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.
They may exist, but can you name me one tournament where the top section is self sufficient?
Easy enough. For more than 20 years the "Championnat ouvert de la Mauricie" has had 5 or 6 sections with about equal prizes in every one of them. The best formula to figure out who is paying for whom. Almost every year there are more players (sometimes twice as much!) in the top section than in the under 2000 section. Who is subsidizing whom here ? Clearly the top section is more self sufficient than one and generally more than one lower section. And this happens year after year. It is not about "generosity", it is about ill-conceived formulas that many players of all levels find senseless.
Factually false from beginning to end. As to the "most valuable" contribution of those strong players, I don't particularly care for the hero worship thing personally. You overstate their importance and contribution and denigrate those you consider beneath you.
You should think twice before writing such garbage on a message board. It is not because we see things from different perspectives that my facts or your facts (which ones by the way ?) are "false from beginning to end".
It is not denigrating anybody to state, for example,the obvious that Garri Kasparov's contribution to chess stands well above Roger Patterson's or mine. Your "hero worship" theory simply uncovers jealousy and pettiness. It is simply unbearable for many to feel mediocre in just about every endeavours in their lives. They hate anything that ressembles excellence and call it "hero worship" or such.
As to the "most valuable" contribution of those strong players, I don't particularly care for the hero worship thing personally. You overstate their importance and contribution and denigrate those you consider beneath you.
My own personal experiences with a pair of supposed "hero" Canadian players (international titles) at a couple of events I organized in the mid-2000s basically turned me off wanting to be an event organizer at all, so I went with just being an arbiter at events others organized.
I don't think either of those players plays anymore either but I don't personally miss their "contributions" ...
Swiss tournaments are actually pretty cheap, with just a $2.20 FIDE rating fee (if I remember correctly).
A round-robin is expensive ($100 FIDE rating fee, covering all players), and is best 9 rounds (guaranteeing a FIDE rating for everyone after), so 10 players. At least this can be done with none previously rated.
It is necessary to organize a Swiss with many rounds and at the end get almost RR and pay only Swiss fees :D
10 players -> 22$ in swiss
It is necessary to organize a Swiss with many rounds and at the end get almost RR and pay only Swiss fees :D
10 players -> 22$ in swiss
The problem is they require it to be RR to get the "everyone gets rated" bonus.
In a Swiss, only games against currently rated players count, and since there are likely to be less than 9 rounds, or even if 9, less than that against FIDE rated opposition, you can't guarantee a FIDE rating after.
Easy enough. For more than 20 years the "Championnat ouvert de la Mauricie" has had 5 or 6 sections with about equal prizes in every one of them. The best formula to figure out who is paying for whom. Almost every year there are more players (sometimes twice as much!) in the top section than in the under 2000 section. Who is subsidizing whom here ? Clearly the top section is more self sufficient than one and generally more than one lower section. And this happens year after year. It is not about "generosity", it is about ill-conceived formulas that many players of all levels find senseless.
Hi Jean:
In the past I've promoted the " Level Playing Field " prize distribution.
Each section pools its own entry fees. Each section pays a percentage of all tournament expenses, so that all are covered. The balance of fees left in the section are the prize fund.
The section with the most players gets the biggest prize fund!
In the past I've promoted the " Level Playing Field " prize distribution.
Each section pools its own entry fees. Each section pays a percentage of all tournament expenses, so that all are covered. The balance of fees left in the section are the prize fund.
The section with the most players gets the biggest prize fund!
Any problem with this?
Bob A
Forget it. Just stating it is a terrible thing, let alone applied consistently. There is only one fair way to distribute prizes in chess tournaments : according to chess merits. Nobody should complain about the money distributed in an Open section. The prizes are available to anyone good enough to earn them. Nobody should complain about the prizes given in a top restricted section. If one feels that his money is badly spent entering such an event, he can spend it elsewhere or he can work to become good enough to enter such a restricted top section. Class sections should exist mainly if not exclusively to provide a more balanced competition, not to give away money to less deserving players.
Why do you insist on literally staging wars against our top players and marginalising them in every which way possible ? Your line of thinking would spell the end for the few top players that we still have, and the best guarantee for a continued decline for chess in this country which would hurt everyone, from top to bottom.
I am sorry to say that it is extremely disappointed to hear such a simplistic and thoughtless scheme from someone who has been involved in chess for so long. It seems that all these years have been wasted if all they could produce is such nonsense.
In the past I've promoted the " Level Playing Field " prize distribution.
Each section pools its own entry fees. Each section pays a percentage of all tournament expenses, so that all are covered. The balance of fees left in the section are the prize fund.
The section with the most players gets the biggest prize fund!
Any problem with this?
Bob A
no doubt Jean confused you when he used the most successful weekend tournament in Canada as an example of how things should not be done....
no doubt Jean confused you when he used the most successful weekend tournament in Canada as an example of how things should not be done....
Wouldn't that depend on the definition of "successful"?
There are a number of different sets of goals among chess players - after reading this far in this thread I fail to see how any agreement can be brokered (not to mention the question of who could accomplish any such reunification).
