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.
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.
What about other kids who are top in the Country and think they also should be included in the Canadian team?
I think they have a right to be disappointed, because certain people in CFC decided to approve new to approve new motion and push own personal agenda and neglect them of their chance. The real reason is still unknown to us (maybe even discriminating certain young players). Certain CFC executives should be ashamed of themselves.
There really is no weird math going on here. Jean was absolutely correct with his math, because he used the word "chances".
The point is that saying they have 120 chances is meaningless. To me, weird math is math that has no practical application. The delegation had a chance to bring home 40 medals.
And David, please acknowledge that our "par" results are just what is to be expected in chess. It's just the way chess works.
Why wouldn't I acknowledge this? I have no problem with the results - I just think it's a bit silly to come on chesstalk and read 50 messages of people saying "exceptional result by the team!" when it was just an ok result.
Of course, even sillier is some guy claiming that sending just one or two more kids would have made all the difference. :D
Windsor sent 4 kids to the WYCC this year and I'm very proud of our kids.
I will echo those comments for the 3 Mississauga kids. In my eyes they all did very well. But I confess, I would still be proud of them all even if they lost every game. Now I realize that my last comment will horrify some, and definitely eliminates me from ever being on the WYCC coaching staff (not that that was ever a possibility), so be it.
I have played a dozen of these kids in tournaments. I am amazed at how quickly they learn the game, in direct contrast to how sometimes I need to unlearn some bad habits. The kids and their parents should be proud just to be competing at the World Youth Championships.
The point is that saying they have 120 chances is meaningless. To me, weird math is math that has no practical application. The delegation had a chance to bring home 40 medals.
It seems to me that only your last sentence is meaningless, and furthermore slightly misleading. There were actually 36 medals at stake. In any case with three medals in each age category, one should figure out that the total medal number should be a multiple of 3.
On the other hand, the 120 chances (40 chances to win one of three medals per category) may not tell everything, but it is certainly a figure to start evaluating the "team's" overall result. That is what was at stake : three medals in each category and a theoritical chance to win one of them.
It is only meaningless for those who believe that making an objective evaluation is unnecessary (which does not prevent them from calling the delegation's result "great" or "OK", based in both cases on thin air...). In that case any figure would be "meaningless".
What about other kids who are top in the Country and think they also should be included in the Canadian team?
I think they have a right to be disappointed, because certain people in CFC decided to approve new to approve new motion and push own personal agenda and neglect them of their chance. The real reason is still unknown to us (maybe even discriminating certain young players). Certain CFC executives should be ashamed of themselves.
As I said, there can be a pretty valid argument about the strength of the team.
What I think is unfair to criticize is the performance of the team given their ratings, especially in regards to medals.
As Jesse pointed out, WYCC is not about winning medals. I think it's about giving these kids chess memories that they'll have for years to come.
WYCC is not about winning medals. I think it's about giving these kids chess memories that they'll have for years to come.
Yes, you are correct. It is not just about winning medals. And it also should not be about discriminating talented juniors, especially from CFC Executives. Certain kids will not have certain memories for year to come. They will only remember, trying so hard to achieve their goals. Only to realize that they can’t go, because CFC Executives screwed up or maybe even worse discriminating certain juniors. Let’s face it they had plenty of time to fix this mess, but miserably failed.
Why would the national federation send players who were not "legit" contenders to a world championship?
IMHO, the term "send" is not accurate, "allowed" would be more appropriate. There is no requirement for players' strength if they participated in the CYCC.
IMHO, the term "send" is not accurate, "allowed" would be more appropriate. There is no requirement for players' strength if they participated in the CYCC.
Then why don't you answer the question instead of writing this babble?
Then why don't you answer the question instead of writing this babble?
Cause your question is wrong.
When the CFC will put its $ XXX XXX sum, and it will make sure that really only the bests go who are worth those monies and would contribute back by playing their best and competing for medals, then the CFC would "send".
Cause your question is wrong.
When the CFC will put its $ XXX XXX sum, and it will make sure that really only the bests go who are worth those monies and would contribute back by playing their best and competing for medals, then the CFC would "send".
It's not my question. I was replying to a question asked by Michael Yip.
Are you telling me the CFC allowed player to go to the world championship who would be "cannon fodder"? If that's the meaning then what happened is not a good thing.
All I know about this is what I read here and from Kevin's Blog.
IMHO, the term "send" is not accurate, "allowed" would be more appropriate. There is no requirement for players' strength if they participated in the CYCC.
What you're saying is not entirely consistent with what is in the CFC Handbook. According to rule 1012 (d), the "CFC Executive has the right to reject the application if the applicant's level at their discretion is significantly lower than the average level of his/her category at WYCC." In other words, the CFC reserves the right to act as a gatekeeper with regards to players who may wish to represent Canada at the WYCC. Personally I think this is quite appropriate.
I do, however, have some concern that the CFC appears to lack a formal appeal process with regards to such decisions. It is the norm for sporting bodies to have appeal policies and processes that are precisely stated. This is true for athletics, cycling, hockey, equine, triathlon, badminton... -- you name the sport and it has a formal appeal process. Given the acrimony over some recent decisions made by the CFC, an appeal process could be helpful. The Sport Resolution Centre of Canada has templates upon which appeal policies can built (http://www.crdsc-sdrcc.ca/eng/appeal-policies.jsp).
Steve is a Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC ) " supporter ", and he has presented this issue of proper appeal process to the CCC for them to consider taking an initiative on. CCC will be distributing internally Steve's materials on this early in the New Year and discussing it. We will then advise where we may go with it.
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.
Congratulations to the Windsor kids!
They qualified (or were allowed to participate) according to the rules set forth by the CFC and thus, I see absolutely no problem in them participating on a world's stage.
Tweet
Comment