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
I don't think you can compare an average chess player participating in a tournament as equivalent to an average golfer playing on the PGA tour, or star hockey player.
There are massively divergent interest levels in the respective activities, and to some extent it is the fact that these top people in other fields *attract* audiences that make it unique. It's not like that in Chess.
Just because you're a 2300 doesn't mean I care any more about your game than anybody else. Hell, I'd wager most younger chess players don't even care about the Olympiad or any other World Championship type events.... unless they, themselves, were participating.
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.
I agree. Hold on to that thought. But it doesn't mean that Olympic team members should play in the Canadian Open:
Just because you're a 2300 doesn't mean I care any more about your game than anybody else. Hell, I'd wager most younger chess players don't even care about the Olympiad or any other World Championship type events.... unless they, themselves, were participating.
On the surface, at least, the best way for players to get to know team members would be one where this direct competitive aspect is absent, a cross-country tour, for example. There's no problem getting players to give tours, but a lack of organizers.
32 David Itkin (1966 : w : 4.5) Stanimir Ilic (2340 : BB : 4.0)
33 FM Dale Haessel (2316 : W : 4.0) Stephan Tonakanian (1990 : B : 4.0)
34 FM Hans Jung (2270 : w : 4.0) Andre Zybura (1989 : B : 4.0)
35 FM Brett Campbell (2268 : W : 4.0) James Fu (1978 : B : 4.0)
36 Robert Bzikot (1984 : b : 4.0) Nikita Gusev (2266 : B : 4.0)
37 Bill Peng (2254 : W : 4.0) Daniel Wiebe (1973 : B : 4.0)
38 Kyle Morrison (2228 : W : 4.0) WCM Alexandra Botez (1963 : B : 4.0)
39 Jordan Palmer (1959 : w : 4.0) WIM Dina Kagramanov (2226 : B : 4.0)
40 William G. Doubleday (2206 : W : 4.0) Sean Rachar (1951 : B : 4.0)
41 David Southam (2165 : W : 4.0) Anthony Cheron (1949 : B : 4.0)
42 Ruokai [David] Li (1932 : W : 4.0) Elias Oussedik (2154 : B : 4.0)
43 Natasa Serbanescu (1880 : w : 4.0) Alan J. Walton (2152 : B : 4.0)
44 Jonathan Lai (1727 : W : 4.0) Gordon Olheiser (2142 : B : 4.0)
45 David Poirier (1855 : W : 4.0) Jingle A. Kho (2120 : B : 4.0)
46 Matthew Scott (1506 : B : 4.0) Mavros Whissell (2120 : B : 4.0)
47 Erwin Casareno (2105 : W : 4.0) Robert Roller (1937 : B : 4.0)
48 Daniel Abrahams (2093 : W : 4.0) Lali Agbabishvili (1860 : B : 4.0)
49 Yevgeni Nahutin (2083 : W : 4.0) Laurent Allard (1934 : B : 4.0)
50 Alexandru Florea (2076 : WW : 4.0) Oleg Tseluiko (1874 : B : 4.0)
51 John Doknjas (1896 : W : 4.0) Stephen Fairbairn (2073 : B : 4.0)
52 Pierre Maheux (1897 : W : 4.0) Jesse B Wang (2072 : B : 4.0)
53 Alex Rapoport (1838 : w : 4.0) Konstantin Semianiuk (2041 : B : 4.0)
54 Frank O'Brien (1744 : W : 4.0) Vladimir Drkulec (2038 : B : 4.0)
55 David Miller (1871 : W : 4.0) Dalia Kagramanov (1998 : BB : 4.0)
Why am I paired with such a good opponent again? I'm not even supposed to get White this round, so it can't possibly be for colour reasons. Also, as the Downfloater in the previous round (and having to play a FM as a result), I thought that you had a limit on how many times you'd get flipped around the pairs.
EDIT: I should add that these pairings aren't grossly wrong, there might be a reason for it unlike the ones in Round 3. I just can't figure out what that reason might be.
