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 don't know about the past Canadian greats and so I'm not going to try and compare Eric with any of them.
What I see is a pretty impressive rating at a young age with potential to get even higher. While at his current rating he might not match the all-time greats like Yanofsky, Suttles, Spraggett, Lesiege etc. especially when adjusting for inflation, the advantage that Eric still possesses is his young age and the fact that most of his achievements is based on his own discipline and self-study. He didn't come from the Soviet school of chess or studied in any specific chess school, he did it mostly on his own and a private coach here and there.
I believe that most chess players peak at around age 25-35, similar to lots of other professional sports like baseball, soccer, basketball, hockey etc. and so he still has some years left in the tank to aim for 2600, and then maybe 2700 with some luck and good timing. After that, who knows, Nakamura was bouncing around high 2600s low 2700 for a long time before finally jumping into the world stage as one of the top players in the world. It's fully possible for Eric to do the same but obviously, when someone tries to achieve greatness in such a specialized field, it's going to be a hard, grueling journey and sacrifices will have to be made.
Also, I don't see Anton as Canadian - he's fully Argentinian, playing in the summer tournaments and winning the Quebec junior every year does not make him a home-grown Canadian player in my eyes.
All very good points. Thanks for the excellent analysis.
I don't know about the past Canadian greats and so I'm not going to try and compare Eric with any of them.
What I see is a pretty impressive rating at a young age with potential to get even higher. While at his current rating he might not match the all-time greats like Yanofsky, Suttles, Spraggett, Lesiege etc. especially when adjusting for inflation, the advantage that Eric still possesses is his young age and the fact that most of his achievements is based on his own discipline and self-study. He didn't come from the Soviet school of chess or studied in any specific chess school, he did it mostly on his own and a private coach here and there.
I believe that most chess players peak at around age 25-35, similar to lots of other professional sports like baseball, soccer, basketball, hockey etc. and so he still has some years left in the tank to aim for 2600, and then maybe 2700 with some luck and good timing. After that, who knows, Nakamura was bouncing around high 2600s low 2700 for a long time before finally jumping into the world stage as one of the top players in the world. It's fully possible for Eric to do the same but obviously, when someone tries to achieve greatness in such a specialized field, it's going to be a hard, grueling journey and sacrifices will have to be made.
Also, I don't see Anton as Canadian - he's fully Argentinian, playing in the summer tournaments and winning the Quebec junior every year does not make him a home-grown Canadian player in my eyes.
Can you now explain why you have the both the correct quote (Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.) and an incorrect quote (Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it) all in the same quotations, separated by ... as if both things were said by George Santayana in the same work? That's pretty sloppy and somewhat disrespectful for someone who claims to study Santayana. It's not something that someone who has actually read the work should do. If I did that on an academic paper I would have a lot of marks deducted, I might even fail for not quoting correctly and attributing my own words to someone else ie putting words in Santayana's mouth. Doing so so that I can then write the rest of my paper as if he had said that. That's academic dishonesty.
Can you now explain why you have the both the correct quote (Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.) and an incorrect quote (Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it) all in the same quotations, separated by ... as if both things were said by George Santayana in the same work? That's pretty sloppy and somewhat disrespectful for someone who claims to study Santayana. It's not something that someone who has actually read the work should do. If I did that on an academic paper I would have a lot of marks deducted, I might even fail for not quoting correctly and attributing my own words to someone else ie putting words in Santayana's mouth. Doing so so that I can then write the rest of my paper as if he had said that. That's academic dishonesty.
It is really too bad that the true hero of the north who defended board 1 in Turin and defeated the world champion never gets any praise...
As the saying goes, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. ... Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
Can you now explain why you have the both the correct quote (Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.) and an incorrect quote (Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it) all in the same quotations, separated by ... as if both things were said by George Santayana in the same work? That's pretty sloppy and somewhat disrespectful for someone who claims to study Santayana. It's not something that someone who has actually read the work should do. If I did that on an academic paper I would have a lot of marks deducted, I might even fail for not quoting correctly and attributing my own words to someone else ie putting words in Santayana's mouth. Doing so so that I can then write the rest of my paper as if he had said that. That's academic dishonesty.
Leave a comment: