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: Round 3 Farce.
[QUOTE=Alan Baljeu;25594
Better yet, there ought to be a program that validates pairings. I know I could write one in short order (not that short), and it would instantly give a TD a heads up about any bad matches that Swiss Sis might have created. Correcting pairings is another matter, much harder than identifying problems, but that can be left up to the TD and the pairing software. This validator would simply check the result and be your guarantee of quality.[/QUOTE]
I am not so sure it is possible to define "bad matches" so clearly that a program could take over... obviously, one can catch potential mistakes like someone with 3.5 points playing a player with 2 points, but there may be situations where that may be the proper pairing. Writing the program would be simple; writing the rules for the program to check - not so much.
The entire tournament has been rendered inequitable.
All large multi-class Swisses are inequitable. Equitable is a Round-robin or Scheveningen. The swiss system was made for determining a winner, and even then an early "Swiss sacrifice" can bring a late winner (like the 2004Canadian Closed) while another player battles on top boards round after round.
Part of the attraction for class players in this kind of tournament is the gamble that the pairings will work in their favour at the right time to get the class prize. Win too many games early, then get mashed by the masters. Look at past Canadian Opens, players who win prizes with only 4 or 5 points often didn't face the hardest opposition or have the highest performance rating. And a class prize can be won by a rising underrated junior or somebody who plays alot better at one-round-a- day, or gets Whites against similar-rated players. It is not fair. Getting to play players outside your class, being taught a lesson by a stronger player and finding a way to defeat lower rated players is part of the experience. Enjoy the craziness.
David, is Hal responsible for doing the pairings (or ensuring their correctness if the data input is handled by others)? Looking at info provided by Matthew Scott & others, it seems that it should have been clear to the experienced observer, early on, that there were problems with the pairings. Weren't the pairings checked before they were posted? Is someone wearing too many hats (again)?
1. Hal is Chief TD, so he's responsible.
2. I'm quite sure that Hal carried out his duties. He is aware of the problems with the software, and he is putting in the time and effort to get the pairings correct. I can't comment on how it turned out, as I haven't looked into it myself.
3. Too many hats: well, it would help if more people volunteered. Even if more people simply volunteer for the Organizer staff, that frees up the TD staff to concentrate on directing duties.
The pairing today is "right" - the problem is Round 3 was done wrong, and players who should have lost, won. That means those players have 3 points, even if they lost in Round 4.
Some players lost in Round 3 and won against tougher opponents in Round 4 (like myself), and would have been up there anyway to likely get beaten down. That, however, is a different thing.
This is my first time to play in a Canadian Open chess tournament using both the accelerated pairings and the hyper accelerated pairings for the first 4 rounds. And it has totally opened my eyes - to both the advantage and disadvantage of these systems of pairings.
No offence to the organizers. I just want to express my observations.
The system of pairings was adopted in such a way as to generate exciting chess at the top quartile for the first 4 rounds. To prevent loop sided games. What i noticed is that this was not close to perfection.
Looking at the round 5 pairings, this is now where big rating differences ( more than 400 rating points) between paired players happen - unfortunately. The players in this category ( rated 2300+ to 2000+) is now going to bear the effect of the exciting games generated in the previous rounds.
Still, i thank the organizers for staging this Canadian Open. But i will be thinking 2x next time when these pairing systems are used.
6 Razvan Preotu (1606 : w : 3.5) GM Alexander Shabalov (2578 : b : 3.5)
7 Wayne Siu (1449 : W : 3.5) IM Nikolay Noritsyn (2536 : b : 3.5)
8 GM Vladimir Malaniuk (2551 : w : 3.0) Ferdinand Supsup (1851 : b : 3.5)
There's definitely something wrong... I just don't understand why there's only one section in the Canadian Open. The Quebec Open is bigger than the Canadian Open, while it covers a smaller population. Maybe you would get more players if they were 5 or 6 sections, just as in the COQ...
I am not so sure it is possible to define "bad matches" so clearly that a program could take over... obviously, one can catch potential mistakes like someone with 3.5 points playing a player with 2 points, but there may be situations where that may be the proper pairing. Writing the program would be simple; writing the rules for the program to check - not so much.
I didn't say the program takes over. I said the program shows what the problems are. A program can very easily point out all the point mismatches. It's slightly more complex to get the program to limit complaints to "gross violations relative to the tournament format", but I'm sure I could do that too.
The program merely identifies potential problems. The arbiter decides whether to solve them or how.
Having played in four Canadian opens and several large class events I must say that I prefer the "Open" format. Part of the excitement of entering these events is the chance to meet and maybe draw (a win may be too big a dream) an Internationally titled player. I played in the Hogeschool Open in the Netherlands last year and met a 2500+ GM. Yes, I lost, but since it was carried on the internet as one of the top ten boards there was an added excitement to it. In 1973 at the Canadian Open in Ottawa I held GM and former US Champion Arnold Denker to a draw in a 5 hour struggle. It happened 37 years ago but I still remember it. What seems unusual about these accelerated pairings is that rather than having the huge discrepancy in ratings in the first round pairings it is happening four rounds later. Again, not a huge difference. As you can see from the above, I would prefer to keep the Open, open to all!
I honestly believe it will balance out. If a pairing was too hard and you lost, you will have a lower score, get an easy game, and win. If it was too easy and you won, you will have a higher score, get a harder game and lose. Now if a pairing was too easy and you lost, don't blame the pairing system.
The same goes for all your competitors.
Late in the tournament it's too late for this corrective effect, but early on there's lots of time for balance to take place.
Felix, it's not wrong. Unless you have two sections, you're bound to have a few amateurs, who are having a really good tournament play some strong players. If it weren't for the accelerated system, the entire tournament would have experienced that imbalance. Round 1 would then be a waste of time.
Like Howard says, it's great to have a chance to play the big guys.
Felix, it's not wrong. Unless you have two sections, you're bound to have a few amateurs, who are having a really good tournament play some strong players. If it weren't for the accelerated system, the entire tournament would have experienced that imbalance. Round 1 would then be a waste of time.
Like Howard says, it's great to have a chance to play the big guys.
So, instead of "Round 1 would then be a waste of time." we now have: "several other rounds are a waste of time"
and, "it's great to have a chance to play the big guys." is fine unless you are one of the "big guys".
I suppose a free point for them is fine since they don't need any norms.
This is my first time to play in a Canadian Open chess tournament using both the accelerated pairings and the hyper accelerated pairings for the first 4 rounds. And it has totally opened my eyes - to both the advantage and disadvantage of these systems of pairings.
No offence to the organizers. I just want to express my observations.
The system of pairings was adopted in such a way as to generate exciting chess at the top quartile for the first 4 rounds. To prevent loop sided games. What i noticed is that this was not close to perfection.
Looking at the round 5 pairings, this is now where big rating differences ( more than 400 rating points) between paired players happen - unfortunately. The players in this category ( rated 2300+ to 2000+) is now going to bear the effect of the exciting games generated in the previous rounds.
Still, i thank the organizers for staging this Canadian Open. But i will be thinking 2x next time when these pairing systems are used.
The problem isn't the accelerated or hyper accelerated pairings, its the Round 3 mistake which saw players who didn't deserve to win, win. These players thus have 3 points instead of 2, with a few exceptions for players who won in Round 4 against significantly better opposition.
Tweet
Comment