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.
15. Have fun!
(Thanks to Nigel Hanrahan for writing these up!)
Open letter to CFC President on non-Governor participation in 2012 AGM
Re: Open letter to CFC President on non-Governor participation in 2012 AGM
the typical AGM in the past has had something like maybe 10 governors in attendance and usually 0 non governors in attendance, maybe 1 non governor in a good year.
Sturm und drang about a "failure of democray", "trampling member rights" in this first time online AGM when all that is required is to read the relevant CFC board and, if you want to speak, send your local governor an email, seems a little weird.
Re: Open letter to CFC President on non-Governor participation in 2012 AGM
The only two non-Governor presentations I can remember... one was by Kevin Spraggett (52 page report) and one was about the CIC/youth camps I believe (which were running nextdoor).
Re: Open letter to CFC President on non-Governor participation in 2012 AGM
I commend those who use the terms Annual General Meeting and AGM to check out the online CFC Handbook. In all the places where it counts, the term Annual Meeting (note the absence of the word General) is used. Only in three peripheral cases (I'm guessing as a result of typos, amendments to motions, or later additions), does the General word arise. The CFC Annual Meeting - the AM is a meeting of the Special Members, the Governors.
If members were allowed to speak at previous Annual Meetings of the CFC, it was because they were distributed the proxy of an actual governor (and thus for the purposes of that meeting, themself (?) became a governor possessing a vote, with the proviso that they must vote in accord with instructions from the actual governor, if provided), in accordance with the CFC Constitution, or the Chair of the meeting decided that they should be heard. What the Chair giveth ....
Some details might have been handled differently, but no member-based democracy was harmed in the making of this online Annual Meeting.
Re: Open letter to CFC President on non-Governor participation in 2012 AGM
I have seen non-Governors speak at annual meetings - but with the consent of the Governors. Usually it was in reference to a tournament bid in which the speaker was involved.
Re: Open letter to CFC President on non-Governor participation in 2012 AGM
I'm glad to see that my original post on this topic has generated substantive discussion. That was one of my purposes in posting the open letter to the CFC President. It is an important question, it seems. And the open letter seems to be an effective format for discussing it; I'm glad I wrote it that way.
However, I don't appreciate Chris Mallon's approach to my question, as represented by his posted statement 'open letter crap.' I've been around the CFC a lot longer than Mr. Mallon; in fact he played in the 1996 Ontario HS Championship in Kingston which I helped to direct, 20 years after I last played in that event. I had been organizing and directing for over a decade at that time, including the 1992 Zonal. So, Chris, have some respect for those you don't agree with; cut the sanctimonious attitude. It's the kind of remark that turns many people off Canadian chess.
Addressing Mr. Berry's remarks: in 2007 in Ottawa, speaking as a non-Governor, I made several statements at the AGM, having received permission from the Chair beforehand, and my input and information had significant effect on the debate. Jon was at that meeting, for much of it anyway, as it happened.
With respect to the material I hoped to bring to the AGM, I expect that some of it will be non-controversial; I don't see a problem with the CFC Governors receiving and responding to it. However, some of it will be controversial, and may be edited out of appearance on the CFC Board, or even here, since certain people may not like what I have to say, although it is true. I'm glad the ethics file has come up for discussion at the AGM; I have important material there. Perhaps it is now too late to get it in.
However, I don't appreciate Chris Mallon's approach to my question, as represented by his posted statement 'open letter crap.' I've been around the CFC a lot longer than Mr. Mallon; in fact he played in the 1996 Ontario HS Championship in Kingston which I helped to direct, 20 years after I last played in that event. I had been organizing and directing for over a decade at that time, including the 1992 Zonal. So, Chris, have some respect for those you don't agree with; cut the sanctimonious attitude. It's the kind of remark that turns many people off Canadian chess.
Being older than me does not automatically entitle you to respect. Even if it did, you squandered any respect you might have had from me with your little war against Wayne Coppin et al.
What on Earth does having organized the 1992 Zonal have to do with whether or not an open letter is the appropriate method of communication? And how does the fact that I played in an event at which you were the TD make your opinion more valid than mine?
With respect to the material I hoped to bring to the AGM, I expect that some of it will be non-controversial; I don't see a problem with the CFC Governors receiving and responding to it. However, some of it will be controversial, and may be edited out of appearance on the CFC Board, or even here, since certain people may not like what I have to say, although it is true.
Since you have apparently waited until after the AGM ended and still have not actually asked the Chair for permission to address the AGM, I'm guessing you are just looking for an excuse to make a(nother) stink about something.
I'm glad the ethics file has come up for discussion at the AGM; I have important material there. Perhaps it is now too late to get it in.
You are never going to get the resolution you want, why do you keep trying?
Re: Open letter to CFC President on non-Governor participation in 2012 AGM
Any information you have Frank can most likely be sent to the President for posting on the Governors Board. Governors read it between meetings. If you have motions you want considered you should find two Govewrnors to sponsor them.
Re: Open letter to CFC President on non-Governor participation in 2012 AGM
I'm addressing this to Chris Mallon, and others who may be interested. This thread continues to draw strong readership, and I expect this will continue.
In the years Chris has been involved in Canadian chess organization, one thing has never changed: his seeming attitude that he is somehow better than others, and since he can never be wrong, he cannot admit his mistakes or admit others may know more than he does; he can use his high position to deflect legitimate criticism or inquiry, or simply walk away, as he did in the middle of his term as CFC President, when the Patrick McDonald CYCC financial mess was unfolding, circa 2006-2007. This attitude comes across very clearly in his letter: I am not implying I am better than Chris, but I do have a lot more experience in life and chess than he does, and at one time this counted for something in our society, but apparently not with Chris. He has no way of knowing what I am going to say, but decides to try to pre-empt what he THINKS I am going to say. He mentions the Coppin matter; as it happens, I wasn't planning to present anything on that case at this time. He doesn't understand that case to the level required to act upon it, even though some really important issues and principles are at stake there. Well, some people get their only exercise from jumping to conclusions. By the way, for those interested, Coppin continues to be banned from posting on this board.
I've got some important new ideas, and will be elaborating on those at some length. I expect they will be relatively non-controversial, and may yield significant benefits for Canadian chess. Stay tuned.
One matter from the past which I am going to raise again, however, is the Thorvardson situation, and that is because of several factors. First: with a potential bid for the 2016 Olympiad in the works, seemingly for Toronto, a bid I support, significant government funding will be required to make this happen. And Barry Thorvardson was one person who succeeded in getting significant government funding for chess development, from the Ontario Trillium Foundation, but decided to explicitly violate OCA regulations while he was president, and divert the money, some $80,000, to himself with only his own signature to back it up; OCA management rules required two signatures on amounts over $5,000. And Chris Mallon was right there, on the OCA Executive, when much of that process was taking place; I had spotted trouble a long time before, and resigned from the Executive on principle. So that outcome, seedy as it was, will have an inevitable impact on the success of any Ontario government support for the bid, a point I have been making ever since Thorvardson pulled his scheme. I'll make sure every Ontario MLA and Canadian MP is fully apprised of the facts of this case, and other channels are also open, should the Olympiad bid process go ahead. Even if there is no bid for this event, I plan to further publicize the facts of the case. Maybe Canadian chess leaders will now realize the importance of taking strong action against Thorvardson, through proper channels. Any strong action potentially places Mallon in a very difficult position, as a subject of inquiry with tough questions to answer. However, I am NOT implying he is directly responsible, nor that he profited personally from the potential criminal fraud.
Still with the Thorvardson matter: Second, after consultation with my attorney, I have decided to release new information I have been holding on this case. Stay tuned for that. Included there are details of my extensive discussions on this case from March 2010 with then-CFC President Eric Van Dusen; he had some vital conclusions from his own examination of the matter, and one of those involves Mallon, a fact I was unaware of until Eric told me. It is time for the Canadian chess leadership and membership to have this information.
