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: Canadian Chess Open Championship: Pairing Issues
I don't know - I think the idea of separate sections would be a bad way to generate interest, at least among less established players. Personally, I wouldn't be playing in this tournament if it wasn't a giant open section. So far, if you ignore my unrated opposition, my average opponent has been 423 points stronger than I am (minimum of +172, maximum of +673). I'm 2/4 in the completed games (one tonight, obviously).
Why would I want to be playing players in the U1600 class? I could do that in any weekend tournament, and besides the point, I'm not going to improve. I'm not here to win prizes (though, my goal is and was to win my section, that's mostly because I view that as having achieved strong results throughout the week).
There has to be a balance. If the pairings had been done right, accelerated/hyper accelerated is fine. They weren't, and thus we're seeing the consequences of that.
Re: Canadian Chess Open Championship: Pairing Issues
The norms successed in Cappelle-la-Grande could be found here.
Last time, in Ottawa, I thought the TD could make more norms chance if the TD took care of the players who were going to seek the norm in the CO. I am sure the clue could be found if you replay all rounds pairing in Ottawa's CO. That time, at least two norm hunting players lost chance in the earlier rounds just because the TD didn't care their pairings. I forgot was the TD Jonathan in Ottawa?
However, I don't think anyone get norm chance in this year CO in Toronto, do I miss something?
The norms successed in Cappelle-la-Grande could be found here.
Last time, in Ottawa, I thought the TD could make more norms chance if the TD took care of the players who were going to seek the norm in the CO. I am sure the clue could be found if you replay all rounds pairing in Ottawa's CO. That time, at least two norm hunting players lost chance in the earlier rounds just because the TD didn't care their pairings. I forgot was the TD Jonathan in Ottawa?
However, I don't think anyone get norm chance in this year CO in Toronto, do I miss something?
I could be wrong, but norm chances are just that - chances. I do not think the TD has *any* obligation to worry about whether or not player X gets a pairing that would enhance their norm chances! I don't recall seeing that mentioned in any pairing rules I have seen...
I do not think the TD has *any* obligation to worry about whether or not player X gets a pairing that would enhance their norm chances! I don't recall seeing that mentioned in any pairing rules I have seen...
Re: Canadian Chess Open Championship: Pairing Issues
Hi Kerry:
I agree. In fact, I don't think arbiters should " modify " the pairings to increase norm chances. There are rules for pairings, and that is what players contract for when they enter. If an arbiter changes the pairings for one, then he may be detrimentally changing the pairings for someone else or more than one. And this will likely be in the last round, and the opponent might complain about his prize prospects being negatively affected by being brought up to a higher board to help out his opponent.
The norms successed in Cappelle-la-Grande could be found here.
Last time, in Ottawa, I thought the TD could make more norms chance if the TD took care of the players who were going to seek the norm in the CO. I am sure the clue could be found if you replay all rounds pairing in Ottawa's CO. That time, at least two norm hunting players lost chance in the earlier rounds just because the TD didn't care their pairings. I forgot was the TD Jonathan in Ottawa?
However, I don't think anyone get norm chance in this year CO in Toronto, do I miss something?
Hello, William! The others are right, it is verboten by FIDE to change pairings to enhance norm possibilities. However, that doesn't mean I haven't done it. (if somebody sends this to FIDE, the consequences probably won't affect my chances of ever running another major event in Canada :)) At Kapuskasing 2003, much of the rationale of the system was to enhance norm chances, so that was legit. At Ottawa 2007, with almost twice as many players ... I might have overlooked four times as many opportunities. But I do remember one of them clearly. Before the event, Thomas Roussel-Roozmon came up to me and insisted that his rating should be 20 points higher based upon recent results (or maybe it was the mis-rating of a tournament). The upshot was that his rating went above Ivkov's. Come round whatever, and Thomas is just above the middle of his group. His opponent: young Ms. Yuan, 2100! Ivkov's opponent: some really high rated GM. AFAIR, Thomas was a bit miffed to waste a White against such a low rated player, but the real tragedy came later when she played really well and he failed to beat her and thus his chances at a GM norm evaporated. Of course, I could have switched Ivkov and Roussel, probably neither of them would have complained. I didn't do it.
