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.
Curious question:
Is there any general standard of conversion between CMA to CFC ratings?
It's not unusual to have youngsters sign up for (adult) tournaments, whose CMA ratings may be more accurate (from an activity point of view, in certain specific cases) than CFC ones. Has any organizer ever converted a CMA rating for a youngster in an adult tournament, even if only for seeding purposes?
Thanks,
It is extremely hard to convert CMA and CFC ratings, since the time control and the playing conditions aren't the same. For most young players, you would probably need to cut 200 or 300 points to their CMA rating, but some might actually be much better with slow time controls. My first FQE rating was 200 points higher than my CMA rating, since I was horrible at fast time controls.
A good solution might be to use the CFC ratings for all those who have one, and the CMA rating for those who don't. The stronger players should have a CFC rating, and the weaker ones only CMA rating (probably lower).
It is extremely hard to convert CMA and CFC ratings, since the time control and the playing conditions aren't the same. For most young players, you would probably need to cut 200 or 300 points to their CMA rating, but some might actually be much better with slow time controls. My first FQE rating was 200 points higher than my CMA rating, since I was horrible at fast time controls.
A good solution might be to use the CFC ratings for all those who have one, and the CMA rating for those who don't. The stronger players should have a CFC rating, and the weaker ones only CMA rating (probably lower).
CMA ratings are generally 300-400 points below CFC ratings and 200 points below USCF ratings for players under 1800 CFC. When our kids play in USCF rated events organized by Bill Goichberg they usually accept my guidlines....depends who is running the event for Bill :). Unfortunately, the CFC and the FQE (to the best of my knowledge) do not take CMA ratings into consideration and they prefer to use unrated as a designation :).
I have had discussions with the folks at the FQE on this...to no avail....they would prefer to count the person as unrated for pairing purposes than giving them an approximate FQE rating (eg CMA plus X) based on their CMA rating. The FQE under Marc Poulin has been good to the CMA over the years, so I gave up the battle...but I still think they are wrong LOL!
So if you are open to referring to CMA ratings for players who do not have a rating in the CFC, FQE, or USCF system, this is what I would recommend for players rated under 1800...add 400 for CFC, add 300 for FQE and add 200 for USCF...
or call them unrated and let their opponents be surprised :).
For the other players as Felix pointed out the conversion formula is here:
CMA ratings are generally 300-400 points below CFC ratings and 200 points below USCF ratings for players under 1800 CFC. When our kids play in USCF rated events organized by Bill Goichberg they usually accept my guidlines....depends who is running the event for Bill :). Unfortunately, the CFC and the FQE (to the best of my knowledge) do not take CMA ratings into consideration and they prefer to use unrated as a designation :).
I have had discussions with the folks at the FQE on this...to no avail....they would prefer to count the person as unrated for pairing purposes than giving them an approximate FQE rating (eg CMA plus X) based on their CMA rating. The FQE under Marc Poulin has been good to the CMA over the years, so I gave up the battle...but I still think they are wrong LOL!
So if you are open to referring to CMA ratings for players who do not have a rating in the CFC, FQE, or USCF system, this is what I would recommend for players rated under 1800...add 400 for CFC, add 300 for FQE and add 200 for USCF...
or call them unrated and let their opponents be surprised :).
For the other players as Felix pointed out the conversion formula is here:
Larry
I must disagree on this, at least for the FQE ratings. It might be true for CFC, but this would mean that the FQE/CFC difference at this level is nearly 500 rating points! I would have more imagine it between 200 and 300 for beginners.
Here's a comparison between the ratings of the best Quebec players from grade 3-5 in Quebec that have been active in both FQE and CMA.
All of them have a higher CMA rating. I would suspect that CMA is maybe 150-200 points over the FQE rating, but as I said earlier, it is very, very hard to determine. Some players are definitely better in slow games, although it is quite rare for younger players.
Curious question:
Is there any general standard of conversion between CMA to CFC ratings?
It's not unusual to have youngsters sign up for (adult) tournaments, whose CMA ratings may be more accurate (from an activity point of view, in certain specific cases) than CFC ones. Has any organizer ever converted a CMA rating for a youngster in an adult tournament, even if only for seeding purposes?
Thanks,
Alex Ferreira
Hi Alex, once or twice each Spring, Tom and I run a day-camp tournament that I rate both CFC and CMA. The vast majority of the kids attending have CMA ratings under 1000, so if they do not yet have a CFC rating, I just use their CMA rating at par. I do understand that is not ideal, but for kids rated under 1000 (CFC or CMA), I suggest that it is fine, you get the pairings going and done, and the Swiss system takes care of the rest. In other words, without meaning to be disrespectful to any kids, if their rating is that low, I don't believe it matters all that much. And if they are higher rated players, then they would already have at least a provisional CFC rating, from some qualifier event. In several years of doing CFC-rated weekend events, I do not recall ever having a child who had no CFC rating, and yet wiped out the regular U1400/U1600 section.
I must disagree on this, at least for the FQE ratings. It might be true for CFC, but this would mean that the FQE/CFC difference at this level is nearly 500 rating points! I would have more imagine it between 200 and 300 for beginners.
Here's a comparison between the ratings of the best Quebec players from grade 3-5 in Quebec that have been active in both FQE and CMA.
All of them have a higher CMA rating. I would suspect that CMA is maybe 150-200 points over the FQE rating, but as I said earlier, it is very, very hard to determine. Some players are definitely better in slow games, although it is quite rare for younger players.
Hi Felix!
Maybe things have changed since I last looked at this. We did make a change to our system a number of years ago to try and catch up number wise to other systems...maybe we have accomplished our goal :).
I would love to sit down with you and look at this situation...anytime in the first part of January works for me...I know you can not decide but I think your observations will be very useful...contact me at bevand@echecs.org if you are interested....or you can call me after Jan 2 2013. You are a positive influence for chess and I am eager to discuss this issue with you...en francais :)
Maybe things have changed since I last looked at this. We did make a change to our system a number of years ago to try and catch up number wise to other systems...maybe we have accomplished our goal :).
I would love to sit down with you and look at this situation...anytime in the first part of January works for me...I know you can not decide but I think your observations will be very useful...contact me at bevand@echecs.org if you are interested....or you can call me after Jan 2 2013. You are a positive influence for chess and I am eager to discuss this issue with you...en francais :)
Larry
It seems like a good idea. I'll write to you after the holidays. I guess it would be great if we could find a way to pair the younger players in the Pepsico Youth Chess Championship. This year's U8 section was quite popular, and many kids did not have an FQE rating.
Maybe things have changed since I last looked at this. We did make a change to our system a number of years ago to try and catch up number wise to other systems...maybe we have accomplished our goal :).
I would love to sit down with you and look at this situation...anytime in the first part of January works for me...I know you can not decide but I think your observations will be very useful...contact me at bevand@echecs.org if you are interested....or you can call me after Jan 2 2013. You are a positive influence for chess and I am eager to discuss this issue with you...en francais :)
Larry
300 or 400 points isn't far off in Victoria (compared to actual playing strength compared to adults) but.... often a kid's CFC rating is based on his games with other kids and is about right for that comparison but wrong for the adult tournaments.
Last edited by Roger Patterson; Monday, 17th December, 2012, 06:53 PM.
It seems like a good idea. I'll write to you after the holidays. I guess it would be great if we could find a way to pair the younger players in the Pepsico Youth Chess Championship. This year's U8 section was quite popular, and many kids did not have an FQE rating.
a couple of examples off the top of my head (not that I thought much about this, all the kids locally who play in adult tournaments are like this). The CMA and CFC ratings are both out of whack (although perhaps not CMA if we accept that there is a constant offset).
Player A: CMA 836 CFC 1021 Victoria Chess rating 1400
Player B: CMA 1124 CFC 1579 Victoria Chess 1677 USCF 1717
I'm biased of course, but I think the VCC rating is a much better indication of the strength of these players. Of course there are issues relating to amount of activity in the various systems, or in the case of the USCF rating, only getting a rating once they are reasonably good so they don't have to deal with gaining rating points to cover rapid improvement but there is clearly more at issue here than just a simple constant offset between CMA and CFC.
Just to clarify a point: TDs and organizers have free reign to assign whatever rating they feel is appropriate for a player with multiple ratings including CMA ratings. This is for the purpose of pairings and awarding of prizes.
The CFC office follows the guidelines in the CFC Handbook Chapter 7 when assigning initial ratings for new players. Note that the key article does not mention CMA or FQE ratings:
736. Foreign Events and Ratings. If a foreign player has a rating in his own country or from FIDE, that will be used to determine his first CFC rating. If he is inactive in Canada for a year but has a change in his foreign rating, his changed foreign rating will be used to recalculated his CFC rating.
New residents of Canada without a CFC rating are considered unrated, whether or not they have a foreign rating.
CMA ratings are generally 300-400 points below CFC ratings and 200 points below USCF ratings for players under 1800 CFC. When our kids play in USCF rated events organized by Bill Goichberg they usually accept my guidlines....depends who is running the event for Bill :). Unfortunately, the CFC and the FQE (to the best of my knowledge) do not take CMA ratings into consideration and they prefer to use unrated as a designation :).
I have had discussions with the folks at the FQE on this...to no avail....they would prefer to count the person as unrated for pairing purposes than giving them an approximate FQE rating (eg CMA plus X) based on their CMA rating. The FQE under Marc Poulin has been good to the CMA over the years, so I gave up the battle...but I still think they are wrong LOL!
So if you are open to referring to CMA ratings for players who do not have a rating in the CFC, FQE, or USCF system, this is what I would recommend for players rated under 1800...add 400 for CFC, add 300 for FQE and add 200 for USCF...
or call them unrated and let their opponents be surprised :).
For the other players as Felix pointed out the conversion formula is here:
Suggestion for Larry:
Is there some advantage for keeping CMA ratings below the other systems?
I can't think of any. So why not bring the CMA ratings in line with CFC ratings?
But here's my idea - don't do a wholesale add-on of 400 points to CMA ratings. Rather do it incrementally. Award say 5 bonus points for each player per rated game played and then apply the standard rating formula.
This should encourage the kids to play a lot! Eventually, as the ratings align with the target CFC ratings, you eliminate the bonus system. Not only will you get greater numbers in the CMA participants but the kids will improve faster as they will be playing more.
Just a thought - Vlad D
Suggestion for Larry:
Is there some advantage for keeping CMA ratings below the other systems?
I can't think of any. So why not bring the CMA ratings in line with CFC ratings?
But here's my idea - don't do a wholesale add-on of 400 points to CMA ratings. Rather do it incrementally. Award say 5 bonus points for each player per rated game played and then apply the standard rating formula.
This should encourage the kids to play a lot! Eventually, as the ratings align with the target CFC ratings, you eliminate the bonus system. Not only will you get greater numbers in the CMA participants but the kids will improve faster as they will be playing more.
Just a thought - Vlad D
There are already bonus points for each game. It might explain why the CMA ratings are inflated in Quebec (where there is a lot of tournaments) and not in some provinces.
Last edited by Felix Dumont; Tuesday, 18th December, 2012, 11:01 PM.
Tweet
Comment