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.
There were 3 things that might have been done to challenge the executive position on your Can. WYCC team issue:
1. The advance ruling given by the executive at the time of the Pan-American YCC, that playing in the Pan-Am would not be considered an extraordinary circumstance for not playing in the CYCC, should have been appealed; it wasn't.
...
Speaking as a third party, it seems clear that the problem was the executive's "advance ruling", as described by you. Really, what was the executive thinking? That dozens and dozens of players and their families would suddenly abandon the CYCC for the opportunity to play in the Pan-Ams? Ridiculous. Was propping up the CFC's money-sucking tournament really worth all of the disappointment and bitter feelings caused? All because 3 or 4 families wanted to try out the Pan-Ams? Pathetic.
"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
It would be unfair though to credit this to coaches "on site". There is only so much one can do during a tournament when there is no time to try to fix basic problems. The real important coaching stuff for players at that level takes place between events.
While I strongly agree with these statements, it is also important to recognize the presence of a calming and positive influence - be it a coach, sports psychologist, parent - can have a significant impact on young folks' psyche.
Bob, can you understand the difference between "medal" and "medal chances" ?
Jean, given that sentences such as this one are found quite frequently in your posts, is it possible that maybe, just maybe, the problem lies in how you communicate?
I have the same problem but that's because I am more intelligent than everyone else and simple people are incapable of understanding my deep and thoughtful ideas.
By the way, I do have old bridge to sell if you are ever interested. It links Brooklyn to Manhattan and it is guaranteed to make oodles of money for whomever buys it.
A classroom full of pupils can be more bonded at the end of the schoolyear but that does not make them a "team". A team is a group of people working together to reach a common goal.
At the WYCC, kids certainly had individual goals but was there a common goal on which to work with others? Was there a goal in terms of medals or top ten places or anything else ? Reading this thread makes it clear that there wasn't, otherwise no one would be satisfied with one medal. Without expectations or goals anything can be considered a "success".
Jean, maybe I'm confused but I don't understand the point you're trying to make.
Let's take it away from chess for a moment. When Canada sends athletes to the IAAF Championships (track and field), it sends a group of athletes to represent Canada in a host of different disciplines (sprinting, middle distance running, field events, etc.). This group of athletes is considered to be a team -- they are Team Canada. Athletics Canada gets its funding according to the total number of medals the team achieves. The aggregate performance of the team is the benchmark for the success or failure of the national organizing body.
It's not quite what we think of when we think of a team like in hockey, volleyball or whatever but the idea that a group of athletes represents Canada as a team in individual sports is quite a common one (athletics, skiing, swimming, cycling, weight lifting, judo, wrestling...).
In the "official" sports (which we can think of as those being part of the Olympic games), success or failure of a team is measured in terms of medals. A medal by one individual is indeed that individual's accomplishment but rightly or wrongly the glory from that medal also washes over the national sporting federation that represents Canada in that sport.
So from where I'm sitting Canada's players at the WYCC were a team. So what am I missing in what you're saying?
And as far as one medal being a good accomplishment, it depends what sport you're talking about. Canada is not a soccer country and has only qualified once for the 32-team World Cup Finals, so success for Canadian soccer is probably a whole pile less than winning the World Cup. In world junior hockey, Canada demands much more of its representatives -- anything less than gold is a disappointment. Chess is not a big deal here in Canada. A medal at the WYCC seems to be pretty good to me. And I'm sure that many other members of Canada's WYCC team played some excellent chess in Brazil.
Last edited by Steve Karpik; Wednesday, 30th November, 2011, 12:38 AM.
Speaking as a third party, it seems clear that the problem was the executive's "advance ruling", as described by you. Really, what was the executive thinking? That dozens and dozens of players and their families would suddenly abandon the CYCC for the opportunity to play in the Pan-Ams? Ridiculous. Was propping up the CFC's money-sucking tournament really worth all of the disappointment and bitter feelings caused? All because 3 or 4 families wanted to try out the Pan-Ams? Pathetic.
Setting aside his weird math re: medals, his point is valid. The results weren't anything spectacular. It can be a great learning experience and life adventure despite not being a fantastic result. It was an ok/in line with expectations result, and there's no reason to try to pretend it was otherwise.
Hi David,
There really is no weird math going on here. Jean was absolutely correct with his math, because he used the word "chances". Not to feud with you, I like you and all, but I would expect you, a poker guy, to understand this more than most people. This also corrects the post Roger Patterson made:
Each kid had ONE chance to win ONE medal with medal color TBD.
Roger, so sorry to have to correct you because your posts are usually dead-on. But each kid does, as Jean has said, have 3 chances to win 1 medal.
That's because at the beginning of the tournament, when they have a "perfect" record, they have a chance to win Gold. Let's say only a perfect record wins Gold because there's so many players in the section. As soon as our player loses or draws, the chance at the Gold is gone, but a chance at Silver or Bronze remains. Again, let's say anything worse than 1 loss or 2 draws eliminates anyone from Silver. So now our player continues playing, and only if s/he loses again or draws a couple of games does s/he lose chance at a Silver. But chances at a Bronze remain.
(end of response to Roger)
Yes, Jean is valid with his point that the results were pretty much inline with what was expected based on ratings and so on. And for Jean, I say, ok, so what? This is what chess is all about. Ratings are there because they project expected results. Results may vary a little but when there is no luck involved, results will ONLY vary a little. If you are going to expect miracles from our youngsters, achievements beyond what their ratings project, then I expect the same from you. And guess what, for the past 2 years, you haven't brought it. I've been following your results, and they are always inline with what ratings would project.
Maybe you, Jean, need some coaching. Might improve your attitude at the same time.
And David, please acknowledge that our "par" results are just what is to be expected in chess. It's just the way chess works.
As for all the money that was spent, if they all came back with medals, would Canada get some injection of cash from somewhere to put into chess? No, not likely. Things would just go on as they were. USA won Olympic hockey gold in 1980, "The Miracle On Ice". Did American hockey programs suddenly get new infusions of cash as a result? Probably not... anyways, USA hasn't done much since then in Olympic hockey, so it was a fluke and didnt' really change anything.
Canada will never be a chess power. The sooner Jean can accept this, the better.
Last edited by Paul Bonham; Wednesday, 30th November, 2011, 02:04 AM.
Reason: hit Enter key before I was done
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Your contribution to junior chess has been less the stellar, so you really should heed your own advice.....and get out of this scene!
You mean CFC Executives contribution to junior chess is getting less than stellar. CFC should need need advice of Jin Diaxin. Jin Diaxin organized most successful CYCC in Canadian History. I do not see CFC Executives and CFC Present doing same thing here. If they did, we would here is beyond chess talk. It is obvious here who needs to get out of the scene! I will give you a hint: it is not Jin Diaxin. I will let you figure this one out for yourself.
Good luck! :D
Last edited by Mikhail Egorov; Wednesday, 30th November, 2011, 09:53 AM.
Windsor sent 4 kids to the WYCC this year and I'm very proud of our kids.
There are more ways to evaluate a performance than just winning medals. If I were to enter a chess tournament where I'm the 10th seed, then I'm not going to be disappointed if I come 7th.
Every one of the Windsor kids had a performance rating above their CFC rating. For me, that shows that they actually did well. One of our kids had only started playing chess in the last year!
There can be an argument (and probably is), that Canada should have found stronger players to go to Brazil. That is an argument for others to have. For me, I just think it's unfair to be disappointed when 8 year old kids can go to a foreign country and still perform better than their rating would suggest they should.
Tweet
Comment