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.
And where was this opinion of yours when people asked you to help out with promotion while you were Canadian Champion, may I ask?
Why resort to such irrelevant and baseless personal attacks when up to now the discussion has been quite peaceful ? Who asked me to do what exactly ? Is this how you behave during your CFC presidency ?
You can already do that. The fee is $23 per player ($20 tournament playing fee + $3 rating fee).
I think that $23 to play in a chess tournament is unreasonable for players even in affiliated CFC provinces. I didn't think there were many chess players that would think it's good for chess to require people to pay $23 just to have their games counted...
This makes me wonder how many of our governors think that is reasonable.
While I can't speak for the CFC, my first reaction to that is "how is this a good deal for the CFC?"
The main question is not CFC income but what is in the best interest of chess in Canada? Having games of Canadian masters in Quebec recognized is more important. Having their FQE games FIDE-rated will make their FIDE-ratings more accurate, which will be relevant when they play other Canadians in the FIDE-rated Canadian Open and Closed, etc.
Some rating fee should be worked out so that FQE-master sections get FIDE-rated, and FQE games count towards the Olympiad teams and other invites.
There are 30 masters in Quebec, 50 experts. The CFC doesn't want to play ball unless all pay CFC membership for an income of $3,300, plus CFC rating fees. If they go on to play in national tournaments they will be required to become CFC members and the CFC will then get their money? There's no going back to the CFC having 1,000 members in Quebec. So this conflict is only over a few dollars.
Yes giving "them" some deal is unfair to FIDE-rated players in other provinces who have to pay for a CFC membership, but it is equally unfair of the CFC to provide no magazine or services in an official Canadian language.
The CFC should negotiate to get at least something, and so that the top Canadian players in Quebec don't suffer as a result of this political fighting.
I think that $23 to play in a chess tournament is unreasonable for players even in affiliated CFC provinces. I didn't think there were many chess players that would think it's good for chess to require people to pay $23 just to have their games counted...
This makes me wonder how many of our governors think that is reasonable.
a majority apparently. They voted in this number a few years ago (up from $13)
To be precise however, this is not the right number in Quebec - it should be $19 ($16 CFC portion of tournament membership fee; $0 provincial affiliate portion; and $3 rating) unless of course there is some recognition of the FQE as a proviincial affiliate that I am unaware of.
Re: Why did the CFC and FQE relationship fall apart?
IMHO, the CFC handbook should be changed to make more simple entrance for an affiliated province.
"c) As an affiliated body it requires its members to also be members of the CFC or to pay the CFC an affiliation fee as determined by the CFC Board of Governors, for and only for, each member of the affiliate who is not also an individual member of the CFC [as amended by motion 84-37; see GL, August 1984, p. 11]"
Or that "affiliated fee" must be not prohibitively high. I can not remember seeing its numerical value.
Because it's money that they are not getting right now.
I pose the same question to you, as you are a governor:
What do you believe to be fair for the CFC to be willing to submit FQE FIDE events?
Of course, not considering things like 'have the FQE give in and submit to the mighty will of the CFC' :)
Well since you took away my Option A, we'll go with Option B: The FQE can submit their events to be FIDE rated as long as they also submit them for CFC rating, including any membership and rating fees due for that service.
Well since you took away my Option A, we'll go with Option B: The FQE can submit their events to be FIDE rated as long as they also submit them for CFC rating, including any membership and rating fees due for that service.
So essentially 'have the FQE give in and submit to the mighty will of the CFC'.
Thanks for your honest answer Chris. I will say that I'm hoping that your view isn't the majority on the CFC board, because if it is, there is no hope for a reconciliation.
Re: Why did the CFC and FQE relationship fall apart?
Requiring that all Canadian players join the CFC is not unreasonable. The FQE desire to operate outside of the CFC is unreasonable.
What is unreasonable is to have an FQE Executive telling me that he will never buy the membership of the Federation of another country. Seeing Canada as another country, having no pride in being Canadian and have no emotional attachment to Canada is much more damaging to the FQE-CFC relations then all the rest. If you elect FQE Governors who are strongly convinced that the FQE must be affiliated, then you would have solved the problem.
Canada is made of 10 equal provinces and three territories. Nothing can be granted to Quebec that we cannot grant to other provinces. It is out of the question to favour ANY province, this would be unreasonable. Presently, the contribution is based on the actual number of Chess players in the province. If this change, it must change for all provinces not for only one.
I disagree that the CFC shall take no action that would be an inconvenience to Quebec players'. Under UMUV, those players vote for the FQE Executive, Applying the necessary pressure on those players so that they elect an Executive that will reaffiliate may not be the best option, but I refuse to reject it without careful consideration.
In my opinion, any solution has to include the removal of the FQE rating and the inclusion of those players in the CFC system with their FQE rating as the initial rating.
Until the FQE affiliates, the CFC should have an affiliate in the province of Quebec. All the members due should be retained by the CFC until there is enough cash at hand to organize a serious CFC rated tournament in the province of Quebec.
All organized competitive activities in Canada have both a Canadian Federation and A Quebec Federation that collaborate. We are an isolated case.
So essentially 'have the FQE give in and submit to the mighty will of the CFC'.
Thanks for your honest answer Chris. I will say that I'm hoping that your view isn't the majority on the CFC board, because if it is, there is no hope for a reconciliation.
Sadly, this is the kind of opinion that caused all the problems for both federations in the last decades. Hopefully, there seems to be new people at the head of the FQE and the CFC and they might put aside all the old grudges and find a solution that will benefit both federations.
So essentially 'have the FQE give in and submit to the mighty will of the CFC'.
Thanks for your honest answer Chris. I will say that I'm hoping that your view isn't the majority on the CFC board, because if it is, there is no hope for a reconciliation.
I'll give you a bit of perspective.
I wasn't around for any of the original... whatever it was... that happened in the 70s and 80s. Even in the 90s I was just a tournament player and knew nothing of the politics.
My involvement in chess politics started in 2003, mostly at the local/provincial level.
So when I became CFC President, I had no baggage of any kind to influence me, nor did I have any preconceived notions of what should happen re. Quebec.
Like virtually every CFC President of recent times, I did make an effort to find an arrangement with Quebec. Actually I made two efforts.
The FQE contacted me very early on. They wanted to talk. In fact, we had a big conference call to talk about what we should talk about and when we should talk about it.
It eventually became clear that they had a big list of things they would like the CFC to do for them, but they didn't like any of my ideas for what the FQE could do for us.
Eventually the Executive and I tired of the talk, so we worked with Pierre Denommee and others and helped him create the FQSE as an interim provincial affiliate. An interim affiliate has all the powers of a regular one except that they can't charge a membership fee.
Anyway that didn't work out - they never managed to run even a single event, and I helped get them voted out as an affiliate.
Later, I was on David Lavin's executive when he made an incredible effort to bring the FQE back into the fold - even partially. It always ended up being more talk, talk, talk.
This is just my personal impression, and could be wrong, but after years of direct/indirect involvement with talks with the FQE, all within the last 10 years, it seems very much that they want their cake and want to eat it too.
The FQE, in my opinion, sees itself as the equal of the CFC, with only the small matter of FIDE recognition being a sore point. They also don't seem to feel that they should have to really give anything up to have access to FIDE through the CFC.
So, I'm sure that some kind of compromise might be possible that's in between the status quo and the full capitulation of the FQE, but it's going to require the FQE to actually become willing to discuss options - and be willing to go through with them rather than just "talk."
Re: Why did the CFC and FQE relationship fall apart?
Then Chris, why is it a problem to fully work AROUND the FQE?
Enable TDs to submit FIDE results directly to the CFC, and for a fee the CFC will use its power to submit them to FIDE.
The two federations could continue to fight over rating systems for years on end, neither side would have to budge, and players from neither system would be punished for the sake of politics.
I would love to see chess put first, and the provision of high class chess put first, and we can put political positions on the back burner. I would love to be able to organize a FIDE league here, but there are a lot of players already paying $45/year to play local chess, who don't want to pay another $50/year to get access to international ratings.
Then Chris, why is it a problem to fully work AROUND the FQE?
Enable TDs to submit FIDE results directly to the CFC, and for a fee the CFC will use its power to submit them to FIDE.
They can already. There is no requirement on the CFC's part that events in Quebec - or any other province - need to be rated by the FQE. Bypass them and go straight with the CFC and through the CFC, FIDE.
They can already. There is no requirement on the CFC's part that events in Quebec - or any other province - need to be rated by the FQE. Bypass them and go straight with the CFC and through the CFC, FIDE.
At a fee of $48+3.39 per tournament.
You're right, that technically does meet what I said :)
I don't know, I'm more and more coming to the conclusion that the CFC as is currently, is a detriment to the success of chess in Canada. This isn't a complaint I've had simply because I now live in Quebec. I've considered the expense of the CFC prohibitive even when I lived in Ontario.
Maybe chess players will have to take more drastic measures at some point to put chess first again.
Tweet
Comment