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.
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.
Almoust impossible...
Victor, sorry, but I am a bit confused here :
1) There is no FIDE membership fee. How could $0 be more than $36 + provincial fee?
2) If we went FIDE rating, we would use the FIDE rating system, which is worldwide!
FIDE's rating formula is designed to move slower, especially at elite levels.
FIDE has no membership fees, and to rate a tournament costs $2.20 per player, $0.80 cheaper than CFC ratings.
Of course that... even if we were to convert to FIDE and abolish CFC, regional pools would be inevitably formed over time, as there are currently across the globe. Sounds like a pretty pleasant deal though in comparison to what we have in place.
It makes perfect sense why the CFC governing body would want to maintain CFC ratings: they're *the* cash cow. $3 per player per tournament (generally a hidden fee included in your club membership fee or your weekend swiss entry fee), plus the membership fees. In my opinion, over 80% of the CFC membership (from the people I've talked to) care above all (if not exclusively), about their ratings, not the other CFC membership privileges.
If you take away the CFC ratings and don't fill in with an adequate alternative... CFC would almost certainly collapse.
It's more serious than that though... CFC holds us hostage when it comes to getting events FIDE-rated. Tournaments must be FIDE-rated through CFC, and all participants in these tournaments played in Canada must be members of the CFC, whether the event is CFC rated or not (!)
Interestingly enough, Quebec seems exempt from this nonsense, kudos to them, and shame on CFC.
FIDE has no membership fees, and to rate a tournament costs $2.20 per player, $0.80 cheaper than CFC ratings.
.....
It makes perfect sense why the CFC governing body would want to maintain CFC ratings: they're *the* cash cow. $3 per player per tournament (generally a hidden fee included in your club membership fee or your weekend swiss entry fee), plus the membership fees. In my opinion, over 80% of the CFC membership (from the people I've talked to) care above all (if not exclusively), about their ratings, not the other CFC membership privileges.
If you take away the CFC ratings and don't fill in with an adequate alternative... CFC would almost certainly collapse.
It's more serious than that though... CFC holds us hostage when it comes to getting events FIDE-rated. Tournaments must be FIDE-rated through CFC, and all participants in these tournaments played in Canada must be members of the CFC, whether the event is CFC rated or not (!)
Interestingly enough, Quebec seems exempt from this nonsense, kudos to them, and shame on CFC.
Alex F.
1) Ratings to FIDE are submitted through the national federation so... you need $2.20 for FIDE plus, if there is no other revenue, some amount to cover the guy in the CFC office who submits it for you. . Not to mention, as you say, the loss to the CFC budget.
2) The CFC ratings database is potentially a treasure trove of marketing information on customer preferences and activity, not that we use it that way currently. You wouldn't get that if you handed it over to FIDE.
3) A rating pool is a rating pool is a rating pool. Why send the money to FIDE to have an isolated Canadian FIDE rating pool when you can keep it and manage the rating pool yourself?
4) AFIK, Quebec is not exempt from the CFC requirements and I would be surprised if that was slipping by.
As for 2700+ rating, the inflation caused by the participation points is pretty evident as I have posted elsewhere. No more might have been added since the AGM (if in fact the resolution ending them has actually been implemented) but the old ones are still there. Also, the standard deviation on most active players ratings is pretty high (about 80 points) so if the GM in question benefits a) from the overall effect of participation points (and is very active himself) and b) has a good year, well - he gets to 2700.
1) There is no FIDE membership fee. How could $0 be more than $36 + provincial fee?
2) If we went FIDE rating, we would use the FIDE rating system, which is worldwide!
And yet it costs $100 to FIDE rate a round robin making it cost prohibitive for a small three or four player event. We will be playing a lot of unrated and no fee chess in Windsor if that were to come to pass.
Things seem to be getting better with Canadian chess so why is everyone hell bent on changing everything?
So far the CFC has collected $133 in rating fees and membership fees this year as a result of my chess play and I am not anywhere near being done. I can guarantee that I will probably never play this many CFC games in one year again. I will probably cut back to 120 games spread out between CFC and USCF play next year so don't count on my $133 to keep the CFC afloat.
And yet it costs $100 to FIDE rate a round robin making it cost prohibitive for a small three or four player event. We will be playing a lot of unrated and no fee chess in Windsor if that were to come to pass.
Things seem to be getting better with Canadian chess so why is everyone hell bent on changing everything?
So far the CFC has collected $133 in rating fees and membership fees this year as a result of my chess play and I am not anywhere near being done. I can guarantee that I will probably never play this many CFC games in one year again. I will probably cut back to 120 games spread out between CFC and USCF play next year so don't count on my $133 to keep the CFC afloat.
I'm not sure if you expected me to reply, but there is no FIDE membership fee, and Swiss events cost $2.20 per player. I think people it is normal to strive for the best?
No offense to Bator Sambuev, but doesn't this prove that something's wrong with the rating system?
Why is it that when someone precedes his comments with "no offense" he then turns around and says something that offends?
Bator has been playing very well to raise his rating to such a high level. He is a first class gentleman in addition to being a very strong player. Lets celebrate his accomplishments. He has been winning an awfully large number of tournaments lately. Why do Canadian chess players need to tear down someone's accomplishments like that?
Why is it that when someone precedes his comments with "no offense" he then turns around and says something that offends?
Bator has been playing very well to raise his rating to such a high level. He is a first class gentleman in addition to being a very strong player. Lets celebrate his accomplishments. He has been winning an awfully large number of tournaments lately. Why do Canadian chess players need to tear down someone's accomplishments like that?
Right on, back to one of my previous posts, let's choose to enjoy this high score! :)
I don't think anyone is trying to discount Bator as a personable chess player, nor his accomplishments under the CFC rating system.
What is being challenged is that the CFC system is inflated compared to the FIDE system. So Bator is rated 2725 CFC. Are CFC ratings equivalent to FIDE ratings?
Let's look at who is in the top 100 players' list between 2700 and 2750:
11 Ponomariov, Ruslan g UKR 2744 20 1983
12 Radjabov, Teimour g AZE 2744 14 1987
13 Eljanov, Pavel g UKR 2742 25 1983
14 Gelfand, Boris g ISR 2741 16 1968
15 Nakamura, Hikaru g USA 2741 15 1987
16 Shirov, Alexei g ESP 2735 32 1972
17 Gashimov, Vugar g AZE 2733 10 1986
18 Wang, Hao g CHN 2727 22 1989
19 Kamsky, Gata g USA 2726 26 1974
20 Wojtaszek, Radoslaw g POL 2726 18 1987
21 Jakovenko, Dmitry g RUS 2726 17 1983
22 Adams, Michael g ENG 2723 18 1971
23 Svidler, Peter g RUS 2722 16 1976
24 Movsesian, Sergei g SVK 2721 26 1978
25 Almasi, Zoltan g HUN 2721 15 1976
26 Nepomniachtchi, Ian g RUS 2720 26 1990
27 Leko, Peter g HUN 2717 10 1979
28 Dominguez Perez, Leinier g CUB 2716 10 1983
29 Bacrot, Etienne g FRA 2715 6 1983
30 Malakhov, Vladimir g RUS 2712 25 1980
31 Caruana, Fabiano g ITA 2709 19 1992
32 Fressinet, Laurent g FRA 2709 15 1981
33 Vitiugov, Nikita g RUS 2709 15 1987
34 Navara, David g CZE 2708 28 1985
35 Jobava, Baadur g GEO 2707 16 1983
36 Vachier-Lagrave, Maxime g FRA 2703 29 1990
37 Efimenko, Zahar g UKR 2701 27 1985
38 Alekseev, Evgeny g RUS 2701 25 1985
39 Morozevich, Alexander g RUS 2700 0 1977
I am only a weak player, and so I may not be able to evaluate Bator's actual strength, but, with all due respect, I suspect Bator does not match the players in this list. The CFC ratings are too high at the top, compared to the FIDE ratings.
The CFC Rating Auditor, Bill Doubleday of Ottawa, needs to investigate this.
That's the point some of us are trying to make - a systemic point, not a personal one against Bator.
Bob
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Thursday, 18th November, 2010, 02:12 AM.
I don't think anyone is trying to discount Bator as a personable chess player, nor his accomplishments under the CFC rating system.
What is being challenged is that the CFC system is inflated compared to the FIDE system. So Bator is rated 2725 CFC. Are CFC ratings equivalent to FIDE ratings?
Let's look at who is in the top 100 players' list between 2700 and 2750:
11 Ponomariov, Ruslan g UKR 2744 20 1983
12 Radjabov, Teimour g AZE 2744 14 1987
13 Eljanov, Pavel g UKR 2742 25 1983
14 Gelfand, Boris g ISR 2741 16 1968
15 Nakamura, Hikaru g USA 2741 15 1987
16 Shirov, Alexei g ESP 2735 32 1972
17 Gashimov, Vugar g AZE 2733 10 1986
18 Wang, Hao g CHN 2727 22 1989
19 Kamsky, Gata g USA 2726 26 1974
20 Wojtaszek, Radoslaw g POL 2726 18 1987
21 Jakovenko, Dmitry g RUS 2726 17 1983
22 Adams, Michael g ENG 2723 18 1971
23 Svidler, Peter g RUS 2722 16 1976
24 Movsesian, Sergei g SVK 2721 26 1978
25 Almasi, Zoltan g HUN 2721 15 1976
26 Nepomniachtchi, Ian g RUS 2720 26 1990
27 Leko, Peter g HUN 2717 10 1979
28 Dominguez Perez, Leinier g CUB 2716 10 1983
29 Bacrot, Etienne g FRA 2715 6 1983
30 Malakhov, Vladimir g RUS 2712 25 1980
31 Caruana, Fabiano g ITA 2709 19 1992
32 Fressinet, Laurent g FRA 2709 15 1981
33 Vitiugov, Nikita g RUS 2709 15 1987
34 Navara, David g CZE 2708 28 1985
35 Jobava, Baadur g GEO 2707 16 1983
36 Vachier-Lagrave, Maxime g FRA 2703 29 1990
37 Efimenko, Zahar g UKR 2701 27 1985
38 Alekseev, Evgeny g RUS 2701 25 1985
39 Morozevich, Alexander g RUS 2700 0 1977
I am only a weak player, and so I may not be able to evaluate Bator's actual strength, but, with all due respect, I suspect Bator does not match the players in this list. The CFC ratings are too high at the top, compared to the FIDE ratings.
The CFC Rating Auditor, Bill Doubleday of Ottawa, needs to investigate this.
That's the point some of us are trying to make - a systemic point, not a personal one against Bator.
Bob
Bob, if I may ask, if you are "only a weak player", then how would you "suspect" that he is not that good? For now, and until the National Capital Open also gets FIDE rated, I feel that I must put more weight in IM Jean Hebert's evaluation in an earlier post! ;)
I have looked at the Toronto Junior(currently progressing- http://tjcc2010.blogspot.com/
I see that the average FIDE rating of the 5 out of 6 players with both ratings is 122 points below the average CFC rating.
My simpleton response would be the rating is relative. Thus, the salient point is that GM Sambuev has achieved a high standard than anyone else historically using the same system - that is what it being celebrated and justly so. Quite famous GMs have played in Canada and not had the same consistency.
Unless his opponents play better and overcome his talents, he wil become 3000.
Why is it that when someone precedes his comments with "no offense" he then turns around and says something that offends?
Bator has been playing very well to raise his rating to such a high level. He is a first class gentleman in addition to being a very strong player. Lets celebrate his accomplishments. He has been winning an awfully large number of tournaments lately. Why do Canadian chess players need to tear down someone's accomplishments like that?
I really admire Bator Sambuev's play. And even though I love to see him crushing his opponents in a convincing way, we got to admit that he's not of the same strength as Kamsky or Shirov... He is definitely stronger than his 2497 FIDE rating shows, but not at this point. I'm pretty sure everybody had understood what I meant.
Re: Re : Re: Re : GM Bator Sambuev new rating: 2725!
To the benefit of all, Bator plays chess IN Canada. FIDE rating can be improved by playing mainly OUTSIDE of the country. The comparision with others on FIDE rating list just does not make full sense. I wish Bator will get invited to strong foreign tournaments as well.
Statistical analysis says that a sample needs to reach a level of performance A so the whole population reaches a targeted performance B, and A needs to be higher than B.
So it is with CFC vs FIDE. Canadian players are a sample of the whole population of FIDE rated chess players. Nothing wrong with it.
Unless his opponents play better and overcome his talents, he wil become 3000.
The odd thing is it doesn't matter how high he can get his Canadian rating.
He has an international title and the only thing which really matters is his FIDE rating. How well he can score against his peers. What getting a 3000 rating will do is point out worldwide what is possible in Canada.
Tweet
Comment