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: Re : Re: Posting of Rd. 6 Standings?
Originally posted by Roman Sarrazin GendronView Post
We (at the FQE) did receive complaints from people who didn't know who finished third in the U18 section. Nikita was announced as the winner on the website, and many people left thinking this was the final result. However, during the closing ceremony, it was announced that Constantin Semianuk was the winner. Now, as Felix pointed out, the organizers of the 2013 CYCC went to see the Quebec team (leaded by their coach FM Hua) and told them that there was a mistake and that David Itkin is the winner. As of now, we still don't know who finished third.
You mentioned "who finished third" and then later on you talk about "the winner" and then finally, you say "we still don't know who finished third"... ??
I would have to guess that by "the winner" you must mean "the winner of 3rd place"?
I realize that English may not be your first language, but this was all quite confusing.
Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Posting of Rd. 6 Standings?
Sorry. I felt it was pretty clear because the only issue about the U18 was the 3rd place tie-break. I guess adding a couple words never hurts. I cleaned up my message a little, but I can't do much more than that ; the situation itself is very confusing.
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. ;)
You are insulting and ridiculous. The reason I keep insisting is because I ask simple questions, yet do not receive any answer. Who finished third (The answer is only two words long), where did the profit go... By not answering, the organizers are not only insulting to me, but to all the players who are waiting for the answer.
At least, we can see this is definitely too much to handle for you John Upper. I hope you don't plan to be involved in any major tournament soon.
Thanks to Roman who also received the same emails as me from players and parents waiting to know who finished third (and are still waiting).
The reason I keep insisting is because I ask simple questions, yet do not receive any answer. Who finished third (The answer is only two words long),
Felix, from my reading of the replies, it is quite clear to me.
U18 Open - 3rd place on tiebreaker, winner is Konstantin Semianiuk
John Upper confirmed this is his previous post when he thanked David & Andrew for their posts.
As well, the crosstable on the CYCC website clearly shows that as well.
Why is everyone confused? Probably nobody can hear the answer over all the shouting!
Last edited by Bob Gillanders; Monday, 15th July, 2013, 06:11 PM.
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.
The most wins may be an adequate tiebreak system for some tournaments, but for the CYCC, playoffs or sonnen-berger tiebreaks are much more reasonable
Felix, from my reading of the replies, it is quite clear to me.
U18 Open - 3rd place on tiebreaker, winner is Konstantin Semianiuk
John Upper confirmed this is his previous post when he thanked David & Andrew for their posts.
As well, the crosstable on the CYCC website clearly shows that as well.
Why is everyone confused? Probably nobody can hear the answer over all the shouting!
The closest answer we got is that :
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.
Now it does seem that Konstantin is the winner of the tiebreaks, but there still hasn't be any official confirmation. After all, three people were announced as the winners of the tie-breaks at different moments. It would take 2 minutes to do an official list of the top 3 players for every section.
I wanted to post the results of the CYCC on the Newsfeed, but for that we need the official list of winners... Even it would not be what we could really call timely news.
Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Posting of Rd. 6 Standings?
Originally posted by Roman Sarrazin GendronView Post
Sorry. I felt it was pretty clear because the only issue about the U18 was the 3rd place tie-break. I guess adding a couple words never hurts. I cleaned up my message a little, but I can't do much more than that ; the situation itself is very confusing.
Thanks! (I didn't intend to be harsh - I just thought a little clarification was worth it). Merci encore.
Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Posting of Rd. 6 Standings?
He means that in a Round Robin tie-break, if two players have the same score, the one who has more wins also has more losses (they wouldn't share the same score otherwise)
Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Posting of Rd. 6 Standings?
Originally posted by Roman Sarrazin GendronView Post
He means that in a Round Robin tie-break, if two players have the same score, the one who has more wins also has more losses (they wouldn't share the same score otherwise)
This is hilarious! Kerry's literal interpretation of Roger's incomplete statement was priceless!
It doesn't matter if it's RR or Swiss, if players are tied with equal number of games and one player has more wins than the others, that player also has more losses.
But that is also the player among those tied with the least number of draws.
What does all this prove? It proves generally, with rare exceptions, that that was the player among those tied who played the most courageous chess. If you consistently reward those players, the message gets across: play courageous moves for the best chance of being rewarded.
You will get less draws and more exciting chess across the board (no pun intended) as a result.
By the way, this is the same message that NHL hockey sends with their points system. If you beat your division rival in regulation time, you get 2 points and they get 0 points. If it takes you into overtime to beat them, you still get 2 points, but your rival gets 1 point. So you make extra effort towards the end of a tied game to win in regulation, which makes for more exciting 3rd periods, which makes for more fans in the stands. That's the way organized chess needs to think.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Now it does seem that Konstantin is the winner of the tiebreaks, but there still hasn't be any official confirmation. After all, three people were announced as the winners of the tie-breaks at different moments. It would take 2 minutes to do an official list of the top 3 players for every section.
