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.
Thanks for the explanation Roger...
I had misinterpreted what you were doing initially-- I thought you were adjusting the performers to be within a single standard deviation of the mean...
While we are suggesting modifications to the rating system, I have a suggestion that throws away the need to keep ratings consistent historically, since in truth it really can't be done. I woud simply define the average rating as 1500 and force the ratings to a standard deviaton of 350 rating points, which would put 2200 two sigma above the average.
Every time the ratings are calculated then we also calculate your standard deviation above or below 1500 and multiply it by 250, and add or subtract it from 1500. If you are 1.8 sigma above the computed average by the computed standard deviation you get a rating of 1950, which reflects your current standing in the currently active rating pool.
This would keep the ratings standardised to the current rating pool and prevent inflation or deflation but at the cost of a given rating earned in, say 1980, having no meaning in 2010. If you have a given rating then it becomes easy to compute your ranking among all rated players currently competing.
I doubt this suggestion will be very popular but it has the advantage of providing an accurate rating or ranking among actually competing players and so you will know where you stand among currenly competing players.
I would also like to see a set of Canadian national titles which, once earned, are kept for life. This would encourage people to keep competing as they always have the possibility of earning a higher life title. These titles would be earned by rating performances, but once earned would be for life and bear no necessary relationship to one's current profficiency. I attained and kept an expert rating over a couple of decades. Why should that not be recognized by some kind of lifetime title?
I see no contradiction in someone earning a "life expert" title and being recognized for this achievement while his rating for tournament play might be in the 1800's or below.
there are a number of people showing up with high standard deviation results (see http://victoriachess.com/cfc/extremes.php) who fall under the category of "people who play a lot somewhere else (especially Quebec) but only once in a while in CFC tournaments" and who are presumably improving in between rare CFC appearences. So, yeah you're right. There is a ratings issue for those types of people and some methodology should be developed to automatically adjust for those situations.
But, hey I'm not the one argueing against making adjustments or including additional information.
While we are suggesting modifications to the rating system, I have a suggestion that throws away the need to keep ratings consistent historically, since in truth it really can't be done. I woud simply define the average rating as 1500 and force the ratings to a standard deviaton of 350 rating points, which would put 2200 two sigma above the average.
Every time the ratings are calculated then we also calculate your standard deviation above or below 1500 and multiply it by 250, and add or subtract it from 1500. If you are 1.8 sigma above the computed average by the computed standard deviation you get a rating of 1950, which reflects your current standing in the currently active rating pool.
This would keep the ratings standardised to the current rating pool and prevent inflation or deflation but at the cost of a given rating earned in, say 1980, having no meaning in 2010. If you have a given rating then it becomes easy to compute your ranking among all rated players currently competing.
I doubt this suggestion will be very popular but it has the advantage of providing an accurate rating or ranking among actually competing players and so you will know where you stand among currenly competing players.
I would also like to see a set of Canadian national titles which, once earned, are kept for life. This would encourage people to keep competing as they always have the possibility of earning a higher life title. These titles would be earned by rating performances, but once earned would be for life and bear no necessary relationship to one's current profficiency. I attained and kept an expert rating over a couple of decades. Why should that not be recognized by some kind of lifetime title?
I see no contradiction in someone earning a "life expert" title and being recognized for this achievement while his rating for tournament play might be in the 1800's or below.
I see nothing wrong with Jason Cao's rating being adjusted upwards. His performance against rated players at the CYCC was 2092 in the first ten rounds, followed by a win against an unrated player. I don't see why he would be given a FIDE rating in the 1900's.
Complaining that many others would now seek a rating gift of 300+ points is not logical. Go ahead and win a world title and then ask for a rating gift!
I, for once, agree with the CFC. A rare event! That organization of ossified rules-makers should be encouraged to make reality decisions more often. You cannot make rules for all unforeseen events. You must use common sense at times. This is just as it is in rulings at a chess tournament - if a situation is not outlined in the rules, then rule to conform to good sportsmanship.
As for Jason Cao, having played over his games from the WYCC, I predict that he will continue to perform at the 2100-plus level in his next events.
Let us enjoy his success! No more sour grapes, please.
