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.
I've noticed there has been a large increase in GM's and IM's in over the board after Fritz&bro became strong enough. When I was a junior there were ZERO over the board GM's in Canada.
The OTB Olympic team is still not ALL-GMs ;)
I think what happened is the ratings became inflated and the criteria for attaining the title did not increase to match the ratings.
One more thing contributed: ~1989 boarders were opened for many pro-Soviet countries. (Kramnik and Gelfand made GMs without being IMs).
If winning a title was as simple as you suggest I would have made GM, but I did not.
I'm not questioning why you are not the GM.
I heard many CC players gave up with the CC ~1993-5 when PCs became widely available.
You didn't limit your question to Canada. In Canada the number of OTB GM and IM titles has increased since Fritz&bro became strong enough. I just don't think it's for that reason.
Regarding the team, under the current rules it's the team I expected but I would have set the board order differently. In a few months I'll have an idea if I am right.
I won't be donating to the Olympic team because I mailed a cheque to the CCCA.
One more thing contributed: ~1989 boarders were opened for many pro-Soviet countries. (Kramnik and Gelfand made GMs without being IMs).
I spent the cold war playing correspondence chess against players in east European countries. I might even have been the first Canadian to make the semi-final of the correspondence World Cup. That was before the computers were very strong.
If you'll include the Android family, I might contribute :)
Though somebody has already asked about chess apps.
I thought most of those who write for Apple products also write for Android. I have 5 or 6 chess apps but haven't tried a few of them yet. I like the scrabble app. With apps I live in the world of free. There are a lot of free apps I like.
Well, I'm glad to see a discussion about this.
Recently, I was made aware that events had been submitted to the CFC for rating where the games had actually been played over the internet. The time controls were typical CFC time controls. The organizers did not identify the events as internet events and the CFC office rated the games.
When I investigated, I discovered that the games were not supervised by a TD or witness. Furthermore, I could not find a policy anywhere in the CFC Handbook regarding internet chess so I set out to develop one.
I worked with Vlad Rekhson, who expressed an interest in this and we presented a motion at last week's governors meeting that would not allow internet games between CFC members to be played without strict TD supervision and stringent reporting requirements. The motion passed. I was unaware of any jurisdiction over internet games between CFC members by the CCCA. However, I will be most happy to work with the CCCA in this matter and I have offered to have a discussion with the CCCA President.
Are some getting their shorts in a knot without a good reason?
They are not the same thing.
CC is measured in calendar days (albeit played via e-mail or server) and internet chess (OTB style) in clock time. CC allows books, computers and other research while "OTB" internet chess does not as far as I know.
It is difficult to believe that the CFC wants to rate the games that take weeks or months to complete. I would bet that they only meant to rate OTB style internet chess.
Can anyone elucidate?
The idea was to set some guidelines for games that are played over the internet and then submitted for regular CFC rating. The main requirement is for a TD to be present in both locations to avoid any questions of cheating. I think this is a precursor to setting up team play over the internet as the requirements for TDs to be present at multiple locations does not make much sense in any other context.
Recently, I was made aware that events had been submitted to the CFC for rating where the games had actually been played over the internet. The time controls were typical CFC time controls. The organizers did not identify the events as internet events and the CFC office rated the games.
When I investigated, I discovered that the games were not supervised by a TD or witness.
I've had over the board games submitted for placings and ratings in events. It was postal games which came back completed so quickly I wrote and asked the players. An admission was received. It didn't happen often but it did happen.
In email chess I've played off 6 to 10 moves with an opponent in an evening. Could have played the entire game if he's have continued. This is correspondence chess and not much different than internet chess.
On the ICCF server I've played off several moves with an opponent who was playing quickly. There is nothing in the rules which prohibits players from spending the day at the server making moves and waiting for a reply. The server will send a notification of a move but you can see the move even before the notification comes and reply to the move. Does that make it over the board?
Regarding your working it out with the CCCA, I haven't involved myself in Canadian correspondence chess politics in decades and I'm certain most people in the know would confirm this. So I couldn't possibly comment on the discussions you mention.
I've had over the board games submitted for placings and ratings in events. It was postal games which came back completed so quickly I wrote and asked the players. An admission was received. It didn't happen often but it did happen.
In email chess I've played off 6 to 10 moves with an opponent in an evening. Could have played the entire game if he's have continued. This is correspondence chess and not much different than internet chess.
On the ICCF server I've played off several moves with an opponent who was playing quickly. There is nothing in the rules which prohibits players from spending the day at the server making moves and waiting for a reply. The server will send a notification of a move but you can see the move even before the notification comes and reply to the move. Does that make it over the board?
Regarding your working it out with the CCCA, I haven't involved myself in Canadian correspondence chess politics in decades and I'm certain most people in the know would confirm this. So I couldn't possibly comment on the discussions you mention.
Paul (and everyone?) is talking about games played via the Internet with standard time controls!
This is important to this whole discussion... not any other variants (playing against a server etc)
In other words, two players playing OTB except that the Internet is used to relay the moves to each end (much like the old-time telegraph matches!).
Arbiters at each end ensure there is no cheating (consulting with books, other players etc - just as there is in a regular tournament). The only possible slight adjustment might be to accommodate whatever (tiny) lag there might be in delivering a move to the other side (one presumes that lag would be almost trivial, but I suppose a few extra minutes in the time controls might suffice).
From what I'm reading it's difficult to control cheating in over the board events. Why would anyone assume it can be controlled with internet games?
The way I see it, this is a discussion over what the CFC ratings will reflect. Anyone can run correspondence games. It's a free country, more or less, depending on your view of climate change. :) The question is if it's better to integrate it into an existing system or have a rating system for internet games.
Possibly the idea is to try to tap into the obscene amount of money in correspondence chess.
Tweet
Comment