I wanted to post the results of the CYCC on the Newsfeed, but for that we need the official list of winners... Even it would not be what we could really call timely news.
Felix, you have repeatedly claimed that "three people" were announced as the winners.
You are the only one who has made this claim.
The people who were there -- including David Itkin, the "third person" you claim was "announced" -- has already posted on this thread that he was never announced as the 3rd place winner.
As Bob Gillanders (above) and anyone paying attention to this thread will know, Konstantin was announced at the award ceremony as the 3rd place finisher.
Your claims about the 2013 CYCC are clearly totally untrustworthy, as anyone who reads this thread will see.
What I find really confusing -- and quite frankly, fascinating -- is that your work on the Newsfeed is so much better than your posts here on ChessTalk and on the CFC board to the Governors, who you have also continued to mislead by claiming that three players were "announced" as 3rd place finishers even after David had corrected you on CT.
Felix,
Your work on the Newsfeed shows that you are both competent and industrious. If your work on the Newsfeed was anywhere near as woefully wide of the facts as your posts on ChessTalk continue to be, I would have fired you weeks ago.
[Note to eavesdroppers: technically, as editor of the CCN, I am Felix's boss for the Newsfeed.]
But, and here is the strange thing which I just can't explain, AFAIK it is only on the subject of the 2013 CYCC that your competence clearly deserts you. In your capacity as coordinator of the McGill Team (who supply the content for the CFC Newsfeed) you are almost always on time, accurate, and prompt to make corrections. For example, a few days ago you fixed the title of your post on the 2013 CYCC from "2014 CYCC" to "2103 CYCC", and you did it within seconds of my pointing it out to you on our Newsfeed facebook page.
Maybe that was an easy fix for you because it was such a small mistake: a typo.
But the falsehoods you post on CT -- and continue to assert when they have been publicly exposed and corrected -- are not small mistakes.
Your insinuations that the organizers are making "profits" on the event are insulting to people who have been contributing to Canadian chess for longer than you have been alive. (That's not me, BTW, I've hardly contributed anything)
Worse, those insinuations are supported by nothing more than your own (wild) suspicions. For instance, you claimed a few days ago on CT that the 2013 CYCC might contribute as much as $10,000 to the CFC, when even a cursory review of the entry fees and number of contestants would make anything less than $35,000 scandalous. It might occur to some people who read your posts that you so keen on insulting the 2013 CYCC that you are willing to seem arithmetically incompetent.
Your repeated requests (to the Govs) that the 2013 CYCC organizers publish our financial statements imply that we are hiding something; when, as everyone else knows, we're all extremely busy with the Canadian Open. This shows either an colossal lack of understanding of the logistics of running major events, or a grossly insulting disregard for the intelligence of the people you think might expect that the financial statements could possibly be ready so soon.
Frankly, I am surprised that noone in the FQE has asked you to stop. As a member of the FQE myself, I am concerned that your actions will bring a wonderfully successful chess-promoting organization into disrepute. Doesn't anyone there worry that your lies and insinuations will undermine the bid you are putting together for the 2014 CYCC? If nothing else, I'm surprised that after the FQE put your forward as their candidate for CFC Gov. no one has suggested that your own reputation will be so damaged by your claims that no one will trust you. That might not be a big loss for the FQE -- they have other competent (if less energetic) people who can replace you as CFC Governor -- but it might not be the future you want for yourself.
And yet....
despite these falsehoods, and insults, and the clear contempt for me that your previous post displays for everyone, I'm not going to fire you (yet) because your work on the Newsfeed is still good.
I would never have guessed that I was such a nice guy. :o
really? In a round robin, the one with the greatest number of wins is also the one with the greatest number of losses.....
Really. I know that more wins means more losses in this case. My point is: in RR more wins and loses don't affect the quality of your opponents. In swiss usually (not always) more loses means more lower-rated opponents. Roger, we can check it, we both like math. (It was exactly the case for U18 CYCC).
RR is regularly an invitational tournament and I find it very logical for organizers to stimulate players to play more risky by using this tie-break.
..... we're all extremely busy with the Canadian Open.
Felix, how about a cease fire for the remainder of the Canadian Open? I think it shows poor judgement to wage political attacks on organizers during an event. Questions, comments, okay, but lets be honest here. Your posts (in there totality) do constitute a political attack campaign surrounding the question: What is the appropriate level of compensation for chess organizers for the CYCC?
Can we have that discussion later and please let the Ottawa team focus on the Canadian Open? And let John get some well deserved sleep.
Tweet
I was present at the event, and can confirm their confirmations, 100% 
Comment