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 don't look at them so often as before I was asked not to post because my French was "incomprehensible". About the same as my English, when so inspired. LOL.
One idea on Parlons Echecs was to close down the FQE rating system. I'd suggest the opposite: expand it. Open it to FQE non-members. Non-members imply no sacrifice of $9 / $4.
A chess federation without a rating system is like a girlfriend without a place of her own. This agreement is not a marriage contract.
The FQE rating system is already open to non-members of the FQE. Anyone can submit a blitz tournament to be FQE-rated - one does not need to be a member.
This feature is rarely used (maybe 5-10 times since it was instituted a couple of years ago), but it is there.
This agreement will allow for anyone to submit a tournament to be rated FQE or CFC or both as long as all participants are either member of the CFC or the FQE and as long as the respective rating fees are paid. These tournaments can also be submitted to FIDE as long as they are submited through the CFC and rules for such ratings are followed.
More and livelier discussion on the French board. I'll leave those with better French skills than I to provide a summary.
That would be nice Kerry, but actually there is no need to copy and translate anything to point out new stuff that appears to be near fatal oversights in that deal. Looking at it is pretty much like looking at a chess position. At first things might appear simple and straightforward. But with time the truth of the position slowly comes up to reveal deep and sometimes disturbing content (or beautiful content, depending on the point of view :)).
For example, look at this two line article that is in the crux of the matter.
"Annual fees collected are placed in a trust, earmarked for FIDE-related* expenses, overseen by 50% FQE Trustees and 50% CFC Trustees."
At first sight nothing wrong with it. How can things be more fair than fifty-fifty ? But after a while one realise the true meaning of it : both sides (but more importantly the FQE) will have a right of veto on how to spend the FQE money put in that thrust, meant for international expenses ! If for some reason the FQE side does not agree on how or how much or anything else, it can say "no" and paralyse everything. Potentially this could prevent, for example, the national teams to attend an olympiad. I already hear you saying that "the FQE would never do such a thing". Well, you would probably be right but who knows for sure when the other side will decide to play hardball, especially if given a perfect weapon to do so ? A chess federation leadership is a pretty volatile thing...
The bottom line is : can such a deal be expected to work out when both sides have an absolute veto on decisions ?
Now as if this was not enough, there is another worrysome question for both sides that has apparently not been considered. What happens with the money in that thrust once the agreement is over (after three years), if no new deal has been agreed upon between the CFC and the FQE ? What happens when the "trustees" no longer have legal existence ? Would the money be returned to where it comes from (the FQE) or find itself in a legal void certain to create everlasting legal problems likely to outlive most of us ?
It is not just on the french side that this deal must be examined and analysed thoroughly. Its potential to create lasting problems for everybody is not only real, it is most probable.
Hi Jean,
You confused me with Kerry. I was applauding the fact that the French chesstalk seemed to be having a better discussion of the agreement. The language in the draft agreement looks like it still needs some fine-tuning. It appears to me that a lawyer probably wasn't used in its drafting.
That would be nice Kerry, but actually there is no need to copy and translate anything to point out new stuff that appears to be near fatal oversights in that deal. Looking at it is pretty much like looking at a chess position. At first things might appear simple and straightforward. But with time the truth of the position slowly comes up to reveal deep and sometimes disturbing content (or beautiful content, depending on the point of view :)).
For example, look at this two line article that is in the crux of the matter.
"Annual fees collected are placed in a trust, earmarked for FIDE-related* expenses, overseen by 50% FQE Trustees and 50% CFC Trustees."
At first sight nothing wrong with it. How can things be more fair than fifty-fifty ? But after a while one realise the true meaning of it : both sides (but more importantly the FQE) will have a right of veto on how to spend the FQE money put in that thrust, meant for international expenses ! If for some reason the FQE side does not agree on how or how much or anything else, it can say "no" and paralyse everything. Potentially this could prevent, for example, the national teams to attend an olympiad. I already hear you saying that "the FQE would never do such a thing". Well, you would probably be right but who knows for sure when the other side will decide to play hardball, especially if given a perfect weapon to do so ? A chess federation leadership is a pretty volatile thing...
The bottom line is : can such a deal be expected to work out when both sides have an absolute veto on decisions ?
Now as if this was not enough, there is another worrysome question for both sides that has apparently not been considered. What happens with the money in that thrust once the agreement is over (after three years), if no new deal has been agreed upon between the CFC and the FQE ? What happens when the "trustees" no longer have legal existence ? Would the money be returned to where it comes from (the FQE) or find itself in a legal void certain to create everlasting legal problems likely to outlive most of us ?
It is not just on the french side that this deal must be examined and analysed thoroughly. Its potential to create lasting problems for everybody is not only real, it is most probable.
Hi Jean,
You are bringing out some interesting questions which deserve clarification.
The document I believe was a framework for future relations between the two organizations.
As a lawyer once explained to me....the best contract in the World means nothing if both parties are not "de bonne foi".
That would be nice Kerry, but actually there is no need to copy and translate anything to point out new stuff that appears to be near fatal oversights in that deal. Looking at it is pretty much like looking at a chess position. At first things might appear simple and straightforward. But with time the truth of the position slowly comes up to reveal deep and sometimes disturbing content (or beautiful content, depending on the point of view :)).