It is, really, a big interference to move somebody between halves.
Not using computerized pairings does improve the chances to enhance norm opportunities.
As somebody else noted, you can only give opportunities, you can't force the players to win their games! Elsewhere I speculated that part of the reason so few norms arise in these events might be the under-representation of players rated say 2300-2400. If there are 10 GM pros rated 2550-2600, the bell curve might indicate a tender underbelly of 30 players rated 2300-2350. But we know that doesn't happen. For a 2400 player to make an GM norm, one nice way is to beat a lot of 2300 players and draw three 2500 GMs. This is a do-able thing for a 2400, and sometimes they do it. Beating a lot of 2150s and drawing the 2500s is even a more do-able, but no GM norm. Too many predators with sharp teeth, plenty of voles, not enough large herbivores who can be run down.
Already at round 5 are all norm chances gone for the 2010 CO? I don't know!
I don't know - I think the idea of separate sections would be a bad way to generate interest, at least among less established players. Personally, I wouldn't be playing in this tournament if it wasn't a giant open section. So far, if you ignore my unrated opposition, my average opponent has been 423 points stronger than I am (minimum of +172, maximum of +673). I'm 2/4 in the completed games (one tonight, obviously).
Why would I want to be playing players in the U1600 class? I could do that in any weekend tournament, and besides the point, I'm not going to improve. I'm not here to win prizes (though, my goal is and was to win my section, that's mostly because I view that as having achieved strong results throughout the week).
There has to be a balance. If the pairings had been done right, accelerated/hyper accelerated is fine. They weren't, and thus we're seeing the consequences of that.
I see this type of argument a lot. For a moment consider it from your opponents`perspectives. They are paired down against you, which means being paired down 172 to 673 points. They didn`t pay an EF and expenses to give you chess lessons. Presumably they want to play people in their rating range at the minimum. This is the best argument against one section: too many free chess lessons.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
Re: Canadian Chess Open Championship: Pairing Issues
I haven't performed any kind of analysis, but I wonder if sectioned events don't perform considerably better in the larger centres.
I wonder if class players are more or less likely to come half way across the country for a class tournament - ie all of the multi-sectional events I think have been in large population areas.
If the 2001 CO (Sackville, NB) was in 2 or 3 sections, I think it might have hurt the attendance and we still didn't have enough titled players for norms.
Probably this year could have had two sections and everyone would have been happy.
Re: Canadian Chess Open Championship: Pairing Issues
No one seems to have commented on the change in Bindi Cheng's round 5 pairing. He was originally scheduled to play Joey Orozco, rated 1585, but it appears Orozco was unable to continue the tournament (he didn't play in round 5 and hasn't been paired for round 6). Rather than giving Bindi a bye/forfeit win and killing his norm chances, Stephen Boyd was parachuted in as his opponent, who incidentally has a 2310 FIDE rating, is titled, and plays under the French flag. Maybe this is the best solution to a bad situation but optically it doesn't look good, given the direct contravention of a FIDE rule; ironically Boyd is here to teach a course on arbiting.
Why would I want to be playing players in the U1600 class? I could do that in any weekend tournament, and besides the point, I'm not going to improve.
Section tournaments usually allow you to play in higher sections, not just "your" section. So if you really think that you need opponents 300+ rating points higher than you to improve, you can enter a higher section. With a one-section event a lot depends on the pairings, and you rarely get opponents of your strenght, the ones that you can beat and who can beat you.
Re: Canadian Chess Open Championship: Pairing Issues
Guess a player is on the way to hunt a norm, let's say this player could be paired to play a fide title player or fide-unrated player, does fide allow the arbiter to do pairing this player to play with a fide title opponent?
If this chance is existed, the TD use his right to do pairing this player to the unrated(fide rating) player so that the norm hunter totally lost the norm chance, was that wrong for this player to play the wrong tournament?
Jonathan, I knew you were caring some players such as IM Thomas Roussel-Roozmon but I remembered some players were ignored in Ottawa.
Guess a player is on the way to hunt a norm, let's say this player could be paired to play a fide title player or fide-unrated player, does fide allow the arbiter to do pairing this player to play with a fide title opponent?
If this chance is existed, the TD use his right to do pairing this player to the unrated(fide rating) player so that the norm hunter totally lost the norm chance, was that wrong for this player to play the wrong tournament?
Jonathan, I knew you were caring some players such as IM Thomas Roussel-Roozmon but I remembered some players were ignored in Ottawa.
William: FIDE does not want the arbiter to change a pairing in any way to facilitate a norm. Still, things can happen.
I was "caring" for all untitled players and FMs to obtain IM norms, and all IMs to obtain GM norms. If--in the crush of numbers, of manual pairings, of having to get the pairings done by a certain time--I missed some light change that might have improved the chances of a norm hopeful with good prospects, then I am sorry. Yes, it must have happened, I just hope that it didn't happen "too often".
I do remember in Kapuskasing 2003, there was one young player (who has now become a senior master) who was unhappy with his pairings and insisted that he wanted to "play for a norm", but at the time of his unhappiness it was already too late for him to get a norm. He had not done well enough in his previous games for him to be able to score a norm against the type of opposition he wanted to play, even if he started to beat them. I'm sure that would not be the case for the same player in 2010.
I haven't performed any kind of analysis, but I wonder if sectioned events don't perform considerably better in the larger centres.
I wonder if class players are more or less likely to come half way across the country for a class tournament - ie all of the multi-sectional events I think have been in large population areas.
If the 2001 CO (Sackville, NB) was in 2 or 3 sections, I think it might have hurt the attendance and we still didn't have enough titled players for norms.
Probably this year could have had two sections and everyone would have been happy.
Fred: When you do the analysis, don't forget North Bay, 1994-99 (six events), held in August (i.e., summer vacation, typical Canadian Open timeframe), 9 rounds, around 300 players (plus or minus ten percent) every year, not a "larger center" (4 hour+ drive from Toronto, longer from Ottawa), a Class tournament.
Everybody wants to prove that they're under-rated. :) We are the Dangerfield Dynasty. :) All we are saying, is give chess a chance (music). :)
Last edited by Jonathan Berry; Friday, 16th July, 2010, 02:40 AM.
Reason: added :)
Re: Canadian Chess Open Championship: Pairing Issues
Hi Jonathan,
“FIDE does not want the arbiter to change a pairing in any way to facilitate a norm.”
Would arbiters like do pairing directly to maintain the norm chance for players instead of changing the pairing to avoid to break the fide law?:)
The Ottawa's CO is gone and at least you were trying to help CO became a norm chance event. It's too sad for Canadians if CO won't have the norm chance or the chance is just a little.
That's the reason some Canadian Juniors prefer to play in the World Open or Philadelphia International. Others may play in the Quebec Open instead of Canada Open although Quebec Open will cost more in the Open section.
Today I still can't believe the CO in Toronto looks like in Kapuskasing 2003 which got 200 more players to play. :(
Re: Canadian Chess Open Championship: Pairing Issues
Jonathan several disputes occured in 2003 because you invented a preposterous "system" that allowed you to arbitrarily pair all the late rounds any way you wanted to. To make matters worse, you posted the last round pairings the morning of the games then totally disappeared allowing no method of timely appeal. By doing so you created a difficult situation.
After the event, I expressed publically my concerns over your actions and on a separate note with the environment in the playing hall. My observation since is you were criticized by significant others about how you operated at a subsequent Canadian Open. The next event in Kap also had several proven cheating incidents. Such repeated behaviour adds a considerable amount of credibility to my two sets of claims about the event in 2003.
I would suggest to you quite bluntly that it does you no service to bring up the mistakes of your past in such an arrogant manner. I don't have to like you but the immaturity of posting about "psycho protests" reminds me that the underbelly of Canadian chess is never totally out of reach the games people play are stupid. I acknowledge that bringing my family to that Canadian Open in 2003 was a mistake the environment was more akin to a casino that year then a fun chess environment. Could I have handled the last day better yes I could have. But there are solid reasons why disputes occur in chess, you can be part of the solution or keep playing games. I've moved on.
Tweet
Comment