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.
Yeah. People can afford to travel around the country and rent hotel rooms but they can't afford the CFC annual fee. Juniors are travelling around the world for events. BC must be in pretty good shape because I heard the people will be paying a whack of money for the upcoming Olympics.
I don't go to any tournaments that involve me getting a hotel room anymore... its too expensive. My parents are happy to give me a room when I play in the lower mainland so I can play in the Vancouver area. (and they get to see their grandkids!).
BTW I have always been against the Olympics. I hate my tax dollars going to any form of sports (or arts!). Waste someone elses dollar, not mine.
lol I don't think he was harsh enough. Must be that oath he took...
sure lets make it more expensive for players that want to try rated chess to play... that will sure bring them in in droves!!! You want to get more people to try rated chess??? REDUCE the tournament fee to $5 but only allow them to use it once a year.
Yeah. People can afford to travel around the country and rent hotel rooms but they can't afford the CFC annual fee. Juniors are travelling around the world for events. BC must be in pretty good shape because I heard the people will be paying a whack of money for the upcoming Olympics.
You might find yourself in a lot of twit filters but not in mine. I like the entertainment. :)
While I don't agree with all Bob's ideas, many are in the right direction. I think you're being a tad harsh.
Bob is right there has to be changes to entice more players in this country. From large numbers comes the small number of elite players who will emerge.
Regarding what's known as the "twit filter" (message block), when that's on you miss all the good posts.
lol I don't think he was harsh enough. Must be that oath he took...
sure lets make it more expensive for players that want to try rated chess to play... that will sure bring them in in droves!!! You want to get more people to try rated chess??? REDUCE the tournament fee to $5 but only allow them to use it once a year. Anything beyond that you need a membership. Give casual players a low cost option instead of sticking the collective middle finger up at them and saying 'you are not welcome here!' But as Ben has pointed out, he just doesn't listen nor does he care. I challenged him if he had even bothered to ask ONE person who uses tournament memberships whether they would buy a full membership or quit... his response? NOPE... I see Bob Armstrong as the biggest threat to the CFC surviving, his ideas are beyond stupid. (so how is that for harsh!). Personally I am glad to see how to use the 'twit filter', because I am sick of his inane ramblings.
5. You claim to be part of a grassroots movement but you're actually completely out of touch with the average Canadian chess player. Others have already pointed this out to you.
Chris Mallon has informed me of how to employ the postblock function, so feel no obligation to respond to this.
What chess players is he out of touch with? There are hardly any remaining.
While I don't agree with all Bob's ideas, many are in the right direction. I think you're being a tad harsh.
Exactly what are we discussing with the memberships fees? If the player would sooner spend it on a national membership or if he'd prefer to use the money for a CD or DVD?
Canadian chess isn't particularly good chess. You only had to look at some of the games which were produced at the Olympiad to know that. It must have been a job to get "up" to play some of those teams our national team was stuck with. Those advanced pairings are designed to keep the poor teams away from the contenders as much as possible and it worked. In round 5 and 6 Canada drew with 82nd seeded Yemen and lost to 92nd seeded Iraq. Then, in round 7 and 8 they beat 133 seeded Macau and 111 seeded Trinidad and Tobago. When the opponents seedings have to get over 100 for us to do well, there's a problem.
Bob is right there has to be changes to entice more players in this country. From large numbers comes the small number of elite players who will emerge.
Regarding what's known as the "twit filter" (message block), when that's on you miss all the good posts.
I am somewhat surprised at the response to this post. There have been no replies. I would have expected:
1. someone to have defended the Executive/Governors saying that they were doing a good job, and should be left alone to do it;
2. someone to attack the Executive/Governors saying that a deficit this size was unacceptable and that they had to do something about it NOW;
3. someone to attack the Grassroots' Campaign saying they were being overly critical and that the deficit could not have been avoided this year;
4. someone to support the GC saying that they had brought to light an important piece of financial information not known, and that the CFC should make the cuts proposed by the GC on Jan. 15.
There was nothing. Can someone advise why the silence from almost 200 views? I'm just curious. The CFC might draw the conclusion that the general membership is just apathetic. Would this be a justified conclusion?
