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.
Do you think this practice should be spread to swiss opens? (a little bit more work for TDs but maybe more participants)
It works for the Mississauga club events. Mississauga had traditionally been a non cfc event club, although the club membership has always had a healthy level of cfc members. We began introducing cfc events a few years ago. What we found were than some members were quietly staying away during cfc events, while some were only coming for the cfc events.
So, the compromise. Games between CFC members are rated, otherwise they are not. Club members can play without buying a CFC membership or even the tournament fee.
Also, we have members that prefer a prize fund, others don't. So, another compromise. So the entry fee is optional, but necessary if you want to play for the cash.
It's an experiment in trying to please everyone. :D
It works for the Mississauga club events. Mississauga had traditionally been a non cfc event club, although the club membership has always had a healthy level of cfc members. We began introducing cfc events a few years ago. What we found were than some members were quietly staying away during cfc events, while some were only coming for the cfc events.
So, the compromise. Games between CFC members are rated, otherwise they are not. Club members can play without buying a CFC membership or even the tournament fee.
Also, we have members that prefer a prize fund, others don't. So, another compromise. So the entry fee is optional, but necessary if you want to play for the cash.
It's an experiment in trying to please everyone. :D
Would it work in a weekend swiss, ??
Well, another aspect: when a CFC member plays a non-CFC member the game is not rated - that could be good or bad depending on the CFC member's point of view... I'm just pointing this out - not complaining one way or t'other
it's how I was planning to run the Jack Taylor Memorial this year in Victoria (previously not CFC rated.)
Bob and Roger, I would like your comment on the following (this is an updated version of a post I submitted about 2 weeks ago on another thread):
I believe that what is needed in this regard is a whole new approach that can occur alongside of the current approach. That is, the current approach (membership fees and individual tournament fees and so on) stays intact for the serious players. What I propose as new is a parallel approach for the non serious players.
As we know, the CFC's bread and butter is ratings fees. The reason this can be is that calculation of rating is not a simple process. It works off the Elo rating system, and that system is not a simple app you can run on your Blackberry or IPhone or Droid or whatever.
Serious chess players do want to be rated, and it helps if they know that the ratings they receive are somewhat compatible with ratings used worldwide.
So where am I going with all this? Well, if your goal is to bring in more not-so-serious-chessplayers and give them a taste of tournament chess, why not have separate but parallel tournaments for them, CFC sanctioned, with rating system just for them? A rating system that doesn't require the CFC to do their ratings for them, and thus doesn't require ratings fees? A rating system so simple that THEY CAN DO IT THEMSELVES, ON A GAME BY GAME BASIS? Using nothing but a pocket calculator, or even in their heads if they are good at some very simple math (no square roots involved)?
The vision goes like this: at every major or semi-major CFC event, there is an organizer for the serious CFC-rated players, and there is a second organizer (perhaps an organizer intern, if you will) for the not-so-serious players. In effect, there are 2 parallel events. The event for the not-so-serious players has much lower entry fees and CFC "membership" fees, because these are the players that are just trying things out. They don't necessarily want to be thrust immediately into the midst of the serious players. They probably just want to play against PEERS. And if they do well and get to like the weekend events, they are free to pay up full CFC membership and join the serious section at the beginning of any tournament (but not in the middle of a tournament).
There are two things that could happen here: the best of the not-so-serious players could migrate into full CFC membership, and the worst of the serious players could (instead of giving up chess altogether) migrate into the not-so-serious events. The CFC could be behind both because both migrations help the CFC bottom line: fewer players leave the CFC, and more join.
All that is required are willing organizer "interns" (or beginners), and a simpler rating system, so that the not-so-serious players could be paired Swiss-style just like their more serious cousins. This would also help "grow" organizers. An aspiring organizer could start in the not-so-serious section, get his or her training there in pairing and settling disputes and so on, and eventually move up to more serious organizing. If the intern organizer makes a mistake, it's not so serious because the players are not so serious. No prize monies or titles are at stake for the not so serious players. They play for the chance to try out organized chess and to see if by playing regularly they can improve their not so serious rating to a point where they can say, hey, maybe I should try the real thing.
I have such a simpler rating system formulated. I will put it in a separate post.
This is all part of an overall effort on my part to see organized chess grow out of the constrained sandbox in which it currently plays. I've also posted in the past about getting the CFC to hold parallel chess and chess960 events, and getting CFC organizers to give out brilliancy awards (awarded in a totally objective manner) to broaden the base of prizewinners (i.e., a low rated player has slim to none chances to win a section prize, but does have a better chance to win a brilliancy prize, assuming the awarding of such a prize is totally free of bias).
I am frankly surprised at the lack of creativity and out-of-the-box thinking shown when it comes to how to grow organized chess. Just recently, Bob Gillanders posted on a related thread that "Everyone is convinced their solution is the right one, but the risk always falls to the CFC finances if the experiment fails". The implication is clear: creativity is thwarted by fiscal conservatism (not blaming Bob G. on this, it goes beyond one person and especially one so recent, and Bob G. has done a great job in bringing the CFC back from the brink. And BTW, Bob, kudos for trying your experiment with mixing CFC and non-CFC members.)
