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.
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.
1) This rating adjustment has pushed him to #1 in the U10 by a mere 3 points, and to get to #1 U12, he has a long ways to go. It's pretty unlikely this rating adjustment will assist him in the manner you're describing here (I'm not sure how old he is or whether he'd be eligible for U10 next year or not - if so, I'd be surprised if they made the defending champ qualify through CYCC anyways).
2) Do you really think that it "accurately reflects" the actual rankings to have the World champ rated #8 in his age group in his own country?
3) None of these are relevant for him.
Your points are fair if applied to situations where there were actual benefits to increasing your rating without playing. I don't really see how any of them apply in this particular case. While I don't think thatmanual rating adjustments should be widespread, I also don't see any issue with it being done in cases where there is clear rating error. I can grant you that it's not entirely clear this is the case here, but I also don't think it has any negative impact on any other person in this case either, so I really don't understand why people are so worked up about it.
Last edited by David Ottosen; Friday, 24th December, 2010, 06:20 AM.
I think the easiest way to get low rated juniors or any unrated player up in the ranks is to change the provisional rating calculation.
Instead of using the current calculations for first time players in a CFC event because some of the Chess 'N Math ratings are not true ratings and highly deflated (in my opinion)
After your first CFC tournament instead of using average rating of opponents use: Current rating + ( 3 times Wins x 16 pts- 16 pts times Loses + 2 times 8 for Draws )+ 1600 points. This would be your new Firsttime CFC Rating. Note all newcomers to a CFC rated tournament would start with a current rating of unrated ( 0000 rating)
Then you either go up or down from there.
This would get the stronger Juniors out of the basement sooner. Unrated get an extra 50 points so go up faster and would go to 1650+ and then can get up their rating quicker as their next tournament they can play in U1800 section or higher. If the player is not good then the ratings would be reflected after the next few events. Giving players a low rating to start is not the way to go.
Too many talented Juniors stay underrated too long.
You can also add a provision that a Junior will also get bonus points if they succeed in getting a 4 out of 6 or higher score in the tournament as well.
Simple solution to an ongoing problem of underrated players.
You can also tweak the formula to include established players and give more bonus points to fast improving players.
Last edited by John Brown; Friday, 24th December, 2010, 07:33 AM.
Reason: Missed information
I think this was a good decision. And I think it follows a general principle that is sound, so I don't see it as just a " special one-time " event. I don't think it should be done just because Jason is a " World Champion ".
As we all know, on a chessboard "sound" general principles lead to many dreadful mistakes if applied without carefully calculating the consequences. In matters of ratings, random and subjective "solutions" (even based on good intentions) simply cannot be applied on a case by case basis, unless we want the rating auditor to drown into a mass of cases and be subjected to neverending complaints afterwards. If the system needs to be fixed, let's fix it, if not let it do its work. Personnaly I think it needs to be fixed for everyone and not just for a -10 world champion.
I think this was a good decision. And I think it follows a general principle that is sound, so I don't see it as just a " special one-time " event. I don't think it should be done just because Jason is a " World Champion ".
But were other cases afforded the same scrutiny? If not, will they be examined? The action may not have been taken because he is now Under-10 World Champion, but it certainly came about only because he achieved that title. If he had (say) finished 3rd, would his rating have been adjusted?
I think it is clear that this is a special case. I am not implying agreement or disagreement, I am just saying that justification post-facto is rather hard to swallow.
1) This rating adjustment has pushed him to #1 in the U10 by a mere 3 points, and to get to #1 U12, he has a long ways to go. It's pretty unlikely this rating adjustment will assist him in the manner you're describing here (I'm not sure how old he is or whether he'd be eligible for U10 next year or not - if so, I'd be surprised if they made the defending champ qualify through CYCC anyways).
2) Do you really think that it "accurately reflects" the actual rankings to have the World champ rated #8 in his age group in his own country?
3) None of these are relevant for him.
Your points are fair if applied to situations where there were actual benefits to increasing your rating without playing. I don't really see how any of them apply in this particular case. While I don't think thatmanual rating adjustments should be widespread, I also don't see any issue with it being done in cases where there is clear rating error. I can grant you that it's not entirely clear this is the case here, but I also don't think it has any negative impact on any other person in this case either, so I really don't understand why people are so worked up about it.
1) Even if they let him go directly since he's world champ, he is taking the #1 rank and therefore taking a privilege from some other youth who earned it and may want to skip CYCC.
2) He got a 5.5/7(1500 perf) at the CYCC against his fellow rivals in the list. IMO that does not mean he is dominating the players in his age group to the point where he is entitled to a "Pass through GO and collect 350 rating points" card. It is more accurate to use an objective measurement for rankings than to let the CFC pick and choose. He can be rewarded by getting his performance at WYCC rated and be much closer to getting the ranking you feel is accurate and which he fully earned. People are worked up over it because it is totally unnecessary and ruins the integrity of the system. Have you heard of another example of this anywhere else? I already explained that the system will allow him to catch up and gain considerable rating(300+) with only a few tournaments.
And as you stated, it's just not completely proven he should be at 1920 as his FIDE rating is completely provisional. If he lost to a 1220 recently, it is just more proof of randomness in youth results and that some people were a little trigger-happy. There was no clear rating error, it was just a case of a kid who improved drastically but people aren't patient enough to let his rating catch up. He is not the first nor the last but the CFC's reaction may well be a first.
Last edited by Eric Hansen; Friday, 24th December, 2010, 04:22 PM.
1) Even if they let him go directly since he's world champ, he is taking the #1 rank and therefore taking a privilege from some other youth who earned it and may want to skip CYCC.
He is eligible to enter the World YCC the next year per FIDE rules. It's up to him to choose the age group - U10 or U12. I think I've read he had plans to go to U12. (don't about finances involved...)
the system will allow him to catch up and gain considerable rating(300+) with only a few tournaments.
For this one reason I don't understand the need to rise one person's rating. Is it a milestone for a player to have 19xx when the goal is 24xx and more? :D
Merry Christmas !!!
Last edited by Egidijus Zeromskis; Friday, 24th December, 2010, 04:47 PM.
He is eligible to enter the World YCC the next year per FIDE rules. It's up to him to choose the age group - U10 or U12. I think I've read he had plans to go to U12. (don't about finances involved...)
Merry Christmas !!!
Isn't anyone eligible to enter the World YCC, not just Jason? I believe the difference is he gets free room+board or something and is not considered an "additional player". But you still need national federation approval so the CFC still gets their say (I think,could be wrong). He still takes the #1 privileges from someone else though.
Merry Christmas to you too :)
Last edited by Eric Hansen; Friday, 24th December, 2010, 04:54 PM.
Reason: added bit
Isn't anyone eligible to enter the World YCC, not just Jason?
He has the personal right (whatever that means) to go to the WYCC now. All other players should go through some kind of a qualification.
"3.
(GA `93) The players placed 1-3 in a previous World Youth Championship, and the champions of Continental Boys (Girls)-8, 10, 12 and 14 championships, shall have the personal right to participate in the World Youth Championship of the corresponding age-category or a higher age-category if the stipulation of Art. 2 is met. This privilege may be exercised once exclusively in the subsequent year following the year of qualification. " http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.ht...0&view=article
Finances are issue. However, let's leave it for the next thread :)
I think you have hit the nail on the head. Here is my post in the discussion on this on Dec. 24 on the CFC members' Chess Chat Forum:
Building Anecdotal Adjustment into the System
I think this was a good decision. And I think it follows a general principle that is sound, so I don't see it as just a " special one-time " event. I don't think it should be done just because Jason is a " World Champion ".
So in my view, if there is strong and sufficient evidence that a player is in fact 300 rating points stronger than his current rating, then I see an adjustment upward as maintaining the integrity of the system.
And this is why I see this as not just a " one-on " situation. I think there should be a mechanism for submission of evidence of this situation to the Rating Auditor, and he should be empowered to grant the appropriate increase.
This does not exclude either, some system adjustment that would take into account that many juniors quickly leave their initial ratings behind in terms of actual strength, as they play a lot, and study like sponges. I see no reason both improvements to the system should not occur.
How's that for walking right into the middle of the firestorm? Anyone agree with me, or am I a voice crying in the wilderness?
Bob
Such policy decisions should have been announced in advance. There clearly is a problem with underrated rising juniors. Maybe a different rating system is needed for players under 14 who have chess coaches. Certainly the World tournament should have been CFC rated for all Canadian participants.
Is there a table of rating growth of present masters showing their rating growth from 800-1200 up to 2000? And then if a new kid matches that average graph they get marked for a rating increase?
In Toronto there are enough tournaments for these hard-working youngsters to raise their ratings, but not in smaller communities. But even in Toronto there has been players with 300 pts higher CMA ratings, from playing in many CMA tournaments but few CFC-rated ones. Will the Rating Auditor look at those CMA-rated results?
It is unfair to all the other underrated young players to raise only one. It looks like corruption and favourtism.
I have now made a submission to the CFC Rating Auditor, that a new " application for rating increase " procedure be instituted, such that where there is strong and sufficient proof that a player is actually 300 rating points or more above his current rating, an application for increase adjustment can be made.
So it is my position that Jason's case ought not, in all likelihood, to be a " one-time event, because he is World Champion ". The procedure will be available to all, not just juniors. Others who clearly merit an increase should also get it.
I have asked Bill to respond to my suggestion in his report at the Governors' Winter Quarterly On-line Meeting, starting Jan. 15, 2011.
Bob
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Friday, 24th December, 2010, 06:17 PM.
(1)Would this procedure be available if there is proof that someone is 300+ overrated? Would they get an instant CFC rating chop?
(2)Why not just rate the WYCC as Mr Hansen has suggested?
(3)Perhaps CFC can publish CFC and FIDE ratings side-by-side so readers can do their own adjusting as they read? (just my 30 sec idea-pardon if you already do this)
1. Find me a CFC member for whom there is " strong and sufficient " evidence he is 300 rating points over-rated. I think there are none. The system decreases ratings as play deteriorates. Deterioration of play is usually a gradual thing, usually due to aging, or decreasing actual tournament playing ( the rust factor ). Barring an injury or health event, your situation ought not to occur. The fact is very different for rising juniors - there we have many instances of juniors leaving their ratings far behind.
2. Rating the WYCC as a CFC event is a possibility. But the issue is that much increased juniors ought not to be taking rating points away from established players as they slowly climb, where it is clear they are much stronger than there rating, not just a bit improved. That is why a separate application procedure is required, in my opinion anyways.
3. Good idea to publish both ratings - but the issue is actual adjusting of the CFC rating. It's not just an issue of personal opinion.
Bob
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Friday, 24th December, 2010, 06:22 PM.
Between adults, you find in this thread irreconciable opinions.
I was happy to see many young players post. They probably all experienced some periods of fast improvement in their level of play. They had their rating lagging. I believe that their opinion are more important than elders like me and the other who have posted here. I note that these young players expressed their point very clearly and all are against that rating adjustment. Maybe we should listen more to juniors from time to time.
Eric Hansen, Yelizaveta Orlova, Tyler Longo, Michael Yip, Ben Daswani, Felix Dumont, Canadian chess has a good future with good minds like yours.
such that where there is strong and sufficient proof that a player is actually 300 rating points or more above his current rating, an application for increase adjustment can be made.
Actually, that just begs the question as to what is strong and sufficient proof. It's something that I've been working on with the statistics of old data but fundamentally, these questions are not always easy to answer. Proposing a motherhood motion and saying 'make it so' will make you feel good but does nothing to solve the actual technical issue.
And, as far as I can see, the rating auditor has always had the power that you are proposing to give him. Elsewhere in the thread, I identified two people, one of whom was adjusted, the other apparently eligible to be adjusted under existing rules. So he can adjust ratings if he wants to for exceptional circumstances and has always had that power.
1) This rating adjustment has pushed him to #1 in the U10 by a mere 3 points, and to get to #1 U12, he has a long ways to go. It's pretty unlikely this rating adjustment will assist him in the manner you're describing here (I'm not sure how old he is or whether he'd be eligible for U10 next year or not - if so, I'd be surprised if they made the defending champ qualify through CYCC anyways).
2) Do you really think that it "accurately reflects" the actual rankings to have the World champ rated #8 in his age group in his own country?
3) None of these are relevant for him.
Your points are fair if applied to situations where there were actual benefits to increasing your rating without playing. I don't really see how any of them apply in this particular case. While I don't think thatmanual rating adjustments should be widespread, I also don't see any issue with it being done in cases where there is clear rating error. I can grant you that it's not entirely clear this is the case here, but I also don't think it has any negative impact on any other person in this case either, so I really don't understand why people are so worked up about it.
Your response seems to boil down to: "It probably wont matter so why does everyone care?" That doesn't really make sense to me.
I'll reiterate what I said before... the rating system should adjust itself over time. While the negatives probably wont make much of a difference (which I somewhat agree with), does this decision really seem fair? I thought I was underrated when I was younger, but nobody adjusted my rating for me. I'm sure there are other young juniors who felt the same way, and their rating often went up very quickly.
What exactly are the positives of increasing his rating? What is wrong with either 1. Just rating his WYCC performance with the CFC or 2. Letting him actually play CFC events (which I'm sure he will do) and have his rating self-adjust?
Happy holidays,
-Tyler
Last edited by Tyler Longo; Friday, 24th December, 2010, 11:14 PM.
Tweet
Comment