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.
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.
And the mathematical facts of the matter are that they cannot be comparable. You can command the tide to roll itself back if you like, and you will have just as much success if you order the CFC and FIDE ratings to be equal. Namely none at all. Because the mathematical fact of the matter is that they will not and cannot be until a whole bunch of Canadians play a whole bunch of other people all over the world on a regular and continuing basis.
The tiny leap of faith only requires a very loose definition of "observable facts" and a very strident, unswervable belief in the political agenda.
Such as the loose definition of "observable facts" exhibeted regularly by Paul in that other thread.
I invite anyone not delusional to investigate for themselves, but will not engage someone so out of touch with reality as Paul, who makes up his own facts to suit his beliefs, here.
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.
Indeed they do, although I managed to harvest around 200 points from both my elders and youngers in my 40's, so this is not limited to people of any particular age. Nor, as it took place over a matter of of half a decade, would this be particularly unusual or call for any unusual measures.
This problem under normal circumstances can be dealt with with normal anti-deflation measures such as those proposed by Professor Elo among others.
Rare and extreme occurances, however, call for special measures, which are what has been applied in Jason's case, and reasonably so. No system can take care of all eventualities and Jason's immense and obvious leap in strenght is certainly one of the eventualities it wasn't designed to handle, nor is their any particular reason it should be expected to do so.
Well, if you want to keep picking on a ten year old kid you can of course do so. I'm afraid it doesn't say anything very good about those of you who are doing it, though.
Indeed they do, although I managed to harvest around 200 points from both my elders and youngers in my 40's, so this is not limited to people of any particular age. Nor, as it took place over a matter of of half a decade, would this be particularly unusual or call for any unusual measures.
This problem under normal circumstances can be dealt with with normal anti-deflation measures such as those proposed by Professor Elo among others.
Rare and extreme occurances, however, call for special measures, which are what has been applied in Jason's case, and reasonably so. No system can take care of all eventualities and Jason's immense and obvious leap in strenght is certainly one of the eventualities it wasn't designed to handle, nor is their any particular reason it should be expected to do so.
Well, if you want to keep picking on a ten year old kid you can of course do so. I'm afraid it doesn't say anything very good about those of you who are doing it, though.
I don't think anyone is picking on a 10 year old. People are reacting to a one-off decision that seems to have elicited a strong response on both sides of the issue. Obviously, the CFC Executive and the Rating Auditor are convinced this was the correct course of action, while many seem to think the rating system should have been left to auto-adjust as it has for 50 or more years...
I doubt there will be any unification on this. It seems like it is a fait acompli, like most CFC actions. Once it is decided it is almost never taken back. Further 'argument' is about as useful as the climate change thread...
Obviously, the CFC Executive and the Rating Auditor are convinced this was the correct course of action, while many seem to think the rating system should have been left to auto-adjust as it has for 50 or more years...
Then I am glad to report that I belong to a third group (by myself if necessary), way more balanced and fair-minded that preaches improvements in the rating system, not a choice between gifts to "special cases" or the status quo.
Many seem to think the rating system should have been left to auto-adjust as it has for 50 or more years.
I have already made the point that the rating system has NOT been left to auto-adjust for 50 or more years. It has always been within the mandate of the Rating Auditor to correct discrepancies. The only difference between the Cao adjustment and previous adjustments was that the Cao adjustment was publicised in a national forum and has provoked debate.
Some observers are saying that nothing should be done about a specific discrepancy unless something is done about all discrepancies. May I ask what is stopping the affected players from appealing to the Rating Auditor?
I do agree, though, that something needs to be done about the challenges to the system posed by vastly-underrated juniors. One option is to increase the K factor and keep it there until the player reaches a certain age or a certain strength. Another option is to treat all players below a certain age as provisionally-rated, recalculate their ratings from the starting point after each event, and then use the new provisional rating to adjust their opponents' ratings.
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.
Jean, you might have to change your mind, because I am in total agreement with you on this point. I know what kind of a response this will provoke from you, and that's fine, call me your usual names, but at least on this issue I can say you exhibit good common sense.
Not only that, but you really surprise me. That's because the act of giving a gifted player bonus rating points is actually in favour of the kind of results you are usually in support of. The thinking goes like this: by accelerating Jason's rise into some kind of superstar status, we quickly turn him into an elite player that can draw money and sponsors into chess. It's kind of like "Searching For Bobby Fischer": if there isn't a Bobby Fischer around, let's try and create a false one and ride his coattails to the glory of chess. If he fails, well, that will make a great story too. Either way, chess gets into people's faces, and that's good for the game.
That's the way some people would look at it and I would have thought you were one of those people. Well, maybe you're coming into some enlightenment. Of course, the response to the above is that chess needs far more than just a dog and pony show. That's why I can't agree with you about sprucing up the Canadian Closed, because it's putting lipstick on a pig. Heck, not even a pig, a pig is too cute: from the general public's viewpoint, chess is a warthog. Trying to create a Bobby Fischer will only help if we do indeed create a Bobby Fischer, and the odds of that not even Gus Hansen (famous poker player, likes to gamble with any two cards) would touch.
So my reason for agreeing with you on this issue is that once again, we can't put lipstick on the warthog, we have to genetically alter the warthog until it both looks and acts like a puppy so cute and playful even Ed Seedhouse would be charmed.
Now, I know you don't agree there, you happen to like the warthog just as it is except for the missing lipstick, but then, why wouldn't you be in favour of what has been done with Jason? I guess because it's me asking, you won't answer that, but there's some reason, and I have to admit I'm stumped.
Altering the rating system to be more accurate and up to date is a very small step in the genetic altering of the chess warthog. But still a good one, if it's done right. Which begs the question, what "systemic improvements" do you have in mind?
Well, again, it's me asking, so no answer forthcoming. Maybe someone else can ask, someone Jean likes.... hmmmm..... someone Jean likes.... ??????
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
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.
They are both Elo-based systems, and should be comparable - that was the justification for the rating adjustment to Jason's rating.
Also the reason why organizers use FIDE ratings for foreign players in their national events when no national rating is available,
Last edited by Ed Zator; Wednesday, 29th December, 2010, 12:59 PM.
... Some observers are saying that nothing should be done about a specific discrepancy unless something is done about all discrepancies. May I ask what is stopping the affected players from appealing to the Rating Auditor? ...
It would, in my opinion, be rather childish for other players to ask that the rating of someone else be adjusted just because they are afraid that they will lose (more) rating points playing that player. As Jean wrote, there have always been improving players. Many of the major cities have/had players who have gained hundreds of points in a year.
Check out the rating gain in 2003: almost 750 points!
It seems to me that the Rating Auditor should be spending his time trying to find ongoing, systemic problems in regions rather than for individuals. It is pretty clear that many players who mainly play in FQE events have seriously inaccurate CFC ratings, for example.
Comments that Jason "deserves" this rating adjustment, as if it were some sort of thank you for a job well done, are silly. Just as FIDE continues to make a mockery of titles by handing them out to players who have not earned them, so the CFC is handing out rating points instead of allowing the players to earn them. Having a high rating or FIDE title is meaningless; accomplishing something (be it becoming 1900 or an FM) is meaningful in the sense that it is achieving something that not everyone else could do. Chess organizations are robbing players of the experience of earning things legitimately; instead they just hand stuff out. It is a symptom of a society that would like to skip the messy steps to achievement (hard work, personal sacrifice, etc.) and just focus on "being successful".
"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.
It would, in my opinion, be rather childish for other players to ask that the rating of someone else be adjusted just because they are afraid that they will lose (more) rating points playing that player. As Jean wrote, there have always been improving players. Many of the major cities have/had players who have gained hundreds of points in a year.
It seems to me that the Rating Auditor should be spending his time trying to find ongoing, systemic problems in regions rather than for individuals. It is pretty clear that many players who mainly play in FQE events have seriously inaccurate CFC ratings, for example.
Comments that Jason "deserves" this rating adjustment, as if it were some sort of thank you for a job well done, are silly. Just as FIDE continues to make a mockery of titles by handing them out to players who have not earned them, so the CFC is handing out rating points instead of allowing the players to earn them. Having a high rating or FIDE title is meaningless; accomplishing something (be it becoming 1900 or an FM) is meaningful in the sense that it is achieving something that not everyone else could do. Chess organizations are robbing players of the experience of earning things legitimately; instead they just hand stuff out. It is a symptom of a society that would like to skip the messy steps to achievement (hard work, personal sacrifice, etc.) and just focus on "being successful".
