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.
15. Have fun!
(Thanks to Nigel Hanrahan for writing these up!)
Some interesting numbers about Canaian performance at WYCC-2012
Maybe we should open the floodgates and allow anyone to go to WYCC ? As long as they can move the pieces and have fun. FIDE allows it after all.
you are presumably being sarcastic. But really why not? It is FIDE's responsibility to define the goals, terms, and allowed participation in THEIR tournament. You might disagree with their objectives and/or rules but it's not your decision.
We don't for example talk about restricting players from going to the World Open (as if we could). If FIDE, despite the name of the WYCC wishes to allow all comers and basically make it a "junior open", it's their choice.
Re: Some interesting numbers about Canaian performance at WYCC-2012
I don't have a big problem with FIDE's rules. I just think Canada's emphasis on WYCC is very misguided. Pan-Ams and NAYCC are much more suited and appropriate for the majority. They happen to be cheaper and more convenient also. Most parents aren't very aware of the international choices for their kids.
. Pan-Ams and NAYCC are much more suited and appropriate for the majority. They happen to be cheaper and more convenient also. Most parents aren't very aware of the international choices for their kids.
could be. They also don't conflict with school time. But I guess WYCC has a better brand name and marketing :-)
Re: Some interesting numbers about Canaian performance at WYCC-2012
Over representation of weak countries won't be too big of a problem because the vast majority of them happen to be in too poor economic standing to afford a large team. Canada is more of an exception. So FIDE's rules aren't ideal but they aren't ruining the event yet. But as has been noted WYCC has been getting progressively less important and weaker for the older age groups. It seems the peak was the late 90's early 2000's when most top youth would participate. It's still a great event though.
It is FIDE's responsibility to define the goals, terms, and allowed participation in THEIR tournament.
FIDE transfer a responsibility of restrictions to national federations ("each federation shall be entitled to register any number of participants it deems necessary"). The CFC, a federation of a free country (right to live and work (play) anywhere) does not put much restrictions just protects its national championship (players are filtered through the CYCC).
If FIDE, despite the name of the WYCC wishes to allow all comers and basically make it a "junior open", it's their choice.
Another official names for these championships are FESTIVALs ;) ("The World Youth Chess Festival for Peace") Thus, its goal is to attract as much as possible, especially those who can pay.
You are absolutely correct! FIDE is doing great job promoting the game to youth.
If only, CFC Executives would do start doing same thing, instead of wasting time NOT allowing top juniors to participate in WYCC.
I believe that Eric was being sarcastic about FIDE. FIDE has turned Youth championships into money making schemes designed to extract as much as possible from federations and parents. Chess strenght is no longer an important qualification for participants, especially for those from the third world of chess that includes Canada. The CFC has just followed suits blindly doing the same with its CYCC. If you can pay, you can play.
Last edited by Jean Hébert; Wednesday, 7th December, 2011, 09:38 AM.
I believe that Eric was being sarcastic about FIDE. FIDE has turned Youth championships into money making schemes designed to extract as much as possible from federations and parents. Chess strenght in no longer an important qualification for participants, especially for those from the third world of chess that includes Canada. The CFC has just followed suits blindly doing the same with its CYCC. If you can pay, you can play.
Yes, I know. Also, at the same time Eric raised a good point!
you mad bro? Have you ever competed in a world championship in anything other than trolling? There are thousands of other tournaments where you can do that. I hope you can tell the difference.
Maybe we should open the floodgates and allow anyone to go to WYCC ? As long as they can move the pieces and have fun. FIDE allows it after all. We happen to have most parents in a financial situation who can afford to send their kids on chess vacations. Kids in most countries aren't that fortunate. What we lack in results we can make up in numbers :D
First of all, I'm not trolling. This is an issue I care about and I'm expressing my opinion. It may seem to you that I was just trying to get a reaction out of you, but it's really just my feelings on this are very strong. I don't want kids used as pawns in a scheme to get government funding of chess. The East Germans thought vast government support of Olympic sports would lead to such glory as to help overcome the West Germans. Athletes were used as pawns in that case too, probably injected with steroids despite not knowing long term effects. And where did it get East Germany?
If it prevents one kid from lifelong mental instability, then yes, open the floodgates. Why pretend that 8 year old kids can even properly conceptualize "World Championships" let alone handle the pressure to win like adults? Of course, if government funding is the goal, kids be damned, that's your attitude, and Hebert is lapping it up, dollar signs in his eyes.
In our society, we don't allow participation in some things until age 16 or 18 or 21. Things like driving or alcohol consumption. Handling the pressure of a "World Championship" in an individual event, especially an event where success is equated to mental superiority and failure is or can be equated to mental ineptitude, should probably be in that category.
But you're all about the funding. And as the world sees more teenage GMs like Carlsen, kids become more exploitable in the eyes of people like you. And you have the perfect pretext: "Kids need to learn to compete". All seeming to make perfect sense. And then, when some teenager goes on a shooting rampage in a high school, or an adult who has seemingly been normal for years and years suddenly blows up a building with lots of people inside, we all gasp and say "Why? What went wrong?"
Kids do need to learn to compete... but I say in team sports only, and even then, with lots of coaching and appreciation of even the less talented. Above learning to compete, kids need to be nurtured.
Yeah, I'm upset, "bro". Upset that selfish people like you can swindle people into forgetting about the fragility of children.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Relax, this is a complete overreaction and offensive. The goal in chess is to checkmate the opponents king. In other words to win. Eric's point is that the government is not overly interested in paying for the vacation of a child that doesn't produce results.
What is the contribution to Canadian society for something like this? It is rather tenuous. Sorry, but a kid that is moderately good at chess doesn't deserve to travel to Greece or Turkey or wherever with taxpayer dime more than any other kid.
Competition is a natural, healthy thing, yes even for 8 year olds. I think we all realize that we are talking about a board game here, and if somebody hinges their self-esteem or sense of self worth on how well they do at it, than it's just sad, I mean step back and put things in perspective.
People should play chess as long as they enjoy it. I happen to enjoy it more when I am winning, and I think everybody else does as well. This does not mean that I cannot deal with losing or that wanting to win and be successful automatically equates to a "win at all costs" attitude. It does not, never has, never will.
Of course competition is a natural thing, and of course it is part of chess. I'm not suggesting to take competition out of chess. What I am seeing in this thread and a few others, however, is a scheme on the part of some to use these kids as pawns in the overall objective of bringing government money into Canadian chess. Use coaches like Hebert to first of all $$$ weed out the weaker kids $$$, then (and this is the part I object to) $$$ take the ones that are talented and whip them into medal-winning shape $$$, presumably using whatever techniques are necessary. You have to understand that there is really no consideration of the kid here. The kid is just a tool used to secure a medal, and ultimately government funding.
It's fine for you to talk about how you can accept losing. It's not fine for you to suppose that all others can likewise handle it. People are different. Just one kid being ruined by chess stress is one too many. But there are ways to let kids enjoy chess, in the way that kids are meant to enjoy it. Do not glorify the winners and relegate the losers. Pay attention to the losers, let them know that it's just chess and losing is not indicative of their overall potential in life.
Understand that I'm not just concerned for the kids with weak chess talent, who will be weeded out. They would be the lucky ones in this scheme. It is the talented ones who I am worried for, because they aren't always going to perform up to their abilities, and are even less likely to if they don't know how to handle stress and pressure. The ones who fail to live up to standards despite talent are the ones who will know the deepest disappointment and will possibly be psychologically injured for the rest of their lives. But as long as the majority do well and bring home the glory, the money will roll in and Hebert and his cronies will raise a toast to success.
Do you really find this offensive, that I might think about the kids in this scheme? It is the whole scheme that is offensive. The ones who promote this scheme might just as well be advocating repeal of child labor laws, as long as it puts money in their pockets. The kids will be working for them, all under the pretext of "healthy competition".
And the results, the medals, while they may bring taxpayer money into chess, don't actually mean anything. It's all a distortion of reality, and the reality is that the ULTIMATE winning chess is only practiced by computers today, and no human can any longer reach that level. Does this mean that humans should hand over everything to computing machines? Thank goodness that we adults understand reality better than that. But some kid somewhere who loves chess but is failing at it is not going to get that concept because his or her coach is stressing winning as everything. Losers get discarded and ignored. For that kid, there is no concept of a more complete reality: that kid's reality is that chess is all that matters and s/he sucks at chess. Life may go on for that kid, but permanent damage has been done. All for lack of proper coaching.
For the record, I am against any taxpayer money ever going into chess in any way, shape or form. I am going to write various levels of Canadian government and appeal to them to avoid any involvement in organized chess. I will cite these threads, and specifically the ones from Hansen and Hebert showing how they salivate at the prospect of using these kids.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Re: Some interesting numbers about Canaian performance at WYCC-2012
Paul you keep mentioning the dangers of children being fragile and developing lifelong mental instability as a result of too much pressure to win? Can you point me to any academic studies that have been done documenting this phenomenon?
First of all, I'm not trolling. This is an issue I care about and I'm expressing my opinion. It may seem to you that I was just trying to get a reaction out of you, but it's really just my feelings on this are very strong. I don't want kids used as pawns in a scheme to get government funding of chess. The East Germans thought vast government support of Olympic sports would lead to such glory as to help overcome the West Germans. Athletes were used as pawns in that case too, probably injected with steroids despite not knowing long term effects. And where did it get East Germany?
If it prevents one kid from lifelong mental instability, then yes, open the floodgates. Why pretend that 8 year old kids can even properly conceptualize "World Championships" let alone handle the pressure to win like adults? Of course, if government funding is the goal, kids be damned, that's your attitude, and Hebert is lapping it up, dollar signs in his eyes.
In our society, we don't allow participation in some things until age 16 or 18 or 21. Things like driving or alcohol consumption. Handling the pressure of a "World Championship" in an individual event, especially an event where success is equated to mental superiority and failure is or can be equated to mental ineptitude, should probably be in that category.
But you're all about the funding. And as the world sees more teenage GMs like Carlsen, kids become more exploitable in the eyes of people like you. And you have the perfect pretext: "Kids need to learn to compete". All seeming to make perfect sense. And then, when some teenager goes on a shooting rampage in a high school, or an adult who has seemingly been normal for years and years suddenly blows up a building with lots of people inside, we all gasp and say "Why? What went wrong?"
Kids do need to learn to compete... but I say in team sports only, and even then, with lots of coaching and appreciation of even the less talented. Above learning to compete, kids need to be nurtured.
Yeah, I'm upset, "bro". Upset that selfish people like you can swindle people into forgetting about the fragility of children.
Of course competition is a natural thing, and of course it is part of chess. I'm not suggesting to take competition out of chess. What I am seeing in this thread and a few others, however, is a scheme on the part of some to use these kids as pawns in the overall objective of bringing government money into Canadian chess. Use coaches like Hebert to first of all $$$ weed out the weaker kids $$$, then (and this is the part I object to) $$$ take the ones that are talented and whip them into medal-winning shape $$$, presumably using whatever techniques are necessary. You have to understand that there is really no consideration of the kid here. The kid is just a tool used to secure a medal, and ultimately government funding.
It's fine for you to talk about how you can accept losing. It's not fine for you to suppose that all others can likewise handle it. People are different. Just one kid being ruined by chess stress is one too many. But there are ways to let kids enjoy chess, in the way that kids are meant to enjoy it. Do not glorify the winners and relegate the losers. Pay attention to the losers, let them know that it's just chess and losing is not indicative of their overall potential in life.
Understand that I'm not just concerned for the kids with weak chess talent, who will be weeded out. They would be the lucky ones in this scheme. It is the talented ones who I am worried for, because they aren't always going to perform up to their abilities, and are even less likely to if they don't know how to handle stress and pressure. The ones who fail to live up to standards despite talent are the ones who will know the deepest disappointment and will possibly be psychologically injured for the rest of their lives. But as long as the majority do well and bring home the glory, the money will roll in and Hebert and his cronies will raise a toast to success.
Do you really find this offensive, that I might think about the kids in this scheme? It is the whole scheme that is offensive. The ones who promote this scheme might just as well be advocating repeal of child labor laws, as long as it puts money in their pockets. The kids will be working for them, all under the pretext of "healthy competition".
And the results, the medals, while they may bring taxpayer money into chess, don't actually mean anything. It's all a distortion of reality, and the reality is that the ULTIMATE winning chess is only practiced by computers today, and no human can any longer reach that level. Does this mean that humans should hand over everything to computing machines? Thank goodness that we adults understand reality better than that. But some kid somewhere who loves chess but is failing at it is not going to get that concept because his or her coach is stressing winning as everything. Losers get discarded and ignored. For that kid, there is no concept of a more complete reality: that kid's reality is that chess is all that matters and s/he sucks at chess. Life may go on for that kid, but permanent damage has been done. All for lack of proper coaching.
For the record, I am against any taxpayer money ever going into chess in any way, shape or form. I am going to write various levels of Canadian government and appeal to them to avoid any involvement in organized chess. I will cite these threads, and specifically the ones from Hansen and Hebert showing how they salivate at the prospect of using these kids.
Tweet
Comment