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.
If so, he failed miserably. Lily Zhou and Rahma Gillan are both from Windsor. :)
The only reason I assumed this is because I remember seeing pairing restrictions for the first round at one CYCC few years ago. This was done to avoid kids from the same town to play each other in the first round. Based on Vlad's last post this didn't happened in Windsor.
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...
What he provides goes well beyond "illogical".
His endless preacher-like arguments succeed in being altogether disdainful, pretentious, and insulting.
Truly a unique talent.
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.
She sure will. Sarah seems to follow a development curve of many bright girls who first approach chess as an intellectual exercise trying to find an "absolutely best" move in every position, and have time troubles because of that. As they get older and get more experience, their hard-worked-for fundamentals stay with them while time management skills arrive, so the results improve dramatically. I'll be cheering up for her.
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.
Vlad I learned as a young school boy that when one believes he has done nothing wrong they will actually respond to criticism, and when one is embarrassed and hiding something, they ignore it and try to change the subject. Sarah might be a good player, but this tread is not about Sarah or any of your students, it is about the pairing manipulation in round 2 of the U14 girls section (which can be seen on Page two of this thread).
There should be an explanation on your behalf for why the round 2 pairings were so off, instead of claiming "stupid conspiratorial theories" or using the "computer guy" as a scapegoat who was just "following instructions." I have provided clear factual evidence of pairing manipulation in round two. Any of the organisers who were quick to jump in claiming "innocent mistakes" and "conspiracy theories" (for the first round pairings) are now M.I.A all of a sudden. If you all so strongly believe I'm wrong about the round 2 pairings then why not provide actual factual evidence as I have? Your only defence now is to resort to talking about your students and using the conspiracy theory tagline.
You've also been quiet on the "Official CYCC Protest" thread ever since people started to question the flimsy excuses you were making, as you are here when I provided evidence that the round 2 pairings were manipulated. Vlad your creditability as the president of the CFC should be taken with a grain of salt based off your current actions.
The Tournament Report to FIDE is not prepared by [...]
Oh, Francis, but my understanding is that there will be no report at all. The 2013 NAYCC you so successfully organized in Toronto was rated with FIDE. The NAJ-U20's in Kitchener organized by Hal are FIDE-rated, of course. However, none of the CYCCs in recent memory was. :(
Come to think about it: why? Don't Canada's best juniors who qualified for the CYCCs, and many of whom have either participated or will participate in the WYCCs, deserve to have their efforts in the biggest national tournament to be rated internationally?
Two questions then:
What is a per capita cost for FIDE ratings in a tournament such as a CYCC, with 200+ players? With entry fees set at $225/$250, it would hardly eat into the profits of the organizers / youth fund, right?
Does any Voting Member reading this discussion agree that the CYCC needs to be FIDE-rated? Will you be willing to bring forward a Motion to add the requirement to have the CYCC rated with FIDE to Article 702 of the Handbook as soon as the quarterly meeting rules allow (probably, for the winter one)?
Oh, Francis, but my understanding is that there will be no report at all. The 2013 NAYCC you so successfully organized in Toronto was rated with FIDE. The NAJ-U20's in Kitchener organized by Hal are FIDE-rated, of course. However, none of the CYCCs in recent memory was. :(
Unfortunately, John, it is my memory that is correct and your assertion that is false.
The link you provided is for the three "older" sections of the CYCC. I was emphasing that "none of the CYCCs in recent memory" was FIDE-rated in its entirety.
For your reference, here's the definition of the whole:
"700. Canadian Youth Chess Championship:
The holding of the Canadian Youth Chess Championship (CYCC) which consists of the following twelve events:
Canadian Under 18 Championship {Open and Girls}
Canadian Under 16 Championship {Open and Girls}
Canadian Under 14 Championship {Open and Girls}
Canadian Under 12 Championship {Open and Girls}
Canadian Under 10 Championship {Open and Girls}
Canadian Under 8 Championship {Open and Girls}
The only reason I assumed this is because I remember seeing pairing restrictions for the first round at one CYCC few years ago. This was done to avoid kids from the same town to play each other in the first round. Based on Vlad's last post this didn't happened in Windsor.
Rene Windsor players playing each other was not on my radar, my focus was on paring manipulation that affected/benefited some U14 girls (as I have shown on page 1/2 of this thread).
The top rated Windsor player, was well in contention after round 1 (she ended up finishing second).
The top rated player of the U14-Girls field was Maili-Jade Ouellet (1931) from Quebec. In round 2 without any forced pairs (just the normal Swiss pairings) she should have played Jenny Jiang (735), however due to forced pairing, she ended up playing Varshini Paraparan (1541), which is clearly a significant difference.
The top rated Windsor player ended playing who she was supposed to play according the normal Swiss Pairing logic.
But Rahma Gillian from Windsor got impacted in a negative way in the second round playing a 1274 instead of a 929 rated player due to the forced pairings. Though not as significant as the first example, it is still unacceptable that the normal Swiss Pairing was overridden.
Another Windsor player named Namitha Elsa John (911) was due a second round 1 point bye in normal Swiss Pairings, however in the actual pairings she had to play a 1583 due to forced pairings.
Hence as you can see this is about pairings being overridden to negatively affect some, which includes some Windsor players as well.
Vlad I learned as a young school boy that when one believes he has done nothing wrong they will actually respond to criticism, and when one is embarrassed and hiding something, they ignore it and try to change the subject. Sarah might be a good player, but this tread is not about Sarah or any of your students, it is about the pairing manipulation in round 2 of the U14 girls section (which can be seen on Page two of this thread).
I responded to a question from Vadim Tsypin who I have great respect for because he has proven himself to be a very nice person and a leader at the UAE WYCC and elsewhere. Seeing Vadim or reading one of his posts fills me with warm fuzzy feelings because he is the type of person I got involved in chess to help.
Two aphorisms come to mind with respect to my interest in responding to this thread. "Do nothing which is of no use." - Miyamoto Musashi. The other would be quite inflammatory.
We had two of the best arbiters in Canada working at CYCC. Some ratings were out of date by a week. When noticed this was fixed. You are evolving some kind of conspiracy theory where there was no interest on the part of the arbiters to change the natural pairings. After establishing the procedures for the sections I had nothing to do with the pairings so don't know what exactly happened but lots of people posted and explained what happened and you don't seem to want to accept it. End of story. Anything beyond that reminds me of interactions with a crazy person on a corner shouting and yelling. Its best simply to move away and ignore the rants. Getting involved at best will be a waste of time and at worst someone could get killed.
There should be an explanation on your behalf for why the round 2 pairings were so off, instead of claiming "stupid conspiratorial theories" or using the "computer guy" as a scapegoat who was just "following instructions." I have provided clear factual evidence of pairing manipulation in round two.
Careful. Down that path is madness. I have never scapegoated the computer guy. As far as I can tell he did a great job under the circumstances. As for the need for me personally to answer for round 2 pairings, I don't feel any need to do so given your responses to the people who tried to help you cope with your pain. I'm a busy guy. As Miyamoto Musashi says, "Do nothing which is of no use." Of course he also says "pay attention to trifles." though that is probably more of a admonition to pay attention to everything.
Any of the organisers who were quick to jump in claiming "innocent mistakes" and "conspiracy theories" (for the first round pairings) are now M.I.A all of a sudden.
Do you stand on corners and argue with crazy people?
If you all so strongly believe I'm wrong about the round 2 pairings then why not provide actual factual evidence as I have?
The fact that you believe you have provided actual factual evidence speaks volumes as to the futility of trying to reason with you.
Your only defence now is to resort to talking about your students and using the conspiracy theory tagline.
I talk about my students because I was asked about my student. Its a good reminder of why I am doing what I am doing.
You've also been quiet on the "Official CYCC Protest" thread ever since people started to question the flimsy excuses you were making, as you are here when I provided evidence that the round 2 pairings were manipulated. Vlad your creditability as the president of the CFC should be taken with a grain of salt based off your current actions.
As Scott Adams the author of the comic strip Dilbert said in one lucid moment by the pointy haired boss, "If you see a big pot of crazy boiling on the stove do you run away or do you try to stir it?"
Players gotta play, play, play, play.
Fakers gotta fake, fake, fake, fake.
Haters gotta hate, hate, hate, hate.
I'm just gonna shake it off. - Taylor Swift
These are the sections that have been rated by FIDE during recent years.
2015: U18, U16, U16w were rated.
2014: U18, U18w, U16 were rated.
2013: none were rated.
2012: U18, U16, U14, U12, U16w, and one player from U14w were rated.
2011: U18, U16, U14, U12, U16w, and some other female players from other sections were rated.
2010: U18, U16, U14, and several female players from various sections.
2009: U18, U16, U14, U16/18w.
Assuming, that (as was written earlier) June 24th ratings were used in round 1, and then the error was noticed and July 1 ratings were used for subsequent pairings, does not that explain the pairings?
These are the sections that have been rated by FIDE during recent years.
2015: U18, U16, U16w were rated.
2014: U18, U18w, U16 were rated.
2013: none were rated.
2012: U18, U16, U14, U12, U16w, and one player from U14w were rated.
2011: U18, U16, U14, U12, U16w, and some other female players from other sections were rated.
2010: U18, U16, U14, and several female players from various sections.
2009: U18, U16, U14, U16/18w.
I'll assume none were rated before 2009.
Thank you Hugh!
Do you personally believe it is important to have every CYCC FIDE-rated in its entirety, consistently, year in, year out? Would you consider sponsoring a corresponding Motion?
Oh, Francis, but my understanding is that there will be no report at all. The 2013 NAYCC you so successfully organized in Toronto was rated with FIDE. The NAJ-U20's in Kitchener organized by Hal are FIDE-rated, of course. However, none of the CYCCs in recent memory was. :(
Come to think about it: why? Don't Canada's best juniors who qualified for the CYCCs, and many of whom have either participated or will participate in the WYCCs, deserve to have their efforts in the biggest national tournament to be rated internationally?
Two questions then:
What is a per capita cost for FIDE ratings in a tournament such as a CYCC, with 200+ players? With entry fees set at $225/$250, it would hardly eat into the profits of the organizers / youth fund, right?
Does any Voting Member reading this discussion agree that the CYCC needs to be FIDE-rated? Will you be willing to bring forward a Motion to add the requirement to have the CYCC rated with FIDE to Article 702 of the Handbook as soon as the quarterly meeting rules allow (probably, for the winter one)?
Thanks in advance.
The problem with rating the younger sections is that there are often not enough players that are FIDE rated for the event to count as you have to play at least three FIDE rated players and win one of the games to start your path down the road to FIDE rating. NAYCC is FIDE rated because it is a FIDE event. Despite that many NAYCC kids don't get a FIDE rating in the younger sections because they didn't play enough FIDE rated players.
Pricing for FIDE events goes from reasonable to absurd. Round robins tend to be pricey. The cost of qualified arbiters is also a factor. There are only a few individuals qualified to hold such an event in Canada. If we weren't FIDE rating the CYCC, I might have been the TD as we were discussing at one point when we were having trouble finding arbiters.
Last edited by Vlad Drkulec; Tuesday, 4th August, 2015, 01:01 PM.
I believe that one cannot FIDE rate a tournament without sufficient players who are already FIDE rated participating. Is my understanding correct? If it is, it explains why sections with younger players are not FIDE rated. Not enough FIDE rated participants.
Tweet
Don't Canada's best juniors who qualified for the CYCCs, and many of whom have either participated or will participate in the WYCCs, deserve to have their efforts in the biggest national tournament to be rated internationally?
Comment