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.
Kevin Spraggett seems to suggest that it was your and Peter Stockhausen's motion that established it, so presumably, the governors did vote on it then and their vote would thus be required to rescind it unless we have become a dictatorship in the interim.
I think Kevin named Lyle Craver as Stockhausen's motion partner, not Kerry Liles. In any event, why is this stuff important? We're a small chess community here in Canada, effectively made even smaller by virtue of fragmentation via geography and politics, and there are bound to be anomalies, inequities, blah-blah-blah, in our ratings. My question: so what?
"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
Any analysis which goes back only 18 months and tries to calculate a regression analysis on the FIDE vs CFC rating differential based on games played is deeply flawed and incorrect. You need to look at when the results bonus was added. You have to go back to the CFC rating boon which happened before 2007 and factor in participation points. I believe that the CFC and FIDE differential was about 50 points before all these manipulations took place.
A number of games is not a cause of the problem (should we forbid to play to get CFC=FIDE or smth else? ) The bonus points (performance and participation) were implemented to decrease a deflation, and IMHO without much thoughts what they could do for several strong-players ratings. Is it a problem? Probably not a big deal. It might be an issue for CAN players playing in US (they might be placed in higher sections). Some issues with an Olympic team members selection based on FIDE and CFC ratings.
I think Kevin named Lyle Craver as Stockhausen's motion partner, not Kerry Liles. In any event, why is this stuff important? We're a small chess community here in Canada, effectively made even smaller by virtue of fragmentation via geography and politics, and there are bound to be anomalies, inequities, blah-blah-blah, in our ratings. My question: so what?
Thanks Peter, for the clarification. I couldn't imagine I would have even seconded such a motion...
Thanks Peter, for the clarification. I couldn't imagine I would have even seconded such a motion...
Better to clear it up now than to go for a job interview in two years and get this: "Wait a minute! Are you that dirty %@#%% that seconded the Stockhausen motion??" :)
"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
A number of games is not a cause of the problem (should we forbid to play to get CFC=FIDE or smth else? ) The bonus points (performance and participation) were implemented to decrease a deflation, and IMHO without much thoughts what they could do for several strong-players ratings. Is it a problem? Probably not a big deal. It might be an issue for CAN players playing in US (they might be placed in higher sections). Some issues with an Olympic team members selection based on FIDE and CFC ratings.
I think one of the biggest issues would be if there was a bias towards making the Olympic team because you play in a CFC Open Swiss every weekend.
CFC ratings were also used to invite players to be the "Official" Americas Continental reps. As it turned out only Mark was interested.
For players under 2400 it probably doesn't make too big a difference.
In the "old" days players over 2000 weren't even eligble for bonus points. I always assumed that it just wasn't stated on paper, but was implemented so that players over 2000 weren't getting these points.
It wasn't my original idea to do a regression. I only interpreted the results.
Today I presented some evidence that would indicate yesterday's results weren't exactly correct, as we were worried about the size of the slope of the line. The slope might be only half the size of what yesterday suggested.
Typically for a Ontario Open type tournament of 20 people there will be only one or two people who get a results bonus. In a six round tournament you have to get 4 to have a shot at 5 bonus points, 4.5 to have a shot at 10 bonus points and 5.5 points to have a shot at 15 points. On top of that you have to get a performance rating above your best ever rating.
Realistically result bonus points are almost impossible in an open tournament where a 1200 player gets to rub shoulders with and play against a grandmaster.
For players let's say 2400+ (pretty well the group the study was done on)there would seem to be a good liklihood that these guys are picking up performance bonuses at a good clip. The results of the Ontario Open show just that.
The analysis could be completely different if we look at the group of players between 2200 and 2400.
There would probably be some bonus results points in tournaments where the GMs, IMs and senior masters would be unlikely to compete.
I think one of the biggest issues would be if there was a bias towards making the Olympic team because you play in a CFC Open Swiss every weekend.
I don't mind the bias at all. I would rather cheer for a team made up of the best of Canadian chess players, and not a team of players too elite to play in weekend tournaments or even show up to the closed.
In any case, presumably those top players whose cfc ratings are not in the 2550+ area either a) haven't played enough cfc events to get it there or b) are incapable of getting it there... personally I would not hesitate to exclude them from the team based on either of these counts.
The discussion in this thread seems to imply a problem which rests soley within the cfc system, but I would suggest that those players being used as examples here who play regularly in weekenders are also significantly underrated on the fide side, especially Sambuev.
Typically for a Ontario Open type tournament of 20 people there will be only one or two people who get a results bonus. In a six round tournament you have to get 4 to have a shot at 5 bonus points, 4.5 to have a shot at 10 bonus points and 5.5 points to have a shot at 15 points. On top of that you have to get a performance rating above your best ever rating.
Realistically result bonus points are almost impossible in an open tournament where a 1200 player gets to rub shoulders with and play against a grandmaster.
There would probably be some bonus results points in tournaments where the GMs, IMs and senior masters would be unlikely to compete.
It's my opinion that this rule has unintentionally given an advantage to CFC players competing in Open sections of large swisses in the general Ontario area, but more specifically Toronto.
There are about 4 players who have benefitted from this rule since it has been invoked (in fact they would have over 50% of performance points earned from these Toronto area opens).
In other areas of the country, there wouldn't be enough players rated 2200+ in an event so that players of this level could get these points.
It was very satisfying to pillage Ontario and redistribute the points to the players in the Calgary International. But you know something might be wrong when I'm losing 16 CFC and gaining 4 fide in the same tournament. Normally this would be considered a relatively good tournament, but then when you consider that they value CFC the same as FIDE when it comes to Olympiad Selection you start to wonder...
Last edited by Eric Hansen; Thursday, 26th May, 2011, 08:58 PM.
It was very satisfying to pillage Ontario and redistribute the points to the players in the Calgary International....
back in the day when I used to go to tournaments with Brian Hartman, his attitude was that proper behaviour was to go farming for points away from home for redistribution back in Hamilton. Of course, we were pillaging Toronto back then.
Refreshing to see the same point of view still carries on :-)
I think Kevin named Lyle Craver as Stockhausen's motion partner, not Kerry Liles. In any event, why is this stuff important? We're a small chess community here in Canada, effectively made even smaller by virtue of fragmentation via geography and politics, and there are bound to be anomalies, inequities, blah-blah-blah, in our ratings. My question: so what?
Oops my bad. Post tournament senility syndrome perhaps.
I worked through players results from the end of Nov up to and including this past weekend (as FIDE has the results for both the Ontario Open and the Keres).
...
I have made a recent recommendation to the rest of the Executive that the performance bonus no longer be applied to players over 2000.
Very impressive use of statistics for such a small group of players.
If the Executive is going to vote on rating changes then maybe they should resolve the other rating problem discussed here last December:
If you're going to fix the 1% overrated at the top, when is the CFC going to have a transparent, publicly annnounced system of dealing with the !% of underrated coached juniors.
I think part of the problem is that they can get an established rating of 800 and then it takes a while to get up to 1300, wheras in the past (without rated school beginner tournaments) they would get to 1300 after 1 or 2 weekend swisses.
Has there been any progress made? Can any of you stat wizards come up with a solution?
Tweet
) The bonus points (performance and participation) were implemented to decrease a deflation, and IMHO without much thoughts what they could do for several strong-players ratings. Is it a problem? Probably not a big deal. It might be an issue for CAN players playing in US (they might be placed in higher sections). Some issues with an Olympic team members selection based on FIDE and CFC ratings.
Comment