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.
Seems that it is true. On Facebook someone (Mike Lo @ Chess in BC) gave some insight. I will not repeat as it sounded like a incompetence of players & a TD.
Seems that it is true. On Facebook someone (Mike Lo @ Chess in BC) gave some insight. I will not repeat as it sounded like a incompetence of players & a TD.
Yes, we followed the event very close. Feeding realtime news from players & parents on-site. We have the BC players final result out right after the playoffs. Check it out if your are interested - https://www.facebook.com/groups/2842...5213846167920/. Yes, you need to join fb.
There still is an issue for the U18. There was tie-breaks for the third spot. Nikita Kraiouchkine was announced as the winner on tie-breaks and the organizers decided not to do playoffs. So, everyone thought he had the third spot. But, apparently it was announced during the closing ceremony that it was a mistake and that David Itkin finished third after tie-breaks.
Now, if we look at the handbook :
a) Swiss Sections
Direct encounter
Sum of progressive score
Buchholz
Playoff
Sonneborn-Berger
Won games
Games played with Black
According to this, Nikita should have the third place. Obviously, all of this could have been avoided with 7 rounds and proper playoffs...
Now, if we look at the handbook :
a) Swiss Sections
Direct encounter
Sum of progressive score
Buchholz
Playoff
Sonneborn-Berger
Won games
Games played with Black
According to this, Nikita should have the third place.
When I read Felix's post I was worried that the 2013 CYCC organizers had just misapplied the rules.
That's serious. Nikita and/or Team Quebec should certainly file an appeal if he or they think Nikita has been unfairly stripped of third place.
In order to save embarrassment for the organizers and more quickly resolve this for Nikita, I decided to spend a few minutes looking into it.
First, I looked up the CFC rules for the CYCC. (they're here)
The part Felix quotes above is correct. But it is also incomplete. Here is what the CFC Handbook says about CYCC tie-breaks:
710. Tie Break:
Should two or more players finish the tournament with the same number of points the following tie-break systems are recommended.
a) Swiss Sections
Direct encounter
Sum of progressive score
Buchholz
Playoff
Sonneborn-Berger
Won games
Games played with Black
b) Round Robin Sections
Direct encounter
Playoff
Games played with Black
Koya
Sonneborn-Berger
Won games
It is recommended that playoffs only be arranged to determine the official Canadian representative to the WYCC. If playoffs are planned adequate time must be set aside for a conclusion to be reached.
As some eagle-eyed readers might have noticed, the sentences immediately before and after the list of tie-breaks which Felix quotes, add context which undermines Felix's conclusion that Nikita should have 3rd place.
The Handbook says the tie-breaks it lists are "recommended", not required. (Felix left that part out.)
As I interpret it, that means the CFC leaves it up to the organizers which tie-breaks will be used.
When we were typing up the results on July 13, I was told by event organizer Les Bunning that the tie-break used was most wins. (I hope I'm remembering that right, I am very tired.)
Obviously, all of this could have been avoided with 7 rounds and proper playoffs...
could have.
The more rounds there are, the more "spread out" the bell curve of results would (probably) be; and fewer players would end up in ties.
A 7th round would have increased the probability of a unique 1st place finisher, and (probably) reduced the number of players tied for 2nd and 3rd; but apart from small sections with few competitors, it is unlikely it would eliminate ties for 2nd, and very unlikely it would eliminate ties for 3rd.
I agree with Felix that it is obvious that playoffs would resolve ties for third place.
As the Handbook says --- in a another part not quoted in Felix's excerpt --- "It is recommended that playoffs only be arranged to determine the official Canadian representative to the WYCC".
The Canadian rep at the WYCC is the first-place finisher at the CYCC. So, if I understand this part of the CFC Handbook correctly, playoffs for second place and third place are not only not required, the Handbook actually recommends they are not held.
[or is there some ambiguity caused by the location of the word "only" in that sentence? maybe there is, and that ought to be fixed.]
The 2013 CYCC organizers chose to hold playoffs for 1st place ties, and for 2nd place ties, but not for 3rd place ties. As I read it, the Handbook leaves this choice up to the Organizers by recommending tie-break methods but not mandating any particular one.
Felix is a CFC Governor, so he can propose that the Handbook be changed; for example, to mandate playoffs for the top three positions at the CYCC.
Alternatively, if the bid to host the 2014 CYCC in Montreal is approved (a bid I think Felix is part of), the Montreal organizers could extend the playoffs to cover the top three finishing positions. This would certainly be more work for the organizers, but I would applaud their efforts, since I think playoffs are a much better way to break ties in Swiss events than statistics like Buchholz or Sonneborn-Berger. They're also, IMHO, a more fair way to identify the better player than the tie-break we used at the 2013 CYCC, since (as was pointed out by several people during the London Candidates round-robin) "most wins" identifies the same player in any score group as "most losses".
It remains to be seen whether organizers of future CYCC events are able and prepared to do the extra work to break third-place ties through playoffs, rather than take the easy way out -- like we did -- by using one of the CFC's recommended formulae.
Last edited by John Upper; Sunday, 14th July, 2013, 08:51 AM.
Reason: misspelled "July"
This is the problem. Some people told me that David Itkin won because of the number of wins. However, all the players had the same number of wins (!), so which tie-break was used? We all thought it was the progressive score, as in the handbook, which would give Nikita as the winner.
The tournament website clearly says that Nikita has the third place after tie-breaks. So, can the organizers confirm who finished third?
The line on the tournament website next to Nikita's name, identifying him as the 3rd place on tie-breaks, was added by me because just before I posted it I was told (by TD Halldor Palsson) that that is how the tie-breaks worked out.
Les Bunning told me just before the prize ceremony that Nikita did not win the third-place tie-breaks. I then spent about 10 minutes looking for Le Fong (SP?) -- the coach of Nikita's team -- to tell him this before the announcements were made, but found him only when he was kneeling next to me taking pictures at the start of the awards.
I'll check with the organizers today, and find out which tie-break they actually used. When they tell me, I'll post it.
This is the problem. Some people told me that David Itkin won because of the number of wins. However, all the players had the same number of wins (!), so which tie-break was used? We all thought it was the progressive score, as in the handbook, which would give Nikita as the winner.
The tournament website clearly says that Nikita has the third place after tie-breaks. So, can the organizers confirm who finished third?
Oops, my mistake.
In my previous reply to this post from Felix (quoted above), I made the mistake of believing his claim that "all the players had the same number of wins (!)".
I see that Konstantin Semianiuk had 3 wins, and the other players who tied with 3.5/6 all had two wins.
If the "most wins" tie-break was used, then Konstantin should be the winner.
But, as I said before, I will check with the tournament organizers and find out which tie-break was used.
I have to apologize to anyone who read my previous post, and I promise I'll try not to believe anything I read posted this forum by Felix Dumont about the CYCC unless I have independent confirmation of it.
I have to apologize to anyone who read my previous post, and I promise I'll try not to believe anything I read posted this forum by Felix Dumont about the CYCC unless I have independent confirmation of it.
No need to be so condescending. I've made a mistake, and only looked at Nikita and David (who were both announced as winners).
So, let's see what we have :
1) Nikita is announced as the winner.
2) David is then announced as the winner.
3) The tie-breaks that were used (as announced during the closing ceremony) show that Konstantin should be the winner.
I imagine the real tie-breaks are not yet decided
I suggest we flip a coin. It will look less ridiculous than all this nonsense.
Last edited by Felix Dumont; Sunday, 14th July, 2013, 11:10 AM.
It's too bad all three are not playing in the Canadian Open. You could pair them together during the first three rounds, and we would have a real playoff with "slow" time controls.
Tweet
Comment