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 have also always assumed US ratings to be higher. Goichberg tournaments (Continental Chess Association) tournaments traditionally added 100 points to FQE and FIDE ratings (and some number to CFC ratings), but they now have a foreign rating conversion web page at http://www.chesstour.com/foreignratings.htm
FIDE ratings now have a minimum of 50 points added - with more added the lower the rating. FQE ratings have a similar sliding scale. CFC ratings are taken at par.
Maybe the CFC should look at these tables - possibly an item to be brought up at the AGM, or some work for the Rating Auditor?
My ratings:
USCF: 2030
CFC: 1851
FQE: 1859
FIDE: 1909
Hugh,
You, like many other players from QC, have relatively low CFC rating and relatively high FIDE rating. Many players from Ontario have CFC rating 150 points or even 200 points higher than FIDE one. My CFC rating is usually around 2400 and FIDE around 2250-2280. Average gap for Ontario players is more than 130 points.
In my opinion, average:
CFC = FIDE + 130
CFC = USCF + 70
USCF = FIDE + 60
CFC = FQE + 70.
About your example with USA organizers. They want to reduce chances of foreign players to win class prize. Very simple. Canadian organizers should do exactly the same.
Last edited by Victor Plotkin; Wednesday, 9th August, 2017, 11:31 PM.
Joining the conversation late, as I was off the grid for a few days, but I don't think anyone mentioned using the India rating. Couldn't that be the most relevant one?!
Joining the conversation late, as I was off the grid for a few days, but I don't think anyone mentioned using the India rating. Couldn't that be the most relevant one?!
Several posters said DO NOT use the Indian rating (my emphasis, not theirs; but the impression is that the Indian ratings are just out of the question).
In any case, in the example that Larry quoted there is no information about how recent the game(s) were for each rating and how many games were rated using a given system within (say) the last 2 years. All of those factors are crucial in my opinion. A 5 year old CFC rating from a one time appearance in the Canadian Open for example is pretty much worthless for estimating current strength (unless that person won the Canadian Open etc - haha)
How often do you play in the US? My CFC rating is USCF +100, and my FIDE is USCF - 80. I think Victor is basically accurate. (although Im an old guy and fast losing all my points)
How often do you play in the US? My CFC rating is USCF +100, and my FIDE is USCF - 80. I think Victor is basically accurate. (although Im an old guy and fast losing all my points)
I thought it was pretty much agreed that USCF ratings are higher than CFC or FIDE. Just look at the USCF top ratings:
Several posters said DO NOT use the Indian rating (my emphasis, not theirs; but the impression is that the Indian ratings are just out of the question).
In any case, in the example that Larry quoted there is no information about how recent the game(s) were for each rating and how many games were rated using a given system within (say) the last 2 years. All of those factors are crucial in my opinion. A 5 year old CFC rating from a one time appearance in the Canadian Open for example is pretty much worthless for estimating current strength (unless that person won the Canadian Open etc - haha)
Hi Kerry, I don't disagree with anything you say. Over the years, I've gotten into the habit for foreign players with no/low CFC rating to check their country of origin and FIDE. Basically, I'm just looking for way higher numbers, which could imply an attempt to sandbag at their first significant CFC tournament. I've only caught this ruse once though.
Back to Kerry's post, I do agree, most of the weight SHOULD be given to the most recent performance evaluations, but I don't know how to always be sure that's done right.
I was referring to not just your post, Mathieu. Fwiw, I don't know if anyone (including a rating auditor) has done such a study as you suggest. A good sample size might be N=100 (or even N=36, in case of a basic Chi-Square analysis, if that's appropriate[?] - been a long time since I've done any stats calculating), where the individuals that are on all of the rating lists are taken more or less equally from the top, middle, and bottom sections of a given rating list.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
I was referring to not just your post, Mathieu. Fwiw, I don't know if anyone (including a rating auditor) has done such a study as you suggest. A good sample size might be N=100 (or even N=36, in case of a basic Chi-Square analysis, if that's appropriate[?] - been a long time since I've done any stats calculating), where the individuals that are on all of the rating lists are taken more or less equally from the top, middle, and bottom sections of a given rating list.
I don't know either, but I'm pretty sure that USCF ratings are higher than CFC ratings.
Thanks Tom. So, quoting almost verbatim from page 7:
If an unrated player has a FIDE rating, use a converted rating according to the following
formula:
USrating =
(
180 + 0.94 x FIDE if FIDE <= 2000
20 + 1.02 x FIDE if FIDE > 2000)
If an unrated player has a CFC rating, use a converted rating according to the following
formula:
USrating =
(
CFC - 90 if CFC <= 1500
1:1 x CFC - 240 if CFC > 1500)
Just looking casually, it appears my rating (approx. 2200 regular CFC) would be about the same if converted to a USCF one.
[edit: I forgot I might have an old USCF rating that's still considered valid. I played for U of T's 'B' team in a Pan-Am event that was circa 1981.]
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Thursday, 10th August, 2017, 02:35 PM.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Tweet
Comment