Easy enough. For more than 20 years the "Championnat ouvert de la Mauricie" has had 5 or 6 sections with about equal prizes in every one of them. The best formula to figure out who is paying for whom. Almost every year there are more players (sometimes twice as much!) in the top section than in the under 2000 section. Who is subsidizing whom here ? Clearly the top section is more self sufficient than one and generally more than one lower section. And this happens year after year. It is not about "generosity", it is about ill-conceived formulas that many players of all levels find senseless.
Well maybe, but your evidence is far from conclusive. It sounds like the organizers goal maybe to return in prizes that sections entry fees less an appropriate share of the expenses. Maybe along the lines of the Armstrong "level playing field" scenario. Do any of the top section players receive appearance fees or free entry? Perhaps if you factor that in, the top section is "on par" with the other sections. Maybe yes, maybe no, I don't know.
Anyhow, my congratulations to the organizers for 20 years of success.
Kevin Spraggett has an article up about the lack of participation of top FIDE players in tournaments (or about the lack of FIDE tournaments, either seems appropriate).
What do you believe to be the cause of these phenomenons and what possible solutions?
As usual, I think the high cost of participation makes the CFC unappealing for people who can't play 30+ games per year.
Secondly, I think the lack of affiliation between the CFC and FQE is also a big problem, as a lot of strong Quebec players will not travel that far to play games.
Third, There aren't many FIDE level tournaments. It would be nice to have at least 1 FIDE level tournament per week in the big provinces.
Those are my thoughts, what are yours?
Posted on the CFC " News " Forum:
The CFC Regular Chess Post – March 5/12 – FIDE Tournaments In Canada.
An issue has recently been raised re the frequency of FIDE-rated tournaments in Canada. Though they have not been plentiful in the past, more recently organizers have taken the bull by the horns, and been organizing an increasing number of FIDE-rated tournaments in Canada! This does not mean that we can be satisfied at this point. The CFC needs to look at what further support can be given to organizers in this regard.
But there have been recent FIDE-rated tournament, and future ones coming up:
Guelph Winter Pro-Am - February 11-12, 2012
Peter Clark Hall, Guelph University Centre
5 Round Swiss; A SWOCL Grand Prix Event
3 Sections: FIDE Rated Pro, FIDE Rated U2000, U1600
Hart House Reading Week Open - February 18th, 19th, 20th (Sat, Sun, Mon).
Great Hall, Hart House, University of Toronto, 7 Hart House Circle, Toronto
Style: 6 round Swiss in 4 sections: Open & U2200 (FIDE Rated), U1900 & U1600
Grand Pacific Open – April /2012 – Victoria, BC.
Canadian Open – July/ 2012 – Victoria, BC.
And there have been others, and others coming up. Maybe the organizers might post the details here for players interested in FIDE – rated tournaments. And also the details of any past, recent FIDE-rated tournaments in order to put the record straight on this.
Forget it. Just stating it is a terrible thing, let alone applied consistently. There is only one fair way to distribute prizes in chess tournaments : according to chess merits. Nobody should complain about the money distributed in an Open section. The prizes are available to anyone good enough to earn them. Nobody should complain about the prizes given in a top restricted section. If one feels that his money is badly spent entering such an event, he can spend it elsewhere or he can work to become good enough to enter such a restricted top section. Class sections should exist mainly if not exclusively to provide a more balanced competition, not to give away money to less deserving players.
Why do you insist on literally staging wars against our top players and marginalising them in every which way possible ? Your line of thinking would spell the end for the few top players that we still have, and the best guarantee for a continued decline for chess in this country which would hurt everyone, from top to bottom.
I am sorry to say that it is extremely disappointed to hear such a simplistic and thoughtless scheme from someone who has been involved in chess for so long. It seems that all these years have been wasted if all they could produce is such nonsense.
Hi Jean:
The top sections can be made larger. Then let the top players come out and play, if they want larger prizes.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. I think we both have the same length of experience, though mine is " class " and yours " elite ".
The CFC Regular Chess Post – March 5/12 – FIDE Tournaments In Canada.
An issue has recently been raised re the frequency of FIDE-rated tournaments in Canada. Though they have not been plentiful in the past, more recently organizers have taken the bull by the horns, and been organizing an increasing number of FIDE-rated tournaments in Canada! This does not mean that we can be satisfied at this point. The CFC needs to look at what further support can be given to organizers in this regard.
But there have been recent FIDE-rated tournament, and future ones coming up:
Guelph Winter Pro-Am - February 11-12, 2012
Peter Clark Hall, Guelph University Centre
5 Round Swiss; A SWOCL Grand Prix Event
3 Sections: FIDE Rated Pro, FIDE Rated U2000, U1600
Hart House Reading Week Open - February 18th, 19th, 20th (Sat, Sun, Mon).
Great Hall, Hart House, University of Toronto, 7 Hart House Circle, Toronto
Style: 6 round Swiss in 4 sections: Open & U2200 (FIDE Rated), U1900 & U1600
Grand Pacific Open – April /2012 – Victoria, BC.
Canadian Open – July/ 2012 – Victoria, BC.
And there have been others, and others coming up. Maybe the organizers might post the details here for players interested in FIDE – rated tournaments. And also the details of any past, recent FIDE-rated tournaments in order to put the record straight on this.
Click on Public Forums and you will find the forum CFC ' News ' ( In the past, Larry has asked posters not to post links to articles in the CFC forums. I don't know if this is still in effect, so I won't ). It is posted there.
Tweet
Comment