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.
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.
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.
Personal choice. If you have a chance to win $1000 would you take it?
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.
Leon Piasetski and Lawrence Day are not Jean Hebert. Different personalities and different interests.
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.
That crosstable does look a bit like "1 + Group" in terms of ratings.
Didn't stop Haizhou from finishing tied for 1st, woot!
Congrats Haizhou, great to see all those Fridays at Hart House have paid off :P
We can't wait until you get back so we can take you back to school :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.
If you can maintain that strong level of play at that age and after proving your ability, I don't see the problem with using it to cash in once in awhile. That's certainly my plan. There is nothing left to compete for except cash. I hate that he can do it but then I realize I really just hate that I'm not doing it.
The amount of money I've earned so far due to chess converted into an hourly wage based on how much time I've put into studying/playing would be third-worldly. Sometimes the biggest payoffs come later in life, I don't see a problem with it.
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.
Haizhou Xu deserves all the congratulations he can get. He played very well and in my mind he is a future GM. I knew he would be a top contender after looking at several of his wins vs IMs, including a nice one over you I believe.
I have played in the Open section for the last four years, mainly for financial reasons, of course. In 2009 I came second, losing my last round game to Arkadiusz Luksza. That proved to be good preparation because two weeks later I convincingly won the Canadian Closed in what may have been the greatest success (and least expected!) of my career.
This year I contemplated playing "for fun" in the Invitational but the political turmoil surrounding the FQE-CFC deal put me in a poor frame of mind for chess. This convinced me that this year again it was better for me to play favorite and try to live up to that expectation, which is not always so easy by the way. If I had had a chance to play both tournaments, it would have been ideal. But between "fun" (actually it is not so much fun standing in the middle or lower part of the pack) and some needed money, the wise choice was clear for me.
If you are still an active player 30 years from now, I would not be surprised if you come to see things my way.
And lastly about the kind of chess that I played during the week, I found it quite challenging. I got several interesting and hard-fought games, especially vs Xu, Casareno and Tomb, while a few others were "instructive". Someone must sacrifice himself to teach the kids or serve as "stepping stone" :). Of course I got no GM scalp, but there is always the weekenders for that. ;)
Last edited by Jean Hébert; Sunday, 29th July, 2012, 09:51 PM.
If you qualify for a tournament, you have every right to play! And there's nothing wrong with attempting to maintain a professional relationship to the game. If I recall, the late Polish-American GM Alex Wojtkiewicz earned a living playing in numerous weekend swisses where he would usually be the top rated player. From the point of view of his weaker opponents, they could look at it as paying for an over-the-board lesson from `Wojo`.
Getting the opportunity to play an IM should more than make up for a slim shot at a money prize. I don't think Mr. Hebert should be criticized for providing that opportunity to the players in the lower section. If he is qualified for a section he can play in that section.
Getting the opportunity to play an IM should more than make up for a slim shot at a money prize. I don't think Mr. Hebert should be criticized for providing that opportunity to the players in the lower section. If he is qualified for a section he can play in that section.
Vlad, since you are weighing in on this and have posted recently on topics relating to the future of Canadian chess, maybe you can address whether having an Open section in any tournament (Canadian Open excepted) and allowing one player to be rated 200 to 300 points above every other player is good policy for organized chess.
Keep in mind one scenario that could hypothetically happen: Bob Gillanders, in cahoots with Paul Beckwith, could organize an "Open" tournament for all the kids at the Mississauga chess club, in which the kids' parents pay up some hefty entry fee and Paul Beckwith could show up as an entrant. Paul was formerly CFC rated above 2300 and would presumably still be able to play around that strength. Paul would clean up the vast majority of the prize money (and would likely use it to finance his AGW prosletytizing -- something to think about, Vlad!). He might even do a simul to make the parents feel like they got their "money's worth".
This could be a recurring scenario across Canada, a money-making scam as it were. Not really a scam, because it's all legal... but is it right? I doubt very much Bob Gillanders could stomach being part of such a scheme.
There is a difference between a tournament and a simul. No one except the star player who is playing every board really thinks they are going to make money at a simul. But a tournament is supposed to offer a legitmate chance to win money. So then, would it attract more players if an Open section were offered and one or two chess heavyweights were advertised as being in that section? Would it bring more players in for a chance to play the heavyweights, or for every 1 of those, would it keep away >1 others who would have no other section to play in and would realize they aren't going to win top money?
