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.
Okay, so the argument is that chess players (who, generally speaking are regarded as cheapskates) would think nothing of a 20-dollar penalty but would care about losing say 20 rating points?
I certainly can't quibble with abandoned (as opposed to abounded), Egis (:
Whether the penalty might be $5/$10/$20 it's been absolutely nugatory. Perhaps Eric's $50 might do the trick. But I really like Eric's suggestion of never pairing anyone who has previously forfeited a game unless they're at the club in the flesh. I would think more than 80% of the forfeiture problem would disappear if that rule were to be implemented (:
To forfeit without a very compelling excuse is, to my way of thinking, unpardonably poor sportsmanship. Not only should the forfeit be rated but the offender should be suspended from the tournament and, I would argue, on a repeat offence suspended from the club. ...
I agree. Distortions to the rating system would be insignificant. At least the player who shows up would get something for his/her trouble (if s/he doesn't truly merit the extra rating points, they'll be passed along to someone more deserving soon enough). Clubs and/or TDs/organizers should be allowed to determine additional penalties for repeat offenders.
To forfeit without a very compelling excuse is, to my way of thinking, unpardonably poor sportsmanship. Not only should the forfeit be rated but the offender should be suspended from the tournament and, I would argue, on a repeat offence suspended from the club.
I recall on one occasion moving heaven and earth to readjust my schedule so I could play in a tournament only to find, on showing up for the second round, that my "opponent" was a no-show, for the second time in two rounds.
We had an incident at Ottawa's RA club this week: the club champion was paired against an opponent who had decided not to play in that round, failed to inform the TD, and had the gall to show up at the fieldhouse bar afterward to add insult to injury.
Perhaps the problem stems from the view that chessplayers have nothing else to do with their time so wasting it is of no consequence.
Is "abandoned" better? :)
I thought it was 5 or 10$ only :) I was on that day when it was announced (most likely during one of team competitions)
I certainly can't quibble with abandoned (as opposed to abounded), Egis (:
Whether the penalty might be $5/$10/$20 it's been absolutely nugatory. Perhaps Eric's $50 might do the trick. But I really like Eric's suggestion of never pairing anyone who has previously forfeited a game unless they're at the club in the flesh. I would think more than 80% of the forfeiture problem would disappear if that rule were to be implemented (:
You obviously meant aborted, Egis. I certainly hope there is still a significant monetary penalty. I'll ask Monday night and give you a definitive answer. My suspicion is that there's a penalty ($20?) but that it's not significant enough to be effective. There have been many studies done that amply illustrate that cheap penalties only encourage bad behaviou ):
or he meant 'abandoned' ... in any case, I would agree that imposing penalties simply force people to leave the club.
I don't think it is a good long term solution to the problem; I don't know what might be a good solution.
Asking people to put up an appearance "bond" before the tournament (like other such penalties) simply leads to
arguments about "exceptions" etc. When I was directing club tournaments I would ask people if they intended to
make it to the club EVERY single night of the 5 or 6 nights in a row and surprisingly some people said 'no' and I
told them they couldn't play in the tournament! Some still managed to somehow forget about round 3 or whatever
and not take it at all seriously... what can you do?
You obviously meant aborted, Egis. I certainly hope there is still a significant monetary penalty. I'll ask Monday night and give you a definitive answer. My suspicion is that there's a penalty ($20?) but that it's not significant enough to be effective. There have been many studies done that amply illustrate that cheap penalties only encourage bad behaviou ):
Is "abandoned" better? :)
I thought it was 5 or 10$ only :) I was on that day when it was announced (most likely during one of team competitions)
You obviously meant aborted, Egis. I certainly hope there is still a significant monetary penalty. I'll ask Monday night and give you a definitive answer. My suspicion is that there's a penalty ($20?) but that it's not significant enough to be effective. There have been many studies done that amply illustrate that cheap penalties only encourage bad behaviou ):
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 (:
I thought that the ACC implemented some kind of the fine for no-shows. Was it abandoned?
Last edited by Egidijus Zeromskis; Friday, 26 September, 2014, 03:05 PM.
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 (:
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.
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 ):
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, 30 May, 2014, 02:02 PM.
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
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.
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.
Leave a comment: