CFC to launch new website

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Tony Li
    replied
    Originally posted by Don Parakin View Post
    Apologies for the delayed response; I was unexpectedly busy in August. Right now the same 20+ year old Ratings program is in use. It does its mysterious magic and saves the results in an ancient MS-Access database. I extract from that MS-Access to get a copy of the data for the website. Btw, why the website doesn't have tournaments before 2006 is because the MS-Access doesn't have tournaments before 2006. I'll have to recover that from the old (hideous) Drupal database (on my to-do list).

    Modernizing the Ratings program will likely start once the website is in a happy place. There's much to think about for that. Providing data for analyzing the ratings & trends should be in-scope. I'm not so sure about re-rating tournaments as we wouldn't want player's ratings to mysteriously change as we un-rate cheaters, for example, causing secondary, tertiary, etc effects.
    Thanks for your great work on the website. It's looking great!

    Maybe actually re-rating tournaments would be undesirable, but it would be a great for backtesting the current variation of the rating system vs other possibilities.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kerry Liles
    replied
    Originally posted by Don Parakin View Post
    If it was desirable (which I don't think it is), create a "checkpoint" that captures the ratings as of 6 months ago. As tournaments arrive, re-rate all tournaments after the checkpoint in end-date sequence. When the checkpoint starts getting old ~18 months, create another checkpoint as of 6 months ago.
    Agreed. I don't think it is practical to worry about this situation other than as an interesting puzzle. Checkpointing and reprocessing is clearly the way to go but there would potentially be a lot of explaining to do. I don't think Bob is interested in that sort of activity... :) Besides, now that tournaments can be and often are reported electronically there is less of a barrier to getting results in to the CFC office in a timely fashion - although Bob would certainly point out that a LOT of submissions still need work (by him) to be able to be fed into the rating 'system'.

    Leave a comment:


  • Don Parakin
    replied
    Originally posted by Kerry Liles View Post
    ... I wondered whether the rating system could essentially re-rate everything when a late arriving result arrives and is inserted in the correct spot?
    Current process is in sequence of when the tournament results arrive at the CFC, grouped into a weekly batch. Within the batch, tournaments are in end-date sequence. I think this is what we want. If we inserted late arriving tournaments into their end-date sequence, then players might see their ratings mysteriously change.

    Say there were tournaments T1, T2, T3 and T1 was reported well after T2, T3. After T2 is submitted, players get a new rating. Some of them play in T3 and all get new ratings after T3 is submitted. Now along comes T1. Someone who played in T3 and not T1 or T2 checks his rating before T1 arrives and then after T1 arrives and sees that his rating has changed because he played against someone who played in T2 and/or T1. And what if that newly calculated rating would've affected pairings or bumped him to a different section maybe disqualifying him from prizes. Of course, they would email Bob for a detailed explanation and a resolution. Poor Bob!


    Originally posted by Kerry Liles View Post
    As a programmer, I have had some long thought experiments with myself about ways to do this (database transaction timestamping and replay come readily to mind) but this is more of a whimsical concept I suspect.
    If it was desirable (which I don't think it is), create a "checkpoint" that captures the ratings as of 6 months ago. As tournaments arrive, re-rate all tournaments after the checkpoint in end-date sequence. When the checkpoint starts getting old ~18 months, create another checkpoint as of 6 months ago.
    Last edited by Don Parakin; Saturday, 5th September, 2020, 09:38 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Don Parakin
    replied
    Originally posted by Victor Itkine View Post
    ..., I was trying to get to CFC Handbook at chess.ca, but the site shows that the Handbook is under construction.
    I didn't know that old handbook was so popular :). I've added it here: www.chess.ca/en/cfc/rules/

    I've split the one web page from the old website into two documents: (1) the legally binding "continuance" from 2014 and (2) the no longer legally binding legacy "CFC Handbook". I still have some formatting work to do on the legacy handbook but all the words are there. I'd strongly recommend keeping the legal stuff separate from the operating procedures.

    I've converted it to Google Docs format as it will be easier for the volunteer editors to update (than a HTML file on the website).

    Leave a comment:


  • Kerry Liles
    replied
    Originally posted by Don Parakin View Post
    Apologies for the delayed response; I was unexpectedly busy in August. Right now the same 20+ year old Ratings program is in use. It does its mysterious magic and saves the results in an ancient MS-Access database. I extract from that MS-Access to get a copy of the data for the website. Btw, why the website doesn't have tournaments before 2006 is because the MS-Access doesn't have tournaments before 2006. I'll have to recover that from the old (hideous) Drupal database (on my to-do list).

    Modernizing the Ratings program will likely start once the website is in a happy place. There's much to think about for that. Providing data for analyzing the ratings & trends should be in-scope. I'm not so sure about re-rating tournaments as we wouldn't want player's ratings to mysteriously change as we un-rate cheaters, for example, causing secondary, tertiary, etc effects.
    Thanks for the update Don. And a big thank you for the work you are doing... it is a big effort indeed.

    I always wondered about how the CFC rating process worked; I have even quizzed Bob (Gillanders) about it.

    In particular what concerned me was rating events out of order. (I don't even worry here about club round-robins or swiss tournaments that last for weeks). Some results come in to the office and with or without editing, they are rated it seems once a week. Of course, there is always a chance a big even might miss the logical rating point and have to be rated later (say the following week or even later). This means that strictly speaking all of the inter-related ratings are not strictly processed in the correct sequence.

    Of course, one might argue that is the way it is and perhaps that is reasonable but I wondered whether the rating system could essentially re-rate everything when a late arriving result arrives and is inserted in the correct spot? As a programmer, I have had some long thought experiments with myself about ways to do this (database transaction timestamping and replay come readily to mind) but this is more of a whimsical concept I suspect.

    But, nevertheless, I applaud the job you are doing and this will result in a much more resilient CFC website - already HAS!

    Leave a comment:


  • Don Parakin
    replied
    Originally posted by Tony Li View Post
    Hi Don,
    How feasible is it to take regular snapshots of ratings to open up the possibility of re-rating tournaments after the fact e.g. backtesting ratings formulae, un-rating cheaters' games?
    Apologies for the delayed response; I was unexpectedly busy in August. Right now the same 20+ year old Ratings program is in use. It does its mysterious magic and saves the results in an ancient MS-Access database. I extract from that MS-Access to get a copy of the data for the website. Btw, why the website doesn't have tournaments before 2006 is because the MS-Access doesn't have tournaments before 2006. I'll have to recover that from the old (hideous) Drupal database (on my to-do list).

    Modernizing the Ratings program will likely start once the website is in a happy place. There's much to think about for that. Providing data for analyzing the ratings & trends should be in-scope. I'm not so sure about re-rating tournaments as we wouldn't want player's ratings to mysteriously change as we un-rate cheaters, for example, causing secondary, tertiary, etc effects.

    Leave a comment:


  • Don Parakin
    replied
    Originally posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post
    Several more comments:
    The player's rating webpage seems that is not generated a webpage with own link, doesn't it? Can you tell how it would be possible to create a link having only a player's ID?
    Also letting to open the tournament page from the player's page to a new tab.
    Also enabling the mouse "back" function.
    Apologies for the delayed response; I was unexpectedly busy in August. A new version is coming in a week or two. First version was quick & dirty based on tdlist.txt. Current version was less dirty using data from the Ratings program but focused more on back-end & data issues than user interface. Next version will focus more on user interface. We're getting there :)

    Leave a comment:


  • Tony Li
    replied
    Hi Don,

    How feasible is it to take regular snapshots of ratings to open up the possibility of re-rating tournaments after the fact e.g. backtesting ratings formulae, un-rating cheaters' games?

    Leave a comment:


  • Vlad Drkulec
    replied
    I wouldn't say it has legal standing. The board has a wide latitude to set policy for the corporation. As long as I am president, it has the legal standing that I promised to follow the provisions as much as possible until we start creating a new handbook. Once we adopt a more transparent handbook, the old handbook will remain as an historical document. The problem with the handbook is revealed in the case of the Ethics Committee which was passed in 2005 and never implemented. This came up in the campaign when I was attacked for not embracing the idea of an Ethics committee. The rule as written appears to me to be problematic as it seems that it gives people the opportunity to "Cancel" other people. I was originally reluctant to even add a discipline provision to the bylaw though the governors thought differently. I don't want to rehash the campaign issues but I found ridiculous the assertion that I was somehow blocking an Ethics committee when no one had brought it up in the nine years that I have been involved in the CFC as a governor, masters rep or president. A president is only one vote on the executive and sometimes two votes in the case of a tie and one vote as a voting member and sometimes two votes in the case of a tied vote.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob Armstrong
    replied
    Vlad - quite clear - thanks -

    So the current CFC Handbook/Policies still has some legal standing in so far as it has been affirmed by the Executive as such (so long as a policy in it is consistent with the NFP Act, and the CFC Constitution and By-law).

    And a lot of it is being revised at the moment by volunteers dealing with different sections, and these will be being brought to a vote over the next few Voting Members Meetings.

    Congratulations on keeping the bureaucratic side crawling forward!

    Bob A

    Leave a comment:


  • Vlad Drkulec
    replied
    The CFC handbook is still our policy to the extent possible and consistent with the NFP act because at the time of the transition we promised to continue with the handbook. The handbook is no longer our bylaw. A new executive would not necessarily be bound by the promise of an old executive. It was simply not possible at the time to bring the entire handbook up to NFP compliance in the few months that were left. There is now a number of people who have taken responsibility for a number of sections of the handbook and new volunteers so I think that we will be bringing sections of the handbook up for a vote at every meeting this year. They will become CFC policies.

    Bylaws deal with governance and also must be consistent with the NFP act. I don't think we need to change the bylaws or constitution unless we intend to restructure the CFC in some way (ie allowing corporate memberships or having direct voting by all members).

    When we change our bylaws, or constitution there is a fee payable to the government. There is no fee payable nor notice required for changing policies. We do have to make sure that any policies are consistent with the provisions of the NFP act.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob Armstrong
    replied
    Question: What is the current legal status of what is now "The CFC Handbook"?

    I understood that when CFC went not-for-profit, the handbook lost all legal standing, and needed to be converted into a "by-law" to have any legal force and effect.

    In my view, at the time, it was simply a resting place of some good, old CFC ideas, which could be valuable in drafting and passing a new "CFC Policies Handbook" as a by-law.

    Am I still correct in the above view?

    Bob A (Past Voting Member/Governor)

    Leave a comment:


  • Vlad Drkulec
    replied
    http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/sh...4989#post34989

    The handbook and documents from the Continuation are listed on the above thread. You might be able to get it from the link below which is a copy and paste from the CFC forum post.

    http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/at...8&d=1598595931
    Last edited by Vlad Drkulec; Friday, 28th August, 2020, 02:34 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Victor Itkine
    replied
    In order to prepare a draft motion, I was trying to get to CFC Handbook at chess.ca, but the site shows that the Handbook is under construction.

    Leave a comment:


  • Egidijus Zeromskis
    replied
    Several more comments:

    The player's rating webpage seems that is not generated a webpage with own link, doesn't it? Can you tell how it would be possible to create a link having only a player's ID?
    Also letting to open the tournament page from the player's page to a new tab.
    Also enabling the mouse "back" function.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X