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.
Sambuev taking down a super-gm is huge, I can only wonder what his Fide rating would be if he went back into international tournaments(I definitely think his Fide is underrated)
This was a fantastic tournament, and despite me playing some of the worse chess I've ever played(I can't believe I finished with 50%, it should have been like 0.5/5) it was highly enjoyable and I can't wait until the next Hamilton tournament.
I'd like to thank Garvin Nunes, Bob Gillanders, Gordon Gooding & Mikhail Egorov (sorry if I missed someone) for the smoothly-ran event. Hamilton hadn't worked for me in the past and I am glad I went this time.
Neat feature with the demo-boards beside the top 3 matches. Organizers, players and spectators keenly joined in updating the moves from the boards to the demos, for the rest of the hall to follow. Great on the organizers' part to have been able to get Wesley So to play. Always in good spirits, Wesley entertained all comers with blitz and game analyzes throughout the tournament.
Congrats to Bator Sambuev for yet another 5-0 sweep! Mowing down the 'opposition' in style. In my amateur evaluation, something seemed to have gone wrong at some point in the game against Noritsyn, but it got turned around. Bator's games seem to always be very spectator-friendly, it'd be awesome to replay through the last 3 rounds, hopefully the organizers will post games.
As for Sambuev's rating, I don't understand. Wesley So was attributed a higher rating based on FIDE conversion, fine. Granted there was only one game between them, but it's the data we have.
Has someone considered the possibility of Sambuev being underrated with FIDE? Is a 2500 rated player supposed to beat up on local 2400s this regularly? When we say 2700 is too high, this is based on what? He'll probably reach a new high now. When someone consistently scores 5/5, who's to say that 2500, 2700 or 3000 is correct or not? It seems hard to make comparisons when someone is just a class above everyone else.
I would like to thank everyone who attended our tournament. Without you, of course, nothing would be possible. (After all you paid for everything).
To the titled players, Bator, Wesley, Artiom, Nikolay and Michael and the many masters who came you made this a special event. Your dedication inspires us all.
And finally Mike, Gordon, Bobby and Rene, thank you for all the hard work you put into this event. This is not a profit tournament and I don't know how often you get volunteers to put in the effort you did this weekend. I'm just glad I have the help of such people.
A tournament report will be coming soon. It will include some of my thoughts on how our events can be improved in the future. I ask everyone who took photos to please post links to them in this thread!
Last edited by Garvin Nunes; Monday, 28th March, 2011, 08:14 AM.
Reason: Spelling, what else
I can never rationalize why, with 3 players tied, #1 is playing #2 while
#3 is playing #4. #3 has already had an easier run of opponents and
it continues giving him a good shot at going 4/4 .
I would think fairer pairings would be 1:4 and 2:3 or even 1:3 2:4.
They are playing for money (I know not much) but contenders need to play
contenders.
Hi Graham,
I also predicted the Round 4 pairings to be different. Based on the fact that Samsonkin had already played down (against someone in a lower point group) in Round 3. From what I understand about FIDE pairings, seeding is the last deciding criteria in making pairings. Above it in priority, I believe there's a rule that states a player should not play either up (against a higher point group) or down (against lower) within 3 games. The issue with colours is more important than this and would override it. Still, with Sambuev having had BWB, So having WBW and Samsonkin having WBW, it seems that So should have played down against Dougherty, who had had WB (or BW) and a bye in R3, so either colour would be fine for him in equalization.
In any case, maybe I missed something, or a different pairings program was used (I think some US pairings programs may use USCF rules that don't account for all these things).
Either way this a moot point because it was not FIDE rated.
Alex Ferreira
Last edited by Alex Ferreira; Monday, 28th March, 2011, 03:26 AM.
Reason: Had colours wrong for A.S.
I'd like to thank Garvin Nunes, Bob Gillanders, Gordon Gooding & Mikhail Egorov (sorry if I missed someone) for the smoothly-ran event. Hamilton hadn't worked for me in the past and I am glad I went this time.
Neat feature with the demo-boards beside the top 3 matches. Organizers, players and spectators keenly joined in updating the moves from the boards to the demos, for the rest of the hall to follow. Great on the organizers' part to have been able to get Wesley So to play. Always in good spirits, Wesley entertained all comers with blitz and game analyzes throughout the tournament.
Congrats to Bator Sambuev for yet another 5-0 sweep! Mowing down the 'opposition' in style. In my amateur evaluation, something seemed to have gone wrong at some point in the game against Noritsyn, but it got turned around. Bator's games seem to always be very spectator-friendly, it'd be awesome to replay through the last 3 rounds, hopefully the organizers will post games.
As for Sambuev's rating, I don't understand. Wesley So was attributed a higher rating based on FIDE conversion, fine. Granted there was only one game between them, but it's the data we have.
Has someone considered the possibility of Sambuev being underrated with FIDE? Is a 2500 rated player supposed to beat up on local 2400s this regularly? When we say 2700 is too high, this is based on what? He'll probably reach a new high now. When someone consistently scores 5/5, who's to say that 2500, 2700 or 3000 is correct or not? It seems hard to make comparisons when someone is just a class above everyone else.
I can never rationalize why, with 3 players tied, #1 is playing #2 while
#3 is playing #4. #3 has already had an easier run of opponents and
it continues giving him a good shot at going 4/4 .
I would think fairer pairings would be 1:4 and 2:3 or even 1:3 2:4.
They are playing for money (I know not much) but contenders need to play
contenders.
If they were using something other than the Swiss System your pairings might work but since they are not....
Leave a comment: