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.
There is a fairly simple solution to this. Those people who's FIDE rating is more current than their CFC rating should have their ratings adjusted to match their FIDE rating. Do this across the board and people would stop complaining about special cases.
An interesting idea, but it might have to be tweaked to somehow accommodate perhaps a wide difference in the number of rated games... a FIDE rating based on a fraction of the games that the CFC rating is based on is more or less accurate? I do not know how to resolve that comparison at a specific point in time. Similar questions exist within a single rating system: is a CFC rating based on 25 games over a 3-month period more or less accurate a measure than a CFC rating based on hundreds of games but over a 20-year period?
The reason casinos run a profit is because most people do not understand probability - they mistakenly think that a string of 8 red results on the roulette wheel somehow make black more "likely" on the next spin...
Rating systems are designed to operate under the umbrella of "over time" - ratings will be accurate "over time"... at any specific point in time they are (almost by definition) inaccurate.
There is a fairly simple solution to this. Those people who's FIDE rating is more current than their CFC rating should have their ratings adjusted to match their FIDE rating. Do this across the board and people would stop complaining about special cases.
I agree, set up a simple process that applies to everyone! Why didn't they think of this?!
This should be easy to automate, as we already automatically download FIDE ratings into the CFC rating file. Just compare CFC rating to FIDE rating. If FIDE rating is greater than CFC rating, then increase CFC rating to FIDE rating. That leave 2 big questions :
1) What if FIDE rating is less than CFC rating? Won't people flip if their CFC rating is reduced? So, I can live with only applying this to increase CFC rating (inflationary!)
2) I would assume that we would only consider established FIDE ratings, right?! But in this case, I recall from somewhere that the CFC rating was increased to FIDE provisional?
Why not get rid of ratings completely. We can all play for enjoyment.
:) And then, to add a little spice, we can develop an enjoyment scale so we can keep track of how much we're enjoying playing chess relative to our neighbors. Anyone who enjoys playing FIDE chess more than CFC chess should have their CFC enjoyment rating bumped to match their FIDE enjoyment rating. Those near the bottom of the enjoyment scale can be sent to the Victoria Chess Club to play chess with other dour old men?!?
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
I agree, set up a simple process that applies to everyone! Why didn't they think of this?!
They did, and then those who understand something about statistics recognized that it wouldn't solve the problem and so wouldn't be worth the extra cost and time.
I agree, set up a simple process that applies to everyone! Why didn't they think of this?!
This should be easy to automate, as we already automatically download FIDE ratings into the CFC rating file. Just compare CFC rating to FIDE rating. If FIDE rating is greater than CFC rating, then increase CFC rating to FIDE rating. That leave 2 big questions :
1) What if FIDE rating is less than CFC rating? Won't people flip if their CFC rating is reduced? So, I can live with only applying this to increase CFC rating (inflationary!)
2) I would assume that we would only consider established FIDE ratings, right?! But in this case, I recall from somewhere that the CFC rating was increased to FIDE provisional?
1) too bad for them, perhaps we could just take the results from the FIDE event and integrate them into their CFC rating if the rating is decreased too much.
2) In Jason Cao's case, I believe both the CFC ratings and FIDE were based on few games. I see no reason to discriminate over provisional FIDE ratings since that seems to reflect his true playing strength.
They did, and then those who understand something about statistics recognized that it wouldn't solve the problem and so wouldn't be worth the extra cost and time.
I think I have a decent grasp of statistics. Our eldest son is teaching it this semester at the undergrad level, and we had spirited chats about it over the holidays, but I digress.
I believe that I also have a certain grasp of the advantages of process (in spite of the inherent disadvantages of process), and of the goodwill generated (or at least not lost) by the sheer appearance of fair play, fair process applying to all candidates equally, etc.
By the way, I noticed you snipped my half-point regarding how we matched not an established FIDE rating, but just a provisional one. Statistically, that bothers me! ;)
Anyway, Mr.Seedhouse, I do not wish to get into an argument with you. However, I do believe that if "they" had thought of "that", it should have been explained much better. Note that I am not blaming you, nor anyone else specifically, just lamenting poor form.
1) too bad for them, perhaps we could just take the results from the FIDE event and integrate them into their CFC rating if the rating is decreased too much.
2) In Jason Cao's case, I believe both the CFC ratings and FIDE were based on few games. I see no reason to discriminate over provisional FIDE ratings since that seems to reflect his true playing strength.
Hi Jason, I understand your second point, but at least his CFC rating seems established.
In any case, I could live with almost any mechanism that applied the same to everyone.
I believe that is the main point on behalf of many people who questioned this rating gift.
There is a fairly simple solution to this. Those people who's FIDE rating is more current than their CFC rating should have their ratings adjusted to match their FIDE rating. Do this across the board and people would stop complaining about special cases.
Seriously? A really high FIDE provisional rating may very well bring a starting Canadian junior to CFC master rating. Totally outrageous.
The CFC executive should stop making big broadcasts about favours or gifts, treat everyone equally, or at the very least make it appear that everyone is treated fairly.
Keep the rating systems ( FIDE and CFC ) as distinct as possible. Make players work! There is no shame in having a low rating. But there is shame in giving one person points while hundreds of other children get nothing for Christmas.
Seriously? A really high FIDE provisional rating may very well bring a starting Canadian junior to CFC master rating. Totally outrageous.
The CFC executive should stop making big broadcasts about favours or gifts, treat everyone equally, or at the very least make it appear that everyone is treated fairly.
Keep the rating systems ( FIDE and CFC ) as distinct as possible. Make players work! There is no shame in having a low rating. But there is shame in giving one person points while hundreds of other children get nothing for Christmas.
I would agree that 'gifts' should not be given. Allow adjustments across the board. This is why I proposed these adjustments be done in a fair way. I went to the CFC website and (surprise surprise!) I couldn't connect to the ratings to find out just how many games that Jason Cao's CFC is based on. I do remember that someone posted that it wasn't very many games (maybe just above the provisional cutoff). That is why I proposed that FIDE ratings be taken into account across the board.
I know that having a low rating isn't the end of the world... mine has been pitiful for as long as I have played chess :). The difference in Jason's case is that he lives in an area where he doesn't have many opportunities to play in events to boost his rating. Why shouldn't the CFC take games played at a world class level into account???
LMAO, why are there so many replies over something so small like giving a WYCC sectional champion a CFC rating raise? It's not like he's suddenly 2500 CFC and on the top lists of Canada. He did really well at Worlds and since its not cfc rated, they felt he deserves a slight adjustment to his rating. As I'm sure most of you were actually happy that Canada actually has their first champion since like 1986 with the Sawyer twins I don't see why so many chesstalkers are so peeved he got a higher rating adjustment. If any of you wannabes wins a world event and actually makes headlines, you can get yourself a CFC adjustment too. Heck, if he was competing in U18 and performed at 2600 and CFC made his new rating 2600, then that might be a problem but as I see it, Jason's going to surpass 1900 strength in no time anyways.
Tweet
Comment