Bob
1. You disregard feedback from anyone who disagrees with you.
2. Your pseudo-punctilious bolding of key phrases comes off as patronising and just generally annoying.
3. You seek to bring about measures which will be detrimental to chess in Canada.
4. You strike me as - how shall I put this politely - mathematically and logically inept, yet you insist on citing random figures and irrelevant calculations as justifications for your terrible plans.
5. You claim to be part of a grassroots movement but you're actually completely out of touch with the average Canadian chess player. Others have already pointed this out to you.
Chris Mallon has informed me of how to employ the postblock function, so feel no obligation to respond to this.
[QUOTE=Bob Armstrong;6012]I am somewhat surprised at the response to this post. There have been no replies.
Hello Bob,
Why try to save a sinking ship?
The present executive is merely looking after the funeral arrangements of the CFC -- selling the "condo", dismantling the book store and supplies, eliminating the published magazine and any obsolete paying positions.
How can chessplayers further tolerate paying membership fees for the poorer services that they are getting? ( Ont. $43 /yr )
The proposed on-line magazine will cost the CFC more to run than the printed version and will have far fewer readers. Anyway, we already have on-line chess at our disposal --- it's called the internet.
Too many honourary members sitting on the fence and weighing it down.
Too many quarrels with Canada's top players.
Too many inept presidents ( not presently )
Too many financial mistakes and double dealings.
You can shape the beast , but you cannot change the beast.
It's just a matter of time before a new organization , considerate of ALL players, and giving them their money's worth, takes shape and represents this FIDE zone.
Last edited by Anthony Cheron; Wednesday, 14th January, 2009, 11:31 PM.
There was nothing. Can someone advise why the silence from almost 200 views? I'm just curious. The CFC might draw the conclusion that the general membership is just apathetic. Would this be a justified conclusion?
Bob
Same cow pasture. Watch where you step. It's always wait until later or wait until next year.
I am somewhat surprised at the response to this post. There have been no replies. I would have expected: (...)
There was nothing. Can someone advise why the silence from almost 200 views? I'm just curious. The CFC might draw the conclusion that the general membership is just apathetic. Would this be a justified conclusion?
Bob
The membership is certainly apathetic but this is nothing new. And why exactly should it care that much ? It has already gone 9 months without a magazine... what worse could happen now ? Clearly Chess will survive with or without the CFC, and some might say better without it. Anybody with a PC in his basement can start a rating system... The CFC has to stop asking members to support it as a charity. The CFC has to start doing something real for its membership and for chess, then it will get support. And sorry, a webzine once every third month is not going to be nearly enough.
I am somewhat surprised at the response to this post. There have been no replies. I would have expected:
1. someone to have defended the Executive/Governors saying that they were doing a good job, and should be left alone to do it;
2. someone to attack the Executive/Governors saying that a deficit this size was unacceptable and that they had to do something about it NOW;
3. someone to attack the Grassroots' Campaign saying they were being overly critical and that the deficit could not have been avoided this year;
4. someone to support the GC saying that they had brought to light an important piece of financial information not known, and that the CFC should make the cuts proposed by the GC on Jan. 15.
There was nothing. Can someone advise why the silence from almost 200 views? I'm just curious. The CFC might draw the conclusion that the general membership is just apathetic. Would this be a justified conclusion?
We are all currently focused on achieving 3 goals,
1. Vacating the CFC Condo by Jan 15th
2. Giving birth to the webzine
3. Balancing the budget for fiscal 2010 (starting May 1, 2009).
Achieving these goals are critical to our continued improvement. Our best course of action is to remain focused on these goals.
I hope you can be just a little more patient.
Bob
__________________________________________________________________
#3 01-06-2009, 11:16 PM
Bob Armstrong , Senior Member
CFC Can't Shoot the Elephant, Nor Discuss It
Hi Bob:
I very much appreciate you publicly responding so quickly on behalf of the CFC so the members know where the CFC stands on the issue raised in this post.
So the answer is that CFC will NOT discuss the elephant in the room ( the $ 24,700 deficit projected for 2008-9 ) because CFC is " focused " on the 3 current goals you set out. Well, it is at least an answer that the CFC members can now evaluate for themselves.
