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!)
Concerning extra players representing CANADA at 2011 WYCC in Brazil
I agree that the player in question should NOT be allowed to go to WYCC. I find it unfortunate that some families seem to think they can simply BUY up whatever opportunities show up simply because their young kids express a desire to play. Honestly, an 8 year old does NOT need to go to Columbia and Brazil in the same year.
The reason the rules are unclear is because the intent of the CYCC/WYCC cycle is very unclear. You have some people who believe the intent is to send a strong competitive team to WYCC, and many more others who believe sending a large fun team is the goal. The former goal never occurs because any attempt to achieve it is heavily diluted by the latter goal. If people really want a "stronger team", then the focus on youth projects needs to be on this goal. Currently, it is not the focus. Its all about packing them in at CYCC and allowing anyone with a large cheque to go to WYCC regardless.
Last edited by Duncan Smith; Tuesday, 13th September, 2011, 05:54 PM.
For as long as I can remember, the CFC has been chastised for not following their own rules. As soon as they do, they are now hammered for doing so. ...
Perhaps the CFC should follow its own mission statement with more enthusiasm that it tries to follow its own rules. For example, how about the following quote from the statement of objectives in the CFC's Handbook?:
5. TO protect and foster the interests of Canadian Chess players, as far as possible, in the field of national and international chess competition;
The CFC is such a mass of contradictions. For example, a bunch of old guys in Victoria are afraid of losing rating points to under-rated juniors so, after some lobbying, the CFC makes an out-of-the-blue award of some 350 rating points to a B.C. junior. And then the CFC does nothing further (nothing, at least, that has been communicated to the general membership) to address the under-rated junior 'problem' - a completely ad hoc, one-case solution to an issue that apparently disturbs a lot of adults.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the CFC suddenly decides that it wants to enforce its rules to the hilt when it comes to a highly rated child (for the applicable age group) whose parents want him/her to be approved to play in the WYCC on an exception basis.
... It would be easy now to say, what the hell, let whoever go who wants to go or has parents who can afford to go ...
I agree. Seriously. If the CFC can't do a better job with this CYCC thing then can it.
"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
Perhaps the CFC should follow its own mission statement with more enthusiasm that it tries to follow its own rules. For example, how about the following quote from the statement of objectives in the CFC's Handbook?:
5. TO protect and foster the interests of Canadian Chess players, as far as possible, in the field of national and international chess competition;
The CFC is such a mass of contradictions. For example, a bunch of old guys in Victoria are afraid of losing rating points to under-rated juniors so, after some lobbying, the CFC makes an out-of-the-blue award of some 350 rating points to a B.C. junior. And then the CFC does nothing further (nothing, at least, that has been communicated to the general membership) to address the under-rated junior 'problem' - a completely ad hoc, one-case solution to an issue that apparently disturbs a lot of adults.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the CFC suddenly decides that it wants to enforce its rules to the hilt when it comes to a highly rated child (for the applicable age group) whose parents want him/her to be approved to play in the WYCC on an exception basis.
I agree. Seriously. If the CFC can't do a better job with this CYCC thing then can it.
We're a bit off topic, but Rating Auditor Paul LeBlanc is actively working on this problem of underrated players with Roger Patterson and myself (Rating Committee).
We're a bit off topic, but Rating Auditor Paul LeBlanc is actively working on this problem of underrated players with Roger Patterson and myself (Rating Committee).
That's good news. Thank you, Fred.
"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
According to Patrick, who does not agree with the way it was given out, CFC was forced by CYCC organizers to give it out this way or they do not get it. (Please correct me Pat if I misunderstood, when we last spoke about this)
Even if the chief organizer of CYCC said the bursary should support every player who will attend WYCC.
Any bursary other than to the 1st place finisher comes, as I understand it, from the controversial 2011 CYCC " surplus ". Because of the internal conflict within the CYCC organizing committee, CFC was forced to come to a settlement on this " surplus ". It must now stick by the terms of its settlement, which was that the money would only go to the top 3 finishers. Trickle down was specifically not part of the settlement agreement.
This is the reason, as far as I can understand it, why no third place bursary in your case, was passed on down to 4th place Michael.
Any bursary other than to the 1st place finisher comes, as I understand it, from the controversial 2011 CYCC " surplus ". Because of the internal conflict within the CYCC organizing committee, CFC was forced to come to a settlement on this " surplus ". It must now stick by the terms of its settlement, which was that the money would only go to the top 3 finishers. Trickle down was specifically not part of the settlement agreement.
