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!)
CFC Rating Question - Winning tournament and losing rating points.
CFC Rating Question - Winning tournament and losing rating points.
It used to be in the old days, that if you came clear first in a tournament, you could not lose rating points. Has this rule been changed? I have come clear first in 3 tournaments in Alberta and lost rating points.
Also my FIDE rating seems to have gone to 0 on the CFC website. Has this happened to anyone else? Just curious.
Yes, it changed years ago; well over a decade if I recall. I think it was to stop the "easy" points from being accumulated in dribs'n'drabs by players playing in much weaker events to pad their rating. I'm not sure if there is now a certain %/perf threshold needed NOT to lose points for a clear 1st finish.
It used to be in the old days, that if you came clear first in a tournament, you could not lose rating points. Has this rule been changed? I have come clear first in 3 tournaments in Alberta and lost rating points.
Also my FIDE rating seems to have gone to 0 on the CFC website. Has this happened to anyone else? Just curious.
Sam says the rule changed, but I am not so sure. I thought it was still in effect. If anyone can direct me to the original rule or it's cancellation, I will look at it and adjust rating if appropriate.
The FIDE rating field in CFC database is no longer being updated. All FIDE ratings set to zero recently.
Too much effort to keep this field updated compared to simply directing you to the FIDE site.
Sam says the rule changed, but I am not so sure. I thought it was still in effect. If anyone can direct me to the original rule or it's cancellation, I will look at it and adjust rating if appropriate.
The FIDE rating field in CFC database is no longer being updated. All FIDE ratings set to zero recently.
Too much effort to keep this field updated compared to simply directing you to the FIDE site.
Or, perhaps the CFC Rating Auditor can comment or confirm?
It used to be in the old days, that if you came clear first in a tournament, you could not lose rating points. Has this rule been changed? I have come clear first in 3 tournaments in Alberta and lost rating points.
Also my FIDE rating seems to have gone to 0 on the CFC website. Has this happened to anyone else? Just curious.
Yes, this "bonus" point rule was removed. Also removed was the rule that added points for 1st place finish.
Rating gain or loss now has correspondence to placement in an event - only the results of the individual games.
The rating system sucks. It helps underrated juniors get points and decimate established rated players. It will never be fixed at the lower end at the upper end it changes little. The whole system is out dated and needs a complete overhaul if you want memberships to increase. All I see is the guys that played during my early years have either given up playing under rated players or just simply quit.
Personally, I like that you can win a tournament and lose rating points. I was just curious. I remember in Lethbridge last year when I had the tournament wrapped up, my opponent offered a quick draw in the last round, but I had to tell him no, since I would lose too many rating points. It is probably also fairer to the players who are trying to catch him.
Underrated juniors always means deflation. That is why bonus points are sometimes infused into the system. CFC ratings and FIDE ratings seem closely aligned, so can't be a big problem. Saying the rating system sucks might be oversimplifying it, since Professor Elo put a lot of work behind getting the formula right. I am pretty sure it results in a bell curve, but if as John suggests, we have a lot of underrated juniors, then there will be deflation, which has to be addressed. Perhaps, Fred can comment.
Thank you Fred and Bob for your answers and clearing up the matter. Also, good idea not updating FIDE ratings on CFC site, since they can easily be found on FIDE website.
Sam says the rule changed, but I am not so sure. I thought it was still in effect. If anyone can direct me to the original rule or it's cancellation, I will look at it and adjust rating if appropriate.
Interestingly enough, I recently lost rating points while still winning the tournament (clear first by 1.5 points see http://chess.ca/crosstable?tournamen...059&key=170707). My rating went down only 11 points, however it shows it does occur.
I have been rating auditor for 6 years. There has not been any inflation or deflation during those years.
Somewhere on the CFC website you can find my quarterly reports filed with the governors' meetings.
John has often told me that all his friends are quitting chess because they don't like losing to kids. They are playing chess for the wrong reasons.
Well said Paul, although I understand losing rating points does hurt the ego, but not enough to quit the game. I am pretty sure that as well as maybe not being as sharp and knowing openings when you are young, that the general population has definitely got better. I used to not like to lose to 'kids', but it actually hurts more now to lose to someone my age or older. lol.
Glad to hear our rating system works. The USCF was always trying to tweak their system and they ended up getting an inflated system - not good for big class prize tournaments.
One of the main reasons older players lose to kids is that the kids are working on their chess and the adults due to family responsibilities or other influences don't have as much time to spend on studying chess. I find when I spend some time studying chess the payoff is almost always immediate. Spending three hours refreshing your openings or even just studying the games of one of the top players who plays similar openings to what you play usually results in wins that can be traced back to something you learned from that study.
Kids have energy and kids have time to study. They also often have coaches which means that they systematically study chess. You want to reverse the trend of losing to "underrated" kids? Spend some time studying chess. Learn from every loss.
I'm not against losing to juniors as they are sharper than us now.
What I'm against is losing to underrated juniors those with a 900 or less rating. Sure deduct my 16 points for losing to them and give the increase rating by your ratio calculator to them so their ratings go up (call it their bonus points for winning)but don't take the additional points from me. That is why my older friends are quitting. They don't see the use in playing in tournaments against these underrated juniors if they get their ratings decimated.
In my opinion That is where the system fails.
You would get more players out if you only changed the lower players drastically when they win games and let the players with established ratings keep a little dignity. The older players will retire on their own once they see they can no longer maintain an established rating. But take all those points away in lets say three tournaments then sure they are going to stop coming to tournaments where there are underrated players.
Numbers for most tournaments are down yet we have an increasing number of juniors playing. So if you had old and new together your numbers would improve.
But the way the system works you kill the old so they won't come out and the new are not playing regularly enough to allow organizers to run big events like the Toronto Labour Day Open, Toronto Open and Thanksgiving Open. I used to look forward to the Labour Day Open to meet old friends and compete with the new guys on the block but in the later Labour Days I saw very few of the old guard coming out from the past. So I started asking around and it is mainly because the rating system decimates the ratings when you lose to too many underrated players.
Last edited by John Brown; Saturday, 8th July, 2017, 07:08 AM.
Reason: corrections/additions
I thought the k factor was recently changed for juniors?
I recently played 2 juniors rated 1500 who played like 1500!! Shocking. I'm used to losing to 1660 juniors who play like 2000.
It's not a factor of my openings or studying games. I lose because of missing squares, liking double-edged positions, lack of clarity, with anxiety about time and being worn out as contributing factors. I think some of my errors are different than when I blundered when I was younger.
I'm not against losing to juniors as they are sharper than us now.
That is why my older friends are quitting.
But the way the system works you kill the old so they won't come out and the new are not playing regularly enough to allow organizers to run big events like the Toronto Labour Day Open, Toronto Open and Thanksgiving Open. I used to look forward to the Labour Day Open to meet old friends and compete with the new guys on the block but in the later Labour Days I saw very few of the old guard coming out from the past. So I started asking around and it is mainly because the rating system decimates the ratings when you lose to too many underrated players.
The coached kids play solidly (not brilliantly), one can't just count on a blunder but need a winning plan.
Maybe the ratings need a reduced k factor for established seniors (over 50) playing rising juniors.
Tweet
Comment