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.
15. Have fun!
(Thanks to Nigel Hanrahan for writing these up!)
Campbellville Open Chess Tournament Nov28, 29 2015
Part of the "problem" relating to rating sections could be the number of kids who participate in the tournaments. That is, often kids are under-rated as their CFC ratings lag behind their actual playing strength. For years I have had "good" games against kids, (Fritz would often say that no tactical shots were overlooked although each side missed opportunities to take the initiative),so a draw was a good result. While the game may have been enjoyable for me, I often lost 15 rating points for the experience, and the downward spiral in terms of my own CFC rating continued. As I understand, the CFC has tried to address this situation by giving the kids bonus points to get their ratings more reflective of their actual playing strength sooner rather than later.
I dont agree with giving bonus points to get their ratings more reflective of their strengh. You have to play X number of rated games (is it 20 or 25) to get a rating. If the player is good, their rating will ascend accordingly. It is the onus of the opponent to play well at the board. Play the opponent not the opponents rating. There is the possibility that anyone can play inspired chess on any given day. The odds are tied fairly tightly to the player's rating but to put blind faith in a player's rating to the point of excluding the 'inspiration' possibility is as they say, 'Pride goes before a fall.' By the way, in the first round of a swiss style tourney, isnt usually the first round usually an easy pair for the stronger opponent anyhow, I guess it is the question of if you like your eggs soft boiled or hard boiled.
Last edited by Gordon Gooding; Wednesday, 11th November, 2015, 09:19 PM.
Re: Campbellville Open Chess Tournament Nov28, 29 2015
I don't think you have taken proper account of your critics Gordon. Ralph and Mate are right - you are discounting the interests of the class players who want to play their rating peers. 200 points below the floor is too much. Who wants to play an under rated player? Don't deride ego and pride, especially with unfairness. If ratings were not important we would not have them. Just MHO
Re: Campbellville Open Chess Tournament Nov28, 29 2015
My previous post did not address the issue of whether or not 100 or 200 points is better.
So, I went back and broke down the results between those 2 groups.
Results from Mississauga Open 2015 for players allowed to play up a section.
-----------------------------------
Open (over2000) - playing up 100 points - 2 players
Average rating: 1980
Performance rating: 2084
Open (over2000) - playing up 200 points - 5 players
Average rating: 1827
Performance rating: 1971
-----------------------------------
U2000 (1600 - 1999) - playing up 100 points - 5 players
Average rating: 1551
Performance rating: 1597
U2000 (1600 - 1999) - playing up 200 points - 3 players
Average rating: 1430
Performance rating: 1624
-----------------------------------
U1600 (1200-1599) - playing up 100 points - 2 players
Average rating: 1160
Performance rating: 1298
U1600 (1200-1599) - playing up 200 points - 4 players
Average rating: 1051
Performance rating: 1170
----------------------------------
Granted, it isn’t enough data to reach any conclusions, but it does bear out what we would all consider obvious, that the kids playing up 100 points did better than those playing up 200 points. Okay fine.
But those playing up 200 points did almost as well, and certainly outperformed their ratings. To say we are just adding weak players to the section is an exaggeration.
Ralph/Mate, if the kids playing up ( as a group) fail to perform adequately for that section, then we will tighten up (or eliminate) the playing up option. But IMHO, for now the jury is out.
My previous post did not address the issue of whether or not 100 or 200 points is better.
So, I went back and broke down the results between those 2 groups.
<snippage>
Granted, it isn’t enough data to reach any conclusions, but it does bear out what we would all consider obvious, that the kids playing up 100 points did better than those playing up 200 points. Okay fine.
But those playing up 200 points did almost as well, and certainly outperformed their ratings. To say we are just adding weak players to the section is an exaggeration.
Ralph/Mate, if the kids playing up ( as a group) fail to perform adequately for that section, then we will tighten up (or eliminate) the playing up option. But IMHO, for now the jury is out.
Hi Bob:
I tend to agree with those saying that 200 points is a bit too much. One of the things which I think you are overlooking in your calculations is that the "performance" rating is very dependent upon the field. If I were to play in a section of experts and lose every single game, I would still have a "performance" rating of around 1700. The strength of the field heavily influences the performance rating and the performance rating is near useless if a player is playing up and loses the majority of their games.
I dont agree with giving bonus points to get their ratings more reflective of their strengh. You have to play X number of rated games (is it 20 or 25) to get a rating. If the player is good, their rating will ascend accordingly. It is the onus of the opponent to play well at the board. Play the opponent not the opponents rating. There is the possibility that anyone can play inspired chess on any given day. The odds are tied fairly tightly to the player's rating but to put blind faith in a player's rating to the point of excluding the 'inspiration' possibility is as they say, 'Pride goes before a fall.' By the way, in the first round of a swiss style tourney, isnt usually the first round usually an easy pair for the stronger opponent anyhow, I guess it is the question of if you like your eggs soft boiled or hard boiled.
Hi Gordon:
The problem which Doug pointed out is that the rating system is supposed to be neutral. If I win a game, my rating goes up, while my opponents goes down by the same amount. Problems develop with the so-called "rapidly improving juniors" whose ratings are frequently way out of whack with respect to their actual playing strength. Thus, as they are added to the rating pool, they tend to siphon away rating points from established players with stable ratings. The established players do not play worse than they normally do, but their results will show declines in their ratings. The overall pool of players may actually improve its average playing strength while the average rating of players in the pool goes down. That why "bonus" points were/are implemented.
Re: Campbellville Open Chess Tournament Nov28, 29 2015
Rather than debate the philosophy behind bonus points, I suggest that we look at the results. According the last several reports for the rating auditor, the median ratings have stabilized, varying by no more than 20 rating points over that time. I have also not seen much debate over inflation and deflation for a long time, whereas 5 years ago such discussions were rampant.
Regarding the concept of playing up as section, I recall this being implemented in Quebec at the Canadian Open, where people paid extra to be paired up a section. I think they could even go up multiple levels by paying more per level. Personally, I think this is a nice idea, as it adds additional funds to the higher level prizes.
Aahil Noorali 1797 - He was allowed to play up on the condition that he was the floater. So if we had an odd number of players, he would have to drop down to the U2000 section for that round. A bonus for the organizer who now didn't have to worry about giving someone a forced bye. Fortunately for him, he got to play all 5 rounds in the Open section.
Benjamin Lin 1783 - He had already registered for the tournament when his rating dropped from 1806 to 1783 just before the tournament. Me bad for having a heart.
I tend to agree with those saying that 200 points is a bit too much. One of the things which I think you are overlooking in your calculations is that the "performance" rating is very dependent upon the field. If I were to play in a section of experts and lose every single game, I would still have a "performance" rating of around 1700. The strength of the field heavily influences the performance rating and the performance rating is near useless if a player is playing up and loses the majority of their games.
Steve
Hmmm....rats, good point! "Performance" ratings maybe a flawed measure?
If we look at their actual scores, they tend to populate across the bottom half of the crosstable, but not bunched at the bottom.
As I recall, when I decided to try 200 points, it was based on my own tournament experience against these eager beaver juniors. I often remark to myself, hey this kid rated 1400 is really about 1600, or this kid 1600 is really 1800. Or maybe it just feels that way cause I'm playing 200 below my rating. :( Nah, that can't be it. :)
The problem which Doug pointed out is that the rating system is supposed to be neutral. If I win a game, my rating goes up, while my opponents goes down by the same amount. Problems develop with the so-called "rapidly improving juniors" whose ratings are frequently way out of whack with respect to their actual playing strength. Thus, as they are added to the rating pool, they tend to siphon away rating points from established players with stable ratings. The established players do not play worse than they normally do, but their results will show declines in their ratings. The overall pool of players may actually improve its average playing strength while the average rating of players in the pool goes down. That why "bonus" points were/are implemented.
Steve
If you aren't improving, if you are stable, your rating should be slowly dropping. The quality of play continues to improve so a 1600 nowadays should be substantially stronger than a 1600 from say 25 years ago. And a 1600 25 years from now will probably be much stronger than a present-day 1600.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
The problem which Doug pointed out is that the rating system is supposed to be neutral. If I win a game, my rating goes up, while my opponents goes down by the same amount. Problems develop with the so-called "rapidly improving juniors" whose ratings are frequently way out of whack with respect to their actual playing strength. Thus, as they are added to the rating pool, they tend to siphon away rating points from established players with stable ratings. The established players do not play worse than they normally do, but their results will show declines in their ratings. The overall pool of players may actually improve its average playing strength while the average rating of players in the pool goes down. That why "bonus" points were/are implemented.
Steve
HI there Steve,
Thanks for your elaborate explanation. I understand. This helps me with a situation I have noticed in tournaments. I have noticed that some stronger players in the Open section of tourneys, when they lose to a weaker player (whether the weaker player chose to play up a section or was just weaker than the stronger player but still qulified to be in the open section) I have noticed that stronger players withdraw form the tournament. I guess because of the upset, they will more likely be playing weaker players in subsequent rounds sinking their ratings, so they just withdraw to avoid that right?
Last edited by Gordon Gooding; Friday, 13th November, 2015, 02:09 PM.
Re: Campbellville Open Chess Tournament Nov28, 29 2015
Are you suggesting a theory of rating devaluation Mr. O'Donnell? So my idea of playing up a section is not too far out there then. Does this mean that somebody with a stable rating indicates that their standard of play is ebbing ever so slightly based on rating devaluation?
Last edited by Gordon Gooding; Friday, 13th November, 2015, 02:19 PM.
Are you suggesting a theory of rating devaluation Mr. O'Donnell? So my idea of playing up a section is not too far out there then. Does this mean that somebody with a stable rating indicates that their standard of play is ebbing ever so slightly based on rating devaluation?
I think the opposite. If someone's play is not improving, their rating should be slowly dropping. Likewise is they are improving slightly but not more than the people around them, their rating will be stable.
It's not so much different than in physical sports.
The players have access to more. Computers, online databases, online sites so they can play chess all day, thousands of books, access to world-wide training. It is making everyone who uses it play better. If you aren't using it, or are using it poorly, you can't be surprised that your rating goes down.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
Re: Campbellville Open Chess Tournament Nov28, 29 2015
My ideal tournament is where I'm not the top or bottom rated and my average opponents rating is the same as mine. I would like aĺl players in one section but no pairings over 200 rating points apart (except for the last 1 or 2 rounds). But I don't know if that's in the pairing program and is not fide approved.
Re: Campbellville Open Chess Tournament Nov28, 29 2015
EXPRESS LUNCH OFFER
If you register to play before Nov 19th, you are eligible to receive an express lunch service, on Nov 28th only, of one burger, fries and a can of pop for only $11.50. To those who have registered already, I will try and contact you to give you the option or I will just give you the offer since i have records of those who registered already. Tickets will be handed out to paid customers on game day. Please arrive early for tourney and lunch payment. There may be availability after the Nov 19th deadline but the price will not be $11.50 nor less, hint hint. The Mohawk Chophouse is not a fast food restaurant hint hint. I have arranged this so that the players can enjoy lunch without having the stress of having to worry about it. I strongly recommend you take advantage of this offer.
Your move.
Last edited by Gordon Gooding; Saturday, 14th November, 2015, 04:31 PM.
Tweet
Comment