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.
Is there a method of preventing sandbagging for CFC chess?
Perhaps one method might be by stating in the tournament advertisement that players must have played at least 5 CFC games in the past 12 months? And, no UNRs are eligible to win prize money?
It's not always so easy to prove someone is sandbagging. Some players' ratings can change immensely over a string of 10-15 tournaments, both up and down the rating scale. It can be sandbagging, but it can also be an honest reason... be it other events in life, illness, or even style of chess.
Proven sandbaggers should probably get some sort of temporary ban, to be honest, since it violates rules of tournament chess.
At Hart House, unrated players playing in a class section are not eligible for prizes. Extending that to other 'provisional' players based on X number of games might prove laborious for the organizer to keep tabs on. Let alone explain it to the players involved. I doubt that the CFC would be interested in retaining players in unrated status (with hidden rating) until ... 20 or X number of games have been published.
The USCF has something interesting where... rating floors are in place. I don't know how the specifics work but I will make up some numbers to illustrate the point. For example... if a player ever goes over 2100 rating, they will have a 2000 floor rating. The floor rating means... no matter how much that player plays and loses in the future, his or her rating can never go below 2000 again, because he/she has been over 2100.
There are some flaws with this system as players can sell or throw points to lower players while always maintaining their safety net, and there's potential for inflation. It does prevent sandbagging though.
Apart from that... I suppose organizers can try advertise provisional parameters for eligibility prizes, but not sure how that would work or if it's worth it.
It's definitely worth checking a player's recent results and if something rings a bell, dig deeper. Again, this can translate into a lot of work. I've done it.
It's not always so easy to prove someone is sandbagging. Some players' ratings can change immensely over a string of 10-15 tournaments, both up and down the rating scale. It can be sandbagging, but it can also be an honest reason... be it other events in life, illness, or even style of chess.
Proven sandbaggers should probably get some sort of temporary ban, to be honest, since it violates rules of tournament chess.
At Hart House, unrated players playing in a class section are not eligible for prizes. Extending that to other 'provisional' players based on X number of games might prove laborious for the organizer to keep tabs on. Let alone explain it to the players involved. I doubt that the CFC would be interested in retaining players in unrated status (with hidden rating) until ... 20 or X number of games have been published.
The USCF has something interesting where... rating floors are in place. I don't know how the specifics work but I will make up some numbers to illustrate the point. For example... if a player ever goes over 2100 rating, they will have a 2000 floor rating. The floor rating means... no matter how much that player plays and loses in the future, his or her rating can never go below 2000 again, because he/she has been over 2100.
There are some flaws with this system as players can sell or throw points to lower players while always maintaining their safety net, and there's potential for inflation. It does prevent sandbagging though.
Apart from that... I suppose organizers can try advertise provisional parameters for eligibility prizes, but not sure how that would work or if it's worth it.
It's definitely worth checking a player's recent results and if something rings a bell, dig deeper. Again, this can translate into a lot of work. I've done it.
Alex F.
Hi Alex:
Is it possible to say that a person's "Playing Rating for the Tournament" will be his/her highest rating in the last three years prior to the last rating update before the tournament?
I was thinking that if someone's rating is really honestly falling ( :) ), and they are complaining, then they can be told that eventually, as time passes, this "Playing Rating" will come down to be closer to the players actual current rating strength.
Is it possible to say that a person's "Playing Rating for the Tournament" will be his/her highest rating in the last three years prior to the last rating update before the tournament?
I was thinking that if someone's rating is really honestly falling ( :) ), and they are complaining, then they can be told that eventually, as time passes, this "Playing Rating" will come down to be closer to the players actual current rating strength.
Bob A
Hi Bob,
That's definitely an approach worth considering. Thankfully, the CFC has a column for "highest ever rating" that the player has achieved. If the discrepancy between highest and current is high, I will check the player's record. Steady decline, for various reasons, is not abnormal, especially for older players. Having a "recent activity" period, when making such analyzes, would make a lot of sense.
Alex F.
This all sounds like a lot of extra monitoring for an organizer. The idea of 'no class prizes' is an efficient winner method that will squelch any sandbaggers hope of playing.
Is it possible to say that a person's "Playing Rating for the Tournament" will be his/her highest rating in the last three years prior to the last rating update before the tournament?
I was thinking that if someone's rating is really honestly falling ( :) ), and they are complaining, then they can be told that eventually, as time passes, this "Playing Rating" will come down to be closer to the players actual current rating strength.
Bob A
This is a great idea, Bob!
"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
This all sounds like a lot of extra monitoring for an organizer. The idea of 'no class prizes' is an efficient winner method that will squelch any sandbaggers hope of playing.
*Unless* there is a type of sandbagger that prefers tournaments where he can play for chintzy little plastic trophies. :)
"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
Without names it's too abstract. Somebody needs to track money prize winners in tournaments, then add a rating trend. Any volunteers? LOL Can the CFC produce a graph like FIDE does on their website?
It's not always so easy to prove someone is sandbagging. Some players' ratings can change immensely over a string of 10-15 tournaments, both up and down the rating scale. It can be sandbagging, but it can also be an honest reason... be it other events in life, illness, or even style of chess.
Proven sandbaggers should probably get some sort of temporary ban, to be honest, since it violates rules of tournament chess.
At Hart House, unrated players playing in a class section are not eligible for prizes. Extending that to other 'provisional' players based on X number of games might prove laborious for the organizer to keep tabs on. Let alone explain it to the players involved. I doubt that the CFC would be interested in retaining players in unrated status (with hidden rating) until ... 20 or X number of games have been published.
The USCF has something interesting where... rating floors are in place. I don't know how the specifics work but I will make up some numbers to illustrate the point. For example... if a player ever goes over 2100 rating, they will have a 2000 floor rating. The floor rating means... no matter how much that player plays and loses in the future, his or her rating can never go below 2000 again, because he/she has been over 2100.
There are some flaws with this system as players can sell or throw points to lower players while always maintaining their safety net, and there's potential for inflation. It does prevent sandbagging though.
Apart from that... I suppose organizers can try advertise provisional parameters for eligibility prizes, but not sure how that would work or if it's worth it.
It's definitely worth checking a player's recent results and if something rings a bell, dig deeper. Again, this can translate into a lot of work. I've done it.
Alex F.
Rating floors are not a very good solution. Players do go down in strength as they age and forcing such players to play with a higher rating and in a higher class than their actual current strength is not a positive thing. As you note, it is also inflationary for the ratings system.
As you note, most events do not allow unrated players to win class prizes.
In general, I think the problem of sandbagging is overstated - something to be aware of the possibility but not overly concerned with over reacting to that possibility.
It is very easy to look for sandbagging. Just look at a player's last two tournaments if their rating drops before a major tournament then I would consider it sandbagging.
Can't argue with that.well maybe. If a player is trying a new style of play or taking a new spin on studying chess and playing you can expect growing rating pains. If you don't play a lot of tourneys like me it might make me look like a sandbagger. Mind you, I play so few tourneys anyhow I am not a lurking threat, ha ha. I wish I could find more time to play in more tourneys, sigh!
Last edited by Gordon Gooding; Thursday, 12th January, 2017, 10:28 PM.
Tweet
Comment