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 was looking back at some of my older tournaments to see if some of the players are still active.
I noticed (in my case) that U1000 players did not appear until 2005.
How did it happen that U1000 players started increasing after that year?
When I was unrated I was allowed to play only in the U1400 or the Open. Once I got a rating I was also not allowed to move up till my rating went over the section I played in before.
I see now that with the playing up payments players can jump up into a section that maybe they do not even Qualify to be in based on their rating.
Why do organizers allow this?
Are you being serious with this inquiry? Did the advent of Computers,Internet,Chess engines,Chess Boom in Indian and China pass you by?
Why would organizers pass up a revenue stream? Times are changing and sometimes really fast.
I rarely post on here other then results from SCC but your ignorance shocked me into replying.
Perhaps, I might be missing some other elements that caused the boom of the U1000 and U900.
Anyone else want to elaborate to shed some light or heat on this?
Omar
Last edited by Omar Shah; Wednesday, 13th September, 2017, 10:56 AM.
Isn't that due to the large influx of kids who all start with very low ratings?
Regarding jumping sections, I agree it's sometimes a problem. A player, especially a young one, should be allowed to jump up from time to time, just for the challenge. Problem is: it seems they're all doing it and even more. Sometimes we see guys rated in the 1500s or 1600s playing in the open, even though there's a -2000 section and a -1700 section.
But some organizers are now adressing this issue.
Last edited by Mathieu Cloutier; Wednesday, 13th September, 2017, 02:10 PM.
In most cases jumping happen within 100 points of the section limit.
While there are titles and classes for rating ranges; I puzzled what lets say 1000 means in chess knowledge - openings, middle, endings. Now go down to 400 and 200 (the CFC rating floor) with the same question of the chess knowledge. What kind of the exam would be needed to pass certain rating levels.
I was looking back at some of my older tournaments to see if some of the players are still active.
I noticed (in my case) that U1000 players did not appear until 2005.
How did it happen that U1000 players started increasing after that year?
When I was unrated I was allowed to play only in the U1400 or the Open. Once I got a rating I was also not allowed to move up till my rating went over the section I played in before.
I see now that with the playing up payments players can jump up into a section that maybe they do not even Qualify to be in based on their rating.
Why do organizers allow this?
a) it actually started earlier around 2001-2002 basically due to the onset of scholastic chess. see:
b) apparently your tournament experience is different from mine. My personal experience is that players were allowed to play in any section at their or higher rating. It was common to see 1200 players and lower in the top section. That organizers limit playing up a section nowadays and charge a fee is an attempt to reduce some of the absurbities of excessively optimistic players.
c) It is quite difficult to enforce a hard rating limit on sections. Players will complain and argue. Someone whose strength is on the rating boundary goes up or down by a few points from tournament to tournament gets whipsawed. Having a playup range of say 200 points allows the organizer to say "no, your 1799 rating is not close to the over 2000 section." and the whipsawing does not need to occur.
d) as someone else noted, play up fees form a surprisingly large portion of the budget. Although, at least for Victoria Chess, that is not why we have them. They are primarily meant as a means to encourage people to play in their section.
In most cases jumping happen within 100 points of the section limit.
While there are titles and classes for rating ranges; I puzzled what lets say 1000 means in chess knowledge - openings, middle, endings. Now go down to 400 and 200 (the CFC rating floor) with the same question of the chess knowledge. What kind of the exam would be needed to pass certain rating levels.
Yeah, I find it hard to imagine what it is a kid with a 500 rating knows. At one point I did a graph of results by rating. The percentage of draws goes down for lower rating level but bottoms out at around 800 and then starts to increase. From that I infer two things:
1) probably below 800, players knowledge of how to do basic mates is shaky.
2) The ratings of 800 and lower do measure something real about chess ability or there wouldn't be a variation by rating strength of draw percentage.
CFC ratings did not always go as low as they do now and that only changed when the CFC wanted to get into the scholastic space. I received a call from Troy Vail, CFC Executive Director at the time, asking questions on how Chess'n Math (CMA) was doing things. The CFC changed their rating system to accomodate youngsters. CMA has never charged membership and has always provided low rating fees. The CFC decided to follow suite for scholastic events in order to compete...as did the FQE.
The Chess'n Math Association does not make money with rating scholastic events.
Yeah, I find it hard to imagine what it is a kid with a 500 rating knows. At one point I did a graph of results by rating. The percentage of draws goes down for lower rating level but bottoms out at around 800 and then starts to increase. From that I infer two things:
1) probably below 800, players knowledge of how to do basic mates is shaky.
2) The ratings of 800 and lower do measure something real about chess ability or there wouldn't be a variation by rating strength of draw percentage.
(data is from about 2011)[/IMG]
Roger, I find your analysis fascinating.
As Larry has already explained, it is the advent of scholastic chess and a healthy competition :) with the CMA ratings that led to an influx of lower-rated player in the CFC system.
Would it be possible for you to use your model in order to analyze games rated by the CMA in a given year? The CMA ratings presently go from 200 all the way to 2461, with a majority in a lower band. I'd venture to say that the number of CMA-rated games involving players below 1000 in any period would be at least an order of magnitude greater than a number of similar CFC-rated games. How much work would it be for you?
The easiest way to access the CMA tournament data in English is via this link.
Some questions would merit some evaluation...
Are the ratings deflated? -- I don't necessarily sense that. If a 1200 rated player regularly beats a 800 player, it seems normal.
Do these ratings exist in abundance now, because players who are truly beginners are now in the tournament scene? -- Perhaps beginners / small children would not play in tournaments, 10-20 years ago and now they do. Nothing wrong with that.
Until 10-20 years ago, defining a U1200 rating / playing strength was somewhat difficult and unclear, and a vast grey zone. But if these levels of play exist, it's only natural that there is a trickling effect. I don't see that this is necessarily deflating the whole pool. Far from it. The current bonus points systems combat this rather well. Then again, if you go further back, FIDE wouldn't even publish your rating if it wasn't a master level rating, not that long ago.
Also, ratings are simply a measure in relation to the competition. I see a lot of active (adult) players 1000 and up who more or less maintain their ratings.
The one thing I agree with this argument is... perhaps organizers are not adapting fast enough. As rating levels reach lower in the rating scale, while some organizers adapt quite quickly and create the U1300 or U1000 section, others are lagging behind. 10 years ago (maybe even 5) an U1300 section would be unheard of, nevermind a U1000 section. But why not? If the players' pool exist, we should evolve with it.
At Hart House we've definitely lagged behind a bit, only very recently creating a U1300 section. But it seems an additional U1000 may be in order. Different organizers deal differently with the "playing up option". At Hart House, we've maintained a section gap of 300 points, with possibility of playing up within 100 points of the section's floor. That allows for a maximum 400 point range (excluding top and bottom sections), which works perfectly within the rating system CFC uses. Players within 400 points of each other are expected to, if ratings serve justice, play competitive games within players of said range. Differentials above 400 points are expected to be completely one-sided. Needless to say, size of sections / number of players / approaches by different organizers make it possible or impossible to have such breaks in class-sections.
As for those who lose with any regularity to players 400+ points lower rated than themselves, I lack the sympathy. They should be rated lower than they are.
Are you being serious with this inquiry? Did the advent of Computers,Internet,Chess engines,Chess Boom in Indian and China pass you by?
Why would organizers pass up a revenue stream? Times are changing and sometimes really fast.
I rarely post on here other then results from SCC but your ignorance shocked me into replying.
Perhaps, I might be missing some other elements that caused the boom of the U1000 and U900.
Anyone else want to elaborate to shed some light or heat on this?
Omar
Hi Omar
You have opened a Can A worms with your post.
I'm ticked off with the CFC rating players less than 1000 points and yes this is true. The CFC should not allow players less than 1000 points playing in established CFC Adult mixed tournaments . The older established players are insulted degraded and personally abused by this lower rated system. I looked back and 50% of my early players are no longer playing.
I'm willing to protest I told Alex I'll not playing in Hart House tourneys because he lets under rated move up Miguire students are an example . That is my statement and Ill stick by it. The CFC rates players Too low and I 'm personally not happy. The CfC Rates players too low and then they improve and take all our rating points . If I had not become a life member I'd never play chess again. The system sucks the pre rating sucks and the chess and math ratings sucks. Yes Larry you created a monster and now it is the works. Ban me from this site if you want but I won't sit back.
Last edited by John Brown; Thursday, 14th September, 2017, 10:54 PM.
Reason: corrections
I think that everyone deserve there opinions but in the long term chess will dissolve and all your opinions will dissolve as well. You all created the problem . I do not like the results. I think the rating system is tainted. And will never be corrected until the cfc dies.
As Larry has already explained, it is the advent of scholastic chess and a healthy competition :) with the CMA ratings that led to an influx of lower-rated player in the CFC system.
Would it be possible for you to use your model in order to analyze games rated by the CMA in a given year? The CMA ratings presently go from 200 all the way to 2461, with a majority in a lower band. I'd venture to say that the number of CMA-rated games involving players below 1000 in any period would be at least an order of magnitude greater than a number of similar CFC-rated games. How much work would it be for you?
The easiest way to access the CMA tournament data in English is via this link.
Thanks in advance.
the link is fine and well but it's not direct access to a database so no. Plus I don't have the same interest in the CMA rating system.
The CFC rates players Too low and I 'm personally Pissed off. The CfC Rates players too low and then they improve and take all our rating points . If I had not become a life member I'd never play chess again. The system sucks the pre rating sucks and the chess and math ratings sucks.
You are right John, ratings suck and they will generally always suck. I think this blog explains the issue well (https://www.chess.com/article/view/d...-your-rating): ratings are just a shadow of your playing ability. There aren't enough data points for CFC players if they play 10 and under rated games per year. More data points is the only way to make the system better. I guess one solution would be increasing provisional K values and increasing the threshold for who is considered to have a provisional rating (ie based on games per year). Another solution may be to combine active ratings and just reduce the K value of fast time control games. Another would be to promote weekly rated games at chess clubs.
I think overall you can never be happy with your rating, just like you can never be satisfied with your playing ability. At the end of the day, hopefully the tournaments can provide you challenging and entertaining chess. If you are sandbagging U1000's because they are allowed to play up then that's not good. But if the players beat you then they deserve those "stolen" rating points so they aren't destroying "equally" rated opponents.
FWIW, I remember a lot of my friends having CFC ratings under 1000 in the late 1970s.
In addition to juniors I've also noticed that seniors can play way above their current rating. They perform like a 1200 for a couple of rounds, but when paired with me, boom, they suddenly remember how they played when they were experts decades ago. I know I've seen you perform way above your rating in some games the last few years.
Seems to me that what you really don't like is playing young kids. Understandable. Ratings less than 1000 aren't the real gripe. Have you got some friends nearby to play weekend round robins with? So you can play chess and drink a lot of beer at the same time?
Comment