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.
As an aside, I once years ago emailed the FQE and politely asked them, as an interested CFC member, what it might take for them to reuniify with the CFC. Not quite as rudely as yorself, they did not reply.
I do not come very often on the English side of Chesstalk, so I read this only by chance. It would be interested to know when and to whom you wrote at the FQE. Neither I or technical director Richard Berube have ever received anything from you. Should you want to write again, my email is info@fqechecs.qc.ca; Richard Berube's email is dirgen@fqechecs.qc.ca
By the way, asking "what it might take for the FQE to reunify with the CFC" seems to imply that the FQE separated from the CFC. Actually, the opposite is true. The CFC disaffilated the FQE in 1979 (already 32 years ago), so a better question might be "what it might take for the CFC to reaffiliate the FQE".
Interesting site - thanks. It isn't all that clear (to me) that the best players in the world will be playing - certainly seems not in the case of chess. Maybe this effort will grow and be transported into the IllusionOf empire of FIDE?
Here's the Men's Roster: Karjakin, Ivanchuk, Ponomariov, Grischuk, Gashimov, Kamsky, Mamedyarov, Wang Hao, Giri, Le Quang, Vallejo Pons, Wang Yue, Vachier-Lagrave, Almasi, Dominguez Lopez, Navara
I'd say they've done pretty good, considering that London is going on at the same time.
Interesting site - thanks. It isn't all that clear (to me) that the best players in the world will be playing - certainly seems not in the case of chess. Maybe this effort will grow and be transported into the IllusionOf empire of FIDE?
SportAccord World Mind Games is a multi-sport event centered on the gymnasium of the mind, highlighting the great value of the Mind Sports. On the programme of the SportAccord World Mind Games are five minds sports: Chess, Bridge, Go, Draughts and Xiangqi. They are all about the power of the human brain, strategy, intelligence and the exercise of the mind. In addition, a competitive attitude, quick reflexes, physical fitness, and discipline are needed to excel.
First SportAccord World Mind Games opens in Beijing December 9
SportAccord World Mind Games is a unique multi-sports event which highlights the great value of Mind Sports. This first edition includes five sports: Bridge, Chess, Draughts, Go and Xiangqi. With players being the world’s best, the Games will deliver top-level performances. Competitions will combine the fun of playing games with concentration, critical thinking, analytical skills, deduction and logic.
Why would anyone slide 640 lbs of granite down a sheet of ice while three others sweep? I'd rather watch caber tossing. Curling does seem to be a game for the well upholstered.
As an aside, I once years ago emailed the FQE and politely asked them, as an interested CFC member, what it might take for them to reuniify with the CFC. Not quite as rudely as yorself, they did not reply.
Seriously, did you really expect an organization of which you're not even a member to answer such an inquiry? Were you at least the official CFC representative mandated to negotiate with the FQE?
It goes against my better judgement to reply to someone who is clearly being so hotheaded and rude, but I can only say I am going by what I have been told, by people admittedly outside of Quebec.
Despite any amount of effort put into lobbying any government, the final decision to approve funding (of chess, for example) happens behind the closed doors of officials, when it can be easily surmised (but not proven) that political calculations can easily come to the fore. Try a websearch sometime and you may find that people outside of Canada have surmised the same thing about the FQE receiving funding. There is no question of being a crybaby.
To preempt a further conclusion you might jump to, I happen to be of Norman ancestry and was born in France, so I am not resentful of Quebec, except for the people within it who wish to divide our country.
As an aside, I once years ago emailed the FQE and politely asked them, as an interested CFC member, what it might take for them to reuniify with the CFC. Not quite as rudely as yorself, they did not reply.
It goes against my better judgement who is so clearly ill-informed and hateful to recognize he has absolutely no clue what he talking about.
I was one of the volunteers who spent time to collect the data necessary to build the documents the FQE submitted to the government. I spent maybe 120-150 hours towards this goal, which I am guessing from my own observations is 10-20% of the time spent by each of the two main volunteers.
It's not hearsay from someone outside of Québec who has no clue what went on; it's a first hand statement from someone who actively participated in getting the initial recognition from the Québec provincial government.
Why would I try a web search about what people outside Québec surmised when I know first hand what happened? It's not as if chess was anything special as the "Fédération des jeux récréatifs" had already receive official recognition from the government.
Only the hate of people like you will see political calculations behind closed doors in lieu of hard work. The alternative is not pretty; you would have to come to grip that the Québec volunteers were far more competent and far, far less lazy than you.
Despite any amount of effort put into lobbying any government, the final decision to approve funding (of chess, for example) happens behind the closed doors of officials, when it can be easily surmised (but not proven) that political calculations can easily come to the fore. Try a websearch sometime and you may find that people outside of Canada have surmised the same thing about the FQE receiving funding. There is no question of being a crybaby.
It is always possible to see political calculations but the facts that it is not just the FQE that receives funding but, under quite strict criterias, dozens of other sporting and cultural organisations indicates that the funding meets some more fondamental needs. And this has been true both under Parti Quebecois government and Quebec Liberals governement. Surely you can understand as a fair minded person that Quebecers, whether federalist or not prefer to have decisions that concern them made in Quebec rather that Ottawa, Toronto or Vancouver.
To preempt a further conclusion you might jump to, I happen to be of Norman ancestry and was born in France, so I am not resentful of Quebec, except for the people within it who wish to divide our country.
You only prove that having french ancestry has nothing to do with your resentment...
As an aside, I once years ago emailed the FQE and politely asked them, as an interested CFC member, what it might take for them to reuniify with the CFC. Not quite as rudely as yorself, they did not reply.
Maybe you should try to think of only one good reason for the FQE to reunify with a crippled organisation like the CFC. Surely not for chess reasons. But for political reasons who knows...
Bullshit; you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.
The efforts made by volunteers for the FQE to be officially recognized as a recreational activity meeting the level I funding criteria set forth by the government numbered in the thousands of hours over a year's period. These volunteers proved chess was an organized recreational activity which met or exceeded the various criteria, including minimum of registered members, clubs, and regions to deserve recognition and minimal funding.
Only proving chess met already existing criteria.
I never heard of an effort of such a large scale from the CFC. All we hear from time to time is "so-and-so wrote ONE letter or had a meeting with the government" and yet, there are always crybabies like you who cries "foul play! political philosophy!".
In addition to volunteers, the CFC is lucky to have such a large governing body which guarantees it will always includes luminaries with visions such "chess resorts could include areas with video games played for coins using chess (or chess variant) playing programs (with progressively harder levels of playing opposition)".
I wish I knew what they were smoking.
It goes against my better judgement to reply to someone who is clearly being so hotheaded and rude, but I can only say I am going by what I have been told, by people admittedly outside of Quebec.
Despite any amount of effort put into lobbying any government, the final decision to approve funding (of chess, for example) happens behind the closed doors of officials, when it can be easily surmised (but not proven) that political calculations can easily come to the fore. Try a websearch sometime and you may find that people outside of Canada have surmised the same thing about the FQE receiving funding. There is no question of being a crybaby.
To preempt a further conclusion you might jump to, I happen to be of Norman ancestry and was born in France, so I am not resentful of Quebec, except for the people within it who wish to divide our country.
As an aside, I once years ago emailed the FQE and politely asked them, as an interested CFC member, what it might take for them to reuniify with the CFC. Not quite as rudely as yorself, they did not reply.
The CFC is not as lucky as the FQE, which gets funding from successive provincial governments that have a sympathetic (provincial) political philosophy to that of the FQE's.
Bullshit; you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.
The efforts made by volunteers for the FQE to be officially recognized as a recreational activity meeting the level I funding criteria set forth by the government numbered in the thousands of hours over a year's period. These volunteers proved chess was an organized recreational activity which met or exceeded the various criteria, including minimum of registered members, clubs, and regions to deserve recognition and minimal funding.
Only proving chess met already existing criteria.
I never heard of an effort of such a large scale from the CFC. All we hear from time to time is "so-and-so wrote ONE letter or had a meeting with the government" and yet, there are always crybabies like you who cries "foul play! political philosophy!".
In addition to volunteers, the CFC is lucky to have such a large governing body which guarantees it will always includes luminaries with visions such "chess resorts could include areas with video games played for coins using chess (or chess variant) playing programs (with progressively harder levels of playing opposition)".
The CFC is a national organization consisting of provincial associations. Do those provincial organizations get provincial monies? Yes. The OCA got two times from Trillium. ACA got too.
Anyway, chess should be recognized as a sport at first not by government but by ordinary people.
Alas, the CFC is not a provincial association capable of getting provincial gov't monies. Provincial gov'ts have a history of being friendlier to chess than the feds, for whatever reason.
Personally I don't care much anymore about what the public classifies chess as. If the CFC can better sell organized chess to the general public more for its recreation value (as to be explained by the CFC), I'd not be against it.
There are professional bowlers, yet the general public has chosen to see bowling pretty much as just for recreation IMHO (possibly because pro bowlers may often eek out a living, just like pro chess players).
There are professional tennis players or golfers, and while the public plays tennis and golf for recreation, there is wider recognition of these (than bowling) as professions IMHO, and recognition of these also as sports.
The CFC is not as lucky as the FQE, which gets funding from successive provincial governments that have a sympathetic (provincial) political philosophy to that of the FQE's
The CFC is a national organization consisting of provincial associations. Do those provincial organizations get provincial monies? Yes. The OCA got two times from Trillium. ACA got too.
Anyway, chess should be recognized as a sport at first not by government but by ordinary people.
I mean that there are plenty of good things to say about chess other than saying "it is a sport" and as such it deserves funding. If government officials need to classify to allow funding, let them do it.
I happen to recall one of Jonathan Berry's posts from earlier in this thread (#49):
"To the world in general (e.g., the IOC), chess is a sport, but it's a tough sell in Canada. So, moving on to "other avenues" of government support, the federal-govt-message-that-the-CFC-didn't-want-to-hear (at least in the 1970s and 1980s) was that chess is a recreation and thus a provincial rather than federal field.
Embracing that idea can have exciting consequences. I wrote a longer reply, but "talking to the cat". I suppose that if anybody wants to discuss this, he or she could open a fresh thread"
To cut to the chase, the federal government back then, failing (or in spite of) a 'convincing' case made by the CFC for any sort of classification for chess, simply arbitrarily classed chess as a recreation (almost certainly as a convenient way to avoid doling out money for one more thing, such as chess, IMHO).
Decades later, the feds similarly arbitrarily decided the CFC didn't deserve charitable status anymore.
I think the CFC ought to continue to concentrate on trying to pull itself up mainly by its own bootstraps and not pin any of its major hopes on the tender mercies of federal governments. The CFC is not as lucky as the FQE, which gets funding from successive provincial governments that have a sympathetic (provincial) political philosophy to that of the FQE's.
Sponsorship, on the other hand, is something the CFC has much better hopes of obtaining than substantial federal dollars.
Leave a comment: