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.
Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Posting of Rd. 6 Standings?
IMHO, greatest number of wins is a reasonable choice for tie-break in a sponsored event where the organizers want to encourage interesting and fighting chess -- which might have been David Zhang's point above.
Personally, not speaking for the organizers, I think greatest number of wins is a poor choice for TB in either a Swiss or RR for a National Championship. There may be a good reason for this given by the CFC Govs, but I don't know what it is.
As I think I said earlier, "greatest number of wins" identifies the same person in a score group as "greatest number of losses", which would be a ridiculous tie-break, but it would always pick out the same players (I think).
RE: when will the list be posted?
Today, I hope...
I was onsite for 6 hours today, helping prep for a lesson and a lecture by GM Elshan Moriabadi (he was really good; including several interesting insights into the upcoming Carlsen - Anand match which I haven't heard before and which sound right to me...), and then.... the router at the Hotel broke!
Since today's round doesn't start for hours, noone I needed to talk to was there, and I've gone home.
If I get 8 refreshing hours of sleep in the next 3 hours, I'll go back. If not, I'll edit some pix and videos and post them on the site and post the list tomorrow.
Actually, I'll probably haul my tired butt out of bed tonight anyway, because I really want to watch the post-mortem for Wang - Hambleton. (Aman's post mortems are very long and detailed, and when he gets the right opponent they can be pretty funny, and from what I've seen so far, Richard is probably a perfect match.) Oh great.... now that I'm thinking about that I'll have trouble getting to sleep.
Finally (for now), thanks to David Itkin and Andrew Giblon for their posts. I was present at the event, and can confirm their confirmations, 100%
I'd been advised a few days ago on this "not to go into a pissing contest with a skunk". I'd normally take that person's advice about such things, but doing nothing doesn't make the smell go away. I was hoping someone else would help correct some of BS that's appeared here, and two people did! Thanks for the fresh air. ;)
So John Upper and/or Les Bunning, are the above the tie break rules for determining CYCC 2013 3rd places? If it was different from the above rules, what were the differences? Thanks in advance for clarifying.
I'm going to write something that won't be very popular.
On the one hand, for an event this size with all the sections and considering it's a major Canadian championship, I think an International Arbiter should have been hired.
The tie break format should have been posted. Surely it's not reasonably to expect so many small sections would not have ties. It's not the problem of the youngsters and their parents to keep up with changes in the handbook, which may or may not be clear. Nor should the tie break rules be made up as the event progresses.
Regarding the large third place tie, the prize should be binoculars to see the winner of the section. Surely none of the tied group can feel good about a score of 3.5 from 6 points. Hopefully they will work harder to improve their game. There are talented players in that group of players. However, getting the 3rd placing correct is the important part.
I will talk about this issue only once, because I believe that it was a decision that needed to be explained, but then Iwill ask you send farther questions to my e-mail: danny@royalgame.ca since I am not a huge CHESSTALK user, and I obviously don't want anyone to feel ignored by me.
A) I am FIDE Master / FIDE Arbiter. Whether I will have enough norms for IM or IA - time will show. The title of FA allows you to arbiter international events and my report will be submitted to CFC and most probably will be attentively analyzed by IA H. Bond.
B) To answer the concrete question about last minute change of pairings of round 2.
I am not very happy about the situation, but here is what happened.
You are allowed to make last minute change under "force majeure" situation. At first, less than an hour before the beginning of the round I get notified that one kid is sick and doesn't feel good after CYCC. Fixed this situation, found a person who had a bye but didn't mind playing if needed. Half an hour before the round starts organizers informed me that we received a notice from 3 foreign players that they still didn't get the visas and still waiting to enter Canada and join the tournament they paid the fees for... Since the committee considered this a major issue involving now a total of 5 players the decision was to quickly redo the pairings. This affected almost 50% of the boards.
Now, here is a situation. As C.A. of the tournament, I could refuse this change and keep the pairings as they were, simply adding few forfeits here and there. Or, I could take in consideration that it is only the second round, the opponents change in rating was less significant, and try to please all participants who came to play chess and not receive BYEs. You know the rest of the story.
In this situation, some (or even many) can disagree with my decision, and you have all the rights to do so. You can say it was unprofessional on my part, and again - you have the right to your opinion, and as C.A. of Canadian Open or any other tournaments I ref. I always answer for my actions. I will send a detailed report to CFC after the tournament and I will hear what they have to say about this issue.
I am not trying to justify my actions or find an excuse, I am simply telling everyone what really happened Sunday morning...
For any future questions, insults, or any other information, please contact me directly by e-mail, since (I will repeat it again) I am not visiting CHESSTALK often enough to follow all the comments.
Sincerely,
FM/FA Danny Goldenberg
C.A. Canadian Open 2013
P.S. Just wanted to make it clear that I was not a part of CYCC, but was helping the arbiters team during playoffs in order to facilitate the process for kids and parents. If you have any questions about CYCC - you should address them to the organizers. Thank you
So if a player draws two masters and another player wins against a 1600 rated opponent - both with 1.0 -, who deserves to win the tiebreak? Does the win show more "exciting chess"?
Good question, and let's not fool ourselves, there is no single answer that is going to be absolutely fair in all scenarios. In the scenario you're talking about, which because of the rating differences I'd assume comes from one big Open section such as the Canadian Open, one could argue that drawing against two masters counts for a lot. And it will -- in rating points gained. Now, the player who beat the 1600, maybe s/he lost to a master or even above. So rating-wise, it will show that Player A who drew the 2 masters outperformed Player B who lost to the 1600.
But performance and fairness isn't what I'm suggesting is most important here. How do we know that Player A's two draws against masters weren't agreed after just a handful of moves? Maybe there could be some formula that takes into accout how many moves were played: a 68-move draw is much more likely to have been a fighting draw than a 20-move draw. And fighting draws are to be commended, it's possible both players took chances and just couldn't get a decisive edge.
But in the absence of such a formula, we want something that rewards fighting chess. And generally speaking, more wins and losses and less draws means a more fighting and daring / creative approach was taken. There are always exceptions, but one tiebreak formula can't account for all exceptions.
Hikaru Nakamura is a good example of this at the top level. He has more wins and losses and less draws than most elite players, percentage wise. And if you look at his games, you can see why. His games are among the most entertaining of all elite players. He takes chances.
A good analogy to this would be in baseball: even if you don't like watching baseball, but let's say you're somewhere and you don't have a choice, everyone's watching baseball. Would you rather watch two teams that each have hitters that hit for power (lots of doubles, triples, home runs) but also strike out a lot, or would you prefer to watch two teams in which almost nobody hits for power, 90% of their hits are singles, and they hardly ever strike out? After a while, you would likely get tired of seeing single after single. Personally, I don't find baseball exciting under either scenario, but I would think watching the power hitting teams would be most exciting even if it was overall not very exciting.
So getting back to chess, my main point is that if everybody knows in advance that most wins decides tiebreaks, then they will psychologically make an effort to play more daring and exciting chess. I think we can all agree that is what chess needs more of. So by using that tiebreak, even at young ages, we encourage players to play chess with spunk and courage and creative daring.
Computer engines have little to no concept of this, they simply calculate best move by numeric values and aren't programmed to play "exciting" chess. So if humans can't beat them, they can at least produce more dramatic games.
Would this suppose to be printed and hanged on the wall during the tournament? The pairing software should be set to represent those tie-breaks too. Who was a chief arbiter?
I'm not sure if they were hanged on the wall, but I know Nikita was sure that there were playoffs for the third place (and thus was quite surprised to see there isn't).
So John Upper and/or Les Bunning, are the above the tie break rules for determining CYCC 2013 3rd places? If it was different from the above rules, what were the differences? Thanks in advance for clarifying.
Would this suppose to be printed and hanged on the wall during the tournament? The pairing software should be set to represent those tie-breaks too. Who was a chief arbiter?
Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Posting of Rd. 6 Standings?
Thank you, Stephen.
Originally posted by CFC AGM Motion on CYCC Tiebreak Systems passed on July 1st, 2013
The motion: that Handbook Section 710 ("Tie Break") be amended to read:
Recommended Tie-Break Systems
a) Swiss Tournaments
Direct encounter
The greater number of wins
The greater number of games with Black (unplayed games shall be counted as played with White) REMOVE That, irrelevant for Youth tournament.
Playoff goes here when relevant
Buchholz Cut 1
Buchholz
Sonneborn-Berger
b) Round-Robin Tournaments:
Direct encounter
The greater number of wins
Sonneborn-Berger
Koya System
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.
So John Upper and/or Les Bunning, are the above the tie break rules for determining CYCC 2013 3rd places? If it was different from the above rules, what were the differences? Thanks in advance for clarifying.
Wow, the Felix Dumont comedy show continues. Bad enough when he was just interpreting stats wrong and convicting people (Ivanov) on flimsy evidence that supports his prejudiced viewpoint, now he's been kicked to the curb by both John Upper and David Itkin for getting the stats themselves wrong. The lesson for Felix here is "pride comes before a fall."
Meanwhile, I do want to commend the CYCC organizers for using most wins as the primary tiebreak factor, if that is in fact what they did. Playoffs are great if you have the time and resources and the players have the time and resources. Playoffs are played with each player knowing they have to win; draws are just going to stretch things out.
The point isn't just to "fairly" award the titles / prizes to the best players. On that basis, you could just not hold the event and award the titles / prizes based on rating. The point is, you're holding an event, and you want to award titles / prizes to the players who best exhibit the creative and dynamic choices that make for exciting chess, and do so in a way that produces respectable results.
So you wouldn't award the last-place finisher a title or prize because s/he played the most exciting chess of anyone (although in that case, I would argue for some kind of "fighting chess" consolation prize, so that player can come away feeling s/he did something that has value in chess competition).
But in a group of players tied for a prize, if one stands out with the most wins (and losses), that player can be arguably said to have played the most daring and creative chess among that group. That's what you reward, and everyone knows it from the beginning, so they are motivated to play daring chess.
It's not so much a factor at these age groups as it is in elite-level chess. But by using most wins as the primary tiebreak, you are getting these kids ready for the higher levels. The message is, play strong, but don't play "fortress" chess. Take some intelligent but aggressive chances, be willing to fight off counterplay to achieve your goals.
If humans are never to be as good as computer engines at chess (with the still-possible exception of Borislav Ivanov), they can at least be more exciting.
So if a player draws two masters and another player wins against a 1600 rated opponent - both with 1.0 -, who deserves to win the tiebreak? Does the win show more "exciting chess"?
If the organizers are too busy to answer, could someone (likely CFC governors) help to post the tie-break rules which John Upper stated that Les Bunning said that "it is the tie-break rules passed in the CFC AGM which ended July 1". At least we can clear the confusion on the that part.
The motion concerning CYCC tie-break rules can be seen on the CFC Forum (along with rest of the AGM, for those who are interested) linked here. However, that doesn't completely answer your question - the motion only recommends certain systems, it won't tell you what was actually used at this year's CYCC.
I'm sitting with Les Bunning right now, and he tells me that the tie-break rules we followed were the ones passed in the CFC AGM which ended July 1. Those rules are not yet in the CFC Handbook.
I've been asking for:
1) A complete list of winners (1st, 2nd, 3rd) of CYCC 2013,
2) The tie-break rules.
If the organizers are too busy to answer, could someone (likely CFC governors) help to post the tie-break rules which John Upper stated that Les Bunning said that "it is the tie-break rules passed in the CFC AGM which ended July 1". At least we can clear the confusion on the that part.
I was at the closing ceremonies and was not announced as the third place finisher. They announced that they made a mistake previously and Konstantin Semianiuk is actually 3rd. I was never 3rd place.
Wow, the XXX continues. Bad enough when he was just interpreting stats wrong and convicting people (Ivanov) on flimsy evidence that supports his XXX viewpoint, now he's been kicked to the curb by both John Upper and David Itkin for getting the stats themselves wrong. The lesson for Felix here is "pride comes before a fall."
Meanwhile, I do want to commend the CYCC organizers for using most wins as the primary tiebreak factor, if that is in fact what they did. Playoffs are great if you have the time and resources and the players have the time and resources. Playoffs are played with each player knowing they have to win; draws are just going to stretch things out.
The point isn't just to "fairly" award the titles / prizes to the best players. On that basis, you could just not hold the event and award the titles / prizes based on rating. The point is, you're holding an event, and you want to award titles / prizes to the players who best exhibit the creative and dynamic choices that make for exciting chess, and do so in a way that produces respectable results.
So you wouldn't award the last-place finisher a title or prize because s/he played the most exciting chess of anyone (although in that case, I would argue for some kind of "fighting chess" consolation prize, so that player can come away feeling s/he did something that has value in chess competition).
But in a group of players tied for a prize, if one stands out with the most wins (and losses), that player can be arguably said to have played the most daring and creative chess among that group. That's what you reward, and everyone knows it from the beginning, so they are motivated to play daring chess.
It's not so much a factor at these age groups as it is in elite-level chess. But by using most wins as the primary tiebreak, you are getting these kids ready for the higher levels. The message is, play strong, but don't play "fortress" chess. Take some intelligent but aggressive chances, be willing to fight off counterplay to achieve your goals.
If humans are never to be as good as computer engines at chess (with the still-possible exception of Borislav Ivanov), they can at least be more exciting.
Last edited by Nigel Hanrahan; Monday, 15th July, 2013, 04:09 AM.
Reason: personal attack, what else?
I was at the closing ceremonies and was not announced as the third place finisher. They announced that they made a mistake previously and Konstantin Semianiuk is actually 3rd. I was never 3rd place.
I can confirm that David's statement is 100% accurate. I too was at the closing ceremonies where Les Bunning announced that it was a mistake that Nikita was listed as 3rd, and that Konstantin was actually 3rd.
I was present at the event, and can confirm their confirmations, 100% 
Leave a comment: