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.
I even offered exactly what the motion text would have to be prior to the start of the meeting in one of these big threads, although indicating I would oppose it. So any interested Governor wouldn't have even had to write the motion, just copy/paste. None did.
There is a lot of Dead wood in the governor line ups. I for one feel that is why the CFC has been in the dark for so long. Some of their polices and ideas and Handbook rules are out of date or not even in sink with the modern day chess events.
I had the pleasure of talking to the new Ratings Auditor and he says he has problems getting things updated and corrected so what is next, no members or a group of ancient governors playing over the board chess against themselves, while the rest of us play organized chess and start up our own rating system and do not pay the CFC a membership fee or a rating fee.
I seriously think that is what it is coming to.
Why pay a rating fee or play in CFC rated events if you can play chess for free on the internet or amongst each other.
Get rid of the ancient ideas and start looking for the future in chess which is with our juniors and support them. Get them to pay for their rated games properly give them standard CFC ratings and throw out the CMA ratings. CMA ratings are okay for those who want to play CMA event tournaments. But if you want to play in CFC rating events then you have to throw out the less than 24 games rating calculations for everyone. Unrated players, you can start them with a rating 1 point below the section they want to play in or Just make all unrated players play in the Open. Also stop rating active games amongst Juniors as Regular rated games. This is a stupid idea and should be taken out of the deadwood governors idea agenda years ago.
I for one feel that if the ancient governors don't want to look at new ideas then they should either retire and make room for new idea Governors or just lose their governorship by not working for the CFC to help the membership.
There are great Governors and there are inactive Governors which the membership as a paying group should have the right to vote out the in actives at each AGM. Otherwise what is the sense of having a CFC mebership.
How many of you have actually participated in your regional events or even showed up to let players know you exist and support their venues?
I think Ken Craft said he was the NB governor I might be wrong.
I have friends in NB that have tournaments and they have never heard of you. How long you been a governor? I think it is time that the CFC give their governors some slack and let them go out and promote the CFC.
I live in GTA but I have never had one Governor come and see me or approach me about what I think would help the CFC . I have to post to their website or here on chess talk.
If they really cared they would contact us either by email , letter, phone call or just show up at the chess events in their governorship area.
You have Governors, yet they do minimal to promote the CFC.
So I truly believe we have too many Governors in Ontario. Time to clear out the wood pile and keep the better choices of wood and burn the old and useless stuff.
We only need 4 governors in Ontario. North South East and West.
That is my opinion but I feel 4 active ones would be better than all the inactive ones we have now..
There is a lot of Dead wood in the governor line ups. ....There are great Governors and there are inactive Governors which the membership as a paying group should have the right to vote out the in actives at each AGM. Otherwise what is the sense of having a CFC mebership.
Hi John:
But the CFC members in good standing across the country DO HAVE THE RIGHT to " vote out the inactives " at each AGM!!
The GTCL announces in advance each year the details of its AGM and invites all GTA CFC members to come, and advises them they have 8 votes for 8 GTA CFC Governors. I always put an article in the Scarborough CC Newsletter, on the front page usually, about the meeting, urging all CFC Members to come ( and the newsletter doesn't just go to SCC members, but to past SCC members, and non-SCC members - over 250 subscribers ).
But what do we see at the GTCL AGM - the executive, additional Board members, and a handful of regular CFC members.
Ken: I could be mistaken, but I don't know of any other governor who was agreeing with you on this WYCC Team decision. Despite what Michael might think, you and I both know there is no dictatorship here. If you had some other governors with you, you could have made a move on this one.
At the risk of annoying some people, I understand why the CFC is ruling the way it has. I don't agree with the logic. I would have voted against that logic if the opportunity had presented itself. I also recognize that the vote would have been lopsided against my thinking. I don't believe that the CFC is well served by governors who march in unison on every issue even after it has been voted on. I think that everyone is trying to do the best job that they can with the situation that is presented to them and they all have their own method and their own logic for making these decisions and sometimes that means that little girls who are only nine years old and who can talk nonstop for an hour with the soliloquy having the feeling and intelligence of a well written movie script and then can belt out opera like a professional will still have their hearts crushed by that method and logic.
How many of you have actually participated in your regional events or even showed up to let players know you exist and support their venues?
I have supported a few regional events and venues over the last few years. Not so much lately but unemployment will do that to you after a while. I have only been a governor since May.
As a governor, and Public Relations Coordinator, since the July AGM, I had CFC support and promote both the Toronto Labour Day, and the Toronto Thanksgiving tournaments, by posts on the CFC " News " Forum, and later CFC reported on the results in the same Forum. Also, I have had CFC promote and report on numerous tournaments across the country in this forum.
I have personally played in the Toronto Labour Day. I am registered to play in the Toronto Seniors' starting Tuesday. I play in all SCC tournaments, and have for years.
As Scarborough CC newsletter editor, I have had SCC promote and report on these two tournaments I first mentioned in various articles. I have also had SCC promote the upcoming Toronto Seniors', Women's and Junior tournaments in the newsletter.
Thanks for your post, John Brown.
I was first a Governor in 1982 at the age of 18. Spent my grad school years in Ontario, 85-93. I have been a NB Governor again for over a decade. I was involved with the organization of the 2001 CO and CYCC. I am a co-organizer of the yearly NB Blitz championship, retain a membership in my local chess club, and visit local events when able. Feel free to tell your NB friends to contact me anytime. My contact information is available at the CFC website. I can also be founbd on Chesstalk and the CFC discussion board. Unlike some Governors, I attend the quartely meetings, participate and vote. As well, I continue to advocate that these meetings should be held in public so that the members can see their Governors in action. Unfortunately, there are some Governors who don't want their deliberations to be open to public scrutiny. Pity!
