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.
Jason Cao has received a 352 rating points adjustment from the CFC. His CFC rating will be adjusted upwards from 1569 to 1921 to match his FIDE rating.
I am quite proud of Jason's achievement but I have mixed feeling toward this adjustment. There are many young talented players who are underrated.
Why not let time go and let their rating adjust gradually to their real strength?
Jason Cao has received a 352 rating points adjustment from the CFC. His CFC rating will be adjusted upwards from 1569 to 1921 to match his FIDE rating.
I am quite proud of Jason's achievement but I have mixed feeling toward this adjustment. There are many young talented players who are underrated.
Why not let time go and let their rating adjust gradually to their real strength?
Why Jason but not others?
It was a special one time award to our new World Champion & FIDE Master. His CFC rating was set = to his FIDE rating.
I suppose any future World Champions can apply for this precedent setting ruling.
Please note that we often complain about the fact that many of our junior players are vastly underrated. I fully agree with this precedent setting move. Not only does it makes sense from a mathematical point of view, it also rewards his worthy accomplishment.
Yeah, leaving an FM with a 1569 rating would have made a lot more sense...
btw Isn't another way of obtaining an FM title by reaching a FIDE rating over 2300? Seems Jason's still vastly underrated at 1921 ;)
1921 is not too far off his (current) strength as evidenced by recent CFC performance ratings, his Victoria chess club rating, playing him, and of course his WYCC result.
Not so keen on the FM title though - he'll grow into it I'm sure but he is not yet 2300 strength. World Champion is a much more impressive title. FIDE seems intent on devaluing titles. His section at the WYCC had 4 FMs (all ~1900 rating) plus a 5th FM who was unrated. I ask you, what kind of sense or worth there is in a title that someone who is unrated has?
I ask you, what kind of sense or worth there is in a title that someone who is unrated has?
Unrated does not mean weak. Unrated really means unknown. So I don't know what kind of sense or worth there is in a title that someone who is unrated has.
Instead of finding ways to solve a problem that affects all young fast improving juniors, the CFC took a special measure to "fix" one single case. This way of doing things solves very little and is very likely to create more problems and insatisfaction among other juniors in similar situations.
What has to be adressed are the shortcomings of the current rating system that unsuccessfully deals with fast improving players (generally but not always juniors). A player forced to carry a low and slow moving rating may get discouraged or/and make many opponents discouraged.
Nowadays people have many ways to learn and get better fast without playing in CFC or FQE events. The rating systems must change to reflect this new reality.
Jean raises an issue that I brought to the AGM in July - underrated juniors. He is exactly correct in his assessment that the system needs to be adjusted to address the issue. I await the Rating Auditor's response.
That doesn't mean I agree with him about Jason (crusher) Cao. This is indeed a special case that we should all celebrate.
I find this decision very strange and hope it wasn't because some people were afraid of losing rating points. There are some flaws with the CFC system but gifting points to one person only is silly. Pretty much all juniors are underrated at some point but the struggle to gain rating and prove your worth is universal and the tournament experience is valuable. Being u-10 world champ shouldn't exempt you from it at all. A more logical response would have been to rate the WYCC if anything. Credit the way he performed not the title. His FIDE rating is totally provisional, so it's necessarily accurate either. This underrated problem occurs in most parts of the world no matter the rating system and with the resources available for chess these days it's not going away anytime soon. Let him earn it like every other kid who is putting in the time to improve and play events.
Just my two cents.
Last edited by Eric Hansen; Thursday, 23rd December, 2010, 01:04 AM.
This is just silly. The rating system should correct itself over time... adjusting it because "he must be underrated" sets a bad precedent. His rating will self-adjust to its proper level pretty quickly if he plays any CFC rated events... That's the way the rating system is supposed to work IMO. There shouldn't be any need to "correct" someone's rating when the system will do that itself.
for what it's worth, apart from becoming a world champion, Jason was 1 of 2 people who had 3 tournaments in the last year where his result was 2 sigma above rating expectations. That's something like 1/10,000 odds so clearly, statistically speaking, underated even just using evidence from the CFC rating database and is close to a unique performance difference among all CFC players last year. (doesn't tell you what his correct rating would be, just that it should be higher) See http://victoriachess.com/cfc/extremes_summary.php
[the other individual with 3 x 2 sigma performances looks to be someone who played a number of years ago, quit or moved away for a few years, and then came back much stronger - but his rating was still stuck at his old level of play, so yes, he too looks to be underated]
I am willing to donate 352 rating points to the CFC rating pool to cancel out the increase from the award. That way the integrity of the rating system is preserved and I get to win some class prizes as I claw my way back up.
for what it's worth, apart from becoming a world champion, Jason was 1 of 2 people who had 3 tournaments in the last year where his result was 2 sigma above rating expectations. That's something like 1/10,000 odds so clearly, statistically speaking, underated even just using evidence from the CFC rating database and is close to a unique performance difference among all CFC players last year. (doesn't tell you what his correct rating would be, just that it should be higher) See http://victoriachess.com/cfc/extremes_summary.php
[the other individual with 3 x 2 sigma performances looks to be someone who played a number of years ago, quit or moved away for a few years, and then came back much stronger - but his rating was still stuck at his old level of play, so yes, he too looks to be underated]
The CFC rating system has been inflated and in general it hasn't been difficult at all to gain a lot of rating if you are really underrated. Jason is very capable of going from 1550-A class in a short amount of tournaments if that reflects his strength. At that rating many juniors in the past have made huge gains in a relatively short period of time so I don't see the difference.
As a personal example, back when ratings were considered deflated, I managed to go from 1500-1800 with two good tournaments(15 games total) where I performed 1950~ in both. So a similar situation as here. I was overrated, but it's just an example to show that if that's his real strength he can catch up quickly and does not need to be gifted a huge sum of points.
After thinking about it more and checking some the data of other Canadian Juniors' the more silly and unnecessary the course of action seems.
Last edited by Eric Hansen; Thursday, 23rd December, 2010, 03:39 AM.
Jason Cao has received a 352 rating points adjustment from the CFC. His CFC rating will be adjusted upwards from 1569 to 1921 to match his FIDE rating.
An open admission by the CFC of the meaninglessness and irrelevance of its rating system.
Surely, yet another sign we should be moving to FIDE ratings only, and dropping the CFC's
with all of its shortcomings.
Tweet
Comment