The other possibly controversial matter I have in mind is the Dutton case from the 2004 Zonal. Again, significant new information and insight, derived from the Rules of Chess, will impact this situation. I have also kept several key emails from that era, for example from Thorvardson and Dutton himself, and will be releasing those for public view. I have a vital email from a player who was eligible for the Zonal, and hoped to play, but backed out, solely because Dutton was in charge: I plan to release this, since it reinforces my case, made right from the time of the controversial pairing, and continuously since. Important questions, not only regarding the essential nature of the pairings, but on chess rules development at the FIDE level, hang in the balance here, as does Mark Dutton's reputation as an arbiter. It just so happens that Mark is running the Canadian Open in Victoria this week; I hope it goes well.
To conclude this post, some people are probably wondering why I didn't pick up on the on-line CFC meeting sooner, or get involved with it. Well, my Mother passed away recently, and we were very close. I had to travel to Victoria for an extended period for family matters, and I haven't been paying that much attention to this board or to chess matters in Canada, as many people can probably understand. I did help run a large event successfully in late May, the Ontario HS, for four days in Toronto, so I have been involved as an organizer. :) :)
One matter from the past which I am going to raise again, however, is the Thorvardson situation, and that is because of several factors. First: with a potential bid for the 2016 Olympiad in the works, seemingly for Toronto, a bid I support, significant government funding will be required to make this happen. And Barry Thorvardson was one person who succeeded in getting significant government funding for chess development, from the Ontario Trillium Foundation, but decided to explicitly violate OCA regulations while he was president, and divert the money, some $80,000, to himself with only his own signature to back it up; OCA management rules required two signatures on amounts over $5,000. And Chris Mallon was right there, on the OCA Executive, when much of that process was taking place; I had spotted trouble a long time before, and resigned from the Executive on principle. So that outcome, seedy as it was, will have an inevitable impact on the success of any Ontario government support for the bid, a point I have been making ever since Thorvardson pulled his scheme. I'll make sure every Ontario MLA and Canadian MP is fully apprised of the facts of this case, and other channels are also open, should the Olympiad bid process go ahead. Even if there is no bid for this event, I plan to further publicize the facts of the case. Maybe Canadian chess leaders will now realize the importance of taking strong action against Thorvardson, through proper channels. Any strong action potentially places Mallon in a very difficult position, as a subject of inquiry with tough questions to answer. However, I am NOT implying he is directly responsible, nor that he profited personally from the potential criminal fraud.
If you are going to lie about things, you should at least try to do so about things that can't be proven false without a doubt, much less things that are known by many to be false.
For the record, I did serve almost two years on the OCA Exec with Barry. I declined to stand for re-election in 2005, seeking instead the CFC Presidency. My involvement in the run-up to the Trillium bid amounted to "Hey that sounds like a great idea!" and my involvement during the time of the actual bid and implementation was basically nonexistent, as I was not even an OCA Governor after the CFC election in 2005, much less on the OCA Executive. I intentionally resigned or did not seek re-election from every post I served at - club, league, provincial - to focus on the CFC.
What you are basically saying, however, is that if Toronto or any other Ontario (Canadian?) city were to try to bid for a Chess olympiad, you would do everything in your power to stand against that? Is that what all your long years of supposed experience have taught you to do?
Still with the Thorvardson matter: Second, after consultation with my attorney, I have decided to release new information I have been holding on this case. Stay tuned for that. Included there are details of my extensive discussions on this case from March 2010 with then-CFC President Eric Van Dusen; he had some vital conclusions from his own examination of the matter, and one of those involves Mallon, a fact I was unaware of until Eric told me. It is time for the Canadian chess leadership and membership to have this information.
The same Eric Van Dusen who supposedly "destroyed" (his word) a box full of OCA documents from the Trillium era, only to magically find it a year or so later once the "inquiry" was done?
Nice to know that he didn't have time to do any of his CFC duties, but he did have time to chat with you about an ancient OCA matter.
