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.
I couldn't agree more with these sentiments. At the recent Olympics in London, many of our Canadian athletes (including several medallists) were experienced competitors in their late 20's or 30's, with at least one previous Olympic experience. Wouldn`t it be great if we could say the same about our CHESS Olympians. The $64,000 question is, how do we make it happen, gov`ts don`t seem interested, we can`t seem to get much private sector support either, the public perception of chess is of a kids`activity like Spelling Bee.
Another question just as important is : what has been done to try to get governments, the private sector or simply wealthy individuals interested in supporting the national teams ? The answer is always "nothing" or next to nothing. The assumptions are : they are not interested so we do not try, it is not necessary anyway because we will always find players willing to go for nothing. Sponsorship do not fall from the sky on your lap. Something must be done to get it. Unfortunately this starts with the CFC. If the limited goal always remains to just pay airfare and be happy when it happens, then forget about keeping our GMs interested and strong showing at olympiads. When players like LeSiège or Bluvshtein completely give up chess, this is a tragedy in terms of loss of image, knowledge and experience. Everything should be done to make it happen less frequently or less completely. The CFC should be aware that it has a role to play in this whether they like it or not. I am not sure it is the case.
The lower our team is seeded, the easier it gets to "play up". When we'll be seeded in the 100s, we will always play up...
True, but since Bob's up-down ratio is based on final scores, we can see that the worse we score, the greater the up-down ratio would be. I mean, if we placed last, then all our opponents would have been "up".
The opposite happened to those winning Armenians. Do you realise that, based on final scores, ALL their opponents finished lower than them! The Armenian up-down ratio was 0/11. They had it easy, compared with Canada! :p
If the up-down ratio was based on original ranking, it might be a little more useful...
I share Jean Hebert's dismay at the financial rewards for Canadian chessplayers. The money is simply not there and it is not for want of trying as I can attest from my persona experience.
Why do the top athletes in some sports get millions (even tens of millions0 for showing up while a Canadian chess master may pick up a few thousands for winning a 9-round event (perhaps 50 hours of play based on thousands of hours of practice)? The principal answer is: television.
All the highly paid sports capture large television audiences as the basis for high value advertising and thus lucrative package deals. Many, but not all, are team events with the additional energy that generates e.g. baseball, football, soccer. Even the individual sports, such as tennis or golf, capture large television audiences and the players are organized to obtain their reasonable share of the proceeds. Even poker has, with the advent of fibre optic cameras to pick up the cards in each player's hand, managed to capture a substantial viewership and the sponsorship that goes with it. The best feature of all these "sports" is that one does not have to play the game well, or even play it at all, to enjoy the visual spectacle.
Now look at chess. More to the point, why would anyone watch chess? I am not talking here about keen chess fans who follow the moves online or on a screen. The visual spectacle is hardly captivating: a table, a board and two chairs; sometimes, but not always, at least one player seated in contemplation.
Attempts have been made to render the game more telegenic: at the recent WCC a valiant effort was made to create a television event, with live grandmaster commentary, etc., but the audience was pitifully small, even in Russia; other attempts have been made, notably with Britain's "The Master Game" to bring chess to life on television but the ratings apparently did not justify continuing or replicating the experiment.
Unless and until we find some way to attract audiences in the millions for chess events on television there will be a pronounced lack of sponsorship interest. That will leave the game dependent on the random largesse of government (Turkey) or private individuals (Saint Louis).
One final observation: for all their mistakes, Short and Kasparov were on the right track when they tried to put players in control of their own sport. Unfortunately, this and subsequent attempts have gone nowhere. The financial destinies of players remain in the hands of chess functionaries many of whom, dare I say, are in it for their own advantage.
...
One final observation: for all their mistakes, Short and Kasparov were on the right track when they tried to put players in control of their own sport. Unfortunately, this and subsequent attempts have gone nowhere. The financial destinies of players remain in the hands of chess functionaries many of whom, dare I say, are in it for their own advantage.
This was my first Olympiad (Match Arbiter), and also my first time dropping in at various FIDE meetings, sharing drinks with key chess people, etc. In my anecdotal observations, some of the chess functionaries seemed to be keeping up a remarkably high work rate, but like in other walks of life, some lesser functionaries "seemed" to be "draining the system".
One final observation: for all their mistakes, Short and Kasparov were on the right track when they tried to put players in control of their own sport. Unfortunately, this and subsequent attempts have gone nowhere. The financial destinies of players remain in the hands of chess functionaries many of whom, dare I say, are in it for their own advantage.
This doesn't really make sense - the problem is not who is doing the organizing. It is that no one has (as of yet) come up with a model on how to present chess in a way that would attract sponsors and money into the game. It doesn't matter if the players have control or other organizers.
So in effect, Canada “ played up “ 8/11 times. We really had only 2 “ easy “ matches.
Bob
Let's look at Sweden because we played them so far into the event. After round 9 we had 11 match points the same as Sweden. They beat us in round 10 by a half point. 2.5 - 1.5.. In round 11 they defeated Brazil 3 - 1 to slip into 16th place.
The team had their chances. The last two rounds are important for the placings.
On board 4 Eric finished 10th and it's ranked by performance rating. His performance rating far exceeded his FIDE rating. Very well done!
This doesn't really make sense - the problem is not who is doing the organizing. It is that no one has (as of yet) come up with a model on how to present chess in a way that would attract sponsors and money into the game. It doesn't matter if the players have control or other organizers.
Actually.... someone has come up with that model. It's just not in the public domain yet. Also, it will not be pure standard chess that is presented. There will be an element of standard chess to it so that current chessplayers can move effortlessly into it. But there are other elements as well. This is all neccessary because standard chess alone cannot and will not ever be tolerable to watch for the non-playing public. You can speed the game up, you can reduce the number of draws, you could even have the players insulting each other a la Chesstalk. That still won't do the job.
The chess purists will abhor what is going to happen. I'm sure many of them will boycott it. But once it's out there, nothing they do will stop significant migration, and the biggest reason is that serious chess players at all but the lowest levels will finally be able to make a decent living playing.... chess.... sort of....
As I've written in other posts, this is not an attempt to undermine standard chess. There will always be standard chess purists to continue that activity. Whether or not there will be a standard chess World Championship in 10 or 20 years, and whether it will have the prestige and following and sponsorship it has now, is another matter, but clubs and tournaments will live on. And that is a good thing.
In case anyone is wondering, no, this new model will not be called chess.
I know Larry Bevand will love it, because there will be lots of books and DVDs for him to sell to willing buyers.
And let me conclude again with this disclaimer: There is no guarantee any of this will happen. The world could still end on December 21st 2012.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
If you look at all the popular sports in the world, it's amazing how few FUNDAMENTAL changes have occured over the decades. Take baseball, for example. Aside from the designated hitter rule (and that only in the A.L.) and tweaking the dimensions of the pitcher's mound, the game has not changed rule-wise since WW II at least (equipment, uniform styles and steroids are another matter, of course). The same is true of other major sports/games and I trust it will remain true of chess as well. What might help the popularity of chess is superficial gimmicks such as celebrity tournaments involving movie stars teamed up with GMs, or 'skins game' style blitz matches. Or you could insert an element of chance - some years ago an American GM (Larry Evans?) came up with 'Vegas Fun Chess' where you rolled dice to determine which piece you could move (or something like that). Of course, 'serious' chess would continue.
What might help the popularity of chess is superficial gimmicks such as celebrity tournaments involving movie stars teamed up with GMs, or 'skins game' style blitz matches.
I would devote countless years to becoming a GM just to team up with:
But seriously though, that sounds like a good idea.
I was going to say, along the lines of chess and TV, that blitz chess would be pretty entertaining to watch for spectators. The whole point of poker viewership increasing is because the audience can see the cards and the action is quite fast-paced (not always though). In chess, this equivocates to some interesting and engaging personalities to provide useful and basic narration/commentary. The computer analysis window pointing out the strongest moves is the same as the camera showing the cards in poker, and if the chess is 'blitz' then I think the pace would be quick enough for anyone. A lot of my friends will have no idea what chess is but stay to watch me play for hours simply out of how impressive it is that I have it mastered to a level they cannot fathom.
Also, I watch those old TV blitz matches between Dreev, Kasparov, Anand, Short all the time. The modern World Blitz Championships footage that some peopple have captured on video cameras and uploaded to youtube have over 100,000 views in some cases, but all with at least 30,000. People find that stuff interesting!
The Olympiad produced few surprises. The usual suspects and favorites - Armenia, Russia, and Ukraine finished on top. The countries with the biggest plus differential were Romania, Vietnam, Denmark and our encounter, Sweden, while Israel, France, and England finished well off their ranks. Argentina and The Philippines finished outside top 20 but by no means they had a wonderful run.The players who impressed were Aronian and...Eric Hansen - the player with highest performance who was not a GM at the time!
The positive for Canadian chess is Hansen's result and, more important, his play. Crystal clear. I watched live his game against Mexico, where his opponent, an IM, couldn't cross the midfield. Should the names of the players been unknown to me, I would have guessed is one of Karpov's games from the early 80s!
And next time, bring Sydney Crossby along. He may prove to be useful against those Scandinavians :-)
Maybe this doesn't count as a surprise, but it was certainly a positive development. IA Aris Marghetis was a match Arbiter in the top section of the Olympiad. His final board assignment speaks volumes. He was given the Armenia - Hungary match. I was present at the farewell party when both Aronian and Leko made a point of complimenting Aris for his professionalism and dedication to their match.
IA Aris Marghetis was a match Arbiter in the top section of the Olympiad. His final board assignment speaks volumes. He was given the Armenia - Hungary match.
Tweet
Comment