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.
Hal, was the Open Section FIDE rated? I'm monitoring the large gap between FIDE and CFC ratings of some of our top players and musing about the effect on that of having more dual-rated events.
Hal, was the Open Section FIDE rated? I'm monitoring the large gap between FIDE and CFC ratings of some of our top players and musing about the effect on that of having more dual-rated events.
As announced it was FIDE rated as was the U2000 section. My FIDE rating won't change but there are now 2 U2000 players that will have one more FIDE game towards establising their ratings. They still have only 4 games or so each. My FIDE is 1799 based on 22 games I think, but my CFC will move up from 1680 to 1715. If that's the type of info you were looking for.
Hal, was the Open Section FIDE rated? I'm monitoring the large gap between FIDE and CFC ratings of some of our top players and musing about the effect on that of having more dual-rated events.
Some? Shouldn't it be "all"? :)
From 2 months ago (the difference is over 100 points!) :
Name USCF CFC FIDE Comments
So Wesley 2692 2724 2667
Sambuev Bator unr 2689 2535
Bluvshtein Mark 2539 2632 2590
Kovalyov unr 2644 2598
Noritsyn Nikolay unr 2605 2461
Hansen 2479 2579 2502
Gerzhoy Leonid 2539 2571 2461
Krnan Tomas unr 2562 2415
Samsonkin Artiom 2553 2396 1498p USCF from 2001
Quan Zhe 2503 2642 2431 Last CFC game July 2009
Castellanos Renier unr 2501 2491
Hambleton Aman 2488 2293 1990p USCF from 2007
Doroshenko unr 2482 2336
Porper Edward unr 2475 2420
Hebert Jean 2466 2399 2452 USCF from 1999
Pechenkin Vladimir 2377 2436 2333
Laceste Loren 2493 2280 2290
Calugar Arthur 2453 2429 2308
Panjwani Raja 2451 2517 2403
Hartman Brian 2443 2438 2374
Kaminski Victor 2418 2315 2247
O’Donnell Tom 2434 2350 2457 USCF from 2000
Plotkin Victor 2411 2354 2208
Cheng Bindi 2402 2480 2415
average 2488 2483 2423
Average CFC : 2512
Average FIDE : 2413.125
And if we remove inactive players or players from provinces were there are no FIDE tournaments, the difference is even higher. With the current CFC rating system, I imagine we could reach a 200 points difference in the next few years.
Last edited by Felix Dumont; Monday, 8th April, 2013, 12:38 PM.
Yes, it's a problem. There isn't much support among the top players to re-set their Canadian ratings to FIDE levels.
The good news is that CFC and USCF ratings are pretty close to equivalent.
Yes, it's a problem. There isn't much support among the top players to re-set their Canadian ratings to FIDE levels.
The good news is that CFC and USCF ratings are pretty close to equivalent.
Well that's senseless unless the formula will be changed as well right? It will slowly just become inflated all over again. Nevertheless, I do support however temporary a solution it may be.
The USCF is a bit more accurate for top players because they uscf-rate all the foreign FIDE events for its members so that it reflects in the system when someone gains or loses rating abroad. For such a small federation such as the CFC probably It's probably not worth it.
The USCF is a bit more accurate for top players because they uscf-rate all the foreign FIDE events for its members so that it reflects in the system when someone gains or loses rating abroad. For such a small federation such as the CFC probably It's probably not worth it.
FQE members can have their tournaments played outside of Quebec (or Canada) FQE rated if they advise the office in advance and pay rating fees. Is there something similar for CFC members?
In any case, the first thing to do should be to completely eliminate bonus points.. It may not do anything for the current inflation, but at least it will prevent further inflation...
The inflation took place between 2006 and late 2009. Since then the median of the top 100 players has been relatively stable at around 2345. I wasn't the rating auditor back then but one reason that I can think of is participation points which were discontinued in 2010. So far the bonus formula hasn't pushed up the ratings.
It's encouraging to see that some of the top players are interested in this issue. I have been keeping the masters' representative informed and perhaps he can test the waters further. I'd want a little more study and a pretty broad consensus before contemplating this move but in principle it could easily be done. There are a few considerations such as someone with an old FIDE rating that is unlikely to be accurate.
In any case, the first thing to do should be to completely eliminate bonus points.. It may not do anything for the current inflation, but at least it will prevent further inflation...
I disagree. The bonus system is working well and solving the problem of underrated juniors.
Felix, your analysis is superficial, it is based on a crude comparison of CFC and FIDE ratings of the top 100 players only.
If you want to "adjust" CFC ratings based on this, then your solution should be to "adjust" just the ratings of those top 100 players. You could propose a formula to reduce the CFC ratings of those top 100 players. Not something I would do, but go ahead if you are so convinced there is a problem. But please limit your tinkering to the top 100 players.
Good luck getting them to agree to lower their ratings. :D
I disagree. The bonus system is working well and solving the problem of underrated juniors.
Felix, your analysis is superficial, it is based on a crude comparison of CFC and FIDE ratings of the top 100 players only.
If you want to "adjust" CFC ratings based on this, then your solution should be to "adjust" just the ratings of those top 100 players. You could propose a formula to reduce the CFC ratings of those top 100 players. Not something I would do, but go ahead if you are so convinced there is a problem. But please limit your tinkering to the top 100 players.
Good luck getting them to agree to lower their ratings. :D
When we did a comparison last summer between FQE/FIDE and CFC rating (based on every player that was active in both federation), we saw that the average difference was much higher for lower rated players. In many cases, the difference was between 200 and 300 points (or even more).
There is indeed an enormous problem (that affects the CFC credibility), but obviously no player will want to see his rating reduced.
Underrated junior players will only remain so for two or three tournaments, if they really are underrated, bonus points or not.
Last edited by Felix Dumont; Monday, 8th April, 2013, 11:51 PM.
Tweet
Comment