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.
I have my vision but before we go there, could you explian to me what in your mind makes the CMA ratings "fun ratings"
Sincerely,
Larry
I thought that might hit a sore note with you.
Once players start participating in CFC tournaments, then the CMA ratings take on less significance. That is only my opinion. As it is you do quarterly adjustments on the CMA ratings of players who have higher CFC ratings, that is pretty well admitting what I surmised.
Having said that, I know a lot of pre-teens who check their CMA ratings after every tournament to see how they are doing.
I think there are some serious CMA events that would probably benefit both of sides, being rated CFC.
I took a drive out to Toronto today to see the CMA Ontario Chess Challenge. I was very impressed. It was inspiring to see such a large junior event with over 400 players, lots of organizers running a smooth event, and lots of parents and family members involved.
Congratulations to Larry and his team. I see lots of potential for the CFC and CMA to work cooperatively to achieve our common goals. :D
Hi Bob,
I am very happy you took the time to stop by yesterday. Leslie Armstrong and her team deserve the kudos for yesterday. She has been with us for 13! years now...so she runs a good show...not to mention that she is a school teacher by profession...which doesn't hurt :)
I think you are a plus for chess in Canada. I know you are stepping down as Prez. but I hope we can count on you in the future. Your sensible approach to matters is a big plus!
Since you are not running for Prez. and it will not cause you to lose the elections :), I think you are a good person who has done a lot to improve the CFC...there is lots left to do, but I believe that the CFC has had good leadership in the last few years. I know this will not be a popular position but I believe David Lavin made some essential changes also :)
Once players start participating in CFC tournaments, then the CMA ratings take on less significance. That is only my opinion. As it is you do quarterly adjustments on the CMA ratings of players who have higher CFC ratings, that is pretty well admitting what I surmised.
Having said that, I know a lot of pre-teens who check their CMA ratings after every tournament to see how they are doing.
I think there are some serious CMA events that would probably benefit both of sides, being rated CFC.
Your opinion is correct. As is my opinion that once players start participating in FIDE tournaments, then the CFC ratings take on less significance.
This is normal...we are alll striving to improve and to go to the next level. I think calling CMA ratings "fun ratings" is a doing a disservice to those for whom their CMA rating is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT!
Do you realize that more youngsters visit the CMA site every week to check their "fun" rating than those who check the CFC and FQE sites (combined) to check their...less fun rating :)
CMA does not try to be everything to everyone. We recognize our strengths and our weaknesses. Once a player reaches CFC 1800, there is no doubt that adult competition is where he or she spends most of their playing time. We recognize that and we adjust their CMA rating accordingly.
Can you put me up to speed here...does the CFC as part of their policy, recognize ratings from other groups? I believe you recognize FIDE ratings for foreign players (initially) ...what about FQE, USCF, and CMA?
BTW, for the first time in 11 years, the CFC and the organizers of the 2011 CYCC have agreed to rate this event both CFC and CMA!
Your opinion is correct. As is my opinion that once players start participaing in FIDE tornaments, then the CFC ratings take on less significance.
This is normal...we are alll striving to improve and to go to the next level. I think calling CMA ratings "fun ratings" is a doing a disservice to those for whom their CMA rating is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT!
Do you realize that more youngsters visit the CMA site every week to check their "fun" rating than those who check the CFC and FQE sites (combined) to check their...less fun rating :)
CMA does not try to be everything to everyone. We recognize our strengths and our weaknesses. Once a player reaches CFC 1800, there is no doubt that adult competition is where he or she spends most of their playing time. We recognize that and we adjust their CMA rating accordingly.
Can you put me up to speed here...does the CFC as part of their policy, recognize ratings from other groups? I believe you recognize FIDE ratings for foreign players...what about FQE, USCF, and CMA?
BTW, for the first time in 11 years, the CFC and the organizers of the 2011 CYCC have agreed to rate this event both CFC and CMA!
For me this is progress :)
Larry
Yes this is another WIN - WIN. I didn't want to steal anybody's thunder by announcing it. I think that rating the CYCC by both CFC and CMA is great. Obviously the younger players will be especially pleased.
I think every province/region has a different threshold. In PEI, players with CMA ratings of 900 and above don't have enough of a variety of equitable opponents to keep them sharp if they only play in CMA events.
I ran club ratings a couple of years ago, rating CFC, adjusted CMA, and club night games all with equal weight. I found it to be very accurate, although players below 1000 CFC tend to be all over the map from event to event.
Your opinion is correct. As is my opinion that once players start participating in FIDE tournaments, then the CFC ratings take on less significance.
This is normal...we are alll striving to improve and to go to the next level. I think calling CMA ratings "fun ratings" is a doing a disservice to those for whom their CMA rating is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT!
Do you realize that more youngsters visit the CMA site every week to check their "fun" rating than those who check the CFC and FQE sites (combined) to check their...less fun rating :)
CMA does not try to be everything to everyone. We recognize our strengths and our weaknesses. Once a player reaches CFC 1800, there is no doubt that adult competition is where he or she spends most of their playing time. We recognize that and we adjust their CMA rating accordingly.
Can you put me up to speed here...does the CFC as part of their policy, recognize ratings from other groups? I believe you recognize FIDE ratings for foreign players (initially) ...what about FQE, USCF, and CMA?
BTW, for the first time in 11 years, the CFC and the organizers of the 2011 CYCC have agreed to rate this event both CFC and CMA!
For me this is progress :)
Larry
Here is the passage from the handbook.
"736. Foreign Events and Ratings. If a foreign player has a rating in his own country or from FIDE, that will be used to determine his first CFC rating. If he is inactive in Canada for a year but has a change in his foreign rating, his changed foreign rating will be used to recalculated his CFC rating.
New residents of Canada without a CFC rating are considered unrated, whether or not they have a foreign rating."
So recognizing FQE or CMA ratings at some equivalent value, for previously unrated players, could be part of a potential Win - Win.
Yes this is another WIN - WIN. I didn't want to steal anybody's thunder by announcing it. I think that rating the CYCC by both CFC and CMA is great. Obviously the younger players will be especially pleased.
I think every province/region has a different threshold. In PEI, players with CMA ratings of 900 and above don't have enough of a variety of equitable opponents to keep them sharp if they only play in CMA events.
I ran club ratings a couple of years ago, rating CFC, adjusted CMA, and club night games all with equal weight. I found it to be very accurate, although players below 1000 CFC tend to be all over the map from event to event.
Hi Fred,
While you did not address all my points at least I can see that we are on the same page and that we can work together.
I will catch up with paperwork now...and I will get back to you this week, on this site, about our main objective: Win-Win-Win (the 3 C's - CHESS in Canada, CFC and CMA)
"736. Foreign Events and Ratings. If a foreign player has a rating in his own country or from FIDE, that will be used to determine his first CFC rating. If he is inactive in Canada for a year but has a change in his foreign rating, his changed foreign rating will be used to recalculated his CFC rating.
New residents of Canada without a CFC rating are considered unrated, whether or not they have a foreign rating."
So recognizing FQE or CMA ratings at some equivalent value, for previously unrated players, could be part of a potential Win - Win.
Good!
I think the foreign player rating clause could easily be used for FQE and CMA ratings with some kind of conversion formula. In otherwords, we should recognize the rating pool where a player is most active....to determine their realistic rating for an event. To ignore it is silly!
We use to send kids to U.S. Scholastic events (until they got so many complaints from U.S. parents about the Canadians taking all the trophies...one year they actually whited out the Canadian winners from the National event winner list!...Korchnoi style :).
I would supply the organizer with an equivalent USCF rating (my estimation) for our kids...some organizers ignored me and called them unrated...and others accepted my adjusted ratings.
When we ran the NAYCC last summer I took all available information into consideration before assigning ratings for foreign players...in my mind...it only makes sense!
seeing as you are on the executive and apparently concerned about 30 minute games and their rating: perhaps you might look at the large number of scholastic tournaments that are being regular CFC rated. Dollars to donuts, these are mainly (or even all) 30 minute games and are not supposed to be regular rated.
I didn't realize that the rule on 30 minute games for junior only events had been "repealed". If they are being rated as regular, then perhaps the office isn't being told they are 30 minute active games. In my opinion they should be rated active if the organizer specifies that. Despite the rule change, I personally think 30 minute games at the elementary level are valid regular games for 95% of regular participants.
I didn't realize that the rule on 30 minute games for junior only events had been "repealed". If they are being rated as regular, then perhaps the office isn't being told they are 30 minute active games. In my opinion they should be rated active if the organizer specifies that. Despite the rule change, I personally think 30 minute games at the elementary level are valid regular games for 95% of regular participants.
Well, the governors in their wisdom have explictly decided that they not be normal rated... And their decision is not being adhered to. Your or my opinion doesn't really enter into it unless you propose a motion to do things differently.
But.. I'll tell you the effect of rating junior scholastic has on our juniors who good enough to be in a regular rated tournament. They are all 300 points or so underrated. They can't move up because a) not so many adult tournaments. B) they are still playing games in the junior scholastic pool which keeps them down.
These juniors who get to the point where they are fairly serious, able to play in a standard tournament, would be better served by having no (normal) rating at all at that point so that they got a rating that matched their performance. Instead, they are given a ball and chain of an 800 rating or whatever that they have to lug around.
By the way, your criteria of talking about Junior high is wrong - it's not age that matters -it's playing ability and style of event. And it's the player's choice not yours.
So, if your proposal is something like the cfc stops rating scholastic events altogether and only rate junior events that had serious players in it (some criteria needed like most players with ratings, minimum average rating, slow time control) that might make sense to me - after all, the cfc is losing money on rating these things, there is another organization ready and willing to do it, it causes issues with the rating system, and really, scholastic chess is a separate world from what we think of as normal tournament chess. And the CFC could do this unilaterally if it wished.
But, that is not what you proposed - which was that the CMA stop rating players of a certain age (junior high being what? Age 12?)
"736. Foreign Events and Ratings. If a foreign player has a rating in his own country or from FIDE, that will be used to determine his first CFC rating. If he is inactive in Canada for a year but has a change in his foreign rating, his changed foreign rating will be used to recalculated his CFC rating.
New residents of Canada without a CFC rating are considered unrated, whether or not they have a foreign rating."
Win.
Another motion that is not being well enforced. Well, perhaps if a particular player knows about the rule and asks, he is accommodated but the CFC is making no effort to actively identify those people and make adjustments to their ratings.
Another motion that is not being well enforced. Well, perhaps if a particular player knows about the rule and asks, he is accommodated but the CFC is making no effort to actively identify those people and make adjustments to their ratings.
And perhaps the bit about "foreign" versus Canadian resident needs to be revised to take the FQE thing into account.
Well, the governors in their wisdom have explictly decided that they not be normal rated... And their decision is not being adhered to. Your or my opinion doesn't really enter into it unless you propose a motion to do things differently.
But.. I'll tell you the effect of rating junior scholastic has on our juniors who good enough to be in a regular rated tournament. They are all 300 points or so underrated. They can't move up because a) not so many adult tournaments. B) they are still playing games in the junior scholastic pool which keeps them down.
These juniors who get to the point where they are fairly serious, able to play in a standard tournament, would be better served by having no (normal) rating at all at that point so that they got a rating that matched their performance. Instead, they are given a ball and chain of an 800 rating or whatever that they have to lug around.
By the way, your criteria of talking about Junior high is wrong - it's not age that matters -it's playing ability and style of event. And it's the player's choice not yours.
So, if your proposal is something like the cfc stops rating scholastic events altogether and only rate junior events that had serious players in it (some criteria needed like most players with ratings, minimum average rating, slow time control) that might make sense to me - after all, the cfc is losing money on rating these things, there is another organization ready and willing to do it, it causes issues with the rating system, and really, scholastic chess is a separate world from what we think of as normal tournament chess. And the CFC could do this unilaterally if it wished.
But, that is not what you proposed - which was that the CMA stop rating players of a certain age (junior high being what? Age 12?)
I don't think I made any recommendations, they were meant to be opinions or thoughts.
I'm not sure why the rule that allowed players to quickly rise to 1200 was removed from the regulations, this was done during the years when I wasn't "watching". I think this helped avoid the prolem you're talking of with the 800 players who are 300 or so points underrated.
Tweet
Comment