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.
Are we talking K to grade 6 and the higher grade classes with kids wanting to go to university where chess teachers without teaching certificates would teach chess in place of something currently on the curriculum OR are we talking the schools or colleges where they teach a trade and get them out of the system? The former group would likely do better with chess than the latter group learning trades.
As far as I know even a teaching assistant in the schools here in Ontario needs training and a certificate these days.
Regular high school with university or college bound students. For example when I took drafting and engineering graphics the teachers did not have teaching certificates. You could tell though that they had years of experience in the field. The crew cuts were one clue. :D I am not sure about the electrical and electronics shop teacher but I think he also did not have a teaching certificate but a long technical background including having been an hydro inspector. He was one of the best teachers we had in any case. These courses were not only of interest to those who wanted to be in trades training afterward but also those who would be interested in an engineering career. The drafting/engineering graphics and electrical/electronics stream in any case. Engineering graphics was actually a grade 13 course. The auto mechanics and machine shop classes seemed to be more trades oriented judging by the students they attracted. By that I mean I did not see students from those classes (I didn't take them but had a general idea who did) in the university bound math and science classes like I did with the drafting and eletrical students.
At my high school the English teacher did the chess coaching honours but that was because he was a strong chess player who played regularly at the Hamilton chess club before they moved it into a much smaller space at the YWCA.
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Sunday, 16th September, 2012, 05:43 PM.
Chess in the schools would likely have to be added no later than grade 3.
I still don't know what chess would replace on the curriculum. Any ideas?
It could easily replace that global warming bunk they might be teaching. :o:o
It is not really a case of replacing something on the curriculum. Students already have choice in what courses they take so this would just be one more choice for them. At least that is the case past grade 6. Prior to grade 6 it could just be something added to the mix without directly replacing any one other subject. (Caveat I'm basing this on my school experience as I'm not familiar with what happens today.)
I'm not sure that chess needs to be added prior to grade 3. Chess should probably be added in grade 7 or later by grade 9. The idea is to benefit the children educationally not to create super chess prodigies for Canadian chess. You can learn chess fine from your parents, siblings etc prior to that.
The question of grading is an interesting question though if you want to make it part of the regular curriculum. How do you give a grade for chess?
This should be a draw in regular chess. White would have to try really hard to lose a position like this. But under these rules, once a certain number of moves are played out, Black will get to place a queen while white would only get a rook and so White would be the player in trouble.
This is another quite good example that shows how the whole psychology and thinking of chess would be changed. How did this position get arrived at? Perhaps at some point White exchanged 2 Rooks for a Queen and a Pawn. Under current chess rules, this is considered an equal exchange in terms of points, but with the caveat that the whole board situation could change that assessment.
Under my proposal, this exchange has another dynamic: the fact that Black has a captured Queen that can be resurrected under certain conditions, whereas White as you mention has only a Rook that can be resurrected. It changes the whole dynamic of the exchange.
Taking this even further, winning an exchange in the middlegame: the player that gets up the exchange has to realize now that if s/he fails to play well enough to force a win while up the exchange, it could go into an endgame where s/he loses the exchange during the piece resurrection phase.
Unless, of course, a Queen exchange can be made, which means Queens are coming back for each side should the resurrection phase be reached.
Getting back to your example, let's say White did indeed trade 2 Rooks for a Queen and a Pawn at a point where all material was equal. Since then, what Black did was to induce White to somehow trade 2 Bishops and 2 Knights for 1 Bishop, 2 Knights and a Rook and to allow all the other pawns to be traded off.
Under normal rules, this would be good for White and s/he is up 11 points to 8. However, as you note, the best this can do for White is to get a draw with perfect play from Black. Under the new rules, this instead can only lead to trouble for White.
What this all means is that players who get up in material under the new rules should not strive for simplification into an endgame, but instead should strive to use their extra material for aggressive middlegame tactics that avoids these types of endgames.
The end result is more aggressive, risky, tactical play in the middlegame phase of the game, and less simplification into boring endgames.
This is exactly the kind of play that should lead to more interest in chess.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
... What this all means is that players who get up in material under the new rules should not strive for simplification into an endgame, but instead should strive to use their extra material for aggressive middlegame tactics that avoids these types of endgames.
The end result is more aggressive, risky, tactical play in the middlegame phase of the game, and less simplification into boring endgames.
This is exactly the kind of play that should lead to more interest in chess.
You find draws boring. You find endgames boring. You find people trying to squeeze out wins boring. Maybe the problem is that you don't understand chess well enough to be able to appreciate its many aspects? Chess doesn't have a following amongst the NASCAR set. I am sure we will all survive this tragedy somehow.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
Chess in the schools would likely have to be added no later than grade 3.
I still don't know what chess would replace on the curriculum. Any ideas?
Chess tuition is meant for elementary schools, in my opinion best started around grade 3 our 4. In high schools it is more like "coaching". At that age it is already difficult to teach them, they know everything .
Gary, the question to ask would be : what is chess currently replacing on the curriculum where chess is taught ? One answer is that it does not matter. Its benefits make kids much more efficient to learn other subjects, thus actually making time spent on all subjects more efficient. So it is a case of actually doing more with less. ;)
You find draws boring. You find endgames boring. You find people trying to squeeze out wins boring. Maybe the problem is that you don't understand chess well enough to be able to appreciate its many aspects? Chess doesn't have a following amongst the NASCAR set. I am sure we will all survive this tragedy somehow.
NASCAR? Now, THAT'S boring! :)
You would have been better off to say "the NHL set".
This isn't about one person and what one person understands or doesn't understand. What this is about is a vision of the future in which a FORM of chess, or even MANY forms, can reach out and attract the general public enough to make them spectate, and even pay to do so.
It is fine for you to be a chess purist and to love watching endgames and people playing chess for hours with neither side gaining any significant advantage, until most of the pieces are exchanged off and the game declared a draw. There could also be people who like to watch paint dry or grass grow. In any case, no one is denying anyone else the chance to do that.
What I don't think YOU appreciate or understand is the incredible variety of ways in which the rules of chess could be modified to produce a better game from the standpoint of a spectator who doesn't play the game. Even for many of the players, we can find a better game of chess, one in which rote memorization is at a minimum, creativity is at a maximum, opportunities for tactics are increased, and even (gasp!) luck can play a part just as it does in every aspect of the real world.
If some of us want to find that new form of chess, who are you to deny us? You can have your standard chess and enjoy it all you want, but you shouldn't think of it as so "holy" or "pure" that any modification is a "desecration". We have enough religion in the world, there is no need for chess to be another one.
Yes, you will survive this tragedy. Survive is the perfect word. You will survive the early career terminations of Bluvshtein, Lesiege, Charbonneau, Roussel-Roozmon, and too many others to list. You will survive mostly sponsorless chess events where a $1000 prize is considered extravagant and a mark of excellence. You will survive chess being in the popular culture a game for nerds. You will survive chess showing only on some niche community TV channel Saturday mornings at 7 am, which fits Jean Hebert's definition of chess successfully being on TV -- the same Jean Hebert who chastises organizers for not pounding the pavement every single day for sponsorship dollars, and whose definition of success for a chess event includes people manning demo boards and flags and name cards at every table and local media coverage as a lead story on the local sportscast.
You will survive all of that, but other forms of chess will THRIVE. And there's not an effing thing you can do about it. Now go back to watching your paint dry-- er, I mean your 90-move draws.
And BTW, it's not even guaranteed that you will survive. There's a tsunami alert for standard chess. It's still a ways off, but it's out there and money is going to wash over the chess scene in ways you can't imagine. However, as one of the principal people behind this wave, I can say that I do hope you survive despite your snobbishness towards those less intellectually gifted then yourself. After all, even the NASCAR set needs someone to make fun of.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Hey no need to be snarky. I am being serious. You are simply not strong enough to appreciate a well-played game. There's no shame in that. If you want to introduce keno or whatever into chess that's fine, good luck. But why must you incessantly post here about this. It's tedious and frankly pointless. You do understand that people who would read/post on this board are generally going to think your ideas are goofy because - gasp! - people here actually like to play chess in its current form.
Yes, most people are incapable of watching a chess game and following it. Most people cannot follow an opera and find classical music dull. There is a place for things which require more concentration than watching idiots on skates chasing a puck around.
My suggestion: stop posting and start doing. When you have actually done something about this revolutionary idea of yours then swell send us an update. Until then ... you fill in the blank.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
Hey no need to be snarky. I am being serious. You are simply not strong enough to appreciate a well-played game. There's no shame in that. If you want to introduce keno or whatever into chess that's fine, good luck. But why must you incessantly post here about this. It's tedious and frankly pointless. You do understand that people who would read/post on this board are generally going to think your ideas are goofy because - gasp! - people here actually like to play chess in its current form.
Yes, most people are incapable of watching a chess game and following it. Most people cannot follow an opera and find classical music dull. There is a place for things which require more concentration than watching idiots on skates chasing a puck around.
My suggestion: stop posting and start doing. When you have actually done something about this revolutionary idea of yours then swell send us an update. Until then ... you fill in the blank.
