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.
It's true, and that's why I agree with the number of games required. My point was simply that we should consider the FIDE rating after that, instead of the CFC rating. Some players, like GM Bluvshtein, don't (or didn't) play in many weekend tournaments and thus have a lower FIDE rating than some players like IM Gherzhoy or IM Noritsyn and it doesn't make any sense.
The problem with top-end CFC ratings currently (and to some extent even with FIDE ratings) is that it's really more of a measure of how good you are at dominating lower-rated players, which isn't really that great of an indicator of how they might perform in an Olympiad, especially on either a higher board, or should the team do well and draw strong opposition.
Short of going with Canadian Champion + 4 selection committee choices, or even top3 in Canadian Closed + 2 selection committee choices, or some similar combination that avoids a selection rating list, I don't personally know of any better alternatives. And I admit my own alternative is probably not popular with everyone, especially those who have trouble attending the Closed.
The problem with top-end CFC ratings currently (and to some extent even with FIDE ratings) is that it's really more of a measure of how good you are at dominating lower-rated players, which isn't really that great of an indicator of how they might perform in an Olympiad, especially on either a higher board, or should the team do well and draw strong opposition.
Short of going with Canadian Champion + 4 selection committee choices, or even top3 in Canadian Closed + 2 selection committee choices, or some similar combination that avoids a selection rating list, I don't personally know of any better alternatives. And I admit my own alternative is probably not popular with everyone, especially those who have trouble attending the Closed.
Although Canada often meets teams without GMs whom they need to dominate.
So a fair selection by rating calculation would be to only include results of games with 2400+ opponents within the last 8 months, and also weigh the number of games so that a player can't get a higher ranking from playing 8 tournaments in Ontario versus 4 tournaments in Alberta or 2 in Quebec or BC. And maybe count only 1 day a game tournaments at the Olympiad time control.
Some players, like GM Bluvshtein, don't (or didn't) play in many weekend tournaments and thus have a lower FIDE rating than some players like IM Gherzhoy or IM Noritsyn and it doesn't make any sense.
What are you talking about ?
Last FIDE rating list :
Bluvshtein 2590
Gerzhoy 2489
Noritsyn 2475
Did you mean CFC ratings ?
Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: 2012 Canadian Olympiad Dream Team roaster
As opposed to some kid from Alberta who isn't the least bit objective about anything ? What is it you were argueing
about two years ago, that Porper was a better choice then Noritsyn ?
Last edited by Duncan Smith; Wednesday, 14th March, 2012, 07:23 PM.
As opposed to some kid from Alberta who isn't the least bit objective about anything ? What is it you were argueing
about two years ago, that Porper was a better choice then Noritsyn ?
Seriously? Porper had 50 FIDE points on the people selected. No need to say anymore on the subject it speaks pretty clearly for itself especially when you see what comments were made from the selection committee.
Although Canada often meets teams without GMs whom they need to dominate.
So a fair selection by rating calculation would be to only include results of games with 2400+ opponents within the last 8 months, and also weigh the number of games so that a player can't get a higher ranking from playing 8 tournaments in Ontario versus 4 tournaments in Alberta or 2 in Quebec or BC. And maybe count only 1 day a game tournaments at the Olympiad time control.
True, but that will probably give a whole bunch of people very few games ;)
The problem with top-end CFC ratings currently (and to some extent even with FIDE ratings) is that it's really more of a measure of how good you are at dominating lower-rated players, which isn't really that great of an indicator of how they might perform in an Olympiad, especially on either a higher board, or should the team do well and draw strong opposition.
Short of going with Canadian Champion + 4 selection committee choices, or even top3 in Canadian Closed + 2 selection committee choices, or some similar combination that avoids a selection rating list, I don't personally know of any better alternatives. And I admit my own alternative is probably not popular with everyone, especially those who have trouble attending the Closed.
I think if you look back at previous selections and note what some parties were saying at the time that its easy to see where objectivity is clearly missing. It all sounds good talking about regional diversity until you look at results at the actual events. Clearly, just throwing a player into the mix because they play in say BC or Alberta isn't always a good decision. It has to be on merit and not just a political campaign backed by an eager local fan base.
I think if you look back at previous selections and note what some parties were saying at the time that its easy to see where objectivity is clearly missing. It all sounds good talking about regional diversity until you look at results at the actual events. Clearly, just throwing a player into the mix because they play in say BC or Alberta isn't always a good decision. It has to be on merit and not just a political campaign backed by an eager local fan base.
Living with distance-issues is part of the price of living in Canada. I still prefer it over some of the issues other places have.
In many cases, *how* a decision is made, or even how it *appears* to have been made, is more important than the decision itself.
For example, I seem to recall at some point complaints about an Ontario-only selection committee that chose Ontario players. This isn't necessarily a bad decision (I don't know either way) but it's definitely bad optics. Perhaps an all-BC or all-Alberta committee would have chosen the same two people, perhaps not. I think the makeup of this year's committee should do a good job of avoiding that, but again, sometimes you never know until the complaining starts. :)
Then you touch upon a problem for Quebec players that has not been solved yet (thanks for the opportunity! ;)). Using CFC ratings (but not FQE ratings) for qualification purposes hurts Quebec players since their weekenders are not CFC rated. This should have been discussed and resolved before the FQE chose two years ago to donate 2 000$ to the CFC for financing olympiad teams that had only one quebecer out of 9 players (11.1%). What has this "gesture of good will" done for Quebec players besides showing to everyone that the FQE has money to throw by the window? Did it make the CFC start discussing possible arrangements to solve this problem and others ?
Then you touch upon a problem for Quebec players that has not been solved yet (thanks for the opportunity! ;)). Using CFC ratings (but not FQE ratings) for qualification purposes hurts Quebec players since their weekenders are not CFC rated. This should have been discussed and resolved before the FQE chose two years ago to donate 2 000$ to the CFC for financing olympiad teams that had only one quebecer out of 9 players (11.1%). What has this "gesture of good will" done for Quebec players besides showing to everyone that the FQE has money to throw by the window? Did it make the CFC start discussing possible arrangements to solve this problem and others ?
The answer to your question is from following quote: "Ask not what CFC can do for you, but what you can do for CFC". :p
Ask yourself this question and support CFC by buying 2010 CFC Yearbook. CFC will appreciate your contribution very much. I belive it is $60.00 now. :D
Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: 2012 Canadian Olympiad Dream Team roaster
Olympiad is Canada's team, it really doesn't matter what province the players reside in.
If everyone took your selfish attitude, the only money in the program would be players paying their way to the event. Which is where things are headed.
I think if we looked at 2006, for example, 30% of the team was from Quebec. It would surprise me if much if any of the project was funded by Quebec interests. My recollection is Belzberg Tech. was involved ( a Toronto based company ), and an internet betting company from BC ( no BC players on the team ).
Not that it matters. The project funding is not yet another political squabble. Its a decision on whether elite chess deserves funding in Canada. The trend is it doesn't.
The project funding is not yet another political squabble. Its a decision on whether elite chess deserves funding in Canada. The trend is it doesn't.
I think that besides you as a possible exception, just about everyone involved in chess in Canada agree that elite chess players need and deserve funding (support) if we want them to remain assets to the chess community. It is not a question of "trends" or whether or not that support is needed, it is how to achieve it that causes some difficulties...
"...whether elite chess deserves funding in Canada"
That sums things up quite nicely. Significant numbers of Canadians feel that it's appropriate to fund even low profile sports such as luging, ski-jumping or Greco-Roman wrestling. But chess is widely seen as a casual pastime to be practiced in libraries, public parks, school cafeterias or private rec-rooms. I suspect that most in this country put the World Chess Championship in a similar category as the Rock-Paper-Scissors championship. Too bad.
I suspect that most in this country put the World Chess Championship in a similar category as the Rock-Paper-Scissors championship. Too bad.
I have to disagree with that statement because it is blatantly underestimating the positive outlook that chess enjoys within the general public. There is a reason why chess is seen so often in advertizing, in movies, and just about everywhere in fact. Chess players for some reason easily disregard these facts.
The main problems of chess, as I often say, come from the inside not the outside.
Tweet
Comment