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.
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.
Bob
Thanks. That was my understanding (more or less). When I was there last night, I heard (and I honestly cannot recall from whom) that the pairings were discussed by Hal and some others and it was decided to let them stand.
What I would like to know (assuming the pairings were agreed incorrect) what the basis was for letting them stand. If, for example, it was alleged that altering published pairings would or could result in FIDE refusing to rate the tournament or grant norm work or the like, that should be clearly stated.
Bottom line is that at some point SOMEONE should explain if the pairings were wrong, why they were wrong, and why they were not corrected. Of course, what has transpired is water under the bridge and the tournament moves on...
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.
1) there are unrated players playing in tournaments, they are playing 'super' long games without any issue, if you were correct actives would attract more participants than standard time controls and they don't
you are missing the whole internet phenomenon which has for years taken away from the club and weekend scene, I can play a tournament with hardly any expense from the comfort of my home
2) witness the number of players who move up a section voluntarily at every tournament I've been to, if they cared more about prize money than the game they would stay in the lowest section they are allowed to play in to maximize their prize money potential, sure the money in the higher section is bigger but I've never known a 1600 player to enter the U2000 section say with the actual hutspah to think they are going to win the sectional prize, evidence also includes the number of us happy to play in Hal Bond's Guelph tournaments with reasonable entry fees and no cash prizes except in the open section
3) repeat point # 2 but this time substitute being able to get rating points against weaker competiton by staying in your section - unless we are all deluded that we can enter the open section and get all sorts of rating points by upsetting all the higher rated players also add that people don't get real rating points on say ICC because they expire when your account expires and they aren't FIDE, CFC or USCF but who cares, also evidence is the pretty booming Mississauga club that does not rate many of their tournaments with CFC, but people still happily play neither for prize money nor fo CFC rating points
either you like this game and play it or you don't - many of the players at the Open play at their local clubs not for prize money that's for sure
I've never met an arrogant or egotistical 'top' player who ignores us little players, perhaps I've been exceptionally lucky but I don't think so, I think that's the norm at least in Canadian chess
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Friday, 16th July, 2010, 03:18 PM.
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.
Bob
how wrong? how many players were affected? its been presented to us by some parties as a disaster that has made the tournament a farce, is it to that extent?
Re: Re : Re: Canadian Chess Open Championship: Pairing Issues
Hi Zeljko:
I agree. In Rd. 5, I played Master David Filipovich. We've played in the same tournaments many times, but I don't think we'd ever formally met. I played an OK, but not great game, but it was a bit complex, in a fairly standard position that arises often in different ways. David won. He immediately asked me if I wanted to look at it. We went to the skittles room and started analyzing. He was very respectful of my contributions, though he saw much more than I did. Another player got interested ( I don't think he is too hightly rated ), and he sat down beside David and started joining in the analysis. David was fine with this. We analyze all kinds of optional lines for about an hour I think. It was very educational.
I enjoyed meeting David, and hope we get to play again. And thanks for having such an open attitude to us class players - it certainly contributes to a positive image of chess ( which it needs ) and to a positive chess experience for us class players. Thanks again for the time spent.
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. :)
I think that in the late 1970s they might have had a different way of counting, so that every member of every affiliated club was counted as a member of the FQE. Counting that way, the FQE might have approached 5,000 members. It was a way to get better grants from the Québec governrment. But it was not totally dissimilar to the way the CFC was in 1967 ("per capita fee payments" from clubs), or the way the French federation (FFE) is today (no player may belong to the FFE except through a club).
Gary Ruben can get 100% of his federation's membership to turn out to every event it holds.
I think that in the late 1970s they might have had a different way of counting, so that every member of every affiliated club was counted as a member of the FQE. Counting that way, the FQE might have approached 5,000 members.
My way of counting is unsophisticated: 1+1=2. To count 5,000 FQE members at any time must have required tremendous creativity. Even at the best of times chess clubs in Quebec (the few that really function) have attracted few people, only a small fraction of the FQE membership, a few hundred people at the most.
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!
The pairings for round 3 were GROSSLY wrong, regardless of who or what generated them. The pairing software did *not* give Bindi Cheng a chance at a norm. After his round 3 pairing the norm possibility was essentially gone for him and virtually anybody else. (Bindi won the round 3 game by the way).
Things will probably "even out" for the different class players, but for master-level players seeking norms, they won't.
The pairings for round 3 were GROSSLY wrong, regardless of who or what generated them. The pairing software did *not* give Bindi Cheng a chance at a norm. After his round 3 pairing the norm possibility was essentially gone for him and virtually anybody else. (Bindi won the round 3 game by the way).
The purpose of a pairing software is to produce legal pairings according to a set of rules, not to increase the norm possibility which is illegal under FIDE rules.
The purpose of a pairing software is to produce legal pairings according to a set of rules, not to increase the norm possibility which is illegal under FIDE rules.
Except that in round 3 the pairing software did NOT produce "legal pairings according to a set of rules". If you say it did then please codify these "rules" for us, and also explain why different rules get followed for different rounds.
Instead, in round 3, the pairing software deviated deviated from the published pairing rules, produced garbage, and in so doing clobbered Bindi Cheng's norm chances. He has reason to be upset.
Steve
P.S. Just so you know, I am well aware that whatever pairing system is used in a single-section Open tournament, the chances of a norm are very remote.
I think that in the late 1970s they might have had a different way of counting, so that every member of every affiliated club was counted as a member of the FQE. Counting that way, the FQE might have approached 5,000 members. It was a way to get better grants from the Québec governrment. But it was not totally dissimilar to the way the CFC was in 1967 ("per capita fee payments" from clubs), or the way the French federation (FFE) is today (no player may belong to the FFE except through a club).
Gary Ruben can get 100% of his federation's membership to turn out to every event it holds.
Yes. Every member of the Inner Galactic Chess Federation shows up for events and for the AGM to elect the president. I have been working feverishly to expand my mind in the remote event someone, or something, with try to communicate moves to me telepathically. The international notation is perfect for this.
Now on to more serious stuff.
Back then about one third of the correspondence club members lived in Quebec. There were some very strong players who I don't think played in any CFC events.
The first event after the summer, the major open, often used to draw an entry of about a quarter of the membership.
The first Correspondence Canadian Open I organized drew 401 entrants from across the country. I can't recall the entry for the second one a few years later but think it was quite close to 300 entrants. A player didn't have to be a member of the club to enter and the fee was very low. It was for promotion. A lot of the players who tried it joined and a lot didn't.
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.
An open Swiss event suggests the higher rated players is there for a chance at the prize money and the appearance fee, if there is one.
To play those their own rating they should be entering invitational events or round robin events which meet their needs.
Except that in round 3 the pairing software did NOT produce "legal pairings according to a set of rules". If you say it did then please codify these "rules" for us, and also explain why different rules get followed for different rounds.
.
I did not check the Canadian Open pairings and I make no claim about their validity or invalidity. If you have a complaint about the pairings, please see Hal Bond.
SwissSys has a lot of options if some parameters of the program have been changed between the rounds, this is something to check with the crew at the site, not on chesstalk.
An open Swiss event suggests the higher rated players is there for a chance at the prize money and the appearance fee, if there is one.
To play those their own rating they should be entering invitational events or round robin events which meet their needs.
AMEN!!
This is the only tournament during the year when the class players and a little above (ratings 1000-2200) have a chance to play side by side and/or against titled players.
Now, "we" find out that, first and foremost, all sorts of pairing tricks are performed in order to help the "norm seekers" (for Ottawa 2007 for sure it happened as the TD acknowledges on this forum).
What are the results?
Ottawa 2007: 280 participants
Toronto 2010: 260 participants
Can someone remind me: which city is the more populated?
Of course I would not expect 3 times more in Toronto but an increase with 20-30% would have been reasonable.
I am afraid that with the existing treatment / attitude towards the "average Joe", the trend will continue to be downwards.
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.
Your comment is entirely unfair.
My private message was:
That's because they screwed up Round 3. It's not fair to be critical of the players who earned their way to play upper tier players.
For example, in my case, I lost in Round 3 (against an 1851), but in the next 3 rounds beat an 1897, lost to a 2179 and beat a 2030.
-Matt
I stand by my comments, and I don't believe there's anything "unprofessional" about them. I am proposing that Round 3 screwed up *everyone*, including you and your norm chances that you care so much about. People you should have played ended up against each other, and thus some of them lose. Players who should have lost (including lower rated players), won, and thus you now have to play them in Round 4. It set the entire tournament back several rounds. I understand all this, and I understood it before Round 3 began.
In fact, plenty of people can verify the fact that I argued rather passionately and vocally before Round 3, both in terms of in writing and in person. My arguments fell on deaf ears. Everything that has happened since, is entirely a consequence of the incorrect wins/losses and then Swiss System trying to autocorrect. Had we another 5 rounds to do it, it might.
It won't, in the 2 rounds left, though, and that's the problem.
For players like myself, who have played above their skill level, their category prizes are in doubt due to players who got free points in Round 3, then lost in Round 4, but had easier opponents in Round 5. In an odd number of Rounds, this will favour them.
For higher rated players, it's meant having to play a lot of lower rated opposition since you guys beat down the players at your skill level for an extra time. There were/are 1800s-2000s who had 0 to 1 point after 3 rounds. That should never happen. By contrast, there were quite a few U1600s at that mark.
In the end though, it all comes down to this: If you screw up a pairing in accelerated pairings like they did - it will ruin the remainder of the pairings for several rounds.
This is the only tournament during the year when the class players and a little above (ratings 1000-2200) have a chance to play side by side and/or against titled players.
Now, "we" find out that, first and foremost, all sorts of pairing tricks are performed in order to help the "norm seekers" (for Ottawa 2007 for sure it happened as the TD acknowledges on this forum).
What are the results?
Ottawa 2007: 280 participants
Toronto 2010: 260 participants
Can someone remind me: which city is the more populated?
Of course I would not expect 3 times more in Toronto but an increase with 20-30% would have been reasonable.
I am afraid that with the existing treatment / attitude towards the "average Joe", the trend will continue to be downwards.
Actually, you don't know what sort of tricks were resorted to, you only know that one particular pairing trick (exchanging a player in the top half with a player in the bottom half of a score group) was a bridge too far for the tournament director, me. You don't know from what has been posted here what sort of tricks might have been performed. But yes, I did hint that I was willing to do it, in spite of FIDE's possible wrath. That was an understandable mistake on your part.
As for the rest, the facts as you present them justify a conclusion opposite from the one you drew. It was at the very least an "open secret" that the instigator of the controversial Kapuskasing 2003 pairings would use a sophisticated, hyper-accelerated system for the 2007 Canadian Open. Everybody who cared about the pairing system knew or could find out. In contrast, the 2010 CO announcements from at least February 2010 until the PDF you can download at this instant from chess.ca, had the following curious announcement.
Accelerated pairings will be used in early rounds.
What information could be gleaned from this sentence? First, that its author isn't comfortable with the concept of accelerated pairings, or he fears that the reader isn't. The sentence conveys exactly the same meaning as:
Accelerated pairings will be used.
The extra words are ... maybe to reassure other people who don't know what accelerated pairings are?
Second, the term "Accelerated pairings" means "Haley Accelerated Pairings" (for those in the know), and combined with the 9-round length of the tournament, indicates that GM and IM norms were not of consequence to the organizers. Yes, the announcement says FIDE-Rated, but no mention of norms.
The original and current announcement is for a tournament with pretty conventional pairings and no norm opportunities. The vast majority of the entries were made under those conditions: no norms. They are down significantly from the entries to Ottawa 2007, which did have norms in play. So if any conclusion is to be drawn (but I doubt it), it is that norms and sophisticated pairing systems boost tournament attendance. As Martin Jaeger was so fond of saying "They voted with their feet."
Recently, there was some stuff about norms and hyper-acceleration on this forum. The norm stuff was questioned, the questions weren't answered, and entries closed July 6th. How many people whose mind wasn't already made up about whether to play in the Canadian Open 2010 were affected not to enter by the vague reference to a more sophisticated pairing system, on this forum? Not many, I'd warrant.
When can an "average Joe" soccer player or hockey player compete with a pro? An "average Joe" golfer might pay $100 to play a single round of Pro-Am golf with a driving range pro, or might profit from local influence to get a free round with the club pro, but to play with a tour pro would be a lot of $$$$.
Accelerated formats still provide "average Joe" players with a pretty good chance to play a pretty good player. As in a straight Swiss, they have to pay an entry fee that they have a chance of winning back as a Class prize. The difference is that in an accelerated event usually they have in addition to earn the right by beating somebody. I think that real "average Joe" players understand that's a good deal. Average Joe players like to follow the tortuous paths of other players to norms--or near misses. Average Joe players like to be able to say out loud, "When he was 12 years old I beat him in a tournament. Now he's 15 and playing for a norm." Average Joe players remember when they had ambitions. Average Joe players might still have ambitions, thinking for example of Mihai Suba who wasn't a youngster when he became a GM. Average Joe young players are hoping to get into the norm train this tournament, or if not, for sure next year.
Average Joe players are not petty, nor selfish, nor regressive.
I remember having similar disagreements with Peter Stockhausen. He was my perennial chess-political opponent, until I quit. Now he's gone, I know not where, and I'm arguing with his chess-political ghost. Maybe it's time to quit again.
Tweet
Comment