This is the reason, as far as I can understand it, why no third place bursary in your case, was passed on down to 4th place Michael.
Bob A.
In fact, the CYCC only guaranteed the payment of $1000 to first place finishers of groups of 8 or more players. Rarely does an event have such a vague prize fund, and rarely do customers so willingly enter regardless of the lack of any guarantees. Nowhere are there guidelines that suggest very realistic situations like having an U18G group with only two players, one of which is a strong WIM.
It will be interesting to see what the BC event has to offer. I would say parents should expect no more then what is guaranteed.
Last edited by Duncan Smith; Tuesday, 13th September, 2011, 11:46 PM.
I think you are wrong, Bob. The executive's decision prior to the CYCC to inform players would not be provided WYCC exemptions if they chose to play in the Pan Ams instead of the CYCC was A) Coercive, and B) prejudiced any applications before they were even made.
Neither of those behaviours is defensible. I'd love to see some form of judicial review of this behaviour.
There was a recent post there by Mr. Barron. I would like thank Mr. Barron for providing the true intentions why Pan-American games were boycotted in the first place.
Quote from Mr. Barron post: ‘The Executive in fact made the decision that Canada will not send the team to PanAm, due to the fact that the dates of PanAm appeared to be in conflict with CYCC.’
Please correct me, if I am wrong. Wasn’t it Mr. Barron who, came up with a new rule in the first place? Wasn’t Mr. Gillanders, who was CFC president, approved new rule?
I would like to thank Rob Clark for bringing a very good question in his post: “Whats best for chess and chess players in Canada?" It is obvious, that boycotting the Pan-Am games, because of date conflicts was not best for chess and chess players (especially our juniors) in Canada. Instead CFC decided to spam the door on our junior and not allow them to participate in Pan-Am games and get back to Pan-American organizers. As a result, our juniors getting penalized for this???
Truthfully I am shocked and surprised by this. I thought junior program, is one of CFC’s main priorities. Apperantly personal interests are. This is really outrageous.
Mr. Barron posted personal emails publicly, and did not receive authorization from Mrs. Daxin Jin to do so.
Re: Concerning extra players representing CANADA at 2011 WYCC in Brazil
Ken, I heard a rumour that there were dozens of people discussing this on a private CFC forum. Which tends to illustrate the weakness in such an approach, given that no one in the outside world knows what is going on and what to expect prior to CYCC. Ironically, the mother involved was part of all those discussions I hear.
As much as people can claim the decision is "unfair" or not for the insider, its even more "unfair" for outsiders who looked at that CYCC flyer and asked the question "Should we go to CYCC ?". Look at that flyer and how on earth could anybody truly know what they were getting into ?
I think the CFC truly fears a scenario where a legit sponsor arrives and says I'm sending x number of top players to WYCC direct, forget about CYCC its a mediocre event. Might even just be a few parents with money to burn. Even if CYCC is not necessarily a mediocre event, that would seal the deal. If you look at the top youth girls, its already happening somewhat because the Olympiad project may offer up a better deal then the WYCC package. Basically because the Canadian chess establishment feels much easier having the families of young juniors ripped off on youth events, but somehow suddenly feels badly doing the same thing if they qualify for adult events.
I understand your point on coercing players to go to CYCC ( hey, we lived that pressure for years ), but frankly my opinion is if the young girl goes to WYCC, that many of the rules have to be eliminated. Specifically, the idea that you must be highest rated or attend CYCC have no legitimacy anymore. Anyone who pays can go period, you might set a performance standard floor per age but it can't be all that high. This "grey area" stuff where exceptions are granted and you are required to attend events or chase rating points are all bs. Its all coercing people to participate in the CFC world.
Re: Concerning extra players representing CANADA at 2011 WYCC in Brazil
I don't know where you heard that rumour Duncan but you shouldn't always believe everything you "hear" - AFAIK there's been NO discussion of this on the CFC Governor's forum, just the public CFC forum.
Where can we see the 2010-2011 discussions of the CFC Youth Committee on the CYCC then ?
We're discussing an executive decision. What does that have to do with the Youth Committee, other than one member of the Exec happens to be on said committee?
Just become a member of the Committee. Why must everything be public?
Guess you're right, the private approach seems to be working there is never any controversy with respect to CYCC ! ;)
I haven't had any direct interest in the CYCC since 2005 when we experienced Belfort. Never were we better prepared for a chess event then that one, but never was the CFC less prepared or forthcoming on the details of the event itself. There was clear negligence involved. So all I can say is buyer beware on any CFC project and get it in writing.
Tweet
Comment