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?!
Why was the Canadian Open 2010 decided to be ONE BIG OPEN Section?!
The successes of the PWC (TORONTO) Open, Toronto Labour Day, Hart House Chess Tournaments 2009 were based mostly on the format of having one OPEN section with the addition of several sections and attracted more than what was expected (record highs)!,Why on earth do we follow the format used in the Canadian Open 2009 wherein no one ever get a/n GM/IM norm?! Why don't we just let the strong players play with someone close to their strength! I mean to play in their "league of their own", with a far better chance of gaining a norm.
I firmly believe that with one big OPEN SECTION, I don't seem to agree that it will attract much especially with an entry fee of $175.
A survey should have been ran to potential participants prior to making the final decision to adapt a ONE BIG OPEN SECTION tournament!
Re: Why was the Canadian Open 2010 decided to be ONE BIG OPEN Section?!
The Canadian Open has traditionally been a one-section tournament. For those who like multi-section tournaments, there are plenty to choose from throughout the year.
The Canadian Open has traditionally been a one-section tournament. For those who like multi-section tournaments, there are plenty to choose from throughout the year.
Re: Why was the Canadian Open 2010 decided to be ONE BIG OPEN Section?!
This is the never-ending debate about the Canadian Open, rearing its ugly head again. If I had $100 for every time I've heard this debate, I could finance Haiti's reconstruction!
Many Canadian chess organizers and decision-makers with modest or low ratings want to have the chance to play against a GM in the Canadian Open. That's it; that's where it comes from, pure and simple.
I think that attendance at this year's Canadian Open would be much higher with multiple sections, and international norms would also be possible in that scenario. The event would also attract more players from outside Canada, building norm possibilities further. It would also be a much better tournament for everyone. But people rated under 2000 wouldn't be playing GMs in that case, would they!?
Lower-rated players can have their chance at a GM in a simul. I put myself (currently rated around 2000) in that category; I've beaten one GM in a simul, and lost two other very interesting battles in simuls to GMs.
I think that attendance at this year's Canadian Open would be much higher with multiple sections, and international norms would also be possible in that scenario. The event would also attract more players from outside Canada, building norm possibilities further. It would also be a much better tournament for everyone. But people rated under 2000 wouldn't be playing GMs in that case, would they!?
...snip
I agree. Generally, it is a complete waste of time for a patzer to play a GM (or even an IM in some cases). I think the single section format will result in only a handful of GMs playing (unless the organizers subsidize a holiday for some visiting GMs). Those that do play will probably be there looking for free prize money...
In that sort of situation, there likely is some sort of 'critical mass' of GMs that represents the cutoff point: once there are more than [n] GMs registered, there is far less incentive for other GMs to enter the fray and risk ending up with an 8-way split of a $500 third prize or some such outcome...
Canadian Open 2008 in Montreal had 5 sections: A, B, C, D, E.
Edmonton 2009 had one section. It should be noted that although Alberta always presents a one section Canadian Open, it does provide norm opportunities through its Internationals in Calgary and Edmonton.
Canadian Open 2007 in Ottawa was approved by the CFC as a two-section tournament. After a change in management, it went to one section. On June 7th, 2007, the Chair of the Canadian Open/CYCC Organizing Committee wrote: I do not recall precisely when or why we moved, if we did, from two sections to a single open section. So in three of the past four years the Canadian Open was supposed to be in 2 or more sections.
Nonetheless, what Hugh writes is correct, the longer tradition has been that the Canadian Open is one section.
Some terms in a possible discussion: yo-yo effect, norm chances, everyone has a chance to win, play a GM, efficient use of resources, and simul fodder.
Re: Why was the Canadian Open 2010 decided to be ONE BIG OPEN Section?!
Canadian Open 2006 in Kitchener (Ontario) had:
Open Section, Under 2000 and Under 1600.
Thanks!
I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of Canadian Opens which have been multi-section over the years. The other 40 or so have been one section.
Accelerated (or hyper-accelerated) pairings can reduce/eliminate the yo-yo efect, and increase norm chances.
Last edited by Hugh Brodie; Wednesday, 27th January, 2010, 02:17 PM.
Reason: Added more text.
...
Accelerated (or hyper-accelerated) pairings can reduce/eliminate the yo-yo efect, and increase norm chances.
Excellent point - IF there is only one section, accelerated or h-accelerated pairings should be used without question. Of course, the usual rule of being unable to please everyone likely will apply.
Could it be argued that having one big section and accelerated pairings removes the perceived 'value' of having one big section: the chance for a patzer to play one of the highest-rated players is reduced?
Excellent point - IF there is only one section, accelerated or h-accelerated pairings should be used without question. Of course, the usual rule of being unable to please everyone likely will apply.
Could it be argued that having one big section and accelerated pairings removes the perceived 'value' of having one big section: the chance for a patzer to play one of the highest-rated players is reduced?
Considering it's one section and considering the world economy, I don't see why anyone would even consider paying appear fees for foreign titled players. I'd simply add the appearance fees to the prize fund for the top 5 or 6 finishers, everyone pays entry fees, and advertise the event. Of course, the class prizes would still be there. If no foreign GM's show up it's more money for our players to win.
Why should we pay some foreigners an appearance fee and give free entry to come win the prize money?
Excellent point - IF there is only one section, accelerated or h-accelerated pairings should be used without question.
Not in Alberta. They use straight Swiss for the Canadian Open.
Acceleration does improve norm chances (how much demands further study, and depends upon the field), but does nothing about the yo-yo effect, except in the obvious way, during the acceleration. The most famous hyper-accelerated tournament is Cappelle-la-Grande. If you look at their X-tables, you may be surprised that in later rounds there is still a strong yo-yo effect for the average contestant.
The Ray Kerr pairings-by-class method does overcome the yo-yo.
Considering it's one section and considering the world economy, I don't see why anyone would even consider paying appear fees for foreign titled players. I'd simply add the appearance fees to the prize fund for the top 5 or 6 finishers, everyone pays entry fees, and advertise the event. Of course, the class prizes would still be there. If no foreign GM's show up it's more money for our players to win.
Why should we pay some foreigners an appearance fee and give free entry to come win the prize money?
Well typically appearance fees are for GM's because they provide norm chances, add prestige, can be marketable to gain more entries, and also services such as lectures and simuls. I agree with Frank on the matter about lower rated playing GM's. Theres a certain extent where the rating difference is so much that you won't actually be learning from the game. A 1600 would be much better off playing a 1800-2000 rather than a 2400-2600. I guess the value of telling your grandchildren that you got your butt whooped by GM______ could be a cool story, though. It seems every year that it is unclear whether or not the CO will be a norm allowing event. I can't really complain since I've had my fair share of norm opportunities recently.
Re: Why was the Canadian Open 2010 decided to be ONE BIG OPEN Section?!
If obtaining realistic norm possibilties is an issue the other important factor is the number of games. A norm is usually based on nine games, so if the tournament is only nine games long there is no leeway for having an off day or a norm-hurting poor pairing. A ten-round event allows better chances of achieving norms.
Not in Alberta. They use straight Swiss for the Canadian Open.
Acceleration does improve norm chances (how much demands further study, and depends upon the field), but does nothing about the yo-yo effect, except in the obvious way, during the acceleration. The most famous hyper-accelerated tournament is Cappelle-la-Grande. If you look at their X-tables, you may be surprised that in later rounds there is still a strong yo-yo effect for the average contestant.
The Ray Kerr pairings-by-class method does overcome the yo-yo.
After being the TD of both the 2005 and the 2009 Canadian Opens in Edmonton, which took place under the one section format, I would say that for future events I would probably prefer to see it in sections; however, for me personally this would not make any difference in terms of whether to participate or not. The reason for that, is that while in the past norm chances were still possible in open events after the FIDE rule change in July of 2009 (right before our Edmonton event) norm chances became almost impossible in traditional one section opens.
While I agree that norm hunt shouldn't be the major consideration of the Canadian Open it was certaintly disappointing for me to see some top Canadian (and not only Canadian) GM and IM hopefulls who missed the elusive norm because in round 2 they happened to play a 2000 player who didn't have a FIDE rating.
As to the acceleration of pairings, I am really not sure that it creates higher possibilities for norms, because it seems to me that once the acceleration ends the pairings very much resemble what they would have been a few rounds prior if no acceleration existed. For example, it is not uncommon to see a GM playing an overperforming 1800. On the other hand, without the acceleration the tournament seems to follow a more natural progression where the top players play progressively stronger opposition and the field generally becomes more evenly matched. This to me seems to create a better flow for the event.
Well typically appearance fees are for GM's because they provide norm chances, add prestige, can be marketable to gain more entries, and also services such as lectures and simuls. I agree with Frank on the matter about lower rated playing GM's. Theres a certain extent where the rating difference is so much that you won't actually be learning from the game. A 1600 would be much better off playing a 1800-2000 rather than a 2400-2600. I guess the value of telling your grandchildren that you got your butt whooped by GM______ could be a cool story, though. It seems every year that it is unclear whether or not the CO will be a norm allowing event. I can't really complain since I've had my fair share of norm opportunities recently.
I think the concensus seems to be there won't be many norm chances in the advertised playing format so why worry about enticing foreign GM's? If GM's don't show up it would give players like yourself a realistic chance of winning a decent sized prize to help pay for your chess activities for awhile.
The type of event is more philosophical. Left wing - right wing kind of thing. In a province like Alberta, I'd expect an open event giving everyone an equal chance. In a more socialist province like B.C. I'd expect sections or a pairing method which enshrines the class system.
I've always thought a Canadian Open should be paired in a manner where everyone has a chance to win.
I'd thought of playing in this one but at the time of day of the weekday events it would be about an hour and a half drive to get there. Probably 35 minutes getting home so that part isn't bad. I guess it's handy for those using public transportation.
Re: Why was the Canadian Open 2010 decided to be ONE BIG OPEN Section?!
Didn't the Canadian Open used to be 10 rounds? That would help a lot - sometimes it's not even an off day that hurts the norm chances, it's just the pairings.
Tweet
Why was the Canadian Open 2010 decided to be ONE BIG OPEN Section?!
Comment