The Grassroots' Campaign's comments on the 3 current CFC goals are:
1. Vacating the CFC Condo by Jan 15th - GC Comment : seems like a good goal - good luck with the move;
2. Giving birth to the webzine - GC Comment - How can CFC afford it with a GC projected deficit this year of $ 24,700 ( Former CFC President and Treasurer Peter Stockhausen estimated it would cost $ 10,000/year, and we fear he may be low ) ?
3. Balancing the budget for fiscal 2010 (starting May 1, 2009). - GC Comment : Cuts will be necessary before May 1, 2009 in order to have any hope of coming out with a balanced 2009-10 budget.
GC fears " patience " is costing the CFC money it cannot afford.
We do acknowledge the good progress made by the CFC this year so far. We also hope for CFC's " continued improvement " and will hopefully watch CFC's steps in the final 4 months of this fiscal year.
Bob
____________________________________________________________
#4 01-07-2009, 07:05 AM
Ken Craft , CFC Governor
Meet the new executive, same as the old one. Transparency is not its strong suit.
The saying “ No one will talk about the elephant in the room “ describes a situation where something is large and obvious and uncomfortable, but no one wants to take a chance on raising the issue.
Well CFC has an elephant in the room. The looming 2008-9 deficit is projected by the Grassroots’ Campaign to be $ 24,700 ( 1st half - $ 8,717; 2nd half - $ 16,000 ). Now in 2007-8 it was $ 33,251. And in 2006-7 it was $ 48,677. So there has been some progress. And the CFC in 5 months this past year has done much restructuring ( as called for by the Grassroots' Campaign ) - for which they are to be congratulated. But the current year’s deficit will still be sizeable ( elephantine ).
What has been the CFC response to this revelation by the Grassroots’ Campaign ? – deafening SILENCE.
There have been three recent postings dealing with the Grassroots’ projection and its evolving calculation: 1) May 1 – October 31, 2008 CFC Deficit – Where from Here?; 2) Projected CFC Revenue/Expenses for Nov. 1, 2008 – April 30, 2009; and 3) CFC Budgets – Are They Coming??. How many comments, replies, criticisms have you seen posted on any of the three Canadian chess chat discussion boards by any of the CFC Executive? Initially they responded on their own board – there were 6 replies on the CFC Chess Forum to the first post ( none on ChessTalk or the Ottawa CC Discussion Board ). But then they went SILENT – no responses on any boards to the 2nd and 3rd posts ( except the picture-only “ tank “ post on CFC Chess Forum ).
At some point after the first post, CFC President David Lavin changed strategy, and decided no longer to debate in front of the membership in public. He advised me privately that he would not reply post to me any more ( he said because I posted on multiple boards – you evaluate whether that is a reason not to post on his own CFC Chess Forum ). Has he now muzzled the other members of the Executive too?
Why is the CFC afraid to talk about the elephant in the room in public? The Grassroots’ Campaign has developed a 2nd half budget, carefully measured against the actual 1st half expenses. Why can’t CFC do the same? Privately the President and Treasurer have said the Grassroots’ figures are “ off base “. If so, why won’t they disclose their own figures in public ( and I drafted and sent to them a blank 2nd half budget statement to complete, that can be understood by a layman, to make it easy on them )?
The Grassroots’ Campaign has asked for cuts in office expenses, staff salaries and the Webzine ( on-line Chess Canada ) NOW to try to deal with the elephant in our room THIS YEAR ( the full Grassroots' Platform on Restructuring will soon be published ). Again - - CFC response - - public silence.
Is the CFC Executive just resignedly accepting this deficit?
Governors run the CFC and are responsible for its well-being – they need to direct the Executive as to general policies to be followed. They should look closely at this elephant and decide if they agree with the Executive direction ( non-direction? ) on this issue. And the Governors should not let themselves also be muzzled. They should, in public, express their views to the membership, ask for input, and engage in debate. The membership can provide valuable ideas.
This would move things forward – and the elephant would get discussed – as it should be.
Bob
( Because of David’s position on posting, I promised I would not copy this post from the CFC Chess Forum for 2 days ( which promise I've kept ). And if he or other executive posted in reply, when I copied to other boards, I would also copy their comments, so there would be full disclosure at all sites ( which I've done).
Leave a comment: