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.
Congratulations to Haizhou Xu for his great performance!
First of all, I'd like to admit that I enjoyed playing against Jean Hebert in round 2. Despite the fact that I lost to him and that he was the favorite in the Open section, I honestly think that he had to fight every game and give his best to win this tournament.
What's remarkable is that he took the time to analyze our game and provide me with honest feedback about the middle game and the opening itself.
I did lose, but I didn't lose the lesson.
To answer all the bloggers who think it was an easy win for him, he was close to finishing second if I didn't pull a miracle draw vs Haizhou Xu in the last round.
Hebert even took the time to congratulate me and Xu at the end of the tournament for our performances, he took the time to congratulate "the kids"!
IMHO, Short vs Hebert are in different positions. Short played in a single section event where he was invited. Hebert declined an invitation and he went to an Open.
There is no comparison. The Ottawa olympic fundraiser was made possible by Nigel's gracious agreement to participate. When to no one's graet surprise he won the event, half the entry fees went to the Canadian olympiad team.
There is no comparison. The Ottawa olympic fundraiser was made possible by Nigel's gracious agreement to participate. When to no one's graet surprise he won the event, half the entry fees went to the Canadian olympiad team.
I didn't mean any disrespect to Nigel Short as it would be a great honour to play such a strong player and former contender for the world chess championship. Playing an engine would not be the same type of experience.
On the Canadian chess stage, playing Jean Hebert, a recent Canadian champion, would also be a great honour. Knowing in advance that I might get the opportunity to play him would certainly increase my likelihood of participating in such an event.
I didn't mean any disrespect to Nigel Short as it would be a great honour to play such a strong player and former contender for the world chess championship. Playing an engine would not be the same type of experience.
On the Canadian chess stage, playing Jean Hebert, a recent Canadian champion, would also be a great honour. Knowing in advance that I might get the opportunity to play him would certainly increase my likelihood of participating in such an event.
I find it's not such a great experience to play an engine all the time, or even much at all, as opposed to a stronger human player at least now and then. The reasons are many. Some would be, off the top of my head:
1. The honour aspect of playing a human that Vlad mentions;
2. As Nunn once wrote, playing an engine all the time can become depressing, since (at least in his case, all he learned is that) costly tactical oversights by a human are all too common;
3. If a strong player is willing to give a post-mortem of any length, one can learn pearls of wisdom about strategy etc. that a computer can't impart;
4. There are some types of positions that even the strongest programs still simply don't understand how to evaluate or play properly, and these may come up occasionally when playing a strong player;
5. Playing a strong player still permits the possibility of a shallow or medium depth tactical error by the opponent, making the game more sporting more often than vs. a computer;
6. The social aspect of talking to a strong player about anything at all after a game, if he is willing, including going to the bar with him if you're both willing. :)
7. Chessplayers compete in tournaments against humans, not computers, so a strong player is more like a typical opponent one might get in a typical event than a computer is.
8. I don't like to lose :D, and at least I have a better chance of not doing so against an IM or GM than a decent computer program.
9. If one ever does learn how to beat (or draw) at will a given computer opponent that one has obtained, the product is of little further use as a playing opponent - whereas a given human opponent can hope to improve.
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Wednesday, 1st August, 2012, 04:53 PM.
Reason: Spelling
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
I find it's not such a great experience to play an engine all the time, or even much at all, as opposed to a stronger human player at least now and then. The reasons are many. Some would be, off the top of my head:
1. The honour aspect of playing a human that Vlad mentions;
2. As Nunn once wrote, playing an engine all the time can become depressing, since (at least in his case, all he learned is that) costly tactical oversights by a human are all too common;
3. If a strong player is willing to give a post-mortem of any length, one can learn pearls of wisdom about strategy etc. that a computer can't impart;
4. There are some types of positions that even the strongest programs still simply don't understand how to evaluate or play properly, and these may come up occasionally when playing a strong player;
5. Playing a strong player still permits the possibility of a shallow or medium depth tactical error by the opponent, making the game more sporting more often than vs. a computer;
6. The social aspect of talking to a strong player about anything at all after a game, if he is willing, including going to the bar with him if you're both willing. :)
7. Chessplayers compete in tournaments against humans, not computers, so a strong player is more like a typical opponent one might get in a typical event than a computer is.
8. I don't like to lose :D, and at least I have a better chance of not doing so against an IM or GM than a decent computer program.
9. If one ever does learn how to beat (or draw) at will a given computer opponent that one has obtained, the product is of little further use as a playing opponent - whereas a given human opponent can hope to improve.
These are good points, Kevin, and they make it clear why you personally would pay the monetary cost involved to substitute a strong player for a computer engine. In this discussion, which is very relevant to future tournament organization, we need to consider also those who can't or prefer not to afford that cost.
So the question becomes, which is better (for Canadian chess participation) for tournament organizers to offer: an Open section for all those rated say 2000 or higher, in which at least one strong well-known player would be invited, or an under 2200 section and maybe an under 2400 section above that?
If all organizers across Canada started offering the Open section, and were able to attract Hebert and others of his relative strength to them, would more players rated 2000 and above turn out?
One would almost think that organizers have considered this question, and they have come up with the answer of not forcing those rated 2000 and above into an Open section, but maybe this has not actually been scientifically studied (via polling, for example). Vlad Drkulec has stated he thinks that such a study isn't worth the time, because the players that would prefer an U2200 section because they might win more prize money are not the kind of players he wants to see in the future of Canadian chess.
Kevin, on your point #2, I would think that if an engine exposes one's tendency to overlook tactical considerations, then constantly playing such an engine would improve one's knowledge of and visualization of tactics and would thus make one a stronger player. Remember that once one has such an engine, it's available anytime, and so learning becomes much faster, which in chess is critical. One of the most detrimental factors to participation in chess is how slow it is: not just the games themselves, but one's improvement. Engines can rapidly accelerate the latter for players who are still developing. Of course, so can playing lots of blitz.
On your point #3, agreed, you can't converse with an engine, but one should not absolutely need that aspect to learn from one's games. Dedication to study of one's own play can and perhaps should come from within. Someone needing those post-mortems to learn chess is like someone needing TV to learn about the world around them, IMO.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Vlad Drkulec has stated he thinks that such a study isn't worth the time, because the players that would prefer an U2200 section because they might win more prize money are not the kind of players he wants to see in the future of Canadian chess.
You are either being deliberately dishonest or your reading comprehension is not sufficiently developed to the level required to read, correctly interpret and understand what was actually written in this thread. It is possible that I have misjudged your capabilities in this regard and will strive not to overestimate them in the future.
Miyamoto Musashi once wrote, "Do nothing which is of no use." That statement seems like good advice. I am glad you wrote what you did as it saves me the bother of replying to your last massive offering.
Last edited by Vlad Drkulec; Friday, 3rd August, 2012, 01:44 AM.
You are either being deliberately dishonest or your reading comprehension is not sufficiently developed to the level required to read, correctly interpret and understand what was actually written in this thread. It is possible that I have misjudged your capabilities in this regard and will strive not to overestimate them in the future.
Miyamoto Musashi once wrote, "Do nothing which is of no use." That statement seems like good advice. I am glad you wrote what you did as it saves me the bother of replying to your last massive offering.
Well, I'm afraid that if you're going to make such accusations, I'm going to have to refute them at the risk of embarrassing you, which was never my desire.
So, let's go over these two phrases I wrote and check them out against what you wrote.
My statement was "Vlad Drkulec has stated he thinks that such a study isn't worth the time, because the players that would prefer an U2200 section because they might win more prize money are not the kind of players he wants to see in the future of Canadian chess."
This statement has two main phrases:
(1) "Vlad Drkulec has stated he thinks that such a study isn't worth the time"
The study being referred to is one I suggested, as to whether tournament organizers would be attracting more participants rated over 2000 if they forced those participants to play an Open section in which a strong player like Jean Hebert rather than allowing them to have a better chance at prize money by holding an U2200 section. Here's how I worded that:
"Hebert has come right out and said he enters the Open section for financial reasons. It stands to reason then that others rated much less than him and without another section to go to might NOT enter the tournament for financial reasons. This deserves investigation by anyone who claims to care about the future of organized chess."
And a little later on in my post,
"This is a genuine issue pertaining to the future of organized chess. You should recognize it as such."
Your direct reply to this:
"You are exhorting me to devote some of my limited time and energy to entertain an idea which seems to me to be a variation that has been refuted." (Note: you didn't supply the refutation or any link to it, you just throw this out there as something you believe, kind of like all that anti-liberal ranting you occassionally demonstrate.)
I think I spelled your name correctly, so the evidence is overwhelming: this first phrase is absolutely correct. Even a high school logic student can see that.
