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.
Yes. However, one can not miss the suggestion CFC ratings are 200 or more points higher than FIDE ratings. A Canadian rating minus 200 points being a fair estimation of playing strength in the worldwide player pool.
Possibly others see the use of the term "Canadian rating scale" differently. I thought it was pointed.
I did not read anything else. The typo was enough to put me off food for several hours.
Your quoted difference of 200 points is way off the mark. I worked this out about 4 months ago, and I think it's about 90 points for the top 20 active players, which is what we're more interested in. I'll look up the spreadsheet when I get back to the computer it's on next week.
Well, Fred. I merely commented the article suggested there is a 200 point difference between FIDE and CFC ratings. It refers to a "Canadian rating scale". If you figure a 2750 CFC rating is worth FIDE 2660 all I can comment is the "correction", if that's what it is, seems to be going in the right direction to merge with the FIDE rating.
I have no idea because I don't follow that players games.
The CFC ratings system does have some serious problems from my personal point of view. I haven't played a CFC rated game since the mid 1970's. Around 35 years. The CFC lists a rating for me and presumably I would be able to play with that rating and win a class prize, in the unlikely event the urge strikes me.
I tried at one time to find out how the rating was arrived at. It seems there was a rating card around with some parts erased. I never could find out what was erased because the information was lost forever. Then there was 100 points added for some general rating bonus which was added because it was felt the Canadian rating scale was too low, if I understood this correctly.
My CFC rating matters little to me in the same way my CCCA rating matters little to me. I keep track of my ICCF rating which is the correspondence international rating and the only one which really matters to me. National ratings mean nothing to me as they are regional rating pools.
However, keeping such old CFC ratings active rather than simply discarding the rating and having a player enter an event as "unrated" seems like a problem to me. It seems likely such an old ratng would result in a player either gaining or losing a fast few hundred ponts from a selected few opponents.
Well, Fred. I merely commented the article suggested there is a 200 point difference between FIDE and CFC ratings. It refers to a "Canadian rating scale". If you figure a 2750 CFC rating is worth FIDE 2660 all I can comment is the "correction", if that's what it is, seems to be going in the right direction to merge with the FIDE rating.
I have no idea because I don't follow that players games.
The CFC ratings system does have some serious problems from my personal point of view. I haven't played a CFC rated game since the mid 1970's. Around 35 years. The CFC lists a rating for me and presumably I would be able to play with that rating and win a class prize, in the unlikely event the urge strikes me.
I tried at one time to find out how the rating was arrived at. It seems there was a rating card around with some parts erased. I never could find out what was erased because the information was lost forever. Then there was 100 points added for some general rating bonus which was added because it was felt the Canadian rating scale was too low, if I understood this correctly.
My CFC rating matters little to me in the same way my CCCA rating matters little to me. I keep track of my ICCF rating which is the correspondence international rating and the only one which really matters to me. National ratings mean nothing to me as they are regional rating pools.
However, keeping such old CFC ratings active rather than simply discarding the rating and having a player enter an event as "unrated" seems like a problem to me. It seems likely such an old ratng would result in a player either gaining or losing a fast few hundred ponts from a selected few opponents.
I only *wish* I still had some of my older ratings... I don't know what a rating system can do to properly handle inactivity. Maybe some fancy formula to assume that ratings decline with inactivity (not clear that this is true or even to what extent it might be true) and have some rating points exhibit radioactive decay...
Allowing a player to resume active play (as "unrated") after a long period of inactivity feels like the wrong solution, but I am not smart enough to think of a better one - perhaps treating that player as "provisionally rated" with his/her previous rating as the base? I am not at all certain how that would work out...
I think all rating systems make the simplifying assumption to sort of ignore the question of activity or inactivity. Clearly a player who is very active should have a more accurate rating than someone who hasn't played in years or months, but what if the more inactive player was training with Kasparov? What then?
It isn't possible to take into account all factors since no one knows what all the factors are and what impact they have.
The FICS rating system takes into account inactivity by making ratings semi-provisional. It's probably a good approach but it hasn't been properly tested.
In FICS there is a serious problem of rating deflation. (The cause is believed to be computer accounts, where one week a computer plays at 2200 strength, and next week the software is upgraded and it plays 2300. Result is players play a 2300 computer but its official rating is 2200. Players lose rating points this way.) We don't know whether taking out the computer ratings would correct that, or if it's the rating system's problem.
I only *wish* I still had some of my older ratings... I don't know what a rating system can do to properly handle inactivity. Maybe some fancy formula to assume that ratings decline with inactivity (not clear that this is true or even to what extent it might be true) and have some rating points exhibit radioactive decay...
I don't know if we can assume decay, or the degree of decay, with CFC inactivity. I still maintain a correspondence rating of over 2400 and I'm active. I'm currently playing in this:
I should find a higher category event to play but I think I'm too lazy to work on theory.
Assuming decay of a few hundred points, a player coming back after 35 years should be a bonus rating system for those lucky enough to be paired against him. The thing is CFC inactivity isn't the same as total inactivity. There's the internet and lots of speed games to be played.
There is one thing for sure. An old rating discourages inactive players from coming back to competitive chess. If a person has a high rating there's the feeling a person has to come back and play up to the previous level. Successful players don't want to come back to a situation where they aren't competitive in relation to an expectation. The level of a rating is an expectation.
A lower rated player wouldn't want to come back because his rating would be either lower or higher than what the CFC shows. As an example, if a low rated player came back after 10 years and started winning the class prizes by a large margin he'd have to listen to complaining. Also, the pairing systems and rating eligibility for sections generally discourages participation. Does an over rated player want to play an event where he doesn't figure to win a game OR does an under rated player want to play an event where he won't find much of a challenge? With the internet play people have an idea of how they are competing.
Tweet
Comment