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.
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.
Brian
I disagree.
Sambuev's performance rating over his last 5 tournaments (dating back to the Quebec Open Invitational) is approximately 2735 (30 games). This explains why his rating is what it is.
I see no evidence that he will go any higher than 2750, unless he starts playing at a whole new level - like 2800 CFC strength (which presumably would be at least 2650 FIDE strength).
I see no evidence that he will go any higher than 2750, unless he starts playing at a whole new level - like 2800 CFC strength (which presumably would be at least 2650 FIDE strength).
A very high rating means that a player must win 100% to rise rating, and that Bator did in last two tournaments and got 50 points. Another three or four 100%-tournaments may throw him over 28xx :D
Leave Bator alone. Let him get to 3000, that is great. Think of how that would get many more people playing chess in Canada. We would have IMs and GMs from around the world clamouring to move here to boost their ratings higher. The CFC is brilliant, this is a huge marketing coup. And Kevin Spraggett may even end up coming back to Canada, he is so annoyed that Bator is much higher than him.
Brilliant CFC, great move. Just get Bob Armstrong to tone down his opposition, after all does he not have the marketing position. What a conflict of interest, he is really shooting himself in the foot this time. Instead of sending press releases to all the Canadian papers (and International ones, and Chessbase, etc) on Bators accomplishment to boost chess publicity he is saying the rating system is broken. Go figure. Time for a new marketing guy...I cannot believe that I agree with Vlad on something...
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.
That number is not much different or even cheaper than what the CFC charges for non-members ($20 tournament membership + $3 rating). I suppose those who play in areas with lots of CFC members don't notice for rural regions without a lot of existing CFC members or for tournaments designed to encourage newbies to get used to tournament play ... the cost as you say, is prohibitive.
Don't know about your $133 !?! Doesn't divide evenly by $3 (nor does $133-$36).
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!
1) My mistake. I was thinking that my son was paying fees to FIDE, but looks like it was just WYCC participation fee.
2) But here still is a problem. Will FIDE calculate ratings for all Canadian players (starting from Bator and ending at around 1200)? I am not sure. And if we will calculate by ourselves the ratings for Canadian players only (starting from Bator and ending at around 1200) just using FIDE rating system, there will be a big problem.
That number is not much different or even cheaper than what the CFC charges for non-members ($20 tournament membership + $3 rating). I suppose those who play in areas with lots of CFC members don't notice for rural regions without a lot of existing CFC members or for tournaments designed to encourage newbies to get used to tournament play ... the cost as you say, is prohibitive.
Don't know about your $133 !?! Doesn't divide evenly by $3 (nor does $133-$36).
Ontario Adult membership is $43 so, 133-43 = 90/3 = 30 tournaments...
but only 36 of that 43 went to the cfc durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
No. All $43 is remitted to the CFC and some time later the CFC sends the OCA the money it has collected on behalf of the OCA (in this case $7). The "transfer" payments are twice a year (if I recall). So, the calculation is correct... his statement that $133 went to the CFC is not quite correct since the OCA gets a piece of the action on membership - not rating fees.
Don't know about your $133 !?! Doesn't divide evenly by $3 (nor does $133-$36).
Thirty tournaments at $90 and $43 CFC membership for a total of $133. I just finished my portion of a three player double round robin so that amount will go up to $136 once the other two players finish their games against each other and the result is submitted. I might get another four tournaments in this month beyond that but two of them could drag out into the early part of December depending on people's schedules.
Who am I kidding? Next year I might try to see if I can break 200 rated games (CFC and USCF). At the beginning of this year I was only going to play 80 games but that didn't seem to work out somehow.
No. All $43 is remitted to the CFC and some time later the CFC sends the OCA the money it has collected on behalf of the OCA (in this case $7). The "transfer" payments are twice a year (if I recall). So, the calculation is correct... his statement that $133 went to the CFC is not quite correct since the OCA gets a piece of the action on membership - not rating fees.
My actual statement was
So far the CFC has collected $133 in rating fees and membership fees this year as a result of my chess play.
which correctly indicates that the CFC collected that amount. What they did with it later is not my concern at least with respect to the construction of that sentence which is semantically and factually correct.
No. All $43 is remitted to the CFC and some time later the CFC sends the OCA the money it has collected on behalf of the OCA (in this case $7). The "transfer" payments are twice a year (if I recall). So, the calculation is correct... his statement that $133 went to the CFC is not quite correct since the OCA gets a piece of the action on membership - not rating fees.
but, as you say, the cfc only keeps 36 of the 43. sure, it's all initially sent to the cfc but ultimately they keep 36 and the oca keeps 7. it's a mere technicality that the cfc at some point has all 43 dollars. if i buy a soda pop for 1 and pay 1.12 (1 + 12% tax) would you say the store is receiving 1.12? of course not. they are receiving 1
everytime it hurts, it hurts just like the first (and then you cry till there's no more tears)
but, as you say, the cfc only keeps 36 of the 43. sure, it's all initially sent to the cfc but ultimately they keep 36 and the oca keeps 7. it's a mere technicality that the cfc at some point has all 43 dollars. if i buy a soda pop for 1 and pay 1.12 (1 + 12% tax) would you say the store is receiving 1.12? of course not. they are receiving 1
Sure. Now I see why you are a fan of Kovalchucky... :)
No offense to Bator Sambuev, but doesn't this prove that something's wrong with the rating system?
No, not necessarily.
The ELO rating system's goal is to measure the relative strength of players within a pool. Mr. Sambuev has won many tournaments in convincing fashion these past few months and his current rating reflects he is, at the moment, playing significantly better (result-wise) than any other CFC member in CFC-rated competitions.
Just out of curiosity, how many CFC-rated only tournaments Mr. Sambuev played in the past few months? If you were to (fictively) rate them FIDE, what would be Mr. Sambuev new FIDE rating? Would you agree this (fictive)rating is likely a better approximation of Mr. Sambuev's current strength versus international competition than his CFC and current FIDE ratings?
No offense to Bator Sambuev, but doesn't this prove that something's wrong with the rating system?
Hello Everyone.
With no offence to anyone, one of the main reasons for GM Sambuev’s difference between FIDE and CFC rating is the fact that most of tournaments he plays (and wins) are not FIDE rated... He is obviously an over 2500 FIDE rated GM and his performances during major tournaments (such as Quebec' Open) prove it with no doubt.
When we were checking all his results for the past couple of years, the irony found was that when it happens to him to lose a game in a weekend tournament - it is often in a FIDE rated tournament and when he scored 100% the tournament is not FIDE rated...
I would like to congratulate THE MOST ACTIVE CANADIAN ELITE CHESS PLAYER with the new CFC record and wish him to bring his FIDE rating to the level of his real strength, shutting by this all the critics!
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.
It is but why does it matter?
So Bator is rated 2725 CFC. Are CFC ratings equivalent to FIDE ratings?
No. Do they have to be?
<snip!>
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.
So subtract 200 points from CFC ratings across the board. Watch the players quit in droves. Make every tournament FIDE rated and gradually get rid of the CFC rating and let FIDE take over. Get used to a CFC that starves itself to death bit by bit.
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
Isn't there a pretty good writeup on the topic on the CFC website
"Comparison between FIDE and CFC ratings" or some such?
What do you want Bill Doubleday to investigate? According to the website the difference is about 90 points above 2200 and about 1 point below 2200. In my case my FIDE lags my CFC rating by more than double that 90 point gap so I guess I am adding to the perceived inflation of Canadian ratings.
Tweet
Comment