To everyone who says the answer is the former, then why isn't this a regular practice of organizers? One would think sections were created to prevent this scenario.
And let's not forget: we do have computer engines that far exceed the IMs and even the GMs of today. Some of these engines are even free. No one needs to attend a tournament and play an IM to learn a chess lesson any more.
In regards to Mr. Hebert, one has to wonder: if this were a regular practice of organizers across Canada, would he be travelling the country to take advantage of it? That would mean passing up an opportunity to level yet more criticisms at chess organizers, especially if it was done everywhere in Canada except in Quebec. What a dilemma that would be for Mr. Hebert: make some money, or sit at home and criticize?
It is illuminating to know that in the one opportunity he does have, Mr. Hebert chooses to benefit himself and keep quiet on the action of the organizers.
I don't think Bindi is out of bounds to bring this topic up, but perhaps he shouldn't have made the subject "Congratulations to Haizhou Xu" knowing that the thread would take a much different tack. Kudos to Mr. Hebert for actually stressing that Xu deserved much congratulations. But the false altruism that followed (Someone must sacrifice himself to teach the kids or serve as "stepping stone") was blatently insincere. Give that $800 to a Children's Hospital and I'll believe you care about the kids, Mr. Hebert.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Vlad, since you are weighing in on this and have posted recently on topics relating to the future of Canadian chess, maybe you can address whether having an Open section in any tournament (Canadian Open excepted) and allowing one player to be rated 200 to 300 points above every other player is good policy for organized chess.
If everyone knows the rules going in, I don't have a problem with that scenario. It would not discourage me from playing in a tournament to know that there was going to be one player rated 200 to 300 points above every other player. They had such an event in Ottawa where the gap was even larger with one Nigel Short being the clear favourite though that may have been an Olympiad fundraiser.
Keep in mind one scenario that could hypothetically happen: Bob Gillanders, in cahoots with Paul Beckwith, could organize an "Open" tournament for all the kids at the Mississauga chess club, in which the kids' parents pay up some hefty entry fee and Paul Beckwith could show up as an entrant. Paul was formerly CFC rated above 2300 and would presumably still be able to play around that strength. Paul would clean up the vast majority of the prize money (and would likely use it to finance his AGW prosletytizing -- something to think about, Vlad!). He might even do a simul to make the parents feel like they got their "money's worth".
In that case I would fill up a car with all of the best players from Windsor and make sure that Paul was thwarted in his evil plan to finance his AGW prosletytizing. But seriously I am thinking about a similar scenario for our Windsor kids minus the big prizes. The kids like playing people rated three hundred points above them.
This could be a recurring scenario across Canada, a money-making scam as it were. Not really a scam, because it's all legal... but is it right?
Jean Hebert won $1000 or some portion thereof playing in an open section. As far as I can see it is both right and legal. If the organizer was intent on forcing Jean Hebert to play in the top section then he would have changed the rules to require him to do so. I really can't get excited about your perceptions that this is some kind of injustice when there are so many real injustices in our world which I can more readily get worked up about (for instance the large sums of taxpayer money squandered on so-called green energy programs).
I doubt very much Bob Gillanders could stomach being part of such a scheme.
There is a difference between a tournament and a simul. No one except the star player who is playing every board really thinks they are going to make money at a simul. But a tournament is supposed to offer a legitmate chance to win money.
If you win all your games then you have a legitimate chance of winning money.
So then, would it attract more players if an Open section were offered and one or two chess heavyweights were advertised as being in that section? Would it bring more players in for a chance to play the heavyweights, or for every 1 of those, would it keep away >1 others who would have no other section to play in and would realize they aren't going to win top money?
I'm not sure. If you travel for a tournament, prize money is rarely the first thing you are thinking about as you almost always have to win first or second place if you hope to break even.
To everyone who says the answer is the former, then why isn't this a regular practice of organizers? One would think sections were created to prevent this scenario.
And let's not forget: we do have computer engines that far exceed the IMs and even the GMs of today. Some of these engines are even free. No one needs to attend a tournament and play an IM to learn a chess lesson any more.
If playing a computer were the same as playing a real live player then tournament chess would have died out long ago.
In regards to Mr. Hebert, one has to wonder: if this were a regular practice of organizers across Canada, would he be travelling the country to take advantage of it? That would mean passing up an opportunity to level yet more criticisms at chess organizers, especially if it was done everywhere in Canada except in Quebec. What a dilemma that would be for Mr. Hebert: make some money, or sit at home and criticize?
It is illuminating to know that in the one opportunity he does have, Mr. Hebert chooses to benefit himself and keep quiet on the action of the organizers.
I don't think Bindi is out of bounds to bring this topic up, but perhaps he shouldn't have made the subject "Congratulations to Haizhou Xu" knowing that the thread would take a much different tack. Kudos to Mr. Hebert for actually stressing that Xu deserved much congratulations. But the false altruism that followed (Someone must sacrifice himself to teach the kids or serve as "stepping stone") was blatently insincere. Give that $800 to a Children's Hospital and I'll believe you care about the kids, Mr. Hebert.
You are quick to spend Mr. Hebert's money. Why don't you give $800 to a Children's Hospital if it is that important to you? The future of chess in Canada is not in encouraging players who only play for the prospect of big money, if you can even call $1000 big money. The pettiness on display here is starting to wear down my patience.
Yes, congratulations to Haizhou Xu... he defintely deserves recognition for his result!
It would have been nice to congratulate IM Jean Hebert as well, or just leave it at just congratulating Haizhou Xu, but somehow the controvery of Jean playing in an open section crept its way into the conversation once again.
I think that anyone who judges Jean for his decision should keep their judgements to themselves (no disrespect to Bindi Cheng intended). I think it is wrong to characterize Jean as being anything other than a fine upstanding Master who has given more than his share to the Quebec and Canadian chess communities. If Jean wants to play in a tournament where he is the overwhelming favourite, then that's his prerogative.
If the FQE or the tournament organizers thought that allowing Jean to play in the Open Section would be a bad idea, then they would have found a way to prevent him from playing below the Invitational section. However, such lines did not need to be drawn, therefore Jean should not be subjected to this negativity.
If I ever get to play the COQ again (last time was 2009), I hope Jean will still be in that same section so I can try for my first IM scalp... beating him twice in 20+ tournament blitz games doesn't count :)
Last edited by Jordan S. Berson; Monday, 30th July, 2012, 04:55 AM.
Reason: Typing while drowzing...
No matter how big and bad you are, when a two-year-old hands you a toy phone, you answer it.
Vlad, since you are weighing in on this and have posted recently on topics relating to the future of Canadian chess, maybe you can address whether having an Open section in any tournament (Canadian Open excepted) and allowing one player to be rated 200 to 300 points above every other player is good policy for organized chess.
Keep in mind one scenario that could hypothetically happen: Bob Gillanders, in cahoots with Paul Beckwith, could organize an "Open" tournament for all the kids at the Mississauga chess club, in which the kids' parents pay up some hefty entry fee and Paul Beckwith could show up as an entrant. Paul was formerly CFC rated above 2300 and would presumably still be able to play around that strength. Paul would clean up the vast majority of the prize money (and would likely use it to finance his AGW prosletytizing -- something to think about, Vlad!). He might even do a simul to make the parents feel like they got their "money's worth".
How would they do that? Dress Paul up in an Alfalfa outfit? I think the parents might just notice the age difference. And who would play Paul's proud parents? 'Our little Paul is going to be such a good player one day' :)
In 3 tournaments in Europe I've played a GM and an IM. However, in the open tournaments there are like 25 to 50 GMs all competing for the top prize. Also tournaments here have serious prizes such as 8000 euros.
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Monday, 30th July, 2012, 08:33 AM.
If the FQE or the tournament organizers thought that allowing Jean to play in the Open Section would be a bad idea, then they would have found a way to prevent him from playing below the Invitational section. However, such lines did not need to be drawn, therefore Jean should not be subjected to this negativity.
What would ChessTalk be without a little negativity ? :) But what I find really amusing is that even though I have played the OPEN section for the last four years, it still is apparently the "story" of the event. Who cares about Wesley So's win ? Who cares about several other players outstanding performances ? Who cares about the overall (or lack of) participation success of the COQ ?
Several masters with little hope of ever going above their current or former level, instead of risking an entry fee (115$) and be competitive in the Open section, preferred the free but at times depressing ride at the bottom of the Invitational. Tastes are not to be discussed.
Last edited by Jean Hébert; Monday, 30th July, 2012, 03:58 PM.
They had such an event in Ottawa where the gap was even larger with one Nigel Short being the clear favourite though that may have been an Olympiad fundraiser.
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.
Tweet
Comment