(2) The second phrase: "because the players that would prefer an U2200 section because they might win more prize money are not the kind of players he wants to see in the future of Canadian chess"
Your first statement on this: "we can't build chess in Canada on the people who won't attend an open tournament because Jean Hebert or any other strong player will be there and his presence diminishes their shot at prize money"
I looked at this and pondered, by "can't" does he actually mean it's physically impossible? And in my reply, I addressed this possibility by asking what if you were an MBA student who had to actually propose and try something to accomplish this in order to graduate.
But later on I saw you wrote this:
"my feeling is that we should be going for the people who intrinsically enjoy playing chess without demanding large monetary payoffs for their participation."
And so I realized you didn't really mean "can't", you meant "won't", and I wrote that in my reply.
It's very very obvious from these two quotes that you don't want money-driven players in the future of Canadian chess. You state it very very clearly.
I'm human and can make interpretation mistakes, and will admit to it if it can be shown, but it's so obviously not the case here.
Instead of pulling a Mitt Romney act and trying to attack others for "misinterpreting" what you've been saying, perhaps you can rephrase it better or even retract it if it so obviously says something you don't actually believe.
As for that quote, "Do nothing which is of no use", well, that's about as subjective as you can get. But I can see that it would resonate with a right-wing viewpoint, because such people do believe that as long as everyone is doing what they consider to be of use, i.e. in a "free market", the universe will unfold as it should. The problem when you let that mentality reign supreme is that a lot of people who think they are better than others go on to think that certain activities that should really be considered criminal are "of use" to them, and will engage in them. You know, things like pyramid schemes, or like selling packages of mortgages as TripleA securities at the same time you are giving mortgage loans to people who have no chance of repaying them, the list could go on and on because it's all still going on right now.
Do nothing which is of no use -- yeah, that's really going to get us places. Some people on this board think it's of use to have ignore lists. If we all ignore everyone who we don't agree with, we're so much better off!
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
I don't know if I am on your ignore list or not, but you have not answered me (post #30).
I don't have an ignore list.
Ah, so you want to know what strong players I have played. Well, only a few in games that count, but more in simul games.
The names I remember playing are Kevin Gentes, Walter Browne (simul), Kevin Spraggett (simul), Robert Hamilton (simul, possibly 3 times). There are more non-simul games, they would have been first or second-round games at the four or five Canadian Opens I played in, and they would have been against at least 2300 or higher rated, but I don't recall the names other than Kevin Gentes.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
For beating Jean Hebert at his own game and showing that sometimes, David can beat Goliath :D. In a section filled with mostly experts and below, it's quite a shame that IM Hebert chooses to play in the open section year after year to cash in a thousand bucks (He did it last year too and won the open uncontested) instead of competing against players his own calibre in the Invitational section. I'm sure I might get a warning from moderators or private tells from other players "hint hint" but giving an IM the option of playing in a U2200 section with a couple masters and an almost guarantee chance of winning prize money is just pathetic to say the least.
According to Norm, Jean has nothing to prove by playing in the top section with GM's and just wants to win prize money. However, where's the sense of pride or dignity in that? As I recall, I still see veteran IM's like Leon Piasetski and Lawrence Day play in top-level tournaments with GM's and IM's and even if they are not as good as they used to be, they still have that sense of competitiveness in them. Chess isn't about beating up on weakies (no offence to the HH chess club :D) just because you can, but playing against stronger opposition because that's what makes playing fun. Because at the end of the day, beating 2100 rated experts does not equal drawing 2500 rated GMs, no matter what the rating system says.
Bindi, you did exactly the same thing at the Langley Open in Vancouver last year. You played against much weaker players than you to win $300 prize. You even managed to get two byes in the last two games after you left the city so that you can get enough points to win the prize money. Where was your pride in all this?
All this does make me wonder what poker and pool players would think of chess players taking pot shots at each other over $1000 prizes. Me thinks somewhere they are laughing not so gently at us.
Bindi, you did exactly the same thing at the Langley Open in Vancouver last year. You played against much weaker players than you to win $300 prize. You even managed to get two byes in the last two games after you left the city so that you can get enough points to win the prize money. Where was your pride in all this?
Hmmmm.... A case of do as I say and not as I do. Maybe the behaviour being criticized is only wrong if you win $301 or more while engaging in it.
Bindi, you did exactly the same thing at the Langley Open in Vancouver last year. You played against much weaker players than you to win $300 prize. You even managed to get two byes in the last two games after you left the city so that you can get enough points to win the prize money. Where was your pride in all this?
Tweet
Comment