For example, look at this two line article that is in the crux of the matter.
"Annual fees collected are placed in a trust, earmarked for FIDE-related* expenses, overseen by 50% FQE Trustees and 50% CFC Trustees."
At first sight nothing wrong with it. How can things be more fair than fifty-fifty ? But after a while one realise the true meaning of it : both sides (but more importantly the FQE) will have a right of veto on how to spend the FQE money put in that thrust, meant for international expenses ! If for some reason the FQE side does not agree on how or how much or anything else, it can say "no" and paralyse everything. Potentially this could prevent, for example, the national teams to attend an olympiad. I already hear you saying that "the FQE would never do such a thing". Well, you would probably be right but who knows for sure when the other side will decide to play hardball, especially if given a perfect weapon to do so ? A chess federation leadership is a pretty volatile thing...
The bottom line is : can such a deal be expected to work out when both sides have an absolute veto on decisions ?
Now as if this was not enough, there is another worrysome question for both sides that has apparently not been considered. What happens with the money in that thrust once the agreement is over (after three years), if no new deal has been agreed upon between the CFC and the FQE ? What happens when the "trustees" no longer have legal existence ? Would the money be returned to where it comes from (the FQE) or find itself in a legal void certain to create everlasting legal problems likely to outlive most of us ?
It is not just on the french side that this deal must be examined and analysed thoroughly. Its potential to create lasting problems for everybody is not only real, it is most probable.
All you've managed to point out is that if either of the two parties sours on the deal or reverses the goodwill with which they enter the agreement by playing 'hardball' that they can effectively nullify the deal. The same thing happens in a marriage. There is no guarantee of anything if the parties decide they don't like each other any more.
You are very good at predicting disaster. You don't seem to be anywhere near as good at making things work. You are like the bystander telling the builder that the cathedral will never stand up without any better ideas of your own. Or like the guest at the wedding who keeps telling every one it will never last because you don't see what she sees in him.
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Wednesday, 27th June, 2012, 08:22 AM.
Hi Jean,
You confused me with Kerry. I was applauding the fact that the French chesstalk seemed to be having a better discussion of the agreement. The language in the draft agreement looks like it still needs some fine-tuning. It appears to me that a lawyer probably wasn't used in its drafting.
Sorry for the mix up, Karl :). I think you are right. There was probably no lawyer involved, and not enough time given to the whole process. These things cannot be rushed (even if an olympiad is coming up ;)) and must be considered very carefully with all its possible consequences. The scary part is that to my understanding it is not a "draft agreement", it is a final agreement that must be rejected by the governors or approved as is. Otherwise new negociations would be needed.
You are like the bystander telling the builder that the cathedral will never stand up without any better ideas of your own.
I do believe that I have better ideas, but they are in total opposition with the current FQE leadership. Even along the lines defended by them, a satisfactory deal was possible but now it has become very difficult to backtrack without one party feeling betrayed.
Or like the guest at the wedding who keeps telling every one it will never last because you don't see what she sees in him.
Problem is that the "guest" is more often than not right :). Two married people can very well be in love with each other if they are not married together. -Sacha Guitry
Last edited by Jean Hébert; Wednesday, 27th June, 2012, 09:01 AM.
You are bringing out some interesting questions which deserve clarification.
The document I believe was a framework for future relations between the two organizations.
As a lawyer once explained to me....the best contract in the World means nothing if both parties are not "de bonne foi".
Larry
Hi Larry,
To my understanding this is not a framework, it is unfortunately a binding three year deal about to be submitted to a governor vote. Nothing less. My experience in life contracts tells me that to be "de bonne foi" is never enough. And that a good partnership cannot stand on a simple transfer of money.
"Annual fees collected are placed in a trust, earmarked for FIDE-related* expenses, overseen by 50% FQE Trustees and 50% CFC Trustees."
At first sight nothing wrong with it. How can things be more fair than fifty-fifty ? But after a while one realise the true meaning of it : both sides (but more importantly the FQE) will have a right of veto on how to spend the FQE money put in that thrust, meant for international expenses ! If for some reason the FQE side does not agree on how or how much or anything else, it can say "no" and paralyse everything. ?
The chairing person of the trusties may have a decisive vote, i.e., two votes, and (s)he is alternated every year between the CFC and the FQE members.
IYou could have said that if had been involved in those negociations. But I wasn't. Everything that I become part of, actually work.
Well perhaps with that wonderful track record and the desire to run things you should consider running for the executive of the FQE. What voter could resist voting for such a perfect and infallible candidate?
The chairing person of the trusties may have a decisive vote, i.e., two votes, and (s)he is alternated every year between the CFC and the FQE members.
This is not stated in the agreement. But if it was, who would then choose this most important chairing person with two votes ? Which 50% would have the deciding vote in choosing the guy with the decisive vote ? :)
This is not stated in the agreement. But if it was, who would then choose this most important chairing person with two votes ? Which 50% would have the deciding vote in choosing the guy with the decisive vote ? :)
The only thing I got from reading what was posted is that it does not specify what would happen in the event of a tie. All scenarios which are being written are speculation.
Personally, I don't see how chess can compete with all the new toys these days. This week I'm playing with my new BlackBerry Playbook. Last week it was with the Apple product. It must be getting hard to sell chess memberships with all those other toys.
Tweet
Comment