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.
Thanks to Dave Southam and Marcus Wilker, I learned something new yesterday. I had assumed that when I send tournament results to the CFC electronically (in Swiss Sys format) that forfeited games were rated by the CFC. I believed this until about a day ago when Dave, through a post on FB, informed me otherwise. Marcus provided reference to rule 433 in the CFC handbook that forfeits are not normally rated. The rule states: "Games marked F or D (for Forfeit or Default) will not be rated (rule 418) unless they are also marked R (for Rated)."
I'm not very happy about this. Swiss Sys does not provide the option of specifying a forfeit loss as rated or not rated. It is simply a forfeit. So how do I indicate that forfeiting players should lose rating points. The threat of losing rating points was one of the few points of pressure that we can apply to individuals who choose not to do the courteous things and let us know on a particular evening that they aren't going to play.
I suspect this rule is a throwback to when results were submitted to the CFC on scraps of paper. I suspect that now almost no one submits on paper so how do we make sure that forfeiting players pay for their lack of consideration by losing a few rating points?
I'm going to play devil's advocate and say that forfeits should be rated. Imagine you see that you're playing a very underrated opponent in the next round. You both are out of the prize money, so the only thing at stake is your rating. In this situation, if rating is your main motivator, you have a strong incentive to forfeit the round.
Rating is supposed to be a measure of playing strength, not a measure of how often you show up for your games. There are other (rarely/never used) methods to punish players for not showing up for their game.
When a player doesn't show up for a game and his opponent does, the first player is not only wasting the second player's time, he's depriving him of a game that he paid for with his entry fee.
I think rating the game is a partial way to both compensate the second person and punish the first.
When a player doesn't show up for a game and his opponent does, the first player is not only wasting the second player's time, he's depriving him of a game that he paid for with his entry fee.
I think rating the game is a partial way to both compensate the second person and punish the first.
Maybe I'm misreading things. Let me take an example at random. In the 2014 SCC Winter Swiss in round 2, Richard Feng forfeited against Yasir Alganabi. In the results printed out from Swiss Sys, you see that Yasir got 1 point and Richard 0:
So he lost but to no one and now I am totally perplexed. To my mind, Feng should have lost rating points and Alganabi should have gained points.
I have been telling players that they will lose rating points and that has helped to ensure that players let us know if they need a bye. For young, improving players, losing rating points for something so stupid as not calling or emailing to tell us they won't be playing seems to get their attention and they tend to be pretty good especially after losing (or perhaps thinking they are losing) rating points. If they are not going to be penalized, they may not be so diligent.
Incidentally, some players don't care about rating points, so this year at the Scarborough Chess Club we have a new rule: forfeit a game and you get a one game suspension.
The combination of losing rating points and being blocked from playing has motivated players who otherwise were tending to be forgetful about calling us to be diligent. I should emphasize that only a small number of players at the SCC were causing problems with forfeits (Richard wasn't one of the habitual ones) but now the situation is quite improved.
I definitely would not like to see a situation where players can forfeit with impunity.
When someone withdraws from a tournament, that is entirely another matter. They simply show up as unpaired for the rounds that they do not play and there is no impact on their rating. And sometimes something happens (like a car accident) and can't call us. Obviously in those situations we don't impose a forfeit loss.
Thank you to Michael Von Keitz, Mark Dutton and Stephen Wright for their advice on this matter.
Allow me to quote Stephen Wright:
I believe that might be an oversight by Thad Suits - SwissSys is a U.S. program and its defaults reflect U.S. rules. As far as I can tell they don't rate forfeits in the U.S. (see http://www.chess.com/forum/view/gene...-rule-for-uscf), and this default appears to have been included for the CFC rating reports. Given that the crosstables on the CFC website don't have the capacity to indicate whether a game was won by forfeit or not, it appears the only way to currently have such a game rated is to not indicate the forfeit inidication, just the normal result.
I will see about amending Article 433 to make this more clear but I have to agree that this is a pitfall for inexperienced TDs.
It would be nice if the CFC could ask Thad Suits to allow forfeit losses as showing up as losses if, for instance, a option in the program is selected. Recording forfeits by players helps me keep track of habitual re-offenders. Also when a result is entered as a forfeit, the software asks you if you want to withdraw the player. In a better world (where I wasn't pressed by the need to make a living), I would keep accurate notes on who is forfeiting and when. Marking down a forfeit as a forfeit keeps things simply and minimizes the chances that I'll neglect to deal with the offending player. When you're dealing with over 100 players every week, anything that makes the life of the TD easier is a good thing in my books.
Rating is supposed to be a measure of playing strength, not a measure of how often you show up for your games. There are other (rarely/never used) methods to punish players for not showing up for their game.
Absolutely. If you want to penalize someone then fine them $20 and give that money to the offended party (the opponent). Rating points are neither reward nor punishment.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
Absolutely. If you want to penalize someone then fine them $20 and give that money to the offended party (the opponent). Rating points are neither reward nor punishment.
This reminds me of the debate about whether students can lose marks for lack of participation, late or missing assignments, etc.
Regardless of your position on that, it does seem strange that CFC Handbook seems to suggest forfeits are to be rated, but as a matter of fact usually doesn't rate them.
To be consistent, CFC should side with FIDE and say that forfeits are not to be rated and then (continue to) not rate them, or (continue to) say that forfeits are to be rated and then update the reporting and rating mechanism so this actually happens.
Absolutely. If you want to penalize someone then fine them $20 and give that money to the offended party (the opponent). Rating points are neither reward nor punishment.
Good luck collecting that $20. And the next time you see the offender, it could be in a different tournament, different organizer so you need to put resources into maintaining an up to date and public blacklist. Rating points on the other hand are a penalty the CFC can enforce cheaply.
Tweet
Rated Forfeits
Comment