Last edited by Matthew Scott; Saturday, 17th July, 2010, 09:38 AM.
There is no rule you should play against people who match your rating nor that there should be a balance. The avg rating of 4 pointers is 2000, and that's also who you are playing. While you might have been paired different, it's not likely it should be easier.
I think you complain too much. Instead try happiness at your good result. Your score far exceeds your rating. Now enjoy your opportunity to learn from a good player.
There is no rule you should play against people who match your rating nor that there should be a balance. The avg rating of 4 pointers is 2000, and that's also who you are playing. While you might have been paired different, it's not likely it should be easier.
I think you complain too much. Instead try happiness at your good result. Your score far exceeds your rating. Now enjoy your opportunity to learn from a good player.
I just want to know why the pairings were switched, that's all. I do have an entitlement to know that, it's not unreasonable. If the explanation is something like "well, player X had already played player Y, so we had to switch X and Z" then that makes sense. Transparency and credibility are important when people are investing a lot of time and effort into something, two characteristics that have been sadly lacking in this tournament.
Especially when some of my competition in my category has similar scores (albeit, because they utilized byes), to wonder about these things.
32 David Itkin (1966 : w : 4.5) Stanimir Ilic (2340 : BB : 4.0)
33 FM Dale Haessel (2316 : W : 4.0) Stephan Tonakanian (1990 : B : 4.0)
34 FM Hans Jung (2270 : w : 4.0) Andre Zybura (1989 : B : 4.0)
35 FM Brett Campbell (2268 : W : 4.0) James Fu (1978 : B : 4.0)
36 Robert Bzikot (1984 : b : 4.0) Nikita Gusev (2266 : B : 4.0)
37 Bill Peng (2254 : W : 4.0) Daniel Wiebe (1973 : B : 4.0)
38 Kyle Morrison (2228 : W : 4.0) WCM Alexandra Botez (1963 : B : 4.0)
39 Jordan Palmer (1959 : w : 4.0) WIM Dina Kagramanov (2226 : B : 4.0)
40 William G. Doubleday (2206 : W : 4.0) Sean Rachar (1951 : B : 4.0)
41 David Southam (2165 : W : 4.0) Anthony Cheron (1949 : B : 4.0)
42 Ruokai [David] Li (1932 : W : 4.0) Elias Oussedik (2154 : B : 4.0)
43 Natasa Serbanescu (1880 : w : 4.0) Alan J. Walton (2152 : B : 4.0)
44 Jonathan Lai (1727 : W : 4.0) Gordon Olheiser (2142 : B : 4.0)
45 David Poirier (1855 : W : 4.0) Jingle A. Kho (2120 : B : 4.0)
46 Matthew Scott (1506 : B : 4.0) Mavros Whissell (2120 : B : 4.0)
47 Erwin Casareno (2105 : W : 4.0) Robert Roller (1937 : B : 4.0)
48 Daniel Abrahams (2093 : W : 4.0) Lali Agbabishvili (1860 : B : 4.0)
49 Yevgeni Nahutin (2083 : W : 4.0) Laurent Allard (1934 : B : 4.0)
50 Alexandru Florea (2076 : WW : 4.0) Oleg Tseluiko (1874 : B : 4.0)
51 John Doknjas (1896 : W : 4.0) Stephen Fairbairn (2073 : B : 4.0)
52 Pierre Maheux (1897 : W : 4.0) Jesse B Wang (2072 : B : 4.0)
53 Alex Rapoport (1838 : w : 4.0) Konstantin Semianiuk (2041 : B : 4.0)
54 Frank O'Brien (1744 : W : 4.0) Vladimir Drkulec (2038 : B : 4.0)
55 David Miller (1871 : W : 4.0) Dalia Kagramanov (1998 : BB : 4.0)
Why am I paired with such a good opponent again? I'm not even supposed to get White this round, so it can't possibly be for colour reasons. Also, as the Downfloater in the previous round (and having to play a FM as a result), I thought that you had a limit on how many times you'd get flipped around the pairs.
