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.
The pairings did not follow an accelerated swiss system (players were not properly paired), and further, many sections were incorrectly paired (for example, Board #47 to #53 were inexplicably highest v. lowest seed as opposed to Swiss.
I am unsure what the correct approach is. I attempted to argue the point with the tournament Arbitrator, Mr. Hal Bond, prior to the commencement of Round 3. I also attempted to speak with the Tournament Organizers, without success. I know I have taken the time to draft, and send, the relevant Tournament Staff a 5 page complaint outlining my significant issues with the administration of this round.
The ripple effect it has created has severely undermined the final outcome, and it is hard to imagine a remedy that will resolve the problems that this farce of a round has created, short of replaying the Round in its entirety with the proper pairings, and discounting the Round 3 results.
:: sigh ::.
It's pretty sad that the biggest tournament in Canada for Chess is being administered in such a fashion.
Re: Canadian Chess Open Championship: Round 3 Farce.
If indeed a mistake was found or a pairing error was discovered it should have been corrected before Round 3. The excuses that players had already spent time preparing for their opponents and then find that pairings may have changed is a real crock. The organizers said it would be unfair but hey is chess not to be played over the board? I think if a major mistake has been made in the pairings it should be corrected for round 4 even if it messes up pairings for the last time.
Let's get our act together and run a tight ship. Floundering only leads to unhappy players.
One major question I have is what are Ghost points and why do we need them???
Re: Canadian Chess Open Championship: Round 3 Farce.
Matthew,
I can't speak for others, but I assure you that Hal took the matter of the Round 3 pairings problem seriously. He left the CFC AGM to give it his full attention.
Re: Canadian Chess Open Championship: Round 3 Farce.
I always wonder where these players who often complain dramatically about pairings got their expertise in pairings from and if they have ever actually paired any tournaments themselves. Mostly they have not since the number of players far outnumbers the number of those willing to TD in Canada.
I always wonder where these players who often complain dramatically about pairings got their expertise in pairings from and if they have ever actually paired any tournaments themselves. Mostly they have not since the number of players far outnumbers the number of those willing to TD in Canada.
I'm sorry. I was totally unaware that you had to fly to the moon to understand its composition or structure. I was also unaware you had to have been in space to know the critical components of space flight.
The Swiss System is not overly complicated, nor is the Accelerated Swiss System. Yes there are kinks that get thrown in, but the pairings were so wrong, that it was easy to spot the problems. To begin with, players with phantom (or ghost, or fake) points were treated differently than players with real points, something that is not supposed to happen, because it defeats the point of assigning these phantom points in the first instance. It also results in some players with real points having much easier matchups than they other wise would.
Furthermore, on some boards (including my own), the seeding among real point players was highest v. lowest, second highest v. second lowest, as opposed to following a Swiss System. This was totally arbitrary, and may as well have involved pulling names out of a hat.
It's certainly true that issues like colour parity arise in odd rounds (and are more likely to arise later in the tournament), but for the majority of players this would not be an issue in Round #3.
The pairings were wrong. The fact that they were wrong meant the results garnered by them are tarnished, and it undermines the performance of the remainder of the tournament. It is a substantial problem.
Oh, and for the record, had the pairings been done correctly, it is fairly certain I would have faced an even stronger opponent; but that's fine, at least then I would have played the RIGHT opponent.
I can't speak for others, but I assure you that Hal took the matter of the Round 3 pairings problem seriously. He left the CFC AGM to give it his full attention.
I always wonder where these players who often complain dramatically about pairings got their expertise in pairings from and if they have ever actually paired any tournaments themselves. Mostly they have not since the number of players far outnumbers the number of those willing to TD in Canada.
Hi Zeljko:
It doesn't take much to see that the pairings were screwed up, at least for round 3. Take a look at Bindi Cheng's thread further down the board. The round 1 pairings are on this board and show these two pairings for round 1:
55 Paul Leblanc (1907 : - : 0.0 [2.0]) Nick Karlow (2012 : - : 0.0 [2.0])
The round 3 pairing for Bindi was:
8 FM Bindi Cheng (2426 : w : 2.0 [3.0]) Nick Karlow (2012 : b : 2.0 [3.0])
The number in the square brackets is the point total, including phantom points, to be used for pairing purposes. Somehow Nick Karlow picked up an extra phantom point between round 1 and round 3. (I don't have the parings for round 2).
Several years ago I played in a 4-round tournament. I played white in the first game and then was given 3 straight blacks. When I complained, the TD cheerfully told me that that's what the computer came up with so it must be right. The knowledge issue works both ways, although in this case I don't know what's going on since Hal does know what he's doing, but it's clear the pairings have not followed the announced system.
It doesn't take much to see that the pairings were screwed up, at least for round 3. Take a look at Bindi Cheng's thread further down the board. The round 1 pairings are on this board and show these two pairings for round 1:
55 Paul Leblanc (1907 : - : 0.0 [2.0]) Nick Karlow (2012 : - : 0.0 [2.0])
The round 3 pairing for Bindi was:
8 FM Bindi Cheng (2426 : w : 2.0 [3.0]) Nick Karlow (2012 : b : 2.0 [3.0])
The number in the square brackets is the point total, including phantom points, to be used for pairing purposes. Somehow Nick Karlow picked up an extra phantom point between round 1 and round 3. (I don't have the parings for round 2).
Several years ago I played in a 4-round tournament. I played white in the first game and then was given 3 straight blacks. When I complained, the TD cheerfully told me that that's what the computer came up with so it must be right. The knowledge issue works both ways, although in this case I don't know what's going on since Hal does know what he's doing, but it's clear the pairings have not followed the announced system.
Steve
Here, you want a more dramatic example?
22 GM Vladimir Malaniuk (2551 : w : 1.0 [2.0]) Helmut Fritzsche (2005 : b : 1.0 [2.0])
53 Patrick Yu (1572 : w : 2.0 [2.0]) Mei Chen Lee (1552 : w : 2.0 [2.0])
Why is Yu playing Chee? They both have 2 points.
Further:
46 Alexandru Florea (2076 : w : 1.0 [2.0]) Henry Gonzalez (1077 : b : 2.0 [2.0])
47 Matthew Scott (1506 : w : 2.0 [2.0]) Ferdinand Supsup (1851 : b : 2.0 [2.0])
48 Ed Zator (1835 : w : 2.0 [2.0]) Tian Lan (1510 : b : 2.0 [2.0])
49 Pino Verde (1800 : w : 2.0 [2.0]) Bryant Yang (1500 : b : 2.0 [2.0])
50 Jack Maguire (1513 : w : 2.0 [2.0]) Bruce Dowling (1796 : b : 2.0 [2.0])
51 Genadi Medvedev (1628 : w : 2.0 [2.0]) Samir El-Gohary (1541 : b : 2.0 [2.0])
52 Razvan Preotu (1606 : w : 2.0 [2.0]) Jatinder Dhaliwal (1577 : B : 2.0 [2.0])
53 Patrick Yu (1572 : w : 2.0 [2.0]) Mei Chen Lee (1552 : w : 2.0 [2.0])
Those are the players at 2 *real* points between 1500-1900. I don't know if anybody higher or lower has 2 real points.
Gonzales, on Board #46, is 15th among them.
That left the inexplicable pairings, among "real point players" of:
Board 47: 13 v. 1
Board 48: 2 v. 12
Board 49: 3 v. 14
Board 50: 11 v. 4
Board 51: 5 v. 10
Board 52: 6 v. 7
Board 53: 8 v. 9
22 GM Vladimir Malaniuk (2551 : w : 1.0 [2.0]) Helmut Fritzsche (2005 : b : 1.0 [2.0])
53 Patrick Yu (1572 : w : 2.0 [2.0]) Mei Chen Lee (1552 : w : 2.0 [2.0])
Why is Yu playing Chee? They both have 2 points.
Further:
46 Alexandru Florea (2076 : w : 1.0 [2.0]) Henry Gonzalez (1077 : b : 2.0 [2.0])
47 Matthew Scott (1506 : w : 2.0 [2.0]) Ferdinand Supsup (1851 : b : 2.0 [2.0])
48 Ed Zator (1835 : w : 2.0 [2.0]) Tian Lan (1510 : b : 2.0 [2.0])
49 Pino Verde (1800 : w : 2.0 [2.0]) Bryant Yang (1500 : b : 2.0 [2.0])
50 Jack Maguire (1513 : w : 2.0 [2.0]) Bruce Dowling (1796 : b : 2.0 [2.0])
51 Genadi Medvedev (1628 : w : 2.0 [2.0]) Samir El-Gohary (1541 : b : 2.0 [2.0])
52 Razvan Preotu (1606 : w : 2.0 [2.0]) Jatinder Dhaliwal (1577 : B : 2.0 [2.0])
53 Patrick Yu (1572 : w : 2.0 [2.0]) Mei Chen Lee (1552 : w : 2.0 [2.0])
If you take a look at the round 3 pairings before and after the one of Florea vs. Gonzalez, you will see that they have paired all of the "1+1" (one real point and one phantom point) players together and then paired all of the "2" (two real points) players together. That makes no sense.
Even if it *did* make some kind of sense, I can't figure out why Florea would be playing Gonzalez. It's like they decided that the lowest of the "1+1" group should be playing the lowest of the "2" group.
If you take a look at the round 3 pairings before and after the one of Florea vs. Gonzalez, you will see that they have paired all of the "1+1" (one real point and one phantom point) players together and then paired all of the "2" (two real points) players together. That makes no sense.
Even if it *did* make some kind of sense, I can't figure out why Florea would be playing Gonzalez. It's like they decided that the lowest of the "1+1" group should be playing the lowest of the "2" group.
Steve
I realize your comment wasn't directed at me, but so you know, I did take a look at it yesterday and I was aware of that.
In fact, so was Hal, since I brought it to his attention by 1pm (I had informed him as early as 9:45am that there was a problem with the Boards 46 through 53, but I hadn't, at that time, noticed the extent of the problems).
