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.
In the last 6 months or so he has also beaten Harry Moore (2275), drawn Valeria Gansvind (2318), drawn Brian McLaren (2207), drawn me (2138) (twice I think). Those were not CFC rated games, either training games before the WYCC or in an active tournament at rapid time controls but still... Pretty good results for either a 1500 player or a 1900 player.
Not quite although it is similar. For one thing, I have a rule (unpublished) for adjusting ratings for extreme performances. It's experimental at this point. [the rule is: for extreme performances more than 2 standard deviations from expectations, adjust the pre tournament rating to approx. that required to make it standard deviations. i.e. moves part of the way there but not all the way [to guard against giving extra points for someone who just had a good day]. The only people who have managed to benefit from this rule so far are our juniors....
I say him draw Roy Yearwood as well.
But I agree with Eric Hansen. But unfortunately, we can't compromise the rating system (with national implications - as IM Hansen stated) for a few Messrs in Victoria who are concerned over their CFC rating.
.... for a few Messrs in Victoria who are concerned over their CFC rating.
Merry Christmas all.
you seem to think the logic involved is:
1) He was underrated
2) OMG, we'll lose rating points!
3) Hence raise his rating
whereas in fact, the logic is
1) the rating system should, as best possible, reflect the actual strength of players
2) He was underrated.
3) Hence, FIX IT dammit.
That should always be a criteria for adjusting a rating based on objective criteria.
Normally with a rating, a person has to improve something in his game to reach the next plateau. For a player to go from 2400 to 2500, as an example, identifying a part or two of his game where weakness exists and improving on it results in point gains.
If an artificial rating gift is beneficial is another question. It certainly gives a new meaning to the term "gifted player".
How he stacks up against you or Seedhouse shouldn't really be relevant. I never saw Seedhouse play, but you were never really that good, if you don't mind an objective assessment of your play. I doubt you're qualified to properly assess a players performance to set the rating. For one thing, the event was for children under 10.
I'm not against overhauling the rating system as surely there must be many under rated players.
In the meantime, there is a rating system in place which requires players to work their way up the ladder.
There is no need to accuse me of being personal when I wasn't being.
I'm merely stating my point of view and trying to have a healthy debate, but suggesting I'm ignorant when it comes to the statistical significance of his accomplishment is a little unnecessary.
Your words make it clear that you did not understand the significance. Otherwise you could not have said what you said.
I never said his actual playing strength wasn't 1950.
No, you didn't. And I never accused you of saying that it isn't.
I completely understand the statistical significance of him performing well above what his rating would predict.
And yet you said what you said, which suggests differently.
My point is simply that the system should be made to reflect that. There shouldn't be any need for manual interference. Adjusting his rating sets a horrible precedent, and its hard to see where the line should be drawn.
But no accepted way of automatically adjusting for extraordinary results currently exists. When such events happen, as they do very rarely, the rating system is adversly affected. The rating system is meant to serve people, not the other way around. When it fails to do so, as it very occasionally does, a manual adjustment based on observable facts is a perfectly reasonable response. On the other hand, attempting to redesign the rating system from scratch to deal with such rare outliers seems to me to be an unnecessary waste of time. 99.9 percent of the time if functions reasonably well within it's admitted limitations.
Last edited by Ed Seedhouse; Saturday, 25th December, 2010, 07:07 PM.
In three different tournaments he performed three standard deviations above his expected performance. The likelyhood that this happened by accident is vanishingly small. It is virtually certain that this reflects a real increase in his playing strength.
Lastly, I know from personally playing him that his strength has increased massively. My rating on the VCC system increased in 2010 from 1854 to a peak of 1922, during the same time Jason went from 1771 to 1901. His best performance during that time was 2241, bettering my own best of 2212, although I had one more 2100 plus performance. At the beginning of this year he was a fairly easy player for me to beat. By the end he is virtually even with me and at the rate he is improving I will soon provide no competition for him.
The forumula used by the VCC system, by the way, is identical to the CFC system.
So it seems a big part of the problem is that the VCC (unlike Scarborough and many other clubs) is having tournaments rated, but not by the CFC.
Who's paying the $3 rating fee to have his CFC rating adjusted?
And what about Quebec players who only play in the Canadian Open once every 3 years, but play regularly in FQE-rated events. Should all of their ratings be adjusted upwards?
So to all those hard-studying juniors who worked so hard to get their name to the top of the rating list, don't bother playing in weekend swisses, etc. as the CFC at some point will jump your rating by 300 points.
So it seems a big part of the problem is that the VCC (unlike Scarborough and many other clubs) is having tournaments rated, but not by the CFC.
Actually I believe Jason played in quite a few more CFC rated tournaments than most other players around Victoria, because he did some travelling to play in non local tournaments, and I believe the high-sigma results referred to occurred there. Rodger will I am sure correct me if I am wrong.
But if you are going to leap to conclusions perhaps you would do better to base those leaps on actual evidence.
This was after looking at a couple of rating lists for about ten minutes. I am sure there are many other examples which can be found by comparing CFC with FIDE and/or FQE ratings. If the goal of the CFC rating system is to produce as accurate numbers as possible, why haven't these ratings been "corrected" as well? They weren't hard to find. :-)
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
Not quite although it is similar. For one thing, I have a rule (unpublished) for adjusting ratings for extreme performances. It's experimental at this point. [the rule is: for extreme performances more than 2 standard deviations from expectations, adjust the pre tournament rating to approx. that required to make it standard deviations. i.e. moves part of the way there but not all the way [to guard against giving extra points for someone who just had a good day]. The only people who have managed to benefit from this rule so far are our juniors....
Out of curiosity, do you adjust underperformers down in the same manner?
I have two thoughts about such a rule:
Firstly, it seems infinately better then the arbitrary rating adjustment being discussed here... simply in that it can be applied systematically.
Though secondly, it seems this rule is way more extreme then the problem... shouldn't 1/20 tournament results be an extreme performance?? Do you find you apply this rule often? Will this not eventually lead to an increase in the size of a standard deviation? I don't know why but this rule disturbs my mathematical intuition... wouldn't it be better to only adjust people after they have had two extreme performances in sequence?
Last edited by Stuart Brammall; Sunday, 26th December, 2010, 12:02 AM.
Reason: correction
" never saw Seedhouse play, but you were never really that good, if you don't mind an objective assessment of your play"
Gary seems to be labouring under the belief that the rating system provides an objective assessment of how well a player plays. If so then it is only one of the many delusions he seems to suffer under, judging only by the climate change thread.
Objectively my rating peaked at 2134 in the early 1990's and thereafter declined to 2050. This is documented on the CFC website to this day. Of course the current 2050 is well out of date and it is doubtful i could play to that standard these days. I am however considering entering the CFC rated "Grand Pacific Open" this year so we may see a test of this. Whether I do or not largely depends on the rather variable state of my personal health.
I never played very well, I just played well enough to beat those who were even worse. However it an objective fact that I managed to raise my rating from the 1900's to the 2100's in the space of a few years, during my late 40's. Of course, rating doesn't, nor does it pretend to, tell anyone how well or badly he plays chess.
[QUOTE=David Ottosen;32470
And they say the Christmas spirit is dead :D[/QUOTE]
If you, or anyone else reading this, would like the picturesque seasons greetings I'm sending simply send me your email address at g.ruben@earthlinkdotnet.
Firstly, it seems infinately better then the arbitrary rating adjustment being discussed here... simply in that it can be applied systematically.
I think the rating adjustment here can be done systematically - any one who gets three resutls of +2 standard deviations and has some external validation of what his strength is gets his rating adjusted. Of course, it's not a very useful rule in that it doesn't happen very often. I think in the last 5 years there have been 3 other cases of 3 x 2standard deviation performances in the year at least one of which involves a special case. I think it is more appropriate for the rating auditor to have flexibility to recognize a rare occurance and react appropiately. [the rule being, if a unique event occurs, investigate and take appropriate action]. But in general, one of the reasons I am playing with the CFC database is to try and find reasonable rules that will identify misrated individuals [i.e. rerating underated juniors using a systematic approach]. I am not of the opinion that being underated is good for you, like eating brussel sprouts. I am of the opinion that misrated players who can be identified should have their ratings adjusted to something more appropriate to reflect their actual strength.
By the way, I am agnostic on how much the rating should be adjusted in this case. The evidence of a rating mismatch is clear and compelling. What to adjust the new rating to is unclear. Both the idea of just rating the WYCC games or taking his FIDE rating (or taking his performance rating for the last 24 games) seem perfectly reasonable practical approaches to take.
Parenthetically, I note that rating the WYCC result is not allowed by the current rules as some have suggested - the rule is that if that only if the CFC is advised before the tournament, those results would be rated. So, the intervention of recognizing a unique clear case is still required.
Though secondly, it seems this rule is way more extreme then the problem... shouldn't 1/20 tournament results be an extreme performance???
1/20 results might result in an adjustment but most of those will be very small - someone who has a 2.01 standard deviation results will only be adjusted so that it is a 2.00 standard deviation result. But, you're right in the sense that some people will randomly have a good enough result to trigger the rule. [but if it's random, both positive and negative should result in no deflation/inflation from those cases] In any case, it is an experiment.
This rule has been triggered I think 3 times, all juniors. Two of those cases have subsequently confirmed their new rating by performing at a high level in subsequent tournaments. The third has not yet had a chance to confirm the new rating.
wouldn't it be better to only adjust people after they have had two extreme performances in sequence?
well that could be a proposed rule and may happen someday. But it's more complicated to keep track of. I prefer to start with the simpler rule to implement. And really, fine tuning might require a bigger database than Victoria has.
Tweet
Comment