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.
You needn't have flown to the moon Matthew but if its a choice of talking to you or Neil Armstrong I'll put my trust in Neil everytime. So you've never paired a tournament ever, good to know.
Why? Neil Armstrong does not have any special knowledge merely by having flown there. What if we were designing rockets?
Would you trust the aerospace engineer, or the person who has flown a rocket? The two are not equivalent positions.
-=-=-
With respect to the pairings being made public, why don't we just draw the names out of a hat then?
I mean, after all, I could draw names out of a hat, post them, and then players who participated, according to you, would have no recourse.
EDIT:
The tournament was advertised under a specific formula. That formula was clearly not followed, without reason, in Round #3. Every single player who signed up for the tournament is a potential claimant for breach of contract.
Last edited by Matthew Scott; Tuesday, 13th July, 2010, 11:23 AM.
Giuseppe Del Duca (1362 : w : 2.5 [2.5]) FM Michael Barron (2375 : B : 1.0 [2.0])
More than 1000 points between ratings.
In this case it looks correct. Del Duca is the lowest rated of the players with 2.5 points and I presume Barron is the highest of the players with 2 points. Mind you, whether their scores were affected by previous pairing "anomalies" is another matter....
In this case it looks correct. Del Duca is the lowest rated of the players with 2.5 points and I presume Barron is the highest of the players with 2 points. Mind you, whether their scores were affected by previous pairing "anomalies" is another matter....
Steve
The pairing is "correct", insofar as current pairings can be correct based on the joke that was Round #3. If Mr. Barron displays the same degree of impeccable logic that he demonstrated in my conversation with him prior to Round #3, I imagine that the 1350 rated player has quite the chance of surprising some folks.
I mean, after all, I could draw names out of a hat, post them, and then players who participated, according to you, would have no recourse.
You would need to write an appeal and not to Arbiters but to the tournament Appeal Committee. They might overturn the Arbiters' decision, e.g. pairings. Was it done?
(b) In all events there shall be an Appeals Committee. The CA and CO shall ensure that the Appeals Committee is elected or appointed before the start of the first round, usually at the drawing of lots. It is recommended this consists of a Chairman, at least two members and two reserve members. Preferably no two members of the committee shall come from the same federation. No arbiter, administrator or player involved in the original dispute shall be a member of the appeal committee actually considering that dispute. Such a committee should have an odd number of voting members. Members of the Appeals Committee should not be younger then 18 years old.
(c). A player may appeal against any ruling made by the CA or CO or one of their assistants, provided the appeal is accompanied by a fee and submitted in written form not later than the deadline. Both fee and deadline shall be fixed in advance. The decisions of the Appeal Committee shall be final. The fee is returnable if the appeal is successful. It may also be returned if the appeal is unsuccessful, but reasonable in the view of the committee."
You would need to write an appeal and not to Arbiters but to the tournament Appeal Committee. They might overturn the Arbiters' decision, e.g. pairings. Was it done?
This case might be discussed and other opinion searched during Arbiters' seminar :)
The problem is, the same outcome occurs.
My example is drastic (drawing names out of a hat), but it shows the fundamental problem behind a statement like "posted pairings cannot be altered."
In this case, of course, names were not drawn out of a hat. They were however drawn out of a computer program, one that was incorrectly programmed. I could program a computer to draw randomly, fairly easily. If I was to do so, would those results be beyond reproach merely because I posted them? Such a proposition is absurd.
Further, what exactly would I be "appealing" at this juncture? The decision to not repair the round? The Appeals Committee would be powerless to fix the problem.
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.
I've paired tournaments both over the board and correspondence. I organized and paired two correspondence Canadian Opens with more entrants than this OTB Canadian Open. No big deal but a lot of work.
Pairing a swiss tournament is not rocket science. Complicating the pairing system and then screwing it up (if that's what happened) takes a special talent.
Further, what exactly would I be "appealing" at this juncture? The decision to not repair the round? The Appeals Committee would be powerless to fix the problem.
Probably the same thing as you told to arbiters - pairing in your opinion are wrong because this and that, please do correctly. If the AC would decide that you were right, they may force arbiters to repair manually.
As the round is over, you may try to appeal to National Committee at least to get an official verdict about the round 3 pairings and possible conclusions (e.g., no more accelerators at COs
Probably the same thing as you told to arbiters - pairing in your opinion are wrong because this and that, please do correctly. If the AC would decide that you were right, they may force arbiters to repair manually.
As the round is over, you may try to appeal to National Committee at least to get an official verdict about the round 3 pairings and possible conclusions (e.g., no more accelerators at COs
Acceleration wasn't the problem. The problem was it was done wrong. I don't understand how you cannot comprehend this stunningly simple fact.
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.
Sir, your knowledge in astronautics befuddles me.
Probably you thought of Louis Armstrong , a most common confusion
Why? Neil Armstrong does not have any special knowledge merely by having flown there. What if we were designing rockets?
Would you trust the aerospace engineer, or the person who has flown a rocket? The two are not equivalent positions.
-=-=-
With respect to the pairings being made public, why don't we just draw the names out of a hat then?
I mean, after all, I could draw names out of a hat, post them, and then players who participated, according to you, would have no recourse.
EDIT:
The tournament was advertised under a specific formula. That formula was clearly not followed, without reason, in Round #3. Every single player who signed up for the tournament is a potential claimant for breach of contract.
you specifically were giving the case of understanding the composition of the moon, not designing rockets, you are obviously good at dodging and obfuscating but I would still take Neil Armstrongs understanding of moon composition over yours any day
he not only flew there but he collected samples and was trained by NASA for this purpose
however, if you are saying you know more about the moon than Neil Armstrong because you've read a book, well hubris has no limits it seems - and yes if I was designing a rocket I would talk to Neil before I would talk to you, having flown them he would at least know about what instrumentation design and handling specs and parameters are useful to fly them
not to be redundant but how many rockets have you designed?
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Tuesday, 13th July, 2010, 01:42 PM.
Sir, your knowledge in astronautics befuddles me.
Probably you thought of Louis Armstrong , a most common confusion
Neil is still alive.
glad to hear, I apologize sincerely for any distress I may have caused you or his fans or kin although why you think I would confuse a trumpet player with an astronaut is beyond me
I remembered doing an editorial on Neil when I was a news reporter, now I remember it was upon Neil reaching a significant birthday, not his demise
Oh yes, the super-hyper Accelerated Pairings – the sure way to ruin a Canadian Open.
2007 Ottawa, Ontario … Canada
20+ GMs, 280 participants in total – excellent venue and conditions.
One thing amiss… the pairings!
Ah yes – the super Aix-la-Chapelle pairings – >20 GMs – barely one IM norm, but over 200 unhappy “customers”. Rounds one, two and three: all started with unacceptable delays. Sounds more like Dunkerque!
In my feed-back response to the tournament organizers I indicated I liked the tournament but I will never participate if the pairing system will be the same. Many felt the same – a summary of these responses was made public.
Fast forward 2010.
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Tweet
Comment