... I understand why the CFC is ruling the way it has. I don't agree with the logic. ...
You and me both. There must be a better way of protecting the 'integrity' of your national championship than by denying the top player in her class the opportunity to play in the world youth chess championship. Hopefully this little girl will have more opportunities to represent Canada at the WYCC.
One would think that this disturbing incident would energize the governors to re-examine the CFC's rules to reduce the possibility of this happening again. Apparently not, and that's truly sad.
"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
Agreed. I see nothing wrong with the Handbook rules related to this issue.
The executive advance ruling was: attending the conflicting Pan-Am YCC over the CYCC, disqualified the top three from attending the WYCC.
There was significant pressure to make the CYCC successful, since no one was sure if the new provincial/regional YCC qualification system would reduce CYCC numbers. So everything was being done to enhance the CYCC, including encouraging the top players to attend.
And the Executive, to their credit, did give wide publicity to this advance ruling, and discussed it directly with juniors interested in the Pan-Am YCC. So informed choices were made.
However, it appears to me that such a draconian choice indicates the ruling was wrong. The juniors in question who went to the Pan-Am YCC, did not play in the CYCC because they have no interest in chess. To the contrary, they sought to represent Canada in a prestigious junior tournament. This should have been an " extraordinary " circumstance that allowed for an exception to the rule that Canadian WYCC team members had to have played in the CYCC.
But it is difficult to now see the correct path. It is simple to say that a " wrong " ruling must be corrected, regardless of the consequences. But it seems to me, and it seems to the Executive and governors, that " Fairness " among juniors seems to demand that the ruling stand, because juniors made decisions based on it ( some wanting to attend the Pan-Am YCC didn't, because they wanted to try for the Can. WYCC team ). Otherwise, individual juniors may end up being given " special " treatment over others. It is a difficult situation, and this is my own personal feeling on it.
Had I been asked by a motion at the 2011 Fall Meeting to overturn the Executive advance ruling, and the Liu decision, I would have had to do even more soul-searching on this. But although a draft motion was posted by a governor, no governor supported the overturning enough to actually bring the motion. So this is a clear indication I believe, of governor support of the Executive refusal to review the advance ruling decision, and the individual application decision for an exception by Ms. Liu.
The juniors in question who went to the Pan-Am YCC, did not play in the CYCC because they have no interest in chess.
They did not play in CYCC, because they have no interest in chess??? This is coming from CFC officials, who suppose to promote and encourage their best player to reach new heights. What a joke.
Bob do you have proof of that??? If so, please provide us with it.
So this is a clear indication I believe, of governor support of the Executive refusal to review the advance ruling decision.
Canadian Chess community can now clearly see that dictatorial refusal was made by CFC Executives to defend CFC interests. Thanks for clarification Bob.
CFC acted in personal interest, because Pan-American were scheduled on same dates as CFC.
in a process damaging its reputation Canadian Chess community. I still haven’t heard an answer to this question:
HOW IS THIS OUR JUNIORS FAULT AND WHY DID CFC PENELIZED THEM???
CFC actions contradicts with the statement of CFC website.
Like I mentioned before, CFC should seriously consider change its statement about itself
on its website:
‘The Chess Federation of Canada (CFC), founded in 1872, is a registered non-profit organization in Canada whose mandate is to promote and encourage the knowledge, study and play of the game of chess in Canada.’
It should state:
‘The Chess Federation of Canada (CFC), founded in 1872, is a registered non-profit organization in Canada, that acts in personal interest and whose mandate is to discourage the knowledge, study and play of the game of chess in Canada.’
I am pretty sure that CFC was trying to promote it in the past, but time change and officials come and go. Looks like in last 1.5 years it is accomplishing quite the opposite. :(
Last edited by Mikhail Egorov; Thursday, 13th October, 2011, 11:57 AM.
They did not play in CYCC, because they have no interest in chess??? This is coming from CFC officials, who suppose to promote and encourage their best player to reach new heights. What a joke.
Bob do you have proof of that??? If so, please provide us with it.
Canadian Chess community can now clearly see that dictatorial refusal was made by CFC Executives to defend CFC interests. Thanks for clarification.
Why should CFC give itself special treatment, because Pan-American were scheduled on same dates as CFC. I still haven’t heard an answer to this question:
HOW IS THIS OUR JUNIORS FAULT AND WHY DID CFC PENELIZED THEM???
CFC actions contradicts with the statement of CFC website.
Like I mentioned before, CFC should seriously consider change its statement about itself
on its website:
‘The Chess Federation of Canada (CFC), founded in 1872, is a registered non-profit organization in Canada whose mandate is to promote and encourage the knowledge, study and play of the game of chess in Canada.’
It should state:
‘The Chess Federation of Canada (CFC), founded in 1872, is a registered non-profit organization in Canada, that acts in personal interest and whose mandate is to discourage the knowledge, study and play of the game of chess in Canada.’
I am pretty sure that it was trying to promote it in the past, but time change and officials come and go. Looks like in last 1.5 years it is doing the opposite, if it actually suppose to do.
You misread Bob's post - he said the reason they did not play in the CYCC was NOT because they were uninterested in playing chess, but because they chose to represent Canada at the PanAm tournament
(perhaps he could have worded it better...)
Tweet
Comment