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.
Re: Why did the CFC and FQE relationship fall apart?
Hal,
this is common practice in sports. For example, all Quebec Soccer referees will be punished if they works in any game not "rated" by Quebec Soccer, the Canadian Soccer Association, a national Federation affiliated to FIFA or FIFA.
A soccer players who plays in a League or a club not recognized is at risk for a lifetime ban from organized Soccer or a fine.
If you wonder, Quebec Soccer has 191 052 members on its 2009 annual report. Which means that strict membership rules are in no way detrimental to participation.
This is the Soccer rule.Tout membre affilié dûment enregistrée auprès de la Fédération qui évolue dans les rangs d’une association, d’un club, d’une équipe ou de tout autre
organisme non reconnu par la Fédération est traduite devant le comité de discipline qui a juridiction en l’espèce et si elle est trouvée coupable peut
être suspendue à vie et/ou mise à l’amende.
The CFC does not have a monopoly on chess - I don't know where that came from. Maybe you are confusing Canada with India, where players are stripped of their rating and FIDE ID for even playing in an unsanctioned, unrated tournament - that's a horror.
Playing chess is one of the cheapest organized activities out there. There's also no easy way to make it cheaper, since it's already so cheap (less than $1 per week for a membership to a national body - I pay MUCH more than that for the other ones I'm a member of)...
Playing chess is one of the cheapest organized activities out there. There's also no easy way to make it cheaper, since it's already so cheap (less than $1 per week for a membership to a national body - I pay MUCH more than that for the other ones I'm a member of)...
It can be made significantly cheaper in my opinion, but that's a different discussion.
I know in university, that seems like a really expensive proposition. I'd also say that's true if you're looking to play 3 or 4 tournaments per year. Maybe I'm just being stingy because I remember when I wouldn't be willing (or able to afford) to pay $40 to play in a chess tournament.
By the way, in Jamaica, there were FIDE tournaments with $8 dollar entry fees, and $16 yearly membership fees, but I guess it must be cheaper to submit results from Jamaica than it is from Canada.
It can be made significantly cheaper in my opinion, but that's a different discussion.
I know in university, that seems like a really expensive proposition. I'd also say that's true if you're looking to play 3 or 4 tournaments per year. Maybe I'm just being stingy because I remember when I wouldn't be willing (or able to afford) to pay $40 to play in a chess tournament.
By the way, in Jamaica, there were FIDE tournaments with $8 dollar entry fees, and $16 yearly membership fees, but I guess it must be cheaper to submit results from Jamaica than it is from Canada.
Denton
Even if that's the case, I don't see a savings of $27 per YEAR as particularly significant. Also Jamaica is slightly more centralized...
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.
Would the CFC provide free equipment as the FQE does? Would the CFC also make free advertizing for major tournaments? Would it also help sending letters, emails, etc. to all players? Would it even help organizing and providing affordable locals when necessary?
There's nothing CFC can offer to Quebec people. No French magazine (no French service at all), no help of any kind, no equipment, nothing. Why would they bypass the FQE, which offers a lot more, but really a lot more, for the same membership fees?
The thread is not about how could we bypass one of the federations, the thread is about how they can work together.
The FQE and the CFC both exist, are of similar size (in terms of membership and earnings), and are not about to disappear. They need to work out something. The new FQE executive is made up from new people, which I'm sure are open to discussion with CFC.
Even if that's the case, I don't see a savings of $27 per YEAR as particularly significant. Also Jamaica is slightly more centralized...
And yet department stores can make significant money just by offering savings of $3 on a product. I've seen people mob gas stations just to save $0.20 cents per litre (saving $10 maybe). We have different points of view on the value of money, utility of products, and organizational strategy.
I'm of the opinion that the CFC can improve the state of chess in Canada by making it significantly cheaper for players to casually engage in the game and yet be measured against their peers. Offering such a possibility at a cost of $11.50 to me is not cheap, but again, different views exist.
As to the centralization point, they are both just national organizations. Jamaica's chess federation has the exact same amount of control over chess in Jamaica as the CFC in Canada, nothing more. Actually, I'd say I see that much smaller organization getting significantly more sponsorship per capita, but that's a different point.
I find that the same arguments and positions arise whenever discussions of the politics of chess arise. I think people tend to split into 2 views primarily, 1) The chess institutions and structures are of paramount importance, and 2) people enjoying organized chess, and getting the most they can from it, is more important. I may be simplifying incorrectly there of course.
