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.
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.
Current ratings are used in Swiss tournament for pairing, they are changed after tournament results are published by the federation, however they are not overridden by forced pairing with the intent to cheat. Note carefully the word intent, success/failure to cheat is another matter.
Suggest you become a Criminal Defence lawyer specializing in defending clients who have been charged with attempted murder, attempted assault etc. You will make great arguments such as "Your honour the chances of my client successful with murder was only 1%". You will be so successful, you will be the most sought after Criminal Defense Lawyer for attempted crimes and you will be a multimillionaire.
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.
There is no point in FIDE rating a tournament with less than three FIDE rated players. There is also little point in FIDE rating a larger section with only three FIDE rated players. Knowing which sections are viable candidates for FIDE rating might not take place well in advance of the tournament when you are dealing with a kids event. The big expense of the FIDE rated tournament is bringing in the arbiter which was done. Adding sections for FIDE rating a month or so in advance might also be possible if additional sections have enough FIDE rated players to be viable.
This rises one question: when ratings' changes must stop. Reading FIDE rules, it looks that after the first round all changes/corrections must be finalized.
"C3. In these circumstances, the Pairing Numbers that were given at the start of the tournament are considered provisional. The definitive Pairing Numbers are given only when the List of Participants is closed, and corrections made accordingly in the results charts." http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.ht...4&view=article
I have not seen the TA opinion about all this. It does not require an official protest :)
This rises one question: when ratings' changes must stop. Reading FIDE rules, it looks that after the first round all changes/corrections must be finalized.
"C3. In these circumstances, the Pairing Numbers that were given at the start of the tournament are considered provisional. The definitive Pairing Numbers are given only when the List of Participants is closed, and corrections made accordingly in the results charts." http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.ht...4&view=article
I have not seen the TA opinion about all this. It does not require an official protest :)
The TA has a serious injury which requires bed rest and makes it difficult to use a computer or answer emails or even talk on the phone for the next several months without experiencing severe pain. If that were not the case I am sure he would have addressed these questions here himself. In his absence some others have deconstructed what happened. The section in question is not FIDE rated.
Keerti had many questions and objections during the tournament which were dealt with at the time.
This rises one question: when ratings' changes must stop. Reading FIDE rules, it looks that after the first round all changes/corrections must be finalized.
"C3. In these circumstances, the Pairing Numbers that were given at the start of the tournament are considered provisional. The definitive Pairing Numbers are given only when the List of Participants is closed, and corrections made accordingly in the results charts." http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.ht...4&view=article
I have not seen the TA opinion about all this. It does not require an official protest :)
Watergate is looking more and more like a successful cover-up in comparison to this.
Does Vlad think that others are dumber than even him?
Format/pairings posted on the wall:
Format/parings that has appeared on the CYCC website recently
The properties of the file posted on the CYCC website:
Here is how Vlad has gone about trying to fool everyone that the June 24 ratings were used for round 1, which meant that Rahma Gillan's starting rank was 12 (instead of 11) and Ellen Tao's rank being 11 (instead of 12) in round 1 and just before round 2 as well.
a) Vlad has changed the date on his computer to July 7th at 8:25 to match the date and time the round 2 pairings would have been created and posted by TA.
b) Vlad has recently obtained the tournament file from the TA and changed the ratings in the U14 girls section (probably along with other sections) in his Swiss Manager, to match the June 24th ratings and generated the excel report. He is trying to deceive everyone that this is the original pairing file created by the TA's and emailed to him in a PDF or Excel format.
c) However the fields chosen for the excel/PDF report Vlad has created recently and posted on CYCC website are different than what TA posted on the wall before round 2. Clearly the format and the content the PDF file is in is trying to represent what was posted on the wall.
d) Vlad also left the author name as Vlad and forgot to change it to Aris or another TA's name before saving the excel file as PDF file, to post it on the CYCC website
Vlad doesn't control chessresults server, he has posted the round 2 pairings file on the Windsor Chess/CYCC 2015 website which he controls. It is also worth noting that the link to the PDF has appeared recently on the CYCC website
The starting ranks were not displayed on the pairing sheets posted on the wall in all sections before round 2, so there is no evidence to support the claim of using the June 24th ratings. However there is a desperation to create something to match the false claim.
However the ratings are totally consistent for all the rounds, as well as the starting rank on chessresults, which would have not been the case if the ratings changed during the tournament.
And even with the new or old ratings the round 2 pairings are totally manipulated by forced pairings:
But even if one assumes your (flawed and disproved) logic of using the June 24th 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).
I entered the results as actually happened in round 1: You can check for yourself here.
Clearly I have used the June 24th ratings as Rahma is now 12th in the starting rank.
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 24th 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.
"Fakers gotta fake, fake, fake, fake.”
(Well considering the CFC president has to resort to Taylor Swift as his go to defence and misquotes, that question is answered)
Last edited by Keerti Nyayachavadi; Wednesday, 5th August, 2015, 10:39 PM.
Reason: formatting error
Are you implying that Vlad improperly manipulated the pairings in the 1st two rounds for some nefarious purpose. What would his motive be? What possible benefit could come to him by this manipulation?
If someone was trying to affect the outcome, changing pairing in round 1 or two will have very little effect on the top positions. In a long swiss tournament the best players will rise to the top and eventually play each other. In the under 8 Girls section there were only 10 players so every player almost played every other player over 7 rounds.
I don't know you or Vlad or anyone else involved in this situation but the more you continue to talk of forced pairings, changed pairing sheets, and cover-ups, when other more logical and simpler explanations are available the more I think you are one of those unreasonable conspiracy theory types who will never listen to reason.
My kids stopped playing chess several years ago and although the experience of playing in tournaments was good for them, the worst behavior I have ever seen in any sport activity was by chess parents over-reacting while "sticking up" for their little one in a chess tournament over a minor issue. I hope that is not the case here.
Are you implying that Vlad improperly manipulated the pairings in the 1st two rounds for some nefarious purpose. What would his motive be? What possible benefit could come to him by this manipulation?
I've seen enough in the thread to probably come to the conclusion that the pairings were certainly done in some strange way, with ratings being changed. I have no doubt this was not done for any particular motive - as many others have pointed out, manipulating pairings in the first two rounds of a long swiss is essentially irrelevant to the final results. What it looks to me like is that a mistake of some sort was made, and no one has been able to re-create the specific circumstances that caused it, other than the OP trying to claim that a TD with no investment in the section decided to do a forced pairing for some unknown reason that would benefit or harm no one.
My kids stopped playing chess several years ago and although the experience of playing in tournaments was good for them, the worst behavior I have ever seen in any sport activity was by chess parents over-reacting while "sticking up" for their little one in a chess tournament over a minor issue. I hope that is not the case here.
It's 1000% this. Even if a mistake was made (and it sure looks like one might have been), this is the kind of situation where a parent should realize 1. It was probably a mistake of some sort, not some sort of grand plot, and 2. In the greater scheme of things, it doesn't matter.
Rather than an attempted murder plot as your analogy, this to me is more like going to Costco, buying a bunch of items, and forgetting to get your receipt checked before walking out. Does the store then call the cops and claim you are part of an Ocean's 11-esque ring to steal from them? Or do they realize mistakes happen, and in reality, no actual harm was done?
Are you implying that Vlad improperly manipulated the pairings in the 1st two rounds for some nefarious purpose.
The only thing I did with the pairings was to post the pairings for round 2 on the CYCC website because chessresults was not working for some reason. Trying to post them in html led to garbled results so I posted a pdf after copying the six separate spreadsheet files into one excel file and then saving as a pdf. Not having the foresight to realize that some insane person might construct an elaborate theory around the posting of these pairings I did not remove the name stamp that Microsoft Office stamps on documents. I removed some columns to make the pairings fit on a page without orphan data being pushed to a later page. This was done on July 7th early in the morning. Alexandre had not sent me the file by 3 am after Aris had said the pairings would be done by 11 pm. I sent a reminder at 3:12 am but said that there were no guarantees that I would not fall asleep if the files didn't arrive forthwith. I did fall asleep until about 6:00 am with my computer still on when I saw the files had arrived and began working on posting them when I had the adventures with Microsoft generated html files.
What would his motive be?
I have been accused of conspiring to suppress one parent's offspring because I was trying to teach all the kids to get better at chess and stop making the same mistakes over and over again. You are trying to reason with someone who has ignored and suppressed logic in coming to an understanding of the situation.
What possible benefit could come to him by this manipulation?
Satisfaction at averting a cataclysmic global disaster if the pairings had turned out differently? At this point I am only theorizing.
I never touched the pairing computer. My only involvement in pairings was to post one round (round 2) on the CYCC website because of a glitch in posting the results in the normal way. I do not as of yet have SwissManager installed on my computer though I do have two versions of SwissSys and one version of SwissPerfect.
If someone was trying to affect the outcome, changing pairing in round 1 or two will have very little effect on the top positions. In a long swiss tournament the best players will rise to the top and eventually play each other. In the under 8 Girls section there were only 10 players so every player almost played every other player over 7 rounds.
I don't know you or Vlad or anyone else involved in this situation but the more you continue to talk of forced pairings, changed pairing sheets, and cover-ups, when other more logical and simpler explanations are available the more I think you are one of those unreasonable conspiracy theory types who will never listen to reason.
My kids stopped playing chess several years ago and although the experience of playing in tournaments was good for them, the worst behavior I have ever seen in any sport activity was by chess parents over-reacting while "sticking up" for their little one in a chess tournament over a minor issue. I hope that is not the case here.
Probably it is the case here. The OP has always been high maintenance which I am somewhat used to and willing to make some allowances for. The bridges that have been burned are not just the ones to me. This and the other kerfluffle has certainly given the organizers a pause as to whether they want to get involved in a similar situation again with a possible bid for next year's North American Youth Chess Championship.
It seems that we might want to go ahead but we will certainly bring up the behaviour of certain individuals when we discuss this possible bid.
The only thing I did with the pairings was to post the pairings for round 2 on the CYCC website because chessresults was not working for some reason. Trying to post them in html led to garbled results so I posted a pdf after copying the six separate spreadsheet files into one excel file and then saving as a pdf. Not having the foresight to realize that some insane person might construct an elaborate theory around the posting of these pairings I did not remove the name stamp that Microsoft Office stamps on documents. I removed some columns to make the pairings fit on a page without orphan data being pushed to a later page. This was done on July 7th early in the morning. Alexandre had not sent me the file by 3 am after Aris had said the pairings would be done by 11 pm. I sent a reminder at 3:12 am but said that there were no guarantees that I would not fall asleep if the files didn't arrive forthwith. I did fall asleep until about 6:00 am with my computer still on when I saw the files had arrived and began working on posting them when I had the adventures with Microsoft generated html files.
I have been accused of conspiring to suppress one parent's offspring because I was trying to teach all the kids to get better at chess and stop making the same mistakes over and over again. You are trying to reason with someone who has ignored and suppressed logic in coming to an understanding of the situation.
Satisfaction at averting a cataclysmic global disaster if the pairings had turned out differently? At this point I am only theorizing.
I never touched the pairing computer. My only involvement in pairings was to post one round (round 2) on the CYCC website because of a glitch in posting the results in the normal way. I do not as of yet have SwissManager installed on my computer though I do have two versions of SwissSys and one version of SwissPerfect.
Probably it is the case here. The OP has always been high maintenance which I am somewhat used to and willing to make some allowances for. The bridges that have been burned are not just the ones to me. This and the other kerfluffle has certainly given the organizers a pause as to whether they want to get involved in a similar situation again with a possible bid for next year's North American Youth Chess Championship.
It seems that we might want to go ahead but we will certainly bring up the behaviour of certain individuals when we discuss this possible bid.
This thread seems to be very interesting, I don't see anything wrong with the parings, it is clearly explained what happened and it was reasonable. Instead of blaming organizers, we should praise them. They did fantastic jobs, as mentioned by many parents in other threads, this is one of the best CYCCs we attended. Coaches like Vlad, John, Zoltan, Istvan, Herb and parents for example Chau, Christina, Isabella devoted a lot of times into promoting Windsor Chess, they should be acknowledged and appreciated by Windsor parents.
regarding the U14 girls, there is no difference between the two 1st round parings Lily-Ellen and Lily-Rhama as Lily always wins in the past several years in either pairing, regarding 2nd round Maili-Jade, she is way way stronger than any of the girls in this group even in older age groups, there is definitely no difference for her to pair with(rating 1500 and 700 opponents are the same easy for her). Same like Rhama, she is stronger than what described here(1200 and 700 opponent should be same easy for her. The thread initiator might think Lily's brother has something to do with pairing computer work, as John clarified, none of Windsor organizers/volunteers affected the pairing, and the first round pairing didn't make Lily achieve her best CYCC result, 1 loss and 2 draws was good but not that good. For Rhama, I think she did great with 4/7 though she could do better, but I don't think she is negatively affected by the 1st round pairing. With so little time spending on chess, Rhama and her coach Herb already impressed most of us.
The TA has a serious injury which requires bed rest and makes it difficult to use a computer or answer emails or even talk on the phone for the next several months without experiencing severe pain. If that were not the case I am sure he would have addressed these questions here himself. In his absence some others have deconstructed what happened. The section in question is not FIDE rated.
Keerti had many questions and objections during the tournament which were dealt with at the time.
Judges will usually instruct Jury's in trials that if one part of a witness testimony is found to be not credible, the Jury can regard the entire testimony to be not credible.
Aris Marghetis was browsing the thread this morning, if he really is in such great pain why he did he elect to browse this thread. If he can browse this thread he can certainly respond to it.
Aris Marghetis was browsing the thread this morning, if he really is in such great pain why he did he elect to browse this thread. If he can browse this thread he can certainly respond to it.
Really! Now you are stalking peoples computer activity and posting it. I think a line has been crossed here. Have you heard of privacy. It's starting to get a little creepy. I think the board administrator should step in here, and delete Keerti's last post.
Last edited by Bob Gillanders; Thursday, 6th August, 2015, 07:59 PM.
Really! Now you are stalking peoples computer activity and posting it. I think a line has been crossed here. Have you heard of privacy. It's starting to get a little creepy. I think the board administrator should step in here, and delete Keerti's last post.
Yes using a feature that anybody can use on this forum is creepy. It can be seen here. Maybe you should think before you post, and to add on you can see who's viewing a certain thread near at the bottom of the page when you are viewing a thread. Admin should delete your post which contains totally false accusations.
Yes using a feature that anybody can use on this forum is creepy. It can be seen here. Maybe you should think before you post, and to add on you can see who's viewing a certain thread near at the bottom of the page when you are viewing a thread. Admin should delete your post which contains totally false accusations.
Still a little creepy, to be honest. And that post about Aris was obviously a joke.
And anyways, it seems pretty clear that it was just a problem with ratings update. Not a big deal.
Still a little creepy, to be honest. And that post about Aris was obviously a joke.
And anyways, it seems pretty clear that it was just a problem with ratings update. Not a big deal.
Mathieu I can get into an argument about the pairings, but realise anybody can see anyones activity, Look at any users profile. Like mine and you can see the last activity and current activity. So all the 168 visits to it have been creepy?
Mathieu I can get into an argument about the pairings, but realise anybody can see anyones activity, Look at any users profile. Like mine and you can see the last activity and current activity. So all the 168 visits to it have been creepy?
Looking at it is ok... what is creepy is posting about it afterwards, linking all of that to a post that was basically a joke.
Tweet
Comment