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'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?
I don't understand why FIDE charges so much more for round robins versus swiss events. I will probably play three 3 man round robins this month. According to the information that has been presented this would entail $300 in FIDE rating fees or $100 per tournament. That seems a bit excessive.
I don't understand why FIDE charges so much more for round robins versus swiss events. I will probably play three 3 man round robins this month. According to the information that has been presented this would entail $300 in FIDE rating fees or $100 per tournament. That seems a bit excessive.
CFC rating gains run faster than FIDE's.Take away bonus points and Bator is still worth 2675 CFC, or about 2575 FIDE: almost a third-tier GM. It would be interesting to see how he fares in elite RR's such as Montreal's summer ones.
His chess is stunning. If i were a betting man, he would need to be handicapped over the likes of Kovyalov,Roussel-Roozman, but possibly not Gerzhoy, who is ultra-solid, and able to weather the high Arctic storms:)
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
I'm not sure that I agree with people who are suggesting that Sambuev's rating proves that the CFC rating scheme is broken. A rating scheme like the CFC one or FIDE's can at best be internally consistent.
The analysis that Roger Patterson has done (http://victoriachess.com/cfc/opponents2.php) says to me that the CFC ratings scheme works reasonably well. Given two players "A" and "B" and a rating difference of "x" there will be a chance "y" that "A" will beat "B". The statistics that Roger has put together show that reality matches theory quite well. It's not perfect but it is not too bad either.
There's a second question. Does the CFC rating system match the FIDE rating system? And should it? The answer to the first question is "no" and that is not a surprising answer. There is nothing in the formulas for either rating system that suggests that they should match. Chess ratings are not like temperatures which can go no lower than absolute zero (-273.15). For chess ratings, there is no real zero point or reference point that has some sort of significance. The formulas work only with probabilities based upon rating differences. There's nothing implicit to the formulas to suggest that, for instance, player "A" is objectively a strong player because he or she is rated 2500. It's just a number with no absolute significance.
If you had two populations of chess players and both used the FIDE rating system and one player played in both pools, it is unlikely that this player would have the same rating from each pool. That could only happen if the pools are statistically identical.
So Sambuev has achieved a super high CFC rating. That's excellent and a tremendous accomplishment. He has demonstrated his ability with respect to the pool of CFC rated players and that's what the rating says. How might we translate his rating to a FIDE rating? That's a tough question. One could just look at all the players who have CFC ratings and FIDE ratings and try to find a correction factor. That's simple and straightforward. However, unless the sample of CFC players with dual ratings was sufficiently large and the players had played enough games in both rating systems, that correction factor may or may not be useful.
The question of how to rate players, teams or whatever in a league is a classic problem of mathematics and statistics. There are numerous approaches to solving this problem and some of the solution methods are very hard (the maximum likelihood ranking problem is NP complete).
I think the important thing to keep in mind is that a chess rating is closer to being a relative ranking than it is to being an objective measure of something like chess skill. Fundamentally chess skill is intangible and not really quantifiable.
So its all relative and non-quantifiable by innattentive preambles and one variable regression analysis ( using quantities)?
I thought some of our math geniuses would compare Arpad's (best) vs. Can.(pretty good) and American (has been tweaked way too much) rating systems. Inflation, internal consistencies, sort of thing. How much are the bonus points in Bator's rapid rise? That would seem rlevant. My guess -- 50 pts. Quacking about pools and their 'quality' is postmodern -- the antithesis of a rating system. Ratings work better in chess ( w/ regular performers), than on any psychometric or other sociological tests, where all variables are subjugated to manipulation.Information is perfect and numbers may be crunched in good faith and conscience.blah
Last edited by David McTavish; Sunday, 21st November, 2010, 07:53 PM.
The analysis that Roger Patterson has done (http://victoriachess.com/cfc/opponents2.php) says to me that the CFC ratings scheme works reasonably well. Given two players "A" and "B" and a rating difference of "x" there will be a chance "y" that "A" will beat "B". The statistics that Roger has put together show that reality matches theory quite well. It's not perfect but it is not too bad either.
I may agree with the assertion that CFC rating scheme works reasonably well, especially if we will consider it as just "relative marking".
But I am pretty sure that FIDE system works better. It was very good idea to compare actual and theoretical results on one graph. Results show that CFC rating system is not so bad. But to compare CFC rating system with FIDE rating system, we just need to draw one more line on the same graph: actual results for the same number of games according to FIDE rating system (it may be for any players, not necessarily Canadians). And I have strong feelings that this third FIDE actual line will be much closer to the "theoretical" line than CFC actual line.
It will be great if Steve would be able to add this third FIDE line onto the graph (I understand that it is huge work).
I also think that this graph may have practical application in the rating differential's diapason from -700 to +700 only.
The remaining portion of the graph is just for curiosity only: how many games per year Bator (or any other top Canadian player) play against opponents rated under 2000 ?
Leaps on the graph around value 1500 of the rating differential obviously are caused by influence of amateur unrated players.
Canadian chess is like coffee house chess. Whoever leaves with the most money is the best player.
One class, 200 rating points is a lot at the higher levels. It means a player has to learn something new, or improve an aspect of his game, to reach the higher level. Of course, being lucky is sometimes also helpful. Catch a GM having a bad game.
or more precisely, those are the K values for Sambuev. For both FIDE and CFC K depends on rating. Otherwise, AFAIK, the CFC and FIDE are the same (or at least they are if the participation and bonus points have been removed). [although provisional ratings are done differentlly] Using different K factors only affects the volatility and not the overall average rating level.
An interesting thing to note about the expected and actual results graph is that the closer the rating differential, the more closely the actual results matches the theory....
this makes sense considering that most tournament pairings are in some way dependent on the ratings of the players (eg. sections, rating used for seeding in swiss).
If you consider that 90% (totally made up number, but I think a fair estimate) of games are played between players within 300 points of each other, then the actual and expected results are incredibly close....
I would be interested to see a graph showing the distribution of the rating differential accross all the games played... that way it would be clear that only the centre of the Actual/Expected results graph is statistically relevent.
For example... the large spike at either end of the graph is likely just one game... while the centre is based on thousands of games.
By the by.... does anyone know what game(s) are causing that spike? I don't believe I've ever seen a pairing (let alone an upset) where the players differed by 1500 points.
Probably the higher of the two has gone to great length to conceal his tragedy lolololo
;)
Last edited by Stuart Brammall; Monday, 22nd November, 2010, 03:40 PM.
Reason: correction
they match at exactly 0.5 because it is forced that players of equal rating have an expected result of 0.5. (either the game is drawn - average of 0.5 each, or one side loses and the other wins - average of 0.5 each)
There are enough games in the sample (111,499) that you can consider the curves to be completely different. [as I noted, this difference between actual and the formula results has also been observed for FIDE ratings] I considered plotting the error bars but they are basically smaller than the width of the line.
The spikes at the end is one game (or rather 1 loss out of 4 games) but the wiggles at about 1000-1300 differential are statistically significant[although not to the same degree] and are almost all cases of ~300 rated players beating ~1200-1500 players. That does not mean that there is a flaw in the system as it could reflect actual improvement. I have a hard time understanding just how badly you have to play to get a 300 rating but I have no problem understanding that it wouldn't take very much to get a lot better very fast. [I was told recently that the 'tournament rules' at a local junior event were 'if you made 3 illegal moves, you lost the game']
I do have the graph you asked for - I'll post it as soon as I find it.
[edit - change to 1 loss out of 4 from 1 draw out of 4]
Last edited by Roger Patterson; Monday, 22nd November, 2010, 04:14 PM.
I'm surprised those other bumps are significant...
If it is easy to do it would be interesting to see the actual/expected results graph, but only counting games where both players are over some floor (1000 say).
btw... the forfeit rule you mention is a FIDE rule... it just doesn't get used much outside of junior events.
Tweet
Comment