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!)
Why was the Canadian Open 2010 decided to be ONE BIG OPEN Section?!
Re: Why was the Canadian Open 2010 decided to be ONE BIG OPEN Section?!
Didn't the Canadian Open used to be 10 rounds?
From 1956 to 1974 it was either 10 or 11 rounds. 1978: 11 rounds. All other years until 2005 (and 2007): 10 rounds. Ever since: 9 rounds.
The 9-round format allows for a Saturday-to-following-Sunday format with one round a day. The 10-round format usually added a second game on the first Sunday. The early 11-round events were usually held with the last round on Labour Day (which accounted for the extra round).
Why should we pay some foreigners an appearance fee and give free entry to come win the prize money?
To provide better norm chances for those qualified and to give more prestige to the event which is something sponsors usually care about. This should rule out one section tournaments. If one holds a sufficiently long event for norm purposes (9 rounds or more) it is a waste to spoil it by having everyone play in the same section, and a waste for the players involved in mismatches.
Re: Why was the Canadian Open 2010 decided to be ONE BIG OPEN Section?!
Hi Jean:
I agree.
But if they are determined to have one section, then when attendance is large ( over 200 ), then there should be hyper-accelerated pairings, as was used in Ottawa 2007 Can. Open. I got great pairings out of that tournament.
But if they are determined to have one section, then when attendance is large ( over 200 ), then there should be hyper-accelerated pairings, as was used in Ottawa 2007 Can. Open. I got great pairings out of that tournament.
Bob
You may have had great pairings, but what about your opponents? (sorry, no offence intended; as other posters in this thread have pointed out a nice norm run can be spoiled by an unfortunate pairing with an over-performing player without a FIDE rating)
It seems that a single Open section implies almost no chances for norms (and those people who are looking for that - admittedly not everyone's goal - will just pass).
Re: Why was the Canadian Open 2010 decided to be ONE BIG OPEN Section?!
Hi Kerry:
Valid point.
As Hugh has pointed out, the original tradition was clearly one section. But in recent years, the trend has been toward sections. Is it that players are viewing who they want to play differently? I think the response of players to the Swiss yo-yo effect has changed. Before, players tolerated this, to get a shot at some high ranked players if they played well ( or just had lucky pairings early on ). Now I think players want more quality games, and aren't so wedded to their shot against the GM, if it means numbers of games against much lower rated players.
Bob
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Thursday, 28th January, 2010, 10:42 AM.
Re: Why was the Canadian Open 2010 decided to be ONE BIG OPEN Section?!
I would offer two observations, one organizational and the other personal.
First, it strikes me as strange that the organizers have to re-invent the wheel each and every year. This is exactly the kind of thing where the CFC Governors could make a contribution: after due deliberation, determining the parameters for the national open---number of rounds, sections, pairing systems, time controls, etc. The current anarchy lends itself to disastrous experimentation as it leaves organizers without guidance.
Second, based on my strictly personal experience I would favour a single section. I was very fortunate in Edmonton to be paired in the first round against Viktor Mikhalevski and we enjoyed a very interesting game followed by a fascinating post mortem over dinner. I would not have had that opportunity in a sectioned or accelerated tournament. Just having that possibility would bring me back to play in future opens and, remember, the financial base of this tournament is guys like me who sign up and pay our fees to enjoy the opportunity to rub shoulders, and perhaps even play, our betters.
On the other hand, the system we were persuaded to use in 2007 of double accelerated pairings has its supporters, namely Bob Armstrong, who liked his pairings. Meanwhile, the complexity of the system nearly brought the whole event to a crashing halt as the TD concluded, rightly or wrongly, that the Capelle software was unsatisfactory and undertook at the last moment to pair this 300-player event by hand. This resulted in serious delays in the early rounds and very late posting of pairings throughout the event for which, as the chair of the organizing committee, I have already profusely apologized. Chessplayers are a long suffering bunch and most of them put up with this in good humour. But I can tell you that the top players were not amused to be unable to know who they would face in later rounds until just before the starting gun.
Sections may also be an option. My only experience is with the arrangement Hal Bond and colleagues introduced (out of necessity because of space requirements) in Kitchener in 2006 where I also played. As I recall, there were two sections: over 1800 and under 2000 allowing players between those two ratings to choose (or, in the case of the energetic John Upper, to play in both for most rounds!). As I said, I would now prefer the single section as in Edmonton, but I can see why a really large event might opt for this kind of division.
Re: Why was the Canadian Open 2010 decided to be ONE BIG OPEN Section?!
It seems to me that it is the rank and file players who put up the money to attract big name players--- The recent CFC newsletter suggested a $50,000 prize fund based on 360 players. Assuming that 325 of those player are not GMs and pay the enty fee, that is about $60,125 (I used $185 for entry, assuming half the people won't make the deadline).
Why, as a member of said rank and file, should I put up this money if it means I'll just get to play members of the clubs I already play at, where I only pay rating fee?
Those putting up the money for this event, in general, have no shot at a norm, and, imho, don't care so much about them at all.
No offense to Eminent Canadian players above, but the glowing feeling of national pride I have in them tends to disipate rather quickly when they are set on the world stage.
As to the prestige of this event--- One cannot argue that this is the most prestigious event in Canada. But really-- "prestige" in a Canadian event? give me a break.
For these reasons I prefer a yoyo event and a shot at a GM--- after all, I don't want to just give my $200 to some foriegn GM--- he should at least have to play in the same event as me to take it.
To provide better norm chances for those qualified and to give more prestige to the event which is something sponsors usually care about. This should rule out one section tournaments. If one holds a sufficiently long event for norm purposes (9 rounds or more) it is a waste to spoil it by having everyone play in the same section, and a waste for the players involved in mismatches.
Probably for a reasonable chance at a norm it would be necessary to have more than the 9 rounds of this event. Also, with top GM's being paid to come the chances are less. Better to have GM's past their prime who still have most of their rating and younger GM's who are over rated. The tier 2 type GM's.
If we want to buy titles we have to know where to shop.
Re: Why was the Canadian Open 2010 decided to be ONE BIG OPEN Section?!
As far as norm-hunting goes - I think we should have more "Futurity" types of events - i.e. an 8 or 10 player invitational RR meeting FIDE requirements for norms (you used to need players from at least three different federations - there are enough titled Canadians (or even Americans) registered under other federations to meet this criterion).
As far as norm-hunting goes - I think we should have more "Futurity" types of events - i.e. an 8 or 10 player invitational RR meeting FIDE requirements for norms (you used to need players from at least three different federations - there are enough titled Canadians (or even Americans) registered under other federations to meet this criterion).
I agree. That method is better than trying to squeeze out a norm from a 9 round Canadian Open. To do it in a 9 round Canadian Open a player would need a very good performance and be very lucky with the pairings.
To do it in a 9 round Canadian Open a player would need a very good performance and be very lucky with the pairings.
1- Regardless of the type of event one needs a "very good performance" to make a (GM) norm.
2- Keeping norm opportunities for "Futurity" type events seems illogical to me. Shouldn't our "best" tournaments also be our most prestigious event with as many titled players as possible AND norm chances ?
3- Having two or more sections does not preclude to use also accelerated pairings to make norms more likely.
As to the prestige of this event--- One cannot argue that this is the most prestigious event in Canada. But really-- "prestige" in a Canadian event? give me a break.
For these reasons I prefer a yoyo event and a shot at a GM--- after all, I don't want to just give my $200 to some foriegn GM--- he should at least have to play in the same event as me to take it.
Yes canadian events can and have been prestigious before: eg: Man his World Tournament in 1979, the World Chess Festival in 1988, Yusupov-Spraggett match 1989, etc. On the other hand, why would anyone think that something "canadian" cannot also be "prestigious"? Lack or absence of historical perspective perhaps ?
Re: Why was the Canadian Open 2010 decided to be ONE BIG OPEN Section?!
I of course freely admit to a lack of knowledge of these events--- Being born in ’87 has its disadvantages I suppose--- Namely an apparent 20 year dry spell in Canadian Chess.
But the point I am trying to make is that money is much more a motivating factor in tournament participation than “prestige” or norm-chances--- It seems clear that the eminent Monsieur Hébert will not argue that when one looks at the cross-table from Canadian-Quebec Open 2008.
In order to motivate me to pay $200 for a tournament, you must at least offer me the possibility of a lesson (naturally in the form of a game) from someone a couple classes above me. Otherwise I will content myself with playing in other events. I can play against players in my class at any number of clubs for little more than the rating fee--- No offense to any Scarborough and Hart House Chess members—but I would be disappointed to play any of you during the CO.
Re: Why was the Canadian Open 2010 decided to be ONE BIG OPEN Section?!
I should rather say, any Scarborough and Hart House Chess Members besides Bob Armstrong, who I have a serious grudge with and with whom I would relish any opportunity to win my points back from. ;)
Tweet
Comment