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.
Vlad I think that your thread clearly expresses the benefits for both parties to move forward with this agreement. Some in Québec and in the rest of Canada will argue against it is time to move beyond the attitudes that prevented us, in the past, to seek a win-win agreement. Some could argue the chess players, always on the hunt for a checkmate, have a tough time playing collaborative games...
The basic idea that Quebec players can play in CFC events, and CFC in FQE, is a sensible idea, even though it applies to few outside of Hull/Ottawa.
The past couple of years have seen more Canadian events FIDE rated and there are now many FIDE-rated players below 2000. There are several Quebec swisses that could have their top section FIDE-rated. Quebec players who score 1/3 in the Quebec Open should have other local opportunites to complete their 9 games to get a published FIDE rating.
Quebec has shown an interest in paying the costs of their players on the Canadian teams and being on FIDE rating lists. Hebert points out that the amount collected is way over present expenditures, but isn't it earmarked for only Quebec players? Maybe it should also pay Quebec's CFC/FIDE rating fees. Can the 50/50 committee decide that?
The past couple of years have seen more Canadian events FIDE rated and there are now many FIDE-rated players below 2000. There are several Quebec swisses that could have their top section FIDE-rated. Quebec players who score 1/3 in the Quebec Open should have other local opportunites to complete their 9 games to get a published FIDE rating.
I have asked the question several times but so far no one has ever come up with an answer, let alone a good one. What is the point of getting a FIDE rating ? Does that make a player better ?
If someone gets a FIDE rating near 2300, then he is a position to dream of the FIDE master title or even eventually a higher title. Then I see some sense in wanting to get FIDE rated. But otherwise getting a FIDE rating makes no sense at all. If one is not strong enough to get one at least around 2200, he might as well wait until he is stronger. He or she then won't have to climb up inch by inch from a low starting point. That is why to FIDE rate Open swisses seems to me to be a waste of money.
The first FIDE rating I got in 1975 (canadian closed) was 2255. Three years later I won the same Closed and my rating jumped to 2360. Would it have been better if in between my weekenders had been FIDE rated ? Would I have been a better player ? Of course not. That is why there is no point in increasing the number of FIDE rated events and pay for it. And besides as I have already explained, FIDE ratings threatens our national ratings, both FQE and CFC. Organizers and 98% of all our members do not need several ratings. If we keep trying to spead FIDE ratings to all classes we will end up subsidizing FIDE instead of supporting our national federations.
Quebec has shown an interest in paying the costs of their players on the Canadian teams and being on FIDE rating lists. Hebert points out that the amount collected is way over present expenditures, but isn't it earmarked for only Quebec players?
No it is not only for Quebec players. The deal is to put the FQE money into a trust earmarked for "FIDE related expense". But don't forget that as written the deal gives a veto right to both parties on how the money will be spent... Don't count your eggs...
Last edited by Jean Hébert; Saturday, 30th June, 2012, 04:38 PM.
I have asked the question several times but so far no one has ever come up with an answer, let alone a good one. What is the point of getting a FIDE rating ? Does that make a player better ?
If someone gets a FIDE rating near 2300, then he is a position to dream of the FIDE master title or even eventually a higher title. Then I see some sense in wanting to get FIDE rated. But otherwise getting a FIDE rating makes no sense at all. If one is not strong enough to get one at least around 2200, he might as well wait until he is stronger. He or she then won't have to climb up inch by inch from a low starting point. That is why to FIDE rate Open swisses seems to me to be a waste of money.
..... And besides as I have already explained, FIDE ratings threatens our national ratings, both FQE and CFC. Organizers and 98% of all our members do not need several ratings. If we keep trying to spead FIDE ratings to all classes we will end up subsidizing FIDE instead of supporting our national federations.
.
You are not wrong on all of this, but the fact is, many people see getting a FIDE rating as some kind of accomplishment (which it was when the rating floor was 2200) and are willing to pay for it. From an organizer's perspective, the calculation is: will the number of extra entries because it is FIDE rated pay the total FIDE rating dues with some left over? The answer to that question is often yes - it only takes 1 or 2 extra entries to make the financial case.
The same sort of pressures are visible with juniors / parents who see a regular CFC rating as more desirable / meaningful than a CMA or CFC active rating.
