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.
We have updated the CFC rating program to incorporate the Participation and Bonus points as per motion 2008-10 that was passed in GL9. After some testing, we quietly went live last week since we had very few tournaments. We discovered an error and have subsequently fixed it. Micah Hughey spotted the error and alerted us. Thank you Micah. You have earned the official CFC title of "Eagle eye".
Credit goes to our database guru & webmaster, Vincent Chow.
Re: CFC Ratings - Participation & Bonus points
Neither the post nor the GL was very helpful. What are the percentages measuring?
In any case it doesn't seem to address the problem. Kids are coming on the list as beginners with low almost random ratings. By lessons, study or internet play they zoom up in strength while their rating rises at a snail's pace.
A couple I've luckily drawn with this year: Josh Renaud, initial rating 863, rating for the Grand Pacific 1452, performance rating 2110, new rating 1634; Arthur Calugar, initial rating approx 900, rating for Canada Day 2074, performance rating 2463, new rating 2150.
Structurally, a relatively fluid progression is being measured by an almost static system. That doesn't work. The improvement of Josh and Art doesn't not mean that I got worse. Chess understanding naturally expands. It is not zero-sum. The measuring system should adapt to the increase. Across the board inflation by participation points is a shotgun approach, only mildly effective.
Why not simply flag juniors who perform out of class (350 points above rating)? Then scrap their initial rating and treat them as provisional until their new rating has a real relationship with their strength? In this way the "inflation" goes where it belongs and does not drag everyone else down.
Last edited by Lawrence Day; Thursday, 21st August, 2008, 02:12 PM.
Why not simply flag juniors who perform out of class (350 points above rating)? Then scrap their initial rating and treat them as provisional until their new rating has a real relationship with their strength? In this way the "inflation" goes where it belongs and does not drag everyone else down.
I concur.
"The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters." What the hell? Why this? Boooooo ChessTalk.
everytime it hurts, it hurts just like the first (and then you cry till there's no more tears)
Why not simply flag juniors who perform out of class (350 points above rating)? Then scrap their initial rating and treat them as provisional until their new rating has a real relationship with their strength? In this way the "inflation" goes where it belongs and does not drag everyone else down.
Decades ago USCF had "feedback points" going to opponents of players who earned bonus points. Perhaps a good idea, but the implementation was flawed and the USCF system became inflationary.
The CFC Rating System I inherited in 1975 had the 1100 rule, which I thought was an act of genius. I wonder who invented it. Anyway, what Lawrence is suggesting, and I like it, sounds like a generalization of the 1100 rule.
To play Devil's Advocate, I think it is risky to base a new rating so strongly on the results of a single 5- or 6- round tournament. For example, a player rated 2284 has a TPR of 2542 (as happened to a "good friend" a couple of years ago) over a 6-round tournament. Does his new rating vary that much depending upon whether he is aged 13 or 53? Maybe the system is allowed to look back at the previous tournament(s) and see if this is a quick ramp up or a fluke.
In any case, I think Lawrence's idea deserves consideration by the brain trust. I can't believe I wrote that.
Chess understanding naturally expands. It is not zero-sum. The measuring system should adapt to the increase.
I'm not sure I understand this statement correctly. Are you saying that because chess knowledge as a whole naturally expands, the average rating of the populance should be increasing? If so, I disagree.
Conversely, are you saying that because YOUR chess knowledge naturally expands, the rating system should reflect this so your rating should not drop? Again I disagree.
I'm not sure I can envision a system that is clairvoyant enough to predict how much better a player becomes between one tournament and the next. If I spent the next year focusing solely on chess, playing Fritz and ICC hours per day, and as a result my performance ratings started to become 400 points higher than my posted rating, would people be saying the system was unfair then?
Re: CFC Ratings - Participation & Bonus points
But why? ladl;fho
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
Re: CFC Ratings - Participation & Bonus points
Garland, I think the overall strength is improving as the present learns from the past. Note there are more and more 2700 players. Still, playing between themselves there is only one point per game to divide up as win, draw or loss. That is the fixed part. The value of a rating point is more fluid. Trying to make the sum fixed fails. Deflation is a more serious problem than inflation.
Jonathon, Sure, adjust fine tuning; I just like the general idea.
Of course Kevin Gentes would rather see the chess:
Re: CFC Ratings - Participation & Bonus points
I wouldn't use the fact that more of FIDE ratings at the top exceed 2700 as proof that chess players are getting better. That could simply indicate that the FIDE system is inflationary.
I always understood that the rating system was designed to measure RELATIVE strength. If you are rated 200 point higher than your opponent, then you would expect to score 3/4 against him. While against juniors that's a dangerous assumption, against "experienced" players, the rule of thumb is pretty valid.
If anyone wants to validate inflation/deflation, then you have to take the ratings list, and plot ratings distributions. I wouldn't mind seeing such statistics. One would need annual rating lists for the past 20 years to determine if inflation or deflation exists.
It's all moot in some respects. Now the machines are giving GM's pawn and move odds. What's that, a 2900 rating??
Re: CFC Ratings - Participation & Bonus points
To be honest, when I walked past your board during that round, I thought Calugar was cooked. Maybe I didn't assess the position correctly and will have to go through the moves you provided. When I saw on the crosstable afterward that he had drawn I was quite surprised and remember thinking "How'd he get out of that one?"
Re: CFC Ratings - Participation & Bonus points
I talked to Junior about your game.
While he favoured Black's position throughout most of the game it made a sudden change in assessment when it saw the chance to play 29. Rc8+ followed by 30. Ne7 with a violent attack causing Black to give up material, for example 30..Rb8 31. Rxb8 Qb5 32. Ra8+ +- or 30..Rh8 31. Nc6+ Qxc6 32. Rxc6 +-. The only "major" improvement for him, and as you mentioned, was 19..c4+, but even in that line White's got some good resources and is hanging on. After 32..Qa3 1/2 Black stands better. On the whole, contrary to Junior's assessment, I'd have to add that Black's position wasn't easy for a human to have to defend. I recall thinking that sickly Bg7 and all the pawns on the central dark squares.
Tweet
CFC Ratings - Participation & Bonus points
Comment