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: Spraggett: Canada's top International Arbiter...
My qualifications include playing CFC rated chess for about thirty years, directing dozens of events and (I suspect most importantly) the ability to read (in particular, FIDE's Laws of Chess).
If one purports to be an arbiter, he or she must be able to read those Laws and be able to properly apply them. Failure to do so demonstrates incompetence.
I would not have either Bond or Archambault as an arbiter of any chess event even if it were a local event and they offered to pay for the privilege.
Judging from John's original post, I'd have to say Kevin Spraggett is 50% right.
In my considered opinion, Hal Bond is totally incompetent as an arbiter.
Then again, I've reached the same conclusion regarding Serge Archambault.
I think it is a real shame that both of them have somehow managed to obtain an IA title (CrackerJack box, perhaps?).
If you want the best IA in Canada, I have two words for you: Jonathan Berry.
Since that there is no rating system for arbiters to evaluate their competence and judgment, the whole thing is mostly a popularity contest. If Hal has been chosen for a World championship match, it is mostly because he is well liked as a person and probably seen as neutral politically. Competence and judgment is hardly relevant here because anybody can read the match rules, there are no pairings to be made and few decisions are expected, especially from a deputy arbiter.
My qualifications include playing CFC rated chess for about thirty years, directing dozens of events and (I suspect most importantly) the ability to read (in particular, FIDE's Laws of Chess).
If one purports to be an arbiter, he or she must be able to read those Laws and be able to properly apply them. Failure to do so demonstrates incompetence.
I would not have either Bond or Archambault as an arbiter of any chess event even if it were a local event and they offered to pay for the privilege.
ok, well thanks then... And the events you have directed are International ones, presumably with titled players etc, and not just club round robins?
Re: Spraggett: Canada's top International Arbiter...
Firstly (since you asked), the vast majority (perhaps 98%) of my directing experience comes from open swisses (including one sub Zonal event) rather than club round robins.
Not that I see any substantive difference; after all, the same Laws of Chess apply whether its a match, four man quad, big open swiss or World Championship match.
Secondly, what relevance does your question have to do with the issue here, namely the arbitering competence or lack thereof of Serge Archambault and Hal Bond? Even if we were to assume I was a potted plant, the facts underlying their demonstrated incompetence would be unchanged.
As there has neither been an international event in my locale nor a functioning CFC NTD exam during my period of activity, I make no apology for not seeking a higher title in that regard. Demonstrating the ability to read the Laws of Chess and properly applying them is not predicated on having an IA title.
Last edited by Alvah Mayo; Friday, 25th May, 2012, 12:42 AM.
Secondly, what relevance does your question have to do with the issue here, namely the arbitering competence or lack thereof of Serge Archambault and Hal Bond? Even if we were to assume I was a potted plant, the facts underlying their demonstrated incompetence would be unchanged.
What about providing some examples of these facts rather than just pronouncing it without explaining? I've never played in an event run by either so I'm curious.
Re: Spraggett: Canada's top International Arbiter...
back on the topic:
The article is really very weak.
Player number six - what a IA could create that kind of nonsense? Why did he forget to include the last Olympiad captain into his averaging?
Just wondering how many international events had previous Olympiads players, as the article main concern is that the selected player(s) "hasn’t competed outside of Ontario and Quebec".
Firstly (since you asked), the vast majority (perhaps 98%) of my directing experience comes from open swisses (including one sub Zonal event) rather than club round robins.
Not that I see any substantive difference; after all, the same Laws of Chess apply whether its a match, four man quad, big open swiss or World Championship match.
Secondly, what relevance does your question have to do with the issue here, namely the arbitering competence or lack thereof of Serge Archambault and Hal Bond? Even if we were to assume I was a potted plant, the facts underlying their demonstrated incompetence would be unchanged.
As there has neither been an international event in my locale nor a functioning CFC NTD exam during my period of activity, I make no apology for not seeking a higher title in that regard. Demonstrating the ability to read the Laws of Chess and properly applying them is not predicated on having an IA title.
All I am saying is that you seem very eager to declare the incompetence of Hal and Serge (without first explaining your qualifications). I see evidence both those people can read. I also note that Hal is in Moscow [likely using a lot of his own money], which is not his 'locale' either...
I believe that the IA title is not handed out like candy; if memory serves, a number of people who I would consider very experienced chess organizers/tournament directors/etc were unable to successfully pass the IA exam at the Canadian Open...