It's certainly very dangerous to go to a FIDE rating that extends all the way down to 1000 or whatever. Although FIDE currently only rates with the approval of the national federation, that could change at any time. Not to mention the loss of any possibility of control over ratings or sending money to FIDE that could be better spent locally.
I have asked the question several times but so far no one has ever come up with an answer, let alone a good one. What is the point of getting a FIDE rating ? Does that make a player better ?
If someone gets a FIDE rating near 2300, then he is a position to dream of the FIDE master title or even eventually a higher title. Then I see some sense in wanting to get FIDE rated. But otherwise getting a FIDE rating makes no sense at all. If one is not strong enough to get one at least around 2200, he might as well wait until he is stronger. He or she then won't have to climb up inch by inch from a low starting point. That is why to FIDE rate Open swisses seems to me to be a waste of money.
The first FIDE rating I got in 1975 (canadian closed) was 2255. Three years later I won the same Closed and my rating jumped to 2360. Would it have been better if in between my weekenders had been FIDE rated ? Would I have been a better player ? Of course not. That is why there is no point in increasing the number of FIDE rated events and pay for it. And besides as I have already explained, FIDE ratings threatens our national ratings, both FQE and CFC. Organizers and 98% of all our members do not need several ratings. If we keep trying to spead FIDE ratings to all classes we will end up subsidizing FIDE instead of supporting our national federations.
Back in the good old days getting a FIDE rating was an accomplishment, as you were only published if you were over 2200, only masters were FIDE-rated. I agree with you that having everyone FIDE-rated is a cash grab, and that's there's going to be problems as low-rated World Youth players become stronger.
So why should anyone under 2200 get any rating FIDE/CFC/FQE? We're not professionals and have major flaws in our thinking. I'm never going to be a master at chess (or golf, etc.) so should I just quit pretending to be a chess player?
When I started playing slow chess again 10 years ago in Amsterdam I had a 2040 performance, but, as I age I'm likely to never reach that again. If I want to play in another tourist tournament they could be aghast at me being unrated, as unrateds count as the rating floor in norm calculations.
I like having my name published; I like having the record of my 'strength' on the fide page, my tournament history; I get a ranking and get to feel part of the world chess community, part of chess history. Even knowing that I'm such a patzer. I can compare my self with other individuals I come into contact with, regardless of nationality. I would never get my name on the NHL player list or even the World Poker Tour. So it is a cheap thrill. I like alot of things about chess that isn't just about becoming a stronger player, such as wasting potential study time on chesstalk.
Vlad I think that your thread clearly expresses the benefits for both parties to move forward with this agreement. Some in Québec and in the rest of Canada will argue against it is time to move beyond the attitudes that prevented us, in the past, to seek a win-win agreement. Some could argue the chess players, always on the hunt for a checkmate, have a tough time playing collaborative games...
Hopefully sanity will prevail among the governors and the agreement will move forward. We really have to start working together. Less ego and more working together. CFC, FQE, CMA we are all here because we have a love of chess. If we remind ourselves of that more often perhaps we can overcome the silly arguments which sometimes divide us.
First of all Vladimir, let me point out that I value your contribution to this thread. You have the courage of your convictions and to express them. This is the only way to build a positive dialogue.
Thank you, Jean. I certainly value your contributions to this thread as well. The deal really needs to be a win-win for it to be sustainable in the long run and it is good to see what the problems are from your perspective.
From the CFCs point of view, what is so wrong with the current situation, besides not getting "enough" money from Quebec players ? Too many Quebec players on the national teams getting a "free ride" ?
The problem from my point of view is that there is not enough players on the national teams from Quebec or the rest of Canada getting a "free ride". The current situation where players aren't sure of the funding for Olympiad participation until well after they have made a commitment without knowing the exact possible downside seems ludicrous to me. The way around that is to grow in numbers so that there is more discretionary money to spend on both Olympiad teams (national and women's).
Hardly. 1/9 two years ago and the same this time around (11%). Not enough cooperation ? In the last decade the FQE has come to the CFCs rescue quite a few times (Canadian Open in 2002, CYCC once, etc.). It even made a 2000$ donation to the olympic fund two years ago. If one think that this status quo is so bad for the CFC, wait until this agreement gets in the way of that good will.
Quebec has certainly been doing its part to foster good will between the federations.
I am anxiously waiting to see you playing in Quebec tournaments Mr Drkulec. The fact is it is not the dual membership fees that is the most significant obstacle for players to play more tournaments further from home. It is time, general expenses (travel, lodging, food, etc), and distances.
Very long car trips can cause me health problems though I did manage to make a trip to Quebec City recently by car which did not cause me any significant problems but that was probably because our fearless president was doing the driving.
And it is true even for someone like me. Last year I played the Canadian Open in Toronto. I had not played chess in Toronto for more than 20 years! Despite the fact that I dont have to pay for either membership! But other expenses are simply too much for me to attend weekenders in Ontario. This deal is not going to change the fundamentals.
People have limited time and funds to play chess. Waiving membership fees will help, but only a little if any. People will probably play the same amount of chess, and spent the same kind of money, but spreaded over different locations. They might play fewer local events in favor of going out more often. Is it what we are after ? I doubt it.
This is all very true. When I played 168 games, I did not do very much else and it was rather expensive.
It is never going to happen but if it happens, it would not be "cooperation". It would be competing with the FQE to put it out of business. What would you say if the FQE started to offer its services in english for the rest of Canada ? Would you call it "cooperation" ?
I am not so hung up on who delivers the services as long as they are delivered.
This would obviously be artificial growth. Real growth is something else.
We do need quite a bit of real growth to add to the artificial growth.
Not so long ago the CFC's membership was around 4,000 members, without the FQE. What did the CFC do then about approaching potential sponsors ? And now 3 000 would make a difference in that regard ? I am all for "good will" and "good faith" but it should not be confused with "wishful thinking" and illusions.
To get real growth we will need to do some things that are different from what we have been doing up to now. We need to do the type of things that they seem to take for granted in golf, tennis, hockey and soccer. Of course they have all kinds of sponsorships both from private industry and governments.
There is absolutely no garantee that going back to the current situation (which I call a "live and let live" situation) will be possible if that deal leads to major misunderstandings and disagreements as I suspect it will. The status quo as you call it has allowed some timely cooperation when both sides saw it as mutually profitable, which is the only way to cooperate. Can the current situation be improved ? Absolutely. But this agreement is not going down this path. It is incomplete, ill-founded and dangerous. Such an agreement with a double veto cannot work very long. It carelessly opens a pandora box. More care and considerations are needed to solve a 40 year old problem without making it worse.
I am not sure how much worse it can get. I have a feeling that the current FQE and CFC executive will make this arrangement work and three years from now we will wonder what all the fuss was about when we quickly renew the arrangement.
Last edited by Vlad Drkulec; Saturday, 30th June, 2012, 11:56 PM.
No it is not only for Quebec players. The deal is to put the FQE money into a trust earmarked for "FIDE related expense". But don't forget that as written the deal gives a veto right to both parties on how the money will be spent... Don't count your eggs...
"- The FQE will pay a 9$ fee per adult membership and 4$ for junior and cadet membership. The payment will occur in the following fashion:
On the anniversary date of the agreement, FQE will report its membership per category and pay an annual fee according to those numbers.
- Annual fees collected are placed in a trust, earmarked for FIDE-related* expenses, overseen by 50% FQE Trustees and 50% CFC Trustees."
Maybe these need to be modified:
- The FQE will pay a 9$ fee per adult and 4$ for junior and cadet
of those Quebec players who have played in a FIDE/CFC rated tournament. The payment will occur in the following fashion: On the anniversary date of the agreement, FQE will report its membership per category and pay an annual fee according to those numbers.
- Annual fees collected are placed in a trust, earmarked for FIDE-related* expenses of Quebec players, overseen by 50% FQE Trustees and 50% CFC Trustees.
"- The FQE will pay a 9$ fee per adult membership and 4$ for junior and cadet membership. The payment will occur in the following fashion:
On the anniversary date of the agreement, FQE will report its membership per category and pay an annual fee according to those numbers.
- Annual fees collected are placed in a trust, earmarked for FIDE-related* expenses, overseen by 50% FQE Trustees and 50% CFC Trustees."
Maybe these need to be modified:
- The FQE will pay a 9$ fee per adult and 4$ for junior and cadet
of those Quebec players who have played in a FIDE/CFC rated tournament. The payment will occur in the following fashion: On the anniversary date of the agreement, FQE will report its membership per category and pay an annual fee according to those numbers.
- Annual fees collected are placed in a trust, earmarked for FIDE-related* expenses of Quebec players, overseen by 50% FQE Trustees and 50% CFC Trustees.
