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.
15. Have fun!
(Thanks to Nigel Hanrahan for writing these up!)
Invalid Results - Section E - Canadian/Quebec Open
Re: Invalid Results - Section E - Canadian/Quebec Open
I also noticed that a boy playing in Section E as unrated in fact has a FQE rating of ~1375. Although he should play in this section, the parents should tell the truth.
Charles is entirely correct.
(...)
I will now add more to the controversy about the final results;
Prior to my game with the Scottish player (round 6), I became quite ill, but played through the round in any event. After the game, I advised the arbiter that if my condition did not improve prior to round 7, I would have to withdraw from the tournament (at this point I had a score of 4/6). I was told that I would get a call the following day with a number to call if I had to withdraw. Indeed, I received the call and was told I would have to call- in prior to 3pm. After waiting until 2:30pm, it became clear my condition was not improving and so I called the number I was given (514-252-3034) to pull out of the tournament. The gentleman (I did not ask for his name) was understanding and took down all the details.
JPR :
I'm happy that up to this point, everything went as planned :)
That is, I did my job, and so did the person you talked to (probably Louis Morin or Richard Bérubé at the FQE office).
Clearly, I expected the pairings to be revised as this would be the only fair thing for me as well as all the other competitors vying for the top spots. To my dismay, this did not happen and I was scored a <loss> in round 7 while my opponent benefitted from a free point (he ended up with a final score of 6.5). This is not fair to the other players who were competing for prizes.
I believe this should also be taken into consideration when reviewing the validity of the final results in section E.
Obviously, something went wrong :(
Maybe there were so many particular cases to take care of that somebody got mixed up along the way :(
I'm sorry for you.
As for your undeserved "loss", maybe you could discussed the case by phone with the FQE. But if your call is long distance... it could be costly. Then maybe by mail or e-mail ?
I wish the federation will do something about the invalid results.
Those who think their results were invalid should probably address their individual problems to the FQE (telephone, e-mail, etc., were given above in the thread).
Re: Invalid Results - Section E - Canadian/Quebec Open
Yes, the D-unrated-provisional spiderweb is a classic. Organizers (in Canada) often don't think about that problem until it is too late. I won't deny having done it myself.
Regarding the questions of players mismatched to their sections (or classes, in tournaments with more than one class per section), you can often find the "latest thinking" in the rules for the World Open. The rules of Bill Goichberg don't always apply straight across to our situation here in Canada, but they provide a good starting point.
Then there are the two different ideas of Frank Sexton and of Tom O'Donnell which would eliminate these problems entirely. But they are radical ideas!
I wish the federation will do something about the invalid results.
Complains about a player playing illegally in any section (such as the winner of section E with a blitz rating over 2000) should be submitted during the tournament, not after. When the winner has already received his prize, it is really a little late to do anything.
Re: Invalid Results - Section E - Canadian/Quebec Open
Mr. Morin,
You are blaming the victims. The players didn't realize this expert was masquerading as a D player until after the event. If the organizers or arbiters knew - why didn't they do anything about it? And how were we supposed to know about the unrated visitor from abroad who only revealed his true strength when he achieved a 2200+ rating in the blitz?
Since it is now obvious that the players who finished first and second were four classes too strong for Section E, I think that section should be rerated with their games deleted. Every player who faced either one of them has had his rating adversely effected, causing a ripple effect. Lucky me, I got to play both of them!
At the outset of this thread, I challenged the federations to do the right thing. So far they haven't.
Re: Invalid Results - Section E - Canadian/Quebec Open
Yes, but the ratings used for the two players in question were off by around 600-700 points. I say the section should be re-rated using more appropriate ratings for those players. And, by the way, this matter was brought up well before the FQE rated the section.
Re : Invalid Results - Section E - Canadian/Quebec Open
Originally posted by Charles Aronowitz
Let's begin with the first place "winner."
This player was registered as 1317 based upon two games played some time ago that were FQE rated. One of the arbiters told me after my loss to this player that I had been beaten by a strong player. So I googled him and was led to a blitz rating list dated January 3, 2007, showing this player to have had a 2064 rating based upon 290 games.
Mr. Aronowitz
If I understand well, right after your game you had clear evidence that this player was playing illegally in section E. But why wait at the end of the tournament to complain? Why not give your evidence to the arbiter when there was still time to do something?
After a player resigns his game, he cannot ask to restart the game because his opponent made an illegal move, of course he has to complain before the game is over. In the case of an irregularity occuring in all rounds of a chess event, of course you have to complain before the event is over.
Re: Invalid Results - Section E - Canadian/Quebec Open
I understand your point but I didn't follow up on it until after the event so I didn't know about his expert blitz rating. Had I known, I would have made a more timely protest.
You are blaming the victims. The players didn't realize this expert was masquerading as a D player until after the event. If the organizers or arbiters knew - why didn't they do anything about it? And how were we supposed to know about the unrated visitor from abroad who only revealed his true strength when he achieved a 2200+ rating in the blitz?
Since it is now obvious that the players who finished first and second were four classes too strong for Section E, I think that section should be rerated with their games deleted. Every player who faced either one of them has had his rating adversely effected, causing a ripple effect. Lucky me, I got to play both of them!
At the outset of this thread, I challenged the federations to do the right thing. So far they haven't.
No, that's just retarded. While the already rated player should perhaps not have been eligible for class prizes, in no corner of the universe would a rational person state that his games shouldn't be rated. His new rating was based off of his result and players with existing ratings had their ratings adjusted according to this new rating. The changes reflect the performances.
everytime it hurts, it hurts just like the first (and then you cry till there's no more tears)
Re: Invalid Results - Section E - Canadian/Quebec Open
Charles -
I question you referring to this player's blitz rating as having so much to do with his "slow" rating. Many players (at least in Montreal) have huge differences between their (Montreal) blitz and slow ratings. I have done these Montreal blitz ratings for many years and can confirm this fact - they are not designed to be used on a basis for a slow rating.
I could name quite a few players in the Open whose blitz ratings differ from their slow ratings (either higher or lower) by several hundred points. (I even lost several blitz games in a row to a player in your section, and who finished with a lower score than you).
Tweet
Comment