In the years Chris has been involved in Canadian chess organization, one thing has never changed: his seeming attitude that he is somehow better than others, and since he can never be wrong, he cannot admit his mistakes or admit others may know more than he does; he can use his high position to deflect legitimate criticism or inquiry, or simply walk away, as he did in the middle of his term as CFC President, when the Patrick McDonald CYCC financial mess was unfolding, circa 2006-2007.
Oh, I'll admit I've been wrong. I was right on the bandwagon in 2004 of people who thought Barry Thorvardsson was going to be the best thing ever to happen to Canadian chess. A minor mixup in emails and a small accounting error at the 2004 Ontario Open cost me probably more than $2000 out of my own pocket - because I admitted my mistakes and paid the price.
It's funny how many theories are out there about why I resigned as CFC President. Everyone seems to have their own. I'm not going to bother trying to convince you of the truth, since you likely don't care, and I definitely don't care if you care. Plus it's a bit amusing :)
But in all seriousness, are you actually trying to say that, in your mind, an open letter posted on a non-CFC discussion board complaining about not being allowed to post at the CFC AGM which is on the CFC discussion board and at which you have not even requested permission to post and thus not actually been denied permission was the best possible course of action?
He mentions the Coppin matter; as it happens, I wasn't planning to present anything on that case at this time. He doesn't understand that case to the level required to act upon it, even though some really important issues and principles are at stake there. Well, some people get their only exercise from jumping to conclusions. By the way, for those interested, Coppin continues to be banned from posting on this board.
It was a fairly high-odds guess as I know you've been approaching each new CFC President about it for almost a decade now. If I don't understand that case to the level required to act upon it, that's your fault for not properly making your case to me when you first appealed to me in 2005 or 2006. And if I had realised that all you cared about was Coppin being banned from chesstalk, I would have just forwarded your letters to Larry...
... The same Eric Van Dusen who supposedly "destroyed" (his word) a box full of OCA documents from the Trillium era, only to magically find it a year or so later once the "inquiry" was done? ...
Well this is certainly news to me, and to others, I assume. So, Chris, you knew that Van Dusen did *not* shred these documents and yet you never said anything? Amazing. And people wonder why I wouldn't trust some of our past and present OCA and CFC executives with a tooney to walk across the street and buy me a coffee at Timmy's.
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
Well this is certainly news to me, and to others, I assume. So, Chris, you knew that Van Dusen did *not* shred these documents and yet you never said anything? Amazing. And people wonder why I wouldn't trust some of our past and present OCA and CFC executives with a tooney to walk across the street and buy me a coffee at Timmy's.
An important follow-on question that comes to mind: "Where is the box of documents now?"
An important follow-on question that comes to mind: "Where is the box of documents now?"
No doubt some genius, realizing Van Dusen's "error" in not destroying the documents, has since shredded them.
How freaking hard can it be to run an organization like the OCA in an aboveboard, honest manner?
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
An important follow-on question that comes to mind: "Where is the box of documents now?"
Oh, lucky me. :( I am the current custodian of a box of documents from the Thorvardson years. I have them in order to piece together the financial records and file the necessary tax returns from 2004 onwards.
Re: Open letter to CFC President on non-Governor participation in 2012 AGM
I think it makes sense to post the motions being debated before each cfc quarterly meeting and the AGM on chess talk.
Then the governors can see clearly if there is a public outcry on any particular issue.
(I should note that the big issues seem to get debated here anyways -- see the thread on the agreement with the FQE for example).
That said and done the online meetings it seems to me have far more potential to be productive than the live meeting since a greater percentage of the governors are present.
Well this is certainly news to me, and to others, I assume. So, Chris, you knew that Van Dusen did *not* shred these documents and yet you never said anything? Amazing. And people wonder why I wouldn't trust some of our past and present OCA and CFC executives with a tooney to walk across the street and buy me a coffee at Timmy's.
... What?
I did not know that he had not shredded them. He told us he had destroyed the box, and we were left with that. Later he apparently discovered them. Apparently Bob Gillanders has them now. I'm not seeing what I did wrong here, maybe you can point it out to me.
Tweet
Comment