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.
...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, 13th May, 2014, 01:58 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.
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.
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, 29th May, 2014, 01:33 AM.
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, 30th May, 2014, 02:20 PM.
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 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.
It might be a contract but you are defining the contract as a contract for rating points which is circular and as if people enter tournaments to "buy" rating points. Other possible contracts are for a rating that reflects strength of play, a contract for set number of games (ratings not part of the contract), a contract for a fixed amount of entertainment. I don't think that describing a tournament as primarily a contract to gain rating points is a good description of why I, and many others, play tournaments.
Your phrasing of the issue results in a predetermined conclusion.
There is nothing circular nor pre-determined about my argument. There either exists a contract to rate all scheduled games in a tournament listed as CFC rated or there is not a contract to rate all scheduled games in a tournament listed as CFC rated.
There is nothing circular nor pre-determined about my argument. There either exists a contract to rate all scheduled games in a tournament listed as CFC rated or there is not a contract to rate all scheduled games in a tournament listed as CFC rated.
or there is / is not a contract tor rate all played scheduled games.
Your choice of contract terms leads to your predetermined conclusion
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.
Hi Kerry:
I agree that one rated forfeit game may "warp" the rating sytem a miniscule bit, and for a minimal time (if points from forfeit are not deserved, then they will soon be lost back to more deserving players quickly).
There is a greater good though, than the minor warping problem. And it is in clubs particularly, where there is no prize money at stake, and where all tournament entries are free with being a member.
Members really come solely to play competitively. And other than doing it for the love of the game, what is their personal interest in playing? Increasing their rating.
In a forfeit situation in a club, with not being rated:
1. kills the love of the game motivation - the innocent victim gets no game, and has wasted their evening coming to the club, EXPECTING TO PLAY!
2. encourages poor chess etiquette - the offender does not bother to call the club to ask for a bye; wastes another member's evening; and gets no penalty for ungentlemanly conduct.
The good far, far exceeds the detriment (despite the rationale of FIDE and USCF for not rating forfeits).
Bob A
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Friday, 30th May, 2014, 03:02 PM.
Yes. CFC should make clear what the policy is. I remember very well submitting crosstables with forfeited results (with SwissSys), and they would be rated with CFC, and not with FIDE. It seems though in the past year or so, specific notes must be made one way or another in submitting reports, or the games have not been rated at CFC level (either). People sometimes ask me which is it, and I tell them... "it should be rated at CFC level, not at FIDE level".
So which is it? Whatever the decision, tournaments across Canada should deal with results uniformly.
Excellent post, Alex. I for one am strongly in the forfeits should be rated (CFC) camp. It irks me to no end to continue to see repeat offenders suffer no consequences of their actions. There's been enough "wasted evenings" at the ACC now that there's a good chance I won't renew my membership in 2015 should their policy not be changed.
There was a bit of a Kafkaesque forfeit Monday night at the ACC when Tigran Ghazarian's opponent Vlad Nitu failed to show and forfeited his game to Tigran. Tigran, who just turned 7 this month, and was about to pick up a gazillion bonus rating points for his stellar performance in our U1900 Section, win, lose, or draw against Vlad, now doesn't pick up any bonus points because he needed a 4th game to qualify for said bonus points. Tigran would be a good 100 plus points higher rated now even had he lost that game (:
Vlad Nitu not only did a great disservice to Tigran, he indirectly penalized all of Tigran's future opponents both at the ACC and SCC (where Tigran also plays) who will be playing a vastly underrated rising star. Moreover, by keeping Tigran's rating artificially deflated, he's very likely taken the option of Tigran playing up a section away from him since you must be within a 100 points of a section's floor to play up. Given Tigran just won our U1900 Section, it strikes me as highly absurd that he wouldn't now be allowed to play in an U1900 Section of a non-ACC tournament. Absolutely absurd and grossly unfair to a just turned 7-year-old who had to waste his own Monday night, as of course did his father ):
It's sad to see that the disease at the Scarborough CC has come over to the Annex.
1) The best solution is only to pair players who show up by 7:10, or have phoned in by 7:20 that they will be late for the 7:30 start. Players who show up late may, if possible, be paired against each other with a time penalty to both; Or maybe not have their game rated.
2) Annex forfeited me once, even though I had emailled them that I was working. They made no attempt to phone my cell asking why I was late. There needs to be more aggressive work done by TDs, phoning at 7:30 the regular players who aren't there.
3) Players who have forfeited must never be paired again that year, unless they are there in person.
4) As part of the membership agreement, players who forfeit have to pay a $50 fine.
Another option, if a second forfeit no longer allowed to play in a CFC rated club tournament. Something similar for weekend tournaments. I travelled to Hamliton, first person there and they gave me a forfeit win (which wasn't rated), I've never played in Hamilton since.
Good post, Eric. I ran into Bill Thornton late last night in front of the Eglinton/Yonge Metro and he too has witnessed first hand far too many forfeit 'victories' at the ACC. And the problem generally is the repeat offender so your 3rd point does really have merit. Facetiously, I could add that the ACC should go the Hawthorne route and make the forfeit offenders start wearing a big 'F' as a mark of perpetual ridicule (:
All joking aside, I will not be renewing my membership when it comes due if the problem is not rectified forthwith. One more wasted Monday night at the ACC and I'll just stay home and play online where there's never a forfeit and my membership is absolutely free (:
Tweet
Comment