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.
This is just ridiculous, why would you make this reply public? Are you trying to show people how divisive Canadian chess is? We should be helping each other not bringing everyone around us down, Canadian Chess is hurting bad enough without personal arguments getting in the way of progress.
Mark can easily play much stronger than his rating suggests, as I've seen from my games with him the only reason he is inconsistent is he gets distracted and seems to want to focus on other matters instead, if he played and studied non-stop like Razvan I'm sure he'd do just as well if not better, especially since his father is an FM.
How about this dispute is just ended, it is pathetic for decent human beings to fight in such a petty manner and not over the board.
Also I'm sure we are all aware that if Victor and Mark played you and one of your students in a match the best you could hope for is a draw realistically since Victor has the ability to win the vast majority of encounters with you or any of your students.
I understand that Mr. Plotkin was the first one that got Mark involved. He thinks very highly of Mark, and expects very highly of Mark, and wants to see Mark do the best he can do, as a caring father. You, however, seem to think the exact opposite of Mark. It doesn't matter who involved who, but the fact remains, you put Mark down. Correct me if I'm wrong, but did Victor ever insult any of your students? Did Mark? I understand jealousy, and history may come into play here, but continuing to insult to make a point, can only make a situation worse, not better.
That's where your wrong, you can help me here. I couldn't care less about the dispute between you and Victor. I care about the fact that you would insult a JUNIOR's skill level. As far as putting down young chess players as they strive to develop into stronger players, I can't see how Victor could help in that department.
As far as putting me down goes, I can't see anything you could possibly gain. I'm 14, what are people going to think of a grown up man talking nonsense about kids?
Sorry, I didn't want to make it sound like it's in past tense. I meant to state that you are a successful coach that is respected by many adults and kids. You have a reputation of being with kids, and connecting with them. What I don't understand is why a guy like you, would act the exact opposite with mark, as to your students. This is why is why I'm disappointed and shocked, and the fact that it's Mark just makes me more uncomfortable, without voicing my opinion about this.
Discriminating kids, and kids parents? It is morally wrong and unnecessary. This is the whole topic I'm talking about, and why I'm making this post, because I'm against it. I'm not a bystander, and don't plan on being one any time soon.
You talk about seeing the whole picture before entering serious conversation. The way I see it, is you putting mark down, PUBLICLY. Whatever dispute you and Victor have is irrelevant to me. You can say anything you want, but putting down a kid on chesstalk for everyone to see shouldn't be tolerated, and an apology should be arranged.
These are the thoughts of a 14 year old Mike, now lets hear yours.
Zach
Hi Zach,
I do not have time to read your essay on this, so I will make this nice and short.
Mr. Plotkin thinks that some of us are idiots. So by you defending Mr. Plotkin and Mark is not helping any body, just making things worse. Mr. Plotkin apparently thinks he is better then most of us. Lets why came up with that post.
Just to enlighten you Zach, CFC is doing exactly same thing, and they doing it openly. You should start enlighten them on that matter first and just maybe chess in Canada will be going into right direction.
We should be helping each other not bringing everyone around us down, Canadian Chess is hurting bad enough without personal arguments getting in the way of progress.
Yes Adam, this is ridiculous! CFC officials should be doing something and not spending countless hours on chesstalk defending why they discriminate
talented juniors in Canada, country where they suppose to encourage instead.
Also, you forgot to mention that Mr. Plotkin thinks that he thinks that some of us are idiots. It is wrong of Mr. Plotkin it is pathetic for decent human beings to do so.
And my student got her WCM at the age of 8, so I fail to see your point Adam. Mr. Plotkin thinks that once he got his title in Canadian Closed (tournament where is it not that easy to that hard to do), he can call others idiots? Who gave him that right exactly?
It is also very bad manners to practice hijacking and stripping rights from our youth.
Chess should and not about backstabbing and punishing innocent minority, who don't deserve it in first place.
I don't see what outcome you are trying to achieve here. You are lashing out left and right at innocent parties. Two different though somewhat overlapping executive administrations composed of decent individuals chose to uphold principles and rules and agreements that were made. If it had been my decision Dora would have been able to play at the wycc but it wasn't. I can understand how and why they came to the decision that they did based on the rules, principles and agreements that were made even though I would have preferred that different rules and principles might have prevailed as you obviously would have liked as well.
The members of the executive did not back stab in this instance. They were up front and consistent in their approach and in the principles and rules that they chose to uphold.
In any case, the horse has left the barn so there is no point in berating them endlessly about it. The only outcome that I see in crying over spilt milk and beating this dead horse is that you are making people even more rigid in their adherence to the rule based approach that got us to this juncture.
“He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.” - Friedrich Nietzsche
I don't see what outcome you are trying to achieve here. You are lashing out left and right at innocent parties. Two different though somewhat overlapping executive administrations composed of decent individuals chose to uphold principles and rules and agreements that were made. If it had been my decision Dora would have been able to play at the wycc but it wasn't. I can understand how and why they came to the decision that they did based on the rules, principles and agreements that were made even though I would have preferred that different rules and principles might have prevailed as you obviously would have liked as well.
The members of the executive did not back stab in this instance. They were up front and consistent in their approach and in the principles and rules that they chose to uphold.
If you read my initial post to this thread, I was only answering to Mr. Plotkin ridiculous challenge, nothing more. Maybe some kid in elementary school will find his challenge interesting. I find it rather amusing. :D
In any case, the horse has left the barn so there is no point in berating them endlessly about it.
When you refer to horse, do you refer to CFC Executives? In that case, yes horse has left the barn, but the mess is still there, with no one to clean it up after. That is the sad part.
Because someone with a patser rating teaches doesn't make him a judge of talent.
So you saying, when you reach 2100 it's a patzer rating lol? Is this a new motion passed by CFC, that I missed?
There is a lot of people at our club who would be offended by you thoughts. They consider themselves experts. You are welcome to come and share your thoughts with them. :D
So what does it make you and CFC Executives look like with 1800s rating? Complete beginners?
So, complete beginners are running CFC according to your logic, and they make the decision who is talented junior or not. Also, who gets to go to represent Canada internationally. Brilliant!
I do not have time to read your essay on this, so I will make this nice and short.
Mr. Plotkin thinks that some of us are idiots. So by you defending Mr. Plotkin and Mark is not helping any body, just making things worse. Mr. Plotkin apparently thinks he is better then most of us. Lets why came up with that post.
Just to enlighten you Zach, CFC is doing exactly same thing, and they doing it openly. You should start enlighten them on that matter first and just maybe chess in Canada will be going into right direction.
When you get the time then you should, because I put time and effort into that to stress my reasoning.
I'm not sure how many times I have to say this, but I do not care about the dispute between you and Victor. I'm not defending Victor. Whatever tension exists between you and Victor needs to be resolved amongst yourselves. However, by bringing Mark into your argument with Victor, I automatically have the right to defend him. Just because you are under the impression that Victor believes he is better than you, doesn't mean Mark feels the same way, and he didn't deserve those words you presented.
For some reason you're under the impression I'm making things worse. That may be true, but if you felt this strongly about a situation, issuing it publicly was not the smartest decision. You're making it open for anyone to voice their opinion, and as a first instinct, defending a friend seems like the right way to go.
I strongly suggest you delete this thread. I am sure Mark has read this, and he is upset that you would say such things. You should find the time to apologize to Mark, and if you feel just as angry about this topic, discuss it privately with Victor. By posting this on chesstalk you are asking for drama, and thus, YOU SIR, are making things worse.
I apologize for being blunt, but this is how I see it. Sorry if I offended you Mike, but again, I don't like watching a friend take those kind of words. You can disregard this post and go on ranting, but just know you aren't helping anyone. All your doing is making it look like your trying to cook up drama, and to other people that sends a poor message.
This is unlike you Mike, and I think you should take these words into consideration, and I think most would agree with me.
So you saying, when you reach 2100 it's a patzer rating lol? Is this a new motion passed by CFC, that I missed?
There is a lot of people at our club who would be offended by you thoughts. They consider themselves experts. You are welcome to come and share your thoughts with them. :D
So what does it make you and CFC Executives look like with 1800s rating? Complete beginners?
So, complete beginners are running CFC according to your logic, and they make the decision who is talented junior or not. Also, who gets to go to represent Canada internationally. Brilliant!
This is what I mean Mike, it seems you are intentionally trying to brew up drama and get people mad. Sheesh.
So you saying, when you reach 2100 it's a patzer rating lol? Is this a new motion passed by CFC, that I missed?
There is a lot of people at our club who would be offended by you thoughts. They consider themselves experts. You are welcome to come and share your thoughts with them. :D
So what does it make you and CFC Executives look like with 1800s rating? Complete beginners?
So, complete beginners are running CFC according to your logic, and they make the decision who is talented junior or not. Also, who gets to go to represent Canada internationally. Brilliant!
The CFC executives are organizers. They get to make the decisions according to the rules and qualifications.
If you complained like this when I was organizing you would have to find some other organization because I didn't put up with this nonsense. Everyone who knows me from my organizing days knows this.
I think you have a misconception. The executive did not say Ms. Liu was not talented - they likely agreed fully that she would have been a great addition to the team.
But under the rules as they then existed, she simply did not qualify. And they were unwilling to depart from the rules to make a solitary and arbitrary exception.
We all agree that it is unfortunate she could not qualify for the team under the then rules.
Tweet
Comment