The problem is, it was wrong on many levels.
1) 1+1 group wasn't playing 2's.
2) 2's were paired wrongly with the 1+1 (re: Gonzales) even if they wanted to do that.
3) 2's were paired wrongly amongst each other.
The pairings did not follow an accelerated swiss system (players were not properly paired), and further, many sections were incorrectly paired (for example, Board #47 to #53 were inexplicably highest v. lowest seed as opposed to Swiss.
I am unsure what the correct approach is. I attempted to argue the point with the tournament Arbitrator, Mr. Hal Bond, prior to the commencement of Round 3. I also attempted to speak with the Tournament Organizers, without success. I know I have taken the time to draft, and send, the relevant Tournament Staff a 5 page complaint outlining my significant issues with the administration of this round.
The ripple effect it has created has severely undermined the final outcome, and it is hard to imagine a remedy that will resolve the problems that this farce of a round has created, short of replaying the Round in its entirety with the proper pairings, and discounting the Round 3 results.
:: sigh ::.
It's pretty sad that the biggest tournament in Canada for Chess is being administered in such a fashion.
In a separate thread Bpb Armstrong points out (and I presume he would know) that the pairing mixups seem to have been caused by glitches in SwissSys - something about a recent change to implement 'accelerated pairings' [notice the lower case "a" Jon]
As the story goes, when the glitch was tracked down it was decided (I guess by Hal and the organizers?) that it might well be worse to change the pairings than to let them stand.
Regardless of the cause and the analysis, I would have hoped there was a proper announcement before the start of Round 3 [I would have delayed the start, if necessary, for the few minutes it would take] of the relevant details so that people would at least know exactly what did and did not happen rather than having to speculate.
Well before the tournament I and others had asked what sort of pairing system would be used and all I ever saw in response were vague statements; pairing rules HAVE to be clearly stated so that everyone can at least FOLLOW them to believe they are being properly implemented.
Unfortunately, if there are 213 people in the Cdn Open there will be at least 1+213 opinions on how to do it or how it is being done...
It seems like Round 3 is in the can and all that can be done is to move on...
I realize your comment wasn't directed at me, but so you know, I did take a look at it yesterday and I was aware of that.
No problem. After I had made my first post I went to take a look at the Florea-Gonzalez pairing and saw how that was messed up and when I can to edit my original post and take on a "P.S.", you had already replied. So I just replied to you instead of editing.
In a separate thread Bpb Armstrong points out (and I presume he would know) that the pairing mixups seem to have been caused by glitches in SwissSys - something about a recent change to implement 'accelerated pairings' [notice the lower case "a" Jon]
As the story goes, when the glitch was tracked down it was decided (I guess by Hal and the organizers?) that it might well be worse to change the pairings than to let them stand.
Regardless of the cause and the analysis, I would have hoped there was a proper announcement before the start of Round 3 [I would have delayed the start, if necessary, for the few minutes it would take] of the relevant details so that people would at least know exactly what did and did not happen rather than having to speculate.
Well before the tournament I and others had asked what sort of pairing system would be used and all I ever saw in response were vague statements; pairing rules HAVE to be clearly stated so that everyone can at least FOLLOW them to believe they are being properly implemented.
Unfortunately, if there are 213 people in the Cdn Open there will be at least 1+213 opinions on how to do it or how it is being done...
It seems like Round 3 is in the can and all that can be done is to move on...
There was an announcement that the pairings had "anomalies", the problem is the tournament organizers were content to not alter the pairings despite having more than enough time to do so. Hal was aware of the problem as of 1pm in the afternoon. There are 130 boards. He could have repaired the 260 players in 5 hours. He may not have wanted to, but he could have.
The problem now is, every subsequent round is affected by the errors in that round. Players who shouldn't have won, have. Players who shouldn't have lost, have. Further, where before to go to 4 points, you'd need 2 wins over superior opposition, now some players only need one.
Say I had won my game, for example, playing 350 points up. Now I would need to repeat the performance in Round 4 to get to 4 points. By contrast, a player who was 1570 and played another 1550, would only need to perform at that superior level once.
The entire tournament has been rendered inequitable.
The excuses that players had already spent time preparing for their opponents and then find that pairings may have changed is a real crock.
At least their decision was within regulations :)
F.6
A pairing officially made public shall not be changed unless it violates the absolute pairing criteria (B1 and B2)
and those B1 and B2
B.1
1. Two players shall not meet more than once.
2. A player who has received a point without playing, either through a bye or due to an opponent not appearing in time, shall not receive a bye.
B.2
1. No player's colour difference will become >+2 or <-2.
2. No player will receive the same colour three times in row.
Re: Canadian Chess Open Championship: Round 3 Farce.
You needn't have flown to the moon Matthew but if its a choice of talking to you or Neil Armstrong when he was alive I'll put my trust in Neil everytime. So you've never paired a tournament ever, good to know. You also apparently needn't have gone to drama school to be overly dramatic. Oh and I was talking about chess players in general. Its not all about Matthew.
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Tuesday, 13th July, 2010, 11:21 AM.
Tweet
Comment