This is a new proposal in which the only risk to CFC finances would be if this were set up and hordes of unsatisfied regular CFC members decided to abandon Elo ratings and join the non-serious rating system for much reduced membership fees. I really don't think that number would be significant. But I believe the number of new regular members you attract via this non-serious introductory route would more than make up for the ones who would decide to move down.
Just as an analogy: lets say you're middle aged, you like to play tennis and would like to consider eventually playing tournaments. Wouldn't you much prefer if you could join organized tennis and play tournaments, not against hardened and serious opposition right away, but against people just like you -- newcomers, young and old alike, who are just getting into the game? And if you find out you're not talented, you can still play occassional tournaments on the cheap against more newcomers, and almost never have to suffer the indignity of being crushed by a wonderkid who is so good that you never even get to play a 3-stroke rally?
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Why would I want a "simpler" rating system? I have a fully functional rating system for the Victoria chess club complete with web based enquiries and crosslinks between players and crosstables, just like the CFC. http://victoriachess.com/db/ No need to compromise.
And why do you think I have enough people playing (or organizing) to run two separate parallel tournaments?
Why would I want a "simpler" rating system? I have a fully functional rating system for the Victoria chess club complete with web based enquiries and crosslinks between players and crosstables, just like the CFC. http://victoriachess.com/db/ No need to compromise.
And why do you think I have enough people playing (or organizing) to run two separate parallel tournaments?
I included you, Roger, because you seem a very highly efficient and respected organizer who has put some great posts on this board. The motivation for me bringing this up comes more from the CFC situation, if you will, than it does from your personal situation as an organizer, which I am not familiar with. Very recently, we have had threads launched by (1) Denton Cockburn proposing or suggesting a new funding structure for the CFC, because he knows of many non-CFC members who would come out to events if it wasn't so pricey, (2) Kevin Pacey offering a poll as to what would most make a difference in getting CFC members to feel they were getting fair value, and (3) this thread by Bob Gillanders explaining a new attempt to attract new members by not forcing them to join the CFC. All of these and more points to a general feeling that the CFC membership cost is an inhibiting factor in organized chess participation.
In answer to your last question, I don't think you *have* enough people -- I think maybe you *could have* enough people. Of course, this is all contingent on whether you *want* enough people. If your facility is filling up already or you are already having your hands full in running your tournaments, just say so and you needn't involve yourself any further. I'm certainly not trying to yank your chain or anyone else's.
The simpler rating system does not replace the fully functional one you already have. It exists for those who don't want high membership costs due to rating fees (here I'm thinking more of the CFC; I don't know what you charge for rating fees). The rating fee costs are due to the fact that rating is not a simple DIY calculation. Results have to be sent to the CFC and someone has to spend time running some kind of non-trivial software operation. But if there were a simpler system that anyone could do on their own, on the spot, before and after each game they play, then no rating fee need apply. The secondary benefit is that they never have to wait to find out their rating. Once their current game is complete, they can do the calculation themselves; the most complex part of it is a division operation. This simpler system is meant for chess beginners or those who just don't want the higher cost of the rating fee.
The idea is twofold: attract more chess beginners (cheap initial membership, they can upgrade at any time if they want to a more serious rating service), and provide a place for those who have been involved in the "serious" membership for a time and would prefer just to move down to a simpler, less expensive scene where they could just play some organized, but not so serious, chess.
In other words, bring in more newbies, and give a reason for the more casual player not to just drop out of the scene altogether. Overall effect: more total membership.
Oh, and please don't think that maybe I'm after some sort of recognition, accolade, or even profit from this. As for the actual simple rating system itself, I wrote it up today and it will appear in its own thread.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
The vision goes like this: at every major or semi-major CFC event, there is an organizer for the serious CFC-rated players, and there is a second organizer (perhaps an organizer intern, if you will) for the not-so-serious players. In effect, there are 2 parallel events. The event for the not-so-serious players has much lower entry fees and CFC "membership" fees, because these are the players that are just trying things out. They don't necessarily want to be thrust immediately into the midst of the serious players. They probably just want to play against PEERS.
Paul - I don't think this idea is feasible because,
1. most not-so-serious players are content to play at the chess clubs.
2. organizers are already too few and over worked.
3. the tournament fee already serves as a surrogate for full membership for those that just want to try out a real tournament.
I am in favour of organizers trying out new things. Perhaps your suggestions will spark a new idea to try, and that would be good indeed. :)
Paul - I don't think this idea is feasible because,
1. most not-so-serious players are content to play at the chess clubs.
2. organizers are already too few and over worked.
3. the tournament fee already serves as a surrogate for full membership for those that just want to try out a real tournament.
I am in favour of organizers trying out new things. Perhaps your suggestions will spark a new idea to try, and that would be good indeed. :)
I've already posted the alternative rating system in its own thread, so yes, maybe some enterprising organizer will think to give it a try. And yes, the key is to have someone who can do the work of running the casual section and verifying the ratings round by round. Without that, it just isn't feasible as you wrote. Maybe if you can find some young wannabe organizer who prefers to start out small, you and that person could work with this idea. Thanks, Bob.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Should we legalize it? (per the CFC handbook it is not legal, imho.)
For the weekend open, it is probably messy, especially if a ratio would be 50/50 between members and not. (as L.Kerry pointed out) :D
However, for the (small-medium) club event it is ideal :)
Tweet
Bob, wouldn't that extra money be better off spent fighting climate change? :D
Comment