My initial immediate reaction when I heard of this rating point gift was a kind of shock, but then I saw very many posts on both sides of the arguments, and so I decided to let all of the points settle in, and then decide. Well, it's been quite a few days now, and I cannot support this special rating point gift, nor the special process that was followed.
Very sharp people like Eric, Jean, Tom, etc. have quite clearly expressed very simple alternatives, and common sense reasonings why this was not right. I find it disappointing that they seem ignored. It can seem from some angles that this situation was hijacked by a few people for what could be thought of as personally selfish reasons. Actually, I could live with that, as I don't think about my ratings like some people do. Ironically, being in the 1900s, I would be someone who would lose points to an under-rated junior.
However, what really distresses me about this whole thing is the potential negative impact to the young man at the centre of it. Relatively speaking, I don't really care about the minimal impacts on other people affected by whether this rating gift happens or not. But there is no clear potential upside for Jason with the rating gift, whereas there are potential downsides for him with the rating gift. The absolute top priority should have been to protect this little guy with a bright future, but instead of that, it seems to people like me on the outside, that other personal agendas took preference.
We may never know whether this slows Jason's true assent. Shame on our CFC if it does.
It seems to me that the Rating Auditor should be spending his time trying to find ongoing, systemic problems in regions rather than for individuals.
What you're saying here is that if you were CFC President, you would change the Rating Auditor's mandate. At the present time it is well within the CFC's authority to correct individual ratings. Regarding the system as a whole, in chess, as in life, the existence of bigger problems is not a reason to ignore smaller problems.
Last edited by Dan Scoones; Tuesday, 28th December, 2010, 03:01 PM.
What you're saying here is that if you were CFC President, you would change the Rating Auditor's mandate. At the present time it is well within the CFC's authority to correct individual ratings. Regarding the system as a whole, in chess, as in life, the existence of bigger problems is not a reason to ignore smaller problems.
I don't think he exactly said that and more than I said the CFC executive would be hard pressed to be able to successfully organize a birthday party for a few 9 year olds, much less run a rating system in a fair and equitable manner.
The rating is unrealistic in relation to any performance rating which exists for the player in the CFC ratng database. He hasn't had a performance rating which exceeded 1900 in his CFC rated games.
I've noticed in the testimonials a couple of players claim to have been drawn by the youngster. When I checked the CFC database I couldn't find the draws in question. Possibly they could post the events so we can all see these CFC rated draws.
Rating Auditors have made system-wide and regional changes to the rating system in the past. Examples would be in the early 80s with the "Ratings Boon" when every member got rating points added, based on their rating at the time. Another was the adjustment made around 2000 to ratings in the province of Newfoundland. I also recall the big rating adjustments made to the ratings in Timmins way back. Didn't the Rating Auditors at the time make more than just changes to individuals? Dan, weren't you one of the Rating Auditors? :-)
Jason Cao's incorrect rating (assuming it is incorrect) will easily be corrected over his next few events. And yes, that may be at the cost of the ratings of other players. How do we know if those other players aren't over-rated?
At my last tournament I was sitting at my board just before round one when I realized that I was almost as old as the other three players at the table put together. I expect that over the next few years they, and the other young players like them, will (hopefully slowly) nick away at my rating even if I continue to study and play. That's how it works in chess - chess marches on and the younger players adapt more easily to the changes. It might be nice for everyone to sit around and insist that they aren't getting weaker and that their rating reflects their true understanding of the game, and all that BS, etc. but when this subjective navel-gazing starts interfering with a measurement system it has to be snuffed out. That isn't aimed particularly at the players in Victoria, but a whole host of Baby Boomer types who think they will be forever young, never get slower, softer and yes weaker.
Seems to me that some of the "problems" in the rating system is that older people can't accept that they are getting weaker. If people find that too troubling perhaps the CFC should adopt a rating system such as in bridge where people's ratings don't go down?
"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.
Tweet
Comment