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 think that is a good way of viewing it - a forfeited game, not rated, is a loss to the winner, who has missed a paid for chance to increase their rating.
Bob A
Well that might be one good way of looking at it... The rating system is not just about the result of a single game however. It seems to me that the purpose of the rating system is to measure the success of a player relative to their competition and to assist in the determination of the probable strength of an opponent. Giving rating points to a player as a result of a non-played game would seem to have an (slight) inflationary effect on the recipient unless they were very likely to have won.
I thought about suggesting a compromise where the result was rated but with a cap on the effect, but all that does is tweak the scope of the problem in a rather non-useful way. If one of the premises of the rating system is the measurement of games played it seems logical that unplayed games cannot be rated.
I think the issue is in the form of a contract. When an individual enters an event that is advertised as CFC rated s/he has the realistic expectation that each games s/he is scheduled to play shall be rated. When another player who enters the tournament under the same conditions forfeits the game the winner has the reasonable expectation that they shall receive rating points for it. To not do so has removed an opportunity for that player to have gained rating points though a played game.
Hi Ken:
I think that is a good way of viewing it - a forfeited game, not rated, is a loss to the winner, who has missed a paid for chance to increase their rating.
I think the issue is in the form of a contract. When an individual enters an event that is advertised as CFC rated s/he has the realistic expectation that each games s/he is scheduled to play shall be rated. When another player who enters the tournament under the same conditions forfeits the game the winner has the reasonable expectation that they shall receive rating points for it. To not do so has removed an opportunity for that player to have gained rating points through a played game.
Last edited by Ken Craft; Friday, 30 May, 2014, 01:20 PM.
This just in from Thad Suits, author of SwissSys.
Hi,
As it stands, when SwissSys encounters a result listed as a forfeit, that result is automatically converted to the equivalent regular result when the CFC rating report is generated. This was a change the CFC office requested two or three years ago.
If you are still getting unconverted results, either your TD's are using older versions of the program, or there is some bug I am not aware of.
The rating module for CFC is independent of the one for the USCF, so if you would like me to make some changes to it, I would be happy to look into that, but as far as I can see, it is already set up to do what you need.
If you are able to create an incorrect report yourself as a test, please send me the report along with the SwissSys file you used to generate it, and let me know exactly what are seeing that is not correct. I will see what needs to be done to tweak the program to give the output you expect.
Something is amiss here. In our recently completed club championship, Abu George Kuttenchirayil had a forfeit victory over Exekial Batistil in round 7 (http://chess.ca/crosstable?tournamen...028&key=140529) but the game is recorded at 0 for Abu and -0 for Exekial in the posted results. If you look at our club results which were generated by Swiss Sys (http://www.scarboroughchessclub.ca/P...nship_2014.pdf), you can see that Abu (player #95) gets a forfeit victory over Exekial (player #120).
Looks to me like the forfeit loss is not getting reported properly in the report file.
We are using version 8.892 of Swiss Sys. This was the current version of the software when the tournament started about 10 weeks ago. It looks like I'm one version back (the current version is 8.894).
I can zip up the Swiss Sys files and send them to someone if that would be helpful because it looks like there is a bug unless I am totally misreading things.
Steve Karpik
Secretary, Scarborough Chess Club
-------------
PS -- I just upgraded to version 8.894. The report files are identical with those of version 8.892.
Last edited by Steve Karpik; Thursday, 29 May, 2014, 12:33 AM.
This just in from Thad Suits, author of SwissSys.
Hi,
As it stands, when SwissSys encounters a result listed as a forfeit, that result is automatically converted to the equivalent regular result when the CFC rating report is generated. This was a change the CFC office requested two or three years ago.
If you are still getting unconverted results, either your TD's are using older versions of the program, or there is some bug I am not aware of.
The rating module for CFC is independent of the one for the USCF, so if you would like me to make some changes to it, I would be happy to look into that, but as far as I can see, it is already set up to do what you need.
If you are able to create an incorrect report yourself as a test, please send me the report along with the SwissSys file you used to generate it, and let me know exactly what are seeing that is not correct. I will see what needs to be done to tweak the program to give the output you expect.
Hi Paul:
We have seen SCC tournament crosstables with forfeits not being rated. If the system is set up on default to rate them, what has been happening that they are NOT being rated more recently?
This just in from Thad Suits, author of SwissSys.
Hi,
As it stands, when SwissSys encounters a result listed as a forfeit, that result is automatically converted to the equivalent regular result when the CFC rating report is generated. This was a change the CFC office requested two or three years ago.
If you are still getting unconverted results, either your TD's are using older versions of the program, or there is some bug I am not aware of.
The rating module for CFC is independent of the one for the USCF, so if you would like me to make some changes to it, I would be happy to look into that, but as far as I can see, it is already set up to do what you need.
If you are able to create an incorrect report yourself as a test, please send me the report along with the SwissSys file you used to generate it, and let me know exactly what are seeing that is not correct. I will see what needs to be done to tweak the program to give the output you expect.
...my interpretation of the handbook is that the intent is to rate them but it is poorly worded...
Hi Paul:
I think the conflicting CFC Handbook is very hard to interpret.
But in any event, your interpretation is the one I favour. Chess clubs, that run weekly CFC-rated tournaments desperately need that interpretation to try to control the no-show problem, that leaves the jilted opponent with nothing but a wasted evening.
Also, for those arguing the integrity of the rating system is affected, I argue that it is minimal and in any event, the ratings of players who have not deserved winning or losing points from forfeits, will likely soon return to their former ratings in a few games. The system is not negatively affected since it soon self-corrects.
The benefits to chess in Canada of rating forfeits much outweighs the minor inconveniences to a few, of short, temporary rating skewing.
I do not see any reason to follow the USCF or FIDE policies - the focus should be on maximizing tournament quality, both independent weekend tournaments, and ongoing club tournaments.
Bob A (member of two Toronto CC's)
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Tuesday, 13 May, 2014, 12:58 PM.
Did I give Chris the impression that I was in favour of rating forfeited games? As Bob implies, there are good arguments both ways. It's just that my interpretation of the handbook is that the intent is to rate them but it is poorly worded. I don't like giving the TD complete discretion. It would be better to state the CFC policy clearly then give the TD a method to go against the policy for exceptional cases.
It's clear that the current CFC policy is to rate forfeited games. I'll have an amendment to the Handbook ready for the next governors' meeting to make it clear. I may include an "exceptional cases" clause whereby a TD or player can request an exception from the Rating Auditor.
Asking the CFC office to query all "F" results is a good idea but I'm not sure given the office workload that can happen. It might also delay processing the weekly rating updates.
I will contact Thad Suites to see if he can find a way around this CFC/USCF difference in his next version of SwissSys. This is probably a long shot.
If there is enough support to change the CFC policy, a motion (or at least a discussion) needs to be presented at a future governors meeting.
Paul I'm surprised to find you of all people in favour of rating unplayed games given that you are so passionate about the integrity of the rating system.
I don't think the current policy is unclear in any way, just the application of that policy. So the motion and an immediate counter-motion/amendment to not rate them is probably good to have the conversation.
It's clear that the current CFC policy is to rate forfeited games. I'll have an amendment to the Handbook ready for the next governors' meeting to make it clear. I may include an "exceptional cases" clause whereby a TD or player can request an exception from the Rating Auditor.
Asking the CFC office to query all "F" results is a good idea but I'm not sure given the office workload that can happen. It might also delay processing the weekly rating updates.
I will contact Thad Suites to see if he can find a way around this CFC/USCF difference in his next version of SwissSys. This is probably a long shot.
If there is enough support to change the CFC policy, a motion (or at least a discussion) needs to be presented at a future governors meeting.
Ironically last Monday we had more forfeits than usual for a club night, and a natural question was "are they rated?" Rules says - "yes", and it seems the ball is in the TD hands to proper mark those results. The pairing program whatever TDs are using must confirm with the rule.
As the philosophical matters: shall they be rated by CFC?
FIDE does not rate unplayed games:
Unplayed Games
5.1 Whether these occur because of forfeiture or any other reason, they are not counted. Any game where both players have made at least one move will be rated."
Unplayed games do no count for norms too. 1.42d
Games which are decided by forfeit, adjudication or any means other than over the board play. Other games once started, which are forfeited for whatever reason, shall however be included. In the instance of a last round game where the opponent forfeits, the norm shall still count if the player must play in order to have the required number of games, but can afford to lose."
It might be natural to adopt the FIDE approach, but as a running club tournaments person I like the status quo - the small "punishment", and a small "reward" for wasting time for other player.
I agree on not rating unplayed games. However, what about games in which one player is clearly caught violating an anti-cheating rule? It doesn't have to be the computer kind. Have there been cases where a player was forfeited after being caught looking at an opening book in the foyer? Was the game then a rated victory for the opponent, or was it regarded as "unplayed" since one side was a "borg"?
It's cheating and, as such, it affects not just the player concerned but also many others as well. Players like to know that their sport is administered fairly, and that those who violate the rules are punished. Just look at the response to the allegations of cheating by Borislav Ivanov; many of his opponents simply refused to play him and, due to the obstinate approach by the administrators, even lost rating points as a result.
Leave a comment: