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.
The mean-spirited comments on this thread are an embarrassment to Canadian chess. Harmony plays a very good game and will be a wonderful embassador for Canada on the world stage.
Just look at her performance of a piano concerto when she was only six!
enjoy!>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDQHVislzzg
Yes, we're all proud to have Harmony represent Canada at WYCC!
I remember asking her what her result was in a game that had just ended. She jumped happily as she told me she'd lost. She just loves to play the game! (At the same time, she has scored some nice, aggressive miniatures, so her killer instinct is in no way hampered by that unmitigated joy.)
... I on the other hand see absolutely no valid chess reason to send most of these kids to foreign events, world championship or otherwise. Their chess development is simply not advanced enough to warrant that. Instead of motivating them with longer term goals, we just hand them "fun trips" that comes way too soon in their chess "careers" and often turn out to prematurely smother their thirst for the game.
Be that as it may, some kids seem independently motivated to attend, and show quite a bit of thirst. I'll just say the name Ashley Tapp.
Harmony plays a very good game and will be a wonderful ambassador for Canada on the world stage.
Just look at her performance of a piano concerto when she was only six!
enjoy!>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDQHVislzzg
She's still six, Vlad. For another 12 days to be precise. And she's still my top pick to bring home a gold medal in Maribor.
I just wish I could find a chess bookie to proffer some reasonable odds on an unranked junior to finish 1st (:
The rule seems aimed at using CFC's might as gatekeepers of Canadian participation in WYCC to incent participation in the CYCC. I think the goal of building up the CYCC into a real Canadian Championship is laudable, and the means used here are not entirely heavy handed: it does make some sense to have to qualify at the CYCC to earn a spot at the WYCC.
.
It's not particularly consistent however with other rules, e.g. AFAIK, there is no restriction on seniors playing in the World senior championship having to have played in the Canadian senior championship.
And in the past, the CFC has reduced the value of provincial championships by moving the Canadian Closed to a semi-open Swiss [as opposed to a round robin event of mostly provincial / regional champions].
Most people don't understand this and have no desire to plan long term, so you are wasting your time writing it. That you're right is beside the point, I suppose. :)
Thanks for reassuring me Gary ;). You say "most people don't understand" which implies that a least a few do or might understand. What more can one hope for ? So I may not be losing my time any more than those with politically correct but opportunistic views.
If serious chess standards were used to select canadian representatives to support and send to WYCC, there would be little need for wasting time on discussing individual cases on Chesstalk and their attending the CYCC or not. Actually we should not send anybody to the WYCC but exceptional cases having already shown unusual chess maturity and strenght, that is those with realistic chances to fight for medals. Very, very few kids in Canada belong to that category.
I held my breath a bit when she gained 382 rating points at the Hart House Labour Day Open but am pleased to see that her subsequent performance justified the gain. I think this was a classic case of a junior entering her first adult tournament with a completely unrealistic rating.
Congratulations on your reform of the bonus points part of the rating formula. It appears to be doing exactly what you want - jumping players, especially juniors, when a result has shown them to be capable of playing well-beyond their then rating. My monitoring of the last number of tournaments at Scarborough CC has shown that those jumping more than 100 pts. all seem deserved, except there appears to have been maybe one anomoly ( and in that case a jump was warranted, but perhaps not as much as was awarded - and we have discussed it ). Good work as CFC Rating Auditor!
I held my breath a bit when she gained 382 rating points at the Hart House Labour Day Open but am pleased to see that her subsequent performance justified the gain. I think this was a classic case of a junior entering her first adult tournament with a completely unrealistic rating.
This is called an exceptional case or a statistical anomaly. Most juniors do not over-perform their original rating by 600 points and play at that strength afterwards. While the system worked this time because she might actually be an exceptional talent, I would not expect it to work for the average junior.
This is called an exceptional case or a statistical anomaly. Most juniors do not over-perform their original rating by 600 points and play at that strength afterwards. While the system worked this time because she might actually be an exceptional talent, I would not expect it to work for the average junior.
Care to elaborate why? An "average junior" is not likely to produce a performance like that and therefore would not get the accompanying increase... isn't that the idea?
Care to elaborate why? An "average junior" is not likely to produce a performance like that and therefore would not get the accompanying increase... isn't that the idea?
When you're trying to implement a system to benefit a segment of the population, you are basing your analysis on the "average" person in that segment, which in this case are improving juniors. Juniors by definition always improve just because as long as they play chess, they're learning new things and thus getting better. From my experience, I find that the average junior will gain maybe 100-200 points a year and sometimes more if they are really passionate with chess and either receive private coaching or are willing to self-study like I did.
Sure, there will be kids who jump 500 points a year but as with all cases, generally that revolves around playing more than 10-15 tournaments during that year and you can see the obvious signs of improvement. With the current system, I believe it is shortsighted to say the system is a success because of an anomaly like Harmony who is obviously quite talented for her age and gender. I put age and gender there because on average, women are worse than men at chess and on average, as kids age, they get better. Obviously, if she went from 900 to 1500 at 15 years old that won't be as impressive as doing it at 6.
As I've posted before, I showed a few examples of how gaining 300-400 points in a 6 round tournament for non-provisional juniors is not beneficial since on average, most kids will not be able to sustain that rating over time. Maybe eventually they will performing at that rating like Harmony but it usually takes quite a while.
As an example, when I first started out I was awarded a 2300 provisional rating. Almost a year later I fell all the way down to about 2168 before making the climb back to 2300 and making to where I am now. The thing is, I knew I was overrated at 2300 since that was only based on 5 games and on average, I was probably more of a 2000-2100 player since I ended up dropping a ton of points after I played enough games to accumulate a large enough sample size. The difference between what is happening now and what happened to me is that I was provisional and so ratings will fluctuate a lot but when someone's established, it's rare for a junior who has been rising a hundred points every year to suddenly gain 300 points in one tournament because of a fantastic performance. Usually that 300 points will be gained through 3-5 weekenders as the sample size necessary to determine a player's actual strength will be more accurately determined through more games.
Hence, a system should not be praised for working because exceptional cases just happen to work out to justify it. That should never be a vindicating factor when implementing any type of system to serve the masses.
Some of us saying the system are working are not using exceptional cases only.
I have monitored the last three Scarborough CC swisses, where 45 % are juniors, and most younger, and looked at all players ( juniors and adults ) who jumped 100 pts. or more. Of the 15 or so cases, all are deserved in my opinion, based on having watched these kids play over numbers of months at the club. There is only one which might be a bit of an anomaly, but it was limited, and Paul and I both agreed the jump might be a bit excessive ( it was for an adult who went from high A to high expert ).
So my monitoring says the system is working for the average player, and average and fast improving juniors.
Thanks for reassuring me Gary ;). You say "most people don't understand" which implies that a least a few do or might understand. What more can one hope for ? So I may not be losing my time any more than those with politically correct but opportunistic views.
If serious chess standards were used to select canadian representatives to support and send to WYCC, there would be little need for wasting time on discussing individual cases on Chesstalk and their attending the CYCC or not. Actually we should not send anybody to the WYCC but exceptional cases having already shown unusual chess maturity and strenght, that is those with realistic chances to fight for medals. Very, very few kids in Canada belong to that category.
Under your 'logic', Jean, than Jason Cao would not have gone to the WYCC in 2010 and become World Champion. He was only rated 1464 after his CYCC performance that year, a far cry from the likes of the higher rated Joseph Bellissimo (1900 at the time) and Yuanchen Zhang (1776 after the 2010 CYCC), his fellow WYCC U10 teammates. All 3 had no (i.e. 0) FIDE ratings and had to compete against the likes of the American, Samuel Sevian, rated 2105 FIDE.
Under your 'logic', Jean, than Jason Cao would not have gone to the WYCC in 2010 and become World Champion. He was only rated 1464 after his CYCC performance that year, a far cry from the likes of the higher rated Joseph Bellissimo (1900 at the time) and Yuanchen Zhang (1776 after the 2010 CYCC), his fellow WYCC U10 teammates. All 3 had no (i.e. 0) FIDE ratings and had to compete against the likes of the American, Samuel Sevian, rated 2105 FIDE.
You are right. Under my logic he would not have gone. Instead he would have continued his chess development quietly, most probably leading to real longer term improvement and more significant successes. Now my bet (hopefully I will be proven wrong) is that within a few years we will hear no more about Jason Cao. After such an ego boost from an early big title, it will prove very difficult for him to continue being motivated to improve.
I would take your bet that in a few years we will hear no more about Jason, but it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he attends world events now. At his age it's all about the parents, which is not to be dismissed out of hand....until they grow up!
You are right. Under my logic he would not have gone. Instead he would have continued his chess development quietly, most probably leading to real longer term improvement and more significant successes. Now my bet (hopefully I will be proven wrong) is that within a few years we will hear no more about Jason Cao. After such an ego boost from an early big title, it will prove very difficult for him to continue being motivated to improve.
You do realize, Jean, that he's the highest rated U12 in the country and already master strength (2212). Have you taken a look at prior U10 WYCC Champions? Most go on to become strong or even elite GMs. You'll find the names of Luke McShane (1992), Etienne Bacrot (1993), Boris Grachev (1995), Pendyala Harickrishna (1996), Evgeny Romanov (1998), Dimitry Andreikin (1999), Nguyen Ngoc Truong Son (2000), Eltaj Safarli (2002), Sanan Sjugirov (2003), Yu Yangyi (2004), and Sahaj Grover (2005). Based on the empirical evidence, I'd have to say that the chances of Jason Cao ultimately becoming a GM are rather propitious.
Tweet
Comment