Considering myself one of the unconnected individuals in chess, I fail to see what the CFC does for the betterment of the chess community in Canada. I would rather see that change than the CFC disappear. As I feel no personal fealty to the CFC, I'd be willing to support any organization that aims to improve the state of Canadian chess, even if they are competitors to the CFC. I'll credit the CMA for doing a rather good job highlighting the failures of the CFC.
Re: Why did the CFC and FQE relationship fall apart?
Why not just have a shared membership for $20.00 more.
So that Fide can recognize both federations under the Canadian Flag.
So if you pay the extra $20 of membership regardless of what Federation you are with then you get Fide rated games. $10.00 goes to each federation so no one gets the bulk of the $20.
This duel membership can be recognized by the CFC as a Full Canadian Membership eligible as a FIDE Rating for the Country of Canada.
The Extra $ 20 would allow CFC or FQE members to play in either federation without having to get separate memberships.
A savings on all sides and we have a FIDE united Canadian Country so both Federations can play for Canada.
Last edited by John Brown; Sunday, 4th March, 2012, 01:31 PM.
Reason: Additions missed
Why not just have a shared membership for $20.00 more.
So that Fide can recognize both federations under the Canadian Flag.
So if you pay the extra $20 of membership regardless of what Federation you are with then you get Fide rated games. $10.00 goes to each federation so no one gets the bulk of the $20.
This duel membership can be recognized by the CFC as a Full Canadian Membership eligible as a FIDE Rating for the Country of Canada.
The Extra $ 20 would allow CFC or FQE members to play in either federation without having to get separate memberships.
A savings on all sides and we have a FIDE united Canadian Country so both Federations can play for Canada.
I really like this idea. A duel membership would be a great opportunity for those seeking FIDE rating.
I really like this idea. A duel membership would be a great opportunity for those seeking FIDE rating.
I like this too, but I doubt it will happen. The CFC probably makes more money from those FQE members who already buy the full CFC membership. So since it doesn't make them any more money, it's probably dead in the water.
Re: Why did the CFC and FQE relationship fall apart?
After chess became 'popular' in 1972 the CFC re-figured itself as a competitive business instead of the sports and recreation association it had been. Thus it began treating various groups as competitors (Chess Canada, CMA, FQE, etc) or customers (our GMs, champions, olympic players etc.) rather than cooperatively and to the benefit of our international strength.
Last edited by Lawrence Day; Sunday, 4th March, 2012, 02:25 PM.
Reason: nondextrous fingers
As to the centralization point, they are both just national organizations. Jamaica's chess federation has the exact same amount of control over chess in Jamaica as the CFC in Canada, nothing more. Actually, I'd say I see that much smaller organization getting significantly more sponsorship per capita, but that's a different point.
By centralization I meant that they don't have huge distances to contend with. They don't have the same issues that we have with, say, the Junior trying to attract non-local players.
Considering myself one of the unconnected individuals in chess, I fail to see what the CFC does for the betterment of the chess community in Canada. I would rather see that change than the CFC disappear. As I feel no personal fealty to the CFC, I'd be willing to support any organization that aims to improve the state of Canadian chess, even if they are competitors to the CFC. I'll credit the CMA for doing a rather good job highlighting the failures of the CFC.
So what could the CFC do, in your opinion, that does not involve giving up a chunk of its annual income and does improve chess in Canada?
So what could the CFC do, in your opinion, that does not involve giving up a chunk of its annual income and does improve chess in Canada?
Since you ask, you might make life membership fees more realistic. I think the program should be cancelled but that's a different discussion.
It looks to me like the low interest rates at which foundation money can be invested and the longer life spans of the population is not being taken into consideration.
Insurance companies are starting to take this into consideration and the government pension plans also seem to be acknowledging the longer life spans of the population.
It's hard to know if it's being discussed at your online governors meetings because I haven't seen any minutes.
So what could the CFC do, in your opinion, that does not involve giving up a chunk of its annual income and does improve chess in Canada?
This isn't fully informed as I don't know where to find the CFC's budget and expenditures, but some things would be:
1) Eliminate or transition away from the membership model. This would make rated chess more accessible to the casual chess player (who may end up becoming a regular player).
2) Jettison the magazine completely. If it is not self-sufficient, it shouldn't be subsidized by membership fees.
3) Eliminate the sub-contract for managing the CFC. Most functions should be done on a volunteer basis, and others could be subcontracted to existing organizations (I remember hearing that the CFC had offered to take over the CFC rating functions for a fraction of current cost).
