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.
15. Have fun!
(Thanks to Nigel Hanrahan for writing these up!)
CFC ratings database: some analysis for ratings & activity
CFC ratings database: some analysis for ratings & activity
I have managed to obtain a copy of the CFC ratings database (as of Sept. 2010). Work done on this is posted at: http://victoriachess.com/cfc/ .
Work is ongoing but so far, the site has a utility to query for the top rating list for any given date where that list includes only active players [as opposed to only CFC members and those who may or may not be active as on the CFC site]. [I define active as played in the previous 12 months]. [Cavaet - regional lists are determined by the current listed province of the player, not their historical residence if they moved].
Looking at trends in the ratings of the nth ranked player gives conclusions similar to those in a previous thread based on the analysis of specific players' ratings. http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/showthread.php?t=3382 i.e. there has been some inflation over the last few years and it is to some extent regionally based.
The data so far also includes some activity numbers. The graphs are shown below and they aren't happy graphs.....
Re: CFC ratings database: some analysis for ratings & activity
If I am reading your graphs properly, the number of tournament games played went up slightly across Canada and the number of active players went down everywhere except Alberta and BC.
What is the criteria for deciding who is an active player?
Re: CFC ratings database: some analysis for ratings & activity
Great question John. :)
I am guessing that the 2400 Ontario players are including all the membership type "b" players. These are all the kids in the "junior only" tournaments we rate where the kids are not required to buy memberships. Only a guess?
Great work Roger. Roger has asked if I have any queries he can run for me, and I sure do.
Roger, I'll email you some questions over the weekend.
Thanks for doing this analysis. It will be a great help in understanding our members needs. :D
"Note that the number of active players is much higher than the actual numbers of CFC members (by a factor of 2 or more) This is largely due to the presence of junior rated tournaments for which CFC membership is not required. (these are usually players with ratings below 1000). "
However, I have another question. The membership numbers for the CFC are presumable PAID memberships... they don't include the junior hordes, right? But those unpaid junior "non-members" each has a membership number, and appears on the database, indistinguishable from a paid member.
I wonder if the CFC membership stats could have a column for the junior non-members.
Re: CFC ratings database: some analysis for ratings & activity
I defined active as having played at least 1 game (regular rated) in the 12 months previous to the date queried.
In answer to some of the other posts, yes, 4000 active players versus 1800 or actual members (some of whom are dead or otherwise not active :-) ) is a result largely of junior events with players only requiring to pay $0.50 rating fee. This is not done in all regions so interregional comparison is a bit tricky. If you look at the top rating list at the link provided (or just go here http://victoriachess.com/cfc/ranking...9&province=CAN) the full rating list is printed out and you can see that ~2000 of those players are rated less than 1100.
Three comments to that issue:
1) I plan to look at rating distributions and activity versus rating which will yield more direct comparisons. Actually, I didn't plan to do the present activity numbers until later but they fell out more or less automatically from the present project (looking at the ratings of the nth ranked player) and were pretty disturbing (who knew 90% of Saskatchewan dissappeared?) so I published them.
2) Those who argue that the only model for the CFC is a annual membership model are overlooking that de facto, pay per tournament is how more than half the activity rated is done.
3) If ~half the rating activity is handled at $0.50 per player with no membership fee, it had a) better be true that the rating costs are truely covered b) I suspect the governers are not truely aware of the discrepancy of a large portion of CFC office work being related to at best cost recovery for juniors versus the substantially higher costs for adult membership and play.
And, I believe when you lookup the rating, it shows the CFC Expiry date...
(for you: 2007/5/1) so you were a CFC member only 3 years ago or so.
That's correct. I paid a membership for the printed magazine. The magazine I'd been getting was no longer published. As luck would have it, the CFC also stopped the printed magazine.
If there is any magazine you don't like and wish would stop publishing, send name and address. I'll sign up and see if I can keep my streak alive.
I didn't play any rated games. Did you know they charge entry fees here in Canada? Who'd have guessed?
I3) If ~half the rating activity is handled at $0.50 per player with no membership fee, it had a) better be true that the rating costs are truely covered b) I suspect the governers are not truely aware of the discrepancy of a large portion of CFC office work being related to at best cost recovery for juniors versus the substantially higher costs for adult membership and play.
CMA charges $0.40 rating fee, and Tom O'Donnell has (or had?) a standing offer to enter CFC tournaments for $1 per player. I believe, therefore, that the adult rating fee of $3 is at least 3x the cost of entering the crosstables.
Subject for possible discussion: abandon membership fees completely, and just charge rating fees. It would put the CFC emphasis where it belongs, getting people to play chess.
Re: CFC ratings database: some analysis for ratings & activity
Interesting graphs, and troubling. I think explanations of the decrease in active players might be among the following:
1. When the CFC printed magazine was eliminated many felt that joining was no longer worthwhile especially when there are alternative rating services (like CXR) which do the rating job for a fraction of the price ($8/player/per year with no game limit).
2. There are alternative venues for play. Like the Internet. Like postal chess. Like playing against a computer...
3. I personally find some of the tournament layouts less attractive than I did when I was younger. In particular, I no longer want to spend an entire weekend playing chess. I would much rather play a game a week or a tournament where all the games were on a single day. Many children (and their parents ;-) would prefer one-day events. Some tournaments have started having a game on Friday evening, then two games on Saturday and two on Sunday. For locals this might be fine but if you have to pay for accommodation it is more expensive and wipes out three days.
4. We are failing to attract half the population. Girls play but after puberty they largely vanish. I have had many discussions about why this might be and how to alter it but wisdom remains elusive.
Tweet
Comment