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!)
Should unruly and disruptive juniors play in CFC Rated, Cash Prize events?
+1. I really think the original post in this thread should be directed at everyone, not just juniors. Believe it or not, I've played just as many disruptive adults than juniors (maybe more). Granted, I'm probably the most easily distracted person in the world...
Some good ideas in this thread though.
Tyler, you are correct. Maybe the solution is simply to enforce the rules that already exist about distracting an opponent. At the weekend chess scene (I very rarely see such behaviour at international FIDE tournaments), we have somehow slipped into how hockey was being called pre-lockout, or soccer before they widened the spectrum for misconduct (yellow and red cards). I officiate three other sports, and their cultures for correcting misbehaviour seem much more in the control of the referee, umpire, whatever.
Back to Tyler's point, he is completely correct. Whereas there might be little kids running around between rounds, there might also be adults arguing about something, either with each other, or the TD. Bad behaviour at halftime of a basketball game would still earn the offender a technical foul, so would it be unacceptable to not pair someone, or their child, for the next round if they acted up? Other sports are established in honouring the subjective philosophy "in the opinion of the referee". Would chess be ready for that?! ;)
Tyler, you are correct. Maybe the solution is simply to enforce the rules that already exist about distracting an opponent. At the weekend chess scene (I very rarely see such behaviour at international FIDE tournaments), we have somehow slipped into how hockey was being called pre-lockout, or soccer before they widened the spectrum for misconduct (yellow and red cards). I officiate three other sports, and their cultures for correcting misbehaviour seem much more in the control of the referee, umpire, whatever.
Back to Tyler's point, he is completely correct. Whereas there might be little kids running around between rounds, there might also be adults arguing about something, either with each other, or the TD. Bad behaviour at halftime of a basketball game would still earn the offender a technical foul, so would it be unacceptable to not pair someone, or their child, for the next round if they acted up? Other sports are established in honouring the subjective philosophy "in the opinion of the referee". Would chess be ready for that?! ;)
Well two things come to mind. First, can you think of any other sport that would only have one arbiter/umpire/ref per 50 or so players? And this person not only responsible for overseeing the games, but often also the organizer of the event and thus the primary question-answerer? Second, in many cases the arbiter can only become involved in a game when there is a complaint.
Combine these two factors, and you get.... what we have.
Now, as a hypothetical situation, say you had one arbiter per 10 people - that's only 5 games to keep an eye on, so the arbiter is close. That alone will reduce problems as anyone in the teaching business can confirm. On top of that, allow the arbiter more leeway for interjecting themselves into a situation: make the arbiter the judge of whether or not something is distracting, even without a complaint.
Well two things come to mind. First, can you think of any other sport that would only have one arbiter/umpire/ref per 50 or so players? And this person not only responsible for overseeing the games, but often also the organizer of the event and thus the primary question-answerer? Second, in many cases the arbiter can only become involved in a game when there is a complaint.
Combine these two factors, and you get.... what we have.
Now, as a hypothetical situation, say you had one arbiter per 10 people - that's only 5 games to keep an eye on, so the arbiter is close. That alone will reduce problems as anyone in the teaching business can confirm. On top of that, allow the arbiter more leeway for interjecting themselves into a situation: make the arbiter the judge of whether or not something is distracting, even without a complaint.
Yes Chris, you have good points, very good actually. I still think though we can toughen up our implementation of the existing rules. In the end, we should do it to protect the vast silent majority of exemplary behaved players, many adults who we are losing! :(
make the arbiter the judge of whether or not something is distracting, even without a complaint.
Chris, I believe that is already on the books. FIDE rule #12.6
It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims, unreasonable offers of a draw or the introduction of a source of noise into the playing area.
I think the first sentence speaks volumes, and there is no need for a complaint to be made. As I read it, the arbiter has discretion. All we lack is the will to enforce it.
Chris, I believe that is already on the books. FIDE rule #12.6
It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims, unreasonable offers of a draw or the introduction of a source of noise into the playing area.
I think the first sentence speaks volumes, and there is no need for a complaint to be made. As I read it, the arbiter has discretion. All we lack is the will to enforce it.
BOOM, Bob hits the spot : "All we lack is the will to enforce it" (and the "support" to?!)
For anyone who is into soccer, we know what happens on corner kicks. You get at least 15 players ping-ponging off each other in a very tight area. As a soccer referee, it is just impossible to properly view so many multiple engagement angles. So, you end up calling what you see. Maybe as chess arbiters, we should stop worrying about how it might not be perfectly fair to catch player A doing something to player B, even though player C was doing something worse to player D. If we see something, let's just call it!
Let me put this out there, especially to players who no longer play in many events just because of player behaviour issues. If you know the weekend will be a tight ship, are you not more likely to consider it? For example, I spent a fair chunk of money going to Chessfest this year, and to be quite frank, I don't know if I do that if Hal is not arbiting.
The worst punk I had was many decades ago. It was at a speed chess tournament. When he lost he picked up his end of the table and dumped all the pieces in my lap and on the floor.
I held my temper. He had no talent and I didn't see him around after that.
It was held somewhere around Queen's Quay as I recall. Some of the old timers might remember the place.
Personally, I'd rather play a sharp young player who plays interesting chess than some old guy who has to be reminded how to castle.
I think the first sentence speaks volumes, and there is no need for a complaint to be made. As I read it, the arbiter has discretion. All we lack is the will to enforce it.
A tournament director gets the tournament he deserves.
BOOM, Bob hits the spot : "All we lack is the will to enforce it" (and the "support" to?!)
I guess the vagueness of 13.6 throws me a bit: "The arbiter must not intervene in a game except in cases described by the Laws of Chess. "
Through a circuitous path using rules 13.4 via 12.4 via 13.6 with a bit of 13.3 and 6.12a thrown in, yes I can see that the current rules will do. Still, having one clear rule that states "The arbiter shall intervene in a game should he witness any violations of Article 12." That way it's nicely clear-cut and puts more of an onus on the arbiter. BTW I notice arbiters are always "he" in the FIDE handbook!
Let me put this out there, especially to players who no longer play in many events just because of player behaviour issues. If you know the weekend will be a tight ship, are you not more likely to consider it? For example, I spent a fair chunk of money going to Chessfest this year, and to be quite frank, I don't know if I do that if Hal is not arbiting.
According to Wiktionary, the proper verb is actually "arbitering" so now we know :)
For anyone who is into soccer, we know what happens on corner kicks. You get at least 15 players ping-ponging off each other in a very tight area. As a soccer referee, it is just impossible to properly view so many multiple engagement angles. So, you end up calling what you see.
Aris,
I must disagree with you, at least in part. Speaking from 10+ years of soccer refereeing experience, it is actually much easier for a referee to see all the goings on within the penalty area during a corner kick than it is when the ref is in the centre and everyone is all around the field.
Granted some of the players are partiually blocked by others, but you can generally tell from the type of movement going on, and where the players' arms are with respect to the opponents' positions, as to whether or not there is a foul taking place away from the ball.
Jordan
No matter how big and bad you are, when a two-year-old hands you a toy phone, you answer it.
Re: Should unruly and disruptive juniors play in CFC Rated, Cash Prize events?
I can't say that your experience is my experience, at least not in the sense that juniors are a particular problem compared to adults. Players of all ages exhibit the behaviours you mention.
In any case, the solution is not the banning of juniors, but for the arbiter to enforce the existing rules against distraction of the opponent. Well, some education on what that includes would probably help too.
Re: Should unruly and disruptive juniors play in CFC Rated, Cash Prize events?
I am glad to see this important topic being discussed openly on chesstalk.com.
As an organizer for more than 20 years, I have not infrequently run across this problem.
As a player myself as a teenager in CFC-rated events, my recall from that era (the 1970s) is that isolated problem behaviour by young players was immediately and strictly dealt with by organizers. As it should have been. I was noisy on occasion myself, and after being told to be quiet, I was, and thereafter obeyed organizer directions. Enthusiasm is fine, but disturbing other players and other games is NOT. PERIOD. The TD is in charge, according to chess rules.
