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.
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.
(I'll presume you meant to say you were underrated :-) )
well, he has been racking up the points. He started the year at 1232, picking up ~100 points per adult tournament - and there are not so many tournaments like that for him to play in.
but otherwise, you feel there is no point to trying to identify people with clearly wrong ratings and then trying to do something about it? Just struggle along and eventually it works out? That someone like this http://www.chess.ca/memberinfo.asp?CFCN=125626 who was also given ~300 rating points I presume on evidence of good results elsewhere should not have been given them? (I guess there was no announcement for him...Note, this mystery guy was also given 150 points above his last performance rating.....) Or, less famously, someone like this: http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=133080 who hasn't played for 5 years but has come back and is clearly better than his old rating shouldn't have that adjusted? (his last 3 results are all 2 sigma above expected performance)
Now it would be nice if there was a formal proceedure for identifying such cases, but surely, when we do notice them, some corrective action should be taken.
Last edited by Roger Patterson; Thursday, 23rd December, 2010, 05:33 AM.
(I'll presume you meant to say you were underrated :-) )
well, he has been racking up the points. He started the year at 1232, picking up ~100 points per adult tournament - and there are not so many tournaments like that for him to play in.
but otherwise, you feel there is no point to trying to identify people with clearly wrong ratings and then trying to do something about it? Just struggle along and eventually it works out? That someone like this http://www.chess.ca/memberinfo.asp?CFCN=125626 who was also given ~300 rating points I presume on evidence of good results elsewhere should not have been given them? (I guess there was no announcement for him...Note, this mystery guy was also given 150 points above his last performance rating.....) Or, less famously, someone like this: http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=133080 who hasn't played for 5 years but has come back and is clearly better than his old rating shouldn't have that adjusted? (his last 3 results are all 2 sigma above expected performance)
Now it would be nice if there was a formal proceedure for identifying such cases, but surely, when we do notice them, some corrective action should be taken.
Oh yeah, to clarify,when I said overrated, I meant after I had made those gains (because of bonus points).
Nakamura is a foreign player though, thats different. I have no problem adjusting foreign players to their fide rating, even if they had a previous rating from playing in the country if there is a large discrepancy. If he was living in the US and representing Canada then there would be a problem but that's not the case. I know the USCF also will scale large differences, not sure about other countries but I imagine they do if its noticeable. However, gifting free points to junior(s) is something very few if any countries practice.
I think Jason is very talented and won't have many issues catching up his CFC. But I also think it would be good for him to experience the frustrations(and benefits) of the rating system and realize that he doesn't need a number beside his name to realize his improvement and current strength(applies to other juniors too). I mean, if they rate the WYCC CFC rated, then I imagine he will already be 1700ish. I don't think you'll hear as many complaints about that since it is fully within the rules AFAIK. Another thing with youth players is that they can be quite inconsistent and have more emotional highs and lows so three great performances can be followed by three average ones so you never know sometimes. I can understand some frustrations but I still feel if you want integrity in the system whether its an underrated 900 or a world champ 1550 that they should have to earn the points the same as everyone else. As I said earlier though, the CFC rating system is really easy to gain big amounts if you are underrated, FIDE is the one where you see real issues. So yeah, I think it's fair to let it all sort out since the system is equipped to deal with underrated players. It's not as good at punishing overrated players like me though.
Last edited by Eric Hansen; Thursday, 23rd December, 2010, 06:38 AM.
Really don't understand the controversy in the slightest. Why are we talking about "gifting" rating points? Rating points have no value and having your rating higher only hurts you if anything in terms of chances to win prizes. Maybe if you're talking about Olympiad qualification or something where ratings have relevance, there would be an argument.
The rating system is meant to create "fair" pairings and to act as a predictor of results. If Cao's strength is 1950, I don't see anything wrong with assigning him that rating to make better pairings and allow the ratings to more accurately predict results of his games.
A rating is not the end goal in and of itself. It's just a tool used by tournament directors. So, who cares?
Well, I'm going to note a few examples but I'm too tired to note more. Firstly, we all know most competitive players care about ratings(especially kids). Not to mention ratings the main mathematical(objective) option we can use to judge our opponents beforehand. Rating plays a noticeable psychological role in tournament chess(obviously). Heck, a lot of us stay up half the night trying to raise our internet ratings(especially Bullet) and then failing miserably and ending up down 300 points and wasting five hours before we realize how stupid we are. And one thing: Cao has not performed 1950 or 1920 in a CFC event ever so the CFC's decision seems totally subjective.
Ok,Here are three problems with subjective rating scaling before I head to bed.
!)#1 CFC rated player in each age group is entitled to skip CYCC and go to Worlds (and other international events probably)
2) CFC published top rating lists for all categories. If points are being added and ratings changed only for certain people then we should call it "Pound for Pound CFC rankings"(like boxing) instead as it would accurately reflect the situation.
3) As you mentioned, Olympiad,World U-16 Olympiad, University Team qualifications,Ability to play certain events with restrictions.
Last edited by Eric Hansen; Thursday, 23rd December, 2010, 07:33 AM.
(I'll presume you meant to say you were underrated :-) )
well, he has been racking up the points. He started the year at 1232, picking up ~100 points per adult tournament - and there are not so many tournaments like that for him to play in.
but otherwise, you feel there is no point to trying to identify people with clearly wrong ratings and then trying to do something about it? Just struggle along and eventually it works out? That someone like this http://www.chess.ca/memberinfo.asp?CFCN=125626 who was also given ~300 rating points I presume on evidence of good results elsewhere should not have been given them? (I guess there was no announcement for him...Note, this mystery guy was also given 150 points above his last performance rating.....) Or, less famously, someone like this: http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=133080 who hasn't played for 5 years but has come back and is clearly better than his old rating shouldn't have that adjusted? (his last 3 results are all 2 sigma above expected performance)
Now it would be nice if there was a formal proceedure for identifying such cases, but surely, when we do notice them, some corrective action should be taken.
We fixed Nakamura, if the tournament organizers had thought about it and asked, it should have been done prior to his 2008 tournament.
In the case of your second player, he should have started out this year as unrated, as his old rating was under 1400 and more than 5 years old. However, somebody has to notify the CFC office of this. Anyone listening out there ? It can still be adjusted. 250+ rating points to be had by him.
Foreign players get adjusted if they have not played in Canada for I believe one year. It's right in the handbook and has been for years. So it's not exactly precedent-setting or even worthy of an announcement.
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.
The problem has 2 parts
(a)Ratings gift by the CFC
I agree with Eric Hansen
(b)FM title gift by FIDE
The IM title is already inflated so giving away FM titles does not help the situation. You get the FM title on achieving 2300 FIDE rating( my understanding so far) just handing them out when someone is not even close makes no sense.
Inflated titles in Hungary come from watered down norm tournaments. You can compete for IM norms in Hungary (for example in First Saturday) when the IMs you play are rated under 2300(the odd tournament has one 2375-2400 IM) making the IM norms earned a watered down accomplishment. GM norm tournaments sometimes have 3 sub-2500 GMs even.
The IM/GM titles have become a joke. Now the FM title is too.
If FIDE wants to give away titles they should make a new 'Kids' FM or IM category so they can give KFM and KIM titles at their leisure. Then they'll have some company with all the WFM/WIM/WGMs out there.
That is not a problem at all. The player won a championship title, and FIDE awarded one of its "strength" titles for this achievement. In a similar way many Canadian players became IMs in Canadian Closeds ;)
News flash: 1900s sometimes lose to 1200s. Your mind boggles pretty easily.
my mind wasn't boggled by the loss, but by the idiotic decision to adjust one person's rating, and also i suppose by the multiple people who, on the one hand, support the retarded decision, but on the other hand, appear to capable of communicating and operating complex tools such as computers
Last edited by Ben Daswani; Thursday, 23rd December, 2010, 06:46 PM.
everytime it hurts, it hurts just like the first (and then you cry till there's no more tears)
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?
I seriously have nothing against the kid.
He has a great talent.
I still don't think its fair.
So what? Eric Hansen got 5th two years ago, I was close to making the top ten, i was tied for 9th. We don't get any CFC presents.
Whatever, goodluck jason, hopefully your rating will stay and not drop ;)
Tweet
Comment