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
Well Stephen, fret no more about Boyd helping me out with my norm chances. As of round 7, I've only played 2 titled players and basically instead of killing my chances in round, it's happened 2 rounds later. I haven't played poorly at all and even if I win my round 7 game with 5.5/7 there's still nothing left to play for. (I'm realistic in my chances of getting a prize in the Canadian open) This'll be the last time I play in a one-section CO. It's ironic that with all the fretting of Jonathon Berry's 2007 Ottawa CO pairings, there were still norm chances present but apparently notwithstanding Aman's great chance of getting his first IM norm, by round 7, the pairings of norm-seekers versus expert-class players or lower has really killed off a lot of potential norm opportunities.
I think there is a biggest upset prize - any candidates?
I think it's going to go to one of the lower seeded players, probably one of the 1000s or something. Henry Gonzales if memory serves beat someone fairly high.
The best I've done is a 524 point upset, but I don't think that will be enough.
“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?:)
...
Today I still can't believe the CO in Toronto looks like in Kapuskasing 2003 which got 200 more players to play. :(
William, FIDE even claim that they have a computer program which will check Swiss pairings. They might even reject tournaments which don't correspond to what the program says is right. That's how far, in theory, FIDE might be willing to go.
As an example of what we're talking about ... in the round 7 pairings of the 5 point group, it wouldn't matter to FIDE's program whether the irregularity (bds 2+3: NN on 2, RS on 3 would be more regular) in the pairing was caused by the desire to enhance a player's IM norm chances, or whether it was a glitch in the way the computer pairing program deals with the "odd man", or even by such an arcane concept as "look-ahead". No, I haven't been combing the pairings for irregularities, I just switched over to the MonRoi site to find out the final entry count (see below), was puzzled by something (not what I eventually found), and went back to look at who had already played whom among the 5-pointers.
I remember that many years ago, FIDE passed a motion, at the recommendation of their Rules Committee, encouraging experimentation in pairing methods. I don't know if the motion was ever rescinded, I'll guess not, but last time I searched fide.com, there was no trace of such a thing. If they publicized that motion, every pairing irregularity would be defended as a pairing experiment.
I'm not clear on your final paragraph, William. AFAIR, Kapuskasing 2003 CO had 142 players. Toronto 2010 has 263 players, about 120 more. I remember in the early 1980s, CFC had close to 4,000 members (and so reportedly did the FQE, maybe even more). We can look back at Montreal 1974 (over 600 players), Toronto 1976 (over 400 players) and weep, but in 2010 they've managed to attract a bigger proportion of the membership than then. Maybe the 2010 CFC member is "serious inquiries only".
I remember in the early 1980s, CFC had close to 4,000 members (and so reportedly did the FQE, maybe even more).
To my knowledge the FQE membership got its peak around 1988 with something like 1800 members. But as you imply there is a nice twist to a small membership: it may be easier to attract a high percentage of the membership to one single event. :)
William, FIDE even claim that they have a computer program which will check Swiss pairings. They might even reject tournaments which don't correspond to what the program says is right. That's how far, in theory, FIDE might be willing to go.
As an example of what we're talking about ... in the round 7 pairings of the 5 point group, it wouldn't matter to FIDE's program whether the irregularity (bds 2+3: NN on 2, RS on 3 would be more regular) in the pairing was caused by the desire to enhance a player's IM norm chances, or whether it was a glitch in the way the computer pairing program deals with the "odd man", or even by such an arcane concept as "look-ahead". No, I haven't been combing the pairings for irregularities, I just switched over to the MonRoi site to find out the final entry count (see below), was puzzled by something (not what I eventually found), and went back to look at who had already played whom among the 5-pointers.
I remember that many years ago, FIDE passed a motion, at the recommendation of their Rules Committee, encouraging experimentation in pairing methods. I don't know if the motion was ever rescinded, I'll guess not, but last time I searched fide.com, there was no trace of such a thing. If they publicized that motion, every pairing irregularity would be defended as a pairing experiment.
Hi Jonathan,
I believe there is not the only one pairing which is not irregularity. It sometimes has the space to let the arbiter to arrange something. A Canadian arbiter always tells players and parents he could use the "color system", so that his son is able to play white against weaker players and sac his black to strong players when the parents complain his swiss pairing. Another arbiter use the right to let someone force bye to let another supposed bye players to play the game. Those situation we often see in the Canada's chess tournament. OK they are not fide rated games. However, in Europe, I experienced, an arbiter paired his daughter to offer the chance to win the women's prize but it could be licity an it also was not irregularity by the fide law. For those, I guess all chess veterans have more experience than what I have.
To my knowledge the FQE membership got its peak around 1988 with something like 1800 members. But as you imply there is a nice twist to a small membership: it may be easier to attract a high percentage of the membership to one single event. :)
The problem, I think, is that:
1) People don't want to play super long games, especially at lower levels. It doesn't attract people to the game.
2) Many players care more about the prize money than the game.
3) Many players care more about their rating or norm chances than the game.
It's almost like the top players don't realize if there aren't any lower rated players, there's nothing to win.
That said, some higher players are very good about going over their games w/ their opponent, even in instances where their opponent was underrated comparatively.
Re: Canadian Chess Open Championship: Pairing Issues
Matthew, higher rated players aren't there to satisfy the need of a scalp by a lower rated player. They actually want to play people their own rating. Please don't send me a private message and base your whole negative argument on my response. it's very unprofessional and unnecessary.
Re: Canadian Chess Open Championship: Pairing Issues
The Secretary of the Committee has told me that it has not been rescinded.
You are free to experiment provided that there exist a written copy of the pairing rules that you intent to use and that the objective of the system is not to favour norms.