I see nothing wrong with Jason Cao's rating being adjusted upwards. His performance against rated players at the CYCC was 2092 in the first ten rounds, followed by a win against an unrated player. I don't see why he would be given a FIDE rating in the 1900's.
Complaining that many others would now seek a rating gift of 300+ points is not logical. Go ahead and win a world title and then ask for a rating gift!
I, for once, agree with the CFC. A rare event! That organization of ossified rules-makers should be encouraged to make reality decisions more often. You cannot make rules for all unforeseen events. You must use common sense at times. This is just as it is in rulings at a chess tournament - if a situation is not outlined in the rules, then rule to conform to good sportsmanship.
As for Jason Cao, having played over his games from the WYCC, I predict that he will continue to perform at the 2100-plus level in his next events.
Let us enjoy his success! No more sour grapes, please.
You sure have a way to deal with people who dont share your views! Sour grapes... It could be about sour grapes if Jason Cao got any real benefit from this rating gift. But It isn't so. This rating jump is more likely to rob him of the benefits and satisfaction of moving his rating up the normal way with good chess games, picking up a few class prizes along the way that would have helped him pay for chess material and tuition. If the CFC wanted to support Jason, a XXX$ gift certificate at CMA would have been much more helpful than this greek gift who merely shows the CFC as unprincipled and ineffective when it comes to supporting our young talents.
Whatever the merits or demerits of either proposal, I see no close resemblance. Gliko does not appear to me to be designed to address the problems I see, and mine is not designed to address the problems he appears to want to deal with.
I regard his proposal as mathematically sound, but psychologically unsound. Players won't like it so it won't be accepted.
When I was CFC Rating Auditor (early- to mid-1980s), part of the mandate was to correct obvious rating discrepancies if the evidence warranted it. That is the situation with Jason Cao, and was the situation with Hikaru Nakamura. The argument that Nakamura is a foreign player and therefore somehow "different" is quite irrelevant. It is within the CFC's authority to adjust a rating when the evidence -- such as a more recent performance in a bigger and stronger rating pool -- is clear.
Someone argued that after the WYCC Jason Cao subsequently lost to a 1200 player and therefore he should not receive an adjustment. However, that is merely "proof by selected examples." A closer look reveals that he recovered from the loss and by the end of the event he had turned in an 1860 performance.
Others argued that Jason Cao's rating adjustment was an undeserved gift. It seems these commentators would like the other players in the small Victoria rating pool to sacrifice their rating points to Jason and thereby deflate their own ratings to the point of inaccuracy. That doesn't strike me as any kind of solution.
there are a number of people showing up with high standard deviation results (see http://victoriachess.com/cfc/extremes.php) who fall under the category of "people who play a lot somewhere else (especially Quebec) but only once in a while in CFC tournaments" and who are presumably improving in between rare CFC appearences. So, yeah you're right. There is a ratings issue for those types of people and some methodology should be developed to automatically adjust for those situations.
But, hey I'm not the one argueing against making adjustments or including additional information.
It is with some irony to see your current posts given your objections in the past to allow underrated juniors enter the Canadian Closed. That again was a debate between doing the right thing for chess and the players OR blindly following the rules no matter what the circumstances. The difference would be you have switched sides in the debate now.
There are certain types of juniors that the rating system will never keep up with. Those that focus on unrated events like WYCC and CMA, and play in CYCC against many underrated or low rated peers, and/or simply play in less CFC rated events then their junior peers. I know this of course because I had two kids that were mostly underrated and only brought their "A game" to chess events when they were inspired to do so and weren't sidetracked by school. I would even go as far to say that being required to improve one's rating to qualify for events can be extremely counterproductive at times to becoming a stronger player ( seems counterintuitive but I've seen this in action ).
I would argue that every effort should be made to get these kind of players into top Canadian events. This will make them stronger players, keep them challenged and interested, and send a message that Canadian chess values their attendance.
Ratings in this context don't matter a hell of a lot, unless you choose to make them matter.
You sure have a way to deal with people who dont share your views! Sour grapes... It could be about sour grapes if Jason Cao got any real benefit from this rating gift.
This is not about a benefit for Jason, who already has achieved benefits, such as a world championship title and an FM title to boot, that make his rating improvement pail into insignifificance.
The people who will get the benefit will be the other rated players who will not undeservedly lose huge amounts of points to a badly underrated player. The evidence is overwhelming that Jason has reached a whole new class and it is unfair for others to lose their hard earned rating points when they actually perform at their expected level.
It is the integrety of the rating system that is important here, not the jealousy felt by some players who don't like the fact that Jason, unlike them, has achieved a huge leap in playing strength in a rather short period.
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.
It is a tiny leap of faith to go from the above opinion to this opinion:
"The system of measuring / adjusting / presenting global climate data is meant is meant to serve a political agenda. When it fails to do so, as it very occasionally does, a manual adjustment based on observable facts is a perfectly reasonable response."
The tiny leap of faith only requires a very loose definition of "observable facts" and a very strident, unswervable belief in the political agenda.
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.
And yet many others on this thread say this is a common problem with fast-rising juniors. But, of course, we are all supposed to silently accept Ed Seedhouse's proclamation of "functions reasonably well" and Ed Seedhouse's figure of "99.9 percent of the time". Observable facts, indeed.
If you really want a quick answer to this problem, look to tennis. That sport in Canada uses the ELO rating system. Does Canadian tennis ever award rating points to a rising junior, and if so, under what conditions? Use that as the basis for Canadian chess.
If you want a not-so-quick answer, consider the primary weakness of the ELO rating system. It only considers result. It doesn't consider the path to that result. I leave the rest as a thought exercise for the reader.
There's no way CFC will allow itself to be dismantled.
A large country like Canada should always have a strong national organization. Fixing the
rating system so that it's not so out of kilter with FIDE's however, is one of its obligations.
It also makes it more enticing for Canadians to play abroad, one way of compensating for
the fewer events here.
The CFC could be looking at FIDE rating all events for those members who want it and
don't mind the extra expense (1 Euro, or about 2 Dollars per player per event).
For instance, I don't understand the organizers' reluctance in rating the U2000 section at
the 2011 Can Open. In order to get more players with a FIDE rating, longer events like this
one should be rated.
Last edited by Ed Zator; Wednesday, 29th December, 2010, 12:58 PM.
[QUOTE=Ed Seedhouse;32493]The people who will get the benefit will be the other rated players who will not undeservedly lose huge amounts of points to a badly underrated player. The evidence is overwhelming that Jason has reached a whole new class and it is unfair for others to lose their hard earned rating points when they actually perform at their expected level.[QUOTE]
I have news for you. All young players on their swift way up take "hard earned points" away from their elders who perform at their expected levels. That even happened to me a long time ago in my youth. Trying to fix it on a individual basis is doomed to failure and sure to lead to endless discussions. System improvements must be found, not quick and subjective fixing.
Fixing the rating system
so that it's not so out of kilter with FIDE's however, is one of its obligations.
While this is a seperate issue, I disagree strongly with this... FIDE ratings and CFC rating draw from different data pools. They should not be regarded as comparable.
Being able to estimate a conversion is something which we often need to do when someone is unrated or has an innacurrate rating... but such estimates are of the absolute crudest sort.
While I am not advocating such a measure, I would say we would be better off multiplying our ratings by some constant (2 or 0.5) in order to dissuade people from making such direct comparisons.
While this is a seperate issue, I disagree strongly with this... FIDE ratings and CFC rating draw from different data pools. They should not be regarded as comparable.
Being able to estimate a conversion is something which we often need to do when someone is unrated or has an innacurrate rating... but such estimates are of the absolute crudest sort.
While I am not advocating such a measure, I would say we would be better off multiplying our ratings by some constant (2 or 0.5) in order to dissuade people from making such direct comparisons.
Didn't the British Chess Federation have a bit of an odd rating point level? Perhaps it still does?! I seem to recall levels like 2B or something like that... Now I'll have to go look...
Tweet
It could be about sour grapes if Jason Cao got any real benefit from this rating gift. But It isn't so. This rating jump is more likely to rob him of the benefits and satisfaction of moving his rating up the normal way with good chess games, picking up a few class prizes along the way that would have helped him pay for chess material and tuition. If the CFC wanted to support Jason, a XXX$ gift certificate at CMA would have been much more helpful than this greek gift who merely shows the CFC as unprincipled and ineffective when it comes to supporting our young talents.
Comment