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.
CFC Handbook rule 418 clearly is in complete contradiction with FIDE rule 5.1. Irrespective of what I believe (which is that forfeits should NOT be rated), as an arbiter I must enforce FIDE rules first, if the tournament is FIDE-rated. There is no way to mark results as "Not to be rated with FIDE, lets rate it with CFC". It would have be done manually at CFC level.
Quite frankly, I don't understand why CFC doesn't follow FIDE rules when it comes to this, and in my opinion, it should. Forfeits should not be rated. It would be great to make this amendment in the CFC Handbook so that we're on par with FIDE.
Originally posted by Vlad Drkulec
Perhaps, but the opponent would be less likely to do this next time if he consistently lost rating points every time he did it.
It's not always the case, Vlad. I've come across cases in the past where a player, deciding to abandon the tournament by being out of the money, will gladly take an additional rating loss and perhaps be placed in a lower section in the future. Why should we help those occasional players? How can an arbiter make this distinction, without being subjective?
Yes - the lure of disproportionate class prizes - e.g. Varennes:
A: 2100 and +: 1st prize $ 3,000.00
B: -2100: 1st prize $ 1,400.00
C: -1800: 1st prize $ 1,300.00
D: -1500: 1st prize $ 1,200.00
E: -1200: 1st prize $ 1,000.00
Does a 1200 player deserve to win $1000, or a 1500 player $1200? Of course not - they should be winning trophies and gift certificates. That prize money should be added to additional Open section prizes. Let the lower classes work their way up to the cash prizes like in any other sport or activity. Chess is the only activity that rewards mediocrity - what incentive is there to improve?
Seems to me several people correctly think that you shouldn't be punishing bad behavior by compromising the rating system. Other sanctions should be enforced.
Last edited by Fred Harvey; Monday, 10th September, 2018, 04:41 PM.
Yes - the lure of disproportionate class prizes - e.g. Varennes:
A: 2100 and +: 1st prize $ 3,000.00
B: -2100: 1st prize $ 1,400.00
C: -1800: 1st prize $ 1,300.00
D: -1500: 1st prize $ 1,200.00
E: -1200: 1st prize $ 1,000.00
Does a 1200 player deserve to win $1000, or a 1500 player $1200? Of course not - they should be winning trophies and gift certificates. That prize money should be added to additional Open section prizes. Let the lower classes work their way up to the cash prizes like in any other sport or activity. Chess is the only activity that rewards mediocrity - what incentive is there to improve?
You have a very good point. There might be a 'lottery' effect here though: larger prizes attract more players in the sections thus providing more entry fees ... For many years the lotteries favored one ginormous prize (and ticket sales predictably went out of sight when the jackpot exceeded (say) $30million but now I see the lotteries are clawing away a small portion of mega prizes to award a number of 1million prizes.
I wonder how an IM or GM feels sharing 3-8 place in the Premier section and getting (say) $200 whereas the 'winner' of the under 1200 section walks out with a cool thousand? I noticed this huge discrepancy in the larger US Opens ... makes me wonder why titled players bash their brains out for paltry amounts while patzers rake in some real money.
Hi Hugh;
I do agree with you that lower section High Prizes promotes sandbagging.
But the one thing that the average player does not take into account is that organizers have to offer a reasonable prize fund to draw the lower players to help pay expenses. If you have no players at the lower end then you will not have prizes at all as expense could surpass income. I do agree that sometimes the lower group prizes are quite high. But until a standardized formula to pay out prizes is established, it is still up to the organizers to set their own prize structures.
If an organizer decided to make the lower prizes higher than the Elite prizes you'd see more lower rated players playing and Elite numbers would go down but the organizer would be happy as expenses were covered and they may even make money.
That is why Open tournaments with the top 20 winning the prizes are best and not biased. If you are in the top 20 you get a prize. Lower players will try to do better to get a shot at top 20 rather than saying oh I just need to lose 5 points and then I can win the lower rated prize.
As I said before - chess is the only activity that "rewards mediocrity". It would be like the US Open tennis organizers awarding Genie Bouchard a large sum of cash for being the "highest placing woman ranked 100th or below" - even though she was eliminated in the early stages.. Or in pro golf awarding cash to best scores by players with such and such handicaps (I don't know if pros even bother with "handicaps" - but just an example)- rather than by their real scores.
For a chess tournament - the prize fund can be augmented (and/or expenses reduced or eliminated) by sponsorship. For example - Varennes is guaranteeing $20k in prizes. There is no way they are going to collect that much in entry fees - the rest comes from sponsors.
Rule 418 no longer stands. Forfeits should be rated. The forfeiting player contracted to play the game. One of the things in play in the game is rating points. The forfeiting player lost the game; s/he should lose the rating points.
During Aurora Opens we had only several players with no-show and not telling in one way or other. I just looked at them - they did not play since then in any CFC tournaments.
I too waited for an opponent an hour who did not show up. Not the best hour in my life. FIDE introduced a zero time rule, though not very practical for Opens, we set a 30-min default time. Still it does not allow repairing but might allow a friendly game.
One of our announcements before rounds - in case you wanna leave for whatever reasons, tell us. Though the life might get in own way changing everything, and then a chess tournament is the least important thing at that moment.
If someone think there are players who no-shows often let me know.
Not-rating a such game is right from a chess point. Though making it a rated game also gives a waiting person at least a moral rating gain.
Making announcements and posting signs is great procedure.
As phone numbers are collected with entries, can't the td phone/text the no-show players 10-15 minutes after the round to find out whether the players are on their way? This would give time to pair the stranded players together, giving them their monies worth. Although against fide pairing rules?
Rule 418 no longer stands. Forfeits should be rated. The forfeiting player contracted to play the game. One of the things in play in the game is rating points. The forfeiting player lost the game; s/he should lose the rating points.
I am assuming you mean 418 stands. In any case... CFC Handbook is set up in contradiction with FIDE. Almost as if we don't want CFC rated games to also be FIDE-rated.
I would think that kind of decision almost deserves a no-show opponent. Really, there was no other reason for such a trip other than to play a bunch of Toronto patzers? You do realize that you can play chess against an AI opponent on your smartphone, and it will probably beat you, right? Well, if you wanted the "social interaction" of a real human opponent, I would think you could find one closer than 3000 km.
"Chess is the only activity that rewards mediocrity."
Somebody has never heard of the NFL or the NBA or Major League Baseball.
The "damage deposit" idea ($5) is the most realistic solution put forward, but it needs to be a bit more. The players who won't pay it and boycott the event are the very players who intended to be a no-show in the last round if they were out of the money.
The no-show game should not be rated. Although it was interesting to see somewhere in this thread that any game where each player has made 1 move can be rated. So a player can actually resign on their 2nd move and the game is rated? Gives sandbagging a whole new dimension.
This whole no-show problem is just another symptom of chess being so low on the totem pole.... the Cleveland Browns of the NFL were 0-15 last year and they didn't no-show their 16th and last game, and the reason for that is they would have been in a world of hurt if they did. That matters to them because getting to play in the NFL is highly desirable, and the reason for that is that suckers will pay top dollar to watch an 0-15 team play football. Why? Because it's a game of football.
Chess doesn't have that notion.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
The CFC has no agreement follow FIDE rating rules for CFC events. We own our own rating system and can do whatever we deem best.
Many events are dual rated and the CFC rules still apply to CFC events.
Many events are dual rated and the CFC rules still apply to CFC events.
For dual-rated events, the CFC rules would apply only when they do not contradict FIDE rules.
"A necessary condition for a game to be rated by FIDE is that it shall be played according to the FIDE Laws of Chess. It is recommended that competitive games not rated by FIDE be played according to the FIDE Laws of Chess."
Anything related to the rating system is not part of the Laws of Chess per se but, rather, of FIDE's General Rules and Recommendations for Tournaments and/or FIDE Rating Regulations. Thus, your last sentence above might be valid if it is understood in a limited scope of the rating system. However, I'd like to bring to our readers' attention the fact that your statement shall not be interpreted broadly. -
For any tournament (section) which is dual-rated (or triple-rated, like is routinely the case in Quebec), one of arbiter's responsibilities is to make sure that FIDE rules supersede those of the CFC and the FQE - otherwise, technically, games in that section won't be eligible to be FIDE-rated. :)
Tweet
Comment