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.
So you are another Canadian from the ROC who does not like Quebec? Not surprising, there are so many...
No, Louis, I am not that. I have an immense liking and respect for Quebec. I've had some French Canadian friends in my past and I liked them a lot. I went to a fully bilingual high school and loved the merging of cultures.
My point was that if you open doors to allow any form of cheating or gaming the system, there will be those who take advantage. Under your proposal, someone from Quebec can and will leave the province entirely and get to play N number of CFC tournaments "free" before someone finally figures things out.
I do like your desire for simplicity. You know what the simplest thing is? A rating system that is simple enough for anyone to calculate their own rating game by game, and thus have no need for ratings fees to any organization. But organized chess is hard up for money, and ratings fees, as outdated as they are, are nonetheless the only way to keep up the status quo.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
You know what the simplest thing is? A rating system that is simple enough for anyone to calculate their own rating game by game, and thus have no need for ratings fees to any organization.
There is a rating calculator on the FQE website. After any tournament, any player can input his own rating, his opponents' ratings and his results (win, loss, draw) to get immediately his new rating. This takes about 15 seconds.
So anybody in Quebec can already calculate his own rating for free. But players do not only want their own rating, they also want to compare their rating with other players they know. This is why there will always be at least one organization calculating and publishing ratings, and asking a rating fee for this.
And this right here is why the whole "agreement" makes absolutely no sense. It would be much simpler to abolish the FQE and stick with a national organization for ratings - but that would make life far too simple for everyone and, as usual, Quebec has to be "special".
Well then, let's push it a little bit further! Why do we need these 'national' ratings and organizations? We can just switch to a continental organization! Much simpler and nobody will be 'special'.
So, let's arrange a hypothetical agreement between the CFC and the USCF. For every CFC member, 9$ goes to the USCF and: i-you can have your tournaments rated by the USCF; ii-you can participate in USCF tournaments.
Does that make sense?
No! And that's exactly how I feel about the current agreement.
There is a rating calculator on the FQE website. After any tournament, any player can input his own rating, his opponents' ratings and his results (win, loss, draw) to get immediately his new rating. This takes about 15 seconds.
So anybody in Quebec can already calculate his own rating for free. But players do not only want their own rating, they also want to compare their rating with other players they know. This is why there will always be at least one organization calculating and publishing ratings, and asking a rating fee for this.
I agree with you, but the only reason this is the case is that the actual rating calculation, which I'm assuming is ELO, does actually require a calculator for most people. That is, most people wouldn't bother doing the calculation on their own, it is too complicated.
I was meaning an even simpler system that 90% of people could do even in their head or with one or two math operations no more complicated than subtraction and addition of integer numbers. If the calculation were that simple, then a player would have no need of any organization to do it for them, nor a web site. All they would need to know is all the results for the players they want to compare to (and the rating at the time of the opponents). Since it is a simple operation, even pgn game files could include the pre-game and post-game ratings of both players. The person compiling the game file could add it in easily. So as long as one could get such pgn files, they could keep up with everyone's rating.
You are likely right that organized standard chess will always use ELO ratings and thus need organizations to do the ratings for the players. But since you seem to crave simplicity, I offered up the simplest possibility. And in fact, my corporate entity beginning about mid-2013 will be using the much simpler method, and it won't be charging anyone membership fees or ratings fees. This entity will not be offering standard chess, so there will be no competition with any chess organization.
Well, at least not DIRECT competition. Because it will be offering a much more exciting version of chess, there will be competition in the sense of siphoning away chess players from standard chess.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
My corporate entity beginning about mid-2013 will be offering a much more exciting version of chess, there will be competition in the sense of siphoning away chess players from standard chess.
Why wait one more year? Why not right now?
To be very honest, several people came to the FQE over the years to show their revolutionary chess variants. They usually had very nice demos, with detailed rules, and many of these board games seemed very interesting. But none of them went beyond this stage... somehow, the FQE was expected to put lots of money in their projects... none of these guys believed enough in their own ideas to invest their own money...
Logistical reasons. It's not a question of "waiting", it's a question of getting the infrastructure in place. A lot of the infrastructure is software related, which is something I am very good at but which nevertheless takes time.
To be very honest, several people came to the FQE over the years to show their revolutionary chess variants. They usually had very nice demos, with detailed rules, and many of these board games seemed very interesting. But none of them went beyond this stage... somehow, the FQE was expected to put lots of money in their projects... none of these guys believed enough in their own ideas to invest their own money...
Yes, I'm sure you are relating the truth. There is one that comes to mind that probably had no interaction with the FQE, and that is Yasser Seirawan's and Bruce Harper's S-Chess. Very ambitious when it began, but it seems like nothing has been happening for some years now.
Nevertheless I have taken a unique approach that has earned intrigue and interest from many quarters. There are people out there who know potential when they see it.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Tweet
Comment