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
My guess is that if they did go back on posted pairings and redo them, FIDE could refuse to rate the whole tournament. Try getting a norm in that case?
My guess is that if they did go back on posted pairings and redo them, FIDE could refuse to rate the whole tournament. Try getting a norm in that case?
Interesting if that is a FIDE reg... sounds draconian enough to be from their fertile mind. Surely doing the correct thing has to be much more important than almost any other approach?
Round 3 is a bit early for that sort of make or break decision...
Anyway, guesses are easy - anyone have any factual info?
My guess is that if they did go back on posted pairings and redo them, FIDE could refuse to rate the whole tournament. Try getting a norm in that case?
Then someone could start a crusade not to rate the tournament at all :D
Re: Canadian Chess Open Championship: Pairing Issues
If anybody has trouble reading small print, I'd be glad to send by email the originals of the 1976 Canadian Open documents that I posted earlier. I'd never attached a file to a Chesstalk post before. The board doesn't seem to like big images, and I'm not blaming the board.
I don't know the 2010 Canadian Open pairing system. Have "official" details been posted? There have been hints, though.
On the surface, it looks like the 2010 system is the same as the 1976 system, which the added piquancy that the 2010 computer threw a spanner into the works with the third-round pairings. That's just my impression from a great distance.
In 1976, the hyper-accelerated pairings were an experiment, an attempt to better the results of Hailey Accelerated Pairings which, deployed by their inventor, came through with flying colours at the 1970 Canadian Open, amongst others. In 1976, a big flaw became apparent in the 5th round, and it was fixed with what Martin Jaeger called "fish-feeding". After the delay of the 5th round top boards for an hour due to a very justified appeal of the pairings, the tournament went on, and the pairings worked OK. The 5th round was deeply dissatisfying, ugly, but before and after was OK. I don't know if the "system" was ever codified; after the 5th round meltdown they just went along with what seemed reasonable measures, and the one guy who might have called them on it wasn't interested anymore. He'd already protested. Remember that in 1976, norms were not earned in open tournaments.
Flash forward to 2010 and there is one well-known, well-working system to hyper-accelerate a tournament. At least one.
-----------------
The yo-yo effect is where you win, but then play an opponent rated 250 points higher, then lose and play an opponent 250 points lower. When I write 250, I mean 250 or more. Single section Swisses are prone to the yo-yo effect. In Class tournaments, by contrast, ideally you never play anybody more than 200 points different, and in general you play opponents 100 or fewer points different.
The yo-yo effect is why I don't play in one section Canadian Opens.
A tournament in two sections greatly reduces the yo-yo effect. That should not surprise anybody. What did surprise me was that the Système Suisse Accéléré Degréssif does not decrease the yo-yo effect, except at the top of the pairings chart. For the rest, the yo-yo is the same or even worse! Yes, I did the arithmetic, and I was shocked.
I eliminated the yo-yo effect at the 2003 Canadian Open in Kapuskasing. There were two problems, though. One was that players near the bottom of their rating class, if they continued to lose to opponents 100 or so points above them, would continue to get paired against the same strength of opposition. I confess that I wasn't sufficiently sympathetic to their plight. That issue could be fixed too. The other problem was more intractable. Anybody with even the slightest suspicious nature was a candidate for full-blown paranoia if he saw a pairing he didn't like. There was no deck of cards, cut in two, slap slap slap, they've already played, transpose somebody from the same half needing the same colour. No, the rules were results-oriented, not procedural. That was the main reason I declined to do the 2004 Canadian Open, even though I had a good working relation and was friends with, the Nadeaux. Work for long hours, and then deal with a psycho protest? No. The other reason was that I didn't approve of two national tournaments at once, which is why I also didn't have anything to do with the contemporaneous Western Canadian Open.
PS. Since beginning to compose this posting, I see that Egis has provided a graph. That's a lot like what happened at the 1976 Canadian Open. After 4 rounds I had +2=2, or 3-1, a good score. The acceleration came off, and I was paired against a player with the same score, but rated 1175. The diff was 1155 points! Taking into account rating inflation, that would be 5,001,155 points today. :) Hello, you must be yo-yo galore. I like my pairings shaken, not stirred.
Re: Canadian Chess Open Championship: Pairing Issues
In some defence to the Rd5 pairings, the average rating difference is probably always going to be the most for the round where all ghosts points are removed.
It will get better for the last 4 rounds....
Last edited by Fred McKim; Wednesday, 14th July, 2010, 05:53 PM.
"
- Single section Canadian Open
As has been documented before, a traditional single section Open (even with Haley Accelerated Pairings) results in most players experiencing the “yo-yo” effect. You rarely play somebody of near your own strength, unless you are in the leading or trailing groups."
***
More theoretical possibilities:
How would a total round number influence the norms (and “yo-yo”, and no accelarators)?
11 (meaning two days two rounds in a 9-days schedule)
13 (four days two rounds, this might be a very tough tournament without byes or rest days.)
In principle, yoyo should be minimized at the end of the tournament. Norms - might be more possibilities.
Pay early or pay late. With regular swiss pairings players should see more normal conditions in an earlier round. All these fancy systems seem to do is delay the inevitable.
More theoretical possibilities:
How would a total round number influence the norms (and “yo-yo”, and no accelarators)?
11 (meaning two days two rounds in a 9-days schedule)
13 (four days two rounds, this might be a very tough tournament without byes or rest days.)
I do blather on, eh? But having sections is a good enough solution. Increasing the tournament to 11 or 13 rounds (and wrecking your tournament!) gives the lowly yo-yo way more respect than it deserves.
Or administer a psychological admission test to each prospective entrant, then use the 2003 Kapuskasing system with the small adjustment indicated above. :)
In some defence to the Rd5 pairings, the average rating difference is probably always going to be the round where all ghosts points are removed.
It will get better for the last 4 rounds....
With Système Suisse Accéléré Degréssif, you don't neutralize the ghost points all at once, but gradually over rounds 3-8, using two methods. It's an issue that arose in 1976, and it has been solved.
Edit: I should make clear that (S)SAD still has the yo-yo effect of a normal Swiss System. It just doesn't have any increased yo-yo effect when the acceleration comes off, because the acceleration doesn't come off all at once.
Last edited by Jonathan Berry; Wednesday, 14th July, 2010, 11:39 PM.
Reason: yo yo-yo
A suggestion for next year for the Canadian Open: take the greatest of Quebec National Arbiter and your pairings will be almost perfect. He knows his business.;)
A suggestion for next year for the Canadian Open: take the greatest of Quebec National Arbiter and your pairings will be almost perfect. He knows his business.;)
almost perfect? not good enough mon ami, that won't stop the complaining :p:p
A suggestion for next year for the Canadian Open: take the greatest of Quebec National Arbiter and your pairings will be almost perfect. He knows his business.;)
Tweet
Comment