM title to Calugar and a possible FM title to Plotkin.
Would it be possible that Plotkin lost on purpose to get a title that would have otherwise eluded him? At any rate, this is what Grandmaster Spraggett seems to think. Strangely enough, there is still nothing on Chesstalk about this potential cheating scandal.
I know quite well Victor and Arthur and pretty sure that there was no cheating. It's usual story when two players are playing for a win in a dead draw position. Eventually one of them loses. When I talked with Arthur before the game he said he doesn't worry about title. He esteemates himself adequately and understands that he is far from IM strength.
It is a good thing that Arthur Calugar got the title, and he will grow into it. What a great future he has in chess! I hate seeing title opportunities go to waste and Im glad someone got the title. By the way I had a winning endgame against Robert Hamilton and missed his last trick due to nerves (entirely my own fault). If I had won that game I would have had the IM title (or at least a playoff) - that is the horror story that Kevin imagined (a 53yrold has been with a FIDE 2100). I was there, I was personally a witness, and Viktor Plotkins intensity and will to win was admirable (maybe a bit misguided). Absolutely no cheating was going on.
Not sure if I agree with GM Spraggett's assessment of the game Plotkin vs Calugar from round nine of the Closed, which wrapped up yesterday.
Looking at the game, it was a very even and hard-fought positional battle right into the endgame, which had even material with a Queen and several pawns each, on both sides of the board. One very important factor: the clock times (available on the MonRoi displays of the game after each move) show that Plotkin's flag was hanging for the last 20+ moves, while Calugar had more than five minutes left, for this period, with the 30-second increments moving along. I've been in that situation myself on a few occasions, and can attest that it is very tough to keep hanging on in a slightly inferior position, with an opponent who has more time keeping the pressure on.
It's also important from a practical standpoint to realize that Calugar is the younger player by many years, and I have noticed that these situations involving time shortages almost invariably favour the younger player, who is likely playing much more chess and so has better nerves under time pressure.
Queen endings are notoriously difficult even for the best players, with the threat of mate hanging after a possible error, which is not the case in most other endings, where one can play strategically for the most part, and not have to worry too much about possible tactics, which simplifies the thought processes greatly.
While Plotkin may not have found best play throughout in the endgame, I didn't see any obvious errors which led to his loss. He may have also been playing for the win, against a younger, less experienced player. The game lasted over 80 moves. I have seen games where veteran GMs make grave blunders in Queen endings, either allowing stalemate combinations or outright checkmates, or missing winning lines which are obvious afterwards following quiet analysis over coffee at home.
As for criticism of Calugar getting the IM title with a FIDE rating of just over 2200, it is important to realize that international ratings for younger players often lag their actual abilities by a year or two, as this depends on available playing opportunities in events which are rated internationally, always problematic in Canada. Calugar is still a teenager and his CFC rating of 2401 is a more accurate measure of his strength, in my view. It will be very interesting to follow his progress over the next few years. I've been aware of his rising talents since about 2004.
I have no reservations in offering my congratulations to IM-elect Arthur Calugar, with absolutely no thoughts that he cheated his way to the title. :) :)
Clearly these accusations are misguided! Why would Victor even want a worthless FM title, I seem to recollect that FIDE garners a fee to register each such title. The 'title' is another FIDE cash grab.
When it comes to possible scandals, KS has been known in the past to rush to unfounded accusations based on superficial appearances - I suppose it's good for business.
When it comes to possible scandals, KS has been known in the past to rush to unfounded accusations based on superficial appearances.
There's also a coincidental connection between the new and the ancient Canadian Champions. One is B.S. The other is a BSer. Kevin often has excellent chess content on his blog, but dare I say that parents should check out his site for possible inappropriate non-chess content before opening it up to Arturito or Abigailita. I'm not a prude. Really. Just a heads-up.
There's also a coincidental connection between the new and the ancient Canadian Champions. One is B.S. The other is a BSer. Kevin often has excellent chess content on his blog, but dare I say that parents should check out his site for possible inappropriate non-chess content before opening it up to Arturito or Abigailita. I'm not a prude. Really. Just a heads-up.
Inappropriate ADULT content -- not for anyone under the age of 19.
