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.
Well you have no logic whatsoever. I learnt long time back when one is wrong one resorts to diversions. Well every thread needs a Paul Bonham to come up with illogical arguments.
My illogical posts consist of clear lists of first-round pairings, showing ratings accompanied by their source. Perhaps a recap of my process is in order, step-by-step style.
1. For all players, fetch the player's CFC regular rating up to tournaments that finished on or before June 24 (June 30 for U16).
2. For players from Quebec, go to the FQE website and fetch the FQE standard rating as of 2015-07-02.
3. For players with a FIDE rating, go to the FIDE site and fetch the rating as of the July list.
4. For each player, pick the highest rating from 1, 2 and 3.
5. For players who don't have have any regular rating at all, look up the CFC active rating.
6. Ignore whatever ratings you see on chess-results.com. They may have affected later rounds but not first round pairings.
7. Create a list and sort it by rating.
Unless you're trying not to, you will see the pairings emerge, identical to what actually happened. This method worked for me for the sections I posted earlier in the thread, with the exception of Miss Guo in U8G. I just got around to trying U10 (45 players to look up) and once again the first-round pairings matched my expectations perfectly once I discarded the two players who were listed as "not paired". I ended up using 1 FIDE rating and 6 FQE ratings.
If you do the manual work I've done, you will see for yourself that first-round pairings were not subject to manual tweaking in any of these sections. You may disagree with the appropriateness of the date used, or debate whether ratings should be updated mid-tournament, but your initial allegation about manipulated first-round pairings is clearly without merit, and I hope the organizers will see a tidy end to this thread in the form of an apology.
Curious question -
Why is the "computer guy" being blamed?
Francis Rodrigues, IA
I think he's blamed because he changed some ratings after the 1st round pairings. In Swiss-Manager if you chance the rating after a player was paired you have to resort the starting rank and pairing lists.
Curious question -
Why is the "computer guy" being blamed?
Francis Rodrigues, IA
Of course, the Chief Arbiter is responsible. However, in this case, Aris Marghetis had insisted on there being a separate "computer guy". The only local arbiter with enough (or just enough) experience to run Swiss-sys, is me, and I have retired from organising. I don't know Swiss Manager at all. So, Aris nominated his own man to run the computer.
Unfortunately, Aris suffered a serious injury just before the event, and this turned his pre-planned all-day drive from the World Open into a nightmare. Aris arrived, on crutches, about an hour before the first round was to start. All the set-up had been done by the computer guy, who had arrived on-site the day before the event.
When I advised Aris (in writing) that the start ratings were incorrect, he had the computer guy change the ratings, which were in effect for the last half of the event.
Are we making the computer guy a scapegoat? Well, his fingers were on the keyboard, typing in the ratings, or linking with the CFC database, or whatever procedure he used.
In this case, Aris Marghetis had insisted on there being a separate "computer guy". The only local arbiter with enough (or just enough) experience to run Swiss-sys, is me, and I have retired from organising. I don't know Swiss Manager at all. So, Aris nominated his own man to run the computer.
If we are talking about the same person here, I have some personal knowledge of the situation, and I believe Aris' choice was excellent. The gentleman he designated to be a separate Computer/Pairings TD is an extremely knowledgeable arbiter from Quebec who works with Swiss-Manager for a long time and successfully runs dozens (!) of tournaments posted on Chess-Results every year. I didn't realize we were discussing the Computer/Pairings TD, I thought "computer guy" == some clerk who delivers ratings from the CFC.
The gentleman in question was on site in St-Clair Center early on Sunday, July 05, despite an arduous drive caused by unexpected family circumstances, and he devoted all his energy on 7/05 and 7/06 to preparing the computers for the CYCC.
Are we making the computer guy a scapegoat? Well, his fingers were on the keyboard, typing in the ratings, or linking with the CFC database, or whatever procedure he used.
Given Aris' and the Pairings TD's impeccable credentials and track records, I believe it is more an issue of wrong underlying data - as Erik and Derek eloquently described, "garbage in - garbage out". Doesn't make it less frustrating for everyone involved, but there was certainly no ill will or manipulation.
Last edited by Vadim Tsypin; Monday, 3rd August, 2015, 05:36 PM.
Reason: English grammar.
Yes, I observed during the tournament that the CFC ratings used for the pairings were from the June 24th update. Where FIDE or FQE ratings were higher, those were used instead, but based on the latest lists available (so Ellen's last FIDE result was included, as was Maili-Jade's last FQE tournament). Given the size of the tournament, I can appreciate why things would be done this way.
If I fetch the June 25th numbers, the pairings I'd expect match the actual pairings. Leaving the higher-rated player on the left...
Ouellet (FQE 1931) - Xu (CFC 1461)
Wang (CFC 1816) - Mah (CFC 1447)
Kaneshalingam (CFC 1769) - Tao (FIDE 1403)
L Zhou (CFC 1766) - Gillan (CFC 1398)
Li (CFC 1653) - Fenning (CFC ACTIVE 1274)
A Zhou (CFC 1583) - Peng (CFC 1271)
Nguyen (FIDE 1555) - MacIvor (CFC 929)
Paraparan (CFC 1541) - John (CFC 911)
Jiang (CFC 735)
Derek do you think I would start something like this without any backup? I have a lot better things do than worry about this and I wouldn't post this if I hadn't done my research on the forehand. But even if one assumes your logic of using the June 25th ratings there is still no explanation for the round two pairings, regardless of what ratings you use for Gillian (as that is the only real difference, as that effects the starting rank order, the other changes in rating from June 24th to July 1st don't make a difference to the starting rank).
This is the starting rank assuming your ratings:
Yes you are right about there not needing to be forced pairing for round 1 when I use your ratings:
I entered the results as actually happened in round 1: You can check for yourself here
So then I paired round 2 with no forced pairs and this is the result I had vs. what the actual round 2 pairings were:
My results using SwissSys (SwissManager gave me the same results also):
The actual pairings:
There is clearly a difference.
Even if I change Gillian's rating to 1426 using my forced pairing theory to get the same round 1 match ups and input the same round 1 results and pair round 2 with no forced pairs we still see these pairings:
The only way to achieve the actual pairings regardless of what ratings are used is through these forced pair settings:
And this is the result which matches the actual round 2 pairings:
When I use your June 24/25th ratings, it doesn't explain the round two pairings. Regardless of what one makes Gillian's rating the pairings (without any forced pairs) don't conform to the actual pairings and I must use these forced pairings in both cases to match what actually occurred. Mr. Preotu or anyone including you can try this for yourself. An apology should be coming my way many times over.
When I use your June 24/25th ratings, it doesn't explain the round two pairings.
I don't have any theories about rounds beyond the first (i.e. which ratings were adjusted after which rounds, and why) other than I'd expect them to become more correct with time. Someone else can pick up the torch and run with your round two concerns if they like.
My work here is done. I saw an egregious attack on the organizers: "This manipulation was done by someone with access to the pairing software/computer, is deliberate plus though not highly, quite sophisticated in nature", and in response I've demonstrated a repeatable interpretation of the round one pairings that suggests zero wrongdoing.
I don't have any theories about rounds beyond the first (i.e. which ratings were adjusted after which rounds, and why) other than I'd expect them to become more correct with time. Someone else can pick up the torch and run with your round two concerns if they like.
My work here is done. I saw an egregious attack on the organizers: "This manipulation was done by someone with access to the pairing software/computer, is deliberate plus though not highly, quite sophisticated in nature", and in response I've demonstrated a repeatable interpretation of the round one pairings that suggests zero wrongdoing.
If you have no idea about the second round and can't comprehend that your theory doesn't hold any credibility beyond the first round, then I suggest you click that red X on the top right corner of your screen and carry on with your day, because you will have nothing else to offer here but hot air. If you can't form anything coherent with your own mind and request the assistance of others, then its better off that you don't muck up discussion. To anyone else with some semblance of common sense, I invite you to continue the discussion.
Also Derek, why do you demand an apology for a matter that you have demonstrated to have no understanding about (as you have said so yourself)? You are an adult, don't be so petty that you demand mitigation for reasonable evidence.
Curious question -
Why is the "computer guy" being blamed?
Francis Rodrigues, IA
Few years ago when I started to use Swiss-Manager, I asked Mr. Herzog (http://swiss-manager.at/contact.aspx?lan=1) to add the Update CAN rating list option.
It only takes 3 clicks of the mouse to import the latest CFC database and then 3 more clicks to resort the starting rank list.
Given Aris' and the Pairings TD's impeccable credentials and track records, I believe it is more an issue of wrong underlying data - as Erik and Derek eloquently described, "garbage in - garbage out". Doesn't make it less frustrating for everyone involved, but there was certainly no ill will or manipulation.
I would like to agree that there was no ill-will or manipulation, however regardless of what data is input (whether it be the old or new ratings) there simply is no beating around the bush when it comes to the discrepancy between the actual round 2 pairings and the pairings under the same circumstances using SwissSys or SwissManager. From what I've discovered in my previous post, in order to achieve the actual round two pairings some forced pairs must be used, which can't happen on accident or by error.
While it is sufficient to have Paul Bonham's input it is not a necessary condition.
Plenty of illogical arguments appear in threads that Paul doesn't even bother with...
and it is the following line that caught my attention now:
I don't have a privilege to know Sarah Ye or her parents personally, and I apologize in advance for singling out her name in this example, but the question is:
you discovered that this player had a CFC rating of 1406 entered at the start of the tournament,
now her starting rating is listed as 700,
is it the same player John Coleman wrote about: "One player's rating was inaccurate by over 700 points, meaning she was ranked first in the section, instead of near the bottom."?
does it follow that the rating in a tournament file changed sometime between rounds?
didn't such change create more problems in subsequent rounds than leaving things as they were at the beginning?
If "yes" to all of the above, this appears to be a fairly significant mistake indeed, the second in the Girls U-08 section. :(
Could you and all the other experts share the following, please: what are the rules / established practices on dealing with similar errors found mid-way through the tournament, e.g., when a player was erroneously listed in a starting list with a much higher rating and paired accordingly for initial rounds, should the TD / arbiter correct this mid-way or leave things as they are to pair consistently? - Thanks.
Sarah is my student. Her 1406 rating was established (briefly) after playing one game where she beat a 1000 player. She seemed to go up a piece or an exchange in almost every game at CYCC but then often returned the material to her opponent. She lost her first ten active games or so mostly on time before finally starting to win. She'll be much better next year.
Aside from looking people up on the CFC webpage neither Alexandre nor Aris had any idea who the Windsor kids were. Any allegations, speculations or conspiracy theories around CYCC pairings should be taken with a grain of salt.
Last edited by Vlad Drkulec; Tuesday, 4th August, 2015, 08:57 AM.
Tweet
Comment