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.
15. Have fun!
(Thanks to Nigel Hanrahan for writing these up!)
CFC Rating System formula incorrect and still not updated!
CFC Rating System formula incorrect and still not updated!
Hey guys,
Figured the sensationalist title would get this the read it deserves.
The formula posted on the CFC rating system page is not how the CFC is currently applying it.
When a player over 2200 would fall below 2200 in an event, the amount the fall below 2200 is doubled. This is nowhere specified in the Rating System, and from my understanding is a decision that was made by the CFC (without vote) this year.
At first it was acknowledged that this shouldn't be the case, but then it was determined that this way is better.
i.e. if a player is 2201, and loses to another 2201, they should lose exactly 8 points. Based on a K of 16, the new rating should be 2193.
According to how the CFC is currently doing ratings though, the players rating would fall to 2186 (+- 1).
I would like this to be clarified and documented one way or the other.
Re: CFC Rating System formula incorrect and still not updated!
The link you posted is indeed missing the requisite documentation.
However, from the CFC Handbook:
714b) For players with established ratings the new rating is
Rn = Ro + 32 (S - Sx)
In applying this equation to players of 2199 or over, change 32 to 16. For players who start an event below 2199 and then in the event go above 2199 the gains are computed normally, namely with 32 in 714b and then the increase over 2199 is cut in half. For players who start an event above 2199 and then in the event go below 2200 the loss is computed normally, namely with 16 in 714b and then the decrease under 2200 is doubled.
(My emphasis.)
Of course, I've never been close to 2200, so I've never had to worry about it!
The link you posted is indeed missing the requisite documentation.
However, from the CFC Handbook:
714b) For players with established ratings the new rating is
Rn = Ro + 32 (S - Sx)
In applying this equation to players of 2199 or over, change 32 to 16. For players who start an event below 2199 and then in the event go above 2199 the gains are computed normally, namely with 32 in 714b and then the increase over 2199 is cut in half. For players who start an event above 2199 and then in the event go below 2200 the loss is computed normally, namely with 16 in 714b and then the decrease under 2200 is doubled.
(My emphasis.)
Of course, I've never been close to 2200, so I've never had to worry about it!
Thanks Morgon. It appears we did change this several months ago in the Handbook, but not on the CFC Ratings page (which is supposedly identical to the handbook).
Re: CFC Rating System formula incorrect and still not updated!
While on the topic of ratings; Why did we ever change the bonus points formula?
I remember from years ago the bonus was a doubling of your rating gain in a tournament over a certain threshold depending on the number of rounds. (i.e. if you gained 40 points in a 4 round tournament you would get 40 points + bonus points of 40-24=16 for total gain of 56 points). This made sense to me as an improving junior could gain points quickly.
The new formula makes no sense to me. Now if a severely under-rated junior plays in a tournament in which they are one of the lower rated players, it is very unlikely they will gain any bonus points. Take for an example Jason Cio at the 2009 BC Open. He came in with a rating of 1164, performed at 1791 and his new rating was 1232, a gain of only 68 points. He scored only 2/5 and was therefore ineligible for bonus points, but obviously performed well above his rating. Under the old system he would have gained 68 + (68 – 28) = 108 points. In the next two tournaments he also played at ~ 1750 but gained only another 74 and 92 points to get to 1398 with only a measly 5 bonus points for scoring 3.5/6 in the last tournament.
Tourney Score Perf Pre Post Gain Bonus
2009 BC Open 2/5 1791 1164 1232 68 0
4th GPO 2.5/6 1714 1232 1306 74 0
35th Keres 3.5/6 1769 1306 1398 92 5
Under the old bonus system, he would have received a lot more bonus points. If I am calculating right, he would have ended up at 1584 after those three tournaments. A few more tourneys with bonus points and maybe it would not have been necessary to artificially adjust his rating by 370 points the following year after he won the world under 10.
Tourney Score Perf Pre Post Gain Bonus
2009 BC open 2/5 1791 1164 1272 108 40
4th GPO 2.5/6 1714 1272 1408 136 54
35th keres 3.5/6 1769 1408 1584 176 74
So who is benefitting from the new bonus system? It appears to me only the highest rated players. They are almost guaranteed to get Bonus points. They only have to score 60%, which shouldn’t be too hard if you’re the highest rated person in a tournament. Maybe they were designed to get high rated players to play in weekend swisses. Thus we see ratings at the top climbing to over 2700! I have nothing against Bator Sambuev, I think he may be the strongest player in Canada now, but he should not be getting bonus points. They were designed for under-rated players, not the top player in the country.
While on the topic of ratings; Why did we ever change the bonus points formula?
I remember from years ago the bonus was a doubling of your rating gain in a tournament over a certain threshold depending on the number of rounds. (i.e. if you gained 40 points in a 4 round tournament you would get 40 points + bonus points of 40-24=16 for total gain of 56 points). This made sense to me as an improving junior could gain points quickly.
The new formula makes no sense to me. Now if a severely under-rated junior plays in a tournament in which they are one of the lower rated players, it is very unlikely they will gain any bonus points. Take for an example Jason Cio at the 2009 BC Open. He came in with a rating of 1164, performed at 1791 and his new rating was 1232, a gain of only 68 points. He scored only 2/5 and was therefore ineligible for bonus points, but obviously performed well above his rating. Under the old system he would have gained 68 + (68 – 28) = 108 points. In the next two tournaments he also played at ~ 1750 but gained only another 74 and 92 points to get to 1398 with only a measly 5 bonus points for scoring 3.5/6 in the last tournament.
Tourney Score Perf Pre Post Gain Bonus
2009 BC Open 2/5 1791 1164 1232 68 0
4th GPO 2.5/6 1714 1232 1306 74 0
35th Keres 3.5/6 1769 1306 1398 92 5
Under the old bonus system, he would have received a lot more bonus points. If I am calculating right, he would have ended up at 1584 after those three tournaments. A few more tourneys with bonus points and maybe it would not have been necessary to artificially adjust his rating by 370 points the following year after he won the world under 10.
Tourney Score Perf Pre Post Gain Bonus
2009 BC open 2/5 1791 1164 1272 108 40
4th GPO 2.5/6 1714 1272 1408 136 54
35th keres 3.5/6 1769 1408 1584 176 74
So who is benefitting from the new bonus system? It appears to me only the highest rated players. They are almost guaranteed to get Bonus points. They only have to score 60%, which shouldn’t be too hard if you’re the highest rated person in a tournament. Maybe they were designed to get high rated players to play in weekend swisses. Thus we see ratings at the top climbing to over 2700! I have nothing against Bator Sambuev, I think he may be the strongest player in Canada now, but he should not be getting bonus points. They were designed for under-rated players, not the top player in the country.
I wasn't involved at the time so I can't answer the why about the old bonus point system was deactivated.
We have a rating committee (Rating Auditor Paul LebLanc, myself, and Roger Patterson) that will be making some recommendations in the coming months, which could include bringing back the old bonus point system and could include only applying bonus points to those under say 2000.
Tweet
Comment