You find draws boring. You find endgames boring. You find people trying to squeeze out wins boring. Maybe the problem is that you don't understand chess well enough to be able to appreciate its many aspects? Chess doesn't have a following amongst the NASCAR set. I am sure we will all survive this tragedy somehow.
I think you have accidentally found it Tom :D:D What chess really needs is the excitement and drama of pit stops :):) Oh and BBQ tailgate parties... Once you have gone through a heaping helping of pulled pork or baby back ribs you won't care about draws anymore :P
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Monday, 17th September, 2012, 03:25 PM.
Hey no need to be snarky. I am being serious. You are simply not strong enough to appreciate a well-played game. There's no shame in that. If you want to introduce keno or whatever into chess that's fine, good luck. But why must you incessantly post here about this. It's tedious and frankly pointless. You do understand that people who would read/post on this board are generally going to think your ideas are goofy because - gasp! - people here actually like to play chess in its current form.
Yes, most people are incapable of watching a chess game and following it. Most people cannot follow an opera and find classical music dull. There is a place for things which require more concentration than watching idiots on skates chasing a puck around.
My suggestion: stop posting and start doing. When you have actually done something about this revolutionary idea of yours then swell send us an update. Until then ... you fill in the blank.
I can stop being snarky if you can stop being condescending. How would you know how "strong" I am (chess strength, I'm assuming) or how well I appreciate a well-played game? You could look up my CFC rating from many years ago, but that was many years ago. You are making assumptions that you shouldn't be making. Also, you are defining a well-played game based on your own subjective opinion. For me, a well-played game is one where chances were taken, where at least one player showed s/he wanted to win the game.
You are also condescending to those who follow NASCAR and to those who play hockey. Idiots on skates? Nice one, that's really going to help the image of chess in Canada. But it's the same general attitude prevalent here on this board, that chess is the only game or sport that demonstrates "valid" intellectual capabilities. I'm surprised someone (Gary?) hasn't proposed that only chess players with a current rating above some threshold should be allowed to vote in elections.
Now, why aren't you complaining to all the people on this board who incessantly post about the sad, sorry state of chess in Canada? Or of chess in general? THAT is what is tedious and pointless. I'm posting for the benefit of those people, who need to be educated that chess in its current form cannot be anything EXCEPT in a sad, sorry state.
And there are people posting about pre-arranged draws and draws in general. They whine and complain about draws, especially short, non-fighting draws. They argue over whether agreeing to the draw before or during the game is ethical, as if it makes any bloody difference. They argue over the exact specified steps to offering a draw upon 3 time repetition, enough to make one wonder if sneezing before offering the draw makes the offer void.
Anyway, this entire thread is addressed to those people, showing them that there are solutions to draws if only people can take off the blinders.
These posts are here on this board over and over and over again. Are you not seeing them?
Please address your comments to those posters! As long as they keep posting and whining and complaining, I'm going to at least try and show them how futile it is for them to even imagine chess in its current form being even 1/100th as successful or popular with the public as something like poker.
I am already doing far more than anybody else in the entire realm of chess to bring about changes. However, what I am doing can't be made public for now. That doesn't mean I can't still post to wake up all the whiners on this board. They don't have to love my specific ideas, but it would be good if they could at least consider widening their vision and their horizons. Just getting people to think about chess960 for taking the memorization out of chess is like pulling teeth. I think that speaks more to the people on this board than it does to me for trying to open their minds a little.
My suggestion to you is to address your comments about tedious and pointless posts to those who are whining in the first place.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Ideally the indoctrination class aka social studies...
I'm not sure what they are teaching in social studies these days. If you're referring to climate stuff that would have come with the science classes. Other than that could you tell me to what you are referring?
I'm not sure what they are teaching in social studies these days. If you're referring to climate stuff that would have come with the science classes. Other than that could you tell me to what you are referring?
They used to call it social studies when I went to grade school a very long time ago. I will have to ask my nephews and nieces what they call it now. I don't think that it is being taught in the science class. I'm proud to say that my nephew was sent to the office when they were screening Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" in his grade school for saying that he was pretty sure that the movie was full of lies and inaccuracies. The teacher blew a gasket at this challenge to the religious orthodoxy of the Gaian religion.
They used to call it social studies when I went to grade school a very long time ago. I will have to ask my nephews and nieces what they call it now. I don't think that it is being taught in the science class.
I also out of date on it but for grades one to six, I thought it was called Social studies and then in 7 split into history and geography.
Education is provincial so I suppose the provinces can teach what they want in the curriculum for any course.
Maybe they should drop French classes and replace that with chess. It doesn't really matter what people call the pieces because they can always communicate in numeric notation (International notation). :)
Tweet
.
Comment