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 it is, not too much learning, not too much winning, but still a pretty large amount of money spent, in order to meet low or no expectations at all.
As a parent I have to agree with Jean. My son played 9 games because FIDE decided to change the format from 11 rounds to 9 after we booked our flights. He won 4 games, drew 3 and lost 2 so he had only 5 games to learn from. The total cost to play in WYCC was $5,500 so a "good" game end up costing $1100. For this money he could play hundreds of "good" games in Canada or get lots of training hours with a GM. Somebody told me that if a chess player studies and has a good coach he has more chances to become a GM than winning the WYCC. In 2003 Carlsen (IM at that time) played in the U14 and came 9th, behind Maxime Vachier-Lagrave, Ian Nepomniachtchi, Hao Wang
For us this was the first WYCC. It was a great experience and overall extremely satisfying. My son had a great time and I think this is what matters most.
I'd like to thank Andrew Giblon (head of the delegation) and Gary Gladstone (assistant of the head of delegation) for everything they done for the team. You won't believe how much time and effort they spent to organize the team and make sure all players and coaches have a room in the first night (the organizers run out of rooms in the hotel we booked). Also I'd like to thank Patrick McDonald (for doing a great job as a Youth Coordinator) and 2011 CYCC organizing commitee (for the decision to give money prizes to 2nd and 3rd places at CYYC).
Last edited by Rene Preotu; Monday, 5th December, 2011, 10:35 PM.
Reason: correction
As a parent I have to agree with Jean. My son played 9 games because FIDE decided to change the format from 11 rounds to 9 after we booked our flights. He won 4 games, drew 3 and lost 2 so he had only 5 games to learn from. The total cost to play in WYCC was $5,500 so a "good" game end up costing $1100. For this money he could play hundreds of "good" games in Canada or get lots of training hours with a GM. Somebody told me that if a chess player studies and has a good coach he has more chances to become a GM than winning the WYCC. In 2003 Carlsen (IM at that time) played in the U14 and came 9th, behind Maxime Vachier-Lagrave, Ian Nepomniachtchi, Hao Wang
For us this was the first WYCC. It was a great experience and overall extremely satisfying. My son had a great time and I think this is what matters most.
I'd like to thank Andrew Giblon (head of the delegation) and Gary Gladstone (assistant of the head of delegation) for everything they done for the team. You won't believe how much time and effort they spent to organize the team and make sure all players and coaches have a room in the first night (the organizers run out of rooms in the hotel we booked). Also I'd like to thank Patrick McDonald (for doing a great job as a Youth Coordinator) and Victor Itkin (for his decision to give money prizes to 2nd and 3rd places at CYYC).
It's amazing how many interesting names were in that U14 field from 2003. Perhaps we could ask Raja Panjwani how he felt about his experience there (he finished 50th), but now is an IM, with still lots of time left for continued improvement.
It's amazing how many interesting names were in that U14 field from 2003. Perhaps we could ask Raja Panjwani how he felt about his experience there (he finished 50th), but now is an IM, with still lots of time left for continued improvement.
2003 was right in the middle of the strongest years of WYCC. I remember after the event Tyomkin posted the Canadian team had disappointing results ( sound familiar ? ).
1) CFC should spend more money on training the kids before send them to Wycc. If you want Canada to do better plan ahead. Once the team is selected setup a schedule training and coaching at least two month.
2) Kids who tie for 2nd and 3rd place and went to Brazil did not get any funding from surplus money? These are qualified players to represent Canada and not get any funding ?
(c)As for debating skills, thanks for telling me what to think.
I didn't tell you what to think, I only advised you of the logical fallacy of your argument. It's a well known flaw that many people commit, called a straw man.
The fact that you took insult to this only further convinces me that you are one of those chess people whose mind has been hardened to believe there is nothing anyone can teach or advise you.
Interesting... a chess teacher who teaches others how to maximize results, and cannot be taught how to maximize his own results.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Interesting... a chess teacher who teaches others how to maximize results, and cannot be taught how to maximize his own results.
Is this what you call an advise to logical fallacy of Michael Yip argument lol.
If this is not an insult, I do not know what is.
I wonder what Mr. Gillanders and his cronies would think, when they hear. Most likely they will support you and congratulate you on a your wonderful comments!
General public should not be the one pointing Mr. Gillanders and his cronies on their mistakes. They should realize it on their own, since they are running the office. In fact, when general chess public consistently points it out to them, proves to us that CFC office is in terrible shape.
It is also interesting…. that certain officials who criticize others about maximum results, can’t accomplish it on their own.
Is this what you call an advise to logical fallacy of Michael Yip argument lol.
If this is not an insult, I do not know what is.
I wonder what Mr. Gillanders and his cronies would think, when they hear. Most likely they will support you and congratulate you on a your wonderful comments!
General public should not be the one pointing Mr. Gillanders and his cronies on their mistakes. They should realize it on their own, since they are running the office. In fact, when general chess public consistently points it out to them, proves to us that CFC office is in terrible shape.
It is also interesting…. that certain officials who criticize others about maximum results, can’t accomplish it on their own.
This is not an insult, but a reality!
Paul Bonham is not a representative of the CFC - in fact, he is not a current CFC member,
so I have no idea what you are on about.
Your endless carping about the CFC Executive and the "CFC Office" is far past the point of tiresome (you do realize the office is one person who is on contract to manage inquiries, ratings etc?)
YES, we get it: you are Dora's coach, you are clearly pushing her (and her Mother's) efforts in everyone's face at every opportunity and, YES, we understand that you and Dora and Dora's mother are still upset about the fact that Dora was denied an opportunity ... Enough already.
Paul Bonham is not a representative of the CFC - in fact, he is not a current CFC member,
so I have no idea what you are on about.
YES, we get it: you are Dora's coach, you are clearly pushing her (and her Mother's) efforts in everyone's face at every opportunity and, YES, we understand that you and Dora and Dora's mother are still upset about the fact that Dora was denied an opportunity ... Enough already.
You do not have to be part of CFC to support them. Who knows maybe Mr. Gillanders promised a nice warm spot in CFC office.
YES, we also get it: that you and Mr. Gillanders are very good friends and you support him and CFC policies in any way. WE GET IT. We all understand that Mr. Gillanders and his cronies is not doing the job, CFC was initially setup to do, when CFC was established.. Actually with latest actions doing quite the opposite!
He probably will come out anytime time, calling me names and such. What else can we expect now?
...
Your endless carping about the CFC Executive and the "CFC Office" is far past the point of tiresome (you do realize the office is one person who is on contract to manage inquiries, ratings etc?)
YES, we get it: you are Dora's coach, you are clearly pushing her (and her Mother's) efforts in everyone's face at every opportunity and, YES, we understand that you and Dora and Dora's mother are still upset about the fact that Dora was denied an opportunity ... Enough already.
Kerry, perhaps what is needed here is:
1) for someone on the CFC executive to 'man up' to the fact that the CFC made a decision that needlessly placed the organization's rules and self-interest ahead of a child's interests and development opportunities;
2) for someone on the CFC executive to confirm that, given the learning experience from this unhappy incident, they'll aim to do a better job in future.
Regards,
Pete "not holding my breath" McKillop
"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
Your endless carping about the CFC Executive and the "CFC Office" is far past the point of tiresome (you do realize the office is one person who is on contract to manage inquiries, ratings etc?)
If ,CFC Executives did their job no one would keep remind them about what they had and should do. That part was not very difficult, ANY kid could do it!
You do not have to be part of CFC to support them. Who knows maybe Mr. Gillanders promised a nice warm spot in CFC office.
YES, we also get it: You and Mr. Gillanders are very good friends and you support him and CFC policies in any way. WE GET IT. We all understand that Mr. Gillanders and his cronies is not doing the job, CFC was initially setup to do, when CFC was established.. Actually with latest actions doing quite the opposite!
He probably will come out anytime time, calling me names and such. What else can we expect now?
Sure, Bob and I are friends. I cannot say I always agreed with every decision he or the CFC have taken, and NO, I do not blindly support the CFC in every way.
Implying that he (or anyone) promised Bonham a spot in the office (even as a very bad joke) is ridiculous beyond belief.
There is a way to effect change - either take that route or be prepared for others to make decisions.
1) for someone on the CFC executive to 'man up' to the fact that the CFC made a decision that needlessly placed the organization's rules and self-interest ahead of a child's interests and development opportunities;
2) for someone on the CFC executive to confirm that, given the learning experience from this unhappy incident, they'll aim to do a better job in future.
Regards,
Pete "not holding my breath" McKillop
If I recall, the decision of the Executive in the "Dora case" was unanimous (perhaps I am only dreaming that it was a unanimous decision?). In any case, since most or all of the Executive agreed, it seems unlikely they would now say anything like that.
Do you have any indication that anyone who made that decision now regrets it? I don't recall seeing that in either the former or current Executive.
In fact, given the negative backlash about the Canadian contingent at the WYCC being "quantity over quality" etc, I would think that the CFC should work toward even stricter rules for qualification.
If I recall, the decision of the Executive in the "Dora case" was unanimous (perhaps I am only dreaming that it was a unanimous decision?). In any case, since most or all of the Executive agreed, it seems unlikely they would now say anything like that.
It is funny how you keep mentioning her name only, when there were also 2 top juniors involved in this mess, that was created by CFC office last February.
Sure, Bob and I are friends. I cannot say I always agreed with every decision he or the CFC have taken, and NO, I do not blindly support the CFC in every way.
Implying that he (or anyone) promised Bonham a spot in the office (even as a very bad joke) is ridiculous beyond belief.
Nothing is impossible here. CFC has definitely proven that. Who knew that penalizing talented juniors would be on Mr. Gillanders and CFC agenda. Now this is ridiculous beyond belief!
Last edited by Mikhail Egorov; Wednesday, 7th December, 2011, 12:22 PM.
Kerry, perhaps what is needed here is:
[INDENT]1) for someone on the CFC executive to 'man up' to the fact that the CFC made a decision that needlessly placed the organization's rules and self-interest ahead of a child's interests and development opportunities;
Hi Peter:
I'm not on the executive, but can speak personally as a governor.
1. The executive as far as I am aware, has unanimously backed the then Youth Coordinator, Michael Barron, in his presentation of the advance ruling re exceptions for the top three rated, that playing in the Pan-American YCC would NOT be considered an " extraordinary " cirucmstance for not playing in the CYCC. Therefore, such junior would not play on the Can. WYCC team.
2. This ruling was not appealed by any aggrieved party nor any governor.
3. Mikhail's request for a review of the decision by the executive at the time was denied ( I believe unanimously ).
4. Any public pressure to have the executive review this advance ruling failed, and there was little of that at the time.
5. After the Pan-Am, and after the CYCC, only 1 of the top three juniors applied to be on the team by exception, Dora Liu. This application was denied by the executive ( unanimously to my knowledge ) based on the advance ruling.
6. Neither Dora's mother, nor her coach, nor any governor appealed this decision, or brought a motion to the governors on this, though there was the Oct. Fall Meeting to do this before the WYCC.
7. Public pressure to have the application for exception reviewed by the executive failed.
8. I think the executive and the governors ( the majority at least ) have spoken clearly and consistently on this issue, and believe they are right.
9. I think the advance ruling is wrong. Playing in the Pan-Am's or any international tournament, representing Canada, that conflicts with the CYCC should be an exception for the top three rated.
10. I think the executive made a correct decision on the Liu application for exception. Other juniors abided by and relied on the advance ruling, and did not attend the Pan-Ams, when they initially had been interested in going. So to fail to follow the advance ruling, in my view, in the Liu application, and granting it, would have appeared arbitrary at the least, and would have aggrieved others, and been more harmful than making the decision made, and upholding the original ruling, and being consistent and enforcing the rules ( though admittedly it is unfortunate for Dora; but by the same token, there was full knowledge before she went to the Pan-Ams, that she would not be able to play on the Can. WYCC team, and this was accepted at the time in writing by Dora's mother ).
11. I think there is a problem as well that there is not in the Handbook a clear appeal process for denied team members to use. It exists in most other sports, and is promoted by the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada. I think CFC has to do some reform here.
12. I think that the governors have to review the policy now in place: playing for Canada in an international tournament by one of the top three rated, that conflicts with the CYCC, is not an " extraordinary " circumstance, allowing an exception, and such junior cannot play on the Can. WYCC team.
Tweet
Comment