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.
At our chess camps in Ottawa, Siamese Chess is so popular that we instituted the title of Chess Camp Grandmaster to players who win the Siamese Championship. We have many Grandmasters now, including regular chess IM Tom O'Donnell. I suspect that the Siamese Grandmaster title is the one he holds the dearest, especially since when he played he either suffered an extreme time handicap, or he could not mate (he could king chop), at the discretion of his helpless opponents. :)
Oftentimes, you can simul your opponents. It's much more effective than pairing up with a partner who can't see tactics or are scared of saccing queens. This way, hes the bughouse champion without the need of a partner!
In my eyes, double chess played between just two opponents (otherwise still using two sets and two clocks) might deserve serious consideration to eventually replace standard chess as the standard game.
Double chess played as usual (with two teams of two players each) might have a problem being taken more seriously because of perceived 'cheating' centred around permitted (or else forbidden) talking (or else signalling) between partners.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Siamese meaning Bughouse? How do you get 1 champion when playing teams of 2?
Yes, sometimes two Grandmaster titles are awarded at a camp. We make an effort to never have more than one G per team, so as to ensure that we get at least one new G each tournament. Kids are fanatics for this variation, they would play it all day and forget normal chess if we allowed them to.
In my eyes, double chess played between just two opponents (otherwise still using two sets and two clocks) might deserve serious consideration to eventually replace standard chess as the standard game.
Double chess played as usual (with two teams of two players each) might have a problem being taken more seriously because of perceived 'cheating' centred around permitted (or else forbidden) talking (or else signalling) between partners.
Have there been (anywhere) rated tournaments of doubles chess played one player versus one player? Is there a rating list anywhere, and recorded games? Are any organizers getting kids interested in this as a replacement for standard chess?
I'll be surprised if Bindi Cheng doesn't post to say this idea is retarded, zombie chess. He probably plays it a lot. That says a lot about why he really thinks BADASS chess is retarded.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Yes, sometimes two Grandmaster titles are awarded at a camp. We make an effort to never have more than one G per team, so as to ensure that we get at least one new G each tournament. Kids are fanatics for this variation, they would play it all day and forget normal chess if we allowed them to.
Why don't you allow them to?
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
The "cheating" problem doesn't exist. Just make conversation legal and get on with it.
What I meant by people suspecting cheating in double chess depends on what conversation (or signalling) between partners is meant to convey (by perhaps most people's understanding of the spirit of double chess).
I can see people have few problems with one partner requesting a type of piece be captured (or not to be allowed to be captured by an opponent) by the other partner, or a request for a partner to 'sit' (i.e. not to move).
However what most people might have a problem with is if a partner is told exactly what move to make on the board (e.g. at almost every turn), or if even a hint of what type of piece to move is offered. That may go against what most people might think is the spirit of the game, and make a strong player in a partnership effectively the only player in the partnership , and the weaker partner a sort of dummy sitting there just making the moves he's ordered to.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Have there been (anywhere) rated tournaments of doubles chess played one player versus one player? Is there a rating list anywhere, and recorded games? Are any organizers getting kids interested in this as a replacement for standard chess?
I'll be surprised if Bindi Cheng doesn't post to say this idea is retarded, zombie chess. He probably plays it a lot. That says a lot about why he really thinks BADASS chess is retarded.
Bindi already posted above, and favourably about the game. So why do you feel it's necessary to both speculate about what he thinks and imagine what that would say about him if he actually thought that??. How about we keep the thread pleasant and avoid trash talk?
Have there been (anywhere) rated tournaments of doubles chess played one player versus one player? Is there a rating list anywhere, and recorded games?
The Hart House chess club at the University of Toronto used to keep a rating list for double chess players back in the 1980's, at least. I seem to recall players often chose their partner carefully, as it could affect their own rating as an individual double chess player. This underlines what I was writing about in my previous post regarding perceived cheating within partnerships affecting how seriously standard double chess might be taken.
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Friday, 28th September, 2012, 04:09 PM.
Reason: Spelling
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
I can see people have few problems with one partner requesting a type of piece be captured (or not to be allowed to be captured by an opponent) by the other partner, or a request for a partner to 'sit' (i.e. not to move).
However what most people might have a problem with is if a partner is told exactly what move to make on the board (e.g. at almost every turn), or if even a hint of what type of piece to move is offered. That may go against what most people might think is the spirit of the game, and make a strong player in a partnership effectively the only player in the partnership , and the weaker partner a sort of dummy sitting there just making the moves he's ordered to.
So why is this a problem? You can choose your rule set:
A) No conversation allowed
B) Any conversation is allowed
C) Make a list of legal requests, and only those may be said.
Any of these is enforceable so why is it considered a problem?
The Hart House chess club at the University of Toronto used to keep a rating list for double chess players back in the 1980's, at least. I seem to recall players often chose their partner carefully, as it could affect their own rating as an individual double chess player. This underlines what I was writing about in my previous post regarding perceived cheating within partnerships affecting how seriously standard double chess might be taken.
Follow tennis. I believe doubles rankings are for the team, not the individual.
Tweet
Comment