You are entitled to an opinion and have clearly stated it. You referred to "the facts underlying their demonstrated incompetence", yet I see no such information.
Re: Spraggett: Canada's top International Arbiter...
I simply don't agree with the premise that pointing out incompetence or wrongdoing requires qualifications (though I'd say you have the doctor, lawyer and engineering societies on your side). You seem to be eager to proclaim Hal's competence but you'll notice that at no time did I ask for your CV.
If a lawyer steals someone's money, do I need to be a lawyer to call him a thief? If a police officer gets plastered and kills a pedestrian in a crosswalk, must I present my police badge and credentials before filing a complaint? In both cases, they would be criminals. Qualifications are beside the point.
In my view, the test of competence for an arbiter is the ability to read the Laws of Chess and properly apply them. Failure to do so indicates incompetence.
To answer those who have asked for the facts on which I base my previously stated conclusions, I offer the following real life simple tests. In all cases, you are the arbiter; please indicate the ruling you would make based on the FIDE Laws of Chess in force at the time. (As I will be AFK for the weekend, please feel free to take your time)
Situation 1:
It is late July 2007. The rules of your tournament specify that 30 seconds is to be added to the player's clock after every move. Player A has a rook and rook pawn while Player B has a bishop. Player A's digital clock runs down to 0:00 whereupon he makes a move; the clock does not add 30 seconds as specified in the tournament rules. He stops the clocks and calls you over requesting his 30 seconds.
Q1: Do you give Player A his 30 seconds as specified in the tournament rules?
Q2: If you decline his request, what result do you declare for the game?
Situation 2:
It is April 2002. Your tournament has a time control at move 40 where your digital clocks add 30 seconds increment after each move. During a game, Player A knocks over a raft of pieces while making his move and presses his clock. Player B knows A must replace his pieces on his own time and presses the clock to enforce this. Player A instantly presses his own clock to be answered in kind by Player B. Player A again presses his clock and Player B calls the arbiter to resolve the matter.
While still in the initial time control some moves later, Player B calls you over to claim a win on time. Player A's clock still shows 43 seconds but B points out the two extra clock presses resulted in an extra 60 seconds being incorrectly added. B references both scoresheets which when compared to the move counter confirm an extra 60 seconds has been added.
Q: Do you uphold the flagfall claim?
Situation 3:
It is circa 2007-8. Player A and B (with Black) are paired in your swiss event and at the start of the round B is not present. Forty minutes into the round B appears. He notices his clock is running and A has not yet moved.
B points out to you that due to recent changes to the Laws of Chess (a copy of which he presents to you), the Rubinstein rule (one hour late = forfeit) still applies but now White's clock is to be started at the beginning of the round and is to run until he has made his first move. The previous standard of "let the clock of the absent player run" has been replaced. In light of this, B requests the return of his forty minutes and that they be deducted from A's time.
I simply don't agree with the premise that pointing out incompetence or wrongdoing requires qualifications (though I'd say you have the doctor, lawyer and engineering societies on your side). You seem to be eager to proclaim Hal's competence but you'll notice that at no time did I ask for your CV.
If a lawyer steals someone's money, do I need to be a lawyer to call him a thief? If a police officer gets plastered and kills a pedestrian in a crosswalk, must I present my police badge and credentials before filing a complaint? In both cases, they would be criminals. Qualifications are beside the point.
In my view, the test of competence for an arbiter is the ability to read the Laws of Chess and properly apply them. Failure to do so indicates incompetence.
To answer those who have asked for the facts on which I base my previously stated conclusions, I offer the following real life simple tests. In all cases, you are the arbiter; please indicate the ruling you would make based on the FIDE Laws of Chess in force at the time. (As I will be AFK for the weekend, please feel free to take your time)
Situation 1:
It is late July 2007. The rules of your tournament specify that 30 seconds is to be added to the player's clock after every move. Player A has a rook and rook pawn while Player B has a bishop. Player A's digital clock runs down to 0:00 whereupon he makes a move; the clock does not add 30 seconds as specified in the tournament rules. He stops the clocks and calls you over requesting his 30 seconds.
Q1: Do you give Player A his 30 seconds as specified in the tournament rules?
Q2: If you decline his request, what result do you declare for the game?
Situation 2:
It is April 2002. Your tournament has a time control at move 40 where your digital clocks add 30 seconds increment after each move. During a game, Player A knocks over a raft of pieces while making his move and presses his clock. Player B knows A must replace his pieces on his own time and presses the clock to enforce this. Player A instantly presses his own clock to be answered in kind by Player B. Player A again presses his clock and Player B calls the arbiter to resolve the matter.