I would vote in favour of your proposed modifications :). But unfortunately this agreement is up for approval or rejection, and nothing in between. And once adopted it will stand as his for three years unless one side decides to use his veto right.
Last edited by Jean Hébert; Sunday, 1st July, 2012, 09:53 AM.
I am not sure how much worse it can get. I have a feeling that the current FQE and CFC executive will make this arrangement work and three years from now we will wonder what all the fuss was about when we quickly renew the arrangement.
This is precisely what I meant by "wishful thinking". You are putting way too much confidence in the capacity of CFC leaders to act competently (I am not saying that the FQE leadership is any better). Remember, not long ago the CFC lost half his membership in a couple of years and got on the verge of bankrupcy. History tells us that confidence must be tempered and should not replace cautiousness.
On the other side, Quebec FQE members will from now on have a choice : they will be able to get most FQE services by sending their money to Ottawa and becoming CFC members instead of paying their dues to the FQE! In the Montreal area with about 50% of the population using english as a first language, the temptation will be strong... Only a very weak FQE leadership could allow such a thing. But it will not remain weak for ever. The current president is leaving in a few weeks... Anyone who believes that all this will go by without a fuss should take a wake-up pill.
YES (27) Aris Marghetis Bob Armstrong Bob Gillanders Christopher Mallon Egidijus Zeromskis Fred McKim Garvin Nunes Gordon Ritchie Hal Bond Halldor P. Palsson Ilia Bluvshtein Ken Craft Ken Einarsson Kevin Pacey Lyle Craver Mark S. Dutton, I.A. Michael Barron Nikolay Noritsyn Patrick McDonald Paul Leblanc Peter Stockhausen Robert Laszlo Vlad Rekhson Vladimir Birarov Vladimir Drkulec Lynn Stringer (by proxy) Maurice Smith (by proxy)
NO (2) Pierre Dénommée Valer Eugen Demian
ABSTAIN (4) Hugh Brodie Michael von Keitz Rob Clark Simon Ong
Therefore by a vote of 27-2 with 4 abstentions the motion passes
YES (27) Aris Marghetis Bob Armstrong Bob Gillanders Christopher Mallon Egidijus Zeromskis Fred McKim Garvin Nunes Gordon Ritchie Hal Bond Halldor P. Palsson Ilia Bluvshtein Ken Craft Ken Einarsson Kevin Pacey Lyle Craver Mark S. Dutton, I.A. Michael Barron Nikolay Noritsyn Patrick McDonald Paul Leblanc Peter Stockhausen Robert Laszlo Vlad Rekhson Vladimir Birarov Vladimir Drkulec Lynn Stringer (by proxy) Maurice Smith (by proxy)
NO (2) Pierre Dénommée Valer Eugen Demian
ABSTAIN (4) Hugh Brodie Michael von Keitz Rob Clark Simon Ong
Therefore by a vote of 27-2 with 4 abstentions the motion passes
Once again this massive support without Quebec input (only two votes, one against and one abstain) for a motion that takes full advantage of blackmailing a weak FQE, shows once again the CFC incapacity to act honourably and be worth to be called the national federation of a country with two official languages. It fails most notably to acknowledge that the CFC has had and still has the moral obligation to serve its members in both official languages, or to contribute financially to services that it cannot or would not provide itself. This is not included in this motion, otherwise no transfer of money would have been agreed upon. Shame on you governors, shame on you Michael Von Keitz, but most importantly, shame on you Gordon Ritchie who acted as "negociator" while masterminding this deal, and then had the impudence to congratulate the parties for a job well done!
It takes two to ratify an agreement. It is obvious that the CFC Governors believed this proposed agreement was in the best interests of its organization. The FQE governing structure will have to decide for itself how it feels about this proposed agreement.
It takes two to ratify an agreement. It is obvious that the CFC Governors believed this proposed agreement was in the best interests of its organization. The FQE governing structure will have to decide for itself how it feels about this proposed agreement.
I thought I saw a date posted for that decision, but I cannot find it now... anyone know when the FQE will be meeting to decide whether or not to ratify the agreement?
I thought I saw a date posted for that decision, but I cannot find it now... anyone know when the FQE will be meeting to decide whether or not to ratify the agreement?
The FQE representatives will be asked to vote on the agreement on July 19.
Tweet
Comment