Somewhere along the line, during the past 30+ years, both the number of misbehaving players and the severity of the infractions have increased significantly. I guess this trend mirrors the same thing happening in our society, so no one should be surprised.
And it is not only teenagers at fault here. I have taken enormous backlash for coming out on this forum to discuss the outrageous conduct of the late IM Bryon Nickoloff. His frequently horrible behaviour, exhibited on many occasions, and apparently not only in Canada (judging from input on chessbase.com, in the debate over the unresolved 'sleeping player' issue), was the worst I have ever seen, by a wide margin. Yet, with the 'Nickoloff cult' of supporters, it was me who bore the brunt of criticism. I was accused of disrespect for one of Canada's strongest players, dishonouring the dead, and the like. Cringe.
It has frequently been a somewhat similar situation, although less serious, when I had to try to deal with teenager chess players who caused problems. It was almost World War III when I confronted problems caused by a certain young player from Ottawa who misbehaved on seveal occasions at Kingston events I was running. I spent probably 20 hours on emails to the President of the EOCA, who had decided to go to bat for the young player in question. I won the war when I convinced the President of the severity of the problem, and he backed me, eventually, arranging for a full apology from the young player in question, who, I am delighted to note, improved his behaviour dramatically and became not only a strong young champion, but a very pleasant and courteous addition to any tournament.
Then we had a scenario involving a young player from rural Ontario who was fabricating entire tournaments with fictitious players, paying their CFC memberships and rating fees, and boosting his own rating, over a period of a couple of years. I investigated and came to this conclusion, which turned out to be correct. That was an interesting one to untangle, which was done with the strong cooperation of the CFC's Youth Coordinator at the time. I am pleased to report that it had a mostly happy ending.
Alas, a happy ending eluded me in the case of a young Toronto player, the son of a prominent organizer who has since moved across the country. This player, already a Master and among the most active players in the land, whom I had dealt with successfully as an organizer in earlier events, and even played blitz chess with most enjoyably, tried to cheat in a Kingston Open, when, with his opponent's knight on e6, he tried to castle Kingside, an illegal move, as was immediately pointed out by his opponent. As organizer and arbiter, I backed the claim, and then we saw a 'J'Adoube' claim made, to try to get out of moving the King. "But I used that at the ...... Chess Club", the young player replied. Resentment has remained and grown in the decade since. Enough said.
I can conclude this post by noting that the majority of young chess players I have encountered have been polite, courteous, and respectful. Many of them play tremendous chess. And when problem behaviour arose, and I moved to deal with it, most of those who were offending cleaned up their acts. Young players add much more to Canadian chess than they detract, so I would continue to encourage their involvement. But some formalized guidelines should perhaps be developed, so we avoid a repeat of the 'Nick' situation, which was the extreme. I still think if Nick had been dealt with strictly and promptly when he was young, the problem could have been nipped in the bud, and he might still be with us today, playing great chess and enlivening the Canadian chess scene. No one stepped up to do it. So, alas, we shall never know.
IA / IO Hal Bond is the best Canadian organizer I have seen for dealing with this problem. Hal has the perfect combination of exceptional love and respect for chess, exceptional knowledge of how to run events, and exceptional people skills. Having the respect of all, his word is sufficient to defuse any situation, at least when I have been around his events (which has been fairly frequent).
I can't say that your experience is my experience, at least not in the sense that juniors are a particular problem compared to adults. Players of all ages exhibit the behaviours you mention.
True it's not a youth-only problem... but I think some people have a lot less tolerance for misbehaviour from kids than they do from adults. Not sure why that might be...
True it's not a youth-only problem... but I think some people have a lot less tolerance for misbehaviour from kids than they do from adults. Not sure why that might be...
Not to mention, ever seen an adult react poorly to losing to a kid? Disrespect comes from both sides of the board.
Tweet
Comment