While still in the initial time control some moves later, Player B calls you over to claim a win on time. Player A's clock still shows 43 seconds but B points out the two extra clock presses resulted in an extra 60 seconds being incorrectly added. B references both scoresheets which when compared to the move counter confirm an extra 60 seconds has been added.
Q: Do you uphold the flagfall claim?
Situation 3:
It is circa 2007-8. Player A and B (with Black) are paired in your swiss event and at the start of the round B is not present. Forty minutes into the round B appears. He notices his clock is running and A has not yet moved.
B points out to you that due to recent changes to the Laws of Chess (a copy of which he presents to you), the Rubinstein rule (one hour late = forfeit) still applies but now White's clock is to be started at the beginning of the round and is to run until he has made his first move. The previous standard of "let the clock of the absent player run" has been replaced. In light of this, B requests the return of his forty minutes and that they be deducted from A's time.
Q1: How do you rule?
I give all leeway to the arbiters who have to deal with such pettiness.
I also note that Hal is in Moscow [likely using a lot of his own money]
On paper, at least, any Arbiter at a World Championship match is well-stipended and honorariumified. Long might an arbiter labour in the trenches, yes, even using his own money, but not that one.
It is kind of Alvah to suggest my name, but in fact since 2007 I have become retired. He might as well mention Phil Haley (who retired from that pursuit somewhat earlier) or even the defunct Malcolm Sim, the first Canadian ever to be named International Arbiter.
I have a ready excuse in that I have not played in tournaments directed by all of the names mentioned, but amongst the arbiters in whose tournaments I have played, I would name {name withheld} as the best arbiter. In the opposite spirit to Kevin's pour encourager les autres I am not jinxing anybody by naming him or her. Unless of course, he or she drops me an email asking me to.
Not content to let us fade away or otherwise muddle about, FIDE has even designated most arbiters as Inactive.
Your team has two sick players, and you are 5,000
miles, 1 days plane travel, and 1 visa application away from the
next Canadian player of strength, other than the captain.
Precisely because of the clause, guess who the new regular/reserve
player will be?
It's not like in baseball, where the manager has to wear
a uniform to make it obvious for guys like you.
Re: Spraggett: Canada's top International Arbiter...
I've worked with IA's Jonathan Berry, Hal Bond, and Serge Archambeault in various capacities involving important tournaments in Canada, over the last
20+ years.
All are very good to excellent, in my opinion. Of the group, Jonathan has the most experience in terms of number of years at the top level. I think he has the greatest range of chess skills and experience (IA, GMC, FM, published author, columnist) of any Canadian ever. Hal has come on very strong in recent years, becoming the first Canadian arbiter with a presence at World Championship (not only Olympiad) events. Certainly in eastern Canada in English-speaking settings, Hal is the top right now. He was fantastic when he taught the 2010 FIDE Arbiter's course in Toronto, where I passed the very tough exam. Serge is professional and thorough; I certainly learned from him when we worked together. I'm not familiar with his recent work in Quebec events or in Europe.
It's important to recognize that each has chosen different roles for the exercise of his arbiter functions, from a career standpoint.
Interestingly, all three of Jonathan, Hal, and Serge are former Executive Directors of the CFC! :)
Your team has two sick players, and you are 5,000
miles, 1 days plane travel, and 1 visa application away from the
next Canadian player of strength, other than the captain.
Precisely because of the clause, guess who the new regular/reserve
player will be?
It's not like in baseball, where the manager has to wear
a uniform to make it obvious for guys like you.
Now you're changing what we're arguing about. My point was that the team captain is not a playing member of the team. If a player doesn't make it to the event for whatever reason, by all means the team would grab the strongest available player, which might happen to be the Captain and might happen to be someone else. That's a totally different situation, however, than for you to suggest that the wording allows for 6 players on the team.
Now you're changing what we're arguing about. My point was that the team captain is not a playing member of the team.
The point being argued is whether Serge was right or not in suggesting
the team captain was in effect a 6th team player. Why, what did you think
it was about?
If a player doesn't make it to the event for whatever reason, by all means the team would grab the strongest available player, which might happen to be the Captain and might happen to be someone else.
Okay, Canada's new team will be Garry, Magnus, Levon, Vishy. Get lost you Canucks!
Tweet
Comment