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.
The default setting isn't going to be changed. It is hard coded into the system.
However, what we could do and I think it would be reasonable to post the top 10 Open and Women's Ratings on the front page or a convenient link (with a two year window - this is the "old" default from years ago).
This requires Bob having the time. Maybe one of the Chesstalk readers could post it here on the first of the month (ie today).
How would you set the search parameters to accomplish that?
For example, would you make the default setting "played a game in the past 5 years"? If yes, you are going to get a lot of players on the top players list who don't play any more.
Is the tail wagging the dog if we re-jig the default setting to make sure Evgeny's name comes up without having to change the number of years for the search?
Why don't we use the 1996 option to ensure Spraggett and Bluvstein appear on the list? After all, they are more iconic to me than someone who has only played in two regular rated CFC event in his lifetime.
Paul,
I wouldn't change the search parameters to accomplish that.
I would change data in the CFC database.
We already have a possibility to include foreign events in the CFC database - with some conditions and fees.
I suggest to include Olympiad automatically - without any conditions and fees.
I would have no objection to that for future Olympiads.
Probably wise to first consult with the master's representative before going forward with that.
I would have no objection to that for future Olympiads.
Probably wise to first consult with the master's representative before going forward with that.
I think, CFC rating is irrelevant for any player with FIDE above 2400. Also, we should follow our rules and not include Olympiad for CFC rating calculations.
Having said this, I agree that the current situation is wrong. If I am still number 20 and both Bareev and Kovalyov are not on the default list...
I think, CFC rating is irrelevant for any player with FIDE above 2400. Also, we should follow our rules and not include Olympiad for CFC rating calculations.
Having said this, I agree that the current situation is wrong. If I am still number 20 and both Bareev and Kovalyov are not on the default list...
I think it would be up to the Executive / ExD / Rating Auditor to define on the activity level to appear on an official CFC rating list. The default list also requires current CFC membership, which is not an issue for the Open (as they are all Honourary members), but could come into play for the Women's list.
Maybe somebody will offer to produce a Top 10 FIDE list (Open & Women's) and send it to John Upper once a month to post on the CFC News Feed. Our International standing - as opposed to our domestic standing.
I will repeat myself by saying that the best solution is for Bareev and Kovalyev to play in a CFC rated event.
Is it too much to ask that our top players support at least one regular rated event in a year?
Without Victor's support I am not interested in going any further on the issue of CFC rating the Olympiads.
I will repeat myself by saying that the best solution is for Bareev and Kovalyev to play in a CFC rated event.
Is it too much to ask that our top players support at least one regular rated event in a year?
Without Victor's support I am not interested in going any further on the issue of CFC rating the Olympiads.
Hi Paul:
I'm sorry but I have not read all the posts in this thread, and so maybe this has been dealt with.
I understood that the old Handbook of CFC policy (And the new Not-for-profit by-laws?) allowed a CFC member, playing in a non-CFC rated tournament (Like the Quebec Open for U 2000's or the Olympiads), to pay a fee, submit the cross-table and have the tournament be CFC-rated. Has it ever been a legal regulation of CFC that it MUST, without fee, and without request of the Canadian Olympiad teams' captains, CFC rate the Olympiads?
Hi Bob. You are correct except that option is only available to members participating in FIDE rated events. After playing in the Montreal Open last month (a very successful tournament, by the way), I started thinking that we should include FQE and USCF events but I haven't progressed any further along those lines yet.
The option is infrequently used. I'd be interested in your opinion.
Regarding CFC rating the Olympiads, that is only an idea suggested on chess talk.
Hi Bob. You are correct except that option is only available to members participating in FIDE rated events. After playing in the Montreal Open last month (a very successful tournament, by the way), I started thinking that we should include FQE and USCF events but I haven't progressed any further along those lines yet.
The option is infrequently used. I'd be interested in your opinion.
Regarding CFC rating the Olympiads, that is only an idea suggested on chess talk.
Hi Paul:
Re: Non-FIDE rated, non-CFC rated FQE Events
The 2016 Quebec Open (U 2000 Section) was advertised to be CFC-rated, as well as FQE-rated. This section is not FIDE-rated.
I have corresponded with both the CFC & the FQE (Executive Director & President), since I had confirmed that the U 2000 section cross-table had not been sent to CFC for CFC rating, as advertised. I have had absolutely no response from either the ED nor President of FQE.....very disappointing since I have played in FQE tournaments in Montreal in the summer the last three years running , and prior to that. Also, I like playing in Montreal......I know and get along with many of the FQE people, the tournament organizers and the arbiters. I have found they run good professional tournaments. I am, I must say, somewhat shocked at the treatment I have received from FQE on this issue.
Now that I have vented, my issue is that I would have liked to pay a fee for a "foreign (FQE)" tournament I was in to be CFC-rated. Unfortunately, I cannot because the section was not also FIDE rated (You refer to this regulation in your post). So with FQE breaking its contract with me as a Quebec Open participant, and the CFC regulation not allowing me to get the tournament CFC-rated (Which I would still like to do), I am stuck.
Should I be? You are now thinking about it, you said.
It is my view that a Montreal FQE tournament is still a "Canadian" tournament, though I know some Quebecer's do not see it that way.
I would think that a CFC member (Whose membership exempts the player from having to also buy an FQE membership to play in an FQE tournament) should have some way of getting an anomalous "Canadian" FQE tournament they have been in, CFC rated, no?
Simplest, in my view, is to exempt an FQE tournament from the FIDE-rated condition in the current regulation. Then I could pay (I am hoping you can come up with a regulatory disposition of this issue by which I do NOT have to pay a fee) and get my 2016 Quebec Open rated. I am to have lunch with Bob G shortly (;)) and could personally deliver the rating charge fee to Bob G!
Hope this helps move this issue faster toward CFC regulatory amendment by the Voting Members (Unless the change is within your CFC Rating Auditor jurisdiction).
Bob A
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Wednesday, 5th October, 2016, 12:14 PM.
Essentially, they crossrate FIDE events for all players playing under the US Flag. Using a similar system at the CFC would address a number of issues including the anomaly of GM Bareev representing Canada at the Olympiad but not being listed on Canada's list of top players at the CFC.
The implementation of such a policy would require that additional resources be allocated to the rating process as someone would need to identify those players who played in a fide rated/non cfc rated event and to cross-rate those events, possibly including an adjustment to fide ratings (as does the USCF) to reflect that FIDE ratings tend to be lower than CFC ratings. I am not sure how much additional work that would entail, but it would solve this and some other problems.
Essentially, they crossrate FIDE events for all players playing under the US Flag. Using a similar system at the CFC would address a number of issues including the anomaly of GM Bareev representing Canada at the Olympiad but not being listed on Canada's list of top players at the CFC.
The implementation of such a policy would require that additional resources be allocated to the rating process as someone would need to identify those players who played in a fide rated/non cfc rated event and to cross-rate those events, possibly including an adjustment to fide ratings (as does the USCF) to reflect that FIDE ratings tend to be lower than CFC ratings. I am not sure how much additional work that would entail, but it would solve this and some other problems.
I would think there would be a considerable amount of work required to do this.
Thanks for the lead Eric. I read the USCF policy and it makes sense to me. It does however seem to require a lot of work to re-rate US players' FIDE tournaments by converting their opponents' ratings to USCF equivalent ratings then applying 80% of the rating gain/loss plus 100% of bonus points gained to the player's USCF rating. Our ED is probably cringing at this point. A drawback is that this process is only applied two months after the FIDE event, meaning not chronologically with interim USCF events.
Our existing policy requires the player to identify the event ahead of time, preserving the chronological sequence for rating and remunerates the CFC $25 for the labour entailed.
What I am thinking about is extending this option to FQE and USCF events. There are some considerations about equivalency of rating systems and how to deal with opponents that have multiple ratings. Again, given our limited resources we would probably go with the ratings used in the cross table of the tournament and consider, for the purposes of this transaction, that FQE/FIDE/CFC ratings are equivalent.
I will repeat myself by saying that the best solution is for Bareev and Kovalyev to play in a CFC rated event.
Is it too much to ask that our top players support at least one regular rated event in a year?
Paul,
It's not too much to ask that our top players play at one regular rated event in a year - if we have a suitable event - such as Canadian Closed.
It's one of the reasons why we need to organize Canadian Closed every year.
On the other hand, it is too much to ask that our top players support a regular weekender...
Tweet
Comment