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.
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?
Yes. This has been demonstrated by several contributors to this thread.
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.
I'm not sure of the rules, but the 2012 U14w had one (and only one) player with games rated by FIDE (possibly due to too few rated games having been played by one or both players). The tournament details the FIDE shows for the "2012 CAN Youth ch Girls" says it consisted of 12 players. The only players rated by FIDE were all 4 that played in the U16w and the one in the U14w. CFC crosstables show 4 in the U16w and 5 in the U14w. Probably any female players that had any FIDE games were grouped into one section just for FIDE purposes.
Vadim - I'm not currently a CFC Governor/voting member, but I agree that there should be consistency about which sections are to be FIDE-rated, and such facts announced in advance when advertising the tournament. Some strong U14's might have played up this year if they knew the U14 section wasn't going to be FIDE-rated.
... I agree that there should be consistency about which sections are to be FIDE-rated, and such facts [should be] announced in advance when advertising the tournament. ...
And this seems to be the crux of this thread and the 'Official Complaint' thread. In the case of this thread, someone from the CFC could have simply said what you said, Hugh. And in the case of the other thread, someone from the CFC could simply have said, yes, we'll make sure that next year the up-to-date CYCC rules will be readily available to all well in advance of the competition. Easy! Instead we have two threads with 150+ posts, containing the usual nastiness, and still no admission from the CFC that a better job is in order. Why is this so difficult?
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
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.
It seems that the ratings for each round were changed as newer or higher ratings were found. Ratings for juniors below 1400 are very inaccurate. I've never heard of ever before an organizer having to publish the round by round ratings of a past event; perhaps they should have been posted at the event and players could have requested a copy or taken photos of the crosstable. The event is over and time is being spent on upcoming events.
From my phone I had posted this on the wrong thread:
The Swiss system is designed to produce a winner. It is unfair to all others: some will get more blacks, some will play more of the highest rated players.
Also kids ratings are very unstable. Given some free time and a coach their strength is always higher than their rating.
As there are not many FIDE rated events the CFC or FQE or CMA rating is more accurate. But in publishing on the Chess Results website FIDE ratings only, not the ratings used for pairings.
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.
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.
Thank you, Vlad and Garland. Your explanation makes sense. I do not have enough knowledge to argue with it directly; however, I was able to find two reference points that suggest there might be ways around the requirement you referenced. Would be glad to hear your and other experts' further thoughts.
Let's look at two recent Canadian triumphs.
1) North American Youth Chess Festival 2015 U-12 Female
The field contained 22 players: one Canadian with less than 9 games played against FIDE-rated opponents, 3 Americans with existing FIDE ratings, one Mexican with an existing FIDE rating - and seventeen (!) Mexicans with no FIDE ratings.
The event was rated with FIDE, and - please help me to decipher this full tournament report - it appears that even not rated players who played only not rated players were included.
2) North American Youth Chess Festival 2015 U-12 Open
The field contained 60 players: one Canadian, 3 unrated Americans, 8 Mexicans with existing FIDE ratings - and forty-eight (!) Mexicans with no FIDE ratings.
Again, the event was rated with FIDE, and the report appears to contain all the names.
It looks like the kids who are doing relatively well during such tournaments and stay in the upper parts of the grid do benefit from several games with already rated players, thus starting their accumulation of the nine games required. The other ones at least get a shot at it, and have FIDE IDs generated. It seems quite reasonable to do the same in the CYCC. - Would be grateful for further input.
Thank you, Vlad and Garland. Your explanation makes sense. I do not have enough knowledge to argue with it directly; however, I was able to find two reference points that suggest there might be ways around the requirement you referenced. Would be glad to hear your and other experts' further thoughts.
Let's look at two recent Canadian triumphs.
1) North American Youth Chess Festival 2015 U-12 Female
The field contained 22 players: one Canadian with less than 9 games played against FIDE-rated opponents, 3 Americans with existing FIDE ratings, one Mexican with an existing FIDE rating - and seventeen (!) Mexicans with no FIDE ratings.
The event was rated with FIDE, and - please help me to decipher this full tournament report - it appears that even not rated players who played only not rated players were included.
2) North American Youth Chess Festival 2015 U-12 Open
The field contained 60 players: one Canadian, 3 unrated Americans, 8 Mexicans with existing FIDE ratings - and forty-eight (!) Mexicans with no FIDE ratings.
Again, the event was rated with FIDE, and the report appears to contain all the names.
It looks like the kids who are doing relatively well during such tournaments and stay in the upper parts of the grid do benefit from several games with already rated players, thus starting their accumulation of the nine games required. The other ones at least get a shot at it, and have FIDE IDs generated. It seems quite reasonable to do the same in the CYCC. - Would be grateful for further input.
In the under 12 girls NAYCC, the kids all got FIDE ID's but only two played enough games and got at least one win to start the process of getting a FIDE rating. Cindy Qiao and Leon Hidalgo Jessica Aleja (number 12) had enough games to get the FIDE rating process started. They don't get ratings until they have 9 games in total I believe unless the rules have changed. They don't count as FIDE rated opponents until they have the nine games. Given that none of the Mexican girls are FIDE rated I would suspect that they will not play the nine games in time to get rated. So even though the tournament was FIDE rated only Cindy Qiao has a realistic chance of eventually getting a FIDE rating.
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.
Instead of gleaning your knowledge of adage, it would have been better if you had come up with one good reason for your actions either in this forum or in the CYCC.
I noticed the thread going way off topic, I would like the attention to be reverted back to pairing manipulation (such as the forced pairs in round two of the U14 girls)
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.
By sheer coincidence one week old rating happen to match the pairings for first round, but neither one week old or the next weeks (current when tournament occurred) ratings match the second round pairings. There is clear evidence of forced pairings.
Do not hide under the reputation of Arbiters. Facts remain forever. Reputation is not an answer for all problems and failures. It is not about pointing fingers, it is about an issue that needs to be rectified. Smoke screens do not help. A botched operation by a reputed doctor does not help the patient.
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.
Why do you belittle parent’s feelings as pain. It shows your stand on the issue.What pain are you talking about.? I guess you do not comprehend others’ feelings unless it is your students. You seem to have a confined track of mind. , "Do nothing which is of no use." Suits you best when we try to extract any truth out of you.
Gracefully accepting the faults and correcting the course onwards is a classy path and not everybody can do that, and I know that is not going to be coming from you.
Do you stand on corners and argue with crazy people?
Now I truly know I am dealing with one.
GM called Ralph Nader crazy when he exposed GM, and look what happened. All you have is calling somebody crazy just to shift your inept presidency. You seem to be showing off with your knowledge of old sayings, rather than presenting a good answer. Dealing with you makes one wonder if I am dealing with a person who can cover his tracks like a fox on the fence, but the hen is gone.
The fact that you believe you have provided actual factual evidence speaks volumes as to the futility of trying to reason with you.
If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and eats like a duck, it cannot be called a crow. There goes your logic in the dumps. To expect anything out of you and is like expecting to reach the bottom of an abysmal hole. I do respect the people who have genuinely worked for this tournament. All the parents and their kids along with mine also put in enormous effort monetarily, physically and emotionally. You do not have to poke that as pain. You would not be there to conduct, if the students and their parents were not actively involved. You can cough, spew and hide with any tangential argument you want. The fact is there bare for all to see.
Anyone not guilty of manipulation would agree it is a fact.
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.
So you cherry pick your students to talk about them ignoring others who have put in enormous effort to make this happen. You are a president and should be impartial and not biased. That is a good bearing for the chair you fill.
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?"
Who put the crazy pot in the kitchen in the first place, and how crazy is it to trying to stir it. If you cannot stand the heat get of the kitchen.
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
“Fakers gotta fake, fake, fake, fake.”
At least this you agreed, I am amazed.
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?
There is no explanation whatsoever for what happened in Round Two, except manipulation by forced pairing
Neither the June 24th ratings or July 1 ratings would generate the pairings without manipulation..
1: you already assumed the organizer or someone else in this CYCC manipulating the pairing based on your subject which is very rude!
2: the 1st sentence of your initial post " Pairings in the first round are important and can play a critical part ..." Which is totally to attract readers only. With very little knowledge of chess pairing, we all know that for 7-round tournament, 1st round parings are the least important to the result.
Plus, you do not listen to anyone's explanation and insisted the parings are manipulated making you postings very less meaningful to read. Period!
1: you already assumed the organizer or someone else in this CYCC manipulating the pairing based on your subject which is very rude!
2: the 1st sentence of your initial post " Pairings in the first round are important and can play a critical part ..." Which is totally to attract readers only. With very little knowledge of chess pairing, we all know that for 7-round tournament, 1st round parings are the least important to the result.
Plus, you do not listen to anyone's explanation and insisted the parings are manipulated making you postings very less meaningful to read. Period!
Then provide explanation for what happened with the round two pairings, which nobody has yet to. I highly encourage to read post number 35 before you post anything. There has been no answer except attacks and insults.
But in publishing on the Chess Results website FIDE ratings only, not the ratings used for pairings.
You can use both ratings (FIDE and CFC) in Swiss-Manager. You only have to decide which one is used for pairings. Chess-results will list both national and international (FIDE) ratings.
I noticed the thread going way off topic, I would like the attention to be reverted back to pairing manipulation (such as the forced pairs in round two of the U14 girls)
Since there were no pairing manipulations done that I am aware of, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Anyone not guilty of manipulation would agree it is a fact.
Is that a fact?
You are a president and should be impartial and not biased.
By impartial and unbiased you seem to mean willing to subscribe to your far fetched theories about conspiracies by the arbiters?
If you cannot stand the heat get of the kitchen.
Good idea. Don't complain about me ignoring you. I won't notice.
What he provides goes well beyond "illogical".
His endless preacher-like arguments succeed in being altogether disdainful, pretentious, and insulting.
Truly a unique talent.
This is from one who just yesterday posted a short but cutting insult to the organizers of the CYCC, saying that because there was some "chaos" at the event the organizers must have done a poor job
And of course, this is exactly the kind of preaching we were used to hearing from Jean over the past many years here on ChessTalk, as he belittled anyone associated with weekend Swiss events or with organizing a Canadian Closed that didn't meet Jean's elitist standards of excellence or anyone that tried to get sponsorship for one event or another.... all things that are beneath Jean ever trying to do himself, by the way.
What Jean has given us goes well beyond "preaching" and this latest jab at yours truly is even further beyond "the pot calling the kettle black".
There may be times where my posts have been insulting to someone, usually someone who tries to appear more than what he really is...
(take a bow, Mathieu Cloutier who is still trying to figure out the difference between an average and a probability, and Vlad Drkulec, who is desperately calling out to Taylor Swift to take him away from it all, although he'll accept Leonard Cohen as a substitute)
...but at least I think I can say never have I insulted the hard unpaid work that goes on to keep players like Jean Hebert in diapers (and the way chess is going to the kids, that is almost becoming literal). And whenever someone else comes out here on ChessTalk and insults or denigrates the work of Canada's tournament and event organizers, I am usually quick to respond to defend. The fact that Jean Hebert very easily puts down these people and their hard volunteer work, without every deigning to do such work himself, is testament to his vast feelings of superiority and privilege.
My beefs with organized chess do not, thankfully, compel me into such low blows as Jean Hebert has been known for over the years. Whatever may be wrong with organized chess, I respect and admire the organizers and their assistants for their dedication, their work ethic, their patience even to serve those who can't fathom the art of appreciation.
And as far as the rest of this thread goes, it is an honor to be called illogical by Mr. Keerti Nyayachavadi.
P.S. hey, Brian Hartman, how about a chessboxing match between myself and Jean Hebert? I'll donate my winnings less expenses to Toronto Hospital for Sick Children. Maybe Hansen and Sambuev can be on the undercard? :D
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
This pairing manipulations thread is so utterly senseless I am moved to comment.
The pairing manipulations complained in round 1 concern pairings where the lower rated player had perhaps with exaggeration a 5%-10% shot a glory (rating differences of 374-484) no matter which opponent she got. In round 2 where players may have been within 200 points the lower rated player is given perhaps a theoretical 24% probability of winning. The discussion here is about tournaments where pairings in round 1-2 are usually simple slaughters but everybody prays for a miracle. Because of a mix up instead of a 1:20 I was screwed over and given a 1:23 in round 1 and my seven round tournament was ruined. You look for pairings from round 3 on for some realistic competition.
The shock of outside observers noticing that ratings of kids at the CYCC may have adjusted after round 1 is nice. Reality is that we have Canadian kids with FIDE, CFC and USCF ratings which change frequently and are all different. There are pleas to use the "best" rating by parents or coaches once they see a cross table or a pairing sheet. Add in the confusion about identity of players with common names etc. and the need to make changes increases. A CYCC without such changes is a pipe dream.
Stone tablets with the names and ratings of players have not been used at tournaments recently.
And as far as the rest of this thread goes, it is an honor to be called illogical by Mr. Keerti Nyayachavadi.
P.S. hey, Brian Hartman, how about a chessboxing match between myself and Jean Hebert? I'll donate my winnings less expenses to Toronto Hospital for Sick Children. Maybe Hansen and Sambuev can be on the undercard? :D
How about a illogical rhetoric match between you and Vlad Drkulec. However open another thread. Failure to comply will result in you being removed from the honor list
Tweet
Comment