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.
Aside from the official selection criteria that were used when the team was selected and announced, I think last spring, I can put in my 2 cents for possible future relevance---especially if "captain's picks" a-la Ryder Cup golf come into play. According to my "Intrinsic Performance Ratings" model, Leonid Gerzhoy had some spectacularly good IPR's in 2010 and 2011, besides his 2963 topping the 2011 Canadian Open which is in my published papers.
Kenneth,
I don't understand the IPR at all...
How does a player with a +4 (6.5/9) score against an average opponent rating much lower than his own (his rating was 2647, opponent average was 2426)get him a 2963 performance rating?
I'd be curious to know what his IPR would be if he finished with 9.0/9.
Is there a particular reason that you use the IPR instead of the existing TPR?
Thanks, Jordan
No matter how big and bad you are, when a two-year-old hands you a toy phone, you answer it.
How does a player with a +4 (6.5/9) score against an average opponent rating much lower than his own (his rating was 2647, opponent average was 2426)get him a 2963 performance rating?
I'd be curious to know what his IPR would be if he finished with 9.0/9.
Is there a particular reason that you use the IPR instead of the existing TPR?
Thanks, Jordan
Ken's program computes performance rating based on the quality of the player's moves. So I guess we would conclude that Leonid's opponents must have, on average, played above their rating, in their games with him for his conclusion to be valid.
Ken's program computes performance rating based on the quality of the player's moves. So I guess we would conclude that Leonid's opponents must have, on average, played above their rating, in their games with him for his conclusion to be valid.
It's not even necessary that the opponent played exceptionally well. Leonid may have played at a high level but still not collected the point in some games due to a late blunder or perhaps the win just wasn't there.
[QUOTE=Duncan Smith;56080]There is nothing in the chess careers of any of these players that suggest any one player is clearly stronger then the others.
You can't discount Isthmia. Or even the World Junior. Who else on the current team is even playing international tournaments? Put these same 5 players in any strong international tournament and my money would most certainly be on Eric to finish ahead of the other 4. To have the team's best player on board 4 is clearly not in the team's best interest.
As Damon Runyon so waggishly put it, "The race may not always be to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet".
FIDE tells us that Eric is currently the 2nd strongest player on our Olympiad team and I don't think there's much doubt in many observers minds that he'll soon be number one. If you beg to differ, I'll be happy to bet Eric against any in this bunch in future international tournaments and I'm pretty sure that I won't be the poorer for it in the long run.
While that does serve to answer the Eric Hansen board order query, it does raise a more fundamental question. Why would the CFC have their own internal rule that serves as a veritable handicap to the very team they should be supporting?
To cite a baseball analogy, playoff bound teams would never announce their playoff starting rotations 30 days in advance, and more to the point, have that order cast in stone. A great deal can change in 30 days time.
You might want to consider withdrawing your puerile attempt at humour. I think the board would be better served by encouraging, rather than discouraging, further postings by the 5th best chess player on the planet these days.
While that does serve to answer the Eric Hansen board order query, it does raise a more fundamental question. Why would the CFC have their own internal rule that serves as a veritable handicap to the very team they should be supporting?
To cite a baseball analogy, playoff bound teams would never announce their playoff starting rotations 30 days in advance, and more to the point, have that order cast in stone. A great deal can change in 30 days time.
because
a) it may be the considered opinion of the board of governors that last minute changes to the board order based on a statistically insignificant amount of data should be proscribed.
b) there is a tremendous amount of conflict over who is on the Olympiad team and board order to begin with. Allowing last minute changes by one person is liable to create more conflict. The damage done by such conflict may well be (and probably is) much greater than any marginal benefit from shuffling board order.
Also, fundamental to your line of thought is the idea that the board order must be in order of strength for best results. That is not necessarily true.
Also, fundamental to your line of thought is the idea that the board order must be in order of strength for best results. That is not necessarily true.
A non sequitor, Roger. If you followed the subject of board order from an earlier thread, 'Conspicuous by their absence', you'd see that I suggested that the optimum board order from a games theory perspective just might be 4,1,2,3.
I think you'd be hard pressed, however, to find any game theorist who would suggest utilizing your top player on board 4. You want to give your team the advantage on as many boards as possible, not the fewest.
As the resident norm-watcher (you can see my posts on the CFC board) ... Eric has already had his "bump-up" player. A second one would not get bumped up. Now, you *can* ignore any game that you win... but a draw would almost kill any chance of him getting a GM norm (unless he won all the remaining games, PERHAPS but not even then guaranteed). In other words he has absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose by playing, and he hasn't sat out a single round yet either.
He is actually currently still on pace for a 20-Game norm and thus the GM title.
You are discounting many strong events from the other players, including Canadian Closed victories by two of them. Noritsyn was clearly more successful then Hansen ( not even a close call ) for the majority of their junior years. The possibility exists that Hansen has closed the gap or surpassed him very recently, but my guess is the relative strengths of these players will depend heavily on their dedication and interest in chess both now and in the near future.
Again, to declare any of these players better then the others at this time is absurd. But given the usual personal biases and geographical squabbles that always exist in Canada, people will of course argue til their blue in the face that they know. Not one player in this group has ( yet ) matched the careers of Charbonneau or Bluvshtien.
When a team that is a near contender at best, lacking a true first board veteran presence, sometimes having a strong young fourth board IS the best strategy. Your repeated idea that having a strong young player on fourth is a bad idea is bs. When Thomas R.-R. was fifth board of 6 ( I believe ? ) in 2006, he helped spur the team on by winning a lot of games.
Lastly, in such situations where playing strength is relatively even on a team, nothing positive occurs for team morale trying to put any one player on a pedestal. All of these players are making huge commitments just to be there and all have had major accomplishments in their careers. You are being immensely disrespectful of these players to declare Eric clearly stronger; any third party simply looking at the stats knows there is nothing clear at all here.
Last edited by Duncan Smith; Tuesday, 4th September, 2012, 09:25 PM.
You might want to consider withdrawing your puerile attempt at humour. I think the board would be better served by encouraging, rather than discouraging, further postings by the 5th best chess player on the planet these days.
Actually the humour was just fine, brownnosing (even to the 5th chess player) is NOT!
You should rather be thankful for the beautiful game shown.
More comments at: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess...ge=1#kibitzing
Tweet
Comment