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.
Posted on the Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC ) Facebook chess discussion page: " CCC - Chess Posts of Interest ":
CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest.
International
The Chess Federation of Canada ( CFC ) is currently preparing to apply to the federal Canadian Government to become a " registered amateur athletic association ". This would give them tax receipt granting status ( like a charity - they recently lost their charitable status ). It also involves convincing the federal government that " chess is a sport ". Not all Canadian chess players accept that chess fits within the definition of " sport ". Some say it is just a " game ". Others say it is " art ".
What do you believe? Sport ? Art? Game ? Science? Some of the preceding? None of the preceding?
Post your opinions!!
Bob Armstrong, CCC Member
P.S. I know the topic was recently discussed a bit - raised by Zach Dukic - but now that the formal CFC application is being prepared, maybe CFC members/public need to let CFC know what they think of this issue, and CFC's chances on the application!
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Tuesday, 17th April, 2012, 08:16 AM.
The Chess Federation of Canada ( CFC ) is currently preparing to apply to the federal Canadian Government to become a " registered amateur athletic association ". This would give them tax receipt granting status ( like a charity - they recently lost their charitable status ). It also involves convincing the federal government that " chess is a sport ". Not all Canadian chess players accept that chess fits within the definition of " sport ". Some say it is just a " game ". Others say it is " art ".
What do you believe? Sport ? Art? Game ? Science? Some of the preceding? None of the preceding?
Post your opinions!!
Bob Armstrong, CCC Member
P.S. I know the topic was recently discussed a bit - raised by Zach Dukic - but now that the formal CFC application is being prepared, maybe CFC members/public need to let CFC know what they think of this issue, and CFC's chances on the application!
At least according to Wiktionary, "game" and "sport" are synonyms. I don't think the government should try and determine whether chess is a sport, but instead should determine whether chess, and specifically organized chess, should receive a tax status that encourages public participation.
What we should really be asking, then: what exactly is "organized chess"?
I have given thought to this and have decided that organized chess is a cult: "a new religious movement or other group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre.(Wikipedia)
I don't think that definition goes far enough. First of all, considered abnormal or bizarre by whom? We could safely assume by "the vast majority of the population within which the cult is present". Since organized chess events are not attended by non-chess-playing members of the general public (other than a few parents of chess-playing members, and the odd straggler... "Huh? What's all this then?"), organized chess meets this criteria.
Secondly, the definition misses one of the defining characteristics of a cult: it attempts to change the thinking of its members to match the overall beliefs of the cult, even if new members initially resist those beliefs.
I do believe organized chess meets this criteria as well. Many people who first join organized chess would be very open to exploring and playing many variants of chess. But organized chess discourages this. It insists that only standard classical chess rules shall apply, and the only deviation it allows is in time controls. As a comparison, organized poker allows many different variants, all easily characterized as some form of poker by the inclusion of various rounds of card deals followed by betting.
If organized chess were to allow variants, perhaps they would all be characterized as requiring checkmate of the king (or stalemate or other drawing rule) as the means of deciding the game. This would disqualify, for example, checkers from being a variant of chess. It could also require turn-based moving of pieces or placing of new pieces on the board.
But organized chess refuses to consider variants as worthy of events or study, and I submit this as the critical reason why I consider organized chess as a cult. I believe organized chess stifles creativity and encourages rote memorization of opening lines as a means to gain an advantage. The stifling of creativity is actually quite devious. Young new members are led to believe that they are free to consider from vast arrays of choices right from the beginning of a game, but the truth soon becomes apparent: only a precise few lines actually should be committed to practice if winning results are to be attained, and novelties in the early phase are generally bad. This can easily lead some to believe that any kind of novelty is bad, and only the most precise move is correct. Therefore instead of being an art form or even (as with poker) a psychological struggle, chess is a mere technicality.
Some may consider this an oversimplification, but I hold it to be true simply because only the winners in organized chess are rewarded. Brilliancy prizes are discouraged even though they are much closer to the true spirit of chess than mere winning, which as computers have proven, can be purely mechanical to the point where one may even wonder where the winning moment occurred. Also discouraged is any kind of player interaction during the game. Such interaction would presumably make the resulting play "less correct".
I therefore hold the opinion that government should NOT give organized chess any special tax status to encourage participation.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
My opinion on chess hasn't changed - it's not a sport.
However... my opinion on Paul Bonham has changed. At first I thought he was just a lunatic... but now I realize that he's in need of some serious psychological counselling. I have no idea what goes on in certain people's heads but... all I can say is... cool story bro! :)
Does the fact that the International Olympic Committee lists " chess " in their list of " recognized sports ", and has for some time, not cut any ice with you?
