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 wondering if blitz (somewhere around 5+0) time controls are can be used for CFC active ratings?
Also, would rating a blitz tournament CFC be economical when considering CFC dues, membership, etc.? - or would have a blitz tournament CFC rated generate a larger player base? I know that under normal circumstances it would however I heard that there was some controversy over active ratings and their accuracy/reputability.
This has been one of my pet peeves for a few years. This year I'm going to try to drum up support for including Blitz time controls into Active ratings, and maybe drop the cost a bit also.
Hi guys, I believe that Active has to be at least 15 minutes (Regular at least an hour).
I'm not sure about folding blitz results into an Active rating. There seems to me to be a risk in that the people who care the most about their Active rating would be offended at it being diluted by blitz ratings, more than blitz players would care about an official blitz rating. However, we should survey that, and I could be completely wrong on this one! ;)
I would rather see Active somehow folded into Regular (with a lower weighting). The following might seem totally blasphemous to some, but as long as it was thought out intelligently, I would not oppose a single "regular" (i.e. no random, Siamese, etc.) chess rating, with ranges of time controls being weighed differently. For example, just as faster games would have less weighting, then longer games from say, a Canadian Open, would have more weighting than usual. If I may suggest, the 1.0 factor line would be the FIDE minimum time control, which I believe is still "90 mins + 30 secs move increment"
Personally speaking... I would likely never play a rated active game again if it might affect my real rating. Maybe that's just petty, but I also doubt I'm the only one who feels like that.
IMHO, the CFC should have four rating categories: Regular, Active, Blitz, Youth.
Regular is as we know it. I don't know exactly where to set the fee but it would be higher than for the other ratings.
Active:G/10 up to G/60
Blitz being up to G/10
Youth rating for up to G/45 for kids U18.
Youth is a whole different kettle of fish than what the CFC is used to but the CFC needs start fishing in this kettle. They probably don't need to do much more than to just put some ego aside and find *some*way to make peace with CMA.
I would place a restriction on the Blitz rating that the results*must* be electronically submitted.
This may leave the Active rating sort of forlorn but I dunno. I think maybe you do the same thing as with Blitz: lower rating fee than regular fee, but everything must be electronically submitted.
This setup means that there's a "real" rating, and a bunch of other "lesser" ratings. It allows high school clubs to become part of a national rating system, keeps the entry level cost to the system low (in the youth, blitz, and active categories), and creates a rating category (Blitz) that many people seem to want. And eventually either the Active rating category achieves some relevance, or it dies on the vine.
I was thinking along the lines of what you said, except the three extra categories are all combined into "Active" ... with fees something like $1 per player ($5 for manual submission)
I was thinking along the lines of what you said, except the three extra categories are all combined into "Active" ... with fees something like $1 per player ($5 for manual submission)
This is an aside, but I have to admit that I still bristle at how your post echoes the previous CFC administrations attempts to paint electronic submission as so much better than manual submission, such that more money, much more money, should be charged for the latter. Heck, your last post suggests a 500% difference. However, in my humble opinion, emailing text files in specific formats is not electronic submission to be proud of. I still maintain what I explained directly to David by phone at the beginning of his CFC presidency: the blessed Organizer/TD would be one who could do what has been done with Chess&Math for years now. You go to a webpage, and either upload structured text files (SwissSys), or enter the results into a web interface, which easily builds the data files for the rating engine. Total flexibility and accuracy for less than 50 cents !!
Anyway, I'll keep sending the text files to save prize money for my participants, but I humbly suggest that rather than emphasizing the crushing of manual submission, why doesn't the new CFC administration look into getting this right once and for all? I mean, how difficult could it be to rent or emulate Larry's Chess&Math rating submission? Or if not that, then ICC, etc. P.S. Please don't take this post personally, not meant that way.
It wouldn't be hard at all to get a web application made where you enter the results and it saves it on the CFC end. Basically a web version of Swiss Assistant. Maybe the new administration can do that. My website proposals have for whatever reason never gotten funded, if they had we'd already have a nice new website with completely automated ratings. At this point I'm going to more or less just wait and see what Eric and EKG does or doesn't do with the site because I'm kinda sick of coming up with proposals myself.
Also the point of my cost proposal wasn't an increase in manual fees ( they would remain at $5 ) but a decrease in the automated fees.
Wasn't there an officially rated "blitz rating" tournament implemented a few years back in one of the main Canadian tournament side events in Kitchener? Toronto also seems to run their own listing, & for some other programmer with a bit of time on their hands it shouldn't be too hard to add in an extra column. The idea of using a youth rating would also be very useful for youths who play a couple of grades, take up a different sport for a couple of years, & come back in grade 11 or 12 shortly out of high school & in to the University & onwards regular ratings scene. It could make for a good R(provisional) estimator, based age, activity, & an accelerating rating (they say the average adult performs at ~1600, but the youth pool forever populates the remaining low-rated shark-tank with ill-estimated rating from 5 years back of ~500 provisional). It's one of the current major harms of sectional to not have a separate section for strictly unrateds / youths / provisionals when others with real ratings are playing for prizes - & not a family outing day.
The thing really is that the youth in general don't WANT to have a separate rating - they might as well play CMA games. If it's going to be a CFC rated youth event, then it should BE a CFC rating.
It wouldn't be hard at all to get a web application made where you enter the results and it saves it on the CFC end. Basically a web version of Swiss Assistant. Maybe the new administration can do that. My website proposals have for whatever reason never gotten funded, if they had we'd already have a nice new website with completely automated ratings. At this point I'm going to more or less just wait and see what Eric and EKG does or doesn't do with the site because I'm kinda sick of coming up with proposals myself.
Also the point of my cost proposal wasn't an increase in manual fees ( they would remain at $5 ) but a decrease in the automated fees.
Thanks Chris, it seems we have similar views on automated web ratings. Even though I am not young, and don't program http all that well, I do admire the potential power! :)
There are several reasons to have a separate youth rating based upon what has been happening for several years. These are:
a) many "youth only" events are submitted and rated as regular; many of these events involve first-time players; a good example of this is the Ontario High School Championship; the initial ratings given out in these events is a crapshoot in many cases
b) there are a huge number of G/30 youth-only events that get rated as regular (Chess Academy events for example); IMHO they shouldn't be
c) as Kai points out there are problems when a kid "drops out" for a few years then comes back on-stream
Obviously any event which is a mix of adults and kids should be rated Regular (or Active is that's what the time control dictates).
And I also don't see much point in both the CFC and Chess 'n Math maintaining separate youth rating systems, which is why I think the two organizations need to co-operate. I just think the CFC needs to stop rating youth-only events, particularly those with short time controls as Regular. And I think the CFC should be a common access point for all ratings in Canada regardless of whether it is CMA or the CFC that maintains the youth ratings.
A fourth problem related to this has to do with provisional ratings. It's not uncommon for a youth player to play in only one CFC event per year (the Ontario High School Championship mentioned above for example). This can create a situation where after 3 or even 4 years a player still only has a provisional rating that is based on games that are ancient in chess terms. Given that youth improve much more rapidly than adults, this becomes a problem as soon as they enter a real tournament or club play with adults, when they are playing at a performance level hundreds of points above their "rating".
I think that for purposes of calculating a provisional rating, older results should be stale-dated and discarded. This would only affect relatively inactive players. I don't see rating deflation coming from youth who are active in adult events because the bonus point system should conteract any deflation.
Steve
P.S. I realize that a youth rating creates some additional problems for events such as the CYCC where because of its nature it would problably be desirable (at least at the upper age categories) to rate it regular given that most of the participants will have "real" ratings and it does mix players from across regions to allow for some decent cross-pollenization.
Tweet
Comment