Thanks for the warning Jonathan. Concerned parents, and Canadian "youngsters" (as Larry Bevand often describes his clientele) should be warned in no uncertain terms that the site you are referring to is pornographic with very disturbing misogynist content. Further it is written by a complete megalomaniac who has lost touch with Canada and has not played chess here for 7 years now!
I really wish everyone would just stop talking about this guy and let him go away.
I agree....
I think almost any game could be claimed to be cheating, e.g., a player gets "food poisoning" and plays badly the next game or two, OR, was that player using that excuse and giving a full or half point away for some nefarious reason, maybe he/she had been paid to drop a point or half a point? Cheating or really sick?
I tend to take most things at face value, but, there are always those who are looking for dirt. I think that says a lot about those people.
19 years of age? I was thinking it was inappropriate for 9. But we agree on the important part, that parents should have a look-see first. And yes, the blog may be inappropriate for people of any age. The blog is the juxtaposition of the hard-working, brilliant, chess objectivist KS with the KS who lets his guard down after the game in an atmosphere where few listen and nobody remembers. Shhh. Kevin, we're on the internet, not in a bar. French has a lovely verb bavarder, but Kevin goes beyond that. I don't know what the correct word in French is, but could have a few goes in my langue natale...
As I am now an orphan, I read the article in question without delay. Of course, KS is a BSer. Some posters in this thread seem under the impression that KS accused VP of throwing the game. It's more like KS accused VP of avoiding a draw at all costs. In a different context, such an attitude would be praised.
VD: doesn't the CFC pay the fee to FIDE? So the choice was either to have the title or not to. Price was not an object.
Stockfish 211 indeed gives 61.Qg6xh5 a ??, taking the evaluation from about even to -2.00. But games of players of that calibre (and my calibre, which is around the same) are filled with gaffes of that magnitude. I can provide hundreds of examples.
I had to LOL because it was the first time I remember seeing a situation in an individual tournament where the tournament conditions made it better to lose than to draw. I'll list a few no-cigars:
Last round of a Swiss tournament. Prizes are 300, 100. Four players have 4.5 each. They play each other. One pair of players agrees secretly to share whatever money they might win. Of course, this means that the nervous draw isn't going to happen. Somebody will win, giving that pair the maximum possible payoff of 200 to 300 (divided by two, natch). The nervous draw would result in a maximum payoff of 200, but probably a lot less. Since this is not fixing the result of the game (except as a non-draw), it may even be considered ethical. Grist for a different thread, however.
Penultimate round of a game-point Swiss team tournament, such as the old Chess Olympics. The last game going is a tough endgame. The captains manage to predict the last-round pairings. If Canada wins the game, it plays the Soviet Union (the fact that this example was invented many decades ago allows this scary scenario). If the game is drawn, it's Yugoslavia (still pretty scary). A loss would find Canada paired against Albania (no offense intended, but Canada has a few 4-0 rollups of Albania over the ages). The Canada team captain rushes to the playing hall to resign the game, but, alas! he's been beaten to the punch by the opposing captain, whose team faces a similar pairing kismet.
In a different Canadian Closed, two players who met in the last RR round were both in the running for an IM title. The result: a draw; much praise but no title to either player. I wasn't there, but was it Windsor, and was Sask (GT) one of the players?
Example 1 was a non-drawing situation caused not by the tournament conditions, but by a subsequent agreement between two players. Example 2 was a losing situation but in a team tournament, where your pairing, worth 4 points, is ultimately decided by the result of a single game, worth only 1 point. This example is the only hypothetical one in the list. And of course in Example 3, losing was merely equivalent to drawing (for the player who loses), not better than drawing.
I hope that the two players don't take KS too seriously.
Perhaps the fairest solution is for the remaining FM title to go to Morgon Mills, because that's what the rules say anyway (see other thread). :)
The same comes up in a combined section. Say there's a $500 U2000 prize and a $300 U1900 prize, both in a U2000 section. Two 1890 players have 6.5 and 6.0, and are paired last round.
The latter resigns prematurely, resulting in a 7.5 score and victory for the former, and a 6.0 score nets a top U1900 prize (due to the one prize per player rule).
Tweet
Comment