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.
Dude do I have to send you the scoresheets for the games I lost to weaker players. Once in a blue moon do I lose to a weaker player that is not supposed to be in my section. They dont beat me I beat myself. Usually if I am playing a weaker player its because I am not doing well in the tournament and I just dont care anymore to try my best. My last loss as an example to Thomas Gou I won a peice on move 9 and had forced mate about 10 moves after that. But instead of taking my time I played fast and like I guy who did not care about the game and made a losing blunder. I just personally feel tournaments are supposed to be more competitive in nature. I pay my money to get games against people similar in rating to me, not to crush people alot lower rated than me and boost my ego.
Bindi must be a good chess player as only a true nerd would bother looking up my stats to make a synopsis on my play. I am too lazy too look up your rating or your games or anything about you but if I were a betting man I would say your a good player.
I have not run any weekenders for about a year now, but when I was really into it over the preceding few years, I almost never allowed playing up. I believe that over time, that was one of the key points in raising the median rating of the players in my events.
The following points might hurt some folks' feelings, but in my humble opinion, the vast majority of higher-rated players dislike playing overly lower-rated players. I believe these sentiments should take precedence over the lower-rated players' desire to play higher-rated competition. This might sound harsh, but if someone like me (rated 1900) wants to play 2300s, then I simply need to get my rating up, to EARN such opposition.
Finally, many lower-rated players believe that they are giving higher-rated players decent games, but the majority of the time, the higher-rated player does NOT have the same appraisal of the game. This makes complete sense, as the lower-rated player is understandably far less capable of evaluating the games than the higher-rated player. Once in a while, when I stumble into a 2300 in an Open section, I can tell that my opponent is kinda just being polite in the postgame. Like, how much time should he be expected to spend explaining stuff he knows I do not fully understand, otherwise I would have done them in the game, lol. On the other side of it, I cannot tell you the number of times an 1100 player will say something like "that is the most number of moves I have ever lasted against someone as high rated as you, I must be getting better, eh? EH?! ;)
I know from my experience that I dont play my best against opposition alot lower rated than me. I know its a flaw of mine but I feel like its not a fair contest and that I can easily beat this lower player even if I am playing 70 percent of my capability. This mistake is what causes me to lose against weaker players. Playing an opponent alot weaker than you is like boxing a girl. You would not go full hog in the boxing match against the girl as you expect to win with a few slaps.
I know from my experience that I dont play my best against opposition alot lower rated than me. I know its a flaw of mine but I feel like its not a fair contest and that I can easily beat this lower player even if I am playing 70 percent of my capability. This mistake is what causes me to lose against weaker players. Playing an opponent alot weaker than you is like boxing a girl. You would not go full hog in the boxing match against the girl as you expect to win with a few slaps.
This is my last comment on the subject of ratings as I dont want to furthur cement my reputation as the biggest blabbermouth on chesstalk.
Ratings are important only because they are a way to compare your strength with a fellow player. We have ratings so that we can pair people of similar strength with each other in tournaments. If we allow a gap of 500 rating points per section ( 400 is the section + 100 max for people playing up ) than we dont really need ratings.
This is my last comment on the subject of ratings as I dont want to furthur cement my reputation as the biggest blabbermouth on chesstalk.
Too late for that isn't it?
If everyone claimed they lost to a lower rated player because they didn't "try" enough or weren't "feeling it" or just "didn't care", we would all be self-proclaimed masters. All I'm hearing from you is that you crush lower rated players and then when I took a few minutes to find look up your results, (looking up CFC ratings is like me playing you in chess) you whine, complain and make excuses of why you didn't beat them. A loss is a loss no matter how you spin it, it doesn't turn into a win just because you were up material at one point or another. To make matters worse, you are also terrible at spelling...
This is my last comment on the subject of ratings as I dont want to furthur cement my reputation as the biggest blabbermouth on chesstalk.
Ratings are important only because they are a way to compare your strength with a fellow player. We have ratings so that we can pair people of similar strength with each other in tournaments. If we allow a gap of 500 rating points per section ( 400 is the section + 100 max for people playing up ) than we dont really need ratings.
Hi Mate:
I guess the bottom line on all this playing up is $$.
Most organizers like to give all players the right to play up - even more than 1 section - if the play-upper PAYS - obviously the money outweighs the complaints of the higher-rated players. And the organizer makes many lower-rated players happy. The revenue seems high enough, that it keeps the option alive.
Some organizers try to saw it off - yes you can play up, and PAY - but only if within 100 points of the above floor. Again, the $$ revenue seem to keep the playing up option alive, and the lower-rated players, or some of them at least, are happy. Higher-rated players feel at least a bit protected, though not too happy with this option either.
Some organizers follow the no-tolerance rule, and allow NO playing up. Keeps the higher rated players happy. Some lower-rated players are unhappy. But in any event, the organizer has bit the bullet and foregone the playing-up revenue.
As a player, I really prefer people playing in their own sections, graduating according to their results, etc... I've also heard the argument many times -- "oh I play better if I am playing better players" -- whatever... if for example, a 1600 rated player can play at 2000 level, then they should score 5/5 a couple of times against their peers, and (especially with bonus points these days) they will be there in no time.
At some point not too long ago in Toronto, sections were a bit of a joke, with many players playing up sections, often without any fee to play up. At Hart House tournaments where I am one of the organizers, these fees are meant to discourage players from playing up (not to increase the pot) and make sections more competitive (we have been charging $20 play-up fee per section). It doesn't stop players completely from playing up but it does work to a large extent.
The Canadian Open in Montreal (2008) had something similar. Players who would play up (maybe just in the top section, not sure about other sections) would pay some ridiculous fee, like additional $50 or $100 per 100 points their rating was below the cut-off. It worked pretty well I think, but surely if you'll allow it, you'll still have the 2-3 players who don't mind opening their purse for such opportunity.
So where to draw the line? Between upsetting a ton of people, discouring people from doing it, capping it at 100 points, and so on. Where a fee is not applied (ie clubs like Scarborough, Annex), and there is a 100 point grace zone, the reality changes from U1800 section for example, to everyone in the 1700-1800 range playing in the section above that.
Or maybe another question is... what is the problem we have now?
Is this thread meant for people to come to a consensus of what is best, as if we should have a standard / default?
Some clubs / organizers do it one way. Others do it a different way. So what if we have 3, 4 or 5 formulas? Isn't that a good thing? Players can choose where to play, select their tournaments according to what is being done out there. No organizer will please all players, so variety is not such a bad thing.
I am enrolled in a Hal Bond tournament... The rating section is already 400 points huge and allowing someone to play up with just be a joke.
FWIW, this is actually a complaint against all Open tournaments.
e.g. this year's Canadian Open is the traditional One-Big-Section, where the ratings will range from unrated to 2700+.
The last time I played in one of those (Can Open 2007) I think I didn't play anyone within 200 points (up or down) of my rating. Which meant that every single round either me or my opponent was looking at a major upset or relatively easy win. :(
Last edited by John Upper; Thursday, 31st January, 2013, 02:24 AM.
What has mostly worked well in my tournaments is - no sections - all one group but with accelerated pairings to cut down on mismatches. The problem with this is that accelerated pairings has got a bad rep from TD's who don't know how to apply them. They try to tweak the method thinking to 'improve' it and totally mess it up. The result is that many players now feel that accelerated pairings suck big time. They are in fact excellent if used properly.
As for class prizes, I stay away from the largely accepted 200 rating point divisions and divide the field according to rating groupings starting at the bottom and working up. Depending on the size of the field, I look for a ratings gap every six to ten players and designate that as a section - section 'A' , 'B', 'C' etc. Each section is then awarded a prize fund of about 1/2 of the entry fees collected from that number - the rest going to the top place prizes. This method has the added advantage of avoiding situations where someone may fish for a chance at a big cash payday by working their rating down to say 1795 to qualify for the standard 'B' Prize in other tournaments.
Never once have I had a complaint over this prize structure and each rating grouping funds half their entry fee toward the top place prizes. And of course, those players are eligible to win a top place prize instead of a lower section prize provided they score well enough in the tournament.
While I understand the basis of your message, I must disagree with your disdain for playing up a section or two.
A 1500 player that does not want to remain 1500 for long should be playing in a U2000 section, not a U1600 section.
In Montreal and in Toronto, I almost always played one or two classes above, and that's how I scored my first Master scalp and eventually went over 2200 CFC. Had I been stuck playing 1600-1800 players all the time, my progress would have been greatly hindered. My focus was on improving my game, so I didn't care what my opponents' ratings were, as long as I was going to have a challenging game that I could learn from no matter what the game result was.
This thread reminds me of my first Scarborough Chess Championships in the late 1990's. I was pretty new to CFC tournaments since I had mainly played FQE before moving to Toronto in 1996. After a couple of CFC tournaments, my provisional rating was 1940. The SCC Ch was grouped in sections of 10, so I had to play 9 other players rated between 1860-1970. I asked the then-Director, Mark Dutton, if I could play in the B group (mainly over 2000), and he had to decline my request. He said "don't worry, this group is good, you'll be lucky to score 4.5/9." I won the tournament 9.0/9... but at least the games were all challenging, and my provisional rating rose to over 2100. The next year I had a permanent rating still over 2100, and I finished 2nd in the top group.
If you stop focusing on ratings or class prizes, and play a section or two above your current rating, you might notice a considerable improvement in your game over a short period of time. I see you've been hovering around 1700 for a long time. Maybe it's time to stop playing other 1700 players, and start playing the ones that will teach you the most from your mistakes and losses... and then, eventually from your draws and brilliant wins! ;)
Good luck! Jordan
No matter how big and bad you are, when a two-year-old hands you a toy phone, you answer it.
While I understand the basis of your message, I must disagree with your disdain for playing up a section or two.
A 1500 player that does not want to remain 1500 for long should be playing in a U2000 section, not a U1600 section.
In Montreal and in Toronto, I almost always played one or two classes above, and that's how I scored my first Master scalp and eventually went over 2200 CFC. Had I been stuck playing 1600-1800 players all the time, my progress would have been greatly hindered. My focus was on improving my game, so I didn't care what my opponents' ratings were, as long as I was going to have a challenging game that I could learn from no matter what the game result was.
This thread reminds me of my first Scarborough Chess Championships in the late 1990's. I was pretty new to CFC tournaments since I had mainly played FQE before moving to Toronto in 1996. After a couple of CFC tournaments, my provisional rating was 1940. The SCC Ch was grouped in sections of 10, so I had to play 9 other players rated between 1860-1970. I asked the then-Director, Mark Dutton, if I could play in the B group (mainly over 2000), and he had to decline my request. He said "don't worry, this group is good, you'll be lucky to score 4.5/9." I won the tournament 9.0/9... but at least the games were all challenging, and my provisional rating rose to over 2100. The next year I had a permanent rating still over 2100, and I finished 2nd in the top group.
If you stop focusing on ratings or class prizes, and play a section or two above your current rating, you might notice a considerable improvement in your game over a short period of time. I see you've been hovering around 1700 for a long time. Maybe it's time to stop playing other 1700 players, and start playing the ones that will teach you the most from your mistakes and losses... and then, eventually from your draws and brilliant wins! ;)
Good luck! Jordan
Dude if you read my comments you would know that I am not playing up out of principle. I feel the rating divisions in a chess tournament is like a heirarchy. A heirarchy in which you have to earn your way up by gaining rating points in the rating group you are currently in to play up. I dont care if it takes me longer to gain the rating points this way as I think it is the fair way to do things. By the way it was nice how you used this post to basically just promote yourself. Hey guys I went 9/9 in this one tournament and beat a master etc thought you guys would love to know this!. Here is a funny solution to the playing up. The guy playing up should pay 10 dollars to each opponent he plays in the section that is not playing up.
Dude if you read my comments you would know that I am not playing up out of principle. I feel the rating divisions in a chess tournament is like a heirarchy. A heirarchy in which you have to earn your way up by gaining rating points in the rating group you are currently in to play up. I dont care if it takes me longer to gain the rating points this way as I think it is the fair way to do things. By the way it was nice how you used this post to basically just promote yourself. Hey guys I went 9/9 in this one tournament and beat a master etc thought you guys would love to know this!. Here is a funny solution to the playing up. The guy playing up should pay 10 dollars to each opponent he plays in the section that is not playing up.
Well Mate, you're entitled to your principles, even if they are complete nonsense. I posted my response to try to help you take a different, more productive approach in chess, but apparently you prefer to insult rather than thank.
I couldn't care less about promoting myself. I'm a washed-up Expert who rarely plays anymore. I was giving you an example of how my methods helped me improve. But apparently you just posted your message because you needed one more thing to whine about, not because you care about improving anything.
Enjoy your life of mediocrity... it seems to suit your play and your poor attitude.
Jordan
No matter how big and bad you are, when a two-year-old hands you a toy phone, you answer it.
My active rating is 1599. I'll slap you 10-0 in a match any day.
Hey you would have to pay up for a chance to play me first of all lol. Come to the Guelph tournament and pay up to play in the u2000. If your game is as good as your trash talk you will easily beat me. My game is not as good as my trash talk unfortunatley which is why I am around 1750. I wonder what would happen if we played 11 games. I might be able to draw the 11th game!
Well Mate, you're entitled to your principles, even if they are complete nonsense. I posted my response to try to help you take a different, more productive approach in chess, but apparently you prefer to insult rather than thank.
I couldn't care less about promoting myself. I'm a washed-up Expert who rarely plays anymore. I was giving you an example of how my methods helped me improve. But apparently you just posted your message because you needed one more thing to whine about, not because you care about improving anything.
Enjoy your life of mediocrity... it seems to suit your play and your poor attitude.
Jordan
Dude what you said was super obvious. Ofcourse if you play up all the time and play stronger opponents your rating will go up faster than if you played among people with weaker ratings. Playing alot stronger opponents is a way to inflate your rating somewhat. I just told you that I choose not to as I feel like you have to earn your way up to play higher competition. Its not like I am not willing to pay the 10 dollar tax to play up. I just choose not to have money buy me what I think I should have to earn. Atleast you made it to expert which is probably better than I will ever do in chess. Funny thing is now that you are an expert you cant pay to play up anymore since you dont need to. Thank you for replying to this post that has gotten way out of hand. If you were not trying to self promote yourself with your previous article I apologize. Anyone that knows me well knows I dont apologize often so you can bet its sincere.
Tweet
Comment