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.
Looks like 2004 still holds up, but not sure what I was thinking re 2006. May have been blinded by Pascal's defeating Anand on the way to winning that match :)
I always intended to author an article on the 2004 experience - I will certainly say, aside from the team dynamics, and performances, that Nathan & Nava were huge positive factors in the team's performance.
Here are the results of the chosen ones in recent Olympiads. I will use rating gain instead of performance, because some opponents with very low ratings make performance ratings unreliable.
2010 I was chosen, when Canadian champion Jean Hebert declined - elo 2414, result +2.8 rating points
2012 Porper Edward - elo 2418, result -7.4 rating points
2014 Gerzhoy Leonid - elo 2473, result -19.5 rating points
Now, I like the idea of a committee deciding one place on the team, not leaving everything to ratings alone. However, I am not sure what special knowledge the current committee has of the top Canadian players, their chess or their personalities. With the exception of Vladimir Pechenkin, they are not active chess players, and none of them have been to chess Olympiads. There seem to be no rules on how the members of the committee are selected.
I also would love to hear the reasons for this year's selection, but the decision will not change, so best think about the future. Denis Allan's post led me to an idea..who can be a better expert for deciding the 5th player on the team, then the players themselves? The three qualified by rating + Canadian champion, I would also include the team captain. Five, so no tied votes. Most of the team players participated in at least one Olympiad before, know the possible candidates quite well, and are the least biased. After all, they are the most interested in a strong team, to maximize the team result (making the tournament much more interesting and enjoyable).
Re. personalities - team mates not speaking to each other is not good, but it does not necessarily lead to bad play..so I am not sure how important of a factor that is.
If I recall correctly Bator Sambuev has played Le Siege 3 times in a tournament and has 3-0 score. Not to mention he's higher rated. It is absurd that he wasn't chosen. Who is the committee accountable to ? Can interested members of the CFC challenge the decision if they believe something blatantly unfair has taken place ?
If I recall correctly Bator Sambuev has played Le Siege 3 times in a tournament and has 3-0 score. Not to mention he's higher rated. It is absurd that he wasn't chosen. Who is the committee accountable to ? Can interested members of the CFC challenge the decision if they believe something blatantly unfair has taken place ?
I think I know the answer(s): the committee is not accountable to anyone and no, the decision cannot be disputed. When you define the selection process in the way it has been defined, this is the only possible outcome. I agree with Denis Allen that it would not be useful to publish any of the deliberations - a more useful idea would be to revise the process completely. As with all things CFC, it has grown over the years with many different masters and is now a mess. Every such process - picking the Olympic teams, the WYCC qualifiers, the representatives for any international event - all have become grumble fests and competing versions of the 'rules' and 'the intent' etc.
I think I know the answer(s): the committee is not accountable to anyone and no, the decision cannot be disputed. When you define the selection process in the way it has been defined, this is the only possible outcome. I agree with Denis Allen that it would not be useful to publish any of the deliberations - a more useful idea would be to revise the process completely. As with all things CFC, it has grown over the years with many different masters and is now a mess. Every such process - picking the Olympic teams, the WYCC qualifiers, the representatives for any international event - all have become grumble fests and competing versions of the 'rules' and 'the intent' etc.
I can see both sides of this debate and now agree with you/Denis Allen that disclosure of the Selection Committee's rationale for their choices (no doubt followed by a nasty public debate) wouldn't serve any useful purpose at this point. Perhaps it's time to return to a five-by-rating formula. Must also keep in mind that perhaps Sambuev and Preotu were issued invitations but declined - this is an unknown.
If player X was denied an invitation because player Y said something along the lines of, "I won't play if X is on the team", then this should not be allowed. Do bigshot Olympic athletes get to blackball other athletes who have rightfully qualified for the team? Doubt it. In fact I think it would be a major scandal if such a thing happened. I think the correct response to player Y would be, "Sorry to hear you feel that way, hope to see you on the team in 2018."
Last edited by Peter McKillop; Saturday, 23rd April, 2016, 10:42 AM.
"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
If you are against disclosure, how would you ever find out if indeed "player Y said something along the lines of, "I won't play if X is on the team"? Maybe, its exactly what happened this time. We can't evaluate a committee's work without knowing the reasons behind their decision.
If you are against disclosure, how would you ever find out if indeed "player Y said something along the lines of, "I won't play if X is on the team"? Maybe, its exactly what happened this time. We can't evaluate a committee's work without knowing the reasons behind their decision.
I am against disclosure *unless* that was part of the defined process. In this case, the committee was not obliged to disclose any of the deliberations or their reasons and to insist now that they reveal the selection discussion is wrong. I would recommend changing the whole process.
Looks like 2004 still holds up, but not sure what I was thinking re 2006. May have been blinded by Pascal's defeating Anand on the way to winning that match :)
I always intended to author an article on the 2004 experience - I will certainly say, aside from the team dynamics, and performances, that Nathan & Nava were huge positive factors in the team's performance.
Brian
The men's team in 2006 likely performed better then their final standing, the large swiss makes that statistic largely irrelevant unless you do really well or really badly.
Last edited by Duncan Smith; Saturday, 23rd April, 2016, 09:43 PM.
Pray tell, what is the "better process". I have been involved in the Olympiad selection/etc for a long while. I am no fan of the "CFC", yet, I don't follow what would be a superior process than either forgetting about the original concept of going strictly by rating to avoid an anomaly, or having 3 reasonably knowledgeable/objective people decide.
I am not a fan of presenting problems without analysis, and a recommended alternative. At least IM Noritsyn did this.
If you are against disclosure, how would you ever find out if indeed "player Y said something along the lines of, "I won't play if X is on the team"? Maybe, its exactly what happened this time. We can't evaluate a committee's work without knowing the reasons behind their decision.
Against disclosure of the Selection Committee's rationale for its 2016 decisions. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. At this point, what's done is done and, so far as I'm aware, none of the players who were in the neighbourhood for being selected (including you, Nikolay) have indicated publicly that they feel aggrieved by the current process. So why open things up for what would likely be an ugly debate? As for the future, I would like to see disclosure but how could that be set up without exposing Selection Committee members to risks (e.g. litigation) they should not have to incur?
"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
I'm trying to find the new rule in the "handbook" but I can't. Is this the new rule?
OPTION 3 USCF games not counted
iii) a. Have played at least 20 regular CFC rated or FQE rated or FIDE rated games during the year prior to the start of the selection process (which begins 180 days before the start of the Olympiad)
In my opinion the 20 games should be played under the Canadian flag. This way the Canadian players will know who do they have to compete against.
I agree, and I don't think anyone was demanding a disclosure. I too would love to hear the reasoning, just out of curiosity. I don't have bad feelings about not being selected, If I was the one choosing I would have chosen either IM Preotu for his youth and potential, or GM Sambuev because objectively he is still a stronger player. The question was asked, and the committee decided not to reply..this is fine No one can feel aggrieved about it, since the rules were known in advance. The question remains if things should be changed for the future cycles, and I proposed the idea of team players acting as the committee.
This may be the best idea on the thread. The process has changed so often that I doubt if anyone could accurately relate the changes, let alone the reasons. There was a time when the captain picked the team and later the team picked the captain! Now if there is a committee chosen who in turn only choose one player? WTF? If it can be determined that the majority of strong players, ie reasonable candidates for the team, accept the idea of the first four picking the final player, that is a simple change that could surely be made without much controversy. There is also the question of picking the first, or first few, alternatives, for any last minute dropout, as has happened a few times. What is the current provision for that?
I'm trying to find the new rule in the "handbook" but I can't. Is this the new rule?
OPTION 3 USCF games not counted
iii) a. Have played at least 20 regular CFC rated or FQE rated or FIDE rated games during the year prior to the start of the selection process (which begins 180 days before the start of the Olympiad)
In my opinion the 20 games should be played under the Canadian flag. This way the Canadian players will know who do they have to compete against.
Probably the Handbook has more missing new rules :/
As for a Canadian flag condition - probably it's possible to monitor it. Make a motion :)
This may be the best idea on the thread. The process has changed so often that I doubt if anyone could accurately relate the changes, let alone the reasons. There was a time when the captain picked the team and later the team picked the captain! Now if there is a committee chosen who in turn only choose one player? WTF? If it can be determined that the majority of strong players, ie reasonable candidates for the team, accept the idea of the first four picking the final player, that is a simple change that could surely be made without much controversy. There is also the question of picking the first, or first few, alternatives, for any last minute dropout, as has happened a few times. What is the current provision for that?
The current system was proposed by I.Bluvshtein in various motions around 2011. I would need to open emails and Governors discussions for reasons.
The committee chose THREE players, the first for the team, two others if a replacement is needed. I have not seen this year complete list.
"a) If a player declines or withdraws, he or she shall be replaced by the next player on the Selection Committee List. If the Selection Committee List is exhausted, the next player on the Selection Rating List shall be invited"
If we cannot send our strongest team then what is the sense in sending a team at all.
The high and mighty elite players should just shove their child like problems ( I won't play cause he's on the team) and play for Canada .
Holey Cow maybe the earth should move and we send a bunch of Juniors that are all friends.
We go through this every year and we seed a team that does poorly. maybe Canada is not ready to field an Olympic team.
Last edited by John Brown; Sunday, 24th April, 2016, 07:47 PM.
Reason: spelling
Tweet
Comment