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.
Bator's FIDE rating is 2497. So I would think a CFC rating of 2725 is somewhat out of line. Seems there may be a systemic problem somewhere - is it just with the elite players? Or the whole system? Maybe Bill Doubleday, CFC Rating Auditor, should investigate.
Taking into account that Bator is the most active elite player in Canada, and definitely edges his closest competition, it doesn't seem so inappropriate that on a high streak he'd pass 2700.
In my opinion, Bator has been contributing to Canadian chess by: playing almost everywhere, against anyone, sharing his knowledge of the game and always doing so in a graceful and friendly manner -- I am happy to see him break new records.
Look at what ALL our own ratings are in comparison to FIDE. It shouldn't take a new record for this nonsense to be investigated.
At least participation points have disappeared, as they were completely ridiculous. It's about time we stop having people who's playing strength is declining, being in charge of adjusting the ratings system.
- Bonus points
- Taking a period 2004-2006 and retroactively (?) awarding points according to games played
- Participation points
- Back to bonus
A string of terrible decisions over the years. Any bonus points system for amazing performances should be countered by penalties for terrible performances.
Either admit that the CFC Ratings System is a joke (in relation to any international standard) and do whatever you like with it... or be objective about fixing it.
Or... since FIDE ratings go all the way down to 1200 (and will be going down to 1000 soon), lets adopt FIDE rating system and abolish our own.
There's always the complaint about juniors taking points from the pool. It seems to me that juniors are actually more active than adults. Juniors are a big component of the pool. The 1980s are over. If we're grossly overrated as a whole in comparison to FIDE, take advantage of the junior pool to fix the system, rather than boost our egos by skyrocketing everyone's rating.
Alex F.
Definitely not underrated, possibly overrated, and in no way concerned about taking on all comers.
Very good points!
Is the FIDE rating based on a different formula than the CFC rating? If yes, in what way?
If not, could CFC rating be considered a "regional" FIDE rating?
Bator's FIDE rating is 2497. So I would think a CFC rating of 2725 is somewhat out of line. Seems there may be a systemic problem somewhere - is it just with the elite players? Or the whole system? Maybe Bill Doubleday, CFC Rating Auditor, should investigate.
In this case it is the FIDE rating that is out of line. Bator is way better than 2497. But that is easy to explain. Most of his recent chess is not FIDE rated.
I also agree with everything Alex wrote! I tend to look forward more than back, so I especially support any initiative to just go to FIDE ratings! That just seems easiest! ;)
By the way, I find it unfortunate that this thread went so quickly from celebration to discounting. I was within 6 feet of Bator when he realized this weekend that his rating would exceed 2700, and he was absolutely delighted! It was just one of those special moments, to see such a nice young man so happy, and I prefer to remember that! :)
Bator's FIDE rating is 2497. So I would think a CFC rating of 2725 is somewhat out of line. Seems there may be a systemic problem somewhere - is it just with the elite players? Or the whole system? Maybe Bill Doubleday, CFC Rating Auditor, should investigate.
Bob
Its actually fairly clear what happened. Participation points, a smaller regular player pool, and the withdrawal of many former elite players from the tournament scene. Bator's not even winning every game, which one might expect with a 2725 !!!
When Bob Gillanders was running for President, one of the items I asked him to comment on, which was on my CFC wish list, was going completely to FIDE ratings.
He was dead against the idea.
I think Hal Bond, and Tom O'Donnell have also plumped for going over to FIDE ratings - but I think we have a way to go to getting a groundswell behind us.
Its actually fairly clear what happened. Participation points, a smaller regular player pool, and the withdrawal of many former elite players from the tournament scene.
and that all Bator's faults :D
In a recent interview Aronian told that he is happy with breaking a 28xx barrier, and added that 29xx is not for a current generation. (my loose interpretation). Bator have potential for 28xx CFC. Go for it :D
When Bob Gillanders was running for President, one of the items I asked him to comment on, which was on my CFC wish list, was going completely to FIDE ratings.
He was dead against the idea.
I think Hal Bond, and Tom O'Donnell have also plumped for going over to FIDE ratings - but I think we have a way to go to getting a groundswell behind us.
Bob
I believe that resistance is at least partly due to fear of losing CFC rating fee revenue. However, it seems that the $3/$5 charge per player per tournament is not just a rating fee, but also an ongoing CFC membership fee. I suggest that once we start calling it what it really is, then it will be easier to switch to FIDE-only ratings, because that cost could be separated from the tournament cost. The challenge will be to do it a time such that the new_CFC_tournament_fee+$2.20_for_FIDE_rating would be equal to, or ideally less than, the current_$3_CFC_tournament_and_rating_fee. We need to know how much of that current $3 it actually costs to rate now, and add to that savings to the new website. That is why I brought up FIDE rating in the Governors discussion on the new website. I wonder how much of that $18K we could have saved going FIDE rating now, or go the other way, building a FIDE results interface, saving the CFC office all that work. By the way, it seems Swiss-Manager facilitates direct input for ratings to FIDE.
Re: A FIDE Rating System in Canada? - CFC Revenue Loss
Hi Aris:
Though I want to go to a FIDE-only rating system, I have not yet figured out how we will cover the loss of revenue that CFC needs to operate.
We know that the " rating fees " cover two things: the actual cost of operating the rating system, which is much lower than the total rating fees collected; secondly, part of the general expenses of running the CFC.
If we go to a FIDE-only system, CFC will still have some administration to do of the system. So although we will eliminate much of the cost of running the system, we will not eliminate CFC's rating system cost entirely. And if we only charge as the new FIDE rating fee, an amount equal to the actual FIDE cost + the CFC administering cost, we will now have a general revenue shortfall of all the balance of the rating fees we used to collect. From where is that revenue going to be replaced? Will we have to raise the annual CFC membership fee, at the same time as the members perceive they are getting less service from CFC, because it no longer runs a rating system?
So I know what I want, but at present I don't know how to get there !
Or... since FIDE ratings go all the way down to 1200 (and will be going down to 1000 soon), lets adopt FIDE rating system and abolish our own.
This might be a great idea. But the problem here is the membership fee.
In FIDE membership fee is much higher than in CFC...
And if we will just calculate CFC members' ratings by ourselves using FIDE system, to match FIDE ratings we will need to take into account all the games played by all FIDE rated Canadians out of country.
Tweet
GM Bator Sambuev new rating: 2725!
Comment