EDIT: I should add that these pairings aren't grossly wrong, there might be a reason for it unlike the ones in Round 3. I just can't figure out what that reason might be.
Hi Matthew:
I'm not sure why you are paired where you are either. Assuming that board 55 represents the last board with a score group of 4, then I would have expected you to have been on board 54 or board 55 given your rating relative to the others in the score group.
The colour switching may have been unavoidable. In the case of your specific pairing it's proper that you should have white since normally the higher-rated player gets his due colour.
As to why you got that pairing, several things are possible:
1. A player in score group 4 withdrew after the pairings had been run through the computer and the organizers had to make a last-second manual change.
2. A player in score group 4 had requested a half-point bye for the round but they were somehow included in the pairings anyway, again necessitating a last-second manual change.
3. SwissSys is using a "look-ahead" method to avoid potential pairing issues in the final round, although the possibility of it affecting your pairing this much is pushing it.
I'm not sure why you are paired where you are either. Assuming that board 55 represents the last board with a score group of 4, then I would have expected you to have been on board 54 or board 55 given your rating relative to the others in the score group.
The colour switching may have been unavoidable. In the case of your specific pairing it's proper that you should have white since normally the higher-rated player gets his due colour.
As to why you got that pairing, several things are possible:
1. A player in score group 4 withdrew after the pairings had been run through the computer and the organizers had to make a last-second manual change.
2. A player in score group 4 had requested a half-point bye for the round but they were somehow included in the pairings anyway, again necessitating a last-second manual change.
3. SwissSys is using a "look-ahead" method to avoid potential pairing issues in the final round, although the possibility of it affecting your pairing this much is pushing it.
I've seen both #1 and #2 happen a lot.
Steve
I get that, but it's just, given I already was the downfloat last round in the 4 point group, it's really adversely affecting my title chances in the U1600 or U1800 categories... Which is frustrating. Average opponent strength (discounting my Unrated Round 1 opponent) has now broken 2000, despite not playing someone over 2000 until Round 5.
I get that, but it's just, given I already was the downfloat last round in the 4 point group, it's really adversely affecting my title chances in the U1600 or U1800 categories... Which is frustrating. Average opponent strength (discounting my Unrated Round 1 opponent) has now broken 2000, despite not playing someone over 2000 until Round 5.
Hi Matthew:
I forgot to mention that (I think) SwissSys has an option for doing pairings (in a score group) not based on the players ratings, but ranking them based on their performance in the tournament. I may be wrong and it may be some other pairing software that I'm thinking of (SwissPerfect?). In any event I don't care for that since it means that the ranking of players within a score group, for pairing purposes, changes with each round. Jonathan Berry would know more about the wisdom and/or pitfalls of applying such an approach.
Another reason I don't like it is that it can *only* be done by a computer pairing system and that makes it a lot harder to a) explain pairings to players and/or observers; b) harder to manually check the validity of pairings.
I believe you are seeded by tie-break scores. You would have a much higher tie-break than your peers.
That won't help me though when my opposition (U1600 or U1800. Take your pick) gets to either 4.5 or 5 via:
1) Byes (Wayne Siu, 1449)
2) Easier Opponents (Joey Orozco, 1585)
=/.
Sigh.
Anyway, I'm going to get get ready for my game, and do my best, as I have attempted to do all tournament. It's just frustrating at the lack of transparency, and it's difficult to rectify the fact that despite having a performance rating of over 2000 to date in this tournament, this pairing is going to really hurt the chances of winning my category.
(Current Leader: U1600/U1800):
Joey Orozco (5.0):
Draw - 1396
Win - 964
Bye
Win - 2073
Didn't Show (loss)
Win - 1392
Win - 1820* [this same round, I had to play a 2375, with the same score]
Playing: 2376
(Current 2nd Place: U1600/U1800):
Wayne Sui (4.5):
Win v. Unrated
Win v. 1694
bye
Win v. 2048
Loss v. 2482
bye
bye
Playing: 2193
(Current 3rd Place: U1800: 4 People with 4.0 Points, Including Me)
(Current 3rd Place: U1600: Me)
Matthew Scott (4.0):
Win - Unrated
Win - 1688
Loss - 1851
Win - 1897
Loss - 2179
Win - 2030
Loss - 2375
Playing: 2120
Why am I paired with such a good opponent again? I'm not even supposed to get White this round, so it can't possibly be for colour reasons. Also, as the Downfloater in the previous round (and having to play a FM as a result), I thought that you had a limit on how many times you'd get flipped around the pairs.
EDIT: I should add that these pairings aren't grossly wrong, there might be a reason for it unlike the ones in Round 3. I just can't figure out what that reason might be.
No doubt, you have asked the TD before posting/complaining here. What did Hal say?
Why am I paired with such a good opponent again? I'm not even supposed to get White this round, so it can't possibly be for colour reasons. Also, as the Downfloater in the previous round (and having to play a FM as a result), I thought that you had a limit on how many times you'd get flipped around the pairs.
EDIT: I should add that these pairings aren't grossly wrong, there might be a reason for it unlike the ones in Round 3. I just can't figure out what that reason might be.
No doubt, you have asked the TD before posting/complaining here. What did Hal say?
Actually, I pretty much simultaneously sent an email - and he has not as of yet, responded. My question was directed towards transparency in the process, that's what I asked Hal for.
I wondered if someone here might have some idea. I've seen a couple suggestions. They're possible. I don't know. Of course, the problem is, there's this double standard in this tournament that the pairings can be however screwed up as they want, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it apparently (as Round 3 was evidence of)
That won't help me though when my opposition (U1600 or U1800. Take your pick) gets to either 4.5 or 5 via:
1) Byes (Wayne Siu, 1449)
2) Easier Opponents (Joey Orozco, 1585)
=/.
Sigh.
Anyway, I'm going to get get ready for my game, and do my best, as I have attempted to do all tournament. It's just frustrating at the lack of transparency, and it's difficult to rectify the fact that despite having a performance rating of over 2000 to date in this tournament, this pairing is going to really hurt the chances of winning my category.
(Current Leader: U1600/U1800):
Joey Orozco (5.0):
Draw - 1396
Win - 964
Bye
Win - 2073
Didn't Show (loss)
Win - 1392
Win - 1820* [this same round, I had to play a 2375, with the same score]
Playing: 2376
(Current 2nd Place: U1600/U1800):
Wayne Sui (4.5):
Win v. Unrated
Win v. 1694
bye
Win v. 2048
Loss v. 2482
bye
bye
Playing: 2193
(Current 3rd Place: U1800: 4 People with 4.0 Points, Including Me)
(Current 3rd Place: U1600: Me)
Matthew Scott (4.0):
Win - Unrated
Win - 1688
Loss - 1851
Win - 1897
Loss - 2179
Win - 2030
Loss - 2375
Playing: 2120
The lack of transparency. I return to that.
you want the organizers to give a personal explanation to each player who questions the pairings? on the basis that they don't like them, or don't understand them, or they could be different?
you want the organizers to give a personal explanation to each player who questions the pairings? on the basis that they don't like them, or don't understand them, or they could be different?
Given how badly they were screwed up in Round 3, and how anybody with half a brain can tell that a low ranked player in the middle of a given score group is somehow playing above higher ranked players, in contravention of a Swiss System, then yes, I think that player is entitled to an explanation.
It's not rocket science. I may not understand why I am there at the moment, but I certainly understand that under ordinary conditions I should not be. Therefore, explaining what the extraordinary circumstances are is perfectly reasonable.
Responses like the one you offer is superb evidence why tournament enrollment and CFC membership is down. I can play chess quite fine without ever needing to spend my time and money in arbitrary setups.
Tweet
Comment