I remember that many years ago, FIDE passed a motion, at the recommendation of their Rules Committee, encouraging experimentation in pairing methods. I don't know if the motion was ever rescinded,
The CO isn't much of a warm-up for the Olympics. If you lose a game at the Olympics, you don't play an opponent 250 points lower than you. I have no objection to requiring games played in Canada, but if you want the team to profit from this requirement, give the Quebec Open, the Calgary International, the Edmonton International, maybe even the Canadian Closed ... at least equal billing to the CO.
The thought struck that if there are participation rules, maybe there should be incentive rules. For example, that at least half the incentive budget at any Canadian Open must be spent on Canadian players.
Are you any relation to the guy who was a bit of a godfather (in the best possible sense) to BC Chess in the late 1960s / early 1970s ? His name might have been Art De Jong.
I agree that participation rules would have to be married to matching incentives. E.g. some of the entry fee from the CO could be used to support the olympiad team instead of returned as prizes.
It just seems to me that its easier for the chess community as a whole to support - financially and otherwise - leading players that they've gotten a chance to know. Insofar as the CO is at least as much a social gathering and celebration of Canadian chess as it is a tournament per se, its an ideal venue to raise one's visibility.
My perception is that most chess players want to support our leading players, but at the same time, they don't like being taken for granted. Formalizing ways where both groups "win" - we fish get to see our heroes in action, while they receive our $ and adulation - benefit everyone.
An alternative model, likely more amenable to leading players: how about covering the costs for any olympiad team member who plays in the CO in even-numbered years (so we get to meet them), and holding an olympiad fundraiser during the CO?
I'm complaining because the pairings were done wrong. I'm currently tied for 1st in my category, and the one above it, so I don't know why you think it's because i'm "losing".
The pairings should have been done right. They weren't. That's a problem.
Pairings are generated by simply clicking the PAIR button of any computer software.
Even if the program has made an error in the earlier rounds, it will definitely correct itself as
rounds progress.
Fact was, if you had not lost your game in the 3rd Round, most likely you won't even bother at all, since
you are on track of your goal of winning your category.
Similarly with IM Bindi Cheng, after losing his match with GM Pentala Harikrishna, he wanted his money back!
He came here to try to earn his norm and the computer pairing software did what he was aiming for. The computer
pairing software gave his wish but after he blew it, he also blamed the pairing software!
Some other players complained about the pairings but believe me, the software gave everyone the chance! You just
have to prove yourself that you deserve it!
I Would like commend the organizers and the rest of the staff for the job excellent done!!!
I knew that everyone in the organizing committee worked too hard to make this event another success!!!
These guys at the organizing committee are working people who came down from work after their regular working
schedules.
Sometimes you have to put yourself on their shoes.
Pairings are generated by simply clicking the PAIR button of any computer software.
Even if the program has made an error in the earlier rounds, it will definitely correct itself as
rounds progress.
Fact was, if you had not lost your game in the 3rd Round, most likely you won't even bother at all, since
you are on track of your goal of winning your category.
Similarly with IM Bindi Cheng, after losing his match with GM Pentala Harikrishna, he wanted his money back!
He came here to try to earn his norm and the computer pairing software did what he was aiming for. The computer
pairing software gave his wish but after he blew it, he also blamed the pairing software!
Some other players complained about the pairings but believe me, the software gave everyone the chance! You just
have to prove yourself that you deserve it!
I Would like commend the organizers and the rest of the staff for the job excellent done!!!
I knew that everyone in the organizing committee worked too hard to make this event another success!!!
These guys at the organizing committee are working people who came down from work after their regular working
schedules.
Sometimes you have to put yourself on their shoes.
It seems like you are saying that because a player got a pairing that was the end of the obligation of the tournament? I cannot tell whether or not you agree that many of the round 3 pairings were wrong!
Can you answer that question? Can anyone?
The pairings and the rulings made by the tournament arbiters/handlers/organizers are ALL crucial to the success or failure of a tournament.
I am sure the tournament folks are all working extremely hard (I saw that first hand when I visited the tournament last night) but their work ethic is not in question here: it is a small subset of the pairings and the decisions around those events.
Re: Canadian Chess Open Championship: Pairing Issues - No more complaints???
Hi Kerry:
I heard Hal talking about the Rd. 3 pairings, and they were definitely wrong. Visually checked, they were not as the accelerated system should have generated. I am not sure whether they were wrong for all quartiles - didn't speak to Hal about that, but I thought I heard that some of the groups of pairings were right, but in whole they were wrong.
Pairings are generated by simply clicking the PAIR button of any computer software.
Even if the program has made an error in the earlier rounds, it will definitely correct itself as
rounds progress.
Fact was, if you had not lost your game in the 3rd Round, most likely you won't even bother at all, since
you are on track of your goal of winning your category.
Similarly with IM Bindi Cheng, after losing his match with GM Pentala Harikrishna, he wanted his money back!
He came here to try to earn his norm and the computer pairing software did what he was aiming for. The computer
pairing software gave his wish but after he blew it, he also blamed the pairing software!
Some other players complained about the pairings but believe me, the software gave everyone the chance! You just
have to prove yourself that you deserve it!
I Would like commend the organizers and the rest of the staff for the job excellent done!!!
I knew that everyone in the organizing committee worked too hard to make this event another success!!!
These guys at the organizing committee are working people who came down from work after their regular working
schedules.
Sometimes you have to put yourself on their shoes.
Uhh.. not to speak for him but Im pretty sure Bindi's wish was to have a chance for a Norm.. playing one GM doesn't help accomplish that at all after his other first 3 pairings. And although I think Matthew is taking this a little further than necessary, Im pretty sure his complaints have nothing to do with winning or losing. IIRC he was complaining before the r3 game even started, and was complaining about all the pairings (not just his).
Tweet
Comment