9453 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
And so men took revenge by maintaining this trend? I would guess it is maintained to avoid the confusion of starting a new one, but excuse my ignorance if this is not the case.
It's of course a fairly trivial point though -- I'm sure either way will be satisfactorily clear.
IM GOING TO THE ONE IN ARLINGTON. ARE YOU COMING.
I DON'T KNOW!
I want to be as clear about this as I possible can be. You can use he or she. However, he/she is expressly verboten.
Just joking with you a bit. I figured someone who was as sensitive to gender issues as you may feel that women are underrepresented in United States government (which they are) to the extent that you'd still call this country a patriarchy.
Yeah, I get what you mean.
But, hey! now women can fight and die right along with the men in the U.S. Military!
The word "disinterested" is often incorrectly thought to mean "not interested," when it really means "impartial." In fact, I think I remember reading something that this word may eventually either be taken out of the "official" language, or have its meaning changed to mean "not interested" after all. Or at least, I read something sort of like that.
*minor thread hijack* "Disinterested" in the sense of "having no interest" has been in use since at least 1647 according to the Oxford English Dictionary. And there is no "official language" for English/American English, although, the OED is about as canonical (cough) as you can get. Different publishers of dictionaries use different criteria for determining what words gain entry to their publications. */minor thread hijack*
Like, if I bought 51% shares of private Chess.com stock from Eric, I'd have a controlling "interest".
A 'vested interest'.
Some skin in the game.
Therefore, if I did an "unbiased review" of the top chess sites on the web, it wouldn't exactly be written by a disinterested party.
Fair enough, Canonical. The sources I used for the meaning of that word were admittedly... less professional than yours ;)
I guess it would depend a bit on the particular dictionary.
The tournament is not a scam. The rating limit above the current section limit is indeed designed to protect against sandbaggers. The tournament states what amount of cash will be returned as prizes based on how many entries. If less people attend than planned then these tournaments will generally guarantee what % of the prizes is guaranteed and how it will be figured based on how many entries.This part is enforcable by law.t does not mean that some tournaments are held at a loss, but someone else is paying for the loss, the entity which guaranteed the prize money. The tournaments are not thrown for free and so that is baked into the prize fee. The entree fee may seem high but if you want to see GM and IM games live then that is the cost. As mentioned, I could play in alot of other tournaments for less. There is also alot less potential for gains, to include rating points, norms...etc. If I have the money, I prefer to play in these tournaments where the entree fee is higher. I do not expect to win anything, but if I do that is a bonus. I find the experience of these events to be enriching in itself. I can play more good players if I am doing well than I will find at other tournaments. Also, in these events the entree fee is higher in the open section. The lower sections have a lower entree fee than the open. Those of us in the U.S. that play in these tournaments are aware of how they work and they are not a scam. Deserving tournament participants will get the rest of that money the sandbagger did not get. All the prize money or the appropriate % gets paid out.
Yes, I meant to respond to this the other day, but got caught up playing chess, go figure.
I have had a number of public disagreements with Bill Goichberg (founder/owner/operator of Continental Chess Association, several-term Prez of USCF, longtime board member) over the years, but he runs a clean tournament. No one should question his ethics.
Every promised prize has been paid from all his events, going back to when he started some 45 years ago and if few showed up the prizes came out of his bank account. He is a pioneer at class sections and keeping sandbagging and cheating out, he has organized more rated games in the US than the next ten organizers put together, and brought more players into chess in the USA than anyone including Bobby Fischer.
When he's wrong, I don't mind shredding him like hard cheese. But his reputation as an organizer is spotless.
What a 8th Century Game would look like
by hungry_girl a few minutes ago
Why are you all so mean?
by corrijean a few minutes ago
[HURT HEAL] OPENINGS
by macer75 2 minutes ago
I won, but could have gone either way
by bellwater99 7 minutes ago
by nameno1had 8 minutes ago
4 X 5 = 0 !!
by mosai 12 minutes ago
QGA: e3 or e4?
by Noreaster 13 minutes ago
Carlsen vs Anand rematch
by please_let_me_win 15 minutes ago
Is the Scandinavian Defense forced?
by ChessCamper 17 minutes ago
by bhenderson001 19 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!