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.
Re: The Olympic Team Selection: (Some) Clarification
It would be interesting to list all potential Olympiad players ( both genders ) and how many FIDE rated games they played in the most recent selection period.
Last edited by Duncan Smith; Tuesday, 1st June, 2010, 05:45 PM.
Re: The Olympic Team Selection: (Some) Clarification
perhaps what Eric means is that performance against his peers is what matters most and that for competiters at the national level , their peers are international in scope - hence FIDE ratings are a better measure.
perhaps what Duncan means is that not withstanding all that, a rating is only as good as the statistical and participation basis behind it. For a FIDE rating, that is roughly 75 games a year for a K factor of 10. Not many Canadians of any level meet that standard.
Re: The Olympic Team Selection: (Some) Clarification
I think that for future olympiads it might be a good idea to have the selection committee more representative of the different regions, to avoid the perception of bias. I would difinitely not want to accuse the members of the committee of having bias, but the perception exists, nevertheless. In Alberta quite a few people are expressing frustration that even though for the first time in many years two Albertans were very much in the running for the team, none of them seemed to get a serious consideration. In any case, of course members of the selection committee should be of at least FM level players.
perhaps what Eric means is that performance against his peers is what matters most and that for competiters at the national level , their peers are international in scope - hence FIDE ratings are a better measure.
perhaps what Duncan means is that not withstanding all that, a rating is only as good as the statistical and participation basis behind it. For a FIDE rating, that is roughly 75 games a year for a K factor of 10. Not many Canadians of any level meet that standard.
Hi Roger:
Thanks very much for replying. The problem with *any* rating is that is generally only representative of local playing conditions. Wherever your "pocket" of competition is, determines your rating.
(begin obvious anecdote)
Suppose for instance, that you and I played at our local club and (really imagine here!) I were to regularly trounce you. Yet you were the one who regularly, and seriously played in two or three FIDE-rated tournaments per year, while I played maybe one every second year as a lark. Which is more important? The CFC rating (which would favour me in the circumstance I describe) or the FIDE rating (which would favour you)?
What happens when you leave the club for greener pastures abroad and never play a game in Canada again?
(end obvious anecdote)
As I said, thanks for replying. I don't have answers. I'm just asking questions. (It's hard to "nit-pick" a categorical dismissal.) For the moment I think the blended rating criterion is fine, and if the elite players would rather see it changed, and maybe it should be, then they should publish a statement via the Masters Rep and put a motion in front of the governors. I'm not aware of anything like that having happened or even attempted.
It would be interesting to list all potential Olympiad players ( both genders ) and how many FIDE rated games they played in the most recent selection period.
the National team: starting from 9 and some had ~90 or maybe even more for the period 2009 March - 2010 April.
For the moment I think the blended rating criterion is fine, and if the elite players would rather see it changed, and maybe it should be, then they should publish a statement via the Masters Rep and put a motion in front of the governors. I'm not aware of anything like that having happened or even attempted.
It is not hard for them to write "Good" or "BS" in the thread which I started :D
I see no reason why anyone on the selection committee should be below Master strength - how are they going to do any kind of good job otherwise?
Ideally, I'd want to see players with Olympiad experience on the committee!
When I was on the committee many moons ago, we were all around master strength (I think I was around 2100 and the other two were clearly experienced masters). However, I don't think master strength is really any factor - it's not like the committee goes through and analyses games. When we did our picks we looked at:
Last 10 CFC ratings (to see trend)
Last 10 FIDE ratings (to see trend)
Record (win/loss/draw) in current year, and average opponent rating
Record (win/loss/draw) vs 2400+ opposition in current year
From there, it was generally pretty clear who was playing well at present and trending upwards, vs those that were not playing well and trending downwards or maintaining their rating vs guppies. None of this required master strength.
Well there's always the clear criteria: Canadian Champion + 4 by selection committee, and if Cdn Champ declines go down the list of the Closed in order.
Not sure how well that would go over, but at least we wouldn't have to be nitpicking rules every time. Don't forget, the rules are as hard to comprehend for those in charge as they are for everyone here!
Castling is king over two, rook on the other side, but to describe castling precisely takes a surprising level of abstraction. At the 1996 FIDE RC, the rules revisor attempted to simplify the wording, but I came up with a counterexample during the meeting. When FIDE publishes a loose rule on castling, a problemist is sure to come up with a composition that exploits the hole; ... nick of time.
Just hazarding a guess, I'm thinking that the existing handbook section resulted from somebody thinking that it was too complicated and dropping a clause, which happened to involve players declining their invitations.
Be that as it may, it is not a license to go against what wording is there, nor to go against practice.
Incidentally, once you've done the arithmetic, going down the selection rating list in order is no more difficult or nitpicking than going down the names of finishers in the Closed; in fact it may even be less so if you have a tie in the Closed.
I think that for future olympiads it might be a good idea to have the selection committee more representative of the different regions, to avoid the perception of bias. I would difinitely not want to accuse the members of the committee of having bias, but the perception exists, nevertheless. In Alberta quite a few people are expressing frustration that even though for the first time in many years two Albertans were very much in the running for the team, none of them seemed to get a serious consideration. In any case, of course members of the selection committee should be of at least FM level players.
Vlad, the problem is not with the composition of the Selection Committee, it is with the fact that the rules specified that they were to choose one player, but in fact they were made to choose three. You would not have needed to make the comment if the Selection Committee's choice of GM Pascal Charbonneau had been processed in accordance with tradition and precedence.
But given this brave new world where the Selection Committee might choose the entire team, yes, one will likely get more political about choosing the Selection Committee. This is yet another reason to wish that the process had been more regular.
it's not like the committee goes through and analyses games.
The method which you used could be codified, thus slightly juggling the figures in the Selection Rating List. I kind-of like the method, mind you, but aren't we looking at a recursion of methods? What I mean is, once the tendency is reflected in the SRL, eliminating the need for a committee, won't somebody still want a committee for intangibles?
When the strong Masters, Brian Hartman and Denis Allan, were the selection committee in 1994, they did keep in the backs of their minds the games actually played in the 1994 Zonal, and I guess didn't hold the candidates' previous chess sins too heavily against them.
For the 1974 Olympiad in Nice, France, Zvonko Vranesic was to choose the entire team as a cohesive unit. But the CFC Governors could not swallow his actual selection. Years passed. It was my understanding that the purpose of the later Selection Committee was to choose one or two pieces that would make the rest of the jigsaw fit together as well as possible. Although there was also the obverse, to avoid choosing players vetoed by the other strong players, or whose behaviour bothered others in the team. But hush hush. Anyway, I was never on a Selection Committee, so have no firsthand knowledge. But I do remember speaking with a key team member who told me that he would not have played if Player X had been on the team, and indeed, Player X was not on the team! And another time having a similar exchange with a different key team member in a different context. Before the conversations, I had no idea that anybody had anything but the greatest respect for either of the two shunned players! Neither one was an alcoholic. No, I'm not going to say who the key players were, nor the shunned players. I regard the details of the conversations as being off the record (though both were told to me openly, with witnesses present). I'm mentioning it to confirm that "keeping the peace" has been among the Selection Committee (or maybe the CFC office's administration)'s unwritten mandates.
Tweet
Comment