Also note that the President of FIDE, Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, met today with IOC Vice President, Dr. Thomas Bach, and IOC Director General, Christophe De Kepper, to discuss matters of mutual interest and confirm the good relations between FIDE and the IOC. Also present were FIDE Treasurer/Executive Director, Nigel Freeman, FIDE CEO, Geoffrey Borg and the Director of FIDE's Moscow Office, Berik Balgabaev.
Bob, CCC Coordinator
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Tuesday, 17th April, 2012, 07:31 AM.
Does the fact that the International Olympic Committee lists " chess " in their list of " recognized sports ", and has for some time, not cut any ice with you?
Also note that the President of FIDE, Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, met today with IOC Vice President, Dr. Thomas Bach, and IOC Director General, Christophe De Kepper, to discuss matters of mutual interest and confirm the good relations between FIDE and the IOC. Also present were FIDE Treasurer/Executive Director, Nigel Freeman, FIDE CEO, Geoffrey Borg and the Director of FIDE's Moscow Office, Berik Balgabaev.
Bob, CCC Coordinator
Hi Bob,
Chess can't be a sport. It doesn't have a season.
The FIDE chess Olympics is a joke, in my view. A few Olympics back they invited the ICCF to field a team. It seem like a reasonable invitation because they allow teams from the Braille chess association, the International Physically disabled association and the International Silent Chess. Fair enough because chess doesn't require much physical activity.
So, in good faith, the ICCF sent in an entry. The ICCF after seeing the entry, and the players, withdrew the invitation. It was a kick butt team! Even one Canadian was on the team and he writes here on Chess Talk. I guess they didn't want correspondence chess showing up their over the board party with a decent finish.
I think I got my CFC Life membership in 1965, I think, while still a university student, at the strong urging of my friend from Sarnia, former CFC President, Phil Haley. Have I got the date right? It was everything I could do as a struggling student, to scrape together $50! I got # 100036! Best business decision I ever made!
I think I got my CFC Life membership in 1965, I think, while still a university student, at the strong urging of my friend from Sarnia, former CFC President, Phil Haley. Have I got the date right? It was everything I could do as a struggling student, to scrape together $50! I got # 100036! Best business decision I ever made!
Bob
Your membership is listed as 1971-1972. There were no life memberships secured in 1965. It starts in 1962 and not 1965 as I typed earlier. Your address listed as 83 Is..... Your card number is listed as 34. I assume they added the 1000 after. Phil had card 27. Is there an error in the records with your card number?
Since I wrote the post I've had a request from a friend for the list. So it's spoken for.
I bought my life membership in the mid 70's - number 101. It was subsequently renumbered to 100101. My name first appeared in the annual rating booklet dated July 1, 1967 (1734 provisional). Although ID numbers appeared after most (not all) names, I can't tell who was a life member or not.
Could you scan (or take a photo of) the list and post it here (blanking out the addresses)?
Very strange - I'm sure I got it in 1965 at Phil's urging. When does it show Phil getting his membership? I'm sure I had it at the 1966 & 1968 Can. Opens in which I played. But the address for 1971 is correct. But if it's a life membership , it's strange it's shown as 1971-2, rather than an indefinite termination date, which I think CFC used to use for Life Memberships. Anyone know why there might be a discrepancy, if there is one? Is the # 100034 consistent with the dates of the numbers preceding and following, so that a 1971 purchase fits?
And my number is #100034 ( I always make that mistake of remembering #100036 - can't seem to get it fixed in my head ).
Bob
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Tuesday, 17th April, 2012, 10:46 PM.
Very strange - I'm sure I got it in 1965 at Phil's urging. When does it show Phil getting his membership? I'm sure I had it at the 1966 & 1968 Can. Opens in which I played. But the address for 1971 is correct. But if it's a life membership , it's strange it's shown as 1971-2, rather than an indefinite termination date, which I think CFC used to use for Life Memberships. Anyone know why there might be a discrepancy, if there is one? Is the # 100034 consistent with the dates of the numbers preceding and following, so that a 1971 purchase fits?
And my number is #100034 ( I always make that mistake of remembering #100036 - can't seem to get it fixed in my head ).
Bob
Hi Bob,
Phil got his the same year as you and his card number is shown as 27. The 1000 part doesn't show on the list. The list doesn't show any expiry dates. Only the dates the life memberships were secured.
I bought my life membership in the mid 70's - number 101. It was subsequently renumbered to 100101. My name first appeared in the annual rating booklet dated July 1, 1967 (1734 provisional). Although ID numbers appeared after most (not all) names, I can't tell who was a life member or not.
Could you scan (or take a photo of) the list and post it here (blanking out the addresses)?
I don't have a scanner and wouldn't know how to post it. The address part takes up more of the line than the name. I should really try to figure out how to get photos on my laptop.
The CFC used to sell year books as I recall. I think I bought a book with those sheets at one time or another for around 6 dollars or I got it at an AGM.
Tweet
Comment