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 expect at least one rating point for a win - otherwise whats the use in bothering?
It is scared when a champion complains about rating points. Was it boring to draw other two games or even winning three in a row? Man, you are champion of the Twin City. Congratulations.
I'm sure you could make a fairly strong case to the Ratings Auditor (or the Exec) to have your rating tossed entirely, or to have it changed to something around your correspondence rating.
Remember back in your high school days and the teacher would say close
your books and put away your notes, the test begins now and you had an hour to finish. Imagine if you had special powers and you were allowed to keep those textbooks open and take all day to finish the test. I would imagine you might perform well.
Gary has those special powers. If you think those with special powers should receive top academic awards well its an interesting theory. And I suppose in the course of decades of using those special powers, one might gain enough knowledge to compete with your top peers. But you have to close the books and do that hour first.
The granting of honorary ratings to inactive players is controversial to say the least, but certainly if this is the case I expect it will be an option available to all inactive players. We'll call it the "Chris Mallon motion". I look forward to the CFC debating your motion for a few years.
Might be simpler if Gary just played in otb events though.
ps Thanks for remembering to keep the CFC entertaining. The new Presidential candidate seems far too down to earth to continue the
CFC tradition of entertainment.
Last edited by Duncan Smith; Wednesday, 29th June, 2011, 02:03 PM.
Remember back in your high school days and the teacher would say close
your books and put away your notes, the test begins now and you had an hour to finish. Imagine if you had special powers and you were allowed to keep those textbooks open and take all day to finish the test. I would imagine you might perform well.
Gary has those special powers. If you think those with special powers should receive top academic awards well its an interesting theory. And I suppose in the course of decades of using those special powers, one might gain enough knowledge to compete with your top peers. But you have to close the books and do that hour first.
The granting of honorary ratings to inactive players is controversial to say the least, but certainly if this is the case I expect it will be an option available to all inactive players. We'll call it the "Chris Mallon motion". I look forward to the CFC debating your motion for a few years.
Might be simpler if Gary just played in otb events though.
ps Thanks for remembering to keep the CFC entertaining. The new Presidential candidate seems far too down to earth to continue the
CFC tradition of entertainment.
Why don't you F*CK OFF, Duncan. When I was in high school I was the provincial junior champion over the board.
Why does it matter if you get 1 point or 0? Like, it's 1 point. Who cares?
I often found having a lower rating was far more lucrative then a higher one.
Plus it let's you be a "surprise" sometimes even if you suck at chess. I'm willing to restart at a 300 rating after years of inactivity, and Ruben can have my 1000 points. Let's make the Olympiad choices harder next time :
Charbonneau, Hanson, Ruben is a close race. Of course if Ruben is chosen, they'll be complaining about yet another Ontario player chosen over others.
A lot of people might not know this, but Ruben is potentially Canada's next Korchnoi, and for god's sake people give the man a chance !!!
Why don't you F*CK OFF, Duncan. When I was in high school I was the provincial junior champion over the board.
No worries Gary, I look forward to your nomination to the Olympiad team.
As I said in another post, you could be Canada's Korchnoi, if only the buggers at the CFC would give you a chance.
And we need to keep the CFC entertaining.
No worries Gary, I look forward to your nomination to the Olympiad team.
As I said in another post, you could be Canada's Korchnoi, if only the buggers at the CFC would give you a chance.
At least my parents weren't my biggest impediment.
At least my parents weren't my biggest impediment.
Gary, one would think that someone with your history would be more respectful of other parents, but you took another route and you just seem angry all the time. You don't seem to be a very nice person.
Just getting back to Hans' situation, I had a look at the tournament and agree with Roger that the only anomaly in Hans' result was the lack of reward for defeating Garrett Forsyth. I don't know Garrett but it appears quite possible that he is seriously under-rated. He has been inactive for eight years and although formerly a 1200-1300 player, his performance rating of 1919 in the K-W event tells me he has been doing something in the interim to improve his game (internet chess, for example).
I have been discussing various options for addressing under-rated juniors (I suppose there are under-rated adults such as Garrett as well) with the CFC Executive. One option that could be explored is that when a player's performance rating is significantly higher than his/her actual pre-tournament rating, then use the under-rated player's performance rating to calculate the gain or loss of rating points of his/her opponent.
Admittedly, this may not have helped Hans gain any points from his win against Garrett since even using Garrett's performance rating of 1919 leaves Hans almost 400 points higher than Garrett.
I would however, be interested in whether anyone feels my suggestion is worth further study.
Just getting back to Hans' situation, I had a look at the tournament and agree with Roger that the only anomaly in Hans' result was the lack of reward for defeating Garrett Forsyth. I don't know Garrett but it appears quite possible that he is seriously under-rated. He has been inactive for eight years and although formerly a 1200-1300 player, his performance rating of 1919 in the K-W event tells me he has been doing something in the interim to improve his game (internet chess, for example).
I have been discussing various options for addressing under-rated juniors (I suppose there are under-rated adults such as Garrett as well) with the CFC Executive. One option that could be explored is that when a player's performance rating is significantly higher than his/her actual pre-tournament rating, then use the under-rated player's performance rating to calculate the gain or loss of rating points of his/her opponent.
Admittedly, this may not have helped Hans gain any points from his win against Garrett since even using Garrett's performance rating of 1919 leaves Hans almost 400 points higher than Garrett.
I would however, be interested in whether anyone feels my suggestion is worth further study.
The rating system is going to be extremely inefficient for a while because of the two sets of rule changes and the greater number of skilled players on the sidelines or playing very infrequently.
Ten years ago chess was extremely challenging rating wise locally; then the rule changes and points were easy for a while. Now anyone who returns to chess is going to be underrated compared to the recent regulars. Not sure if this matters, but I suspect if enough players come back ( say after university ), there will be some give back of points.
A fast track rule for improving players is in my opinion important given that events like Olympiad will be unfair for the next 4-6 years for anyone who skipped the boom. Otherwise, people won't bother trying.
Duncan, did you grow up in London and attend Oakridge Secondary?
"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
Gary, one would think that someone with your history would be more respectful of other parents, but you took another route and you just seem angry all the time. You don't seem to be a very nice person.
Yes, the history. Check under Junior. I played only the one time. Irwin was trying for 3 in a row.
You should really take some time to inform yourself before you throw your insults.
Gary: You should consider playing in the World Senior sometime. Hal runs the Canadian Senior on the August long weekend and raises money for the winner's airfare.
To put your rough equity with Lipnowski (ca.1961) in perspective, two years later he came 6th in the Canadian Closed ahead of Suttles, Witt, Vaitonis, and Allan. His CFC high was 2400+ and could probably still be 2300+, if he was active.
Thanks everybody for your replies, Stephen thanks for the clarification. Erwin I sympathize with you however you apparently had a lack of information about provisional ratings. I know several players in the past who cared about high ratings and were very selective of tournaments when they were still provisonally rated - I was one and had a very high active rating when active ratings first came out (provisionally around 2400) - and at one time you could cancel your rating and start again with a provisional rating - a few masters took advantage of that opportunity. Vlad I think I agree with you - I need to be selective about playing in tournaments and avoid playing more than two levels below me.
Tweet
Comment