4) Separate out charity functions. The CFC does charity work, but as it is no longer considered non-profit/charity, those aren't even tax deductible. Create a separate organization affiliated with the CFC for charity purposes (promotion of chess in schools, etc). This charity arm could also be used for the sponsorship of many kids tournaments. I'd need to see more to give more details.
5) Allow the rating of FQE tournaments through FIDE, charge a per tournament player rating fee. This brings in more money than is currently earned.
6) In terms of organizing, have more regional playoffs, with money from those tournaments being used to subsidize the flight of players to the national tournament. We should be able to guarantee a MINIMUM number of players for NATIONAL tournaments.
7) Look for ways to partner with competing organizations, because you know, the CFC is supposed to represent all chess playing Canadians, not just ones that agree with them. It's ridiculous to me that the CFC can't find meaningful ways to co-operate with the CMA and FQE.
8) The quick chess system is nice, a really good idea even. Now drop that silly $10 one time fee and you've got a really great idea.
9) Why is it that membership is expected to subsidize the Olympiad squad? It's sad that the CFC can't find an organization(s) that will sponsor a bunch of smart people to go represent Canada (they could milk it for the advertising). Curling gets more sponsorship than we do, and curling sucks.
10) Reward TDs for organizing tournaments. Perhaps awards at the end of the year, or free memberships for a certain number of submitted tournament player results, or anything else. Sometimes people enjoy having their ego stroked.
Those are just some, not all are possible, and as I said, not all may be fully informed.
This isn't fully informed as I don't know where to find the CFC's budget and expenditures, but some things would be:
1) Eliminate or transition away from the membership model. This would make rated chess more accessible to the casual chess player (who may end up becoming a regular player).
2) Jettison the magazine completely. If it is not self-sufficient, it shouldn't be subsidized by membership fees.
3) Eliminate the sub-contract for managing the CFC. Most functions should be done on a volunteer basis, and others could be subcontracted to existing organizations (I remember hearing that the CFC had offered to take over the CFC rating functions for a fraction of current cost).
4) Separate out charity functions. The CFC does charity work, but as it is no longer considered non-profit/charity, those aren't even tax deductible. Create a separate organization affiliated with the CFC for charity purposes (promotion of chess in schools, etc). This charity arm could also be used for the sponsorship of many kids tournaments. I'd need to see more to give more details.
5) Allow the rating of FQE tournaments through FIDE, charge a per tournament player rating fee. This brings in more money than is currently earned.
6) In terms of organizing, have more regional playoffs, with money from those tournaments being used to subsidize the flight of players to the national tournament. We should be able to guarantee a MINIMUM number of players for NATIONAL tournaments.
7) Look for ways to partner with competing organizations, because you know, the CFC is supposed to represent all chess playing Canadians, not just ones that agree with them. It's ridiculous to me that the CFC can't find meaningful ways to co-operate with the CMA and FQE.
8) The quick chess system is nice, a really good idea even. Now drop that silly $10 one time fee and you've got a really great idea.
9) Why is it that membership is expected to subsidize the Olympiad squad? It's sad that the CFC can't find an organization(s) that will sponsor a bunch of smart people to go represent Canada (they could milk it for the advertising). Curling gets more sponsorship than we do, and curling sucks.
10) Reward TDs for organizing tournaments. Perhaps awards at the end of the year, or free memberships for a certain number of submitted tournament player results, or anything else. Sometimes people enjoy having their ego stroked.
Those are just some, not all are possible, and as I said, not all may be fully informed.
See? It only took 87 posts in the thread to get a really constructive one :)
While I don't agree with all the points, at least they are solid ideas. I'll make sure to share them with the other Governors.
Re: Why did the CFC and FQE relationship fall apart?
Denton wrote:
9) Why is it that membership is expected to subsidize the Olympiad squad? It's sad that the CFC can't find an organization(s) that will sponsor a bunch of smart people to go represent Canada (they could milk it for the advertising). Curling gets more sponsorship than we do, and curling sucks.
We did have Sid Belzberg (and Belzberg Technologies) sponsor at least one Olympiad and a Canadian Closed. But with the stock price (of the successor company - Frontline Technologies) around the 10 cent mark. it's unlikely that he'll be back.
A little off-topic - Belzberg and Frontline merged about a year ago. Among the directors relieved of his duties was William Gnam - a 2100+ chessplayer from the 1980's. One of the new directors was Richard Ness - with whom I played many games at the Lakeshore Chess Club in suburban Montreal. He is now very successful in the Canadian financial industry. I spoke to him a couple of years ago about sponsorship (he played in a Quebec Open), and he sounded interested - but work came/comes first.
Tweet
Comment