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.
I'm curious about what TD's are using for tiebreak formulae in Swiss events and what players think is the fairest tiebreak.
FIDE has a recommended list of tiebreaks: https://www.fide.com/component/handb...7&view=article which starts with direct encounter then greater number of wins.
SwissSys offers 20 options that are simply listed in alphabetical order from "average opposition" to "win count".
Last edited by Paul Leblanc; Sunday, 24th July, 2016, 05:57 PM.
I'm curious about what TD's are using for tiebreak formulae in Swiss events and what players think is the fairest tiebreak.
FIDE has a recommended list of tiebreaks: https://www.fide.com/component/handb...7&view=article which starts with direct encounter then greater number of wins.
SwissSys offers 20 options that are simply listed in alphabetical order from "average opposition" to "win count".
I think ARO (Average rating of Opponents) or some variation, would be superior in a Swiss to number of wins.
It gives both a rating and measure of the reliability of the rating. The Australian Chess Federation has switched to this system. The ACF does not want organizers to start wondering about the true meaning of the rating deviation. Instead, it uses some symbols to denote the reliability of a rating.
Originally posted by ACF
A rating is followed by either a !!, a !, a blank, a ?, a ?? or a g.
A !! indicates a very reliable rating.
A ! indicates a reliable rating.
A blank indicates the rating is unreliable..
A ? indicates the rating is very unreliable.
A ?? indicates the rating is extremely unreliable.
A g following a number indicates the player needs that many more games before he will get a rating.
A x following a rating indicates that it has expired since the player has not played a rated game in over 10 years. If a player with an expired rating returns and plays in an ACF rated event their new rating will be closely linked and in line with their performance rating and not necessarily their old expired rating. A player with an expired rating is not an unrated player.
Only players who have a rating followed by a ! or a !! and have a career total of at least 30 rated games are eligible for listing in the Top lists.
A reliable rating is required to appear on Australia's top 30 players list.
Although Glicko rating computes a rating deviation, no tiebreak is making use of this information. This is not surprising because FIDE does not use the Glicko system.
The reliability of ARO as a tiebreak and of the Dubov Swiss pairings which is based on ARO, is related to the reliability of the ratings. The more "?" and "??" ratings, the less reliable the results will be. Dubov Swiss uses ARO internally to determine pairings. The players due for White are sorted in order of increasing ARO. http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.ht...9&view=article
ARO is a poor choice of tiebreak with Dubov pairings. Dubov's primary objective was to ensure that equal scores will correspond to equal rating performance. The differences in ARO for equal scores in a Dubov tournament without half-point byes is going to be negligible.
It gives both a rating and measure of the reliability of the rating. The Australian Chess Federation has switched to this system. The ACF does not want organizers to start wondering about the true meaning of the rating deviation. Instead, it uses some symbols to denote the reliability of a rating.
A reliable rating is required to appear on Australia's top 30 players list.
Although Glicko rating computes a rating deviation, no tiebreak is making use of this information. This is not surprising because FIDE does not use the Glicko system.
The reliability of ARO as a tiebreak and of the Dubov Swiss pairings which is based on ARO, is related to the reliability of the ratings. The more "?" and "??" ratings, the less reliable the results will be. Dubov Swiss uses ARO internally to determine pairings. The players due for White are sorted in order of increasing ARO. http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.ht...9&view=article
ARO is a poor choice of tiebreak with Dubov pairings. Dubov's primary objective was to ensure that equal scores will correspond to equal rating performance. The differences in ARO for equal scores in a Dubov tournament without half-point byes is going to be negligible.
I have designed a variation on ARO, where there is a minimum rating used based on the AR of the top three or five rated players.
Median and cumulative are still nice and simple choices.
I have designed a variation on ARO, where there is a minimum rating used based on the AR of the top three or five rated players.
Median and cumulative are still nice and simple choices.
Kind of echoing what Pierre said: Personally, I've always felt like using ratings in any way to form tiebreak metrics to be too arbitrary. I'd rather use metrics that were determined in the course of competition, than a rating that may or may not be accurate and was determined before the event in question even started.
Kind of echoing what Pierre said: Personally, I've always felt like using ratings in any way to form tiebreak metrics to be too arbitrary. I'd rather use metrics that were determined in the course of competition, than a rating that may or may not be accurate and was determined before the event in question even started.
I agree with Tyler (and Pierre), I try to avoid using tiebreaks that involve rating, especially with Juniors whose ratings are swinging (usually upward) dramatically. For some of the events I work, like the CYCC and NAYCC, there is some sense in emulating the event they're "feeding" into, like the WYCC. But sometimes those get adjusted too. Finally, regarding various software, like Swiss-Sys, it has some glitches with tiebreaks. A good (bad?!) example was demonstrated to me just a few weeks by Andrew Peredun (SSM Chess, host to the 2017 CYCC & CO): Swiss-Sys does NOT properly calculate Buchholz when there are "unplayed games". Brian and I had do that part manually at the CYCC.
Most TD's first tie break is "head to head". Not me, but most.
I prefer "sum of opponents scores". Simple easy.
The player who takes a bye is at a huge disadvantage.
Any tiebreak based on ratings, bad. Will be challenged endlessly. Don't need the headache.
Last edited by Bob Gillanders; Monday, 25th July, 2016, 01:54 PM.
Most TD's first tie break is "head to head". Not me, but most.
I prefer "sum of opponents scores". Simple easy.
The player who takes a bye is at a huge disadvantage.
Any tiebreak based on ratings, bad. Will be challenged endlessly. Don't need the headache.
Any tie-break method posted early should survive any challenges.
Any tie-break method posted early should survive any challenges.
If it is announced at the beginning of the tournament, it probably will be accepted by the players. Some organizers used some " average of opponent's performance rating after the head to head and announce it before the beginning of the last round. If the first tie break ends ( head to head ) doesn't ends up with a winner, do you think average of opponent's " performance rating" is good ? It is so hard to calculate.
I would go for total number of points of your opponents would be a better tie break than this average of opponent's performance rating. Please take note that it is not based on your performance rating but your opponent's average rating.
If it is announced at the beginning of the tournament, it probably will be accepted by the players. Some organizers used some " average of opponent's performance rating after the head to head and announce it before the beginning of the last round. If the first tie break ends ( head to head ) doesn't ends up with a winner, do you think average of opponent's " performance rating" is good ? It is so hard to calculate.
I would go for total number of points of your opponents would be a better tie break than this average of opponent's performance rating. Please take note that it is not based on your performance rating but your opponent's average rating.
From the FIDE Handbook
(a) Average Rating of Opponents
The Average Rating of Opponents (ARO) is the sum of the ratings of the opponents of a player, divided by the number of games played.
(a1) The Average Rating of Opponents Cut (AROC) is the Average Rating of Opponents, excluding one or more of the ratings of the opponents, starting from the lowest-rated opponent.
(a) Average Rating of Opponents
The Average Rating of Opponents (ARO) is the sum of the ratings of the opponents of a player, divided by the number of games played.
(a1) The Average Rating of Opponents Cut (AROC) is the Average Rating of Opponents, excluding one or more of the ratings of the opponents, starting from the lowest-rated opponent.
I agree if it is the average rating of opponents ( ARO ) but in this case, the organizer used average of your opponent's PEFORMANCE rating of the tournament.
If it is based on your average rating of opponents, I can understand it and if I play against all the strongest players in the tournament and if I tied for first, I will know for sure that I most probably will have the highest tie break as compared with my opponents.
Two possible philosophies are average rating of opponents (perhaps modified by whether the player won, drew or lost against them); or
performance of opponents in the actual event (modified by whether the player won, drew or lost against them). The latter is Sonneborne-Berger.
It seems to me that actual points earned in a tournament by the opponents makes for a better tie-break than using their pre-event ratings.
Direct encounter seems fair to me as the first attempt to break a tie in the case of a two-way tie between players who happened to play a game with a decisive result.
Two possible philosophies are average rating of opponents (perhaps modified by whether the player won, drew or lost against them); or
performance of opponents in the actual event (modified by whether the player won, drew or lost against them). The latter is Sonneborne-Berger.
It seems to me that actual points earned in a tournament by the opponents makes for a better tie-break than using their pre-event ratings.
Direct encounter seems fair to me as the first attempt to break a tie in the case of a two-way tie between players who happened to play a game with a decisive result.
>>
I totally agree with you.
1st tie break - direct encounter
2nd tie break should be actual points by opponents OR 2nd best use average ratings of your opponents and NOT average performance rating of your opponents. That way when you know that you have played against all the strongest players ( by rating ), if there is still a tie, the likelihood of you emerging as the champion is very high ( almost close to 100% )
The tie break should be " easiest to calculate instead of depending on the system to calculate "
Most TD's first tie break is "head to head". Not me, but most.
I prefer "sum of opponents scores". Simple easy.
The player who takes a bye is at a huge disadvantage.
Any tiebreak based on ratings, bad. Will be challenged endlessly. Don't need the headache.
I fully agree that a desirable tiebreak will favor those who did not take a half or full point bye.
Tweet
Comment