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.
This occurred to me after noticing that IM Eric Hansen (2472) was stronger than his opponent GM Handzar Odeev (2397)....
Is it possible to lose a title of Grandmaster (or for that matter, IM or FM) once it has been achieved? From my quick Wikipedia search, I think the answer is IM/GM are lifetime titles whereas FM is not. Is this correct?
It seems strange to think one could have Grandmasters in competitive or amateur chess, who, because of natural declines, may be shadows of their former strength.
I suppose in theory the title could be stripped by the General Assembly... I'm not sure this has ever been done except for the odd fraudulently obtained titles.
There are players who are awarded the titles that are clearly weaker than the titles suggest. IMHO, a player should have to keep up certain standards over a period of time in order to maintain a title.
No matter how big and bad you are, when a two-year-old hands you a toy phone, you answer it.
There are players who are awarded the titles that are clearly weaker than the titles suggest. IMHO, a player should have to keep up certain standards over a period of time in order to maintain a title.
So if Kortchnoi, a former challenger for the world championship, has his rating fall below 2500, you would favor taking his title of GM away. (currently 2519) And to be consistent, any player who becomes inactive, you would take their title away too.
The whole point of titles is that they are for life and are intended as a marker for a level of achievement over their playing career. If all you care about is a person's current strength, just look at their rating and ignore the title. It's fine if you think lifetime titles are bogus, but don't deprive the rest of us our little pleasures.
So if Kortchnoi, a former challenger for the world championship, has his rating fall below 2500, you would favor taking his title of GM away. (currently 2519) And to be consistent, any player who becomes inactive, you would take their title away too.
The whole point of titles is that they are for life and are intended as a marker for a level of achievement over their playing career. If all you care about is a person's current strength, just look at their rating and ignore the title. It's fine if you think lifetime titles are bogus, but don't deprive the rest of us our little pleasures.
I have mixed feelings on this. I mean, a person who is elected to public office would no longer hold a title once removed from office, but would still be entitled to certain honorifics... e.g., "The Right Honourable"...
If the purpose of titles is merely to indicate that, at one point in time, a player was of a given strength, then I suppose having them as they are makes sense. If they are supposed to reflect current affairs, then it really does not make much sense. I think a lay person would assume a Grandmaster is currently of a given skill level, though, I admit it is debatable whether chess policy should be dictated by lay people or knowledgeable folk.
It would certainly be open for a governing body to provide some kind of honorific for former GMs or IMs in place of maintaining their current titles, if that was the direction one wished to go.
It would certainly be open for a governing body to provide some kind of honorific for former GMs or IMs in place of maintaining their current titles, if that was the direction one wished to go.
Just some food for thought.
We already have an honorific title for such people. It's called "GM". And the title that goes with a person's current strength is "2652" or some such until it changes to some other number.
I have mixed feelings on this. I mean, a person who is elected to public office would no longer hold a title once removed from office, but would still be entitled to certain honorifics... e.g., "The Right Honourable"...
If the purpose of titles is merely to indicate that, at one point in time, a player was of a given strength, then I suppose having them as they are makes sense. If they are supposed to reflect current affairs, then it really does not make much sense. I think a lay person would assume a Grandmaster is currently of a given skill level, though, I admit it is debatable whether chess policy should be dictated by lay people or knowledgeable folk.
It would certainly be open for a governing body to provide some kind of honorific for former GMs or IMs in place of maintaining their current titles, if that was the direction one wished to go.
Just some food for thought.
The entire purpose of having a title is that this is a certificate of achievement which is there forever, unlike rating points that come and go.
There are GMs who are rated below 2300 and still continue to play well past retirement age and I think that this is great.
Their title should be there forever.
So if Kortchnoi, a former challenger for the world championship, has his rating fall below 2500, you would favor taking his title of GM away. (currently 2519) And to be consistent, any player who becomes inactive, you would take their title away too.
Roger,
Not sure which post you were reading, but mine said "IMHO, a player should have to keep up certain standards over a period of time in order to maintain a title." There's no mention of rating in my post, or anything about inactive players.
If you want to have a discussion about my opinions, then please don't start by making assumptions and putting words in my mouth... or keyboard for that matter.
Jordan
No matter how big and bad you are, when a two-year-old hands you a toy phone, you answer it.
We could start with "the title of Grandmaster should never have been based on ratings" ...
Really, you should get the GM title for making the final-8 of the World Championship, and that's about it. IMHO. Then there wouldn't be 1100+ of them. What we currently call a GM could be a Senior Master (as in correspondence) or perhaps a High Master.
We could start with "the title of Grandmaster should never have been based on ratings" ...
Really, you should get the GM title for making the final-8 of the World Championship, and that's about it. IMHO. Then there wouldn't be 1100+ of them. What we currently call a GM could be a Senior Master (as in correspondence) or perhaps a High Master.
I'm sure we could make good use of a thesaurus. It'll never happen though - imagine the lawsuits if you tried even just changing the name of a thousand people's GM titles.
I'm sure we could make good use of a thesaurus. It'll never happen though - imagine the lawsuits if you tried even just changing the name of a thousand people's GM titles.
I hadn't realized there were more than 1100 GMs now. No wonder people have been muttering about a "SuperGM" title (I am sure I have seen that phrase already used or over-used).
Makes me wonder about GO and for that matter Judo, where the very top titles are almost impossible to attain and are therefore reserved for the very elite.
At this moment, it might be hard to say that there is much difference between (say): Anand, Carlsen, Kramnik and a few more in the 'Top 10' - not to mention Kasparov.
I hadn't realized there were more than 1100 GMs now. No wonder people have been muttering about a "SuperGM" title (I am sure I have seen that phrase already used or over-used).
The GM's are like popcorn. There will always be more.
Tweet
So many, hardly any value in that!
Comment